Mauro Zukin

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.

Symptom improvement in lung cancer patients treated with erlotinib: quality of life analysis of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study BR.21.

PURPOSE This report describes the quality of life (QOL) findings of a randomized placebo controlled study of erlotinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS This double-blind phase III trial randomly assigned 731 patients with NSCLC who had progressed after prior chemotherapy to erlotinib 150 mg daily or placebo, with survival as the primary study outcome. QOL was assessed by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and the lung cancer module QLQ-LC13. The primary end points for QOL analysis were time to deterioration of three common lung cancer symptoms: cough, dyspnea, and pain. RESULTS Survival was significantly longer (hazard ratio, 0.70; P < .0001) in the erlotinib arm. Compliance with QOL was 87% at baseline and more than 70% during treatment. Patients receiving erlotinib had significantly longer median time to deterioration for all three symptoms (4.9 v 3.7 months for cough [P = .04]; 4.7 v 2.9 months for dyspnea [P = .04], and 2.8 v 1.9 months for pain [P = .03]). QOL response analyses showed that 44%, 34%, and 42% of patients receiving erlotinib had improvement in these three symptoms, respectively. This was accompanied by a significant improvement in the physical function (31% erlotinib v 19% placebo, P = .01), and global QOL (35% v 26%, P < .0001). Patients with complete or partial response were more likely to have improvement in the QOL response than patients with stable or progressive disease (P < .01). CONCLUSION Erlotinib not only improves survival in previously treated patients with NSCLC, but also improves tumor-related symptoms and important aspects of QOL.

Randomized, Double-Blind Trial of Carboplatin and Paclitaxel With Either Daily Oral Cediranib or Placebo in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: NCIC Clinical Trials Group BR24 Study

PURPOSE This phase II/III double-blind study assessed efficacy and safety of cediranib with standard chemotherapy as initial therapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (area under the serum concentration-time curve 6) were given every 3 weeks, with daily oral cediranib or placebo at 30 mg (first 45 patients received 45 mg). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary outcome of the phase II interim analysis; phase III would proceed if the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS < or = 0.77 and toxicity were acceptable. Results A total of 296 patients were enrolled, 251 to the 30-mg cohort. The phase II interim analysis demonstrated a significantly higher response rate (RR) for cediranib than for placebo, HR of 0.77 for PFS, no excess hemoptysis, and a similar number of deaths in each arm. The study was halted to review imbalances in assigned causes of death. In the primary phase II analysis (30-mg cohort), the adjusted HR for PFS was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.56 to 1.08) with a higher RR for cediranib than for placebo (38% v 16%; P < .0001). Cediranib patients had more hypertension, hypothyroidism, hand-foot syndrome, and GI toxicity. Hypoalbuminemia, age > or = 65 years, and female sex predicted increased toxicity. Survival update (N = 296) 10 months after study unblinding favored cediranib over placebo (median of 10.5 months v 10.1 months; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.06; P = .11). Causes of death in the cediranib 30-mg cohort were NSCLC (81%), protocol toxicity +/- NSCLC (13%), and other (6%); for the placebo group, they were 98%, 0%, and 2%, respectively. CONCLUSION The addition of cediranib to carboplatin/paclitaxel results in improved response and PFS, but does not appear tolerable at a 30-mg dose. Consequently, the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group and the Australasian Lung Cancer Trials Group initiated a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of cediranib 20 mg with carboplatin and paclitaxel in advanced NSCLC.

