Improved EGFR mutation detection using combined exosomal RNA and circulating tumor DNA in NSCLC patient plasma

Background

A major limitation of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) for somatic mutation detection has been the low level of ctDNA found in a subset of cancer patients. We investigated whether using a combined isolation of exosomal RNA (exoRNA) and cell-free DNA (cfDNA) could improve blood-based liquid biopsy for EGFR mutation detection in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.

Patients and methods

Matched pretreatment tumor and plasma were collected from 84 patients enrolled in TIGER-X (NCT01526928), a phase 1/2 study of rociletinib in mutant EGFR NSCLC patients. The combined isolated exoRNA and cfDNA (exoNA) was analyzed blinded for mutations using a targeted next-generation sequencing panel (EXO1000) and compared with existing data from the same samples using analysis of ctDNA by BEAMing.

Results

For exoNA, the sensitivity was 98% for detection of activating EGFR mutations and 90% for EGFR T790M. The corresponding sensitivities for ctDNA by BEAMing were 82% for activating mutations and 84% for T790M. In a subgroup of patients with intrathoracic metastatic disease (M0/M1a; n = 21), the sensitivity increased from 26% to 74% for activating mutations (P = 0.003) and from 19% to 31% for T790M (P = 0.5) when using exoNA for detection.

Conclusions

Combining exoRNA and ctDNA increased the sensitivity for EGFR mutation detection in plasma, with the largest improvement seen in the subgroup of M0/M1a disease patients known to have low levels of ctDNA and poses challenges for mutation detection on ctDNA alone.

Clinical Trials

NCT01526928.

Role of chemotherapy and targeted therapy in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

Adjuvant platinum based chemotherapy is accepted as standard of care in stage II and III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients and is often considered in patients with stage IB disease who have tumors ≥ 4 cm. The survival advantage is modest with approximately 5% at 5 years. Areas covered: This review article presents relevant data regarding chemotherapy use in the perioperative setting for early stage NSCLC. A literature search was performed utilizing PubMed as well as clinical trial.gov. Randomized phase III studies in this setting including adjuvant and neoadjuvant use of chemotherapy as well as ongoing trials on targeted therapy and immunotherapy are also discussed. Expert commentary: With increasing utilization of screening computed tomography scans, it is possible that the percentage of early stage NSCLC patients will increase in the coming years. Benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy in early stage NSCLC patients remain modest. There is a need to better define patients most likely to derive survival benefit from adjuvant therapy and spare patients who do not need adjuvant chemotherapy due to the toxicity of such therapy. Trials for adjuvant targeted therapy, including adjuvant EGFR-TKI trials and trials of immunotherapy drugs are ongoing and will define the role of these agents as adjuvant therapy.

Sequencing of ALK Inhibitors in ALK+ Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

OPINION STATEMENT

Major therapeutic advances have occurred over the last several years in the management of advanced ALK+ NSCLC patients. Crizotinib was the first agent approved for the management of ALK+ NSCLC patients after it demonstrated significantly greater clinical benefit compared to chemotherapy. Several next generation ALK inhibitors have demonstrated clinical benefit in patients with crizotinib refractory NSCLC patients including in the CNS. Based on available data, therapy with a next generation ALK inhibitor can be initiated following therapy with crizotinib without any assessment of the molecular mechanisms of resistance. The appropriate therapy for patients with progressive disease following two ALK inhibitors is not well defined. In patients with an ALK-resistant mutation in their tumor, an ALK inhibitor with activity against the mutation would be the most appropriate therapy. In others, chemotherapy and PD-1 directed agents can be considered. Clinical data suggests that ALK+ patients are less likely to benefit from PD-1 directed agents and therefore chemotherapy should be considered prior to these agents for the management of ALK+ NSCLC patients.

Alectinib versus crizotinib in treatment-naive advanced ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Primary results of the global phase III ALEX study

