Virtual Library
Start Your Search
A. Szczesna
Author of
-
+
MO06 - NSCLC - Chemotherapy I (ID 108)
- Event: WCLC 2013
- Type: Mini Oral Abstract Session
- Track: Medical Oncology
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:R. Perez-Soler, P.M. Ellis
- Coordinates: 10/28/2013, 16:15 - 17:45, Parkside Ballroom A, Level 1
-
+
MO06.06 - Oral vinorelbine (NVBo) and cisplatin (P) or pemetrexed (Pem) and P as first-line chemotherapy for non squamous (NS) metastatic or locally advanced non small cell lung cancer (M or LA NSCLC): Final results of a prospective randomised phase II trial (NAVoTrial 1) (ID 276)
16:15 - 17:45 | Author(s): A. Szczesna
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background
NVBo and P are an established regimen in advanced NSCLC. The approval of Pem and P in NS NSCLC recognises histology as treatment driver even if the higher chemosensitivity of NS NSCLC is recognised and reported with other chemotherapies (Ardizzoni. JNCI 2007). NVBo + P also showed better survival in NS NSCLC than in Squamous NSCLC (Tan. Ann.Oncol. 2009). The current randomised (2:1) phase II trial assessed disease control (DCR) (SD + PR + CR) of NVBo/CDDP or PEM/CDDP in NS NSCLC.Methods
Stage IIIB/IV untreated/relapsed NS NSCLC pts were randomised to receive q3w NVBo 80 mg/m² D1D8 (60 at Cycle 1) + P 80 mg/m² D1 (Arm A) or Pem 500 mg/m² + P 75 mg/m² D1 (Arm B). After 4 cycles of combination, non PD pts received single agent NVBo (Arm A) or PEM (Arm B) as maintenance until progression or toxicity. Pts were randomised on a 2/1 basis and stratified according to Stage (IIIB - IV - relapse), non SCC confirmed by histology or cytology, gender, smoking status and centre.Results
From 11/09 to 02/11, 153 patients were enrolled in 31 centers and randomised to Arm A (102 pts) or Arm B (51 pts). DCR after combination and maintenance was 75.0% (95% CI, 65.3 to 83.1) in Arm A and 76.5% (95% CI, 62.5 to 87.2) in Arm B. Median PFS was 4.2 (95% CI, 3.6 to 4.7) and 4.3 months (95% CI, 3.8 to 5.6) in Arm A and Arm B, respectively. Median OS was 10.2 months (95% CI, 7.8 to 11.9) and 10.8 months (95% CI, 7.0 to16.4) in Arm A and Arm B, respectively. During the combination period Grade 3/4 neutropenia was 44.0% in Arm A and 18.3% in Arm B but febrile neutropenia was 2% in both arms; grade 3/4 thrombopenia was 0% and 6% in Arm A and Arm B, respectively.Conclusion
Both doublets reported good efficacy and acceptable tolerability. The maintenance allowed continuation of effective treatment with either oral vinorelbine or pemetrexed as single agent, with an acceptable safety with both agents. These results are sufficiently compelling to consider whether a phase III randomised non inferiority study with oral vinorelbine maintenance after induction vinorelbine/cddp could be as effective as pemetrexed maintenance. An oral maintenance may be a definite advantage over intravenous maintenance.Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
O02 - NSCLC - Combined Modality Therapy I (ID 111)
- Event: WCLC 2013
- Type: Oral Abstract Session
- Track: Combined Modality
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:W.E.E. Eberhardt, C.J. Langer
- Coordinates: 10/28/2013, 10:30 - 12:00, Parkside Ballroom B, Level 1
-
+
O02.02 - Tecemotide (L-BLP25) in unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer in the phase III START study: Further endpoint and exploratory biomarker results (ID 2779)
10:30 - 12:00 | Author(s): A. Szczesna
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background
The phase III START study evaluated the mucin 1 (MUC1) antigen-specific cancer immunotherapy tecemotide (L-BLP25) vs. placebo in patients with stage III unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who did not progress following initial chemo-radiotherapy (chemo/RT). The primary objective of overall survival (OS) prolongation was not met, however, pre-defined subgroup analyses revealed a clinically meaningful prolongation of survival with tecemotide in patients previously treated with concurrent chemo/RT (p=0.016). Sensitivity analyses suggested the observed treatment effect may have been under-estimated due to a clinical hold, which resulted in a median suspension of recruitment and investigational treatment of about 4.4 months. Tecemotide was well tolerated and no safety concerns were identified.Methods
From January 2007 to November 2011, 1513 patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC and stable disease or objective response following initial chemo/RT were randomized (2:1, double-blind) to subcutaneous tecemotide (806 µg lipopeptide) or placebo, weekly for 8 weeks and then 6-weekly until disease progression or withdrawal. A single dose of cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m2) or saline was given 3 days prior to first tecemotide/placebo dose. Primary endpoint, OS, and secondary endpoints progression-free-survival (PFS) and time-to-treatment-failure (TTF) used a Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusting for randomization strata. While RECIST 1.0 had to be observed for determination of disease progression, there was no formal imaging schedule to determine disease progression; this was done according to institutional practice. Exploratory analyses were done for treatment interaction for HLA-A02, -DRB4 and -B08. Baseline peripheral blood anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA), serum MUC1 (sMUC1), lymphocyte count and neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio (NLR) currently are being explored.Results
