Tumor Treating Fields therapy with standard systemic therapy versus standard systemic therapy alone in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer following progression on or after platinum-based therapy (LUNAR): a randomised, open-label, pivotal phase 3 study

BACKGROUND

Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are electric fields that disrupt processes critical for cancer cell survival, leading to immunogenic cell death and enhanced antitumour immune response. In preclinical models of non-small-cell lung cancer, TTFields amplified the effects of chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors. We report primary results from a pivotal study of TTFields therapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

METHODS

This randomised, open-label, pivotal phase 3 study recruited patients at 130 sites in 19 countries. Participants were aged 22 years or older with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer progressing on or after platinum-based therapy, with squamous or non-squamous histology and ECOG performance status of 2 or less. Previous platinum-based therapy was required, but no restriction was placed on the number or type of previous lines of systemic therapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to TTFields therapy and standard systemic therapy (investigator's choice of immune checkpoint inhibitor [nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab] or docetaxel) or standard therapy alone. Randomisation was performed centrally using variable blocked randomisation and an interactive voice-web response system, and was stratified by tumour histology, treatment, and region. Systemic therapies were dosed according to local practice guidelines. TTFields therapy (150 kHz) was delivered continuously to the thoracic region with the recommendation to achieve an average of at least 18 h/day device usage. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The safety population included all patients who received any study therapy and were analysed according to the actual treatment received. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02973789.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 13, 2017, and Nov 19, 2021, 276 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive TTFields therapy with standard therapy (n=137) or standard therapy alone (n=139). The median age was 64 years (IQR 59-70), 178 (64%) were male and 98 (36%) were female, 156 (57%) had non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, and 87 (32%) had received a previous immune checkpoint inhibitor. Median follow-up was 10·6 months (IQR 6·1-33·7) for patients receiving TTFields therapy with standard therapy, and 9·5 months (0·1-32·1) for patients receiving standard therapy. Overall survival was significantly longer with TTFields therapy and standard therapy than with standard therapy alone (median 13·2 months [95% CI 10·3-15·5] vs 9·9 months [8·1-11·5]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·74 [95% CI 0·56-0·98]; p=0·035). In the safety population (n=267), serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 70 (53%) of 133 patients receiving TTFields therapy plus standard therapy and 51 (38%) of 134 patients receiving standard therapy alone. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were leukopenia (37 [14%] of 267), pneumonia (28 [10%]), and anaemia (21 [8%]). TTFields therapy-related adverse events were reported in 95 (71%) of 133 patients; these were mostly (81 [85%]) grade 1-2 skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders. There were three deaths related to standard therapy (two due to infections and one due to pulmonary haemorrhage) and no deaths related to TTFields therapy.

INTERPRETATION

TTFields therapy added to standard therapy significantly improved overall survival compared with standard therapy alone in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer after progression on platinum-based therapy without exacerbating systemic toxicities. These data suggest that TTFields therapy is efficacious in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer and should be considered as a treatment option to manage the disease in this setting.

FUNDING

Novocure.

Changes in the Heart Rate of Sniffer Dogs Trained for Detection of Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Lung carcinoma is one of the most common malignancies worldwide. At present, unfortunately, there are no markers that would allow early identification of this tumor in the preclinical or early clinical stage. The use of sniffer dogs has been reported to show some promise in early diagnosis of this type of cancer Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the possibility of utilizing changes in the heart rate of sniffer dogs (which increases when finding a positive sample) in tumor detection.

METHODS

This double-blinded pilot study included two sniffer dogs. A chest strap was fastened on the dog's chests for heart rate monitoring while they were examining samples and heart rate was recorded. Test parameters (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values) were then calculated, evaluating performances based on (i) the dog's indications according to their training and (ii) the changes in their heart rates.

RESULTS

Calculation according to the dog's indications revealed an overall sensitivity of 95.2% accompanied by a specificity of 81.8%, a PPV of 93.7%, and an NPV of 85.7%, respectively. These results were not significantly different from those evaluated by heart rate; heart rate monitoring was, however, burdened with a relatively high proportion of invalid experiments in which heart rate measurement failed. When the method of calculation was changed from rounds to individual samples, the test parameters further increased.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study confirmed the hypothesis that heart rate increases in trained sniffer dogs when encountering samples from tumor-positive patients but remains unchanged when only negative samples are present. The reliability of results based on heart rate increase is similar to that obtained by a dog's indications and, if the limitation represented by technical issues is overcome, it could serve as a valuable verification method.

Combination lurbinectedin and doxorubicin versus physician's choice of chemotherapy in patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer (ATLANTIS): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Lurbinectedin is a synthetic marine-derived anticancer agent that acts as a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription. Lurbinectedin monotherapy (3·2 mg/m² every 3 weeks) received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration on the basis of efficacy in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) who relapsed after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. The ATLANTIS trial assessed the efficacy and safety of combination lurbinectedin and the anthracycline doxorubicin as second-line treatment for SCLC.

METHODS

In this phase 3, open-label, randomised study, adult patients aged 18 years or older with SCLC who relapsed after platinum-based chemotherapy were recruited from 135 hospitals across North America, South America, Europe, and the Middle East. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by dynamic allocation to intravenous lurbinectedin 2·0 mg/m² plus doxorubicin 40·0 mg/m² administered on day 1 of 21-day cycles or physician's choice of control therapy (intravenous topotecan 1·5 mg/m² on days 1-5 of 21-day cycles; or intravenous cyclophosphamide 1000 mg/m², doxorubicin 45·0 mg/m², and vincristine 2·0 mg on day 1 of 21-day cycles [CAV]) administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary granulocyte-colony stimulating factor prophylaxis was mandatory in both treatment groups. Neither patients nor clinicians were masked to treatment allocation, but the independent review committee, which assessed outcomes, was masked to patients' treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02566993, and with EudraCT, 2015-001641-89, and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 30, 2016, and Aug 20, 2018, 613 patients were randomly assigned to lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin (n=307) or control (topotecan, n=127; CAV, n=179) and comprised the intention-to-treat population; safety endpoints were assessed in patients who had received any partial or complete study treatment infusions (lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin, n=303; control, n=289). After a median follow-up of 24·1 months (95% CI 21·7-26·3), 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and 289 patients in the control group had discontinued study treatment; progressive disease was the most common reason for discontinuation (213 [70%] patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 152 [53%] in the control group). Median overall survival was 8·6 months (95% CI 7·1-9·4) in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group versus 7·6 months (6·6-8·2) in the control group (stratified log-rank p=0·90; hazard ratio 0·97 [95% CI 0·82-1·15], p=0·70). 12 patients died because of treatment-related adverse events: two (<1%) of 303 in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and ten (3%) of 289 in the control group. 296 (98%) of 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group had treatment-emergent adverse events compared with 284 (98%) of 289 patients in the control group; treatment-related adverse events occurred in 268 (88%) patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and 266 (92%) patients in the control group. Grade 3 or worse haematological adverse events were less frequent in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group than the control group (anaemia, 57 [19%] of 302 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 110 [38%] of 288 in the control group; neutropenia, 112 [37%] vs 200 [69%]; thrombocytopenia, 42 [14%] vs 90 [31%]). The frequency of treatment-related adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation was lower in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group than in the control group (26 [9%] of 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 47 [16%] of 289 in the control group).

INTERPRETATION

Combination therapy with lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin did not improve overall survival versus control in patients with relapsed SCLC. However, lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin showed a favourable haematological safety profile compared with control.

FUNDING

PharmaMar.