LBA9008

Background: Alectinib, a TKI targeting ALK, has shown robust efficacy in crizotinib-naïve/resistant ALK+ NSCLC. J-ALEX showed superiority of alectinib 300mg BID vs crizotinib in Japanese pts with crizotinib-naïve ALK+ NSCLC (progression-free survival [PFS] HR 0.34, p<0.0001). We report primary results from the ALEX study of first-line alectinib 600mg BID vs crizotinib in advanced ALK+ NSCLC (NCT02075840). Methods: This open-label randomized multicenter phase III study enrolled pts with stage IIIB/IV ALK+ NSCLC, determined by central IHC testing. Eligible pts had ECOG PS 0–2 and no prior systemic therapy for advanced NSCLC. Pts with asymptomatic CNS metastases were allowed. Pts (n=303) were randomized 1:1 to receive alectinib 600mg or crizotinib 250mg BID. Primary endpoint: Investigator (Inv)-assessed PFS (RECIST v1.1), with systematic CNS imaging in all pts. Secondary endpoints included independent review committee (IRC)-assessed PFS, IRC-assessed time to CNS progression (TTP), objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and safety. Results: At the primary data cut-off (9 Feb 2017), alectinib demonstrated statistically significant superiority vs crizotinib, reducing risk of progression/death by 53% (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.34–0.65, p<0.0001); alectinib median PFS was not reached (95% CI 17.7–NE) vs crizotinib 11.1 months (95% CI 9.1–13.1). Key secondary endpoints showed superiority for alectinib vs crizotinib, respectively: IRC PFS, HR 0.50 (95% CI 0.36–0.70; p<0.0001); median PFS 25.7 months (95% CI 19.9–NE) vs 10.4 months (95% CI 7.7–14.6); CNS TTP, cause-specific HR of CNS progression 0.16 (95% CI 0.10–0.28; p<0.0001); ORR (Inv) 83% (95% CI 76–89) vs 76% (95% CI 68–82), p=0.09; OS, based on 25% events, HR 0.76 (95% CI 0.48–1.20; p=0.24). Grade 3/4 AEs were less frequent with alectinib, 41%, vs 50% with crizotinib; fatal AEs occurred in 3% vs 5%, respectively. Rates of AEs leading to discontinuation, dose reduction and interruption were lower with alectinib. Conclusions: Alectinib showed superior efficacy and favorable tolerability compared with crizotinib. ALEX results support alectinib as a new standard of care for treatment-naïve ALK+ NSCLC. Funding: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Clinical trial information: NCT02075840.

Efficacy and safety of lorlatinib in patients (pts) with ALK+ non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with one or more prior ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI): A phase I/II study

9006

Background: Lorlatinib is a selective, potent, brain-penetrant, next generation ALK/ROS1 TKI active against most known resistance mutations. In Ph I of this Ph I/II study, lorlatinib showed robust clinical activity in ALK+ or ROS1+ advanced NSCLC pts, most of whom had CNS metastases (mets) and were heavily pre-treated. In Ph II of this study, efficacy was explored based on prior ALK TKI tx as well as safety across all patients treated at the recommended Ph II dose. Methods: In this ongoing Ph II study (NCT01970865), pts with ALK+ or ROS1+ NSCLC, ± asymptomatic untreated or treated CNS mets, were enrolled into 6 expansion cohorts (EXP) based on prior tx (EXP 1-5, ALK+) and rearrangement status (EXP 6, ROS1+). Pts received lorlatinib 100mg QD. Primary objective was ORR and intracranial ORR (IC-ORR) by independent central review (ICR). Results: Efficacy (ALK+ pts with prior tx): At data cut-off (15 Aug 2016), 82 ALK+ pts were enrolled in cohorts EXP 2-5, received C1 no later than 31 Mar 2016 and were evaluated for ORR (ITT population); 52 were evaluated for IC-ORR and 35 were evaluated for IC-ORR response based on target lesions only (≥5mm; no prior radiotherapy or progression post prior radiotherapy). Confirmed response rates by ICR are reported in the table below. Safety (all pts): 116 ALK/ROS1+ pts were evaluated for safety at data cut-off. Most common tx-related AEs (TRAEs) and grade 3/4 TRAEs were hypercholesterolemia (90%, 17%) and hypertriglyceridemia (72%, 17%). Dose interruptions and reductions due to TRAEs were reported in 29% and 20% of pts, respectively. 14% of pts had tx-related SAEs. 5 pts (4%) discontinued tx due to TRAEs and there were no tx-related deaths. 74/116 pts (64%) remain on tx. Conclusions: Lorlatinib showed compelling clinical activity, with substantial IC activity, in ALK+ pts who received ≥1 prior ALK TKI, many of whom were heavily pre-treated. Clinical trial information: NCT01970865. [Table: see text]

Comparing treatment strategies for stage I small cell lung cancer: A National Cancer Database study

8566

Background: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care for limited stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC). The ideal treatment strategy for stage I SCLC, however, is less clear. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes for patients receiving definitive surgery, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), or external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for stage I SCLC using the National Cancer DataBase (NCDB). Methods: Patients with a first primary diagnosis of stage I (T1-2 N0 M0) SCLC treated between 2004 and 2013 were identified in the NCDB. Patients were defined as having a first course of treatment of either definitive surgery, EBRT (45-74 Gy in 15-40 fractions) or SBRT (40-60 Gy in ≤5 fractions). Other recorded information included age, gender, race, T stage, Charlson-Deyo score, and use of chemotherapy. Overall survival (OS) was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression methods were used to estimate risk of overall mortality. Results: A total of 5944 patients with stage I SCLC were identified; of those, 2681 fit the study criteria. The median age of patients in the cohort was 68 years and median follow up was 26.6 months. Definitive surgery was performed in 944 (35%), EBRT in 1597 (60%), SBRT in 140 (5%), and chemotherapy was delivered in 2067 (77%). The 2- and 3-yr OS for the whole cohort was 62% and 50%; 72% and 62% for surgery, 56% and 44% for EBRT, and 56% and 40% for SBRT. Patient age, female gender, Charlson-Deyo score < 2, tumor size ≤3 cm, receipt of surgery and receipt of chemotherapy were all associated with improved OS. Comparing treatment strategies in a multivariate model, surgical resection demonstrated improved OS over EBRT (HR 2.0, p < 0.001) and SBRT (HR 1.66, p < 0.001). When excluding patients who underwent surgery, SBRT demonstrated improved OS compared with EBRT (HR 1.28, p = 0.04). In addition, receipt of chemotherapy resulted in improved OS (HR 0.66, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In this hospital-based registry study, definitive surgical resection and use of chemotherapy resulted in improved survival outcomes for patients with stage I SCLC. For patients who are not candidates for surgery, SBRT may offer a survival benefit compared with standard EBRT.

