A. Artal

Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EURTAC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Erlotinib has been shown to improve progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy when given as first-line treatment for Asian patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating EGFR mutations. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of erlotinib compared with standard chemotherapy for first-line treatment of European patients with advanced EGFR-mutation positive NSCLC. METHODS We undertook the open-label, randomised phase 3 EURTAC trial at 42 hospitals in France, Italy, and Spain. Eligible participants were adults (> 18 years) with NSCLC and EGFR mutations (exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation in exon 21) with no history of chemotherapy for metastatic disease (neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy ending ≥ 6 months before study entry was allowed). We randomly allocated participants (1:1) according to a computer-generated allocation schedule to receive oral erlotinib 150 mg per day or 3 week cycles of standard intravenous chemotherapy of cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) on day 1) or gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8). Carboplatin (AUC 6 with docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) or AUC 5 with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2)) was allowed in patients unable to have cisplatin. Patients were stratified by EGFR mutation type and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs 1 vs 2). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received study drug (≥ 1 dose). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00446225. FINDINGS Between Feb 15, 2007, and Jan 4, 2011, 174 patients with EGFR mutations were enrolled. One patient received treatment before randomisation and was thus withdrawn from the study; of the remaining patients, 86 were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib and 87 to receive standard chemotherapy. The preplanned interim analysis showed that the study met its primary endpoint; enrolment was halted, and full evaluation of the results was recommended. At data cutoff (Jan 26, 2011), median PFS was 9·7 months (95% CI 8·4-12·3) in the erlotinib group, compared with 5·2 months (4·5-5·8) in the standard chemotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·37, 95% CI 0·25-0·54; p < 0·0001). Main grade 3 or 4 toxicities were rash (11 [13%] of 84 patients given erlotinib vs none of 82 patients in the chemotherapy group), neutropenia (none vs 18 [22%]), anaemia (one [1%] vs three [4%]), and increased amino-transferase concentrations (two [2%] vs 0). Five (6%) patients on erlotinib had treatment-related severe adverse events compared with 16 patients (20%) on chemotherapy. One patient in the erlotinib group and two in the standard chemotherapy group died from treatment-related causes. INTERPRETATION Our findings strengthen the rationale for routine baseline tissue-based assessment of EGFR mutations in patients with NSCLC and for treatment of mutation-positive patients with EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. FUNDING Spanish Lung Cancer Group, Roche Farma, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Red Temática de Investigacion Cooperativa en Cancer.

Randomized Phase III Study of Gemcitabine-Cisplatin Versus Etoposide-Cisplatin in the Treatment of Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE We conducted a randomized trial to compare gemcitabine-cisplatin with etoposide-cisplatin in the treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The primary end point of the comparison was response rate. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 135 chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) days 1 and 8 or etoposide 100 mg/m2 IV days 1 to 3 along with cisplatin 100 mg/m2 IV day 1. Both treatments were administered in 21-day cycles. One hundred thirty-three patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis of response. RESULTS The response rate (externally validated) for patients given gemcitabine-cisplatin was superior to that for patients given etoposide-cisplatin (40.6% v 21.9%; P = .02). This superior response rate was associated with a significant delay in time to disease progression (6.9 months v 4.3 months; P = .01) without an impairment in quality of life (QOL). There was no statistically significant difference in survival time between both arms (8.7 months for gemcitabine-cisplatin v 7.2 months for etoposide-cisplatin; P = .18). The overall toxicity profile for both combinations of drugs was similar. Nausea and vomiting were reported more frequently in the gemcitabine arm than in the etoposide arm. However, the difference was not significant. Gemcitabine-cisplatin produced less grade 3 alopecia (13% v 51%) and less grade 4 neutropenia (28% v 56% ) but more grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia (56% v 13%) than did etoposide-cisplatin. However, there were no thrombocytopenia-related complications in the gemcitabine arm. CONCLUSION Compared with etoposide-cisplatin, gemcitabine-cisplatin provides a significantly higher response rate and a delay in disease progression without impairing QOL in patients with advanced NSCLC.

