Meta-analysis of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors compared with chemotherapy as second-line treatment in pretreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Continuation of immunotherapy beyond progression is beneficial to the survival of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

To investigate the potential clinical importance of continuing immunotherapy beyond progression in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC).

METHODS

The data of patients with aNSCLC who experienced progressive disease after receiving first-line immunotherapy plus chemotherapy were collected from multiple centers for the period from January 1, 2018 to May 31, 2022. According to the second-line treatment, the patients were classified into two groups: the continuation of immunotherapy beyond progression (CIBP) group and the discontinuation of immunotherapy beyond progression (DIBP) group. The efficacy and safety of the treatment were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Overall, data from 169 patients were analyzed; 93 patients were enrolled in the CIBP group and 76 patients were in the DIBP group. The median second-line progression-free survival was 5.5 months in the CIBP group, which for the DIBP group was 3.4 (p = 0.011). The median overall survival of the CIBP group was 13.3 months, whereas that of the DIBP group was 8.8 months (p = 0.031). The disease control rate of the CIBP group (79.57%) was observably higher than that of the DIBP group (64.47%; p = 0.028). Among patients who responded better (complete or partial response) to prior therapy, the median progression-free survival was 5.5 months and 3.3 months in the CIBP and DIBP groups respectively (p = 0.022), and the median overall survival was 14.8 months and 8.8 months in the CIBP and DIBP groups respectively (p = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

Continuing immunotherapy as a second-line treatment could be beneficial to the survival of patients with aNSCLC with disease progression beyond initial chemotherapy combined with immunotherapy.

Real-world effectiveness of second-line Afatinib versus chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced lung squamous cell carcinoma in immunotherapy-naïve patients

Background

Limited treatment options exist for relapsed advanced lung squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), leading to poor outcomes compared with adenocarcinoma. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of second-line afatinib versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced lung SCC who progressed after first-line chemotherapy.

Methods

In this retrospective, multisite cohort study, we recruited patients with initial locally advanced or metastatic lung SCC from four institutes in Taiwan between June 2014 and October 2020. The primary endpoint of this study was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoints were the objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and overall survival (OS).

Results

The present study enrolled 108 patients: 19 received second-line afatinib, and 89 received second-line chemotherapy. The median ages were 71 and 67 years, respectively. PFS was significantly longer among patients who received afatinib than among those who received chemotherapy (median 4.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.1–7.5] vs. 2.6 months [95% CI, 0.9–6.7]; hazard ratio (HR) 0.53 [95% CI 0.32–0.88], p = 0.013). Compared with the chemotherapy group, OS was longer in the afatinib group but did not reach significance (median 16.0 months [95% CI, 6.1–22.0] vs. 12.3 months [6.2–33.9]; HR 0.65 [95% CI 0.38–1.11], p = 0.112).

Conclusions

Afatinib offered a longer PFS and comparable OS to chemotherapy in advanced lung SCC patients in a real-world setting, it may be considered as a 2nd line alternative treatment choice for immunotherapy unfit advanced lung SCC patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08920-3.

Treatment of advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer: First line, maintenance and second line - Indian consensus statement update

The management of advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients is becoming increasingly complex with the identification of driver mutations/rearrangements and development/availability of appropriate targeted therapies. In 2017, an expert group of medical oncologists with expertise in treating lung cancer used data from published literature and experience to arrive at practical consensus recommendations on treatment of advanced NSCLC for use by the community oncologists. This was published subsequently in the Indian Journal of Cancer with a plan to be updated annually. The present document is an update to the 2017 document.

[Second- or third-line treatment with erlotinib in EGFR wild-type non-small cell lung cancer: Real-life data]

INTRODUCTION

The benefit of tyrosine kinase inhibitors for patients with an EGFR wild-type non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains controversial.

METHODS

The survival of patients with an EGFR wild-type NSCLC who received second- or third-line erlotinib treatment was assessed using real-life data that had been collected in a prospective, national, multicenter, non-interventional cohort study.

