Vittorio Gebbia

Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EURTAC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Erlotinib has been shown to improve progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy when given as first-line treatment for Asian patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating EGFR mutations. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of erlotinib compared with standard chemotherapy for first-line treatment of European patients with advanced EGFR-mutation positive NSCLC. METHODS We undertook the open-label, randomised phase 3 EURTAC trial at 42 hospitals in France, Italy, and Spain. Eligible participants were adults (> 18 years) with NSCLC and EGFR mutations (exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation in exon 21) with no history of chemotherapy for metastatic disease (neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy ending ≥ 6 months before study entry was allowed). We randomly allocated participants (1:1) according to a computer-generated allocation schedule to receive oral erlotinib 150 mg per day or 3 week cycles of standard intravenous chemotherapy of cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) on day 1) or gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8). Carboplatin (AUC 6 with docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) or AUC 5 with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2)) was allowed in patients unable to have cisplatin. Patients were stratified by EGFR mutation type and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs 1 vs 2). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received study drug (≥ 1 dose). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00446225. FINDINGS Between Feb 15, 2007, and Jan 4, 2011, 174 patients with EGFR mutations were enrolled. One patient received treatment before randomisation and was thus withdrawn from the study; of the remaining patients, 86 were randomly assigned to receive erlotinib and 87 to receive standard chemotherapy. The preplanned interim analysis showed that the study met its primary endpoint; enrolment was halted, and full evaluation of the results was recommended. At data cutoff (Jan 26, 2011), median PFS was 9·7 months (95% CI 8·4-12·3) in the erlotinib group, compared with 5·2 months (4·5-5·8) in the standard chemotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·37, 95% CI 0·25-0·54; p < 0·0001). Main grade 3 or 4 toxicities were rash (11 [13%] of 84 patients given erlotinib vs none of 82 patients in the chemotherapy group), neutropenia (none vs 18 [22%]), anaemia (one [1%] vs three [4%]), and increased amino-transferase concentrations (two [2%] vs 0). Five (6%) patients on erlotinib had treatment-related severe adverse events compared with 16 patients (20%) on chemotherapy. One patient in the erlotinib group and two in the standard chemotherapy group died from treatment-related causes. INTERPRETATION Our findings strengthen the rationale for routine baseline tissue-based assessment of EGFR mutations in patients with NSCLC and for treatment of mutation-positive patients with EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. FUNDING Spanish Lung Cancer Group, Roche Farma, Hoffmann-La Roche, and Red Temática de Investigacion Cooperativa en Cancer.

Phase III Randomized Trial of FOLFIRI Versus FOLFOX4 in the Treatment of Advanced Colorectal Cancer: A Multicenter Study of the Gruppo Oncologico Dell’Italia Meridionale

PURPOSE We performed this phase III study to compare the irinotecan, leucovorin (LV), and fluorouracil (FU) regimen (FOLFIRI) versus the oxaliplatin, LV, and FU regimen (FOLFOX4) in previously untreated patients with advanced colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 360 chemotherapy-naive patients were randomly assigned to receive, every 2 weeks, either arm A (FOLFIRI: irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) on day 1 with LV 100 mg/m(2) administered as a 2-hour infusion before FU 400 mg/m(2) administered as an intravenous bolus injection, and FU 600 mg/m(2) as a 22-hour infusion immediately after FU bolus injection on days 1 and 2 [LV5FU2]) or arm B (FOLFOX4: oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) on day 1 with LV5FU2 regimen). RESULTS One hundred sixty-four and 172 patients were assessable in arm A and B, respectively. Overall response rates (ORR) were 31% in arm A (95% CI, 24.6% to 38.3%) and 34% in arm B (95% CI, 27.2% to 41.5%; P = .60). In both arms A and B, median time to progression (TTP; 7 v 7 months, respectively), duration of response (9 v 10 months, respectively), and overall survival (OS; 14 v 15 months, respectively) were similar, without any statistically significant difference. Toxicity was mild in both groups: alopecia and gastrointestinal disturbances were the most common toxicities in arm A; thrombocytopenia and neurosensorial were the most common toxicities in arm B. Grade 3 to 4 toxicities were uncommon in both arms, and no statistical significant difference was observed. CONCLUSION There is no difference in ORR, TTP, and OS for patients treated with the FOLFIRI or FOLFOX4 regimen. Both therapies seemed effective as first-line treatment in these patients. The difference between these two combination therapies is mainly in the toxicity profile.

Gemcitabine alone or with cisplatin for the treatment of patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic pancreatic carcinoma: A prospective, randomized Phase III study of the gruppo oncologico dell'italia meridionale

A prospective, randomized Phase III trial was performed to determine whether, compared with gemcitabine (GEM) alone, the addition of cisplatin (CDDP) to GEM was able to improve the time to disease progression and the clinical benefit rate in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The objective response rate, overall survival rate, and toxicity patterns of patients in the two treatment arms were evaluated as secondary end points.

Gemcitabine Plus Vinorelbine Compared With Cisplatin Plus Vinorelbine or Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine for Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase III Trial of the Italian GEMVIN Investigators and the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group

PURPOSE Platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens are the standard treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), although toxicity is common and may significantly affect the patients quality of life (QoL). This trial aimed to assess whether a combination of gemcitabine and vinorelbine had benefits in terms of QoL, without influencing negatively on survival, compared with cisplatin-containing regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with stage IIIB (effusion and supraclavicular nodes) or IV documented NSCLC who were younger than 70 years of age were randomly assigned gemcitabine plus vinorelbine (GemVin) or either gemcitabine plus cisplatin or vinorelbine plus cisplatin (cisplatin-based). European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer scales were used for QoL analysis. RESULTS Five hundred one patients were randomly assigned to treatment. The median age was 62 years. There were no significant differences in global QoL scores between the two arms after 2 months of treatment. However, worsening scores for appetite, vomiting, and alopecia were significantly more common in the cisplatin-based arm. Median survival was 38 v 32 weeks and median progression-free survival was 23 v 17 weeks in the cisplatin-based versus GemVin arms, respectively. For the GemVin arm the hazard ratio for death was 1.15 (90% confidence interval [CI], 0.96 to 1.37) and the hazard ratio for progression was 1.29 (90% CI, 1.10 to 1.52). Grade 3 or 4 myelosuppression, vomiting, alopecia, and ototoxicity were significantly more frequent with cisplatin-based treatment. CONCLUSION Global QoL is not improved with GemVin, although advantages in some components of QoL were apparent. GemVin is less toxic than standard cisplatin-based chemotherapy. There is a nonsignificant slight survival advantage with cisplatin-based chemotherapy. GemVin could be offered to advanced NSCLC patients who express concern about toxicity.

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.

Switching From Morphine to Methadone to Improve Analgesia and Tolerability in Cancer Patients: A Prospective Study

PURPOSE To evaluate the clinical benefits of switching from morphine to oral methadone in patients who experience poor analgesia or adverse effects from morphine. PATIENTS AND METHODS Fifty-two consecutive cancer patients receiving oral morphine but with uncontrolled pain and/or moderate to severe opioid adverse effects were switched to oral methadone administered every 8 hours using different dose ratios. Intensity of pain and adverse effects were assessed daily, and the symptom distress score (DS) was calculated before and after switching. RESULTS Data were analyzed for 50 patients. Switching was considered effective in 80% of the patients; results were achieved in an average of 3.65 days. In the 10 patients who switched to methadone because of uncontrolled pain, a significant reduction in pain intensity (P <.005) and an average of a 33% increase in methadone doses necessary (P <.01) were found after an average of 3.5 days. DS significantly decreased from an average of 8.4 to 4.5 (P <.0005). In the 32 patients switching because of uncontrolled pain and morphine-related adverse effects, significant improvement was found in pain intensity (P <.0005), nausea and vomiting (P <.03), constipation (P <.001), and drowsiness (P <.01), but a significant increase in the methadone dose of an average of 20% (P <.004) was required. CONCLUSION In most patients with cancer pain referred for poor pain control and/or adverse effects, switching to oral methadone is a valid therapeutic option. In the clinical setting of poor pain control, higher doses of methadone are necessary with respect to the equianalgesic calculated dose ratios previously published.

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.

Anticancer oral therapy: Emerging related issues

The use of oral anticancer drugs has shown a steady increase. Most patients prefer anticancer oral therapy to intravenous treatment primarily for the convenience of a home-based therapy, although they require that the efficacy of oral therapy must be equivalent and toxicity not superior than those expected with the intravenous treatment. A better patient compliance, drug tolerability, convenience and possible better efficacy for oral therapy as compared to intravenous emerge as the major reasons to use oral anticancer agents among oncologists. Inter- and intra-individual pharmacokinetic variations in the bioavailability of oral anticancer drugs may be more relevant than for intravenous agents. Compliance is particularly important for oral therapy because it determines the dose-intensity of the treatment and ultimately treatment efficacy and toxicity. Patient stands as the most important determinant of compliance. Possible measures for an active and safe administration of oral therapy include a careful preliminary medical evaluation and selection of patients based on possible barriers to an adequate compliance, pharmacologic issues, patient-focused education, an improvement of the accessibility to healthcare service, as well as the development of home-care nursing symptom-focused interventions. Current evidences show similar quality of life profile between oral and intravenous treatments, although anticancer oral therapy seems to be more convenient in terms of administration and reduced time lost for work or other activities. Regarding cost-effectiveness, current evidences are in favor of oral therapy, mainly due to reduced need of visits and/or day in hospital for the administration of the drug and/or the management of adverse events.

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.