Lung Cancer

The oral BRAF(V600E) kinase inhibitor vemurafenib (Zelboraf) has durable activity in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring BRAF V600 mutations and possibly provides greater benefit for treatment-naive patients, found the phase 2, open-label, single-arm VE-BASKET trial.

“Targetable oncogenic drivers in NSCLC with robust clinical validation include EGFR mutations and ALK and ROS1 fusions, but identifying other targetable, clinically important subgroups of NSCLC is a high priority,” wrote the investigators, who were led by Vivek Subbiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Roughly 1%-4% of NSCLC patients have tumors harboring a BRAF V600 mutation, they noted.

Analyses were based on 62 patients with BRAF V600–mutant NSCLC enrolled in the trial’s NSCLC cohort or all-comers cohort. All received vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Thirteen percent of the patients had not received any previous systemic therapy. Among those previously treated, the median number of systemic regimens received was two.

Results reported in JCO Precicion Oncology showed that the median treatment duration was 6.0 months for all patients (12.0 months for previously untreated patients and 5.7 months for previously treated patients).

The objective response rate, the trial’s primary endpoint, was 37.1% overall; it was similar in the previously untreated group and the previously treated group (37.5% and 37.0%, respectively). The clinical benefit rate was 48.4% overall, with a larger differential according to previous treatment at 62.5% and 46.3%.

Median progression-free survival was 6.5 months in all patients (12.9 months in those previously untreated and 6.1 months in those previously treated), and median overall survival was 15.4 months in all patients (not estimable in those previously untreated, but 15.4 months in those previously treated).

The most common adverse events of any grade were nausea (seen in 40% of patients), hyperkeratosis (34%), and decreased appetite (32%). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse event was anemia (10%). The safety profile generally resembled that previously observed among patients with melanoma, with no new signals.

“Vemurafenib showed promising activity in patients with NSCLC harboring BRAF V600 mutations,” Dr. Subbiah and colleagues concluded. “The prolonged [overall survival] … in the NSCLC population represents promising durability of effect with single-agent BRAF inhibition.”

“The apparent increase in median [progression-free survival] in previously untreated patients compared with previously treated patients warrants additional investigation of earlier treatment in this patient population,” they maintained.

Dr. Subbiah disclosed having a consulting or advisory role with or receiving research funding from numerous pharmaceutical companies. The study was sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche.

SOURCE: Subbiah V et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 June 27. doi: 10.1200/PO.18.00266.

The oral BRAF(V600E) kinase inhibitor vemurafenib (Zelboraf) has durable activity in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring BRAF V600 mutations and possibly provides greater benefit for treatment-naive patients, found the phase 2, open-label, single-arm VE-BASKET trial.

“Targetable oncogenic drivers in NSCLC with robust clinical validation include EGFR mutations and ALK and ROS1 fusions, but identifying other targetable, clinically important subgroups of NSCLC is a high priority,” wrote the investigators, who were led by Vivek Subbiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Roughly 1%-4% of NSCLC patients have tumors harboring a BRAF V600 mutation, they noted.

Analyses were based on 62 patients with BRAF V600–mutant NSCLC enrolled in the trial’s NSCLC cohort or all-comers cohort. All received vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Thirteen percent of the patients had not received any previous systemic therapy. Among those previously treated, the median number of systemic regimens received was two.

Results reported in JCO Precicion Oncology showed that the median treatment duration was 6.0 months for all patients (12.0 months for previously untreated patients and 5.7 months for previously treated patients).

The objective response rate, the trial’s primary endpoint, was 37.1% overall; it was similar in the previously untreated group and the previously treated group (37.5% and 37.0%, respectively). The clinical benefit rate was 48.4% overall, with a larger differential according to previous treatment at 62.5% and 46.3%.

Median progression-free survival was 6.5 months in all patients (12.9 months in those previously untreated and 6.1 months in those previously treated), and median overall survival was 15.4 months in all patients (not estimable in those previously untreated, but 15.4 months in those previously treated).

The most common adverse events of any grade were nausea (seen in 40% of patients), hyperkeratosis (34%), and decreased appetite (32%). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse event was anemia (10%). The safety profile generally resembled that previously observed among patients with melanoma, with no new signals.

“Vemurafenib showed promising activity in patients with NSCLC harboring BRAF V600 mutations,” Dr. Subbiah and colleagues concluded. “The prolonged [overall survival] … in the NSCLC population represents promising durability of effect with single-agent BRAF inhibition.”

“The apparent increase in median [progression-free survival] in previously untreated patients compared with previously treated patients warrants additional investigation of earlier treatment in this patient population,” they maintained.

Dr. Subbiah disclosed having a consulting or advisory role with or receiving research funding from numerous pharmaceutical companies. The study was sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche.

SOURCE: Subbiah V et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 June 27. doi: 10.1200/PO.18.00266.

The oral BRAF(V600E) kinase inhibitor vemurafenib (Zelboraf) has durable activity in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring BRAF V600 mutations and possibly provides greater benefit for treatment-naive patients, found the phase 2, open-label, single-arm VE-BASKET trial.

“Targetable oncogenic drivers in NSCLC with robust clinical validation include EGFR mutations and ALK and ROS1 fusions, but identifying other targetable, clinically important subgroups of NSCLC is a high priority,” wrote the investigators, who were led by Vivek Subbiah, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. Roughly 1%-4% of NSCLC patients have tumors harboring a BRAF V600 mutation, they noted.

Analyses were based on 62 patients with BRAF V600–mutant NSCLC enrolled in the trial’s NSCLC cohort or all-comers cohort. All received vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Thirteen percent of the patients had not received any previous systemic therapy. Among those previously treated, the median number of systemic regimens received was two.

Results reported in JCO Precicion Oncology showed that the median treatment duration was 6.0 months for all patients (12.0 months for previously untreated patients and 5.7 months for previously treated patients).

The objective response rate, the trial’s primary endpoint, was 37.1% overall; it was similar in the previously untreated group and the previously treated group (37.5% and 37.0%, respectively). The clinical benefit rate was 48.4% overall, with a larger differential according to previous treatment at 62.5% and 46.3%.

Median progression-free survival was 6.5 months in all patients (12.9 months in those previously untreated and 6.1 months in those previously treated), and median overall survival was 15.4 months in all patients (not estimable in those previously untreated, but 15.4 months in those previously treated).

The most common adverse events of any grade were nausea (seen in 40% of patients), hyperkeratosis (34%), and decreased appetite (32%). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse event was anemia (10%). The safety profile generally resembled that previously observed among patients with melanoma, with no new signals.

“Vemurafenib showed promising activity in patients with NSCLC harboring BRAF V600 mutations,” Dr. Subbiah and colleagues concluded. “The prolonged [overall survival] … in the NSCLC population represents promising durability of effect with single-agent BRAF inhibition.”

“The apparent increase in median [progression-free survival] in previously untreated patients compared with previously treated patients warrants additional investigation of earlier treatment in this patient population,” they maintained.

Dr. Subbiah disclosed having a consulting or advisory role with or receiving research funding from numerous pharmaceutical companies. The study was sponsored by Hoffmann-La Roche.

SOURCE: Subbiah V et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 June 27. doi: 10.1200/PO.18.00266.

Testing for targetable alterations in a panel of genes is moderately more cost-effective than testing for single genetic markers in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), finds a retrospective cohort study.

“Targeted therapies are now a therapeutic cornerstone for patients with [advanced NSCLC], but the best diagnostic approach for identifying those who are eligible for treatment remains uncertain,” noted the investigators, led by Lotte Steuten, PhD, Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle.

Using the Flatiron Health database, the investigators identified 5,688 patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC who were tested for targetable genetic alterations. Overall, 15.4% of the patients had multigene panel sequencing (MGPS) entailing evaluation of at least 30 genes, while the rest had single-marker genetic testing (SMGT) entailing evaluation of markers for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) or a smaller panel of variants.

Study results, reported in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics, showed that 22% of the entire study cohort tested positive for EGFR mutations (18.5% with MGPS, 17.3% with SMGT) or ALK mutations (3.59% with MGPS, 3.78% with SMGT). In addition, 8% of those in the MGPS-tested group were found to have BRAF, RET, ROS1, HER2, or MET mutations.

The proportion of patients receiving treatments targeted to the specific mutations was 21% in the MGPS-tested group and 19% in the SMGT-tested group. The patients tested with MGPS had an expected survival that was 0.06 life-years longer (1.20 vs. 1.14) with lifetime total costs that were $8,814 higher per patient ($67,110 vs. $58,297).

Compared with SMGT, MGPS had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $148,478 per life-year gained. This value can be characterized as moderate, given commonly cited threshold values in the United States that range from $50,000 to $200,000 per life-year gained, according to the investigators.

In sensitivity analyses, the expected incremental cost-effectiveness fell (improved) to $110,000 per life-year gained in a scenario in which all patients with an actionable mutation received a targeted treatment.

“Our cost-effectiveness analysis of MGPS versus SMGT provides evidence for health insurers who must consider both value and budget impact when weighing coverage policies for MGPS,” Dr. Steuten and colleagues wrote, noting that such evaluations are limited at present by reliance on retrospective data.

