Search

Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangements and resulting fusion proteins occur in 3%-7% of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), conferring sensitivity to treatment with ALK T...

Background Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) correlate with adverse prognosis in patients with breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer. Little data are available for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Materials and Methods We designed a multicenter prospective observational study to assess the correlation between CTC counts and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic RCC treated with an antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor as a first-line regimen; overall survival (OS) and response were secondary objectives. CTC counts were enumerated by the CellSearch system at four time points: day 0 of treatment, day 28, day 56 and then at progression, or at 12 months in the absence of progression. Results One hundred ninety-five eligible patients with a median age of 69 years were treated with sunitinib (77.5%) or pazopanib (21%). At baseline, 46.7% of patients had one or more CTCs per milliliter (range, 1 to 263). Thirty patients had at least three CTCs, with a median PFS of 5.8 versus 15 months in the remaining patients (p = .002; hazard ratio [HR], 1.99), independently of the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium score at multivariate analysis (HR, 1.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16–3.14). Patients with at least three CTCs had a shorter estimated OS of 13.8 months versus 52.8 months in those with fewer than three CTCs (p = .003; HR, 1.99; multivariate analysis HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.95–2.93). Baseline CTC counts did not correlate with response; neither did having CTC sequencing counts greater than or equal to one, two, three, four, or five. Conclusion We provide prospective evidence that the presence of three or more CTCs at baseline is associated with a significantly shorter PFS and OS in patients with metastatic RCC. Implications for Practice This prospective study evaluated whether the presence of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in the peripheral blood correlates with activity of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This study demonstrated that almost half of patients with metastatic RCC have at least one CTC in their blood and that those patients with at least three CTCs are at increased risk of early progressive disease and early death due to RCC. Studies incorporating CTC counts in the prognostic algorithms of metastatic RCC are warranted.

Purpose We conducted a phase 3 randomized clinical trial to assess whether radical hemithoracic radiation therapy (RHR) compared with palliative radiation therapy (PR) can achieve overall survival (OS) advantages in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Methods and Materials From August 2014 to May 2018, patients with histologically diagnosed nonmetastatic MPM, who underwent nonradical lung-sparing surgery and chemotherapy (CHT), were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive RHR or PR. RHR total dose to the involved pleural cavity was 50 Gy in 25 fractions, and the gross residual disease received a simultaneous integrated boost of 60 Gy. The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints were local control, distant metastasis-free survival, progression-free survival, and acute and late toxicity rates. A sample size of 108 patients considering a type I error (α) of 0.05 and a statistical power of 80% was calculated to prove that RHR could improve the 2-year OS. OS was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test (2-sided) tested differences between arms. The univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazard model. Possible prognostic factors investigated: age, sex, performance status, lung surgery, gross residual disease, and histology. Results One hundred eight patients were randomized: 53 to the PR arm and 55 to the RHR arm. Median follow-up was 14.6 months. The 2-year OS rate was 58% in the RHR arm versus 28% in the PR arm (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.95; P = .031). In the RHR arm: 11 patients experienced acute toxicity grade ≥3, 17 patients had grade 3 to 4 late toxicity. Nine patients experience a grade ≥2 pneumonitis, including 1 patient with grade 5. Conclusions RHR significantly improves survival in patients with MPM treated with nonradical lung-sparing surgery and CHT compared with palliative treatments, although it is associated with a nonnegligible toxicity profile.

Background Osimertinib is a third-generation EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of T790M-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. More recently, osimertinib demonstrated improved disease control compared to other EGFR-TKIs. Multiple mechanisms of resistance have been described in T790M-positive patients who experienced treatment failure with osimertinib. Case report We report the case of a 78-year-old non-smoker woman with stage IV EGFR L858R-positive lung adenocarcinoma presented with T790M mutation after five years of treatment with gefitinib. The patient was started on osimertinib, but after two and a half years of treatment experienced disease progression. The analyses of circulating tumor DNA using next-generation sequencing showed, together with the pre-existing T790M and exon 21 L858R, the presence of the EGFR C797G resistance mutation. Conclusion Our case report revealed a rare EGFR-dependent acquired resistance mutation to osimertinib in circulating tumor DNA. Liquid biopsy appears to be a promising resource to understand the biology of osimertinib resistance by clonal evolution monitoring and the identification of novel resistance mechanisms.

Background Several strategies have been investigated to improve the 4% survival advantage of adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this investigator-initiated study we aimed to evaluate the predictive utility of the messenger RNA (mRNA) expression levels of excision repair cross complementation group 1 (ERCC1) and thymidylate synthase (TS) as assessed in resected tumor. Patients and methods Seven hundred and seventy-three completely resected stage II-III NSCLC patients were enrolled and randomly assigned in each of the four genomic subgroups to investigator’s choice of platinum-based chemotherapy (C, n = 389) or tailored chemotherapy (T, n = 384). All anticancer drugs were administered according to standard doses and schedules. Stratification factors included stage and smoking status. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival (OS). Results Six hundred and ninety patients were included in the primary analysis. At a median follow-up of 45.9 months, 85 (24.6%) and 70 (20.3%) patients died in arms C and T, respectively. Five-year survival for patients in arms C and T was of 65.4% (95% CI (confidence interval): 58.5% to 71.4%) and 72.9% (95% CI: 66.5% to 78.3%), respectively. The estimated hazard ratio (HR) was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.56-1.06, P value: 0.109) for arm T versus arm C. HR for recurrence-free survival was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.69-1.14, P value: 0.341) for arm T versus arm C. Grade 3-5 toxicities were more frequently reported in arm C than in arm T. Conclusion In completely resected stage II-III NSCLC tailoring adjuvant chemotherapy conferred a non-statistically significant trend for OS favoring the T arm. In terms of safety, the T arm was associated with better efficacy/toxicity ratio related to the different therapeutic choices in the experimental arm.

Background:Lung cancer is the most frequent cause of cancer-related death. In the last decades, the introduction of targeted therapies and more recently, of immunotherapy, has led to significant improvements in different outcomes of this malignant neoplasm.Objective:The present review provides a balanced overview of most recent targeted therapies and immunotherapies patented for the treatment of lung cancer.Methods:An extensive scientific literature and patent databases search were performed to identify peerreviewed studies containing information on recently patented drugs for the treatment of lung cancer, with a particular focus on their safety data and recently patented combinations.Results:The development of therapies directed to different pathways involved in the tumor angiogenesis, proliferation, and metastasis has transformed the clinical practice of lung malignancies. Several clinical trials have shown an improvement in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with advanced/metastatic lung cancer. Safety data, extracted from clinical trials and from the WHO global database of adverse drug reactions (VigiAccessTM database), show that recently patented drugs for the treatment of lung cancer are well-tolerated and most of the adverse events reported are mild to moderate.Conclusion:Currently, a consistent number of new drugs and combinations have been introduced for the treatment of patients with advanced-stage lung cancer. Safety data remain essential to better assess the long-term risk/benefit ratio of these valuable emerging therapies. The new patents’ development could provide further significant improvements for lung cancer treatment.

