Search

PURPOSE Cisplatin plus gemcitabine is a standard regimen for first-line treatment of advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Phase II studies of pemetrexed plus platinum compounds have also shown activity in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS This noninferiority, phase III, randomized study compared the overall survival between treatment arms using a fixed margin method (hazard ratio [HR] < 1.176) in 1,725 chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1. Patients received cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 (n = 863) or cisplatin 75 mg/m2 and pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 on day 1 (n = 862) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. RESULTS Overall survival for cisplatin/pemetrexed was noninferior to cisplatin/gemcitabine (median survival, 10.3 v 10.3 months, respectively; HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.05). Overall survival was statistically superior for cisplatin/pemetrexed versus cisplatin/gemcitabine in patients with adenocarcinoma (n = 847; 12.6 v 10.9 months, respectively) and large-cell carcinoma histology (n = 153; 10.4 v 6.7 months, respectively). In contrast, in patients with squamous cell histology, there was a significant improvement in survival with cisplatin/gemcitabine versus cisplatin/pemetrexed (n = 473; 10.8 v 9.4 months, respectively). For cisplatin/pemetrexed, rates of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia ( P ≤ .001); febrile neutropenia ( P = .002); and alopecia ( P < .001) were significantly lower, whereas grade 3 or 4 nausea ( P = .004) was more common. CONCLUSION In advanced NSCLC, cisplatin/pemetrexed provides similar efficacy with better tolerability and more convenient administration than cisplatin/gemcitabine. This is the first prospective phase III study in NSCLC to show survival differences based on histologic type.

Anti-programmed death-1 or anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) blockade may be ineffective in some patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with high percentage of tumor cells with PD-L1 expression. In addition, immunotherapy may provide great benefits in patients without PD-L1 expression. The present study assessed PD-L1 protein expression by immunohistochemistry, copy number variation (CNV) of PD-L1 and two single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), rs822335 and rs822336, in the promoter of PD-L1 by quantitative PCR in 673 patients with NSCLC. Overall survival time of patients with NSCLC depending on the assessed predictive factors (PD-L1 CNV or SNP) and the treatment methods (immunotherapy in first/second line of treatment or chemotherapy) was analyzed. The present study revealed significantly higher PD-L1 copies number in patients with ≥10% and ≥50% of tumor cells with PD-L1 expression compared to patients with lower percentage of PD-L1-positive tumor cells (P=0.02 and P=0.0002, respectively). There was a significant positive correlation (R=0.2; P=0.01) between number of PD-L1 copies and percentage of tumor cells with PD-L1 protein expression. Percentage of tumor cells with PD-L1 expression was lower in patients with TT genotype of the rs822335 polymorphism compared to those with CC genotype (P=0.03). The present study observed significantly higher risk of death in patients treated with chemotherapy compared to those treated with immunotherapy (P

Background Avelumab, a human anti–PD-L1 monoclonal antibody, has shown a manageable safety profile and antitumor activity in multiple tumor types, including platinum-resistant metastatic or recurrent NSCLC,1 and is approved for patients with locally advanced or metastatic UC who have progressed after ≥1 previous line of platinum-based chemotherapy2 3 and as maintenance treatment for those who have not progressed with platinum-based chemotherapy.4 JAVELIN Medley VEGF (NCT03472560) evaluated the efficacy and safety of avelumab + axitinib, a potent inhibitor of VEGFR 1, 2, and 3, in patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC or UC. Methods Eligible patients with NSCLC had received ≥1 prior platinum-containing therapy and ≤2 prior lines of systemic therapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease; patients with UC were treatment naive in the locally advanced or metastatic setting and ineligible for cisplatin-containing chemotherapy. Patients were immune checkpoint inhibitor naive and received avelumab 800 mg intravenously every 2 weeks + axitinib 5 mg orally twice daily. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response (OR) per investigator assessment (RECIST 1.1). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. PD-L1 expression was assessed in baseline tumor samples (Ventana SP263 assay). Data have not undergone standard quality checks and are subject to change due to COVID-19–related healthcare burden. Results A total of 41 patients with NSCLC and 20 with UC received avelumab + axitinib. The confirmed OR rate was 31.7% (95% CI, 18.1–48.1) in the NSCLC cohort and 10% (95% CI, 1.2–31.7) in the UC cohort (all partial responses); 16 patients (39.0%) and 5 (25.0%) had stable disease, respectively. Responses were observed regardless of PD-L1 expression status. Median PFS was 5.5 months (95% CI, 2.5–7.0) in the NSCLC cohort and 2.3 months (95% CI, 1.8–5.6) in the UC cohort. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 24 patients (58.5%) in the NSCLC cohort; the most common was hypertension (n=7 [17.1%]). Grade ≥3 TRAEs occurred in 9 patients (45.0%) in the UC cohort; the most common were amylase increased, asthenia, decreased appetite, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (n=2 [10%] each). One patient in each cohort experienced a TRAE that led to death (gastric perforation and urinary bladder hemorrhage). Conclusions Avelumab + axitinib showed antitumor activity and a manageable safety profile in patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC or UC consistent with findings from studies of each drug alone and in combination. Trial Registration NCT03472560 Ethics Approval The study was approved by each site’s independent ethics committee. Consent N/A References Gulley JL, Rajan A, Spigel DR, et al. Avelumab for patients with previously treated metastatic or recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer (JAVELIN Solid Tumor): dose-expansion cohort of a multicentre, open-label, phase 1b trial. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:599–610. Patel MR, Ellerton J, Infante JR, et al. Avelumab in metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum failure (JAVELIN Solid Tumor): pooled results from two expansion cohorts of an open-label, phase 1 trial. Lancet Oncol 2018;19:51–64. Bavencio(avelumab) injection. [package insert] Darmstadt, Germany: Merck KGaA; 2019. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves avelumab for urothelial carcinoma maintenance treatment. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-approvals-and-databases/fda-approves-avelumab-urothelial-carcinoma-maintenance-treatment. Accessed August 19, 2020.

