Outcome of EGFR inhibitors treatment in advanced NSCLC patients, not enrolled in clinical trials

Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) have become a treatment after first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. We assessed the predictive and prognostic role of EGFR and Kras mutations in NSCLC patients treated with TKIs after progression, not included in clinical trials. Gefitinib 250 mg or Erlotinib 150 mg per os were administered to 70 patients. Radiological assessment was performed every six weeks. EGFR and Kras mutations were found in 21.4% and 24.3% of patients, respectively. At multivariate analysis, Kras mutation was positively associated with progression-free survival (PFS; HR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.53-0.96; p=0.027) and, less clearly, with response (OR=1.84, 95% CI: 0.98-3.45; p=0.057) and survival (HR=0.74, 95% CI:0.54-1.02; p=0.066). EGFR mutation influenced positively PFS (HR=0.69, 95% CI: 0.47-1.02; p=0.06), but not survival. In conclusion, in our unselected patients mutation of Kras correlated with a better outcome. The small number of patients may explain some discrepancies with data in literature.

Synchronous occurrence of pulmonary adenocarcinoma and pleural diffuse malignant mesothelioma

We report a rare case of diffuse malignant pleural mesothelioma synchronous with a localized adenocarcinoma of lung in a 68-year old man with a suspicious history of asbestos exposure. Computed tomography revealed a sub-pleural mass in the lower lobe and an irregular dense area of medium lobe of right lung with thickening of pleura encasing the lung parenchyma and homolateral pleural effusion 1 cm thick. The patient underwent surgery and a right medium and lower lobectomy was performed. Upon frozen sections, intraoperative diagnosis was adenocarcinoma with a poorly differentiated component of lung infiltrating the pleura. The postoperative histological definitive diagnosis with an important contribution of immunostaining was synchronous pulmonary adenocarcinoma and pleural diffuse malignant epithelioid mesothelioma.

Optimal duration of chemotherapy (CT) for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the first- and second-line settings

e19037

Background: No difference in efficacy has been observed between 3 or 4 vs 6 cycles of 1st line CT in patients (pts) with advanced NSCLC. Although longer treatment may improve progression-free survival, this must be weighed against increased toxicity and potential for worse quality of life. There are no prospective, randomized data on the optimal duration of 2nd line CT. The aims of this retrospective study were to (i) confirm the lack of impact of treatment duration on response rate in 1st line NSCLC and (ii) investigate the impact of treatment duration in the 2nd line setting. Methods: Eligible pts had received at least 4 cycles of 1st line (n=95) or 2nd line (n=55) CT for stage IIIB/IV NSCLC in clinical trials of the ATOM group, Udine, Italy, or the National Cancer Institute, Genoa, Italy and achieved stable disease or responded to treatment; trials included one in the elderly, and the addition of biological agents to CT. Response was assessed according to RECIST after alternate CT cycles and tumor dimensions recorded. The proportion of pts achieving a complete or partial response, as well as its timing and any subsequent tumor shrinkage, were analyzed by treatment line. Results: In the 1st line setting, 48 of 95 pts responded; they did so after 2 (29 pts, 61%), 4 (15 pts, 31%) and 6 cycles (4 pts, 8%). In these pts, 16 (55%) and 9 (41%) pts who had responded by the 2nd and 4th cycle respectively and continued on treatment showed further tumor shrinkage; the median further reduction in tumor size was 16% (range 1–52%) and 6% (range 1–11%), respectively. In the 2nd line setting, 12 of 55 pts responded; they did so after 2 (3 pts, 25%), 4 (7 pts, 58%), and 6 cycles (2 pts, 17%). One and two pts who had responded by the 2nd and 4th cycle respectively and continued on treatment showed further tumor shrinkage of 25%, 5% and 24%, respectively. Conclusions: Approximately 90% of CT-naive pts who responded did so by the 4th cycle; most such pts achieved only minor tumor reduction with further CT and did so at the likely expense of increased toxicity. In the 2nd line setting the achievement of response appeared slower. These results support the discontinuation of 1st CT after 4 cycles and suggest the same is true for 2nd line CT.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Targeting the VEGF pathway: antiangiogenic strategies in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer

The management of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has evolved considerably in recent years, due to a progressive understanding of tumour biology and the identification of promising molecular targets. Several agents have been developed so far inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) - a key protein in tumour neoangiogenesis, growth and dissemination - or its receptor signalling system. The finding in study E4599 of a survival benefit for carboplatin-paclitaxel plus bevacizumab - a humanised anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody - over chemotherapy (CT) alone led the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve the novel combination for first-line treatment of patients with unresectable, locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic non-squamous NSCLC. In a randomised phase III trial presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2007 Annual Meeting, patients receiving cisplatin-gemcitabine plus bevacizumab experienced a significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) compared to the standard arm. Based on these data, the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) has granted marketing authorisation for bevacizumab in addition to any platinum-based CT for first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC other than predominantly squamous histology. Aim of this report is to provide an overview on bevacizumab in NSCLC, with special emphasis on clinical results presented at ASCO last meeting. Multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), sharing a focus on both the angiogenesis process and additional cell-surface receptors, and VEGF Trap, a novel fusion protein with markedly higher affinity for VEGF than bevacizumab, will be briefly discussed as well.

Gefitinib (G) treatment outcome after progression on erlotinib (E) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

18138

Background: Two case reports describe a response to E after failure of G (Garfield DH, J Clin Oncol 2005) or to G after failure of E (Choong NW et al, Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2006) in patients (pts) with advanced NSCLC. Otherwise, a limited experience in 5 pts suggests that E is not effective in pts progressing on G (Viswanathan A et al, Lung Cancer 2005). Aim of this study was the evaluation of response and time to progression (TTP) in advanced NSCLC pts treated with G after failure of E. Methods: Pts received G 250 mg/day after disease progression (PD) with E 150 mg/day. Pts accrual was stopped on August 2006 after the approval of E for use in Italy and the consequent closure of the G compassionate-use program. Results: From May 2005 to August 2006, 15 pts were enrolled. Median age 65 years (50–85); males= 14 pts (93%); never/former smokers= 4/10 pts (26/67%); adenocarcinoma= 10 pts (67%); PS 0/1= 5/10 pts (33/67%); in 2 pts (13%) E was administered as first-line therapy, 8 pts (53%) received 2 prior lines of chemotherapy (CT) and 3 pts (20%) received CT between E and G. One patient (7%) had a partial response (PR) and 5 pts (33%) had disease stabilization (SD) with E; with G no PR and 6 SD (40%) were obtained. Five out of 6 RP/SD pts with E, had SD with G; 8 out of 9 PD pts with E, had PD with G; 1 SD patient with E, progressed with G and 1 vice versa. TTP in RP/SD pts was 7.2 and 3.4 months for E and G respectively; in PD pts TTP was 1.7 and 1.6 for E and G respectively. Conclusions: Our data suggest that there is a benefit with G in pts who had RP/SD with E and that is associated with a good TTP. Conversely G is not recommended in pts that immediately progressed after E. Moreover these results support the rationale of treating PD pts with an EGFR TKI with another one; it may be worthwhile to collect more data on E.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Difference between skin toxicities in erlotinib (E) and gefitinib (G) in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