Lorlatinib; Càncer de pulmó de cèl·lules no petites; ALK TKI de segona generació Lorlatinib; Cáncer de pulmón de células no pequeñas; ALK TKI de segunda generación Lorlatinib; Non-small-cell lung cancer; Second-generation ALK TKIs Background Lorlatinib, a potent, brain-penetrant, third-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), has substantial activity against ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study assessed the overall, intracranial, and extracranial efficacy of lorlatinib in ALK-positive NSCLC that progressed on second-generation ALK TKIs. Patients and methods In the ongoing phase II study (NCT01970865), patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC treated with ≥1 prior second-generation ALK TKI ± chemotherapy were enrolled in expansion cohorts (EXP) based on treatment history. Overall, intracranial and extracranial antitumor activity were assessed independently per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1. Results Of the 139 patients with ≥1 prior second-generation ALK TKI (EXP3B-5), 28 received one prior second-generation ALK TKI (EXP3B), 65 two prior ALK TKIs (EXP4), and 46 three prior ALK TKIs (EXP5). In EXP3B-5, the objective response rate (ORR) [95% confidence intervals] was 39.6% (31.4-48.2), intracranial ORR (IC-ORR) was 56.1% (42.4-69.3), extracranial ORR (EC-ORR) was 36.7% (28.7-45.3), median duration of response (DOR) was 9.6 months [5.6-16.7; IC-DOR, 12.4 (6.0-37.1); EC-DOR, 9.7 (6.1-33.3)], median progression-free survival was 6.6 (5.4-7.4) months, and median overall survival was 20.7 months (16.1-30.3). In EXP3B, the ORR was 42.9% (24.5-62.8), the IC-ORR was 66.7% (29.9-92.5), and the EC-ORR was 32.1% (15.9-52.4). In EXP4 and EXP5, the ORR was 38.7% (29.6-48.5), the IC-ORR was 54.2% (39.2-68.6), and the EC-ORR was 37.8% (28.8-47.5). Conclusions Lorlatinib had clinically meaningful intracranial and extracranial antitumor activity in the post-second-generation ALK TKI setting, with elevated intracranial versus extracranial ORR, particularly in patients with fewer lines of therapy. This work was supported by Pfizer Inc. (no grant number).

Objective: To report the safety and efficacy results of patients enrolled in the Italian Nivolumab Renal Cell Cancer Expanded Access Programme. Patients and Methods: Patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) previously treated with agents targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway were eligible to receive nivolumab 3 mg/kg once every 2 weeks. Patients included in the analysis had received ≥1 dose of nivolumab and were monitored for adverse events (AEs) using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v.4.0. Results: A total of 389 patients were enrolled between July 2015 and April 2016, of whom 18% were aged ≥75 years, 6.7% had non-clear cell RCC, 49.6% had bone and 8.2% brain metastases, and 79% had received ≥2 previous lines of therapy. The most common any-grade treatment-related AEs were fatigue (13%) and rash (9%). Twenty-two patients (5.7%) discontinued treatment because of AEs. There were no treatment-related deaths. The objective response rate was 23.1%. At a median follow-up of 12 months, the median progression-free survival was 4.5 months (95% confidence interval 3.7–6.2) and the 12-month overall survival rate was 63%. Similar survival rates were reported among patients with non-clear-cell histology, elderly patients, those with bone and/or brain metastases, and those who had received prior first-line sunitinib or pazopanib, or prior everolimus. Conclusion: The safety and efficacy observed were consistent with those reported in the pivotal Checkmate 025 trial. Results in patients with non-clear-cell mRCC who were elderly, pretreated with everolimus, and had bone and/or brain metastases encourage the use of nivolumab in these categories of patients. © 2018 The Authors BJU International

Background Pembrolizumab is the first-line standard of care for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a PD-L1 tumour proportion score (TPS) ≥ 50%. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) 2 patients may receive pembrolizumab, despite the absence of sustaining evidence. Patients and methods GOIRC-2018-01 is a multicentre, retrospective, observational study. PS 2 NSCLC patients with a PD-L1 TPS ≥50% receiving first-line pembrolizumab from June 2017 to December 2018 at 21 Italian institutions were included. Clinical-pathological characteristics were correlated with disease response and survival outcomes; adverse events were recorded. The primary objective was 6-months progression-free rate (6-months PFR). Results One hundred fifty-three patients (median age 70 years) were enrolled. At a median follow-up of 18.2 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 2.4 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI, 1.6–2.5) and 3.0 months (95% CI 2.4–3.5), respectively. 6-months PFR was 27% (95% CI 21–35%). Patients with a PS 2 determined by comorbidities (n = 41) had significantly better outcomes compared with disease burden-induced PS 2 (n = 112). Indeed, 6-months PFR was 49% versus 19%, median PFS 5.6 versus 1.8 months and OS 11.8 versus 2.8 months, respectively. Additional potential prognostic factors (radiotherapy, antibiotics, steroids received before pembrolizumab) correlated with clinical outcomes. The determinant of PS 2 resulted the only factor independently impacting on both PFS and OS. No toxicity issues emerged. Conclusions Outcomes of PS 2 NSCLC patients with PD-L1 TPS ≥50% receiving first-line pembrolizumab were globally dismal but strongly dependent on the reason conditioning the poor PS itself.

Summary 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.

Background The use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) of ALK is the therapy of choice for ALK-fusion patients. Unfortunately, all patients under this kind of treatment eventually develop acquired resistance through several well-known mechanisms, such as acquisition of a secondary mutation within the kinase domain, activation of a bypass signaling pathway, or a histological change like small-cell lung cancer transformation. At the time of progression, a tissue re-biopsy may give important molecular and morphological information regarding the mechanisms driving resistance to ALK TKIs. However, this procedure is not always feasible and it may not reflect the tumor heterogeneity, and therefore gives incomplete information. To overcome these drawbacks, the analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) isolated from plasma, the so-called liquid biopsy, is emerging as a noninvasive and useful tool for detecting resistance mutations. Secondary resistance mutations are common in second-generation TKIs resistant patients and among these, Gly1202Arg (p.G1202R) emerged as the most frequent mutation. Case presentation We have treated an ALK-positive lung adenocarcinoma patient with a sequential strategy of ALK TKIs. Patient follow-up was performed combining clinical, radiological, and molecular profiling. ctDNA was isolated from plasma and by means of ultra-deep next generation sequencing; we searched for secondary ALK resistance mutations on exons 21-25. ALK mutation Gly1202Arg (G1202R) was detected. We have documented consistency between plasma levels of G1202R mutation and radiological progression or improvement. Conclusion Liquid biopsy appears to be a promising tool to anticipate progression and to drive the therapeutic strategy based upon ALK resistance mutations.