RESULTS

Data from 274 patients were analysed, 185 (68%) treated with erlotinib and 89 (32%) treated with supportive care only. The median overall survival was 4.2months (95% CI [3.5; 5.4]) with erlotinib, and 1.3months (95% CI [1.0; 1.8]) with supportive care. Survival rate at 3, 6, and 12months was 62%, 37%, and 17%, respectively, with erlotinib, versus 20%, 8%, et 3%, with exclusive supportive care. Significant predictive factors for longer overall survival were the presence of adenocarcinoma, and use of 1st line chemotherapy including either taxanes, pemetrexed or vinorelbine (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Erlotinib remains a valuable therapeutic option to treat inoperable locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC after failure of at least one prior chemotherapy regimen in fragile patients who are not eligible for chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy versus erlotinib as second-line treatment in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and wild-type epidermal growth factor receptor: an individual patient data (IPD) analysis

The efficacy of second-line treatment in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) wild-type tumours is still debatable. We assessed the efficacy of a standard second-line chemotherapy compared with erlotinib in an individual patient data approach for meta-analysis. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Both were compared by log-rank test. The 'restricted mean survival time' (RMST) was estimated in each study and the difference in mean survival time up to the last available time point was calculated. The Cox proportional hazards model was used on survival analyses to provide HRs, to adjust for confounding variables and to test possible interaction with selected factors. Three randomised trials comparing chemotherapy versus erlotinib were analysed, including 587 randomised patients. Overall, 74% of patients included in the original trials were considered. 464 deaths and 570 progressions or deaths were observed. Compared with erlotinib, chemotherapy was associated to a decreased risk of progression (29%; HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.84, p< 0.0001;) but with no statistical significant reduction in OS (HR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.06; p<0.20). No heterogeneity was found in both analyses. Patients treated with chemotherapy gained an absolute 1.5 and 1.6 months, respectively, in PFS and lifetime (RMST 95% CI: PFS 0.49 to 2.44; OS 95% CI: -1.04 to 4.25). These results showed that patients without a constitutively activated EGFR had better PFS with chemotherapy rather than with erlotinib while no statistical difference was observed in OS.

Comparative analysis of immune checkpoint inhibitors and chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Recently, immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown survival advantage over chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This meta-analysis was conducted to gather and analyze the available evidence (Evidence level I; Randomized Controlled Trials) comparing efficacy and safety of anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapies and chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced NSCLC.

METHODS

A search strategy was devised to identify the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using electronic databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Hazard ratios or odds ratios obtained for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) were analyzed using fixed effect model or random effects model. Additionally, subgroup analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

A total of seven RCTs (n = 3867) were identified and selected for inclusion in this meta-analysis. Anti-PD1/PD-L1 therapies (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab) resulted in better OS (HR 0.72 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63, 0.82; P < .00001]), PFS (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.72, 0.97; P < .02]), and ORR (odds ratio [OR] 1.52 [95% CI 1.08, 2.14; P < .02]) in comparison to chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC. Improved safety was observed with anti-PD1/PD-L1 therapies (OR 0.31 [95%CI 0.26, 0.38; P < .00001]). Subgroups analysis revealed Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 1 (HR 0.76 [95%CI 0.62, 0.93; P = .007]), squamous cell type (HR 0.76 [95% CI 0.63, 0.92; P = .005]), current/former smoker (HR 0.76 [95% CI 0.63, 0.92; P = .005]), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) wild type (HR 0.67 [95% CI 0.60, 0.76; P < .00001]), Kirsten rat sarcoma oncogene mutation (KRAS) mutant (HR 0.60 [95% CI 0.39, 0.93; P < .02]), and absence of central nervous system (CNS) metastases (HR 0.71 [95% CI 0.63, 0.80; P < .00001]) were associated with better overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-PD1/PD-L1 therapies are safe and effective treatment option in advanced non-small cell lung cancer and can be recommended selectively.

Indian consensus statement for treatment of advanced non small cell lung cancer: First line, maintenance, and second line

The management of advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients is becoming complex with the identification of driver mutations and targeted therapies. The expert group of academic medical oncologists used data from published literature, practical experience to arrive at practical consensus recommendations to treat advanced NSCLC for use by the community oncologists.

The comparison of outcomes from tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy in second- or third-line for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients with wild-type or unknown EGFR status

BACKGROUND

Second-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients includes monotherapy with a third-generation cytotoxic drug (CT) or a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). These options are the actual standard for EGFR wild-type (WT) status, as patients with EGFR mutations achieve greater benefit by the use of TKI in first-line treatment. Some clinical trials and meta-analyses investigated the comparison between CT and TKI in second-line, but data are conflicting.

