Joseph Treat

Tirapazamine Plus Cisplatin Versus Cisplatin in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Report of the International CATAPULT I Study Group

PURPOSE A phase III trial, Cisplatin and Tirapazamine in Subjects with Advanced Previously Untreated Non-Small-Cell Lung Tumors (CATAPULT I), was designed to determine the efficacy and safety of tirapazamine plus cisplatin for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with previously untreated NSCLC were randomized to receive either tirapazamine (390 mg/m(2) infused over 2 hours) followed 1 hour later by cisplatin (75 mg/m(2) over 1 hour) or 75 mg/m(2) of cisplatin alone, every 3 weeks for a maximum of eight cycles. RESULTS A total of 446 patients with NSCLC (17% with stage IIIB disease and pleural effusions; 83% with stage IV disease) were entered onto the study. Karnofsky performance status (KPS) was >/= 60 for all patients (for 10%, KPS = 60; for 90%, KPS = 70 to 100). Sixty patients (14%) had clinically stable brain metastases. The median survival was significantly longer (34.6 v 27. 7 weeks; P =.0078) and the response rate was significantly greater (27.5% v 13.7%; P <.001) for patients who received tirapazamine plus cisplatin (n = 218) than for those who received cisplatin alone (n = 219). The tirapazamine-plus-cisplatin regimen was associated with mild to moderate adverse events, including acute, reversible hearing loss, reversible, intermittent muscle cramping, diarrhea, skin rash, nausea, and vomiting. There were no incremental increases in myelosuppression, peripheral neuropathy, or renal, hepatic, or cardiac toxicity and no deaths related to tirapazamine. CONCLUSION The CATAPULT I study shows that tirapazamine enhances the activity of cisplatin in patients with advanced NSCLC and confirms that hypoxia is an exploitable therapeutic target in human malignancies.

PROCLAIM: Randomized Phase III Trial of Pemetrexed-Cisplatin or Etoposide-Cisplatin Plus Thoracic Radiation Therapy Followed by Consolidation Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced Nonsquamous Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE The phase III PROCLAIM study evaluated overall survival (OS) of concurrent pemetrexed-cisplatin and thoracic radiation therapy (TRT) followed by consolidation pemetrexed, versus etoposide-cisplatin and TRT followed by nonpemetrexed doublet consolidation therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with stage IIIA/B unresectable nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer randomly received (1:1) pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) intravenously every 3 weeks for three cycles plus concurrent TRT (60 to 66 Gy) followed by pemetrexed consolidation every 3 weeks for four cycles (arm A), or standard therapy with etoposide 50 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) intravenously, every 4 weeks for two cycles plus concurrent TRT (60 to 66 Gy) followed by two cycles of consolidation platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (arm B). The primary objective was OS. The study was designed as a superiority trial with 80% power to detect an OS hazard ratio of 0.74 with a type 1 error of .05. RESULTS Enrollment was stopped early because of futility. Five hundred ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned (301 to arm A, 297 to arm B) and 555 patients (283 in arm A, 272 in arm B) were treated. Arm A was not superior to arm B in terms of OS (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.20; median, 26.8 v 25.0 months; P = .831). Arm A had a significantly lower incidence of any drug-related grade 3 to 4 adverse events (64.0% v 76.8%; P = .001), including neutropenia (24.4% v 44.5%; P < .001), during the overall treatment period. CONCLUSION Pemetrexed-cisplatin combined with TRT followed by consolidation pemetrexed was not superior to standard chemoradiotherapy for stage III unresectable nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

Tirapazamine with cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase II study.

PURPOSE A phase II study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of tirapazamine combined with cisplatin for the treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Forty-four patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC were treated with a combination of tirapazamine and cisplatin. Patients received tirapazamine 260 mg/m2 administered intravenously over 2 hours, followed 1 hour later by cisplatin 75 mg/m2 administered over an additional hour, repeated every 21 days. The duration of therapy was meant to be limited to four cycles for nonresponders and eight cycles for responders. RESULTS Ten of 44 patients (23%) showed a partial response. The estimated median survival for all patients was 37 weeks. Toxicities were treatable and included grade 3 nausea or vomiting (25%), fatigue (27.3%), and muscle cramps (4.5%). No dose reductions were necessary. CONCLUSION The results show that tirapazamine can safely be added to cisplatin. Both the median survival and response rate observed strongly suggest that tirapazamine with cisplatin is more active than cisplatin alone.

PRONOUNCE: Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Study of First-Line Pemetrexed + Carboplatin Followed by Maintenance Pemetrexed versus Paclitaxel + Carboplatin + Bevacizumab Followed by Maintenance Bevacizumab in Patients ith Advanced Nonsquamous Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Introduction: PRONOUNCE compared the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed+carboplatin followed by pemetrexed (Pem+Cb) with paclitaxel+carboplatin+bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab (Pac+Cb+Bev) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Patients ≥18 years of age with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC (American Joint Committee on Cancer v7.0), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1 were randomized (1:1) to four cycles of induction Pem+Cb (pemetrexed, 500 mg/m2, carboplatin, area under the curve = 6) followed by Pem maintenance or Pac+Cb+Bev (paclitaxel, 200 mg/m2, carboplatin, area under the curve = 6, and bevacizumab, 15 mg/kg) followed by Bev maintenance in the absence of progressive disease or discontinuation. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) without grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS). Secondary end points were PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Resource utilization was also assessed. Results: Baseline characteristics of the patients randomized to Pem+Cb (N = 182) and Pac+Cb+Bev (N = 179) were well balanced between the arms. Median (months) G4PFS was 3.91 for Pem+Cb and 2.86 for Pac+Cb+Bev (hazard ratio = 0.85, 90% confidence interval, 0.7–1.04; p = 0.176); PFS, OS, ORR, or DCR did not differ significantly between the arms. Significantly more drug-related grade 3/4 anemia (18.7% versus 5.4%) and thrombocytopenia (24.0% versus 9.6%) were reported for Pem+Cb. Significantly more grade 3/4 neutropenia (48.8% versus 24.6%), grade 1/2 alopecia (28.3% versus 8.2%), and grade 1/2 sensory neuropathy were reported for Pac+Cb+Bev. Number of hospitalizations and overall length of stay did not differ significantly between the arms. Conclusions: Pem+Cb did not produce significantly better G4PFS compared with Pac+Cb+Bev. Pem+Cb was not superior in PFS, OS, ORR, or DCR compared with Pac+Cb+Bev. Both regimens were well tolerated, although, toxicity profiles differed.

A randomized, phase III multicenter trial of gemcitabine in combination with carboplatin or paclitaxel versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND Paclitaxel-carboplatin is used as the standard regimen for patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This trial was designed to compare gemcitabine + carboplatin or gemcitabine + paclitaxel to the standard regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 1135 chemonaive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomly allocated to receive gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) 5.5 on day 1 (GC), gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) on day 1 (GP), or paclitaxel 225 mg/m(2) plus carboplatin AUC 6.0 on day 1 (PC). Stratification was based on disease stage, baseline weight loss, and presence or absence of brain metastases. Cycles were repeated every 21 days for up to six cycles or disease progression. RESULTS Median survival (months) with GC was 7.9 compared with 8.5 for GP and 8.7 for PC. Response rates (RRs) were as follows: GC, 25.3%; GP, 32.1%; and PC, 29.8%. The GC arm was associated with a greater incidence of grade 3 or 4 hematologic events but a lower rate of neurotoxicity and alopecia when compared with GP and PC. CONCLUSIONS Non-platinum and non-paclitaxel gemcitabine-containing doublets demonstrate similar overall survival and RR compared with the standard PC regimen. However, the treatment arms had distinct toxicity profiles.

PROCLAIM: A Phase III Study of Pemetrexed, Cisplatin, and Radiation Therapy Followed by Consolidation Pemetrexed Versus Etoposide, Cisplatin, and Radiation Therapy Followed by Consolidation Cytotoxic Chemotherapy of Choice in Locally Advanced Stage III Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer of Other than Predominantly Squamous Cell Histology

This clinical trial summary provides the background and rationale for a randomized trial examining the benefits of pemetrexed/ cisplatin chemotherapy combined with radiation followed by consolidation pemetrexed in patients with unresectable stage IIIA/B non-small-cell lung cancer. The rationale for the selection of the control arm is provided, and study design limitations are discussed. The primary outcome is survival, and secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, toxicities, and 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival rates. Radiation quality control is a key component of the trial.

Phase II Study of Paclitaxel, Carboplatin, and Cetuximab as First Line Treatment, for Patients with Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): Results of OPN-017

Background: Cetuximab has demonstrated synergy with taxanes in preclinical models; as well as single agent activity. We assessed the activity of cetuximab with carboplatin and paclitaxel given on a 4-week schedule, in advanced, chemo-naive non-small cell lung cancer. Patients and Methods: This phase II, single arm, multi-institution study featured standard dosage of cetuximab 400 mg/m2 day 1, then 250 mg/m2 with paclitaxel (100 mg/m2/wk, for 3 weeks), and carboplatin (area under curve = 6) day 1 of each 28 day cycle. After 4 to 6 cycles, in the absence of disease progression or excess toxicity, cetuximab was continued weekly. Primary end point was response rate. Results: Fifty-three patients (median age 63, 51% male) participated. Response rate was 57% (3 complete response and 27 partial response). At a median follow-up of 12.5 months, the estimated overall survival is 13.8 months (95% CI: 9.08–16.02) with an event-free survival rate of 5.53 months (95% CI: 4.77–7.99), 18.9% remain free from progression at 1 year. Improved survival was associated with female gender, absence of prior radiation, PS 0 and epidermal growth factor receptor expression. Toxicities included rash (28% grade 3), nail changes (3.7% grade 3), hypomagnesemia (7.5% grade 3 and 3.7% grade 4), and neutropenia (25% grade 3 and 13% grade 4) in addition to other typical side effects anticipated with paclitaxel/carboplatin. There were no grade 5 toxicities. Conclusion: Combination of cetuximab/paclitaxel/carboplatin in non-small cell lung cancer was well tolerated and clinically active with manageable toxicities. This unique schedule, integrating weekly paclitaxel and cetuximab has not yet been tested in a randomized trial.

A retrospective analysis of outcomes by age in a three-arm phase III trial of gemcitabine in combination with carboplatin or paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel plus carboplatin for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

PURPOSE Sufficient data are currently unavailable to assist in defining suitable regimens for patients ≥ 70 years with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS Chemonaïve patients with a performance status (PS) of 0 or 1 and stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomized to gemcitabine 1000mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 5.5 on day 1; the same schedule of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel 200mg/m(2) on day 1; or paclitaxel 225mg/m(2) on day 1 plus carboplatin AUC 6.0 on day 1. Cycles were every 21 days up to 6. Efficacy and toxicity results were compared by age groups. RESULTS Overall survival (OS) between patients <70 years (8.6 months, 95% CI: 7.9, 9.5) and ≥ 70 years (7.9 months, 95% CI: 7.1, 9.5) was similar. OS was 8.8 months (95% CI: 7.5, 10.3) among patients 70-74 years, 6.5 months (95% CI: 5.6, 9.3) among patients 75-79 years, and 7.9 months (95% CI: 6.3, 10.3) among patients ≥ 80 years. OS was lower among patients 75-79 years compared with patients 70-74 years (P=0.04). Compared with patients <70 years, patients ≥ 70 years experienced similar rates of myelosuppresion, but younger patients experienced more vomiting and nausea. There was no clear pattern with respect to differences in efficacy by treatments across age groups. CONCLUSIONS Based on the similarity of patient outcomes across age groups, doublet chemotherapy is feasible among carefully selected elderly patients with good PS.

Trends and predictors of first-line chemotherapy use among elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

PURPOSE This study assessed first-line chemotherapy treatment patterns over time and identified predictors of chemotherapy use and treatment selection among elderly patients with newly diagnosed Stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the United States. METHODS Patients aged 65 years and older newly diagnosed with Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC between 1997 and 2002 were identified and followed through 2003 using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database to evaluate temporal trends in chemotherapy treatment. Multivariate logistic regression models were estimated to identify predictors of chemotherapy treatment and factors associated with use of cisplatin/carboplatin (platinum) and either a taxane or gemcitabine versus other treatments. RESULTS Chemotherapy use increased from approximately 28% of Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients diagnosed in 1997 to 36% of patients diagnosed in 2002. Doublet therapy was most commonly used as first-line therapy, received by 74% of chemotherapy-treated patients across all study years. Use of doublet therapy with platinum and either a taxane or gemcitabine also increased over time (with the largest increase for gemcitabine combinations from 0.3% in 1997 to 11.8% in 2002). Males were more likely than females to be treated with chemotherapy (odds ratios [95% CI]: 1.14 [1.06-1.22]), as were patients in the Northeast and South relative to patients in the West (1.24 [1.13-1.36] and 1.33 [1.20-1.47], respectively). CONCLUSION Use of first-line chemotherapy treatment among elderly Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients is low, but appears to be increasing, with potential regional and gender differences in treatment. These findings are likely to be of interest to clinicians and policymakers.

A pilot study of systemic corticosteroid administration in conjunction with intrapleural adenoviral vector administration in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma.

One of the primary limitations of adenoviral (Ad)-mediated gene therapy is the generation of anti-Ad inflammatory responses that can induce clinical toxicity and impair gene transfer efficacy. The effects of immunosuppression on these inflammatory responses, transgene expression, and toxicity have not yet been systematically examined in humans undergoing Ad-based gene therapy trials. We therefore conducted a pilot study investigating the use of systemic corticosteroids to mitigate antivector immune responses. In a previous phase I clinical trial, we demonstrated that Ad-mediated intrapleural delivery of the herpes simplex virus thymidine kinase gene (HSVtk) to patients with mesothelioma resulted in significant, but relatively superficial, HSVtk gene transfer and marked anti-Ad humoral and cellular immune responses . When a similar group of patients was treated with Ad.HSVtk and a brief course of corticosteroids, decreased clinical inflammatory responses were seen, but there was no demonstrable inhibition of anti-Ad antibody production or Ad-induced peripheral blood mononuclear cell activation. Corticosteroid administration also had no apparent effect on the presence of intratumoral gene transfer. Although limited by the small numbers of patients studied, our data suggest that systemic administration of steroids in the context of Ad-based gene delivery may limit acute clinical toxicity, but may not inhibit cellular and humoral responses to Ad vectors. Cancer Gene Therapy (2000) 7, 1511–1518.