BACKGROUND: Brigatinib, a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, has robust efficacy in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that is refractory to crizotinib. The efficacy of brigatinib, as compared with crizotinib, in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who have not previously received an ALK inhibitor is unclear. METHODS: In an open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who had not previously received ALK inhibitors to receive brigatinib at a dose of 180 mg once daily (with a 7-day lead-in period at 90 mg) or crizotinib at a dose of 250 mg twice daily. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included the objective response rate and intracranial response. The first interim analysis was planned when approximately 50% of 198 expected events of disease progression or death had occurred. RESULTS: A total of 275 patients underwent randomization; 137 were assigned to brigatinib and 138 to crizotinib. At the first interim analysis (99 events), the median follow-up was 11.0 months in the brigatinib group and 9.3 months in the crizotinib group. The rate of progression-free survival was higher with brigatinib than with crizotinib (estimated 12-month progression-free survival, 67% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 56 to 75] vs. 43% [95% CI, 32 to 53]; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.74]; P

Introduction: Tivozanib is a potent and selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 (VEGFR-1), VEGFR-2, and VEGFR-3, recently approved in Europe for the first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Methods: Retrospective analysis of safety and activity of tivozanib administered at 1.34 mg daily (3 weeks on, 1 week off) within a compassionate-use program to patients with mRCC with no prior systemic treatment in Italy. Results: From August 2018 to April 2019, 64 patients have started tivozanib in 9 oncology units. The median age was 67.5 years (range 40–85), 62.5% males. According to International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium criteria, 27.1% of patients were good prognosis, 57.6% intermediate, and 15.3% poor. Primary tumor had been removed in 71.9% of patients. Histology was clear cell 89%, papillary 4.7%, and unclassified 6.3%. The response rate was 34.4%, stable disease 40.6%, and progression 15.6%. Grade 3–4 toxicities were 7.8% hypertension, 4.7% anemia, 3.1% mucositis, 3.1% asthenia, 1.6% diarrhea, 1.6% anorexia, 1.6% worsening of renal function, and 3.1% cardiac events. Dose reduction to 0.89 mg was applied to 17.2% of patients, and the discontinuation rate due to toxicity was 5.8%. Median progression-free survival was 12.4 months, with 68.7% of patients alive at 12 months. The developing of hypertension predicted increased progression-free survival at multivariate analysis (HR, 0.128; 95% CI, 0.03–0.59; p = 0.008). Conclusions: Tivozanib showed good activity and favorable safety profile in a real-world cohort of unselected patients with mRCC. Predictive biomarkers of response to antiangiogenic therapy are urgently needed in order to identify RCC patients who could still receive a monotherapy with VEGFR inhibitors in the first line.

Background: The RESORT trial showed no longer relapse free survival (RFS) with sorafenib following radical metastasectomy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. We present the updated 42-month follow-...

Introduction Ceritinib, 750 mg fasted, is approved for treatment of patients with ALK receptor tyrosine kinase gene (ALK)-rearranged (ALK-positive) NSCLC previously treated with crizotinib. Part 1 of the ASCEND-8 study determined whether administering ceritinib, 450 mg or 600 mg, with a low-fat meal may enhance gastrointestinal (GI) tolerability versus 750 mg fasted in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC while maintaining similar exposure. Methods ASCEND-8 is a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 1 study. Part 1 investigated the steady-state pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of ceritinib, 450 mg or 600 mg, taken with a low-fat meal versus 750 mg fasted in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who were either treatment naive or pretreated with chemotherapy and/or crizotinib. Part 2 will assess efficacy and safety of ceritinib in treatment-naive patients. Results As of June 16, 2016, 137 patients were randomized (450 mg fed [n = 44], 600 mg fed [n = 47], and 750 mg fasted [n = 46]); 135 patients received ceritinib. Median follow-up duration was 4.14 months. At steady state, relative to 750 mg fasted, 450 mg with food demonstrated comparable PK as assessed by maximum (peak) concentration of drug in plasma and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to 24 hours, whereas 600 mg with food demonstrated approximately 25% higher PK. Relative to 750 mg fasted, 450 mg with food was associated with a lower proportion of patients with GI toxicities, mostly grade 1 (diarrhea [43.2%], nausea [29.5%], and vomiting [18.2%]); there were no grade 3 or 4 events, study drug discontinuations, or serious AEs due to GI toxicities. Conclusion Ceritinib, 450 mg with food, had similar exposure and a more favorable GI safety profile than ceritinib, 750 mg in fasted patients with ALK-positive NSCLC.

BACKGROUND: The current standard initial therapy for advanced ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a second-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) such as alectinib. The optimal next-line therapy after failure of a second-generation ALK TKI remains to be established; however, standard options include the third generation ALK TKI lorlatinib or platinum/pemetrexed-based chemotherapy. The efficacy of platinum/pemetrexed-based chemotherapy has not been evaluated in patients refractory to second-generation TKIs. METHODS: This was a retrospective study performed at three institutions. Patients were eligible if they had advanced ALK-positive NSCLC refractory to ≥1 second-generation ALK TKI(s) and had received platinum/pemetrexed-based chemotherapy. RESULTS: Among 58 patients eligible for this study, 37 had scans evaluable for response with measurable disease at baseline. The confirmed objective response rate to platinum/pemetrexed-based chemotherapy was 29.7% (11/37; 95% CI, 15.9% to 47.0%), with median duration of response of 6.4 months (95% CI, 1.6 months to not reached). The median progression-free survival (PFS) for the entire cohort was 4.3 months (95% CI, 2.9 to 5.8 months). PFS was longer in patients who received platinum/pemetrexed in combination with an ALK TKI, compared to those who received platinum/pemetrexed alone (6.8 months vs 3.2 months, respectively; HR 0.33, p=0.025). CONCLUSIONS: Platinum/pemetrexed-based chemotherapy shows modest efficacy in ALK-positive NSCLC after failure of second-generation ALK TKIs. The activity may be higher if administered with an ALK TKI, suggesting a potential role for continued ALK inhibition.

Introduction: In an earlier report of the ASCEND-8 study (open-label, phase I, three-arm study, treatment-naive patients and pre-treated patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC), it was shown that ceritinib 450 mg with food had comparable exposure and better gastrointestinal tolerability than 750-mg fasted.Methods: Here, we report efficacy and updated safety data from primary efficacy analysis of the ASCEND-8 study. Key secondary endpoints were overall response rate and duration of response, assessed by blinded independent review committee (BIRC) using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1.Results: In total, 306 patients were randomized to ceritinib 450-mg fed (n = 108) or 600-mg fed (n = 87) or 750-mg fasted (n = 111), of which 304 patients were included in safety analysis and 198 treatment-naive patients (ALK receptor tyrosine kinase [ALK]-positive by immunohistochemistry) were included in the efficacy analysis (450-mg fed [n = 73], 600-mg fed [n = 51], and 750-mg fasted [n = 74]). The BIRC-assessed overall response rate was 78.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 66.9-86.9), 72.5% (95% CI: 58.3-84.1), and 75.7% (95% CI: 64.3-84.9), respectively; and the median duration of response (months) by BIRC was not estimable (NE) (95% CI: 11.2-NE), 20.7 (95% CI: 15.8-NE), and 15.4 (95% CI: 8.3-NE), respectively. Based on the safety analysis (n = 304), the 450-mg fed arm showed the highest median relative dose intensity (100% versus 78.5% versus 83.7%), lowest proportion of patients with dose reductions (24.1% versus 65.1% versus 60.9%), and lowest proportion of patients with gastrointestinal toxicities (75.9% versus 82.6% versus 91.8%).Conclusion: Ceritinib at a dose of 450 mg with food compared to 750-mg fasted showed consistent efficacy and less gastrointestinal toxicity. (C) 2019 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Purpose: Inflammation indexes and body mass index (BMI) are easily evaluated, predict survival, and are potentially modifiable. We evaluated the potential association of inflammatory indexes and BMI with the clinical outcome of patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) undergoing immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Experimental Design: A prospective cohort of patients with metastatic RCC treated with nivolumab enrolled in the Italian Expanded Access Program from July 2015 through April 2016 was examined. Reference measures of inflammation were identified for neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) Results: Among 313 evaluable patients, 235 (75.1%) were male, and median age was 65 years (range, 40–84 years), with 105 (33.69%) ≥70 years. In univariate analysis, age, performance status, BMI, SII, NLR, and PLR were able to predict outcome. In multivariate analyses, SII ≥1,375, BMI Conclusions: Normal BMI combined with inflammation tripled the risk of death, suggesting that these biomarkers are critical prognostic factors for OS in patients with RCC treated with nivolumab.

