Cesare Gridelli

Maintenance therapy with pemetrexed plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care after induction therapy with pemetrexed plus cisplatin for advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (PARAMOUNT): a double-blind, phase 3, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) benefit from pemetrexed maintenance therapy after induction therapy with a platinum-containing, non-pemetrexed doublet. The PARAMOUNT trial investigated whether continuation maintenance with pemetrexed improved progression-free survival after induction therapy with pemetrexed plus cisplatin. METHODS In this double-blind, multicentre, phase 3, randomised placebo-controlled trial, patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC aged 18 years or older, with no previous systemic chemotherapy for lung cancer, with at least one measurable lesion, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 participated. Before randomisation, patients entered an induction phase which consisted of four cycles of induction pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2)) plus cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Patients who did not progress after completion of four cycles of induction and who had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 were stratified according to disease stage (IIIB or IV), ECOG performance status (0 or 1), and induction response (complete or partial response, or stable disease), and randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to receive maintenance therapy with either pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2) every 21 days) plus best supportive care or placebo plus best supportive care until disease progression. Randomisation was done with the Pocock and Simon minimisation method. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00789373. FINDINGS Of the 1022 patients enrolled, 939 participated in the induction phase. Of these, 539 patients were randomly assigned to receive continuation maintenance with pemetrexed plus best supportive care (n=359) or with placebo plus best supportive care (n=180). Among the 359 patients randomised to continuation maintenance with pemetrexed, there was a significant reduction in the risk of disease progression over the placebo group (HR 0·62, 95% CI 0·49-0·79; p<0·0001). The median progression-free survival, measured from randomisation, was 4·1 months (95% CI 3·2-4·6) for pemetrexed and 2·8 months (2·6-3·1) for placebo. Possibly treatment-related laboratory grade 3-4 adverse events were more common in the pemetrexed group (33 [9%] of 359 patients) than in the placebo group (one [<1%] of 180 patients; p<0·0001), as were non-laboratory grade 3-5 adverse events (32 [9%] of 359 patients in the pemetrexed group; eight [4%] of 180 patients in the placebo group; p=0·080); one possibly treatment-related death was reported in each group. The most common adverse events of grade 3-4 in the pemetrexed group were anaemia (16 [4%] of 359 patients), neutropenia (13 [4%]), and fatigue (15 [4%]). In the placebo group, these adverse events were less common: anaemia (one [<1%] of 180 patients), neutropenia (none), and fatigue (one <1%]). The most frequent serious adverse events were anaemia (eight [2%] of 359 patients in the pemetrexed group vs none in the placebo group) and febrile neutropenia (five [1%] vs none). Discontinuations due to drug-related adverse events occurred in 19 (5%) patients in the pemetrexed group and six (3%) patients in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION Continuation maintenance with pemetrexed is an effective and well tolerated treatment option for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC with good performance status who have not progressed after induction therapy with pemetrexed plus cisplatin. FUNDING Eli Lilly and Company.

Tivantinib for second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 study

BACKGROUND Tivantinib (ARQ 197), a selective oral inhibitor of MET, has shown promising antitumour activity in hepatocellular carcinoma as monotherapy and in combination with sorafenib. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of tivantinib for second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS In this completed, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 study, we enrolled patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh A cirrhosis who had progressed on or were unable to tolerate first-line systemic therapy. We randomly allocated patients 2:1 to receive tivantinib (360 mg twice-daily) or placebo until disease progression. The tivantinib dose was amended to 240 mg twice-daily because of high incidence of treatment-emergent grade 3 or worse neutropenia. Randomisation was done centrally by an interactive voice-response system, stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and vascular invasion. The primary endpoint was time to progression, according to independent radiological review in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed tumour samples for MET expression with immunohistochemistry (high expression was regarded as ≥2+ in ≥50% of tumour cells). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00988741. FINDINGS 71 patients were randomly assigned to receive tivantinib (38 at 360 mg twice-daily and 33 at 240 mg twice-daily); 36 patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo. At the time of analysis, 46 (65%) patients in the tivantinib group and 26 (72%) of those in the placebo group had progressive disease. Time to progression was longer for patients treated with tivantinib (1·6 months [95% CI 1·4-2·8]) than placebo (1·4 months [1·4-1·5]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·64, 90% CI 0·43-0·94; p=0·04). For patients with MET-high tumours, median time to progression was longer with tivantinib than for those on placebo (2·7 months [95% CI 1·4-8·5] for 22 MET-high patients on tivantinib vs 1·4 months [1·4-1·6] for 15 MET-high patients on placebo; HR 0·43, 95% CI 0·19-0·97; p=0·03). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the tivantinib group were neutropenia (ten patients [14%] vs none in the placebo group) and anaemia (eight [11%] vs none in the placebo group). Eight patients (21%) in the tivantinib 360 mg group had grade 3 or worse neutropenia compared with two (6%) patients in the 240 mg group. Four deaths related to tivantinib occurred from severe neutropenia. 24 (34%) patients in the tivantinib group and 14 (39%) patients in the placebo group had serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION Tivantinib could provide an option for second-line treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and well-compensated liver cirrhosis, particularly for patients with MET-high tumours. Confirmation in a phase 3 trial is needed, with a starting dose of tivantinib 240 mg twice-daily. FUNDING ArQule, Daiichi Sankyo (Daiichi Sankyo Group).

