Virtual Library

Start Your Search

Radj Gervais



Author of

  • +

    MA05 - Update on Clinical Trials and Treatments (ID 123)

    • Event: WCLC 2019
    • Type: Mini Oral Session
    • Track: Mesothelioma
    • Presentations: 1
    • Now Available
    • +

      MA05.05 - Post-Discontinuation Treatments in IFCT-GFPC-0701 MAPS Trial: Real-World Effectiveness of 2nd-Line (2L) Treatments for Mesothelioma (Now Available) (ID 815)

      13:30 - 15:00  |  Author(s): Radj Gervais

      • Abstract
      • Presentation
      • Slides

      Background

      MAPS phase 3 trial assessing the addition of bevacizumab to pemetrexed-cisplatin doublet set a new standard of care in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) patients, showing 18.8 months median overall survival (OS) with triplet combo. While both arms were well balanced in terms of 2L treatments, the size of the OS benefit from second-line treatments remains controversial.

      Method

      Long-term survival data were collected in the 342 MAPS patients alive at the end of the first-line (1L) treatments, in both arms. Median OS and 2-year survivals were calculated from the initiation of 2L. Multivariate analysis using Cox model included the stratification variables of the MAPS trial, along with the treatment arm (with or without bevacizumab).

      Result

      342/442(77.4%) patients received 2L treatment for disease progression after MAPS trial, of which 324 received chemotherapy (CT), 18 palliative radiotherapy (RT), while 100/442 (22.6%) remained untreated. 160/342 patients (46.8%) had a platinum-based doublet CT. 163 patients (47.7%) received a single-drug CT. 172/324 (53.1%) received a pemetrexed-containing regimen (alone or with platinum), 84 (25.9%) a gemcitabine-based CT, 16 (4.9%) vinorelbin alone, 48 (14.8%) gemcitabine alone, while in 12 (3.7%) single-agent bevacizumab was resumed. Median age was lower in patients with doublet CT (64.4 years, IQR 60.2-68.9) vs. single-drug CT patients (66.3 years, IQR 61.5-70.3), patients receiving RT (68.5 years, IQR 63.3-70.5) or untreated patients (67.8 years, IQR 63.4-71) (p=0.007). There were more PS=2 patients (10%) in the untreated group, compared with 0.6%, 1.8% and 5.6% in those receiving doublet, monotherapy or radiotherapy, respectively (p<0.001). A lower proportion of patients receiving 2L doublet CT had sarcomatoid/biphasic MPM (11.2%) compared with 21.5%, 38.9% and 25% in those with single-arm agent, RT or untreated, respectively (p=0.002). When compared with those treated with 2L single-agent, patients with 2L doublet had more frequently objective response (11.9 vs. 3.1%, p=0.005) and disease control (60.3 vs. 34.6%, p<0.0001). From the date of 2L therapy initiation, median OS was 3.2 months, 95%CI [1.7-5.0] for RT vs. 7.0 months 95%CI[5.6-7.8] for single-agent CT, or 12.2 months 95%CI [9.5-14.1] for doublet CT. HRs were adjusted for 1L treatment type (bevacizumab-containing or not), PS, smoking, and histology. Adj.HR (single-agent vs. doublet) was 1.21, 95% CI(0.96-1.53), p=0.11. Adj.HR (monotherapy vs. RT) was 0.39, 95%CI[0.24-0.65], p=0.0003. Adj.HR (combination CT vs. RT) was 0.32 95%CI[0.19-0.54], p<0.0001. 1-year OS was 11.8%, 95%CI [0.0-27.1], 48.7%, 95%CI [39.9-57.5], and 32.9%, 95%CI [25.1-40.6], in patients with RT alone, single agent CT or combination CT, while 2-year OS was 0%, 14.2%, and 20.0% respectively.

      Conclusion

      Second-line monotherapy only gave a 7-months median OS in MPM patients, comparing unfavorably to 11.9 and 15.9-months median OS with 2nd/3rd-line nivolumab or nivolumab+ipilimumab respectively, in the IFCT-1501 MAPS-2 randomized phase 2 trial. Conversely, 2L platinum-based chemo, in younger fit patients, still gave a 12.2-months median OS, not statistically different from monotherapy in the multivariate analysis, as a consequence of PS influence, although clinically meaningful. Based on these results, immunotherapy might be preferred for 2L/3L MPM patients, while monotherapy CT shows limited survival benefit.

      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.