To report criticisms and barriers to the “real-life” application of international guidelines and recent developments in the management of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Italy. Three 2-day courses were organized. During the first day, experts in different fields of thoracic oncology gave their lecture on diagnosis and therapy for locally advanced NSCLC. During the second day, all participants were divided into four groups to discuss on a clinical case as a multidisciplinary team (MDT). The aim was to stimulate the discussion on practical issues in the management of NSCLC patients in the real-life practice. A total of 196 physicians were involved in the courses as learners. Invasive diagnosis of nodal disease for staging purposes, a priori definition of “surgical resectability” and a regular MDT with all crucial participants available were the three main key points identified for a good management of these patients. The main barriers to the clinical application of a good diagnostic and therapeutic approach to the patient were the absence of a regular and complete MDT in the South and Centre of Italy, while in the North of Italy, time for discussion of clinical cases in the MDT and waiting lists for staging and therapeutic interventions were deemed as the major concerns. The meetings showed that diagnosis and treatment of locally advanced NSCLC are still extremely variable between different Italian regions. Logistic issues, waiting lists, paucity of well-trained staff and expertise seem to be the main barriers to international guidelines application.

Objectives In the most of cases, for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who progressed to previous immune checkpoint inhibitors (CKI) administered as first- or as second-line therapy, chemotherapy (CT) remains the only viable options in the absence of “druggable” mutations. We aimed to explore the efficacy of salvage chemotherapy after immunotherapy (SCAI) in advanced NSCLC patients. Materials and Methods We designed a retrospective, multicenter study, involving 20 Italian centers, with the primary objective of describing the clinical outcome of advanced NSCLC patients treated with SCAI at the participating institutions from November 2013 to July 2019. The primary endpoint of the study was represented by overall survival (OS), defined as the time from CT initiation to death. Secondary outcome endpoints of the SCAI (progression free survival, PFS, objective response rate, ORR and toxicity) and explorative biomarkers (lactate dehydrogenase, LDH, and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, NLR during immunotherapy) were also analyzed. Results In our study population of 342 NSCLC patients, SCAI obtained a median OS of 6.8 months (95 % confidence interval, CI 5.5–8.1), median PFS of 4.1 months (95 % CI 3.4−4.8) and ORR of 22.8 %. A “Post-CKI score” was constructed by combining significant predictors of OS at the multivariate analyses (sex, ECOG PS, disease control with prior immunotherapy), Harrell’C was 0.65, (95 % CI:0.59−0.71). Conclusions Despite the late-line settings, our findings support the hypothesis that previous immunotherapy might increase the sensitivity of the tumor to the subsequent chemotherapy. The “Post-CKI score” was clinically effective in successfully discriminating three distinct prognostic subgroups of patients after the failure of CKI, representing a possibly useful tool for the tailored decision-making process of advanced treatment-line settings in NSCLC.

Objectives To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from a phase 1/2 study (NCT01970865) in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)- or ROS1-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with lorlatinib 100 mg once daily. Materials and methods PRO measures, including global quality of life (QoL), functioning domains and symptoms, were assessed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and the 13-item Lung Cancer (QLQ-LC13) module. Mean changes of absolute scores from baseline were assessed. Percentages of patients showing improvement, stability or worsening on each scale were reported, with a change of ≥10 points considered clinically meaningful (CM). Results 255 patients completed baseline and ≥1 post-baseline PRO assessment. Most patients had CM improvement (42.4 %) or stable (38.0 %) scores for global QoL. Functioning domains with the greatest proportion of patients with improved scores were role (37.6 %) and emotional (36.9 %); only one domain had more patients showing worsening than improving function (cognitive [24.3 % vs 22.4 %]). Most patients showed improved or stable scores for disease-related symptoms. No QLQ-C30 symptom domains had more patients worsening than improving. Symptoms on the QLQ-C30 scale with the greatest proportion of patients with improved scores were fatigue (49.4 %) and insomnia (46.3 %). Four QLQ-LC13 domains had more patients worsening than improving (two most affected were peripheral neuropathy [37.3 % vs 13.7 %] and alopecia [19.2 % vs 13.3 %]). Symptoms on the QLQ-LC13 scale with the greatest proportion of patients with improved scores were cough (42.7 %) and pain in other parts (32.9 %). Conclusions Lorlatinib treatment showed CM improvement from baseline in global QOL that was maintained over time. Additionally, there were improvements in physical, emotional, social, and role functioning. Improvements were shown in appetite loss and key symptoms such as pain, dyspnea, cough and fatigue; a worsening in peripheral neuropathy was noted.

Treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer has changed in the last two decades, with many new drugs, mostly target agents, included in the algorithm, improvement of progression free survival and overall survival, but also higher costs for health systems or health insurances. Herein, we analyze the clinical effectiveness of target therapies for non-small cell lung cancer, according to their clinically meaningful outcome criteria and their cost impact.

// Elisa De Carlo 1 , Maria Chiara Del Savio 1 , Jerry Polesel 2 , Valentina Da Ros 1 , Eleonora Berto 1 , Sandra Santarossa 1 , Emanuela Chimienti 1 , Lucia Fratino 1 and Alessandra Bearz 1 1 Medical Oncology Department, CRO-IRCCS, Aviano, Italy 2 Epidemiology Unit, CRO-IRCCS, Aviano, Italy Correspondence to: Alessandra Bearz, email: abearz@cro.it Keywords: non-small cell lung cancer; anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK); ALK inhibitors; brain metastasis Received: September 11, 2017 Accepted: February 21, 2018 Epub: February 26, 2018 Published: March 16, 2018 ABSTRACT Rearrangement in the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene is one of the oncogenic drivers in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Several ALK inhibitors (ALKis) have been developed and have demonstrated their efficacy, however the best treatment strategy for ALK positive NSCLC patients has yet to be determined. Our retrospective study has investigated the outcome of 40 ALK-rearranged NSCLC patients treated with two different sequential strategies in our Institute; a “classical group”, treated with crizotinib followed by second or third generation ALKis, and the “experimental group”, treated upfront with a second generation ALK inhibitor. The primary endpoints investigated were Progression-free survival (PFS) and intracranial activity. The analysis has revealed a significant improvement in PFS ( p = 0.050) in the experimental group, furthermore none of these patients developed brain metastasis. There was no statistically significant difference in OS, but all patients in the experimental group were still alive after a median follow up of 15 months. Our retrospective analysis suggests that systemic and intracranial efficacy tends to be better in the experimental group; randomized prospective studies could confirm our observations.

