Susan C. Guba

PointBreak: A Randomized Phase III Study of Pemetrexed Plus Carboplatin and Bevacizumab Followed by Maintenance Pemetrexed and Bevacizumab Versus Paclitaxel Plus Carboplatin and Bevacizumab Followed by Maintenance Bevacizumab in Patients With Stage IIIB or IV Nonsquamous Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE PointBreak (A Study of Pemetrexed, Carboplatin and Bevacizumab in Patients With Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer) compared the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed (Pem) plus carboplatin (C) plus bevacizumab (Bev) followed by pemetrexed plus bevacizumab (PemCBev) with paclitaxel (Pac) plus carboplatin (C) plus bevacizumab (Bev) followed by bevacizumab (PacCBev) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with previously untreated stage IIIB or IV nonsquamous NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1 were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) or paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) combined with carboplatin area under the curve 6 and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks for up to four cycles. Eligible patients received maintenance until disease progression: pemetrexed plus bevacizumab (for the PemCBev group) or bevacizumab (for the PacCBev group). The primary end point of this superiority study was overall survival (OS). RESULTS Patients were randomly assigned to PemCBev (n = 472) or PacCBev (n = 467). For PemCBev versus PacCBev, OS hazard ratio (HR) was 1.00 (median OS, 12.6 v 13.4 months; P = .949); progression-free survival (PFS) HR was 0.83 (median PFS, 6.0 v 5.6 months; P = .012); overall response rate was 34.1% versus 33.0%; and disease control rate was 65.9% versus 69.8%. Significantly more study drug-related grade 3 or 4 anemia (14.5% v 2.7%), thrombocytopenia (23.3% v 5.6%), and fatigue (10.9% v 5.0%) occurred with PemCBev; significantly more grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (40.6% v 25.8%), febrile neutropenia (4.1% v 1.4%), sensory neuropathy (4.1% v 0%), and alopecia (grade 1 or 2; 36.8% v 6.6%) occurred with PacCBev. CONCLUSION OS did not improve with the PemCBev regimen compared with the PacCBev regimen, although PFS was significantly improved with PemCBev. Toxicity profiles differed; both regimens demonstrated tolerability.

Phase III Study of Pemetrexed Plus Carboplatin Compared With Etoposide Plus Carboplatin in Chemotherapy-Naive Patients With Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE Following a phase II trial in which pemetrexed-platinum demonstrated similar activity to that of historical etoposide-platinum controls, a phase III study was conducted to compare pemetrexed-carboplatin with etoposide-carboplatin for the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Chemotherapy-naive patients with ES-SCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of zero to 2 were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed-carboplatin (pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1; carboplatin at area under the serum concentration-time curve [AUC] 5 on day 1) or etoposide-carboplatin (etoposide 100 mg/m(2) on days 1 through 3; carboplatin AUC 5 on day 1) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary objective of the study was noninferiority of pemetrexed-carboplatin overall survival with a 15% margin. RESULTS Accrual was terminated with 908 of 1,820 patients enrolled after results of a planned interim analysis. In the final analysis, pemetrexed-carboplatin was inferior to etoposide-carboplatin for overall survival (median, 8.1 v 10.6 months; hazard ratio [HR],1.56; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.92; log-rank P < .01) and progression-free survival (median, 3.8 v 5.4 months; HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.58 to 2.17; log-rank P < .01). Objective response rates were also significantly lower for pemetrexed-carboplatin (31% v 52%; P < .001). Pemetrexed-carboplatin had lower grade 3 to 4 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and leukopenia than etoposide-carboplatin; grade 3 to 4 thrombocytopenia was comparable between arms and anemia was higher in the pemetrexed-carboplatin arm. CONCLUSION Pemetrexed-carboplatin is inferior for the treatment of ES-SCLC. Planned translational research and pharmacogenomic analyses of tumor and blood samples may help explain the study results and provide insight into new treatment strategies.

