Search

Background: Amivantamab plus lazertinib (amivantamab-lazertinib) has shown clinically meaningful and durable antitumor activity in patients with previously untreated or osimertinib-pretreated EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor)-mutated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: In a phase 3, international, randomized trial, we assigned, in a 2:2:1 ratio, patients with previously untreated EGFR -mutated (exon 19 deletion or L858R), locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC to receive amivantamab-lazertinib (in an open-label fashion), osimertinib (in a blinded fashion), or lazertinib (in a blinded fashion, to assess the contribution of treatment components). The primary end point was progression-free survival in the amivantamab-lazertinib group as compared with the osimertinib group, as assessed by blinded independent central review., Results: Overall, 1074 patients underwent randomization (429 to amivantamab-lazertinib, 429 to osimertinib, and 216 to lazertinib). The median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the amivantamab-lazertinib group than in the osimertinib group (23.7 vs. 16.6 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.85; P<0.001). An objective response was observed in 86% of the patients (95% CI, 83 to 89) in the amivantamab-lazertinib group and in 85% of those (95% CI, 81 to 88) in the osimertinib group; among patients with a confirmed response (336 in the amivantamab-lazertinib group and 314 in the osimertinib group), the median response duration was 25.8 months (95% CI, 20.1 to could not be estimated) and 16.8 months (95% CI, 14.8 to 18.5), respectively. In a planned interim overall survival analysis of amivantamab-lazertinib as compared with osimertinib, the hazard ratio for death was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.61 to 1.05). Predominant adverse events were EGFR -related toxic effects. The incidence of discontinuation of all agents due to treatment-related adverse events was 10% with amivantamab-lazertinib and 3% with osimertinib., Conclusions: Amivantamab-lazertinib showed superior efficacy to osimertinib as first-line treatment in EGFR -mutated advanced NSCLC. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; MARIPOSA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04487080.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Purpose: Phase III studies of intravenous amivantamab demonstrated efficacy across epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR )-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A subcutaneous formulation could improve tolerability and reduce administration time while maintaining efficacy., Patients and Methods: Patients with EGFR -mutated advanced NSCLC who progressed after osimertinib and platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive subcutaneous or intravenous amivantamab, both combined with lazertinib. Coprimary pharmacokinetic noninferiority end points were trough concentrations (C trough ; on cycle-2-day-1 or cycle-4-day-1) and cycle-2 area under the curve (AUC D1-D15 ). Key secondary end points were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Overall survival (OS) was a predefined exploratory end point., Results: Overall, 418 patients underwent random assignment (subcutaneous group, n = 206; intravenous group, n = 212). Geometric mean ratios of C trough for subcutaneous to intravenous amivantamab were 1.15 (90% CI, 1.04 to 1.26) at cycle-2-day-1 and 1.42 (90% CI, 1.27 to 1.61) at cycle-4-day-1; the cycle-2 AUC D1-D15 was 1.03 (90% CI, 0.98 to 1.09). ORR was 30% in the subcutaneous and 33% in the intravenous group; median PFS was 6.1 and 4.3 months, respectively. OS was significantly longer in the subcutaneous versus intravenous group (hazard ratio for death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.92; nominal P = .02). Fewer patients in the subcutaneous group experienced infusion-related reactions (IRRs; 13% v 66%) and venous thromboembolism (9% v 14%) versus the intravenous group. Median administration time for the first infusion was reduced to 4.8 minutes (range, 0-18) for subcutaneous amivantamab and to 5 hours (range, 0.2-9.9) for intravenous amivantamab. During cycle-1-day-1, 85% and 52% of patients in the subcutaneous and intravenous groups, respectively, considered treatment convenient; the end-of-treatment rates were 85% and 35%, respectively., Conclusion: Subcutaneous amivantamab-lazertinib demonstrated noninferiority to intravenous amivantamab-lazertinib, offering a consistent safety profile with reduced IRRs, increased convenience, and prolonged survival.

