Efficacy and Safety of Necitumumab Continuation Therapy in the Phase III SQUIRE Study of Patients With Stage IV Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In a retrospective analysis of the SQUamous NSCLC treatment with the Inhibitor of EGF REceptor (SQUIRE) study, we investigated the efficacy and safety of single-agent necitumumab continuation therapy in patients with stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer and in a subpopulation of patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-expressing tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 for ≤ 6 cycles of gemcitabine and cisplatin either with or without necitumumab. Patients who received necitumumab continued receiving single-agent necitumumab until progressive disease (necitumumab continuation). Tissue collection was mandatory in SQUIRE. EGFR protein expression was assessed using immunohistochemistry in a central lab. In this subgroup analysis we compared patients treated with necitumumab monotherapy after completion of ≥ 4 cycles of chemotherapy with those in the chemotherapy arm who were progression-free and did not discontinue because of adverse events (AEs) after completion of ≥ 4 cycles of chemotherapy (gemcitabine-cisplatin nonprogressors). The same analysis was done for the subgroup of EGFR-expressing patients (EGFR > 0). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics and chemotherapy exposure were well balanced between the necitumumab continuation (n = 261) and gemcitabine-cisplatin nonprogressor (n = 215) arms and in the EGFR-expressing population. Median overall survival (OS) from randomization in the necitumumab with gemcitabine-cisplatin versus gemcitabine-cisplatin nonprogressor arm was 15.9 versus 15.0 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-1.05) and median progression-free survival (PFS) from randomization was 7.4 versus 6.9 months (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70-1.06). OS and PFS benefits were similar when assessed from the postinduction period and in EGFR-expressing patients. No new safety findings emerged. CONCLUSION: There was a consistent treatment effect in favor of necitumumab continuation versus that in gemcitabine-cisplatin nonprogressors, with no unexpected increases in AEs in intention-to-treat as well as EGFR-expressing populations.

Necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin alone as first-line therapy in patients with stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (SQUIRE): an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Necitumumab is a second-generation, recombinant, human immunoglobulin G1 EGFR antibody. In this study, we aimed to compare treatment with necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with previously untreated stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: We did this open-label, randomised phase 3 study at 184 investigative sites in 26 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2 and adequate organ function and who had not received previous chemotherapy for their disease were eligible for inclusion. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned centrally 1:1 to a maximum of six 3-week cycles of gemcitabine and cisplastin chemotherapy with or without necitumumab according to a block randomisation scheme (block size of four) by a telephone-based interactive voice response system or interactive web response system. Chemotherapy was gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) administered intravenously over 30 min on days 1 and 8 of a 3-week cycle and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) administered intravenously over 120 min on day 1 of a 3-week cycle. Necitumumab 800 mg, administered intravenously over a minimum of 50 min on days 1 and 8, was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or intolerable toxic side-effects occurred. Randomisation was stratified by ECOG performance status and geographical region. Neither physicians nor patients were masked to group assignment because of the expected occurrence of acne-like rash--a class effect of EGFR antibodies--that would have unmasked most patients and investigators to treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. We report the final clinical analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00981058. FINDINGS: Between Jan 7, 2010, and Feb 22, 2012, we enrolled 1093 patients and randomly assigned them to receive necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (n=545) or gemcitabine and cisplatin (n=548). Overall survival was significantly longer in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin alone group (median 11·5 months [95% CI 10·4-12·6]) vs 9·9 months [8·9-11·1]; stratified hazard ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·74-0·96; p=0·01]). In the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group, the number of patients with at least one grade 3 or worse adverse event was higher (388 [72%] of 538 patients) than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group (333 [62%] of 541), as was the incidence of serious adverse events (257 [48%] of 538 patients vs 203 [38%] of 541). More patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group had grade 3-4 hypomagnesaemia (47 [9%] of 538 patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group vs six [1%] of 541 in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group) and grade 3 rash (20 [4%] vs one [<1%]). Including events related to disease progression, adverse events with an outcome of death were reported for 66 (12%) of 538 patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group and 57 (11%) of 541 patients in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group; these were deemed to be related to study drugs in 15 (3%) and ten (2%) patients, respectively. Overall, we found that the safety profile of necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin was acceptable and in line with expectations. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that the addition of necitumumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy improves overall survival in patients with advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer and represents a new first-line treatment option for this disease. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Randomized phase II study of ixabepilone or paclitaxel plus carboplatin in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer prospectively stratified by beta-3 tubulin status.

