David Heigener

Management of non-small-cell lung cancer: recent developments

Non-small-cell lung cancer is one of the leading causes of deaths from cancer worldwide. Therefore, improvements in diagnostics and treatments are urgently needed. In this review, we will discuss the evolution of lung cancer staging towards more non-invasive, endoscopy-based, and image-based methods, and the development of stage-adapted treatment. A special focus will be placed on the role of novel surgical approaches and modern radiotherapy strategies for early stages of disease, the effect of multimodal treatment in locally advanced disease, and ongoing developments in the treatment of patients with metastatic disease. In particular, we will include an emphasis on targeted therapies, which are based on the assumption that a treatable driver mutation or gene rearrangement is present within the tumour. Finally, the position of lung cancer treatment on the pathway to personalised therapy will be discussed.

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of Sorafenib, Carboplatin and Paclitaxel Efficacy in NSCLC (ESCAPE) trial, patients with squamous cell histology were withdrawn from the trial in February 2008 and excluded from analysis.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.

Phase III Trial Comparing Paclitaxel Poliglumex (CT-2103, PPX) in Combination with Carboplatin Versus Standard Paclitaxel and Carboplatin in the Treatment of PS 2 Patients with Chemotherapy-Naïve Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Introduction: Performance status (PS) 2 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) experience more toxicity, lower response rates, and shorter survival times than healthier patients treated with standard chemotherapy. Paclitaxel poliglumex (PPX), a macromolecule drug conjugate of paclitaxel and polyglutamic acid, reduces systemic exposure to peak concentrations of free paclitaxel and may lead to increased concentrations in tumors due to enhanced vascular permeability. Methods: Chemotherapy-naive PS 2 patients with advanced NSCLC were randomized to receive carboplatin (area under the curve = 6) and either PPX (210 mg/m2/10 min without routine steroid premedication) or paclitaxel (225 mg/m2/3 h with standard premedication) every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. Results: A total of 400 patients were enrolled. Alopecia, arthralgias/myalgias, and cardiac events were significantly less frequent with PPX/carboplatin, whereas grade ≥3 neutropenia and grade 3 neuropathy showed a trend of worsening. There was no significant difference in the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions despite the absence of routine premedication in the PPX arm. Overall survival was similar between treatment arms (hazard ratio, 0.97; log rank p = 0.769). Median and 1-year survival rates were 7.9 months and 31%, for PPX versus 8 months and 31% for paclitaxel. Disease control rates were 64% and 69% for PPX and paclitaxel, respectively. Time to progression was similar: 3.9 months for PPX/carboplatin versus 4.6 months for paclitaxel/carboplatin (p = 0.210). Conclusion: PPX/carboplatin failed to provide superior survival compared with paclitaxel/carboplatin in the first-line treatment of PS 2 patients with NSCLC, but the results with respect to progression-free survival and overall survival were comparable and the PPX regimen was more convenient.

Erlotinib in Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: Efficacy and Safety Findings of the Global Phase IV Tarceva Lung Cancer Survival Treatment Study

Introduction: Erlotinib is a small molecule inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine-kinase activity that has been shown to significantly increase survival for patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Here, we report safety and efficacy data from a large, global, open-label, phase IV trial of erlotinib (Tarceva Lung Cancer Survival Treatment). Methods: Patients who had previously failed on chemotherapy or radiotherapy and were unsuitable for these treatments were treated with oral erlotinib (150 mg/d) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results: The disease control rate was 69% in 5394 patients for whom best response data were available. Survival data were available for 6580 patients. Median progression-free and overall survival times were 3.25 months and 7.9 months, respectively. The 1-year survival rate was 37.7%. Among the 6580 patients included in the safety analysis, 799 (12%) experienced one or more erlotinib-related adverse events (AEs, other than prespecified AEs defined in the protocol), and only 4% experienced an erlotinib-related serious AE. Of the 6580 patients for whom data were available, dose reductions were reported in 1096 (17%), the majority (95%) due to an erlotinib-related AE (most commonly rash 65% or diarrhea 10%). Treatment was discontinued for 337 patients (5%) because of erlotinib-related AEs. Incidence of erlotinib-related rash was investigated as a separate end point. Seventy-one percent of patients for whom data were available experienced erlotinib-related rash; of these, the majority of cases were grade 1/2 (59%). Conclusions: These data confirm the favorable efficacy and safety profile of erlotinib in a large heterogeneous non-small cell lung cancer population.

Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-Related Tumor Markers and Clinical Outcomes with Erlotinib in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: An Analysis of Patients from German Centers in the TRUST Study

Introduction: Relationships between clinical outcomes and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-related tumor markers were investigated in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Methods: Patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer (0–2 prior regimens) received erlotinib (150 mg PO per day). Response and survival were evaluated, and tumor samples were assessed by immunohistochemistry (EGFR, phosphorylated mitogen-activated protein kinase, and phosphorylated AKT protein expression), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH; EGFR gene copy number), and DNA sequencing (EGFR, KRAS gene mutations). Results: Among 311 patients, 8% had a complete/partial response; the disease control rate was 66%. Median Overall survival (OS) was 6.1 months; 1-year survival rate was 27.2%. Two of 4 patients with EGFR mutations had tumor responses, versus 2/68 with wild-type EGFR (p = 0.014). Progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.31) and OS (HR = 0.33) were significantly prolonged in patients with EGFR mutations. Response rate was significantly higher in patients with EGFR FISH-positive (17%) than FISH-negative tumors (6%), and both PFS (HR = 0.58) and OS (HR = 0.63) significantly favored patients with EGFR FISH-positive tumors; median OS was 8.6 months in the EGFR FISH-positive group. None of 17 patients with a KRAS mutation had a tumor response, but the impact of KRAS mutation status on survival outcomes was of borderline statistical significance. Neither phosphorylated mitogen-activated protein kinase nor phosphorylated AKT immunohistochemistry status had a significant effect on PFS and OS with erlotinib. Conclusions: The presence of EGFR mutations and EGFR FISH-positive tumors may predispose patients to achieving better outcomes on erlotinib, but may have a beneficial impact on prognosis (irrespective of treatment). Prospective, placebo-controlled studies are needed to determine the predictive value of the putative biomarkers.

Sunitinib in combination with gemcitabine plus cisplatin for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A phase I dose-escalation study

PURPOSE To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of sunitinib plus gemcitabine/cisplatin for first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activities were evaluated. METHODS Patients ≥18 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1 and stage IIIB/IV NSCLC were included in this open-label, multicenter, dose-escalation phase I study. Treatment was administered in 3-week cycles: oral sunitinib 37.5 or 50mg/day intermittently (Schedule 2/1: 2 weeks on treatment, 1 week off treatment) or 25mg continuous daily dosing (CDD) schedule with intravenous infusions of gemcitabine (1000 or 1250 mg/m(2) days 1, 8) and cisplatin (80 mg/m(2) day 1). RESULTS A total of 28 evaluable patients were assigned to four dose levels. Most adverse events (AEs) on the Schedule 2/1 MTD were mild to moderate. Dose delays due to myelosuppression occurred on both schedules, limiting treatment to a median of four cycles. Four of 18 evaluable patients (22%) on Schedule 2/1 and 1 of 6 patients (17%) on the CDD schedule had confirmed partial responses. CONCLUSIONS The MTD was identified as sunitinib 37.5mg (Schedule 2/1), gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2), and cisplatin 80 mg/m(2), with most AEs being mild to moderate. However, frequent dose delays due to myelosuppression occurred. There was evidence of antitumor activity with this combination.

Single-agent pemetrexed for chemonaïve and pretreated patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: Results of an international expanded access program

Introduction: Pemetrexed has established efficacy, and is the backbone for chemotherapy in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). An International Expanded Access Program provided >3000 mesothelioma patients with access to single-agent pemetrexed or pemetrexed plus platinum analogs (cisplatin or carboplatin) in 13 countries. In this article, we report the safety and efficacy data of MPM patients who were treated with single-agent pemetrexed (n = 812). Methods: Patients with histologically confirmed MPM, not amenable to curative surgery, received pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) once (day 1) every 21 days with standard premedication and vitamin supplementation. Investigator-determined response and survival data were recorded at the end of study participation. Myelosuppression data were also collected. Results: All 812 MPM patients (319 chemonaïve; 493 pretreated) received single-agent pemetrexed (≥1 dose) and were evaluated for safety. A total of 643 patients (247 chemonaïve, 396 pretreated) were evaluated for efficacy. Of the chemonaïve patients evaluated for efficacy (n = 247), the overall response rate was 10.5%, median time to progressive disease (TTPD) was 6.0 months, and median survival was 14.1 month. Of the pretreated patients evaluated for efficacy (n = 396), the overall response rate was 12.1%, median TTPD was 4.9 months, and the median survival was not estimable due to high censoring. Common terminology criteria grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity was mild in both groups, with neutropenia (<18%) as the main toxicity. Conclusions: In the present expanded access program, single-agent pemetrexed demonstrated promising activity in MPM in both chemonaïve and pretreated patients, with TTPD of 6.0 and 4.9 months, respectively, 1-year survival ≥54.7%, and mild hematologic toxicity.

Incidence of febrile neutropenia and myelotoxicity of chemotherapy: a meta-analysis of biosimilar G-CSF studies in breast cancer, lung cancer, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Background: The aim of this meta-analysis of 3 clinical studies, conducted with breast cancer, lung cancer, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients, was to compare a new granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilar, XM02, with filgrastim in terms of its prophylactic effect on the development of febrile neutropenia (FN) during the first chemotherapy cycle in relation to the myelotoxic potency of the applied chemotherapy regimen. Patients and Methods: Overall, 608 patients (363 under XM02 and 245 under filgrastim) were included in the meta-analysis. The majority of patients were allocated to the chemotherapy categories docetaxel-doxorubicin (45.4%) and cyclophosphamide-hydroxy daunomycin (adriamycin)-oncovin (vincristine)-prednisolone (CHOP)/platinum(Pt)-vinorelbine or Pt-vinblastine/ Pt-etoposide (43.1%); another 11.5% were allocated to the category Pt-gemcitabine/Pt-docetaxel or Pt-paclitaxel. Results: FN in the XM02 and filgrastim groups was reported for 12.1 and 12.5% of patients, respectively, under docetaxeldoxorubicin, for 13.5 and 11.9% under CHOP/Pt-vinorelbine or Pt-vinblastine/Pt-etoposide, and for 15.6 and 12.0% under Pt-gemcitabine/Pt-docetaxel or Pt-paclitaxel. Conclusions: The incidence of FN in the first cycle of chemotherapy under primary G-CSF prophylaxis is low (in the range of 12–16%) and not directly correlated with the myelotoxic potency of the applied chemotherapy regimen. XM02 demonstrated to be non-inferior to filgrastim regarding the incidence of FN, irrespective of the myelotoxicity of the chemotherapy regimen.

Topotecan/Cisplatin Compared with Cisplatin/Etoposide as First-Line Treatment for Patients with Extensive Disease Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Final Results of a Randomized Phase III Trial

Introduction: This phase III study compared efficacy and safety of topotecan-cisplatin (TP) versus topotecan-etoposide (TE) versus cisplatin-etoposide (PE) in chemo-naïve extensive disease small-cell lung cancer patients. Methods: Seven hundred and ninety-five previously untreated patients were randomly assigned to TP (topotecan 1mg/m2 IV, d1–5; cisplatin 75mg/m2 IV, d5; n = 358), PE (cisplatin 75 mg/m2 IV, d1; etoposide 100 mg/m2 IV, d1–3; n = 345) or TE (topotecan 1mg/m2 IV, d1–5; etoposide 80 mg/m2 IV, d3–5; n = 92). Primary endpoint was superiority of TP compared with PE, with the possibility to switch to a noninferiority test. Results: The TE arm was closed after recommendations by the Independent Data Safety Monitoring Board. Median survival was similar and met the predefined endpoint of noninferiority of TP to PE (44.9 versus 40.9 weeks; p = 0.40). One-year survival rate showed 39.7% for TP versus 36.1% for PE (p = 0.29). Median time to progression was significantly longer with TP (27.4 versus 24.3 weeks, p = 0.01). Overall response rates were significantly higher for TP (55.5% versus 45.5%, p = 0.01). Hematologic toxicity was slightly higher for TP regarding G 3/4 neutropenia (35.7/35.8%), G 3/4 thrombocytopenia (18.7/4.8%), G 3/4 anemia (11.6/6.7%), febrile neutropenia (2.0/2.7%), sepsis (1.7/1.2%), and toxicity-related deaths (5.2/2.7%). Conclusion: TP is noninferior to PE in overall survival and superior in time to progression and overall response rates. Because of slightly worse toxicity profile TP is not a first-line standard treatment for patients with extensive disease small-cell lung cancer.

Cross-market cost-effectiveness analysis of erlotinib as first-line maintenance treatment for patients with stable non-small cell lung cancer

Background Platinum-doublet, first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is limited to 4–6 cycles. An alternative strategy used to prolong the duration of first-line treatment and extend survival in metastatic NSCLC is first-line maintenance therapy. Erlotinib was approved for first-line maintenance in a stable disease population following results from a randomized, controlled Phase III trial comparing erlotinib with best supportive care. We aimed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of erlotinib 150 mg/day versus best supportive care when used as first-line maintenance therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and stable disease. Methods An economic decision model was developed using patient-level data for progression-free survival and overall survival from the SATURN (SequentiAl Tarceva in UnResectable NSCLC) study. An area under the curve model was developed; all patients entered the model in the progression-free survival health state and, after each month, moved to progression or death. A time horizon of 5 years was used. The model was conducted from the perspective of national health care payers in France, Germany, and Italy. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results Treatment with erlotinib in first-line maintenance resulted in a mean life expectancy of 1.39 years in all countries, compared with a mean 1.11 years with best supportive care, which represents 0.28 life-years (3.4 life-months) gained with erlotinib versus best supportive care. In the base-case analysis, the cost per life-year gained was €39,783, €46,931, and €27,885 in France, Germany, and Italy, respectively. Conclusion Erlotinib is a cost-effective treatment option when used as first-line maintenance therapy for locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC.