Norbert Frickhofen

The Efficacy and Safety of BI 2536, a Novel Plk-1 Inhibitor, in Patients with Stage IIIB/IV Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Who Had Relapsed after, or Failed, Chemotherapy Results from an Open-Label, Randomized Phase II Clinical Trial

Objective: To investigate the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of two dosing schedules of BI 2536, a novel polo-like kinase-1 inhibitor, in patients with relapsed stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer. Methods: Ninety-five patients were randomized to intravenous BI 2536 on day 1 (200 mg) or days 1 to 3 (50 or 60 mg) of a 21-day treatment course. BI 2536 doses were escalated beyond course 2 if well tolerated. The primary objective was response, and the secondary objectives were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), quality of life, safety, and pharmacokinetics. Primary statistical aim was to demonstrate the difference in objective response rate to historical placebo for both treatment groups. Results: Four patients (4.2%) had a partial response; two were confirmed by independent review. Median PFS was 8.3 weeks (58 days 95% confidence interval [CI]: 48–85) and 7 weeks (49 days 95% CI: 46–70) assessed by investigator and independent review, respectively. Median OS was 28.7 weeks (201 days 95% CI: 180–305). No statistically significant difference was observed between the two treatment schedules regarding clinical benefit, PFS, or OS. Grade 4 neutropenia occurred in 37% of patients; common nonhematologic adverse events were fatigue (31%) and nausea (27%). Two deaths (pulmonary hemorrhage and sepsis) were considered drug related. There was a trend in favor of the days 1 to 3 dosing schedule in quality of life. BI 2536 displayed moderate interpatient variability. Conclusions: BI 2536 monotherapy has modest efficacy and favorable safety in relapsed non-small cell lung cancer. The findings support the further development of polo-like kinase-1 inhibitors within this indication.

Sunitinib in combination with gemcitabine plus cisplatin for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A phase I dose-escalation study

PURPOSE To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of sunitinib plus gemcitabine/cisplatin for first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activities were evaluated. METHODS Patients ≥18 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1 and stage IIIB/IV NSCLC were included in this open-label, multicenter, dose-escalation phase I study. Treatment was administered in 3-week cycles: oral sunitinib 37.5 or 50mg/day intermittently (Schedule 2/1: 2 weeks on treatment, 1 week off treatment) or 25mg continuous daily dosing (CDD) schedule with intravenous infusions of gemcitabine (1000 or 1250 mg/m(2) days 1, 8) and cisplatin (80 mg/m(2) day 1). RESULTS A total of 28 evaluable patients were assigned to four dose levels. Most adverse events (AEs) on the Schedule 2/1 MTD were mild to moderate. Dose delays due to myelosuppression occurred on both schedules, limiting treatment to a median of four cycles. Four of 18 evaluable patients (22%) on Schedule 2/1 and 1 of 6 patients (17%) on the CDD schedule had confirmed partial responses. CONCLUSIONS The MTD was identified as sunitinib 37.5mg (Schedule 2/1), gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2), and cisplatin 80 mg/m(2), with most AEs being mild to moderate. However, frequent dose delays due to myelosuppression occurred. There was evidence of antitumor activity with this combination.

Randomized phase 2 trial on refinement of early-stage NSCLC adjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin and pemetrexed versus cisplatin and vinorelbine: the TREAT study

BACKGROUND Adjuvant chemotherapy is beneficial in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, balancing toxicity and efficacy mandates improvement. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with completely resected stages IB-pT3N1 NSCLC were randomly assigned to either four cycles cisplatin (C: 50 mg/m(2) day (d)1 + 8) and vinorelbine (V: 25 mg/m(2) d1, 8, 15, 22) q4 weeks or four cycles cisplatin (75 mg/m(2) d1) and pemetrexed (Px: 500 mg/m(2) d1) q3 weeks. Primary objective was the clinical feasibility rate (no grade (G)4 neutropenia/thrombocytopenia or thrombocytopenia with bleeding, no G3/4 febrile neutropenia or non-hematological toxicity; no premature withdrawal/death). Secondary objectives were drug delivery and efficacy. RESULTS One hundred and thirty two patients were randomized (stages: 38% IB, 10% IIA, 47% IIB, 5% pT3pN1; histology: 43% squamous, 57% non-squamous). The feasibility rates were 95.5% (cisplatin and pemetrexed, CPx) and 75.4% (cisplatin and vinorelbine, CVb) (P = 0.001); hematological G3/4 toxic effects were 10% (CPx) and 74% (CVb) (P < 0.001), non-hematological toxic effects were comparable (33% and 31%, P = 0.798). Delivery of total mean doses was 90% of planned with CPx, but 66% (cisplatin) and 64% (vinorelbine) with CVb (P < 0.0001). The median number of cycles [treatment time (weeks)] was 4 for CPx (11.2) and 3 for CVb (9.9). Time to withdrawal from therapy differed significantly between arms favoring CPx (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION Adjuvant chemotherapy with CPx is safe and feasible with less toxicity and superior dose delivery compared with CVb.

Three-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Phase II Trial on Refinement of Early-Stage NSCLC Adjuvant Chemotherapy with Cisplatin and Pemetrexed versus Cisplatin and Vinorelbine (the TREAT Study)

Introduction Adjuvant chemotherapy in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) improves survival but is associated with significant toxicity. The Randomized Phase II Trial on Refinement of Early‐Stage NSCLC Adjuvant Chemotherapy with Cisplatin and Pemetrexed versus Cisplatin and Vinorelbine (TREAT study) was designed to test the hypothesis that a protocol with reduced toxicity might improve feasibility of postoperative delivery of adjuvant chemotherapy drugs to patients with NSCLC, thereby improving compliance and, potentially, survival. Methods Two adjuvant regimens were evaluated for feasibility in 132 patients with NSCLC: the standard regimen of cisplatin and vinorelbine (CVb) (cisplatin 50 mg/m2 on day 1 and day 8 and vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 every 4 weeks) and a regimen consisting of cisplatin and pemetrexed (CPx) (cisplatin 75 mg/m2 and pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks). The primary end‐point analysis showing that CPx is safe and feasible with dose delivery superior to that of CVb has already been published. Here we report the 3‐year follow‐up results of the secondary efficacy end points—overall, relapse‐free, distant metastasis–free, and local relapse–free survival—also with regard to histologic diagnosis. Results After a median of 39 months, no significant differences in any of the outcome parameters between CVb and CPx were observed. Also, histologic diagnosis and tumor size in stage IB did not influence survival in the CPx‐treated patients. Yet, Cox regression analyses showed that overall survival at 3 years was significantly correlated with feasibility and the occurrence of dose‐limiting toxicity. Conclusions Although adjuvant chemotherapy with CPx is safe and characterized by less toxicity and better dose delivery than CVb, overall survival was not influenced by treatment arm in the context of this phase II trial.