GRACE :: Lung Cancer

pemetrexed

Dr. Goldman

Why Carboplatin, Pemetrexed and Pembrolizumab Have Become My New Go-to Regimen for First-Line Non-Squamous NSCLC Treatment

Share

Why carboplatin, pemetrexed and pembrolizumab have become my new go-to regimen for first-line non-squamous NSCLC treatment.

By Jonathan W. Goldman, MD


Metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment has generally improved by optimizing care for “slices of the pie”—pieces of a pie chart representing all of lung cancer patients. Initially, mutation-based treatment led the way; 10% of lung cancers were identified as EGFR-mutant and treated with appropriate tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Subsequently, thinner and thinner slices of the population, each 1-7% of NSCLC patients, have been described and their cancers targeted. More recently, immunotherapy entered the picture, but again the greatest benefit of this therapy was limited to the 20-25% of patients that were PD-L1 positive. Despite all of these advances, we still had at least half of patients receiving more than 10-year-old chemotherapy as their initial treatment.

We now have preliminary evidence that this may be changing. Langer, et al reported in November 2016 (Lancet Oncology) the phase 2 KEYNOTE-021-G1 cohort of non-squamous NSCLC patients treated with the standard, carboplatin and Alimta (pemetrexed), alone or with the PD-1 inhibitor, Keytruda (pembrolizumab). Previous attempts to add to a platinum-doublet had generally provided marginal benefits at best (for example, with Avastin [bevacizumab] or Erbitux [cetuximab]). In contrast, the 021G trial suggested massive benefits, at least as far as response rate (RR) and progression free survival (PFS).

The 021G trial was a moderate-sized phase 2 trial with 123 patients split between the two arms. With Keytruda added to chemotherapy, the response rate increased from 29 to 55%, and importantly this benefit was irrespective of PD-L1 status (above or below a 1% PD-L1 cutoff). PFS was also significantly improved from 8.9 to 13.0 months with a hazard ratio of 0.53, which represents a decrease in the risk of cancer progression by almost half. Many of the trials leading to new drug approvals especially in an unselected cohort report hazard ratios of 0.75 or 0.80, so the benefit in 021G is staggering. The overall survival curves were overlapping at the time of the initial report, and if they suggested a possible survival benefit when updated at the 2017 ASCO Annual Meeting, there was still no statistically significant difference. This lack of a clear survival benefit is certainly at least in part due to crossover at the time of progression from the chemotherapy alone arm to get Keytruda or another immunotherapy (32% within the study and 74% if you count receiving an immunotherapy agent at any point, on or off the trial).

Furthermore, the toxicity associated with the addition of Keytruda was generally manageable, although moderate to severe toxicity (grade 3 or higher) was increased from 28 to 41%. Primarily, these were hematologic toxicities, including anemia and low blood counts, which oncologists are very comfortable managing. Stereotypical immunotherapy toxicities (such as pneumonitis, colitis or hepatitis) were reported at rates similar to previous experience with single-agent PD1 or PDL1 inhibitor therapy. Nevertheless, Keytruda was discontinued due to toxicities in 10% of patients, including in 1 patient with grade 3 pneumonitis, and doctors and patients will need to be on the lookout for such complications.

Many investigators and thought leaders were surprised when the FDA granted priority review for the front-line Keytruda-chemotherapy combination in January 2017. While lung cancer drug approvals had come from phase 2 or even phase 1 data before, that had consistently been for targeted therapy in areas of unmet need. However, just a few months later, on May 10, 2017 the FDA provided accelerated approval based on the RR and PFS benefits reported from KEYNOTE-021-G1. This does require verification in confirmatory trials including the KEYNOTE-189 trial, which mirrors the 021G trial but in a larger, phase 3 format.

This approval further shocked the lung cancer community. It certainly put standard treatment pathways and clinical trials, both open and in planning, in to disarray. However, from the FDA standpoint, how could you say no to a doubling in the response rate and a 50% decrease in the risk of progression? From the patient standpoint, there is now a novel treatment option that applies to the majority of patients. This is an event to celebrate.

There have been several lines of criticism of this combined treatment modality. The clearest is that if the overall survival curves remain overlapping, it may be advantageous to use chemotherapy and immunotherapy sequentially instead of concurrently. However, it seems likely that if the impressive RR and PFS advantages of concurrent therapy are real, they will translate into a survival advantage. It is also important to remember that patients can worsen rapidly during front-line therapy and never have the opportunity to benefit from a second-line treatment. If a survival advantage is not seen in the small phase 2 trial, it seems likely to be demonstrated in the larger phase 3 trial.