METHODS

We designed a retrospective trial to gather information about TKI sensitivity in comparison with CT. We selected from clinical records patients treated with at least 1 line of CT and at least 1 line of TKI. We collected data about age, sex, performance status, comorbidity, smoking status, histotype, metastatic sites, EGFR status, treatment schedule, better response and time-to-progression (TTP) for each line of treatment and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

93 patients met selection criteria. Mean age 66,7 (range: 46-84). M/F ratio is 3:1. 39 EGFR-WT and 54 EGFR-UK. All patients received erlotinib or gefitinib as second-line treatment or erlotinib as third-line treatment. No TTP differences were observed for both second-line (HR:0,91; p = 0,6333) and third-line (HR:1.1; p = 0,6951) treatment (TKI vs CT). A trend of a benefit in OS in favor of 3rd-line TKI (HR:0,68; p = 0,11).

CONCLUSIONS

This study explores the role of TKIs in EGFR non-mutated NSCLC patients. OS analysis highlights a trend to a benefit in patients who received TKI in third-line, even if this result is statistically non-significant. Further analysis are needed to find an explanation for this observation.

[Afatinib in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the lung: current context and the option of oral treatment]

Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the lung represents 30% of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC). Docetaxel and the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), erlotinib, are the only two drugs approved for second-line treatment of advanced SCC. The sensitivity of SCC to TKIs can be explained by EGFR overexpression. Erlotinib demonstrated a significant benefit in terms of overall survival (OS) in successive lines in NSCLC, including squamous histology. The magnitude of this benefit is similar to that of chemotherapy. Afatinib is an irreversible inhibitor of the entire ErbB family (EGFR, HER2-4) that has recently been approved for its current indication, advanced EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC and has well-defined and manageable toxicity, mainly gastrointestinal and cutaneous. The LUX-Lung 8 study was a phase III randomized trial in patients with NSCLC with squamous histology that compared erlotinib versus afatinib as second-line treatment. A total of 795 patients were included and a significant benefit was observed for afatinib in progression-free survival (2.7 vs 1.9 months (HR 0.79 [95%CI 0.68-0.91]; p=0.0012) and in OS (7.9 vs 6.8 months (HR 0.81 [95%CI 0.69-0.95]; p=0.0077), as well as a significant improvement in OS at 12 and 18 months. More diarrhoea and stomatitis was observed with afatinib and more rash with erlotinib, but the overall proportion of toxicity was similar in each group. Afatinib offered better results in quality of life. In summary, afatinib is a second-line treatment option in squamous NSCLC based on its survival advantage over erlotinib.

Postoperative survival of EGFR-TKI-targeted therapy in non-small cell lung cancer patients with EGFR 19 or 21 mutations: a retrospective study

Background

The aim of this retrospective study is to identify epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in non-small cell lung cancer patients and to compare the long-term postoperative outcomes in different EGFR-TKI-targeted therapy effects between the different EGFR mutation groups.

Methods

A total of 2094 postoperative non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with EGFR gene detection were collected in the Department of Pathology in the Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences from January 2003 to January 2014. Three hundred sixty-three patients were treated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) after surgery: 184 harbored the exon 19 deletion mutation and 179 cases carried the exon 21 L858R point mutation. The end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and the response rate.

Results

OS was increased in the EGFR exon 19 deletion group compared with the exon 21 L858R point mutation group (92 vs. 65 months; P < 0.001). But the median PFS did not differ between two groups (12 vs 14 months). The objective response rate (ORR) in 19 deletion group was increased compared with L858R mutation patients (28.35 vs. 22.73%). The disease control rate (DCR) of patients with 19 deletion benefited more from targeted therapy, compared with L858R group (93.71 vs. 84.31%, P = 0.014). In 19 deletion group, a high ORR and DCR were noted in patients treated with icotinib, 16 out of 18 achieved stable disease (SD), and the DCR in this population was 100%.

Conclusions

EGFR subtypes could influence the postoperative survival of NSCLC patients with TKI-targeted therapy.

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of afatinib after platinum-based therapy for the treatment of squamous non-small-cell lung cancer in France

Background and aims

Lung cancer has the highest mortality rate of all cancers worldwide. Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for 85% of all lung cancers and has an extremely poor prognosis. Afatinib is an irreversible ErbB family blocker designed to suppress cellular signaling and inhibit cellular growth and is approved in Europe after platinum-based therapy for squamous NSCLC. The objective of the present analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of afatinib after platinum-based therapy for squamous NSCLC in France.

