Pembrolizumab for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Impact of autoimmune comorbidity and outcomes following treatment completion.

INTRODUCTION: Pembrolizumab, an immune-checkpoint inhibitor, is approved for first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC in patients with tumours expressing programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) with tumour proportion score (TPS) of ≥50%. We aimed to clarify some uncertainties regarding use of immunotherapy in patients with previous autoimmune (AI) disorders and assess real-world outcomes following treatment completion. METHODS: We performed a retrospective case record review of 82 patients with tumours expressing PD-L1 at TPS ≥ 50% and receiving first-line Pembrolizumab. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan Meier method. RESULTS: After 36.93 months (IQR: 34.37-40.20) median follow-up, median OS was 13.6 months (95% CI 8.9-19.3). There were 10 patients (12%) with AI co-morbidities and there was a trend toward improved median OS for this group versus those without AI comorbidity, 42 months (14.87-NR) versus 10.7 months (7.3-17.8), p = 0.073. Sixteen patients (20%) with nonprogressive disease at 2 years had significantly better median OS compared to those who did not complete 2 years of treatment, NR (42- NR) and 8.7 (5.8-14.1), p < 0.001.Immune related adverse events (irAE) of any grade occurred in 90% of the AI cohort compared with 70.8% of patients without AI comorbidity. Low grade adrenal insufficiency was the only irAE which occurred at a significantly higher rate in the AI group, p = 0.02. CONCLUSION: Patients with previous AI diseases tolerate treatment well, and there is a non-significant trend for improved outcomes in this group. Patients who complete the course of pembrolizumab have significantly better survival outcomes than those who do not.

Olaparib as maintenance treatment in patients with chemosensitive small cell lung cancer (STOMP): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial.

OBJECTIVES: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) responds well to chemoradiotherapy but frequently relapses. Here, we evaluate activity and safety of the poly (adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib as maintenance treatment for patients with chemoresponsive SCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had complete or partial response to first line chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for SCLC. Patients were randomised 2:2:1:1 to olaparib 300 mg twice a day (BD), olaparib 200 mg three times a day (TDS), placebo BD or placebo TDS. The primary outcome was progression-free survival time (PFS). The trial design had 80% power to detect a 3-month difference in median PFS based on a one-sided 5% significance level. Secondary outcome measures included overall survival time (OS), adverse events and quality of life. ISRCTN 73164486, EudraCT 2010-021165-76. RESULTS: 220 patients were randomised: 74 placebo, 73 olaparib BD, 73 olaparib TDS. Median PFS (90% confidence interval (CI)) was 2·5 (1·8, 3·7), 3·7 (3·1, 4·6) and 3·6 (2·8, 4·7) months in the placebo, olaparib BD and TDS arms, respectively. There was no significant difference in PFS between olaparib and placebo for either BD (Hazard Ratio (HR) (90%CI) 0·76 (0·57, 1·02), P = 0·125 or TDS 0·86, (0·64, 1·15), P = 0·402. Common adverse events on olaparib were fatigue, nausea, anaemia, vomiting and anorexia. Of 214 patients who discontinued treatment before 24 months, toxicity was the reason cited for 66 (18 placebo, 24 olaparib BD, 24 olaparib TDS). CONCLUSION: This trial does not provide sufficient evidence that either the BD or TDS regimen for maintenance olaparib monotherapy improves PFS or OS in an unselected SCLC population to warrant further research. Toxicity for olaparib was similar to other studies.

Nivolumab versus placebo in patients with relapsed malignant mesothelioma (CONFIRM): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: No phase 3 trial has yet shown improved survival for patients with pleural or peritoneal malignant mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, in these patients. METHODS: This was a multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 24 hospitals in the UK. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, with histologically confirmed pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma, who had received previous first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and had radiological evidence of disease progression, were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive nivolumab at a flat dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks over 30 min intravenously or placebo until disease progression or a maximum of 12 months. The randomisation sequence was generated within an interactive web response system (Alea); patients were stratified according to epithelioid versus non-epithelioid histology and were assigned in random block sizes of 3 and 6. Participants and treating clinicians were masked to group allocation. The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival, analysed according to the treatment policy estimand (an equivalent of the intention-to-treat principle). All patients who were randomly assigned were included in the safety population, reported according to group allocation. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03063450. FINDINGS: Between May 10, 2017, and March 30, 2020, 332 patients were recruited, of whom 221 (67%) were randomly assigned to the nivolumab group and 111 (33%) were assigned to the placebo group). Median follow-up was 11·6 months (IQR 7·2-16·8). Median progression-free survival was 3·0 months (95% CI 2·8-4·1) in the nivolumab group versus 1·8 months (1·4-2·6) in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·67 [95% CI 0·53-0·85; p=0·0012). Median overall survival was 10·2 months (95% CI 8·5-12·1) in the nivolumab group versus 6·9 months (5·0-8·0) in the placebo group (adjusted HR 0·69 [95% CI 0·52-0·91]; p=0·0090). The most frequently reported grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (six [3%] of 221 in the nivolumab group vs two [2%] of 111 in the placebo group) and infusion-related reaction (six [3%] vs none). Serious adverse events occurred in 90 (41%) patients in the nivolumab group and 49 (44%) patients in the placebo group. There were no treatment-related deaths in either group. INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab represents a treatment that might be beneficial to patients with malignant mesothelioma who have progressed on first-line therapy. FUNDING: Stand up to Cancer-Cancer Research UK and Bristol Myers Squibb.

