Exploratory analysis of front-line therapies in REVEL: a randomised phase 3 study of ramucirumab plus docetaxel versus docetaxel for the treatment of stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer after disease progression on platinum-based therapy.

Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a heterogeneous disease. Front-line therapy may affect responses to subsequent treatment regimens, thus influencing second-line therapy decision making. In the randomised phase 3 REVEL study, second-line ramucirumab plus docetaxel (ram+doc) versus docetaxel (doc) improved survival of patients with metastatic NSCLC. We explore efficacy, safety and quality-of-life (QoL) in REVEL based on front-line therapy. Patients were grouped by specific front-line therapy received. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, safety and QoL were assessed descriptively. Kaplan-Meier estimation and Cox proportional hazards modelling were used; frequencies reported in percentages. Baseline characteristics of 1253 patients were generally well balanced between treatment arms within each front-line therapy subgroup. For patients with non-squamous disease (n=912), induction therapies included platinum-based chemotherapy plus a taxane (n=227; 25%) or pemetrexed (n=449; 49%), with (n=172; 19%) or without bevacizumab. For patients with squamous disease (n=328), induction therapies included platinum-based chemotherapy plus gemcitabine (n=176; 54%) or a taxane (n=69; 21%). A highly selected subgroup (n=127; 14%) received pemetrexed continuation maintenance therapy. Ram+doc improved median OS and PFS versus doc across front-line therapy subgroups, as reflected by HRs ranging from 0.78 to 0.91 and 0.66 to 0.92, respectively, similar to results in the overall intention-to-treat cohort (HRs: 0.86 and 0.76, respectively). High-grade treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest (including neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, leucopenia and hypertension) were generally higher in ram+doc-treated patients relative to doc-treated patients regardless of front-line therapy. No clear differences in safety or QoL were seen across front-line therapy subgroups; outcomes were consistent with those reported in the overall intention-to-treat cohort. Results of this exploratory analysis suggest that second-line ram+doc may be effective regardless of prior treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy plus a taxane, pemetrexed, gemcitabine or bevacizumab. Overall, ram+doc is clinically beneficial across a wide range of patients with metastatic NSCLC who have progressed after various front-line therapies. NCT01168973.

© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Competing interests: The following authors declared conflicts of interests. GCC, AHZ, ABO, PL, KW, and VJS are full-time employees and stockowners of Eli Lilly and Company. EA is a former employee and stockowner of Eli Lilly and Company. EBG has received honoraria from Dracen and EMD Serono, and his institution has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Genentech, Dynavax, Iovance, Mirati, and Neon. GVS has received honoraria from Eli Lilly and Company, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Regeneron, Novartis, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Pfizer, and Roche and has served on the speaker’s bureaus of Eli Lilly and Company, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Novartis. MR has received honoraria for lectures from and functions in an advisory/consulting role for Eli Lilly and Company, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Hoffman-La Roche, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer. MT has received Advisory Board honoraria from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Takeda; speaker’s honoraria from Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Takeda; research funding from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Roche; and travel grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Novartis. HK has received reimbursement for meeting expenses and/or has functioned in an advisory/consultancy role for Eli Lilly and Company, Genesis Pharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche and has received reimbursement for meeting expenses from Enorasis. J-HK serves in an advisory/consultancy role for and his institution has received grant funding for clinical trials from Eli Lilly and Company, including during the conduct of this study, and from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Roche. OTB has received honoraria from Eli Lilly and Company, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (for research funding and advisory/consultancy role), GlaxoSmithKline (for research funding), Merck (for advisory/consultancy role), Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche (for research funding). MP has received honoraria for speaking, advisory and consultancy roles for Eli Lilly and Company.