You are here
Brain Metastases from NSCLC: Radiation Therapy in the Era of Targeted Therapies
Journal of Thoracic Oncology, Volume 11, Issue 10, October 2016, Pages 1627 - 1643
Commentary by Tom Stinchcombe
Brain metastases are common in patients with NSCLC and some data suggest that patients with EGFR mutant or ALK positive NSCLC may have a higher rate of brain metastases at time of diagnosis. Patients with these oncogenic drivers are treated with targeted therapy and frequently developed progressive disease in the CNS. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors appear to be more effective than chemotherapy in controlling CNS disease. Data suggest that erlotinib CNS penetration exceeds the median inhibitor concentration for EGFR inhibition based on studies evaluating CNS penetration. Small studies revealed gefitinib has a lower rate of CSF penetration. AZD3759 is a novel class of EGFR TKI with better blood brain barrier penetration, but importantly does not have activity against the T790M acquired resistance mutation. Crizotinib has a low penetration of the blood brain barrier, and treatment with crizotinib results in better CNS disease control than chemotherapy. The second-generation alectinib and ceretinib have better CSF penetration than crizotinib. Recently stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has been used to treat patients with a limited number of brain metastases (generally 1 to 4), and emerging data suggest SRS is safe in patients with up to 10 brain metastases. Most of the studies investigating the combination of targeted therapies with radiation were performed in unselected patients or are retrospective. The optimal timing and sequence and of targeted therapies and radiation and radiation treatment strategy are undefined. This review on behalf on the IASLC advanced radiation committee provides a valuable update of the ongoing clinical trials and previous trials.
Brain metastases (BMs) will develop in a large proportion of patients with NSCLC throughout the course of their disease. Among patients with NSCLC with oncogenic drivers, mainly EGFR activating mutations and anaplastic lymphoma receptor tyrosine kinase gene (ALK) rearrangements, the presence of BM is a common secondary localization of disease both at the time of diagnosis and at relapse. Because of the limited penetration of a wide range of drugs across the blood-brain barrier, radiotherapy is considered the cornerstone of treatment of BMs. However, evidence of dramatic intracranial response rates has been reported in recent years with targeted therapies such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors and has been supported by new insights into pharmacokinetics to increase rates of tyrosine kinase inhibitors' penetration of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). In this context, the combination of brain radiotherapy and targeted therapies seems relevant, and there is a strong radiobiological rationale to harness the radiosentizing effect of the drugs. Nevertheless, to date, there is a paucity of high-level clinical evidence supporting the combination of brain radiotherapy and targeted therapies in patients with NSCLC and BMs, and there are often methodological biases in reported studies, such as the lack of stratification by mutation status. Moreover, among asymptomatic patients not suitable for ablative treatment, this strategy is challenged by the promising results associated with the administration of targeted therapies alone. Herein, we review the biological rationale to combine targeted therapies and brain radiotherapy for patients with NSCLC and BMs, report the clinical data available to date, and discuss future directions to improve outcome in this group of patients.
Keywords: NSCLC, Brain metastases, Radiotherapy, Targeted therapies, EGFR, Anaplastic lymphoma kinase.
NSCLC accounts for approximately 85% of lung cancers. Most patients present with advanced disease, and despite recent advances in standard treatment, NSCLC still has a poor prognosis, with an estimated 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of 15% to 21%.1 and 2 NSCLC is characterized by a high incidence of central nervous system (CNS) metastases. Brain metastases (BMs) will develop in approximately 25% to 50% of patients with NSCLCs within the course of their disease,3 and 4 with 10% to 20% of them having BMs when the disease is first diagnosed.5 and 6EGFR activating mutations are present in approximately 10% to 20% of white patients with NSCLC (in whom mutations in exons 19 and 21 account for more than 90% of mutations)7 and 8 and anaplastic lymphoma receptor tyrosine kinase gene (ALK) rearrangements (ALK-positive) are present in 3% to 7% of patients with NSCLC.9EGFR mutations are thought to be a positive prognostic factor for outcome,10 whereas the data on ALK rearrangements are more controversial.11 In EGFR-mutated and ALK-positive patients, the incidence of BM at the time of diagnosis is slightly higher than in unselected patients, with an approximate rate of 25%, suggesting that EGFR mutations and ALK rearrangements might be associated with a metastatic tropism to the brain and then with an increased risk for BM.12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 Furthermore, the CNS is a common site of relapse in patients previously treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in approximately 30% to 60% of EGFR-mutated17, 18, and 19 and 40% to 70% of ALK-positive NSCLC.20, 21, and 22 This compares with slightly lower overall brain failure rates of 22% to 55% in unselected patients with locally advanced NSCLC treated with definitive therapy.23 There is a paucity of data in the literature on intracranial progression rate for unselected stage IV patients. Interestingly, among patients with NSCLC with EGFR mutation or ALK rearrangement, TKIs seem more effective than chemotherapy to control intracranial disease, suggesting again the role of these pathways in the development of BMs.24 and 25
BMs from NSCLC are associated with major negative effects on both patient quality of life and survival, with a median OS of 3 to 15 months depending on the prognostic group.3, 26, and 27 A range of therapeutic interventions are available depending on the patients’ characteristics and prognosis. There is a belief that chemotherapy alone has a limited role in the treatment of BM owing to the assumed inability of these drugs to cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB), although response rates as high as 30% to 40% have been reported in the brain with platinum-based chemotherapy, principally in chemonaive patients, which is consistent with the rates observed extracranially.28 and 29 In this context, local treatments have been widely assessed in patients with BMs. In patients with a limited number of BMs (1–4 BMs30) and controlled or potentially controllable distant extracranial disease and thoracic disease, several randomized trials have investigated the combination of whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) with surgery or stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) performed with “radical” intent. The studies demonstrated that surgery or SRS associated with WBRT improved local control compared with WBRT alone. There was also an impact on OS with the addition of surgery or SRS to WBRT, but only in patients with a single BM.31, 32, 33, 34, and 35 Conversely, the addition of WBRT to surgery or SRS compared with surgery or SRS alone has been proved to increase local control within the brain, but it does not improve survival.36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41 Historically, in patients not suitable for local treatments such as SRS and neurosurgery, WBRT has been considered the standard of care despite the lack of level 1 evidence supporting the utility of WBRT compared with supportive care. However, this concept has recently been challenged by the data from the QUARTZ trial comparing optimal supportive care, including dexamethasone plus WBRT (20 Gy in five daily fractions) or optimal supportive care alone in patients with NSCLC, with BM deemed unsuitable for surgery or SRS. Notably, most patients enrolled had a poor overall prognosis according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) classification26: 50% had an RPA of 3 and 92% had an RPA of 2 to 3.42 The results presented in abstract form at the 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting showed no evidence of a difference in OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.06, 95% confidence interval: 0.90 – 1.26), overall quality of life, or steroid use between the two groups.43
Nevertheless, it should be noted that most of these strategies have been developed in heterogeneous populations of patients with BMs from a range of solid tumors, whereas evidence of dramatic intracranial response rates have been reported in recent years with TKIs in EGFR-mutated patients with NSCLC,44, 45, and 46ALK-positive patients,47, 48, and 49 and also in unselected patients.50 and 51
In recent years, molecular screening has become the standard of care in stage IV NSCLC, and targeted therapies have been evaluated in patients with NSCLC and BMs in the hope of improving the poor outcomes of this group of patients. This review will focus on the role of targeted therapies combined with brain radiotherapy (RT) in patients with NSCLC and BMs. We aim to provide a biological rationale for combination treatment and report clinical data available to date and to then raise several issues in clinical practice relating to this strategy.
Searches for original and review articles in the PubMed and Google Scholar databases and at the ClinicalTrials.gov website were conducted to identify relevant clinical trials registered in this field. General search terms included the following: NSCLC, brain metastases, whole brain radiotherapy, stereotactic radiosurgery, stereotactic radiotherapy, combination, targeted therapies, blood brain barrier, radiosensitization, EGFR, ALK, erlotinib, and crizotinib, as well as the other main targeted therapies described for NSCLC. Individual bibliographies were reviewed for additional relevant references.