Another criticism of the concurrent approach is the associated medical and financial toxicity. Some presume that most patients will be benefiting from either the chemotherapy or the immunotherapy, and that by giving everything together, we are exposing patients to needless drug toxicity and society to unsustainable costs. One could respond, firstly, we do not know exactly how chemotherapy and immunotherapy may be interacting and there may be synergism beyond the efficacy of the individual parts. (Some hypothesize that tumor cell death via chemotherapy releases antigens that prime an immune response, which is then amplified into an immune effector response by immunotherapy.) Secondly, the toxicity profile as seen in the 021G trial shows that concurrent administration of chemotherapy and PD-1 blockade is tolerable for most patients. Thirdly, we have used expensive triplet regimens before (the best example being carboplatin, Alimta and Avastin) but at least with the 021G triplet there is evidence for major benefit.

In the end, we are all awaiting the confirmatory phase 3 trials of chemoimmunotherapy across many of the PD1 and PDL1 inhibitor drug-development pipelines. In the meantime, I applaud the FDA’s provisional approval and I am happy to be able to provide this as an option for my patients. I have heard some doctors state that they will reserve the triplet for patients that “need a response.” I have never met a patient who did not feel that he or she needed a response, and therefore the 021G triplet is my new go-to first-line regimen for non-squamous NSCLC patients without targetable mutations.


Dr. Goldman joins GRACE from UCLA Medical Center in Santa Monica, where he specializes in Hematology and Oncology.  He serves as Assistant Professor of UCLA Hematology & Oncology, Associate Director of Drug Development and Director of Clinical Trials in Thoracic Oncology.  


 

 

 

 


GRACE Video

Immunotherapy as First-Line Treatment

Share

GRACEcast-525_Lung_West_Immunotherapy_First_Line_Treatment

 

Dr. Jack West, Swedish Cancer Institute, raises the question of whether to use immune checkpoint inhibitors as first-line treatment of lung cancer, alone or in combination with chemotherapy.

Download Transcript

How Did You Like This Video?

Please feel free to offer comments and raise questions in our Discussion Forums.

 

Transcript

A class of agents known as immune checkpoint inhibitors has really incredibly invigorated the field of lung cancer and many other cancers over the last year or two. These agents are given intravenously and essentially take off a braking mechanism for the immune system and by doing that, can stimulate it to recognize and attack your own cancer. These agents, at least a couple of them, have been approved by the FDA as of now, in late 2015, and the question is whether they should be used earlier than the second line setting where they’ve already been approved.

Two agents, one known as Opdivo or nivolumab, and another known as Keytruda or pembrolizumab, are approved in patients who have already demonstrated progression after receiving a first line chemotherapy. So the question is: should these treatments be given earlier in therapy? There are two leading considerations in how we might do this. One is that we might give an immunotherapy in combination with standard chemotherapy. There are other ways to do this that might give the immunotherapy instead of standard chemotherapy. There are studies looking at various combinations being done with any of the many immune checkpoint inhibitors that are in development right now.

An interesting trial that is being done now is with pembrolizumab, or Keytruda — this is the KEYNOTE-189 trial that is looking at whether the addition of Keytruda to standard chemotherapy improves outcomes for patients when they get it first line. Specifically this trial is for patients with a non-squamous cancer and these patients can have any level of PD-L1 expression, the protein that tends to be associated with better activity of the immune checkpoint inhibitors — there’s no restriction on PD-L1 expression and patients just have to have not received prior therapy for advanced lung cancer. These patients are then randomized to receive the two drug chemotherapy combination of cisplatin or carboplatin with Alimta, or that same chemotherapy combination with Keytruda (pembrolizumab). That study is being done now and we hope to learn more about it in the next year or two, to learn whether it is beneficial to give these immunotherapy agents in combination with chemotherapy, compared to giving them sequentially.

Another very similar study, though looking at squamous lung cancer, is called EMPOWER 131 — this is with an immune checkpoint inhibitor known as atezolizumab. This agent is being looked at in combination with either carboplatin and Taxol, or carboplatin and Abraxane, a very similar agent. There are two arms of this study where a patient gets a combination of chemotherapy and the immune therapy, and the third arm is just carboplatin and Abraxane alone. We should learn more about the potential benefits of combining immune checkpoint inhibitors with chemotherapy in the first line setting from this, looking at both patients with squamous and non-squamous histology in different trials.


