TG4010 immunotherapy and first-line chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (TIME): results from the phase 2b part of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: MUC1 is a tumour-associated antigen expressed by many solid tumours, including non-small-cell lung cancer. TG4010 is a modified vaccinia Ankara expressing MUC1 and interleukin 2. In a previous study, TG4010 combined with chemotherapy showed activity in non-small-cell lung cancer and the baseline value of CD16, CD56, CD69 triple-positive activated lymphocytes (TrPAL) was shown to be potentially predictive of TG4010 efficacy. In this phase 2b part of the phase 2b/3 TIME trial, we further assess TG4010 in combination with first-line chemotherapy and use of the TrPAL biomarker in this setting. METHODS: In this phase 2b part of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 trial, we recruited previously untreated patients aged 18 years or older with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer without a known activating EGFR mutation and with MUC1 expression in at least 50% of tumoural cells. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) by an external service provider to subcutaneous injections of 10(8) plaque-forming units of TG4010 or placebo from the beginning of chemotherapy every week for 6 weeks and then every 3 weeks up to progression, discontinuation for any reason, or toxic effects, stratified according to baseline value of TrPAL (≤ or > the upper limit of normal [ULN]) and, in addition, a dynamic minimisation procedure was used, taking into account chemotherapy regimen, histology, addition or not of bevacizumab, performance status, and centre. Patients, site staff, monitors, the study funder, data managers, and the statistician were masked to treatment identity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed every 6 weeks, to validate the predictive value of the TrPAL biomarker. If patients with TrPAL values of less than or equal to the ULN had a Bayesian probability of more than 95% that the true hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival was less than 1, and if those with TrPAL values of greater than the ULN had a probability of more than 80% that the true HR for progression-free survival was more than 1, the TrPAL biomarker would be validated. We did primary analyses in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses in those who had received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one valid post-baseline safety assessment. Monitors, site staff, and patients are still masked to treatment assignment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01383148. FINDINGS: Between April 10, 2012, and Sept 12, 2014, we randomly allocated 222 patients (TG4010 and chemotherapy 111 [50%]; placebo and chemotherapy 111 [50%]). In the whole population, median progression-free survival was 5·9 months (95% CI 5·4-6·7) in the TG4010 group and 5·1 months (4·2-5·9) in the placebo group (HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·55-0·98]; one-sided p=0·019). In patients with TrPAL values of less than or equal to the ULN, the HR for progression-free survival was 0·75 (0·54-1·03); the posterior probability of the HR being less than 1 was 98·4%, and thus the primary endpoint was met. In patients with TrPAL values of greater than the ULN, the HR for progression-free survival was 0·77 (0·42-1·40); the posterior probability of the HR being greater than 1 was 31·3%, and the primary endpoint was not met. We noted grade 1-2 injection-site reactions in 36 (33%) of 110 patients in the TG4010 group versus four (4%) of 107 patients in the placebo group. We noted no grade 3 or 4 nor serious adverse events deemed to be related to TG4010 only. Four (4%) patients presented grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to TG4010 and other study treatments (chemotherapy or bevacizumab) versus 11 (10%) in the placebo group. No serious adverse event was related to the combination of TG4010 with other study treatments. The most frequent severe adverse events were neutropenia (grade 3 29 [26%], grade 4 13 [12%] in the TG4010 group vs grade 3 22 [21%], grade 4 11 [10%] in the placebo group), anaemia (grade 3 12 [11%] vs grade 3 16 [15%]), and fatigue (grade 3 12 [11%], grade 5 one [1%] vs grade 3 13 [12%]; no grade 4 events). INTERPRETATION: TG4010 plus chemotherapy seems to improve progression-free survival relative to placebo plus chemotherapy. These data support the clinical value of the TrPAL biomarker in this clinical setting; because the primary endpoint was met, the trial is to continue into the phase 3 part. FUNDING: Transgene, Avancées Diagnostiques pour de Nouvelles Approches Thérapeutiques (ADNA), and OSEO.

Optimal line of hepatotomy for left lateral living donor liver transplantation according to the anatomical variations of left hepatic duct system.