Biological Rationale to Combine Brain RT and Targeted Therapies for BMs
BBB and BMs
The BBB is a selective barrier between the systemic circulation and CSF, which is formed by endothelial cells that line cerebral microvessels, together with the end feet of perivascular astrocytes. Because of complex tight junctions between adjacent endothelial cells, it can regulate most molecular traffic, thus acting as a physical barrier. Large hydrophilic molecules, including most chemotherapeutic and molecular-targeted drugs are generally excluded from the CNS unless they can be transferred by specific receptor-mediated transcytosis.52 and 53
Furthermore, many therapeutic agents are substrates for drug efflux pumps highly expressed on the BBB, such as the P-glycoprotein (PgP), members of the multidrug resistance protein family, or ABCG2 transporter (initially named the breast cancer–resistant protein [BCRP]), which can further reduce intracellular drug levels in the brain.54
BM growth will rapidly compromise the structural and functional properties of the BBB by altering vessel permeability and reducing the expression of drug efflux transporters. However, the disruption of the BBB might not be homogeneous within the BM. Moreover, it has been reported that micrometastatic deposits around the macroscopic tumor keep the BBB intact. Therefore, passage of drugs through the BBB remains an important issue in treatment of BMs.52, 54, 55, 56, and 57
CNS Penetration of Targeted Therapies for Treatment of BMs
TKIs are low-molecular-weight organic compounds (<500 Da generally),58 with low to moderate CSF penetration rates within the brain.59 Erlotinib (and its active metabolite OSI-420) has been found to have a CSF penetration rate between 2.8% and 5.1% of total plasma concentration (5.8% for OSI-420).60, 61, and 62 A report from a patient in whom glioblastoma had been diagnosed showed a CSF penetration rate up to 7% (and 9% for OSI-420).63 Although erlotinib CNS penetration is restricted by drug efflux transporters (PgP and BCRP),64 and 65 these data suggest that erlotinib concentration in the CSF exceeds its median inhibitory concentration value for EGFR inhibition.66 A limited number of small cohort studies have shown that as compared with erlotinib, other first-generation TKIs have low (gefitinib62 and 67) or very low (crizotinib68 and 69) CSF penetration rates. Interestingly, AZD3759 belongs to a novel class of EGFR TKIs, with activity similar to that of first-generation TKIs (no T790M activity) but designed to penetrate the BBB. As AZD3759 is not a substrate of PgP and BCRP efflux transporters, early preclinical data showed that it has significantly better penetration across the BBB than do other approved EGFR TKIs.70 Similarly, the second-generation ALK inhibitors, mainly ceritinib and alectinib, which are selective for ALK at very low concentrations in vitro,71 and 72 might not be transported by efflux proteins73 and therefore may provide far higher CSF penetration rates.74 and 75 These data could partly explain the better intracranial response rates obtained with the next-generation ALK inhibitors as compared with crizotinib.49 Potential future directions to increase TKIs CSF penetration rates, and therefore intracranial control, include development of intra-CSF formulation, inhibition of efflux transporters,76 and pulsatile high-dose administration.77 and 78
With regard to monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) such as bevacizumab, as long as the BBB is fully intact, such drugs are theoretically unable to penetrate the CSF because of their high molecular weight. However, there is a paucity of quantitative data available on the CSF penetration of mAbs.79
Impact of Brain RT on BBB Permeability
As described previously, endothelial cells play a fundamental role in the functioning of the BBB. In the context of brain RT, studies have shown that the development of damage to the BBB can be explained by complex interactions involving endothelial cell death, altered gene expression, and microenvironmental changes.80
DNA damage–induced mitotic cell death is known to be the established radiation-induced death pathway for eukaryotic cells, but other cell death pathways after irradiation have been described.81 Indeed, the cell membrane also represents a major target in radiation-induced apoptosis through activation of the acid sphyngomyelinase enzyme, which in turn leads to sphyngomyelin hydrolysis to ceramide, subsequently inducing apoptotic signal transduction.82 and 83 This ceramide-induced apoptosis pathway is crucial in radiation-induced endothelial cell death, particularly in the context of high single-dose radiation (>10 Gy).84 and 85 However, data have also shown that endothelial cells actually undergo two waves of radiation-induced cell death after exposure to radiation: an early ceramide-mediated apoptosis as described (in <24 hours) and also a delayed DNA damage–induced mitotic death (at ≥72 hours)86 that has been reported to occur up to 1 month after RT.87
Overall, these data provide a radiobiological rationale to explain how RT to the brain can lead to early and delayed focal disruption of the BBB, from 1 week after the initiation of RT to 1 month after the completion of treatment, as reported previously.88 and 89 Brain irradiation has been described to affect the blood-tumor barrier as well as the healthy irradiated BBB, but to a lesser extent.89 and 90 These effects were observed for both focal RT to the tumor and WBRT starting with radiation doses in the range of 20 to 30 Gy with a fraction size of 2 Gy.88, 89, 90, and 91 As for SRS, no robust clinical data have been reported to date, although a fraction size larger than 10 Gy has been suggested to disrupt the BBB in a preclinical study.85
Finally, this BBB disruption after focal RT or WBRT is presumed to lead to an increase in drug permeability,90, 91, 92, 93, and 94 although contradictory clinical data have been reported after WBRT in patients with BMs from NSCLC.95
Radiosensitizing Effects of Targeted Therapies
The rationale to combine brain RT and targeted therapies in patients with BM is also based on the radiosensitizing effects of such drugs, thus enabling better intracranial control.
An inverse relationship between wild-type EGFR overexpression and tumor cell response to radiation in vitro and in vivo has been found.96 and 97 This could be explained by the fact that the EGFR pathway has been described as a classic radioresistance pathway through several mechanisms. First, radiation-induced activation of the EGFR pathway without ligand98 leads to accelerated repopulation via the Ras/MAP kinase pathway.99 and 100 Secondly, there is increased cell survival by means of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/AKT pathway,101 as well as EGFR ligand synthesis (transforming growth factor-α and amphiregulin), which in turn activates the PI3K/AKT pathway in an autocrine loop.102 Third, radiation-induced nuclear translocation of wild-type EGFR in turn activates the nonhomologous end-joining DNA double-strand break repair pathway.103 and 104 EGFR inhibition may silence these EGFR radioresistance pathways and could enhance the antitumor activity of ionizing radiation through several mechanisms, including cell cycle arrest, apoptosis induction, and targeting of accelerated cellular repopulation and DNA damage repair (through inhibition of Rad51).105 and 106
Conversely, NSCLC cell lines with somatic activating mutation have been found to exhibit a highly radiosensitive phenotype compared with wild-type cell lines, partly owing to a defect in radiation-induced translocation to the nucleus.107 and 108 There is a limited understanding of the precise effect of the combination of radiation and TKIs on EGFR-mutated cell lines, but recent data favor an additive rather than a synergistic effect.109 and 110
Overall, the data suggest that TKIs can decrease overexpressed EGFR wild-type cells' radioresistance and increase the radiosensitivity of EGFR-mutated cells.
The echinoderm microtubule associated protein like 4–ALK fusion protein leads to an aberrant activation of the ALK tyrosine kinase involved in several downstream signaling pathways, mainly the mitogen-activated protein kinase and PI3K/AKT pathways.111 ALK-related radiosensitization mechanisms have been less well described, but recent data suggest that in ALK-positive cells only, the combination of crizotinib with radiation results in greater inhibition of tumor growth and microvascular density than does either treatment alone through an increase in antiproliferative and proapoptotic effects.112 and 113
With regard to antiangiogenic agents, their radiosensitizing effects on both the microenvironment and tumor cells have been widely described.114 First, a hypoxic tumor microenvironment stimulates upregulation, through hypoxia-inducible factor-1α, of angiogenic factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor.115 and 116 This prompts angiogenesis, giving rise to anarchic and nonfunctional microvessels, which in turn increases hypoxia. Antiangiogenic agents thus enable the reorganization of microvessels, resulting in a “tumor vasculature normalization window”117 and a radiosensitizing effect through tumor reoxygenation. Second, it has been demonstrated that when delivered before single-dose RT, antiangiogenic agents can enhance radiation-induced acid sphingomyelinase activation, leading to a synergistic increase of endothelial apoptosis.118 Third, data have suggested that antiangiogenic/radiation-induced damage to endothelial cells can result in increased rates of tumor cell apoptosis, through both inhibition of tumor cell-expressed autocrine growth factors and receptors and loss of endothelial-derived paracrine factors needed for tumor growth.119, 120, and 121
Lastly, given that prospective trials using poly–adenosine diphosphate ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in association with brain RT for BM are currently recruiting patients (Table 1), the radiosensitization mechanisms deserve to be briefly mentioned. DNA double-strand break is the critical radiation-induced damage leading to cell death, whereas single-strand breaks, which are much more numerous after irradiation, can easily be repaired by using the PARP enzyme. Inhibition of PARP prevents the irradiated cells from repairing DNA single-strand breaks, leading to an increase in double-strand breaks through the DNA replication machinery.123
Ongoing and/or Unpublished Clinical Trials Combining Radiation and Novel Targeted Agents for NSCLC BMs
|Study||Trial Phase||Estimated Enrollment||Estimated Primary Completion Date||Selected Mutation Group||Primary Site||Arms||Primary End Point(s)||Secondary End Point(s)|
|NCT02556593||2||116||August 2019||EGFR wild type||NSCLC||WBRT (45 Gy in 15 fx) + errlotinib (150 mg/d)||2-y CNS PFS||—|
|NCT01518621||2||150||December 2017||Unselected||NSCLC||WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fx) + erlotinib (150 mg/d) vs. WBRT alone||Median OS||Toxicity, LC, TNP|
|NCT01887795||3||224||August 2016||EGFR mutant||NSCLC||WBRT (40 Gy in 20 fx) + erlotinib (150 mg/d) vs. WBRT alone||TNP||OS, tumor response, QOL|
|NCT00268684||3||381||—||Unselected||NSCLC||WBRT + SRS + TMZ vs. WBRT + SRS + erlotinib vs. WBRT+SRS alone||OS||—|
|NCT02338011||2/3||210||November 2017||EGFR mutant||NSCLC||WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fx) + gefitinib (250 mg/d) vs. gefitinib alone||PFS||OS, QOL, MMSE|
|NCT01363557a||2||1||August 2012||EGFR mutant||Lung NOS||WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fx) + gefitinib (250 mg/d) vs. gefitinib alone||Tumor response||Toxicity, PFS, OS|
|NCT01926171||4||80||September 2016||Unselected||NSCLC||WBRT (40 Gy in 20 fx) + icotinib||Tumor response||DC, PFS, toxicity|
|NCT00807170a||1||5||August 2010||Unselected||NSCLC||WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fx) + vandetanib (100 mg/d, 200 mg/d, 300 mg/d)||MTD||Clinical and radiographic PFS|
|NCT01218529b||2||82||August 2014||Unselected||Lung NOS, breast||WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fx) + lapatinib (1250 mg/d)||Tumor response||DC, PFS, toxicity|
|NCT00872482a||2||21||July 2011||Unselected||NSCLC||WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fx) + nimotuzumab (200 mg/wk) vs. WBRT alone||Tumor response||OS, TNP, PFS, OS|
|NCT02314364||2||30||November 2021||EGFR mutant, ALK+ or ROS1 mutant||NSCLC||SRS + TKI||12-mo DF||Toxicity, PFS, OS, patterns of failure|
|NCT00937482b||1||18||March 2011||Unselected||NSCLC||WBRT + cediranib||MTD||Neurologic PFS, OS|
|NCT00981890b||1||22||July 2014||Unselected||Any cancer||SRS + sunitinib||MTD, toxicity||Toxicity, PFS|
|NCT01276210||1||23||January 2018||Unselected||Any cancer, excluding SCLC and lymphoma||SRS + sorafenib||MTD||PFS, OS|
|NCT00639262b||1||35||September 2012||Unselected||Any cancer||RT + sorafenib (200 mg twice daily)||MTD||Tumor response, PFS, toxicity|
|NCT01410370||2||80||Unknown||Unselected||Any cancer||WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fx) + endostar (7.5 mg/m2/d) vs. WBRT alone||ORR||OS, VEGF levels, toxicity|
|NCT00884598||1||21||Unknown||Unselected||Lung (SCLC or NSCLC)||WBRT + cilengitide||MTD, toxicity||ORR, OS, PFS, toxicity|
|NCT01657799b||2||307||January 2015||Unselected||NSCLC||WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fx) + veliparib (low and high dose) vs. WBRT + placebo||OS||Tumor response, PFS|
|NCT01551680a||1||3||February 2014||Unselected||Any cancer||WBRT (37.5 Gy in 15 fx) + iniparib (2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, or 11.2 mg/kg)||MTD||Toxicity, QOL, ORR, PFS|
|NCT00892801a||1||5||February 2011||Unselected||NSCLC||WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fx) + everolimus (5 or 10 mg/d)||MTD, median OS||Tumor response, toxicity, TNP, PFS|
|NCT02589522||1||46||June 2017||Unselected||NSCLC||WBRT + VX-970||MTD, toxicity||QOL, toxicity, PFS, OS|
a Study terminated.
b Study completed.
BM, brain metastasis; WBRT, whole brain radiation therapy; fx, fraction; CNS, central nervous system; PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival; LC, local control; TNP, time to neurological progression; QOL, quality of life; SRS, stereotactic radiosurgery; TMZ, temozolomide; MMSE, Mini Mental Status Examination; NOS, not otherwise specified; DC, distant control; MTD, maximum tolerated dose; TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor; DF, distant failure; RT, radiation therapy; ORR, objective response rate; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor; PARP, Poly(adenosine diphosphate ribose) polymerase; mTOR, mammalian target of rapamycin; ATR, ataxia telangiectasia receptor.
Combination of RT and Targeted Therapies: Clinical Data
The role of EGFR inhibitors combined with RT in patients with BMs has been evaluated in multiple studies: the published studies, summarized in Table 2, included both EGFR-mutant and wild-type patients. One of the most studied EGFR TKIs is erlotinib. Lind et al. conducted a dose escalation phase I trial of erlotinib delivered concurrently with WBRT in patients with NSCLC and BMs and demonstrated no treatment-related neurotoxicity with doses of 100 and 150 mg daily.124 Subsequently, Welsh et al. conducted a phase II trial of erlotinib delivered concurrently with WBRT in patients with NSCLC and BMs, regardless of EGFR status.125 The median OS was 11.8 months for the 40 patients included in the study. In patients with known EGFR status (n = 17), the median survival was 9.3 months for wild-type EGFR (n = 8) compared with 19.1 months for those with EGFR mutations (n = 9). As all patients were treated with WBRT plus erlotinib, it is not possible to conclude whether the EGFR status is a prognostic or predictive factor of survival. Two phase III studies have compared brain RT alone with brain RT plus erlotinib. The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0320 study evaluated whether temozolomide or erlotinib combined with WBRT plus SRS in molecularly unselected metastatic patients with NSCLC, irrespective of EGFR status, could improve OS compared with WBRT plus SRS alone.126 They reported a worse survival in the erlotinib and temozolomide combination arms compared with in the arm with WBRT plus SRS alone. Furthermore, grade 3+ toxicity was significantly increased in the combination arms. Limitations of the study included the lack of power (closed early on account of slow accrual) and the absence of stratification by EGFR status.
Published Prospective Trials Combining Radiation and Novel Targeted Agents for NSCLC BMs
|Study||Trial Phase||No. of Patients||Mutation Status||Arms||Outcomes|
|Lind et al.124||1||11||EGFR status not reported||Erlotinib (100 mg/d or 150 mg/d) + WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fx)||mOS: 4.4 mo Intracranial PFS: 90.9% 1 G3 rash and 1 G3 fatigue (150 mg/d)|
|Sperduto et al. (RTOG 0320)126||3||126||EGFR status not reported||WBRT (37.5 Gy in 15 fx) and SRS alone vs. TMZ (75 mg/m2/d × 21 d) + WBRT + SRS vs. ETN (150 mg/d) + WBRT + SRS||mOS: 13.4, 6.3, 6.1 mo (NS) Grade ≥3 toxicity: 11%, 41%, 49% (SS)|
|Welsh et al.125||2||40||EGFR mut (n = 17) EGFR wt (n = 9)||Erlotinib (150 mg/d) + WBRT (35 Gy in 14 fx)||mOS: 11.8 mo mOS (EGFR positive vs. negative): 19.1 vs. 9.3 mo (NS)|
|Lee et al.127||2||80||EGFR mut (n = 1) EGFR wt (n = 34)||Erlotinib (100 mg/d) + WBRT (20 Gy in 5 fx) vs. Placebo + WBRT (20 Gy in 5 fx)||mOS: 3.4 vs. 2.9 mo (NS) nPFS: 1.6 vs. 1.6 mo (NS)|
|Zhuang et al.128||2||54||EGFR mut (n = 11) EGFR wt (n = 12)||WBRT alone (30 Gy in 10 fx) vs. Erlotinib (150 mg/d) + WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fx)||mOS: 8.9 vs. 10.7 mo (SS) ORR: 54.8% vs. 95.7% (SS) Local PFS: 6.8 vs. 10.6 mo (SS)|
|Pesce et al. (SAKK 70/03)129||2||59||EGFR status not reported||Gefitinib (250 mg/d) + WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fx) vs. TMZ (75 mg/m2) + WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fx)||mOS: 6.3 vs. 4.9 mo (NR)|
|Zhou et al.131||1||15||EGFR mut only||Icotinib (125 mg tid, 250 mg tid, 375 mg tid, 500 mg tid, 625 mg tid) + WBRT (37.5 Gy in 15 fx)||125–375 mg tid well tolerated|
|Fan et al.132||2||20||EGFR mut (n = 10) EGFR wt (n = 8)||Icotinib (150 mg tid) + WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fx)||mOS: 14.6 mo mOS (EGFR positive vs. negative): 22.0 vs. 7.5 mo (SS) mPFS: 7.0 mo|
|Levy et al.137||1||19||VEGF status not reported||Bevacizumab (5, 10, 15 mg/kg every 2 wk) + WBRT (30 Gy in 15 fx) d 15||3-mo ORR: 52.6% Grade 1 and 2 toxicities: 26% and 47% No intracranial bleeds|
BM, brain metastasis; WBRT, whole brain radiotherapy; fx, fraction; mOS, median overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; G3, grade 3; RTOG, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group; SRS, stereotactic radiosurgery; TMZ, temozolomide; ETN, erlotinib; NS, nonsignificant; SS, statistically significant; mut, mutant; wt, wild-type; nPFS, neurologic progression free survival; ORR, objective response rate; SAKK, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research; NR, not reported; tid, three times daily.
In the U.K. TACTIC study, 80 molecularly unselected patients with NSCLC with multiple BMs were randomized to either WBRT plus placebo or WBRT plus erlotinib followed by erlotinib maintenance. The study showed no advantage in neurological progression-free survival (PFS) or OS for concurrent erlotinib and WBRT in patients with predominantly EGFR wild-type NSCLC (only 1 of 35 patients with available samples had an EGFR mutation).127
Few studies have reported the outcome of the combination of erlotinib and brain RT in patients with a known EGFR status. A phase II trial from China (n = 54) found the combination WBRT plus erlotinib to have improved local PFS and OS as compared with WBRT alone. Of the 23 patients included in the WBRT plus erlotinib arm, 48% were EGFR mutated, and 52% were EGFR wild type. PFS and OS were similar in both groups. This study should be interpreted with caution, however, because the treatment was not allocated randomly and EGFR status in the WBRT-only cohort was unknown.128
The benefit of combining gefinitib with RT has also been evaluated. The Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research 70/03 trial was a phase II trial randomizing unselected patients with NSCLC and BMs to receive WBRT plus gefitinib or WBRT plus temozolomide.129 Although gefinitib appeared to be well tolerated, median OS was poor in both arms (6.3 months and 4.9 months, respectively). A recent pooled analysis of the literature included eight prospective trials (980 participants) evaluating the efficacy and safety of EGFR TKIs (including erlotinib and getitinib) combined with RT in NSCLC and BMs. The analysis demonstrated a significant benefit of the addition of EGFR TKIs in terms of objective response rate (HR = 1.56), prolonged time to intracranial progression (HR = 0.58), and median OS (HR = 0.68). The analysis did not assess outcomes according to EGFR status.130
Additional studies are being conducted with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies. Nimotuzumab is one such agent found to have promising activity in multiple cancers, including head and neck, pediatric, and NSCLC. Preclinical data suggest that it may enhance antitumor activity of RT, and the overall side effects appear tolerable.133 Unlike other anti-EGFR mAbs, nimotuzumab is not associated with a severe acneiform rash.134 Preliminary phase II randomized data on nimotuzumab combined with WBRT versus WBRT alone for advanced NSCLC with unresectable BMs was presented at the annual European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer meeting in 2008.135 The primary end point was disease control rate (DCR) and the secondary end points were OS and safety. The study found a higher DCR with combined modality treatment (91.6% versus 44.4%) and an improved median OS when compared with WBRT alone (7.00 versus 2.47 months [p = 0.0039]).
Clinical trials combining EGFR inhibitors with brain RT (WBRT or SRS) and currently recruiting patients are summarized in Table 1.
Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase Inhibitors
There are currently no published prospective clinical trials evaluating toxicity and outcomes of brain RT delivered concurrently with an ALK inhibitor. However, a recent multi-institutional, retrospective study reported outcomes of 90 patients with NSCLC and BMs and ALK positivity treated with a TKI (crizotinib [n = 84], ceritinib [n = 21], AP-26113 [n = 16], alectinib [n = 2], or X-396 [n = 2]).136 Most patients (84 of 90) were treated with brain RT (WBRT or SRS): 43 received a repeat RT procedure and 21 received three or more procedures. However the timing of RT was not precisely described. Overall, the authors concluded that ALK-positive patients with BMs had a prolonged survival when treated with systemic TKIs and brain RT, as the median OS after diagnosis of BM was 49.5 months. Notably, the study reported improved median OS among patients with no history of TKIs before the development of BM as compared with among those patients who began TKI therapy before the diagnosis of BM (54.8 months versus 28.4 months [p < 0.001]). Median intracranial PFS was 11.9 months. The ongoing phase II trial (NCT02314364) combining SRS with any TKI will provide further information on the safety and efficacy of ALK inhibitors in the treatment of ALK-positive patients with NSCLC and BMs (see Table 1).