The primary analysis population (N=1239) was defined prospectively to account for the clinical hold and prospectively excluded 274 patients randomized within 6 months prior to onset of the hold. Median PFS was 9.6 months with tecemotide vs. 7.7 months with placebo (HR 0.865, 95%CI 0.755–0.990, p=0.036). In keeping with OS data, tecemotide treatment effects on PFS were more pronounced in patients treated with concurrent chemo/RT (N=806; HR 0.826, 95%CI 0.696–0.980, p=0.029) vs. sequential chemo/RT (N=433; HR 0.947, 95%CI 0.756–1.187, p=0.638). Median TTF was 8.9 months with tecemotide vs. 7.2 months with placebo (HR 0.887, 95%CI 0.777–1.012, p=0.075). A prolongation of TTF with tecemotide was seen in patients with prior concurrent chemo/RT (HR 0.844, 95%CI 0.715–0.996, p=0.045), which was absent in the subgroup with prior sequential chemo/RT (HR 0.977, 95%CI 0.784–1.217, p=0.835). Detailed biomarker results will be presented.Conclusion
While the primary endpoint of prolongation of OS was not met, secondary endpoints PFS and TTF support the previously-reported finding of a more favorable effect of tecemotide in patients treated with concurrent but not sequential chemo/RT. Any potential further clinical investigation of tecemotide in locally advanced NSCLC should focus on patients following concurrent chemo/RT therapy.Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
O03 - NSCLC - Targeted Therapies I (ID 113)
- Event: WCLC 2013
- Type: Oral Abstract Session
- Track: Medical Oncology
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:J. Ross, J.C. Yang
- Coordinates: 10/28/2013, 10:30 - 12:00, Bayside Auditorium B, Level 1
-
+
O03.02 - Randomized Phase-3 trial (INSPIRE) of Necitumumab plus Cisplatin-Pemetrexed versus Cisplatin-Pemetrexed Alone as First-Line Therapy in Stage IV Non-Squamous NSCLC (ID 2337)
10:30 - 12:00 | Author(s): A. Szczesna
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background
Necitumumab is a human IgG1 anti-EGFR1 monoclonal antibody that competes for the binding of natural ligands to this receptor and prevents receptor activation. EGFR1 is detectable in approximately 85% of advanced NSCLC tumors. This phase 3 study investigated necitumumab in combination with first-line chemotherapy in advanced non-squamous NSCLC.Methods
Patients with histologically or cytologically proven stage IV non-squamous NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to either Arm A: cisplatin 75mg/m[2] i.v.-pemetrexed 500mg/m[2] i.v. (Cis + PEM) on Day 1+ necitumumab 800mg i.v. on Days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle or Arm B: Cis+PEM alone. Patients received these regimens for up to six cycles. For patients in Arm A with at least stable disease, necitumumab continued until PD or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), safety, and EGFR protein expression level by immunohistochemistry (H-score) utilizing archived tumor tissue based on a mandatory tissue collection. The planned sample size of this study was 947 patients (assuming a hazard ratio [HR] of 0.8 would allow 85% power at 2-sided alpha level of 0.05). After 633 patients, enrollment was stopped (after Feb 2011) following an Independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC) recommendation.Results
Between Nov 2009 and Feb 2011 633 patients were randomized (315 Arm A; 318 Arm B). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the arms; 67.0% were male and 33.0% female; ECOG-PS 0/1 94.2 % and PS 2 5.7 %. No difference between treatment arms was observed for OS (median 11.3 vs 11.5 months; HR 1.01 95%-CI [0.84, 1.21]), PFS (median 5.6 vs 5.6 months, HR 0.96 95%-CI [0.80, 1.16]) and ORR (31.1 vs 32.1%; Odds ratio 0.96 95%-CI [0.68, 1.34]). The exploratory analysis in 490 patients assessable for H-score revealed no association between H-score and differences in efficacy between treatment arms (H-score < 200: mOS 8.97 vs 9.72 months, HR 1.07, mPFS 4.90 vs 4.76 months, HR 0.95, ORR 27.1 vs 26.0%; H-score ≥ 200: mOS 15.01 vs 13.34 months, HR 1.03, mPFS 5.59 vs 5.62 months, HR 0.94, ORR 39.6 vs 39.4%). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurring more frequently in Arm A included skin or subcutaneous disorders (14.1 vs 0.3%), thromboembolic events (9.5 vs 6.4%), hypomagnesaemia (7.6 vs 2.2%), asthenia (6.9 vs 1.9%), vomiting (6.6 vs 3.2%), dyspnea (5.3 vs 2.6%) and diarrhea (4.3 vs 2.2%). The frequency of study drug related deaths was 4.9% and 2.9% in Arms A and B, respectively.Conclusion
In this study, the addition of necitumumab did not improve the efficacy outcome over cisplatin plus pemetrexed alone in advanced non-squamous-NSCLC. The EGFR H-score did not seem to predict the efficacy outcomes of necitumumab in combination with cisplatin plus pemetrexed. The addition of necitumumab resulted in a higher frequency of grade ≥ 3 AE (skin reaction, GI, asthenia and other) and an imbalance of grade ≥ 3 thromboembolic events. Further biomarker studies are ongoing.Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
