F. De Marinis

Gemcitabine and cisplatin versus mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A randomized phase III study of the Italian Lung Cancer Project.

PURPOSE To compare gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) with mitomycin, ifosfamide, and cisplatin (MIC) chemotherapy in patients with stage IIIB (limited to T4 for pleural effusion and N3 for supraclavicular lymph nodes) or stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The end points were the evaluation of quality of life (QoL), response rates, survival, and toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS Three hundred seven patients were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 2, every 28 days, or mitomycin 6 mg/m(2), ifosfamide 3,000 mg/m(2), and mesna on day 1 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 2, every 28 days. The whole-blood cell count was repeated on day 1 in both arms and weekly in the GC arm before each gemcitabine administration. RESULTS No major differences in changes in QoL were observed between the two treatment arms. The objective response rate was 38% in the GC arm compared with 26% in the MIC arm (P =.029). The median survival time was 8.6 months in the GC arm and 9.6 months in the MIC arm (P =.877, log-rank test). Grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia was significantly worse in the GC arm (64% v 28%, P <.001), whereas grade 3 and 4 alopecia was reported more commonly in the MIC arm (39% v 12%, P <. 001). CONCLUSION We report an increased response rate without changes in QoL and a similar overall survival, time to progression, and time to treatment failure for the GC when compared with the MIC regimen in the treatment of advanced NSCLC.

Vinorelbine is well tolerated and active in the treatment of elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. A two-stage phase II study.

More than 30% of lung cancers arise in patients aged 70 years or more; however, because elderly patients are not considered to tolerate chemotherapy, they are generally excluded from clinical trials and are not considered eligible for aggressive cisplatin-based chemotherapy in clinical practice. The aims of the present study were to test tolerability and activity of weekly vinorelbine in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients aged 70 years or more, and to define whether minimum conditions existed for a randomised comparison with best supportive care. The study was designed as a multicentre two-stage phase II trial according to Simons optimal design: 8 or more responses out of 43 treated patients were expected at the end of the trial. Patients aged 70 years or more were eligible if they had a cytological or histological diagnosis of NSCLC at stage IIIb-IV and a performance status less than or equal to two according to the ECOG scale. Vinorelbine was given intravenously (i.v.) at a dose of 30 mg/m2 every week for 12 doses. As planned, 43 patients entered the study; median age was 73 years (range 70-80); 11 patients were older than 75 years. Median dose-intensity (mg/m2/week) of vinorelbine was 21.2 (range 7.5-30) and was not affected by age of patients. Toxicity was generally mild, mainly haematological and never life-threatening. ECOG performance status improved in 26% of patients; cough and pain improved in more than 40% of patients symptomatic at entry, while dyspnoea improved in 28%; approximately half the patients had a stabilisation of their symptoms. 10 patients (23-95% exact confidence interval (CI): 12-39%) obtained a partial response. Median time to progression was 11 weeks (95% CI 8-30) and median survival 36 weeks (95% CI 28-53). One-year estimated progression-free and overall survival rates are 16% and 36%, respectively. In conclusion, vinorelbine was well tolerated and active in the treatment of elderly NSCLC patients. A phase III trial (ELVIS-Elderly Lung Cancer Vinorelbine Italian Study) comparing best supportive care versus best supportive care plus vinorelbine is now ongoing.

Gefitinib as first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with activating epidermal growth factor receptor mutation: Review of the evidence

Gefitinib is a small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Since 2004, it was clear that a substantial proportion of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLC) obtaining objective response when treated with gefitinib harbour activating mutations in the EGFR gene. Consequently, EGFR mutation has been widely studied, together with other molecular characteristics, as a potential predictive factor for gefitinib efficacy. As of August 2010, four East Asian randomized phase III trials comparing gefitinib to platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) eligible for first-line treatment have been reported or published. Two of these trials were conducted without a molecular selection in patients with clinical characteristics (adenocarcinoma histology, never or light smoking) characterized by higher prevalence of EGFR mutation. In patients selected for the presence of tumor harbouring EGFR mutation, the administration of first-line gefitinib, as compared to standard chemotherapy, was associated with longer progression-free survival, higher objective response rate, a more favourable toxicity profile and better quality of life. The relevant improvement in progression-free survival with first-line administration of gefitinib has been confirmed in the other two randomized trials, dedicated to cases with EGFR mutation. In July 2009, European Medicines Agency granted marketing authorization for gefitinib for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with sensitizing mutations of the EGFR gene, across all lines of therapy. Gefitinib currently represents the best first-line treatment option for this molecularly selected subgroup of patients.

A three-week schedule of gemcitabine-cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with two different cisplatin dose levels: a phase II randomized trial.

BACKGROUND To explore a new schedule of gemcitabine-cisplatin (GP) combination therapy using two different cisplatin doses in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS From May to December 1997, 92 chemonaive patients entered the study and 88 (28 with locally advanced and 60 with disseminated NSCLC) were evaluable for response and toxicity (45 in arm A and 43 in arm B). Patients were randomly assigned to arm A or arm B. Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 was given on days 1-8 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m2 in arm A and cisplatin 70 mg/m2 in arm B on day 2 of every 21-day cycle. RESULTS The overall response rates in arms A and B were 42% (95% confidence interval (CI): 27.8%-56.7%) and 47% (95% CI: 31.6%-61.5%), respectively. Median duration of response was 9.7 months (range 1.8 to 30.9 months; 13.1 and 9.5 months for arm A and B, respectively), and median survival was 12 months (range 0.2 to 31.1 months; 15.4 and 11.5 months for arm A and B, respectively). Major WHO grade 3-4 toxicities in arm A vs. arm B included: thrombocytopenia (23% vs. 17% of courses), leukopenia (15%, vs. 4% of courses), anemia (7% vs. 6% of courses), and nausea-vomiting (20% vs. 7% of patients). Grade 1-2 nephrotoxicity occurred in 20% of patients in arm A and in 7% of patients in arm B, with one grade 4 episode in arm A. Six patients discontinued treatment because of toxicities, 5 in arm A and I in arm B. CONCLUSIONS Results of this trial indicate that both schedules are feasible and active, with a milder toxicity in the arm with the lower cisplatin dose.

Sorafenib in combination with erlotinib or with gemcitabine in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized phase II study

BACKGROUND Sorafenib is a small-molecule multitargeted kinase inhibitor that blocks the activation of C-RAF, B-RAF, c-KIT, FLT-3, RET, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR-2), VEGFR-3 and platelet-derived growth factor receptor β. The aim of this multicenter, randomized phase II study was to evaluate clinical activity and safety of sorafenib in combination with erlotinib or gemcitabine in unselected untreated elderly patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS The trial was designed to select the most promising sorafenib-containing combination in previously untreated elderly (≥70 years) stage IIIB or IV NSCLC patients, with performance status of zero to two. Patients were randomly assigned to one of the following combinations: gemcitabine, 1200 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8, every 21 days, for a maximum of six cycles, plus sorafenib, 800 mg/day, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (arm 1); or erlotinib, 150 mg/day, plus sorafenib, 800 mg/day, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (arm 2). A selection design was applied with 1-year survival rate as the primary end point of the study, requiring 58 patients. RESULTS Sixty patients were randomly allocated to the study (31 patients in arm 1 and 29 patients in arm 2). After a median follow-up of 15 months, 10 patients [32%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 16% to 49%] in arm 1 and 13 patients (45%, 95% CI 27% to 63%) in arm 2 were alive at 1 year. Median overall survival was 6.6 and 12.6 months in arm 1 and arm 2, respectively. Observed toxic effects were consistent with the expected drug profiles. CONCLUSIONS The combination of erlotinib and sorafenib was feasible in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC and was associated with a higher 1-year survival rate than the other arm. According to the selection design, this combination warrants further investigation in phase III trials.

Gefitinib as first-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with activating Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor mutation: implications for clinical practice and open issues.

Randomized trials comparing gefitinib with chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with EGFR mutated advanced NSCLC support gefitinib as a new, highly effective treatment option in this setting. However, its use in clinical practice has several relevant implications and open issues. In order to choose the best treatment, a molecular characterization is now mandatory, as part of baseline diagnostic procedures. Every effort should be made in order to obtain sufficient tissue. If a clinical enrichment has to be performed for selecting patients to test for EGFR mutation, a reasonable proposal is to test all non-squamous tumors, and patients with squamous tumors only if never smokers. In patients with EGFR mutated tumor, one major issue is the decision about immediate use of gefitinib as first-line, or after failure of standard chemotherapy. First-line gefitinib, compared to chemotherapy, is associated with longer progression-free survival, higher response rate, better toxicity profile and quality of life, and its administration as first-line warrants that all patients have the chance of receiving an EGFR inhibitor. Evidence about the efficacy of erlotinib in the same setting will be soon available, however, at the moment, there are no direct comparisons between gefitinib and erlotinib in EGFR mutated patients. Treatment with gefitinib is usually well tolerated. Typical side effects in most cases are of mild to moderate intensity, and usually manageable with temporary interruption of treatment. When indicated gefitinib appears feasible also in special populations, like elderly or unfit patients, characterized by a significantly poorer risk/benefit ratio with standard chemotherapy. Personalized medicine for patients with lung cancer is now a reality, and patients with EGFR mutation should be treated with first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Prognostic factors in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: data from the phase III FLEX study.

The FLEX study demonstrated that the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the FLEX intention to treat (ITT) population, we investigated the prognostic significance of particular baseline characteristics. Individual patient data from the treatment arms of the ITT population of the FLEX study were combined. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were used to investigate variables with potential prognostic value. The ITT population comprised 1125 patients. In the univariable analysis, longer median survival times were apparent for females compared with males (12.7 vs 9.3 months); patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 compared with 1 compared with 2 (13.5 vs 10.6 vs 5.9 months); never smokers compared with former smokers compared with current smokers (14.6 vs 11.1 vs 9.0); Asians compared with Caucasians (19.5 vs 9.6 months); patients with adenocarcinoma compared with squamous cell carcinoma (12.4 vs 9.3 months) and those with metastases to one site compared with two sites compared with three or more sites (12.4 months vs 9.8 months vs 6.4 months). Age (<65 vs ≥65 years), tumor stage (IIIB with pleural effusion vs IV) and percentage of tumor cells expressing EGFR (<40% vs ≥40%) were not identified as possible prognostic factors in relation to survival time. In multivariable analysis, a stepwise selection procedure identified age (<65 vs ≥65 years), gender, ECOG PS, smoking status, region, tumor histology, and number of organs involved as independent factors of prognostic value. In summary, in patients with advanced NSCLC enrolled in the FLEX study, and consistent with previous analyses, particular patient and disease characteristics at baseline were shown to be independent factors of prognostic value. The FLEX study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798.

Zoledronic acid in patients with stage IIIA/B NSCLC: results of a randomized, phase III study

BACKGROUND Bone metastases are common in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and can have devastating consequences. Preventing or delaying bone metastases may improve outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS This study evaluated whether zoledronic acid (ZOL) delayed disease progression or recurrence in patients with controlled stage IIIA/B NSCLC after first-line therapy. Patients received vitamin D and calcium supplementation and were randomized to i.v. ZOL (every 3-4 weeks) or no treatment (control). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS No significant intergroup differences were observed in PFS or overall survival (OS). Median PFS was 9.0 months with ZOL versus 11.3 months for control. Fifteen ZOL-treated (6.6%) and 19 control patients (9.0%) developed bone metastases. Estimated 1-year OS was 81.8% for each group. ZOL safety profile was consistent with previous clinical data, but with higher discontinuations versus control. Fifteen ZOL-treated (6.6%) and five control patients (2.3%) had renal adverse events. Two cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw were reported. CONCLUSIONS ZOL did not significantly affect PFS or OS in stage IIIA/B NSCLC patients with controlled disease, with a trend toward worsening PFS in the longer-term follow-up. Few patients experienced bone metastases, possibly limiting the potential ZOL impact on disease course.BACKGROUND Bone metastases are common in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and can have devastating consequences. Preventing or delaying bone metastases may improve outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS This study evaluated whether zoledronic acid (ZOL) delayed disease progression or recurrence in patients with controlled stage IIIA/B NSCLC after first-line therapy. Patients received vitamin D and calcium supplementation and were randomized to i.v. ZOL (every 3-4 weeks) or no treatment (control). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS No significant intergroup differences were observed in PFS or overall survival (OS). Median PFS was 9.0 months with ZOL versus 11.3 months for control. Fifteen ZOL-treated (6.6%) and 19 control patients (9.0%) developed bone metastases. Estimated 1-year OS was 81.8% for each group. ZOL safety profile was consistent with previous clinical data, but with higher discontinuations versus control. Fifteen ZOL-treated (6.6%) and five control patients (2.3%) had renal adverse events. Two cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw were reported. CONCLUSIONS ZOL did not significantly affect PFS or OS in stage IIIA/B NSCLC patients with controlled disease, with a trend toward worsening PFS in the longer-term follow-up. Few patients experienced bone metastases, possibly limiting the potential ZOL impact on disease course.

CNS response to osimertinib in patients with T790M-positive advanced NSCLC: pooled data from two phase II trials

Background Central nervous system (CNS) metastases are common in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Osimertinib has shown systemic efficacy in patients with CNS metastases, and early clinical evidence shows efficacy in the CNS. To evaluate osimertinib activity further, we present a pre-specified subgroup analysis of CNS response using pooled data from two phase II studies: AURA extension (NCT01802632) and AURA2 (NCT02094261). Patients and methods Patients with T790M-positive advanced NSCLC, who had progressed following prior epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment, received osimertinib 80 mg od (n = 411). Patients with stable, asymptomatic CNS metastases were eligible for enrolment; prior CNS treatment was allowed. Patients with ≥1 measurable CNS lesion (per RECIST 1.1) on baseline brain scan by blinded independent central neuroradiology review (BICR) were included in the evaluable for CNS response set (cEFR). The primary outcome for this CNS analysis was CNS objective response rate (ORR) by BICR; secondary outcomes included CNS duration of response, disease control rate (DCR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results Of 128 patients with CNS metastases on baseline brain scans, 50 were included in the cEFR. Confirmed CNS ORR and DCR were 54% [27/50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 39-68] and 92% (46/50; 95% CI 81-98), respectively. CNS response was observed regardless of prior radiotherapy to the brain. Median CNS duration of response (22% maturity) was not reached (range, 1-15 months); at 9 months, 75% (95% CI 53-88) of patients were estimated to remain in response. Median follow-up for CNS PFS was 11 months; median CNS PFS was not reached (95% CI, 7, not calculable). The safety profile observed in the cEFR was consistent with the overall patient population. Conclusions Osimertinib demonstrated clinically meaningful efficacy against CNS metastases, with a high DCR, encouraging ORR, and safety profile consistent with that reported previously. ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01802632; NCT02094261.

Does second-line therapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) result in symptom palliation? Analysis of 484 patients from a randomized trial of pemetrexed vs docetaxel

7035 Background: Second-line treatment for NSCLC patients (pts) with good performance status improves survival. Using the recent trial comparing survival with pemetrexed (500 mg/m2 q3wks) vs docetaxel (75 mg/m2 q3wks) we evaluated the benefit of second-line treatment in terms of palliation, and whether it occurs with less than a major response. METHODS 571 previously treated advanced NSCLC pts, randomized from 3/01 to 2/02, completed the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) which assesses quality of life and 6 symptoms with scores from 0 to 100. Analysis was performed on pts who had data from baseline and ≥1 treatment cycle. Pts were grouped by best overall response: complete or partial, or stable disease (CR/PR/SD) vs progressive disease (PD). A two-factor interaction model with treatment and tumor response as factors was used for analysis. RESULTS Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between treatment arms with 75% Stage IV and 88% ECOG PS 0/1. Survival time and response rate with pemetrexed were similar to docetaxel (median 8.3 vs 7.9 months [HR 0.99 (95% CI 0.82, 1.20)]; 9.1 vs 8.8%). SD rate was 46% for each arm. 484 pts were included in the LCSS analyses. Baseline LCSS scores were similar between arms. All within-arm improvements were significant except for hemoptysis in docetaxel arm; all between-arm comparisons were not. When pts with CR/PR were divided from those with SD and treatment groups were pooled, mean maximum improvement of Average Symptom Burden Index (average of 6 symptoms) was greater for those CR/PR than those with SD (9.9 vs 4.3); those with PD worsened (-3.7). [Figure: see text] Conclusions: We conclude that: 1) Symptomatic benefit is achieved in pts with advanced NSCLC receiving second-line single-agent chemotherapy; 2) Pts achieving tumor response or stable disease have a greater likelihood of pt-reported benefit than pts with progressive disease; and 3) Pemetrexed and docetaxel are similarly effective in palliating symptoms. [Table: see text].