Citations

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.

Abstract Background: The potential for exploiting BRCA deficiencies with DNA repair inhibitors has both pre-clinical and clinical support. ABT-888 (veliparib), a DNA repair inhibitor initially thought to target Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerases (PARP), has demonstrated in vitro inhibition of BRCA1 and BRCA2 deficient mouse embryonic stell cells, with a larger effect on BRCA1 cells. We report on the pre-planned interim analysis of the efficacy of single agent veliparib in patients with either BRCA1 or BRCA2-associated stage IV breast cancer. Methods: BRCA 1 or 2 carrier patients with stage IV breast cancer, with measurable disease, without prior exposure to a PARP inhibitor or a platinum compound in the metastatic setting, were eligible. Velapirib was administered orally, at doses of 400 mg twice daily. Dose adjustments based on toxicity were permitted. Patients progressing on velapirib alone received carboplatin at an AUC of 5, IV, given Q 21 days, and velapirib 150 mg twice daily (the maximum tolerated dose [MTD] of the combination from our completed Phase I study: J Clin Oncol 30, 2012 [suppl; abstr 1024]). Patients were to be accrued from 7 NCI NO1- supported consortia. Initially 10 patients were to be accrued to each stratum (BRCA1 and BRCA2) to provide evidence of single agent activity. If there was sufficient activity to warrant consideration of velapirib as single agent therapy (defined as 2 or more confirmed partial [PR] or better responses out of 10 per stratum), an additional 12 patients would be accrued per stratum. Results: 20 evaluable patients (11 BRCA1 and 9 BRCA2 [1 in screening]) have been accrued, the majority with lung or liver as visceral metastatic sites of disease. Median age (range) is 46 (29-68) years. Tumors from 9 patients were hormone receptor positive. BRCA1 cohort: 4 of 11 patients are off treatment at a median of 2 months (1-4); 1 patient stopped velapirib due to toxicity (grade 2 rash/pruritus, grade 2 vomiting), 3 stopped for progressive disease (one with an unconfirmed PR). Seven patients are still on single agent veliparib with 1 unconfirmed PR, and 1 patient with two evaluations showing stable disease. BRCA2 cohort: 2 patients are off treatment at 2 months for progressive disease, 7 are still on treatment with 1 confirmed PR, and 3 unconfirmed PRs. Data on patients receiving combination of velapirib and carboplatin after progression is too early. Treatment-related toxicity is being updated and has so far been reported from 14 patients: 1 patient had grade 3 fatigue, 1 patient with liver metastasis had both grade 3 alanine aminotransferase elevation and grade 3 abdominal pain. Grade 2 toxicities occurring in more than 1 patient included nausea/vomiting (6 patients), chills (2 patients), and fatigue (2 patients). Conclusion: Velapirib has single agent activity in both BRCA1 and BRCA2-associated stage IV breast cancer patients, and is well-tolerated. Mature response, treatment, and toxicity data will be presented. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P2-16-05.

Purpose To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of pemetrexed combined with bevacizumab as second-line therapy for patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and to correlate allelic variants in pemetrexed-metabolizing genes with clinical outcome. Patients and Methods Patients with previously treated NSCLC received pemetrexed (500 mg/m2 intravenous) combined with bevacizumab (15 mg/kg intravenous) every 3 weeks. The primary end point, evaluated using a one-stage Fleming design for detecting a true success rate of at least 70%, was the proportion of patients who were progression free and on treatment at 3 months. Polymorphisms in genes responsible for pemetrexed transport (reduced folate carrier [SLC19A1]) and metabolism (folylpolyglutamate synthase [FPGS] and gamma-glutamyl hydrolase [GGH]) evaluated in germline DNA (blood) were correlated with treatment outcome. Results Forty-eight evaluable patients (14 females and 34 males) received a median of four cycles (range, one to 20 cycles). The most common grade 3 or 4 nonhematologic adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (13%), dyspnea (10%), and thrombosis (10%). Grade 3 or 4 hematologic AEs were neutropenia (19%) and lymphopenia (13%). Twenty-four (57%; 95% CI, 41% to 72%) of the first 42 patients met the success criteria. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) times were 8.6 and 4.0 months, respectively. The exon 6 (2522)C→T polymorphism in SLC19A1 correlated with 3-month progression-free status (P = .01) and with PFS (P = .05). The IVS1(1307)C→T polymorphism in GGH correlated with OS (P = .04). Conclusion The study did not meet its primary end point. However, the median PFS time of 4 months is promising. Pharmacogenetic studies in larger cohorts are needed to definitively identify polymorphisms that predict for survival and toxicity of pemetrexed.

Purpose Irinotecan plus cisplatin (IP) improved survival over etoposide plus cisplatin (EP) in Japanese patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (E-SCLC). To confirm those results and discern the potential role of population-related pharmacogenomics (PG) in outcomes, we conducted a large randomized trial of identical design to the Japanese trial in North American patients with E-SCLC. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned to IP (irinotecan 60 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15; cisplatin 60 mg/m2 day 1, every 4 weeks) or EP (etoposide 100 mg/m2 on days 1 through 3; cisplatin 80 mg/m2 day 1, every 3 weeks). Blood specimens for genomic DNA analysis were collected before random assignment in 169 patients. Results Of 671 patients, 651 were eligible (324 and 327 patients in the IP and EP arms, respectively). Response rates with IP and EP were 60% and 57%, respectively (P = .56). Median progression-free survival for IP and EP was 5.8 and 5.2 months, respectively (P = .07). Median overall survival for IP and EP was 9.9 and 9.1 months, respectively (P = .71). Severe diarrhea was more common with IP (19% v 3%); severe neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were higher with EP versus IP (68% v 33% and 15% v 4%, respectively). PG analysis showed that ABCB1 (C3435T)T/T (membrane transport) was associated with IP-related diarrhea; UGT1A1 (G-3156A)A/A (drug metabolism) was associated with IP-related neutropenia. Conclusion This large North American trial failed to confirm the previously reported survival benefit observed with IP in Japanese patients. Both regimens produced comparable efficacy, with less hematologic and greater gastrointestinal toxicity with IP. These results emphasize the potential importance of PG in interpreting trials of cancer therapy.

Purpose Early clinical studies with gefitinib showed promising efficacy and mild toxicity in patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Thus, gefitinib was an ideal agent to evaluate in a maintenance setting in stage III disease. Patients and Methods Untreated patients with stage III NSCLC, a performance score of 0 to 1, and adequate organ function were eligible. All patients received cisplatin 50 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8 plus etoposide 50 mg/m 2 on days 1 to 5, every 28 days for two cycles with concurrent thoracic radiation (1.8- to 2-Gy fractions per day; total dose, 61 Gy) followed by three cycles of docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 . Patients whose disease did not progress were randomly assigned to gefitinib 250 mg/d or placebo until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or the end of 5 years. The planned sample size was 672 patients to confer power of 0.89 to detect a 33% increase over the expected median survival time of 21 months (one-sided P = .025, log-rank test). Random assignment was stratified by stage, histology, and measurable versus nonmeasurable disease. Results Enrollment began in July 2001. An unplanned interim analysis conducted in April 2005 rejected the alternative hypothesis of improved survival at the P = .0015 level for 243 randomly assigned patients. The study closed, and preliminary results were reported. Now, with a median follow-up time of 27 months, median survival time was 23 months for gefitinib (n = 118) and 35 months for placebo (n = 125; two-sided P = .013). The toxic death rate was 2% with gefitinib compared with 0% for placebo. Conclusion In this unselected population, gefitinib did not improve survival. Decreased survival was a result of tumor progression and not gefitinib toxicity.