Search

Background: Few treatment options exist for second-line treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. We aimed to assess the antibody-drug conjugate anetumab ravtansine versus vinorelbine in patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic disease overexpressing mesothelin who had progressed on first-line platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab.Methods: In this phase 2, randomised, open-label study, done at 76 hospitals in 14 countries, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic malignant pleural mesothelioma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and who had progressed on first-line platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab. Participants were prospectively screened for mesothelin overexpression (defined as 2+ or 3+ mesothelin membrane staining intensity on at least 30% of viable tumour cells by immunohistochemistry) and were randomly assigned (2:1), using an interactive voice and web response system provided by the sponsor, to receive intravenous anetumab ravtansine (6·5 mg/kg on day 1 of each 21-day cycle) or intravenous vinorelbine (30 mg/m2 once every week) until progression, toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival according to blinded central radiology review, assessed in the intention-to-treat population, with safety assessed in all participants who received any study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02610140, and is now completed.Findings: Between Dec 3, 2015, and May 31, 2017, 589 patients were enrolled and 248 mesothelin-overexpressing patients were randomly allocated to the two treatment groups (166 patients were randomly assigned to receive anetumab ravtansine and 82 patients were randomly assigned to receive vinorelbine). 105 (63%) of 166 patients treated with anetumab ravtansine (median follow-up 4·0 months [IQR 1·4-5·5]) versus 43 (52%) of 82 patients treated with vinorelbine (3·9 months [1·4-5·4]) had disease progression or died (median progression-free survival 4·3 months [95% CI 4·1-5·2] vs 4·5 months [4·1-5·8]; hazard ratio 1·22 [0·85-1·74]; log-rank p=0·86). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (one [1%] of 163 patients for anetumab ravtansine vs 28 [39%] of 72 patients for vinorelbine), pneumonia (seven [4%] vs five [7%]), neutrophil count decrease (two [1%] vs 12 [17%]), and dyspnoea (nine [6%] vs three [4%]). Serious drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 12 (7%) patients treated with anetumab ravtansine and 11 (15%) patients treated with vinorelbine. Ten (6%) treatment-emergent deaths occurred with anetumab ravtansine: pneumonia (three [2%]), dyspnoea (two [1%]), sepsis (two [1%]), atrial fibrillation (one [1%]), physical deterioration (one [1%]), hepatic failure (one [1%]), mesothelioma (one [1%]), and renal failure (one [1%]; one patient had 3 events). One (1%) treatment-emergent death occurred in the vinorelbine group (pneumonia).Interpretation: Anetumab ravtansine showed a manageable safety profile and was not superior to vinorelbine. Further studies are needed to define active treatments in relapsed mesothelin-expressing malignant pleural mesothelioma.Funding: Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lorlatinib is a potent, brain-penetrant, third-generation inhibitor of ALK and ROS1 tyrosine kinases with broad coverage of ALK mutations. In a phase 1 study, activity was seen in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, most of whom had CNS metastases and progression after ALK-directed therapy. We aimed to analyse the overall and intracranial antitumour activity of lorlatinib in patients with ALK-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.Methods: In this phase 2 study, patients with histologically or cytologically ALK-positive or ROS1-positive, advanced, non-small-cell lung cancer, with or without CNS metastases, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0, 1, or 2, and adequate end-organ function were eligible. Patients were enrolled into six different expansion cohorts (EXP1-6) on the basis of ALK and ROS1 status and previous therapy, and were given lorlatinib 100 mg orally once daily continuously in 21-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall and intracranial tumour response by independent central review, assessed in pooled subgroups of ALK-positive patients. Analyses of activity and safety were based on the safety analysis set (ie, all patients who received at least one dose of lorlatinib) as assessed by independent central review. Patients with measurable CNS metastases at baseline by independent central review were included in the intracranial activity analyses. In this report, we present lorlatinib activity data for the ALK-positive patients (EXP1-5 only), and safety data for all treated patients (EXP1-6). This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01970865.Findings: Between Sept 15, 2015, and Oct 3, 2016, 276 patients were enrolled: 30 who were ALK positive and treatment naive (EXP1); 59 who were ALK positive and received previous crizotinib without (n=27; EXP2) or with (n=32; EXP3A) previous chemotherapy; 28 who were ALK positive and received one previous non-crizotinib ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor, with or without chemotherapy (EXP3B); 112 who were ALK positive with two (n=66; EXP4) or three (n=46; EXP5) previous ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors with or without chemotherapy; and 47 who were ROS1 positive with any previous treatment (EXP6). One patient in EXP4 died before receiving lorlatinib and was excluded from the safety analysis set. In treatment-naive patients (EXP1), an objective response was achieved in 27 (90·0%; 95% CI 