434 Background: Combination of anti-VEGF compounds and immune checkpoint inhibitors is an approved therapy across multiple solid tumors, including advanced HCC. This phase Ib study (NCT03468426) is assessing BI 836880 (bispecific VEGF/Ang2 nanobody) + ezabenlimab (anti-PD-1 antibody) in pts with advanced solid tumors. The recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of BI 836880 720 mg + ezabenlimab 240 mg given IV every 3 weeks was determined in Part 1. In Part 2, RP2D was assessed in 7 expansion cohorts. We report data from cohorts in HCC after prior sorafenib/lenvatinib (cohort F) and untreated unresectable HCC (cohort G). Methods: Pts with locally advanced or metastatic HCC, Child-Pugh class A, not eligible for surgical or locoregional therapies were enrolled. Cohort F enrolled pts who had progressed on or after first-line treatment with sorafenib or lenvatinib or who had discontinued due to poor tolerability after ≥2 weeks of treatment. Cohort G enrolled pts who had received no prior systemic therapy for HCC. Treatment continued until disease progression, undue toxicity or consent withdrawal. Primary endpoint is objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST 1.1. Results: As of Aug 2021, 30/31 pts have been treated in cohorts F/G: 87/77% male; median age 65/64 yrs. Follow-up is ongoing in both cohorts. 9/19 pts in cohorts F/G remain on treatment; median (range) duration of treatment is 175 (42–532)/ 169 (42–336) days in cohorts F/G. All pts were evaluable for response in cohort F: confirmed ORR to date is 40% (1 complete response; 11 partial responses [PRs]). Of 28 evaluable pts in cohort G, confirmed ORR to date is 21% (6 PRs). 12 (40%) pts in cohort F and 18 (64%) in cohort G have stable disease. In cohort F, AEs were reported in 28 (93%) pts, most frequently hypertension and proteinuria (each 30%). In cohort G, AEs occurred in 26 (84%) pts, most frequently ascites (26%) and thrombocytopenia (19%). 24 (80%) pts in cohort F and 15 (48%) in cohort G had treatment-related AEs (TRAEs). Most frequent TRAEs were proteinuria (27%), infusion-related reactions (IRRs) and hypertension (each 20%) in cohort F, and hypertension (13%), IRRs, hypothyroidism and diarrhea (each 10%) in cohort G. There were 3 pts with G5 AEs in cohort F (COVID-19 pneumonia [n = 1]; low Glasgow coma score and dyspnea [n = 1]; hepatic cirrhosis [n = 1]) and 1 G5 AE in cohort G (hepatic failure); none were considered related to treatment. AEs leading to discontinuation occurred in 2 pts in cohort F (G3 hepatic encephalopathy and G2 duodenal ulcer) and 3 in cohort G (G5 hepatic failure [n = 1]; G2 acute kidney injury and G1 decreased appetite [n = 1]; G2 diarrhea [n = 1]). Conclusions: BI 836880 + ezabenlimab had a manageable safety profile and showed promising activity in pts with untreated and second-line post-sorafenib/lenvatinib advanced HCC. Data continue to mature, particularly in cohort G. Cohort F has been expanded by a further 30 pts. Clinical trial information: NCT03468426.

