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.)

Background: The phase 3 LUME-Lung 1 study assessed the efficacy and safety of docetaxel plus nintedanib as second-line therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: Patients from 211 centres in 27 countries with stage IIIB/IV recurrent NSCLC progressing after first-line chemotherapy, stratified by ECOG performance status, previous bevacizumab treatment, histology, and presence of brain metastases, were allocated (by computer-generated sequence through an interactive third-party system, in 1:1 ratio), to receive docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) by intravenous infusion on day 1 plus either nintedanib 200 mg orally twice daily or matching placebo on days 2-21, every 3 weeks until unacceptable adverse events or disease progression. Investigators and patients were masked to assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent central review, analysed by intention to treat after 714 events in all patients. The key secondary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat after 1121 events had occurred, in a prespecified stepwise order: first in patients with adenocarcinoma who progressed within 9 months after start of first-line therapy, then in all patients with adenocarcinoma, then in all patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00805194., Findings: Between Dec 23, 2008, and Feb 9, 2011, 655 patients were randomly assigned to receive docetaxel plus nintedanib and 659 to receive docetaxel plus placebo. The primary analysis was done after a median follow-up of 7·1 months (IQR 3·8-11·0). PFS was significantly improved in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group compared with the docetaxel plus placebo group (median 3·4 months [95% CI 2·9-3·9] vs 2·7 months [2·6-2·8]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·79 [95% CI 0·68-0·92], p=0·0019). After a median follow-up of 31·7 months (IQR 27·8-36·1), overall survival was significantly improved for patients with adenocarcinoma histology who progressed within 9 months after start of first-line treatment in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group (206 patients) compared with those in the docetaxel plus placebo group (199 patients; median 10·9 months [95% CI 8·5-12·6] vs 7·9 months [6·7-9·1]; HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·60-0·92], p=0·0073). Similar results were noted for all patients with adenocarcinoma histology (322 patients in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group and 336 in the docetaxel plus placebo group; median overall survival 12·6 months [95% CI 10·6-15·1] vs 10·3 months [95% CI 8·6-12·2]; HR 0·83 [95% CI 0·70-0·99], p=0·0359), but not in the total study population (median 10·1 months [95% CI 8·8-11·2] vs 9·1 months [8·4-10·4]; HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·83-1·05, p=0·2720). Grade 3 or worse adverse events that were more common in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group than in the docetaxel plus placebo group were diarrhoea (43 [6·6%] of 652 vs 17 [2·6%] of 655), reversible increases in alanine aminotransferase (51 [7·8%] vs six [0·9%]), and reversible increases in aspartate aminotransferase (22 [3·4%] vs three [0·5%]). 35 patients in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group and 25 in the docetaxel plus placebo group died of adverse events possibly unrelated to disease progression; the most common of these events were sepsis (five with docetaxel plus nintedanib vs one with docetaxel plus placebo), pneumonia (two vs seven), respiratory failure (four vs none), and pulmonary embolism (none vs three)., Interpretation: Nintedanib in combination with docetaxel is an effective second-line option for patients with advanced NSCLC previously treated with one line of platinum-based therapy, especially for patients with adenocarcinoma., Funding: Boehringer Ingelheim., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) benefit from pemetrexed maintenance therapy after induction therapy with a platinum-containing, non-pemetrexed doublet. The PARAMOUNT trial investigated whether continuation maintenance with pemetrexed improved progression-free survival after induction therapy with pemetrexed plus cisplatin., Methods: In this double-blind, multicentre, phase 3, randomised placebo-controlled trial, patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC aged 18 years or older, with no previous systemic chemotherapy for lung cancer, with at least one measurable lesion, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 participated. Before randomisation, patients entered an induction phase which consisted of four cycles of induction pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2)) plus cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Patients who did not progress after completion of four cycles of induction and who had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 were stratified according to disease stage (IIIB or IV), ECOG performance status (0 or 1), and induction response (complete or partial response, or stable disease), and randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to receive maintenance therapy with either pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2) every 21 days) plus best supportive care or placebo plus best supportive care until disease progression. Randomisation was done with the Pocock and Simon minimisation method. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00789373., Findings: Of the 1022 patients enrolled, 939 participated in the induction phase. Of these, 539 patients were randomly assigned to receive continuation maintenance with pemetrexed plus best supportive care (n=359) or with placebo plus best supportive care (n=180). Among the 359 patients randomised to continuation maintenance with pemetrexed, there was a significant reduction in the risk of disease progression over the placebo group (HR 0·62, 95% CI 0·49-0·79; p<0·0001). The median progression-free survival, measured from randomisation, was 4·1 months (95% CI 3·2-4·6) for pemetrexed and 2·8 months (2·6-3·1) for placebo. Possibly treatment-related laboratory grade 3-4 adverse events were more common in the pemetrexed group (33 [9%] of 359 patients) than in the placebo group (one [<1%] of 180 patients; p<0·0001), as were non-laboratory grade 3-5 adverse events (32 [9%] of 359 patients in the pemetrexed group; eight [4%] of 180 patients in the placebo group; p=0·080); one possibly treatment-related death was reported in each group. The most common adverse events of grade 3-4 in the pemetrexed group were anaemia (16 [4%] of 359 patients), neutropenia (13 [4%]), and fatigue (15 [4%]). In the placebo group, these adverse events were less common: anaemia (one [<1%] of 180 patients), neutropenia (none), and fatigue (one <1%]). The most frequent serious adverse events were anaemia (eight [2%] of 359 patients in the pemetrexed group vs none in the placebo group) and febrile neutropenia (five [1%] vs none). Discontinuations due to drug-related adverse events occurred in 19 (5%) patients in the pemetrexed group and six (3%) patients in the placebo group., Interpretation: Continuation maintenance with pemetrexed is an effective and well tolerated treatment option for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC with good performance status who have not progressed after induction therapy with pemetrexed plus cisplatin., Funding: Eli Lilly and Company., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Despite the desperate struggle for improvement in the therapy of malignant pleural mesothelioma in previous decades, no standard therapy could be established. Pemetrexed (Alimta), a new multitargeted antifolate, showed significant antitumor activity in combination with cisplatin compared with cisplatin alone in patients with unresectable pleural mesothelioma. Furthermore, this improved efficacy was transformed into a significant symptomatic benefit. These data led to the approval of the drug by the US Food and Drug Administration and recently by the European Medicines Evaluation Agency for this combination in malignant pleural mesothelioma, and consequently founded the first standard of treatment in this disease. This review reflects the development of chemotherapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma, discusses the results of the EMPHACIS trial, and outlines further developments for pemetrexed-containing regimens in malignant pleural mesothelioma.