Tecemotide in unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer in the phase III START study: updated overall survival and biomarker analyses

BACKGROUND Tecemotide is a MUC1-antigen-specific cancer immunotherapy. The phase III START study did not meet its primary end point but reported notable survival benefit with tecemotide versus placebo in an exploratory analysis of the predefined patient subgroup treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Here, we attempted to gain further insight into the effects of tecemotide in START. PATIENTS AND METHODS START recruited patients who did not progress following frontline chemoradiotherapy for unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. We present updated overall survival (OS) data and exploratory analyses of OS for baseline biomarkers: soluble MUC1 (sMUC1), antinuclear antibodies (ANA), neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), lymphocyte count, and HLA type. RESULTS Updated OS data are consistent with the primary analysis: median 25.8 months (tecemotide) versus 22.4 months (placebo) (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77-1.03, P = 0.111), with ∼20 months additional median follow-up time compared with the primary analysis. Exploratory analysis of the predefined subgroup treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy revealed clinically relevant prolonged OS with tecemotide versus placebo (29.4 versus 20.8 months; HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.98, P = 0.026). No improvement was seen with sequential chemoradiotherapy. High sMUC1 and ANA correlated with a possible survival benefit with tecemotide (interaction P = 0.0085 and 0.0022) and might have future value as biomarkers. Interactions between lymphocyte count, NLR, or prespecified HLA alleles and treatment effect were not observed. CONCLUSION Updated OS data support potential treatment benefit with tecemotide in patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Exploratory biomarker analyses suggest that elevated sMUC1 or ANA levels correlate with tecemotide benefit. CLINICALTRIALSGOV NUMBER NCT00409188.BACKGROUND Tecemotide is a MUC1-antigen-specific cancer immunotherapy. The phase III START study did not meet its primary end point but reported notable survival benefit with tecemotide versus placebo in an exploratory analysis of the predefined patient subgroup treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Here, we attempted to gain further insight into the effects of tecemotide in START. PATIENTS AND METHODS START recruited patients who did not progress following frontline chemoradiotherapy for unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. We present updated overall survival (OS) data and exploratory analyses of OS for baseline biomarkers: soluble MUC1 (sMUC1), antinuclear antibodies (ANA), neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), lymphocyte count, and HLA type. RESULTS Updated OS data are consistent with the primary analysis: median 25.8 months (tecemotide) versus 22.4 months (placebo) (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77-1.03, P = 0.111), with ∼20 months additional median follow-up time compared with the primary analysis. Exploratory analysis of the predefined subgroup treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy revealed clinically relevant prolonged OS with tecemotide versus placebo (29.4 versus 20.8 months; HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.98, P = 0.026). No improvement was seen with sequential chemoradiotherapy. High sMUC1 and ANA correlated with a possible survival benefit with tecemotide (interaction P = 0.0085 and 0.0022) and might have future value as biomarkers. Interactions between lymphocyte count, NLR, or prespecified HLA alleles and treatment effect were not observed. CONCLUSION Updated OS data support potential treatment benefit with tecemotide in patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Exploratory biomarker analyses suggest that elevated sMUC1 or ANA levels correlate with tecemotide benefit. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV NUMBER NCT00409188.

Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer: current status and future perspectives

Two classes of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors are currently available for clinical use: tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and monoclonal antibodies. The introduction of pharmacological agents that are able to inhibit EGFR represents an important step in the management of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. The use of EGFR inhibitors has not only led to meaningful therapeutic gains for patients, but has also expanded our knowledge about the disease itself, as it is now recognized that activating mutations of EGFR play a pathogenetic role in NSCLC, especially in adenocarcinoma, patients who never smoked or former light smokers, females, and Asian individuals. Patients with NSCLC and one or more of these features are more likely to harbor tumors with EGFR mutations, and hence to respond to TKIs, than individuals without these features. Currently, TKIs are considered by many as the treatment of first choice in both the first- and second-line treatment of patients with clinical or molecular predictors of therapeutic benefit, and chemotherapy is a second option in these cases, especially when activating mutations of EGFR are present. Moreover, TKIs and anti-EGFR antibodies may be used in other settings, and their therapeutic role in NSCLC is clearly expanding. However, despite an initially successful treatment course, patients with advanced NSCLC eventually develop resistance to TKIs; and novel agents that hold promise for the future include irreversible EGFR inhibitors with activity against resistance-conferring EGFR mutations.

Survival and prognostic factors in patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer treated in private health care

INTRODUCTION Outcomes data on Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) are scarce with regard to the private health care in Brazil. The aim of this study was to describe the characteristics, treatments performed, and the survival of patients with NSCLC in a Brazilian private oncologic institution. METHODS Medical charts from patients treated between 1998 and 2010 were reviewed, and data were transferred to a clinical research form. Long-term follow-up and survival estimates were enabled through active surveillance. RESULTS Five hundred sixty-six patients were included, and median age was 65 years. Most patients were diagnosed in advanced stages (79.6% III/IV). The overall survival was 19.0 months (95%CI 16.2 - 21.8). The median survival was 99.7, 32.5, 20.2, and 13.3 months for stages I, II, III, and IV, respectively (p < 0.0001). Among patients receiving palliative chemotherapy, the median survival was 12.2 months (95%CI 10.0 - 14.4). CONCLUSIONS The outcomes described are favorably similar to the current literature from developed countries. Besides the better access to health care in the private insurance scenario, most patients are still diagnosed in late stages.

Tratamento adjuvante em câncer de pulmão de células não pequenas

OBJECTIVE Adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended for most patients submitted to resection due to non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) staged as II or IIIA. However, although various chemotherapy regimens that include cisplatin have been used in phase III trials, the best choice remains unclear. The objective of this study was to describe the experience of the Instituto Nacional do Câncer (INCA, Brazilian National Cancer Institute), located in the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, with the use of the cisplatin-etoposide combination in such patients, with a special focus on survival data. METHODS We retrospectively evaluated the medical charts of the patients receiving adjuvant therapy for NSCLC at the INCA between 2004 and 2008. RESULTS We included 51 patients, all of whom were treated with the cisplatin-etoposide combination. The median follow-up period was 31 months, and the median overall survival was 57 months. In the univariate analysis, median survival was lower in the patients submitted to chemotherapy plus radiotherapy than in those submitted to chemotherapy alone (19 vs. 57 months; p < 0.001), and there was a trend toward lower median survival in stage III patients than in stage I-II patients (34 vs. 57 months; p = 0.22). Overall survival was not significantly associated with gender (p = 0.70), histological pattern (p = 0.33), or cisplatin dose (p = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS Our results support the use of adjuvant chemotherapy, and our survival data are similar to those reported in major randomized clinical trials. However, long-term follow-up is warranted in this population.

Carboplatin plus pemetrexed offers superior cost-effectiveness compared to pemetrexed in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and performance status 2.

OBJECTIVE Pemetrexed plus carboplatin offers survival advantage in first line treatment of advanced lung cancer patients with performance status of 2. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of this combined regimen compared to pemetrexed alone in a Brazilian population. METHODS A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted based on a randomized phase III trial in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and ECOG performance status of 2 (PS2), comparing doublet regimen pemetrexed plus carboplatin with pemetrexed alone. The perspective adopted was the public health care sector over a three-year period. Direct medical costs and survival time were calculated from patient-level data and utility values were extracted from the literature. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate uncertainties in the results. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION The combined regimen pemetrexed plus carboplatin yielded a gain of 0.16 life year (LY) and 0.12 quality-adjusted life year (QALY) compared to pemetrexed alone. The total cost was 17,674.31 USD for the combined regimen and 15,722.39 USD for pemetrexed alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was

Erlotinib in Symptomatic Brain Metastases From a Lung Adenocarcinoma With a Sensitizing EGFR Mutation

12,016.09 per LY gained and

Stage III Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Concurrent Chemoradiation Followed or Not by Consolidation Chemotherapy: A Survival Analysis From a Brazilian Multicentric Cohort

15,732.05 per QALY gained. The factors with the greatest impact on the ICER are pemetrexed price and the time to progression utility value. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed an upper 90% probability of pemetrexed plus carboplatin being cost-effective with a threshold between two and three GDP per capita. Our study suggests superiority of the combined pemetrexed plus carboplatin regimen in terms of efficacy as well as cost-effectiveness in advanced NSCLC patients with a poor performance status of 2.