“To reduce decision uncertainty regarding insurance coverage of MGPS, our study highlights the need for prospective studies directly comparing the management of [advanced NSCLC] with MGPS versus SMGT that include both clinical and economic end points,” they concluded. “As this analysis represents a snapshot in time, the model developed should be updated as new clinical or cost information becomes available.”

Dr. Steuten disclosed having a consulting or advisory role with Agendia and Roche (immediate family member), and receiving research funding from Thermo Fisher Scientific, EMD Serono (institutional), Nohla Therapeutics (institutional), and the Personalized Medicine Coalition (institutional), which funded the study.

SOURCE: Steuten L et al. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2019 June 3. doi: 10.1200/CCI.19.00002.

Testing for targetable alterations in a panel of genes is moderately more cost-effective than testing for single genetic markers in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), finds a retrospective cohort study.

“Targeted therapies are now a therapeutic cornerstone for patients with [advanced NSCLC], but the best diagnostic approach for identifying those who are eligible for treatment remains uncertain,” noted the investigators, led by Lotte Steuten, PhD, Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle.

Using the Flatiron Health database, the investigators identified 5,688 patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC who were tested for targetable genetic alterations. Overall, 15.4% of the patients had multigene panel sequencing (MGPS) entailing evaluation of at least 30 genes, while the rest had single-marker genetic testing (SMGT) entailing evaluation of markers for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) or a smaller panel of variants.

Study results, reported in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics, showed that 22% of the entire study cohort tested positive for EGFR mutations (18.5% with MGPS, 17.3% with SMGT) or ALK mutations (3.59% with MGPS, 3.78% with SMGT). In addition, 8% of those in the MGPS-tested group were found to have BRAF, RET, ROS1, HER2, or MET mutations.

The proportion of patients receiving treatments targeted to the specific mutations was 21% in the MGPS-tested group and 19% in the SMGT-tested group. The patients tested with MGPS had an expected survival that was 0.06 life-years longer (1.20 vs. 1.14) with lifetime total costs that were $8,814 higher per patient ($67,110 vs. $58,297).

Compared with SMGT, MGPS had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $148,478 per life-year gained. This value can be characterized as moderate, given commonly cited threshold values in the United States that range from $50,000 to $200,000 per life-year gained, according to the investigators.

In sensitivity analyses, the expected incremental cost-effectiveness fell (improved) to $110,000 per life-year gained in a scenario in which all patients with an actionable mutation received a targeted treatment.

“Our cost-effectiveness analysis of MGPS versus SMGT provides evidence for health insurers who must consider both value and budget impact when weighing coverage policies for MGPS,” Dr. Steuten and colleagues wrote, noting that such evaluations are limited at present by reliance on retrospective data.

“To reduce decision uncertainty regarding insurance coverage of MGPS, our study highlights the need for prospective studies directly comparing the management of [advanced NSCLC] with MGPS versus SMGT that include both clinical and economic end points,” they concluded. “As this analysis represents a snapshot in time, the model developed should be updated as new clinical or cost information becomes available.”

Dr. Steuten disclosed having a consulting or advisory role with Agendia and Roche (immediate family member), and receiving research funding from Thermo Fisher Scientific, EMD Serono (institutional), Nohla Therapeutics (institutional), and the Personalized Medicine Coalition (institutional), which funded the study.

SOURCE: Steuten L et al. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2019 June 3. doi: 10.1200/CCI.19.00002.

Testing for targetable alterations in a panel of genes is moderately more cost-effective than testing for single genetic markers in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), finds a retrospective cohort study.

“Targeted therapies are now a therapeutic cornerstone for patients with [advanced NSCLC], but the best diagnostic approach for identifying those who are eligible for treatment remains uncertain,” noted the investigators, led by Lotte Steuten, PhD, Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle.

Using the Flatiron Health database, the investigators identified 5,688 patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC who were tested for targetable genetic alterations. Overall, 15.4% of the patients had multigene panel sequencing (MGPS) entailing evaluation of at least 30 genes, while the rest had single-marker genetic testing (SMGT) entailing evaluation of markers for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) or a smaller panel of variants.

Study results, reported in JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics, showed that 22% of the entire study cohort tested positive for EGFR mutations (18.5% with MGPS, 17.3% with SMGT) or ALK mutations (3.59% with MGPS, 3.78% with SMGT). In addition, 8% of those in the MGPS-tested group were found to have BRAF, RET, ROS1, HER2, or MET mutations.

The proportion of patients receiving treatments targeted to the specific mutations was 21% in the MGPS-tested group and 19% in the SMGT-tested group. The patients tested with MGPS had an expected survival that was 0.06 life-years longer (1.20 vs. 1.14) with lifetime total costs that were $8,814 higher per patient ($67,110 vs. $58,297).

Compared with SMGT, MGPS had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $148,478 per life-year gained. This value can be characterized as moderate, given commonly cited threshold values in the United States that range from $50,000 to $200,000 per life-year gained, according to the investigators.

In sensitivity analyses, the expected incremental cost-effectiveness fell (improved) to $110,000 per life-year gained in a scenario in which all patients with an actionable mutation received a targeted treatment.

“Our cost-effectiveness analysis of MGPS versus SMGT provides evidence for health insurers who must consider both value and budget impact when weighing coverage policies for MGPS,” Dr. Steuten and colleagues wrote, noting that such evaluations are limited at present by reliance on retrospective data.

“To reduce decision uncertainty regarding insurance coverage of MGPS, our study highlights the need for prospective studies directly comparing the management of [advanced NSCLC] with MGPS versus SMGT that include both clinical and economic end points,” they concluded. “As this analysis represents a snapshot in time, the model developed should be updated as new clinical or cost information becomes available.”

Dr. Steuten disclosed having a consulting or advisory role with Agendia and Roche (immediate family member), and receiving research funding from Thermo Fisher Scientific, EMD Serono (institutional), Nohla Therapeutics (institutional), and the Personalized Medicine Coalition (institutional), which funded the study.

SOURCE: Steuten L et al. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2019 June 3. doi: 10.1200/CCI.19.00002.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bevacizumab-bvzr (Zirabev) – a biosimilar to bevacizumab (Avastin) – for the treatment of five cancers: metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC); unresectable, locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic non-squamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); recurrent glioblastoma; metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC); and persistent, recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.

Approval was based on “review of a comprehensive data package which demonstrated biosimilarity of [bevacizumab-bvzr] to the reference product,” Pfizer said in a statement announcing the approval.

Bevacizumab-bvzr is the second bevacizumab biosimilar to be approved, following approval of Amgen’s bevacizumab-awwb (Mvasi) in 2017.

Warnings and precautions with the biosimilars, as with bevacizumab, include serious and sometimes fatal gastrointestinal perforation, surgery and wound healing complications, and sometimes serious and fatal hemorrhage.

The most common adverse events observed in bevacizumab patients are epistaxis, headache, hypertension, rhinitis, proteinuria, taste alteration, dry skin, rectal hemorrhage, lacrimation disorder, back pain, and exfoliative dermatitis.

Specific indications for the biosimilar are as follows:

Metastatic colorectal cancer

Bevacizumab-bvzr, in combination with intravenous fluorouracil-based chemotherapy, is indicated for the first- or second-line treatment of patients with mCRC.

Bevacizumab-bvzr, in combination with fluoropyrimidine-irinotecan or fluoropyrimidine-oxaliplatin–based chemotherapy, is indicated for the second-line treatment of patients with mCRC who have progressed on a first-line bevacizumab product–containing regimen.

Bevacizumab-bvzr is not indicated for adjuvant treatment of colon cancer.

First-line nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer

Bevacizumab-bvzr, in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel, is indicated for the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable, locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic NSCLC.

Recurrent glioblastoma

Bevacizumab-bvzr is indicated for the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma in adults.

Metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Bevacizumab-bvzr, in combination with interferon alfa, is indicated for the treatment of metastatic RCC.

Persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer

Bevacizumab-bvzr, in combination with paclitaxel and cisplatin or paclitaxel and topotecan, is indicated for the treatment of patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.

Complete prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bevacizumab-bvzr (Zirabev) – a biosimilar to bevacizumab (Avastin) – for the treatment of five cancers: metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC); unresectable, locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic non-squamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); recurrent glioblastoma; metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC); and persistent, recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.

Approval was based on “review of a comprehensive data package which demonstrated biosimilarity of [bevacizumab-bvzr] to the reference product,” Pfizer said in a statement announcing the approval.

Bevacizumab-bvzr is the second bevacizumab biosimilar to be approved, following approval of Amgen’s bevacizumab-awwb (Mvasi) in 2017.

Warnings and precautions with the biosimilars, as with bevacizumab, include serious and sometimes fatal gastrointestinal perforation, surgery and wound healing complications, and sometimes serious and fatal hemorrhage.

The most common adverse events observed in bevacizumab patients are epistaxis, headache, hypertension, rhinitis, proteinuria, taste alteration, dry skin, rectal hemorrhage, lacrimation disorder, back pain, and exfoliative dermatitis.

Specific indications for the biosimilar are as follows:

Metastatic colorectal cancer

Bevacizumab-bvzr, in combination with intravenous fluorouracil-based chemotherapy, is indicated for the first- or second-line treatment of patients with mCRC.