Treatment rationale and study design for the pointbreak study: a randomized, open-label phase III study of pemetrexed/carboplatin/bevacizumab followed by maintenance pemetrexed/bevacizumab versus paclitaxel/carboplatin/bevacizumab followed by maintenance bevacizumab in patients with stage IIIB or IV nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

We present the treatment rationale and study design of the PointBreak study, a phase III study of pemetrexed/ carboplatin/bevacizumab induction followed by pemetrexed/bevacizumab maintenance (arm A) compared with paclitaxel/carboplatin/bevacizumab induction followed by bevacizumab maintenance (arm B) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Treatment consists of up to 4 cycles of induction therapy followed by maintenance therapy until disease progression or treatment discontinuation in approximately 900 patients (450 per treatment arm). The efficacy objectives of this study are to compare overall survival (OS), response rates, disease control rates, progression-free survival, and time to progressive disease between the 2 treatment arms. In addition, safety, quality of life, pharmacokinetics, and translational research will be investigated for both treatment arms. If the primary objective (OS) is achieved, this study will provide robust results on an alternative treatment option, pemetrexed/carboplatin/bevacizumab followed by maintenance therapy with pemetrexed/bevacizumab, for patients with nonsquamous NSCLC.

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 Phase II randomized study of galunisertib monotherapy or galunisertib plus lomustine compared with lomustine monotherapy in patients with recurrent glioblastoma

BACKGROUND The combination of galunisertib, a transforming growth factor (TGF)-β receptor (R)1 kinase inhibitor, and lomustine was found to have antitumor activity in murine models of glioblastoma. METHODS Galunisertib (300 mg/day) was given orally 14 days on/14 days off (intermittent dosing). Lomustine was given as approved. Patients were randomized in a 2:1:1 ratio to galunisertib + lomustine, galunisertib monotherapy, or placebo + lomustine. The primary objective was overall survival (OS); secondary objectives were safety, pharmacokinetics (PKs), and antitumor activity. RESULTS One hundred fifty-eight patients were randomized: galunisertib + lomustine (N = 79), galunisertib (N = 39), and placebo + lomustine (N = 40). Baseline characteristics were: male (64.6%), white (75.3%), median age 58 years, ECOG performance status (PS) 1 (63.3%), and primary glioblastoma (93.7%). The PKs of galunisertib were not altered with lomustine, and galunisertib had a median half-life of ∼8 hours. Median OS in months (95% credible interval [CrI]) for galunisertib + lomustine was 6.7 (range: 5.3-8.5), 8.0 (range: 5.7-11.7) for galunisertib alone, and 7.5 (range: 5.6-10.3) for placebo + lomustine. There was no difference in OS for patients treated with galunisertib + lomustine compared with placebo + lomustine [P (HR < 1) = 26%]. Median progression-free survival of ∼2 months was observed in all 3 arms. Among 8 patients with IDH1 mutation, 7 patients were treated with galunisertib (monotherapy or with lomustine); OS ranged from 4 to 17 months. Patients treated with galunisertib alone had fewer drug-related grade 3/4 adverse events (n = 34) compared with lomustine-treated patients (10% vs 26%). Baseline PS, post-discontinuation of bevacizumab, tumor size, and baseline levels of MDC/CCL22 were correlated with OS. CONCLUSIONS Galunisertib + lomustine failed to demonstrate improved OS relative to placebo + lomustine. Efficacy outcomes were similar in all 3 arms. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT01582269, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Pemetrexed Therapy in Elderly Patients With Good Performance Status: Analysis of Two Phase III Trials of Patients With Nonsquamous Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION A widely held misperception contends that all elderly patients, even those with good performance status (PS 0-1), are unable to tolerate aggressive chemotherapy. The objective of these analyses was to evaluate the survival and safety of treatment with pemetrexed in elderly patients with nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and PS 0-1. PATIENTS AND METHODS Two randomized studies, 1 reporting the activity of pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin vs. cisplatin and gemcitabine in chemotherapy-naive patients (N = 1725) and another comparing single-agent pemetrexed with placebo in the maintenance setting (N = 663) were retrospectively considered. Data from patients with nonsquamous advanced NSCLC with PS 0-1 in these studies were evaluated in 2 separate dichotomous analyses (< 65 years and ≥ 65 years and < 70 years and ≥ 70). Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate covariate-adjusted between-arm hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals for each age group. RESULTS In the first-line study, 32.7% of the 1252 patients with nonsquamous NSCLC were ≥ 65 years and 12.8% were ≥ 70 years old. In the maintenance study, 33.1% of the 481 patients with nonsquamous NSCLC were ≥ 65 years and 16.0% were ≥ 70 years old. In both studies, the adjusted HRs for overall survival (range, 0.62-0.89) favored pemetrexed and were similar between the older and younger age groups. Dose intensity delivered and toxicities observed for patients treated with pemetrexed were manageable and similar between the older and younger age groups. CONCLUSIONS For elderly patients with nonsquamous advanced NSCLC and PS 0-1, pemetrexed therapy, with its favorable toxicity profile, is a viable option, either in combination with cisplatin in the first-line setting or as maintenance therapy after initial chemotherapy.

Randomized, open-label, phase III study of pemetrexed plus carboplatin (PemC) followed by maintenance pemetrexed versus paclitaxel/carboplatin/bevacizumab (PCB) followed by maintenance bevacizumab in patients with advanced nonsquamous (NS) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

LBA8003 Background: PemC and PCB are regimens used for first-line treatment of advanced NS-NSCLC. The primary objective was to compare progression-free survival without Grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS) between two vs three drug regimen arms. METHODS Patients ≥18 years, Stage IV NS NSCLC, AJCC (v7.0), and ECOG PS 0/1 were enrolled. Patients were randomized (1:1); received 4 cycles of induction (PemC: Pem, 500 mg/m2 and C, AUC = 6; PCB: P, 200 mg/m2, C, AUC = 6, and B, 15 mg/kg) followed by Pem (PemC Arm) or B (PCB Arm) maintenance therapy in the absence of progressive disease or discontinuation. Secondary endpoints were PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR). The study was powered for G4PFS; assuming hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75; there was 80% power to detect superiority of PemC over PCB with a 2-sided type I error of 0.10. Efficacy data were analyzed by intent-to-treat principle using the log-rank test for time-to-event variables, and an exact test for ORR and DCR. Safety data were evaluated using CTCAE v3 for patients who received ≥1 dose of study treatment. RESULTS Patients were randomized to PemC (N = 182) or PCB (N = 179). Baseline factors were balanced between arms: median age 66/66 years; % female 42/42; % PS=0, 47/47; % stage IV M1a 29/30; for PemC vs PCB, median G4PFS (months) was 3.91/2.86 (HR = 0.85, 90% CI 0.7, 1.04, p = 0.176); PFS and OS had HR = 1.06 (95% CI 0.84, 1.35), p = 0.610, and HR = 1.07 (95% CI 0.83, 1.36), p = 0.616, respectively. The ORR (%) 23.6/ 27.4 and DCR (%) 59.9/57.0 were for PemC vs PCB, respectively. Significantly more drug-related grade 3/4 anemia (18.7% vs 5.4%), and thrombocytopenia (24.0% vs 9.6%) were seen on PemC; significantly more grade 3/4 neutropenia (48.8% vs 24.6%) and grade 1/2 alopecia (28.3 % vs 8.2%) were seen on PCB. CONCLUSIONS PemC was not superior to PCB in G4PFS; no difference in PFS or OS was observed for the two- vs three-drug regimens. There were no unexpected toxicities; the toxicity profiles demonstrated distinctions by arm, and both regimens demonstrated tolerability. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION NCT00948675.

Baseline quality of life and performance status as prognostic factors in patients with extensive-stage disease small cell lung cancer treated with pemetrexed plus carboplatin vs. etoposide plus carboplatin

BACKGROUND Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is associated with poor prognosis due to its early metastatic potential and lack of improved outcomes with newer cytotoxic agents. Identifying factors associated with clinical outcomes can help clinicians determine which patients are more likely to benefit from therapy. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) subscales and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) were retrospectively analyzed as prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with extensive-stage disease (ED)-SCLC. METHODS Using data from a Phase III trial of pemetrexed-carboplatin vs. etoposide-carboplatin, the effect of the prognostic factors on OS and PFS was analyzed via Cox models. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate OS and PFS parameters for the prognostic subgroups (defined by baseline FACT scores and ECOG PS). RESULTS Patients with higher baseline FACT-General (FACT-G) score (≥ median) had significantly higher OS (hazard ratio [HR]=0.62, P<.0001) and PFS (HR=0.83, P=.032) compared with patients with lower FACT-G score (<median). Similar results were observed for higher baseline physical well-being (PWB) and functional well-being (FWB) scores. For OS, there was a significant interaction between PS and FACT-PWB score (P=.005). In patients with PS=2 and higher FACT-PWB scores at baseline, a 48% reduction in the risk of death (P=.025) and nearly 3-month longer median OS were estimated. CONCLUSIONS Higher baseline FACT-G, FACT-PWB, and FACT-FWB scores were found to be favorable prognostic factors for survival in ED-SCLC. Higher FACT-PWB scores at baseline predicted better survival for patients with poorer PS.

Quality of Life Analyses from the Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III PointBreak Study of Pemetrexed-Carboplatin-Bevacizumab followed by Maintenance Pemetrexed-Bevacizumab Versus Paclitaxel-Carboplatin-Bevacizumab followed by Maintenance Bevacizumab in Patients with Stage IIIB or IV Nonsquamous Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Introduction: Treatment impact on quality of life (QoL) informs treatment management decisions in advanced nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer (NS NSCLC). QoL outcomes from the phase III PointBreak trial are reported. Methods: Chemonaive patients (n = 939) with stage IIIB/IV nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1 were randomized (1:1) to pemetrexed-carboplatin-bevacizumab (pemetrexed arm) or paclitaxel-carboplatin-bevacizumab (paclitaxel arm). Patients without progressive disease received maintenance pemetrexed-bevacizumab (pemetrexed arm) or bevacizumab (paclitaxel arm). QoL was assessed using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)-General (FACT-G), FACT-Lung (FACT-L), and FACT/Gynecologic Oncology Group-Neurotoxicity (FACT-Ntx) instruments. Subscale scores, total scores, and trial outcome indices were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models. Post hoc analyses examined the association between baseline FACT scores and overall survival (OS). Results: Mean score differences in change from baseline significantly favored the pemetrexed arm for the neurotoxicity subscale score, FACT-Ntx total scores, and FACT-Ntx trial outcome index. They occurred at cycle 2 (p < 0.001) and persisted through induction cycles 2 to 4 and six maintenance cycles. Investigator-assessed, qualitative, drug-related differences in grade 2 (1.6% versus 10.6%) and grade 3 (0.0% versus 4.1%) sensory neuropathy and grade 3/4 fatigue (10.9% versus 5.0%, p = 0.0012) were observed between the pemetrexed and paclitaxel arms. Baseline FACT-G, FACT-L, and FACT-Ntx scores were significant prognostic factors for OS (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Randomized patients reported similar changes in QoL, except for less change from baseline in neurotoxicity on the pemetrexed arm; investigators reported greater neurotoxicity on the paclitaxel arm and greater fatigue on the pemetrexed arm. Higher baseline FACT scores were favorable prognostic factors for OS.

Relationship between efficacy outcomes and weight gain during treatment of advanced, non-squamous, non-small-cell lung cancer patients

BACKGROUND Unintentional weight loss occurs among advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients and is associated with worse survival. Small studies have suggested that weight gain during treatment is associated with superior survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS A retrospective analysis analyzed data from three international phase III studies comprising 2301 advanced, non-squamous NSCLC patients who received a platinum-based, first-line doublet, with or without bevacizumab and maintenance therapy. Body weight was recorded before and after treatment by each studys schedule. The relationship between weight gain and overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was assessed using log-rank test and adjusted Cox modeling. Logistic regression assessed the association between baseline covariates and post-baseline weight gain. RESULTS Four hundred and twenty-one (18.3%) patients had >5% weight gain after baseline. More than half of the weight gain cohort exhibited initial weight gain by 3 weeks. The median OS was 16.7 months versus 10.7 months for the >5% versus ≤5% weight gain subgroup (n = 1880) (P < 0.001). PFS was 6.9 versus 4.8 months, respectively (P < 0.001). Differences in overall tumor response rate (50.8% versus 25.4%, respectively) and disease control rate (tumor response or stable disease) (91.5% versus 63.6%, respectively) were also significant (P < 0.001). The Cox modeling revealed the >5% subgroup had longer survival [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.62; P < 0.001] than the ≤5% subgroup after adjusting for baseline factors. Similar significant results were found for PFS (HR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.52-0.67; P < 0.001). Unadjusted logistic regression indicated a significant association between weight gain (>5% versus ≤5%) and age, and BMI. CONCLUSIONS Weight gain during treatment may be an early indicator of clinical benefit. If confirmed in prospective studies, monitoring weight change may provide important information regarding survival outcomes in NSCLC and may provide ideas for new therapeutic strategies.