CA Cancer J Clin. 2011 Mar-Apr;61(2):69-90. doi: 10.3322/caac.20107. Epub 2011 Feb 4.

President Obama has announced a research initiative that aims to accelerate progress toward a new era of precision medicine, with a near-term focus on cancers and a longer-term aim to generate knowledge applicable to the whole range of health and disease.

On 30 January 2015, President Obama announced funding for an Initiative in Precision Medicine (IPM) (1) less than 3 years after a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) committee report (2) made clear ...

Abstract These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the 2015 NCCN Guidelines for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). Appropriate targeted therapy is very effective in patients with advanced NSCLC who have specific genetic alterations. Therefore, it is important to test tumor tissue from patients with advanced NSCLC to determine whether they have genetic alterations that make them candidates for specific targeted therapies. These NCCN Guidelines Insights describe the different testing methods currently available for determining whether patients have genetic alterations in the 2 most commonly actionable genetic alterations, notably anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangements and sensitizing epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations.

On August 26, 2011, crizotinib received accelerated approval for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that is ALK-positive as detected by a test approved by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Approval was based on two single-arm trials demonstrating objective response rates (ORRs) of 50% and 61% and median response durations of 42 and 48 weeks. On November 20, 2013, crizotinib received regular approval based on confirmation of clinical benefit in study A8081007, a randomized trial in 347 patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC who had previously received one platinum-containing regimen. Patients were assigned (1:1) to receive crizotinib 250 mg orally twice daily or standard of care (docetaxel or pemetrexed). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) determined by independent radiology review; secondary endpoints were ORR and overall survival (OS). PFS was significantly longer in the crizotinib arm, with median PFS of 7.7 and 3.0 months in the crizotinib and chemotherapy arms, respectively, and a 46% absolute increase in ORR but no difference in OS between treatment arms at the interim analysis. The most common adverse drug reactions (>25%) in crizotinib-treated patients were vision disorders, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, constipation, edema, elevated transaminases, and fatigue. The most serious toxicities of crizotinib were hepatotoxicity, interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis, and QT-interval prolongation. Crizotinib's rapid clinical development program (6 years from identification of ALK rearrangements in a subset of NSCLC to full FDA approval) is a model of efficient drug development in this new era of molecularly targeted oncology therapy.

To define the efficacy of gefitinib in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, we carried out a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Medline, Embase, the Cochrane controlled trials register and the Science Citation Index were searched. Seven trials were identified, covering a total of 4656 subjects. As compared with chemotherapy, gefitinib was effective in the selected patients: the corresponding summary hazard ratios (gefitinib versus chemotherapy) for progression-free survival were 0.43 (0.32, 0.58) (P < 0.001) for the subgroup of patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutant treated with gefitinib monotherapy, 0.71 (0.60, 0.83) (P < 0.001) for the subgroup of patients with lung adenocarcinoma; but was detrimental for the patients without EGFR mutant treated by gefitinib monotherapy [hazard ratio = 2.16 (1.17, 3.99), P = 0.01]. Significantly improved survival was found in the gefitinib group compared with the control in the subgroup of patients with lung adenocarcinoma [hazard ratio = 0.89 (0.81, 0.99); P = 0.03], but not found in the subgroup of patients with EGFR mutant [hazard ratio = 0.87 (0.68, 1.12); P = 0.28]. In conclusion, first-line treatment with gefitinib conferred prolonged progression-free survival than treatment with systemic chemotherapy in a molecularly or histologically defined population of patients with non-small cell lung cancer, and improved survival in the subgroup of patients with lung adenocarcinoma.

Background Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), gefitinib and erlotinib have been tested as maintenance therapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The studies are quite heterogenous regarding study size and populations, and a synopsis of these data could give some more insight in the role of maintenance therapy with TKI. Methods In September 2012 we performed a search in the pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases for randomized phase III trials exploring the role of gefitinib or erlotinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Through a rigorous selection process with specific criteria, five trials (n = 2436 patients) were included for analysis. Standard statistical methods for meta-analysis were applied. Results TKIs (gefitinib and erlotinib) significantly increased progression-free survival (PFS) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-0.76, I2 = 78.1%] and overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76-0.93, I2 = 0.0%) compared with placebo or observation. The PFS benefit was consistent in all subgroups including stage, sex, ethnicity, performance status, smoking status, histology, EGFR mutation status, and previous response to chemotherapy. Patients with clinical features such as female, never smoker, adenocarcinoma, Asian ethnicity and EGFR mutation positive had more pronounced PFS benefit. Overall survival benefit was observed in patients with clinical features such as female, non-smoker, smoker, adenocarcinoma, and previous stable to induction chemotherapy. Severe adverse events were not frequent. Main limitations of this analysis are that it is not based on individual patient data, and not all studies provided detailed subgroups analysis. Conclusions The results show that maintenance therapy with erlotinib or gefitinib produces a significant PFS and OS benefit for unselected patients with advanced NSCLC compared with placebo or observation. Given the less toxicity of TKIs than chemotherapy and simple oral administration, this treatment strategy seems to be of important clinical value.

Background: Several EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) including erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and icotinib are currently available as treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who harbor EGFR mutations. However, no head to head trials between these TKIs in mutated populations have been reported, which provides room for indirect and integrated comparisons. Methods: We searched electronic databases for eligible literatures. Pooled data on objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) were calculated. Appropriate networks for different outcomes were established to incorporate all evidences. Multiple-treatments comparisons (MTCs) based on Bayesian network integrated the efficacy and specific toxicities of all included treatments. Results: Twelve phase III RCTs that investigated EGFR-TKIs involving 1821 participants with EGFR mutation were included. For mutant patients, the weighted pooled ORR and 1-year PFS of EGFR-TKIs were significant superior to that of standard chemotherapy (ORR: 66.6% vs. 30.9%, OR 5.46, 95%CI 3.59 to 8.30, P<0.00001; 1-year PFS: 42.9% vs. 9.7%, OR 7.83, 95%CI 4.50 to 13.61; P<0.00001) through direct meta-analysis. In the network meta-analyses, no statistically significant differences in efficacy were found between these four TKIs with respect to all outcome measures. Trend analyses of rank probabilities revealed that the cumulative probabilities of being the most efficacious treatments were (ORR, 1-year PFS, 1-year OS, 2-year OS): erlotinib (51%, 38%, 14%, 19%), gefitinib (1%, 6%, 5%, 16%), afatinib (29%, 27%, 30%, 27%) and icotinib (19%, 29%, NA, NA), respectively. However, afatinib and erlotinib showed significant severer rash and diarrhea compared with gefitinib and icotinib. Conclusions: The current study indicated that erlotinib, gefitinib, afatinib and icotinib shared equivalent efficacy but presented different efficacy-toxicity pattern for EGFR-mutated patients. Erlotinib and afatinib revealed potentially better efficacy but significant higher toxicities compared with gefitinib and icotinib.

These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates in the 2016 NCCN Guidelines for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC; Versions 1-4). These NCCN Guidelines Insights will discuss new immunotherapeutic agents, such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab, for patients with metastatic NSCLC. For the 2016 update, the NCCN panel recommends immune checkpoint inhibitors as preferred agents (in the absence of contraindications) for second-line and beyond (subsequent) therapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC (both squamous and nonsquamous histologies). Nivolumab and pembrolizumab are preferred based on improved overall survival rates, higher response rates, longer duration of response, and fewer adverse events when compared with docetaxel therapy.

<h2 class="secHeading" id="section_abstract">Summary</h2><p id="">Data suggest that neither our current understanding of the function and signalling of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), nor measurements of receptor expression are reliably predictive of therapeutic responses to EGFR inhibitors. The time has now come to consider whether such poor correlation between receptor expression and clinical response is caused by poor assays or by more fundamental issues relating to the in-vivo function of EGFR. Revisiting some of the early findings of the biology of EGFR function and understanding the limitations of immunohistochemistry as a quantitative technique might provide some clues. However, we still have a lot to learn about this receptor, its many ligands, and its binding partners in normal physiology and disease.</p>

Introduction: Treatment choice for NSCLC in China has not previously been reported. This paper explores the clinical practice and adherence to treatment guidelines for NSCLC.<br/>Methods: A specifically designed questionnaire was used. It consisted of personal information of the responders and treatment details (patient identification data was excluded). Questionnaires were delivered to doctors in 12 major cities in China. Doctors were asked to answer the questionnaires based on real cases in their daily practice.<br/>Results: 987 cases of NSCLC were included. In first-line chemotherapy, regimens were mostly platinum-based among which gemcitabine plus platinum was predominately used (27.4%), followed by docetaxel plus platinum (16.2%) and paclitaxel plus platinum (13.5%). In second-line therapy some were treated with single agents, such as docetaxel (12.9%), gefitinib (11.1%), pemetrexed (9.3%), and erlotinib (3.5%). 44.5% were with doublet therapy. Detection rate of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation was only 9.6% because of the limited prevalence of testing technology. EGFR mutation rate was 46.8%. EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) were used more frequently as salvage (14.8%) rather than upfront therapy (5.3%).<br/>Conclusions: This survey reveals the daily clinical treatment for NSCLC in China. Overall data showed modest adherence to the national guideline (NCCN guideline Chinese version) for first-line chemotherapy. We believe this survey is valuable to provide a reference for further clinical trial design and policy making. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Approximately 50% of patients with newly diagnosed non-small (NSCLC) are over 70 years of age at diagnosis. Despite this fact, these patients are underrepresented in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). As a consequence, the most appropriate regimens for these patients are controversial, and the role of single-agent or combination therapy is unclear. In this setting, a critical systematic review of RCTs in this group of patients is warranted.To assess the effectiveness and safety of different cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens for previously untreated elderly patients with advanced (stage IIIB and IV) NSCLC. To also assess the impact of cytotoxic chemotherapy on quality of life.: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1966 to 31 October 2014), EMBASE (1974 to 31 October 2014), and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to 31 October 2014). In addition, we handsearched the proceedings of major conferences, reference lists from relevant resources, and the ClinicalTrial.gov database.We included only RCTs that compared non-single-agent therapy versus non-combination therapy, or non-therapy versus combination therapy in patients over 70 years of age with advanced NSCLC. We allowed inclusion of RCTs specifically designed for the elderly population and those designed for elderly subgroup analyses.Two review authors independently assessed search results, and a third review author resolved disagreements. We analyzed the following endpoints: overall survival (OS), one-year survival rate (1yOS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), major adverse events, and quality of life (QoL).We included 51 trials in the review: non-single-agent therapy versus non-combination therapy (seven trials) and non-combination therapy versus combination therapy (44 trials). Non-single-agent versus non-combination therapy Low-quality evidence suggests that these treatments have similar effects on overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.17; participants = 1062; five RCTs), 1yOS (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.07; participants = 992; four RCTs), and PFS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07; participants = 942; four RCTs). Non-combination therapy may better improve ORR compared with non-single-agent therapy (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.26; participants = 1014; five RCTs; low-quality evidence).Differences in effects on major adverse events between treatment groups were as follows: : RR 1.10, 95% 0.53 to 2.31; participants = 983; four RCTs; very low-quality evidence; : RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.65; participants = 983; four RCTs; low-quality evidence; and thrombocytopenia: RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.89; participants = 914; three RCTs; very low-quality evidence. Only two RCTs assessed quality of life; however, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis because of the paucity of available data. Non-therapy versus combination therapy combination therapy probably improves OS (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.85; participants = 1705; 13 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence), 1yOS (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.96; participants = 813; 13 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence), and ORR (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.85; participants = 1432; 11 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence) compared with non-therapies. combination therapy may also improve PFS, although our confidence in this finding is limited because the quality of evidence was low (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93; participants = 1273; nine RCTs).Effects on major adverse events between treatment groups were as follows: : .53, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.76; participants = 1437; 11 RCTs; low-quality evidence; thrombocytopenia: RR 3.59, 95% CI 2.22 to 5.82; participants = 1260; nine RCTs; low-quality evidence; fatigue: RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.38; participants = 1150; seven RCTs; : RR 3.64, 95% CI 1.82 to 7.29; participants = 1193; eight RCTs; and : RR 7.02, 95% CI 2.42 to 20.41; participants = 776; five RCTs; low-quality evidence. Only five RCTs assessed QoL; however, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis because of the paucity of available data.In people over the age of 70 with advanced NSCLC who do not have significant co-morbidities, increased survival with combination therapy needs to be balanced against higher risk of major adverse events when compared with non-therapy. For people who are not suitable candidates for treatment, we have found low-quality evidence suggesting that non-combination and single-agent therapy regimens have similar effects on survival. We are uncertain as to the comparability of their adverse event profiles. Additional evidence on quality of life gathered from additional studies is needed to help inform decision making.