Background: Combining anti-VEGF/Ang2 and anti-PD-1 therapy promotes an immunopermissive state, supportive of T-cell-mediated tumour cell destruction. This phase Ib study is assessing BI 836880 plus ezabenlimab in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumours. In Part 1 (dose escalation in pts with advanced NSCLC), the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) was determined as BI 836880 720 mg + ezabenlimab 240 mg IV q3w. Here, we report updated results, including data from Part 2 (expansion cohorts). Methods: Part 2 has 7 cohorts: metastatic (m) NSCLC after checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) monotherapy (Cohort A);mNSCLC after chemotherapy (CT) + CPI (Cohort B);mSCLC after CT ± CPI (Cohort C);recurrent GBM (1st and 2nd recurrence;Cohort D);immunotherapy-resistant m-melanoma (Cohort E);HCC after prior sorafenib or lenvatinib (Cohort F);and previously untreated unresectable HCC (Cohort G). Primary endpoint is objective response rate (complete response [CR] + partial response [PR]). Results: As of March 2021, 215 pts have been treated (Part 1: 14, Part 2: 201 [Cohort A, 35;B, 32;C, 19;D, 31;E, 32;F, 29;G, 23];70% male, median age 62 yrs). Any and ≥G3 AEs (any-cause) were reported in 183 (85%) and 72 (33%) pts. 118 (55%) pts had drug-related AEs, most commonly asthenia (13%) and hypertension (12%). 7 pts had G4 AEs (non-related hyperkalaemia + cardiac arrest, laryngospasm, gastrointestinal perforation;drug-related anaphylactic reaction, cholestatic hepatitis, acute pancreatitis, increased transaminases);9 pts had G5 AEs (non-related COVID-19 pneumonia, epilepsy, intracranial haemorrhage, cardio-respiratory arrest, haemoptysis, hepatic failure, general physical health deterioration, Glasgow coma scale abnormal + shortness of breath;drug-related tracheal haemorrhage). 35 (16%) pts had immune-related AEs and 15 (7%) had AEs leading to discontinuation. 179 pts were evaluable for response: 1 had confirmed CR (Cohort F), 22 had PR (Part 1: 2;Part 2: 20 [Cohort A, 4;C, 5;D, 4;E, 3;F, 3;G, 1]) and 110 had stable disease. 106 pts remain on treatment. Conclusions: BI 836880 plus ezabenlimab had a manageable safety profile, with preliminary activity in a range of tumour types. Clinical trial identification: NCT03468426. Editorial acknowledgement: Medical writing support for the development of this manuscript, under the direction of the authors, was provided by Hannah Simmons MSc, of Ashfield MedComms, an Ashfield Health company, and funded by Boehringer Ingelheim. Legal entity responsible for the study: Boehringer Ingelheim. Funding: Boehringer Ingelheim. Disclosure: N. Girard: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Roche, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, BMS, MSD, Takeda, GSK, AbbVie, Pharmamar, Janssen, Sanofi;Financial Interests, Personal, Funding, Travel/accommodation/expenses: Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS MSD Oncology;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Roche, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim. M. Wermke: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: MSD, Novartis, Kite, Heidelberg Pharma, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: BMS, Merck, Roche, Novartis, Kite, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca;Financial Interests, Personal, Funding, Travel/Accommodation/Expenses: Glenmark, BMS, AstraZeneca. E. Ledin: Financial Interests, Personal and Institutional, Research Grant: Boehringer Ingelheim. D. Kim: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service, Korea;Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker: Korean Association for Lung Cancer, Korean Cancer Association, Korean Society of Medical Oncology, Taiwan Lung Cancer Society;Financial Interests, Institutional, Principal Investigator, Clinical Trial Funding: Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca/Medimmune, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bridge BioTherapeutics, Chong Keun Dang, Daiich-Sankyo, GSK, Hanmi, Janssen, Merus, MIrati Therapeutics, MSD, Novartis, ONO Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Takeda, TP Therapeuti;Non-Financial Interests, Person l, Advisory Role: Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS / ONO Pharmaceuticals, Daiich-Sankyo, GSK, Janssen, Pfizer, SK Biopharm, Takeda, Yuhan;Non-Financial Interests, Personal, Member of the Board of Directors: Asian Thoracic Oncology Research Group, Korean Association for Lung Cancer, Korean Cancer Association, Korean Society of Medical Oncology;Other, Personal, Funding, Travel support for advisory board meeting attendance: Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo. J. Bennouna: Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche, Servier, Bayer, AMGEN;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: AstraZeneca. T. Lesimple: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: MSD, Novartis, BMS, Pierre Fabre;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: MSD, Novartis;Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Grant: Roche. E. Felip: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Amgen;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: AstraZeneca;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: BAYER;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Beigene;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Boehringer-Ingelheim;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Bristol-Myers Squibb;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Eli Lilly;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: F. Hoffman-La Roche;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Glaxo Smith Kline;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Janssen;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Medical Trends;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Merck Sharp & Dohme;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Merck Serono;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Peptomyc;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Pfizer;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Puma;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Regeneron;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Sanofi;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Syneos Health;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Takeda;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Amgen;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: AstraZeneca;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Bristol-Myers Squibb;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Eli Lilly;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: F. Hoffmann-La Roche;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Janssen;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Medscape;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Merck Sharp & Dohme;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Merck Serono;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Peervoice;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Pfizer;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Springer;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Touch Medical;Financial Interests, Personal, Member, Independent Member of the Board: Grifols. D. Berz: Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Oncocyte;Other, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Sun Pharma;Other, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Caris;Other, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Takeda;Other, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Natera;Other, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Jazz Pharma;Other, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Genentech;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Oncocyte;Other, Personal, Advisory Role: Sun Pharma;Other, Personal, Advisory Role: Biocept;Other, Personal, Advisory Role: Prelude;Financial Interests, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Oncocyte;Other, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Caris;Other, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Sun Pharma;Other, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: AstraZeneca;Other, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Takeda;Other, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Merck;Other, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Natera;Other, Personal, Speaker’s Bureau: Jazz Pharma. C. Mascaux: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Roche;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Astr Zeneca;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Kephren;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Bristol-Myers Squibb;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: MSD;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Pfizer;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Roche;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: AstraZeneca;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Kephren;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Bristol-Myers Squibb;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: MSD;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: Pfizer;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, travel, accommodations, expenses: Roche;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, travel, accommodations, expenses: AstraZeneca;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, travel, accommodations, expenses: Boehringer Ingelheim;Financial Interests, Personal, Other, travel, accommodations, expenses: Takeda. M. Voskoboynik: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: AstraZeneca. H.T. Landsteiner: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: Boehringer Ingelheim. V. Chen: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: Boehringer Ingelheim. G. Jayadeva: Financial Interests, Personal, Full or part-time Employment: Boehringer Ingelheim. J. Alt: Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda;Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Roche;Financial Interests, Personal, Funding, Travel/accommodation/expenses: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS. B. Hackanson: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Role: Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, AstraZeneca, BMS. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Aim: The current study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of second-line afatinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive ( EGFRm+) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) following chemotherapy. Patients & methods: In this open-label, single-arm Phase IV study, patients with EGFRm+ (Del19/L858R) NSCLC who had progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy received afatinib (starting dose 40 mg/day). The primary end point was confirmed objective response. Results: 60 patients received afatinib for a median duration of 11.5 months. 50% of patients had a confirmed objective response, of median duration 13.8 months. Median progression-free survival was 10.9 months. The most common treatment-related adverse events were diarrhea (72%), rash (28%) and paronychia (23%). Conclusion: Our data support the use of afatinib (40 mg/day) as an effective and well-tolerated second-line treatment in EGFRm+ NSCLC.