GRACE Video

Maintenance Therapy for Advanced NSCLC

Share

GRACEcast-522_Lung_West_Maintenance_Therapy_Advanced_NSCLC

 

Dr. Jack West, Swedish Cancer Institute, defines maintenance therapy in advanced NSCLC and discusses maintenance treatment strategies.

Download Transcript

How Did You Like This Video?

Please feel free to offer comments and raise questions in our Discussion Forums.

 

Transcript

For patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, our typical approach, if we have someone who does not have a driver mutation that we typically treat with a pill-based targeted therapy, is to give chemotherapy. That chemotherapy is typically given in a cycle of three weeks or sometimes a four week period of time where the blood counts go down and then recover. That treatment is typically given once every three weeks, sometimes once or twice on a weekly basis in that three week interval, but we typically give that therapy for about four to six cycles of therapy — that’s about three to five months of treatment. By that time, by four to six cycles in, the two drug combination that includes a drug called platinum is usually creating some cumulative side effects: fatigue, low blood counts, and other complicating issues that make it increasingly challenging to administer more of the same potentially intensive therapy, and by four to six cycles you really tend to reach a point of diminishing returns.

At that point we often favor a maintenance therapy approach. That is, dropping the carboplatin or stopping all of the agents that have been given previously and either continuing one or more of the agents from the first line setting, or using what’s called switch maintenance to give a completely different treatment. These maintenance therapies are designed to do what their name suggests — to maintain a response after we’ve seen the most shrinkage that we’re likely to get from the more intensive first line therapy.

When we do a continuous maintenance approach, it’s typically taking a drug like cisplatin or carboplatin in combination with one or two partner drugs, usually a second chemotherapy agent and sometimes Avastin which blocks a tumor’s blood supply, and then after four to six cycles we drop the platinum and we will typically continue a drug like Alimta if that’s been given in the first line setting, and if a drug like Avastin has also been given we might continue that and give Alimta and Avastin together until the cancer progresses.

If a combination like carboplatin and Taxol were given with Avastin, the maintenance therapy is often just the Avastin because Taxol tends to have some cumulative neuropathy issues — numbness and tingling that can lead to a real limitation in how much of that therapy you can give. We might also consider a switch maintenance approach — instead of continuing some of the agents, come in with Alimta as a single agent if a patient has non-squamous histology. Another agent that is approved as a switch maintenance therapy is Tarceva (erlotinib) — this doesn’t tend to be as favored as a switch maintenance because the efficacy of Tarceva in patients who don’t have an EGFR mutation tends to be on the lower side.

What do these maintenance therapies have in common? Well they’re all agents that can be given on a longitudinal basis without a lot of cumulative side effects and they tend to be the agents that have good activity in patients who have already been on prior therapy. So any of these is a reasonable choice, the most common being a continuation maintenance of dropping the platinum and continuing one or two partner drugs that were given with it, or sometimes switching to an agent like Alimta (pemetrexed) or Tarceva (erlotinib). It’s also reasonable to not pursue maintenance therapy if a patient has cumulative side effects and really needs a break from therapy. That is certainly something to discuss with the patient; it’s not as if maintenance therapy is a mandate for all patients, but it is something that is a strong consideration if a patient is motivated and can continue to tolerate ongoing therapy after four to six cycles.


GRACE Video

Histology-Specific Regimens – Squamous

Share
GRACE Cancer Video Library - Lung

GCVL_LU-F06_Histology_Specific_Regimens_Squamous

 

Dr. Jack West, Swedish Cancer Institute, reviews the choices for a first-line chemotherapy regimen based on a squamous histology.

Download Transcript

How Did You Like This Video?

Please feel free to offer comments and raise questions in our Discussion Forums.

 

Transcript

There are a few common subtypes of non-small cell lung cancer. These are broken down by histology — the appearance of it under the microscope. The most common is called adenocarcinoma; the second most common is known as squamous histology and this accounts for somewhere in the range of 20% to 25% of the non-small cell lung cancers out there.

There are many standard chemotherapy regimens that are commonly used for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, and overall they tend to produce very comparable results, making it very reasonable to choose one or another without a lot of difference, but there are certain regimens that might be more or less favored. For instance, in the setting of squamous lung cancer, there are a couple that we really choose to avoid in these patients because they are either unsafe or less effective.

So in terms of safety, one of the agents that we really prefer to not give is called Avastin and it is not a standard chemotherapy, but sometimes added to chemotherapy as a third agent that blocks the tumor blood supply. This can be helpful in some patients with non-squamous histology, but it has led to an unacceptably high risk of bleeding complications in patients with squamous histology. Because of that we do not give it in that setting — it is not considered safe.

