Recent clinical advances in lung cancer management.

VOLUME

32

䡠

NUMBER

10

䡠

APRIL

1

2014

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY

A S C O 50TH A N N I V E R S A R Y

Recent Clinical Advances in Lung Cancer Management David H. Johnson and Joan H. Schiller, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX Paul A. Bunn Jr, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO

Progress has been made in the treatment of lung cancer over the past 40 years, albeit at a modest pace. Cytoxic chemotherapy has improved 5-year survival rates when added to surgery in early-stage non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and when delivered concurrently with chest radiotherapy in stage III NSCLC and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Chemotherapy can prolong survival in patients with stage IV NSCLC and SCLC, and, with newer supportive care measures, with less toxicity. Nonetheless, the improvements are modest, leading to only 4% to 5% improvements in 5-year survival rates for stage I-III and prolongation of only months for stage IV. New advances include the discovery of oncogenic drivers and therapies specific for these drivers, new ways to improve the response and new ways to detect and diagnose lung cancer earlier. This review will summarize the advances and current controversies in the management of lung cancers, many of which have figured prominently in American Society of Clinical Oncology’s history. PATHOLOGY

Historical Perspective WHO defines lung cancer as tumors arising from the respiratory epithelium and divides them into four major cell types—SCLC, adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and large-cell carcinoma.1 Historically, the major pathological distinction was simply between SCLC and the others which were grouped and referred to as NSCLC. SCLC tumors grow faster, spread earlier and are more sensitive to cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents.2 All histologic types of lung cancer can be found in current and former smokers although squamous and small-cell carcinomas are most commonly associated with heavy tobacco use. Squamous carcinoma was the most commonly diagnosed subtype of NSCLC through the first half of the 20th century. However, the decline in cigarette consumption and changes in their composition made adenocarcinoma the most frequent histologic subtype of lung cancer.3,4 In lifetime never-smokers, women, and younger adults (⬍ 60 years), adenocarcinoma tends to be the dominant histology. Current Perspective Until recently, there was no need to distinguish among the various subtypes of NSCLC as there were no clear differences in therapeutic outcome based on histology alone.2 This perspective radically changed in 2004 with the discovery of the epidermal growth factor Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 32, No 10 (April 1), 2014: pp 973-982

receptor (EGFR) mutation is present in lung adenocarcinoma and is related to a favorable response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI).5,6 Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) fusions were later found to also be limited to adenocarcinoma7 and current guidelines recommend initial EGFR and ALK testing in patients with adenocarcinoma or mixed tumors with adenocarcinoma components.8 The subsequent recognition that pemetrexed was active only in nonsquamous NSCLC, but not squamous cell or SCLC, emphasized the need for specific histologic diagnosis for therapy selection.9,10 Further, the recognition that bevacizumab had excess toxicities in squamous carcinoma emphasized the need for specific histologic diagnosis.11 These findings established the need for modifications in the existing WHO lung cancer classification system.12 The revised classification system, developed jointly in 2011 by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, the American Thoracic Society, and the European Respiratory Society,13 recognizes that most lung cancers are diagnosed on small biopsies or cytological specimens rendering clear histologic distinctions difficult. Previously, tumors failing to show definite glandular or squamous morphology in a small biopsy or cytologic specimen were simply classified as “non–small-cell carcinoma, not otherwise specified.” However, as the distinction between adenocarcinoma and squamous carcinoma is critical to optimal therapeutic decision making, the modified approach recommends these lesions be further characterized using a limited special stain work-up. This distinction can be achieved using a single marker for adenocarcinoma (thyroid transcription factor-1 or napsin-A) plus a squamous marker (p40 or p63) and/or mucin stains.12 The modified classification system also recommends preservation of sufficient specimen material for appropriate molecular testing (eg, EGFR or ALK) necessary to help guide therapeutic decision making.8,12 Another significant modification to the WHO classification system is the discontinuation of the term “bronchioloalveolar carcinoma.”12 The term was dropped due to its inconsistent use and because it caused confusion in routine clinical care and research. As formerly used, the term encompassed at least five different entities with diverse clinical and molecular properties. The terms “adenocarcinoma in situ” and “minimally invasive adenocarcinoma” are now recommended for small solitary adenocarcinomas (ⱕ 3 cm) with either pure lepidic growth or predominant lepidic growth with ⱕ 5 mm invasion.12,13 Individuals with these entities experience 100% or near 100% 5-year disease-free survival with complete tumor resection. Invasive adenocarcinomas, representing more than 70% to 90% of © 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

Information downloaded from jco.ascopubs.org and provided by at RICE UNIVERSITY on May 29, 2014 from Copyright © 2014 American Society 128.42.202.150 of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.

973

Editorial

Table 1. Summary of Therapeutic Advances in Lung Cancer Date

Discovery

Reference

1970s

Cisplatin produces responses in SCLC ⫹ NSCLC Etoposide produces responses in SCLC EP produces high response rate in SCLC EP most effective, least toxic SCLC regimen CT/RT superior to either alone in LSCLC PCI improves survival in LSCLC Retreatment with EP effective with late recurrence of SCLC FDA approves etoposide for SCLC and carbo for NSCLC Adjuvant CT improves 5-yr and OS in stage II⫹III NSCLC CT/RT improves 5-yr and OS in inoperable stage III NSCLC Platinum doublets improve OS in stage IV, PS 0-1 NSCLC FDA approves paclitaxel, vinorelbine, Gem for NSCLC Most platinum doublets equivalent Pem/Cis superior to Gem/Cis in non-Sq but inferior in Sq Bev added to carbo/taxol improves OS in non-Sq, NSCLC Platinum doublets improved outcome in elderly and PS 2 NSCLC Relationship between EGFR mutation and response to EGFR TKI reported EGFR TKIs superior to CT in first-line rx of EGFR-mutant NSCLC ALK fusion identified as molecular driver in some adenocarcinomas ALK TKI (crizotinib) effective in patients with ALK fusion PCI improves survival in ESCLC Neoadjuvant CT improves survival in resectable NSCLC Docetaxel, Pem and erlotinib improve survival in second-line rx Docetaxel, Pem and erlotinb prolong survival as maintenance FDA approves docetaxel, Pem, gefitinib, erlotinib, bevacizumab for NSCLC; Pem approved for maintenance; zolendronic acid for prevention of bone problems; topotecan for SCLC Driver molecular abnormalities reported in up to 60% of lung adenocarcinomas and are associated with improved outcome after specific TKI therapy Mechanisms of resistance to EGFR and ALK TKIs identified Responses to antibodies to immune regulatory proteins reported FDA approves paclitaxel/carbo; denosumab for bone metastases prevention, erlotinib and afatinib as first-line therapy for EGFR-mutant first-line therapy, erlotinib for maintenance therapy, crizotinib for ALK fusion

45, 46 45, 46 45, 46 45, 46 40, 41 47 56

1980s

1990s

2000s

2010s

60 60 60, 76, 77 80, 81 9 11, 99 82-84 5, 6 102-107 7 111-115 49 62-64 86-88 93-95