Ribonucleotide reductase messenger RNA expression and survival in gemcitabine/cisplatin-treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients

Purpose: No chemotherapy regimen, including the widely used combination of gemcitabine/cisplatin, confers significantly improved survival over any other in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, the selection of patients according to key genetic characteristics can help to tailor chemotherapy. Ribonucleotide reductase subunit M1 (RRM1) is involved in DNA synthesis and repair and in gemcitabine metabolism, and the excision repair cross-complementing group 1 (ERCC1) gene has been related to cisplatin activity. Experimental Design: Patients were part of a large randomized trial carried out from September 1998 to July 2000, comparing gemcitabine/cisplatin versus gemcitabine/cisplatin/vinorelbine versus gemcitabine/vinorelbine followed by vinorelbine/ifosfamide. We analyzed RRM1 and ERCC1 mRNA expression in paraffin-embedded samples obtained from bronchoscopy by real-time quantitative reverse transcription-PCR. Results were correlated with survival using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 100 patients were assessed. There was a strong correlation between RRM1 and ERCC1 mRNA expression levels (Spearman r = 0.410; P < 0.001). In the gemcitabine/cisplatin arm, patients with low RRM1 mRNA expression levels had significantly longer median survival than those with high levels [13.7 versus 3.6 months; 95% confidence interval (CI), 9.6–17.8 months; P = 0.009]. Median survival was also significantly longer among patients with low mRNA expression levels of both RRM1 and ERCC1 (not reached), than among those with high levels of both genes (6.8 months; 95% CI, 2.6–11.1 months; P = 0.016). Conclusions: RRM1 mRNA expression is a crucial predictive marker of survival in gemcitabine/cisplatin-treated patients. Genetic testing of RRM1 mRNA expression levels can and should be used to personalize chemotherapy.

Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine Versus a Cisplatin-Based Triplet Versus Nonplatinum Sequential Doublets in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Spanish Lung Cancer Group Phase III Randomized Trial

PURPOSE To compare the survival benefit obtained with cisplatin plus gemcitabine, a cisplatin-based triplet, and nonplatinum sequential doublets in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Stage IIIB to IV NSCLC patients were randomly assigned to receive cisplatin 100 mg/m2 day 1 plus gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks for six cycles (CG); cisplatin 100 mg/m2 day 1 plus gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 and vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks for six cycles (CGV); or gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 plus vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks for three cycles, followed by vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 plus ifosfamide 3 g/m2 day 1, every 3 weeks for three cycles (GV-VI). RESULTS Five hundred fifty-seven patients were assigned to treatment (182 CG, 188 CGV, 187 GV-VI). Response rates were significantly inferior for the nonplatinum sequential doublet (CG, 42%; CGV, 41%; GV-VI, 27%; CG v GV-VI, P =.003). No differences in median survival or time to progression were observed. Toxicity was higher for the triplet: grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (GC, 32%; CGV, 57%; GV-VI, 27%; P <.05); neutropenic fever (CG, 4%; CGV, 19%; GV-VI, 5%; P <.0001); grade 3 to 4 thrombocytopenia (CG, 19%; CGV, 23%; GV-VI, 3%; P =.0001); and grade 3 to 4 emesis (GC, 22%; GCV, 32%; GV-VI, 6%; P <.0001). CONCLUSION On the basis of these results, CG remains a standard regimen for first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC.

Long-Term Survival Associated With Complete Resection After Induction Chemotherapy in Stage IIIA (N2) and IIIB (T4N0-1) Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients: The Spanish Lung Cancer Group Trial 9901

