Search

Background: Nintedanib is a triple angiokinase inhibitor approved with docetaxel for adenocarcinoma non-small cell lung cancer after first-line chemotherapy (FLT). In the phase III LUME-Lung 1 study, overall survival (OS) was significantly longer with nintedanib/docetaxel than with placebo/docetaxel in all adenocarcinoma patients and those with time from start of FLT (TSFLT) <9 months.Objective: This study sought to extend analyses from the LUME-Lung 1 study, specifically for adenocarcinoma patients, to explore the impact of clinically relevant characteristics on outcomes such as time to progression after FLT.Patients and Methods: Exploratory analyses were conducted of the overall and European LUME-Lung 1 adenocarcinoma population according to age, prior therapy, and tumor dynamics. Analyses also used TSFLT and time from end of FLT (TEFLT).Results: Treatment with nintedanib/docetaxel significantly improved OS in European patients independently of age or prior therapy. Analyses of several patient subgroups showed improvements in median OS: TSFLT <6 months, 9.5 versus 7.5 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.98); chemorefractory to FLT, 9.1 versus 6.9 months (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52-0.99); progressive disease (PD) as best response to FLT, 9.8 versus 6.3 months (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.94); TEFLT ≤6 months, 11.3 versus 8.2 months (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61-0.92); and TEFLT <3 months, 11.0 versus 8.0 months (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.94).Conclusions: Nintedanib/docetaxel demonstrated significant OS benefits in adenocarcinoma patients, which were more pronounced in patients with shorter TSFLT or TEFLT, or with PD as best response to FLT. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00805194. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Synchronous oligometastatic disease (sOM) has been described as a distinct disease entity; however, there is no consensus on OM definition (OM-d) in non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A consensus group was formed aiming to agree on a common OM-d that could be used in future clinical trials. A European survey was circulated to generate questions and input for the consensus group meeting. A European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Lung Cancer Group (LCG)/sOM-d consensus group survey was distributed to LCG, sOM-d consensus group, and several European thoracic oncology societies' members. 444 responses were analysed (radiation oncologist: 55% [n = 242], pulmonologist: 15% [n = 66], medical oncologist: 14% [n = 64]). 361 physicians (81%) aimed to cure sOM NSCLC patients and 82% (n = 362) included the possibility of radical intent treatment in their sOM-d. The maximum number of metastases considered in sOM-d varied: 12% replied 1 metastasis, 42% ≤ 3, and 17% ≥ 5 metastases. 79% (n = 353) stated that number of organs involved was important for sOM-d, and most (80%, n = 355) considered that only ≤3 involved organs (excluding primary) should be included. 317 (72%) included mediastinal lymph node involvement in the sOM-d and 22% (n = 70/317) counted mediastinal lymph node as a metastatic site. Most physicians completed sOM staging with brain magnetic resonance imaging (91%, n = 403) and positron emission tomography/computed tomography (98%, n = 437). Pathology proof of metastatic disease was a requirement to define sOM for 315 (71%) physicians. The preferred primary outcome for sOM clinical trials was overall survival (73%, n = 325). Although consensual answers were obtained, several issues remain unresolved and will require further research to agree on a sOM-d. • The majority aimed to cure sOM NSCLC patients. • The maximum number of metastases considered in sOM-d was 42% ≤ 3 and 17% ≥ 5. • Most considered only ≤3 involved organs (excluding primary). • Few counted mediastinal lymph node as a metastatic site. • The preferred primary outcome for sOM clinical trials was overall survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Leveraging real-world data (RWD) for drug access is necessary to overcome a key challenge of modern precision oncology: tackling numerous low-prevalence oncogenic mutations across cancers. Withholding a potentially active medication in patients with rare mutations for the sake of control chemotherapy or "best" supportive care is neither practicable nor ethically justifiable anymore, particularly as RWD could meanwhile be used instead, according to scientific principles outlined by the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency and other stakeholders. However, practical implementation varies, with occasionally opposite recommendations based on the same evidence in different countries. In the face of growing need for precision drugs, more transparency of evaluation, a priori availability of guidance for the academia and industry, as well as a harmonized framework for health technology assessment across the European Union (EU) are imperative. These could in turn trigger infrastructural changes in national and pan-European registries, cancer management guidelines (e.g., frequency of routine radiologic restaging, inclusion of patient-reported outcomes), and the health data space, to ensure conformity with declared standards and facilitate extraction of RWD sets (including patient-level data) suitable for approval and pricing with minimal effort. For an EU-wide unification of precision cancer medicine, collective negotiation of drug supply contracts and funding solidarity would additionally be required to handle the financial burden. According to experience from pivotal European programs, off-label use could potentially also be harmonized across EU-states to accelerate availability of novel drugs, streamline collection of valuable RWD, and mitigate related costs through wider partnerships with pharmaceutical companies., (© 