Another agent that is really not favored is known as Alimta or pemetrexed, and that is because it does not seem to have good efficacy — it doesn’t do better than giving a placebo drug in that setting.

There are certainly other good choices. A cisplatin or carboplatin drug combined with an agent like Taxol, also known as paclitaxel, is a fine choice. There is also a related drug called Abraxane, which is also known as albumin-bound paclitaxel or NAB paclitaxel. This agent was added to carboplatin and compared to carboplatin and Taxol in a large group of patients with advanced lung cancer of a few different types, and the patients with squamous histology had a higher rate of tumor shrinkage if they received the carboplatin and Abraxane combination, than carboplatin and Taxol. It’s not an overwhelming difference and there wasn’t a clear difference in survival, but because of this some people might favor carboplatin and Abraxane.

Another choice that might be considered and favored in patients with squamous lung cancer is a platinum with Gemzar, also known as gemcitabine, and that’s because there was a randomized trial that gave cisplatin and Gemzar, or cisplatin and Alimta to patients with different types of lung cancer, and that study showed that the patients who got cisplatin and Gemzar did better overall than the patients who got cisplatin and Alimta. That might have been in large part because Alimta is not very effective in squamous lung cancer, but in fact we do tend to favor giving Gemzar as a leading partner with a platinum drug, if not a taxane. The taxane drugs: Taxol, Abraxane, or Taxotere, all seem to have efficacy that is every bit as good in the patients who have a squamous or non-squamous lung cancer.

So there are certainly several options, but some may be particularly better for patients with squamous histology.


GRACE Video

Histology-Specific Regimens – Adenocarcinoma

Share
GRACE Cancer Video Library - Lung

GCVL_LU-F05_Histology_Specific_Regimens_Adenocarcinoma

 

Dr. Jack West, Swedish Cancer Institute, addresses the issue of choosing a first-line chemotherapy regimen based on an adenocarcinoma histology.

Download Transcript

How Did You Like This Video?

Please feel free to offer comments and raise questions in our Discussion Forums.

 

Transcript

There are several different subtypes of non-small cell lung cancer and these are broken down by what is called histology — how they appear under the microscope. The most common subtype of non-small cell lung cancer is known as adenocarcinoma and there may be specific recommendations about what chemotherapy to recommend for patients with an adenocarcinoma.

In general, we favor a two-drug so-called platinum-based doublet for the vast majority of patients with an advanced or stage IV lung cancer, but the exact chemotherapy combination we might favor can differ depending on whether a patient has one subtype, one histology, or another. So for patients with a lung adenocarcinoma it’s fair to say that any of the chemotherapy doublets widely used is an acceptable choice — cisplatin or carboplatin with a taxane such as Taxol, also known as paclitaxel, or docetaxel which is also known as Taxotere, you could consider Gemzar, also known as gemcitabine, but one that is often favored is called Alimta, or pemetrexed.

Why is that? Well, there was a study that was published years ago that looked at the combination of cisplatin and gemcitabine, or Gemzar, versus cisplatin and Alimta, and there were no major differences between the large groups of patients overall, but when they looked specifically at the subgroups based on whether they had a squamous or a non-squamous cancer, the patients who had a squamous cancer did better with cisplatin and gemcitabine, and the opposite was true for the patients with a non-squamous cancer — those patients did particularly well with cisplatin and Alimta. Since then there have been several other studies that have shown particularly favorable results with Alimta in patients with adenocarcinoma histology.

It’s fair to say that there are not great differences, but the tendency toward a more favorable efficacy in patients with adenocarcinoma and the good tolerability, lead many lung cancer specialists and general oncologists alike, to favor a combination of a platinum drug with Alimta for patients with a non-squamous, and especially, an adenocarcinoma histology.


Ask Us, Q&A
Lung/Thoracic Cancer Expert Content

Archives

Share

GRACE Cancer Video Library - Lung Cancer Videos

 

2015_Immunotherapy_Forum_Videos

 

2015 Acquired Resistance in Lung Cancer Patient Forum Videos

Share

Join the GRACE Faculty

Breast Cancer Blog
Pancreatic Cancer Blog
Kidney Cancer Blog
Bladder Cancer Blog
Head/Neck Cancer Blog
Share

Subscribe to the GRACEcast Podcast on iTunes

Share

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon

Subscribe to
GRACE Notes
   (Free Newsletter)

Other Resources

Share

ClinicalTrials.gov


Biomedical Learning Institute

peerview_institute_logo_243