BACKGROUND: Lorlatinib, a 3rd generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has shown overall and intracranial activity in ALK+ advanced NSCLC. In the randomized, multicenter, phase 3 study in pts with previously untreated ALK+ advanced NSCLC (CROWN; NCT03052608), lorlatinib resulted in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) vs crizotinib.1 To identify molecular correlates of response, we performed molecular profiling of circulating free DNA (cfDNA) and tumor tissue. METHODS: Plasma and tumor tissue samples were available from 130 and 118 pts in the lorlatinib arm, and from 125 and 104 pts in the crizotinib arm, respectively. Plasma DNA was analyzed for ALK fusions and mutations by next-generation sequencing (NGS; Guardant360, Guardant Health, Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA); tumor tissue DNA was analyzed with an ALK-mutation focused NGS panel (MolecularMD, Portland, OR, USA). Objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), and PFS were evaluated by blinded independent central review according to EML4-ALK variant type and ALK resistance mutation status. RESULTS: At screening, 19 ALK missense mutations and 1 deletion were detected in plasma of 11 pts (5 and 6 in the lorlatinib and crizotinib arms, respectively). Most pts harbored 1 mutation, but 3 pts harbored ≥3 mutations. ALK fusions were detected in plasma of 48% of pts. EML4-ALK variants 1, 2, and 3 were detected in 14.6%, 5.4%, and 13.8% and in 20.0%, 1.6%, and 16.8% of pts, in the lorlatinib and crizotinib arms, respectively. Variants 4, 5, 7, and 8 were detected in 11.5% and 7.2% of pts, and less frequent fusion partners in 1.5% and 3.2% of pts, respectively. ORRs were generally higher in the lorlatinib arm vs the crizotinib arm, regardless of variant subtypes and/or mutational status, with no striking differences between EML4-ALK variants 1, 2, and 3 (range, 72% to 86% for lorlatinib and 50% to 76% for crizotinib). Median DOR and PFS were not reached for variants 1 and 3 in the lorlatinib arm, and ranged from 5.7 to 6.5 months, and from 7.4 to 7.6 months in the crizotinib arm, respectively. CONCLUSION: Pts with untreated ALK+ advanced NSCLC had higher ORRs and potentially longer DOR and PFS across predefined biomarker subgroups when treated with lorlatinib compared with crizotinib in a phase 3 CROWN study. Based on pretreatment cfDNA analysis, lorlatinib led to similar clinical benefit regardless of the type of EML4-ALK variant or presence of ALK kinase mutations. REFERENCE: 1. Shaw AT, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:2018-2029. Citation Format: Alessandra Bearz, Jean-François Martini, Jacek Jassem, Sang-We Kim, Gee-Chen Chang, Alice Shaw, Deborah Shepard, Elisa Dall'O', Anna Polli, Holger Thurm, Gerard Zalcman, Maria Rosario Garcia Campelo, Konstantin Penkov, Hidetoshi Hayashi, Benjamin J. Solomon. Efficacy of Lorlatinib in Treatment-Naïve Patients (pts) With ALK-Positive Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) in Relation to EML4-ALK Variant Type and ALK Mutations [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr LB043.

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.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.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.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.AstraZeneca.

Summary 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.

Background The selective, potent, brain-penetrant 3rd-generation (gen) ALK TKI lorlatinib is approved for the treatment of patients (pts) with ALK+ metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease has progressed following 2nd-gen ALK TKIs. Methods In this ongoing ph 2 study (NCT01970865), 139 pts with ALK+ advanced NSCLC with ≥1 prior 2nd-gen ALK TKI, ± chemotherapy (CT), were enrolled in expansion cohorts—EXP3B, EXP4 and EXP5—based on treatment history. Overall, intracranial (IC) and extracranial (EC) antitumor activity were assessed by independent central review, per modified RECIST v1.1. Recurrent event analysis on within-patient time to progression (TTP) was conducted comparing TTP on lorlatinib with TTP on the last prior 2nd-gen ALK TKI. Results Of the 139 pts with ≥1 prior 2nd-gen ALK TKI (EXP3B–5), 28 had 1 prior 2nd-gen ALK TKI as their only ALK TKI (EXP3B), 65 had 2 prior ALK TKIs (EXP4) and 46 had 3 prior ALK TKIs (EXP5). As of data cutoff (02 Feb 2018), the ORR in EXP3B–5 was 40% (95% CI 32–49), median duration of response (DOR) was 7.1mo (95% CI 5.6–24.4) and median PFS was 6.9mo (95% CI 5.4–8.2). Responses were observed in pts who had also received prior CT (n/N=40/93; ORR 43% [95% CI 33–54]) as well as in CT-naive pts (n/N=16/46; ORR 35% [95% CI 21–50]). IC- and EC-ORR in EXP3B–5 and individual cohorts are shown in the table. In EXP3B–5, median IC DOR was 12.4mo (95% CI 5.8–NR) and median EC DOR was 9.7mo (95% CI 6.1–NR). Based on 121 evaluable pts, no significant differences were observed in terms of TTP between lorlatinib and last prior 2nd-gen ALK TKI (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64–1.16).Table1487PDTableIC ORREC ORRN*% (95% CI)N% (95% CI)EXP3B–55754 (41–68)13937 (29–46)EXP3B967 (30–93)2832 (16–52)EXP42458 (37–78)6538 (27–51)EXP52446 (26–67)4639 (25–55)EC, extracranial; IC, intracranial; ORR, objective response rate*Patients with ≥1 measurable CNS metastases at baseline Conclusions In the post 2nd-gen ALK TKI setting, lorlatinib showed clinically meaningful antitumor activity in both IC and EC compartments, with a trend towards elevated IC vs EC ORR particularly in pts with fewer lines of therapy. Despite pts having a worse prognosis at a later line, lorlatinib showed a similar TTP compared with the last 2nd-gen ALK TKI. Clinical trial identification NCT01970865. Editorial acknowledgement Jade Drummond of inScience Communications, Springer Healthcare, Chester, UK; funded by Pfizer Inc. Legal entity responsible for the study Pfizer Inc. Funding Pfizer Inc. Disclosure D.R. Camidge: Honoraria (self): Roche; Honoraria (self): G1 Therapeutics; Honoraria (self): Mersana; Honoraria (self), Research grant / Funding (self): Takeda; Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self): Genoptix; Honoraria (self): Ignyta; Honoraria (self): Daiichi Sankyo; Honoraria (self): Hansoh; Honoraria (self): Lycera; Honoraria (self): Biothera; Honoraria (self): Revolution Medicines. B.J. Solomon: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Honoraria (institution), Advisory / Consultancy, Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: Eisai; Licensing / Royalties: Veristrat (Biodesix); Licensing / Royalties: UpToDate; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Roche; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Merck; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy, Institution: Merck Sharp & Dohme; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), Institution: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy, Institution: Genentech. E. Felip: Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Boehringer Ingelheim; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Advisory / Consultancy: Celgene; Advisory / Consultancy: Guardant Health; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Takeda; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: AbbVie; Advisory / Consultancy: Blueprint Medicines; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Eli Lilly; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Merck; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Merck Sharp & Dohme; Research grant / Funding (institution): Fundacion Merck Salud; Research grant / Funding (institution): EMD Serono. B. Besse: Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Research grant / Funding (institution): Pfizer; Research grant / Funding (institution): Eli Lilly; Research grant / Funding (institution): Onxeo; Research grant / Funding (institution): Bristol-Myers Squibb; Research grant / Funding (institution): Inivata; Research grant / Funding (institution): AbbVie; Research grant / Funding (institution): Amgen; Research grant / Funding (institution): Biogen; Research grant / Funding (institution): Blueprint Medicines; Research grant / Funding (institution): Celgene; Research grant / Funding (institution): GlaxoSmithKline; Research grant / Funding (institution): Ignyta; Research grant / Funding (institution): Ipsen; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck; Research grant / Funding (institution): MSD Oncology; Research grant / Funding (institution): Nektar; Research grant / Funding (institution): PharmaMar; Research grant / Funding (institution): Sanofi; Research grant / Funding (institution): Spectrum Pharmaceuticals; Research grant / Funding (institution): Takeda; Research grant / Funding (institution): Tiziana Therapeutics. A. Bearz: Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Takeda; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Eli Lilly; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Novartis. S. Peters: Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Boehringer Ingelheim; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: AstraZeneca. F. Toffalorio: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Pfizer. A. Abbattista: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Pfizer. H. Thurm: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Pfizer. G. Peltz: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Pfizer. R. Wiltshire: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Pfizer. A.T. Shaw: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Pfizer; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Novartis; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Genentech; Honoraria (self): Foundation Medicine; Honoraria (self): Guardant Health; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): ARIAD Pharmaceuticals; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Ignyta; Advisory / Consultancy: Blueprint Medicines; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Daiichi Sankyo; Advisory / Consultancy: EMD Serono; Advisory / Consultancy: Taiho Pharmaceutical; Advisory / Consultancy: KSQ Therapeutics; Advisory / Consultancy: Natera; Advisory / Consultancy: Loxo Pharmaceuticals; Advisory / Consultancy: Takeda; Advisory / Consultancy: Bayer; Advisory / Consultancy: Chugai Pharma; Research grant / Funding (institution): TP Therapeutics.