Multiple duct anastomoses during LLS transplantation increase the incidence of biliary complications. The optimal plane of hepatotomy that results in the least number of bile ducts at the surface was investigated according to LHD variations. Ducts of 30 human livers were injected with resin and LHD branching on 3D-CT reconstructions were analyzed. Ducts on the virtual hepatotomy surface were estimated in three splitting lines. Variations with subtypes were described. Ia (66.7%): ducts from segments (S.) II-III form a common trunk and S.IV duct joins it. Ib (10%): common trunk formed by ducts from S.II-S.III while S.IV duct joins the common hepatic duct. IIa (16.67%): S.IV duct drains into S.III duct. IIc (3.33%): S.IV duct drains into both S.II and S.III ducts. III (3.33%): trifurcation of S.II, S.III and S.IV ducts. When the virtual hepatotomy line was on the FL, there was a single duct for the anastomosis in 30% of cases but two, three, or four ducts in 53.3%, 10%, and 3.3%, respectively. Division 1 cm to the right of the FL resulted in one duct (70%), but S.IV duct injury may occur. LLS hepatotomy should not necessarily be performed along the FL. Variations must be taken into consideration to minimize the number of biliary anastomoses during liver implantation.

Sunitinib plus erlotinib versus placebo plus erlotinib in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial.

PURPOSE: Sunitinib plus erlotinib may enhance antitumor activity compared with either agent alone in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), based on the importance of the signaling pathways involved in tumor growth, angiogenesis, and metastasis. This phase III trial investigated overall survival (OS) for sunitinib plus erlotinib versus placebo plus erlotinib in patients with refractory NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients previously treated with one to two chemotherapy regimens (including one platinum-based regimen) for recurrent NSCLC, and for whom erlotinib was indicated, were randomly assigned (1:1) to sunitinib 37.5 mg/d plus erlotinib 150 mg/d or to placebo plus erlotinib 150 mg/d, stratified by prior bevacizumab use, smoking history, and epidermal growth factor receptor expression. The primary end point was OS. Key secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. RESULTS: In all, 960 patients were randomly assigned, and baseline characteristics were balanced. Median OS was 9.0 months for sunitinib plus erlotinib versus 8.5 months for erlotinib alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.922; 95% CI, 0.797 to 1.067; one-sided stratified log-rank P = .1388). Median PFS was 3.6 months versus 2.0 months (HR, 0.807; 95% CI, 0.695 to 0.937; one-sided stratified log-rank P = .0023), and ORR was 10.6% versus 6.9% (two-sided stratified log-rank P = .0471), respectively. Treatment-related toxicities of grade 3 or higher, including rash/dermatitis, diarrhea, and asthenia/fatigue were more frequent in the sunitinib plus erlotinib arm. CONCLUSION: In patients with refractory NSCLC, sunitinib plus erlotinib did not improve OS compared with erlotinib alone, but the combination was associated with a statistically significantly longer PFS and greater ORR. The incidence of grade 3 or higher toxicities was greater with combination therapy.

Therapeutic vaccination with TG4010 and first-line chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a controlled phase 2B trial.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy is the standard of care for advanced stages of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). TG4010 is a targeted immunotherapy based on a poxvirus (modified vaccinia virus Ankara) that codes for MUC1 tumour-associated antigen and interleukin 2. This study assessed TG4010 in combination with first-line chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC. METHODS: 148 patients with advanced (stage IIIB [wet] or IV) NSCLC expressing MUC1 by immunohistochemistry, and with performance status 0 or 1, were enrolled in parallel groups in this open-label, phase 2B study. 74 patients were allocated to the combination therapy group, and received TG4010 (10(8) plaque forming units) plus cisplatin (75 mg/m(2) on day 1) and gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8) repeated every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. 74 patients allocated to the control group received the same chemotherapy alone. Patients were allocated using a dynamic minimisation procedure stratified by centre, performance status, and disease stage. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS), with a target rate of 40% or higher in the experimental group. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00415818. FINDINGS: 6-month PFS was 43·2% (32 of 74; 95% CI 33·4-53·5) in the TG4010 plus chemotherapy group, and 35·1% (26 of 74; 25·9-45·3) in the chemotherapy alone group. Fever, abdominal pain, and injection-site pain of any grade according to National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria were more common in the TG4010 group than in the chemotherapy alone group: 17 of 73 patients (23·3%) versus six of 72 (8·3%), 12 (16·4%) versus two (2·8%), and four (5·5%) versus zero (0%), respectively. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (33 [45·2%] of patients in the TG4010 plus chemotherapy group vs 31 [43·1%] in the chemotherapy alone group) and fatigue (18 [24·7%] vs 13 [18·1%]); the only grade 3-4 events that differed significantly between groups were anorexia (three [4·1%] vs 10 [13·9%]) and pleural effusion (none vs four [5·6%]). 38 of 73 patients (52·1%) in the TG4010 plus chemotherapy group and 34 of 72 (47·2%) in the chemotherapy alone group had at least one serious adverse event. INTERPRETATION: This phase 2B study suggests that TG4010 enhances the effect of chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC. A confirmatory phase 2B-3 trial has been initiated. FUNDING: Transgene SA, Advanced Diagnostics for New Therapeutic Approaches (ADNA)/OSEO.

