Search

Introduction: On the basis of the IMpower133 trial, atezolizumab plus carboplatin and etoposide (CE) is approved as first-line treatment for extensive-stage (ES)-SCLC. The J-TAIL-2 study evaluated atezolizumab plus CE in routine clinical practice settings. Methods: J-TAIL-2 was a prospective, multicenter observational study in Japan. Patients with ES-SCLC received atezolizumab plus CE in clinical practice. The primary end point was 12-month OS rate. Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety in select subgroups, including the IMpower133-unlike (i.e., Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 2 or more, interstitial lung disease, autoimmune disease) versus IMpower133-like groups. Results: Overall, 403 patients were included; the median age was 71 years, 16.6% (n = 67) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 2 or more, 26.8% (n = 108) had brain metastasis, 6.9% (n = 28) had interstitial lung disease, 4.0% (n = 16) had autoimmune disease, and 72.7% (n = 293) were IMpower133-unlike. In the efficacy population (n = 399), the 12-month OS rate was 63.7%, median OS was 16.5 months, and median PFS was 5.1 months. In IMpower133-unlike versus IMpower133-like subgroups, the 12-month OS rate was 58.5% versus 77.5%, median OS was 15.5 versus 19.1 months (hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% confidence interval: 0.98–1.77), and median PFS was 4.8 versus 5.4 months (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval: 0.90–1.45). No new safety signals were observed (safety population, n = 400); safety outcomes in the IMpower133-unlike and IMpower133-like subgroups were similar. Conclusions: In J-TAIL-2, atezolizumab plus CE had efficacy in patients with ES-SCLC in clinical practice that was consistent with that in IMpower133. Taken together with the acceptable safety profile, these data support the use of atezolizumab plus CE in patients with ES-SCLC in Japan, including those who would have been ineligible for IMpower133.

Introduction: The JAVELIN Lung 101 phase 1b/2 trial evaluated avelumab (immune checkpoint inhibitor) combined with lorlatinib or crizotinib (tyrosine kinase inhibitors) in ALK-positive or ALK-negative advanced NSCLC, respectively. Methods: Starting doses of lorlatinib 100 mg once daily or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily were administered with avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Primary objectives were assessment of maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose in phase 1 and objective response rate in phase 2. Primary end points were dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and confirmed objective response per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Results: In the avelumab plus lorlatinib group (ALK-positive; n = 31; 28 in phase 1b; three in phase 2), two of 28 assessable patients (7%) had DLT, and the MTD and recommended phase 2 dose was avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus lorlatinib 100 mg once daily. In the avelumab plus crizotinib group (ALK-negative; n = 12; all phase 1b), five of 12 assessable patients (42%) had DLT, and the MTD was exceeded with avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus crizotinib 250 mg twice daily; alternative crizotinib doses were not assessed. Objective response rate was 52% (95% confidence interval, 33%–70%) with avelumab plus lorlatinib (complete response, 3%; partial response, 48%) and 25% (95% confidence interval, 6%–57%) with avelumab plus crizotinib (all partial responses). Conclusions: Avelumab plus lorlatinib treatment in ALK-positive NSCLC was feasible, but avelumab plus crizotinib treatment in ALK-negative NSCLC could not be administered at the doses tested. No evidence of increased antitumor activity was observed in either group. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02584634

Introduction: This study validated real-world pharmacokinetic (PK) data using an established population PK (PopPK) model for atezolizumab in Japanese patients with NSCLC and explored the relationship between PK parameters, effectiveness, and adverse events (AEs) for the 1200 mg once every three weeks regimen. Methods: A subgroup of 262 of 1039 patients from J-TAIL consented to this exploratory research for PK evaluation of atezolizumab monotherapy for unresectable advanced/recurrent NSCLC (August 2018 to October 2019; 197 institutions). We evaluated plasma concentrations before the start of the third cycle of atezolizumab infusion classified into quartiles 1 to 4, their association with effectiveness, and the association between atezolizumab maximum plasma concentrations (Cmax) calculated using the existing PopPK model and AEs of special interest (AESIs). Results: Overall, 175 of 262 patients were included; baseline characteristics were similar to those of patients enrolled in J-TAIL (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥ 2, 12.0%; age ≥ 75 y, 28.9%; atezolizumab as more than or equal to third-line treatment, 57.5%). Atezolizumab plasma concentrations were similar to previously reported data among Japanese/non-Japanese patients. The overall survival was significantly shorter in patients with lower atezolizumab plasma concentrations in Q1 versus Q2 to Q4, although progression-free survival remained the same. The PK data adequately fit the PopPK model, with the frequency of AESIs increasing as the calculated Cmax at cycle 1 increased. Conclusions: In real-world Japanese patients with unresectable advanced/recurrent NSCLC, PKs were similar to previous reports. Certain patient populations had shorter overall survival, and atezolizumab plasma concentrations in cycle 3 were lower in this population. Elevated Cmax at cycle 1 may be associated with an increased frequency of AESIs.