Methods

The study population was based on the LUX-Lung 8 trial that compared afatinib with erlotinib in patients with squamous NSCLC. The analysis was performed from the perspective of all health care funders and affected patients. A partitioned survival model was developed to evaluate cost-effectiveness based on progression-free survival and overall survival in the trial. Life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy and direct costs were evaluated over a 10-year time horizon. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 4% annually. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

Model projections indicated that afatinib was associated with greater life expectancy (0.16 years) and quality-adjusted life expectancy (0.094 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) than that projected for erlotinib. The total cost of treatment over a 10-year time horizon was higher for afatinib than erlotinib, EUR12,364 versus EUR9,510, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR30,277 per QALY gained for afatinib versus erlotinib. Sensitivity analyses showed that the base case findings were stable under variation of a range of model inputs.

Conclusion

Based on data from the LUX-Lung 8 trial, afatinib was projected to improve clinical outcomes versus erlotinib, with a 97% probability of being cost-effective assuming a willingness to pay of EUR70,000 per QALY gained, after platinum-based therapy in patients with squamous NSCLC in France.

Second-line therapy of squamous non-small cell lung cancer: an evolving landscape

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of lung cancer has radically changed over the last few years. The discovery of druggable oncogenic alterations and the introduction of immunotherapy have provided lung cancer patients with the possibility of more efficient and less toxic therapeutic alternatives than chemotherapy. In the case of lung squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC), the treatment progress is slower than adenocarcinoma, for which several targeted agents have been already approved. The standard first-line therapy for LSCC, in most sites of the world, is platinum-based chemotherapy. After disease progression, these patients now have novel treatment options, including antiangiogenic agents and immune checkpoint blockade. Areas covered: We provide a summary of the recent novelties for the second-line therapy of LSCC, emphasizing on the results of the most important clinical trials that have led to regulatory approvals. Expert commentary: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have changed the therapeutic algorithm for LSCC patients. Other treatment options in the second-line setting include ramucirumab in combination with docetaxel and afatinib. However, we still lack biomarkers to predict which patients could respond better to each treatment. Despite the identification of several actionable molecular alterations, there are no approved targeted agents specific for advanced LSCC. Results from ongoing biomarker-driven studies are eagerly awaited to establish effective treatments for molecularly selected subgroups of patients.

EGFR mutation in squamous cell carcinoma of the lung: does it carry the same connotation as in adenocarcinomas?

BACKGROUND

EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have greatly improved the outcomes of EGFR mutation-positive adenocarcinomas of the lung. In contrast, the significance of EGFR mutation in metastatic squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the lung has been debated.

METHODS

All patients with metastatic SCC who underwent EGFR mutation testing at our center from 2010 to 2015 were included for analysis. EGFR kinase domain mutations were tested using Taqman-based real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Response assessment was done using Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1. Kaplan-Meier method was used for calculating progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

EGFR mutation was detected in 29 out of 639 patients with SCC. Furthermore, 19 out of the 29 patients received TKIs at some point during their treatment. TKI therapy led to a partial response in 5 out of 19 patients and stable disease in 4 out of 19 patients. The median PFS of patients treated with TKIs was 5.0 months. The median OS of the whole EGFR-positive SCC cohort was 6.6 months. On univariate analysis, patients having received TKI therapy was the only factor associated with a significantly better OS of 13.48 months versus 2.58 months (P=0.000). On multivariate analysis, patients receiving TKI therapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Scale (ECOG-PS) score <2, EGFR exon 19 mutation and nonsmoking status were associated with significantly better OS.

CONCLUSION

EGFR mutation in SCC of the lung predicts a better outcome if the patient is given TKI, but it may be inferior to the outcomes seen in EGFR-positive adenocarcinomas treated with TKI.

