David R. Gandara

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 Phase III Trial of Paclitaxel Plus Carboplatin Versus Vinorelbine Plus Cisplatin in the Treatment of Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Southwest Oncology Group Trial

PURPOSE This randomized trial was designed to determine whether paclitaxel plus carboplatin (PC) offered a survival advantage over vinorelbine plus cisplatin (VC) for patients with advanced non--small-cell lung cancer. Secondary objectives were to compare toxicity, tolerability, quality of life (QOL), and resource utilization. PATIENTS AND METHODS Two hundred two patients received VC (vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2)/wk and cisplatin 100 mg/m(2)/d, day 1 every 28 days) and 206 patients received PC (paclitaxel 225 mg/m(2) over 3 hours with carboplatin area under the curve of 6, day 1 every 21 days). Patients completed QOL questionnaires at baseline, 13 weeks, and 25 weeks. Resource utilization forms were completed at five time points through 24 months. RESULTS Patient characteristics were similar between the groups. The objective response rate was 28% in the VC arm and 25% in the PC arm. Median survival was 8 months in both arms, with 1-year survival rates of 36% and 38%, respectively. Grade 3 and 4 leukopenia (P =.002) and neutropenia (P =.008) occurred more frequently on the VC arm. Grade 3 nausea and vomiting were higher on the VC arm (P =.001, P =.007), and grade 3 peripheral neuropathy was higher on the PC arm (P <.001). More patients on the VC arm discontinued therapy because of toxicity (P =.001). No difference in QOL was observed. Overall costs on the PC arm were higher than on the VC arm because of drug costs. CONCLUSION PC is equally efficacious as VC for the treatment of advanced non--small-cell lung cancer. PC is less toxic and better tolerated but more expensive than VC. New treatment strategies should be pursued.

Concurrent cisplatin/etoposide plus chest radiotherapy followed by surgery for stages IIIA (N2) and IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer: mature results of Southwest Oncology Group phase II study 8805.

PURPOSE To assess the feasibility of concurrent chemotherapy and irradiation (chemoRT) followed by surgery in locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a cooperative group setting, and to estimate response, resection rates, relapse patterns, and survival for stage subsets IIIA(N2) versus IIIB. PATIENTS AND METHODS Biopsy proof of either positive N2 nodes (IIIAN2) or of N3 nodes or T4 primary lesions (IIIB) was required. Induction was two cycles of cisplatin and etoposide plus concurrent chest RT to 45 Gy. Resection was attempted if response or stable disease occurred. A chemoRT boost was given if either unresectable disease or positive margins or nodes was found. RESULTS The median follow-up time for 126 eligible patients [75 stage IIIA(N2) and 51 IIIB] was 2.4 years. The objective response rate to induction was 59%, and 29% were stable. Resectability was 85% for the IIIA(N2) group eligible for surgery and 80% for the IIIB group. Reversible grade 4 toxicity occurred in 13% of patients. There were 13 treatment-related deaths (10%) and 19 others (15%) died of causes not related to toxicity or tumor. Of 65 relapses, 11% were only locoregional and 61% were only distant. There were 26 brain relapses, of which 19 were the sole site or cause of death. There was no survival difference (P = .81) between stage IIIA(N2) versus stage IIIB (median survivals, 13 and 17 months; 2-year survival rates, 37% and 39%; 3-year survival rates, 27% and 24%). The strongest predictor of long-term survival after thoracotomy was absence of tumor in the mediastinal nodes at surgery (median survivals, 30 v 10 months; 3-year survival rates, 44% v 18%; P = .0005). CONCLUSION This trimodality approach was feasible in this Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) study, with an encouraging 26% 3-year survival rate. An Intergroup study is currently being conducted to determine whether surgery adds more to the risk or to the benefit of chemoRT.

Radiotherapy plus chemotherapy with or without surgical resection for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Results from phase II studies in patients with stage IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer with ipsilateral mediastinal nodal metastases (N2) have shown the feasibility of resection after concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy with promising rates of survival. We therefore did this phase III trial to compare concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy followed by resection with standard concurrent chemotherapy and definitive radiotherapy without resection. METHODS Patients with stage T1-3pN2M0 non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to concurrent induction chemotherapy (two cycles of cisplatin [50 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 29, and 36] and etoposide [50 mg/m(2) on days 1-5 and 29-33]) plus radiotherapy (45 Gy) in multiple academic and community hospitals. If no progression, patients in group 1 underwent resection and those in group 2 continued radiotherapy uninterrupted up to 61 Gy. Two additional cycles of cisplatin and etoposide were given in both groups. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00002550. FINDINGS 202 patients (median age 59 years, range 31-77) were assigned to group 1 and 194 (61 years, 32-78) to group 2. Median OS was 23.6 months (IQR 9.0-not reached) in group 1 versus 22.2 months (9.4-52.7) in group 2 (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87 [0.70-1.10]; p=0.24). Number of patients alive at 5 years was 37 (point estimate 27%) in group 1 and 24 (point estimate 20%) in group 2 (odds ratio 0.63 [0.36-1.10]; p=0.10). With N0 status at thoracotomy, the median OS was 34.4 months (IQR 15.7-not reached; 19 [point estimate 41%] patients alive at 5 years). Progression-free survival (PFS) was better in group 1 than in group 2, median 12.8 months (5.3-42.2) vs 10.5 months (4.8-20.6), HR 0.77 [0.62-0.96]; p=0.017); the number of patients without disease progression at 5 years was 32 (point estimate 22%) versus 13 (point estimate 11%), respectively. Neutropenia and oesophagitis were the main grade 3 or 4 toxicities associated with chemotherapy plus radiotherapy in group 1 (77 [38%] and 20 [10%], respectively) and group 2 (80 [41%] and 44 [23%], respectively). In group 1, 16 (8%) deaths were treatment related versus four (2%) in group 2. In an exploratory analysis, OS was improved for patients who underwent lobectomy, but not pneumonectomy, versus chemotherapy plus radiotherapy. INTERPRETATION Chemotherapy plus radiotherapy with or without resection (preferably lobectomy) are options for patients with stage IIIA(N2) non-small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING National Cancer Institute, Canadian Cancer Society, and National Cancer Institute of Canada.

Increased Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Gene Copy Number Detected by Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization Associates With Increased Sensitivity to Gefitinib in Patients With Bronchioloalveolar Carcinoma Subtypes: A Southwest Oncology Group Study

PURPOSE Bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC) and adenocarcinomas with BAC features seem to be increasing in incidence, particularly in younger, never-smoking women. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors demonstrated response rates of 20% to 30% in patients with advanced BAC subtypes, but selection methods for patient therapy are not established. PATIENTS AND METHODS EGFR and HER2 gene copy numbers were assessed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in 81 patients treated with gefitinib 500 mg/d (Southwest Oncology Group protocol S0126) and were correlated to treatment outcome. Tumors were classified into two main strata: FISH-positive (high polysomy/gene amplification) and FISH-negative (disomy/low polysomy). RESULTS In 81 patients, the median survival time for EGFR/FISH-negative patients was 8 months and not yet reached for FISH-positive patients (but approaching 18 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 2.02; P = .042). Median progression-free survival time for EGFR/FISH-positive patients was 9 months versus 4 months for the FISH-negative patients (HR = 1.67; P = .072). In multivariate analysis, EGFR copy number by FISH remained a significant predictive factor for survival after accounting for smoking status, sex, histology, and performance status. Fifty-five patients were evaluated for response using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group, and 12 of 19 EGFR/FISH-positive patients (63%) demonstrated disease control versus 14 (39%) of 36 patients in the FISH-negative group (P = .087). No association was found between HER2 gene copy number and response (n = 39 patients) or survival (n = 56 patients; P > .10). CONCLUSION Increased EGFR gene copy number detected by FISH is associated with improved survival after gefitinib therapy in patients with advanced BAC, suggesting FISH methodology can be used to assess survival potential in patients treated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (OAK): a phase 3, open-label, multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Atezolizumab is a humanised antiprogrammed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody that inhibits PD-L1 and programmed death-1 (PD-1) and PD-L1 and B7-1 interactions, reinvigorating anticancer immunity. We assessed its efficacy and safety versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial (OAK) in 194 academic or community oncology centres in 31 countries. We enrolled patients who had squamous or non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, were 18 years or older, had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients had received one to two previous cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens (one or more platinum based combination therapies) for stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients with a history of autoimmune disease and those who had received previous treatments with docetaxel, CD137 agonists, anti-CTLA4, or therapies targeting the PD-L1 and PD-1 pathway were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenously receive either atezolizumab 1200 mg or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks by permuted block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive voice or web response system. Coprimary endpoints were overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1-expression population TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 (≥1% PD-L1 on tumour cells or tumour-infiltrating immune cells). The primary efficacy analysis was done in the first 850 of 1225 enrolled patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02008227. FINDINGS Between March 11, 2014, and April 29, 2015, 1225 patients were recruited. In the primary population, 425 patients were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab and 425 patients were assigned to receive docetaxel. Overall survival was significantly longer with atezolizumab in the ITT and PD-L1-expression populations. In the ITT population, overall survival was improved with atezolizumab compared with docetaxel (median overall survival was 13·8 months [95% CI 11·8-15·7] vs 9·6 months [8·6-11·2]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·62-0·87], p=0·0003). Overall survival in the TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 population was improved with atezolizumab (n=241) compared with docetaxel (n=222; median overall survival was 15·7 months [95% CI 12·6-18·0] with atezolizumab vs 10·3 months [8·8-12·0] with docetaxel; HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·58-0·93]; p=0·0102). Patients in the PD-L1 low or undetectable subgroup (TC0 and IC0) also had improved survival with atezolizumab (median overall survival 12·6 months vs 8·9 months; HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·59-0·96]). Overall survival improvement was similar in patients with squamous (HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·54-0·98]; n=112 in the atezolizumab group and n=110 in the docetaxel group) or non-squamous (0·73 [0·60-0·89]; n=313 and n=315) histology. Fewer patients had treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events with atezolizumab (90 [15%] of 609 patients) versus docetaxel (247 [43%] of 578 patients). One treatment-related death from a respiratory tract infection was reported in the docetaxel group. INTERPRETATION To our knowledge, OAK is the first randomised phase 3 study to report results of a PD-L1-targeted therapy, with atezolizumab treatment resulting in a clinically relevant improvement of overall survival versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer, regardless of PD-L1 expression or histology, with a favourable safety profile. FUNDING F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Inc.

Randomized trial comparing cisplatin with cisplatin plus vinorelbine in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group study.

PURPOSE Cisplatin has played a major role in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This randomized trial was performed by the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) to determine whether the combination of vinorelbine and cisplatin has any advantage with regard to response rate, survival, and time to treatment failure over single-agent cisplatin in the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS Between October 1993 and April 1995, 432 patients with advanced stage NSCLC were randomized to receive arm I (cisplatin 100 mg/m2 every 4 weeks) or arm II (cisplatin 100 mg/m2 every 4 weeks and vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 weekly). All patients were chemotherapy-naive, had performance status (PS) 0 or 1, and had adequate hematologic, renal, and hepatic function. RESULTS Four hundred fifteen patients were eligible and assessable. On arm I (cisplatin), there was a 12% partial response rate. Arm II (cisplatin and vinorelbine) had a 26% response rate (2% complete responses and 24% partial responses, P = .0002). There was a statistically significant advantage with regard to progression-free survival (median, 2 v 4 months; P = .0001) and overall survival (median, 6 v 8 months; P = .0018) for the cisplatin and vinorelbine arm. One-year survival was 20% for cisplatin alone and 36% for the combination arm. There was more hematologic toxicity on arm II of the study (81% grades 3 and 4 granulocytopenia v 5% on arm I). Other toxicities, such as renal insufficiency, ototoxicity, and nausea and vomiting, and neuropathy were similar. CONCLUSION The results of this study indicate that the combination of cisplatin and vinorelbine is a superior treatment when compared with single-agent cisplatin in the treatment of advanced NSCLC. Cisplatin and vinorelbine is the new standard for SWOG against which new therapies will be evaluated.

Proposal for classifying the acute emetogenicity of cancer chemotherapy.

PURPOSE To propose a classification of the acute emetogenicity of antineoplastic chemotherapy agents, and to develop an algorithm to define the emetogenicity of combination chemotherapy regimens. METHODS A Medline search was conducted to identify (1) clinical trials that used chemotherapy as single-agent therapy, and (2) major reviews of antiemetic therapy. The search was limited to patients who received commonly used doses of chemotherapy agents, primarily by short (< 3 hours) intravenous infusions. Based on review of this information and our collective clinical experience, we assigned chemotherapy agents to one of five emetogenic levels by consensus. A preliminary algorithm to determine the emetogenicity of combination chemotherapy regimens was then designed by consensus. A final algorithm was developed after we analyzed a data base composed of patients treated on the placebo arms of four randomized antiemetic trials. RESULTS Chemotherapy agents were divided into five levels: level 1 (< 10% of patients experience acute [< or = 24 hours after chemotherapy] emesis without antiemetic prophylaxis); level 2 (10% to 30%); level 3 (30% to 60%); level 4 (60% to 90%); and level 5 (> 90%). For combinations, the emetogenic level was determined by identifying the most emetogenic agent in the combination and then assessing the relative contribution of the other agents. The following rules apply: (1) level 1 agents do not contribute to the emetogenic level of a combination; (2) adding > or = one level 2 agent increases the emetogenicity of the combination by one level greater than the most emetogenic agent in the combination; and (3) adding level 3 or 4 agents increases the emetogenicity of the combination by one level per agent. CONCLUSION The proposed classification schema provides a practical means to determine the emetogenic potential of individual chemotherapy agents and combination regimens during the 24 hours after administration. This system can serve as a framework for the development of antiemetic guidelines.

Phase II Clinical Trial of Bevacizumab and Low-Dose Metronomic Oral Cyclophosphamide in Recurrent Ovarian Cancer: A Trial of the California, Chicago, and Princess Margaret Hospital Phase II Consortia

PURPOSE Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) plays an important role in the biology of ovarian cancer (OC). Inhibitors of VEGF suppress tumor growth in OC models. Metronomic chemotherapy, defined as frequent administration of low doses of cytotoxic chemotherapy, suppresses tumor growth, possibly by inhibiting angiogenesis. A phase II trial was conducted to evaluate the antitumor activity and adverse effects of bevacizumab and metronomic oral cyclophosphamide in women with recurrent OC. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with measurable disease and prior treatment with a platinum-containing regimen were eligible. Up to two different regimens for recurrent disease were allowed. Treatment consisted of bevacizumab 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks and oral cyclophosphamide 50 mg/d. The primary end point was progression-free survival at 6 months. Plasma levels of VEGF, E-selectin, and thrombospondin-1 were obtained serially. RESULTS Seventy patients were enrolled. The probability of being alive and progression free at 6 months was 56% (+/- 6% SE). A partial response was achieved in 17 patients (24%). Median time to progression and survival were 7.2 and 16.9 months, respectively. The most common serious toxicities were hypertension, fatigue, and pain. Bevacizumab-related toxicities included four episodes of gastrointestinal perforation or fistula, two episodes each of CNS ischemia and pulmonary hypertension, and one episode each of gastrointestinal bleeding and wound healing complication. There were three treatment-related deaths. Levels of VEGF, E-selectin, and thrombospondin-1 were not associated with clinical outcome. CONCLUSION The combination of bevacizumab and metronomic cyclophosphamide is active in recurrent OC. Further study of this combination is warranted.

Phase III Trial of Maintenance Gefitinib or Placebo After Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy and Docetaxel Consolidation in Inoperable Stage III Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: SWOG S0023

PURPOSE Early clinical studies with gefitinib showed promising efficacy and mild toxicity in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Thus, gefitinib was an ideal agent to evaluate in a maintenance setting in stage III disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS Untreated patients with stage III NSCLC, a performance score of 0 to 1, and adequate organ function were eligible. All patients received cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus etoposide 50 mg/m(2) on days 1 to 5, every 28 days for two cycles with concurrent thoracic radiation (1.8- to 2-Gy fractions per day; total dose, 61 Gy) followed by three cycles of docetaxel 75 mg/m(2). Patients whose disease did not progress were randomly assigned to gefitinib 250 mg/d or placebo until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or the end of 5 years. The planned sample size was 672 patients to confer power of 0.89 to detect a 33% increase over the expected median survival time of 21 months (one-sided P = .025, log-rank test). Random assignment was stratified by stage, histology, and measurable versus nonmeasurable disease. RESULTS Enrollment began in July 2001. An unplanned interim analysis conducted in April 2005 rejected the alternative hypothesis of improved survival at the P = .0015 level for 243 randomly assigned patients. The study closed, and preliminary results were reported. Now, with a median follow-up time of 27 months, median survival time was 23 months for gefitinib (n = 118) and 35 months for placebo (n = 125; two-sided P = .013). The toxic death rate was 2% with gefitinib compared with 0% for placebo. CONCLUSION In this unselected population, gefitinib did not improve survival. Decreased survival was a result of tumor progression and not gefitinib toxicity.