PURPOSE: Retrospective studies have reported that tumor expression of the beta-3 tubulin (ß3T) isoform is an unfavorable prognostic factor in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with tubulin-inhibiting chemotherapy. Ixabepilone is a tubulin-inhibiting agent with low susceptibility to multiple resistance mechanisms including ß3T isoform expression in several tumor models. This randomized phase II study evaluated ixabepilone-based chemotherapy in stage IIIb/IV NSCLC, compared with paclitaxel-based chemotherapy. Tumor specimens were prospectively evaluated for ß3T expression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were stratified by ß3T status (positive v negative) and randomly assigned at a ratio of 1:1 to receive ixabepilone (32 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (area under concentration-time curve [AUC], 6) or paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (AUC, 6) for up to six cycles. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in the ß3T-positive subgroup. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients (ß3T positive, 52; ß3T negative, 43) received ixabepilone plus carboplatin; 96 patients (ß3T positive, 49; ß3T negative, 47) received paclitaxel plus carboplatin. No significant differences in median PFS were observed between arms for either subgroup (ß3T positive, 4.3 months in both arms; ß3T negative, 5.8 v 5.3 months). Ixabepilone did not significantly improve overall survival (OS) for the ß3T-positive subset or the overall population. Adverse events were similar between the two arms and comparable with those in previous studies. CONCLUSION: There was no predictive value of ß3T in differentiating clinical activity of ixabepilone- or paclitaxel-containing regimens. Ixabepilone did not improve PFS or OS in patients with ß3T-positive tumors. ß3T-positive patients had worse PFS relative to ß3T-negative patients, regardless of treatment; hence, ß3T expression seems to be a negative prognostic factor, but not a predictive factor, in advanced NSCLC treated with either ixabepilone or paclitaxel platinum-based doublets.

Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase 2 study of the proapoptotic agent AT-101 plus docetaxel, in second-line non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: AT-101 is an inhibitor of Bcl-2 family proteins including Bcl-2, Bcl-xL, Mcl-1, and Bcl-w. In vivo and in vitro studies have exhibited broad activity of AT-101, including synergy with docetaxel in non-small cell lung cancer tumor models. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 study. Eligible patients must have received one prior chemotherapeutic regimen for advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer and may also have received therapy with an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor. Patients received AT-101 (40 mg b.i.d. × 3 days) or placebo in combination with docetaxel (75 mg/m on day 1) every 21 days. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) as determined by independent review; other endpoints include overall survival and PFS by investigator determination. Approximately 102 patients were planned to provide 70 events (80% power, hazard ratio [HR] of 0.6, one-sided alpha of 0.1). RESULTS: : One hundred six patients were assigned to treatment and 105 patients received at least one dose of AT-101 or placebo. Baseline factors were balanced between treatment groups: median age 59 years; 77% men, and 79% current or former smokers. Ninety-three percent of patients had distant metastatic disease at randomization and 56% squamous histology. The most frequently reported adverse events were fatigue (18%), anemia (18%), and dyspnea (18%). No statistically significant differences in serious adverse events were observed between AT-101 and placebo; grade 1/2 headaches appeared more frequently with AT-101 (9% versus 0%) and neutropenia was reported more frequently in the docetaxel plus placebo arm compared with docetaxel plus AT-101 (17% versus 8%). Unlike trials with continuous daily dosing of AT-101, no cases of small bowel obstruction were reported. The response rate and median PFS were not different between the arms by independent review, PFS 7.5 weeks for docetaxel plus AT-101 and 7.1 weeks for docetaxel plus placebo arms (HR, 1.04; p = 0.57). The median overall survival was 7.8 months for docetaxel plus AT-101 versus 5.9 months for docetaxel plus placebo (HR, 0.82; p = 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: The primary endpoint of improved PFS for AT-101 plus docetaxel was not met. AT-101 plus docetaxel was well tolerated with an adverse event profile indistinguishable from the base docetaxel regimen. AT-101 is the first oral, pan Bcl-2 family inhibitor to exhibit a possible survival benefit in a randomized study.