18187

Background: Cutaneous toxicities due to E or G are common and reversible adverse effects. In the two large randomized trials with E (Shepherd F et al, NEJM 2005) and G (Thatcher N et al, Lancet 2005) skin rash toxicity incidence seems different between the two drugs: all grades (gr) were observed in 76% and 37% of patients (pts), gr 3–4 in 9% and 2% respectively. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of the most common toxicities occurred in a cohort of pts treated with E or G in the same period of time and evaluated by the same medical staff according to the Common Toxicity Criteria version 3.0. Methods: From May 2005 to July 2006, 47 pts suitable for a treatment with an EGFR inhibitor were evaluated for their eligibility in an open label phase II trial with E 150 mg/day. Pts ineligible for the latter (16) were treated with G 250 mg/day in a compassionate-use program. Fifteen pts were treated with G at progression after E. Results: Toxicities (all gr, gr 3/3–4) for E vs G consisted in: acneiform rash (64 vs 25%, 13 vs 0%), rash/desquamation (83 vs 19%, 12 vs 0%), pruritus (38 vs 16%, 6 vs 0%), dry skin (48 vs 32%, 3 vs 0%), nail changes (15 vs 6%, 3 vs 0%), diarrhea (54 vs 19%). When pts were treated with both E and G the toxicities (all gr, gr 3/3–4) observed were: acneiform rash (93 vs 20%, 27 vs 0%), rash/desquamation (100 vs 20%, 20 vs 0%), pruritus (41 vs 13%, 7 vs 0%), dry skin (54 vs 27%, 7 vs 0%), nail changes (27 vs 7%, 7 vs 0%), diarrhea (53 vs 7%). Conclusions: Our data are not conclusive being a non-randomized trial. However, these results suggest that there are less cutaneous adverse effects with G. This difference may be probably attributed either to the dose or the bioavailability of E.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Disease stabilization (SD) as a surrogate end-point in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with erlotinib (E) or gefitinib (G)

18115

Background: One retrospective study (Hotta K, Ann Oncol 2005), investigating the prognosis of patients (pts) obtaining SD as best response with G treatment, has demonstrated that both progression-free survival (PFS) and survival (S) were significantly longer than those in pts with progressive disease (PD). The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the PFS and S outcome in pts with advanced NSCLC who achieved SD or partial response (PR) after treatment with E or G. Methods: Pooled data from 62 pts, entered into an open label phase II program of E (n=31) and a compassionate-use program of G (n=31), were retrospectively analyzed. E and G were given orally at 150 and 250 mg per day respectively and were continued until disease progression, development of unacceptable toxicity or patient’s refusal. Results: Pts characteristics: median age 69 years (42–85); females= 21 pts (34%); never/former smokers= 16/38 pts (26/61%); adenocarcinoma/BAC= 35/10 pts (56/16%); PS 0/1= 18/38 pts (29/61%). In 16 pts (26%) E or G were given as first-line therapy; 21 pts (34%) had received =2 prior lines of chemotherapy. Six pts (10%) achieved a PR and 18 pts (29%) obtained SD. TTP and OS in pts obtaining PR and SD were comparable: 7 vs 5.5 and 9.7 vs 9.1 months respectively. In progressing pts median TTP and OS were 1.7 and 3.7 months. Conclusions: Our findings indicate the importance of achieving disease control with both E and G treatment. Pts obtaining SD had a similar PFS and S compared with those having PR. An analysis of the role of mutational status and other biomarkers in predicting clinical outcome is currently underway.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sequential, Alternating, and Maintenance/Consolidation Chemotherapy in Advanced Non‐Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Review of the Literature

A platinum-based doublet with a third-generation agent (paclitaxel, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, docetaxel) represents the standard first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with good performance status (PS). Traditional chemotherapy provides response rates of 20%-40% and a median survival of 8-10 months. In an attempt to improve its outcome, alternative schedules have been proposed, namely sequential, alternating, and maintenance/consolidation therapy. Sequential chemotherapy with a platinum-based doublet followed by a single agent is feasible in patients with good PS; preliminary results from randomized phase III trials with combination chemotherapy as a comparator are promising, suggesting similar efficacy and a better toxicity profile for the sequential arm. The use of sequential single agents is an option for elderly and frail patients unsuitable for a platinum-based combination. Based on trials published so far, it is unlikely that an alternating chemotherapy strategy will be proven superior to standard chemotherapy in patients with good PS. However, sufficient evidence exists that it could be appropriate in the elderly or in unfit individuals. Consolidation/maintenance chemotherapy may provide additional benefit for patients achieving disease control after standard first-line chemotherapy. Better results are seen when maintenance consists of an agent that has proven active in the induction phase. Further evaluation of this strategy, as well as of consolidation/maintenance therapy with targeted agents, is warranted. In conclusion, these approaches may improve the outcome in selected patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, but further results from randomized trials are needed. In the meantime, sequential, alternating, and maintenance/consolidation therapy should still be considered investigational.