| Literature DB >> 28396848 |
Sara Victoria Soldera1, Natasha B Leighl1.
Abstract
Despite advances in molecular characterization and lung cancer treatment in recent years, treatment options for patients diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma of the lung (SCC) remain limited as actionable mutations are rarely detected in this subtype. This article reviews potential molecular targets and associated novel agents for the treatment of advanced SCC in the era of personalized medicine. Elements of various pathways including epidermal growth factor receptor, PI3KCA, fibroblast growth factor receptor, retinoblastoma, cyclin-dependent kinases, discoidin domain receptor tyrosine kinase 2, and mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition may play pivotal roles in the development of SCC and are under investigation for drug development.Entities:
Keywords: lung cancer; molecular sequence data; personalized medicine; squamous cell carcinoma; targeted therapy
Year: 2017 PMID: 28396848 PMCID: PMC5366319 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2017.00050
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1General signaling schema of cell membrane (EGFR, FGFR, MET, and DDR2), cytoplastic (PI3KCA, AKT, mTOR, and PTEN), and nuclear (Rb1 and CDK) molecular targets in squamous NSCLC. CDK, cyclin dependent kinases; DDR2, discoidin domain receptor tyrosine kinase 2; ECM, extracellular matrix; EGF, epidermal growth factor; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; FGF, fibroblast growth factor; FGFR, fibroblast growth factor receptor; HGF, hepatocyte growth factor; mTOR, mammalian target of rapamycin; MET, mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition; PTEN, phosphatase and tensin homolog. Credit to Matthew Villagonzalo, graphic artist, University Health Network.
Estimated incidence of targetable molecular aberrations in squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
| Gene and aberration | Incidence (%) | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Mutation | 0–4.9 | Lindeman et al. ( |
| 1.1 | TCGA ( | |
| 4 | Spoerke et al. ( | |
| Amplification | 7 | TCGA ( |
| Rearrangement | 0 | Lindeman et al. ( |
| Mutation | 0.8 | CLCGP/NGM ( |
| 8 | TCGA ( | |
| Amplification | 9.7–22 | Weiss et al. ( |
| 16 | Heist et al. ( | |
| Amplification | 37 | Spoerke et al. ( |
| 33 | Yamamoto et al. ( | |
| Mutation | 9 | Spoerke et al. ( |
| 16 | TCGA ( | |
| 3.6 | Yamamoto et al. ( | |
| 6.5 | Kawano et al. ( | |
| Loss | 21 | Spoerke et al. ( |
| Mutation | 8 | TCGA ( |
| 10.2 | Jin et al. ( | |
| Mutation | 7 | TCGA ( |
| Amplification | Significantly amplified | TCGA ( |
| Mutation | 15 | TCGA ( |
| Loss | 72 | TCGA ( |
| Mutation | 1.1 | CLCGP/NGM ( |
| 3.8 | Hammerman et al. ( | |
| amplification | 6.2–10.3 | Go et al. ( |
.
.
.
.
.
Clinical trials of targeted therapies in squamous NSCLC.
| Agents | Trial | Phase | Outcome | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (95% CI) | ||||
| Erlotinib versus placebo | BR21 | III | OS HR 0.70 (0.58–0.85) | Shepherd et al. ( |
| Gefitinib versus D | INTEREST | III | OS HR 1.020 (0.905–1.150) | Kim et al. ( |
| Afatinib versus erlotinib | LUX-Lung 8 | III | PFS HR 0.81 (0.69–0.96) | Soria et al. ( |
| OS HR 0.81 (0.69–0.95) | ||||
| C + T ± cetuximab | BMS 099 | III | PFS HR 0.902 (0.761–1.069) | Lynch et al. ( |
| OS HR 0.890 (0.754–1.051) | ||||
| Cis + V ± cetuximab | FLEX | III | OS HR 0.871 (0.762–0.996) | Pirker et al. ( |
| Chemo ± cetuximab | Pujol et al. | Individual patient data meta-analysis | PFS HR 0.90 (0.82–1.00) | Pujol et al. ( |
| OS HR 0.88 (0.79–0.97) | ||||
| Cis + G ± necitumumab | SQUIRE | III | OS HR 0.84 (0.74–0.96) | Thatcher et al. ( |
| P ± matuzumab (1 versus 3 week) | Schiller et al. | Randomized II | ORR 5 versus 11% ( | Schiller et al. ( |
| OS 1 week HR 0.67 (0.3–0.21) | ||||
| OS 3 week HR 1.66 (0.9–0.86) | ||||
| C + T ± panitumumab | Crawford et al. | Randomized II | TTP HR 0.9 (0.66–1.21) | Crawford et al. ( |
| D ± nintedanib | LUME-lung 1 | III | PFS HR 0.79 (0.68–0.92) | Reck et al. ( |
| OS HR 0.94 (0.83–1.05) | ||||
| Dovitinib | Lim et al. | Single arm II | ORR 11.5% (0.8–23.8) | Lim et al. ( |
| AZD4547 | Paik et al. | Ib | 0 CR, 1 PR, 4 SD, 9 PD | Paik et al. ( |
| BGJ398 | Nogova et al. | I | 15.4% PR, 34.6% SD | Nogova et al. ( |
| 23.1% PR, 26.9% unknown | ||||
| Everolimus | Soria et al. | Single arm II | ORR 4.7% | Soria et al. ( |
| Everolimus + D | Ramalingam et al. | Single arm II | ORR 8% | Ramalingam et al. ( |
| Erlotinib ± everolimus | Besse et al. | Randomized II | PFS 0.769 (0.506–1.167) | Besse et al. ( |
| Buparlisib | BASALT-1 | Single arm II | 12 week PFS 23.3% (9.9–42.3) | Vansteenkiste et al. ( |
| D ± PX-866 | Levy et al. | Randomized II | med PFS 2 versus 2.9 mo ( | Levy et al. ( |
| med OS 7.9 versus 9.4 mo ( | ||||
| Palbociclib | Gopalan et al. | Single arm II | ORR 0%, SD 50% (8/16) | Gopalan et al. ( |
| Med PFS 12.5 week | ||||
| Abemaciclib | Patnaik et al. | I | ORR 3%, DCR 49% | Patnaik et al. ( |
| Dasatinib | Johnson et al. | Single arm II | DCR 43%, ORR 3% | Johnson et al. ( |
| Med PFS 1.36 mo | ||||
| Med OS 11.4 mo | ||||
| Dasatinib + erlotinib | Haura et al. | I/II | DCR 62%, ORR 7% | Haura et al. ( |
| Med PFS 2.7 mo | ||||
| Med OS 5.6 mo | ||||
| PL + TAX ± onartuzumab | Hirsch et al. | Randomized II | PFS HR 0.95 (0.63–1.43) | Hirsch et al. ( |
| OS HR 0.90 (0.55–1.47) | ||||
| Erlotinib ± tivantinib | Sequist et al. | Randomized II | PFS HR 0.81 (0.57–1.16) | Sequist et al. ( |
| OS HR 0.87 (0.59–1.27) | ||||
| Erlotinib ± onartuzumab | METLung | III | PFS HR 0.99 (0.81–1.20) | Spigel et al. ( |
| OS HR 1.27 (0.98–1.65) | ||||
| Erlotinib ± onartuzumab | Spigel et al. | Randomized II | PFS HR 1.09 (0.73–1.62) | Spigel et al. ( |
| OS HR 0.80 (0.50–1.28) | ||||
C, carboplatin; Cis, cisplatin; CR, complete response; D, docetaxel; DCR, disease control rate; G, gemcitabine; HR, hazard ratio; Med, median; ORR, objective response rate; OS, overall survival; P, pemetrexed; PD, progressive disease; PFS, progression-free survival; PL, platinum; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; T, taxane; TAX, paclitaxel; TTP, time to progression; V, vinorelbine.
.
.