Adolfo Favaretto

Pretreatment Quality of Life and Functional Status Assessment Significantly Predict Survival of Elderly Patients With Advanced Non—Small-Cell Lung Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy: A Prognostic Analysis of the Multicenter Italian Lung Cancer in the Elderly Study

PURPOSE To study the prognostic value for overall survival of baseline assessment of functional status, comorbidity, and quality of life (QoL) in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Data from 566 patients enrolled onto the phase III randomized Multicenter Italian Lung Cancer in the Elderly Study (MILES) study were analyzed. Functional status was measured as activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental ADL (IADL). The presence of comorbidity was assessed with a checklist of 33 items; items 29 and 30 of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core questionnaire QLQ-C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) were used to estimate QoL. ADL was dichotomized as none versus one or more dependency. For IADL and QoL, three categories were defined using first and third quartiles as cut points. Comorbidity was summarized using the Charlson scale. Analysis was performed by Cox model, and stratified by treatment arm. RESULTS Better values of baseline QoL (P = .0003) and IADL (P = .04) were significantly associated with better prognosis, whereas ADL (P = .44) and Charlson score (P = .66) had no prognostic value. Performance status 2 (P = .006) and a higher number of metastatic sites (P = .02) also predicted shorter overall survival. CONCLUSIONS Pretreatment global QoL and IADL scores, but not ADL and comorbidity, have significant prognostic value for survival of elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer who were treated with chemotherapy. Using these scores in clinical practice might improve prognostic prediction for treatment planning.

Phase II Study of Pemetrexed Plus Carboplatin in Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

PURPOSE This multicenter, phase II clinical study was conducted to evaluate the activity of the combination of pemetrexed and carboplatin in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). PATIENTS AND METHODS Chemotherapy-naive patients with measurable disease and adequate organ function, who were not eligible for curative surgery, received pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 and carboplatin area under the plasma concentration-time curve of 5 mg/mL/min, administered intravenously every 21 days. All patients received folic acid and vitamin B12 supplementation. Pemetrexed was provided within the Expanded Access Program. RESULTS A total of 102 patients were enrolled. An objective response was achieved in 19 patients (two complete and 17 partial responses), for a response rate of 18.6% (95% CI, 11.6% to 27.5%). Forty-eight patients (47.0%; 95% CI, 37.1% to 57.2%) had stable disease after treatment. Overall, 67 patients (65.7%) achieved disease control (95% CI, 55.6% to 74.8%). Median time to progression was 6.5 months; median overall survival time was 12.7 months. Compliance to treatment was excellent, with a relative dose-intensity of 97% for pemetrexed and 98% for carboplatin. Toxicity was mild, with grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurring in 9.7% of total cycles and grade 3 or 4 anemia occurring in 3.5% of total cycles. Nonhematologic toxicity was negligible. CONCLUSION Treatment with pemetrexed and carboplatin was active and well tolerated in patients with MPM. Disease control rate, time to disease progression, and overall survival were similar to the results achieved with the standard regimen of pemetrexed and cisplatin, suggesting that the carboplatin combination could be an alternative option for these patients.

First-Line Erlotinib Followed by Second-Line Cisplatin-Gemcitabine Chemotherapy in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The TORCH Randomized Trial

PURPOSE Erlotinib prolonged survival of unselected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were not eligible for further chemotherapy, and two phase II studies suggested it might be an alternative to first-line chemotherapy. A randomized phase III trial was designed to test whether first-line erlotinib followed at progression by cisplatin-gemcitabine was not inferior in terms of survival to the standard inverse sequence. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with stage IIIB (with pleural effusion or supraclavicular nodes) to IV NSCLC and performance status of 0 to 1 were eligible. With a 95% CI upper limit of 1.25 for the hazard ratio (HR) for death, 80% power, a one-sided α = .025, and two interim analyses, a sample size of 900 patients was planned. RESULTS At the first planned interim analysis with half the events, the inferiority boundary was crossed, and the Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommended early termination of the study. Seven hundred sixty patients (median age, 62 years; range, 27 to 81 years) had been randomly assigned. Baseline characteristics were balanced between study arms. As of June 1, 2011, median follow-up was 24.3 months, and 536 deaths were recorded (263 in the standard treatment arm and 273 in the experimental arm). Median survival was 11.6 months (95% CI, 10.2 to 13.3 months) in the standard arm and 8.7 months (95% CI, 7.4 to 10.5 months) in the experimental arm. Adjusted HR of death in the experimental arm was 1.24 (95% CI, 1.04 to 1.47). There was no heterogeneity across sex, smoking habit, histotype, and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation. CONCLUSION In unselected patients with advanced NSCLC, first-line erlotinib followed at progression by cisplatin-gemcitabine was significantly inferior in terms of overall survival compared with the standard sequence of first-line chemotherapy followed by erlotinib.

Phase III Multinational, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Tivantinib (ARQ 197) Plus Erlotinib Versus Erlotinib Alone in Previously Treated Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Nonsquamous Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE Tivantinib, a MET receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, demonstrated increased anticancer activity in preclinical and early clinical studies when combined with erlotinib. Our study aimed to confirm efficacy and safety of the combination in previously treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC previously treated with one to two systemic regimens, including a platinum doublet, were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to receive erlotinib 150 mg daily plus oral tivantinib 360 mg twice daily (E + T) or erlotinib plus placebo (E + P) until disease progression. Tumor specimens were evaluated for EGFR and KRAS mutations, MET expression, and MET gene amplification. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary and exploratory objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), OS in molecular subgroups, and safety. RESULTS The study enrolled 1,048 patients and was discontinued for futility at the interim analysis. OS did not improve with E + T versus E + P (median OS, 8.5 v 7.8 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.15; P = .81), even though PFS increased (median PFS, 3.6 v 1.9 months; HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.89; P < .001). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested OS improvement in patients with high MET expression (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.01). Most common adverse events occurring with E + T versus E + P were rash (33.1% v 37.3%, respectively), diarrhea (34.6% v 41.0%), asthenia or fatigue (43.5% v 38.1%), and neutropenia (grade 3 to 4; 8.5% v 0.8%). CONCLUSION E + T was well tolerated and increased PFS but did not improve OS in the overall nonsquamous NSCLC population.

Platinum-Etoposide Chemotherapy in Elderly Patients With Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results of a Randomized Multicenter Phase II Study Assessing Attenuated-Dose or Full-Dose With Lenograstim Prophylaxis—A Forza Operativa Nazionale Italiana Carcinoma Polmonare and Gruppo Studio Tumori Polmonari Veneto (FONICAP-GSTPV) Study

PURPOSE Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is increasingly diagnosed in elderly patients, who are at higher risk of treatment-related morbidity and mortality. We conducted a randomized two-stage phase II study to assess the therapeutic index of two different platinum/etoposide regimens, attenuated-dose (AD) and full-dose (FD) plus prophylactic lenograstim. PATIENTS AND METHODS SCLC patients older than 70 years were randomized to receive four courses of cisplatin 25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2, and etoposide 60 mg/m(2) on days 1, 2, and 3 every 3 weeks (AD); or cisplatin 40 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2, and etoposide 100 mg/m(2) on days 1, 2, and 3 every 3 weeks, plus lenograstim 5 mg/kg days 5 through 12, every 3 weeks (FD). A combined primary end point named therapeutic success (TS), which took into account activity, toxicity, and compliance, was used. RESULTS Ninety-five patients were enrolled. Seventy-five percent and 72% of the patients in the AD and FD arms, respectively, completed the treatment as per protocol. Response rate was 39% and 69% in the AD and FD arms, respectively, and 1-year survival probability was 18% and 39%, respectively. Treatment was well tolerated in both groups, with no grade 3 to 4 myelotoxicity in the AD arm, and 12% myelotoxicity in the FD arm. Overall, the observed TSs were 10 (36%) of 28 patients and 42 (63%) of 67 patients for AD and FD treatments, respectively. CONCLUSION In elderly patients with SCLC a full-dose cisplatin/etoposide regimen combined with prophylactic lenograstim is active and feasible, while attenuated doses of the same regimen are associated with a poor therapeutic outcome.

Factorial phase III randomised trial of rofecoxib and prolonged constant infusion of gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the GEmcitabine-COxib in NSCLC (GECO) study

BACKGROUND The addition of cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors and prolonged constant infusion (PCI) of gemcitabine to treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) might improve treatment efficacy. We aimed to assess whether the addition of rofecoxib or PCI gemcitabine could improve overall survival compared with first-line treatment with cisplatin plus gemcitabine given by standard infusion. METHODS Patients with stage IV or IIIb (with supraclavicular nodes or pleural effusion) NSCLC who were under 70 years of age and who had performance status 0 or 1 were eligible for this multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomised phase III trial with 2 x 2 factorial design. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups: group A, gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2) in a 30-min intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8 and intravenous cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1, every 21 days for six cycles; group B, the same treatments as group A plus oral rofecoxib 50 mg/day until disease progression; group C, intravenous PCI gemcitabine 1200 mg/m(2) in a 120-min infusion on days 1 and 8 and intravenous cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1, every 21 days for six cycles; group D, the same drugs as group C plus oral rofecoxib 50 mg/day until disease progression. The primary endpoint was overall survival; secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, response rate, quality of life, and toxicity. Analyses were intention-to-treat. This trial is registered on the clinical trials site of the US National Institutes of Health website http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00385606. FINDINGS Between Jan 30, 2003, and May 3, 2005, 400 patients were enrolled. Median age was 60 years (range 29-71). PCI gemcitabine did not improve overall survival (median 47 weeks [95% CI 40-55] vs 44 [36-52], with standard gemcitabine infusion, hazard ratio (HR) of death 0.93 [0.74-1.17], p=0.41), progression-free survival, nor any other secondary endpoint. Vomiting and fatigue were significantly worse with PCI gemcitabine. The two rofecoxib groups were closed early (on Oct 1, 2004) due to withdrawal of the drug because of safety issues. With intention-to-treat statistical analyses limited to 240 patients (ie, those randomised before July 1, 2004) who had at least 3 months of treatment, rofecoxib did not prolong overall survival (median 44 weeks [CI 36-55] vs 44 [40-54] without rofecoxib, and HR of death 1.00 [0.75-1.34], p=0.85), or progression-free survival, but did improve response rate (41%vs 26%, p=0.02), global quality of life, physical, emotional and role functioning, fatigue, and sleeping. Rofecoxib significantly increased the incidence of diarrhoea and decreased constipation, fatigue, fever, weight loss, and pain, and analgesic consumption. Severe cardiac ischaemia was more frequent with rofecoxib than without; however, the difference was not statistically significant in the primary analysis (p=0.06) and became significant when patients who were randomised between July 1, 2004, and Sept 30, 2004, were included in the analysis (p=0.03). INTERPRETATION Neither PCI gemcitabine nor rofecoxib prolonged survival in the patients in this study. Rofecoxib improved response rate and several quality-of-life items, including pain-related items and global quality of life. Further studies with less cardiotoxic COX-2 inhibitors are needed in NSCLC.

Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine or Vinorelbine for Elderly Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The MILES-2P Studies

PURPOSE Two phase I/II trials were done to evaluate the feasibility of cisplatin combined with gemcitabine or vinorelbine in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with advanced NSCLC who were older than 70 years of age and who had a performance status of 0 to 1 were eligible. Cisplatin was given on day 1 (a starting dose of 50 mg/m2 with increasing increments of 10 mg/m2 at each level) and gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2) or vinorelbine (25 mg/m2) on days 1 and 8. Cycles were repeated every 21 days. A two-stage flexible optimal design was applied in the phase II study, and unacceptable toxicity was the primary end point. RESULTS Overall, 159 patients were enrolled: 38 in phase I and 121 in phase II studies. Cisplatin was feasible at 60 mg/m2 with gemcitabine and at 40 mg/m2 with vinorelbine. With the former combination, 50 of 60 (83.3%) patients were treated without unacceptable toxicity; objective responses were reported in 26 of 60 patients (43.5%; 95% CI, 30.6 to 56.8); median progression-free and overall survivals were 25.3 and 43.6 weeks, respectively. With the latter combination, 50 (82.0%) of 61 patients were treated without unacceptable toxicity; objective responses were reported in 22 of 61 patients (36.1%; 95% CI, 24.2 to 49.4); median progression-free and overall survivals were 21.1 and 33.1 weeks, respectively. CONCLUSION Both cisplatin (60 mg/m2) plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (40 mg/m2) plus vinorelbine are feasible and active in the treatment of elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. The former combination, which provides a higher dose of cisplatin, deserves comparison versus single-agent chemotherapy in this setting of patients.

Pemetrexed plus carboplatin in elderly patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: combined analysis of two phase II trials.

The incidence of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) in elderly patients is increasing. In this study, pooled data from two phase II trials of pemetrexed and carboplatin (PC) as first-line therapy were retrospectively analysed for comparisons between age groups. Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg m−2 and carboplatin AUC 5 mg ml−1 min−1 intravenously every 21 days with standard vitamin supplementation. Elderly patients were defined as those ⩾70 years old. A total of 178 patients with an ECOG performance status of ⩽2 were included. Median age was 65 years (range 38–79), with 48 patients ⩾70 years (27%). Grade 3–4 haematological toxicity was slightly worse in ⩾70 vs <70-year-old patients, with neutropenia observed in 25.0 vs 13.8% (P=0.11), anaemia in 20.8 vs 6.9% (P=0.01) and thrombocytopenia in 14.6 vs 8.5% (P=0.26). Non-haematological toxicity was mild and similar in the two groups. No significant difference was observed in terms of overall disease control (60.4 vs 66.9%, P=0.47), time to progression (7.2 vs 7.5 months, P=0.42) and survival (10.7 vs 13.9 months, P=0.12). Apart from slightly worse haematological toxicity, there was no significant difference in outcome or toxicity between age groups. The PC regimen is effective and well tolerated in selected elderly patients with MPM.

Phase II randomized study of dacarbazine, carmustine, cisplatin and tamoxifen versus dacarbazine alone in advanced melanoma patients

This randomized phase II trial was performed to define the activity and toxicity of the combination of dacarbazine (DTIC), carmustine (BCNU), cisplatin (DDP) and tamoxifen (DBDT regimen) versus DTIC alone in patients with metastatic melanoma. Sixty patients with metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned to receive BCNU 150 mg/m2 intravenously (i.v.) on day 1, cisplatin 25 mg/m2 i.v. daily on days 1 to 3, DTIC 220 mg/m2 i.v. daily on days 1 to 3 and tamoxifen 160 mg orally daily for 7 days prior to chemotherapy (DBDT arm; arm A). Treatment cycles were repeated every 28 days, while BCNU was given every two cycles. The DTIC arm (arm B) patients received DTIC alone 1200 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1, repeated every 21 days. Patients were evaluated every two cycles; responding patients continued the treatment for a maximum of 12 cycles. The overall response rate was 26% in the DBDT arm and 5% in the DTIC arm. Complete responses were 2.5% for DBDT and 0% for DTIC. The median progression-free survival and the median survival were 4 and 9 months, respectively for DBDT, and 2 and 7 months for DTIC. DBDT was associated with significant haematological toxicity: 33% of the patients experienced a grade III or IV neutropenia and 28% a grade III or IV thrombocytopenia. In conclusion, the overall response rate obtained with DBDT was greater than that obtained with DTIC alone; however, this combination increases toxicity with limited impact on overall survival.

Dacomitinib compared with placebo in pretreated patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NCIC CTG BR.26): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Dacomitinib is an irreversible pan-HER tyrosine-kinase inhibitor with preclinical and clinical evidence of activity in non-small-cell lung cancer. We designed BR.26 to assess whether dacomitinib improved overall survival in heavily pretreated patients with this disease. METHODS In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer from 75 centres in 12 countries. Eligible patients had received up to three previous lines of chemotherapy and either gefitinib or erlotinib, and had assessable disease (RECIST 1.1) and tumour tissue samples for translational studies. Patients were stratified according to centre, performance status, tobacco use, best response to previous EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, weight loss within the previous 3 months, and ethnicity, and were then randomly allocated 2:1 to oral dacomitinib 45 mg once-daily or matched placebo centrally via a web-based system. Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary outcome was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population; secondary outcomes included overall survival in predefined molecular subgroups, progression-free survival, the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response, safety, and quality of life. This study is completed, although follow-up is ongoing for patients on treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01000025. FINDINGS Between Dec 23, 2009, and June 11, 2013, we randomly assigned 480 patients to dacomitinib and 240 patients to placebo. At the final analysis (January, 2014), median follow-up was 23·4 months (IQR 15·6-29·6) for patients in the dacomitinib group and 24·4 months (11·5-38·9) for those in the placebo group. Dacomitinib did not improve overall survival compared with placebo (median 6·83 months [95% CI 6·08-7·49] for dacomitinib vs 6·31 months [5·32-7·52] for placebo; hazard ratio [HR] 1·00 [95% CI 0·83-1·21]; p=0·506). However, patients in the dacomitinib group had longer progression-free survival than those in the placebo group (median 2·66 months [1·91-3·32] vs 1·38 months [0·99-1·74], respectively; HR 0·66 [95% CI 0·55-0·79]; p<0·0001), and a significantly greater proportion of patients in the dacomitinb group achieved an objective response than in the placebo group (34 [7%] of 480 patients vs three [1%] of 240 patients, respectively; p=0·001). Compared with placebo, the effect of dacomitinib on overall survival seemed similar in patients with EGFR-mutation-positive tumours (HR 0·98, 95% CI 0·67-1·44) and EGFR wild-type tumours (0·93, 0·71-1·21; pinteraction=0·69). However, we noted qualitative differences in the effect of dacomitinib on overall survival for patients with KRAS-mutation-positive tumours (2·10, 1·05-4·22) and patients with KRAS wild-type tumours (0·79, 0·61-1·03; pinteraction=0·08). Compared with placebo, patients allocated dacomitinib had significantly longer time to deterioration of cough (p<0·0001), dyspnoea (p=0·049), and pain (p=0·041). 185 (39%) of 477 patients who received dacomitinib and 86 (36%) of 239 patients who received placebo had serious adverse events. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were diarrhoea (59 [12%] patients on dacomitinib vs no controls), acneiform rash (48 [10%] vs one [<1%]), oral mucositis (16 [3%] vs none), and fatigue (13 [3%] vs four [2%]). INTERPRETATION Dacomitinib did not increase overall survival and cannot be recommended for treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with chemotherapy and an EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor. FUNDING Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute and Pfizer.