Virtual Library

 x 
My Library Virtual Library FAQ

Start Your Search

J. Fan



Author of

  • +

    Poster Display Session (ID 63)

    • Event: ELCC 2017
    • Type: Poster Display Session
    • Track:
    • Presentations: 1
    • Moderators:
    • Coordinates: 5/07/2017, 12:30 - 13:00, Hall 1
    • +

      100P - Afatinib vs gefitinib for treatment-naïve patients with EGFRm+ NSCLC (LUX-Lung 7): Analysis of time to treatment failure and impact of afatinib dose adjustment (ID 356)

      12:30 - 13:00  |  Author(s): J. Fan

      • Abstract

      Background:
      PFS was significantly improved in LUX-Lung 7 with afatinib (A) vs gefitinib (G). Time to treatment failure (TTF) was a co-primary endpoint to reflect clinical practice of continuing TKI tx beyond radiologic progression in the absence of clinical deterioration. An analysis of TTF and a post-hoc analysis of the impact of dose adjustment of A on PFS and AEs are reported here.

      Methods:
      Patients (pts) were randomized to A 40mg/d or G 250mg/d until progressive disease (PD) or beyond if deemed beneficial. The dose of A could be reduced by 10mg decrements to a minimum of 20mg in the event of selected drug-related (DR) AEs. TTF was analyzed using a stratified log-rank test and Kaplan-Meier methods. PFS was compared between pts who had a dose reduction within 6 mos and those who received ≥40mg for 6 mos. Incidence/severity of common AEs before/after dose reduction was assessed.

      Results:
      319 pts were randomized (160 A, 159 G). At data cut-off (21 Aug 2015), 87.5% A and 93.7% G pts had discontinued tx, mostly due to radiologic PD (69.4 vs 74.8%) or toxicity (11.3 vs 10.7%). 35.0% A and 29.6% G pts with clinical benefit continued tx beyond radiologic PD. Pts remained on tx significantly longer with A vs G (median TTF 13.7 vs 11.5 mos; HR 0.73 [95% CI 0.58–0.92]; p = 0.007; pts on tx at 2 yrs: 25.0 vs 13.2%). TTF subgroup analyses favored A. Risk of tx failure was reduced with A vs G regardless of EGFRm type or race. Median tx duration beyond PD with A and G was 2.7 and 2.0 mos, respectively. 63 pts (39%) treated with A had a dose reduction to 30mg; 21 (13%) had further reduction to 20mg. There was no significant difference in PFS in pts who received <40 mg or ≥ 40 mg (median 12.8 vs 11.0 mos; HR 1.3 [95% CI 0.9–2.0]; p = 0.14). Dose reduction of A reduced the incidence/severity of DR AEs: grade ≥3 diarrhea, rash/acne and stomatitis were reduced from 25.4%, 20.6% and 7.9%, to 9.5%, 3.2% and 3.2%, respectively.

      Conclusions:
      TTF was significantly improved with first-line A vs G in EGFRm+ NSCLC, which testifies to the tolerability of A, and suggests that it may confer additional clinical benefit in pts who continue tx beyond PD. Dose adjustment of A reduced the frequency/intensity of DR AEs without compromising efficacy.

