Virtual Library
Start Your Search
J. Feng
Author of
-
+
P2.04 - Clinical Design, Statistics and Clinical Trials (ID 705)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Poster Session with Presenters Present
- Track: Clinical Design, Statistics and Clinical Trials
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 10/17/2017, 09:30 - 16:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B + C)
-
+
P2.04-003 - Phase II Trial of X-396 (Ensartinib) for Chinese Patients with ALK (+) Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Who Progressed on Crizotinib (ID 8849)
09:30 - 09:30 | Author(s): J. Feng
- Abstract
Background:
Crizotinib has been established as the standard first-line treatment for patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer. However, despite its superiority to chemotherapy, resistance occurs within approximately 12 months. New ALK-inhibitors are needed to overcome the resistance to crizotinib and to increase drug penetration to CNS. X-396 (ensartinib) is a novel, potent ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Its phase I/II study showed X-396 is well-tolerated with favorable anti-tumor activities in both ALK TKI-naïve and crizotinib-resistant NSCLC patients, as well as patients with CNS metastases. The recommended phase II dose (RP2D) was established at 225 mg, once daily.
Method:
A phase II, multi-center study is evaluating the efficacy and safety of single-agent X-396 in Chinese patients with ALK (+) non–small-cell lung cancer after progression on crizotinib. Eligible patients will have documentation of a positive ALK rearrangement and progression on crizotinib. X-396 225 mg is orally administered until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint is RECIST 1.1 response rate. Secondary endpoints include PFS, duration of response, and safety. The sample size is calculated using the test for inequality method, assuming that X396 have an ORR of 50% in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC, 15% higher than that from existing second-line therapy. Therefore, up to 144 patients will be enrolled with a significance level and power of 5% and 90%, respectively. Recruitment will be started on September, 2017.
Result:
Section not applicable
Conclusion:
Section not applicable
-
+
P3.01 - Advanced NSCLC (ID 621)
- Event: WCLC 2017
- Type: Poster Session with Presenters Present
- Track: Advanced NSCLC
- Presentations: 3
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 10/18/2017, 09:30 - 16:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B + C)
-
+
P3.01-026 - Analysis of Long-Term Response to First-Line Afatinib in the LUX-Lung 3, 6 and 7 Trials in Advanced EGFRm+ NSCLC (ID 9051)
09:30 - 09:30 | Author(s): J. Feng
- Abstract
Background:
In patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive (EGFRm+) NSCLC, first-line afatinib significantly improved PFS and objective response rate (ORR) versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy in the phase III LUX-Lung (LL) 3 and LL6 studies, and PFS, time-to-treatment failure (TTF) and ORR versus gefitinib in the phase IIb LL7 study. Here, we present post-hoc analyses of efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in afatinib long-term responders (LTRs) in LL3/6/7.
Method:
Treatment-naïve patients with stage IIIb/IV EGFRm+ NSCLC who were randomized to 40mg/day afatinib in LL3/6/7 and remained on treatment for ≥3 years were defined as LTRs. In these patients, we assessed efficacy and safety outcomes, as well as PROs measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life (QoL) Questionnaire and the EQ-5D™ health status self-assessment questionnaire; these included scores on the EORTC Global Health [GH]/QoL scale (0–100), EORTC Performance Functioning scale (PF; 0–100), EQ Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; 0–100) and EQ-5D UK utility scale (EQ UK utility; 0–1).
Result:
In LL3/6/7, there were 24/229 (10%)/ 23/239 (10%)/ 19/160 (12%) afatinib-treated LTRs; 6/9/14 remained on treatment at time of analysis. Baseline characteristics were similar to the overall study populations, except for the proportion of women (LL3/6 only [LTRs versus overall]: 92/78% vs 64/64%) and Del19+ patients (LL3/6/7: 63–79% vs 49–58%). In LL3/6/7, 4–11% of LTRs had brain metastases at enrolment. Median (range) duration of treatment in LL3/6/7 LTRs was 50 (41–73)/56 (37–68)/42 (37–50) months. Due to few deaths, median OS could not be estimated. Median follow-up for OS in LL3/6/7 was 64.6/57.0/42.1 months. ORR among LTRs in LL3/6/7 was 70.8% (complete response: 4.2%; n=1)/78.3% (13.0%; n=3)/89.5% (5.3%; n=1). The frequency of afatinib dose reductions due to treatment-related AEs, and the frequency/duration of subsequent treatments were similar to the overall LL3/6/7 populations. In afatinib-treated LTRs in LL3/6/7, PROs appeared stable between ~Week 24 to ~Week 160, with slight improvements after ~3 years afatinib treatment versus scores at the start of treatment.
Conclusion:
In LL3/6/7, 10%–12% of afatinib-treated patients were LTRs. Afatinib was well tolerated among these patients. Long-term treatment was independent of tolerability-guided dose adjustment or presence of brain metastases at time of enrolment, and had no detrimental impact on subsequent treatment. In afatinib-treated LTRs, PROs were not negatively affected by long-term treatment, and were slightly improved after ~3 years of treatment versus scores at treatment initiation.
-
+
P3.01-036 - A Phase IIIb Open-Label, Single-Arm Study of Afatinib in EGFR TKI-Naïve Patients with EGFRm+ NSCLC: An Interim Analysis (ID 9251)
09:30 - 09:30 | Author(s): J. Feng
- Abstract
Background:
In the Phase III LUX-Lung (LL) 3 and LL6 trials, first-line afatinib significantly improved PFS vs platinum-doublet chemotherapy in patients with EGFRm+ NSCLC (independent review; LL3: 11.1 vs 6.9 months, HR=0.58; p=0.001; LL6: 11.0 vs 5.6 months, HR=0.28; p<0.0001). In the Phase IIb LL7 trial, afatinib significantly improved PFS and TTF vs gefitinib in patients with EGFRm+ NSCLC harboring common EGFR mutations (PFS, independent review: 11.0 vs 10.9 months, HR=0.73; p=0.017; TTF: 13.7 vs 11.5 months, HR=0.73, p=0.0073). Here we report interim analysis results of a large Phase IIIb study of afatinib in a broad population of EGFR TKI-naïve patients with EGFRm+ NSCLC.