Introduction: Lorlatinib was found to have improved efficacy versus crizotinib in the global phase 3 CROWN study (NCT03052608). Similar results were revealed for the Japanese population as for the overall population. We present results from the unplanned 3-year follow-up from the CROWN study in Japanese patients. Methods: Patients were randomized to either lorlatinib 100 mg once daily (n = 25) or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily (n = 23). The primary end point was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included objective and intracranial responses assessed by blinded independent central review and safety. Results: At the data cutoff of September 20, 2021, median progression-free survival was not reached with lorlatinib and 11.1 months with crizotinib (hazard ratio = 0.36). Objective response rate was 72.0% with lorlatinib and 52.2% with crizotinib. For patients with baseline brain metastases, intracranial response rate was 100.0% versus 28.6% with lorlatinib versus crizotinib. Nine patients in the lorlatinib group received more than or equal to 1 subsequent anticancer systemic therapy, with ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor as the most common first subsequent therapy. The safety profile was consistent with that reported previously, with no new safety signals. Conclusions: This updated analysis in the Japanese population revealed prolonged benefits of lorlatinib over crizotinib in patients with treatment-naive advanced ALK-positive NSCLC with and those without brain metastases.

Introduction: Only a few reports have determined whether recently advanced anticancer drugs, particularly next-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), prolong the survival of patients with NSCLC in the real world. Methods: To evaluate the association between recently advanced drugs and patient survival, survival data of 2078 patients with stage IV NSCLC from 1995 to 2022 were analyzed in the present study. The patients were classified into the following six groups in terms of the date of diagnosis: period A, 1995 to 1999; period B, 2000 to 2004; period C, 2005 to 2009; period D, 2010 to 2014; period E, 2015 to 2019; and period F, 2000 to 2022. They were further grouped in terms of EGFR mutation and ALK fusion. Results: The median overall survival (mOS) times were 8.9, 11.0, 13.6, 17.9, and 25.2 months in periods A to E, respectively, and the mOS time was not reached in period F. This time was significantly longer in period E than in period D (25.2 versus 17.9 mo, p < 0.005). Moreover, the mOS times of patients with EGFR mutation, those with ALK fusion, and those without both alterations were significantly longer in period E than in period D (46.0 versus 32.0 mo, p < 0.005; not reached versus 36.2 mo, p = 0.018; 14.6 versus 11.7 mo, p < 0.005). The history of treatment with next-generation TKIs and ICIs was found to be associated with overall survival. Conclusions: The survival of patients with NSCLC was improved from period D to period E, regardless of the presence of driver gene alteration. We found that next-generation TKIs and ICIs may be associated with improvements in overall survival.

Introduction: Lorlatinib is an ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved in Japan for the treatment of advanced ALK+ NSCLC. There has been little evidence about lorlatinib efficacy after first-line (1L) alectinib in clinical practice in Japan. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients with advanced ALK+ NSCLC previously treated with 1L alectinib at multiple sites in Japan. Primary objectives were to collect patient demographics at baseline and estimate time to treatment failure (TTF) with second-line (2L) or third-line (3L) or later line (≥3L) lorlatinib treatment. Secondary objectives included objective response rate (ORR) with lorlatinib, reason for discontinuation and time to last treatment failure with lorlatinib, TTF and ORR of alectinib, and combined TTF. Results: Among the 51 patients included in the study, 29 (56.9%) received 2L and 22 (43.1%) received ≥3L lorlatinib treatment. At lorlatinib initiation, brain metastases were reported in 25 patients (49.0%), and 32 (62.7%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Median TTF with lorlatinib was 11.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.6–13.8) in any line, 10.8 months (95% CI: 3.9–13.8) in 2L, and 11.5 months (95% CI: 2.9–not reached) in ≥3L. Median TTF was 11.5 months (95% CI: 3.9–not reached) in patients with brain metastases at lorlatinib initiation and 9.9 months (95% CI: 4.3–13.8) in patients without brain metastases. ORR was 35.7% with any-line lorlatinib treatment. Conclusions: Patient characteristics and efficacy were comparable with previous reports when lorlatinib was given after 1L alectinib in patients with ALK+ NSCLC.

