J Cancer Res Clin Oncol DOI 10.

1007/s00432-011-1003-3

ORIGINAL PAPER

Updated survival analysis in patients with stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer receiving BLP25 liposome vaccine (L-BLP25): phase IIB randomized, multicenter, open-label trial
` Charles Butts Andrew Maksymiuk Glenwood Goss Denis Soulieres Yvon Cormier Peter M. Ellis Allan Price Ernie Marshall Ravinder Sawhney Frank Beier Martin Falk Nevin Murray

Received: 26 May 2011 / Accepted: 28 June 2011 Springer-Verlag 2011

Abstract Purpose To present an updated survival analysis of an open-label, parallel-group, phase IIB trial of BLP25 liposome vaccine (L-BLP25) in patients with stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods Patients were randomized to either L-BLP25 plus best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone. Patients in the L-BLP25 arm received subcutaneous vaccinations of L-BLP25 930 lg weekly for 8 weeks, followed by maintenance vaccinations at 6-week intervals. Results Median survival time was 4.2 months longer in patients receiving L-BLP25 plus BSC (n = 88) than in those receiving BSC alone (n = 83; 17.2 months vs. 13.0 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] 0.745, 95% condence interval [CI] 0.5331.042). The 3-year survival rate was 31% in patients receiving L-BLP25 plus BSC and 17% in those receiving BSC (P = 0.035). In the stratied

subset of patients with stage IIIB loco-regional (LR) disease, median survival time was 17.3 months longer in patients receiving L-BLP25 plus BSC (n = 35) than in those receiving BSC (n = 30; 30.6 months vs. 13.3 months, respectively; HR 0.548, 95% CI 0.3010.999). In this subgroup, 3-year survival was 49% in patients receiving L-BLP25 plus BSC and 27% in those receiving BSC (P = 0.070). Conclusions Conrming the initial results, further followup continues to show that survival time for patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC was longer with L-BLP25 plus BSC compared with BSC alone, with the greatest difference seen in patients with stage IIIB LR disease. Keywords Survival Non-small-cell lung cancer Therapeutic cancer vaccine L-BLP25 MUC1

C. Butts (&) Cross Cancer Institute, 11560 University Avenue, Edmonton, AB T6G 1Z2, Canada e-mail: charles.butts@albertahealthservices.ca A. Maksymiuk CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada G. Goss The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada ` D. Soulieres Centre Hospitalier de lUniversite de Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada E. Marshall Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology, Bebington, UK Y. Cormier Universite Laval, Sainte-Foy, QC, Canada

P. M. Ellis Juravinski Cancer Centre, Hamilton, ON, Canada A. Price Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK R. Sawhney Fraser Valley Cancer Centre, Surrey, BC, Canada F. Beier M. Falk Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany N. Murray Vancouver Cancer Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada

123

J Cancer Res Clin Oncol

Introduction Globally, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in men and the second leading cause in women (Parkin et al. 2005). At diagnosis, most patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) present with locally advanced/metastatic disease (Ettinger et al. 2006) which is associated with a poor prognosis, with 2-year survival rates of 14 and 11% for stage IIIB and stage IV or recurrent disease, respectively (Schiller et al. 2002). Platinum-based chemotherapy doublets are standard rst-line therapy for patients with stage IV disease or stage IIIB disease with malignant pleural effusion (MPE), and can be combined with targeted therapies (DAddario et al. 2010; National Comprehensive Cancer Network 2010). However, improvements in survival with standard therapy are modest and the median survival for these patients still does not exceed 1 year (Fisher and DOrazio 2000). Platinum-based chemotherapy together with concurrent thoracic radiotherapy is recommended in patients with un-resectable stage IIIB NSCLC (Crino et al. 2010; National Comprehensive Cancer Network 2010), but progress with this approach appears to have reached a plateau with few patients surviving beyond 5 years. Over the last decade, there has been increasing interest in the development of therapeutic cancer vaccines to help prolong survival and improve quality of life when used alongside current standard therapies (Gridelli et al. 2009; Pilla et al. 2009). The BLP25 liposome vaccine (L-BLP25, Stimuvax; Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) is a therapeutic cancer vaccine targeting the mucin 1 (MUC1) glycoprotein antigen that is overexpressed and aberrantly glycosylated in many cancers, including lung, breast, prostate and colorectal tumors (Ho et al. 1993; Zotter et al. 1988). Early evidence suggests that L-BLP25 has promise for the management of NSCLC (Butts et al. 2005; Palmer et al. 2001). A phase IIB, open-label, randomized trial compared treatment with L-BLP25 plus best supportive care (BSC) with BSC alone in 171 patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC who had no evidence of disease progression following rst-line chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. Initial analyses reported that the median survival time was 17.4 months with L-BLP25 plus BSC compared with 13.0 months with BSC alone, although the difference between treatment arms was not statistically signicant (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.739, 95% condence interval [CI] 0.5091.073, P = 0.112). The difference in survival time was greatest in patients with stage IIIB loco-regional (LR) disease (adjusted HR 0.524, 95% CI 0.2611.052), with the median survival time not being reached in the L-BLP25 arm (Butts et al. 2005). The results of the phase IIB study and earlier studies indicated that L-BLP25 was well tolerated in patients with

stage IIIB or IV NSCLC (North and Butts 2005; Palmer et al. 2001). In the phase IIB study, no unexpected safety issues were observed, and most adverse events were considered to be disease-related and unrelated to the study drug. The most common side-effects attributable to the vaccine were mild u-like symptoms and mostly mild injection-site reactions. One serious adverse event (pneumonia) was classied as possibly related to treatment in the L-BLP25 group (Butts et al. 2005). Here, we report updated survival data and analyses for the intent-to-treat population (n = 171) and stage IIIB MPE/IV (n = 106) and stage IIIB LR (n = 65) subgroups in the phase IIB study.

Patients and methods Full details of patient eligibility criteria, study design and outcome measures have been described previously (Butts et al. 2005). Patients Consenting patients aged C18 years with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and who had stable disease or an objective clinical response after rst-line treatment with chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy and radiotherapy (with a washout period of C3 weeks prior to study initiation) were eligible for inclusion in the study. Participants were also required to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status B2. Patients who had undergone surgery within 4 weeks of study entry, or who had received immunotherapy within 4 weeks of study entry or immunosuppressive drugs within 3 weeks of study entry, were excluded. Other exclusion criteria included known brain metastases, autoimmune or immunodeciency disorders, signicant hepatic, renal or cardiac disease, splenectomy or active infection. Study design This was a randomized, open-label, parallel-group, controlled, multicenter study (EMR 63325-005; ClinicalTrials.gov study identier NCT00157209). Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive L-BLP25 plus BSC or BSC alone. Randomization was also stratied by disease status (either stage IIIB LR or stage IV and stage IIIB with MPE). Patients randomized to the L-BLP25 arm received a single intravenous dose of cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 (up to a maximum dose of 600 mg) 3 days before the rst L-BLP25 treatment, in order to augment the immune response to L-BLP25 vaccine (MacLean et al. 1996). Patients randomized to the L-BLP25 arm received

123

J Cancer Res Clin Oncol

subcutaneous vaccinations of L-BLP25 (930 lg; administered as four 0.5 ml subcutaneous injections)a lyophilized liposomal product consisting of the 25-amino-acid BLP25 lipopeptide, an immunoadjuvant monophosphoryl lipid A and three lipids (cholesterol, dimyristoyl phosphatidylglycerol and dipalmitoyl phosphatidylcholine), prepared by addition of sodium chloride, 0.9% to form a suspensionweekly at weeks 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Maintenance vaccinations were administered at 6-week intervals starting at week 13, at the investigators discretion. The nominal dose of L-BLP25 is different to that previously stated (Butts et al. 2005; Butts et al. 2010). In clinical studies prior to 2008, the density determination of L-BLP25 prior to freeze-drying of the nal powdered product led to the content of L-BLP25 being declared as 1,000 lg. However, the more recent density determination means that the majority of phase IIb study participants actually received 930 lg antigen as opposed to the 1,000 lg that was originally declared. BSC was provided at the investigators discretion to patients in both arms of the study, and could include psychosocial support, analgesics and nutritional support. When indicated for the treatment of progressive disease, patients could receive second-line chemotherapy or palliative radiation. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The protocol was approved by institutional review boards. Statistical analysis As detailed in the previous report (Butts et al. 2005), an intent-to-treat approach was used, such that all randomized patients were included in the survival analysis. Standardized assessment of disease progression was not mandated as part of the study design. Survival time was dened as the time from the date of randomization to death. Analysis of survival duration was performed using the Cox proportional hazard regression model adjusted for treatment assignment, response to rstline treatment and disease stage at study entry. The study was powered to detect a difference in survival of 5 months (assumptions: 12 months survival in the L-BLP25 arm and 7 months in the BSC arm; HR 0.583; two-sided type I error rate of 0.05; power of 80%). The primary survival analysis based on the intent-to-treat population and its timing were event-based, occurring after a minimum of 108 events. Multiple testing was not predened in the study protocol and so, for subgroup analyses by disease stage at study entry, HRs with 95% CIs are reported rather than P-values. The cut-off date for the primary analysis summarized above was March 2004. In this paper, we describe an updated survival analysis in the same patient population

with 2 years of additional follow-up, with a cut-off date of March 2006. We also present the 3-year survival rates in the intent-to-treat population and stage IIIB MPE/IV and stage IIIB LR subgroups. The P-values for differences in 3-year survival rates are descriptive.

Results Patient characteristics A total of 171 patients were enrolled: 88 in the L-BLP25 arm and 83 in the BSC arm. As reported previously, the two treatment arms were well matched at baseline (Butts et al. 2005). In the intent-to-treat population, median age at randomization was 59 years; 56% of patients were male; and ECOG performance status was 0 in 31%, 1 in 64%, and 2 in 5% of patients. With regards to the stratication according to disease stage subsets, the majority of patients had NSCLC stage IIIB MPE or stage IV (62%) disease; the remainder had stage IIIB LR disease (38%). Survival analysis At the time of this survival analysis (March 2006), 21 of 88 (24%) patients randomized to L-BLP25 plus BSC remained alive compared with 10 of 83 (12%) patients randomized to BSC alone. Median follow-up times in both treatment arms exceeded 3 years, both for the intent-to-treat population and stratied subsets. In the intent-to-treat population, median overall survival for patients in the L-BLP25 arm was 17.2 months compared with 13.0 months for patients in the BSC arm (HR 0.745, 95% CI 0.5331.042) (Fig. 1a). The 3-year survival rate was 31% for the L-BLP25 arm vs. 17% for the BSC arm (P = 0.035) (Fig. 2). Median overall survival in the stage IIIB MPE/IV subgroup was 15.1 months in the L-BLP25 arm vs. 12.9 months in the BSC arm (HR 0.878, 95% CI 0.5871.313) (Fig. 1b). The 3-year survival rate was 19% for the L-BLP25 arm vs. 11% for the BSC arm (P = 0.278) (Fig. 2). In the stage IIIB LR subgroup, median overall survival was 30.6 months in the L-BLP25 arm and 13.3 months in the BSC arm (HR 0.548, 95% CI 0.3010.999) (Fig. 1c). The 3-year survival rate was 49% for the L-BLP25 arm vs. 27% for the BSC arm (P = 0.070) (Fig. 2).

Discussion Most patients with NSCLC are diagnosed at an advanced stage (stage IIIB/IV) when surgical cure is not possible and the prognosis is poor (Ettinger et al. 2006; Shepherd et al.

123

J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Fig. 1 Overall survival in L-BLP25 and best supportive care (BSC) treatment arms after extended follow-up in a total patient group, b stage IIIB MPE/IV subgroup, and c stage IIIB LR subgroup (Survival based on KaplanMeier estimates) BSC best supportive care, CI condence interval, HR hazard ratio, LR loco-regional, MPE malignant pleural effusion

123

J Cancer Res Clin Oncol

100
L-BLP25 BSC

80

60
P = 0.035 31 17 P = 0.278 19 11

P = 0.070 49

40

27

20

n = 88 n = 83

n = 53 n = 53

n = 35 n = 30

Total population

Stage IIIB MPE/IV

Stage IIIB LR

Fig. 2 Three-year survival rates (% patients surviving) in the total patient population, patients with stage IIIB MPE/IV disease, and patients with stage IIIB LR disease BSC best supportive care, LR loco-regional, MPE malignant pleural effusion. P-values are descriptive statistics for chi-square testing comparing 3-year survival rates with L-BLP25 and BSC

