Switch Maintenance With Sunitinib (S) in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): An Alliance (CALGB 30607), Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Trial

Angiogenesis Inhibitors in NSCLC

Angiogenesis is a complex biological process that plays a relevant role in sustaining the microenvironment, growth, and metastatic potential of several tumors, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Bevacizumab was the first angiogenesis inhibitor approved for the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC in combination with chemotherapy; however, it was limited to patients with non-squamous histology and first-line setting. Approval was based on the results of two phase III trials (ECOG4599 and AVAIL) that demonstrated an improvement of about two months in progression-free survival (PFS) in both trials, and in the ECOG4599 trial, an improvement in overall survival (OS) also. Afterwards, other antiangiogenic agents, including sunitinib, sorafenib, and vandetanib have been unsuccessfully tested in first and successive lines. Recently, two new antiangiogenic agents (ramucirumab and nintedanib) produced a significant survival benefit in second-line setting. In the REVEL study, ramucirumab plus docetaxel prolonged the median OS of patients with any histology NSCLC when compared with docetaxel alone (10.4 versus 9.1 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.857, p = 0.0235). In the LUME-Lung 1 study, nintedanib plus docetaxel prolonged the median PFS of patients with any tumor histology (p = 0.0019), and improved OS (12.6 versus 10.3 months) in patients with adenocarcinoma. As a result, it became a new option for the second-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC and adenocarcinoma histology. Identifying predictive biomarkers to optimize the benefit of antiangiogenic drugs remains an ongoing challenge.

A Multi-state Model for Designing Clinical Trials for Testing Overall Survival Allowing for Crossover after Progression

In designing a clinical trial for comparing two or more treatments with respect to overall survival (OS), a proportional hazards assumption is commonly made. However, in many cancer clinical trials, patients pass through various disease states prior to death and because of this may receive treatments other than originally assigned. For example, patients may crossover from the control treatment to the experimental treatment at progression. Even without crossover, the survival pattern after progression may be very different than the pattern prior to progression. The proportional hazards assumption will not hold in these situations and the design power calculated on this assumption will not be correct. In this paper we describe a simple and intuitive multi-state model allowing for progression, death before progression, post-progression survival and crossover after progression and apply this model to the design of clinical trials for comparing the OS of two treatments. For given values of the parameters of the multi-state model, we simulate the required number of deaths to achieve a specified power and the distribution of time required to achieve the requisite number of deaths. The results may be quite different from those derived using the usual PH assumption.

Bayesian network meta-comparison of maintenance treatments for stage IIIb/IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with good performance status not progressing after first-line induction chemotherapy: results by performance status, EGFR mutation, histology and response to previous induction

BACKGROUND

Recent trials have suggested that maintenance treatments improve outcomes for patients not progressing after first-line therapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, physicians have little guidance on selecting which patients benefit the most and what drug or regimen is optimal. Here, we report a systematic review and network meta-analysis of maintenance treatments in subgroups determined by performance status (PS), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation, histology and response to induction.

METHODS

PubMed and conference proceedings were reviewed and individual study relative efficacy measures were meta-analysed in a Bayesian hierarchical model. The primary outcome, overall survival (OS), was evaluated in terms of (i) posterior surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), (ii) probability of being best treatment, (iii) probability of outperforming no maintenance, and (iv) posterior median hazard ratio (95% credible interval). Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events.

FINDINGS

Twelve trials evaluating eight maintenance treatments in 3850 patients were meta-analysed. Selected maintenance treatments showed clinically meaningful benefits of ⩾20% reduction in hazards of death with ⩾90% probability of outperforming no maintenance in terms of OS: (i) switch to or continue pemetrexed (nonsquamous), continue gemcitabine, or switch to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for PS 0 patients, (ii) switch to pemetrexed (nonsquamous) for PS 1 patients, (iii) switch to EGFR TKI for EGFR mutation positive patients, (iv) switch to or continue pemetrexed or switch to EGFR TKI for nonsquamous patients, (v) continue gemcitabine for squamous patients, (vi) switch to docetaxel or continue gemcitabine for responders to induction, or (vii) switch to or continue pemetrexed (nonsquamous) or switch to EGFR TKI for patients with stable disease post-induction.

INTERPRETATION

Maintenance treatments show clinically meaningful survival benefits in good performance status patients with advanced NSCLC not progressing after first-line chemotherapy. Benefits are optimised by targeting specific maintenance to individual patients guided by PS, EGFR mutation status, histology and response to induction.