Background: Amivantamab-lazertinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus osimertinib in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer [NSCLC; hazard ratio (HR) 0.70; P < 0.001], including those with a history of brain metastases (HR 0.69). Patients with TP53 co-mutations, detectable circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), baseline liver metastases, and those without ctDNA clearance on treatment have poor prognoses. We evaluated outcomes in these high-risk subgroups., Patients and Methods: This analysis included patients with treatment-naive, EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC randomized to amivantamab-lazertinib (n = 429) or osimertinib (n = 429) in MARIPOSA. Pathogenic alterations were identified by next-generation sequencing (NGS) of baseline blood ctDNA with Guardant360 CDx. Ex19del and L858R ctDNA in blood was analyzed at baseline and cycle 3 day 1 (C3D1) with Biodesix droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR)., Results: Baseline ctDNA for NGS of pathogenic alterations was available for 636 patients (amivantamab-lazertinib, n = 320; osimertinib, n = 316). Amivantamab-lazertinib improved median PFS (mPFS) versus osimertinib for patients with TP53 co-mutations {18.2 versus 12.9 months; HR 0.65 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-0.87]; P = 0.003} and for patients with wild-type TP53 [22.1 versus 19.9 months; HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.52-1.07)]. In patients with EGFR-mutant, ddPCR-detectable baseline ctDNA, amivantamab-lazertinib significantly prolonged mPFS versus osimertinib [20.3 versus 14.8 months; HR 0.68 (95% CI 0.53-0.86); P = 0.002]. Amivantamab-lazertinib significantly improved mPFS versus osimertinib in patients without ctDNA clearance at C3D1 [16.5 versus 9.1 months; HR 0.49 (95% CI 0.27-0.87); P = 0.015] and with clearance [24.0 versus 16.5 months; HR 0.64 (95% CI 0.48-0.87); P = 0.004]. Amivantamab-lazertinib significantly prolonged mPFS versus osimertinib among randomized patients with [18.2 versus 11.0 months; HR 0.58 (95% CI 0.37-0.91); P = 0.017] and without baseline liver metastases [24.0 versus 18.3 months; HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.60-0.91); P = 0.004]., Conclusions: Amivantamab-lazertinib effectively overcomes the effect of high-risk features and represents a promising new standard of care for patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: In preclinical models, glucocorticoid receptor (GR) signaling drives resistance to taxane chemotherapy in multiple solid tumors via upregulation of antiapoptotic pathways. ORIC-101 is a potent and selective GR antagonist that was investigated in combination with taxane chemotherapy as an anticancer regimen preclinically and in a phase 1 clinical trial., Patients and Methods: The ability of ORIC-101 to reverse taxane resistance was assessed in cell lines and xenograft models, and a phase 1 study (NCT03928314) was conducted in patients with advanced solid tumors to determine the dose, safety, and antitumor activity of ORIC-101 with nab-paclitaxel., Results: ORIC-101 reversed chemoprotection induced by glucocorticoids in vitro and achieved tumor regressions when combined with paclitaxel in both taxane-naïve and -resistant xenograft models. In the phase 1 study, 21 patients were treated in dose escalation and 62 patients were treated in dose expansion. All patients in dose expansion had previously progressed on a taxane-based regimen. In dose escalation, five objective responses were observed. A preplanned futility analysis in dose expansion showed a 3.2% (95% confidence interval, 0.4-11.2) objective response rate with a median progression-free survival of 2 months (95% confidence interval, 1.8-2.8) across all four cohorts, leading to study termination. Pharmacodynamic analysis of tissue and plasma showed GR pathway downregulation in most patients in cycle 1., Conclusions: ORIC-101 with nab-paclitaxel showed limited clinical activity in taxane-resistant solid tumors. Despite clear inhibition of GR pathway signaling, the insufficient clinical signal underscores the challenges of targeting a single resistance pathway when multiple mechanisms of resistance may be in play., Significance: Glucocorticoid receptor (GR) upregulation is a mechanism of resistance to taxane chemotherapy in preclinical cancer models. ORIC-101 is a small molecule GR inhibitor. In this phase 1 study, ORIC-101 plus nab-paclitaxel did not show meaningful clinical benefit in patients who previously progressed on taxanes despite successful GR pathway downregulation., (©2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Coblockade of lymphocyte activation gene-3 (LAG-3) and PD-1 receptors could provide significant clinical benefit for patients with advanced melanoma. Fianlimab and cemiplimab are high-affinity, human, hinge-stabilized IgG4 monoclonal antibodies, targeting LAG-3 and PD-1, respectively. We report results from a first-in-human phase-I study of fianlimab and cemiplimab safety and efficacy in various malignancies including advanced melanoma., Methods: Patients with advanced melanoma were eligible for enrollment into four cohorts: three for patients without and one for patients with previous anti-PD-1 therapy in the advanced disease setting. Patients were treated with fianlimab 1,600 mg and cemiplimab 350 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks for up to 51 weeks, with an optional additional 51 weeks if clinically indicated. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1 criteria., Results: ORRs were 63% for patients with anti-PD-1-naïve melanoma (cohort-6; n = 40; median follow-up 20.8 months), 63% for patients with systemic treatment-naïve melanoma (cohort-15; n = 40; 11.5 months), and 56% for patients with previous neo/adjuvant treatment melanoma (cohort-16; n = 18, 9.7 months). At a median follow-up of 12.6 months for the combined cohorts (6 + 15 + 16), the ORR was 61.2% and the median progression-free survival (mPFS) 13.3 months (95% CI, 7.5 to not estimated [NE]). In patients (n = 13) with previous anti-PD-1 adjuvant therapy, ORR was 61.5% and mPFS 12 months (95% CI, 1.4 to NE). ORR in patients with previous anti-PD-1 therapy for advanced disease (n = 15) was 13.3% and mPFS 1.5 months (95% CI, 1.3 to 7.7). Treatment-emergent and treatment-related adverse events ≥grade 3 (G3) were observed in 44% and 22% of patients, respectively. Except for increased incidence of adrenal insufficiency (12%-G1-4, 4%-G3-4), no new safety signals were recorded., Conclusion: The current results show a promising benefit-risk profile of fianlimab/cemiplimab combination for patients with advanced melanoma, including those with previous anti-PD-1 therapy in the adjuvant, but not advanced, setting.

