Virtual Library

Background:
Overexpression of EGFR and other ErbB receptors, and/or dysregulation of their downstream pathways are implicated in the pathogenesis of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the lung, generating interest in exploring EGFR/ErbB-targeted agents in this setting. Recent analyses from the global LUX-Lung 8 trial (n=795) in patients with SCC of the lung demonstrated that second-line afatinib (an irreversible ErbB family blocker) conferred overall survival (OS; median 7.9 vs 6.8 months; HR [95% CI] 0.81 [0.69‒0.95]; p=0.008) and progression-free survival (PFS; median 2.6 vs 1.9 months; HR [95% CI] 0.81 [0.69‒0.96]; p=0.010) benefit over erlotinib (a reversible EGFR inhibitor). To assess biomarkers for efficacy for these agents in SCC we conducted an exploratory analysis using archival tumor tissue collected at time of study entry.

Methods:
Among all randomized patients, samples were retrospectively enriched for those from patients with PFS >2 months and appropriate controls (PFS ≤2 months; Figure 1) and were selected for analysis using the Foundation Medicine (FM) FoundationOne™ next-generation sequencing (NGS) platform (n=433); 300 cancer-related genes were analyzed for copy number alterations (CNAs), rearrangements and single nucleotide variants (SVs). Preliminary results from the 238 samples analyzable so far (~30% of the randomized patients), focusing on genomic alterations of EGFR and their potential association to survival endpoints PFS and OS, are presented.

Results:
Fourteen EGFR SVs (5.8%) were detected of which 10 were novel with unknown clinical significance (Figure 1). Figure 1 Four had been previously reported; 2 (E114K [afatinib arm], Q1021* [erlotinib arm]) occurred in the non-kinase domains and 2 (L861Q [afatinib arm], L858R [erlotinib arm]) in the kinase domain. The frequency of EGFR CNAs (n=15 [6.3%]; afatinib: 9; erlotinib: 6) was also low. At the time of these ongoing analyses, these low frequencies of EGFR mutations/amplifications were deemed not to be associated with the observed improvements in PFS and OS. Genomic alterations aggregated across two key gene groups (ErbB and FGF families) and their association with survival outcomes will be presented.



Conclusion:
The frequency of EGFR genomic aberrations in the samples tested was low. Based on this analysis of a subgroup of patients, PFS and OS improvements conferred by afatinib in LUX-Lung 8 were not driven by the presence of activating EGFR mutations or amplifications and may be related to afatinib’s ability to inactivate multiple aberrant signaling cascades associated with, and downstream of, ErbB receptors.

Background:
The overwhelming majority of advanced NSCLC p worldwide is wild-type (WT) EGFR. The results reported so far are difficult to interpret due to the heterogeneous nature of this large group of p. There is a variation in terms of efficacy considering known prognostic factors; however, other characteristics, as yet undefined, might further explain this variability. In the clinical setting, prolonged second-line treatment with Erlotinib (E) has been identified in a small group of p with WT EGFR leading to a long-term survival. The role of E in this special subset needs to be further determined in order to identify who might be most likely to benefit.

Methods:
WILT is a multicentre, open-label, observational study. WT EGFR (if rarely unknown, both squamous tumour and current/former smoking status as mandatory criteria) advanced NSCLC p treated with second-line E (150mg/d, until unacceptable toxicity/progressive disease) were included. Using a prognostic index model, the aim of this study is to identify subgroups of p with specific clinical and laboratory parameters that are likely to derive clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefit from E. Here we present the results of patients’ subgroups with long-term E treatment in second-line setting (PFS≥6 months and PFS≥9 months).

Results:
355 p were included in the study and preliminary reported data showed an overall median PFS of 2.3 months, finding 40% of p with a median PFS>2.5 months. Baseline subgroups characteristics of 52 p (14.6%) with a PFS≥6 months and 30 p (8.5%) with a PFS≥9 months are shown in Table 1. Efficacy data in PFS≥6 months subgroup: Median PFS of 10.8 months (95% CI: 9.2-12.3). Objective Response Rate of 21.6% and Disease Control Rate of 82.4%. Main related grade≥3 toxicities were rash (1.9%) and diarrhoea (3.8%). Efficacy data in PFS≥9 months subgroup: Median PFS of 13.5 months (95% CI: 12-15). Objective Response Rate of 17.2% and Disease Control Rate of 82.8%. Main related grade≥3 toxicities were rash (3.3%) and diarrhoea (6.7%). Table1: Patient characteristics

	SLP ≥6 months (N=52)	SLP ≥9 months (N=30)
Median age ( years)	65	67
Male/Female (%)	69/31	67/33
ECOG 0/1/2 (%)	21/62/17	23/64/13
Histology (%) Adenocarcinoma/Squamous	48/39	43/50
Stage (%) IV	75	67
EGFR status (%) WT Unknown*	85 15	80 20
Smoking status (%) Current/Never/Former	19/17/64	17/16/67
Metastases (%) Yes Lung/Bone/CNS/Pleura/Liver	83 44/21/14/12/9	77 39/22/9/13/13
Prior platinum-based doublet (%) Yes	94	93
Prior Maintenance Treatment (%) Yes	27	17
Best response to first-line (%) CR+PR/SD	48/31	40/37
Weight loss during first-line (%) Yes	22	23
Anaemia (%) Yes	69	63

*Unknown: Squamous and current/former smokers

Conclusion:
Global efficacy results of E, in terms of PFS, match with previously reported data for second-line setting. A long-term survivors group has been identified, whom the administration of E resulted in an extraordinary prolonged response. Highlighting the heterogeneity of this subgroup, it was not possible the identification of standardized prognostic factors. Potentially molecular variables for long-term survival with E in WT EGFR NSCLC could play a role in the determination of different evolutions.

Background:
The SQUIRE study demonstrated that the addition of necitumumab (N) to gemcitabine-cisplatin (GC) improved survival in patients with stage IV sq-NSCLC. This retrospective analysis compares efficacy and safety outcomes for patients who received single-agent N as continuation therapy after completion of chemotherapy treatment (CT) in GC+N arm to the continuation therapy-eligible population of the GC arm.

Methods:
Patients were randomized 1:1 to GC (G=1250 mg/m² iv, days 1 and 8; C=75 mg/m² iv, day 1) plus N (800 mg iv, days 1 and 8), or GC alone every 21 days up to 6 cycles. Patients in GC+N with no progression continued on N alone until progressive disease. In this analysis, we consider patients in GC+N arm who were alive and progression-free before the start of N single-agent therapy (GC+N arm continuation therapy patients) and patients in GC arm who were alive, progression-free after completion of CT and did not discontinue treatment due to adverse event (AE) (GC arm non-progressor patients). This analysis included patients in both arms who received ≥4 cycles of CT. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were measured from the date of randomization, with parameters estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Hazard ratios and 95% CIs between subgroups were estimated from stratified Cox proportional hazards models. OS and PFS for post-induction period were measured from the completion of CT + 21 days. Selected treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) for patients in each arm are presented in the table.

Results:
261 patients were progression-free, received ≥4 cycles of CT, and received ≥1 dose of N alone in GC+N arm. 215 pts in GC arm completed ≥4 cycles of CT, were progression-free, and did not discontinue due to AE. Patient baseline characteristics and exposure to CT were well balanced between GC+N and GC arms. Median OS from randomization in GC+N vs GC was 15.9 vs 15.0 months; HR 0.85 (95% CI, 0.69, 1.05). Median OS for post-induction period in GC+N vs GC was 11.5 vs 10.9 months; HR 0.84 (95% CI, 0.68; 1.04). Median PFS from randomization in GC+N vs GC was 7.4 vs 6.9 months; HR 0.86 (95% CI, 0.70, 1.06). Median PFS from post-induction period in GC+N vs GC was 3.2 vs 2.3 months; HR 0.85 (95% CI, 0.70, 1.04). Selected TEAEs (Overall):

	GC+N Continuation PatientsN = 261, %		GC Non-ProgressorsN = 215, %
Category	Any Grade	Grade ≥3	Any Grade	Grade ≥3
Neutropenia	55.9	34.1	57.7	33.0
Anemia	46.7	10.0	49.3	8.8
Thrombocytopenia	26.1	9.6	29.3	12.6
Hypomagnesemia	42.1	14.9	18.6	0.9
Conjunctivitis	11.9	0.8	3.3	0
Rash	87.4	8.8	10.2	0.5
Arterial thromboembolic event	5.7	3.1	0.5	0
Venous thromboembolic event	9.2	3.8	4.2	0.9

Conclusion:
There was a consistent treatment effect in favor of GC+N continuation patients as compared to GC non-progressors with no unexpected increases in AEs.