Abstract The efficacy of gefitinib [an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor] in elderly patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and EGFR mutation has not been elucidated. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy and feasibility of gefitinib in elderly chemotherapy-naive patients with NSCLC harboring sensitive EGFR mutations. We retrospectively evaluated the clinical effects of gefitinib as a first-line treatment for elderly (75 years) NSCLC patients with EGFR mutations (exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R mutation). All patients were initially treated with gefitinib (250 mg/day) at seven institutions. Between January 2006 and December 2012, 62 patients (17 men, 45 women) with a median age of 80 years (range, 75-89 years) were included in our analysis. The overall response and disease control rates were 61.2 and 83.8 %, respectively, and the median progression-free survival and overall survival were 13.2 and 19.0 months, respectively. Common adverse events included rash, diarrhea, and liver dysfunction. Major grade 3 or 4 toxicities included skin rash (3.2 %) and increased levels of aspartate aminotransferase or alanine aminotransferase (21.0 %). Gefitinib treatment was discontinued owing to adverse events of liver dysfunction in 3 patients, drug-induced pneumonitis in 2, and diarrhea in 1. First-line gefitinib could be a preferable standard treatment in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC harboring sensitive EGFR mutations.

ABSTRACT We evaluated the impact of age in a randomized phase II trial that compared three first-line drugs in elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and a poor performance status (PS). Patients with advanced NSCLC with a PS of 2 or 3 were enrolled into a multicenter randomized trial: arm A, gefitinib; arm B, gemcitabine; and arm C, docetaxel. We performed subgroup analyses according to age. Between December 2004 and June 2007, 127 patients were enrolled. Analyses were performed between the two subgroups aged <70years (younger, n=56) and 70years (older, n=71). Patients mainly had adenocarcinoma (46% young vs. 51%: elderly), of which 62% vs. 75% had a PS of 2, respectively. Significantly more elderly patients were women and non-smokers, and there was a non-significant trend towards more PS-2 among the elderly. Progression-free survival (PFS) was 1.4months (95% CI: 1.1-1.9) for younger compared to 2.3months (95% CI: 2.1-2.9) for elderly patients. Overall survival (OS) was 2.0months (95% CI: 1.5-2.4) and 3.7months (95% CI: 2.4-4.8), respectively. Toxicity did not differ between younger and older patients. NSCLC was better controlled in elderly patients after three cycles of monotherapy compared to younger patients (p=0.034). When adjusted for stratification criteria, age was the main prognostic factor for PFS. Adjusted HRs for PFS was 0.57 (95% CI: 0.38-0.85) for the elderly compared to patients aged <70years (p=0.004). Older patients had a decreased risk of progression/death compared to younger patients. Single-agent chemotherapy can be considered for patients aged 70years with a PS of 2. Copyright 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Cancer is the leading cause of death in older adults aged 60 to 79 years. The biology of certain cancers and responsiveness to therapy changes with the patient's age. Advanced age alone should not preclude the use of effective treatment that could improve quality of life or extend meaningful survival. The challenge of managing older patients with cancer is to assess whether the expected benefits of treatment are superior to the risk in a population with decreased life expectancy and decreased tolerance to stress. These guidelines provide an approach to decision-making in older cancer patients based on comprehensive geriatric assessment and also include disease specific issues related to age in the management of some cancer types in older adults.

Lung cancer is a prevalent malignancy disproportionately affecting the elderly, and in our aging societies will only increase in magnitude. Physicians typically assume that elderly lung cancer patients will have poorer prognoses. This belief is in part based on certain physiological changes of aging affecting the kidneys, liver, and bone marrow. However, there are no data to clearly support or refute increased toxicity from chemotherapy or a lessened therapeutic effect in the elderly based on these changes, although it is a field worthy of further study. Retrospective studies of treatment of elderly non-small cell and small cell lung cancer patients do not suggest a worse prognosis based on advanced age alone. Clinicians are hampered by the lack of clinical trials focusing on or even including the elderly, despite the increased incidence of lung cancer in the elderly. Phase II studies in elderly non-small cell lung cancer patients concentrate on newer agents (vinorelbine and gemcitabine) alone or combined with platinum compounds in hopes of more favourable toxicity profiles. Phase III trials have demonstrated survival benefits, quality of life improvements, and acceptable toxicity profiles for vinorelbine compared to best supportive care alone and the combination of vinorelbine and gemcitabine compared to vinorelbine alone. Data are also sparse for elderly small cell lung cancer patients. Phase II studies focused on single agent oral etoposide also in hopes of lessening toxicity. However, phase III trials have shown improvement in survival and quality of life for multiagent intravenous chemotherapy compared to oral etoposide. Given the existing data, altering therapy for lung cancer patients based on age alone would not be warranted. Given the prevalence of the disease, future studies need to include an appropriate number of elderly patients with continued emphasis on quality of life in addition to survival.