Massimo Di Maio

Randomized Phase III Trial of Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin Compared With Single-Agent Gemcitabine As First-Line Treatment of Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: The GIP-1 Study

PURPOSE Single-agent gemcitabine became standard first-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer after demonstration of superiority compared with fluorouracil. The Gruppo Italiano Pancreas 1 randomized phase III trial aimed to compare gemcitabine plus cisplatin versus gemcitabine alone (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT00813696). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer, age 18 to 75 years, and Karnofsky performance status (KPS) > or = 50, were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine (arm A) or gemcitabine plus cisplatin (arm B). Arm A: gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) weekly for 7 weeks, and, after a 1-week rest, on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks. Arm B: cisplatin 25 mg/m(2) added weekly to gemcitabine, except cycle 1 day 22. Primary end point was overall survival. To have 8% power of detecting a 0.74 hazard ratio (HR) of death, with bilateral alpha .05, 355 events were needed and 400 patients planned. RESULTS Four hundred patients were enrolled (arm A: 199; arm B: 201). Median age was 63, 59% were male, 84% had stage IV, and 83% had KPS > or = 80. Median overall survival was 8.3 months versus 7.2 months in arm A and B, respectively (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.35; P = .38). Median progression-free survival was 3.9 months versus 3.8 months in arm A and B, respectively (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.19; P = .80). The objective response rate was 10.1% in A and 12.9% in B (P = .37). Clinical benefit was experienced by 23.0% in A and 15.1% in B (P = .057). Combination therapy produced more hematologic toxicity, without relevant differences in nonhematologic toxicity. CONCLUSION The addition of weekly cisplatin to gemcitabine failed to demonstrate any improvement as first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

Treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in the elderly: results of an international expert panel.

The best treatment for elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still debated. To guide clinical management of these patients and suggest the priorities for clinical research in this field, an International Expert Panel met in Naples, Italy, on April 19 to 20, 2004. Results and conclusions based on a review of evidence available in the literature to date are presented in this article. A comprehensive geriatric assessment is recommended to better define prognosis and to predict tolerance to treatment. In the first randomized study dedicated to elderly NSCLC patients, single-agent vinorelbine showed superiority over supportive care alone, both in terms of survival and quality of life. In a large randomized trial, gemcitabine plus vinorelbine failed to show any advantage over either agent alone. Subset analyses suggest that the efficacy of platinum-based combination chemotherapy is similar in fit older and younger patients, with an acceptable increase in toxicity for elderly patients. These data should be interpreted cautiously because retrospective subgroup analyses are encumbered by selection bias; hence, randomized trials dedicated to platinum-based chemotherapy for nonselected elderly patients are warranted. Several promising biologic therapies are under investigation; however, with present data, target-based agents as first-line treatment for elderly NSCLC patients are not yet recommended. Clinical research, with trials specifically designed for elderly patients, is mandatory. With the current evidence, single-agent chemotherapy with a third-generation drug (vinorelbine, gemcitabine, a taxane) should be the recommended option for nonselected elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. Platinum-based chemotherapy is a viable option for fit patients with adequate organ function. Best supportive care remains important, in addition to chemotherapy or as the exclusive option for patients who are unsuitable for more aggressive treatment.

First-Line Erlotinib Followed by Second-Line Cisplatin-Gemcitabine Chemotherapy in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The TORCH Randomized Trial

PURPOSE Erlotinib prolonged survival of unselected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were not eligible for further chemotherapy, and two phase II studies suggested it might be an alternative to first-line chemotherapy. A randomized phase III trial was designed to test whether first-line erlotinib followed at progression by cisplatin-gemcitabine was not inferior in terms of survival to the standard inverse sequence. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with stage IIIB (with pleural effusion or supraclavicular nodes) to IV NSCLC and performance status of 0 to 1 were eligible. With a 95% CI upper limit of 1.25 for the hazard ratio (HR) for death, 80% power, a one-sided α = .025, and two interim analyses, a sample size of 900 patients was planned. RESULTS At the first planned interim analysis with half the events, the inferiority boundary was crossed, and the Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommended early termination of the study. Seven hundred sixty patients (median age, 62 years; range, 27 to 81 years) had been randomly assigned. Baseline characteristics were balanced between study arms. As of June 1, 2011, median follow-up was 24.3 months, and 536 deaths were recorded (263 in the standard treatment arm and 273 in the experimental arm). Median survival was 11.6 months (95% CI, 10.2 to 13.3 months) in the standard arm and 8.7 months (95% CI, 7.4 to 10.5 months) in the experimental arm. Adjusted HR of death in the experimental arm was 1.24 (95% CI, 1.04 to 1.47). There was no heterogeneity across sex, smoking habit, histotype, and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation. CONCLUSION In unselected patients with advanced NSCLC, first-line erlotinib followed at progression by cisplatin-gemcitabine was significantly inferior in terms of overall survival compared with the standard sequence of first-line chemotherapy followed by erlotinib.

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and treatment efficacy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis of three randomised trials

BACKGROUND Chemotherapy is the standard treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, and myelosuppression is a common side-effect. We aimed to assess whether haematological toxic effects could be a biological measure of drug activity and a marker of efficacy. METHODS We analysed data for 1265 patients who received chemotherapy (vinorelbine, gemcitabine, gemcitabine and vinorelbine, cisplatin and vinorelbine, or cisplatin and gemcitabine) within three randomised trials. Primary landmark analyses were restricted to 436 patients who received all six planned chemotherapy cycles and who were alive 180 days after randomisation. Neutropenia was categorised on the basis of worst WHO grade during chemotherapy: absent (grade 0), mild (grade 1-2), or severe (grade 3-4). All statistical analyses were stratified by treatment allocation. Analyses were repeated in the out-of-landmark group (829 patients), stratifying by treatment allocation and number of chemotherapy cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival. FINDINGS In the landmark group, hazard ratios of death were 0.65 (0.46-0.93) for patients with severe neutropenia and 0.74 (0.56-0.98) for those with mild neutropenia. Median survival after the landmark time of 180 days was 31.4 weeks (95% CI 25.7-39.6) for patients without neutropenia compared with 42.0 weeks (32.7-59.7) for patients with severe neutropenia, and with 43.7 weeks (36.6-66.0) for those with mild neutropenia (severe vs mild vs no neutropenia p=0.0118). Findings were much the same for the out-of-landmark group. INTERPRETATION Neutropenia during chemotherapy is associated with increased survival of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, and its absence might be a result of underdosing. Prospective trials are needed to assess whether drug dosing guided by the occurrence of toxic effects could improve efficacy of standard regimens.

Carboplatin- or Cisplatin-Based Chemotherapy in First-Line Treatment of Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The COCIS Meta-Analysis of Individual Patient Data

PURPOSE Since treatment efficacy of cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) remains contentious, a meta-analysis of individual patient data was performed to compare the two treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS A systematic review identified randomized trials comparing cisplatin with carboplatin in the first-line treatment of SCLC. Individual patient data were obtained from coordinating centers of all eligible trials. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). All statistical analyses were stratified by trial. Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and treatment toxicity. OS and PFS curves were compared by using the log-rank test. ORR was compared by using the Mantel-Haenszel test. RESULTS Four eligible trials with 663 patients (328 assigned to cisplatin and 335 to carboplatin) were included in the analysis. Median OS was 9.6 months for cisplatin and 9.4 months for carboplatin (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.27; P = .37). There was no evidence of treatment difference between the cisplatin and carboplatin arms according to sex, stage, performance status, or age. Median PFS was 5.5 and 5.3 months for cisplatin and carboplatin, respectively (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.29; P = .25). ORR was 67.1% and 66.0%, respectively (relative risk, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.16; P = .83). Toxicity profile was significantly different for each of the arms: hematologic toxicity was higher with carboplatin, and nonhematologic toxicity was higher with cisplatin. CONCLUSION Our meta-analysis of individual patient data suggests no differences in efficacy between cisplatin and carboplatin in the first-line treatment of SCLC, but there are differences in the toxicity profile.

Meta-Analysis of Single-Agent Chemotherapy Compared With Combination Chemotherapy As Second-Line Treatment of Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE Doublet chemotherapy is more effective than single-agent as first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). As second-line treatment, several randomized trials have been performed comparing single-agent with doublet chemotherapy, but each trial had an insufficient power to detect potentially relevant differences in survival. METHODS We performed meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials, both published and unpublished, comparing single-agent with doublet chemotherapy as second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). All statistical analyses were stratified by trial. RESULTS Eight eligible trials were identified. Data of two trials were not available, and data of six trials (847 patients) were collected. Median age was 61 years. Performance status was 0 or 1 in 90%; 80% of patients had received previous platin-based chemotherapy. OS was not significantly different between arms (P = .32). Median OS was 37.3 and 34.7 weeks in the doublet and single-agent arms, respectively. Hazard ratio (HR) was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.08). Response rate was 15.1% with doublet and 7.3% with single-agent (P = .0004). Median progression-free survival was 14 weeks for doublet and 11.7 weeks for single agent (P = .0009; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.91). There was no significant heterogeneity among trials for the three efficacy outcomes. Patients treated with doublet chemotherapy had significantly more grade 3 to 4 hematologic (41% v 25%; P < .0001) and grade 3 to 4 nonhematologic toxicity (28% v 22%; P = .034). CONCLUSION Doublet chemotherapy as second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC significantly increases response rate and progression-free survival, but is more toxic and does not improve overall survival compared to single-agent.

Vandetanib (ZD6474), a Dual Inhibitor of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor (VEGFR) and Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Tyrosine Kinases: Current Status and Future Directions

Vandetanib is a novel, orally available inhibitor of different intracellular signaling pathways involved in tumor growth, progression, and angiogenesis: vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2, epidermal growth factor receptor, and REarranged during Transfection tyrosine kinase activity. Phase I clinical trials have shown that vandetanib is well tolerated as a single agent at daily doses < or =300 mg. In the phase II setting, negative results were observed with vandetanib in small cell lung cancer, metastatic breast cancer, and multiple myeloma. In contrast, three randomized phase II studies showed that vandetanib prolonged the progression-free survival (PFS) time of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) as a single agent when compared with gefitinib or when added to chemotherapy. Rash, diarrhea, hypertension, fatigue, and asymptomatic QTc prolongation were the most common adverse events. Antitumor activity was also observed in medullary thyroid cancer. Four randomized phase III clinical trials in NSCLC are exploring the efficacy of vandetanib in combination with docetaxel, the Zactima in cOmbination with Docetaxel In non-small cell lung Cancer (ZODIAC) trial, or with pemetrexed, the Zactima Efficacy with Alimta in Lung cancer (ZEAL) trial, or as a single agent, the Zactima Efficacy when Studied versus Tarceva (ZEST) and the Zactima Efficacy trial for NSCLC Patients with History of EGFR-TKI chemo-Resistance (ZEPHYR) trials. Based on a press release by the sponsor of these trials, the PFS time was longer with vandetanib in the ZODIAC and ZEAL trials; the ZEST trial was negative for its primary superiority analysis, but was successful according to a preplanned noninferiority analysis of PFS. Ongoing phase II and III clinical trials will better define the appropriate schedule, the optimal setting of evaluation, and the safety of long-term use of vandetanib.

Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Docetaxel Administered Once Every 3 Weeks Compared With Once Every Week Second-Line Treatment of Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE Although several randomized trials have been performed comparing weekly docetaxel (wD) with standard docetaxel once every 3 weeks (3wD) as second-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), no single trial had sufficient power to detect clinically relevant differences in survival. METHODS We performed a meta-analysis based on individual patient data from all identified randomized trials comparing wD with 3wD as second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. Baseline characteristics, treatment assigned, and outcome data were collected for each patient. The primary end point was overall survival. All statistical analyses were stratified by trial. RESULTS Five eligible trials were identified for a total of 865 patients: 433 patients had been assigned to 3wD, and 432 patients had been assigned to wD. Median age was 62 years (range, 26 to 80 years). Performance status was 0 in 23%, 1 in 58%, and 2 in 16% of patients; 91% of the patients had received previous platinum, and 14% had received previous paclitaxel. With 733 deaths recorded (85%), median survival was 27.4 weeks for patients treated with 3wD, and 26.1 weeks for patients treated with wD (P = .24, log-rank test). There was no significant heterogeneity among the five trials. No relevant differential effect was detected in subgroup analyses. Significantly less severe and febrile neutropenia was reported with wD (P < .00001 for both), whereas no significant differences were observed for anemia, thrombocytopenia, and nonhematologic toxicity. CONCLUSION wD shows similar efficacy compared with 3wD, and represents an alternative for second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC.

Residual neurotoxicity in ovarian cancer patients in clinical remission after first-line chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel: The Multicenter Italian Trial in Ovarian cancer (MITO-4) retrospective study

BackgroundCarboplatin/paclitaxel is the chemotherapy of choice for advanced ovarian cancer, both in first line and in platinum-sensitive recurrence. Although a significant proportion of patients have some neurotoxicity during treatment, the long-term outcome of chemotherapy-induced neuropathy has been scantly studied. We retrospectively assessed the prevalence of residual neuropathy in a cohort of patients in clinical remission after first-line carboplatin/paclitaxel for advanced ovarian cancer.Methods120 patients have been included in this study (101 participating in a multicentre phase III trial evaluating the efficacy of consolidation treatment with topotecan, and 19 treated at the National Cancer Institute of Naples after the end of the trial). All patients received carboplatin (AUC 5) plus paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) every 3 weeks for 6 cycles, completing treatment between 1998 and 2003. Data were collected between May and September 2004. Residual sensory and motor neurotoxicity were coded according to the National Cancer Institute – Common Toxicity Criteria.Results55 patients (46%) did not experience any grade of neurological toxicity during chemotherapy and of these none had signs of neuropathy during follow-up. The other 65 patients (54%) had chemotherapy-induced neurotoxicity during treatment and follow-up data are available for 60 of them. Fourteen out of 60 patients (23%) referred residual neuropathy at the most recent follow-up visit, after a median follow up of 18 months (range, 7–58 months): 12 patients had grade 1 and 2 patients grade 2 peripheral sensory neuropathy; 3 patients also had grade 1 motor neuropathy. The remaining 46/60 patients (77%) had no residual neuropathy at the moment of interview: recovery from neurotoxicity had occurred in the first 2 months after the end of chemotherapy in 22 (37%), between 2 and 6 months in 15 (25%), or after more than 6 months in 9 patients (15%). Considering all 120 treated patients, there was a 15% probability of persistent neurological toxicity 6 months after the end of chemotherapy.ConclusionA significant proportion of patients with advanced ovarian cancer treated with first-line carboplatin/paclitaxel suffer long-term residual neuropathy. This issue should be carefully taken into account before considering re-treatment with the same agents in sensitive recurrent disease.Carboplatin/paclitaxel is the chemotherapy of choice for advanced ovarian cancer, both in first line and in platinum-sensitive recurrence. Although a significant proportion of patients have some neurotoxicity during treatment, the long-term outcome of chemotherapy-induced neuropathy has been scantly studied. We retrospectively assessed the prevalence of residual neuropathy in a cohort of patients in clinical remission after first-line carboplatin/paclitaxel for advanced ovarian cancer. 120 patients have been included in this study (101 participating in a multicentre phase III trial evaluating the efficacy of consolidation treatment with topotecan, and 19 treated at the National Cancer Institute of Naples after the end of the trial). All patients received carboplatin (AUC 5) plus paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) every 3 weeks for 6 cycles, completing treatment between 1998 and 2003. Data were collected between May and September 2004. Residual sensory and motor neurotoxicity were coded according to the National Cancer Institute – Common Toxicity Criteria. 55 patients (46%) did not experience any grade of neurological toxicity during chemotherapy and of these none had signs of neuropathy during follow-up. The other 65 patients (54%) had chemotherapy-induced neurotoxicity during treatment and follow-up data are available for 60 of them. Fourteen out of 60 patients (23%) referred residual neuropathy at the most recent follow-up visit, after a median follow up of 18 months (range, 7–58 months): 12 patients had grade 1 and 2 patients grade 2 peripheral sensory neuropathy; 3 patients also had grade 1 motor neuropathy. The remaining 46/60 patients (77%) had no residual neuropathy at the moment of interview: recovery from neurotoxicity had occurred in the first 2 months after the end of chemotherapy in 22 (37%), between 2 and 6 months in 15 (25%), or after more than 6 months in 9 patients (15%). Considering all 120 treated patients, there was a 15% probability of persistent neurological toxicity 6 months after the end of chemotherapy. A significant proportion of patients with advanced ovarian cancer treated with first-line carboplatin/paclitaxel suffer long-term residual neuropathy. This issue should be carefully taken into account before considering re-treatment with the same agents in sensitive recurrent disease.

Carboplatin Plus Paclitaxel Versus Carboplatin Plus Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin As First-Line Treatment for Patients With Ovarian Cancer: The MITO-2 Randomized Phase III Trial

PURPOSE Carboplatin/paclitaxel is the standard first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Multicentre Italian Trials in Ovarian Cancer-2 (MITO-2), an academic multicenter phase III trial, tested whether carboplatin/pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) was more effective than standard chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IC to IV ovarian cancer (age ≤ 75 years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2) were randomly assigned to carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 5 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) or to carboplatin AUC 5 plus PLD 30 mg/m(2), every 3 weeks for six cycles. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). With 632 events in 820 enrolled patients, the study would have 80% power to detect a 0.80 hazard ratio (HR) of PFS. RESULTS Eight hundred twenty patients were randomly assigned. Disease stages III and IV were prevalent. Occurrence of PFS events substantially slowed before obtaining the planned number. Therefore, in concert with the Independent Data Monitoring Committee, final analysis was performed with 556 events, after a median follow-up of 40 months. Median PFS times were 19.0 and 16.8 months with carboplatin/PLD and carboplatin/paclitaxel, respectively (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.13; P = .58). Median overall survival times were 61.6 and 53.2 months with carboplatin/PLD and carboplatin/paclitaxel, respectively (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.12; P = .32). Carboplatin/PLD produced a similar response rate but different toxicity (less neurotoxicity and alopecia but more hematologic adverse effects). There was no relevant difference in global quality of life after three and six cycles. CONCLUSION Carboplatin/PLD was not superior to carboplatin/paclitaxel, which remains the standard first-line chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer. However, given the observed CIs and the different toxicity, carboplatin/PLD could be considered an alternative to standard therapy.