The safety and efficacy of combining WBRT with bevacizumab was prospectively evaluated in the REBECA phase I study (see Table 2).137 Patients received three cycles of bevacizumab at escalating doses (5, 10, and 15 mg/kg every 2 weeks) with WBRT (30 Gy in 15 fractions) administered from day 15 of bevacuzimab; 10 of the 19 patients had an intracranial treatment response at 3 months, with grade 1 and 2 toxicities occurring in five and nine patients respectively; no grade 3 or higher toxicity was reported. There are currently no published clinical data regarding the combination of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors and SRS in patients with NSCLC.
Ongoing clinical trials combining other antiangiogenic agents, such as multitargeted antiangiogenic TKIs (sunitinib, sorafenib, and cediranib), endostar, or cilengitide, with brain RT are summarized in Table 1. Endostar is a human recombinant of endostatin (an endogenous inhibitor of angiogenesis and tumor growth138); it was approved by the Chinese State Food and Drug Administration in 2005 for use in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of NSCLC. Lastly, cilengitide is an antagonist of the αvβ3 integrin which has been proved to radiosensitize lung cancer cells in vitro,139 probably through tumor vasculature normalization and tumor hypoxia regulation.140
Other Targeted Therapies in Combination with Brain RT
There are multiple ongoing trials evaluating other targeted therapies combined with WBRT or SRS in the treatment of patients with NSCLC and BM (see Table 1).
PARP has also been demonstrated to be overexpressed in multiple cancers, including NSCLC.141 PARP inhibitors such as veliparib are being actively studied in NSCLC. Results from a phase I trial (NCT00649207) evaluating the maximum tolerated dose and associated toxicity of veliparib plus WBRT found better than predicted survival rates and toxicity comparable to that in the historical data on WBRT alone.142 and 143 The subsequent phase II study (NCT01657799) comparing veliparib and WBRT to placebo and WBRT was presented at the 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting.144 The trial found no statistically significant difference in OS, intracranial response rate, or time to clinical or radiographic progression between the two study arms.
Additional pathways are also being studied, including the PI3K-Akt–mammalian target of rapamycin pathway, which is thought to play a role in NSCLC cases with acquired resistance to EGFR inhibition.145 Everolimus is currently being evaluated with WBRT in a phase I trial (NCT00892801).
Gray Areas in Combination of RT and Targeted Therapies in Clinical Routine
Treatment Decisions Based on Mutational Status
The question as to whether targeted therapies should be combined with brain RT only in patients with oncogenic drivers remains unanswered. EGFR status is known to be predictive of intracranial response to TKIs when administered alone,45 and 46 and although the radiosensitizing effect of EGFR TKIs has been established with both EGFR wild-type and EGFR-mutated cells, the clinical data that we have summarized here do not support the use of the combination in wild-type patients.
Furthermore, another consideration when assessing the efficacy of targeted therapies is the presence of potential mutational heterogeneity between the primary tumor and the metastases. Substantial both-way discordance (roughly 30%) has been reported in EGFR and KRAS mutational status between the primary tumors and corresponding metastases in patients with NSCLC.146, 147, and 148 However, it is not practical to perform biopsies of the BMs given the risk for complications in patients eligible only for palliative treatment and possible heterogeneity of the samples.
Optimal Timing for the Combination
The optimal timing of targeted therapies and brain RT is still unclear. On the basis of radiobiological considerations, targeted therapies should be introduced before, or at the latest, on the first day of RT in an attempt to potentiate the effects of ionizing radiation as described earlier. In most prospective studies both systemic targeted therapies and brain RT were started on the same day,125, 126, 127, and 128 whereas Lind et al. initiated erlotinib 1 week before the start of RT.124 Such timing could be relevant to synchronize the cell cycle before radiation but most importantly to reach a steady-state concentration of erlotinib in the serum as well as in the CSF,149 particularly during treatment with SRS. To our knowledge, however, no biological data have been published to support either strategy.
Another unanswered question is the duration of systemic therapy, which is to some extent driven by the extracranial disease. As discussed earlier, brain RT durably alters the BBB, so that potential increased permeability and therefore increased CSF drug concentration is expected to be effective for up to approximately 1 month after the completion of brain RT. Consequently, several scenarios should be considered. In case of upfront brain RT plus TKI treatment in patients with an oncongenic driver, the TKI should be continued until unacceptable toxicity, clinically meaningful systemic disease progression, or death. In the case of intracranial progression as a single site of oligoprogression among patients with an oncogenic driver who are receiving a TKI, whether the drug should be interrupted during WBRT or SRS remains debated. As previously discussed, the combination of erlotinib or gefitinib plus WBRT with or without SRS or SRS alone has been reported to be a safe approach.125, 126, 127, 129, and 150 Furthermore, this “no stop” strategy has been evaluated in patients with NSCLC with isolated oligoprogression within the brain while they are receiving erlotinib or crizotinib.22 Treatment with SRS or WBRT and continuation of the same targeted therapy was associated with additional disease control of more than 7 months and acceptable toxicity.
Can WBRT Be Omitted or Delayed in Patients with Oncogenic Drivers?
Given the potential neurocognitive impairment after WBRT,151 emerging data support TKIs being a reasonable option for asymptomatic BM unsuitable for local ablative treatments, but further investigation is required to determine whether this is the optimal option.152
Likewise, the use of targeted therapies in patients with oncogenic drivers shows promising intracranial activity, suggesting that the use of WBRT could be omitted or delayed.
In a recent review, the use of first-generation EGFR TKIs without brain RT was associated with intracranial response rates between 10% and 70% among unselected patients (but clinically “enriched” for patients with a high likelihood of activating EGFR mutations) and between 75% and 90% in patients with activating EGFR mutations.155 Two phase II trials were included in this review.44 and 46 In a Korean study evaluating EGFR TKIs alone in 28 patients with NSCLC and BMs harboring EGFR mutations, 83% of patients showed an intracranial partial response with a DCR of 93%. Median PFS and OS were 6.6 months and 15.9 months, respectively.44 Another Asian phase II study reported the results of erlotinib alone as second-line treatment for asymptomatic BMs in 48 patients with adenocarcinoma, 17% of whom were known to have an EGFR mutation and 52% of whom had an unknown status. The overall response rate was 58.3%, with a median OS of 18.9 months. As expected, patients with EGFR mutation–positive disease had significantly longer median PFS as compared with those with EGFR wild-type disease.46
With regard to second-generation EGFR TKIs, a prespecified subgroup analysis of LUX LUNG 3 and LUX LUNG 6 has been reported recently; it assessed the efficacy of afatinib as first-line treatment in patients with asymptomatic BMs from NSCLC and with common EGFR activating mutations. This combined analysis included 81 patients, approximately 30% of whom had received prior WBRT. PFS was significantly improved with afatinib versus with chemotherapy in patients with BMs (8.2 versus 5.4 months [HR = 0.50, p = 0.0297]), with an increase in overall response rate. The magnitude of PFS benefit with afatinib favored those patients who had received WBRT before the study, but statistical significance was not reached.156 No specific data on patients with BMs treated with dacomitinib are available yet; however, a phase II trial is currently recruiting patients (NCT02047747). To date, there are too few data with third-generation EGFR TKIs, but some reports among patients with BMs seem promising.157, 158, and 159
The intracranial activity of crizotinib in ALK-positive patients is well documented. Data from the PROFILE 1014 trial in first-line treatment showed an intracranial DCR of 56% at 24 weeks with crizotinib versus 25% with chemotherapy.25 A large retrospective study with pooled data from PROFILE 1005 and PROFILE 1007 examined the efficacy of crizotinib beyond first-line treatment in 275 ALK-positive ALK TKI–naive patients with asymptomatic BM at baseline, 109 of whom had received no prior brain RT and 166 of whom had received prior brain RT.21 The 12-week intracranial DCRs among patients previously untreated and treated with RT were 56% and 62%, respectively; the intracranial overall response rates were 18% and 33%, respectively. Interestingly, systemic DCR was statistically correlated with intracranial DCR. The intracranial times to progression were 7 months and 13.2 months, respectively. Even after CNS disease control has been achieved with crizotinib initially, it does not seem to be durable, as patients frequently demonstrate intracranial progression as the first disease of progression. Prolonged survival with crizotinib has been recently described among patients with BMs, particularly in TKI-naive patients with no extracranial metastases, but it should be noted that most of them had received brain RT.136 Data about next-generation ALK TKIs have been compiled in another recent review: these drugs seem to show more promising results in patients with BM, with intracranial response rates between 35% and 100%.49
Finally, bevacizumab has been evaluated in patients with BMs, and it can be delivered safely in addition to chemotherapy in molecularly unselected patients with NSCLC with good intracranial response rates.160 and 161 In the phase II trial AVF3752g (PASSPORT), the addition of bevacizumab to other chemotherapy agents was shown to be safe with a low incidence of brain hemorrhage (no grade ≥2 hemorrhage).160 In the phase II BRAIN trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of bevacizumab in chemotherapy-naive or pretreated patients with NSCLC and asymptomatic untreated BM, the investigators found higher than expected intracranial (61.2%) and extracranial (64.2%) response rates compared with the historical data and an encouraging PFS of 6.3 months. One grade 1 intracranial hemorrhage occurred and resolved without specific treatment.161 Finally, retrospective analysis of intracranial outcomes of patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC treated in the phase III AVAIL trial of cisplatin-gemcitabine with and without bevacizumab demonstrated statistically significantly fewer recurrences in the brain and a lower risk for BM development over time in the bevacizumab arm.162
Conclusions and Future Perspectives
The optimal management of patients with NSCLC and BMs is an evolving paradigm. Patients with a small number of metastases are treated more aggressively with local therapies such as SRS, especially with oligoprogressive disease. Indeed, emerging data suggest that SRS can be delivered safely in patients with up to 10 BMs.163 In patients not suitable for local treatments, new developments in WBRT techniques with hippocampal sparing may reduce neurocognitive toxicity.164
New systemic therapies and particularly targeted therapies have improved the prognosis of metastatic patients with NSCLC.165 and 166 One of the main limitations with regard to the use of such treatment is the insufficient intracranial penetration; however, new generations of targeted therapies show promising results in patients with BM.