Third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), such as osimertinib, have demonstrated efficacy in patients with EGFR -mutant non-small-cell lung cancer; however, almost all patients will eventually relapse. Amivantamab is an EGFR-MET bispecific antibody with immune cell-directing activity that targets activating and resistance EGFR mutations and MET mutations and amplifications. In the ongoing CHRYSALIS study (NCT02609776), amivantamab in combination with lazertinib, a potent, brain-penetrant third-generation EGFR TKI, demonstrated antitumor activity in the treatment-naive and osimertinib-relapsed setting. Here the authors present the methodology for the MARIPOSA study (NCT04487080), a phase 3, multicenter, randomized study designed to compare the efficacy and safety of amivantamab and lazertinib combination therapy versus single-agent osimertinib as first-line treatment for EGFR -mutant non-small-cell lung cancer.

Purpose: Therapies that produce deep and durable responses in patients with metastatic melanoma are needed. This phase II cohort from the international, single-arm PIVOT-02 study evaluated the CD122-preferential interleukin-2 pathway agonist bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG) plus nivolumab (NIVO) in first-line metastatic melanoma., Methods: A total of 41 previously untreated patients with stage III/IV melanoma received BEMPEG 0.006 mg/kg plus NIVO 360 mg once every 3 weeks for ≤ 2 years; 38 were efficacy-evaluable (≥ 1 postbaseline scan). Primary end points were safety and objective response rate (blinded independent central review); other end points included progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), and exploratory biomarkers., Results: At 29.0 months' median follow-up, the objective response rate was 52.6% (20 of 38 patients), and the complete response rate was 34.2% (13 of 38 patients). Median change in size of target lesions from baseline was -78.5% (response-evaluable population); 47.4% (18 of 38 patients) experienced complete clearance of target lesions. Median progression-free survival was 30.9 months (95% CI, 5.3 to not estimable). Median OS was not reached; the 24-month OS rate was 77.0% (95% CI, 60.4 to 87.3). Grade 3 and 4 treatment-related and immune-mediated adverse events occurred in 17.1% (7 of 41) and 4.9% (2 of 41) of patients, respectively. Increased polyfunctional responses in CD8+ and CD4+ T cells were seen in blood after treatment, driven by cytokines with effector functions. Early on-treatment blood biomarkers (CD8+ polyfunctional strength difference and eosinophils) correlated with treatment response., Conclusion: BEMPEG in combination with NIVO was tolerated, with relatively low rates of grade 3 and 4 treatment-related and immune-mediated adverse events. The combination had encouraging antitumor activity in first-line metastatic melanoma, including an extended median progression-free survival. Exploratory analyses associated noninvasive, on-treatment biomarkers with response, before radiologic evidence was observed., Competing Interests: Adi DiabHonoraria: Array BioPharmaConsulting or Advisory Role: Nektar, CureVac, Celgene, IderaResearch Funding: Nektar, Idera, Celgene, Pfizer, Merck, ApexigenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Nektar Scott S. TykodiConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Intellisphere LLC, Natera, Bristol Myers Squibb, ExelixisResearch Funding: Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Calithera Biosciences, Pfizer, Jounce Therapeutics, Nektar, Exelixis, Clinigen GroupPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Patent pending Gregory A. DanielsHonoraria: Sanofi/RegeneronConsulting or Advisory Role: Sanofi/RegeneronSpeakers' Bureau: Regeneron, Array BioPharma, Sanofi/RegeneronResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Amgen, Viralytics, Nektar, Merck Michele MaioStock and Other Ownership Interests: Theravance, Epigen TherapeuticsHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD, Merck, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Alfasigma, Sanofi, LillyConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Merck, Pierre Fabre, AlfasigmaPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: DNA hypomethylating agents for cancer therapyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD, Merck, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Alfasigma Brendan D. CurtiHonoraria: Clinigen Group, NektarConsulting or Advisory Role: MerckResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Galectin Therapeutics, Clinigen GroupPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Biomarkers for OX40 responseTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Agonox Karl D. LewisHonoraria: Array BioPharma, Iovance BiotherapeuticsConsulting or Advisory Role: Array BioPharma, Merck, Roche, Regeneron, Sanofi, Iovance BiotherapeuticsResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech, Merck, Array BioPharma, Incyte, Nektar, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Kartos Therapeutics, OncoSec, Regeneron, Alkermes, Neon