Impact of MET inhibitors on survival among patients (pts) with MET exon 14 mutant (METdel14) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

8511

Background: Dramatic responses to MET inhibitors have been reported in patients with NSCLC harboring activating mutations that cause MET exon 14 ( METdel14) skipping. We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis of pts with METdel14 NSCLC to determine if treatment with MET inhibitors impacts survival. Methods: We collected clinicopathologic data on pts with METdel14 NSCLC. Event-time distributions were estimated using Kaplan-Meier and compared with the log-rank test. Multivariable Cox models were fitted to estimate hazard ratios. Results: Of the 148 pts with METdel14 mutant NSCLC, the median age was 72 (range 43-88); 57% were women, and 41% were never smokers. The most common histologies were adenocarcinoma (77%) and pulmonary sarcomatoid carcinoma (14%). Overlap with oncogenic driver mutations in other genes was rare. At the time of diagnosis, 70% of pts had stage I-III disease, and 30% had stage IV disease. Of the 34 pts with metastastic disease who never received a MET inhibitor, the median overall survival (mOS) was 8.1 months. In this cohort, cancers that also had concurrent MET amplification had a trend toward worse survival compared to cancers without MET amplification (5.2 months vs 10.5 months, P = 0.06). Of the 27 pts with metastatic disease who received at least one MET inhibitor (including crizotinib, glesatinib, capmatinib, and ABBV-399), the mOS was 24.6 months. A model adjusting for receipt of a MET inhibitor as first- or second-line therapy as a time-dependent covariate demonstrated that treatment with a MET inhibitor was associated with a significant prolongation in survival (HR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01-0.92, P = 0.04). Among 22 patients treated with crizotinib, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.36 months. Conclusions: Forpts with METdel14 NSCLC, treatment with a MET inhibitor is associated with an improvement in overall survival. The prognosis of pts who never received treatment with a MET inhibitor appears to be poor, particularly among METdel14 cancers with concurrent MET amplification.

Phase II study of maintenance pembrolizumab (pembro) in extensive stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) patients (pts)

8504

Background: The median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) following initial chemotherapy in ES-SCLC pts are 2 and 7 months, respectively (Ready N, J Clin Oncol 2015). We evaluated the benefits of maintenance pembro in ES-SCLC pts who had response/stable disease after 4-6 cycles of platinum/etoposide. Methods: Pts were required to begin pembro within 8 weeks of completion of chemotherapy, with restaging scans no more than 3 weeks prior to start of pembro. Prophylactic cranial radiation was permitted. Pts were treated with pembro 200 mg I.V. every 3 weeks for a maximum of 2 years. Disease assessment was done every 2 cycles for the first 6 cycles and then as per investigator discretion. Primary end point of the study was PFS. PFS according to immune related response criteria (irPFS) and OS were also assessed. Tumor tissue was analyzed for PD-L1 expression by the DAKO 22C3 antibody. Any level of expression was considered as positive for PDL1. Blood for circulating tumor cells (CTCs) was collected prior to first, second and third cycle of pembro. Results: Of the 45 pts enrolled, 55% were males and 22% had brain metastases. Median age was 66 years. The median time from end of chemotherapy to start of pembro was 5 weeks. Median number of pembro cycles was 4 (1-20 cycles). 35 pts had measurable disease at study entry. The disease control rate with pembro was 42% (1 CR, 3 PR, 15 SD). At a median follow up of 6 months, the median PFS was 1.4 months (90% CI-1.3-4.0) and the irPFS was 4.7 months (90% CI- 1.8-6.7). The median OS was 9.2 months (90% CI-6.1-15.2). 11 pts are still on therapy (3-20 cycles). The median CTC prior to pembro was 1 (0-256, n=37 pts). Each unit increase in baseline CTC correlated with worse PFS (p = 0.052; adjusted for brain mets, age and sex). PDL1 could be assessed in 35 pts and was positive in 1 pt. Most common adverse events were fatigue, nausea, cough and dyspnea. One pt developed atrio-ventricular conduction block and 1 pt type 1 diabetes. Conclusions: Maintenance pembro did not improve PFS in these patients but favorable OS suggests that some SCLC patients can benefit from maintenance pembro. Biomarkers to identify patients most likely to benefit from pembro need to be defined. Clinical trial information: NCT02359019.

Neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR) as a predictive biomarker for PD-1/PD-L1 directed therapy in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

e20633

Background: PD-1/PD-L1 directed therapy is approved in the second and first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC. While PD-L1 expression can be predictive of outcomes with such therapy, there remains a need for additional biomarkers to guide patient (pt) selection. NLR is an easy to use biomarker that was predictive for clinical outcomes in the treatment of kidney cancer and melanoma. This study evaluated NLR as a predictor of response rate (RR), PFS and OS in metastatic NSCLC pts treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors as second line therapy. Methods: A retrospective chart review of NSCLC pts treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors was conducted. Data were collected on pt demographics, smoking status [<10 pack years (PY) and ≥10 PY], histology, NLR pre-therapy and NLR post 3 doses. Correlation with RR, PFS and OS was evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: 58 pts with NSCLC were included in the analyses. Median age was 62.5 yrs (39-85) and 34(59%) were male. 36 (62%) were Caucasian, 16(28%) African American and 6(10%) Asian. 39 (63%) had adenocarcinoma histology, 23 (40%) patients smoked <10 PY and 35(60%) ≥10 PY. On Day 1, 33 (57 %) had NLR <4 and 28 (48%) had NLR <4 after cycle 3. 43 (74%) pts had disease control with 2 (3%) complete remissions, 22 (38%) partial responses. Pre-therapy NLR ≥4 was associated with shorter PFS (HR = 1.79 p=0.10) and shorter OS (HR =2.57; p=0.04). NLR≥4 post 3doses was associated with shorter PFS (HR= 2.14,p=0.04) and shorter OS (HR= 3.11; p=0.04). In multivariate analysis, heavy smoking (≥10 PPY) was associated with longer PFS; HR=0.50 (95% CI 0.25-1.01; p=0.05); but had no effect on OS with a HR 0.58(95%CI 0.21-1.56; p=0.28). Squamous histology appeared to have longer PFS HR=0.62 (95% CI 0.61-2.35: p =0.61), though not statistically significant. Conclusions: Pretherapy NLR ≥4 was found to be associated with shorter OS in NSCLC pts treated with PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. This suggests that NLR may be a predictive factor for benefit with PD1/PDL1 therapy. A larger sample study is warranted to validate this observation. [Table: see text]

Alectinib versus crizotinib in treatment-naive advanced ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Primary results of the global phase III ALEX study

The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstracts.asco.org at 7:30 AM (EDT) on Monday, June 5, 2017, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2017, issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology. On site at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Monday edition of ASCO Daily News.

Safety and clinical activity of adenosine A2a receptor (A2aR) antagonist, CPI-444, in anti-PD1/PDL1 treatment-refractory renal cell (RCC) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients

3004

Background: Adenosine production in the tumor leads to immunosuppression through A2aR on infiltrating immune cells. CPI-444 is an oral A2aR antagonist with single agent(SA) anti-tumor activity in pre-clinical models. This phase 1/1b clinical trial uses a 2-step adaptive design to evaluate CPI-444 as a SA and in combination (combo) with the anti-PDL1 antibody, atezolizumab (atezo). We report results of RCC and NSCLC cohorts. Methods: Primary objectives: safety, efficacy and to identify optimal dose/schedule. Step 1 utilized 3 SA and 1 combo cohort to select dose/schedule. Step 2 included disease-specific expansion cohorts including RCC and NSCLC. Eligible pts had selected advanced cancers and failed standard therapies including checkpoint inhibitors. Results: 34 pts have enrolled and 25 pts were evaluable for response (Table 1). Median prior regimens: 3 (range,1-5) and most pts were resistant/refractory to anti PD1/PDL1 therapy (R/R). Most common AEs were Gr 1 nausea (n = 3) and pyrexia (n = 3); Gr 3 tachycardia was the only possibly related SAE. The selected Step 2 doses were CPI-444 100mg BID as a SA and in combo with atezo 840mg IV q2 weeks. The disease control rate (DCR, CR+PR+SD; duration 2 mo to > 8 mo) for pts with RCC and NSCLC cohorts were 86% and 50%, (100% and 43% for R/R pts), respectively. DCRs were similar in the SA and combo cohorts. Of 7 evaluable RCC pts, 1 pt has an ongoing PR (SA cohort, > 4 mo) and 5 have ongoing SD, duration 3 mo to > 8 mo (2 SA, 3 combo). Biopsy of the PR pt showed no detectable tumor and infiltration with CD8+ lymphocytes. In 18 evaluable NSCLC pts, 1 PR (PDL1 negative pt) and 8 SD were seen. PRs and SDs were seen in R/R pts and in PDL1 negative pts in both diseases. Conclusions: CPI-444 is well tolerated and shows anti-tumor activity in RCC and NSCLC pts as a SA and in combo. Pts who are R/R to anti PD1/PDL1 therapy and who are PDL1 negative can also benefit. Clinical trial information: NCT02655822. [Table: see text]

First-line carboplatin and pemetrexed (CP) with or without pembrolizumab (pembro) for advanced nonsquamous NSCLC: Updated results of KEYNOTE-021 cohort G