  • +

    MA07 - Clinical Questions and Potential Blood Markers for Immunotherapy (ID 125)

    • Event: WCLC 2019
    • Type: Mini Oral Session
    • Track: Immuno-oncology
    • Presentations: 1
    • Now Available
    • +

      MA07.05 - Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (ICPi) Re-Challenge: Outcomes Analysis in a French National Cohort of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) Patients (Now Available) (ID 1903)

      13:30 - 15:00  |  Author(s): Radj Gervais

      • Abstract
      • Presentation
      • Slides

      Background

      Anti-PD1/PDL1 deeply changed the NSCLC therapeutic algorithm in the past few years. Unfortunately, a majority of patients experiences disease progression. ICPis re-challenge could be an attractive option but no data supporting this strategy are available. Here we report outcomes of a large cohort of NSCLC patients treated with anti-PD1/PDL1 re-challenge.

      Method

      We retrospectively collected data about 144 advanced NSCLC patients (diagnosis between 2010 and 2018) from 26 French centers. Patients were re-challenged with ICPis after at least 12 weeks of discontinuation for toxicity, disease progression or clinical decision. Progression Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) were calculated from the start of first or second ICPi to disease progression (PFS1;PFSR) and death or last follow-up (OS1;OS2) respectively.

      Result

      Median age was 63 year [39 –83], most of patients were male (67%), smokers (87%), adenocarcinomas (62%) and stage IV at diagnosis (66%). Most of patients received the first ICPi round in first or second line (66%) and the second ICPi round in third line or later (79%). In both settings patients received preferentially an anti-PD1 (87%) and no differences were detected regarding brain metastasis or ECOG PS (P = 1.10-1 and P = 1.10-1 respectively). The Best Response during the re-challenge was not associated to that one achieved to the first ICPi (P = 1.10-1). The median PFS1 and PFSR were 13 months [95% CI 10-16.5] and 4.4 months [95% CI 3-6.5] respectively. PFSR was longer in patients discontinued because of clinical decision (6.5 months [95% CI 2.5-11.9]) or toxicity (5.8 months [95%CI 3.5-18]) compared to disease progression (2.9 months [95% CI 2.0-4.4]) (P = 2.10-2) and in those not receiving chemotherapy between the two ICPis (5.8 months [95%CI 4.1-10.5]) compared to those who did (3.0 months [95% CI 2.0-4.4])(P = 2.10-3). Median OS1 was 3.3 years [95% CI 2.9-3.9] without differences according to the discontinuation reason (P =2.10-1). Median OS2 was 1.5 y [95%CI 1.0-2.1] and was longer in patients discontinuing the first ICPi due to toxicity (2.1y [95%CI 1.4-NR]) compared to disease progression (1.0y [95%CI 0.4-1.5]) or clinical decision (1.5y [95%CI 0.4-NR]) (P = 3.10-2). Neither OS1 nor OS2 were affected by treatments received between the two ICPis (P = 3.10-1 and P = 1.10-1 respectively).

      Conclusion

      ICPis re-challenge might be a useful option mainly in patients discontinuing the first ICPi because of toxicity or clinical decision and in those able to keep a treatment-free period between the two ICPis.

      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.

  • +

    MA21 - Non EGFR/MET Targeted Therapies (ID 153)

    • Event: WCLC 2019
    • Type: Mini Oral Session
    • Track: Targeted Therapy
    • Presentations: 1
    • Now Available
    • +

      MA21.07 - Circulating Tumor DNA Analysis Depicts Potential Mechanisms of Resistance to BRAF-Targeted Therapies in BRAF+ Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (Now Available) (ID 1365)

      14:30 - 16:00  |  Author(s): Radj Gervais

      • Abstract
      • Presentation
      • Slides

      Background

      Oncogenic BRAF-V600 mutations are observed in 1-2% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Targeted therapies including vemurafenib (V), dabrafenib (D) or combination of dabrafenib plus trametinib (D+T) are associated with favorable outcomes in these patients (pts). The mechanisms of resistance to BRAF-targeted therapies (BRAF-TT) in NSCLC are largely unknown.

      Method

      We performed genomic profiling of serial circulating-tumor DNA (ctDNA) in a cohort of 79 metastatic BRAF-mutant NSCLC pts (96% V600E, 4% non-V600). BRAFmutational status was ascertained based on local testing. Plasma samples were collected, from 2014-2018 in 27 Hospitals, from pts treated with V (n=34), D (n=2) or D+T (n=23). We collected 41 plasma samples at baseline to BRAF-TT, 40 at progressive disease (PD) and ~200 samples during treatment follow-up, concomitant to routine radiological evaluation. Inivata InVisionSeq™ assay was used to detect the presence of SNVs, indels and CNAs in 36-cancer related genes.