Large cell neuroendocrine lung carcinoma: consensus statement from The British Thoracic Oncology Group and the Association of Pulmonary Pathologists.

Over the past 10 years, lung cancer clinical and translational research has been characterised by exponential progress, exemplified by the introduction of molecularly targeted therapies, immunotherapy and chemo-immunotherapy combinations to stage III and IV non-small cell lung cancer. Along with squamous and small cell lung cancers, large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) now represents an area of unmet need, particularly hampered by the lack of an encompassing pathological definition that can facilitate real-world and clinical trial progress. The steps we have proposed in this article represent an iterative and rational path forward towards clinical breakthroughs that can be modelled on success in other lung cancer pathologies.

Case report: immune-mediated cerebellar ataxia secondary to anti-PD-L1 treatment for lung cancer.

Case presentation: A 66-year-old gentleman with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer developed a wide-based gait following treatment on a clinical trial with cytotoxic chemotherapy and an anti-PD-L1 drug. He had no other significant past medical history of note. Brain imaging, blood tests and lumbar puncture did not reveal a structural, biochemical, paraneoplastic or infective cause. The main differential diagnoses were immune-mediated toxicity or a paraneoplastic syndrome. He was started on prednisolone on the suspicion that his symptoms represented an immune-mediated toxicity. His condition improved following this and his immunotherapy treatment was discontinued. Upon steroid withdrawal, his symptoms recurred and responded to further prednisolone. Conclusions: Immune-mediated toxicities can affect any part of the nervous system and should form part of the differential diagnosis for new neurological symptoms in a patient receiving immunotherapy. Corticosteroids should be the first-line treatment of immune-mediated toxicities. Immunotherapy should be permanently discontinued following severe toxicities.

Third-Line Nivolumab Monotherapy in Recurrent SCLC: CheckMate 032.

INTRODUCTION: For patients with recurrent SCLC, topotecan remains the only approved second-line treatment, and the outcomes are poor. CheckMate 032 is a phase 1/2, multicenter, open-label study of nivolumab or nivolumab plus ipilimumab in SCLC or other advanced/metastatic solid tumors previously treated with one or more platinum-based chemotherapies. We report results of third- or later-line nivolumab monotherapy treatment in SCLC. METHODS: In this analysis, patients with limited-stage or extensive-stage SCLC and disease progression after two or more chemotherapy regimens received nivolumab monotherapy, 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was objective response rate. Secondary end points included duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: Between December 4, 2013, and November 30, 2016, 109 patients began receiving third- or later-line nivolumab monotherapy. At a median follow-up of 28.3 months (from first dose to database lock), the objective response rate was 11.9% (95% confidence interval: 6.5-19.5) with a median duration of response of 17.9 months (range 3.0-42.1). At 6 months, 17.2% of patients were progression-free. The 12-month and 18-month overall survival rates were 28.3% and 20.0%, respectively. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 11.9% of patients. Three patients (2.8%) discontinued because of treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab monotherapy provided durable responses and was well tolerated as a third- or later-line treatment for recurrent SCLC. These results suggest that nivolumab monotherapy is an effective third- or later-line treatment for this patient population.

CONFIRM: a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III clinical trial investigating the effect of nivolumab in patients with relapsed mesothelioma: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Mesothelioma is an incurable, apoptosis-resistant cancer caused in most cases by previous exposure to asbestos and is increasing in incidence. It represents a growing health burden but remains under-researched, with limited treatment options. Early promising signals of activity relating to both PD-L1- and PD-1-targeted treatment in mesothelioma implicate a dependency of mesothelioma on this immune checkpoint. There is a need to evaluate checkpoint inhibitors in patients with relapsed mesothelioma where treatment options are limited. METHODS: The addition of 12 months of nivolumab (anti-PD1 antibody) to standard practice will be conducted in the UK using a randomised, placebo-controlled phase III trial (the Cancer Research UK CONFIRM trial). A total of 336 patients with pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma who have received at least two prior lines of therapy will be recruited from UK secondary care sites. Patients will be randomised 2:1 (nivolumab:placebo), stratified according to epithelioid/non-epithelioid, to receive either 240 mg nivolumab monotherapy or saline placebo as a 30-min intravenous infusion. Treatment will be for up to 12 months. We will determine whether the use of nivolumab increases overall survival (the primary efficacy endpoint). Secondary endpoints will include progression-free survival, objective response rate, toxicity, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Analysis will be performed according to the intention-to-treat principle using a Cox regression analysis for the primary endpoint (and for other time-to-event endpoints). DISCUSSION: The outcome of this trial will provide evidence of the potential benefit of the use of nivolumab in the treatment of relapsed mesothelioma. If found to be clinically effective, safe and cost-effective it is likely to become the new standard of care in the UK. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Number: 2016-003111-35 (entered on 21 July 2016); ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03063450 . Registered on 24 February 2017.