9094

Background: Data from the randomized, phase 2 cohort G of KEYNOTE-021 (NCT02039674) showed that adding pembro to first-line CP in patients (pts) with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC significantly improved the primary end point of ORR (55% vs 29%, P = 0.0016) and the key secondary end point of PFS (HR 0.53, P= 0.0102) compared with CP alone and had a manageable safety profile (grade 3-4 treatment-related AEs, 39% vs 26%; treatment-related AEs leading to discontinuation, 10% vs 13%). We present updated efficacy for cohort G based on 5 mo additional follow-up. Methods: 123 pts with stage IIIB/IV, chemotherapy-naive, nonsquamous NSCLC and no EGFR mutation or ALK translocation were randomized to 4 cycles of carboplatin AUC 5 + pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 Q3W ± 24 mo of pembro 200 mg Q3W; maintenance pemetrexed was permitted in both arms. Eligible pts in the CP arm who had radiologic progression could crossover to pembro monotherapy. Response was assessed per RECIST v1.1 by blinded, independent central review. All Pvalues are nominal. Results: As of Dec 31, 2016, median follow-up was 14.5 mo (range, 0.8-24.0). 36 of 48 pts (75.0%) in the CP arm who discontinued CP received subsequent anti–PD-1 or PD-L1 therapy. There was 1 additional response in each arm, and ORR was 56.7% (95% CI 43.2%-69.4%) with pembro + CP vs 30.2% (95% CI 19.2%-43.0%) with CP ( P = 0.0016). Median DOR was not reached for pembro + CP (range, 1.4+ to 18.6+ mo) and was 16.2 mo (range, 2.8 to 20.7+) for CP alone. PFS remained longer with pembro + CP (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.29-0.83, P = 0.0035; median [95% CI] NR [9.7 mo-NR] vs 8.9 mo [6.2-10.3]; 12-mo estimate, 56% vs 34%). With 16 deaths in the pembro + CP arm and 23 deaths in the CP arm, HR for OS was 0.69 (95% CI 0.36-1.31, P= 0.13). Median OS was not reached in either arm; at 12 mo, estimated OS was 76% in the pembro + CP arm and 69% in the CP alone arm. Conclusions: With 5 mo additional follow-up, first-line pembro + CP continues to provide a substantial, clinically relevant improvement in efficacy over CP alone in pts with advanced nonquamous NSCLC, including an almost doubled ORR, halved risk of progression or death, and a trend toward improved OS despite a 75.0% crossover rate in the CP arm. Clinical trial information: NCT02039674.

Abstract IA15: Lung cancer genomics

Lung cancer remains the most common cause of cancer related deaths in the United States. The primary reason for the high mortality rate is the advanced stage of the disease at the time of diagnosis. Racial disparities in incidence and mortality have been observed in the United States, with higher rate among African-Americans, particularly males.

In recent years genetic alterations that bestow a proliferative and survival advantage, so called ‘driver' genetic alterations, have been identified in a subset of cancers including Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). Molecular changes resulting from these genetic alterations can be targeted for therapeutic benefit and such targeted therapy has become standard of care for the management of NSCLC patients. These data have generated an interested in assessing and understanding lung cancer genomics. Several studies have been conducted and results of these studies have allowed the characterization of lung cancer into genomically distinct categories that may have implications for tumor biology and possibly for cancer therapeutics.

Racial and ethnic variations in the incidence of specific ‘driver' genetic alterations have been observed. Thus the incidence of EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor) mutation positive NSCLC is higher in Asian population compared to North American population. Such differences have not been observed for ALK (anaplastic lymphoma kinase) gene rearrangement positive NSCLC. These observations have generated an interest in evaluating lung cancer genomics to explain the observed racial differences in both incidence and mortality. Ongoing efforts will attempt to define racial and ethnic differences, if any in lung cancer genomics and the implications of the same.

Citation Format: Shirish M. Gadgeel. Lung cancer genomics. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Ninth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2016 Sep 25-28; Fort Lauderdale, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(2 Suppl):Abstract nr IA15.

Abstract B54: Relationship between aspirin use and lung cancer risk differs based on race

Background

Many prior epidemiological studies have explored the association between aspirin use and cancer risk. Aspirin decreases inflammation by reducing prostaglandin production via the inhibition of the cyclooxygenase-2 enzyme, which may lead to a reduced risk of certain cancers. While most of the studies reporting significant protective effects of aspirin focused on gastrointestinal cancers, there has been a lot of discrepancy in studies examining the association between aspirin use and risk of lung cancer. Racial disparities in the effects of aspirin use on lung cancer risk have not been the focus of previous publications. We used data from a case-control study to evaluate the relationship between aspirin exposure and lung cancer risk among Caucasians and African Americans.

Methods

Lung cancer cases were identified at one of several clinics, and volunteer controls were recruited from the general community and from the aligned patients of a large health system serving Metropolitan Detroit. Controls were matched to cases based on smoking history (never, 1-20 pack-years or &gt;20 pack-years), race, sex, and 10-year age categories, resulting in 718 cases and 718 controls. Data were collected on participant demographics, history of environmental exposure, smoking history, medical history, family history of cancer, and history of medication (including aspirin) use. Regular use of aspirin was defined as at least three times per week for one month or more during the subject's lifetime. Forward selection was used to determine the set of covariates significantly associated with lung cancer, and these covariates were modeled using conditional multivariable logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Aspirin use risk estimates were adjusted for education, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) status, current body mass index (BMI), cardiovascular disease (CVD), pack-years and family history of lung cancer. The association between aspirin use and lung cancer risk was then evaluated by race.