2579 Background: In preclinical studies, the combination of anti-VEGF/Ang2 and anti-PD-1 therapy has been shown to promote an immunopermissive state, which is supportive of T-cell-mediated tumor cell destruction. BI 836880 is a humanized bispecific nanobody that targets VEGF and Ang2, and ezabenlimab (BI 754091) is an anti-PD-1 antibody. Phase I studies investigating each as monotherapies have reported safety and preliminary antitumor activity. This ongoing Phase Ib study is evaluating the combination of BI 836880 and ezabenlimab in pts with advanced solid tumors. In Part 1 (dose escalation), the combination was feasible in pts with advanced NSCLC, with a recommended Phase II dose (RP2D) of BI 836880 720 mg + ezabenlimab 240 mg IV q3w. Here, we report updated results from Part 2 (expansion phase), which is assessing the antitumor activity and safety of the RP2D. Methods: Seven cohorts are currently recruiting pts in Part 2: metastatic (m) NSCLC after checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) monotherapy (Cohort A); mNSCLC after chemotherapy (CT) + CPI (Cohort B); mSCLC after CT ± CPI (Cohort C); 1st and 2nd recurrences of glioblastoma (GBM; Cohort D); immunotherapy-resistant m-melanoma (Cohort E); hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after prior sorafenib or lenvatinib ± CPI (Cohort F); and previously untreated/unresectable HCC (Cohort G). Primary endpoint is objective response rate (complete response + partial response [PR]). Results: As of January 2021, 196 pts have received BI 836880 plus ezabenlimab (14 in Part 1, 182 in Part 2 [Cohort A, 26; B, 30; C, 19; D, 31; E, 32; F, 28; G, 16]). 134 (68%) pts were male, median age was 63 years and 102 (52%) had prior CPI use. Any grade and ≥G3 adverse events (AEs; any cause) were reported by 160 (82%) and 62 (32%) pts, most commonly (all%/≥G3%) hypertension (20/8), asthenia (20/3), diarrhea, decreased appetite, and nausea (all 11/1). 95 (48%) pts had a drug-related AE, most commonly hypertension and asthenia (both 11%). 6 pts had a G4 AE (non-related: hyperkalemia + cardiac arrest, laryngospasm, gastrointestinal perforation; drug-related: anaphylactic reaction, acute pancreatitis, transaminases increased); 8 pts had a G5 AE (non-related: general physical health deterioration, epilepsy, hemoptysis, cardio-respiratory arrest, hepatic failure, intracranial hemorrhage, COVID-19 pneumonia; drug-related tracheal hemorrhage). 30 (15%) pts had immune-related AEs (3% ≥G3), including hypothyroidism (3%). 11 (6%) pts had an AE leading to discontinuation. Overall, 145 pts were evaluable for response: 9 pts achieved confirmed PR (2 pts in Part 1 and 7 in Part 2 [NSCLC, n = 3; SCLC, n = 1; GBM, n = 1; melanoma, n = 1; and 2nd-line HCC, n = 1]), 87 pts had stable disease and 49 pts had progressive disease. 111 pts remain on treatment. Conclusions: BI 836880 plus ezabenlimab had a manageable safety profile. The combination showed preliminary antitumor activity in a range of tumor types. Clinical trial information: NCT03468426.