15 109 119-124

Abbreviations: ALK, anaplastic lymphoma kinase; Bev, bevacizumab; carbo, carboplatin; Cis, cisplatin; CT, chemotherapy; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; EP, etoposide plus cisplatin; FDA, US Food and Drug Administration; Gem, gemcitabine; LSCLC, limited stage SCLC; NSCLC, non–small-cell lung cancer; OS, overall survival; PCI, prophylactic cranial irradiation; Pem, pemetrexed; PS, performance status; RT, radiation therapy; rx, therapy; SCLC, small-cell lung cancer; Sq, squamous cell carcinoma; taxol, paclitaxel; TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

surgically resected lung adenocarcinomas, are classified by their predominant pattern—lepidic, acinar, papillary, and solid patterns. Prognostically speaking, lepidic-predominant subtype has a favorable outlook, acinar and papillary have an intermediate prognosis, and solid-predominant has a poor prognosis.14 The terms signet ring and clear-cell adenocarcinoma have been eliminated from the variants of invasive lung adenocarcinoma whereas the term “micropapillary,” a subtype with a particularly poor prognosis, has been added.13 Current Controversies Current diagnostic biopsies are limited in size and amount of DNA that can be extracted. Individual tests, especially immunohistochemistry and fluorescent in situ hybridization, consume large amount of tissue. Thus, there may be insufficient material for testing all genetic abnormalities. Individual and sequential testing will also cost more and take more time than panel testing. Next Generation sequencing can solve these problems but is quite difficult to establish. It is likely that panel testing will become widely used in the future, especially as drugs are also developed for the drivers in squamous and small-cell cancer as well as adenocarcinomas.21-23 974

© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology

LUNG CANCER SCREENING

Historical Perspective Randomized controlled trials conducted in the 1960s to 1980s failed to show an impact on lung cancer-specific mortality in high-risk patients using chest radiographs (CXR; ⫾ sputum cytology).24 Accordingly, screening for lung cancer was not encouraged. In response to criticisms of early studies, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) initiated the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) that differed from the previous screening trials in that women and never-smokers were eligible plus the study was adequately powered to detect a 10% reduction in lung cancer mortality in the screened population.25,26 The interventional group received annual CXR screening for 4 years while the others received only their usual medical care. Through 13 years of follow-up, cumulative lung cancer incidence rates (20.1 per v 19.2 per 10,000 person-years; rate ratio [RR], 1.05) and lung cancer mortality were identical between the two groups (1,213 v 1,230).26 The stage and histology of detected cancers in the two groups also JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY

Information downloaded from jco.ascopubs.org and provided by at RICE UNIVERSITY on May 29, 2014 from Copyright © 2014 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved. 128.42.202.150

Editorial

were similar. These data corroborated previous recommendations against CXR screening for lung cancer. Current Controversies and Perspective In nonrandomized studies conducted in the latter part of the 20th century, low-dose, spiral chest computed tomography (LDCT) appeared to be a potentially more effective screening tool for lung cancer and detected more lung nodules as compared with standard CXR.27,28 Moreover, up to 85% of the lung cancers were stage I and therefore amenable to curative surgical resection.29 These data spurred the NCI to initiate the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), a randomized study designed to determine if LDCT screening could reduce lung cancer mortality in high-risk populations as compared with standard CXR.27 High risk was defined as individuals between 55 and 74 years of age with a ⱖ 30 pack-years history of cigarette smoking; former smokers must have quit within the previous 15 years. Any noncalcified nodule measuring ⱖ 4 mm in any diameter found on LDCT and CXR images with any noncalcified nodule or mass were classified as positive. A total of 53,454 persons were enrolled. Overall, 39.1% of participants in the LDCT group had at least one positive screening result as compared with 16% in the CXR group. Of those who screened positive, the false-positive rate was 96.4% in the LDCT group and 94.5% in the CXR group. In the LDCT group 1,060 cancers were identified compared with 941 cancers in the CXR group (645 per v 572 per 100,000 person-years; RR, 1.13). The overall rates of lung cancer death were 247 and 309 deaths per 100,000 participants, respectively, representing a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality in the LDCT screened population (P ⫽ .004).27 The number needed to screen to prevent one lung cancer death was calculated to be 320. As compared with the CXR group, the rate of death in the LDCT group from any cause was reduced by 6.7% (P ⫽ .02). The risks associated with LDCT screening include a high rate of false-positive results, false-negative results, the potential for unnecessary follow-up testing, radiation exposure, overdiagnosis, anxiety, depression, and changes in quality of life, as well as substantial financial costs.30,31 At $300 per scan (NCI-estimated cost); the outlay for initial LDCT alone could run into the billions of dollars annually, an expense that only further escalates when factoring in various downstream expenditures an individual might incur in the assessment of positive findings. A formal cost-effectiveness analysis of the NLST is expected soon. Despite the aforementioned caveats, screening of individuals who meet the NLST criteria for lung cancer risk or, in some cases, modified versions of these criteria seems warranted,34 provided comprehensive multidisciplinary coordinated care and follow-up similar to those provided to NLST participants are available.35 Algorithms to improve candidate selection are under development.36 When discussing the option of LDCT screening, use of absolute risks rather than relative risks is helpful as studies indicate the public can process absolute terminology more effectively than relative risk projections. A useful guide has been developed to help patients and physicians assess the benefits and harms of LDCT screening for lung cancer.37 Finally, even a small negative effect of screening on smoking behavior (either lower quit rates or higher recidivism) could easily offset the potential gains in a population. To date no such impact has been reported.38 Nonetheless, smoking cessation must be included as an indispensable component of any screening program. www.jco.org

TREATMENT OF SCLC

Historical and Current Perspectives The majority (approximately 90%) of patients with SCLC present with disease spread to at least regional lymph nodes and/or distant metastatic sites. However, a small number of patients present with small tumors that have no lymph node or other metastases and a few present with only ipsilateral pulmonary lymph node involvement (N1). The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer staging committee collected a large number of resected cases to inform the seventh edition of the TNM Staging Classification of the International Union Against Cancer/American Joint Committee on Cancer.39 The data showed that 5-year survival for patients with Stage 1A (T1N0M0), stage IB (T2, N0M0) and stage IIA (T1N1M0) exceeded 50% whereas survival of resected patients with stage IIB and III was not superior to the survival of patients with limited stage SCLC treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Therefore, the group recommended routine use of the TNM classification for all patients with newly diagnosed SCLC with surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy for those with stage IA, IB and IIA. Treatment of Stage IIB and III SCLC Studies conducted in the late 1970s and 1980s suggested that the combined use of both chemotherapy and chest radiotherapy (chemoRT) would provide superior outcomes compared with the use of either modality alone (Table 1).40 Subsequent meta-analyses of all randomized trials conclusively demonstrated the benefit.41 At that point, the remaining questions were the optimal dose and schedule of chest radiotherapy, the optimal timing of the chest radiotherapy, and the optimal chemotherapy regimen. Based on preclinical repopulation studies, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) conducted a phase III randomized trial in which all patients received etoposide/cisplatin (EP) chemoRT. The RT was delivered twice daily in 1.5 Gy fractions to a total dose of 45 Gy or the same daily and total doses delivered once daily.42 Patients randomly assigned to twice per day radiation had a superior outcome with respect to local recurrence and overall survival (OS). The majority of studies reported that early institution of chest radiation is superior to late institution,43 and most guidelines indicate that radiation may start at the outset or after two cycles of chemotherapy. For large tumors, a delay in the start of radiation until after two cycles of chemotherapy may reduce the volume of chest irradiation. The EP combination was used in the majority of randomized trials although the dose and schedule of the two drugs differed in the ECOG42 and Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG)44 combinations. This two-drug combination produced more acceptable toxicity compared with CAV (cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, vincristine) – based combinations and no combination to date has been shown to be superior to EP which is recommended in all guidelines.45,46 Randomized trials showed that prophylactic cranial irradiation reduced subsequent brain relapse frequency and improved overall survival in patients with limited and extensive stage SCLC patients who had responded to chemoradiotherapy.47,48 Recent studies have noted decreased late cognitive improvement with doses of 25 Gy in 10 fractions with equal survival and brain relapse rates compared with higher doses.49 Thus, this dose has been adopted as a standard of care © 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology


975

Editorial

in both limited and extensive stages in patients with good responses to their initial therapy. Therapy for Stage IV SCLC (extensive stage) Studies during the 1970s demonstrated that many chemotherapeutic agents produced high response rates in SCLC patients and that two- or three-drug combinations produced superior outcomes compared with single agents. Toward the end of the 1970s, studies had demonstrated high response rates for both etoposide and cisplatin and this EP combination was shown to produce equivalent efficacy with less frequent grade 3 and 4 toxicities, especially myelosuppression and cardiac toxicities compared with CAV and similar combinations.50,51 Therefore, the EP combination was adopted as standard in extensive as well as limited stage (Table 1).45,46 Subsequent studies attempted to increase dose intensity of the chemotherapy by increasing frequency of administration, increasing the dose with or without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support, and by adding additional drugs. In some studies the dose intensity was increased to the point that autologous bone marrow support was required. No randomized trial showed advantage to these approaches and they were largely abandoned. Topoisomerase-1 inhibitors, topotecan and irinotecan, were shown to have considerable activity in both first-line and second-line settings. Topotecan is approved in second line.52-54 Taxanes and vinorelbine have some activity and are sometimes used in second or third line. Patients who respond initially to EP and relapse more than 10 weeks later should be re-treated with EP because response rates are superior to second-line therapy with other agents.56 Pemetrexed/cisplatin was shown to be inferior to EP in a large randomized first-line trial and should not be used in this setting.10 Current Controversies in SCLC The optimal radiation dose and schedule need to be defined for limited stage. The fact that the biologic effect of the twice daily RT is greater than once daily raises the question of whether twice daily radiation to a total of 45 Gy is superior to once daily to a higher total dose such as 60 Gy. Recent studies have added targeted therapies such as angiogenesis inhibitors, EGFR inhibitors, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, Bcl2 inhibitors, histone deacetylase inhibitors, proteosome inhibitors, and other novel drug classes to EP or as second-line therapy. To date, none of these have shown sufficient benefit to warrant phase III study. Ongoing studies are evaluating fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitors and PARP inhibitors. The DNA repair or other mechanisms that produce rapid and near universal chemoresistance after initial chemotherapy need to be identified and overcome. Immunotherapeutic approaches have so far failed to improve outcomes in SCLC. The anti– cytotoxic T cell antigen (CTLA) antibody, ipilimumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin appeared to produce a small benefit which has led to an ongoing phase III trial comparing EP chemotherapy with the same chemotherapy plus ipilimumab.58 The anti–programmed death 1 (PD1) and anti– programmed death receptor ligand 1 antibodies are being studied in SCLC, but no results are available to date. p53 is inactivated in nearly 100% of SCLC tumors. However, there are no effective p53 therapies at present. Rb is also in more than 50% of SCLC tumors, but once again, there are no effective strategies to restore Rb function at present. The FGFR gene is amplified in 5% to 976


10% of SCLC’s and FGFR inhibitors will be studied in these tumors. SOX2 is mutated in a small fraction of SCLC tumors and SOX2 inhibitors will be tested. The myc family of oncogenes is frequently amplified in SCLC tumors and there is some evidence that aurora kinase A and B inhibitors have increased activity in myc amplified tumors. Additional studies are planned. Other common genetic abnormalities and signal pathology abnormalities are described in the results of large studies conducted by the Cancer Genome Atlas and by Genentech.21-23

TREATMENT OF NSCLC

Treatment of Stage I-IIIA NSCLC Historical perspective. The early appreciation that most relapses after surgery were in distant sites59 fostered adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy trials. In 1995, a meta-analysis of 14 randomized trials demonstratedasurvivalbenefitwithsurgerypluscisplatin-basedchemotherapy versus surgery alone.60 However, the hazard ratio (HR) was 0.87 (13% reduction in the risk of death, equivalent to an absolute benefit of 5% at 5 years) and the P value was borderline at 0.08. Since then, additional randomized trials were added to an individual patient meta-analysis, LACE (Lung Adjuvant Cisplatin Evaluation). This meta-analysis reported an overall HR of death of 0.89 (P ⫽ .005), corresponding to a 5-year absolute benefit of 5.4% from chemotherapy.61 However, survival benefit varied with stage, with a detrimental effect in stage I (HR for stage IA ⫽ 1.40; HR for stage IB ⫽ 0.93) compared with a statistically significant benefit for stage II and III disease (HR ⫽ 0.83). A second, larger adjuvant meta-analysis published in 2010 found an absolute increase in survival of 4% at 5 years (from 60% to 64%; HR ⫽ 0.86; P ⬍ .001), and no effect of chemotherapy regimen.62 Randomized trials of neoadjuvant chemotherapy also showed borderline improved survival with preoperative chemotherapy63,64 and a recent meta-analysis of neoadjuvant trials showed a statistically significant improvement in survival of similar magnitude to that observed in the adjuvant meta-analysis (Table 1).65 Current controversies. The optimal adjuvant chemotherapy regimen remains to be defined for NSCLC; however, a majority of studies have employed cisplatin containing doublets, often with a vinca alkaloid. The notable exception was Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) 9633, which randomly assigned patients to observation versus paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy after resection of stage IB disease, and did not meet statistical significance (HR 0.83; P ⫽ .12).66 It is not known if the statistically negative result was due to the IB population, the relatively small sample size of 344, or the chemotherapy regimen (carboplatin instead of cisplatin; paclitaxel instead of a vinca alkaloid). Of note, an exploratory analysis of the CALGB trial demonstrated a significant survival difference in favor of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients who had tumors ⱖ 4 cm in diameter (HR ⫽ 0.69; P ⫽ .043). Several prognostic gene signatures have been proposed to define which stage I patients are most likely to recur and which stage II and IIIA patients are least likely to recur.67,68 These prognostic signatures must be validated in prospective studies to determine if they have a predictive value in choosing whether to employ chemotherapy. Postoperative radiation therapy is not useful in prolonging survival in the adjuvant setting and may be detrimental in stages I and II.69 JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY


Editorial

The use of postoperative radiation therapy in stage IIIAN2 disease remains under study. Treatment of Stage III NSCLC Historical perspective. Stage IIIA NSCLC represents a wide range of disease, from CT-normal, positron emission tomography–negative disease with N2 micrometastases, to bulky, inoperable cancer with positive bilateral mediastinal nodes. There data were confirmed in the intergroup study showed in improvement in survival with two cycles of induction cisplatin/vinblastine chemotherapy followed by surgery.70 With more than 7 years of follow-up, the median survival was greater for the chemo/RT group than for the RT alone group (13.7 v 9.6 months, respectively; P ⫽ .012). A Radiation Therapy Oncology Group study found an improved survival with concurrent cisplatin/vinblastine/RT compared with sequential therapy (5-year survival: 16%; compared with 10%; P ⫽ .046).71 Improved survival was also observed in a Japanese trial involving two cycles of mitomycin-C, vindesine, and cisplatin were given concurrently or sequentially with 56 Gy of radiation.72 These and other studies established the standard of care as concurrent chemoRT for good performance status stage IIIB patients (Table 1). Current controversies. Subsequent issues have centered on the role of surgery for clinical stage IIIA disease, and the proper sequencing and regimen of chemotherapy for stage IIIA and IIIB disease. A large intergroup study compared triple modality therapy with chemoradiotherapy for clinical stage IIIA disease.73 Although there was no OS benefit, a unplanned subset analysis showed that patients not requiring a pneumonectomy seemingly fared better with triple modality therapy. Thus, clinicians must decide on surgery plus chemotherapy, chemoRT, or all three based on clinical features and experience. Common chemotherapy regimens include weekly low-dose carboplatin and paclitaxel, or the SWOG 4-week regimen of EP. A randomized phase II study of weekly doses of paclitaxel (50 mg/m2) and carboplatin (AUC 2) with concurrent radiation therapy followed by consolidation paclitaxel and carboplatin showed improved survival compared with sequential chemoRT or induction carboplatin/paclitaxel followed by concurrent chemoRT74; whereas a randomized phase III by the Hoosier Oncology Group showed no benefit to consolidation docetaxel after cisplatin/etoposide/RT.75 These two regimens (concurrent weekly carboplatin/paclitaxel/RT followed by consolidation carboplatin/paclitaxel or concurrent cisplatin/etoposide/RT) have not been compared with each other in head-to-head trials, and remain the most commonly used regimens in the US today. Treatment of Stage IV NSCLC Historical perspective. Early studies of cytotoxic chemotherapy agents and combinations yielded low response rates, high toxicity rates, and questionable improvements in survival. However, the 1995 meta-analysis showed an improvement in OS in trials for patients with advanced NSCLC who received cisplatin based chemotherapy compared with supportive care alone, with a hazard ratio of 0.73 (27% reduction in the risk of death; 10% improvement in survival at 1 year).60 These findings launched two decades of research aimed at finding which chemotherapy regimens were best. Until recently, randomized trials showed no major improvement with any one doublet over another in terms of OS, although differences between progression-free survival (PFS), cost, adverse effects, and schedule were observed.80,81 These first-line studies were later extended to the www.jco.org