On the basis of a strong biological rationale and emerging clinical data, the combination of brain RT with targeted therapies is probably one of the most promising strategies to tackle intracranial metastatic disease in patients with oncogenic drivers. However, there is a need to clarify the efficacy and timing of both local or systemic strategies in prospective clinical trials. Currently, published data and most ongoing trials (see Tables 1 and 2) combine targeted therapies with WBRT. Another important question is the whether the combination of these therapies with SRS is safe and efficacious. The combination of an increased radiation dose to the metastases and reduced RT exposure to the healthy brain makes SRS an attractive RT technique to be combined with systemic therapies to treat BM, but this needs to be confirmed in prospective trials.
Although immunotherapy alone recently showed promising clinical activity in patients with NSCLC and untreated BMs with a favorable safety profile,167 to date there are no peer-reviewed published prospective studies combining RT with immunotherapy in patients with NSCLC and BMs. Several reports, mostly on melanoma and renal cell carcinoma, have described a phenomenon known as the abscopal effect, in which administration of RT, before or after immunotherapy, caused treatment response at a distant tumor site that was not targeted with RT.168 and 169 Future studies are needed to evaluate whether this phenomenon can be replicated in NSCLC BMs.
Finally, in the precision medicine era, another challenge is to identify subgroups of patients with NSCLC and BMs who might benefit more from such combination of treatment on the basis of molecular profiles and histological and clinical data (including performance status, status of thoracic and distant extracranial disease, and the number of BMs). This would lead to the development of new prognostic and predictive scores and is supported by recent retrospective data having suggested a strong impact of gene mutations on OS (positively for EGFR and ALK and negatively for KRAS) in patients with adenocarcinoma after the development of BM, regardless of the use of targeted therapies.170
Even among well-selected patients, the optimal combination of concurrent RT and targeted therapies is still to be defined, mainly owing to pharmacological uncertainties. Further efforts are therefore needed to develop optimal strategies, and quantify the magnitude of benefit, in every subgroup of patients in the context of innovative randomized clinical trials.
Dr. Popat acknowledges National Health Service funding to the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden and the Institute of Cancer Research. The authors also would like to thank Nicola Stones for editorial assistance.
- 1 A. Jemal, R. Siegel, E. Ward, et al. Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58:71-96
- 2 American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2016. (American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA, 2016)
- 3 R.A. Patchell. The management of brain metastases. Cancer Treat Rev. 2003;29:533-540
- 4 J.B. Sørensen, H.H. Hansen, M. Hansen, P. Dombernowsky. Brain metastases in adenocarcinoma of the lung: frequency, risk groups, and prognosis. J Clin Oncol. 1988;6:1474-1480
- 5 O. Arrieta, D. Saavedra-Perez, R. Kuri, et al. Brain metastasis development and poor survival associated with carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level in advanced non–small cell lung cancer: a prospective analysis. BMC Cancer. 2009;9:119
- 6 N.H. Hanna, S.E. Dahlberg, J.M. Kolesar, et al. Three-arm, randomized, phase 2 study of carboplatin and paclitaxel in combination with cetuximab, cixutumumab, or both for advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who will not receive bevacizumab-based therapy: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology (ECOG) Study. Cancer. 2015;121:2253-2261
- 7 S. Gahr, R. Stoehr, E. Geissinger, et al. EGFR mutational status in a large series of Caucasian European NSCLC patients: data from daily practice. Br J Cancer. 2013 Oct 1;109:1821-1828
- 8 L.M. Sholl, D.L. Aisner, M. Varella-Garcia, et al. Multi-institutional Oncogenic Driver Mutation analysis in lung adenocarcinoma: the Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium experience. J Thorac Oncol. 2015;10:768-777
- 9 A. Warth, R. Penzel, H. Lindenmaier, et al. EGFR, KRAS, BRAF and ALK gene alterations in lung adenocarcinomas: patient outcome, interplay with morphology and immunophenotype. Eur Respir J. 2014;43:872-883
- 10 S. Fang, Z. Wang. EGFR mutations as a prognostic and predictive marker in non–small-cell lung cancer. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2014;8:1595-1611
- 11 Kulig K, Wang T, Iyer S, Yang P. Predictive and prognostic value of ALK gene rearrangement in non- small cell lung cancer. Epidemiol Open Access. http://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/predictive-and-prognostic-value-of-alk-gene-rearrangement-in-non–small-cell-lung-cancer-2161-1165.1000146.php?aid=23202. Accessed May 1, 2016.
- 12 D. Rangachari, N. Yamaguchi, P.A. VanderLaan, et al. Brain metastases in patients with EGFR-mutated or ALK-rearranged non–small-cell lung cancers. Lung Cancer. 2015;88:108-111
- 13 R.C. Doebele, X. Lu, C. Sumey, et al. Oncogene status predicts patterns of metastatic spread in treatment-naive nonsmall cell lung cancer. Cancer. 2012;118:4502-4511
- 14 S. Matsumoto, K. Takahashi, R. Iwakawa, et al. Frequent EGFR mutations in brain metastases of lung adenocarcinoma. Int J Cancer. 2006;119:1491-1494
- 15 A.F. Eichler, K.T. Kahle, D.L. Wang, et al. EGFR mutation status and survival after diagnosis of brain metastasis in nonsmall cell lung cancer. Neuro Oncol. 2010;12:1193-1199
- 16 V.R. Bhatt, S. Kedia, A. Kessinger, A.K. Ganti. Brain metastasis in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer and epidermal growth factor receptor mutations. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3162-3164
- 17 A.M.P. Omuro, M.G. Kris, V.A. Miller, et al. High incidence of disease recurrence in the brain and leptomeninges in patients with nonsmall cell lung carcinoma after response to gefitinib. Cancer. 2005;103:2344-2348
- 18 S. Heon, B.Y. Yeap, G.J. Britt, et al. Development of central nervous system metastases in patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer and somatic EGFR mutations treated with gefitinib or erlotinib. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:5873-5882
- 19 Y.J. Lee, H.J. Choi, S.K. Kim, et al. Frequent central nervous system failure after clinical benefit with epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors in Korean patients with nonsmall-cell lung cancer. Cancer. 2010;116:1336-1343
- 20 A.T. Shaw, B.Y. Yeap, B.J. Solomon, et al. Effect of crizotinib on overall survival in patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer harbouring ALK gene rearrangement: a retrospective analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:1004-1012
- 21 D.B. Costa, A.T. Shaw, S.-H.I. Ou, et al. Clinical experience with crizotinib in patients with advanced alk-rearranged non–small-cell lung cancer and brain metastases. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:1881-1888
- 22 A.J. Weickhardt, B. Scheier, J.M. Burke, et al. Local ablative therapy of oligoprogressive disease prolongs disease control by tyrosine kinase inhibitors in oncogene-addicted non–small-cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2012;7:1807-1814
- 23 E.M. Gore, K. Bae, S.J. Wong, et al. Phase III comparison of prophylactic cranial irradiation versus observation in patients with locally advanced non–small-cell lung cancer: primary analysis of radiation therapy oncology group study RTOG 0214. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:272-278
- 24 S. Heon, B.Y. Yeap, N.I. Lindeman, et al. The impact of initial gefitinib or erlotinib versus chemotherapy on central nervous system progression in advanced non–small cell lung cancer with EGFR mutations. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:4406-4414
- 25 B.J. Solomon, T. Mok, D.-W. Kim, et al. First-line crizotinib versus chemotherapy in ALK-positive lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:2167-2177
- 26 L. Gaspar, C. Scott, M. Rotman, et al. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) of prognostic factors in three Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) brain metastases trials. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1997;37:745-751
- 27 P.W. Sperduto, N. Kased, D. Roberge, et al. Summary report on the graded prognostic assessment: an accurate and facile diagnosis-specific tool to estimate survival for patients with brain metastases. J Clin Oncol. 2012 Feb 1;30:419-425
- 28 F. Barlesi, R. Gervais, H. Lena, et al. Pemetrexed and cisplatin as first-line chemotherapy for advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with asymptomatic inoperable brain metastases: a multicenter phase II trial (GFPC 07-01). Ann Oncol. 2011;22:2466-2470
- 29 M.J. Edelman, C.P. Belani, M.A. Socinski, et al. Outcomes associated with brain metastases in a three-arm phase III trial of gemcitabine-containing regimens versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin for advanced non–small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5:110-116
- 30 S. Scoccianti, U. Ricardi. Treatment of brain metastases: review of phase III randomized controlled trials. Radiother Oncol. 2012;102:168-179
- 31 E.M. Noordijk, C.J. Vecht, H. Haaxma-Reiche, et al. The choice of treatment of single brain metastasis should be based on extracranial tumor activity and age. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1994;29:711-717
- 32 C.J. Vecht, H. Haaxma-Reiche, E.M. Noordijk, et al. Treatment of single brain metastasis: radiotherapy alone or combined with neurosurgery?. Ann Neurol. 1993;33:583-590