Purpose Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) –tyrosine kinase inhibitors have proven efficacy in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We hypothesized that erlotinib would be efficacious in the adjuvant setting. Patients and Methods An international randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in patients with completely resected IB to IIIA NSCLC whose tumors expressed EGFR protein by immunohistochemistry or EGFR amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Patients were assigned 2:1 to erlotinib 150 mg once per day or placebo for 2 years. Stratification factors were stage, histology, previous adjuvant chemotherapy, smoking status, EGFR amplification status, and country. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS); key secondary end points were overall survival (OS) and DFS and OS in patients whose tumors had EGFR-activating mutations (EGFRm-positive). Results A total of 973 patients were randomly assigned (November 26, 2007, to July 7, 2010). There was no statistically significant difference in DFS (median, 50.5 months for erlotinib and 48.2 months for placebo; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.10; P = .324). Among the 161 patients (16.5%) in the EGFRm-positive subgroup, DFS favored erlotinib (median, 46.4 v 28.5 months; hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.98; P = .039), but this was not statistically significant because of the hierarchical testing procedure. OS data are immature. Rash and diarrhea were common adverse events occurring in 528 (86.4%) and 319 (52.2%) patients treated with erlotinib, respectively, versus 110 (32.1%) and 54 (15.7%) patients receiving placebo. The most common grade 3 adverse events in patients treated with erlotinib were rash (22.3%) and diarrhea (6.2%). Conclusion Adjuvant erlotinib did not prolong DFS in patients with EGFR-expressing NSCLC or in the EGFRm-positive subgroup. Further evaluation of erlotinib is warranted in the EGFRm-positive subgroup.

Background Ipilimumab, an anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibody, demonstrated survival benefit in melanoma with immune-related (ir) adverse events (irAEs) managed by the protocol-defined guidelines. This phase 2 study evaluated ipilimumab + paclitaxel (Taxol)/carboplatin in extensive-disease-small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). Design Patients (n = 130) with chemotherapy-naive ED-SCLC were randomized 1: 1: 1 to receive paclitaxel (175 mg/m2)/carboplatin (area under the curve = 6) with either placebo (control) or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg in two alternative regimens, concurrent ipilimumab (ipilimumab + paclitaxel/carboplatin followed by placebo + paclitaxel/carboplatin) or phased ipilimumab (placebo + paclitaxel/carboplatin followed by ipilimumab + paclitaxel/carboplatin). Treatment was administered every 3 weeks for a maximum of 18 weeks (induction), followed by maintenance ipilimumab or placebo every 12 weeks. End points included progression-free survival (PFS), irPFS, best overall response rate (BORR); irBORR, overall survival (OS), and safety. Results Phased ipilimumab, but not concurrent ipilimumab, improved irPFS versus control [HR (hazard ratio) = 0.64; P = 0.03]. No improvement in PFS (HR = 0.93; P = 0.37) or OS (HR = 0.75; P = 0.13) occurred. Phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab and control, respectively, were associated with median irPFS of 6.4, 5.7 and 5.3 months; median PFS of 5.2, 3.9 and 5.2 months; median OS of 12.9, 9.1 and 9.9 months. Overall rates of grade 3/4 irAEs were 17, 21 and 9% for phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab and control, respectively. Conclusion These results suggest further investigation of ipilimumab in ED-SCLC.

Purpose Ipilimumab, which is an anti–cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4 monoclonal antibody, showed a survival benefit in melanoma with adverse events (AEs) managed by protocol-defined guidelines. A phase II study in lung cancer assessed the activity of ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin. Patients and Methods Patients (N = 204) with chemotherapy-naive non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) and carboplatin (area under the curve, 6) with either placebo (control) or ipilimumab in one of the following two regimens: concurrent ipilimumab (four doses of ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by two doses of placebo plus paclitaxel and carboplatin) or phased ipilimumab (two doses of placebo plus paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by four doses of ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin).Treatment was administered intravenously every 3 weeks for ≤ 18 weeks (induction). Eligible patients continued ipilimumab or placebo every 12 weeks as maintenance therapy. Response was assessed by using immune-related response criteria and modified WHO criteria. The primary end point was immune-related progression-free survival (irPFS). Other end points were progression-free survival (PFS), best overall response rate (BORR), immune-related BORR (irBORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results The study met its primary end point of improved irPFS for phased ipilimumab versus the control (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; P = .05), but not for concurrent ipilimumab (HR, 0.81; P = .13). Phased ipilimumab also improved PFS according to modified WHO criteria (HR, 0.69; P = .02). Phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab, and control treatments were associated with a median irPFS of 5.7, 5.5, and 4.6 months, respectively, a median PFS of 5.1, 4.1, and 4.2 months, respectively, an irBORR of 32%, 21% and 18%, respectively, a BORR of 32%, 21% and 14%, respectively, and a median OS of 12.2, 9.7, and 8.3 months. Overall rates of grade 3 and 4 immune-related AEs were 15%, 20%, and 6% for phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab, and the control, respectively. Two patients (concurrent, one patient; control, one patient) died from treatment-related toxicity. Conclusion Phased ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin improved irPFS and PFS, which supports additional investigation of ipilimumab in NSCLC.

Background This open-label phase III study assessed the addition of Toll-like receptor 9-activating oligodeoxynucleotide PF-3512676 to gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods Chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomized (1:1) to receive six or fewer 3-week cycles of i.v. gemcitabine (1250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8) and cisplatin alone (75 mg/m2 on day 1, control arm) or combined with s.c. PF-3512676 0.2 mg/kg on days 8 and 15 of each chemotherapy cycle and weekly thereafter until progression or unacceptable toxicity (experimental arm). No crossover was planned. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Results A total of 839 patients were randomized. Baseline demographics were well balanced. Median OS (11.0 versus 10.7 months; P = 0.98) and median progression-free survival (PFS) (both 5.1 months) were similar between groups. Grade ≥3 hematologic adverse events (AEs), injection-site reactions, and influenza-like symptoms were more frequently reported among patients receiving PF-3512676. At the first-interim analysis, the Data Safety Monitoring Committee recommended study discontinuation. Administration of PF-3512676 was halted based on efficacy futility and increased grade ≥3 AEs (experimental arm). Conclusions Addition of PF-3512676 to gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy did not improve OS or PFS but did increase toxicity.

Background: Afatinib has demonstrated clinical benefit in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer progressing after treatment with erlotinib/gefitinib. This phase III trial prospectively assessed whether continued irreversible ErbB-family blockade with afatinib plus paclitaxel has superior outcomes versus switching to chemotherapy alone in patients acquiring resistance to erlotinib/gefitinib and afatinib monotherapy. Patients and methods: Patients with relapsed/refractory disease following ≥ 1 line of chemotherapy, and whose tumors had progressed following initial disease control (≥ 12 weeks) with erlotinib/gefitinib and thereafter afatinib (50 mg/day), were randomized 2:1 to receive afatinib plus paclitaxel (40 mg/day; 80 mg/m2/week) or investigator's choice of single-agent chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Other end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), safety and patient-reported outcomes. Results: Two hundred and two patients with progressive disease following clinical benefit from afatinib were randomized to afatinib plus paclitaxel (n ≥ 134) or single-agent chemotherapy (n ≥ 68). PFS (median 5.6 versus 2.8 months, hazard ratio 0.60, P ≥ 0.003) and ORR (32.1% versus 13.2%, P ≥ 0.005) significantly improved with afatinib plus paclitaxel. There was no difference in OS. Global health status/quality of life was maintained with afatinib plus paclitaxel over the entire treatment period. The median treatment duration was 133 and 51 days with afatinib plus paclitaxel and single-agent chemotherapy, respectively; 48.5% of patients receiving afatinib plus paclitaxel and 30.0% of patients receiving single-agent chemotherapy experienced drug-related grade 3/4 adverse events. Treatment-related adverse events were consistent with those previously reported with each agent. Conclusion: Afatinib plus paclitaxel improved PFS and ORR compared with single-agent chemotherapy in patients who acquired resistance to erlotinib/gefitinib and progressed on afatinib after initial benefit. LUX-Lung 5 is the first prospective trial to demonstrate the benefit of continued ErbB targeting post-progression, versus switching to single-agent chemotherapy. Trial registration number: NCT01085136 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Purpose Erlotinib is a potent inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase, with single-agent antitumor activity. Preclinically, erlotinib enhanced the cytotoxicity of chemotherapy. This phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of erlotinib in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine as first-line treatment for advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods Patients received erlotinib (150 mg/d) or placebo, combined with up to six 21-day cycles of chemotherapy (gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to disease progression (TTP), response rate (RR), duration of response, and quality of life (QoL). Results A total of 1,172 patients were enrolled. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were well balanced. There were no differences in OS (hazard ratio, 1.06; median, 43 v 44.1 weeks for erlotinib and placebo groups, respectively), TTP, RR, or QoL between treatment arms. In a small group of patients who had never smoked, OS and progression-free survival were increased in the erlotinib group; no other subgroups were found more likely to benefit. Erlotinib with chemotherapy was generally well tolerated; incidence of adverse events was similar between arms, except for an increase in rash and diarrhea with erlotinib (generally mild). Conclusion Erlotinib with concurrent cisplatin and gemcitabine showed no survival benefit compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced NSCLC.

The humanized KS-interleukin-2, tucotuzumab (huKS-IL2; EMD 273066), is an EpCAM-specific immunocytokine with reported immunologic activity in combination with cyclophosphamide. This Phase 2, randomized, open-label study compared tucotuzumab/cyclophosphamide, administered as maintenance, with best supportive care (BSC) in patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) who responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy with/without prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI). Patients received cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m, Day 1 of every 3-week cycle), followed by tucotuzumab (1.5 mg/m, Days 2-4) until disease progression. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS); the secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), treatment response, and safety. The 6-month PFS rate was lower in the tucotuzumab/cyclophosphamide group (n=64) than in the BSC group (n=44): 6.4 versus 12.2% [hazard ratio (HR): 0.98; 80% confidence interval (CI): 0.74-1.31]. HRs for PFS, time to progression, and OS indicated a similar risk of disease progression and death in both groups and best overall responses were generally comparable. For patients with previous PCI (n=26), there was a nonsignificant trend toward prolonged median PFS (1.7 vs. 1.5 months; HR: 0.60; 80% CI: 0.33-1.11) and OS (21.5 vs. 14.3 months; HR: 0.58; 80% CI: 0.31-1.05) in the tucotuzumab/cyclophosphamide group. Adverse events were more frequent with tucotuzumab/cyclophosphamide (92.2%) than with BSC (47.7%). Tucotuzumab/cyclophosphamide was well tolerated in ED-SCLC patients, but did not show PFS or OS benefits compared with BSC. The observed trend toward prolonged PFS and OS in the subgroup of patients receiving previous PCI may support further confirmation in a larger population.

Genetic factors associated with the risk of smoking related cancers have until recently remained elusive. Since the publication of a genome-wide association study (GWAS) on lung cancer new genetic loci have been identified that appear to be associated with disease risk. In this replication study we genotyped 14 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) located at the 5p12.3-p15.33, 6p21.3-p22.1, 6q23-q27 and 15q25.1 loci in 874 lung, 450 bladder, 418 laryngeal cancer cases and cancer-free controls, matched by year of birth and sex to the cases. Our results revealed that loci in the chromosome region 15q25.1 (rs16969968[A], rs8034191[G]) and 5p15 (rs402710[T]) are associated with lung cancer risk in the Polish population (smoking status adjusted OR = 1.45, 1.35, 0.77; p ≤ 0.0001, 0.0005, 0.002; 95%CI 1.23-1.72, 1.14-1.59, 0.66-0.91 respectively). None of the other regions analyzed herein were implicated in the risk of lung, bladder or laryngeal cancer. This study supports previous findings on lung cancer but fails to show association of SNPs located in 15q25.1 and 5p15 region with other smoking related cancers like bladder and laryngeal cancer.

Purpose Following a phase II trial in which pemetrexed-platinum demonstrated similar activity to that of historical etoposide-platinum controls, a phase III study was conducted to compare pemetrexed-carboplatin with etoposide-carboplatin for the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Patients and Methods Chemotherapy-naive patients with ES-SCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of zero to 2 were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed-carboplatin (pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 on day 1; carboplatin at area under the serum concentration-time curve [AUC] 5 on day 1) or etoposide-carboplatin (etoposide 100 mg/m2 on days 1 through 3; carboplatin AUC 5 on day 1) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary objective of the study was noninferiority of pemetrexed-carboplatin overall survival with a 15% margin. Results Accrual was terminated with 908 of 1,820 patients enrolled after results of a planned interim analysis. In the final analysis, pemetrexed-carboplatin was inferior to etoposide-carboplatin for overall survival (median, 8.1 v 10.6 months; hazard ratio [HR],1.56; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.92; log-rank P < .01) and progression-free survival (median, 3.8 v 5.4 months; HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.58 to 2.17; log-rank P < .01). Objective response rates were also significantly lower for pemetrexed-carboplatin (31% v 52%; P < .001). Pemetrexed-carboplatin had lower grade 3 to 4 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and leukopenia than etoposide-carboplatin; grade 3 to 4 thrombocytopenia was comparable between arms and anemia was higher in the pemetrexed-carboplatin arm. Conclusion Pemetrexed-carboplatin is inferior for the treatment of ES-SCLC. Planned translational research and pharmacogenomic analyses of tumor and blood samples may help explain the study results and provide insight into new treatment strategies.

Mutations in the CHEK2 gene have been associated with increased risks of breast, prostate and colon cancer. In contrast, a previous report suggests that individuals with the I157T missense variant of the CHEK2 gene might be at decreased risk of lung cancer and upper aero-digestive cancers. To confirm this hypothesis, we genotyped 895 cases of lung cancer, 430 cases of laryngeal cancer and 6391 controls from Poland for four founder alleles in the CHEK2 gene, each of which has been associated with an increased risk of cancer at several sites. The presence of a CHEK2 mutation was protective against both lung cancer [odds ratio (OR) = 0.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.2-0.5; P = 3 x 10(-8)] and laryngeal cancer (OR = 0.6; 95% CI 0.3-0.99; P = 0.05). The basis of the protective effect is unknown, but may relate to the reduced viability of lung cancer cells with a CHEK2 mutation. Lung cancers frequently possess other defects in genes in the DNA damage response pathway (e.g. p53 mutations) and have a high level of genotoxic DNA damage induced by tobacco smoke. We speculate that lung cancer cells with impaired CHEK2 function undergo increased rates of cell death.