elderly, where doublet chemotherapy was found to improve OS compared with single agent in the fit elderly (eg, elderly patients with no major comorbidities)82,83 and to patients with performance status of 2.84 More recently, a study comparing gemcitabine/cisplatin with pemetrexed/cisplatin found no difference in OS.9 However, the gemcitabine/cisplatin provided superior survival in patients with squamous cell histology whereas pemetrexed/cisplatin was superior in nonsquamous histology. The results of this study emphasize the importance of a correct histologic diagnosis discussed above. Second-line therapy for advanced NSCLC was almost never recommended until a seminal study in 2000 showed that docetaxel improved survival compared with supportive care alone (median survival of 7.0 v 4.6 months, respectively; P ⫽ .047).86 Another phase III study compared pemetrexed with docetaxel.87 Although no difference in survival was observed (1-year survival of 29.7% in both arms), patients randomly assigned to docetaxel were more likely to have febrile neutropenia, infections, and hospitalizations for neutropenia fevers than patients who received pemetrexed, resulting in the US Food and Drug Administration’s approval of pemetrexed as second-line therapy for NSCLC. In addition, a posthoc analysis by histology demonstrated a selective benefit for pemetrexed in nonsquamous histology but no benefit in squamous carcinoma. Finally, an NCI-C study showed that erlotinib improved survival after failure of one or two prior chemotherapy regimens irrespective of histology (Table 1).88 Current treatment and controversies. A major area of controversy in the treatment of metastatic NSCLC is the role of maintenance chemotherapy. Although used in other malignancies, until recently, continuing chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC patients beyond four to six cycles was not found to improve survival, although it did improve PFS.90-92 In 2009, Fidias et al93 reported that patients with stable or responding disease following four cycles of carboplatin/gemcitabine who received immediate docetaxel had a 3-month improvement in PFS and increased median OS compared with patients who received docetaxel at progression (from 12.3 months to 9.7 months, respectively, although this did not reach statistical significance; P ⫽ .09). Since then, a number of other studies have looked at “continuation” and “switch” maintenance cytotoxic chemotherapy. In a more recent randomized “switch” maintenance study, patients with response or stable disease after four to six cycles of a nonpemetrexed platinum-based doublet were randomized to pemetrexed maintenance versus best supportive care. Patients with nonsquamous carcinoma receiving pemetrexed had a significant improvement in PFS and in OS.94 These trials raised the issue of whether continuation of the pemetrexed after four to six cycles of induction pemetrexed/platinum therapy would also prolong PFS and OS. The PARAMOUNT study indicated that continuation pemetrexed maintenance could indeed prolong PFS and OS after induction with pemetrexed/platinum.95 Subsequent and ongoing trials are being conducted to determine if maintenance after induction with regimens containing bevacizumab should contain bevacizumab, pemetrexed, or both. One such trial suggested that bevacizumab plus pemetrexed improved PFS but not OS.96 Final conclusions will wait further study results. © 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology


977

Editorial

Erlotinib was also evaluated as switch maintenance after four to six cycles of platinum doublet chemotherapy and was shown to improve both PFS and OS compared with placebo irrespective of histology. Patients with EGFR mutations had a larger magnitude of benefit.97 Thus, a number of questions remain regarding the optimal use of maintenance chemotherapy. These include cost, impact on quality of life, optimal drugs and schedule, and selection of appropriate patients.98 Newer Therapies: Angiogenesis Inhibitors The two major approaches to angiogenesis pathway inhibition have been monoclonal antibodies, aimed at either the ligand or the receptor, or small-molecule vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). A randomized phase II study showed superior survival of NSCLC patients treated with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel/carboplatin compared with paclitaxel/carboplatin alone.11 However, excess bleeding was noted in patients with squamous cancers precluding further study of bevacizumab in this subtype. This phase II study prompted initiation of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG; E4599), a phase III trial which randomly assigned 878 patients to chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin) or to the same chemotherapy plus 15 mg/kg of bevacizumab every 3 weeks.99 Median survival for patients who received chemotherapy plus bevacizumab was 12.3 months compared with 10.3 months for patients given chemotherapy alone (HR ⫽ 0.79, P ⫽ .003). It should be noted, however, that a second randomized study of bevacizumab (the Avastin in Lung [AVAiL] trial) while showing a prolonged PFS, was negative for survival.100 Unlike the ECOG study, AVAiL randomly assigned patients to gemcitabine and cisplatin plus either placebo; 7.5 mg/kg of bevacizumab every 3 weeks; or 15 mg/kg of bevacizumab every 3 weeks. It is unclear whether the lack of survival benefit is a result of the differences in chemotherapy doublets between the ECOG and AVAiL trials, differences in bevacizumab dose, or other differences in study design. A number of small-molecule vascular endothelial growth factor TKIs have been developed, including sorafenib, sunitinib, vandetanib and other none of which has shown improvement in survival. It is not known if the reason for the negative results is due to lack of inhibition of the target. Unfortunately, no good biomarkers for angiogenesis inhibition have been identified.101 Molecular Therapies Arguably, the most important clinically relevant advances have been discovery of driver oncogenes that are constitutively activated by mutation, translocation or fusion and the discovery that oral smallmolecule TKIs of these oncogenes produce high response rates and relatively long duration of these responses. In 2004, three separate investigative teams demonstrated an association between the presence of EGFR mutations (deletions in exon 19 or point mutations in exon 21) that activate the EGFR by altering the ATP binding site and response to gefitinib.5,6 These mutations were found to be more common in females, in light or never smokers in patients of Asian ethnicity and were nearly always in adenocarcinoma histology. Subsequently, randomized trials demonstrated that EGFR TKIs produced higher response rates, less toxicity, and improved PFS rates compared with platinum-based doublets for chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced lung cancer having these mutations.102-107 Based on these findings, current guidelines suggest all patients with stage IV NSCLC 978


with any adenocarcinoma component to their tumor should undergo molecular testing for EGFR mutations before instituting first-line therapy.8 Those with activating mutations should receive an EGFR TKI due to superior PFS whereas chemotherapy is superior if no mutation is present.102,108 Unfortunately, TKI-treated patients with EGFR mutations are not cured by the EGFR TKI therapy, and progress after a median of 9 to 10 months. The mechanisms of resistance reported to date include secondary gatekeeper mutations in the EGFR gene at T790M,109 the outgrowth of small-cell lung cancer cells, and activation of other pathways such as MET, FGFR and AXL, HER2 amplification and epithelial to mesenchymal transition.109 New TKIs that bind to T790M and activating EGFR mutations but not to wild-type EGFR receptors have been developed and hold promise for improved results.110 In 2007, Soda et al7 reported that the ALK oncogene is activated in lung cancer by fusion with a gene partner caused by a chromosomal break and rearrangement between ALK and the EML4 gene on the same chromosome 2 (a gene fusion). A break-apart fluorescent in situ hybridization probe test was used to verify the presence of the fusion.111 An expanded phase I trial of crizotinib (a TKI that also inhibits MET and ROS) showed an objective response rate of approximately 60% with a median PFS of about 10 months in patients with a EML4/ ALK fusion.112 These results were confirmed in a phase II study113 that led to accelerated US Food and Drug Administration approval and to a subsequent randomized second-line study versus pemetrexed or docetaxel showing response and PFS superiority for crizotinib compared with chemotherapy.114 Clinical features associated with ALK fusions include adenocarcinoma histology, younger age, never smoking status, and female sex.115 The frequency of ALK fusions did not vary by ethnicity (ie, similar frequency in Asians and Europeans). ALK testing before institution of first-line therapy is now recommended in most guidelines, irrespective of clinical features for those with any adenocarcinoma component in their tumor.8 Additional potential drivers in patients with lung cancer have been found in adenocarcinomas including mutations in KRAS, BRAF, HER2, AKT1 and fusions involving the RET, ROS, and NTRAK oncogenes.15-20 These observations have led to clinical trials using specific TKIs. Data on preliminary results for crizotinib for patients with ROS fusions have been reported. The US Lung Cancer Mutation consortium (LCMC) assessed 1,000 advanced lung adenocarcinomas for 12 potential molecular drivers. Nearly two thirds of these patients had a molecular driver abnormality; however, the presence of two simultaneous mutations was rare.15 Patients with a molecular driver that received an appropriate molecularly targeted therapy had the best survival. These studies suggest that multiple oncogene abnormalities will need testing before institution of therapy in the future. Immunotherapies Until recently the history of vaccine therapy for lung cancers has been dismal. In 2013, encouraging phase II data were reported with a vaccine targeting the MAGE antigen.116 A gene signature was found to associate with a better outcome.117 A phase III trial (MAGRIT [MAGE A3 as Adjuvant Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Immunotherapy]) has completed accrual; results are pending. The vaccine BLP25 was reported to improve outcomes after chemoRT in patients with stage IIIB NSCLC but did not approve outcomes after chemotherapy in stage IV.118 A follow-up randomized phase III study showed a trend toward JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY


Editorial

improved survival that failed to reach statistical significance. A subset analysis demonstrated that survival was significantly improved in patients who received concurrent chemoRT. A follow-up phase III trial in this subset is planned. More recent studies have indicated that monoclonal antibodies to antigens involved in immune regulatory checkpoints may be useful for lung cancer as well as other cancers.119 The anti CTLA-4 antibody, ipilumumab was studied in combination with paclitaxel plus carboplatin in patients with both SCLC and NSCLC.58,120 There appeared to be a small, but not statistically significant, advantage to the combination when the ipilumumab was instituted after several cycles of chemotherapy. A randomized phase III trial in SCLC is ongoing. Antibodies to the programmed cell death receptor 1 called nivolumab and lambrolizumab have been shown to produce responses in lung cancer and melanoma.122,123 Many of these responses have had long duration (eg, ⬎ 1 year). Monoclonal antibodies to the PD1 ligand (anti-PDL1) have also been shown to produce responses in patients with melanoma and lung cancer.124 Preliminary studies in melanoma suggest that the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab could produce higher response rates compared with either alone.125 SUMMARY

Progress in lung cancer therapy has been slow but steady and has accelerated due to improvements in scientific basis for the disease and to technologic advances in diagnosis and therapy. The elusive goal of reduced mortality rates can be achieved in the next 50 years through continued interdisciplinary research efforts. AUTHORS’ DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Although all authors completed the disclosure declaration, the following author(s) and/or an author’s immediate family member(s) indicated a financial or other interest that is relevant to the subject matter under consideration in this article. Certain relationships marked with a “U” are those for which no compensation was received; those relationships marked with a “C” were compensated. For a detailed description of the disclosure categories, or for more information about ASCO’s conflict of interest policy, please refer to the Author Disclosure Declaration and the Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest section in Information for Contributors. Employment or Leadership Position: None Consultant or Advisory Role: David H. Johnson, Peloton Therapeutics (C), Mirna Therapeutics (C); Joan H. Schiller, Genentech (C), Synta (C), Biodesix (C), Dekkun (C), Ariad (C), Boehringer-Ingelheim (C), AdventRx (C), Merck (C), Aggenix (served on Data Safety and Monitoring Committee; C), Arquile (served on Steering Committee for MARQUEE; C), Peregrine (C), Threshold Pharmaceuticals (C), Novartis (C), GlaxoSmithKline (C), Clovis (C), AVEO (C), Pfizer (served on Data Safety and Monitoring Committee; C), EMD/Serono (C) Stock Ownership: None Honoraria: Paul A. Bunn, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi-Sanyko, Eisai, Lilly, Merck, Merck Serono, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, sanofi-aventis, Synta Research Funding: Joan H. Schiller, Genentech, Merrimack, Endocyte, Synta, Novartis, Astex, Geron Expert Testimony: None Patents, Royalties, and Licenses: None Other Remuneration: None AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Provision of study materials or patients: Joan H. Schiller Manuscript writing: All authors Final approval of manuscript: All authors REFERENCES 1. Travis W, Brambilla E, Muller-Hermelink H, et al (eds): Pathology and Genetics of Tumors of the Lung, Pleura, Thymus and Heart. Lyon, France, IARC Press, 2004 www.jco.org

2. Horn L, Pao W, Johnson DH: Neoplasms of the lung, in Fauci AS, Braunwald E, Kasper DL, et al (eds): Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine (ed 18). New York, NY, McGraw-Hill, 2010 3. Govindan R, Page N, Morgensztern D, et al: Changing epidemiology of small-cell lung cancer in the United States over the last 30 years: Analysis of the surveillance, epidemiologic, and end results database. J Clin Oncol 24:45394544, 2006 4. Chen F, Cole P, Bina WF: Time trend and geographic patterns of lung adenocarcinoma in the United States, 1973-2002. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 16:2724-2729, 2007 5. Lynch TJ, Bell DW, Sordella R, et al: Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N Engl J Med 350:2129-2139, 2004 6. Paez JG, Ja¨nne PA, Lee JC, et al: EGFR mutations in lung cancer: Correlation with clinical response to gefitinib therapy. Science 304:1497-1500, 2004 7. Soda M, Choi YL, Enomoto M, et al: Identification of the transforming EML4-ALK fusion gene in non-small-cell lung cancer. Nature 448:561-566, 2007 8. Lindeman NI, Cagle PT, Beasley MB, et al: Molecular testing guidelines for selection of lung cancer patients for EGFR and ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors: Guideline from the College of American Pathologists, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and Association for Moleclar Pathology. J Thorac Oncol 8:823-859, 2013 9. Scagliotti GV, Parikh P, von Pawel J, et al: Phase III study comparing cisplatin plus gemcitabine with cisplatin plus pemetrexed in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced-stage non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 26:35433551, 2008 10. Socinski M, Smit EF, Lorigan P, et al: Phase III study of pemetrexed plus carboplatin compared to etoposide plus carboplatin in chemotherapy-naïve patients with extensive stage small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 27:4787-4792, 2009 11. Johnson DH, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny WF, et al: Randomized phase II trial comparing bevacizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel with carboplatin and paclitaxel alone in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic non–smallcell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 22:2184-2191, 2004 12. Travis WD, Brambilla E, Riely GJ: New pathologic classification of lung cancer: Relevance for clinical practice and clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 3:992-1001, 2013 13. Travis WD, Brambilla E, Noguchi M, et al: International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer/American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society international multidisciplinary classification of lung adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Oncol 6:244-285, 2011 14. Warth A, Muley T, Meister M, et al: The novel histologic International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer/American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society classification system of lung adenocarcinoma is a stageindependent predictor of survival. J Clin Oncol 30:1438-1446, 2012 15. Kris MG, Johnson B, Berry L, et al: Treatment with therapies matched to oncogenic drivers improves survival in patients with lung cancers: Results from the Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium (LCMC). International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer 15th World Conference on Lung Cancer, Sydney, Australia, October 27-31, 2013 (abstr PL03.07) 16. Cardarella S, Ogino A, Nishino M, et al: Clinical, pathologic and biologic features associated with BRAF mutations in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 19:4532-4540, 2013 17. Mazieres J, Peters S, Lepage B, et al: Lung cancer that harbors a Her2 mutation: Epidemiologic charactestics and therapeutic perspectives. J Clin Oncol 31:1997-2003, 2013 18. Takeuchi K, Soda M, Togashi Y, et al: RET, ROS1 and ALK fusions in lung cancer. Nat Med 18:378-381, 2012 19. Davies KD, Le AT, Theodoro MF, et al: Identifying and targeting ROS 1 fusions in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 18:4570-4579, 2012 20. Wang R, Hu H, Pan Y, et al: RET fusions define a unique molecular and clinicopathologic subtype of non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 30:43524359, 2012 21. Cancer Genomic Atlas Research Network: Comprehensive genomic characterization of squamous cell lung cancers. Nature 489:519-525, 2012 22. Rudin CM, Durinck S, Stawiski EW, et al: Comprehensive genomic analysis identifies SOX2 as a frequently amplified gene in small-cell lung cancer. Nat Genet 44:1111-1116, 2012 23. Peifer M, Ferna´ndez-Cuesta L, Sos ML, et al: Integrative genome analyses identify key somatic driver mutations of small-cell lung cancer. Nat Genet 44:1104-1110, 2012 24. Patz EF Jr, Goodman PC, Bepler G: Screening for lung cancer. N Engl J Med 343:1627-1633, 2000



979

Editorial

25. Dominioni L, Strauss GM, Imperatori A, et al: Screening for lung cancer. Chest Surg Clin North Am 10:729-736, 2000 26. Oken MM, Hocking WG, Kvale PA, et al: Screening by chest radiograph and lung cancer mortality: The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) randomized trial. JAMA 306:1865-1873, 2011 27. Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, et al: Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 365:395-409, 2011 28. Henschke CI, McCauley DI, Yankelevitz DF, et al: Early Lung Cancer Action Project: Overall design and findings from baseline screening. Lancet 354:99-105, 1999 29. Henschke CI, Yankelevitz DF, Libby DM, et al: Survival of patients with stage I lung cancer detected on CT screening. N Engl J Med 355:1763-1771, 2006 30. Boiselle PM: Computed tomography screening for lung cancer. JAMA 309:1163-1170, 2013 31. Bach PB, Mirkin JN, Oliver TK, et al: Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer: A systematic review. JAMA 307:2418-2429, 2012 32. Reference deleted 33. Reference deleted 34. Ettinger DS, Akerly W, Borghaei H, et al: Non-small cell lung cancer, version 2.2013. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 11:645-653, 2013 35. Lam S, McWilliams A, Mayo J, et al: Computed tomography screening for lung cancer: What is a positive screen? Ann Intern Med 158:289-290, 2013 36. Tammema¨gi MC, Katki HA, Hocking WG, et al: Selection criteria for lung-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 368:728-736, 2013 37. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Black WC, et al: Cancer screening campaigns: getting past uninformative persuasion. N Engl J Med 367:1677-1679, 2012 38. van der Aalst CM, van Klaveren RJ, van den Bergh KA, et al: The impact of a lung cancer computed tomography screening result on smoking abstinence. Eur Respir J 37:1466-1473, 2011 39. Vallie`res E, Shepherd FA, Crowley J, et al: The IASLC lung cancer staging project: Proposals regarding the relevance of TNM in the pathologic staging of small cell lung cancer in the forthcoming (seventh) edition of the TNM classification for lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 4:1049-1059, 2009 40. Bunn PA Jr, Lichter AS, Makuch RW, et al: Chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy with chest radiation therapy in limited stage small cell lung cancer: A prospective, randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 106:655-662, 1987 41. Warde P, Payne D: Does thoracic irradiation improve survival and local control in limited-stage small-cell carcinoma of the lung? A meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 10:890-895, 1992 42. Turrisi AT 3rd, Kim K, Blum R, et al: Twice-daily compared with once-daily thoracic radiotherapy in limited small-cell lung cancer treated concurrently with cisplatin and etoposide. N Engl J Med 340:265-271, 1999 43. Murray N, Coy P, Pater JL, et al: Importance of timing for thoracic irradiation in the combined modality treatment of limited-stage small-cell lung cancer: The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol 11:336-344, 1993 44. Bunn PA Jr, Crowley J, Kelly K, et al: Chemoradiotherapy with or without granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in the treatment of limitedstage small-cell lung cancer: A prospective phase III randomized study of the Southwest Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 13:1632-1641, 1995 45. Kalemkerian GP, Akerly W, Bogner P, et al: Small cell lung cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 11:78-98, 2013 46. Samson DJ, Seidenfeld J, Simon GR, et al: Evidence for management of small cell lung cancer: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (2nd edition). Chest 132:314S–323S, 2007 47. Arriagada R, Le Chevalier T, Borie F, et al: Prophylactic cranial irradiation for patients with small-cell lung cancer incomplete remission. J Natl Cancer Inst 87:183-190, 1995 48. Slotman BJ, Mauer ME, Bottomley A, et al: Prophylactic cranial irradiation in extensive disease small-cell lung cancer: Short-term health-related quality of life and patient reported symptoms—Results of an international phase III randomized controlled trial by the EORTC radiation oncology and lung cancer groups. J Clin Oncol 278:78-84, 2009 49. Le Pe´choux C, Laplanche A, Faivre-Finn C, et al: Clinical neurological outcome and quality of life among patients with limited small-cell cancer treated with two different doses of prophylactic cranial irradiation in the intergroup phase III trial (PCI99-01, EORTC 22003-08004, RTOG 0212 and IFCT 99-01). Ann Oncol 22:1154-1163.49, 2011 50. Roth BJ, Johnson DH, Einhorn LH, et al: Randomized study of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine versus etoposide and cisplatin versus alternation of these two regimens in extensive small-cell lung cancer: A phase III trial of the Southeastern Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 10:282-291, 1992 980