Bevacizumab-bvzr, in combination with fluoropyrimidine-irinotecan or fluoropyrimidine-oxaliplatin–based chemotherapy, is indicated for the second-line treatment of patients with mCRC who have progressed on a first-line bevacizumab product–containing regimen.

Bevacizumab-bvzr is not indicated for adjuvant treatment of colon cancer.

First-line nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer

Bevacizumab-bvzr, in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel, is indicated for the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable, locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic NSCLC.

Recurrent glioblastoma

Bevacizumab-bvzr is indicated for the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma in adults.

Metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Bevacizumab-bvzr, in combination with interferon alfa, is indicated for the treatment of metastatic RCC.

Persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer

Bevacizumab-bvzr, in combination with paclitaxel and cisplatin or paclitaxel and topotecan, is indicated for the treatment of patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.

Complete prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved bevacizumab-bvzr (Zirabev) – a biosimilar to bevacizumab (Avastin) – for the treatment of five cancers: metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC); unresectable, locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic non-squamous non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); recurrent glioblastoma; metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC); and persistent, recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer.

Approval was based on “review of a comprehensive data package which demonstrated biosimilarity of [bevacizumab-bvzr] to the reference product,” Pfizer said in a statement announcing the approval.

Bevacizumab-bvzr is the second bevacizumab biosimilar to be approved, following approval of Amgen’s bevacizumab-awwb (Mvasi) in 2017.

Warnings and precautions with the biosimilars, as with bevacizumab, include serious and sometimes fatal gastrointestinal perforation, surgery and wound healing complications, and sometimes serious and fatal hemorrhage.

The most common adverse events observed in bevacizumab patients are epistaxis, headache, hypertension, rhinitis, proteinuria, taste alteration, dry skin, rectal hemorrhage, lacrimation disorder, back pain, and exfoliative dermatitis.

Specific indications for the biosimilar are as follows:

Metastatic colorectal cancer

Bevacizumab-bvzr, in combination with intravenous fluorouracil-based chemotherapy, is indicated for the first- or second-line treatment of patients with mCRC.

Bevacizumab-bvzr, in combination with fluoropyrimidine-irinotecan or fluoropyrimidine-oxaliplatin–based chemotherapy, is indicated for the second-line treatment of patients with mCRC who have progressed on a first-line bevacizumab product–containing regimen.

Bevacizumab-bvzr is not indicated for adjuvant treatment of colon cancer.

First-line nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer

Bevacizumab-bvzr, in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel, is indicated for the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable, locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic NSCLC.

Recurrent glioblastoma

Bevacizumab-bvzr is indicated for the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma in adults.

Metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Bevacizumab-bvzr, in combination with interferon alfa, is indicated for the treatment of metastatic RCC.

Persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer

Bevacizumab-bvzr, in combination with paclitaxel and cisplatin or paclitaxel and topotecan, is indicated for the treatment of patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer.

Complete prescribing information can be found on the FDA website.

Use of inhaled corticosteroids may lower the risk of lung cancer in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and continued use may also reduce lung cancer risk, recent research from the European Respiratory Journal has shown.

“The appropriate use of [inhaled corticosteroids] ICS in [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] COPD patients is often debated and not all patients might benefit from the use of ICS. The clinical benefits and risk of use in an individual patient must be weighed by the physician,” wrote Adam J.N. Raymakers, MSc, PhD, of the University of British Columbia’s Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE), Vancouver, B.C., and colleagues.

“This study, however, indicates that potential benefits may accrue from ICS use in COPD patients in terms of reduced lung cancer risk, and that sustained use may be associated with reduced risk of lung cancer.”

Dr. Raymakers and colleagues did an analysis of 39,676 patients with COPD (mean age, 70.7 years; 53% female) who received ICS between 1997 and 2007 and linked those patients to a registry of cancer patients in British Columbia. The linked databases included the Medical Services Plan (MSP) payment information file, Discharge Abstract Database (DAD), PharmaNet data file, and the British Columbia Cancer Registry (BCCR). The researchers determined a patient had COPD if he or she received three or more prescriptions related to COPD, while ICS exposure was analyzed in the context of a patient’s ICS exposure, cumulative duration, cumulative dose, and weighted cumulative duration and dose.

The analysis revealed 372,075 prescriptions for ICS were dispensed and 71.2% of the patients were “distinct users” of ICS, with patients filling a median of eight prescriptions at mean 5.2 years of follow-up. Fluticasone propionate was the most common ICS prescribed at a dose of 0.64 mg per day, and patients had median 60 days of ICS supplied per person.

Overall, there were 994 cases of lung cancer (2.5%), and exposure to ICS was linked to a 30% reduction in lung cancer risk (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.80), while recency-weighted duration of ICS exposure was linked to a 26% reduction in lung cancer risk (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66-0.87). There was a 43% reduced risk of lung cancer per gram of ICS when the data were measured by recency-weighted cumulative dosage.

In a multivariate analysis, ICS use was associated with a 30% reduction in risk of non–small cell lung cancer (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.82), which the researchers said suggests ICS provides a protective effect for patients against lung cancer. “These results highlight the importance of properly identifying which patients might be at the highest risk of lung cancer, to enhance the therapeutic benefits of ICS in these COPD patients,” they wrote.

This study received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Raymakers A, et al. Eur Respir J. 2019. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01257-2018.

Use of inhaled corticosteroids may lower the risk of lung cancer in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and continued use may also reduce lung cancer risk, recent research from the European Respiratory Journal has shown.

“The appropriate use of [inhaled corticosteroids] ICS in [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] COPD patients is often debated and not all patients might benefit from the use of ICS. The clinical benefits and risk of use in an individual patient must be weighed by the physician,” wrote Adam J.N. Raymakers, MSc, PhD, of the University of British Columbia’s Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE), Vancouver, B.C., and colleagues.

“This study, however, indicates that potential benefits may accrue from ICS use in COPD patients in terms of reduced lung cancer risk, and that sustained use may be associated with reduced risk of lung cancer.”

Dr. Raymakers and colleagues did an analysis of 39,676 patients with COPD (mean age, 70.7 years; 53% female) who received ICS between 1997 and 2007 and linked those patients to a registry of cancer patients in British Columbia. The linked databases included the Medical Services Plan (MSP) payment information file, Discharge Abstract Database (DAD), PharmaNet data file, and the British Columbia Cancer Registry (BCCR). The researchers determined a patient had COPD if he or she received three or more prescriptions related to COPD, while ICS exposure was analyzed in the context of a patient’s ICS exposure, cumulative duration, cumulative dose, and weighted cumulative duration and dose.

The analysis revealed 372,075 prescriptions for ICS were dispensed and 71.2% of the patients were “distinct users” of ICS, with patients filling a median of eight prescriptions at mean 5.2 years of follow-up. Fluticasone propionate was the most common ICS prescribed at a dose of 0.64 mg per day, and patients had median 60 days of ICS supplied per person.

Overall, there were 994 cases of lung cancer (2.5%), and exposure to ICS was linked to a 30% reduction in lung cancer risk (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.80), while recency-weighted duration of ICS exposure was linked to a 26% reduction in lung cancer risk (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66-0.87). There was a 43% reduced risk of lung cancer per gram of ICS when the data were measured by recency-weighted cumulative dosage.

In a multivariate analysis, ICS use was associated with a 30% reduction in risk of non–small cell lung cancer (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.82), which the researchers said suggests ICS provides a protective effect for patients against lung cancer. “These results highlight the importance of properly identifying which patients might be at the highest risk of lung cancer, to enhance the therapeutic benefits of ICS in these COPD patients,” they wrote.

This study received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Raymakers A, et al. Eur Respir J. 2019. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01257-2018.

Use of inhaled corticosteroids may lower the risk of lung cancer in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and continued use may also reduce lung cancer risk, recent research from the European Respiratory Journal has shown.

“The appropriate use of [inhaled corticosteroids] ICS in [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] COPD patients is often debated and not all patients might benefit from the use of ICS. The clinical benefits and risk of use in an individual patient must be weighed by the physician,” wrote Adam J.N. Raymakers, MSc, PhD, of the University of British Columbia’s Collaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE), Vancouver, B.C., and colleagues.

“This study, however, indicates that potential benefits may accrue from ICS use in COPD patients in terms of reduced lung cancer risk, and that sustained use may be associated with reduced risk of lung cancer.”

Dr. Raymakers and colleagues did an analysis of 39,676 patients with COPD (mean age, 70.7 years; 53% female) who received ICS between 1997 and 2007 and linked those patients to a registry of cancer patients in British Columbia. The linked databases included the Medical Services Plan (MSP) payment information file, Discharge Abstract Database (DAD), PharmaNet data file, and the British Columbia Cancer Registry (BCCR). The researchers determined a patient had COPD if he or she received three or more prescriptions related to COPD, while ICS exposure was analyzed in the context of a patient’s ICS exposure, cumulative duration, cumulative dose, and weighted cumulative duration and dose.

The analysis revealed 372,075 prescriptions for ICS were dispensed and 71.2% of the patients were “distinct users” of ICS, with patients filling a median of eight prescriptions at mean 5.2 years of follow-up. Fluticasone propionate was the most common ICS prescribed at a dose of 0.64 mg per day, and patients had median 60 days of ICS supplied per person.

