Ramalingam, Suresh S.

7510 Background: We previously demonstrated that PFS may be a candidate surrogate endpoint for OS in ES-SCLC using data from 3 randomized trials (Foster, Cancer 2011). Here, we sought to formally assess the patient- and trial-level surrogacy of PFS using data from 9 additional randomized phase II and III trials conducted by the NCI-funded cancer cooperative groups since 1986. Methods: Individual patient data from all 12 trials (3178 patients: 9 phase III and 3 phase II) were pooled. OS was the primary endpoint in all phase III trials; 3 phase III and 1 phase II trial were positive per protocol. Patient-level surrogacy (Kendall’s tau) was assessed using the Clayton copula bivariate survival model. Trial-level surrogacy was assessed via association of the log hazard ratios on OS and PFS across trials, including: weighted (by trial size) least squares regression of Cox model effects (R² WLS) and weighted (by trial size) correlation of the copula effects (R² Copula). One trial had 4 treatment arms thus 14 total two-arm comparisons were made. Results: With a median follow-up of 41.8 months in the 106 patients still alive, the median OS and PFS across trials were 9.7 months (95% CI: 9.5, 9.9) and 5.7 months (95% CI: 5.5, 5.8), respectively. There were 3120 PFS events in total (2564 disease progressions and 556 deaths without progression). The median time from progression to death was 4.1 months (95% CI: 3.9, 4.3). PFS showed modest association with OS at the patient-level (tau= 0.56) and at the trial-level (R² WLS = 0.58; R² Copula (standard error) = 0.55 (0.29)). The 95% CIs for the predicted HR for OS given observed HR on PFS under a weighted leave-one-out prediction always included the observed HR for OS; however such intervals were wide, suggesting uncertainty on the practical use of PFS as a surrogate for OS in this setting. Conclusions: PFS failed to demonstrate surrogacy for OS in ES-SCLC based on this large pooled analysis. Given that the difference in the median PFS and OS is less than 6 months, we recommend using OS as the primary endpoint in phase III trials of previously untreated ES-SCLC.

Abstract The treatment of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is slowly evolving from empirical cytotoxic chemotherapy to personalized treatment based on specific molecular alterations. Despite this 10-year evolution, targeted therapies have not been studied adequately in patients with resected NSCLC who have clearly defined actionable mutations. The advent of next-generation sequencing has now made it possible to characterize genomic alterations in unprecedented detail. The efforts begun by The Cancer Genome Atlas project to understand the complexities of the genomic landscape of lung cancer will be supplemented further by studying a large number of tumor specimens. The Adjuvant Lung Cancer Enrichment Marker Identification and Sequencing Trial (ALCHEMIST) is an NCI-sponsored national clinical trials network (NCTN) initiative to address the needs to refine therapy for early-stage NSCLC. This program will screen several thousand patients with operable lung adenocarcinoma to determine whether their tumors contain specific molecular alterations [epidermal growth factor receptor mutation (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement (ALK)], making them eligible for treatment trials that target these alterations. Patients with EGFR mutation or ALK gene rearrangement in their tumor will be randomized to placebo versus erlotinib or crizotinib, respectively, after completion of their standard adjuvant therapy. ALCHEMIST will also contain a large discovery component that will provide an opportunity to incorporate genomic studies to fully understand the clonal architecture, clonal evolution, and mechanisms of resistance to therapy. In this review, we describe the concept, rationale, and outline of ALCHEMIST and the plan for genomic studies in patients with lung adenocarcinoma. Clin Cancer Res; 21(24); 5439–44. ©2015 AACR.

Purpose To define the maximum tolerated dose, toxicities, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of 17-dimethylaminoethylamino-17-demethoxygeldanamycin (17DMAG). Methods 17DMAG was given intravenously over 1 hour daily for 5 days (schedule A) or daily for 3 days (schedule B) every 3 weeks. Plasma 17DMAG concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. Heat-shock proteins (HSPs) and client proteins were evaluated at baseline and after treatment on day 1 in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and in pre- and post-treatment (24 hours) biopsies done during cycle 1 at the recommended phase II dose (n = 7). Results Fifty-six patients were entered: 26 on schedule A; 30 on schedule B. The recommended phase II doses for schedules A and B were 16 mg/m2 and 25 mg/m2, respectively. Grade 3/4 toxicities included liver function test elevation (14%), pneumonitis (9%), diarrhea (4%), nausea (4%), fatigue (4%) and thrombocytopenia (4%). There were no objective responses. Four patients had stable disease. 17DMAG half-life was 24 ± 15 hours. 17DMAG area under the curve (range, 0.7 to 14.7 mg/mL × h) increased linearly with dose. The median HSP90, HSP70, and integrin-linked kinase levels were 87.5% (n = 14), 124% (n = 20), and 99.5% (n = 20) of baseline. Changes in HSPs and client proteins in tumor biopsies were not consistent between baseline and 24 hours nor did they change in the same direction as those in PBMCs collected at the time of biopsy. Conclusion The recommended phase II doses of 17DMAG (16 mg/m2 × 5 days or 25 mg/m2 × 3 days, every 3 weeks) are well tolerated and suitable for further evaluation.