Results

There was no significant association between lung cancer risk and aspirin use in the total sample after adjustment (OR=0.92, p=0.52). However, there was a significant interaction between race and any aspirin use, adjusted for covariates (p=0.03). The direction of the relationship between aspirin use and lung cancer risk differed between African Americans (OR=1.57, 95% CI 0.97-2.54) and whites (OR=0.74, 95% CI 0.54-1.01), although the race-specific odds ratios were not significant. Whites were more likely to report any aspirin use (58%) than African Americans (48%) (p=0.0007), although among ever users there was no significant difference in duration of aspirin use (p=0.21). We further observed a marginally significant interaction between race and baby aspirin use on lung cancer risk (p=0.06), but not between race and adult aspirin use (p=0.67).

Conclusion

Our results suggest that, in a well-matched sample of lung cancer cases and controls, there is no risk-reducing effect of aspirin use overall, yet the effect of aspirin on lung cancer risk may differ between African Americans and whites, such that the risk-reducing effects may be restricted to whites. This may be due to the lower prevalence of aspirin usage in our sample of African Americans compared to whites, as well as differences in co-morbidities between races. Differences in co-morbidities and associated aspirin use between cases and controls by race will be further explored to explain the heterogeneity of the effects of aspirin use on lung cancer risk.

Citation Format: Stephanie S. Pandolfi, Angela S. Wenzlaff, Christine M. Lusk, Elyse Reamer, Christine Neslund-Dudas, Ayman O. Soubani, Shirish M. Gadgeel, Ann G. Schwartz. Relationship between aspirin use and lung cancer risk differs based on race. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Ninth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2016 Sep 25-28; Fort Lauderdale, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26(2 Suppl):Abstract nr B54.

Atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (OAK): a phase 3, open-label, multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Atezolizumab is a humanised antiprogrammed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody that inhibits PD-L1 and programmed death-1 (PD-1) and PD-L1 and B7-1 interactions, reinvigorating anticancer immunity. We assessed its efficacy and safety versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.

METHODS

We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial (OAK) in 194 academic or community oncology centres in 31 countries. We enrolled patients who had squamous or non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, were 18 years or older, had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients had received one to two previous cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens (one or more platinum based combination therapies) for stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients with a history of autoimmune disease and those who had received previous treatments with docetaxel, CD137 agonists, anti-CTLA4, or therapies targeting the PD-L1 and PD-1 pathway were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenously receive either atezolizumab 1200 mg or docetaxel 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks by permuted block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive voice or web response system. Coprimary endpoints were overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1-expression population TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 (≥1% PD-L1 on tumour cells or tumour-infiltrating immune cells). The primary efficacy analysis was done in the first 850 of 1225 enrolled patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02008227.

FINDINGS

Between March 11, 2014, and April 29, 2015, 1225 patients were recruited. In the primary population, 425 patients were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab and 425 patients were assigned to receive docetaxel. Overall survival was significantly longer with atezolizumab in the ITT and PD-L1-expression populations. In the ITT population, overall survival was improved with atezolizumab compared with docetaxel (median overall survival was 13·8 months [95% CI 11·8-15·7] vs 9·6 months [8·6-11·2]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·62-0·87], p=0·0003). Overall survival in the TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 population was improved with atezolizumab (n=241) compared with docetaxel (n=222; median overall survival was 15·7 months [95% CI 12·6-18·0] with atezolizumab vs 10·3 months [8·8-12·0] with docetaxel; HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·58-0·93]; p=0·0102). Patients in the PD-L1 low or undetectable subgroup (TC0 and IC0) also had improved survival with atezolizumab (median overall survival 12·6 months vs 8·9 months; HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·59-0·96]). Overall survival improvement was similar in patients with squamous (HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·54-0·98]; n=112 in the atezolizumab group and n=110 in the docetaxel group) or non-squamous (0·73 [0·60-0·89]; n=313 and n=315) histology. Fewer patients had treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events with atezolizumab (90 [15%] of 609 patients) versus docetaxel (247 [43%] of 578 patients). One treatment-related death from a respiratory tract infection was reported in the docetaxel group.

INTERPRETATION

To our knowledge, OAK is the first randomised phase 3 study to report results of a PD-L1-targeted therapy, with atezolizumab treatment resulting in a clinically relevant improvement of overall survival versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer, regardless of PD-L1 expression or histology, with a favourable safety profile.

FUNDING

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Inc.

Atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (OAK): a phase 3, open-label, multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Atezolizumab is a humanised antiprogrammed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody that inhibits PD-L1 and programmed death-1 (PD-1) and PD-L1 and B7-1 interactions, reinvigorating anticancer immunity. We assessed its efficacy and safety versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.

