Marcus A. Neubauer

Phase III Study of Cisplatin, Etoposide, and Concurrent Chest Radiation With or Without Consolidation Docetaxel in Patients With Inoperable Stage III Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The Hoosier Oncology Group and U.S. Oncology

PURPOSE Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is standard treatment for patients with inoperable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A phase II study by the Southwest Oncology Group using consolidation docetaxel after cisplatin (P), etoposide (E), and radiation (XRT) resulted in a median survival time (MST) of 26 months. This randomized phase III trial evaluated whether consolidation docetaxel was responsible for this improved survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients had stage IIIA or IIIB NSCLC, baseline performance status of 0 to 1, forced expiratory volume in 1 second >or= 1 L, and less than 5% weight loss. Patients received P 50 mg/m(2) intravenously (IV) on days 1, 8, 29, and 36 and E 50 mg/m(2) IV on days 1-5 and 29-33 concurrently with chest XRT to 59.40 Gy. Patients who did not experience progression were randomly assigned to docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) IV every 21 days for three cycles versus observation. The primary end point was to compare overall survival (Kaplan-Meier analysis). RESULTS On the basis of evidence of futility, a data and safety monitoring board recommended early termination after an analysis of the initial 203 patients. Patient characteristics (n = 203) were as follows: 34% female; median age, 63 years; 39.4% stage IIIA; and 60.6% stage IIIB. One hundred forty-seven (72.4%) of 203 patients were randomly assigned to docetaxel (n = 73) or observation (n = 74). Grade 3 to 5 toxicities during docetaxel included febrile neutropenia (10.9%) and pneumonitis (9.6%); 28.8% of patients were hospitalized during docetaxel (v 8.1% in observation arm), and 5.5% died as a result of docetaxel. The MST for all patients (n = 203) was 21.7 months; MST was 21.2 months for docetaxel arm compared with 23.2 months for observation arm (P = .883). CONCLUSION Consolidation docetaxel after PE/XRT results in increased toxicities but does not further improve survival compared with PE/XRT alone in patients with stage III inoperable NSCLC.

Phase III Study of Iniparib Plus Gemcitabine and Carboplatin Versus Gemcitabine and Carboplatin in Patients With Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

PURPOSE There is a lack of treatments providing survival benefit for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC), with no standard of care. A randomized phase II trial showed significant benefit for gemcitabine, carboplatin, and iniparib (GCI) over gemcitabine and carboplatin (GC) in clinical benefit rate, response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Here, we formally compare the efficacy of these regimens in a phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with stage IV/locally recurrent TNBC who had received no more than two previous chemotherapy regimens for mTNBC were randomly allocated to gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) and carboplatin area under the curve 2 (days 1 and 8) alone or GC plus iniparib 5.6 mg/kg (days 1, 4, 8, and 11) every 3 weeks. Random assignment was stratified by the number of prior chemotherapies. The coprimary end points were OS and PFS. Patients receiving GC could cross over to iniparib on progression. RESULTS Five hundred nineteen patients were randomly assigned (261 GCI; 258 GC). In the primary analysis, no statistically significant difference was observed for OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.12; P = .28) nor PFS (HR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.98; P = .027). An exploratory analysis showed that patients in the second-/third-line had improved OS (HR = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.91) and PFS (HR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.92) with GCI. The safety profile for GCI was similar to GC. CONCLUSION The trial did not meet the prespecified criteria for the coprimary end points of PFS and OS in the ITT population. The potential benefit with iniparib observed in second-/third-line subgroup warrants further evaluation.

Randomized Phase II Trial of Erlotinib With and Without Entinostat in Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Who Progressed on Prior Chemotherapy

PURPOSE Histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACis) have been shown to overcome resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) linked to epigenetic changes and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) state. This randomized phase II study evaluated the outcome of erlotinib with and without the isoform selective HDACi, entinostat. PATIENTS AND METHODS Previously treated patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer, no prior EGFR-TKIs, and performance status ≤ 2 were randomly administered erlotinib 150 mg on days 1 through 28 plus entinostat 10 mg orally on days 1 and 15 every 28 days (EE) or erlotinib plus placebo (EP). The primary end point was 4-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate with additional end points including 6-month PFS rate, PFS, and overall survival (OS). Exploratory analyses included EMT- and EGFR-related biomarker analysis on archival tissue. RESULTS One hundred thirty-two patients were enrolled (EE, 67; EP, 65). The 4-month PFS rate was comparable for both groups (EE, 18% v EP, 20%; P = .7). In the subset of patients with high E-cadherin levels, OS was longer in the EE group compared with the EP group (9.4 v 5.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.92; P = .03) with a corresponding trend toward increased PFS. The adverse event (AE) profile was acceptable, with rash, fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea the most common AEs in both groups. CONCLUSION Erlotinib combined with entinostat did not improve the outcomes of patients in the overall study population when compared with erlotinib monotherapy. High E-cadherin expression levels at time of diagnosis indicate an increased sensitivity to HDACi/EGFR-TKI inhibition providing the basis for a biomarker-driven validation study.

Cost Effectiveness of Evidence-Based Treatment Guidelines for the Treatment of Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the Community Setting

PURPOSE The goal of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Level I Pathways, a program designed to ensure the delivery of evidence-based care, among patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated in the outpatient community setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS We included patients with NSCLC initiating a chemotherapy regimen between July 1, 2006, and December 31, 2007, at eight practices in the US Oncology network. Patients were characterized with respect to age, sex, stage, performance status, and line of therapy and were classified by whether they were treated according to Level I Pathways guidelines. Twelve-month cost of care and overall survival were compared between patients treated on Pathway and off Pathway. A net monetary benefit approach and corresponding cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Level I Pathways. RESULTS Overall, outpatient costs were 35% lower for on-Pathway versus off-Pathway patients (average 12-month cost,

Pathways, Outcomes, and Costs in Colon Cancer: Retrospective Evaluations in Two Distinct Databases

18,042 v

Phase II Trial of Capecitabine and Weekly Paclitaxel As First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Breast Cancer

27,737, respectively). Costs remained significantly less for patients treated on Pathway versus off Pathway in the adjuvant and first-line settings, whereas no difference in overall cost was observed in patients in the second-line setting. No difference in overall survival was observed overall or by line of therapy. In the net monetary benefit analysis, after adjusting for potential confounders, we found that treating patients on Pathway was cost effective across a plausible range of willingness-to-pay thresholds. CONCLUSIONS Results of this study suggest that treating patients according to evidence-based guidelines is a cost-effective strategy for delivering care to those with NSCLC.

Docetaxel or pemetrexed with or without cetuximab in recurrent or progressive non-small-cell lung cancer after platinum-based therapy: a phase 3, open-label, randomised trial

PURPOSE The goal of this study was to use two separate databases to evaluate the clinical outcomes and the economic impact of adherence to Level I Pathways, an evidence-based oncology treatment program in the treatment of colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS The first study used clinical records from an electronic health record (EHR) database to evaluate survival according to pathway status in patients with colon cancer. Disease-free survival in patients receiving adjuvant treatment and overall survival in patients receiving first-line therapy for metastatic disease was calculated. The second study used claims data from a national administrative claims database to examine direct medical costs and use, including the cost of chemotherapy and of chemotherapy-related hospitalizations according to pathway status. RESULTS Overall costs from the national claims database-including total cost per case and chemotherapy costs-were lower for patients treated according to Level I Pathways (on-Pathway) compared with patients not treated according to Level I Pathways. Use of pathways was also associated with a shorter duration of therapy and lower rate of chemotherapy-related hospital admissions. Survival for patients on-Pathway in the EHR database was comparable with those in the published literature. CONCLUSION Results from two distinct databases suggest that treatment of patients with colon cancer on-Pathway costs less; use of these pathways demonstrates clinical outcomes consistent with published evidence.

An Open-label, Single-arm, Phase 2 Trial of Panitumumab Plus FOLFIRI as Second-line Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE The taxanes and capecitabine have synergistic antitumor activity in preclinical models. This trial was designed to determine the efficacy and tolerability of weekly paclitaxel plus capecitabine as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Participants had histologically proven breast cancer, with measurable metastatic disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group. Exclusion criteria included prior taxane therapy or any prior capecitabine or infusional fluorouracil. Participants received capecitabine 825 mg/m2/dose orally bid (1,650 mg/m2/d) for days 1 to 14. Paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 was administered intravenously weekly on days 1 and 8. Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks. Responders (complete or partial) or those with stable disease were treated until progression of disease or intolerable toxicity. RESULTS Fifty-five women were enrolled; 94% received study therapy as first-line treatment for MBC. In the intent-to-treat population, objective responses (partial) were achieved in 30 patients (55%; 95% CI, 40% to 69%), and six additional patients had stable disease for 6 months or longer (clinical benefit rate of 65%). The median duration of response was 10 months (range, 2.5 to 18.7 months). Dose modifications and reductions were common, particularly for capecitabine, leading to a delivered dose-intensity of 75% for capecitabine and 91% for paclitaxel. The most frequent grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events were hand-foot skin reaction (n = 10); neutropenia (n = 7); fatigue (n = 4); and leukopenia, diarrhea, and pain (n = 3 each). CONCLUSION Capecitabine in combination with weekly paclitaxel is an active and tolerable regimen as first-line therapy for women with MBC.

Opening the Black Box: The Impact of an Oncology Management Program Consisting of Level I Pathways and an Outbound Nurse Call System

BACKGROUND Available preclinical and phase 2 clinical data suggest that the addition of cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody directed against the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), to chemotherapy might improve outcome in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to assess whether the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy improved progression-free survival in patients with recurrent or progressive NSCLC after platinum-based therapy. METHODS In this unmasked, open-label randomised phase 3 trial we enrolled patients with metastatic, unresectable, or locally advanced NSCLC from 121 sites in Canada and the USA. Eligible patients were those aged 18 years or older who had experienced progressive disease during or after one previous platinum-based regimen. Initially, patients were randomly assigned to receive either pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2)) or docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) and then randomly assigned within each group to receive their chemotherapy with or without cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) at first dose and 250 mg/m(2) weekly thereafter) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. However, after a change in the standard of care, investigators chose whether to treat with pemetrexed or docetaxel on a patient-by-patient basis. The primary analysis was changed to compare progression-free survival with cetuximab plus pemetrexed versus pemetrexed, on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00095199. FINDINGS Between Jan 10, 2005, and Feb 10, 2010, we enrolled 939 patients; data for one patient was accidentally discarded. Of the remaining 938 patients, 605 received pemetrexed (301 patients with cetuximab and 304 alone) and 333 received docetaxel (167 in combination with cetuximab and 166 alone). Median progression-free survival with cetuximab plus pemetrexed was 2·9 months (95% CI 2·7-3·2) versus 2·8 months (2·5-3·3) with pemetrexed (HR 1·03, 95% CI 0·87-1·21; p=0·76). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events with cetuximab plus pemetrexed were fatigue (33 [11%] of 292 patients), acneiform rash (31 [11%]), dyspnoea (29 [10%]), and decreased neutrophil count (28 [10%]), and with pemetrexed alone were dyspnoea (35 [12%] of 289 patients), decreased neutrophil count (26 [9%]), and fatigue (23 [8%]). A significantly higher proportion of patients in the cetuximab plus pemetrexed group (119 [41%] of 292 patients) experienced at least one serious adverse event than those patients in the pemetrexed group (85 [29%] of 289 patients; p=0·0054). Nine (3%) of 292 treated patients in the cetuximab and pemetrexed group died of adverse events compared with five (2%) of 289 treated patients in the pemetrexed alone group. INTERPRETATION The use of cetuximab is not recommended in combination with chemotherapy in patients previously treated with platinum-based therapy. FUNDING Eli Lilly and Company and ImClone Systems LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Company.

Pemetrexed in Relapsed Small-Cell Lung Cancer and the Impact of Shortened Vitamin Supplementation Lead-In Time: Results of a Phase II Trial

BACKGROUND This prospective analysis evaluated the effect of tumor KRAS status on efficacy of second-line panitumumab plus folinic acid/5-fluorouracil/irinotecan (FOLFIRI). METHODS This phase 2, open-label, single-arm study enrolled patients with unresectable, measurable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after failure of first-line treatment with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Patients received panitumumab 6 mg/kg plus FOLFIRI every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerability. Tumor assessments per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) were performed by the investigators every 8 weeks from weeks 8-32 and every 12 weeks thereafter. KRAS status was determined by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on DNA extracted from fixed tumor sections. Efficacy endpoints included objective response rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Safety endpoints included incidence of adverse events (AEs). Endpoints were evaluated by tumor KRAS status. RESULTS Of 116 patients enrolled, 109 patients with known tumor KRAS status received treatment; 59% had wild-type KRAS, and 41% had mutant KRAS. Fifteen patients (23%) with wild-type KRAS and 7 patients (16%) with mutant KRAS had a complete or partial response to treatment. Median PFS was 26 weeks (95% CI, 19-33 weeks) and 19 weeks (95% CI, 12-25 weeks) in the wild-type KRAS and mutant KRAS strata, respectively. Median OS was 50 weeks (95% CI, 39-76 weeks) and 31 weeks (95% CI, 23-47 weeks) in wild-type KRAS and mutant KRAS strata, respectively. Skin-related toxicities (86% of all patients) and diarrhea (74%) were the most common AEs. CONCLUSION Panitumumab plus FOLFIRI numerically improved objective response rate, PFS, and OS in favor of patients with wild-type KRAS tumors. The safety profile was consistent with panitumumab plus FOLFIRI trials in similar patient populations.