Background Spartalizumab (PDR001) is an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody that is been explored in different tumor types. Preliminary safety and efficacy results from Groups B (B) and C (C) of a phase Ib study investigating spartalizumab with platinum-based chemotherapy in PD-L1 unselected advanced NSCLC (NCT03064854) are reported here. Methods Treatment-naive, stage IIIB/IV NSCLC, EGFR/ALK/ROS-1(-) pts, PS 0-1, were assigned to B (non-squamous NSCLC) or C (squamous/non-squamous NSCLC) for 4 cycles (21 day/cycle) of spartalizumab (initial dose – 300 mg Q3W) + pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 + cisplatin 75 mg/m2 followed by maintenance spartalizumab + pemetrexed (in B), or 4 cycles of spartalizumab (initial dose – 300 mg Q3W) + paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 + carboplatin AUC 6 followed by maintenance with spartalizumab (in C). Primary endpoints are recommended dose for expansion (RDE) and ORR by investigator assessment. Results At data cutoff of 15 May 2019, 38 pts in B and 33 pts in C were treated; 14 pts (36.8%) in B and 4 pts (12.1%) in C are still receiving treatment. Primary reason for discontinuation was progressive disease: 13 of 38 pts (34.2%) in B and 25 of 33 pts (75.8%) in C. DLTs were grade 4 hyponatremia and grade 2 posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome in B (2 pts) and grade 4 neutropenic colitis in C (1 pt). RDE of spartalizumab in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy for both groups was 300 mg Q3W. Most common AEs (≥50%, any grade) were nausea (73.7%) and neutropenia (50%) in B; neutropenia (57.6%) and anemia (54.5%) in C. ORR and complete response rate were 50% and 5.3% in B, and 51.5% and 3% in C. Median DOR (months; 95% CI) by investigator assessment was 13.8 (4.9, NE) in B and 8.2 (5.1, 15.4) in C. Median PFS (months; 95% CI) by investigator assessment was 10.4 (5.4, 15.0) in B and 6.3 (4.1, 10.1) in C. Responses were observed at different PD-L1 expression levels with higher rate in PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) ≥ 50%. Assessment of additional immune biomarkers is ongoing. Conclusions RDE of spartalizumab in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy is 300 mg Q3W. Safety profile and preliminary clinical activity are consistent with prior experience with spartalizumab, other immune checkpoint inhibitors and chemotherapy treatments administered. Clinical trial identification NCT03064854. Editorial acknowledgement Shiva Krishna Rachamadugu, Novartis Healthcare Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad, India. Legal entity responsible for the study Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Funding Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Disclosure A. Santoro: Advisory / Consultancy: BMS, Servier, Gilead, Pfizer, Eisai, Bayer, Msd, Arqule; Speaker Bureau / Expert Testimony: Takeda, BMS, Roche, AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Servier, Gilead, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, Arqule, Lilly, Sandoz, Eisai, Novartis, Bayer, MSD. P. Garrido Lopez: Advisory / Consultancy: Roche, MSD, BMS, Boerhinger Ingelheim, Pfizer, AbbVie, Guardant Health, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Sysmex, Blueprint Medicines, Takeda; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Roche, MSD, BMS, Pfizer, Novartis, Boerhinger Ingelheim, Rovi; Research grant / Funding (institution), For Clinical Trails: Roche, MSD, BMS, Takeda, Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, PharmaMar, Celgene, Sanofi, GSK, Theradex Oncology, BluePrint Medicines; Research grant / Funding (institution), For Contracted Research: Guardant Health, Sysmex. D.S.W. Tan: Honoraria (self): Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Takeda ; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Eli-lily, Loxo; Research grant / Funding (self): Novartis, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Pfizer ; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Merck, Pfizer, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche,Takeda . L. Paz-Ares: Honoraria (self): Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, BMS, MSD, Merck, Boehringer Ing., AstraZeneca, Amgen, Sanofi, PharmaMar, Takeda; Leadership role: Genomica. F. Shepherd: Honoraria (self): Novartis, AstraZeneca, Roche, BMS, Merck, EMD Serono; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis, AstraZeneca, Roche, BMS, Merck, EMD Serono; Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options: AstraZeneca. A. Bearz: Advisory / Consultancy: Takeda; Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche , MSD, Novartis; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Takeda; Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche , MSD; Pfizer; Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca. F. Barlesi: Honoraria (self): AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer–Ingelheim, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd, Novartis, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer and Takeda; Research grant / Funding (institution): AbbVie, ACEA, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer–Ingelheim, Eisai, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann–La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Ipsen, Ignyta, Innate Pharma, Loxo, Novartis, MedImmune, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis; Non-remunerated activity/ies: Principal Investigator for AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, Pierre Fabre and F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd, sponsored trials (or ISR). J.F. Vansteenkiste: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD, Roche, Apotex; Research grant / Funding (institution): MSD. T.M. Kim: Research grant / Funding (institution): Alpha Biopharma, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Hanmi, Janssen, Merus, Mirati Therapeutics, MSD, Novartis, ONO Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Takeda, TP Therapeutics, Xcovery, and Yuhan ; Research grant / Funding (self): AstraZeneca ; Non-remunerated activity/ies, Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, and Bayer . T.R. Overbeck: Advisory / Consultancy, Consulting fees: AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Roche/Genentech; Research grant / Funding (institution), sponsored research agreements: AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi-Aventis; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses, Travel Support: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Roche/Genentech. I.I. Rybkin: Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck, AbbVie, ARMO Biosciences, Beyond Spring Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Mirati Therapeutical Inc., Nilogen, Inc., Pfizer, Polaris Group, Syndax Inc., Xcovery Inc., BerGenBio AS, Incyte Corporation, AstraZeneca, Amgen; Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca. E. Felip: Advisory / Consultancy: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Blue Print Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Guardant Helath, Janssen, Medscape, Merck Kgaa, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda, Touchtime; Speaker Bureau / Expert Testimony: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck Kgaa, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda; Research Grant / Funding (Self): Fundacion Merck Salud Grant For Oncology Innovation Emd Serono. W. Zhou: Full / Part-time employment: Novartis. L. Santarpia: Full / Part-time employment: Novartis. S. Eddy: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Novartis. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Background In selected metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients, radical metastasectomy followed by observation is a potential strategy. It is still to be defined whether systemic therapy should be administered following metastasectomy. Objective To assess the potential benefit of postoperative treatment with sorafenib compared with observation alone after radical metastasectomy in mRCC patients. Design, setting, and participants The RESORT trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 2 study conducted between November 2012 and November 2017 in Italy. Patients with clear-cell mRCC pretreated with nephrectomy and undergoing radical metastasectomy (three or fewer lesions) were eligible for the study. Patients were randomized (1:1) within 12 wk from metastasectomy to sorafenib (standard dose 400 mg twice daily) or observation for a maximum of 52 wk. Stratification factors were interval from nephrectomy, site, and number of lesions. Overall, 76 patients were screened and 69 were randomized: 33 were assigned to sorafenib and 36 to observation. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival and the safety profile. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis RFS curves were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method, and the log-rank test was used to statistically compare the curves. Results and limitations At a median follow-up of 38 mo, median RFS was 37 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 20–not available [NA]) in the observation arm versus 21 mo (95% CI 11–NA) in the sorafenib arm (log-rank test p = 0.404), with 12-, 24-, and 36-mo RFS probability of 74% versus 63%, 59% versus 49%, and 50% versus 41%, respectively, in the observation versus the sorafenib arm. Any-grade adverse event (AE) rates were 84% in the sorafenib arm and 31% in the observation arm; grade ≥3 AE rates were 22% and 3% in the sorafenib and the observation arm, respectively, with a rate of treatment discontinuation for AEs of 19% in the sorafenib arm. Conclusions This prospective study showed that systemic treatment with sorafenib did not increase RFS as compared with observation in mRCC patients following radical metastasectomy. Patient summary This article reports the clinical outcome of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sorafenib or managed with an observation-alone strategy after the radical surgery of metastases. We found that sorafenib did not improve the patient outcome in terms of relapse-free survival in this selected population.

Considering the frequent expression of somatostatine receptors, we designed the G04.2011 trial to investigate the efficacy of the somatostatine analogue lanreotide in maintenance for SCLC patients after response to standard treatment.A multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial was conducted in SCLC expressing somatostatine receptors at baseline Octreoscan, responding after platinum-based chemotherapy with/without radiotherapy. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive maintenance lanreotide 120 mg subcutaneously every 28 days, up to 1 year or progression versus observation. Randomization was stratified according to stage (limited/extended, LD/ED). The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and safety.Seventy-one patients were randomly assigned (39 to lanreotide, 32 to observation) in 9 Italian institutions. Median PFS was 3.6 (95% CI 3.2-3.9) with lanreotide versus 2.3 months (95% CI 1.7-2.9) with observation (HR 1.51, 95% CI 0.90-2.50; P = 0.11). Stage was an independent predictor for PFS (HR 3.14, 95% CI 1.77-5.57; P 0.0001). Median PFS was 7.0 (95% CI1-13.5) with lanreotide versus 3.8 months (95% CI1-8.6) with observation in LD (P = 0.21), and 3.0 (95% CI 2.2-3.8) versus 2.2 (95% 1.7-2.7) in ED (P = 0.19). Median OS was 9.5 (95% CI 4.8-14.3) with lanreotide versus 4.7 months (95% CI1-16.6) with observation (P = 0.47). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 28% of patients with lanreotide (grade 3 in two patients).Although survival outcomes were not significantly prolonged with lanreotide as a maintenance in SCLC expressing somatostatin receptors after response to standard treatment, lanreotide showed a slight PFS benefit in LD SCLC deserving further investigations.

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/m 2 , intravenously, every 21 days, or docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 , 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 (p interaction =0·017 when adjusted for stratification factors; p interaction =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 [ 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.

Objectives Non-small-cell-lung-cancer (NSCLC) patients harbouring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations develop drug resistance after 9–12 months of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) therapy pointing out the issue of the second-line treatment choice. Materials and methods From June 2009 until May 2013 patients affected by advanced NSCLC harbouring EGFR mutations receiving first-line TKI were collected mainly retrospectively in 24 Italian Centers. Primary objective was to describe the percentage of EGFR mutated patients receiving second-line therapy after progression to first-line EGFR-TKIs assessing the type, the activity in terms of objective response rate (ORR), efficacy in terms of progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and safety of second-line treatment. Secondary objective was to describe the efficacy of first-line EGFR-TKIs. Results 312 patients were included. Most of them were females (203, 65.1%), never smokers (200, 64.1%), with adenocarcinoma histology (290, 92.9%). The most common mutations were EGFR exon 19 deletion and L858R, detected in 186 and 97 cases (59.6% and 31.1%), respectively. At data cut-off, 274 patients (95.1%) received any second-line treatment (including best supportive care or local treatments only). A total of 163 patients received second-line systemic therapy with an ORR of 20.9% (95% CI:14.62–27.10), a median PFS and OS of 4.7 (95% CI:3.81–5.26) and 24.5 (95% CI:21.65–27.37) months, respectively. Grade 3–4 hematological and non-hematological toxicities were reported in 9% and 6.3% of 144 patients treated with chemotherapy while non-hematological toxicity was reported in 4 cases of the 17 patients receiving second-line target agents. Conclusions BE-Positive is the first multicenter observational study reporting outcomes of therapies in a "real-life Caucasian EGFR-mutated population", highlighting the need of further researches about new treatment strategies in this setting.