SELECT-3: a phase I study of selumetinib in combination with platinum-doublet chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC in the first-line setting.

BACKGROUND: We investigated selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY-142886), an oral, potent, and highly selective, allosteric MEK1/2 inhibitor, plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy for patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: In this Phase I, open-label study (NCT01809210), treatment-naïve patients received selumetinib (50, 75, 100 mg BID PO) plus standard doses of gemcitabine or pemetrexed plus cisplatin or carboplatin. Primary objectives were safety, tolerability, and determination of recommended Phase II doses. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients received treatment: selumetinib 50 or 75 mg plus gemcitabine/cisplatin (n=10); selumetinib 50 mg plus gemcitabine/carboplatin (n=9); selumetinib 50, 75 or 100 mg plus pemetrexed/carboplatin (n=21); selumetinib 75 mg plus pemetrexed/cisplatin (n=15). Most frequent adverse events (AEs) were fatigue, nausea, diarrhoea and vomiting. Grade ⩾3 selumetinib-related AEs were reported in 30 (55%) patients. Dose-limiting toxicities (all n=1) were Grade 4 anaemia (selumetinib 75 mg plus gemcitabine/cisplatin), Grade 4 thrombocytopenia/epistaxis and Grade 4 thrombocytopenia (selumetinib 50 mg plus gemcitabine/carboplatin), Grade 4 febrile neutropenia (selumetinib 100 mg plus pemetrexed/carboplatin), and Grade 3 lethargy (selumetinib 75 mg plus pemetrexed/cisplatin). Partial responses were confirmed in 11 (20%) and unconfirmed in 9 (16%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Standard doses of pemetrexed/carboplatin or pemetrexed/cisplatin were tolerated with selumetinib 75 mg BID. The selumetinib plus gemcitabine-containing regimens were not tolerated.

Nintedanib Plus Pemetrexed/Cisplatin in Patients With Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: Phase II Results From the Randomized, Placebo-Controlled LUME-Meso Trial.

Purpose LUME-Meso is a phase II/III randomized, double-blind trial designed to assess efficacy and safety of nintedanib plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Phase II results are reported here. Patients and Methods Chemotherapy-naïve patients with unresectable, nonsarcomatoid MPM (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1), stratified by histology (epithelioid or biphasic), were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to up to six cycles of pemetrexed and cisplatin plus nintedanib (200 mg twice daily) or placebo followed by nintedanib plus placebo monotherapy until progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results Eighty-seven patients were randomly assigned. The median number of pemetrexed and cisplatin cycles was six; the median treatment duration for nintedanib was 7.8 months and 5.3 months for placebo. Primary PFS favored nintedanib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.91; P = .017), which was confirmed in updated PFS analyses (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.87; P = .010). A trend toward improved overall survival also favored nintedanib (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.29; P = .319). Benefit was evident in epithelioid histology, with a median overall survival gain of 5.4 months (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.21; P = .197; median [nintedanib v placebo], 20.6 months v 15.2 months) and median PFS gain of 4.0 months (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.82; P = .006; median [nintedanib v placebo], 9.7 v 5.7 months). Neutropenia was the most frequent grade ≥ 3 adverse event (AE; nintedanib 43.2% v placebo 12.2%); rates of febrile neutropenia were low (4.5% in nintedanib group v 0% in placebo group). AEs leading to discontinuation were reported in 6.8% of those receiving nintedanib versus 17.1% of those in the placebo group. Conclusion Addition of nintedanib to pemetrexed plus cisplatin resulted in PFS improvement. AEs were manageable. The clinical benefit was evident in patients with epithelioid histology. The confirmatory phase III part of the study is ongoing.

Management of crizotinib therapy for ALK-rearranged non-small cell lung carcinoma: an expert consensus.

