Christer Sederholm

Outcome in a prospective phase II trial of medically inoperable stage I non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy.

PURPOSE The impact of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) on 3-year progression-free survival of medically inoperable patients with stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was analyzed in a prospective phase II study. PATIENTS AND METHODS Fifty-seven patients with T1NOMO (70%) and T2N0M0 (30%) were included between August 2003 and September 2005 at seven different centers in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark and observed up to 36 months. SBRT was delivered with 15 Gy times three at the 67% isodose of the planning target volume. RESULTS Progression-free survival at 3 years was 52%. Overall- and cancer-specific survival at 1, 2, and 3 years was 86%, 65%, 60%, and 93%, 88%, 88%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in survival between patients with T1 or T2 tumors. At a median follow-up of 35 months (range, 4 to 47 months), 27 patients (47%) were deceased, seven as a result of lung cancer and 20 as a result of concurrent disease. Kaplan-Meier estimated local control at 3 years was 92%. Local relapse was observed in four patients (7%). Regional relapse was observed in three patients (5%). Nine patients (16%) developed distant metastases. The estimated risk of all failure (local, regional, or distant metastases) was increased in patients with T2 (41%) compared with those with T1 (18%) tumors (P = .027). CONCLUSION With a 3-year local tumor control rate higher than 90% with limited toxicity, SBRT emerges as state-of-the-art treatment for medically inoperable stage I NSCLC and may even challenge surgery in operable instances.

Phase III Trial of Gemcitabine Plus Carboplatin Versus Single-Agent Gemcitabine in the Treatment of Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The Swedish Lung Cancer Study Group

PURPOSE This phase III study compared overall survival in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) when treated with single-agent gemcitabine versus gemcitabine/carboplatin. Secondary objectives were to compare response, time to progression, toxicity, and quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS Chemotherapy-naive patients received either gemcitabine alone (1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8; gemcitabine arm) or with carboplatin (area under the curve 5 on day 1; GC arm) every 21 days. RESULTS Demographics and disease characteristics of 334 randomly assigned patients were comparable on both arms. An intent-to-treat analysis showed significantly better overall survival (log-rank P = .0205) and 2-year survival (15% v 5%; P = .009) favoring the GC arm. Per Cox multivariate analysis, only two covariates, treatment arm (GC v G) and baseline performance status (0 or 1 v 2), independently influenced survival. Per-protocol analyses showed significantly longer median time to progression (5.7 v 3.9 months; P = .0001) and significantly higher objective response rate (29.6 v 11.3%; P < .0001) in the GC arm. Grade 3 to 4 leucopenia and thrombocytopenia were significantly more pronounced in the GC arm (P for both variables < .001) but importantly without associated increases in fever, infection, bleeding, or hospitalizations. There was no discernible difference in global quality-of-life patterns between treatment arms. CONCLUSION In advanced NSCLC, gemcitabine/carboplatin therapy resulted in significant survival benefit compared with single-agent gemcitabine without undue increase in toxicity.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy for medically inoperable patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer – A first report of toxicity related to COPD/CVD in a non-randomized prospective phase II study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS In a retrospective study using stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in medically inoperable patients with stage I NSCLC we previously reported a local control rate of 88% utilizing a median dose of 15Gyx3. This report records the toxicity encountered in a prospective phase II trial, and its relation to coexisting chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardio vascular disease (CVD). MATERIAL AND METHODS Sixty patients were entered in the study between August 2003 and September 2005. Fifty-seven patients (T1 65%, T2 35%) with a median age of 75 years (59-87 years) were evaluable. The baseline mean FEV1% was 64% and median Karnofsky index was 80. A total dose of 45Gy was delivered in three fractions at the 67% isodose of the PTV. Clinical, pulmonary and radiological evaluations were made at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 36 months post-SBRT. Toxicity was graded according to CTC v2.0 and performance status was graded according to the Karnofsky scale. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 23 months, 2 patients had relapsed locally. No grade 4 or 5 toxicity was reported. Grade 3 toxicity was seen in 12 patients (21%). There was no significant decline of FEV1% during follow-up. Low grade pneumonitis developed to the same extent in the CVD 3/17 (18%) and COPD 7/40 (18%) groups. The incidence of fibrosis was 9/17 (53%) and pleural effusions was 8/17 (47%) in the CVD group compared with 13/40 (33%) and 5/40 (13%) in the COPD group. CONCLUSION SBRT for stage I NSCLC patients who are medically inoperable because of COPD and CVD results in a favourable local control rate with a low incidence of grade 3 and no grade 4 or 5 toxicity.

Irinotecan Plus Carboplatin Versus Oral Etoposide Plus Carboplatin in Extensive Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized Phase III Trial

PURPOSE A Japanese randomized trial showed superior survival for patients with extensive-disease (ED) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) receiving irinotecan plus cisplatin compared with etoposide plus cisplatin. The present trial evaluated the efficacy of irinotecan plus carboplatin (IC) compared with oral etoposide plus carboplatin (EC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with ED SCLC were randomly assigned to receive either IC, which consisted of carboplatin (area under the curve = 4; Chatelut formula) and irinotecan (175 mg/m2) intravenously both on day 1, or EC, which consisted of carboplatin as in IC and etoposide (120 mg/m(2)/d) orally on days 1 through 5. Courses were repeated every 3 weeks with four cycles planned. Doses were reduced by one third in patients with a WHO performance status (PS) of 3 to 4 and/or age older than 70 years. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were quality of life (QOL) and complete response (CR) rate. RESULTS Of 220 randomly assigned patients, 209 were eligible for analysis (IC, n = 105; EC, n = 104). Thirty-five percent were older than 70 years, and 47% had a PS of 2 to 4. The groups were well balanced with respect to prognostic factors. OS was inferior in the EC group (hazard ratio = 1.41; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.87; P = .02). Median survival time was 8.5 months for IC compared with 7.1 months for EC. One-year survival rate was 34% for IC and 24% for EC. CR was seen in 18 IC patients compared with seven EC patients (P = .02). There were no statistically significant differences in hematologic grade 3 or 4 toxicity. Grade 3 or 4 diarrhea was more common in the IC group. QOL differences were small, with a trend toward prolonged palliation with the IC regimen. CONCLUSION IC prolongs survival in ED SCLC with slightly better scores for QOL.

Single-agent gemcitabine: an active and better tolerated alternative to standard cisplatin-based chemotherapy in locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer

This randomized study was designed to determine the response rates, survival and toxicities of single-agent gemcitabine (GEMZAR) and a combination of cisplatin/etoposide in chemonaive patients with non-resectable, locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 was given as a 30-min intravenous infusion on days 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle, cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1, and etoposide 100 mg/m2 on days 1 (following cisplatin), 2 and 3. Major eligibility criteria included histologically confirmed non-small cell lung cancer, measurable disease, Zubrod performance status 0-2, no prior chemotherapy, no prior radiation of the measured lesion, and no CNS metastases. One hundred and forty-seven patients were enrolled, 72 in the gemcitabine and 75 in the cisplatin/etoposide arm. Patient characteristics were well-matched across both arms. Sixty-seven gemcitabine and 72 cisplatin/etoposide patients were qualified for efficacy analysis. There were no complete responses, but 12 partial responses in the gemcitabine arm and 11 in the cisplatin/etoposide arm, for protocol-qualified response but 12 partial responses in the gemcitabine arm and 11 in the cisplatin/etoposide arm, for protocol-qualified response rates of 17.9% (95%, CI: 9.6-29.2%,) and 15.3% (95% CI: 7.9-25.7%,), respectively. Median survival times were 6.6 months (95% CI: 4.9-7.3 months) for gemcitabine and 7.6 months (95% CI: 5.4-9.3 months) for cisplatin/etoposide. The 1-year survival probability estimate was 26% for gemcitabine and 24% for cisplatin/etoposide. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in time-to-event measures, but patients in the gemcitabine arm had a greater probability of achieving a tumour response after 2 months (probability estimate: 8 vs. 0%,) and of the response lasting at least 6 months (73 vs. 45%,). Clinical and haematologic toxicity was more pronounced in the cisplatin/etoposide arm. Quality-of-life measures indicated a significant worsening of symptomatology in the cisplatin/etoposide arm for hair loss, nausea and vomiting, and appetite loss. This randomized study provides further evidence that single-agent gemcitabine is an active and effective therapy for patients with non-resectable. locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and good performance status, and that it is better tolerated than the combination cisplatin/ etoposide.

Concurrent cetuximab and radiotherapy after docetaxel-cisplatin induction chemotherapy in stage III NSCLC : Satellite-A phase II study from the Swedish Lung Cancer Study Group

BACKGROUND Several attempts to increase the locoregional control in locally advanced lung cancer including concurrent chemotherapy, accelerated fractionation and dose escalation have been made during the last years. As the EGFR directed antibody cetuximab has shown activity concurrent with radiotherapy in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, as well as in stage IV NSCLC combined with chemotherapy, we wanted to investigate radiotherapy with concurrent cetuximab in locally advanced NSCLC, a tumour type often over expressing the EGF-receptor. METHODS Between February 2006 and August 2007 75 patients in stage III NSCLC with good performance status (PS 0 or 1) and adequate lung function (FEV1>1.0) were enrolled in this phase II study at eight institutions. Treatment consisted of 2 cycles of induction chemotherapy, docetaxel 75 mg/m² and cisplatin 75 mg/m² with 3 weeks interval. An initial dose of cetuximab 400 mg/m² was given before start of 3D-CRT to 68 Gy with 2 Gy per fraction in 7 weeks concurrent with weekly cetuximab 250 mg/m². TOXICITY was scored weekly during radiotherapy (CTC 3.0), and after treatment the patients were followed every third month with CT-scans, toxicity scoring and QLQ. RESULTS Seventy-one patients were eligible for analysis as four were incorrectly enrolled. HISTOLOGY adenocarcinoma 49%, squamous cell carcinoma 39% and other NSCLC 12%. The majority had PS 0 (62.5%), median age 62.2 (42-81), 50% were women and 37% had a pre-treatment weight loss>5%. TOXICITY esophagitis grade 1-2: 72%; grade 3: 1.4%. Hypersensitivity reactions grade 3-4: 5.6%. Febrile neutropenia grade 3-4: 15.4%. Skin reactions grade 1-2: 74%; grade 3: 4.2%. Diarrhoea grade 1-2: 38%; grade 3: 11.3%. Pneumonitis grade 1-2: 26.8%; grade 3: 4.2%; grade 5: 1.4%. The median follow-up was 39 months for patients alive and the median survival was 17 months with a 1-, 2- and 3-year OS of 66%, 37% and 29% respectively. Until now local or regional failure has occurred in 20 patients and 22 patients have developed distant metastases. Weight loss, PS and stage were predictive for survival in univariate as well as in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION Induction chemotherapy followed by concurrent cetuximab and RT to 68 Gy is clearly feasible with promising survival. TOXICITY, e.g. pneumonitis and esophagitis is low compared to most schedules with concurrent chemotherapy. This treatment strategy should be evaluated in a randomised manner vs. concurrent chemoradiotherapy to find out if it is a valid treatment option.

Effect of celecoxib on survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A double blind randomised clinical phase III trial (CYCLUS study) by the Swedish Lung Cancer Study Group

BACKGROUND Increased expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) is common in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and has been associated with poor prognosis. Experimental and clinical phase II trials have indicated that the addition of the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib to palliative chemotherapy might increase survival time in patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS We performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre phase III trial at 13 centres in Sweden. Three hundred and nineteen patients with advanced NSCLC stage IIIB-IV and performance status 0-2 were randomised to receive celecoxib 400mg b.i.d. or placebo in addition to palliative chemotherapy. The primary objective was to compare overall survival. Other end-points were quality of life, progression-free survival, toxicity, cardiovascular events and biological markers. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, No. NCT00300729. FINDINGS Three hundred and sixteen patients were included in the analysis, 158 in each treatment group. Median survival time was 8.5 months. There was no survival difference between the treatment arms. Small but not statistically significant differences in global quality of life and pain were seen favouring the celecoxib group. No increased incidence of cardiovascular events was observed in the celecoxib group. INTERPRETATION This study failed to demonstrate a survival benefit of the addition of celecoxib to palliative chemotherapy.

NTCP modelling of lung toxicity after SBRT comparing the universal survival curve and the linear quadratic model for fractionation correction

Abstract Background. In SBRT of lung tumours no established relationship between dose-volume parameters and the incidence of lung toxicity is found. The aim of this study is to compare the LQ model and the universal survival curve (USC) to calculate biologically equivalent doses in SBRT to see if this will improve knowledge on this relationship. Material and methods. Toxicity data on radiation pneumonitis grade 2 or more (RP2+) from 57 patients were used, 10.5% were diagnosed with RP2+. The lung DVHs were corrected for fractionation (LQ and USC) and analysed with the Lyman- Kutcher-Burman (LKB) model. In the LQ-correction α/β = 3 Gy was used and the USC parameters used were: α/β = 3 Gy, D0 = 1.0 Gy, = 10, α = 0.206 Gy−1 and dT = 5.8 Gy. In order to understand the relative contribution of different dose levels to the calculated NTCP the concept of fractional NTCP was used. This might give an insight to the questions of whether “high doses to small volumes” or “low doses to large volumes” are most important for lung toxicity. Results and Discussion. NTCP analysis with the LKB-model using parameters m = 0.4, D50 = 30 Gy resulted for the volume dependence parameter (n) with LQ correction n = 0.87 and with USC correction n = 0.71. Using parameters m = 0.3, D50 = 20 Gy n = 0.93 with LQ correction and n = 0.83 with USC correction. In SBRT of lung tumours, NTCP modelling of lung toxicity comparing models (LQ,USC) for fractionation correction, shows that low dose contribute less and high dose more to the NTCP when using the USC-model. Comparing NTCP modelling of SBRT data and data from breast cancer, lung cancer and whole lung irradiation implies that the response of the lung is treatment specific. More data are however needed in order to have a more reliable modelling.

How to improve loco-regional control in stages IIIa―b NSCLC? Results of a three-armed randomized trial from the Swedish Lung Cancer Study Group

BACKGROUND A combination of chemotherapy and radiotherapy is the treatment base for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, both loco-regional and distant failure is frequent. Attempts to improve the loco-regional control were made in three separate phase II studies in Swedish University Hospitals, where accelerated radiotherapy or concurrent daily or weekly chemotherapy with conventional radiotherapy were tested. Comparatively good results from these studies lead to this national randomized phase II study, the RAKET-study, where the different concepts were investigated on a wider basis for further phase III studies. METHODS Inoperable stage III non-small cell lung cancer patients in good performance status (PS<2) were equally randomized to either of three arms in eight institutions. All arms started with two cycles of induction chemotherapy: paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC6. Arm A: a third identical cycle was given concomitant with start of accelerated radiotherapy, 1.7 Gy BID to 64.6 Gy in 4.5 weeks. Arm B consisted of daily concomitant paclitaxel 12 mg/m2 with conventionally fractionated radiotherapy: 2 Gy to 60 Gy in 6 weeks. Arm C: weekly concomitant paclitaxel 60 mg/m2 and identical radiotherapy to 60 Gy. Primary endpoint: TTP. Secondary: OS, toxicity, QL and relapse pattern. RESULTS Between June 2002 and May 2005 152 patients were randomized and of them 151 were evaluable: 78 men and 73 women, median age 62 years (43-78), 55% had performance status 0 and 45% PS 1. Thirty-four percent had stage IIIa and 66% IIIb. HISTOLOGY adenocarcinoma 48%, squamous cell carcinoma 32% and 20% non-small cell carcinoma. The three arms were well balanced. Toxicity was manageable with 12% grades 3-4 esophagitis, 1% grades 3-4 pneumonitis and there was no clear difference between the arms. The QL data did not differ either. Median time to progression was 9.8 (8.3-12.7) months (8.8, 10.3 and 9.3 months for arms A, B and C, respectively). Median survival was 17.8 (14.4-23.7) months (17.7, 17.7 and 20.6 months for A, B and C, respectively). The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival was 63, 31 and 24%. Sixty-nine percent of the patients relapsed with distant metastases initially and 31% had loco-regional tumor progression, without significant differences between treatment arms. Thirty-four percent developed brain metastases. CONCLUSIONS Treatment results are quite equal by intensifying the loco-regional treatment either by accelerated fractionated radiotherapy or daily or weekly concomitant chemo-radiotherapy both in terms of survival, toxicity and quality of life. The optimal treatment schedule for patients with locally advanced NSCLC is still to be decided and investigated in future clinical studies. Relapse pattern with distant metastases and especially brain metastases is a great problem and need further research for better therapy options and higher cure rate for this patient group.

A randomised phase II study of pemetrexed versus pemetrexed+erlotinib as second-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION Pemetrexed and erlotinib have been approved as second-line monotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This multicentre, randomised, open-label, parallel phase II study assessed efficacy and safety of pemetrexed versus pemetrexed+erlotinib in patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC. METHODS NSCLC stage III-IV patients who failed one prior platinum-based chemotherapy regimen, ≥ 1 measurable lesion by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2 were eligible. Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) with vitamin B12 and folic acid q3w alone or combined with erlotinib 150 mg daily. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end-points were overall survival (OS), time-to-treatment failure (TTTF), response and toxicity. RESULTS Of 165 randomised non-squamous patients, 159 were treated (pemetrexed: 83; pemetrexed+erlotinib: 76). The median PFS (months; 95% CI) was 2.89 (1.94, 3.38) for pemetrexed versus 3.19 (2.86, 4.70) for pemetrexed+erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.63; 95% CI: (0.44, 0.90); P = 0.0047). The median OS (months; 95% CI) was 7.75 (5.29, 10.41) for pemetrexed versus 11.83 (8.18, 16.66) for pemetrexed+erlotinib (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.98; P = 0.019). The median TTTF (months: 95% CI) was 2.4 (1.74, 2.99) for pemetrexed versus 3.0 (2.23, 4.07) for pemetrexed+erlotinib (HR 0.64; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.89; P = 0.0034). One patient died in pemetrexed+erlotinib arm due to febrile neutropenia. Grades 3/4 drug-related toxicities (in ≥ 5% of patients) in pemetrexed/pemetrexed+erlotinib were febrile neutropenia (2.4%/10.5%), diarrhoea (1.2%/5.3%), rash (1.2%/9.2%); anaemia (6%/11.8%), leukopenia (9.6%/23.7%), neutropenia (9.6%/25.0%), and thrombocytopenia (4.8%/14.5%). CONCLUSIONS Pemetrexed+erlotinib treatment significantly improved PFS, OS and TTTF in 2nd line non-squamous NSCLC and was associated with an increase in grade 3/4 toxicities compared with pemetrexed alone.