Single agent VS-6766 or VS-6766 plus defactinib in KRAS-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer: the RAMP-202 phase II trial.

KRAS mutations occur in approximately 30% of lung adenocarcinomas, mainly in codon 12 (83% of cases), p.G12C being the prevalent one (40%), followed by p.G12V and p.G12D (22 and 16%, respectively). Treatment options for advanced KRAS mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (KRAS-MT NSCLC) are limited to chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs). However, clinical trials exploring specific targeted agents are expected to change the treatment landscape of this disease. Here, we describe the design and scientific rationale of the randomized, phase II, open label, RAMP-202 study, which will evaluate the efficacy and safety of VS-6766 versus VS-6766 in combination with defactinib in advanced KRAS-MT NSCLC patients after failure of prior platinum-based chemotherapy and CPI.

The alteration of KRAS gene occurs in approximately 30% of lung cancers. According to international guidelines, treatment options for patients with advanced KRAS mutant lung cancer are now limited to chemotherapy and immunotherapy. However, clinical trials are exploring how specific targeted agents are expected to change the treatment landscape of this disease. Here, we describe the design and scientific rationale of the RAMP-202 study, which will evaluate the efficacy and safety of two new biological agents for patients with KRAS mutant lung cancer. The enrolled patients were those who had failure of prior platinum-based chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04620330 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Pemetrexed Continuation Maintenance Phase 3 Trials in Nonsquamous, Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Focus on 2-Year Overall Survival and Continuum of Care.

Although lung cancer prognosis remains poor for most patients, treatments developed in the past 2 decades have extended survival for many. For those with disease that responded to or those with stable disease after receipt of platinum-based chemotherapy, maintenance regimens enable continued targeting of tumors beyond the induction phase, which is limited by toxicity. This overview summarizes completed phase 3 trials of pemetrexed continuation maintenance treatment in nonsquamous, non-small-cell lung cancer with a focus on 2-year survival, and highlights similar ongoing trials. Some studies showed survival benefits of pemetrexed maintenance treatment versus control arms, with the potential for added benefit when combined with bevacizumab. Two-year survival rates underscore the value of maintenance therapy and suggest progress toward a clinical goal of managing non-small-cell lung cancer as a treatable chronic disease.

MONARCH 1, A Phase II Study of Abemaciclib, a CDK4 and CDK6 Inhibitor, as a Single Agent, in Patients with Refractory HR+/HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Purpose: The phase II MONARCH 1 study was designed to evaluate the single-agent activity and adverse event (AE) profile of abemaciclib, a selective inhibitor of CDK4 and CDK6, in women with refractory hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2- metastatic breast cancer (MBC).Experimental Design: MONARCH 1 was a phase II single-arm open-label study. Women with HR+/HER2- MBC who had progressed on or after prior endocrine therapy and had 1 or 2 chemotherapy regimens in the metastatic setting were eligible. Abemaciclib 200 mg was administered orally on a continuous schedule every 12 hours until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective of MONARCH 1 was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR). Other endpoints included clinical benefit rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).Results: Patients (n = 132) had a median of 3 (range, 1-8) lines of prior systemic therapy in the metastatic setting, 90.2% had visceral disease, and 50.8% had ≥3 metastatic sites. At the 12-month final analysis, the primary objective of confirmed objective response rate was 19.7% (95% CI, 13.3-27.5; 15% not excluded); clinical benefit rate (CR+PR+SD≥6 months) was 42.4%, median progression-free survival was 6.0 months, and median overall survival was 17.7 months. The most common treatment-emergent AEs of any grade were diarrhea, fatigue, and nausea; discontinuations due to AEs were infrequent (7.6%).Conclusions: In this poor-prognosis, heavily pretreated population with refractory HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer, continuous dosing of single-agent abemaciciclib was well tolerated and exhibited promising clinical activity. Clin Cancer Res; 23(17); 5218-24. ©2017 AACR.

Optical coherence tomography angiography: an overview of the technology and an assessment of applications for clinical research.

In recent years, ophthalmology has experienced significant developments with respect to imaging modalities. Optical coherence tomography angiography is one such technology that seeks to improve diagnostics for retinal diseases. Using standard structural ocular coherence tomography hardware, optical coherence tomography angiography demonstrates the ability to non-invasively visualise the vasculature in the retina and the choroid with high resolution, allowing greater insight into retinal vascular pathologies. In addition, retinal and choroidal vessel density and blood flow can be quantified, offering potential to assist in the diagnosis of a variety of retinal diseases. To date, numerous retinal diseases, such as open-angle glaucoma, have been found to possess a vascular component. Specifically, ischaemia of the optic nerve head and lamina cribrosa has been theorised as a causative factor in ganglion cell death; however, confirmation of this mechanism has been prohibited by the limitations of currently existing imaging modalities. Optical coherence tomography angiography provides clear imaging of these regions and the possibility to elucidate further understanding of vascular factors that contribute to glaucoma development and progression. Furthermore, this imaging modality may provide insight to neural pathologies with vascular components such as Alzheimer's disease. Herein, the authors discuss the theory of operation for optical coherence tomography angiography and the current findings from pilot studies with a focus on open-angle glaucoma. In addition, speculation is offered for future applications of the technology to study other diseases with microvascular contributions.

PROCLAIM: Randomized Phase III Trial of Pemetrexed-Cisplatin or Etoposide-Cisplatin Plus Thoracic Radiation Therapy Followed by Consolidation Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The phase III PROCLAIM study evaluated overall survival (OS) of concurrent pemetrexed-cisplatin and thoracic radiation therapy (TRT) followed by consolidation pemetrexed, versus etoposide-cisplatin and TRT followed by nonpemetrexed doublet consolidation therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IIIA/B unresectable nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer randomly received (1:1) pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) intravenously every 3 weeks for three cycles plus concurrent TRT (60 to 66 Gy) followed by pemetrexed consolidation every 3 weeks for four cycles (arm A), or standard therapy with etoposide 50 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) intravenously, every 4 weeks for two cycles plus concurrent TRT (60 to 66 Gy) followed by two cycles of consolidation platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (arm B). The primary objective was OS. The study was designed as a superiority trial with 80% power to detect an OS hazard ratio of 0.74 with a type 1 error of .05. RESULTS: Enrollment was stopped early because of futility. Five hundred ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned (301 to arm A, 297 to arm B) and 555 patients (283 in arm A, 272 in arm B) were treated. Arm A was not superior to arm B in terms of OS (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.20; median, 26.8 v 25.0 months; P = .831). Arm A had a significantly lower incidence of any drug-related grade 3 to 4 adverse events (64.0% v 76.8%; P = .001), including neutropenia (24.4% v 44.5%; P < .001), during the overall treatment period. CONCLUSION: Pemetrexed-cisplatin combined with TRT followed by consolidation pemetrexed was not superior to standard chemoradiotherapy for stage III unresectable nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

Treatment Rationale and Study Design for the JUNIPER Study: A Randomized Phase III Study of Abemaciclib With Best Supportive Care Versus Erlotinib With Best Supportive Care in Patients With Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer With a Detectable KRAS Mutation Whose Disease Has Progressed After Platinum-Based Chemotherapy.

This clinical trial summary provides the background and rationale for the JUNIPER study (NCT02152631). JUNIPER is a randomized study of abemaciclib (200 mg orally every 12 hours) with best supportive care (BSC) versus erlotinib (150 mg orally every 24 hours) with BSC in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors have detectable Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) mutations and whose disease has progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy and 1 other previous therapy, or who are not eligible for further chemotherapy. Approximately 550 patients will be randomized in a 3:2 ratio and stratified according to number of previous chemotherapy regimens (1 vs. 2), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs. 1), sex (male vs. female), and KRAS mutation (G12C vs. others). Erlotinib was chosen as the control arm, because it is the only agent indicated for second- and third-line therapy in advanced NSCLC. Treatment will continue until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurs, with assessments every 28 days, followed by short-term and long-term follow-up. The coprimary efficacy objectives of this study are progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS); secondary objectives are overall response rate, changes in patient-reported pain and disease-related symptoms, changes in health status, resource utilization, safety and tolerability, and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics. This design has 80% power to detect OS hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75 (type I error 0.045) and PFS HR of 0.67 (type I error 0.005). If the coprimary objectives (OS and PFS) are achieved, this study will provide a new alternative third-line treatment option for patients with NSCLC whose tumors have detectable KRAS mutations.

PRONOUNCE: randomized, open-label, phase III study of first-line pemetrexed + carboplatin followed by maintenance pemetrexed versus paclitaxel + carboplatin + bevacizumab followed by maintenance bevacizumab in patients ith advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: PRONOUNCE compared the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed+carboplatin followed by pemetrexed (Pem+Cb) with paclitaxel+carboplatin+bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab (Pac+Cb+Bev) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients ≥18 years of age with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC (American Joint Committee on Cancer v7.0), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1 were randomized (1:1) to four cycles of induction Pem+Cb (pemetrexed, 500 mg/m, carboplatin, area under the curve = 6) followed by Pem maintenance or Pac+Cb+Bev (paclitaxel, 200 mg/m, carboplatin, area under the curve = 6, and bevacizumab, 15 mg/kg) followed by Bev maintenance in the absence of progressive disease or discontinuation. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) without grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS). Secondary end points were PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Resource utilization was also assessed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the patients randomized to Pem+Cb (N = 182) and Pac+Cb+Bev (N = 179) were well balanced between the arms. Median (months) G4PFS was 3.91 for Pem+Cb and 2.86 for Pac+Cb+Bev (hazard ratio = 0.85, 90% confidence interval, 0.7-1.04; p = 0.176); PFS, OS, ORR, or DCR did not differ significantly between the arms. Significantly more drug-related grade 3/4 anemia (18.7% versus 5.4%) and thrombocytopenia (24.0% versus 9.6%) were reported for Pem+Cb. Significantly more grade 3/4 neutropenia (48.8% versus 24.6%), grade 1/2 alopecia (28.3% versus 8.2%), and grade 1/2 sensory neuropathy were reported for Pac+Cb+Bev. Number of hospitalizations and overall length of stay did not differ significantly between the arms. CONCLUSIONS: Pem+Cb did not produce significantly better G4PFS compared with Pac+Cb+Bev. Pem+Cb was not superior in PFS, OS, ORR, or DCR compared with Pac+Cb+Bev. Both regimens were well tolerated, although, toxicity profiles differed.

Phase 2 study of pemetrexed plus carboplatin, or pemetrexed plus cisplatin with concurrent radiation therapy followed by pemetrexed consolidation in patients with favorable-prognosis inoperable stage IIIA/B non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: There is no consensus chemotherapy regimen with concurrent radiotherapy (RT) for inoperable stage IIIA/B non-small-cell lung cancer. This trial evaluated pemetrexed with carboplatin (PCb) or cisplatin (PC) with concurrent RT followed by consolidation pemetrexed. METHODS: In this open-label, noncomparative phase II trial, patients with inoperable stage IIIA/B non-small-cell lung cancer (initially all histologies, later restricted to nonsquamous) were randomized (1:1) to PCb or PC with concurrent RT (64-68 Gy over days 1-45). Consolidation pemetrexed monotherapy was administered every 21 days for three cycles. Primary endpoint was 2-year overall survival (OS) rate. RESULTS: From June 2007 to November 2009, 98 patients were enrolled (PCb: 46; PC: 52). The 2-year OS rate was PCb: 45.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 29.5-60.0%); PC: 58.4% (95% CI, 42.6-71.3%), and in nonsquamous patients was PCb: 48.0% (95% CI, 29.0-64.8%); PC: 55.8% (95% CI, 38.0-70.3%). Median time to disease progression was PCb: 8.8 months (95% CI, 6.0-12.6 months); PC: 13.1 months (95% CI, 8.3-not evaluable [NE]). Median OS (months) was PCb: 18.7 (95% CI, 12.9-NE); PC: 27.0 (95% CI, 23.2-NE). The objective response rates (ORRs) were PCb: 52.2%; PC: 46.2%. Grade 4 treatment-related toxicities (% PCb/% PC) were: anemia, 0/1.9; neutropenia, 6.5/3.8; thrombocytopenia, 4.3/1.9; and esophagitis, 0/1.9. Most patients completed scheduled chemotherapy and RT during induction and consolidation phases. No drug-related deaths were reported during chemoradiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Because of study design, efficacy comparisons cannot be made. However, both combinations with concurrent RT were active and well tolerated.

Pemetrexed in head and neck cancer: a systematic review.

Pemetrexed has been evaluated as a novel chemotherapeutic for head and neck cancer (HNC). In this review, we examined the efficacy and tolerability of pemetrexed in patients with HNC. Relevant English-language literature was identified via PubMed and a review of published abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology annual meetings from January 2000 through September 2012. Search terms were "pemetrexed" (or "LY231514") and "head and neck cancer." Completed prospective phase I to III trials of pemetrexed alone or in combination with other agents or radiotherapy evaluating objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and/or overall survival (OS) were eligible; ten studies were reviewed. Results for ORR, PFS, and/or OS in patients receiving pemetrexed in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents and/or radiotherapy were promising in the first-line treatment setting. Pemetrexed was associated with acceptable grade 3-4 hematologic toxicities; it did not result in nonhematologic toxicities commonly seen with cisplatin, such as nephrotoxicity, ototoxicity, and neuropathy. In a single phase III randomized trial, although median OS was longer for patients treated with pemetrexed plus cisplatin (7.3 months) versus cisplatin plus placebo (6.3 months), the difference did not reach statistical significance (P=.082). Results of this review suggest that pemetrexed is an active chemotherapeutic in combination with other agents or radiotherapy in patients with HNC. In particular, the role of pemetrexed as a radiosensitizer and potential alternative to cisplatin warrants investigation. More research is needed to clearly define the role of pemetrexed in HNC treatment.

Pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin versus cisplatin monotherapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer: final results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) is associated with poor survival. Platinum-based chemotherapy is often a first-line treatment. Pemetrexed has shown single-agent activity in SCCHN and in combination with cisplatin for other tumors. This trial examined the efficacy of pemetrexed-cisplatin for SCCHN. METHODS: In a double-blind phase 3 trial, patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN and no prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease were randomized to pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2) ) plus cisplatin (75 mg/m(2) ; n = 398) or placebo plus cisplatin (75 mg/m(2) ; n = 397) to assess overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Median OS was 7.3 months in the pemetrexed-cisplatin arm and 6.3 months in the placebo-cisplatin arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-1.02; P = .082). Median progression-free survival (PFS, months) was similar in both treatment arms (pemetrexed-cisplatin, 3.6; placebo-cisplatin, 2.8; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.76-1.03; P = .166). Among patients with performance status 0 or 1, pemetrexed-cisplatin (n = 347) led to longer OS and PFS than placebo-cisplatin (n = 343; 8.4 vs 6.7 months; HR, 0.83; P = .026; 4.0 vs 3.0 months; HR, 0.84; P = .044, respectively). Among patients with oropharyngeal cancers, pemetrexed-cisplatin (n = 86) resulted in longer OS and PFS than placebo-cisplatin (n = 106; 9.9 vs 6.1 months; HR, 0.59; P = .002; 4.0 vs 3.4 months; HR, 0.73; P = .047, respectively). Pemetrexed-cisplatin toxicity was consistent with studies in other tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Pemetrexed-cisplatin compared with placebo-cisplatin did not significantly improve survival for the intent-to-treat population. However, in a prespecified subgroup analysis, pemetrexed-cisplatin showed OS and PFS advantage for patients with performance status 0 or 1 or oropharyngeal cancers.

Quality of life scores as prognostic factors of overall survival in advanced head and neck cancer: analysis of a phase III randomized trial of pemetrexed plus cisplatin versus cisplatin monotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the prognostic factors (clinical, demographic, and health-related quality of life [HRQoL]) of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with recurrent/metastatic head and neck cancer (HNC) who were treated with pemetrexed plus cisplatin versus cisplatin in a phase III, multinational, randomized trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five subscales of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck Cancer (FACT-H&N), modified to score from 0 to 100, measured HRQoL at baseline and during treatment. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used on data pooled from both treatment arms to assess the effect of baseline prognostic factors on OS and PFS. RESULTS: Of 795 patients randomized, 704 completed a baseline FACT-H&N and were included in the analysis. Age (<65 versus ⩾65; HR=0.74, 95% CI: 0.61-0.90), race (Caucasian versus non-Caucasian; HR=0.83, 95% CI: 0.70-0.98 per table), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS; 0/1 versus 2; HR=0.44, 95% CI: 0.35-0.56), prior surgery/radiotherapy in the last 6months (no versus yes; HR=0.74, 95% CI: 0.61-0.90), and primary site of disease (oral cavity versus other; HR=1.37, 95% CI: 1.15-1.63) were significantly prognostic of OS in univariate models, as were baseline scores on four FACT-H&N subscales (physical well-being, emotional well-being, functional well-being, additional concerns-H&N; HRs=0.82-0.94; all P⩽0.002). In multivariate models, significant prognostic factors were age (HR=0.78); race (HR=0.76 per table); ECOG PS (HR=0.56); prior surgery/radiotherapy (HR=0.76); and baseline scores of the FACT-H&N subscales of physical well-being, social/family well-being, and additional concerns-H&N (HRs=0.89-0.94; all P⩽0.014 per table). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that baseline HRQoL scores are prognostic indicators of OS in recurrent/metastatic HNC in addition to other known clinical and demographic indicators. HRQoL might be considered as a stratification factor in randomized clinical trials of recurrent/metastatic HNC.