Analysis of patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC) receiving single-agent lurbinectedin in the phase 3 ATLANTIS trial

8524

Background: Lurbinectedin, a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription, received accelerated approval from the US FDA in June 2020 as monotherapy (3.2 mg/m2 IV every 21 days) for adults with metastatic SCLC with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy. This approval was based on the overall response rate (35.2%) and duration of response (DOR; 5.3 months) observed in 105 patients from a phase 2 trial. The ATLANTIS trial (NCT02566993) investigated the combination of lurbinectedin 2.0 mg/m2 IV + doxorubicin (DOX) 40.0 mg/m2 IV versus topotecan or CAV. This post hoc analysis explored the efficacy and safety of single-agent lurbinectedin in patients who completed 10 cycles of the combination and then switched to lurbinectedin monotherapy per protocol. Methods: Eligible patients were ≥18 years of age with limited-stage or extensive-stage SCLC, 1 prior line of platinum-based chemotherapy (PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were also permitted), ECOG PS ≤2, and chemotherapy-free interval ≥30 days. Tumor assessments were per an independent review committee (IRC). Results: Patients who completed 10 cycles of lurbinectedin + DOX and switched to lurbinectedin monotherapy (n = 50) had a median age of 61.5 years (range: 43, 77); 62% were male; and 100% had an ECOG PS < 2. The overall median number of cycles was 15 (range: 11, 47) and included a median of 5 (1, 37) cycles on monotherapy. The majority of patients who switched to lurbinectedin monotherapy maintained or improved their tumor response (Table). All 3 patients who achieved a complete response (CR) on combination therapy maintained their CR on monotherapy. Of the 26 patients with a partial response (PR) on combination therapy, 3 (12%) achieved a CR and 15 (58%) maintained their PR. Of the 19 patients with stable disease (SD) on combination therapy, 3 (16%) improved from SD to PR (n = 2) or CR (n = 1) and 8 (42%) maintained SD. The median DOR was 8.3 months (95% CI: 7.1, 11.0). The median overall survival (OS) was 20.7 months (95% CI: 15.7, 24.8). Grade 3/4 hematologic abnormalities based on laboratory assessment included lymphopenia (36%), anemia (16%), thrombocytopenia (12%), neutropenia (12%), and leukopenia (10%). Febrile neutropenia was reported in 4% of patients. Conclusions: Patients with relapsed SCLC in ATLANTIS who completed 10 cycles of lurbinectedin + DOX combination and switched to lurbinectedin monotherapy tended to maintain or improve their tumor response (including an increase in CRs), with favorable OS and DOR and acceptable tolerability with no new safety signals. Clinical trial information: NCT02566993. [Table: see text]

Olfactometric diagnosis of lung cancer by canine scent - A double-blinded study

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is one of the most often diagnosed tumours in the world with the highest mortality. A major problem and reason for the high mortality from lung cancer is its diagnosis in the late stages. The main goal of preventing lung cancer deaths is early detection in the early stages and accurate diagnosis, which must be followed by targeted treatment. Nevertheless, even top diagnostic techniques do not have the same accuracy and sensitivity as a dog's sense of smell.

METHODS

The study aims to present the results of olfactometric detection of lung cancer using the smell of dogs in unblinded, single-blinded and double-blinded studies. 115 serum samples or breath from patients with lung cancer and 101 samples from healthy people were used for the training. The group consisted of women and men of Indo-European origin, mostly from the Moravian-Silesian region in Czech Republic. Two dogs were selected for the study.

RESULTS

In the case of tumor detection in the form of unblinded tests, Bugs had a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 92%. Boolomo had a sensitivity of 89% and a specificity of 81%. For single-blinded tests, Bugs had a sensitivity of 71%. The sensitivity of Boolomo was set at 90%. After meeting the sensitivity limit of 70%, dogs were included in the double-blinded studies. The highest accuracy was set at 68% for Bugs, 83% for Boolomo.

CONCLUSION

When a tumour is diagnosed in the late stages, it is a great burden on both the health and economic systems of the state. Unfortunately, there is still no suitable screening test to detect the tumour at an early stage, so any other method of detection seems desirable. Trained dogs are used in many fields, why not also in medicine and the diagnosis of tumours?

Randomized Phase II Study of Paclitaxel plus Alisertib versus Paclitaxel plus Placebo as Second-Line Therapy for SCLC: Primary and Correlative Biomarker Analyses

INTRODUCTION

We assessed the Aurora A kinase inhibitor, alisertib, plus paclitaxel (henceforth referred to as alisertib/paclitaxel) as second-line treatment for SCLC.