7540 Background: Adjuvant chemotherapy for NSCLC has reached a plateau. The use of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), E, was explored in the adjuvant setting given success in advanced setting.We ...

Both breast and lung cancers are common malignancies and within the context of known genetic predispositions to breast cancer, no association has been made in linking the two diseases together. This does not exclude the possibility that such associations may exist that lie outside the known high-risk breast cancer families. To examine the likelihood of common genetic factors that could influence the risk of disease, two sets of consecutively collected tumor groups were examined for the 3020insC mutation in the NOD2/CARD15 gene. A total of 4107 consecutively collected breast cancer patients were assessed for the prevalence of the 3020insC mutation and compared to a consecutively collected series of 389 lung cancer patients and 2068 control samples. The results revealed that a proportion of breast cancer patients who had a first or a second degree relative diagnosed with lung cancer were more likely to harbour a change in NOD2/CARD15 compared to patients who had no relatives affected by lung cancer. Furthermore, this difference appeared to be specific to the breast and lung cancer subgroup since there was no difference in the frequency of the 3020insC allele in the consecutively collected lung cancer patients. In conclusion, it appears that the 3020insC mutation of the NOD2/CARD15 gene may be a genetic predisposing factor for aggregations of breast and lung cancer.

7090 Background: huKS-IL2 immunocytokine is a humanized antibody specific for EpCAM, fused at its Fc end to two molecules of IL2. Results of a phase 1b study of huKS-IL2 plus low-dose CTX, and preclinical data, provided a rationale to evaluate this combination in SCLC, which is often EpCAM-positive. Methods: Patients (pts) with ED-SCLC responding (PR/CR) to 4 cycles of first-line Pt-based chemotherapy were randomized 1,5:1 to receive huKS-IL2/CTX or best supportive care (BSC). Pts in the huKS-IL2/CTX arm received six 21-day cycles of CTX 300 mg/m2 on day (d) 1, and 1.5 mg/m2/d huKS-IL2 on d2–4, followed by 21-d cycles of CTX on d1 and huKS-IL2 on d2 until progression. Pts were stratified for prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) and response to chemotherapy. Primary endpoint was PFS rate at 6 months (mo). Secondary endpoints included OS rates at 12 and 18 mo from start of Pt-based chemotherapy, median PFS and OS, safety, and immunogenicity. Results: 108 pts (64 huKS-IL2/CTX arm, 44 BSC arm) were randomized and treated. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms; however, higher % of males (75 vs 61.4%) and of ECOG PS 0 (45.3 vs 38.6%) were observed in the active arm. Median age was 61.7 (32; 81) and 59.2 (45; 74) years in the active and BSC arm, respectively. Most pts were in PR at randomization (2 pts – 1 in each arm – had CR). PCI was used in 15 (23.4%) and 11 (25%) pts in the active and BSC arm, respectively. No significant differences in PFS or OS were observed in the active vs BSC arm: PFS rate was 6.4 vs 12.2%; median PFS was 1.5 vs 1.4 mo; OS rates at 12 and 18 mo were 52 vs 61% and 24 vs 29%, respectively; median OS was 12.3 vs 14.1 mo. One PR (45% reduction vs randomization baseline) was observed in the active arm. In a subset of pts who received PCI, median PFS was 1.7 vs 1.5 mo, median OS 21.5 vs 14.3 mo in the active vs BSC arm, respectively. AEs observed more frequently in the active arm were flu-like symptoms, rash, hypotension, lymphopenia, LFT and creatinine elevations; all Grade 3/4 AEs related to huKS-IL2 were reversible/manageable. Conclusions: HuKS-IL2/CTX was well tolerated, but showed no benefit in pts with ED-SCLC in PR/CR after chemotherapy. A trend for improved PFS and OS was observed in pts who received prior PCI.

7531 Background: IPI is a fully human monoclonal antibody that potentiates immune response by selectively inhibiting CTLA-4. CA184- 041 is a randomized, double-blind phase II study of first-line IPI in recurrent/metastatic lung cancer in combination with P (175 mg/m2)/C (AUC=6). Methods: 203 pts with chemotherapy-naive, recurrent or stage IIIb/IV NSCLC were randomized 1:1:1 to receive either: IPI (10 mg/kg IV q3wks) + concurrent (CON) IV P/C (175 mg/m2 and AUC=6, q3wks); or IPI + sequential (SEQ) P/C, or P/C alone (PBO). After P/C, IPI was administered as continuation maintenance therapy q12 wks until toxicity or disease progression. Efficacy was assessed by mWHO and novel immune- related response criteria (irRC), providing a more comprehensive evaluation of immunotherapeutics (Clin Canc Res 2009;15:7412). The primary objective compared immune-related progression-free survival (irPFS) between CON and PBO and SEQ and PBO using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha of 0.1. Results: Baseline characteristics w...