Overall, there were 994 cases of lung cancer (2.5%), and exposure to ICS was linked to a 30% reduction in lung cancer risk (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.80), while recency-weighted duration of ICS exposure was linked to a 26% reduction in lung cancer risk (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66-0.87). There was a 43% reduced risk of lung cancer per gram of ICS when the data were measured by recency-weighted cumulative dosage.

In a multivariate analysis, ICS use was associated with a 30% reduction in risk of non–small cell lung cancer (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.82), which the researchers said suggests ICS provides a protective effect for patients against lung cancer. “These results highlight the importance of properly identifying which patients might be at the highest risk of lung cancer, to enhance the therapeutic benefits of ICS in these COPD patients,” they wrote.

This study received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Raymakers A, et al. Eur Respir J. 2019. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01257-2018.

Two liquid biopsy assays show generally good concordance with the gold standard of next-generation sequencing (NGS) performed on tissue for detecting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in non–small cell lung (NSCLC), finds a retrospective cohort study.

Availability of targeted therapies for EGFR-mutated NSCLC underscores the importance of detecting these molecular aberrations, note lead investigator Christi M.J. Steendam, MD, department of pulmonary diseases, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, and Amphia Hospital, Breda, the Netherlands, and coinvestigators. In addition, assessing and monitoring mutational status can provide information about resistance and better inform treatment decisions.

The investigators studied 36 patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC who had experienced progression on their current therapy and had both tissue and plasma available. They first compared results of droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) and NGS for detecting primary activating EGFR mutations and the resistance p.T790M EGFR mutation (the most common resistance mechanism to first- and second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors in this population) in plasma-derived cell-free DNA. They then compared each assay against NGS performed on conventional tissue.

Study results showed high agreement between ddPCR and NGS, at 86% for detection of the primary activating mutation and at 94% for detection of the p.T790M mutation. Findings were similar for the quantified allele ratio (mutant alleles divided by total alleles).

Overall, 15 patients (41.7%) had some degree of discrepant results. Six had no detectable mutations in cell-free DNA, three had detectable p.T790M in plasma but not in tissue, and three others had detectable p.T790M in tissue but not in plasma.

Finally, there was generally good concordance of the cell-free DNA results and the results obtained in tissue for detection of the primary activating mutation (69% for ddPCR, 83% for NGS) and for detection of p.T790M (75% for ddPCR, 75% for NGS). Patients with discordant results tended to have intrathoracic and/or CNS progression.

“ddPCR and NGS yield comparable results, with similar sensitivity for the mutations that can be detected by both methods, and the concordance with tissue-based results is high,” Dr. Steendam and coinvestigators summarize in JCO Precision Oncology. “When searching for a resistance mechanism, NGS analysis of cell-free DNA in plasma offers a more comprehensive view than ddPCR, with comparable precision at a single mutation level. When no mutations are detected in plasma, tissue-based investigation remains desirable.”

“Our results confirm the ability to detect targetable aberrations in blood, which provides possibilities for new lines of targeted treatments in daily practice without the necessity of tissue procurement in many patients,” they conclude.

Dr. Steendam disclosed that she receives research funding from AstraZeneca (institutional) and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. The study did not receive any specific funding.

SOURCE: Steendam CMJ et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 June 20. doi: 10.1200/PO.18.00401.

Two liquid biopsy assays show generally good concordance with the gold standard of next-generation sequencing (NGS) performed on tissue for detecting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in non–small cell lung (NSCLC), finds a retrospective cohort study.

Availability of targeted therapies for EGFR-mutated NSCLC underscores the importance of detecting these molecular aberrations, note lead investigator Christi M.J. Steendam, MD, department of pulmonary diseases, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, and Amphia Hospital, Breda, the Netherlands, and coinvestigators. In addition, assessing and monitoring mutational status can provide information about resistance and better inform treatment decisions.

The investigators studied 36 patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC who had experienced progression on their current therapy and had both tissue and plasma available. They first compared results of droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) and NGS for detecting primary activating EGFR mutations and the resistance p.T790M EGFR mutation (the most common resistance mechanism to first- and second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors in this population) in plasma-derived cell-free DNA. They then compared each assay against NGS performed on conventional tissue.

Study results showed high agreement between ddPCR and NGS, at 86% for detection of the primary activating mutation and at 94% for detection of the p.T790M mutation. Findings were similar for the quantified allele ratio (mutant alleles divided by total alleles).

Overall, 15 patients (41.7%) had some degree of discrepant results. Six had no detectable mutations in cell-free DNA, three had detectable p.T790M in plasma but not in tissue, and three others had detectable p.T790M in tissue but not in plasma.

Finally, there was generally good concordance of the cell-free DNA results and the results obtained in tissue for detection of the primary activating mutation (69% for ddPCR, 83% for NGS) and for detection of p.T790M (75% for ddPCR, 75% for NGS). Patients with discordant results tended to have intrathoracic and/or CNS progression.

“ddPCR and NGS yield comparable results, with similar sensitivity for the mutations that can be detected by both methods, and the concordance with tissue-based results is high,” Dr. Steendam and coinvestigators summarize in JCO Precision Oncology. “When searching for a resistance mechanism, NGS analysis of cell-free DNA in plasma offers a more comprehensive view than ddPCR, with comparable precision at a single mutation level. When no mutations are detected in plasma, tissue-based investigation remains desirable.”

“Our results confirm the ability to detect targetable aberrations in blood, which provides possibilities for new lines of targeted treatments in daily practice without the necessity of tissue procurement in many patients,” they conclude.

Dr. Steendam disclosed that she receives research funding from AstraZeneca (institutional) and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. The study did not receive any specific funding.

SOURCE: Steendam CMJ et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 June 20. doi: 10.1200/PO.18.00401.

Two liquid biopsy assays show generally good concordance with the gold standard of next-generation sequencing (NGS) performed on tissue for detecting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in non–small cell lung (NSCLC), finds a retrospective cohort study.

Availability of targeted therapies for EGFR-mutated NSCLC underscores the importance of detecting these molecular aberrations, note lead investigator Christi M.J. Steendam, MD, department of pulmonary diseases, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, and Amphia Hospital, Breda, the Netherlands, and coinvestigators. In addition, assessing and monitoring mutational status can provide information about resistance and better inform treatment decisions.

The investigators studied 36 patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC who had experienced progression on their current therapy and had both tissue and plasma available. They first compared results of droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) and NGS for detecting primary activating EGFR mutations and the resistance p.T790M EGFR mutation (the most common resistance mechanism to first- and second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors in this population) in plasma-derived cell-free DNA. They then compared each assay against NGS performed on conventional tissue.

Study results showed high agreement between ddPCR and NGS, at 86% for detection of the primary activating mutation and at 94% for detection of the p.T790M mutation. Findings were similar for the quantified allele ratio (mutant alleles divided by total alleles).

Overall, 15 patients (41.7%) had some degree of discrepant results. Six had no detectable mutations in cell-free DNA, three had detectable p.T790M in plasma but not in tissue, and three others had detectable p.T790M in tissue but not in plasma.

Finally, there was generally good concordance of the cell-free DNA results and the results obtained in tissue for detection of the primary activating mutation (69% for ddPCR, 83% for NGS) and for detection of p.T790M (75% for ddPCR, 75% for NGS). Patients with discordant results tended to have intrathoracic and/or CNS progression.

“ddPCR and NGS yield comparable results, with similar sensitivity for the mutations that can be detected by both methods, and the concordance with tissue-based results is high,” Dr. Steendam and coinvestigators summarize in JCO Precision Oncology. “When searching for a resistance mechanism, NGS analysis of cell-free DNA in plasma offers a more comprehensive view than ddPCR, with comparable precision at a single mutation level. When no mutations are detected in plasma, tissue-based investigation remains desirable.”

“Our results confirm the ability to detect targetable aberrations in blood, which provides possibilities for new lines of targeted treatments in daily practice without the necessity of tissue procurement in many patients,” they conclude.

Dr. Steendam disclosed that she receives research funding from AstraZeneca (institutional) and travel, accommodations, and/or expenses from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Eli Lilly. The study did not receive any specific funding.

SOURCE: Steendam CMJ et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 June 20. doi: 10.1200/PO.18.00401.

Giving steroids for indications other than cancer palliation doesn’t compromise the effectiveness of immunotherapy for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), suggests a single-center retrospective cohort study.

The immunosuppressant activity of corticosteroids and recent reports linking them to poorer outcomes has raised concern about their use during immunotherapy, noted Biagio Ricciuti, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coinvestigators. But mechanisms underpinning this association are unclear.

The investigators studied 650 patients with NSCLC treated with immunotherapy targeting programmed death 1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), either as monotherapy or with other immunotherapy. Overall, 14.3% were receiving 10 mg or more of prednisone daily when they started the immunotherapy, a cutoff selected for study because it has been used an exclusion criterion for clinical trials.

Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that, compared with other patients, those who received 10 mg or more of steroids indeed had poorer median progression-free survival (2.0 vs. 3.4 months; P = .01) and overall survival (4.9 vs. 11.2 months; P less than .001).

However, when the indication for steroid therapy was considered, median progression-free survival was just 1.4 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-related palliation, compared with 4.6 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-unrelated reasons (for example, autoimmune disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease flare, hypersensitivity prophylaxis, or management of noncancer pain) and 3.4 months among patients who received 0-10 mg of prednisone (P less than .001 across groups).

Similarly, median overall survival was just 2.2 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for palliative indications, but 10.7 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-unrelated reasons and 11.2 months among patients who received less than 10 mg prednisone (P less than .001 across groups).

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for performance status and PD-L1 positivity and that used patients receiving up to 10 mg prednisone as the comparator, patients receiving 10 mg or more for cancer palliation had a trend toward high risk of progression-free survival events and a higher risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.40; P less than .06 and HR, 1.60; P = .02, respectively). In contrast, patients receiving 10 mg or more for cancer-unrelated reasons did not have elevated risks (HR, 0.62; P = .14 and HR, 0.91; P = .79, respectively).

“These data suggest that the significantly worse outcomes among patients who receive corticosteroids before immunotherapy are driven by the group of patients treated with corticosteroids for palliative oncologic symptom management, rather than by patients receiving corticosteroids for other reasons,” Dr. Ricciuti and coinvestigators wrote. “Corticosteroid use for cancer symptom management might simply correlate with patients who have adverse prognostic factors (e.g., brain metastases and poor performance status) rather than cause a clinically significant blunting of the response to [immune checkpoint inhibitors].

“Our data suggest that corticosteroids should not necessarily be decreased or discontinued before the start of immunotherapy out of a theoretical concern that corticosteroids could impair a response to immunotherapy,” the investigators concluded. “Additional mechanistic studies are needed to identify whether the use of corticosteroids affects specific aspects of the immune system necessary for immunotherapy activity.”

Dr. Ricciuti reported that he has no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any funding.

SOURCE: Ricciuti B et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jun 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00189.

Giving steroids for indications other than cancer palliation doesn’t compromise the effectiveness of immunotherapy for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), suggests a single-center retrospective cohort study.

The immunosuppressant activity of corticosteroids and recent reports linking them to poorer outcomes has raised concern about their use during immunotherapy, noted Biagio Ricciuti, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coinvestigators. But mechanisms underpinning this association are unclear.

The investigators studied 650 patients with NSCLC treated with immunotherapy targeting programmed death 1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), either as monotherapy or with other immunotherapy. Overall, 14.3% were receiving 10 mg or more of prednisone daily when they started the immunotherapy, a cutoff selected for study because it has been used an exclusion criterion for clinical trials.

Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that, compared with other patients, those who received 10 mg or more of steroids indeed had poorer median progression-free survival (2.0 vs. 3.4 months; P = .01) and overall survival (4.9 vs. 11.2 months; P less than .001).

However, when the indication for steroid therapy was considered, median progression-free survival was just 1.4 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-related palliation, compared with 4.6 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-unrelated reasons (for example, autoimmune disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease flare, hypersensitivity prophylaxis, or management of noncancer pain) and 3.4 months among patients who received 0-10 mg of prednisone (P less than .001 across groups).

Similarly, median overall survival was just 2.2 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for palliative indications, but 10.7 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-unrelated reasons and 11.2 months among patients who received less than 10 mg prednisone (P less than .001 across groups).

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for performance status and PD-L1 positivity and that used patients receiving up to 10 mg prednisone as the comparator, patients receiving 10 mg or more for cancer palliation had a trend toward high risk of progression-free survival events and a higher risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.40; P less than .06 and HR, 1.60; P = .02, respectively). In contrast, patients receiving 10 mg or more for cancer-unrelated reasons did not have elevated risks (HR, 0.62; P = .14 and HR, 0.91; P = .79, respectively).

“These data suggest that the significantly worse outcomes among patients who receive corticosteroids before immunotherapy are driven by the group of patients treated with corticosteroids for palliative oncologic symptom management, rather than by patients receiving corticosteroids for other reasons,” Dr. Ricciuti and coinvestigators wrote. “Corticosteroid use for cancer symptom management might simply correlate with patients who have adverse prognostic factors (e.g., brain metastases and poor performance status) rather than cause a clinically significant blunting of the response to [immune checkpoint inhibitors].

“Our data suggest that corticosteroids should not necessarily be decreased or discontinued before the start of immunotherapy out of a theoretical concern that corticosteroids could impair a response to immunotherapy,” the investigators concluded. “Additional mechanistic studies are needed to identify whether the use of corticosteroids affects specific aspects of the immune system necessary for immunotherapy activity.”

Dr. Ricciuti reported that he has no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any funding.

SOURCE: Ricciuti B et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jun 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00189.

Giving steroids for indications other than cancer palliation doesn’t compromise the effectiveness of immunotherapy for advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), suggests a single-center retrospective cohort study.

The immunosuppressant activity of corticosteroids and recent reports linking them to poorer outcomes has raised concern about their use during immunotherapy, noted Biagio Ricciuti, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coinvestigators. But mechanisms underpinning this association are unclear.

The investigators studied 650 patients with NSCLC treated with immunotherapy targeting programmed death 1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), either as monotherapy or with other immunotherapy. Overall, 14.3% were receiving 10 mg or more of prednisone daily when they started the immunotherapy, a cutoff selected for study because it has been used an exclusion criterion for clinical trials.

Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that, compared with other patients, those who received 10 mg or more of steroids indeed had poorer median progression-free survival (2.0 vs. 3.4 months; P = .01) and overall survival (4.9 vs. 11.2 months; P less than .001).

However, when the indication for steroid therapy was considered, median progression-free survival was just 1.4 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-related palliation, compared with 4.6 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-unrelated reasons (for example, autoimmune disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease flare, hypersensitivity prophylaxis, or management of noncancer pain) and 3.4 months among patients who received 0-10 mg of prednisone (P less than .001 across groups).

Similarly, median overall survival was just 2.2 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for palliative indications, but 10.7 months among patients who received 10 mg or more prednisone for cancer-unrelated reasons and 11.2 months among patients who received less than 10 mg prednisone (P less than .001 across groups).

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for performance status and PD-L1 positivity and that used patients receiving up to 10 mg prednisone as the comparator, patients receiving 10 mg or more for cancer palliation had a trend toward high risk of progression-free survival events and a higher risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.40; P less than .06 and HR, 1.60; P = .02, respectively). In contrast, patients receiving 10 mg or more for cancer-unrelated reasons did not have elevated risks (HR, 0.62; P = .14 and HR, 0.91; P = .79, respectively).

“These data suggest that the significantly worse outcomes among patients who receive corticosteroids before immunotherapy are driven by the group of patients treated with corticosteroids for palliative oncologic symptom management, rather than by patients receiving corticosteroids for other reasons,” Dr. Ricciuti and coinvestigators wrote. “Corticosteroid use for cancer symptom management might simply correlate with patients who have adverse prognostic factors (e.g., brain metastases and poor performance status) rather than cause a clinically significant blunting of the response to [immune checkpoint inhibitors].

“Our data suggest that corticosteroids should not necessarily be decreased or discontinued before the start of immunotherapy out of a theoretical concern that corticosteroids could impair a response to immunotherapy,” the investigators concluded. “Additional mechanistic studies are needed to identify whether the use of corticosteroids affects specific aspects of the immune system necessary for immunotherapy activity.”

Dr. Ricciuti reported that he has no relevant conflicts of interest. The study did not receive any funding.

SOURCE: Ricciuti B et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 Jun 17. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00189.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two “chemo-free” neoadjuvant studies reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. One summarizes the potential utility of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who are – or can become – candidates for curative resection and the other highlights the potential utility of neoadjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) for HER2-positive breast cancer patients.

NEOSTAR in NSCLC

With the accumulation of comorbid conditions in an aging population, we all see NSCLC patients who are potential candidates for curative surgery, but for whom we have concerns about standard preoperative chemotherapy plus or minus radiation. At ASCO 2019, abstracts 8503 (atezolizumab, the LCMC3 trial) and 8504 (nivolumab plus or minus ipilimumab, NEOSTAR) addressed the neoadjuvant use of ICIs. I will focus on NEOSTAR, because the major pathologic response (mPR) rate – reduction in viable tumor cells to 10% or less – was higher with the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in NEOSTAR than with single agent nivolumab or atezolizumab in the NEOSTAR or LCMC3 trials, respectively.

Briefly, 44 patients with stage I-IIIA NSCLC were randomized to nivolumab plus or minus ipilimumab. In total, 93% completed 6 weeks of neoadjuvant therapy and 89% were resected. The mPR rate was 33% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (about twice as high as with nivolumab alone in NEOSTAR or atezolizumab in LCMC3).

Among resected patients, nivolumab plus ipilimumab had a 44% mPR rate and a pathologic complete response rate of 38%. Although RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) responses were more likely in patients who had an mPR, 11% of patients had radiographic “nodal immune flare” because of noncaseating granulomas in regional (or nonregional) nodes. Elevated baseline programmed death-ligand 1 was associated with a higher rate of mPR. Surgical complications seemed similar to expectations – 1 bronchopleural fistula and 8 air leaks among the 39 resected patients.
 

