MATERIALS AND METHODS: GLC-14, GLC-16 and GLC-19 SCLC cell lines derived from one patient, representing increasing progressive stages of disease were used. CSC marker expressions was determined by RT-qPCR and western blotting analyses, and heterogeneity was studied by CSC marker expression by immunofluorescence microscopy and flow cytometry. Colony formation assays were used to assess stem cell properties and therapy sensitivity.
RESULTS: Increasing expression of stem cell markers MYC, SOX2 and particularly CD44 were found in association with advancing disease. Single and overlapping expression of these markers indicated the presence of different CSC populations. The accumulation of more homogeneous double- and triple-positive CSC populations evolved with disease progression. Functional characterization of CSC properties affirmed higher proficiency of colony forming ability and increased resistance to γ-irradiation in GLC-16 and GLC-19 compared to GLC-14. GLC-19 colony formation was significantly inhibited by a human anti-CD44 antibody.
CONCLUSION: The progressive increase of MYC, SOX2 and particularly CD44 expression that was accompanied with enhanced colony forming capacity and resistance in the in vitro GLC disease progression model, supports the potential clinical relevance of CSC populations in malignancy and disease relapse of SCLC.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of aclidinium bromide in stable COPD.
SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised controlled trials (RCT) from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials (CAGR), as well as www.clinicaltrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website and Almirall Clinical Trials Registry and Results. We contacted Forest Laboratories for any unpublished trials and checked the reference lists of identified articles for additional information. The last search was performed on 7 April 2014 for CAGR and 11 April 2014 for other sources.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Parallel-group RCTs of aclidinium bromide compared with placebo, long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) or LAMA in adults with stable COPD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data. We sought missing data from the trial authors as well as manufacturers of aclidinium. We used odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, and reported both with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We applied the GRADE approach to summarise results and to assess the overall quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: This review included 12 multicentre RCTs randomly assigning 9547 participants with stable COPD. All the studies were industry-sponsored and had similar inclusion criteria with relatively good methodological quality. All but one study included in the meta-analysis were double-blind and scored low risk of bias. The study duration ranged from four weeks to 52 weeks. Participants were more often males, mainly Caucasians, mean age ranging from 61.7 to 65.6 years, and with a smoking history of 10 or more pack years. They had moderate to severe symptoms at randomisation; the mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) was between 46% and 57.6% of the predicted normal value, and the mean St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score (SGRQ) ranged from 45.1 to 50.4 when reported.There was no difference between aclidinium and placebo in all-cause mortality (low quality) and number of patients with exacerbations requiring a short course of oral steroids or antibiotics, or both (moderate quality). Aclidinium improved quality of life by lowering the SGRQ total score with a mean difference of -2.34 (95% CI -3.18 to -1.51; I(2) = 48%, 7 trials, 4442 participants) when compared to placebo. More patients on aclidinium achieved a clinically meaningful improvement of at least four units decrease in SGRQ total score (OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.31 to 1.70; I(2) = 34%; number needed to treat (NNT) = 10, 95% CI 8 to 15, high quality evidence) over 12 to 52 weeks than on placebo. Aclidinium also resulted in a significantly greater improvement in pre-dose FEV1 than placebo with a mean difference of 0.09 L (95% CI 0.08 to 0.10; I(2) = 39%, 9 trials, 4963 participants). No trials assessed functional capacity. Aclidinium reduced the number of patients with exacerbations requiring hospitalisation by 4 to 20 fewer per 1000 over 4 to 52 weeks (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.88; I(2) = 0%, 10 trials, 5624 people; NNT = 77, 95% CI 51 to 233, high quality evidence) compared to placebo. There was no difference in non-fatal serious adverse events (moderate quality evidence) between aclidinium and placebo.Compared to tiotropium, aclidinium did not demonstrate significant differences for exacerbations requiring oral steroids or antibiotics, or both, exacerbation-related hospitalisations and non-fatal serious adverse events (very low quality evidence). Inadequate data prevented the comparison of aclidinium to formoterol or other LABAs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Aclidinium is associated with improved quality of life and reduced hospitalisations due to severe exacerbations in patients with moderate to severe stable COPD compared to placebo. Overall, aclidinium did not significantly reduce mortality, serious adverse events or exacerbations requiring oral steroids or antibiotics, or both.Currently, the available data are insufficient and of very low quality in comparisons of the efficacy of aclidinium versus tiotropium. The efficacy of aclidinium versus LABAs cannot be assessed due to inaccurate data. Thus additional trials are recommended to assess the efficacy and safety of aclidinium compared to other LAMAs or LABAs.
METHODS: In this phase 3, international, randomized trial, we assigned in a 1:1 ratio patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertions who had not received previous systemic therapy to receive intravenous amivantamab plus chemotherapy (amivantamab-chemotherapy) or chemotherapy alone. The primary outcome was progression-free survival according to blinded independent central review. Patients in the chemotherapy group who had disease progression were allowed to cross over to receive amivantamab monotherapy.
RESULTS: A total of 308 patients underwent randomization (153 to receive amivantamab-chemotherapy and 155 to receive chemotherapy alone). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the amivantamab-chemotherapy group than in the chemotherapy group (median, 11.4 months and 6.7 months, respectively; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30 to 0.53; P<0.001). At 18 months, progression-free survival was reported in 31% of the patients in the amivantamab-chemotherapy group and in 3% in the chemotherapy group; a complete or partial response at data cutoff was reported in 73% and 47%, respectively (rate ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.68; P<0.001). In the interim overall survival analysis (33% maturity), the hazard ratio for death for amivantamab-chemotherapy as compared with chemotherapy was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.42 to 1.09; P = 0.11). The predominant adverse events associated with amivantamab-chemotherapy were reversible hematologic and EGFR-related toxic effects; 7% of patients discontinued amivantamab owing to adverse reactions.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of amivantamab-chemotherapy resulted in superior efficacy as compared with chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertions. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; PAPILLON ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04538664.).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 657 patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletions or L858R) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib were randomized 2 : 2 : 1 to receive amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, chemotherapy, or amivantamab-chemotherapy. The dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) of amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. During the study, hematologic toxicities observed in the amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy arm necessitated a regimen change to start lazertinib after carboplatin completion.
RESULTS: All baseline characteristics were well balanced across the three arms, including by history of brain metastases and prior brain radiation. PFS was significantly longer for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) for disease progression or death 0.48 and 0.44, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 6.3 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively]. Consistent PFS results were seen by investigator assessment (HR for disease progression or death 0.41 and 0.38 for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 8.2 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively). Objective response rate was significantly higher for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (64% and 63% versus 36%, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). Median intracranial PFS was 12.5 and 12.8 versus 8.3 months for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (HR for intracranial disease progression or death 0.55 and 0.58, respectively). Predominant adverse events (AEs) in the amivantamab-containing regimens were hematologic, EGFR-, and MET-related toxicities. Amivantamab-chemotherapy had lower rates of hematologic AEs than amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy improved PFS and intracranial PFS versus chemotherapy in a population with limited options after disease progression on osimertinib. Longer follow-up is needed for the modified amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy regimen.