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.

Gemcitabine Plus Vinorelbine Compared With Cisplatin Plus Vinorelbine or Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine for Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase III Trial of the Italian GEMVIN Investigators and the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group

PURPOSE Platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens are the standard treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), although toxicity is common and may significantly affect the patients quality of life (QoL). This trial aimed to assess whether a combination of gemcitabine and vinorelbine had benefits in terms of QoL, without influencing negatively on survival, compared with cisplatin-containing regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with stage IIIB (effusion and supraclavicular nodes) or IV documented NSCLC who were younger than 70 years of age were randomly assigned gemcitabine plus vinorelbine (GemVin) or either gemcitabine plus cisplatin or vinorelbine plus cisplatin (cisplatin-based). European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer scales were used for QoL analysis. RESULTS Five hundred one patients were randomly assigned to treatment. The median age was 62 years. There were no significant differences in global QoL scores between the two arms after 2 months of treatment. However, worsening scores for appetite, vomiting, and alopecia were significantly more common in the cisplatin-based arm. Median survival was 38 v 32 weeks and median progression-free survival was 23 v 17 weeks in the cisplatin-based versus GemVin arms, respectively. For the GemVin arm the hazard ratio for death was 1.15 (90% confidence interval [CI], 0.96 to 1.37) and the hazard ratio for progression was 1.29 (90% CI, 1.10 to 1.52). Grade 3 or 4 myelosuppression, vomiting, alopecia, and ototoxicity were significantly more frequent with cisplatin-based treatment. CONCLUSION Global QoL is not improved with GemVin, although advantages in some components of QoL were apparent. GemVin is less toxic than standard cisplatin-based chemotherapy. There is a nonsignificant slight survival advantage with cisplatin-based chemotherapy. GemVin could be offered to advanced NSCLC patients who express concern about toxicity.

Treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in the elderly: results of an international expert panel.

The best treatment for elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still debated. To guide clinical management of these patients and suggest the priorities for clinical research in this field, an International Expert Panel met in Naples, Italy, on April 19 to 20, 2004. Results and conclusions based on a review of evidence available in the literature to date are presented in this article. A comprehensive geriatric assessment is recommended to better define prognosis and to predict tolerance to treatment. In the first randomized study dedicated to elderly NSCLC patients, single-agent vinorelbine showed superiority over supportive care alone, both in terms of survival and quality of life. In a large randomized trial, gemcitabine plus vinorelbine failed to show any advantage over either agent alone. Subset analyses suggest that the efficacy of platinum-based combination chemotherapy is similar in fit older and younger patients, with an acceptable increase in toxicity for elderly patients. These data should be interpreted cautiously because retrospective subgroup analyses are encumbered by selection bias; hence, randomized trials dedicated to platinum-based chemotherapy for nonselected elderly patients are warranted. Several promising biologic therapies are under investigation; however, with present data, target-based agents as first-line treatment for elderly NSCLC patients are not yet recommended. Clinical research, with trials specifically designed for elderly patients, is mandatory. With the current evidence, single-agent chemotherapy with a third-generation drug (vinorelbine, gemcitabine, a taxane) should be the recommended option for nonselected elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. Platinum-based chemotherapy is a viable option for fit patients with adequate organ function. Best supportive care remains important, in addition to chemotherapy or as the exclusive option for patients who are unsuitable for more aggressive treatment.

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.

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and treatment efficacy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis of three randomised trials

BACKGROUND Chemotherapy is the standard treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, and myelosuppression is a common side-effect. We aimed to assess whether haematological toxic effects could be a biological measure of drug activity and a marker of efficacy. METHODS We analysed data for 1265 patients who received chemotherapy (vinorelbine, gemcitabine, gemcitabine and vinorelbine, cisplatin and vinorelbine, or cisplatin and gemcitabine) within three randomised trials. Primary landmark analyses were restricted to 436 patients who received all six planned chemotherapy cycles and who were alive 180 days after randomisation. Neutropenia was categorised on the basis of worst WHO grade during chemotherapy: absent (grade 0), mild (grade 1-2), or severe (grade 3-4). All statistical analyses were stratified by treatment allocation. Analyses were repeated in the out-of-landmark group (829 patients), stratifying by treatment allocation and number of chemotherapy cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival. FINDINGS In the landmark group, hazard ratios of death were 0.65 (0.46-0.93) for patients with severe neutropenia and 0.74 (0.56-0.98) for those with mild neutropenia. Median survival after the landmark time of 180 days was 31.4 weeks (95% CI 25.7-39.6) for patients without neutropenia compared with 42.0 weeks (32.7-59.7) for patients with severe neutropenia, and with 43.7 weeks (36.6-66.0) for those with mild neutropenia (severe vs mild vs no neutropenia p=0.0118). Findings were much the same for the out-of-landmark group. INTERPRETATION Neutropenia during chemotherapy is associated with increased survival of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, and its absence might be a result of underdosing. Prospective trials are needed to assess whether drug dosing guided by the occurrence of toxic effects could improve efficacy of standard regimens.

Carboplatin- or Cisplatin-Based Chemotherapy in First-Line Treatment of Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The COCIS Meta-Analysis of Individual Patient Data

PURPOSE Since treatment efficacy of cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) remains contentious, a meta-analysis of individual patient data was performed to compare the two treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS A systematic review identified randomized trials comparing cisplatin with carboplatin in the first-line treatment of SCLC. Individual patient data were obtained from coordinating centers of all eligible trials. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). All statistical analyses were stratified by trial. Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and treatment toxicity. OS and PFS curves were compared by using the log-rank test. ORR was compared by using the Mantel-Haenszel test. RESULTS Four eligible trials with 663 patients (328 assigned to cisplatin and 335 to carboplatin) were included in the analysis. Median OS was 9.6 months for cisplatin and 9.4 months for carboplatin (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.27; P = .37). There was no evidence of treatment difference between the cisplatin and carboplatin arms according to sex, stage, performance status, or age. Median PFS was 5.5 and 5.3 months for cisplatin and carboplatin, respectively (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.29; P = .25). ORR was 67.1% and 66.0%, respectively (relative risk, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.16; P = .83). Toxicity profile was significantly different for each of the arms: hematologic toxicity was higher with carboplatin, and nonhematologic toxicity was higher with cisplatin. CONCLUSION Our meta-analysis of individual patient data suggests no differences in efficacy between cisplatin and carboplatin in the first-line treatment of SCLC, but there are differences in the toxicity profile.

Meta-Analysis of Single-Agent Chemotherapy Compared With Combination Chemotherapy As Second-Line Treatment of Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE Doublet chemotherapy is more effective than single-agent as first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). As second-line treatment, several randomized trials have been performed comparing single-agent with doublet chemotherapy, but each trial had an insufficient power to detect potentially relevant differences in survival. METHODS We performed meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials, both published and unpublished, comparing single-agent with doublet chemotherapy as second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). All statistical analyses were stratified by trial. RESULTS Eight eligible trials were identified. Data of two trials were not available, and data of six trials (847 patients) were collected. Median age was 61 years. Performance status was 0 or 1 in 90%; 80% of patients had received previous platin-based chemotherapy. OS was not significantly different between arms (P = .32). Median OS was 37.3 and 34.7 weeks in the doublet and single-agent arms, respectively. Hazard ratio (HR) was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.08). Response rate was 15.1% with doublet and 7.3% with single-agent (P = .0004). Median progression-free survival was 14 weeks for doublet and 11.7 weeks for single agent (P = .0009; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.91). There was no significant heterogeneity among trials for the three efficacy outcomes. Patients treated with doublet chemotherapy had significantly more grade 3 to 4 hematologic (41% v 25%; P < .0001) and grade 3 to 4 nonhematologic toxicity (28% v 22%; P = .034). CONCLUSION Doublet chemotherapy as second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC significantly increases response rate and progression-free survival, but is more toxic and does not improve overall survival compared to single-agent.

Lung Cancer in the Elderly

PURPOSE Elderly patients often have comorbidities and other characteristics that make the selection of treatment daunting. METHODS We have reviewed the available evidence in the literature to gauge the results of therapy for elderly lung cancer patients. RESULTS The beneficial results achieved with adjuvant chemotherapy in the general population with early non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cannot be automatically extrapolated to the elderly, who are at higher risk of toxicity. Retrospective analyses of combined chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced NSCLC patients suggest equivalent therapeutic benefit for younger and older patients, despite heightened toxicity. There have been no elderly-specific phase III trials for locally advanced NSCLC. For advanced NSCLC, on the basis of evidence-based data, single-agent chemotherapy remains the standard of care for nonselected elderly patients. However, retrospective analyses suggest that the efficacy of platinum-based combination chemotherapy is similar in fit older and younger patients, with increased but acceptable toxicity for elderly patients. In limited-disease small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), sequential chemoradiotherapy is clearly less toxic compared with a standard concurrent approach, but our assessment of treatment is hindered by the absence of prospective elderly-specific trials. Although prophylactic cranial irradiation has emerged as a standard strategy, it should be omitted in patients with cognitive impairment. In extensive SCLC, etoposide in combination with either cisplatin or carboplatin has emerged as standard treatment; hematopoietic support may be necessary. CONCLUSION With the exception of advanced NSCLC, prospective elderly-specific studies are lacking. Available data suggest that outcomes in the fit elderly mirror results observed in younger patients, although toxicity is generally worse.