Phase III study of oral compared with intravenous topotecan as second-line therapy in small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Single-agent intravenous (IV) topotecan is an effective treatment for small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) after failure of first-line chemotherapy. This open-label, randomized, phase III study compared oral and IV topotecan in patients with SCLC sensitive to initial chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with limited- or extensive-disease SCLC, documented complete or partial response to first-line therapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status < or = 2, and measurable recurrent disease (WHO criteria) with a treatment-free interval of > or = 90 days were assigned to treatment with either oral topotecan 2.3 mg/m2/d on days 1 through 5 or IV topotecan 1.5 mg/m2/d on days 1 through 5 every 21 days. Primary end point was response rate as confirmed by an external reviewer blinded to treatment. RESULTS: A total of 309 patients were randomly assigned. In intent-to-treat analysis, response rates were 18.3% with oral topotecan (n = 153) and 21.9% with IV topotecan (n = 151), with a difference (oral -IV) of -3.6% (95% CI, -12.6% to 5.5%). Median survival time was 33.0 weeks for oral and 35.0 weeks for IV topotecan; 1- and 2-year survival rates were 32.6% and 12.4% for oral topotecan, respectively, and 29.2% and 7.1% for IV topotecan, respectively. Third-line chemotherapy was similar for both groups (33% for oral; 35% for IV). Incidence of grade 4 toxicity in patients who received oral and IV topotecan was as follows: neutropenia in 47% and 64%, thrombocytopenia in 29% and 18%, grade 3 or 4 anemia in 23% and 31%, and sepsis in 3% and 3%, respectively. The most frequent nonhematologic adverse events (all grades) included nausea (43% oral; 42% IV), alopecia (26% oral; 30% IV), fatigue (31% oral; 36% IV), and diarrhea (36% oral; 20% IV). CONCLUSION: Oral topotecan demonstrates activity and tolerability similar to IV topotecan in chemotherapy-sensitive SCLC patients and offers patients a convenient alternative to IV therapy.

Open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase III study comparing oral topotecan/cisplatin versus etoposide/cisplatin as treatment for chemotherapy-naive patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: This open-label, randomized, multicenter phase III study compared oral topotecan/intravenous cisplatin (TC) with intravenous (IV) etoposide/cisplatin (PE) in patients with untreated extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 784 patients were randomly assigned to either oral topotecan 1.7 mg/m2/d x 5 with IV cisplatin 60 mg/m2 on day 5 (n = 389) or IV etoposide 100 mg/m2/d x 3 with IV cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1 (n = 395) every 21 days. RESULTS: Overall survival (primary end point) was similar between groups (P = .48; median: TC, 39.3 weeks v PE, 40.3 weeks). One-year survival was 31% (95% CI, 27% to 36%) in both groups and the difference of -0.03 (95% CI, -6.53 to 6.47) met the predefined criteria of < or = 10% absolute difference for noninferiority of TC relative to PE. Response rates were similar between groups (TC, 63% v PE, 69%). Time to progression was slightly but statistically longer with PE (log-rank P = .02; median: TC, 24.1 weeks v PE, 25.1 weeks). The regimens were similarly tolerable. Grade 3/4 neutropenia occurred more frequently with PE (84% v 59%), whereas grade 3/4 anemia and thrombocytopenia occurred more frequently with TC (38% v 21% and 38% v 23%, respectively). Lung Cancer Symptom Scale scores were statistically better with PE, but the differences were small and of debatable clinical significance. CONCLUSION: Oral topotecan with cisplatin provides similar efficacy and tolerability to the standard (etoposide with cisplatin) in untreated ED-SCLC and may provide greater patient convenience compared with intravenous etoposide and cisplatin.

Lung cancer in smoking patients inversely alters the activity of hOGG1 and hNTH1.

N-Glycosylases excise the damaged adducts from DNA. 7,8-Dihydro-8-oxoguanine in human cells is repaired by OGG1 and hNTH1. The activities of hOGG1 and hNTH1 were measured, using modified and 32P labelled oligonucleotides, in bronchial biopsy samples of smoking patients with non-small cell lung carcinoma. The activity of hOOG1 was significantly higher in biopsies from tumour tissues compared with intra-individual control samples. On the contrary, the activity of endonuclease III homologue, hNTH1, was lower in tumours compared to controls. These opposing alterations in DNA repair enzymes may affect cancer growth due to the increased formation of AP sites.