Purpose Crizotinib confers improved progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy in anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but progression invariably occurs. We investigated the efficacy and safety of alectinib, a potent and selective ALK inhibitor with excellent CNS penetration, in patients with crizotinib-refractory ALK-positive NSCLC. Patients and Methods Alectinib 600 mg was administered orally twice daily. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) by central independent review committee (IRC). Results Of the 138 patients treated, 84 patients (61%) had CNS metastases at baseline, and 122 were response evaluable (RE) by IRC. ORR by IRC was 50% (95% CI, 41% to 59%), and the median duration of response (DOR) was 11.2 months (95% CI, 9.6 months to not reached). In 96 patients (79%) previously treated with chemotherapy, the ORR was 45% (95% CI, 35% to 55%). Median IRC-assessed progression-free survival for all 138 patients was 8.9 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 11.3 months). CNS disease control rate was 83% (95% CI, 74% to 91%), and the median CNS DOR was 10.3 months (95% CI, 7.6 to 11.2 months). CNS ORR in 35 patients with baseline measurable CNS lesions was 57% (95% CI, 39% to 74%). Of the 23 patients with baseline CNS metastases (measurable or nonmeasurable) and no prior radiation, 10 (43%) had a complete CNS response. At 12 months, the cumulative CNS progression rate (24.8%) was lower than the cumulative non-CNS progression rate (33.2%) for all patients. Common adverse events were constipation (33%), fatigue (26%), and peripheral edema (25%); most were grade 1 to 2. Conclusion Alectinib is highly active and well tolerated in patients with advanced, crizotinib-refractory ALK-positive NSCLC, including those with CNS metastases.

Pain is a highly distressing symptom for patients with advanced cancer. WHO analgesic ladder is widely accepted as a guideline for its treatment. Our aim was to describe pain prevalence among patients diagnosed with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), impact of pain on quality of life (QoL) and adequacy of pain management. Data of 1021 Italian patients enrolled in three randomised trials of chemotherapy for NSCLC were pooled. QoL was assessed by EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC-13. Analgesic consumption during the 3 weeks following QoL assessment was recorded. Adequacy of pain management was evaluated by the Pain Management Index (PMI). Some pain was reported by 74% of patients (42% mild, 24% moderate and 7% severe); 50% stated pain was affecting daily activities (30% a little, 16% quite a bit, 336 very much). Bone metastases strongly affected presence of pain. Mean global QoL linearly decreased from 64.9 to 36.4 from patients without pain to those with severe pain (P < 0.001). According to PMI, 616 out of 752 patients reporting pain (82%) received inadequate analgesic treatment. Bone metastases were associated with improved adequacy and worst pain with reduced adequacy at multivariate analysis. In conclusion, pain is common in patients with advanced NSCLC, significantly affects QoL, and is frequently undertreated. We recommend that: (i) pain self-assessment should be part of oncological clinical practice; (ii) pain control should be a primary goal in clinical practice and in clinical trials; (iii) physicians should receive more training in pain management; (iv) analgesic treatment deserves greater attention in protocols of anticancer treatment. © 2004 Cancer Research UK.

In Italy, educational programs for cancer patients are currently provided by the national government, scientific societies, and patient advocate organizations. Several gaps limit their effectiveness, including the lack of coordinated efforts, poor involvement of patient feedback in the planning of programs, as well as a lack of resources on innovative cancer-related topics. This process is parallel to a strong shift in the attitude of patients towards health in general and taking charge of their own health conditions in particular. The National Cancer Institute in the USA and the Organization of European Cancer Institutes encourage comprehensive cancer centers in providing educational programs conceived to overcome these gaps. The goal of this paper is to identify and describe the key elements necessary to develop a global patient education program and provide recommendations for strategies with practical examples for implementation in the daily activities of cancer institutes. A multidisciplinary committee was established for patient education, including patient representatives as equal partners, to define, implement, verify, and evaluate the fundamental steps for establishing a comprehensive education program. Six essential topics were identified for the program: appropriate communication of cancer epidemiology, clinical trial information, new therapeutic technologies, support in the use of medicines, psycho-oncological interventions, age-personalized approaches, and training programs for healthcare providers. Integration of these topics along with patient feedback is the key to a successful model for educational programs. An integrated educational program can transform a comprehensive cancer center to an institution that provides research and care for and with patients.

Objective: \ud \ud To assess the efficacy and safety of sorafenib dose escalation in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).\ud Patients and Methods: \ud \ud Intra-patient dose escalation may enhance the clinical benefit of targeted anticancer agents in metastatic disease. In this non-randomised, open-label, Phase 2b study, treatment-naïve patients with mRCC were initially treated with the standard oral sorafenib dose [400 mg twice daily (BID)]. Two dose escalations were planned, each 200 mg BID after 28 days at the prior level. Dose reductions, interruptions, or delayed escalations were used to manage adverse events (AEs). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population, which comprised patients with ≥6 months of treatment including ≥4 months of therapy at their highest tolerated dose. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety.\ud Results: \ud \ud In all, 83 patients received sorafenib. The dose received for the longest duration was 400, 600, and 800 mg BID in 48.2%, 15.7%, and 24.1% of patients, respectively. The ORR was 44.4% [n = 8/18; 95% confidence interval (CI) 21.5–69.2] and 17.9% (n = 12/67; 95% CI 9.6–29.2) in the mITT and ITT populations, respectively. The median (95% CI) PFS was 7.4 (6.0–11.7) months (ITT). The most common AEs of any grade were hand–foot skin reaction (66.3%) and diarrhoea (63.9%).\ud Conclusion: \ud \ud Sorafenib demonstrated clinical benefit in treatment-naïve patients with mRCC. However, relatively few patients could sustain doses of >400 mg BID. There was evidence that, where tolerated, escalation from the standard sorafenib dose may have enhanced clinical benefit. However, this study does not support dose escalation for most patients with treatment-naïve mRCC. Alternative protocols for sorafenib dose escalation could be explored.

Background Beyond progression after tyrosine kinase inhibitor in EGFR -positive non-small-cell lung cancer patients (BE-POSITIVE) was the first Italian multicenter observational study that reported the outcomes of first-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in a “real-life” Caucasian EGFR -mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) population. The sharing of multi-institutional experiences represents a crucial strategy to enrich knowledge about uncommon EGFR mutations. Therefore, we performed a post hoc analysis of the BE-POSITIVE study. Patients and Methods Data of advanced NSCLC patients with uncommon EGFR mutations who received first-line first-generation EGFR-TKIs in 24 Italian Hospitals were collected. In this analysis we aimed to evaluate overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR) of EGFR-TKIs in NSCLC patients harboring uncommon EGFR mutations. Results Thirty-five patients harboring uncommon EGFR mutations (any mutation other than deletion 19 or substitution of leucine by arginine at codon 858) were included of the original 312 EGFR -mutated cases. Most of them were female (n = 20, 57.1%), former smokers (n = 23, 65.7%), with adenocarcinoma (n = 31, 88.6%). The most frequent EGFR mutations were G719X (n = 6, 17.2%) and L861Q (n = 5, 14.2%). The population presented an ORR of 25.7%, a median PFS of 5.19 months, and a median OS of 14.49 months. When stratified according to type of EGFR mutation, median OS ranged from 3.65 months for unspecified mutations to 21.29 for double EGFR mutations. Median PFS ranged from 1.77 months for unspecified mutations to 20.83 months for concomitant EGFR-anaplastic lymphoma kinase alteration. ORR varied from 0% in exon 18, 20 and double gene alteration to 66.6% in exon 19. Conclusion Our study supports the existence of a strong outcome heterogeneity within patients harboring uncommon EGFR mutations, which needs to be clarified to achieve a real personalized treatment strategy.

Summary 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/m 2 or docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 [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 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.