As described in a prior post, chemotherapy after surgery is often recommended after surgery, at least for a subset of patients with stage IB to IIIA (without mediastinal lymph node involvement) NSCLC, based on a potential to increase cure long-term survival compared to surgery alone. At this point, two forms of targeted therapy (erlotinib, or Tarceva, as a single agent in second- and third-line advanced NSCLC, and bevacizumab, or Avastin, combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel for first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC) have been approved by the FDA for advanced NSCLC because they have demonstrated an improvement in survival. At this point, however, we don’t know whether adding targeted therapies as a strategy in earlier stage NSCLC can increase cure rates. But one key trial that is evaluating this possibility is the RADIANT trial.
RADIANT Trial; click to enlarge.
RADIANT is an acronym for Randomized, Double-Blind Trial in Adjuvant NSCLC with Tarceva. This will be an international trial designed to enroll 945 patients who have undergone surgery, with no residual cancer left behind, for stage IB, II, or stage IIIA NSCLC. Patients may have received up to four cycles of chemotherapy after surgery, but patients who received no chemo are still eligible. Patients are then randomized to receive either tarceva or a placebo, with two-thirds of patients receiving the active drug and one-third receiving placebo. Because it is a double-blinded study, neither patients nor their treating doctor know who is getting tarceva or a placebo. This is appropriate because we don’t know whether Tarceva is going to be better, the same, or actually worse, with side effects of treatment but no added benefit.
Importantly, although Tarceva is approved by the FDA for all patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC, regardless of whether their tumor has high levels of EGFR, the target of Tarceva, or amplification of the EGFR gene in tumor cells. We still debate whether Tarceva works best, or perhaps only works at all, in patients with EGFR protein expression as detected by a test called immunohistochemistry (or IHC) or amplification (excess copies) of the EGFR gene by a test called fluorescence in situ hybridization (or FISH). Many trials that are investigating the future role for Tarceva are using more selected populations based on clinical characteristics such as never-smoking or BAC, or molecular characteristics such as EGFR overexpression by IHC, gene amplification by FISH, or presence of an EGFR mutation detected by gene sequencing. Perhaps the benefits of Tarceva can be found to be more pronounced and more consistent if we can identify and treat those patients most likely to do well with it, rather than use a “targeted therapy” unselectively.
Further information about eligibility details and participating centers can be found here.
For many patients with early stage, resected NSCLC, chemotherapy after surgery may be a strong consideration to minimize the chance of the cancer returning, in which cases, it is often not possible to cure it. Several clinical trials over the past few years have shown benefits from chemo combinations, but which ones would be the leading considerations now? Continue reading
The cornerstone of treating early NSCLC (stage I, II, and sometimes stage IIIA) is surgery, at least if a patient is able to tolerate that. While many patients can be cured after surgery alone, patients remain at risk for both local recurrence near where the original cancer was, and also distant spread. The latter is caused by micrometastases, circulating tumor cells that cannot be detected on scans or blood tests at this time, that can grow to produce visible disease recurrence months or years after surgery. Unfortunately, we can’t detect who has micrometastases and who doesn’t, so we don’t know who is still at risk and who is cured.
Continue reading
A recent trial by Olaussen and colleagues was just published in the New England Journal of Medicine that suggested that in the future oncologists may become better at identifying the patients who are more or less likely to benefit from chemotherapy after surgery for early stage non-small cell lung cancer. At this point, the marker that was being evaluated is not readily available and hasn’t been validated, but it’s a very promising lead. In this trial, the group with tumors that have low expression of this protein, called ERCC-1 (which repairs DNA damage induced from cisplatin-based chemo), did better with chemo than if they didn’t get it. The other group, who had high expression of ERCC-1 on their tumors, did better if they didn’t get chemo than if they did. Because chemo can have some unpleasant and sometimes dangerous side effects, clarifying who is more likely to benefit and who will get just side effects and no benefits would be a great help.
This adds to the conclusions from work of others, such as Dr. Rafael Rosell in Barcelona, Spain and by Dr. Gerold Bepler at Moffett Cancer Center in Tampa, FL, who have both done studies suggesting that tumor markers can soon help us predict who will benefit from certain types of chemotherapy and who will be less likely to benefit.
The limits of this study are that it was retrospective, or reviewing what was available after the fact, and that it included only tissue from a subgroup, about 40% of tumors from patients on the study. This work needs to be corroborated by further trials, especially ones that look at these questions prospectively (planned going into the study, so everyone’s tissue is included). These marker studies are not routinely performed or widely available. Before using such markers for clinical decision-making, we need to standardize how the marker studies are done and interpreted. However, this work is an early indication of how we hope to further treatment recommendations for patients with cancer in the near future.