Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment Short Form (PG-SGA SF) is a valid screening tool in chemotherapy outpatients

Purpose In the oncology population where malnutrition prevalence is high, more descriptive screening tools can provide further information to assist triaging and capture acute change. The Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment Short Form (PG-SGA SF) is a component of a nutritional assessment tool which could be used for descriptive nutrition screening. The purpose of this study was to conduct a secondary analysis of nutrition screening and assessment data to identify the most relevant information contributing to the PG-SGA SF to identify malnutrition risk with high sensitivity and specificity. Methods This was an observational, cross-sectional study of 300 consecutive adult patients receiving ambulatory anti-cancer treatment at an Australian tertiary hospital. Anthropometric and patient descriptive data were collected. The scored PG-SGA generated a score for nutritional risk (PG-SGA SF) and a global rating for nutrition status. Receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) were generated to determine optimal cut-off scores for combinations of the PG-SGA SF boxes with the greatest sensitivity and specificity for predicting malnutrition according to scored PG-SGA global rating. Results The additive scores of boxes 1–3 had the highest sensitivity (90.2 %) while maintaining satisfactory specificity (67.5 %) and demonstrating high diagnostic value (AUC = 0.85, 95 % CI = 0.81–0.89). The inclusion of box 4 (PG-SGA SF) did not add further value as a screening tool (AUC = 0.85, 95 % CI = 0.80–0.89; sensitivity 80.4 %; specificity 72.3 %). Conclusions The validity of the PG-SGA SF in chemotherapy outpatients was confirmed. The present study however demonstrated that the functional capacity question (box 4) does not improve the overall discriminatory value of the PG-SGA SF.

First-Line afatinib versus chemotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and common epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutations and brain metastases

Introduction Metastatic spread to the brain is common in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but these patients are generally excluded from prospective clinical trials. The studies, phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin plus pemetrexed in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations (LUX-Lung 3) and a randomized, open-label, phase III study of BIBW 2992 versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with stage IIIB or IV adenocarcinoma of the lung harbouring an EGFR activating mutation (LUX-Lung 6) investigated first-line afatinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy in epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) mutation-positive patients with NSCLC and included patients with brain metastases; prespecified subgroup analyses are assessed in this article. Methods For both LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6, prespecified subgroup analyses of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and objective response rate were undertaken in patients with asymptomatic brain metastases at baseline (n = 35 and n = 46, respectively). Post hoc analyses of clinical outcomes was undertaken in the combined data set (n = 81). Results In both studies, there was a trend toward improved PFS with afatinib versus chemotherapy in patients with brain metastases (LUX-Lung 3: 11.1 versus 5.4 months, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.54, p = 0.1378; LUX-Lung 6: 8.2 versus 4.7 months, HR = 0.47, p = 0.1060). The magnitude of PFS improvement with afatinib was similar to that observed in patients without brain metastases. In combined analysis, PFS was significantly improved with afatinib versus with chemotherapy in patients with brain metastases (8.2 versus 5.4 months; HR, 0.50; p = 0.0297). Afatinib significantly improved the objective response rate versus chemotherapy in patients with brain metastases. Safety findings were consistent with previous reports. Conclusions These findings lend support to the clinical activity of afatinib in EGFR mutation–positive patients with NSCLC and asymptomatic brain metastases.

The emerging role of microRNAs in resistance to lung cancer treatments

One of the major challenges in the treatment of lung cancer is the development of drug resistance. This represents a major obstacle in the treatment of patients, limiting the efficacy of both conventional chemotherapy and biological therapies. Deciphering the mechanisms of resistance is critical to further understanding the multifactorial pathways involved, and in developing more specific targeted treatments. To date, numerous studies have reported the potential role of microRNAs (miRNAs) in resistance to various cancer treatments. MicroRNAs are a family of small non-coding RNAs that regulate gene expression by sequence-specific targeting of mRNAs causing translational repression or mRNA degradation. More than 1200 validated human miRNAs have been identified to date. While as little as one miRNA can regulate hundreds of targets, a single target can also be affected by multiple miRNAs. Evidence suggests that dysregulation of specific miRNAs may be involved in the acquisition of resistance to a number of cancer treatments, thereby modulating the sensitivity of cancer cells to such therapies. Therefore, targeting miRNAs may be an attractive strategy for developing novel and more effective individualized therapies, improving drug efficiency, and for predicting patient response to different treatments. In this review, we provide an overview on the role of miRNAs in resistance to current lung cancer therapies and novel biological agents.

Cilengitide combined with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients: Results of an open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study (CERTO)

Background: This multicentre, open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study evaluated cilengitide in combination with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy, compared with cetuximab and chemotherapy alone, as first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive cetuximab plus platinum-based chemotherapy alone (control), or combined with cilengitide 2000 mg 1×/week i.v. (CIL-once) or 2×/week i.v. (CIL-twice). A protocol amendment limited enrolment to patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) histoscore ≥200 and closed the CIL-twice arm for practical feasibility issues. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; independent read); secondary end points included overall survival (OS), safety, and biomarker analyses. A comparison between the CIL-once and control arms is reported, both for the total cohorts, as well as for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200. Results: There were 85 patients in the CIL-once group and 84 in the control group. The PFS (independent read) was 6.2 versus 5.0 months for CIL-once versus control [hazard ratio (HR) 0.72; P = 0.085]; for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200, PFS was 6.8 versus 5.6 months, respectively (HR 0.57; P = 0.0446). Median OS was 13.6 for CIL-once versus 9.7 months for control (HR 0.81; P = 0.265). In patients with EGFR ≥200, OS was 13.2 versus 11.8 months, respectively (HR 0.95; P = 0.855). No major differences in adverse events between CIL-once and control were reported; nausea (59% versus 56%, respectively) and neutropenia (54% versus 46%, respectively) were the most frequent. There was no increased incidence of thromboembolic events or haemorrhage in cilengitide-treated patients. αvβ3 and αvβ5 expression was neither a predictive nor a prognostic indicator. Conclusions: The addition of cilengitide to cetuximab/chemotherapy indicated potential clinical activity, with a trend for PFS difference in the independent-read analysis. However, the observed inconsistencies across end points suggest additional investigations are required to substantiate a potential role of other integrin inhibitors in NSCLC treatment.

Afatinib versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma (LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6): analysis of overall survival data from two randomised, phase 3 trials

Background We aimed to assess the effect of afatinib on overall survival of patients with EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma through an analysis of data from two open-label, randomised, phase 3 trials. Methods Previously untreated patients with EGFR mutation-positive stage IIIB or IV lung adenocarcinoma were enrolled in LUX-Lung 3 (n=345) and LUX-Lung 6 (n=364). These patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive afatinib or chemotherapy (pemetrexed-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 3] or gemcitabine-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 6]), stratified by EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion [del19], Leu858Arg, or other) and ethnic origin (LUX-Lung 3 only). We planned analyses of mature overall survival data in the intention-to-treat population after 209 (LUX-Lung 3) and 237 (LUX-Lung 6) deaths. These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00949650 and NCT01121393. Findings Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 3 was 41 months (IQR 35–44); 213 (62%) of 345 patients had died. Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 6 was 33 months (IQR 31–37); 246 (68%) of 364 patients had died. In LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 28·2 months (95% CI 24·6–33·6) in the afatinib group and 28·2 months (20·7–33·2) in the pemetrexed-cisplatin group (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·66–1·17, p=0·39). In LUX-Lung 6, median overall survival was 23·1 months (95% CI 20·4–27·3) in the afatinib group and 23·5 months (18·0–25·6) in the gemcitabine-cisplatin group (HR 0·93, 95% CI 0·72–1·22, p=0·61). However, in preplanned analyses, overall survival was significantly longer for patients with del19-positive tumours in the afatinib group than in the chemotherapy group in both trials: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 33·3 months (95% CI 26·8–41·5) in the afatinib group versus 21·1 months (16·3–30·7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·54, 95% CI 0·36–0·79, p=0·0015); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 31·4 months (95% CI 24·2–35·3) versus 18·4 months (14·6–25·6), respectively (HR 0·64, 95% CI 0·44–0·94, p=0·023). By contrast, there were no significant differences by treatment group for patients with EGFR Leu858Arg-positive tumours in either trial: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 27·6 months (19·8–41·7) in the afatinib group versus 40·3 months (24·3–not estimable) in the chemotherapy group (HR 1·30, 95% CI 0·80–2·11, p=0·29); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 19·6 months (95% CI 17·0–22·1) versus 24·3 months (19·0–27·0), respectively (HR 1·22, 95% CI 0·81–1·83, p=0·34). In both trials, the most common afatinib-related grade 3–4 adverse events were rash or acne (37 [16%] of 229 patients in LUX-Lung 3 and 35 [15%] of 239 patients in LUX-Lung 6), diarrhoea (33 [14%] and 13 [5%]), paronychia (26 [11%] in LUX-Lung 3 only), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 [5%] in LUX-Lung 6 only). In LUX-Lung 3, neutropenia (20 [18%] of 111 patients), fatigue (14 [13%]) and leucopenia (nine [8%]) were the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events, while in LUX-Lung 6, the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (30 [27%] of 113 patients), vomiting (22 [19%]), and leucopenia (17 [15%]). Interpretation Although afatinib did not improve overall survival in the whole population of either trial, overall survival was improved with the drug for patients with del19 EGFR mutations. The absence of an effect in patients with Leu858Arg EGFR mutations suggests that EGFR del19-positive disease might be distinct from Leu858Arg-positive disease and that these subgroups should be analysed separately in future trials.

Targeting the fibroblast growth factor receptor family in cancer

Fibroblast growth factors (FGFs) regulate a plethora of biological functions, in both the embryonic and adult stages of development, binding their cognate receptors and thus activating a variety of downstream signalling pathways. Deregulation of the FGF/FGFR signalling axis, observed in multifarious tumor types including squamous non-small cell lung cancer, occurs through genomic FGFR alterations that drive ligand-independent receptor signalling or alterations that support ligand-dependent activation. Mutations are not restricted to the tyrosine kinase domain and aberrations appear to be tumor type dependent. As well as its complementarity and synergy with VEGF of particular interest is the interplay between FGFR and EGFR and the ability of these pathways to offer a compensatory signalling escape mechanism when either is inhibited. Hence there exists a rationale for a combinatorial approach to inhibition of these dysregulated pathways to reverse drug resistance. To date, several multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitors as well as FGFR specific tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), monoclonal antibodies and FGF ligand traps have been developed. Promising preclinical data has resulted in several drugs entering clinical trials. This review explores aberrant FGFR and its potential as a therapeutic target in solid tumors.

VEGF-mediated cell survival in non-small-cell lung cancer: implications for epigenetic targeting of VEGF receptors as a therapeutic approach

Aims: To evaluate the potential therapeutic utility of histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) in targeting VEGF receptors in non-small-cell lung cancer. Materials & methods: Non-small-cell lung cancer cells were screened for the VEGF receptors at the mRNA and protein levels, while cellular responses to various HDACi were examined. Results: Significant effects on the regulation of the VEGF receptors were observed in response to HDACi. These were associated with decreased secretion of VEGF, decreased cellular proliferation and increased apoptosis which could not be rescued by addition of exogenous recombinant VEGF. Direct remodeling of the VEGFR1 and VEGFR2 promoters was observed. In contrast, HDACi treatments resulted in significant downregulation of the Neuropilin receptors. Conclusion: Epigenetic targeting of the Neuropilin receptors may offer an effective treatment for lung cancer patients in the clinical setting.