      Clinical trial identification:
      LUX-Lung 7: EudraCT No: 2011-001814-33

      Legal entity responsible for the study:
      Boehringer Ingelheim

      Funding:
      Boehringer Ingelheim

      Disclosure:
      J.C-H. Yang: Ad board and honoraria: BI, Lilly, Bayer, Roche/Genentech/Chugai, Astellas, MSD, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Novartis, Clovis, Celgene, Merrimack, Yuhan Pharmaceuticals, BMS, Ono pharmaceutical Daiichi, Sankyo, and AZ. L. Paz-Ares: Honoraria from Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Eli Lilly, Boehringer lngelheim, Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Amgem. K. O\'Byrne: Ad board, speaker bureau, travel to international conferences and honoraria: AZ, BMS, Roche-Genentech, MSD, Pfizer, BI. Ad board and speaker bureau: Novartis. 3 Patents: 1 on novel drugs, 2 on biomarkers, IP held by Queensland University of Technology. M. Boyer: Ad board: BMS, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Pfizer Board of Directors: IASLC Research: Pfizer, Genentech, BI, AZ, Novartis, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Clovis Honoraria: Merck Sharpe and Dohme, BI, BMS, AZ. T. Mok: Receipt of grants/research supports: AstraZeneca, BI, Pfizer, Novartis, SFJ, Roche, MSD, Clovis Oncology, BMS; Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, BI, Merck Serono, MSD, Janssen, Clovis Oncology, BioMarin, GSK, Novartis, SFJ Pharmaceutical, ACEA Biosciences, Inc., Vertex Pharmaceuticals, BMS, AVEO & Biodesix, Prime Oncology, Amgen; Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, BI, MSD, Amgen, Janssen, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Novartis, BMS, PrIME Oncology; Stock shareholder: Sanomics Limited. V. Hirsh: Honoraria for participating on advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. K. Park: Participated on advisory boards for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Hanmi, MSD, Novartis, and Roche. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

  • +

    Targeted therapies and immunotherapies (ID 46)

    • Event: ELCC 2017
    • Type: Poster Discussion session
    • Track:
    • Presentations: 2
    • +

      92PD - First-line afatinib for advanced EGFRm+ NSCLC: Analysis of long-term responders (LTRs) in the LUX-Lung (LL) 3, 6 and 7 trials (ID 299)

      14:45 - 15:45  |  Author(s): J. Fan

      • Abstract

      Background:
      In the Phase III LL3 and LL6 trials, first-line afatinib significantly improved PFS and ORR versus platinum-doublet chemotherapy in pts with EGFRm+ NSCLC. In the Phase IIb LL7 trial, afatinib significantly improved PFS, time to treatment failure, and ORR versus gefitinib in this setting. Here we present post-hoc analyses of afatinib LTRs (treated with afatinib ≥3 years) in LL3/6/7.

      Methods:
      Treatment-naïve pts with stage IIIB/IV EGFRm+ NSCLC who were randomized to 40 mg/day afatinib in LL3/6/7 were included.

      Results:
      24/229 (10%), 23/239 (10%) and 19/160 (12%) afatinib-treated pts in LL3, LL6 and LL7 were LTRs; 6, 9 and 14 LTRs were still on treatment at the time of analysis. In LL7, 4% of gefitinib-treated pts were LTRs. Baseline characteristics were generally consistent with the overall study populations, with the exception of greater proportions of women (LL3/6 only; 92/78% vs 64% in the overall populations) and Del19+ pts (63–79% vs 49–58% overall) among LTRs. The table shows treatment duration and outcomes. The median OS values for LL3/6 were >30 months longer than those reported in the overall populations. ORRs ranged from 70.8% in LL3 to 89.5% in LL7. Frequency and duration of subsequent therapy was similar to the overall population. Frequency of afatinib dose reduction due to TRAEs was broadly consistent with the overall populations; final afatinib doses of 20/30/40/50 mg were observed in 50/25/21/4% in LL3, 13/22/61/4% in LL6, and 32/21/47/0% in LL7.

      Conclusions:
      In the LL3/6/7 studies, 10–12% of afatinib-treated pts were LTRs (treated ≥3 years). Among these pts, greater proportions of women (LL3/6 only) and Del19+ NSCLC were observed. In LTRs, afatinib conferred a long-term survival benefit of ∼5 years and was well tolerated. Long-term treatment was independent of tolerability-guided dose adjustment, or the presence of brain metastases at time of enrolment, and had no detrimental impact on subsequent treatment.rnTable: 92PDrn

      rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn rnrn
      CharacteristicLL3 (n = 24)LL6 (n = 23)LL7 (n = 19)
      Median follow-up for OS, months64.657.042.1
      Median duration of treatment, months (range)50 (41–73)56 (37–68)42 (37–50)
      Median PFS (central review), months37.530.627.6
      Median OS, months63.255.340.8
      Overall response rate (CR+PR), n (%)17 (70.8)18 (78.3)17 (89.5)
      CR, n (%)1 (4.2)3 (13.0)1 (5.3)
      PR, n (%)16 (66.7)15 (65.2)16 (84.2)
      SD, n (%)5 (20.8)2 (8.7)2 (10.5)
      NN, n (%)2 (8.3)3 (13.0)–
      Median duration of response, months34.528.319.4
      rnCR, complete response; NN, not-PR/not-SD; PR, partial response; SD, stable diseasern

      Clinical trial identification:
      LUX-Lung 3: EudraCT No: 2008-005615-18 LUX-Lung 6: clinicaltrials.gov ref: NCT01121393 LUX-Lung 7: EudraCT No: 2011-001814-33

      Legal entity responsible for the study:
      Boehringer Ingelheim

      Funding:
      Boehringer Ingelheim

      Disclosure:
      M. Schuler: Advisory boards: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis; Corporate-sponsored research: Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis; Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Roche, MSD, Alexion; Patents: University Duisburg-Essen. L. Paz-Ares: Honoraria from Pfizer, Bristol-Myer Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clovis Oncology, AstraZeneca, and Amgen. L.V. Sequist: Participated on advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Clovis Oncology, Genentech, Merrimack, Ariad, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. S.L. Geater: Participated in advisory boards for Novartis and Boehringer Ingelheim, and has also received honoraria from Roche, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis. A. Märten: Employee of Boehringer Ingelheim. J. Fan: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. employee. K. Park: Participated on advisory boards for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Hanmi, MSD, Novartis, and Roche. J.C-H. Yang: Ad board and honoraria: BI, Lilly, Bayer, Roche/Genentech/Chugai, Astellas, MSD, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Novartis, Clovis, Celgene, Merrimack, Yuhan Pharmaceuticals, BMS, Ono pharmaceutical Daiichi, Sankyo, and AZ. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

    • +

      93PD - Afatinib (A) vs gefitinib (G) in patients with EGFR mutation-positive (EGFRm+) NSCLC: Updated OS data from the phase IIb trial LUX-Lung 7 (LL7) (ID 301)

      14:45 - 15:45  |  Author(s): J. Fan

      • Abstract

      Background:
      A, an irreversible ErbB family blocker, and G, a reversible EGFR TKI, are approved for 1st-line treatment (tx) of advanced EGFRm+ NSCLC. In LL7, A (40 mg/d) significantly improved PFS (HR 0.73 [95% CI 0.57–0.95], p = 0.017), ORR (70 vs 56%, p = 0.008) and time to tx failure (TTF; HR 0.73 [0.58–0.92], p = 0.007) vs G (250 mg/d) in this setting; the primary OS analyses (data cut-off 8 Apr 16) showed a non-significant difference in OS between A and G (median 27.9 vs 24.5 mos; HR 0.86 [0.66–1.12], p = 0.258) that was consistent across subgroups. Here, we present updated OS data.

      Methods:
      LL7 assessed A vs G in tx-naïve pts with EGFRm+ (Del19/L858R) stage IIIb/IV NSCLC. Co-primary endpoints were PFS, TTF and OS. Other endpoints: ORR and AEs.

