Bonne Biesma

Phase III Study Comparing Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine With Cisplatin Plus Pemetrexed in Chemotherapy-Naive Patients With Advanced-Stage Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE Cisplatin plus gemcitabine is a standard regimen for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Phase II studies of pemetrexed plus platinum compounds have also shown activity in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS This noninferiority, phase III, randomized study compared the overall survival between treatment arms using a fixed margin method (hazard ratio [HR] < 1.176) in 1,725 chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1. Patients received cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (n = 863) or cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 (n = 862) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. RESULTS Overall survival for cisplatin/pemetrexed was noninferior to cisplatin/gemcitabine (median survival, 10.3 v 10.3 months, respectively; HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.05). Overall survival was statistically superior for cisplatin/pemetrexed versus cisplatin/gemcitabine in patients with adenocarcinoma (n = 847; 12.6 v 10.9 months, respectively) and large-cell carcinoma histology (n = 153; 10.4 v 6.7 months, respectively). In contrast, in patients with squamous cell histology, there was a significant improvement in survival with cisplatin/gemcitabine versus cisplatin/pemetrexed (n = 473; 10.8 v 9.4 months, respectively). For cisplatin/pemetrexed, rates of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia (P <or= .001); febrile neutropenia (P = .002); and alopecia (P < .001) were significantly lower, whereas grade 3 or 4 nausea (P = .004) was more common. CONCLUSION In advanced NSCLC, cisplatin/pemetrexed provides similar efficacy with better tolerability and more convenient administration than cisplatin/gemcitabine. This is the first prospective phase III study in NSCLC to show survival differences based on histologic type.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Resection Versus Radiotherapy After Induction Chemotherapy in Stage IIIA-N2 Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND Induction chemotherapy before surgical resection increases survival compared with surgical resection alone in patients with stage IIIA-N2 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We hypothesized that, following a response to induction chemotherapy, surgical resection would be superior to thoracic radiotherapy as locoregional therapy. METHODS Selected patients with histologic or cytologic proven stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC were given three cycles of platinum-based induction chemotherapy. Responding patients were subsequently randomly assigned to surgical resection or radiotherapy. Survival curves were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analyses from time of randomization. RESULTS Induction chemotherapy resulted in a response rate of 61% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 57% to 65%) among the 579 eligible patients. A total of 167 patients were allocated to resection and 165 to radiotherapy. Of the 154 (92%) patients who underwent surgery, 14% had an exploratory thoracotomy, 50% a radical resection, 42% a pathologic downstaging, and 5% a pathologic complete response; 4% died after surgery. Postoperative radiotherapy was administered to 62 (40%) of patients in the surgery arm. Among the 154 (93%) irradiated patients, overall compliance to the radiotherapy prescription was 55%, and grade 3/4 acute and late esophageal and pulmonary toxic effects occurred in 4% and 7%; one patient died of radiation pneumonitis. Median and 5-year overall survival for patients randomly assigned to resection versus radiotherapy were 16.4 versus 17.5 months and 15.7% versus 14%, respectively (hazard ratio = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.35). Rates of progression-free survival were also similar in both groups. CONCLUSION In selected patients with pathologically proven stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC and a response to induction chemotherapy, surgical resection did not improve overall or progression-free survival compared with radiotherapy. In view of its low morbidity and mortality, radiotherapy should be considered the preferred locoregional treatment for these patients.