METHODS

We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial (OAK) in 194 academic or community oncology centres in 31 countries. We enrolled patients who had squamous or non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, were 18 years or older, had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients had received one to two previous cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens (one or more platinum based combination therapies) for stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients with a history of autoimmune disease and those who had received previous treatments with docetaxel, CD137 agonists, anti-CTLA4, or therapies targeting the PD-L1 and PD-1 pathway were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenously receive either atezolizumab 1200 mg or docetaxel 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks by permuted block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive voice or web response system. Coprimary endpoints were overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1-expression population TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 (≥1% PD-L1 on tumour cells or tumour-infiltrating immune cells). The primary efficacy analysis was done in the first 850 of 1225 enrolled patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02008227.

FINDINGS

Between March 11, 2014, and April 29, 2015, 1225 patients were recruited. In the primary population, 425 patients were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab and 425 patients were assigned to receive docetaxel. Overall survival was significantly longer with atezolizumab in the ITT and PD-L1-expression populations. In the ITT population, overall survival was improved with atezolizumab compared with docetaxel (median overall survival was 13·8 months [95% CI 11·8-15·7] vs 9·6 months [8·6-11·2]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·62-0·87], p=0·0003). Overall survival in the TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 population was improved with atezolizumab (n=241) compared with docetaxel (n=222; median overall survival was 15·7 months [95% CI 12·6-18·0] with atezolizumab vs 10·3 months [8·8-12·0] with docetaxel; HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·58-0·93]; p=0·0102). Patients in the PD-L1 low or undetectable subgroup (TC0 and IC0) also had improved survival with atezolizumab (median overall survival 12·6 months vs 8·9 months; HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·59-0·96]). Overall survival improvement was similar in patients with squamous (HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·54-0·98]; n=112 in the atezolizumab group and n=110 in the docetaxel group) or non-squamous (0·73 [0·60-0·89]; n=313 and n=315) histology. Fewer patients had treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events with atezolizumab (90 [15%] of 609 patients) versus docetaxel (247 [43%] of 578 patients). One treatment-related death from a respiratory tract infection was reported in the docetaxel group.

INTERPRETATION

To our knowledge, OAK is the first randomised phase 3 study to report results of a PD-L1-targeted therapy, with atezolizumab treatment resulting in a clinically relevant improvement of overall survival versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer, regardless of PD-L1 expression or histology, with a favourable safety profile.

FUNDING

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Inc.

Phase 2 Study of Erlotinib in Combination With Linsitinib (OSI-906) or Placebo in Chemotherapy-Naive Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer and Activating Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutations

INTRODUCTION

First-line epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with EGFR-activating mutations improves outcomes compared with chemotherapy, but resistance develops in most patients. Compensatory signaling through type 1 insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF-1R) may contribute to resistance; dual blockade of IGF-1R and EGFR may improve outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study of linsitinib, a dual IGF-1R and insulin receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, plus erlotinib versus placebo plus erlotinib in chemotherapy-naive patients with EGFR-mutation positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients received linsitinib 150 mg twice daily or placebo plus erlotinib 150 mg once daily on continuous 21-day cycles. The primary end point was progression-free survival.

RESULTS

After randomization of 88 patients (44 each arm), the trial was unblinded early owing to inferiority in the linsitinib arm. The median progression-free survival for the linsitinib versus the placebo group was 8.4 months versus 12.4 months (hazard ratio, 1.37; P = .29). Overall response rate (47.7% vs. 75.0%; P = .02) and disease control rate (77.3% vs. 95.5%; P = .03) were also inferior. Whereas most adverse events were ≤ grade 2, linsitinib plus erlotinib was associated with increased adverse events that led to decreased erlotinib exposure (median days, 228 vs. 305). No drug-drug interaction was suggested by pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic results.

CONCLUSION

Adding linsitinib to erlotinib resulted in inferior outcomes compared with erlotinib alone. Further understanding of the signaling pathways and a biomarker that can predict efficacy is needed prior to further clinical development of IGF-1R inhibitors in lung cancer.

Role of Chemotherapy and Targeted Therapy in Early-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

On the basis of several randomized trials and meta-analyses, adjuvant chemotherapy is the accepted standard of care for certain patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with stage II, IIIA, or large (≥ 4 cm) IB tumors are candidates for adjuvant chemotherapy. The survival improvement with adjuvant chemotherapy is approximately 5% at 5 years, though certain trials have suggested that it can be 8% to 10%. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy also has shown a survival advantage, though the volume of data with this approach is far less than that of adjuvant chemotherapy. The combination of cisplatin and vinorelbine is the most well-studied regimen, but current consensus is to use four cycles of any of the platinum-based chemotherapy regimens commonly used as front-line therapy for patients with advanced-stage NSCLC. Trials to define biomarkers that can predict benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy have not been successful, but results of other such trials are still awaited. On the basis of the benefit observed with targeted agents in patients with advanced-stage disease and driver genetic alterations in their tumors, ongoing trials are evaluating the utility of these targeted agents as adjuvant therapy. Similarly, clinical benefit observed with checkpoint inhibitors has prompted assessment of these drugs in patients with early-stage NSCLC. It is very likely, in the future, that factors other than the anatomy of the tumor will be used to select patients with early-stage NSCLC for systemic therapy and that the choice of systemic therapy will extend beyond platinum-based chemotherapy.