2000). The results of the updated analysis presented here conrm the ndings from the original analysis in suggesting that L-BLP25 is an active agent in NSCLC, and are of great interest with regards to patients with stage III NSCLC who are candidates for aggressive treatment with chemoradiation. For the intent-to-treat population including all patients (stage IIIB LR and IIIB MPE/IV NSCLC), the initial and updated analyses were consistent in indicating median survival that was *4 months longer with L-BLP25 compared with BSC alone (4.4 and 4.2 months for the initial and updated analyses, respectively). In the subgroup of patients with stage IIIB LR disease, at the time of the initial analysis, the median survival time was 13.3 months in the BSC arm but had not been reached in the L-BLP25 arm, with 2-year survival rates of 60% with L-BLP25 compared with 37% for BSC alone (Butts et al. 2005). The updated survival analysis provides further support for a potential, clinically meaningful survival advantage in this group of patients, with a median survival time that was more than doubled with L-BLP25 compared with BSC alone (median survival of 30.6 months with L-BLP25 and 13.3 months with BSC alone). The 3-year survival rate for patients with stage IIIB LR disease was almost doubled in the L-BLP25 arm as compared with the BSC alone arm (49% vs. 27%). The stage IIIB LR population in this study represents a small, and probably select, sample. The difference in survival between the two treatment groups in this subgroup may be related to chance caused by the small sample size or some unrecognized selection factors. However, given that these patients were randomized C3 weeks after completion of chemoradiotherapy, the median survival in the control arm is consistent with other published data. Furthermore, the median survival in the L-BLP25 arm is among the best survival data series in the published literature (Albain et al. 2002; Gandara et al. 2003; Hanna et al. 2008).

There are a number of possible explanations for why the survival advantage with L-BLP25 appears to be substantially less in patients with stage IIIB MPE/IV as compared with stage IIIB LR disease. First, rapid disease progression and short survival times in patients with stage IIIB MPE/IV may not allow sufcient time for development of a robust immunologic response following vaccination. Secondly, while the majority (85%) of patients with LR disease had received radiotherapy prior to study entry (Butts et al. 2005), it is not indicated for metastatic disease. Radiotherapy of tumors can induce a cascade of pro-immunogenic effects involving both the innate and adaptive immune responses (Formenti and Demaria 2009; Roses et al. 2008). Therefore, prior radiotherapy in the patients with LR disease may have contributed to the effects of immunotherapy with L-BLP25. Finally, the extent of immunosuppression in patients with stage IV disease may negatively impact on the development of an adequate immune response after vaccination. The updated survival analysis provides further support for L-BLP25 as a promising therapy for patients with stage IIIB LR NSCLC. A randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled phase III trial (STARTstimulating targeted antigenic responses to NSCLC) is ongoing in patients with un-resectable stage III NSCLC (excluding patients with metastatic disease or MPE) who have completed treatment with chemoradiotherapy (ClinicalTrials gov 2010). The primary objective of the trial is to compare the survival duration of all randomized patients by treatment arm. Secondary objectives are to compare the two treatment arms for: time to symptom progression; time to disease progression; survival at 1, 2 and 3 years; and safety. START will enroll nearly 1,500 patients at 275 centers worldwide. The results of this trial are eagerly awaited, as they will help to dene the role of L-BLP25 in the clinical management of patients with late-stage NSCLC.
Acknowledgments This trial was supported by Biomira Inc., Edmonton, Canada, in collaboration with Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. The authors take full responsibility for the content of this publication. Editorial assistance, including drafting and revision of the manuscript as directed by the authors, was provided by Ian Faulkner, International Medical Press, funded by Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. Conict of interest Frank Beier is employed as a Senior Biostatistician at Merck KGaA in Darmstadt. Martin Falk is an employee of Merck KGaA. Charles Butts has provided consultancy and served on Speakers Bureaux for Merck Serono.

3-year survival rates (% patients)

References
Albain KS, Crowley JJ, Turrisi AT, Gandara DR, Farrar WB, Clark JI, Beasley KR, Livingston RB (2002) Concurrent cisplatin,

123

J Cancer Res Clin Oncol etoposide, and chest radiotherapy in pathologic stage IIIB nonsmall-cell lung cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group phase II study, SWOG 9019. J Clin Oncol 20:34543460 Butts C, Murray N, Maksymiuk A, Goss G, Marshall E, Soulieres D, Cormier Y, Ellis P, Price A, Sawhney R, Davis M, Mansi J, Smith C, Vergidis D, Ellis P, MacNeil M, Palmer M (2005) Randomized phase IIB trial of BLP25 liposome vaccine in stage IIIB and IV non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:66746681 Butts C, Murray RN, Smith CJ, Ellis PM, Jasas K, Maksymiuk A, ` Goss G, Ely G, Beier F, Soulieres D (2010) A multicenter openlabel study to assess the safety of a new formulation of BLP25 liposome vaccine in patients with unresectable stage III nonsmall-cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer 11:391395 ClinicalTrials.gov (2010) Cancer vaccine study for unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer. Available at: http://www. clinicaltrials.gov/. Accessed Feb 2011 Crino L, Weder W, van Meerbeeck J, Felip E (2010) Early stage and locally advanced (non-metastatic) non-small-cell lung cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 21(Suppl 5):v103v115 DAddario G, Fruh M, Reck M, Baumann P, Klepetko W, Felip E (2010) Metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 21(Suppl 5):v116v119 Ettinger DS, Bepler G, Bueno R, Chang A, Chang JY, Chirieac LR, DAmico TA, Demmy TL, Feigenberg SJ, Grannis FW Jr, Jahan T, Jahanzeb M, Kessinger A, Komaki R, Kris MG, Langer CJ, Le QT, Martins R, Otterson GA, Robert F, Sugarbaker DJ, Wood DE (2006) Non-small cell lung cancer clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 4:548582 Fisher MD, DOrazio A (2000) Phase II and III trials: comparison of four chemotherapy regimens in advanced non small-cell lung cancer (ECOG 1594). Clin Lung Cancer 2:2122 Formenti SC, Demaria S (2009) Systemic effects of local radiotherapy. Lancet Oncol 10:718726 Gandara DR, Chansky K, Albain KS, Leigh BR, Gaspar LE, Lara PN Jr, Burris H, Gumerlock P, Kuebler JP, Bearden JD III, Crowley J, Livingston R (2003) Consolidation docetaxel after concurrent chemoradiotherapy in stage IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer: phase II Southwest Oncology Group Study S9504. J Clin Oncol 21:20042010 Gridelli C, Rossi A, Maione P, Ferrara ML, Castaldo V, Sacco PC (2009) Vaccines for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: a renewed anticancer strategy. Oncologist 14:909920 Hanna N, Neubauer M, Yiannoutsos C, McGarry R, Arseneau J, Ansari R, Reynolds C, Govindan R, Melnyk A, Fisher W, Richards D, Bruetman D, Anderson T, Chowhan N, Nattam S, Mantravadi P, Johnson C, Breen T, White A, Einhorn L (2008) 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 US Oncology. J Clin Oncol 26:57555760 Ho SB, Niehans GA, Lyftogt C, Yan PS, Cherwitz DL, Gum ET, Dahiya R, Kim YS (1993) Heterogeneity of mucin gene expression in normal and neoplastic tissues. Cancer Res 53:641651 MacLean GD, Miles DW, Rubens RD, Reddish MA, Longenecker BM (1996) Enhancing the effect of THERATOPE STn-KLH cancer vaccine in patients with metastatic breast cancer by pretreatment with low-dose intravenous cyclophosphamide. J Immunother Emphasis Tumor Immunol 19:309316 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2010) NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: non-small cell lung cancer. Available at: http://www.nccn.org. Accessed Feb 2011 North S, Butts C (2005) Vaccination with BLP25 liposome vaccine to treat non-small cell lung and prostate cancers. Expert Rev Vaccines 4:249257 Palmer M, Parker J, Modi S, Butts C, Smylie M, Meikle A, Kehoe M, MacLean G, Longenecker M (2001) Phase I study of the BLP25 (MUC1 peptide) liposomal vaccine for active specic immunotherapy in stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer 3:4957 Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P (2005) Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 55:74108 Pilla L, Rivoltini L, Patuzzo R, Marrari A, Valdagni R, Parmiani G (2009) Multipeptide vaccination in cancer patients. Expert Opin Biol Ther 9:10431055 Roses RE, Xu M, Koski GK, Czerniecki BJ (2008) Radiation therapy and toll-like receptor signaling: implications for the treatment of cancer. Oncogene 27:200207 Schiller JH, Harrington D, Belani CP, Langer C, Sandler A, Krook J, Zhu J, Johnson DH (2002) Comparison of four chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 346:9298 Shepherd FA, Dancey J, Ramlau R, Mattson K, Gralla R, ORourke M, Levitan N, Gressot L, Vincent M, Burkes R, Coughlin S, Kim Y, Berille J (2000) 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 Zotter S, Hageman PC, Lossnitzer A, Mooi WJ, Hilgers J (1988) Tissue and tumor distribution of human polymorphic epithelial mucin. Cancer Rev 11:55101

123