Within 4 years of the discovery of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangements in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the ALK inhibitor crizotinib gained US and European approval for the treatment of advanced ALK-positive NSCLC. This was due to the striking response data observed with crizotinib in phase I and II trials in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC, as well as the favorable tolerability and safety profile observed. Recently published phase III data established crizotinib as a new standard of care for this NSCLC molecular subset. A consequence of such rapid approval, however, is the limited clinical experience and relative paucity of information concerning optimal therapy management. In this review, we discuss the development of crizotinib and the clinical relevance of its safety profile, examining crizotinib-associated adverse events in detail and making specific management recommendations. Crizotinib-associated adverse events were mostly mild to moderate in severity in clinical studies, and appropriate monitoring and supportive therapies are considered effective in avoiding the need for dose interruption or reduction in most cases. Therapy management of patients following disease progression on crizotinib is also discussed. Based on available clinical data, it is evident that patients may have prolonged benefit from crizotinib after Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors-defined disease progression, and crizotinib should be continued for as long as the patient derives benefit.

Are patients in clinical trials representative of the general population? Dose intensity and toxicities associated with FE100C-D chemotherapy in a non-trial population of node positive breast cancer patients compared with PACS-01 trial group.

PURPOSE: In our institution, adjuvant taxanes are currently offered to fit, node positive breast cancer patients who are either Her2 positive (any ER/PR) or triple negative (ER/PR/Her2 negative). The FE(100)C-D (FE(100)C × 3→docetaxel 100mg/m(2) × 3) regime, based on the PACS 01 trial [Roche H, Fumoleau P, Spielmann M, et al. Sequential Adjuvant Epirubicin-Based and Docetaxel Chemotherapy for node positive Breast Cancer Patients: The FNCLCC PACS 01 Trial. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:5664-5671] is used. We retrospectively audited our experience with FE(100)C-D at The Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre and one representative district general hospital (DGH), Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary (FDRI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Over a two year period, 101 patients commenced adjuvant FE(100)C-D chemotherapy. Data was matched with the FE(100)C-D arm of the PACS 01 trial. RESULTS: Median age was 54 years. Twenty-six patients (26%) had ≥ 1 episode of febrile neutropaenia (FN), including one fatal episode. Twenty-nine percent of patients required treatment interruption ≥ 1 week. Thirty percent of patients had dose reductions. Thirty percent of patients received <90% dose intensity of docetaxel. CONCLUSION: The FN rate was substantially higher and docetaxel dose intensity substantially lower in our unselected sample of patients than in the reference study.(1) This 'real-life' data illustrates the problems of applying clinical trial data to the more generalised patient population.

A phase 1 pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of the histone deacetylase inhibitor belinostat in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To determine the safety, dose-limiting toxicity, maximum tolerated dose, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of the novel hydroxamate histone deacetylase inhibitor belinostat (previously named PXD101) in patients with advanced refractory solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Sequential dose-escalating cohorts of three to six patients received belinostat administered as a 30-min i.v. infusion on days 1 to 5 of a 21-day cycle. Pharmacokinetic variables were evaluated at all dose levels. Pharmacodynamic measurements included acetylation of histones extracted from peripheral blood mononuclear cells, caspase-dependent cleavage of cytokeratin-18, and interleukin-6 levels. RESULTS: Forty-six patients received belinostat at one of six dose levels (150-1,200 mg/m(2)/d). Dose-limiting toxicities were grade 3 fatigue (one patient at 600 mg/m(2); one patient at 1,200 mg/m(2)), grade 3 diarrhea combined with fatigue (one patient at 1,200 mg/m(2)), grade 3 atrial fibrillation (one patient at 1,200 mg/m(2); one patient at 1,000 mg/m(2)), and grade 2 nausea/vomiting leading to inability to complete a full 5-day cycle (two patients at 1,000 mg/m(2)). The maximum tolerated dose was 1,000 mg/m(2)/d. I.v. belinostat displayed linear pharmacokinetics with respect to C(max) and AUC. The intermediate elimination half-life was 0.3 to 1.3 h and was independent of dose. Histone H4 hyperacetylation was observed after each infusion and was sustained for 4 to 24 h in a dose-dependent manner. Increases in interleukin-6 levels were detected following belinostat treatment. Stable disease was observed in a total of 18 (39%) patients, including 15 treated for > or =4 cycles, and this was associated with caspase-dependent cleavage of cytokeratin-18. Of the 24 patients treated at the maximum tolerated dose (1,000 mg/m(2)/d), 50% achieved stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: I.v. belinostat is well tolerated, exhibits dose-dependent pharmacodynamic effects, and has promising antitumor activity.

Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) testing in colorectal cancer follow up: what do patients think?

The carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) blood test is included in most colorectal cancer follow up protocols, despite little clear evidence for its cost-effectiveness and survival benefit. In this study, patients' views were sought on the use of the CEA blood test in their follow up. Strong associations were found between the age of a patient's children and their concern about cancer recurrence and between concern about recurrence and anxiety about CEA test results (p<0.0001). Many patients expressed a desire for prognostic information, however uncertain or poor. Patients' views should be sought when designing colorectal cancer follow up protocols to ensure their needs are adequately addressed.