METHODS

In this double-blind study, patients with relapsed or refractory SCLC were stratified by relapse type (sensitive versus resistant or refractory) and brain metastases and randomized 1:1 to alisertib/paclitaxel or placebo plus paclitaxel (henceforth referred to as placebo/paclitaxel) in 28-day cycles. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Associations of c-Myc expression in tumor tissue (prespecified) and genetic alterations in circulating tumor DNA (retrospective) with clinical outcome were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 178 patients were enrolled (89 in each arm). The median PFS was 3.32 months with alisertib/paclitaxel versus 2.17 months with placebo/paclitaxel (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.77, 95% confidence limit [CI]: 0.557-1.067, p = 0.113 in the intent-to-treat population versus HR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.509-0.985, p = 0.038 with corrected analysis applied). Among 140 patients with genetic alternations, patients with cell cycle regulator mutations (cyclin-dependent kinase 6 gene [CDK6], retinoblastoma-like 1 gene [RBL1], retinoblastoma-like 2 gene [RBL2], and retinoblastoma 1 gene [RB1]) had significantly improved PFS with alisertib/paclitaxel versus with placebo/paclitaxel (3.68 versus 1.80 months, respectively [HR = 0.395, 95% CI: 0.239-0.654, p = 0.0003]), and overall survival (7.20 versus 4.47 months, respectively [HR = 0.427, 95% CI: 0.259-0.704, p = 0.00085]). A subset of patients with c-Myc expression showed significantly improved PFS with alisertib/paclitaxel. The incidence of grade 3 or higher drug-related adverse events was 67% (58 patients) with alisertib/paclitaxel versus 22% (25 patients) with placebo/paclitaxel. Twelve patients (14%) versus 11 (12%) died on study, including four versus zero treatment-related deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy signals were seen with alisertib/paclitaxel in relapsed or refractory SCLC. c-Myc expression and mutations in cell cycle regulators may be potential predictive biomarkers of alisertib efficacy; further prospective validations are warranted.

Characteristics of advanced NSCLC patients with at least 6 months erlotinib treatment duration in Czech Republic

e18062

Background: Erlotinib is approved for NSCLC treatment in Czech Rep since 2005. This analysis was performed to analyze the profile of pts treated with erlotinib longer than 6 months. Methods: This retrospective analysis evaluates data from Czech Tarceva Registry of pts treated outside clinical trials. Survival (mOS, mPFS) was evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier method, survival comparison was performed by Log Rank test. Results: Up to October 2011, 430 out of 2121 pts with completed data in registry were treated with erlotinib for 6 months and longer. Median age 65 years, 54.4% men; 29.8% smokers, 37.9% former smokers, 32.3 % non-smokers; 77% pts ECOG PS 0-1. 74.7% stage IV pts, 21.4% stage IIIB. 43.5% adenoca, 31.9% squamous ca,11% non-specific NSCLC, 6% bronchioloalveolar ca. Erlobinib administered as 1st line treatment in 13% pts, 2L in 50.9%, 3L in 34.9%. Till October 2011, 322 pts (74.9%) finished the treatment, 108 pts (25.1%) still on erlotinib therapy. Treatment discontinued due to progression in 75% pts, death in 15%, toxicity in 3%. The entire group results (n=430): CR in 2.3%, PR in 17.7%, SD in 65.8%, PD in 2.6%. mPFS and mOS from erlotinib initiation 12.4 and 21.4 months respectively. mOS from diagnosis was 43.5 months. Statistical difference in mOS (from the erlotinib initiation) was observed between groups with PS ECOG 0-1 and PS 2-3, 22.0 vs 16.4 months (p=0.001), although there was no difference in both groups in mPFS (12.9 vs. 10.6 months). mPFS and mOS in pts with adenoca (n=187) from erlotinib initiation 14.4 and 23.7 months respectively. mOS from diagnosis was 45.6 months. mPFS and mOS in pts with squamous ca (n=137) from erlotinib initiation was 11.3 and 17.6 months respectively. mOS from diagnosis was 42.2 months. Conclusions: This analysis documented good activity of erlotinib in both adeno and squamous cell carcinoma. The difference in mOS and mPFS between both groups was statistically significant when measured from erlotinib initiation (mOS: p= 0.017, mPFS: p=0.022), however not statistically significant when measured from the date of diagnosis (p=0.361). Patients with PS 0-1 have statistically significantly greater mOS than patients with worse PS (p=0.001).

Multicenter phase II trial of YM155, a small-molecule suppressor of survivin, in patients with advanced, refractory, non-small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the antitumor activity and safety of YM155, a novel, small-molecule suppressor of survivin, as single-agent therapy in patients with previously treated, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with stage IIIb/IV NSCLC who had experienced treatment failure during one or two prior chemotherapy regimens (at least one of which was platinum based) received YM155 as a continuous intravenous infusion (4.8 mg/m(2)/d) over 168 hours followed by observation for 14 days in 21-day treatment cycles. The primary end point was objective tumor response rate (ORR). Secondary end points included duration of stable disease (SD), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety and pharmacokinetic profiles, and pharmacodynamic evaluations.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients received YM155. Two patients achieved a confirmed partial response, with an ORR of 5.4% (95% CI, 0.7% to 18.2%). An additional 14 patients (37.8%) achieved SD resulting in a disease control rate of 43.2% (95% CI, 27.1% to 60.5%). Median duration of PFS was 1.7 months (95% CI, 1.3 to 2.8 months). Median duration of OS was 6.6 months (95% CI, 4 to 12.2 months), with a 1-year survival rate of 35.1%. Treatment with YM155 was well tolerated with the majority of treatment discontinuations not treatment related.

CONCLUSION

YM155 exhibited modest single-agent activity in patients with refractory, advanced NSCLC. A favorable safety/tolerability profile was reported. Further evaluation of YM155 in combination with chemotherapy and other targeted agents may be warranted.

Patient attitudes towards chemotherapy and survival: a prospective observational study in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

This multicenter, non-interventional, prospective, observational study aimed to determine whether patients' attitude to chemotherapy is an independent prognostic factor for survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are treated with gemcitabine-platinum. Chemonaive patients (n=1895) with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC not amenable to curative surgery or radiotherapy were treated with a combination of gemcitabine plus cisplatin/carboplatin and followed for a maximum of 18 months. Patients' attitude to treatment was measured on a 5-point scale and responses were used to assign patients to one of the three need categories: A, maximum extension of survival with the acceptance of high toxicity (60.0% of patients); B, maximum extension of survival only if coupled with normal lifestyle (26.1%); C, relief of symptoms (13.8%). Median survival varied significantly among the need categories (A=13.00 months, B=15.70 months, C=15.33 months; log-rank test P=0.0415). Patient attitude to treatment (need categories) was not a significant prognostic factor for survival after adjusting for known prognostic factors (P=0.0503). After adjusting for baseline differences, patients in this study had a significantly lower risk of death than patients in three randomized trials (hazard ratio 0.879; 95% confidence interval: 0.775, 0.998; P=0.0458). In conclusion, in this observational study, patient attitude to chemotherapy was not an independent prognostic factor of survival.

Phase III study of erlotinib in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the Tarceva Lung Cancer Investigation Trial

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.

Patient attitude and survival in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Results of a prospective observational study

7148

Background: A physician’s ability to accurately identify a patient’s attitude toward treatment is critical. The primary objective of this study (B9E-AA-JHSH) was to evaluate patient attitudes as predictors of survival independently of currently known predictive variables, and secondarily, whether physician-assessed patient attitudes differed from patient-assessed attitudes. Methods: This was a non-interventional, prospective, observational study of patients from 19 countries of Asia, Central Eastern Europe, and Latin America. Eligible patients had stage IIIB/IV NSCLC not amenable to curative surgery/radiotherapy, gemcitabine and cis/carboplatin as part of treatment, and were chemonaive. Physicians and patients used a 7-item questionnaire to assign patient attitudes to 1 of 4 categories using a pre-defined algorithm: A = Cure; B = Maximum extension of survival with acceptance of high toxicity; C = Maximum extension of survival only if coupled with normal lifestyle; and D = Symptom relief. Enrolled patients were followed until 18 months from enrolment, death, or loss to follow up. Results: From Sept 2002 to Dec 2003, 1,985 patients were enrolled; the majority were male (73.4%), <70 yrs (83.9%), and had stage IV disease (79.2%), PS 0–1 (79.2%), and tumor-related symptoms (89.2%). Distribution of patient-assessed attitudes were A = 0%, B = 55%, C = 25%, and D = 20%. From category B-D, median survival (B = 14.6 months, C = 13.5, D = 12.5) and 1-year survival (B = 57.6%, C = 56.2%, D = 51.2%) both decreased but the differences were not statistically significant. Adjustment for known predictive variables eliminated this decreasing trend. Physician-assessed patient attitudes were lower than patient-assessed attitudes (p < .0001); however, the difference was less for patients with disease-related symptoms (p = .03). Conclusions: This is the largest analysis to date of patient attitudes when treated with gemcitabine and cis/carboplatin. Patient attitudes were not significant predictors of survival; however, physicians do underestimate patients’ desire for extended survival compared to symptom relief. Also, it was interesting to see a comparatively longer median and 1-year survival in routine practice compared to reports in clinical trial settings.

[Table: see text]

A phase II trial of ZD6474 plus docetaxel in patients with previously treated NSCLC: Follow-up results

7016

Background: ZD6474, a once-daily oral agent, targets key signaling pathways in cancer by inhibiting VEGF, EGF and RET receptor tyrosine kinases. ZD6474 in combination with docetaxel (Doc) was assessed in patients (pts) with refractory non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Pts eligible for this randomized, double-blind study had locally advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB/IV) NSCLC after failure of 1st-line platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary objective was to determine whether once-daily oral ZD6474 (100 or 300 mg) + Doc (75 mg/m2 i.v. infusion every 21 days) prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) vs Doc alone (80% power to detect 50% prolongation at P<0.2). Overall survival was a secondary objective. Results: A total of 127 pts (73 male/54 female; median age 59 yrs, range 29–82) received ZD6474 100 mg + Doc (n=42), ZD6474 300 mg + Doc (n=44) or Doc (n=41). The study met its primary objective of PFS prolongation with the addition of ZD6474: median PFS was 19 wks for ZD6474 100 mg + Doc (HR=0.64; P=0.074); 17 wks for ZD6474 300 mg + Doc (HR=0.83; P=0.461); and 12 wks for Doc. A total of 64 pts (50%) presented with histology other than adenocarcinoma, including 37 with squamous, and 13 pts (10%) entered with CNS metastases. Exploratory subgroup analyses suggest advantages in PFS for ZD6474 + Doc vs Doc both for adenocarcinoma and for other lung cancer histologies. Common adverse events (AEs) included diarrhea, rash and asymptomatic QTc prolongation, all responded to standard management or dose interruption/reduction. Four pts with squamous experienced hemoptysis (ZD6474 100 mg + Doc, n=2 CTC grade 1/2; Doc, n=2 CTC grade 3/4). No fatal episodes of hemoptysis or any CNS hemorrhage AEs were reported in pts receiving ZD6474. Overall survival data were immature at the time of PFS analysis, and a mature survival analysis will be conducted at ∼75% of deaths (anticipated April 2006, and will be presented at the meeting). As of December 2005, 40/127 (31%) pts were alive, 5 of whom continue to receive ZD6474. The minimum follow-up of pts still alive was 17 months. Conclusions: ZD6474 + Doc prolonged PFS vs Doc alone, and these promising data have led to the initiation of Phase III evaluation of ZD6474 + Doc in 2nd-line NSCLC.

[Table: see text]