- 33 R.A. Patchell, P.A. Tibbs, J.W. Walsh, et al. A randomized trial of surgery in the treatment of single metastases to the brain. N Engl J Med. 1990;322:494-500
- 34 D. Kondziolka, A. Patel, L.D. Lunsford, A. Kassam, J.C. Flickinger. Stereotactic radiosurgery plus whole brain radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for patients with multiple brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999;45:427-434
- 35 D.W. Andrews, C.B. Scott, P.W. Sperduto, et al. Whole brain radiation therapy with or without stereotactic radiosurgery boost for patients with one to three brain metastases: phase III results of the RTOG 9508 randomised trial. Lancet. 2004;363:1665-1672
- 36 H. Aoyama, H. Shirato, M. Tago, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery plus whole-brain radiation therapy vs stereotactic radiosurgery alone for treatment of brain metastases: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2006;295:2483-2491
- 37 E.L. Chang, J.S. Wefel, K.R. Hess, et al. Neurocognition in patients with brain metastases treated with radiosurgery or radiosurgery plus whole-brain irradiation: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:1037-1044
- 38 M. Kocher, R. Soffietti, U. Abacioglu, et al. Adjuvant whole-brain radiotherapy versus observation after radiosurgery or surgical resection of one to three cerebral metastases: results of the EORTC 22952-26001 study. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:134-141
- 39 R.A. Patchell, P.A. Tibbs, W.F. Regine, R.J. Dempsey, M. Mohiuddin, R.J. Kryscio, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy in the treatment of single metastases to the brain: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1998;280:1485-1489
- 40 A. Sahgal, H. Aoyama, M. Kocher, et al. Phase 3 trials of stereotactic radiosurgery with or without whole-brain radiation therapy for 1 to 4 brain metastases: individual patient data meta-analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;91:710-717
- 41 P.D. Brown, A.L. Asher, K.V. Ballman, et al. NCCTG N0574 (Alliance): a phase III randomized trial of whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) in addition to radiosurgery (SRS) in patients with 1 to 3 brain metastases. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(suppl):LBA4 [abstract]
- 42 R.E. Langley, R.J. Stephens, M. Nankivell, et al. Interim data from the Medical Research Council QUARTZ Trial: does whole brain radiotherapy affect the survival and quality of life of patients with brain metastases from non–small cell lung cancer?. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2013;25:e23-e30
- 43 P.M. Mulvenna, M.G. Nankivell, R. Barton, et al. Whole brain radiotherapy for brain metastases from non–small lung cancer: quality of life (QoL) and overall survival (OS) results from the UK Medical Research Council QUARTZ randomised clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(suppl):8005 [abstract]
- 44 S.J. Park, H.T. Kim, D.H. Lee, et al. Efficacy of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors for brain metastasis in non–small cell lung cancer patients harboring either exon 19 or 21 mutation. Lung Cancer. 2012;77:556-560
- 45 R. Porta, J.M. Sánchez-Torres, L. Paz-Ares, et al. Brain metastases from lung cancer responding to erlotinib: the importance of EGFR mutation. Eur Respir J. 2011;37:624-631
- 46 Y.-L. Wu, C. Zhou, Y. Cheng, et al. Erlotinib as second-line treatment in patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer and asymptomatic brain metastases: a phase II study (CTONG-0803). Ann Oncol. 2013;24:993-999
- 47 S.-H.I. Ou, J.S. Ahn, L. De Petris, et al. Alectinib in crizotinib-refractory ALK-rearranged non–small-cell lung cancer: a phase II global study. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:661-668
- 48 A.T. Shaw, L. Gandhi, S. Gadgeel, et al. Alectinib in ALK-positive, crizotinib-resistant, non–small-cell lung cancer: a single-group, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:234-242
- 49 G. Toyokawa, T. Seto, M. Takenoyama, Y. Ichinose. Insights into brain metastasis in patients with ALK+ lung cancer: is the brain truly a sanctuary?. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2015;34:797-805
- 50 J.-E. Kim, D.H. Lee, Y. Choi, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors as a first-line therapy for never-smokers with adenocarcinoma of the lung having asymptomatic synchronous brain metastasis. Lung Cancer. 2009;65:351-354
- 51 C.-H. Chiu, C.-M. Tsai, Y.-M. Chen, S.-C. Chiang, J.-L. Liou, R.-P. Perng. Gefitinib is active in patients with brain metastases from non–small cell lung cancer and response is related to skin toxicity. Lung Cancer. 2005;47:129-138
- 52 A.F. Eichler, E. Chung, D.P. Kodack, J.S. Loeffler, D. Fukumura, R.K. Jain. The biology of brain metastases-translation to new therapies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011;8:344-356
- 53 N.J. Abbott, L. Rönnbäck, E. Hansson. Astrocyte-endothelial interactions at the blood-brain barrier. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2006;7:41-53
- 54 J.F. Deeken, W. Löscher. The blood-brain barrier and cancer: transporters, treatment, and Trojan horses. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:1663-1674
- 55 E.A. Neuwelt. Mechanisms of disease: the blood-brain barrier. Neurosurgery. 2004;54:131-140 [discussion: 141–142]
- 56 A. Régina, M. Demeule, A. Laplante, et al. Multidrug resistance in brain tumors: roles of the blood-brain barrier. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2001;20:13-25
- 57 P.R. Lockman, R.K. Mittapalli, K.S. Taskar, et al. Heterogeneous blood-tumor barrier permeability determines drug efficacy in experimental brain metastases of breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:5664-5678
- 58 M. Hojjat-Farsangi. Small-molecule inhibitors of the receptor tyrosine kinases: promising tools for targeted cancer therapies. Int J Mol Sci. 2014;15:13768-13801
- 59 C.S. Baik, M.C. Chamberlain, L.Q. Chow. Targeted therapy for brain metastases in EGFR-mutated and ALK-rearranged non–small-cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2015;10:1268-1278
- 60 Y. Togashi, K. Masago, M. Fukudo, et al. Pharmacokinetics of erlotinib and its active metabolite OSI-420 in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and chronic renal failure who are undergoing hemodialysis. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5:601-605
- 61 Y. Deng, W. Feng, J. Wu, et al. The concentration of erlotinib in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with brain metastasis from non–small-cell lung cancer. Mol Clin Oncol. 2014;2:116-120
- 62 Y. Togashi, K. Masago, S. Masuda, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid concentration of gefitinib and erlotinib in patients with non–small cell lung cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2012;70:399-405
- 63 A. Broniscer, J.C. Panetta, M. O’Shaughnessy, et al. Plasma and cerebrospinal fluid pharmacokinetics of erlotinib and its active metabolite OSI-420. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:1511-1515
- 64 N.A. de Vries, T. Buckle, J. Zhao, J.H. Beijnen, J.H.M. Schellens, O. van Tellingen. Restricted brain penetration of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib due to the drug transporters P-gp and BCRP. Invest New Drugs. 2012;30:443-449
- 65 M.A. Elmeliegy, A.M. Carcaboso, M. Tagen, F. Bai, C.F. Stewart. Role of ATP-binding cassette and solute carrier transporters in erlotinib CNS penetration and intracellular accumulation. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:89-99
- 66 J.D. Moyer, E.G. Barbacci, K.K. Iwata, et al. Induction of apoptosis and cell cycle arrest by CP-358,774, an inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase. Cancer Res. 1997;57:4838-4848
- 67 J. Zhao, M. Chen, W. Zhong, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of gefitinib in patients with lung adenocarcinoma. Clin Lung Cancer. 2013;14:188-193
- 68 D.B. Costa, S. Kobayashi, S.S. Pandya, et al. CSF concentration of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitor crizotinib. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:e443-e445
- 69 G. Metro, G. Lunardi, P. Floridi, et al. CSF concentration of crizotinib in two ALK-positive non–small-cell lung cancer patients with CNS metastases deriving clinical benefit from treatment. J Thorac Oncol. 2015;10:e26-e27
- 70 D.-W. Kim, J.C. Yang, K. Chen, et al. AZD3759, an EGFR inhibitor with blood brain barrier (BBB) penetration for the treatment of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with brain metastasis (BM): preclinical evidence and clinical cases. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(suppl):8016 [abstract]
- 71 L. Friboulet, N. Li, R. Katayama, et al. The ALK inhibitor ceritinib overcomes crizotinib resistance in non–small cell lung cancer. Cancer Discov. 2014;4:662-673
- 72 H. Sakamoto, T. Tsukaguchi, S. Hiroshima, et al. CH5424802, a selective ALK inhibitor capable of blocking the resistant gatekeeper mutant. Cancer Cell. 2011;19:679-690
- 73 T. Kodama, M. Hasegawa, K. Takanashi, Y. Sakurai, O. Kondoh, H. Sakamoto. Antitumor activity of the selective ALK inhibitor alectinib in models of intracranial metastases. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2014;74:1023-1028
- 74 S.M. Gadgeel, L. Gandhi, G.J. Riely, et al. Safety and activity of alectinib against systemic disease and brain metastases in patients with crizotinib-resistant ALK-rearranged non–small-cell lung cancer (AF-002JG): results from the dose-finding portion of a phase 1/2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:1119-1128
- 75 Zykadia (ceritinib) [prescribing information]. East Hanover, NJ: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; 2014.
- 76 S.C. Tang, L.N. Nguyen, R.W. Sparidans, E. Wagenaar, J.H. Beijnen, A.H. Schinkel. Increased oral availability and brain accumulation of the ALK inhibitor crizotinib by coadministration of the P-glycoprotein (ABCB1) and breast cancer resistance protein (ABCG2) inhibitor elacridar. Int J Cancer. 2014;134:1484-1494
- 77 C. Grommes, G.R. Oxnard, M.G. Kris, et al. “Pulsatile” high-dose weekly erlotinib for CNS metastases from EGFR mutant non–small cell lung cancer. Neuro Oncol. 2011;13:1364-1369
- 78 H.A. Yu, C.S. Sima, D. Reales, et al. A phase I study of twice weekly pulse dose and daily low dose erlotinib as initial treatment for patients (pts) with EGFR-mutant lung cancers. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(suppl):8017 [abstract]
- 79 L.A. Lampson. Monoclonal antibodies in neuro-oncology: getting past the blood-brain barrier. MAbs. 2011;3:153-160
- 80 R.A. Nordal, C.S. Wong. Molecular targets in radiation-induced blood-brain barrier disruption. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;62:279-287
- 81 D. Eriksson, T. Stigbrand. Radiation-induced cell death mechanisms. Tumour Biol. 2010;31:363-372
- 82 Y.A. Hannun. Functions of ceramide in coordinating cellular responses to stress. Science. 1996;274:1855-1859
- 83 E. Gulbins, P.L. Li. Physiological and pathophysiological aspects of ceramide. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2006;290:R11-R26
- 84 F. Paris, Z. Fuks, A. Kang, et al. Endothelial apoptosis as the primary lesion initiating intestinal radiation damage in mice. Science. 2001;293:293-297
- 85 M. Garcia-Barros, F. Paris, C. Cordon-Cardo, et al. Tumor response to radiotherapy regulated by endothelial cell apoptosis. Science. 2003;300:1155-1159
- 86 S. Bonnaud, C. Niaudet, G. Pottier, et al. Sphingosine-1-phosphate protects proliferating endothelial cells from ceramide-induced apoptosis but not from DNA damage-induced mitotic death. Cancer Res. 2007;67:1803-1811
- 87 T.T. Puck. Action of radiation on mammalian cells III. Relationship between reproductive death and induction of chromosome anomalies by X-irradiation of euploid human cells in vitro. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1958;44:772-780
- 88 M. van Vulpen, H.B. Kal, M.J.B. Taphoorn, S.Y. El-Sharouni. Changes in blood-brain barrier permeability induced by radiotherapy: implications for timing of chemotherapy? (Review). Oncol Rep. 2002;9:683-688
- 89 Y. Cao, C.I. Tsien, Z. Shen, et al. Use of magnetic resonance imaging to assess blood-brain/blood-glioma barrier opening during conformal radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:4127-4136
- 90 D.X. Qin, R. Zheng, J. Tang, J.X. Li, Y.H. Hu. Influence of radiation on the blood-brain barrier and optimum time of chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1990;19:1507-1510
- 91 D. d’Avella, R. Cicciarello, F. Albiero, et al. Quantitative study of blood-brain barrier permeability changes after experimental whole-brain radiation. Neurosurgery. 1992;30:30-34
- 92 D. Qin, J. Ma, J. Xiao, Z. Tang. Effect of brain irradiation on blood-CSF barrier permeability of chemotherapeutic agents. Am J Clin Oncol. 1997;20:263-265
- 93 A. Khatri, M.W. Gaber, R.C. Brundage, et al. Effect of radiation on the penetration of irinotecan in rat cerebrospinal fluid. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2011;68:721-731
- 94 Y.-D. Zeng, H. Liao, T. Qin, et al. Blood-brain barrier permeability of gefitinib in patients with brain metastases from non–small-cell lung cancer before and during whole brain radiation therapy. Oncotarget. 2015;6:8366-8376
- 95 L. Fang, X. Sun, Y. Song, et al. Whole-brain radiation fails to boost intracerebral gefitinib concentration in patients with brain metastatic non–small cell lung cancer: a self-controlled, pilot study. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2015;76:873-877
- 96 K. Liang, K.K. Ang, L. Milas, N. Hunter, Z. Fan. The epidermal growth factor receptor mediates radioresistance. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;57:246-254
- 97 T. Akimoto, N.R. Hunter, L. Buchmiller, K. Mason, K.K. Ang, L. Milas. Inverse relationship between epidermal growth factor receptor expression and radiocurability of murine carcinomas. Clin Cancer Res. 1999;5:2884-2890
- 98 P. Dent, A. Yacoub, J. Contessa, et al. Stress and radiation-induced activation of multiple intracellular signaling pathways. Radiat Res. 2003;159:283-300
- 99 D.B. Reardon, J.N. Contessa, R.B. Mikkelsen, et al. Dominant negative EGFR-CD533 and inhibition of MAPK modify JNK1 activation and enhance radiation toxicity of human mammary carcinoma cells. Oncogene. 1999;18:4756-4766
- 100 R.K. Schmidt-Ullrich, R.B. Mikkelsen, P. Dent, et al. Radiation-induced proliferation of the human A431 squamous carcinoma cells is dependent on EGFR tyrosine phosphorylation. Oncogene. 1997;15:1191-1197
- 101 M. Toulany, K. Dittmann, M. Krüger, M. Baumann, H.P. Rodemann. Radioresistance of K-Ras mutated human tumor cells is mediated through EGFR-dependent activation of PI3K-AKT pathway. Radiother Oncol. 2005;76:143-150
- 102 L.M. Gangarosa, N. Sizemore, R. Graves-Deal, S.M. Oldham, C.J. Der, R.J. Coffey. A raf-independent epidermal growth factor receptor autocrine loop is necessary for Ras transformation of rat intestinal epithelial cells. J Biol Chem. 1997;272:18926-18931
- 103 K. Dittmann, C. Mayer, B. Fehrenbacher, et al. Radiation-induced epidermal growth factor receptor nuclear import is linked to activation of DNA-dependent protein kinase. J Biol Chem. 2005;280:31182-31189
- 104 K. Dittmann, C. Mayer, H.-P. Rodemann. Inhibition of radiation-induced EGFR nuclear import by C225 (cetuximab) suppresses DNA-PK activity. Radiother Oncol. 2005;76:157-161
- 105 C. Bianco, G. Tortora, R. Bianco, et al. Enhancement of antitumor activity of ionizing radiation by combined treatment with the selective epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor ZD1839 (Iressa). Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8:3250-3258
- 106 P. Chinnaiyan, S. Huang, G. Vallabhaneni, et al. Mechanisms of enhanced radiation response following epidermal growth factor receptor signaling inhibition by erlotinib (Tarceva). Cancer Res. 2005;65:3328-3335
- 107 A.K. Das, B.P. Chen, M.D. Story, et al. Somatic mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) abrogate EGFR-mediated radioprotection in non–small cell lung carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2007;67:5267-5274
- 108 A.K. Das, M. Sato, M.D. Story, et al. Non–small-cell lung cancers with kinase domain mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor are sensitive to ionizing radiation. Cancer Res. 2006;66:9601-9608
- 109 S.M. Bokobza, Y. Jiang, A.M. Weber, A.M. Devery, A.J. Ryan. Short-course treatment with gefitinib enhances curative potential of radiation therapy in a mouse model of human non–small cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88:947-954
- 110 S. Zhang, X. Zheng, H. Huang, et al. Afatinib increases sensitivity to radiation in non–small cell lung cancer cells with acquired EGFR T790M mutation. Oncotarget. 2015;6:5832-5845
- 111 T.R. Webb, J. Slavish, R.E. George, et al. Anaplastic lymphoma kinase: role in cancer pathogenesis and small-molecule inhibitor development for therapy. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2009;9:331-356
- 112 Y. Dai, Q. Wei, C. Schwager, et al. Synergistic effects of crizotinib and radiotherapy in experimental EML4-ALK fusion positive lung cancer. Radiother Oncol. 2015;114:173-181
- 113 Y. Sun, K.A. Nowak, N.G. Zaorsky, et al. ALK inhibitor PF02341066 (crizotinib) increases sensitivity to radiation in non–small cell lung cancer expressing EML4-ALK. Mol Cancer Ther. 2013 May 1;12:696-704
- 114 P. Wachsberger, R. Burd, A.P. Dicker. Tumor response to ionizing radiation combined with antiangiogenesis or vascular targeting agents: exploring mechanisms of interaction. Clin Cancer Res. 2003;9:1957-1971
- 115 P.H. Maxwell, G.U. Dachs, J.M. Gleadle, et al. Hypoxia-inducible factor-1 modulates gene expression in solid tumors and influences both angiogenesis and tumor growth. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997;94:8104-8109
- 116 D. Hanahan, J. Folkman. Patterns and emerging mechanisms of the angiogenic switch during tumorigenesis. Cell. 1996;86:353-364
- 117 R.K. Jain. Normalization of tumor vasculature: an emerging concept in antiangiogenic therapy. Science. 2005;307:58-62
- 118 J.-P. Truman, M. García-Barros, M. Kaag, et al. Endothelial membrane remodeling is obligate for anti-angiogenic radiosensitization during tumor radiosurgery. PLoS One. 2010;5:e12310 [corrected and republished]
- 119 M.S. O’Reilly, L. Holmgren, C. Chen, J. Folkman. Angiostatin induces and sustains dormancy of human primary tumors in mice. Nat Med. 1996;2:689-692
- 120 R. Masood, J. Cai, T. Zheng, D.L. Smith, D.R. Hinton, P.S. Gill. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is an autocrine growth factor for VEGF receptor-positive human tumors. Blood. 2001;98:1904-1913
- 121 M. Kirsch, J. Strasser, R. Allende, L. Bello, J. Zhang, P.M. Black. Angiostatin suppresses malignant glioma growth in vivo. Cancer Res. 1998;58:4654-4659
- 122 US National Institutes of Health. ClinicalTrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home. Accessed February 5, 2016.
- 123 A.J. Chalmers, M. Lakshman, N. Chan, R.G. Bristow. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition as a model for synthetic lethality in developing radiation oncology targets. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2010;20:274-281
- 124 J.S.W. Lind, F.J. Lagerwaard, E.F. Smit, S. Senan. Phase I study of concurrent whole brain radiotherapy and erlotinib for multiple brain metastases from non–small-cell lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;74:1391-1396
- 125 J.W. Welsh, R. Komaki, A. Amini, et al. Phase II trial of erlotinib plus concurrent whole-brain radiation therapy for patients with brain metastases from non–small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:895-902
- 126 P.W. Sperduto, M. Wang, H.I. Robins, et al. A phase 3 trial of whole brain radiation therapy and stereotactic radiosurgery alone versus WBRT and SRS with temozolomide or erlotinib for non–small cell lung cancer and 1 to 3 brain metastases: Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0320. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013;85:1312-1318
- 127 S.M. Lee, C.R. Lewanski, N. Counsell, et al. Randomized trial of erlotinib plus whole-brain radiotherapy for NSCLC patients with multiple brain metastases. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106:dju151
- 128 H. Zhuang, Z. Yuan, J. Wang, L. Zhao, Q. Pang, P. Wang. Phase II study of whole brain radiotherapy with or without erlotinib in patients with multiple brain metastases from lung adenocarcinoma. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2013;7:1179-1186
- 129 G.A. Pesce, D. Klingbiel, K. Ribi, et al. Outcome, quality of life and cognitive function of patients with brain metastases from non–small cell lung cancer treated with whole brain radiotherapy combined with gefitinib or temozolomide. A randomised phase II trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Ca. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:377-384
- 130 S. Luo, L. Chen, X. Chen, X. Xie. Evaluation on efficacy and safety of tyrosine kinase inhibitors plus radiotherapy in NSCLC patients with brain metastases. Oncotarget. 2015;6:16725-16734
- 131 L. Zhou, J. He, W. Xiong, et al. Impact of whole brain radiation therapy on CSF penetration ability of Icotinib in EGFR-mutated non–small cell lung cancer patients with brain metastases: results of phase I dose-escalation study. Lung Cancer. 2016;96:93-100
- 132 Y. Fan, Z. Huang, L. Fang, et al. A phase II study of icotinib and whole-brain radiotherapy in Chinese patients with brain metastases from non–small cell lung cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2015;76:517-523
- 133 T. Crombet, M. Osorio, T. Cruz, et al. Use of the humanized anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody h-R3 in combination with radiotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:1646-1654
- 134 G. Bebb, C. Smith, S. Rorke, et al. Phase I clinical trial of the anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody nimotuzumab with concurrent external thoracic radiotherapy in Canadian patients diagnosed with stage IIb, III or IV non–small cell lung cancer unsuitable for radical therapy. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2011;67:837-845
- 135 A. Macias, E. Neninger, E. Santiesteban, et al. Preliminary results of a phase II clinical trial of the anti EGFR monoclonal antibody nimotuzumab in combination with whole brain radiation therapy in patients diagnosed with advanced non–small cell lung cancer tumors unresectable brain metastases. Eur J Cancer. 2008;6(suppl):505 [abstract]
- 136 K.L. Johung, N. Yeh, N.B. Desai, et al. Extended survival and prognostic factors for patients with ALK-rearranged non–small-cell lung cancer and brain metastasis. J Clin Oncol. 2015;34:123-129
- 137 C. Lévy, D. Allouache, J. Lacroix, et al. REBECA: a phase I study of bevacizumab and whole-brain radiation therapy for the treatment of brain metastasis from solid tumours. Ann Oncol. 2014;25:2351-2356
- 138 M.S. O’Reilly, T. Boehm, Y. Shing, et al. Endostatin: an endogenous inhibitor of angiogenesis and tumor growth. Cell. 1997;88:277-285
- 139 J.M. Albert, C. Cao, L. Geng, L. Leavitt, D.E. Hallahan, B. Lu. Integrin alpha v beta 3 antagonist cilengitide enhances efficacy of radiotherapy in endothelial cell and non–small-cell lung cancer models. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65:1536-1543
- 140 N. Skuli, S. Monferran, C. Delmas, et al. Activation of RhoB by hypoxia controls hypoxia-inducible factor-1alpha stabilization through glycogen synthase kinase-3 in U87 glioblastoma cells. Cancer Res. 2006;66:482-489
- 141 M. Miwa, M. Masutani. PolyADP-ribosylation and cancer. Cancer Sci. 2007;98:1528-1535
- 142 M.P. Mehta, W.J. Curran, D. Wang, et al. Phase I safety and pharmacokinetic (PK) study of veliparib in combination with whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) in patients (pts) with brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2012;84:S269-S270
- 143 M.P. Mehta, D. Wang, F. Wang, et al. Veliparib in combination with whole brain radiation therapy in patients with brain metastases: results of a phase 1 study. J Neurooncol. 2015;122:409-417
- 144 P. Chabot, J.-S. Ryu, V. Gorbunova, et al. Results of a randomized, global, multi-center study of whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) plus veliparib or placebo in patients (pts) with brain metastases (BM) from non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(suppl):2021 [abstract]
- 145 S.S. Yom, M. Diehn, D. Raben. Molecular determinants of radiation response in non–small cell lung cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2015;25:67-77
- 146 C.-H. Gow, Y.-L. Chang, Y.-C. Hsu, et al. Comparison of epidermal growth factor receptor mutations between primary and corresponding metastatic tumors in tyrosine kinase inhibitor-naive non–small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:696-702
- 147 A. Kalikaki, A. Koutsopoulos, M. Trypaki, et al. Comparison of EGFR and K-RAS gene status between primary tumours and corresponding metastases in NSCLC. Br J Cancer. 2008;99:923-929
- 148 A. Italiano, F.B. Vandenbos, J. Otto, et al. Comparison of the epidermal growth factor receptor gene and protein in primary non–small-cell-lung cancer and metastatic sites: implications for treatment with EGFR-inhibitors. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:981-985
- 149 H. Zhuang, J. Wang, L. Zhao, Z. Yuan, P. Wang. The theoretical foundation and research progress for WBRT combined with erlotinib for the treatment of multiple brain metastases in patients with lung adenocarcinoma. Int J Cancer. 2013;133:2277-2283
- 150 C.J. Shen, M.N. Kummerlowe, K.J. Redmond, D. Rigamonti, M.K. Lim, L.R. Kleinberg. Stereotactic radiosurgery: treatment of brain metastasis without interruption of systemic therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;95:735-742
- 151 D. Khuntia, P. Brown, J. Li, M.P. Mehta. Whole-brain radiotherapy in the management of brain metastasis. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:1295-1304
- 152 Y.Y. Soon, C.N. Leong, W.Y. Koh, I.W.K. Tham. EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors versus cranial radiation therapy for EGFR mutant non–small cell lung cancer with brain metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiother Oncol. 2015 Feb;114:167-172
- 153 D.H. Lee, J.-Y. Han, H.T. Kim, et al. Primary chemotherapy for newly diagnosed nonsmall cell lung cancer patients with synchronous brain metastases compared with whole-brain radiotherapy administered first: result of a randomized pilot study. Cancer. 2008;113:143-149
- 154 G. Robinet, P. Thomas, J.L. Breton, et al. Results of a phase III study of early versus delayed whole brain radiotherapy with concurrent cisplatin and vinorelbine combination in inoperable brain metastasis of non–small-cell lung cancer: Groupe Français de Pneumo-Cancérologie (GFPC) protocol 95-1. Ann Oncol. 2001;12:59-67
- 155 L.A. Berger, H. Riesenberg, C. Bokemeyer, D. Atanackovic. CNS metastases in non–small-cell lung cancer: current role of EGFR-TKI therapy and future perspectives. Lung Cancer. 2013;80:242-248
- 156 M. Schuler, Y.-L. Wu, V. Hirsh, K. O’Byrne, et al. First-line afatinib versus chemotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and common epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutations and brain metastases. J Thorac Oncol. 2016;11:380-390
- 157 S. Nanjo, H. Ebi, S. Arai, et al. High efficacy of third generation EGFR inhibitor AZD9291 in a leptomeningeal carcinomatosis model with EGFR-mutant lung cancer cells. Oncotarget. 2016;7:3847-3856
- 158 J. Yates, P. Ballard, S. Ashton, et al. 301 Using PK/PD/efficacy modeling to predict potential of AZD9291 to target brain metastases from advanced NSCLC with EGFR sensitizing mutations (EGFRm+). Eur J Cancer. 2014;50:99
- 159 L.V. Sequist, J.-C. Soria, J.W. Goldman, et al. Rociletinib in EGFR-mutated non–small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1700-1709
- 160 M.A. Socinski, C.J. Langer, J.E. Huang, et al. Safety of bevacizumab in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer and brain metastases. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5255-5261
- 161 B. Besse, S. Le Moulec, J. Mazières, et al. Bevacizumab in patients with nonsquamous non–small cell lung cancer and asymptomatic, untreated brain metastases (BRAIN): a nonrandomized, phase II study. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21:1896-1903
- 162 A. Ilhan-Mutlu, M. Osswald, Y. Liao, et al. Bevacizumab prevents brain metastases formation in lung adenocarcinoma. Mol Cancer Ther. 2016;15:702-710
- 163 M. Yamamoto, T. Serizawa, T. Shuto, et al. Stereotactic radiosurgery for patients with multiple brain metastases (JLGK0901): a multi-institutional prospective observational study. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:387-395
- 164 V. Gondi, S.L. Pugh, W.A. Tome, et al. Preservation of memory with conformal avoidance of the hippocampal neural stem-cell compartment during whole-brain radiotherapy for brain metastases (RTOG 0933): a phase II multi-institutional trial. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3810-3816
- 165 J. Minguet, K.H. Smith, P. Bramlage. Targeted therapies for treatment of non–small cell lung cancer—recent advances and future perspectives. Int J Cancer. 2016;138:2549-2561
- 166 M. Shea, D.B. Costa, D. Rangachari. Management of advanced non–small cell lung cancers with known mutations or rearrangements: latest evidence and treatment approaches. Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2016;10:113-129
- 167 S.B. Golberg, S.N. Gettinger, A. Mahajan, et al. Activity and safety of pembrolizumab in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer with untreated brain metastases. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:8035 [abstract]
- 168 P.J. Wersäll, H. Blomgren, P. Pisa, I. Lax, K.-M. Kälkner, C. Svedman. Regression of non-irradiated metastases after extracranial stereotactic radiotherapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Acta Oncol. 2006;45:493-497
- 169 M.A. Postow, M.K. Callahan, C.A. Barker, et al. Immunologic correlates of the abscopal effect in a patient with melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:925-931
- 170 P.W. Sperduto, T.J. Yang, K. Beal, et al. The effect of gene mutations on survival in patients with adenocarcinoma of the lung following the development of brain metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2015;93:S37-S38
a Radiotherapy Related Research, The Christie National Health Service Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
b Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado
c Lung Cancer Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom
d Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Institute of Cancer Sciences, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
∗ Corresponding author. Address for correspondence: Jonathan Khalifa, MD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse–Oncopôle 1, Avenue Irène Joliot-Curie, 31000 Toulouse, France.
Drs. Khalifa and Amini contributed equally to this work. Drs. Faivre-Finn and Gaspar jointly supervised this work.
Disclosure: Dr. Popat is a consultant to Ariad, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.
© 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V.