West, Howard

AbstractBackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy has led to significant improvement in outcomes for patients with nononcogene‐driven advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The rate of crossover and receipt of postprotocol ICI in frontline trials for advanced NSCLC has not been systematically evaluated.MethodsClinicalTrials.gov was used to identify phase 3 studies evaluating the use of immunotherapy or combination chemoimmunotherapy against chemotherapy alone in the frontline management of advanced NSCLC. Data on outcomes, rate of crossover and/or subsequent post‐protocol receipt of immunotherapy, and the start dates of these clinical trials were then extracted.ResultsTwenty‐three frontline trials in nononcogene‐driven advanced NSCLC were identified. Six trials with ICI monotherapy/dual ICI therapy and 17 trials evaluating chemotherapy/ICI in first‐line advanced NSCLC were included in the analysis. The crossover rate ranged 0% to 54% in ICI monotherapy/dual ICI trials and 0% to 52% in chemotherapy/ICI trials. Nineteen of 23 trials provided information on subsequent postprotocol therapies. Among the trials not allowing crossover, postprotocol ICI was administered to 17% to 45.8% of patients. Information regarding the eventual receipt of ICI therapy was available for 22 of 23 trials. Of 6631 patients, 2507 (37.8%) randomized to the control arm eventually received ICI therapy.ConclusionThe rate of crossover and postprotocol ICI use was low in frontline trials for first‐line NSCLC incorporating ICI. Given the proven improved overall survival of ICI in a broad population, there is a need to ensure availability of this life‐prolonging therapy in future trials, either by crossover treatment or postprotocol administration.

Importance Although cancer-related mortality continues to decline, lung cancer remains the No. 1 cause of cancer deaths in the US. Almost half of the patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are diagnosed with early-stage, local or regional disease and are at high risk of recurrence within 5 years of diagnosis. Observations Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved outcomes for patients with metastatic NSCLC and have recently been tested in multiple clinical trials to determine their efficacy in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting for patients with local or regional disease. The landscape for perioperative ICIs in lung cancer is evolving rapidly, with recently reported and soon to mature clinical trials; however, the recent data highlight the potential of ICIs to increase response rates and decrease rates of relapse in early stages of lung cancer. Concurrently, novel applications of cell-free DNA may guide perioperative management strategies. Conclusions and Relevance This article reviews the various approaches of incorporating perioperative use of immunotherapeutic agents for the treatment of early stages of NSCLC.

125 Background: The advent of immunotherapy (IO) has led to significant improvement in outcomes for patients (pts) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (adv NSCLC). The rate of crossovers and receipt of post-protocol IO in pivotal trials leading to FDA approvals of IO in NSCLC has not been systematically evaluated. Here, we evaluate crossover rates and post protocol therapies for pts with adv NSCLC across multiple first-line (1L) IO monotherapy and chemotherapy/IO (chemo/IO) combination trials. Methods: We utilized the publicly available data from pivotal clinical trials leading to approvals of IO or chemo/IO regimens in 1L treatment of adv NSCLC. We extracted data on outcomes, rate of crossover from control arm to IO, proportion of pts in control arm receiving IO and the start dates of these clinical trials. The primary outcomes were the rates of crossover and the proportion of patients in control arms who received post-control IO. Results: The study included 4 trials with IO monotherapy and 12 trials with chemo/IO combinations in 1L adv NSCLC. The primary endpoints for these trials were PFS (25%), OS (19%), and both PFS and OS (56%). The crossover rate from control arm to experimental arm (with IO) ranged from 0-74% in IO monotherapy trials and 0-49% in chemo/IO trials. Two IO monotherapy trials and five chemo/IO trials did not allow crossover; among them, 3 trials had a PFS/OS co-primary endpoint, while others had OS as primary endpoint. Ten of 16 trials provided explicit information on use of subsequent post-protocol therapies in their publications. Among the two IO monotherapy trials which did not allow crossover, post-protocol IO was administered in only 20-30% of patients. Among the six chemo/IO trials with information on post-protocol therapies, 30%-59% patients on the control arm subsequently received some form of IO on progression. Nine of 12 trials started accrual after 10/2015, when nivolumab was approved in the United States as second-line (2L) therapy for adv NSCLC regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression. Conclusions: Despite the highly significant OS benefit from 2L IO, which was the standard of care (SOC) in the United States, the rates of crossover and post-protocol IO administration was distressingly low in 1L IO monotherapy and chemo/IO trials for 1L adv NSCLC. This low rate of 2L treatment with IO may have been due to limited global availability prior to widespread regulatory approval during the conduct of these trials. There is an increased need for consistency in reporting of crossover treatment and post-protocol treatments to allow adequate assessment of the true 1L benefit with IO. Control arms in pivotal trials require scrutiny to ensure confirmation with SOC to provide access to optimal treatments for patients and prevent magnification of observed benefits in experimental arms. The difficulty lies in the global conduct of large randomized clinical trials with differing regulatory approvals.

This JAMA Oncology Patient Page describes the use of systemic therapy in addition to surgery in the treatment of early-stage lung cancer.

e20502 Background: The CNS is often a site of first disease progression in CRZ-treated ALK+ NSCLC. The ALTA trial is assessing BRG, an investigational next-generation ALK inhibitor, in pts with CRZ-refractory advanced ALK+ NSCLC, including pts with baseline brain metastases. Methods: In ALTA (NCT02094573), pts were stratified by presence of baseline brain metastases and best response to prior CRZ and randomized 1:1 to receive BRG at 90 mg qd (arm A) or 180 mg qd with a 7-d lead-in at 90 mg (arm B). Here, we show data for pts with baseline brain metastases. An independent review committee (IRC) assessed intracranial efficacy. Results: Of 222 pts (112 in arm A; 110 in arm B), 80 (71%)/74 (67%) in A/B had baseline brain metastases per investigators, with median age 49/55 y; 74%/76% had received chemotherapy. As of May 31, 2016, 51%/59% of these pts continued to receive BRG in A/B; median follow-up was 9.6/11.4 mo. Intracranial efficacy is shown in the table. Among these pts, most common treatment-emergent adverse events were: nausea 35%/46% (A/B), headache 30%/31%, vomiting 29%/31%, diarrhea 21%/38%, cough 25%/32%; grade ≥3: increased blood CPK 1%/12%, hypertension 4%/7%, increased lipase 4%/3%. Conclusions: BRG yielded substantial intracranial responses with robust iPFS and acceptable safety in ALK+ NSCLC pts with baseline brain metastases in ALTA. 180 mg (with lead-in) showed consistently improved intracranial efficacy compared with 90 mg. Clinical trial information: NCT02094573. [Table: see text]

9065 Background: BRG is a potent and selective ALK inhibitor with preclinical and clinical activity against wild-type ALK and a broad range of mutants associated with clinical CRZ resistance, including G1202R. Herein we examine the association between BRG efficacy and ALK mutation status using plasma specimens from the initiation of BRG treatment (baseline [BL]) and the end of BRG treatment (EOT) in CRZ-resistant ALK+ NSCLC pts enrolled in the BRG Ph1/2 or pivotal Ph2 (ALTA) trials. Methods: Plasma samples were analyzed using the Resolution Bioscience ctDx Lung Panel v3.0. BRG activity was described using the confirmed objective response rate (cORR) (RECIST v1.1). Data are reported as of May 31, 2016 for the Ph1/2 (NCT01449461) and ALTA (NCT02094573) trials. Results: Of 291 CRZ-resistant ALK+ NSCLC pts enrolled in the Ph1/2 (N = 69) and ALTA (N = 222) trials, evaluable plasma samples were obtained from 67 pts at BL. cORR to BRG in these pts was 49% (33/67). An ALK fusion was detected in plasma in 45% (30/67) of these pts (cORR 57% [17/30]), of whom 33% (10/30) had secondary ALK mutations (cORR 50% [5/10]) and 67% (20/30) did not (cORR 60% [12/20]). Best responses in pts with secondary ALK mutations were: 2 CR (ALK amplification [Amp] copy number [CN] = 10; T1151M); 3 PR (L1196M; E1408V; Amp CN = 6); 4 SD (L1196M; E1419K; F1174C; C1156Y+S1206F+G1269A); 1 PD (T1151R+C1156Y+E1161D+F1174L). Of 67 pts with evaluable plasma at BL, 35 discontinued BRG therapy, of whom 20 had evaluable samples collected at EOT. No new mutations were detected at EOT in 75% (15/20) of pts. Complex mutation patterns were associated with resistance in the remaining 25% (5/20): High-level ALK-Amp (CN = 58); ALK-Amp (CN = 14)+MET-Amp (CN = 6); ALK-S1206F+S1206C+Amp (CN = 6); ALK-G1202R+L1196M+L1198Q; ALK-G1202R+BRAF-V600E+KRAS-G12D. Conclusions: ALK fusions were detected in plasma in < 50% of CRZ-resistant ALK+ NSCLC pts. BRG had substantial activity in ALK fusion–positive pts with a range of CRZ-resistance mutations. Neither primary nor secondary resistance to BRG was associated with any single plasma ALK mutation. The therapeutic implications of complex secondary resistance patterns associated with BRG require further exploration. Clinical trial information: NCT01449461, NCT02094573.