Introduction: Lorlatinib, a third-generation ALK inhibitor, was found to have improved efficacy versus crizotinib in patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK-positive NSCLC in the ongoing, global, randomized, phase 3 CROWN study. Methods: The study’s primary end point was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included objective and intracranial response. Here, we report efficacy and safety data of the Japanese subgroup of the CROWN study (lorlatinib 100 mg once daily, n = 25; crizotinib 250 mg twice daily, n = 23). Results: Progression-free survival was not reached (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.3 mo–not reached) for lorlatinib and 11.1 months (95% CI: 5.4–14.8) for crizotinib (hazard ratio = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.19–1.01). Objective response (lorlatinib versus crizotinib) was 68.0% (95% CI: 46.5–85.1) versus 52.2% (95% CI: 30.6–73.2) in all patients, and intracranial response was 100.0% (three of three, 95% CI: 29.2–100.0) versus 28.6% (two of seven; 95% CI: 3.7–71.0) in patients with brain metastases at baseline. The most common adverse events with lorlatinib were hypertriglyceridemia, hypercholesterolemia, and weight increase; 28.0% and 8.0% of patients had cognitive and mood effects (all grades 1 or 2), respectively. Lorlatinib was associated with more grade 3 or 4 events than crizotinib (80.0% versus 72.7%). Treatment was discontinued owing to adverse events in 16.0% and 27.3% of patients in the lorlatinib and crizotinib groups, respectively. Conclusions: The efficacy and safety of lorlatinib in the Japanese subgroup were similar to those in the CROWN global population, revealing improved outcomes versus crizotinib in Japanese patients with previously untreated, advanced ALK-positive NSCLC.

Introduction: The efficacy and safety of atezolizumab in previously treated patients with NSCLC have been established in the registrational phase 3 OAK trial. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness and safety of atezolizumab monotherapy in a large real-world cohort to confirm the reproducibility of the results of the registrational trial. Methods: This was a multicenter, prospective, single-arm observational study. Consecutive patients with previously treated NSCLC scheduled to receive atezolizumab monotherapy were enrolled. The primary end point was the 18-month overall survival (OS) rate. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) and immune-related AEs was evaluated. Results: Overall, 1002 patients were included in the safety analysis set and 1000 in the full analysis set. Median follow-up was 11.5 months. Of the full analysis set, 62% were ineligible for the OAK trial (OAK-unlike subpopulation). The 18-month OS rate was 41.1%, with a median OS of 13.0 months (95% confidence interval: 12.2–15.1). The 18-month OS rate was 49.4% and 36.1% in OAK-like and OAK-unlike subpopulations, respectively; that in patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status greater than or equal to 2 was 14.3%. The incidence of AEs overall, in the OAK-like, and OAK-unlike subpopulations was 43.9%, 46.2%, and 42.5%; that of immune-related AEs was 19.0%, 20.1%, and 18.3%, respectively. Conclusions: The findings suggest that atezolizumab may be effective and safe for previously treated patients with NSCLC in real-world settings; however, atezolizumab administration should be considered carefully regarding the benefit–risk balance for the OAK-unlike subpopulation, especially in patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status greater than or equal to 2.

Introduction: The eight TNM classification of lung tumors provides a more precise prediction of prognosis than previous classification systems, especially in T1 tumors, the invasion size of which are less than or equal to 3 cm. T1 is divided into T1a (6–10 mm), T1b (11–20 mm), and T1c (21–30 mm), but the relationship between pathologic T (pT)1 categories and other pathologic factors has not been thoroughly evaluated. Methods: Surgically resected pulmonary adenocarcinomas (N = 551) were extracted on the basis of computed tomography-based tumor size measurements, including 302 pT1a to c cases (pT1a: n = 98, pT1b: n = 156, and pT1c: n = 48). Pathologic factors, including a minor component of micropapillary or solid subtype, were analyzed by new T categories. Recurrence-free and disease-specific survivals (DSSs) were evaluated using univariable and multivariable analyses and Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Lymphatic invasion, vascular invasion, and nodal metastasis increased remarkably from pT1a to pT1c, step-wisely. Visceral pleural invasion was elevated from 7% (6–10 mm) to 33% (21–30 mm) along with an increase in invasion size. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and DSS relevantly deteriorated from the group of pathologic stages 0, IA1, and IA2 to the group IA3 and IB. Multivariable analysis revealed that lymph node metastasis and solid components were independent prognostic factors for both RFS and DSS in pT1a to c cases. Conclusions: The new TNM classification precisely predicts prognosis. Tumor invasion size is closely associated with lymphatic and vascular invasion, nodal metastasis, and visceral pleural invasion. As a minor component, solid subtype was a potent adverse prognostic factor affecting both RFS and DSS after surgery in T1 categories.

Introduction: Ramucirumab (RAM) plus erlotinib was found to have superior progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus erlotinib in untreated EGFR-mutated metastatic NSCLC in the global phase 3 RELAY study. RELAY+ was an open-label, two-period, single-arm, exploratory study of RAM plus gefitinib (GEF; period 1) and RAM plus osimertinib (period 2) in East Asia (NCT02411448). Methods: Period 1 evaluated RAM (10 mg/kg) plus GEF (250 mg/d) in patients with untreated EGFR-mutated metastatic NSCLC. Period 2 evaluated RAM plus osimertinib (80 mg/d) in patients with disease progression who acquired T790M mutation in period 1. Exploratory end points included 1-year PFS rate (primary), other efficacy parameters, safety, and biomarker analyses of plasma (baseline, on-treatment, follow-up) using next-generation sequencing. Results: From December 2017 to August 2018, a total of 82 patients were enrolled and started treatment (period 1, RAM + GEF). The 1-year PFS rate was 62.9% (95% confidence interval: 50.3–73.1). Treatment-emergent adverse events of grade three or higher were reported with RAM plus GEF in 60 of 82 patients (73.2%; five patients [6.1%] grade four). There were two deaths owing to adverse events that occurred (acute cardiac failure, congestive cardiac failure). T790M rate at disease progression in plasma was 81.0% (13 of 16 patients). Conclusions: RELAY+ was found to have a favorable benefit–risk profile for RAM plus GEF in first-line treatment of East Asian patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC.

Introduction: The phase 3 RELAY global study (NCT02411448) revealed significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with ramucirumab plus erlotinib (RAM + ERL) compared with placebo plus ERL (PL + ERL) in untreated EGFR-mutated metastatic NSCLC (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46–0.76, p < 0.0001]). This prespecified analysis evaluates efficacy, safety, and postprogression EGFR T790M rates of RELAY patients enrolled in Japan. Methods: Patients were randomized (1:1) to oral ERL (150 mg/d) plus intravenous RAM (10 mg/kg) or PL every 2 weeks. End points included PFS (primary), safety (secondary), and biomarker analyses (exploratory). Plasma samples collected at baseline and poststudy treatment discontinuation were evaluated for EGFR T790M mutations by next-generation sequencing. Results: The Japanese subset included 211 of 449 (47.0%) RELAY patients (RAM + ERL, n = 106; PL + ERL, n = 105). Median PFS was 19.4 versus 11.2 months for RAM + ERL versus PL + ERL treatment (HR = 0.610 [0.431–0.864]) in the Japanese intent-to-treat population, 16.6 versus 12.5 months (HR = 0.701 [0.424–1.159]) in the EGFR exon 19 deletion subgroup, and 19.4 versus 10.9 months (HR = 0.514 [0.317–0.835]) in the EGFR exon 21 L858R subgroup, respectively. Adverse events of grade 3 or above with RAM + ERL included hypertension (24.8%, all grade 3) and dermatitis acneiform (23.8%). Postprogression treatment-emergent T790M rates were similar between arms (RAM + ERL: 47%, 9 of 19 patients; PL + ERL: 50%, 20 of 40 patients). Conclusions: Clinically meaningful efficacy was observed with RAM + ERL versus PL + ERL in the RELAY Japanese subset, with no new safety concerns. Postprogression T790M rates were similar across treatment arms, indicating the addition of RAM did not affect the ERL-associated EGFR T790M rates at disease progression.