Therapeutics, Ultimovacs, Senhwa Biosciences, Replimune, AmgenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck, Roche/Genentech, Regeneron, Neon Therapeutics, AlkermesUncompensated Relationships: Roche/Genentech, Regeneron Sekwon JangConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Novartis, Sanofi, Sun Biopharma, Genentech Ewa KalinkaHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, AstraZeneca, Regeneron, Nektar, RocheConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers SquibbSpeakers' Bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb, RocheResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nektar, AstraZeneca, RocheTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche Igor PuzanovStock and Other Ownership Interests: CelldexConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Merck, Roche, Nouscom, Seneca Therapeutics Alexander I. SpiraStock and Other Ownership Interests: LillyHonoraria: CytomX Therapeutics, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Merck, Takeda, Amgen, Janssen Oncology, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, BayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Array BioPharma, Incyte, Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Mirati Therapeutics, Gritstone Oncology, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Bristol Myers SquibbResearch Funding: Roche, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astellas Pharma, MedImmune, Novartis, Newlink Genetics, Incyte, AbbVie, Ignyta, LAM Therapeutics, Trovagene, Takeda, Macrogenics, CytomX Therapeutics, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Loxo, Arch Therapeutics, Gritstone Oncology, Plexxikon, Amgen, Daiichi Sankyo, ADC Therapeutics, Janssen Oncology, Mirati Therapeutics, Rubius Therapeutics Daniel C. ChoConsulting or Advisory Role: Nektar, Pfizer, Werewolf TherapeuticsExpert Testimony: Genentech, Abbott/AbbVie Shanhong GuanEmployment: Nektar TherapeuticsStock and Other Ownership Interests: Nektar Therapeutics Erika PuenteEmployment: NektarStock and Other Ownership Interests: Nektar Tuan NguyenEmployment: Nektar, Theravance TherapeuticsStock and Other Ownership Interests: Nektar, Theravance Ute HochOther Relationship: Nektar Sue L. CurrieEmployment: NektarStock and Other Ownership Interests: Nektar Wei LinEmployment: Erasca Inc, NektarLeadership: Erasca IncStock and Other Ownership Interests: Nektar, Erasca IncTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Nektar, Erasca Inc Mary A. TagliaferriEmployment: NektarLeadership: Nektar, ENZO BiochemStock and Other Ownership Interests: NektarPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: US 10576121Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Nektar Jonathan ZalevskyEmployment: NektarLeadership: NektarStock and Other Ownership Interests: NektarTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Nektar Mario SznolStock and Other Ownership Interests: Amphivena, Intensity Therapeutics, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Actym Therapeutics, Torque, Nextcure, EvolveImmune Therapeutics, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, GlaxoSmithKlineConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Nektar, Lilly, Adaptimmune, Seattle Genetics, Pierre Fabre, Molecular Partners, AbbVie, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Innate Pharma, Immunocore, Genocea Biosciences, Anaeropharma, Zelluna, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Alligator Bioscience, Servier, Dragonfly Therapeutics, Verastem, Boehringer Ingelheim, Agenus, Numab, BioNTech AG, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Targovax, Sapience Therapeutics, Pfizer, Tessa Therapeutics, OncoSec, Trillium Therapeutics, StCube, Simcha, ITeos TherapeuticsOther Relationship: Haymarket Media, Physicians' Education Resource, DAVAOncology, CEC Oncology Michael E. HurwitzEmployment: Pfizer, Gamida Cell, ArvinasConsulting or Advisory Role: Nektar, Janssen, Crispr Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, ExelixisResearch Funding: Apexigen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Corvus Pharmaceuticals, Lilly, Endocyte, Genentech, Genmab, Innocrin Pharma, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Merck, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Progenics, Sanofi/Aventis, Seattle Genetics, Torque, Unum Therapeutics, Achilles TherapeuticsNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: The Polo-like kinase 1 (PLK1) is a master regulator of mitosis and overexpressed in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We conducted a phase Ib study of the PLK1 inhibitor, onvansertib, in combination with either low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) or decitabine in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) AML., Patients and Methods: Onvansertib was administered orally, in escalating doses, on days 1-5 in combination with either LDAC (20 mg/m 2 ; days 1-10) or decitabine (20 mg/m 2 ; days 1-5) in a 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was to evaluate first-cycle dose-limiting