Method:
In this Phase IIIb trial with a similar setting to ‘real-world’ practice, EGFR TKI-naïve patients with locally advanced/metastatic EGFRm+ NSCLC were recruited from centers in China, Hong Kong, India, Singapore and Taiwan and received afatinib 40mg/day until investigator-assessed progression or lack of tolerability. Primary endpoint: number of patients with serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary endpoints included: number of patients with afatinib-related AEs; time to symptomatic progression (TTSP). Other assessments included PFS (investigator review).
Result:
At data cut-off (13 Feb 2017) 479 patients were treated with afatinib (median age: 59.0 years; female: 52.4%; common [(Del19 and/or L858R) with or without uncommon]/uncommon only EGFR mutations: 86.0%/14.0%; ECOG PS 0/1: 19.8%/78.1%; brain metastases: 19.2%; 0/1/≥2 lines of prior chemotherapy: 59.7%/30.1%/10.2%. 24.8% of patients required dose reductions to 30mg; 6.1% had further reductions to 20mg. Median (range) treatment time was 9.7 months (0.2–38.6). SAEs were reported in 115 (24.0%) patients and afatinib-related SAEs in 29 (6.1%) patients. Grade ≥3 afatinib-related AEs occurred in 122 (25.5%) patients; diarrhea (n=50; 10.4%) and rash/acne (n=38; 7.9%) were the most common (≥5%). 18 (3.8%) patients discontinued treatment due to afatinib-related AEs. Median TTSP (15.3 months [95% CI: 13.4–17.5]) was 3 months longer than PFS (12.1 months [10.8–13.7]), suggesting afatinib may be continued beyond progression, and both were longer in patients with common (with/without uncommon) vs uncommon only EGFR mutations (PFS: 12.6 vs 9.1; TTSP: 15.8 vs 10.0 months).
Conclusion:
The safety data of afatinib from this interim analysis of a large-scale population of EGFR TKI-naïve EGFRm+ NSCLC patients are consistent with LL3/6/7 and confirm that most afatinib-related AEs are manageable and result in few treatment discontinuations. Afatinib also demonstrated encouraging efficacy in patients with common and uncommon EGFR mutations. Data from larger patient populations will be evaluated in further analyses of this trial.
-
+
P3.01-075 - Afatinib Dose Adjustment: Effect on Safety, Efficacy and Patient-Reported Outcomes in the LUX-Lung 3/6 Trials in EGFRm+ NSCLC (ID 9365)
09:30 - 09:30 | Author(s): J. Feng
- Abstract
Background:
Afatinib 40mg/day is approved globally for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive (EGFRm+) NSCLC. Afatinib is available in several tablet strengths (20/30/40/50mg), and tolerability-guided dose adjustment schemes are well established. Here, we evaluate the impact of afatinib dose reduction on safety (AEs), pharmacokinetics, PFS and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the Phase III LUX-Lung (LL) 3 and 6 trials.
Method:
Treatment-naïve patients with stage IIIB/IV EGFRm+ NSCLC in LL3/6 received either 40mg/day afatinib or chemotherapy. In case of any treatment-related grade ≥3 AEs or selected prolonged grade 2 AEs, afatinib dose was reduced by 10mg decrements (minimum dose 20mg/day). In this post-hoc analysis of all afatinib-treated patients in LL3/6 (n=229/n=239), we compared incidence and severity of common AEs before and after dose reduction, afatinib plasma concentrations in patients who reduced to 30mg versus those remaining on 40mg, and PFS in patients with/without dose reductions in the first 6 months of treatment. PROs were measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire and the EQ-5D™ health status self-assessment questionnaire, and pooled data from both trials were assessed before/after dose reduction; these included scores on the EORTC Global Health/Quality of Life scale (GH/QoL; 0–100), EORTC Performance Functioning scale (PF; 0–100), EQ Visual Analogue Scale (VAS; 0–100) and EQ-5D UK utility scale (EQ UK utility; 0–1).
Result:
Dose reductions occurred in 122/229 (53.3%) patients in LL3 and 67/239 (28.0%) in LL6; >80% of dose reductions occurred in the first 6 months of treatment. Dose reductions decreased the incidence of treatment-related AEs (grade ≥3 AEs before/after dose reduction: LL3, 73%/20%; LL6, 81%/12%), and were more likely among patients who had higher afatinib plasma concentrations prior to subsequent dose reduction (Day 22). On Day 43, geometric mean afatinib plasma concentrations were comparable between patients who had dose reduced (n=59; 23.3ng/mL) and patients who remained on 40mg (n=284; 22.8ng/mL). Median PFS was comparable between patients with or without dose reductions in the first 6 months (LL3: 11.3 versus 11.0 months; HR [95% CI] 1.25 [0.91–1.72]; p=0.175; LL6: 12.3 versus 11.0 months; 1.00 [0.69–1.46]; p=0.982). There were no clinically meaningful changes in PROs following afatinib dose reduction: GH (40/30mg: 59.1/66.9; n=136); PF (79.4/83.0; n=136); EQ VAS (70.1/75.1; n=135); EQ UK utility (0.70/0.78; n=135).
Conclusion:
Tolerability-guided dose adjustments effectively reduced afatinib-related AEs without negatively affecting therapeutic efficacy and PROs.