2023 The Authors. Genes, Chromosomes and Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Brain metastases (BM) are frequent in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, but there is a lack of evidence-based management of this patient group. We aimed to capture a snapshot of routine BM management in Europe to identify relevant research questions for future clinical trials., Methods: An EORTC Lung Cancer Group (LCG) online survey containing questions on NSCLC BM screening and treatment was distributed between 16/02/17 and 15/06/17 to worldwide EORTC LCG members, and through several European scientific societies in the thoracic oncology field., Results: A total of 462 European physician responses (394 institutions) were analysed (radiation oncologist: 53% [n = 247], pulmonologist: 26% [n = 119], medical oncologist: 18% [n = 84]; 84% with >5 years' experience in NSCLC). Italy (18%, n = 85), Netherlands (15%, n = 68), UK (14%, n = 66), and France (12%, n = 55) contributed most. 393 physicians (85%) screened neurologically asymptomatic patients for BM at diagnosis (52% using magnetic resonance imaging). Most often screened patients were those with a driver mutation (MUT+; 51%, n = 234), stage III (63%, n = 289), and IV (43%, n = 199). 158 physicians (34%) used a prognostic classification to guide initial treatment decisions, and in 50%, lowest prognostic-score threshold to receive treatment differed between MUT+ and non-driver mutation (MUT-) patients. MUT+ patients with >4 BM were more likely to receive stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) compared with MUT- (27% versus. 21%; p < 0.01). Most physicians (90%) had access to SRS. After single BM surgery, 50% systematically prescribed SRS or WBRT, and 45% only in case of incomplete resection. The preferred treatment in neurologically asymptomatic treatment-naive patients diagnosed with >5 BM was systemic treatment (79%). Of all, 45%/49% physicians stated that all tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint blockers were discontinued (timing varied) during SRS/WBRT, respectively. Drugs most often continued during SRS/WBRT were erlotinib (44%/40%), gefitinib (39%/34%), afatinib (29%/25%), crizotinib (33%/26%) and anti-PD-(L)-1 (28%/22%)., Conclusion: BM management is highly variable in Europe: screening is not uniform, prognostic classifications are not often used and MUT+ NSCLC patients generally receive more intensive local treatment. Prospective assessment of BM management in MUT+ NSCLC patients is required., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Necitumumab is a second-generation recombinant human immunoglobulin G1 EGFR monoclonal antibody that competitively inhibits ligand binding. We aimed to compare necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin with pemetrexed and cisplatin alone in patients with previously untreated, stage IV, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: We did this randomised, open-label, controlled phase 3 study at 103 sites in 20 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2 and adequate organ function, were randomly assigned 1:1 to treatment with a block randomisation scheme (block size of four) via a telephone-based interactive voice-response system or interactive web-response system. Patients received either cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 of a 3-week cycle for a maximum of six cycles alone, or with necitumumab 800 mg on days 1 and 8. Necitumumab was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Randomisation was stratified by smoking history, ECOG performance status, disease histology, and geographical region. Patients and study investigators were not masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00982111., Findings: Between Nov 11, 2009, and Feb 2, 2011, we randomly assigned 633 patients to receive either necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin (n=315) or pemetrexed and cisplatin alone (n=318). Enrolment was stopped on Feb 2, 2011, after a recommendation from the independent data monitoring committee. There was no significant difference in overall survival between treatment groups, with a median overall survival of 11·3 months (95% CI 9·5-13·4) in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group versus 11·5 months (10·1-13·1) in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group (hazard ratio 1·01 [95% CI 0·84-1·21]; p=0·96). The incidence of grade 3 or worse adverse events, including deaths, was higher in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group than in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group; in particular, deaths regarded as related to study drug were reported in 15 (5%) of 304 patients in the necitumumab group versus nine (3%) of 312 patients in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group. Serious adverse events were likewise more frequent in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group than in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group (155 [51%] of 304 vs 127 [41%] of 312 patients). Patients in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group had more grade 3-4 rash (45 [15%] of 304 vs one [<1%] of 312 patients in the pemetrexed and cisplatin alone group), hypomagnesaemia (23 [8%] vs seven [2%] patients), and grade 3 or higher venous thromboembolic events (23 [8%] vs 11 [4%] patients) than did those in the pemetrexed and cisplatin alone group., Interpretation: Our findings show no evidence to suggest that the addition of necitumumab to pemetrexed and cisplatin increases survival of previously untreated patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC. Unless future studies identify potentially useful predictive biomarkers, necitumumab is unlikely to provide benefit in this patient population when combined with pemetrexed and cisplatin., Funding: Eli Lilly and Company., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)