Vandetanib plus docetaxel versus docetaxel as second-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ZODIAC): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), and rearranged during transfection (RET) tyrosine kinases. In a randomised phase 2 study in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adding vandetanib 100 mg to docetaxel significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with docetaxel alone, including a longer PFS in women. These results supported investigation of the combination in this larger, definitive phase 3 trial (ZODIAC). METHODS Between May, 2006, and April, 2008, patients with locally advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB-IV) NSCLC after progression following first-line chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 through a third-party interactive voice system to receive vandetanib (100 mg/day) plus docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) intravenously every 21 days; maximum six cycles) or placebo plus docetaxel. The primary objective was comparison of PFS between the two groups in the intention-to-treat population. Women were a coprimary analysis population. This study has been completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00312377. FINDINGS 1391 patients received vandetanib plus docetaxel (n=694 [197 women]) or placebo plus docetaxel (n=697 [224 women]). Vandetanib plus docetaxel led to a significant improvement in PFS versus placebo plus docetaxel (hazard ratio [HR] 0.79, 97.58% CI 0.70-0.90; p<0.0001); median PFS was 4.0 months in the vandetanib group versus 3.2 months in placebo group. A similar improvement in PFS with vandetanib plus docetaxel versus placebo plus docetaxel was seen in women (HR 0.79, 0.62-1.00, p=0.024); median PFS was 4.6 months in the vandetanib group versus 4.2 months in the placebo group. Among grade 3 or higher adverse events, rash (63/689 [9%] vs 7/690 [1%]), neutropenia (199/689 [29%] vs 164/690 [24%]), leukopenia (99/689 [14%] vs 77/690 [11%]), and febrile neutropenia (61/689 [9%] vs 48/690 [7%]) were more common with vandetanib plus docetaxel than with placebo plus docetaxel. The most common serious adverse event was febrile neutropenia (46/689 [7%] in the vandetanib group vs 38/690 [6%] in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION The addition of vandetanib to docetaxel provides a significant improvement in PFS in patients with advanced NSCLC after progression following first-line therapy.

Three-Arm Randomized Study of Two Cisplatin-Based Regimens and Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase III Trial of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Lung Cancer Group—EORTC 08975

PURPOSE To compare the therapeutic efficacy of paclitaxel plus cisplatin (arm A) versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin (arm B) and arm A versus paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (arm C) in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to receive either paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (3-hour infusion, day 1) or gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 (days 1 and 8) both combined with cisplatin 80 mg/m2 (day 1) or paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (3-hour infusion, day 1) combined with gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 (days 1 and 8). Primary end point was comparison of overall survival for B versus A and C versus A. Secondary end points included response rate and duration, progression-free survival, toxicities, quality of life [QoL], and cost of treatment. RESULTS Four hundred eighty patients (arm A, 159; arm B, 160; arm C, 161 patients) were enrolled; all baseline characteristics were balanced. Median survival times were as follows: arm A, 8.1 months; arm B, 8.9 months; arm C, 6.7 months. Response rates were 31.8% for arm A, 36.6% for arm B, and 27.7% for arm C. Other than myelosuppression (B v A, P <.005), no statistically or clinically significant differences were observed for secondary end points. The average treatment costs were 25% higher in arm C as compared with arms A and B. CONCLUSION Gemcitabine plus cisplatin and paclitaxel plus gemcitabine do not increase overall survival in patients with advanced NSCLC as compared with paclitaxel plus cisplatin. Treatment was well tolerated, and most QoL parameters were similar, but costs associated with the nonplatinum arm were highest.

Prognostic Relevance of Response Evaluation Using [18F]-2-Fluoro-2-Deoxy-D-Glucose Positron Emission Tomography in Patients With Locally Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE The objective of this study was to determine the accuracy of (early) response measurements using [18F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (18FDG PET) with respect to survival of patients with stage IIIA-N2 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) undergoing induction chemotherapy (IC), with a comparative analysis of PET methods. PATIENTS AND METHODS In a prospective multicenter study, PET was performed in patients before IC and after one and three cycles. Computed tomography (CT) was performed before and after IC. Glucose consumption (metabolic rate of glucose [MRglu]) was measured using Patlak graphical analysis and correlated with simplified methods. Mediastinal lymph node (MLN) status was assessed visually. Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to determine the prognostic relevance of CT and PET measures of response with respect to survival. RESULTS Complete PET data sets were available in 47 patients. Median survival was 21 months. MLN status after IC by PET predicted survival (hazard ratio [HR], 2.33; 95% CI, 1.04 to 5.22; P = .04) in contrast with CT (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 0.81 to 4.30; P = .14). Residual MRglu after IC proved to be the best prognostic factor (HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.28 to 2.97; P = .002). Multivariate stepwise analysis showed that PET identified prognostically different strata in patients considered responsive according to CT. Residual MRglu after one cycle selected patients with different outcomes (HR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.18 to 3.52; P = .01). Simplified quantitative 18FDG PET methods were correlated with Patlak graphical analysis during and after therapy (r > or = 0.90). CONCLUSION 18FDG PET has additional value over CT in monitoring response to IC in patients with stage IIIA-N2 NSCLC, and it seems feasible to predict survival early during IC. Simple semiquantitative and complex PET methods perform equally well.

Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Gemcitabine/Cisplatin Alone or With Sorafenib for the First-Line Treatment of Advanced, Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE This trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of sorafenib plus gemcitabine/cisplatin in chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable stage IIIB to IV nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Between February 2007 and March 2009, 904 patients were randomly assigned to daily sorafenib (400 mg twice a day) or matching placebo plus gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m(2) per day on days 1 and 8) and cisplatin (75 mg/m(2) on day 1) for up to six 21-day cycles. Because of safety findings from the Evaluation of Sorafenib, Carboplatin and Paclitaxel Efficacy in NSCLC (ESCAPE) trial, patients with squamous cell histology were withdrawn from the trial in February 2008 and excluded from analysis. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and time-to-progression (TTP). RESULTS The primary analysis population consisted of 772 patients (sorafenib, 385; placebo, 387); the two groups had similar demographic and baseline characteristics. Median OS was similar in the sorafenib and placebo groups (12.4 v 12.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; P = .401). By investigator assessment, sorafenib improved median PFS (6.0 v 5.5 months; HR, 0.83; P = .008) and TTP (6.1 v 5.5 months; HR, 0.73; P < .001). Grade 3 to 4 drug-related adverse events more than two-fold higher in the sorafenib group included hand-foot skin reaction (8.6% v 0.3%), fatigue (7.3% v 3.6%), rash (5.7% v 0.5%), and hypertension (4.2% v 1.8%). No unexpected toxicities were observed. CONCLUSION This study did not meet its primary end point of improved OS when sorafenib was added to first-line gemcitabine/cisplatin in patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Identification of predictive biomarkers is warranted in future trials of sorafenib.

Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia by Prophylactic Antibiotics Plus or Minus Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor in Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Dutch Randomized Phase III Study

PURPOSE Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a major complication of chemotherapy. Antibiotics as well as granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) are effective in preventing FN. This multicenter randomized phase III trial determines whether the addition of G-CSF to antibiotic prophylaxis can further reduce the incidence of FN in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) at the risk of FN. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients (N = 175) were stratified for stage of disease, performance status, age, and prior chemotherapy treatment, and were randomly assigned for treatment with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (CDE), followed by prophylactic antibiotics alone (ciprofloxacin and roxithromycin) or by antibiotics in combination with G-CSF on days 4 to 13. RESULTS In cycle 1, 20 patients (24%) in the antibiotics group developed FN compared with nine patients (10%) in the antibiotics plus G-CSF group (P = .01). In cycles 2 to 5, the incidences of FN were practically the same in both groups (17% v 11%). Only the treatment parameters (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.78) and age (1.067 per year; 95% CI, 1.013 to 1.0124) were related to the probability of FN in cycle 1. CONCLUSION Primary G-CSF prophylaxis added to primary antibiotic prophylaxis is effective in reducing FN and infections in SCLC patients at the risk of FN with the first cycle of CDE chemotherapy. For patients with similar risk of FN, the combined use of prophylactic antibiotics plus G-CSF can be considered, specifically in the first cycle of chemotherapy.

Randomized Phase II and Pharmacogenetic Study of Pemetrexed Compared With Pemetrexed Plus Carboplatin in Pretreated Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE We performed a randomized phase II trial comparing pemetrexed with pemetrexed plus carboplatin (PC) in patients experiencing relapse after platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Main eligibility criteria were histologic or cytologic proof of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), relapse more than 3 months after platinum-based chemotherapy, normal organ function, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 2. Patients were randomly assigned to pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) (arm A) or carboplatin area under the curve 5 and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) (arm B), both administered intravenously every 3 weeks. Response assessment was performed every 6 weeks; toxicity assessment was performed every 3 weeks. Primary end point was time to progression (TTP); secondary end points were objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. The study was designed to detect a 33% decrease in the hazard of disease progression in the combination arm (alpha = 0.05, two-sided log-rank test). Polymorphisms of thymidylate synthase, the reduced folate carrier, gamma-glutamyl hydrolase, and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHF) were investigated in peripheral WBCs of consenting patients. RESULTS Two hundred forty patients were enrolled. Median TTP was 2.8 months for arm A versus 4.2 months for arm B (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.89; P = .005). Median OS was 7.6 months and 8.0 months and ORR was 4% and 9% for arms A and B, respectively. Subgroup analyses found adenocarcinoma to be associated with favorable outcome. Toxicities in both arms was negligible, with one potential toxic death in arm A. Patients with MTHFR C677T homozygous mutation had increased progression-free survival compared with patients with wild-type or heterozygous mutations (P = .03). CONCLUSION PC as second-line treatment for relapsed NSCLC resulted in a significant 33% reduction of the hazard of disease progression as compared with pemetrexed alone.

Randomized Phase II Study of Gefitinib Compared With Placebo in Chemotherapy-Naive Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer and Poor Performance Status

PURPOSE To compare gefitinib with placebo in chemotherapy naïve patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and poor performance status. PATIENTS AND METHODS NSCLC patients (chemotherapy naïve, WHO performance status 2 or 3; unfit for chemotherapy; stage IIIB/IV) were randomly assigned to gefitinib (250 mg/d) plus best supportive care (BSC; n = 100) or placebo plus BSC (n = 101). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life (QOL), pulmonary symptom improvement (PSI), and safety. Correlation of gefitinib efficacy with EGFR gene copy number (fluorescent in situ hybridization [FISH]) was explored. RESULTS Hazard ratios (HRs; gefitinib:placebo) were 0.82 (95% CI, 0.60 to 1.12; P = .217) for PFS and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.62 to 1.15; P = .272) for OS. As expected for this patient population, OS for both arms was poor, at about 3 months. ORRs were 6.0% (gefitinib) and 1.0% (placebo). QOL and PSI rates were 21.1% and 28.3% (gefitinib) and 20.0% and 28.3% (placebo), respectively. In EGFR FISH-positive patients (n = 32), HRs were 0.29 (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.73) for PFS and 0.44 (95% CI, 0.17 to 1.12) for OS. No unexpected adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION There was no statistically significant difference in PFS, OS, and ORRs after treatment with gefitinib or placebo, in the overall population; improvements in QOL and symptoms were similar in both groups. Tolerability profile of gefitinib was consistent with previous studies. PFS was statistically significantly improved for gefitinib-treated patients with EGFR FISH-positive tumors.

Standard Versus Intensified Chemotherapy With Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Support in Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Prospective European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer–Lung Cancer Group Phase III Trial—08923

PURPOSE To assess the impact on survival of increasing dose-intensity (DI) of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (CDE) in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Previously untreated SCLC patients were randomized to standard CDE (cyclophosphamide 1,000 mg/m(2) and doxorubicin 45 mg/m(2) on day 1, and etoposide 100 mg/m(2) on days 1 to 3 every 3 weeks, for five cycles) or intensified CDE (cyclophosphamide 1,250 mg/m(2) and doxorubicin 55 mg/m(2) on day 1, and etoposide 125 mg/m(2) on days 1 to 3 with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor [G-CSF] 5 micro g/kg/d on days 4 to 13 every 2 weeks, for four cycles). Projected cumulative dose was almost identical on the two arms, whereas projected DI was nearly 90% higher on the intensified arm. Two hundred forty-four patients were enrolled. The first 163 patients were also randomized (2 x 2 factorial design) to prophylactic antibiotics or placebo to assess their impact on preventing febrile leukopenia (FL). This report focuses on chemotherapy DI results. RESULTS With a median follow-up of 54 months, 216 deaths have occurred. Actually delivered DI on the intensified arm was 70% higher than on the standard arm. Intensified CDE was associated with more grade 4 leukopenia (79% v 50%), grade 4 thrombocytopenia (44% v 11%), anorexia, nausea, and mucositis. FL and number of toxic deaths were similar on the two arms. The objective response rate was 79% for the standard arm and 84% for the intensified arm (P =.315). Median survival was 54 weeks and 52 weeks, and the 2-year survival rates were 15% and 18%, respectively (P =.885). CONCLUSION A 70% increase of CDE actual DI does not translate into an improved outcome in SCLC patients.