PURPOSE To assess the activity of induction chemotherapy followed by surgery in stage IIIA and selected stage IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS Mediastinoscopy proof of either positive N2 (IIIA) or T4N0-1 (IIIB) disease was required. Induction therapy was three cycles of cisplatin/gemcitabine/docetaxel, followed by surgery. RESULTS From December 1999 to March 2003, 136 patients were entered onto the study; the clinical response rate in 129 assessable patients was 56%. The overall complete resection rate was 68.9% of patients eligible for surgery (72% of stage IIIA patients and 66% of stage IIIB patients) and 48% of all assessable patients. Eight (12.9%) of 62 completely resected patients had a pathologic complete response. Seven patients (7.8%) died during the postoperative period. The median overall survival time was 15.9 months, 3-year survival rate was 36.8%, and 5-year survival rate was 21.1%, with no significant differences in survival between stage IIIA and stage IIIB patients. Median survival time was 48.5 months for 62 completely resected patients, 12.9 months for 13 incompletely resected patients, and 16.8 months for 15 nonresected patients (P = .005). Three- and 5-year survival rates were 60.1% and 41.4% for completely resected patients, 23.1% and 11.5% for incompletely resected patients, and 31.1% and 0% for nonresected patients, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, complete resection (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.35; P < .0001), clinical response (HR = 0.32; P < .0001), and age younger than 60 years (HR = 0.64; P = .027) were the most powerful prognostic factors. CONCLUSION Induction chemotherapy followed by surgery is effective in stage IIIA and in selected stage IIIB patients attaining complete resection.

Usefulness of megestrol acetate in cancer cachexia and anorexia. A placebo-controlled study.

To assess the effect of megestrol acetate (MA) on the appetite and weight of cancer patients with nonhormone-dependent tumors, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was designed. One hundred fifty patients were included: 76 were given MA (240 mg/day orally) for at least 2 months, and 74 were given placebo (P). Body weight, subjective sense of appetite (SSA) evaluated by an analogic linear visual scale scored from 1 to 10, and performance status (PS) were measured before therapy and monthly thereafter. No differences in body weight before and after treatment could be found in any group. However, 32% of the patients in the MA group (95% confidence interval: 20.1–44.6%) gained 2 or more kilograms (P < 0.001). This group also showed an improvement in SSA (P < 0.01): an increase 2 points appeared in 57.5% of patients (95% confidence interval 44.6–69.4%). There was no significant difference in PS for the treatment groups before or after therapy. The percentage of reported adverse events did not differ significantly from one treatment group to the next. We conclude that therapy with MA at a dose of 240 mg/day improved SSA and was associated with moderate weight gain in patients with hormone-insensitive malignancies.

Liposomal Doxorubicin in the Treatment of Breast Cancer Patients: A Review

Drug delivery systems can provide enhanced efficacy and/or reduced toxicity for anticancer agents. Liposome drug delivery systems are able to modify the pharmacokinetics and biodistribution of cytostatic agents, increasing the concentration of the drug released to neoplastic tissue and reducing the exposure of normal tissue. Anthracyclines are a key drug in the treatment of both metastatic and early breast cancer, but one of their major limitations is cardiotoxicity. One of the strategies designed to minimize this side effect is liposome encapsulation. Liposomal anthracyclines have achieved highly efficient drug encapsulation and they have proven to be effective and with reduced cardiotoxicity, as a single agent or in combination with other drugs for the treatment of either anthracyclines-treated or naïve metastatic breast cancer patients. Of particular interest is the use of the combination of liposomal anthracyclines and trastuzumab in patients with HER2-overexpressing breast cancer. In this paper, we discuss the different studies on liposomal doxorubicin in metastatic and early breast cancer therapy.

Phase II Trial of Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE Given the cisplatin-related myelotoxicity and nonhematologic toxicities, we were prompted to undertake a study of the noncisplatin combination of paclitaxel plus gemcitabine to evaluate the efficacy, tolerance, and survival of this combination in patients with locally advanced and metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients received gemcitabine 2,000 mg/m(2) and paclitaxel 150 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle, for a maximum of eight cycles. RESULTS Between December 1997 and June 1998, 89 untreated NSCLC patients were enrolled; 30 (34%) had stage IIIB disease (23 with malignant pleural effusion and seven without), and 59 (66%) had stage IV disease. Eighty-six percent of patients had a performance status of 0 or 1. The median number of cycles administered was four (range, one to eight cycles). The mean dose-intensity for both paclitaxel and gemcitabine was nearly 100%. Hematologic and nonhematologic toxicities were mild. Thirty-eight patients received second-line chemotherapy after completion of the study. The overall intent-to-treat response rate was 32.2%, with a higher response rate for stage IIIB patients (43.3%) than for stage IV patients (26.3%). Overall median survival was 9.9 months, and 1-year survival was 38.8% (14.2 months for stage IIIB and 7.7 months for stage IV; P =.007). Median survival was 10.2 months for patients with a performance status of 0 or 1 and 4.8 months for patients with a performance status of 2 (P =.007). CONCLUSION A biweekly paclitaxel/gemcitabine regimen was well tolerated, with an acceptable response rate and a reasonable median survival time, especially in patients with good performance status. It merits further exploration in future studies.

Phase II trial assessing the combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

BACKGROUND There is need for more active and better tolerated combinations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The Spanish Lung Cancer Group (SLCG) therefore conducted this phase II study to define the efficacy and toxicity profile of the combination of higher doses than usual of gemcitabine along with cisplatin in patients with advanced NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS Forty patients with pathologically documented advanced NSCLC were included in this trial (34 men, six women; aged 34-74 years; mean 64 years). Twenty-two patients had unresectable stage IIIB disease and 18 had stage IV disease. Karnofsky performance status was > or =70%. In five patients, surgery had previously been performed and four patients had received radiotherapy. Gemcitabine at a dose of 1200 mg/m2 was administered weekly (days 1, 8 and 15) and cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 15 of each 28-day cycle. RESULTS Responses were scored according to standard World Health Organization criteria. Of 40 assessable patients, 19 had a partial response for an overall response rate of 47.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 32-64%). To date, median survival for the whole group is 10.4 months (95% CI 6.2-11.7 months), with a 1-year survival rate of 35%. Toxicity was mainly haematological. Seven patients (18%) had grade 4 neutropenia (one episode of febrile neutropenia). Thrombocytopenia (12.8% grade 3 and 2.6% grade 4) was not associated with clinical bleeding. One patient had a grade 4 transient rise in transaminase. There was no grade 3 or 4 renal toxicity. There was no grade 4 symptomatic toxicity. The most common grade 3 toxicities were nausea and vomiting (28.2%) and alopecia (10.3%) both related to cisplatin. CONCLUSIONS Gemcitabine can be safely administered at a dose of 1200 mg/m2 in combination with cisplatin. Thrombocytopenia seems to be less than in schedules with cisplatin given on day 1. The results of this studyshow promising activity (47.5% response rate) with modest toxicity. As this combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin deserves further evaluation in prospective randomized trials, the SLCG is comparing gemcitabine-cisplatin with etoposide-cisplatin in a phase III randomized study.

Phase I trial of weekly gemcitabine at 3-h infusion in refractory, heavily pretreated advanced solid tumors.

Gemcitabine (2′,2′-difluorodeoxycytidine) is a nucleoside analog with antitumor activity against a variety of malignancies. The critical enzyme cytidine kinase is saturated at plasma concentrations achieved after a 30-min infusion at conventional doses. Prolonged infusion time may yield higher intracellular dFdCTP concentrations. A phase I study was designed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of gemcitabine, given by infusion for 3 h, in heavily pretreated patients. Twenty-seven patients (13 head and neck cancer, seven sarcoma, three esophageal cancer, three non-small-cell lung cancer and one ovarian cancer) were enrolled. Twenty patients were defined as refractory at first- or second-line chemotherapy. Four different entry dose levels (300, 400, 450 and 500 mg/m2) were evaluated for gemcitabine administered on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. The MTD was defined as 450 mg/m2, with granulocytopenia, thrombocytopenia and asthenia being dose limiting. The maximum grade III/IV patient toxicities for hemoglobin, leukocytes, neutrophils and platelets for all doses were 7, 19, 19 and 11%, respectively. Non-hematological toxicities included asthenia, nausea/vomiting and diarrhea. Thus, gemcitabine administered at a fixed 3-h infusion was well tolerated up to 450 mg/m2 in heavily pretreated patients. Myelosupression and asthenia were dose-limiting toxicities.