What this means in practice

Although the mPR endpoint has no validated association with survival and the studies were relatively small, neoadjuvant use of ICIs in patients for whom tolerance to standard chemotherapy plus or minus radiation might be problematic is attractive – especially in view of the reality of an approximately 50% relapse rate after surgical resection with standard therapy.

If I had a potential candidate for neoadjuvant ICI therapy – especially one with a high proportion of cells with PD-L1 or someone with an equivocal distant metastasis on a preoperative PET-CT – I would consider using an ICI as given in LCMC3 or NEOSTAR.

PREDIX in HER2-positive breast cancer

As Mark Pegram, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University suggested in his discussion at the local/regional/adjuvant breast cancer session at ASCO 2019, the goal of HER2-targeted therapy was originally that it could replace – not supplement – the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Abstracts 500 (the KRISTINE trial: neoadjuvant T-DM1 plus pertuzumab vs. docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab); 501 (the PREDIX study: T-DM1 vs. docetaxel plus trastuzumab plus pertuzumab [DTP] for six cycles); and 502 (HER2 heterogeneity as a predictor of response) addressed the potential for the antibody-drug conjugate to replace standard preoperative cytotoxic chemotherapy plus HER2-targeting.

In PREDIX, it was anticipated that toxicity would be lower with T-DM1 than with DTP – and it was, with better quality of life scores. The authors found a pathologic complete response rate of 45% among 98 participants with stage IIA-IIIA HER2-positive breast cancer, with higher rates among hormone receptor–negative than hormone receptor–positive patients, as expected.

PREDIX patients were allowed to switch from T-DM1 to DTP for progression, lack of clinical/radiographic response, or toxicity. More than twice as many patients switched from DTP to T-DM1 than vice versa for progression or lack of response.

What this means in practice

Although neither DTP nor T-DM1 are National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-endorsed neoadjuvant regimens at present, the KRISTINE and PREDIX trials and Abstract 502 advance the discussion about further personalizing therapy for HER2-amplified breast cancer with high HER2 copy number and lack of intratumor heterogeneity for HER2. They also raise questions about de-escalating therapy for patients with good prognosis and HER2-positive cancers, and the creative use of T-DM1 in the neoadjuvant setting.

Neoadjuvant T-DM1 may not be standard of care yet, but watch this space.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two “chemo-free” neoadjuvant studies reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. One summarizes the potential utility of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who are – or can become – candidates for curative resection and the other highlights the potential utility of neoadjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) for HER2-positive breast cancer patients.

NEOSTAR in NSCLC

With the accumulation of comorbid conditions in an aging population, we all see NSCLC patients who are potential candidates for curative surgery, but for whom we have concerns about standard preoperative chemotherapy plus or minus radiation. At ASCO 2019, abstracts 8503 (atezolizumab, the LCMC3 trial) and 8504 (nivolumab plus or minus ipilimumab, NEOSTAR) addressed the neoadjuvant use of ICIs. I will focus on NEOSTAR, because the major pathologic response (mPR) rate – reduction in viable tumor cells to 10% or less – was higher with the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in NEOSTAR than with single agent nivolumab or atezolizumab in the NEOSTAR or LCMC3 trials, respectively.

Briefly, 44 patients with stage I-IIIA NSCLC were randomized to nivolumab plus or minus ipilimumab. In total, 93% completed 6 weeks of neoadjuvant therapy and 89% were resected. The mPR rate was 33% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (about twice as high as with nivolumab alone in NEOSTAR or atezolizumab in LCMC3).

Among resected patients, nivolumab plus ipilimumab had a 44% mPR rate and a pathologic complete response rate of 38%. Although RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) responses were more likely in patients who had an mPR, 11% of patients had radiographic “nodal immune flare” because of noncaseating granulomas in regional (or nonregional) nodes. Elevated baseline programmed death-ligand 1 was associated with a higher rate of mPR. Surgical complications seemed similar to expectations – 1 bronchopleural fistula and 8 air leaks among the 39 resected patients.
 

What this means in practice

Although the mPR endpoint has no validated association with survival and the studies were relatively small, neoadjuvant use of ICIs in patients for whom tolerance to standard chemotherapy plus or minus radiation might be problematic is attractive – especially in view of the reality of an approximately 50% relapse rate after surgical resection with standard therapy.

If I had a potential candidate for neoadjuvant ICI therapy – especially one with a high proportion of cells with PD-L1 or someone with an equivocal distant metastasis on a preoperative PET-CT – I would consider using an ICI as given in LCMC3 or NEOSTAR.

PREDIX in HER2-positive breast cancer

As Mark Pegram, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University suggested in his discussion at the local/regional/adjuvant breast cancer session at ASCO 2019, the goal of HER2-targeted therapy was originally that it could replace – not supplement – the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Abstracts 500 (the KRISTINE trial: neoadjuvant T-DM1 plus pertuzumab vs. docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab); 501 (the PREDIX study: T-DM1 vs. docetaxel plus trastuzumab plus pertuzumab [DTP] for six cycles); and 502 (HER2 heterogeneity as a predictor of response) addressed the potential for the antibody-drug conjugate to replace standard preoperative cytotoxic chemotherapy plus HER2-targeting.

In PREDIX, it was anticipated that toxicity would be lower with T-DM1 than with DTP – and it was, with better quality of life scores. The authors found a pathologic complete response rate of 45% among 98 participants with stage IIA-IIIA HER2-positive breast cancer, with higher rates among hormone receptor–negative than hormone receptor–positive patients, as expected.

PREDIX patients were allowed to switch from T-DM1 to DTP for progression, lack of clinical/radiographic response, or toxicity. More than twice as many patients switched from DTP to T-DM1 than vice versa for progression or lack of response.

What this means in practice

Although neither DTP nor T-DM1 are National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-endorsed neoadjuvant regimens at present, the KRISTINE and PREDIX trials and Abstract 502 advance the discussion about further personalizing therapy for HER2-amplified breast cancer with high HER2 copy number and lack of intratumor heterogeneity for HER2. They also raise questions about de-escalating therapy for patients with good prognosis and HER2-positive cancers, and the creative use of T-DM1 in the neoadjuvant setting.

Neoadjuvant T-DM1 may not be standard of care yet, but watch this space.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I will treat my next patient,” I take a look at two “chemo-free” neoadjuvant studies reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. One summarizes the potential utility of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who are – or can become – candidates for curative resection and the other highlights the potential utility of neoadjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) for HER2-positive breast cancer patients.

NEOSTAR in NSCLC

With the accumulation of comorbid conditions in an aging population, we all see NSCLC patients who are potential candidates for curative surgery, but for whom we have concerns about standard preoperative chemotherapy plus or minus radiation. At ASCO 2019, abstracts 8503 (atezolizumab, the LCMC3 trial) and 8504 (nivolumab plus or minus ipilimumab, NEOSTAR) addressed the neoadjuvant use of ICIs. I will focus on NEOSTAR, because the major pathologic response (mPR) rate – reduction in viable tumor cells to 10% or less – was higher with the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in NEOSTAR than with single agent nivolumab or atezolizumab in the NEOSTAR or LCMC3 trials, respectively.

Briefly, 44 patients with stage I-IIIA NSCLC were randomized to nivolumab plus or minus ipilimumab. In total, 93% completed 6 weeks of neoadjuvant therapy and 89% were resected. The mPR rate was 33% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (about twice as high as with nivolumab alone in NEOSTAR or atezolizumab in LCMC3).

Among resected patients, nivolumab plus ipilimumab had a 44% mPR rate and a pathologic complete response rate of 38%. Although RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) responses were more likely in patients who had an mPR, 11% of patients had radiographic “nodal immune flare” because of noncaseating granulomas in regional (or nonregional) nodes. Elevated baseline programmed death-ligand 1 was associated with a higher rate of mPR. Surgical complications seemed similar to expectations – 1 bronchopleural fistula and 8 air leaks among the 39 resected patients.
 

What this means in practice

Although the mPR endpoint has no validated association with survival and the studies were relatively small, neoadjuvant use of ICIs in patients for whom tolerance to standard chemotherapy plus or minus radiation might be problematic is attractive – especially in view of the reality of an approximately 50% relapse rate after surgical resection with standard therapy.

If I had a potential candidate for neoadjuvant ICI therapy – especially one with a high proportion of cells with PD-L1 or someone with an equivocal distant metastasis on a preoperative PET-CT – I would consider using an ICI as given in LCMC3 or NEOSTAR.

PREDIX in HER2-positive breast cancer

As Mark Pegram, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University suggested in his discussion at the local/regional/adjuvant breast cancer session at ASCO 2019, the goal of HER2-targeted therapy was originally that it could replace – not supplement – the use of cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Abstracts 500 (the KRISTINE trial: neoadjuvant T-DM1 plus pertuzumab vs. docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab); 501 (the PREDIX study: T-DM1 vs. docetaxel plus trastuzumab plus pertuzumab [DTP] for six cycles); and 502 (HER2 heterogeneity as a predictor of response) addressed the potential for the antibody-drug conjugate to replace standard preoperative cytotoxic chemotherapy plus HER2-targeting.