      Results:
      Data cut-off for the updated OS analysis was 12 Dec 16. Median follow-up for OS was 49.2 mos. 73/77% (A/G) of pts had ≥1 subsequent systemic anti-cancer tx after discontinuation of A/G. 48/56% (A/G) received a subsequent EGFR TKI; 31 (19%)/26 (16%) pts (A/G) received a 3[rd]-gen EGFR TKI. Updated median OS was 27.9 vs 24.5 mos with A vs G (HR 0.85 [0.66–1.09], p = 0.1950). Landmark 24-mo and 30-mo OS with A vs G was 61 vs 51% and 48 vs 40%, respectively; 48-mo OS was 28% with A vs 20% with G. In patients treated with A, ≥30-mo survival rates were generally similar across countries of origin and mean average dose received. Similar OS trends were observed with A vs G in pts with Del19 (30.7 vs 26.4 mos; HR 0.82 [0.59–1.15]) and L858R (25.0 vs 21.2 mos; HR 0.89 [0.61–1.31]) mutations. There was a trend towards improved OS with A vs G in pts who received a 3[rd]-gen EGFR TKI (NE vs 48.3 mos; HR 0.49 [0.20–1.19]). In patients treated with A, consistent OS outcomes were observed across age groups (median, mos: 28.9 [<60 years]; 30.1 [<65 years]; 28.9 [<75 years]; 27.9 [≥75 years]). Updated PFS, TTF and ORR (at primary OS data cut-off, 8 Apr 16) were similar to the primary analyses, and all were significantly improved with A vs G; the AE profile of A and G was virtually unchanged since the primary analysis.

      Conclusions:
      In this updated OS analysis, there was no significant difference in OS with A vs G. A trend favouring A, generally consistent across subgroups, was observed.

      Clinical trial identification:
      Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT01466660

      Legal entity responsible for the study:
      Boehringer Ingelheim

      Funding:
      Boehringer Ingelheim

      Disclosure:
      K. Park: Participated on advisory boards for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Hanmi, Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis, and Roche. J.C-H. Yang: Ad board and honoraria: BI, Lilly, Bayer, Roche/Genentech/Chugai, Astellas, MSD, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Novartis, Clovis, Celgene, Merrimack, Yuhan Pharmaceuticals, BMS, Ono pharmaceutical Daiichi, Sankyo, AZ. T. Mok: Receipt of grants/research supports: AstraZeneca, BI, Pfizer, Novartis, SFJ, Roche, MSD, Clovis Oncology, BMS. Receipt of honoraria or consultation fees: AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, BI, Merck Serono, MSD, Janssen, Clovis Oncology, BioMarin, GSK, Novartis, SFJ Pharmaceutical, ACEA Biosciences, Inc., Vertex Pharmaceuticals, BMS, AVEO & Biodesix, Prime Oncology, Amgen. Participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau: AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, BI, MSD, Amgen, Janssen, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Novartis, BMS, PrIME Oncology. Stock shareholder: Sanomics Limited. K. O\'Byrne: Ad board, speaker bureau, travel to international conferences and honoraria: AZ, BMS, Roche-Genentech, MSD, Pfizer, BI. Ad board and speaker bureau: Novartis. 3 Patents: 1 on novel drugs, 2 on biomarkers, IP held by Queensland University of Technology. V. Hirsh: Has received advisory board honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. M. Boyer: Ad board: BMS, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Pfizer Board of Directors: IASLC Research: Pfizer, Genentech, BI, AZ, Novartis, Merck Sharpe and Dohme, Clovis Honoraria: Merck Sharpe and Dohme, BI, BMS, AZ. J. Fan: Boehringer Ingelheim employee. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

  • +

    Targeted therapies and management of brain metastasis (ID 40)

    • Event: ELCC 2017
    • Type: Proffered Paper session
    • Track:
    • Presentations: 1
    • +

      86O - Afatinib (A) plus cetuximab (C) in the treatment of patients (pts) with NSCLC: The story so far (ID 311)

      16:45 - 18:15  |  Author(s): J. Fan

      • Abstract
      • Presentation
      • Slides

      Background:
      Constitutive EGFR signalling due to activating mutations (e.g. EGFRm+ NSCLC) or overexpression (e.g. squamous (sq) NSCLC) is a common mechanism of tumourigenesis. There is biological rationale for combining A + C in tumours with unmet medical need, e.g. EGFRm+ NSCLC with resistance to EGFR-TKIs, and in advanced sqNSCLC. Preclinically, A + C improved anti-tumour activity in EGFRm+ NSCLC vs A or C alone. Here we report outcomes from two Phase Ib studies of A + C: NCT01090011 (study 1) in pts with EGFRm+ NSCLC resistant to gefitinib/erlotinib (G/E); and NCT02020577 (study 2) in unselected pts with heavily pretreated advanced solid tumours, including sqNSCLC.

