Docetaxel monotherapy as second-line treatment for pretreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients

A phase 1b study evaluating the safety and preliminary efficacy of berzosertib in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES

Berzosertib (formerly M6620, VX-970) is an intravenous, highly potent and selective, first-in-class ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related (ATR) protein kinase inhibitor. We assessed the safety, tolerability, preliminary efficacy, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of berzosertib plus gemcitabine in an expansion cohort of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The association of efficacy with TP53 status and other tumor markers was also explored.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adult patients with advanced histologically confirmed NSCLC received berzosertib 210 mg/m2 (days 2 and 9) and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (days 1 and 8) at the recommended phase 2 dose established in the dose escalation part of the study.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients received at least one dose of study treatment. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue (55.3%), anemia (52.6%), and nausea (39.5%). Gemcitabine had no apparent effect on the PK of berzosertib. The objective response rate (ORR) was 10.5% (4/38, 90% confidence interval [CI]: 3.7-22.5%). In the exploratory analysis, the ORR was 30.0% (3/10, 90% CI: 9.0-61.0%) in patients with high loss of heterozygosity (LOH) and 11.0% (1/9, 90% CI: 1.0-43.0%) in patients with low LOH. The ORR was 33.0% (2/6, 90% CI: 6.0-73.0%) in patients with high tumor mutational burden (TMB), 12.5% (2/16, 90% CI: 2.0-34.0%) in patients with intermediate TMB, and 0% (0/3, 90% CI: 0.0-53.6%) in patients with low TMB.

CONCLUSIONS

Berzosertib plus gemcitabine was well tolerated in patients with advanced, pre-treated NSCLC. Based on the observed clinical efficacy, future clinical trials should involve genomically selected patients.

Quantitative and qualitative assessment of real world data comparative effectiveness research of systemic therapies in lung oncology: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The growing interest in comparative effectiveness research (CER) based on data from routine clinical practice also extends towards lung oncology. Although CER studies using real world data (RWD) have the potential to assist clinical decision-making, concerns about the quality and validity of studies with observational data subsist. The primary objective of the present study is to assess the current status of observational CER in the field of lung oncology, both quantitatively as qualitatively.

METHODS

We performed a systematic electronic literature database search in MEDLINE and EMBASE (up to 1 July 2015). The quality of all selected studies was assessed according to the Good ReseArch for Comparative Effectiveness (GRACE) checklist.

RESULTS

The first selection included 657 publications. After screening the corresponding abstracts and full-text papers, 38 studies remained. A total of 36 studies included patients with advanced NSCLC. The comparison of the effectiveness of gefitinib versus erlotinib was the main objective in 22% of the studies. The median number of patients per study was 202 (range 21-10064). The number of publications increased over the years whereas the quality score remained stable over the years with several common shortcomings (checklist items M5, D1, D4, D6).

DISCUSSION

The growing interest in clinical oncology CER studies using RWD is reflected in an increasing number of publications in the recent years. The studies have several common methodological shortcomings possibly limiting their applicability in clinical decision-making. To fulfil the promise of RWD CER in lung oncology effort should be continued to overcome these shortcomings.

A cross-country review of data collected on non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in cancer registries, databases, retrospective and non-randomized prospective studies

INTRODUCTION

An increased number of pharmacotherapies exist to treat advanced NSCLC. This necessitates a review of the available information on routine-care treatment patterns, the outcome of treatment, and resource utilization for patients diagnosed and treated with advanced NSCLC that could inform evidence-based treatment decisions and aid decisions on the most cost-effective treatment alternatives.

METHODS

PubMed and the Health Economic Evaluations Database were searched for retrospective or non-randomized prospective studies between January 2000 and May 2012 that included information on treatment patterns, treatment outcomes including health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL), and resource utilization. In addition, registries and databases were identified from retrieved publications and internet searches. Data collected in registries and databases was summarized for eight European countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Turkey, the Netherlands, the UK), Australia, and Canada.

RESULTS

The literature search resulted in 410 studies, whereof 87 studies met the study inclusion criteria. In total, 49 were retrospective chart reviews or database analyses, 30 non-randomized prospective studies, and eight HRQoL studies. Two studies compared treatment patterns and/or treatment outcomes across countries. Altogether, 181 cancer registries in the countries studied were identified. Clinical cancer-specific patient registries were identified in Australia and Germany. Databases or linkage systems that enable retrieval of complete information of patient disease history were found in Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK. Cancer registries and databases were found to collect information on NSCLC patient demographics, NSCLC or lung cancer diagnosis, disease stage, performance status, treatment, treatment outcomes, and resource use. Differences existed between country registries and databases in whether information was collected on each of these data points.

CONCLUSION

The literature review revealed few published NSCLC studies on treatment, treatment outcomes, and resource use in routine clinical practice and on HRQoL. Registries and databases were found to collect some of this information, however not systematically.

Preclinical assessment of cisplatin-based therapy versus docetaxel-based therapy on a panel of human non-small-cell lung cancer xenografts

The success of treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains very poor. The aim of this study was, on a series of NSCLC xenografts, to compare the efficacy of standard cisplatin-based or docetaxel-based chemotherapy. Seven human xenografts were obtained from six patients (two xenografts were derived from primary or metastatic tumors of the same patient). Three xenografts were adenocarcinomas and four were squamous cell carcinomas. All xenografts reproduced the same histology as that of the patient's original tumor. Docetaxel, administered as single-agent chemotherapy, induced a significant response in five of the seven NSCLC xenografts (71%), without significant increase after combination with cisplatin, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine. Relative expression of genes putatively involved in drug response was also studied in all xenografts and did not explain the variability of drug sensitivity. In conclusion, this panel of human NSCLC xenografts reliably reproduces the data obtained in patient tumors and the relative sensitivity to docetaxel reported in NSCLC patients.

Weekly low-dose docetaxel for salvage chemotherapy in pretreated elderly or poor performance status patients with non-small cell lung cancer

Although docetaxel monotherapy has shown clinical benefits for previously treated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the efficacy of salvage docetaxel chemotherapy for elderly patients or patients with poor performance status (PS) is controversial. Therefore, we conducted a phase II trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of weekly low-dose docetaxel monotherapy in these patients. Forty NSCLC patients, who had been previously treated with one or more chemotherapy regimens, received docetaxel at a dose of 25 mg/m(2) weekly on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. All patients were >or=65 yr or had a PS of grade 2 in the cases of <65 yr. Weekly low-dose docetaxel was well-tolerated. Grade 3/4 non-hematologic toxicities were rare; fatigue in 3 patients (8%), anorexia in 3 patients (8%) and stomatitis in 2 patients (5%). Grade 3/4 neutropenia was noted in only one patient (3%). By intent-to-treat analysis, nine patients (23%) had partial responses and eleven patients (28%) demonstrated stable disease. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 9.9 weeks and 37.7 weeks, respectively. Weekly low-dose docetaxel therapy provides a reasonable alternative for NSCLC salvage treatment in pretreated elderly patients or in patients with a reduced PS.