In PREDIX, it was anticipated that toxicity would be lower with T-DM1 than with DTP – and it was, with better quality of life scores. The authors found a pathologic complete response rate of 45% among 98 participants with stage IIA-IIIA HER2-positive breast cancer, with higher rates among hormone receptor–negative than hormone receptor–positive patients, as expected.

PREDIX patients were allowed to switch from T-DM1 to DTP for progression, lack of clinical/radiographic response, or toxicity. More than twice as many patients switched from DTP to T-DM1 than vice versa for progression or lack of response.

What this means in practice

Although neither DTP nor T-DM1 are National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-endorsed neoadjuvant regimens at present, the KRISTINE and PREDIX trials and Abstract 502 advance the discussion about further personalizing therapy for HER2-amplified breast cancer with high HER2 copy number and lack of intratumor heterogeneity for HER2. They also raise questions about de-escalating therapy for patients with good prognosis and HER2-positive cancers, and the creative use of T-DM1 in the neoadjuvant setting.

Neoadjuvant T-DM1 may not be standard of care yet, but watch this space.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

SAN ANTONIO – People who smoke and have opioid use disorder have a lower likelihood of drug use several months after initiating smoking cessation treatment if they are treated with nicotine replacement therapy rather than varenicline, new research suggests.

“Differences were not due to the pretreatment differences in drug use, which were covaried,” wrote Damaris J. Rohsenow, PhD, and colleagues at Brown University’s Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Providence, R.I. “Results suggest it may be preferable to offer smokers with opioid use disorder [nicotine replacement therapy] rather than varenicline, given their lower adherence and more illicit drug use days during follow-up when given varenicline compared to [nicotine replacement therapy].”

They shared their research poster at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

About 80%-90% of patients with OUD smoke, and those patients have a particularly difficult time with smoking cessation partly because of nonadherence to cessation medications, the authors noted. Smoking increases the risk of relapse from any substance use disorder, and pain – frequently comorbid with smoking – contributes to opioid use, they added.

Though smoking treatment has been shown not to increase drug or alcohol use, varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy have different effects on a4b2 nicotinic acetylcholinergic receptors (nAChRs). The authors noted that nicotine offers greater pain inhibition via full agonist effects across multiple nAChRs, whereas varenicline has only a partial agonist effect on a single nAChR.

“Smokers may receive more rewarding dopamine effects from the full nicotine agonist,” they wrote. The researchers therefore aimed to compare responses to nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline among smokers with and without OUD.

Ninety patients without OUD and 47 patients with it were randomly assigned to receive transdermal nicotine replacement therapy with placebo capsules or varenicline capsules with a placebo patch for 12 weeks with 3- and 6-month follow-ups. At baseline, those with OUD were significantly more likely to be white and slightly younger and have twice as many drug use days than those without the disorder.

Differences also existed between those with and without OUD for comorbid alcohol use disorder (55% vs. 81%), marijuana use disorder (32% vs. 19%) and cocaine use disorder (70% vs. 55%).

Those without OUD had slightly greater medication adherence, but with only borderline significance just among those taking varenicline. Loss to follow-up, meanwhile, was significantly greater for those with OUD in both treatment groups.

Most striking was the significantly higher number of drug use days among those with OUD who took varenicline vs. all other groups. Those patients had 16.5 drug use days at 4-6 months’ follow-up, compared with 0.13 days among those with OUD using nicotine replacement therapy (P less than .026). Among those without OUD, nicotine replacement therapy patients had 5 drug use days, and varenicline patients had 2.5 drug use days.

“Given interactions between nicotine and the opioid system and given that [nicotine replacement therapy] binds to more types of nAChRs than varenicline does, it is possible that [nicotine replacement therapy] dampens desire to use opiates compared to varenicline by stimulating more nAChRs,” the authors wrote. “Increasing nicotine dose may be better for smokers with opioid use disorder,” they added, though they noted the small size of the study and the need for replication with larger populations.

The research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The authors reported no disclosures.

SAN ANTONIO – People who smoke and have opioid use disorder have a lower likelihood of drug use several months after initiating smoking cessation treatment if they are treated with nicotine replacement therapy rather than varenicline, new research suggests.

“Differences were not due to the pretreatment differences in drug use, which were covaried,” wrote Damaris J. Rohsenow, PhD, and colleagues at Brown University’s Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Providence, R.I. “Results suggest it may be preferable to offer smokers with opioid use disorder [nicotine replacement therapy] rather than varenicline, given their lower adherence and more illicit drug use days during follow-up when given varenicline compared to [nicotine replacement therapy].”

They shared their research poster at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

About 80%-90% of patients with OUD smoke, and those patients have a particularly difficult time with smoking cessation partly because of nonadherence to cessation medications, the authors noted. Smoking increases the risk of relapse from any substance use disorder, and pain – frequently comorbid with smoking – contributes to opioid use, they added.

Though smoking treatment has been shown not to increase drug or alcohol use, varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy have different effects on a4b2 nicotinic acetylcholinergic receptors (nAChRs). The authors noted that nicotine offers greater pain inhibition via full agonist effects across multiple nAChRs, whereas varenicline has only a partial agonist effect on a single nAChR.

“Smokers may receive more rewarding dopamine effects from the full nicotine agonist,” they wrote. The researchers therefore aimed to compare responses to nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline among smokers with and without OUD.

Ninety patients without OUD and 47 patients with it were randomly assigned to receive transdermal nicotine replacement therapy with placebo capsules or varenicline capsules with a placebo patch for 12 weeks with 3- and 6-month follow-ups. At baseline, those with OUD were significantly more likely to be white and slightly younger and have twice as many drug use days than those without the disorder.

Differences also existed between those with and without OUD for comorbid alcohol use disorder (55% vs. 81%), marijuana use disorder (32% vs. 19%) and cocaine use disorder (70% vs. 55%).

Those without OUD had slightly greater medication adherence, but with only borderline significance just among those taking varenicline. Loss to follow-up, meanwhile, was significantly greater for those with OUD in both treatment groups.

Most striking was the significantly higher number of drug use days among those with OUD who took varenicline vs. all other groups. Those patients had 16.5 drug use days at 4-6 months’ follow-up, compared with 0.13 days among those with OUD using nicotine replacement therapy (P less than .026). Among those without OUD, nicotine replacement therapy patients had 5 drug use days, and varenicline patients had 2.5 drug use days.

“Given interactions between nicotine and the opioid system and given that [nicotine replacement therapy] binds to more types of nAChRs than varenicline does, it is possible that [nicotine replacement therapy] dampens desire to use opiates compared to varenicline by stimulating more nAChRs,” the authors wrote. “Increasing nicotine dose may be better for smokers with opioid use disorder,” they added, though they noted the small size of the study and the need for replication with larger populations.

The research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The authors reported no disclosures.

SAN ANTONIO – People who smoke and have opioid use disorder have a lower likelihood of drug use several months after initiating smoking cessation treatment if they are treated with nicotine replacement therapy rather than varenicline, new research suggests.

“Differences were not due to the pretreatment differences in drug use, which were covaried,” wrote Damaris J. Rohsenow, PhD, and colleagues at Brown University’s Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Providence, R.I. “Results suggest it may be preferable to offer smokers with opioid use disorder [nicotine replacement therapy] rather than varenicline, given their lower adherence and more illicit drug use days during follow-up when given varenicline compared to [nicotine replacement therapy].”

They shared their research poster at the annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence.

About 80%-90% of patients with OUD smoke, and those patients have a particularly difficult time with smoking cessation partly because of nonadherence to cessation medications, the authors noted. Smoking increases the risk of relapse from any substance use disorder, and pain – frequently comorbid with smoking – contributes to opioid use, they added.

Though smoking treatment has been shown not to increase drug or alcohol use, varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy have different effects on a4b2 nicotinic acetylcholinergic receptors (nAChRs). The authors noted that nicotine offers greater pain inhibition via full agonist effects across multiple nAChRs, whereas varenicline has only a partial agonist effect on a single nAChR.

“Smokers may receive more rewarding dopamine effects from the full nicotine agonist,” they wrote. The researchers therefore aimed to compare responses to nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline among smokers with and without OUD.

Ninety patients without OUD and 47 patients with it were randomly assigned to receive transdermal nicotine replacement therapy with placebo capsules or varenicline capsules with a placebo patch for 12 weeks with 3- and 6-month follow-ups. At baseline, those with OUD were significantly more likely to be white and slightly younger and have twice as many drug use days than those without the disorder.

Differences also existed between those with and without OUD for comorbid alcohol use disorder (55% vs. 81%), marijuana use disorder (32% vs. 19%) and cocaine use disorder (70% vs. 55%).

Those without OUD had slightly greater medication adherence, but with only borderline significance just among those taking varenicline. Loss to follow-up, meanwhile, was significantly greater for those with OUD in both treatment groups.

Most striking was the significantly higher number of drug use days among those with OUD who took varenicline vs. all other groups. Those patients had 16.5 drug use days at 4-6 months’ follow-up, compared with 0.13 days among those with OUD using nicotine replacement therapy (P less than .026). Among those without OUD, nicotine replacement therapy patients had 5 drug use days, and varenicline patients had 2.5 drug use days.

“Given interactions between nicotine and the opioid system and given that [nicotine replacement therapy] binds to more types of nAChRs than varenicline does, it is possible that [nicotine replacement therapy] dampens desire to use opiates compared to varenicline by stimulating more nAChRs,” the authors wrote. “Increasing nicotine dose may be better for smokers with opioid use disorder,” they added, though they noted the small size of the study and the need for replication with larger populations.

The research was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The authors reported no disclosures.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to pembrolizumab for patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer (SCLC) with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Approval was based on an overall response rate of 19% among 83 patients with SCLC who had disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy enrolled in two nonrandomized trials, according to the FDA.

SCLC cohorts in KEYNOTE-028 and KEYNOTE-158 received either pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (n = 64) or 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks (n = 19). Treatment continued until documented disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or for a maximum of 24 months.

The ORR was 19% (95% confidence interval, 11%-29%), while the complete response rate was 2%. Responses were durable for 6 months or longer in 94% of the 16 responding patients.

Common adverse reactions included fatigue, decreased appetite, cough, nausea, and constipation. The most frequent serious adverse reactions were pneumonia and pleural effusion.

The recommended dosage for SCLC treatment is 200 mg, administered as an intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or up to 24 months in patients without disease progression, the FDA said.

Pembrolizumab is marketed as Keytruda by Merck.






 

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to pembrolizumab for patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer (SCLC) with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Approval was based on an overall response rate of 19% among 83 patients with SCLC who had disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy enrolled in two nonrandomized trials, according to the FDA.

SCLC cohorts in KEYNOTE-028 and KEYNOTE-158 received either pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (n = 64) or 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks (n = 19). Treatment continued until documented disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or for a maximum of 24 months.

The ORR was 19% (95% confidence interval, 11%-29%), while the complete response rate was 2%. Responses were durable for 6 months or longer in 94% of the 16 responding patients.

Common adverse reactions included fatigue, decreased appetite, cough, nausea, and constipation. The most frequent serious adverse reactions were pneumonia and pleural effusion.

The recommended dosage for SCLC treatment is 200 mg, administered as an intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or up to 24 months in patients without disease progression, the FDA said.

Pembrolizumab is marketed as Keytruda by Merck.






 

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to pembrolizumab for patients with metastatic small cell lung cancer (SCLC) with disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other prior line of therapy.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Approval was based on an overall response rate of 19% among 83 patients with SCLC who had disease progression on or after two or more prior lines of therapy enrolled in two nonrandomized trials, according to the FDA.

SCLC cohorts in KEYNOTE-028 and KEYNOTE-158 received either pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks (n = 64) or 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks (n = 19). Treatment continued until documented disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or for a maximum of 24 months.

The ORR was 19% (95% confidence interval, 11%-29%), while the complete response rate was 2%. Responses were durable for 6 months or longer in 94% of the 16 responding patients.

Common adverse reactions included fatigue, decreased appetite, cough, nausea, and constipation. The most frequent serious adverse reactions were pneumonia and pleural effusion.

The recommended dosage for SCLC treatment is 200 mg, administered as an intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or up to 24 months in patients without disease progression, the FDA said.

Pembrolizumab is marketed as Keytruda by Merck.






 

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant targeted therapy with erlotinib (Tarceva) may outperform standard chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation, suggests the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group’s EMERGING trial.

Investigators led by Wen-Zhao Zhong, MD, a professor at Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital and Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China, enrolled 72 patients with stage IIIA-N2 EGFR-mutant NSCLC in the phase 2 randomized controlled trial. The patients were randomized to receive either erlotinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), or the chemotherapy doublet of gemcitabine (Gemzar) and cisplatin as both neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy.

Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that the objective response rate was 54.1% with neoadjuvant erlotinib (median, 42 days of therapy) versus 34.3% with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (with most patients receiving two cycles). However, the difference was not significant (odds ratio, 2.26; P = .092).

None of the patients in either arm achieved a pathologic complete response, but 9.7% in the erlotinib arm achieved a major pathologic response (less than 10% residual viable tumor cells) versus none of those in the chemotherapy arm.

With a median follow-up of 14.1 months, median progression-free survival was 21.5 months with erlotinib, nearly double the 11.4 months seen with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for events, 0.39; P less than .001). Overall survival did not differ significantly but was immature at the time of analysis.

Adverse events were largely as expected for each therapy. Incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 0% with erlotinib versus 29.4% with chemotherapy.

“These results suggest that biomarker-guided neoadjuvant/adjuvant EGFR-TKI treatment strategies in stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC are promising,” Dr. Zhong and colleagues wrote. “Our promising findings warrant additional investigation.”

“The optimal duration of neoadjuvant TKI also warrants additional investigation to validate the role of perioperative TKI therapy in oncogene-driven NSCLC,” they concluded. “Future studies should investigate the translational value of sequential plasma and tissue samples in a neoadjuvant setting using multiomics-based assays to identify predictive characteristics of patients who would benefit from neoadjuvant targeted therapies and predict prognosis.”

Dr. Zhong disclosed receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. The trial was supported by the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group and Shanghai Roche Pharmaceutical.

SOURCE: Zhong W-Z et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 June 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00075.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant targeted therapy with erlotinib (Tarceva) may outperform standard chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation, suggests the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group’s EMERGING trial.

Investigators led by Wen-Zhao Zhong, MD, a professor at Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital and Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China, enrolled 72 patients with stage IIIA-N2 EGFR-mutant NSCLC in the phase 2 randomized controlled trial. The patients were randomized to receive either erlotinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), or the chemotherapy doublet of gemcitabine (Gemzar) and cisplatin as both neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy.

Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that the objective response rate was 54.1% with neoadjuvant erlotinib (median, 42 days of therapy) versus 34.3% with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (with most patients receiving two cycles). However, the difference was not significant (odds ratio, 2.26; P = .092).

None of the patients in either arm achieved a pathologic complete response, but 9.7% in the erlotinib arm achieved a major pathologic response (less than 10% residual viable tumor cells) versus none of those in the chemotherapy arm.

With a median follow-up of 14.1 months, median progression-free survival was 21.5 months with erlotinib, nearly double the 11.4 months seen with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for events, 0.39; P less than .001). Overall survival did not differ significantly but was immature at the time of analysis.

Adverse events were largely as expected for each therapy. Incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 0% with erlotinib versus 29.4% with chemotherapy.

“These results suggest that biomarker-guided neoadjuvant/adjuvant EGFR-TKI treatment strategies in stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC are promising,” Dr. Zhong and colleagues wrote. “Our promising findings warrant additional investigation.”

“The optimal duration of neoadjuvant TKI also warrants additional investigation to validate the role of perioperative TKI therapy in oncogene-driven NSCLC,” they concluded. “Future studies should investigate the translational value of sequential plasma and tissue samples in a neoadjuvant setting using multiomics-based assays to identify predictive characteristics of patients who would benefit from neoadjuvant targeted therapies and predict prognosis.”

Dr. Zhong disclosed receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. The trial was supported by the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group and Shanghai Roche Pharmaceutical.

SOURCE: Zhong W-Z et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 June 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00075.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant targeted therapy with erlotinib (Tarceva) may outperform standard chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation, suggests the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group’s EMERGING trial.

Investigators led by Wen-Zhao Zhong, MD, a professor at Guangdong Provincial People’s Hospital and Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China, enrolled 72 patients with stage IIIA-N2 EGFR-mutant NSCLC in the phase 2 randomized controlled trial. The patients were randomized to receive either erlotinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), or the chemotherapy doublet of gemcitabine (Gemzar) and cisplatin as both neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy.

Results reported in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that the objective response rate was 54.1% with neoadjuvant erlotinib (median, 42 days of therapy) versus 34.3% with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (with most patients receiving two cycles). However, the difference was not significant (odds ratio, 2.26; P = .092).

None of the patients in either arm achieved a pathologic complete response, but 9.7% in the erlotinib arm achieved a major pathologic response (less than 10% residual viable tumor cells) versus none of those in the chemotherapy arm.

With a median follow-up of 14.1 months, median progression-free survival was 21.5 months with erlotinib, nearly double the 11.4 months seen with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for events, 0.39; P less than .001). Overall survival did not differ significantly but was immature at the time of analysis.

Adverse events were largely as expected for each therapy. Incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was 0% with erlotinib versus 29.4% with chemotherapy.

“These results suggest that biomarker-guided neoadjuvant/adjuvant EGFR-TKI treatment strategies in stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC are promising,” Dr. Zhong and colleagues wrote. “Our promising findings warrant additional investigation.”

“The optimal duration of neoadjuvant TKI also warrants additional investigation to validate the role of perioperative TKI therapy in oncogene-driven NSCLC,” they concluded. “Future studies should investigate the translational value of sequential plasma and tissue samples in a neoadjuvant setting using multiomics-based assays to identify predictive characteristics of patients who would benefit from neoadjuvant targeted therapies and predict prognosis.”

Dr. Zhong disclosed receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi. The trial was supported by the Chinese Thoracic Oncology Group and Shanghai Roche Pharmaceutical.

SOURCE: Zhong W-Z et al. J Clin Oncol. 2019 June 13. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.00075.