Roy S Herbst1, Mary W Redman2, Edward S Kim3, Thomas J Semrad4, Lyudmila Bazhenova5, Gregory Masters6, Kurt Oettel7, Perry Guaglianone8, Christopher Reynolds9, Anand Karnad10, Susanne M Arnold11, Marileila Varella-Garcia12, James Moon2, Philip C Mack4, Charles D Blanke13, Fred R Hirsch12, Karen Kelly4, David R Gandara4. 1. Yale Cancer Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. Electronic address: roy.herbst@yale.edu. 2. Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) Statistical Center and Clinical Biostatistics, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. 3. Levine Cancer Institute, Carolinas Healthcare System, Charlotte, NC, USA. 4. University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA, USA. 5. Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. 6. Christiana Care Health Systems, Helen F Graham Cancer Center and Research Institute, Wilmington, DE, USA. 7. Wisconsin National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP), Gundersen Health System, LaCrosse, WI, USA. 8. Heartland Cancer Research NCORP, Cancer Care Specialists of Central Illinois, Decatur, IL, USA. 9. Michigan Cancer Research Consortium NCORP, St Joseph Mercy Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 10. University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA. 11. Markey Cancer Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA. 12. Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA. 13. SWOG Group Chair's Office, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:EGFR antibodies have shown promise in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), particularly with squamous cell histology. We hypothesised that EGFR copy number by fluorescence in-situ hybridisation (FISH) can identify patients most likely to benefit from these drugs combined with chemotherapy and we aimed to explore the activity of cetuximab with chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC who are EGFR FISH-positive. METHODS: We did this open-label, phase 3 study (SWOG S0819) at 277 sites in the USA and Mexico. We randomly assigned (1:1) eligible patients with treatment-naive stage IV NSCLC to receive paclitaxel (200 mg/m2; every 21 days) plus carboplatin (area under the curve of 6 by modified Calvert formula; every 21 days) or carboplatin plus paclitaxel and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg; every 21 days), either with cetuximab (250 mg/m2 weekly after loading dose; cetuximab group) or without (control group), stratified by bevacizumab treatment, smoking status, and M-substage using a dynamic-balancing algorithm. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival in patients with EGFR FISH-positive cancer and overall survival in the entire study population. We analysed clinical outcomes with the intention-to-treat principle and analysis of safety outcomes included patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00946712). FINDINGS: Between Aug 13, 2009, and May 30, 2014, we randomly assigned 1313 patients to the control group (n=657; 277 withbevacizumab and 380 without bevacizumab in the intention-to-treat population) or the cetuximabgroup (n=656; 283 withbevacizumab and 373 without bevacizumab in the intention-to-treat population). EGFR FISH was assessable in 976 patients and 400 patients (41%) were EGFR FISH-positive. The median follow-up for patients last known to be alive was 35·2 months (IQR 22·9-39·9). After 194 progression-free survival events in the cetuximab group and 198 in the control group in the EGFRFISH-positive subpopulation, progression-free survival did not differ between treatment groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0·92, 95% CI 0·75-1·12; p=0·40; median 5·4 months [95% CI 4·5-5·7] vs 4·8 months [3·9-5·5]). After 570 deaths in the cetuximab group and 593 in the control group, overall survival did not differ between the treatment groups in the entire study population (HR 0·93, 95% CI 0·83-1·04; p=0·22; median 10·9 months [95% CI 9·5-12·0] vs 9·2 months [8·7-10·3]). In the prespecified analysis of EGFR FISH-positive subpopulation with squamous cell histology, overall survival was significantly longer in the cetuximab group than in the control group (HR 0·58, 95% CI 0·36-0·86; p=0·0071), although progression-free survival did not differ between treatment groups in this subgroup (0·68, 0·46-1·01; p=0·055). Overall survival and progression-free survival did not differ among patients who were EGFR FISH non-positive with squamous cell histology (HR 1·04, 95% CI 0·78-1·40; p=0·77; and 1·02, 0·77-1·36; p=0·88 respectively) or patients with non-squamous histology regardless of EGFR FISH status (for EGFR FISH-positive 0·88, 0·68-1·14; p=0·34; and 0·99, 0·78-1·27; p=0·96; respectively; and for EGFR FISH non-positive 1·00, 0·85-1·17; p=0·97; and 1·03, 0·88-1·20; p=0·69; respectively). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (210 [37%] in the cetuximab group vs 158 [25%] in the control group), decreased leucocyte count (103 [16%] vs 74 [20%]), fatigue (81 [13%] vs 74 [20%]), and acne or rash (52 [8%] vs one [<1%]). 59 (9%) patients in the cetuximab group and 31 (5%) patients in the control group had severe adverse events. Deaths related to treatment occurred in 32 (6%) patients in the cetuximab group and 13 (2%) patients in the control group. INTERPRETATION: Although this study did not meet its primary endpoints, prespecified subgroup analyses of patients with EGFR FISH-positive squamous-cell carcinoma cancers are encouraging and support continued evaluation of anti-EGFR antibodies in this subpopulation. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute and Eli Lilly and Company.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:EGFR antibodies have shown promise in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), particularly with squamous cell histology. We hypothesised that EGFR copy number by fluorescence in-situ hybridisation (FISH) can identify patients most likely to benefit from these drugs combined with chemotherapy and we aimed to explore the activity of cetuximab with chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC who are EGFR FISH-positive. METHODS: We did this open-label, phase 3 study (SWOG S0819) at 277 sites in the USA and Mexico. We randomly assigned (1:1) eligible patients with treatment-naive stage IV NSCLC to receive paclitaxel (200 mg/m2; every 21 days) plus carboplatin (area under the curve of 6 by modified Calvert formula; every 21 days) or carboplatin plus paclitaxel and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg; every 21 days), either with cetuximab (250 mg/m2 weekly after loading dose; cetuximab group) or without (control group), stratified by bevacizumab treatment, smoking status, and M-substage using a dynamic-balancing algorithm. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival in patients with EGFR FISH-positive cancer and overall survival in the entire study population. We analysed clinical outcomes with the intention-to-treat principle and analysis of safety outcomes included patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00946712). FINDINGS: Between Aug 13, 2009, and May 30, 2014, we randomly assigned 1313 patients to the control group (n=657; 277 with bevacizumab and 380 without bevacizumab in the intention-to-treat population) or the cetuximab group (n=656; 283 with bevacizumab and 373 without bevacizumab in the intention-to-treat population). EGFR FISH was assessable in 976 patients and 400 patients (41%) were EGFR FISH-positive. The median follow-up for patients last known to be alive was 35·2 months (IQR 22·9-39·9). After 194 progression-free survival events in the cetuximab group and 198 in the control group in the EGFR FISH-positive subpopulation, progression-free survival did not differ between treatment groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0·92, 95% CI 0·75-1·12; p=0·40; median 5·4 months [95% CI 4·5-5·7] vs 4·8 months [3·9-5·5]). After 570 deaths in the cetuximab group and 593 in the control group, overall survival did not differ between the treatment groups in the entire study population (HR 0·93, 95% CI 0·83-1·04; p=0·22; median 10·9 months [95% CI 9·5-12·0] vs 9·2 months [8·7-10·3]). In the prespecified analysis of EGFR FISH-positive subpopulation with squamous cell histology, overall survival was significantly longer in the cetuximab group than in the control group (HR 0·58, 95% CI 0·36-0·86; p=0·0071), although progression-free survival did not differ between treatment groups in this subgroup (0·68, 0·46-1·01; p=0·055). Overall survival and progression-free survival did not differ among patients who were EGFR FISH non-positive with squamous cell histology (HR 1·04, 95% CI 0·78-1·40; p=0·77; and 1·02, 0·77-1·36; p=0·88 respectively) or patients with non-squamous histology regardless of EGFR FISH status (for EGFR FISH-positive 0·88, 0·68-1·14; p=0·34; and 0·99, 0·78-1·27; p=0·96; respectively; and for EGFR FISH non-positive 1·00, 0·85-1·17; p=0·97; and 1·03, 0·88-1·20; p=0·69; respectively). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (210 [37%] in the cetuximab group vs 158 [25%] in the control group), decreased leucocyte count (103 [16%] vs 74 [20%]), fatigue (81 [13%] vs 74 [20%]), and acne or rash (52 [8%] vs one [<1%]). 59 (9%) patients in the cetuximab group and 31 (5%) patients in the control group had severe adverse events. Deaths related to treatment occurred in 32 (6%) patients in the cetuximab group and 13 (2%) patients in the control group. INTERPRETATION: Although this study did not meet its primary endpoints, prespecified subgroup analyses of patients with EGFR FISH-positive squamous-cell carcinoma cancers are encouraging and support continued evaluation of anti-EGFR antibodies in this subpopulation. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute and Eli Lilly and Company.
Authors: Roy S Herbst; Karen Kelly; Kari Chansky; Philip C Mack; Wilbur A Franklin; Fred R Hirsch; James N Atkins; Shaker R Dakhil; Kathy S Albain; Edward S Kim; Mary Redman; John J Crowley; David R Gandara Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-10-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: James Chih-Hsin Yang; Yi-Long Wu; Martin Schuler; Martin Sebastian; Sanjay Popat; Nobuyuki Yamamoto; Caicun Zhou; Cheng-Ping Hu; Kenneth O'Byrne; Jifeng Feng; Shun Lu; Yunchao Huang; Sarayut L Geater; Kye Young Lee; Chun-Ming Tsai; Vera Gorbunova; Vera Hirsh; Jaafar Bennouna; Sergey Orlov; Tony Mok; Michael Boyer; Wu-Chou Su; Ki Hyeong Lee; Terufumi Kato; Dan Massey; Mehdi Shahidi; Victoria Zazulina; Lecia V Sequist Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-01-12 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Roy S Herbst; Diane Prager; Robert Hermann; Lou Fehrenbacher; Bruce E Johnson; Alan Sandler; Mark G Kris; Hai T Tran; Pam Klein; Xin Li; David Ramies; David H Johnson; Vincent A Miller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-07-25 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ming-Sound Tsao; Akira Sakurada; Jean-Claude Cutz; Chang-Qi Zhu; Suzanne Kamel-Reid; Jeremy Squire; Ian Lorimer; Tong Zhang; Ni Liu; Manijeh Daneshmand; Paula Marrano; Gilda da Cunha Santos; Alain Lagarde; Frank Richardson; Lesley Seymour; Marlo Whitehead; Keyue Ding; Joseph Pater; Frances A Shepherd Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-07-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Thomas J Lynch; Daphne W Bell; Raffaella Sordella; Sarada Gurubhagavatula; Ross A Okimoto; Brian W Brannigan; Patricia L Harris; Sara M Haserlat; Jeffrey G Supko; Frank G Haluska; David N Louis; David C Christiani; Jeff Settleman; Daniel A Haber Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-04-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert Pirker; Jose R Pereira; Aleksandra Szczesna; Joachim von Pawel; Maciej Krzakowski; Rodryg Ramlau; Ihor Vynnychenko; Keunchil Park; Chih-Teng Yu; Valentyn Ganul; Jae-Kyung Roh; Emilio Bajetta; Kenneth O'Byrne; Filippo de Marinis; Wilfried Eberhardt; Thomas Goddemeier; Michael Emig; Ulrich Gatzemeier Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-05-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Edward S Kim; James Moon; Roy S Herbst; Mary W Redman; Shaker R Dakhil; Mario R Velasco; Fred R Hirsch; Philip C Mack; Karen Kelly; John V Heymach; David R Gandara Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Steven B Maron; Lindsay Alpert; Heewon A Kwak; Samantha Lomnicki; Leah Chase; David Xu; Emily O'Day; Rebecca J Nagy; Richard B Lanman; Fabiola Cecchi; Todd Hembrough; Alexa Schrock; John Hart; Shu-Yuan Xiao; Namrata Setia; Daniel V T Catenacci Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Julie G Fisher; David Tait; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer; Susan Halabi; Pam K Mangat; Julian C Schink; Ricardo H Alvarez; Dan Veljovich; Timothy L Cannon; Pamela A Crilley; Theodore Pollock; Carmen J Calfa; Tareq Al Baghdadi; Ramya Thota; Nicole Fleming; Jared A Cotta; Andrew L Rygiel; Sasha L Warren; Richard L Schilsky Journal: Target Oncol Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 4.493