      Methods:
      Study 1 comprised a dose-finding phase to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of A + C, and an expansion phase (EP) in which 126 pts received the MTD of A 40 mg/day + C 500 mg/m[2] Q2W. In study 2, 9 pts received A + C in a dose-escalation phase, and a further 49 pts received the MTD of A 40 mg/day + C 250 mg/m[2]/week in an EP, including 12 pts with sqNSCLC.

      Results:
      Drug-related adverse events (DR-AEs; all grades) were reported in 99% of pts in the EP of study 1 (n = 126), and 98% of pts in study 2 (n = 58). Grade 3/4/5 DR-AEs were experienced by 44%/2%/2% of pts in study 1 and 31%/3%/0% in study 2. DR-AEs led to discontinuation of treatment in 14% of pts in study 1 and 12% in study 2. Efficacy in pts with NSCLC is shown in the table. In the study 1 EP, ORR was 29% and median PFS was 4.7 months; there were no significant differences in ORR or median PFS in pts with T790M+ vs T790M- tumours (32 vs 25% [p = 0.341] and 4.6 vs 4.8 months [p = 0.643], respectively). Median duration of OR was 5.7 months. In the study 2 EP, 75% of pts with sqNSCLC had SD, and median PFS was 11.9 weeks.

      Conclusions:
      Based on the demonstrated antitumour activity and a predictable/manageable safety profile, A + C may be a treatment option in pts with EGFRm+ NSCLC and acquired resistance to G/E (irrespective of T790M status) or with pre-treated advanced sqNSCLC. rnTable: 86OEfficacy outcomesrn

      rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn rnrn
      TrialEGFRm+ NSCLCsqNSCLC
      Study 1 expansion phase[1] (n = 126)Study 2 expansion cohort[2] (n = 12)
      Disease control (CR/PR/SD), n (%)89 (71)9 (75)
      OR (CR/PR), n (%)37 (29)0
      SD52 (41)9 (75)
      Unconfirmed OR5 (4)–
      PD, n (%)27 (21)3 (25)
      Median duration of OR, months (range)5.7 (1.8–24.4)–
      Median duration of disease control, weeks (standard deviation)–17.9 (9.9)
      Median PFS (95% CI)4.7 months (4.3–6.4)11.9 weeks (5.1–19.4)
      rnCR, complete response; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease;rnOR, objective response; PFS, progression-free survival 1. Janjigian YY, et al. Cancer Discov 2014;4:1036-45 2. Gazzah A, et al. Eur J Cancer 2016;68(Suppl. 1);S139:abstract 426rn

      Clinical trial identification:
      NIH study numbers: 1200.71: NCT01090011 1200.122: NCT02020577

      Legal entity responsible for the study:
      Boehringer Ingelheim

      Funding:
      Boehringer Ingelheim

      Disclosure:
      J-C. Soria: Astrazeneca, Astex, GSK, Gammamabs, Eli Lilly, MSD, Merus, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Symphogen, Takeda. Y.Y. Janjigian: Employee of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Advisory boards: ASCO GI Corporate-sponsored research: Merck, BMS Consultant: Pfizer Grant/research: BI, Bayer, Amgen, Genentech, Roche. H.J.M. Groen: Participated on advisory boards for Boehringer Ingelheim. W. Pao: Reports that patent rights on EGFR T790M were licensed by MSKCC to Molecular MD. J. Fan: Boehringer Ingelheim employee. M. Ould-Kaci: Employee of Boehringer Ingelheim. L. Horn: Consulting for AbbVie, BMS, Merck, Eli Lilly, Xcovery, Bayer. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

      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.

      Only Active 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 or select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout.