A randomized phase 2 study of abemaciclib versus docetaxel in patients with stage IV squamous non-small cell lung cancer (sqNSCLC) previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy.

Authors

Giorgio Scagliotti

Giorgio V. Scagliotti

Department of Oncology - University of Torino, Turin, Italy

Giorgio V. Scagliotti , Igor Bondarenko , Tudor-Eliade Ciuleanu , Maciej Bryl , Andrea Fülöp , David Vicente , Helge Bischoff , Karla Hurt , Yi Lu , Shawn Estrem , Sameera R. Wijayawardana , Alan Chiang , Ramaswamy Govindan

Organizations

Department of Oncology - University of Torino, Turin, Italy, Dnipropetrovsk Medical Academy, Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine, Institute of Oncology/University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, E.J. Zeyland Wielkopolska Center of Pulmonology and Thoracic Surgery, Poznan, Poland, Országos Korányi TBC és Pulmonológiai Intézet, Budapest, Hungary, Budapest, Hungary, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Seville, Spain, Thoraxklinik, Heidelberg, Germany, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO

Research Funding

Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company

Background: Abemaciclib is a potent and selective inhibitor of CDK4 & 6 approved for treatment of HR+, HER2- metastatic breast cancer. In a Phase 1 study, abemaciclib showed activity in pts with advanced and/or metastatic NSCLC. This Phase 2 study evaluated the safety and efficacy of abemaciclib vs docetaxel in pts with Stage IV sqNSCLC previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label trial, evaluated abemaciclib (200 mg PO every 12 hours daily) vs docetaxel (75 mg/m2 IV on Day 1); both on 21 day cycle until disease progression. Adults with confirmed Stage IV NSCLC with measurable disease, ECOG PS ≤1, and who progressed during/after platinum-based chemotherapy were eligible. Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive abemaciclib or docetaxel. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS. Key secondary endpoints were ORR, DCR, OS, and safety. Results: 159 pts were randomized to abemaciclib (N = 106) and docetaxel (N = 53). Median age was 64 years. 84.3% pts were men. In ITT pts 125 PFS events were observed with median PFS of 2.5 m (95% CI: 1.7, 2.9) for abemaciclib and 4.2 m for docetaxel (95% CI: 2.8, 5.7; stratified HR: 1.77 [95% CI: 1.17, 2.67]; P = .0068). ORR was 2.8% (95% CI: 0.0, 6.0) for abemaciclib and 20.8% (95% CI: 9.8, 31.7) for docetaxel. The DCR (CR + PR + SD) was 50.9% (95% CI: 41.4, 60.5) for the abemaciclib treatment arm and 64.2% (95% CI: 51.2, 77.1) for the docetaxel treatment arm. Median OS was 7.0 m (95% CI: 5.0, 8.8) for abemaciclib and 12.4 m for docetaxel (95% CI: 7.1, 16.0; stratified HR: 1.33 [95% CI: 0.88, 2.02]; P = .1746). Exploratory biomarker data will be available at the meeting. The most common TEAEs with abemaciclib were anemia and diarrhea. Conclusions: In this Phase 2 study, single agent abemaciclib 200 mg did not improve the progression-free survival time over docetaxel; the instantaneous rate of disease progression/death at any given time point was higher with abemaciclib vs docetaxcel. No specific safety concerns were observed. Clinical trial information: NCT02450539

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2018 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Lung Cancer—Non-Small Cell Metastatic

Track

Lung Cancer

Sub Track

Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

Clinical Trial Registration Number

NCT02450539

Citation

J Clin Oncol 36, 2018 (suppl; abstr 9059)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.9059

Abstract #

9059

Poster Bd #

382

Abstract Disclosures