51. Murray N, Livingston RB, Shepherd FA, et al: Randomized study of CODE versus alternating CAV/EP for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer: An Intergroup Study of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group and the Southwest Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 17:2300-2308, 1999 52. Ardizzoni A, Hansen H, Dombernowskt P, et al: Topotecan, a new active drug in the second-line treatment of small-cell lung cancer: A phase II study in patients with refractory and sensitive disease—The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Early Clinical Studies Group and New Drug Development Office, and the Lung Cancer Cooperative Group. J Clin Oncol 15:2090-2096, 1997 53. Eckhardt JR, von Pawel J, Pujol JL, et al: Phase III study of oral compared with intravenous topotecan as second-line therapy in small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:2086-2092, 2007 54. O’Brien ME, Cuileanu TE, Tsekov H, et al: Phase III trial comparing supportive care alone with supportive care with oral topotecan in patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:5441-5447, 2006 55. Reference deleted 56. Batist G, Ihde DC, Zabell A, et al: Small-cell carcinoma of lung: Reinduction therapy after late relapse. Ann Intern Med 98:472-474, 1983 57. Reference deleted 58. Reck M, Bondarenko I, Luft A, et al: Ipilimumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line therapy in extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer: Results from a randomized, double-blind, multicenter phase 2 trial. Ann Oncol 24:75-83, 2013 59. Mountain CF, McMurtrey MJ, Frazier BH, et al: Recent status of postoperative adjuvant therapy for lung cancer. Cancer Bull 32:1008-1112, 1980 60. Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group: Chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis using updated data on individual patients from 52 randomised clinical trials. BMJ 311: 899-909, 1995 61. Pignon JP, Tribodet H, Scagliotti GV, et al: Lung adjuvant cisplatin evaluation: A pooled analysis by the LACE Collaborative Group. J Clin Oncol 26:3552-3559, 2008 62. Arriagada R, Auperin A, Burdett S, et al: Adjuvant chemotherapy, with or without postoperative radiotherapy, in operable non-small-cell lung cancer: Two meta-analyses of individual patient data. Lancet 375:1267-1277, 2010 63. Pisters KM, Valie`res E, Crowley JJ, et al: Surgery with or without preoperative paclitaxel and carboplatin in early-stage non–small-cell lung cancer: Southwest Oncology Group Trial S9900, an intergroup, randomized, phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 28:1843-1849, 2010 64. Felip E, Rosell R, Maestre JA, et al: Preoperative chemothereapy plus surgery versus surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone in early-stage non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 28:3138-3145, 2010 65. Song WA, Zhou NK, Wang W, et al: Survival benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: An updated meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials. J Thorac Oncol 5:510-516, 2010 66. Strauss GM, Herndon JE 2nd, Maddaus MA, et al: Adjuvant paclitaxel plus carboplatin compared with observation in stage IB non-small-cell lung cancer: CALGB 9633 with the Cancer and Leukemia Group B, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, and North Central Cancer Treatment Study Groups. J Clin Oncol 26:5043-5051, 2008 67. Kratz JR, He J, Van Den Eeden SK, et al: A practical molecular assay to predict survival in resected non-squamous, non-small cell lung cancer: Development and international validation studies. Lancet 379:823-832, 2012 68. Zhu CQ, Ding K, Strumpf D, et al: Prognostic and predictive gene signature for adjuvant chemotherapy in resected non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 28:4417-4424, 2010 69. PORT Meta-Analysis Trialists Group: Postoperative radiotherapy in nonsmall cell lung cancer, systemic review and meta-analysis of indirected patient data from nine randomized controlled trials. Lancet 352:1384-1385, 1996 70. Dillman RO, Herndon J, Seagren SL, et al: Improved survival in Stage III non-small cell lung cancer: Seven-year follow-up of cancer and leukemia group B (CALGB) 8433 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 88:1210-1215, 1996 71. Curran WJ, Paulus R, Langer CJ, et al: Sequential vs concurrent chemoradiation for stage III non-small cell lung cancer: Randomized phase III trial RTOG 9410. J Natl Cancer Inst 103:1452-1460, 2011 72. Furuse K, Fukuoka M, Kawahara M, et al: Phase III study of concurrent versus sequential thoracic radiotherapy in combination with mitomycin, vindesine, and cisplatin in unresectable stage III non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 17:2692-2699, 1999 73. Albain KS, Swann RS, Rusch VW, et al: Radiotherapy plus chemotherapy with or without surgical resection for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase III randomised controlled trial. Lancet 374:379-386, 2009 JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY


Editorial

74. Belani CP, Choy H, Bonomi P, et al: Combined chemoradiotherapy regimens of paclitaxel and carboplatin for locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A randomized phase II locally advanced multi-modality protocol. J Clin Oncol 23:5883-5891, 2005 75. Hanna N, Neubauer M, Yiannoutsos C, et al: Phase III study of cisplatin, etoposide, and concurrent chest radiation with or without consolidation docetaxel in patients with inoperable stage III non–small-cell lung cancer: The Hoosier Oncology Group and U.S. Oncology. J Clin Oncol 26:5755-5760, 2008 76. Le Chevalier T, Brisgand D, Douillard JY, et al: Randomzied study of vinorelbine and cisplatin versus vindesine and cisplatin versus vinorelbine alone in advanced NSCLC: Results of an European Multicenter trial including 612 patients. J Clin Oncol 12:360-367, 1994 77. Rapp E, Pater JL, Wilan A, et al: Chemotherapy can prolong survival in patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: Report of a Canadian multicenter randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 6:633-641, 1988 78. Reference deleted 79. Reference deleted 80. Kelly K, Crowley J, Bunn PA Jr, et al: Randomized phase III trial of paclitaxel plus carboplatin vs vinorelbine plus cisplatin in the treatment of patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: A SWOG trial. J Clin Oncol 19:32103218, 2001 81. Schiller JH, Harrington D, Belani CP, et al: Comparison of four chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 346:92-98, 2002 82. Quoix E, Zalcman G, Oster JP, et al: Carboplatin and weekly paclitaxel doublet chemotherapy compared with monotherapy in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: IFCT-0501 randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet 378:1079-1088, 2011 83. Gridelli C, Perrone F, Gallo C, et al: Chemotherapy for elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: The Multicenter Italian Lung Cancer in the Elderly Study (MILES) phase III randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 95:362-372, 2003 84. Zukin M, Barrios CH, Pereira JR, et al: Randomized phase III trial of single-agent pemetrexed versus carboplatin and pemetrexed in patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of 2. J Clin Oncol 31:2049-2053, 2013 85. Reference deleted 86. Shepherd FA, Dancey J, Ramlau R, et al: Prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus best supportive care in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 18:20952103, 2000 87. Hanna N, Shepherd FA, Fossella FV, et al: Randomized phase III trial of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer previously treated with chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 22:1589-1597, 2004 88. Shepherd FA, Rodrigues Pereira J, Ciuleanu T, et al: Erlotinib in previously treated non-small cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 353:123-132, 2005 89. Reference deleted 90. Smith IE, O’Brien ME, Talbot DC, et al: Duration of chemotherapy in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: A randomized trial of three versus six courses of mitomycin, vinblastine and cisplatin. J Clin Oncol 19:1336-1343, 2001 91. von Plessen C, Bergman B, Andreson O, et al: Palliative chemotherapy beyond three courses conveys no survival or consistent quality-of-life benefits in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 95:966-973, 2006 92. Park JO, Kim SW, Ahn JS, et al: Phase III trial of two versus four additional cycles in patients who are nonprogressive after two cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy in non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:5233-5239, 2007 93. Fidias PM, Dakhil SR, Lyss AP, et al: Phase III study of immediate compared with delayed docetaxel after front-line therapy with gemcitabine plus carboplatin in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 27:591-598, 2009 94. Ciuleanu T, Brodowicz T, Zielinski C, et al: Maintenance pemetrexed plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care for non-small-cell lung cancer: A randomised, double-blind phase 3 study. Lancet 374:1432-1440, 2009 95. Paz-Ares L: PARAMOUNT: Final overall survival (OS) results of the phase III study of maintenance pemetrexed (pem) plus best supportive care (BSC) versus placebo (plb) plus BSC immediately following induction treatment with pem plus cisplatin (cis) for advanced nonsquamous (NS) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J Clin Oncol 30, 2012 (abstr LBA 7507) 96. Barlesi F, Scherpereel A, Rittmeyer A, et al: Randomized phase III trial of maintenance bevacizumab with or without pemetrexed after first-line www.jco.org

induction with bevacizumab, cisplatin and pemetrexed in advanced nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer: AVAPERL (MO22089). J Clin Oncol 31: 3004-3011, 2013 97. Cappuzzo F, Ciuleanu T, Stelmakh L, et al: Erlotinib as maintenance treatment in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 11:521-529, 2010 98. Behera M, Owonikoko TK, Chen Z, et al: Single agent maintenance therapy for advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis. Lung Cancer 77:331-338, 2012 99. Sandler A, Gray R, Perry MC, et al: Paclitaxel-carboplatin alone or with bevacizumab for non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 355:2542-2550, 2006 100. Reck M, von Pawel J, Zatloukal P, et al: Phase III trial of cisplatin plus gemcitabine with either placebo or bevacizumab as first-line therapy for nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer: AVAIL. J Clin Oncol 27:1227-1234, 2009 101. Dowlati A, Gray R, Sandler AB, et al: Cell adhesion molecules, vascular endothelial growth factor, and basic fibroblast growth factor in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab: An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study. Clin Cancer Res 14:1417-12, 2008 102. Mok T, Wu YL, Thongprasert S, et al: Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med 361:947-957, 2009 103. Maemondo M, Inoue A, Kobayashi K, et al: Gefitinib or chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR. N Engl J Med 362:2380-2388, 2010 104. Mitsudomi T, Morita S, Yatabe Y, et al: Efitibin versus cisplatin plus docetaxel in patients with non-small cell lung cancer harbouring mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor (WJTOG3405): An open label randomized phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 11:121-128, 2010 105. Rosell R, Carcereny E, Gervais R, et al: Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EURTAC): a multicentre open-label randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 13:239-246, 2012 106. Zhou C, Wu YL, Chen G, et al: Erlotinib versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (OPTIMAL, CTONG-0802): A multicentre, open label, randomised, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 12:735-742, 2011 107. Sequist LV, Yang JC, Yamamoto N, et al: Phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin plus pemetrexed in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations. J Clin Oncol 31:3327-3334, 2013 108. Gridelli C, Ciardiello F, Gallo C, et al: First-line erlotinib followed by second-line cisplatin-gemcitabine chemotherapy in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: The TORCH randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 30:3002-3011, 2012 109. Ohashi K, Maruvka YE, Michor F, et al: Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor–resistant disease. J Clin Oncol 31:1070-1080, 2013 110. Zhou W, Ercan D, Chen L, et al: Novel mutant-selective EGFR kinase inhibitors against EGFR T790M. Nature 462:1070-1074, 2009 111. Camidge DR, Kono SA, Flacco A, et al: Optimizing the detection of lung cancer patients using anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangements potientially suitable for ALK inhibitor treatment. Clin Cancer Res 16:5581-5590, 2010 112. Camidge DR, Bang YJ, Kwak EL, et al: Activity and safety of crizotinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer: Updated results from a phase 1 study. Lancet Oncol 13:1011-1019, 2012 113. Kwak EL, Bang YJ, Camidge DR, et al: Anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibition in non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 363:1693-1703, 2010 114. Shaw AT, Kim DW, Nakagawa K, et al: Crizotinib versus chemotherapy in advanced ALK-positive lung cancer. N Engl J Med 368:2385-2394, 2013 115. Shaw AT, Yeap BY, Mino-Kenudson M, et al: Clinical features and outcome of patients with non–small-cell lung cancer who harbor EML4/ALK. J Clin Oncol 27:4247-4253, 2009 116. Vansteenkiste J, Zielinski M, Linder A, et al: Adjuvant MAGE-A3 immunotherapy in resected non–small-cell lung cancer: Phase II randomized study results. J Clin Oncol 31:2396-2403, 2013 117. Ulloa-Montoya F, Louahed J, Dizier B, et al: Predictive gene signature in MAGE-A3 antigen-specific cancer immunotherapy. J Clin Oncol 31:2388-2395, 2013 118. Butts C, Murray N, Maksymiuk A, et al: Randomized phase IIB trial of BLP25 liposome vaccine in stage IIIB and IV non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:6674-6681, 2005



981

Editorial

119. Brahmer JR: Harnessing the immune system for the treatment of non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 31:1021-1028, 2013 120. Lynch TJ, Bondarenko I, Luft A, et al: Ipilimumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line treatment in stage IIIB/IV non–small-cell lung cancer: Results from a randomized, double-blind, multicenter phase II study. J Clin Oncol 30:2046-2054, 2012 121. Reference deleted 122. Topalian SL, Hodi FS, Brahmer JR, et al: Safety, activity and immune correlates of anti-PD-1 antibody in cancer. N Engl J Med 366:2443-2454, 2012

123. Hamid O, Robert C, Daud A, et al: Safety and tumor responses with lambrolizumab (anti-PD1) in melanoma. N Engl J Med 369:143-144, 2013 124. Brahmer JR, Tykodi SS, Chow LQ, et al: Safety and activity of anti-PD-L1 antibody in patients with advanced cancer. N Engl J Med 366:2455-2465, 2012 125. Wolchok JD, Kluger H, Callahan MK, et al: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med 369:122-133, 2013

DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.1228; published online ahead of print at www.jco.org on February 24, 2014

■ ■ ■

JOP Online Works for You ● Select articles are available weeks before they appear in print ● Access to current and archival issues ● ASCO Clinical Guideline Commentaries ● Links to citations from 1,775 HighWire– hosted journals ● Convenient ASCO Journals app for iPad and iPhone ● Podcasts providing additional insight and depth to written articles ● Centralized job search through the online Career Center Visit jop.ascopubs.org to see what JOP online has to offer.

982


JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY


ERRATA TheMarch10,2014,articlebySozzietal,entitled“ClinicalUtility of a Plasma-Based miRNA Signature Classifier Within Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening: A Correlative MILD Trial Study” (J Clin Oncol 32:768-773, 2014), contained an error. The following contribution was inadvertently omitted and should have been acknowledged in the sidebar of the

article: “G.S. and M.B. contributed equally to this study.” Journal of Clinical Oncology apologizes for the mistake. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.7610; published May 10, 2014

■ ■ ■

The April 1, 2014, ASCO 50th Anniversary article by Johnson et al, entitled “Recent Clinical Advances in Lung Cancer Management” (J Clin Oncol 32:973-982, 2014), contained an error. In the Treatment of SCLC section, under Treatment of Stage IIB and III SCLC, the second sentence of the third paragraph gave the dose of prophylactic cranial irradiation as 25 Gy in 5 fractions, whereas it should have been 25 Gy in 10 fractions,

as follows: “Recent studies have noted decreased late cognitive improvement with doses of 25 Gy in 10 fractions with equal survival and brain relapse rates compared with higher doses.” The online version has been corrected in departure from the print. The authors apologize for the mistake.

■ ■ ■

1520


DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.7594; published May 10, 2014

Recent advances in personalized lung cancer medicine.

Non-small cell lung cancer: recent advances.

Recent advances in immunotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer.

Recent Advances in the Diagnosis and Management of Bladder Cancer.

Recent advances in clinical toxicology.

MicroRNAS in endometrial cancer: recent advances and potential clinical applications.

Recent advances in understanding lung function development.

Recent Advances in Endometrial Cancer.

Recent advances in the management of liposarcoma.

Recent advances in the management of acromegaly.

Recent advances in the management of osteoporosis.

Recent advances in gastric cancer.

Recent advances in cancer immunotherapy.

Recent advances in endometrial cancer.

Recent advances in clinical parasitology diagnostics.

Management of diabetic kidney disease: Recent advances.

Advances in lung cancer?

Recent Advances in Diagnosis of Cancer.

Sclerostin: recent advances and clinical implications.

Recent advances in clinical practice challenges and opportunities in the management of obesity.

Neuro-otology- some recent clinical advances.

Advances in the management of multiple sclerosis spasticity: recent clinical trials.

Bone and brain metastasis in lung cancer: recent advances in therapeutic strategies.

Gynaecological emergencies in the tropics: recent advances in management.