Preoperative pulmonary rehabilitation for marginal-function lung cancer patients

Background This study aimed to evaluate the impact of preoperative pulmonary rehabilitation in lung cancer patients undergoing pulmonary resection surgery with marginal lung function. Methods Short-term outcomes of 42 patients with forced expiratory volume in 1 s < 1.6 L who underwent lung resection between 01/2006 and 12/2010 were reviewed retrospectively. They were divided into group A (no preoperative pulmonary rehabilitation) and group B (receiving pulmonary rehabilitation). In group B, a second set of pulmonary function tests was obtained. Results There were no significant differences in terms of sex, age, race, pathologic stage, operative procedure, or smoking years. Mean forced expiratory volume in 1 s and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide in group A was 1.40 ± 0.22 L and 10.28 ± 2.64 g∙dL^-1 vs. 1.39 ± 0.13 L and 10.75 ± 2.08 g∙dL^-1 in group B. Group B showed significant improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 s from 1.39 ± 0.13 to 1.55 ± 0.06 L ( p = 0.02). Mean intensive care unit stay was 6 ± 5 days in group A vs. 9 ± 9 days in group B ( p = 0.22). Mean hospital stay was 10 ± 4 days in group A vs. 14 ± 9 days in group B ( p = 0.31). There was no significant difference in morbidity or mortality between groups. Conclusion Preoperative pulmonary rehabilitation can significantly improve forced expiratory volume in 1 s in some marginal patients undergoing lung cancer resection. However, it does not improve length of stay, morbidity, or mortality.

Phase II Trial of Dose-dense Pemetrexed, Gemcitabine, and Bevacizumab in Patients With Advanced, Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Platinum-based chemotherapy is standard for untreated, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated the activity and tolerability of the novel combination of dose-dense pemetrexed, gemcitabine, and bevacizumab in patients with advanced NSCLC.

METHODS

This multicenter phase II trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of the combination of pemetrexed (400 mg/m²), gemcitabine (1200 mg/m²), and bevacizumab (10 mg/kg), given every 14 days in patients with untreated, advanced NSCLC. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival with secondary endpoints of response rate and overall survival.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients were enrolled. Treatment was well tolerated; the most common grade 3-4 toxicities were neutropenia and fatigue. Of the 38 patients evaluable for tumor response, 1 (3%) had complete response, 15 (39%) had partial response, 12 (31%) had stable disease, and 10 (26%) had progressive disease. Median progression-free survival was 6.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2-7.9) and median overall survival was 18.4 months (95% CI, 13.1-29.5). The 1-year overall survival rate was 64% (95% CI, 51%-81%) and the 2-year overall survival rate was 41% (95% CI, 28%-60%).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with dose-dense pemetrexed, gemcitabine, and bevacizumab met the primary endpoint with promising efficacy and a manageable safety profile in patients with untreated advanced NSCLC. This regimen represents a reasonable therapeutic option.

Pooled Analysis of CNS Response to Alectinib in Two Studies of Pretreated Patients With ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Purpose Alectinib has shown activity in the CNS in phase I and II studies. To further evaluate this activity, we pooled efficacy and safety data from two single-arm phase II studies (NP28761 and NP28673; ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01871805 and NCT01801111, respectively) in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods Both studies included patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who had previously received crizotinib; all patients received alectinib 600 mg twice per day. The primary end point in both studies was independent review committee (IRC)-assessed objective response rate (ORR; by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] version 1.1). Additional end points (all by IRC) included CNS ORR (CORR), CNS disease control rate (CDCR), and CNS duration of response (CDOR). Results One hundred thirty-six patients had baseline CNS metastases (60% of the overall study populations); 50 patients (37%) had measurable CNS disease at baseline. Ninety-five patients (70%) had prior CNS radiotherapy; 55 patients completed the CNS radiotherapy more than 6 months before starting alectinib. Median follow-up time was 12.4 months (range, 0.9 to 19.7 months). For patients with baseline measurable CNS disease, IRC CORR was 64.0% (95% CI, 49.2% to 77.1%), CDCR was 90.0% (95% CI, 78.2% to 96.7%), and median CDOR was 10.8 months (95% CI, 7.6 to 14.1 months). For patients with measurable and/or nonmeasurable baseline CNS disease, IRC CORR was 42.6% (95% CI, 34.2% to 51.4%), CDCR was 85.3% (95% CI, 78.2% to 90.8%), and median CDOR was 11.1 months (95% CI, 10.3 months to not evaluable). CORR was 35.8% (95% CI, 26.2% to 46.3%) for patients with prior radiotherapy (n = 95) and 58.5% (95% CI, 42.1% to 73.7%) for patients without prior radiotherapy (n = 41). As previously reported, alectinib was well tolerated, regardless of baseline CNS disease. Conclusion Alectinib showed good efficacy against CNS metastases, in addition to systemic activity, in crizotinib-refractory ALK-positive NSCLC.