      Result

      At baseline, 72,5% of BRAF mutations (V600E and non-V600E) were detected in plasma. BRAF-V600E detection in plasma was associated with the presence of liver metastasis, versus BRAF-V600E-negative cases (22% vs. 7%, respectively). Co-occurring molecular alterations at baseline, besides BRAF-V600E, were observed in 18/26 (70%) cases: FGFR2 (1pt), PIK3CA (2pts), ERBB2 (1pt), CTNNB1 (2pts) and IDH1 (2pts). FGFR2, PIK3CA or CTNNB1 alterations were associated with PD as the best response to the subsequent BRAF-TT. TP53 and STK11 mutations were observed in 54% (14/26) and 8% (2/26) of pts, respectively. Complete clearance of BRAF-V600E in plasma at baseline was observed at the first CT-scan evaluation in 42% (3/7) and 82% (9/11) pts treated with V or D+T, respectively. These pts were in complete or partial response, suggesting that monitoring BRAF-V600E levels in plasma on treatment may be a clinically useful marker of tumor response. At PD, a consistent rebound in BRAF-V600E plasma levels was observed in 60% (24/40) pts. Resistance to V was associated with alterations in the MAPK pathway: 1pt (KRAS), 1pt (GNA11), 1pt (NRAS and GNAS) and 1pt (MAP2K1 and NFE2L2). Activating PI3KCA mutations were observed in 4 pts who progressed in <6 months on V treatment. ctDNA analyses at PD under D+T revealed that, similar to what we observed in patients who progressed on V, alterations in KRAS, NRAS, PIK3CA and CTNNB1 are associated with D+T resistance. Prediction of the impact of these alterations, at the protein level, was assessed using in silico structure modeling and will be presented.

      Conclusion

      ctDNA monitoring might be an informative tool for assessing disease response and resistance in NSCLC pts treated with BRAF-TT. MAPK reactivation remains an important resistance mechanism to BRAFi-monotherapy or to BRAFi and MEKi combination 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.

      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.

  • +

    OA15 - Targeted Agents and Immunotherapy for Small Cell Lung Cancer (ID 152)

    • Event: WCLC 2019
    • Type: Oral Session
    • Track: Small Cell Lung Cancer/NET
    • Presentations: 1
    • Now Available
    • +

      OA15.02 - Carboplatin-Etoposide Versus Topotecan as Second-Line Treatment for Sensitive Relapsed Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Phase 3 Trial (Now Available) (ID 546)

      14:30 - 16:00  |  Author(s): Radj Gervais

      • Abstract
      • Presentation
      • Slides

      Background

      Topotecan is currently the only drug approved in Europe in second line setting for small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). This study investigates whether the doublet carboplatin-Etoposide was superior to topotecan monotherapy as second-line treatment in patients with sensitive relapsed SCLC.

      Method

      this open-label, multicenter, phase 3 trial randomized patients with SCLC that responded to first-line platin etoposide doublet treatment but showed evidence of disease relapse or progression at least 90 days after completion of the first-line treatment. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive combination chemotherapy (Six cycles of 3-weeks Carboplatin, AUC 5, day 1 and Etoposide 100 mg/Sqm/d 1-3, intra-venous) or oral Topotecan (2.3 mg/Sqm/d 1-5, every 3 weeks). Primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life and tolerance in the intention-to-treat population, (clinical trialgouv: NCT02738346)

      Result

      178 patients were screened and 164 randomized in 36 centers, with 82 assigned to each treatment group (age: 64.5 ± 7.2 years, men: 72.8%, PS 0/1/>1: 34.7%/56.3%/ 9%. Median PFS was significantly longer in combination chemotherapy group (4.7 months, 95% CI: 3.9-5.5) compare to topotecan group (2.7 months, 95% CI: 2.3-3.2), HR: 0.6, 95% CI 0.4-0.8, p < 0.002. The ORR were significantly more important in the combination chemotherapy than in topotecan arm (ORR 49 % vs 25 %, p < 0,002), but without difference in term of median OS, 7.5 months (95% CI: 5.4-8.7) in combination chemotherapy group versus 7.4 months (95% CI.6.0-9.3) in topotecan arm. Grade 3/4 neutropenia were significantly more common in the topotecan group than in the combination chemotherapy group (35.8% vs 19.7 %, p < 0.001. There is a non-significant trend for more febrile neutropenia in topotecan arm compare to combination arm (13.6 % 6.2 %, p = 0.19, and no difference for grade 3/4 thrombopenia, 35.8 % vs 30.9 %, and anemia, 24.6 % vs 21 %, for topotecan and combination arms, respectively. Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the topotecan arm (febrile neutropenia with sepsis), none in the combination arm. Results of quality of life outcomes will be presented at the meeting.

      Conclusion

      platin - etoposide re-challenge can be considered as a standard second-line chemotherapy for sensitive relapsed SCLC.

      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.