Search

Purpose In patients with epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR) mutation-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), there is an unmet need for EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors with improved CNS penetration and activity against CNS metastases, either at initial diagnosis or time of progression. We report the first comparative evidence of osimertinib CNS efficacy versus platinum-pemetrexed from a phase III study (AURA3; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02151981) in patients with EGFR T790M-positive advanced NSCLC who experience disease progression with prior EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment. Methods Patients with asymptomatic, stable CNS metastases were eligible for enrollment and were randomly assigned 2:1 to osimertinib 80 mg once daily or platinum-pemetrexed. A preplanned subgroup analysis was conducted in patients with measurable and/or nonmeasurable CNS lesions on baseline brain scan by blinded independent central neuroradiological review. The CNS evaluable for response set included only patients with one or more measurable CNS lesions. The primary objective for this analysis was CNS objective response rate (ORR). Results Of 419 patients randomly assigned to treatment, 116 had measurable and/or nonmeasurable CNS lesions, including 46 patients with measurable CNS lesions. At data cutoff (April 15, 2016), CNS ORR in patients with one or more measurable CNS lesions was 70% (21 of 30; 95% CI, 51% to 85%) with osimertinib and 31% (5 of 16; 95% CI, 11% to 59%) with platinum-pemetrexed (odds ratio, 5.13; 95% CI, 1.44 to 20.64; P = .015); the ORR was 40% (30 of 75; 95% CI, 29% to 52%) and 17% (7 of 41; 95% CI, 7% to 32%), respectively, in patients with measurable and/or nonmeasurable CNS lesions (odds ratio, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.33 to 8.81; P = .014). Median CNS duration of response in patients with measurable and/or nonmeasurable CNS lesions was 8.9 months (95% CI, 4.3 months to not calculable) for osimertinib and 5.7 months (95% CI, 4.4 to 5.7 months) for platinum-pemetrexed; median CNS progression-free survival was 11.7 months and 5.6 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.69; P = .004). Conclusion Osimertinib demonstrated superior CNS efficacy versus platinum-pemetrexed in T790M-positive advanced NSCLC.

Purpose Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a frequent and debilitating adverse effect (AE) of opioids-common analgesics for cancer pain. We investigated the efficacy and safety of a peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonist, naldemedine (S-297995), for OIC, specifically in patients with cancer. Patients and Methods This phase III trial consisted of a 2-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (COMPOSE-4) and an open-label, 12-week extension study (COMPOSE-5). In COMPOSE-4, eligible adults with OIC and cancer were randomly assigned on a 1:1 basis to receive once-daily oral naldemedine 0.2 mg or placebo. The primary end point was the proportion of spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) responders (≥ 3 SBMs/week and an increase of ≥ 1 SBM/week from baseline). The primary end point of COMPOSE-5 was safety. Results In COMPOSE-4, 193 eligible patients were randomly assigned to naldemedine (n = 97) or placebo (n = 96). The proportion of SBM responders in COMPOSE-4 was significantly greater with naldemedine than with placebo (71.1% [69 of 97 patients] v 34.4% [33 of 96 patients]; P < .0001). A greater change from baseline was observed with naldemedine than with placebo in the frequency of SBMs/week (5.16 v 1.54; P < .0001), SBMs with complete bowel evacuation/week (2.76 v 0.71; P < .0001), and SBMs without straining/week (3.85 v 1.17; P = .0005). In COMPOSE-4, more patients treated with naldemedine than with placebo reported treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) (44.3% [43 of 97 patients] v 26.0% [25 of 96 patients]; P = .01); in COMPOSE-5, 105 (80.2%) of 131 of patients reported TEAEs. Diarrhea was the most frequently reported TEAE in COMPOSE-4 (19.6% [19 of 97 patients] v 7.3% [seven of 96 patients] with naldemedine v placebo) and COMPOSE-5 (18.3% [24 of 131 patients] with naldemedine). Naldemedine was not associated with signs or symptoms of opioid withdrawal and had no notable impact on opioid-mediated analgesia. Conclusion Once-daily oral naldemedine 0.2 mg effectively treated OIC and was generally well tolerated in patients with OIC and cancer.

Purpose This randomized, double-blind, multicenter study aimed to determine the dose of naldemedine, a peripherally-acting μ-opioid receptor antagonist, for future trials by comparing the efficacy and safety of three doses of naldemedine versus placebo in patients with cancer and opioid-induced constipation. Methods Patients ≥ 18 years old with cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2, who had been receiving a stable regimen of opioid analgesics for ≥ 2 weeks, had at least one constipation symptom despite laxative use, and no more than five spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) during the past 14 days, were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to oral, once-daily naldemedine 0.1, 0.2, or 0.4 mg, or placebo, for 14 days. The primary end point was change in SBM frequency per week from baseline during the treatment period. Secondary end points included SBM responder rates, change from baseline in the frequency of SBM without straining, and complete SBM. Safety was also assessed. Results Of 227 patients who were randomly assigned, 225 were assessed for efficacy (naldemedine 0.1 mg, n = 55; 0.2 mg, n = 58; 0.4 mg, n = 56; placebo, n = 56) and 226 for safety. Change in SBM frequency (primary end point) was higher with all naldemedine doses versus placebo ( P < .05 for all comparisons), as were SBM responder rates and change in complete SBM frequency. Change in SBM frequency without straining was significantly improved with naldemedine 0.2 and 0.4 (but not 0.1) mg versus placebo (at least P < .05). Treatment-emergent adverse events were more common with naldemedine (0.1 mg: 66.1%; 0.2 mg: 67.2%; 0.4 mg: 78.6%) than placebo (51.8%); the most common treatment-emergent adverse event was diarrhea. Conclusion Fourteen-day treatment with naldemedine significantly improved opioid-induced constipation in patients with cancer and was generally well tolerated. Naldemedine 0.2 mg was selected for phase III studies.

Purpose: The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase has been an important target for non-small-cell lung cancer. Several EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are currently approved, and both gefitinib and erlotinib are the most well-known first-generation EGFR-TKIs. This randomized phase III study was conducted to investigate the difference between these two EGFR-TKIs., Patients and Methods: Previously treated patients with lung adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to receive gefitinib or erlotinib. This study aimed to investigate the noninferiority of gefitinib compared with erlotinib. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: Five hundred sixty-one patients were randomly assigned, including 401 patients (71.7%) with EGFR mutation. All baseline factors (except performance status) were balanced between the arms. Median PFS and overall survival times for gefitinib and erlotinib were 6.5 and 7.5 months (hazard ratio [HR], 1.125; 95% CI, 0.940 to 1.347; P = .257) and 22.8 and 24.5 months (HR, 1.038; 95% CI, 0.833 to 1.294; P = .768), respectively. The response rates for gefitinib and erlotinib were 45.9% and 44.1%, respectively. Median PFS times in EGFR mutation-positive patients receiving gefitinib versus erlotinib were 8.3 and 10.0 months, respectively (HR, 1.093; 95% CI, 0.879 to 1.358; P = .424). The primary grade 3 or 4 toxicities were rash (2.2% for gefitinib v 18.1% for erlotinib) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/aspartate aminotransferase (AST) elevation (6.1%/13.0% for gefitinib v 2.2%/3.3% for erlotinib)., Conclusion: The study did not demonstrate noninferiority of gefitinib compared with erlotinib in terms of PFS in patients with lung adenocarcinoma according to the predefined criteria., (© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: New molecular targeted agents are needed for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who progress while receiving erlotinib, gefitinib, or both. Afatinib, an oral irreversible ErbB family blocker, has preclinical activity in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR [ErbB1]) mutant models with EGFR-activating mutations, including T790M., Patients and Methods: This was a Japanese single-arm phase II trial conducted in patients with stage IIIB to IV pulmonary adenocarcinoma who progressed after ≥ 12 weeks of prior erlotinib and/or gefitinib. Patients received afatinib 50 mg per day. The primary end point was objective response rate (complete response or partial response) by independent review. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety., Results: Of 62 treated patients, 45 (72.6%) were EGFR mutation positive in their primary tumor according to local and/or central laboratory analyses. Fifty-one patients (82.3%) fulfilled the criteria of acquired resistance to erlotinib and/or gefitinib. Of 61 evaluable patients, five (8.2%; 95% CI, 2.7% to 18.1%) had a confirmed objective response rate (partial response). Median PFS was 4.4 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.6 months), and median OS was 19.0 months (95% CI, 14.9 months to not achieved). Two patients had acquired T790M mutations: L858R + T790M, and deletion in exon 19 + T790M; they had stable disease for 9 months and 1 month, respectively. The most common afatinib-related adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (100%) and rash/acne (91.9%). Treatment-related AEs leading to afatinib discontinuation were experienced by 18 patients (29%), of whom four also had progressive disease., Conclusion: Afatinib demonstrated modest but noteworthy efficacy in patients with NSCLC who had received third- or fourth-line treatment and who progressed while receiving erlotinib and/or gefitinib, including those with acquired resistance to erlotinib, gefitinib, or both.