73·5-97·9) of 30 patients. Three patients in EXP1 had measurable baseline CNS lesions per independent central review, and objective intracranial responses were observed in two (66·7%; 95% CI 9·4-99·2). In ALK-positive patients with at least one previous ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EXP2-5), objective responses were achieved in 93 (47·0%; 39·9-54·2) of 198 patients and objective intracranial response in those with measurable baseline CNS lesions in 51 (63·0%; 51·5-73·4) of 81 patients. Objective response was achieved in 41 (69·5%; 95% CI 56·1-80·8) of 59 patients who had only received previous crizotinib (EXP2-3A), nine (32·1%; 15·9-52·4) of 28 patients with one previous non-crizotinib ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EXP3B), and 43 (38·7%; 29·6-48·5) of 111 patients with two or more previous ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EXP4-5). Objective intracranial response was achieved in 20 (87·0%; 95% CI 66·4-97·2) of 23 patients with measurable baseline CNS lesions in EXP2-3A, five (55·6%; 21·2-86·3) of nine patients in EXP3B, and 26 (53·1%; 38·3-67·5) of 49 patients in EXP4-5. The most common treatment-related adverse events across all patients were hypercholesterolaemia (224 [81%] of 275 patients overall and 43 [16%] grade 3-4) and hypertriglyceridaemia (166 [60%] overall and 43 [16%] grade 3-4). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 19 (7%) of 275 patients and seven patients (3%) permanently discontinued treatment because of treatment-related adverse events. No treatment-related deaths were reported.Interpretation: Consistent with its broad ALK mutational coverage and CNS penetration, lorlatinib showed substantial overall and intracranial activity both in treatment-naive patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer, and in those who had progressed on crizotinib, second-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors, or after up to three previous ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Thus, lorlatinib could represent an effective treatment option for patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer in first-line or subsequent therapy.Funding: Pfizer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Malignant pleural mesothelioma is an aggressive cancer with highly vascularised tumours. It has poor prognosis and few treatment options after failure of first-line chemotherapy. NGR-hTNF is a vascular-targeting drug that increases penetration of intratumoral chemotherapy and T-cell infiltration by modifying the tumour microenvironment. In this trial, we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of NGR-hTNF in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma who had progressed during or after a first-line treatment.Methods: NGR015 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial done in 41 centres in 12 countries. Eligible participants had malignant pleural mesothelioma of any histological subtype (epithelial, sarcomatoid, or mixed), were aged 18 years or older, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 and radiologically documented progressive disease after one pemetrexed-based chemotherapy regimen. Participants were randomly assigned to receive weekly NGR-hTNF 0·8 μg/m2 intravenously plus best investigator choice (n=200), or placebo plus best investigator choice (n=200). Best investigator choice was decided before random assignment and could be single-agent gemcitabine (1000-1250 mg/m2 intravenously), vinorelbine (25 mg/m2 intravenously or 60 mg/m2 orally), doxorubicin (60-75 mg/m2 intravenously), or best supportive care only. Patients were randomised (1:1) with a block size of four after stratification for performance status and best investigator choice. The primary study endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is closed to new participants and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01098266).Findings: Between April 12, 2010 and Jan 21, 2013, we enrolled 400 eligible participants. 381 (95%) of 400 patients were selected to receive chemotherapy before all participants were randomly assigned to receive NGF-hTNF plus best investigator choice (n=200) or placebo plus best investigator choice (n=200). At the cutoff date (April 29, 2014), the median follow-up was 18·7 months (IQR 15·1-24·4), and overall survival did not differ between the two treatment groups (median 8·5 months [95% CI 7·2-9·9] in the NGR-hTNF group vs 8·0 months [6·6-8·9] in the placebo group; hazard ratio 0·94, 95% CI 0·75-1·18; p=0·58). Grade 3 or worse study-emergent adverse events occurred in 136 (70%) of patients receiving NGR-hTNF versus 118 (61%) of patients receiving placebo, with the most common being neutropenia (35 [18%] of 193 patients vs 36 [19%] of 193 patients), pain (11 [6%] vs 16 [8%]), dyspnoea (nine [5%] vs seven [4%]), and chills (nine [5%] vs none). 50 (26%) patients in the NGR-hTNF group had a serious adverse event, compared with 47 (24%) in the placebo group. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 17 (9%) patients in the NGR-hTNF group and 20 patients (10%) in the placebo group. There were 12 deaths in the NGR-hTNF group and 13 deaths in the placebo group, but none were treatment related.Interpretation: The study did not meet its primary endpoint. The hypothesis-generating findings from the subgroup analyses deserve a confirmatory randomised trial because patients who rapidly progress after first-line treatment have a poor prognosis.Funding: MolMed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: New therapeutic strategies for malignant mesothelioma are urgently needed. In the DETERMINE study, we investigated the effects of the cytotoxic-T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) monoclonal antibody tremelimumab in patients with previously treated advanced malignant mesothelioma.Methods: DETERMINE was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial done at 105 study centres across 19 countries in patients with unresectable pleural or peritoneal malignant mesothelioma who had progressed after one or two previous systemic treatments for advanced disease. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 and measurable disease as defined in the modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.0 for pleural mesothelioma or RECIST version 1.1 for peritoneal mesothelioma. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) in blocks of three, stratified by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer status (low risk vs high risk), line of therapy (second line vs third line), and anatomic site (pleural vs peritoneal), by use of an interactive voice or web system, to receive intravenous tremelimumab (10 mg/kg) or placebo every 4 weeks for 7 doses and every 12 weeks thereafter until a treatment discontinuation criterion was met. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The trial is ongoing but no longer recruiting participants, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01843374.Findings: Between May 17, 2013, and Dec 4, 2014, 571 patients were randomly assigned to receive tremelimumab (n=382) or placebo (n=189), of whom 569 patients received treatment (two patients in the tremelimumab group were excluded from the safety population because they did not receive treatment). At the data cutoff date (Jan 24, 2016), 307 (80%) of 382 patients had died in the tremelimumab group and 154 (81%) of 189 patients had died in the placebo group. Median overall survival in the intention-to-treat population did not differ between the treatment groups: 7·7 months (95% CI 6·8-8·9) in the tremelimumab group and 7·3 months (5·9-8·7) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·92 [95% CI 0·76-1·12], p=0·41). Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or worse occurred in 246 (65%) of 380 patients in the tremelimumab group and 91 (48%) of 189 patients in the placebo group; the most common were dyspnoea (34 [9%] patients in the tremelimumab group vs 27 [14%] patients in the placebo group), diarrhoea (58 [15%] vs one [<1%]), and colitis (26 [7%] vs none). The most common serious adverse events were diarrhoea (69 [18%] patients in the tremelimumab group vs one [<1%] patient in the placebo group), dyspnoea (29 [8%] vs 24 [13%]), and colitis (24 [6%] vs none). Treatment-emergent events leading to death occurred in 36 (9%) of 380 patients in the tremelimumab group and 12 (6%) of 189 in the placebo group; those leading to the death of more than one patient were mesothelioma (three [1%] patients in the tremelimumab group vs two [1%] in the placebo group), dyspnoea (three [1%] vs two [1%]); respiratory failure (one [<1%] vs three [2%]), myocardial infarction (three [1%] vs none), lung infection (three [1%] patients vs none), cardiac failure (one [<1%] vs one [<1%]), and colitis (two [<1%] vs none). Treatment-related adverse events leading to death occurred in five (1%) patients in the tremelimumab group and none in the placebo group. The causes of death were lung infection in one patient, intestinal perforation and small intestinal obstruction in one patient; colitis in two patients, and neuritis and skin ulcer in one patient.Interpretation: Tremelimumab did not significantly prolong overall survival compared with placebo in patients with previously treated malignant mesothelioma. The safety profile of tremelimumab was consistent with the known safety profile of CTLA-4 inhibitors. Investigations into whether immunotherapy combination regimens can provide greater efficacy than monotherapies in malignant mesothelioma are ongoing.Funding: AstraZeneca. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ceritinib is a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, which has shown robust anti-tumour efficacy, along with intracranial activity, in patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer. In phase 1 and 2 studies, ceritinib has been shown to be highly active in both ALK inhibitor-naive and ALK inhibitor-pretreated patients who had progressed after chemotherapy (mostly multiple lines). In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of ceritinib versus single-agent chemotherapy in patients with advanced ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer who had previously progressed following crizotinib and platinum-based doublet chemotherapy.Methods: In this randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged at least 18 years with ALK-rearranged stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer (with at least one measurable lesion) who had received previous chemotherapy (one or two lines, including a platinum doublet) and crizotinib and had subsequent disease progression, from 99 centres across 20 countries. Other inclusion criteria were a WHO performance status of 0-2, adequate organ function and laboratory test results, a life expectancy of at least 12 weeks, and having recovered from previous anticancer treatment-related toxicities. We randomly allocated patients (1:1; with blocking [block size of four]; stratified by WHO performance status [0 vs 1-2] and presence or absence of brain metastases) to oral ceritinib 750 mg per day fasted (in 21 day treatment cycles) or chemotherapy (intravenous pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 [investigator choice], every 21 days). Patients who discontinued chemotherapy because of progressive disease could cross over to the ceritinib group. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed by a masked independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population, assessed every 6 weeks until month 18 and every 9 weeks thereafter. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01828112, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting patients.Findings: Between June 28, 2013, and Nov 2, 2015, we randomly allocated 231 patients; 115 (50%) to ceritinib and 116 (50%) to chemotherapy (40 [34%] to pemetrexed, 73 [63%] to docetaxel, and three [3%] discontinued before receiving treatment). Median follow-up was 16·5 months (IQR 11·5-21·4). Ceritinib showed a significant improvement in median progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy (5·4 months [95% CI 4·1-6·9] for ceritinib vs 1·6 months [1·4-2·8] for chemotherapy; hazard ratio 0·49 [0·36-0·67]; p<0·0001). Serious adverse events were reported in 49 (43%) of 115 patients in the ceritinib group and 36 (32%) of 113 in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related serious adverse events were similar between groups (13 [11%] in the ceritinib group vs 12 [11%] in the chemotherapy group). The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events in the ceritinib group were increased alanine aminotransferase concentration (24 [21%] of 115 vs two [2%] of 113 in the chemotherapy group), increased γ glutamyltransferase concentration (24 [21%] vs one [1%]), and increased aspartate aminotransferase concentration (16 [14%] vs one [1%] in the chemotherapy group). Six (5%) of 115 patients in the ceritinib group discontinued because of adverse events compared with eight (7%) of 116 in the chemotherapy group. 15 (13%) of 115 patients in the ceritinib group and five (4%) of 113 in the chemotherapy group died during the treatment period (from the day of the first dose of study treatment to 30 days after the final dose). 13 (87%) of the 15 patients who died in the ceritinib group died because of disease progression and two (13%) died because of an adverse event (one [7%] cerebrovascular accident and one [7%] respiratory failure); neither of these deaths were considered by the investigator to be treatment related. The five (4%) deaths in the chemotherapy group were all due to disease progression.Interpretation: These findings show that patients derive significant clinical benefit from a more potent ALK inhibitor after failure of crizotinib, and establish ceritinib as a more efficacious treatment option compared with chemotherapy in this patient population.Funding: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: An established multivariate serum protein test can be used to classify patients according to whether they are likely to have a good or poor outcome after treatment with EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. We assessed the predictive power of this test in the comparison of erlotinib and chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods: From Feb 26, 2008, to April 11, 2012, patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically or cytologically confirmed, second-line, stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer were enrolled in 14 centres in Italy. Patients were stratified according to a minimisation algorithm by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, smoking history, centre, and masked pretreatment serum protein test classification, and randomly assigned centrally in a 1:1 ratio to receive erlotinib (150 mg/day, orally) or chemotherapy (pemetrexed 500 mg/m2, intravenously, every 21 days, or docetaxel 75 mg/m2, intravenously, every 21 days). The proteomic test classification was masked for patients and investigators who gave treatments, and treatment allocation was masked for investigators who generated the proteomic classification. The primary endpoint was overall survival and the primary hypothesis was the existence of a significant interaction between the serum protein test classification and treatment. Analyses were done on the per-protocol population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00989690. Findings: 142 patients were randomly assigned to chemotherapy and 143 to erlotinib, and 129 (91%) and 134 (94%), respectively, were included in the per-protocol analysis. 88 (68%) patients in the chemotherapy group and 96 (72%) in the erlotinib group had a proteomic test classification of good. Median overall survival was 9·0 months (95% CI 6·8–10·9) in the chemotherapy group and 7·7 months (5·9–10·4) in the erlotinib group. We noted a significant interaction between treatment and proteomic classification (pinteraction=0·017 when adjusted for stratification factors; pinteraction=0·031 when unadjusted for stratification factors). Patients with a proteomic test classification of poor had worse survival on erlotinib than on chemotherapy (hazard ratio 1·72 [95% CI 1·08–2·74], p=0·022). There was no significant difference in overall survival between treatments for patients with a proteomic test classification of good (adjusted HR 1·06 [0·77–1·46], p=0·714). In the group of patients who received chemotherapy, the most common grade 3 or 4 toxic effect was neutropenia (19 [15%] vs one [<1%] in the erlotinib group), whereas skin toxicity (one [<1%] vs 22 [16%]) was the most frequent in the erlotinib group. Interpretation: Our findings indicate that serum protein test status is predictive of differential benefit in overall survival for erlotinib versus chemotherapy in the second-line setting. Patients classified as likely to have a poor outcome have better outcomes on chemotherapy than on erlotinib. Funding: Italian Ministry of Health, Italian Association of Cancer Research, and Biodesix. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]