Abstract not provided

Background:
SQUIRE, a randomized phase III study, demonstrated that the addition of necitumumab (N) (a second-generation, recombinant, human immunoglobulin G1 EGFR antibody) to gemcitabine-cisplatin (GC) improved overall survival (OS) in patients with stage IV squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Analyses of the relationship between efficacy and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) protein expression using the immunohistochemistry (IHC) H-score=200 cut-point were previously reported (Thatcher et al. Lancet Onc, 2015; doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00021-2). Here we report additional exploratory analyses of the relationship with EGFR protein, as well as analyses of EGFR gene copy number.

Methods:
SQUIRE included mandatory tissue collection from archived tumor. EGFR protein expression was assessed by IHC in a central lab, using the Dako EGFR PharmDx kit. Analyses of the relationships between efficacy outcomes with EGFR across the range of protein levels were performed, using methodologies including subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot (STEPP) with a sliding window target size of 200 patients. An exploratory assessment of EGFR gene copy number gain was performed in tissue sections using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) (J Clin Pathol; 2009;62(11):970-7). Efficacy outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and hazard ratios estimated using an un-stratified Cox model. .

Results:
A total of 982 patients (89.8% of the ITT) had evaluable IHC assay results. The large majority of these patients (95.2%) had tumor samples expressing EGFR protein; only 4.8% had tumors without detectable EGFR protein (H-score=0). The STEPP analyses showed no consistent trend or obvious cut-point for the relationship between either OS or PFS with EGFR protein across the range of IHC values when comparing treatment arms. Archived tumor tissue with evaluable results for exploratory EGFR FISH analysis was available for 51.0% of patients (557 of 1093 ITT patients). Of these patients, 208 patients (37.3%) had increased EGFR gene copy number (FISH positive). A trend for greater necitumumab benefit was observed in EGFR FISH positive patients. Treatment HR (95% CI) for FISH positive and negative patients were 0.70 (0.52, 0.96) and 1.02 (0.80, 1.29) for OS, and 0.71 (0.52, 0.97) and 1.04 (0.82, 1.33) for PFS. However, the interaction of EGFR gene copy number gain with treatment was not statistically significant for either OS or PFS (p=0.066 and 0.057, respectively).

Conclusion:
The analysis of EGFR protein expression did not identify consistent trends related to efficacy outcomes across the range of IHC values. EGFR gene copy number gain showed a trend for a more favorable HR, but did not appear to be strongly predictive. However, both markers showed some evidence of potential trends that will be investigated further in future trials.

Background:
This study investigated whether intercalating and maintenance use of gefitinib with chemotherapy improves clinical outcomes versus chemotherapy alone in selected, chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after receiving two cycles of gemcitabine plus carboplatin with stable disease.

Methods:
We undertook an open-label, randomized, phase III trial at 14 centres in China. Non-smoking patients with previously untreated stage IIIB/IV lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutation status unknown (tissue not available) firstly received two cycles of gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m2 days 1 and 8) plus carboplatin (AUC=5, day 1). The patients with stable disease and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either gefitinib (250mg/d) on days 15 to 25 with a 4-week cycle of gemcitabine and carboplatin or a 4-week cycle of gemcitabine and carboplatin alone. A maximum of four cycles of chemotherapy was allowed in both arms after which time patients continued to receive gefitinib or observation until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01404260, and has completed enrolment; patients are still in follow-up.

Results:
From June 2011 to August 2014, 219 patients with stable disease were randomized to intercalating and maintenance use of gefitinib with chemotherapy (n=109) or chemotherapy alone (n=110). The number of PFS events is 84 cases for the gefitinib plus chemotherapy group and 93 cases for the chemotherapy alone group. PFS was significantly longer in the patients receiving gefitinib and chemotherapy than in those receiving chemotherapy alone (median 10.0 vs 4.4 months, respectively; hazard ratio 0.475, 95% CI 0.349-0.646; p<0.0001). The median follow-up duration for OS is 24.5 months; OS of maturity 34.7% was not statistically different between these two arms (32.2 vs 32.5 months, respectively; hazard ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.64-1.58; p=0.97). The addition of gefitinib to chemotherapy was well tolerated, with no increase in haematologic toxicity and no treatment-related interstitial lung disease.

Conclusion:
Intercalating and maintenance use of gefitinib with gemcitabine/carboplatin led to a significant improvement in PFS versus gemcitabine/carboplatin alone for Chinese nonsmoking patients with advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma (EGFR mutation status unknown) who had previously achieved stable disease after receiving two cycles of gemcitabine/carboplatin; immature OS was not statistically different.

Background:
While concurrent administration of EGFR-TKI and chemotherapy failed to improve the survival outcome, preclinical and clinical data suggested that sequential administration of EGFR-TKI within a chemotherapy cycle might improve the clinical outcome by avoiding the putative antagonism of TKI-induced G1 arrest of the cell cycle phase-dependent activity of chemotherapy. This study was designed to evaluate this idea with gefitinib and Pemetrexed/Cisplatin (Pem/Cis), the best known regimen for lung adenocarcinoma (ADC), in never-smokers with chemo-naive ADC of the lung.

Methods:
Eligible patients (pts) were never-smokers with chemo-naive stage IIIB/IV ADC, performance status of 0-2 and adequate organ functions, who were randomized after stratification by the EGFR mutation status (positive vs. negative/unknown) to receive either gefitinib (G) 250 mg/day or placebo (P) on days 5-18 of a 3-weekly cycle of chemotherapy, which consisted of Pem 500 mg/m[2] and cisplatin(Cis) 75mg/m[2] given iv on day 1, every 3 weeks for a maximum of 9 cycles. Responding patients continued to receive either G or P every day until PD or unacceptable toxicity. After documentation of PD, pts who had been on P arm were crossed over to receive G. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).

Results:
Between 06/2012 and 12/2014, 76 pts (M/F: 9/67) with median age of 58.0 years (range 32-75) were enrolled; 72 pts had stage IV and 4 had IIIB tumors. EGFR mutation was (+) in 29, (-) in 43, and unknown in 4. As of 03/17/2015, while randomization code is not broken yet, 53 pts are off treatment (48 due to PD, 2 deaths, 2 patient’s refusal, and 1 due to intercurrent brain tumor) and 19 pts are known dead (17 due to PD and 2 due to other causes). Overall, more pts with EGFR mt(+) tumor received 6 cycles of therapy than those with EGFR mt(-) tumor [28/29 (97%) vs. 32/43 (73%)] and completed 9 cycles of therapy as planned [19/29 (66%) vs. 14/43 (33%)]. The treatment was well tolerated with less G-associated skin toxicities, due to intermittent administration schedule of G per protocol. The most common G3/4 adverse events were: anemia (17.1%), neutropenia (15.8%), vomiting (5.3%), thrombocytopenia (3.9%), and peripheral neuropathy (3.9%). There was no unexpected safety issue except for more Cis-associated peripheral neuropathy which became more noticeable as the treatment continued beyond 6 cycles of therapy. Median PFS was 8.2 months (mos) for the entire group, and 10.6 mos and 6.6 mos for EGFR mt(+) and mt(-) groups, respectively. Overall median survival has not been reached yet with an estimated 2-year survival rate of 56.3%.

Conclusion:
First-line sequential administration of G with Pem/Cis chemotherapy was well tolerated with no undue side effects or any compromise in efficacy parameters. Detailed data will be presented to see whether this strategy warrants further investigation in a certain subset of pts with advanced NSCLC.

Abstract not provided