Second-Line Treatment of NSCLC-The Pan-ErbB Inhibitor Afatinib in Times of Shifting Paradigms

In contrast to the established role of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors for the first-line treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring activating EGFR mutations, the role of EGFR blockade and of EGFR molecular testing in the second-line treatment remains less clear. The irreversible pan-ErbB family inhibitor afatinib (Gi(l)otrif^®) was recently FDA- and EMA-approved for the second-line treatment of NSCLC with squamous cell histology irrespective of the EGFR mutational status (LUX-Lung 8). Contrariwise, results from the TAILOR and DELTA trials among retrospective biomarker analyses show the predictive value of the EGFR mutational status for efficacy of reversible EGFR inhibitors also as a second-line therapy. This mini review critically summarizes the current role of EGFR-targeting strategies in the second-line treatment of NSCLC with special respect to afatinib in light of emerging T790M-specific EGFR and immune check point inhibitors. The review also emphasizes the urgent need for reliable biomarkers to guide therapeutic decision-making and outlines prospective changes to the second-line landscape with some of the current second-line treatment concepts likely to be moved to the first-line.

Historical Evolution of Second-Line Therapy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Innovative therapeutic agents have significantly improved outcome with an acceptable safety profile in a substantial proportion of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, who depend on oncogenic molecular alterations for their malignant phenotype. Despite the survival improvement achieved with first-line chemotherapy, about 30% of patients do not obtain a tumor response. Moreover, those patients, initially sensitive to treatment, acquire resistance and develop tumor progression after a median of about 5 months. Approximately 60% of the patients progressing from first-line chemotherapy receive further systemic treatment in the second-line setting. Moreover, new options have emerged in the second-line armamentarium for the treatment of patients with NSCLC, including immune checkpoint inhibitors and antiangiogenic agents. The current review provides an overview on the clinical studies that gained the approval of chemotherapy agents (docetaxel and pemetrexed) and epidermal growth factor receptor gene–tyrosine kinase inhibitors as second-line treatment options for NSCLC patients, not carrying molecular alterations.

Circulating heregulin level is associated with the efficacy of patritumab combined with erlotinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

Patritumab is a fully human anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3) antibody that blocks activation by its ligand, heregulin (HRG). Preclinical studies have demonstrated the efficacy of patritumab in aberrantly high HRG-expressing non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the phase II randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind study HERALD (n=212 patients with NSCLC), patritumab plus erlotinib did not improve progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo plus erlotinib. The current study examined whether soluble HRG (sHRG) level in serum correlated with the efficacy of patritumab plus erlotinib.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Serum was obtained from participants prior to treatment (n=202). sHRG level was measured using a validated quantitative immune assay, and correlations with survival were blindly assessed.

RESULTS

sHRG level was various (-1346-11,772pg/mL). Participants were divided into the sHRG-high or -low subgroups at the concentration defining near the third quartile, 980pg/mL. Patritumab plus erlotinib significantly improved PFS relative to placebo in the sHRG-high subgroup (n=46, hazard ratio 0.42 [0.19-0.96], p=0.0327). In contrast, the HRG-low subgroup (n=148) had no improvement in PFS with patritumab.

CONCLUSION

sHRG seems to be a predictive biomarker for the efficacy of patritumab plus erlotinib in NSCLC patients.

Results From the Phase III Randomized Trial of Onartuzumab Plus Erlotinib Versus Erlotinib in Previously Treated Stage IIIB or IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: METLung

Purpose The phase III OAM4971g study (METLung) examined the efficacy and safety of onartuzumab plus erlotinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer selected by MET immunohistochemistry whose disease had progressed after treatment with a platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned at a one-to-one ratio to receive onartuzumab (15 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day cycle) plus daily oral erlotinib 150 mg or intravenous placebo plus daily oral erlotinib 150 mg. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in the intent-to-treat population. Secondary end points included median progression-free survival, overall response rate, biomarker analysis, and safety. Results A total of 499 patients were enrolled (onartuzumab, n = 250; placebo, n = 249). Median OS was 6.8 versus 9.1 months for onartuzumab versus placebo (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 1.27; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.65; P = .067), with a greater number of deaths in the onartuzumab arm (130 [52%] v 114 [46%]). Median progression-free survival was 2.7 versus 2.6 months (stratified HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.20; P = .92), and overall response rate was 8.4% and 9.6% for onartuzumab versus placebo, respectively. Exploratory analyses using MET fluorescence in situ hybridization status and gene expression showed no benefit for onartuzumab; patients with EGFR mutations showed a trend toward shorter OS with onartuzumab treatment (HR, 4.68; 95% CI, 0.97 to 22.63). Grade 3 to 5 adverse events were reported by 56.0% and 51.2% of patients, with serious AEs in 33.9% and 30.7%, for experimental versus control arms, respectively. Conclusion Onartuzumab plus erlotinib did not improve clinical outcomes, with shorter OS in the onartuzumab arm, compared with erlotinib in patients with MET-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

Fatigue in lung cancer patients: symptom burden and management of challenges

Lung cancer (LC) remains the most common cause of cancer death in several countries across the world. Fatigue is the most frequently reported symptom in LC patients throughout the entire course of disease, and all international guidelines recommend early screening for cancer-related fatigue (CRF) and symptoms that can affect patients' quality of life. In patients with LC, fatigue belongs to the symptom cluster of pain, depression, and insomnia, which are commonly observed simultaneously, but are typically treated as separate although they may have common biological mechanisms. The treatment of CRF remains one of the difficult areas in the oncology field: scarce evidence supports pharmacological therapies, while some interesting data arising indicates alternative remedies and physical exercise seem to be one of the most effective approaches for CRF at any stage of LC.

Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in nonsmall cell lung carcinoma patients in Kuwait

CONTEXT

Nonsmall cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) is the most frequently diagnosed form of lung cancer in Kuwait. NSCLC samples from Kuwait have never been screened for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene aberration, which is known to affect treatment options.

AIMS

This study investigated the feasibility of using fine-needle aspiration (FNA) material for mutational screening, and whether common EGFR mutations are present in NSCLC samples from Kuwait.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

Eighteen NSCLC samples from five Kuwaitis and 13 non-Kuwaitis were included in this study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

DNA was extracted from FNA cell blocks and screened for EGFR gene mutations using peptide nucleic acid (PNA)-clamp assay, and EGFR gene amplification using fluorescent in situ hybridization (EGFR-FISH). EGFR protein expression was assessed using immunohistochemistry.

RESULTS

Five EGFR mutations were detected in five non-Kuwaiti NSCLC patients (27.8%). EGFR gene amplification was evident in 10 samples (55.5%) by direct amplification or under the influence of chromosomal polysomy. Four samples had EGFR mutations and EGFR gene amplification, out of which only one sample had coexisting EGFR overexpression.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the evidence of EGFR gene alterations occurring in NSCLC patients in Kuwait, there is a need to incorporate EGFR gene mutational screen for NSCLC patients to implement its consequent use in patient treatment.

Afatinib in the treatment of squamous non-small cell lung cancer: a new frontier or an old mistake?

Lung squamous cell carcinoma represents approximately 20% of all non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and is associated with a very poor prognosis. In the randomized phase III LUX-Lung 8 trial afatinib showed a statistical significant efficacy advantage compared to erlotinib as second-line treatment of advanced/metastatic squamous NSCLC. Despite its well-built design and the statistical significant results, in our opinion the study is still far from being clinically relevant for this subset of patients. Moreover, during the last years other drugs have shown encouraging activity with low toxicity in pretreated lung squamous cell carcinomas. In particular, nivolumab in the treatment of platinum-pretreated squamous NSCLC has recently radically changed the treatment paradigms in this histology. Sure, LUX-Lung 8 trial achieved its primary endpoint progression-free survival showing some afatinib activity in one of the most difficult-to treat and genetically complex neoplasm but we haven't found the most active drug in this subset of patients yet. The purpose of this editorial is to discuss some of the most controversial aspects of the LUX-Lung 8 trial focusing especially on its rational and design.

Nintedanib in NSCLC: evidence to date and place in therapy

The treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is currently driven by the detection of targetable oncogenic drivers, i.e. epidermal growth factor receptor, echinoderm microtubule-associated protein-like 4-anaplastic lymphoma kinase, etc. Those patients who are wildtype for known and valuable oncogenes can receive standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment, with the possibility of adding bevacizumab. With regard to second-line treatment, nintedanib can improve the efficacy of docetaxel. Nintedanib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting three angiogenesis-related transmembrane receptors. The usefulness of nintedanib as an anticancer agent for NSCLC has been proved by both preclinical and clinical phase I and II trials; however, its approval for the use in clinical practice has been possible because of the positive results of the LUME-Lung 1 trial (nintedanib + docetaxel versus docetaxel alone) in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival, and a manageable tolerability profile. Therefore, the good results seen in the clinical trials with nintedanib in the second-line setting for NSCLC patients with adenocarcinoma subtype are encouraging enough to recommend it in clinical practice.

Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibition in the Management of Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Lung

Molecular therapies targeting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) have had a profound impact on the management of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). EGFR inhibition with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) and anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in squamous NSCLC (sqNSCLC) remains controversial in patients whose tumors are not known to harbor EGFR mutations. Recent meta-analyses of EGFR-inhibition randomized trials that are adequately powered for histological subgroup analysis and anti-EGFR trials limited to patients with squamous histology afford the opportunity to revisit EGFR treatment in sqNSCLC. In unselected patients with sqNSCLC who are not eligible for chemotherapy, EGFR-TKI therapy is a valid treatment option over placebo or best supportive care, with improved progression-free survival noted in randomized controlled trials in both the first- and second-line setting and improved overall survival (OS) in the second-line setting. In patients eligible for chemotherapy, first-line combination regimens with anti-EGFR mAbs have been shown to improve OS over chemotherapy alone in patients with squamous histology in meta-analysis and more recently in the SQUIRE sqNSCLC trial (chemotherapy with and without necitumumab). In sqNSCLC patients who respond to induction chemotherapy, maintenance therapy with erlotinib delays disease progression and may improve the survival of patients with stable disease. In the second-line setting, survival outcomes are comparable between chemotherapy and EGFR-TKIs in meta-analysis, with the latter being more tolerable as a second-line therapy. Newer-generation EGFR-TKI therapies may further benefit patients with sqNSCLC who have failed first-line chemotherapy, given the positive trial results from LUX-Lung 8 (afatinib vs. erlotinib). EGFR is a valid therapeutic target in unselected/EGFR wild-type patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. With the recent approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the second-line management of advanced sqNSCLC and their adoption as a new standard of care, there exists an opportunity for novel combination therapies to increase therapeutic efficacy and durable tumor control. As more targeted agents are approved, combination regimens that include an anti-EGFR agent should be evaluated, and the optimal sequencing of targeted therapies should be defined.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapies remain controversial in unselected/wild-type EGFR squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Recent meta-analyses and squamous-only NSCLC EGFR-inhibition trials have overcome the power limitations of early trials and can now inform the management of squamous NSCLC with anti-EGFR therapies. With the approval of immunotherapeutics in the second-line management of squamous NSCLC, there exists an opportunity for novel combination therapies to improve efficacy and durable tumor control. The optimal timing and sequencing of available second-line targeted therapies, however, have yet to be defined. This review analyzes randomized clinical trials of EGFR inhibition in NSCLC and meta-analyses of these trials, with a focus on patients with squamous histology.

Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Multiple treatments are frequently available for a given condition, and clinicians and patients need a comprehensive, up-to-date synthesis of evidence for all competing treatments. We aimed to quantify the waste of research related to the failure of systematic reviews to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis over time.

METHODS

We performed a series of systematic overviews and networks of randomized trials assessing the gap between evidence covered by systematic reviews and available trials of second-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other resources sequentially by year from 2009 to March 2, 2015. We sequentially compared the amount of evidence missing from systematic reviews to the randomized evidence available for inclusion each year. We constructed cumulative networks of randomized evidence over time and evaluated the proportion of trials, patients, treatments, and treatment comparisons not covered by systematic reviews on December 31 each year from 2009 to 2015.

RESULTS

We identified 77 trials (28,636 patients) assessing 47 treatments with 54 comparisons and 29 systematic reviews (13 published after 2013). From 2009 to 2015, the evidence covered by existing systematic reviews was consistently incomplete: 45 % to 70 % of trials; 30 % to 58 % of patients; 40 % to 66 % of treatments; and 38 % to 71 % of comparisons were missing. In the cumulative networks of randomized evidence, 10 % to 17 % of treatment comparisons were partially covered by systematic reviews and 55 % to 85 % were partially or not covered.

CONCLUSIONS

We illustrate how systematic reviews of a given condition provide a fragmented, out-of-date panorama of the evidence for all treatments. This waste of research might be reduced by the development of live cumulative network meta-analyses.

[Research Progress of Mechanisms on Intracranial Metastasis of Non-small Cell Lung Cancer after Clinical Benefit from EGFR-TKI]

表皮生长因子受体酪氨酸激酶抑制剂（epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, EGFR-TKI）广泛用于治疗EGFR突变阳性的非小细胞肺癌（non-small cell lung cancer, NSCLC）。然而，部分患者在接受EGFR-TKI治疗后、原发病灶稳定甚至缩小的同时，却出现了新发颅内转移灶或者原有颅内病灶进展，其机制未明。近年来多项研究表明，这种现象可能与EGFR-TKI的药物代谢动力学、NSCLC原发灶与转移灶的异质性、EGFR突变本身特质及患者生存期的延长有关。因此，本文就NSCLC患者在EGFR-TKI治疗临床获益后发生颅内转移的相关机制研究进展作一综述。

Anti-angiogenic drugs for second-line treatment of NSCLC patients: just new pawns on the chessboard?

Tumor angiogenesis is one of the main pathways targeted to treat cancer. Bevacizumab added survival benefit when combined with platinum-based chemotherapy in NSCLC. Recently, Phase III trials showed survival benefit when anti-angiogenic drugs are added to docetaxel as second-line treatment for NSCLC. These anti-angiogenic agents include nintedanib and ramucirumab, a tyrosine-kinase inhibitor and a monoclonal antibody, respectively, which target receptors involved in angiogenesis. These studies have some similarities and differences. We propose a new algorithm for treatment sequences in performance status 0-1 patients with non-oncogene-addicted NSCLC type adenocarcinoma. Indeed clearer scientific evidences are available for this subgroup of patients.

Afatinib versus erlotinib as second-line treatment of patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung (LUX-Lung 8): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

There is a major unmet need for effective treatments in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. LUX-Lung 8 compared afatinib (an irreversible ErbB family blocker) with erlotinib (a reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor), as second-line treatment for patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung.

METHODS

We did this open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial at 183 cancer centres in 23 countries worldwide. We enrolled adults with stage IIIB or IV squamous cell carcinoma of the lung who had progressed after at least four cycles of platinum-based-chemotherapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or erlotinib (150 mg per day) until disease progression. The randomisation was done centrally with an interactive voice or web-based response system and stratified by ethnic origin (eastern Asian vs non-eastern Asian). Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by independent central review (intention-to-treat population). The key secondary endpoint was overall survival. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01523587.

FINDINGS

795 eligible patients were randomly assigned (398 to afatinib, 397 to erlotinib). Median follow-up at the time of the primary analysis of progression-free survival was 6·7 months (IQR 3·1-10·2), at which point enrolment was not complete. Progression free-survival at the primary analysis was significantly longer with afatinib than with erlotinib (median 2·4 months [95% CI 1·9-2·9] vs 1·9 months [1·9-2·2]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·82 [95% CI 0·68-1·00], p=0·0427). At the time of the primary analysis of overall survival (median follow-up 18·4 months [IQR 13·8-22·4]), overall survival was significantly greater in the afatinib group than in the erloinib group (median 7·9 months [95% CI 7·2-8·7] vs 6·8 months [5·9-7·8]; HR 0·81 [95% CI 0·69-0·95], p=0·0077), as were progression-free survival (median 2·6 months [95% CI 2·0-2·9] vs 1·9 months [1·9-2·1]; HR 0·81 [95% CI 0·69-0·96], p=0·0103) and disease control (201 [51%] of 398 patients vs 157 [40%] of 397; p=0·0020). The proportion of patients with an objective response did not differ significantly between groups (22 [6%] vs 11 [3%]; p=0·0551). Tumour shrinkage occurred in 103 (26%) of 398 patients versus 90 (23%) of 397 patients. Adverse event profiles were similar in each group: 224 (57%) of 392 patients in the afatinib group versus 227 (57%) of 395 in the erlotinib group had grade 3 or higher adverse events. We recorded higher incidences of treatment-related grade 3 diarrhoea with afatinib (39 [10%] vs nine [2%]), of grade 3 stomatitis with afatinib (16 [4%] vs none), and of grade 3 rash or acne with erlotinib (23 [6%] vs 41 [10%]).

INTERPRETATION

The significant improvements in progression-free survival and overall survival with afatinib compared with erlotinib, along with a manageable safety profile and the convenience of oral administration suggest that afatinib could be an additional option for the treatment of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the lung.

FUNDING

Boehringer Ingelheim.