toxicities and the MTD. Secondary and exploratory endpoints included safety, pharmacokinetics, antileukemic activity, and response biomarkers., Results: Forty patients were treated with onvansertib (12-90 mg/m 2 ) in combination with LDAC ( n = 17) or decitabine ( n = 23). Onvansertib was well tolerated with most grades 3 and 4 adverse events related to myelosuppression. In the decitabine arm, the MTD was established at 60 mg/m 2 , and 5 (24%) of the 21 evaluable patients achieved complete remission with or without hematologic count recovery. Decrease in mutant circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) during the first cycle of therapy was associated with clinical response. Engagement of the PLK1 target, TCTP, was measured in circulating blasts and was associated with greater decrease in bone marrow blasts., Conclusions: The onvansertib and decitabine combination was well tolerated and had antileukemic activity particularly in patients with target engagement and decreased mutant ctDNA following treatment. This combination will be further investigated in the ongoing phase II trial., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction/stomach are treated by combination chemotherapy, with minimal improvements in survival. We evaluated adding cetuximab to combination chemotherapy in these patients., Methods: The primary objective was progression-free survival. Secondary objectives were response rate, time to response, duration of response and safety. Treatment Arm 1: docetaxel+oxaliplatin (DOCOX)=docetaxel 60 mg/m(2) plus oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on Day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Arm 2: docetaxel+oxaliplatin+cetuximab (DOCOX+C)=DOCOX with C 400mg/m(2) first dose then 250 mg/m(2) weekly. The protocol was amended to allow collection of tissue to correlate responses with KRAS status., Findings: One hundred fifty patients were enrolled (75/arm). DOCOX/DOCOX+C: gastric 44%/41%, gastroesophageal junction 51%/55%, both 5%/4%. Response rate/arm: 26.5%/38.0%. Median progression-free survival: 4.7/5.1 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.0-5.6/4.3-5.9); 1 year survival: 39.1%/33.0%, median overall survival: 8.5/9.4 months; median duration of response: 7.3/5.6months. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (%) included neutropenia (50%/44%), febrile neutropenia (13%/19%), diarrhoea (12%/17%), fatigue (12%/17%) and leukopenia (7%/14%). Discontinuation was due to progressive disease 39/32 and adverse events 21/34. KRAS was collected on some patients 2 years into the study because of new American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) findings., Interpretation: Cetuximab added to DOCOX may improve response rate minimally; there appears to be no improvement in progression-free survival, overall survival or 1-year survival. Cetuximab added to DOCOX did not produce clinically significant outcomes. Toxicities were consistent with the study drugs' known safety profiles. KRAS mutation was infrequent; no conclusions can be drawn from KRAS response data. ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT00517829., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Carboplatin/paclitaxel chemotherapy with bevacizumab is an accepted standard treatment for advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The development of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) has circumvented many of the infusion difficulties associated with standard solvent-based paclitaxel (in Cremophor) and offers theoretical advantages in efficacy. This trial evaluated the combination of nab-paclitaxel, carboplatin, and bevacizumab in advanced (stage IIIB/IV) nonsquamous NSCLC., Methods: Fifty patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC were enrolled between October 2005 and April 2006; 48 were treated with nab-paclitaxel 300 mg/m2, carboplatin area under the curve = 6, and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 21 days until progression or intolerable toxicity, up to 4 cycles; an additional 2 cycles could be administered to responding patients and the physician's discretion; maintenance bevacizumab was not administered. Patient demographics included: 56% female, median age 67 years (range, 32-83), performance status 0 (52%) or 1 (48%), adenocarcinoma 86%, and stage IV disease 82%. Responding patients received a minimum of 4 cycles. The primary end point was response rate., Results: Response rate was 31% with a stable disease rate of 54%. No complete responses were observed. Median progression-free survival was 9.8 months (range, <1-22.3), and median survival was 16.8 months. Most frequent grades 3 and 4 treatment-related toxicities were neutropenia (54%) and fatigue (17%)., Conclusions: The combination of nab-paclitaxel, carboplatin, and bevacizumab was well tolerated with moderate neutropenia. Adverse events were manageable. Survival results are encouraging. These results indicate that this combination has promising activity as first-line therapy in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC.