Everolimus with paclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line treatment for metastatic large-cell neuroendocrine lung carcinoma: a multicenter phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung (LCNEC) is a rare disease with poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Neuroendocrine tumors frequently show overactivation of the mTOR pathway. Based on the good activity of the mTOR inhibitor everolimus in different types of neuroendocrine tumors and the results of a previous phase I trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of everolimus in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel as upfront treatment for patients with advanced LCNEC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter phase II trial chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IV LCNEC received 5 mg everolimus daily combined with paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC 5 every 3 weeks for a maximum of four cycles followed by maintenance everolimus 5 mg daily until progression. Efficacy parameters were determined based on central radiologic assessment. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients with a mean age of 62 ±9 years and a predominance of male (71%) smokers (98%) were enrolled in 10 German centers. The overall response rate was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI] 31%-60%), the disease control rate 74% (CI 59%-85%), the median progression-free survival 4.4 (CI 3.2-6) months and the median overall survival 9.9 (CI 6.9-11.7) months. The progression-free survival rate at 3 months (primary end point) was 76% (CI 64%-88%) according to Kaplan-Meier. Grade-3/4 toxicities occurred in 51% of patients and mainly consisted of general physical health deterioration (8%), cytopenias (24%), infections (10%) and gastrointestinal problems (8%). Typical everolimus-related adverse events, like stomatitis, rash and ocular problems occurred only in a minority of patients (<15%) and were exclusively of grade 1-2. CONCLUSION: Everolimus in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel is an effective and well-tolerated first-line treatment for patients with metastatic LCNEC. REGISTERED CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBERS: EudraCT number 2010-022273-34, NCT01317615.

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.

Zoledronic acid in patients with stage IIIA/B NSCLC: results of a randomized, phase III study.

BACKGROUND: Bone metastases are common in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and can have devastating consequences. Preventing or delaying bone metastases may improve outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study evaluated whether zoledronic acid (ZOL) delayed disease progression or recurrence in patients with controlled stage IIIA/B NSCLC after first-line therapy. Patients received vitamin D and calcium supplementation and were randomized to i.v. ZOL (every 3-4 weeks) or no treatment (control). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: No significant intergroup differences were observed in PFS or overall survival (OS). Median PFS was 9.0 months with ZOL versus 11.3 months for control. Fifteen ZOL-treated (6.6%) and 19 control patients (9.0%) developed bone metastases. Estimated 1-year OS was 81.8% for each group. ZOL safety profile was consistent with previous clinical data, but with higher discontinuations versus control. Fifteen ZOL-treated (6.6%) and five control patients (2.3%) had renal adverse events. Two cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw were reported. CONCLUSIONS: ZOL did not significantly affect PFS or OS in stage IIIA/B NSCLC patients with controlled disease, with a trend toward worsening PFS in the longer-term follow-up. Few patients experienced bone metastases, possibly limiting the potential ZOL impact on disease course.

Randomized phase III study of gemcitabine and vinorelbine versus gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and cisplatin in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: from the German and Swiss Lung Cancer Study Group.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether cisplatin-based chemotherapy (gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and cisplatin [GVP]) prolongs overall survival in comparison to cisplatin-free chemotherapy (gemcitabine and vinorelbine [GV]) as first-line treatment in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between September 1999 and June 2001, 300 patients with NSCLC stage IIIB with malignant pleural effusion or stage IV disease were randomly assigned to receive GV (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) + vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or GVP (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) + vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 + cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 2 every 3 weeks). Primary end point of the study was overall survival. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-seven patients (GV, 143 patients; GVP, 144 patients) were eligible for analysis. At the time of analysis, April 15, 2002, 209 patients (GV, 103 patients; GVP, 106 patients) of 287 patients had died (73%). No statistically significant difference was observed for overall survival (P =.73; median survival, 35.9 versus 32.4 weeks; 1-year survival rate, 33.6% versus 27.5%) as well as for event-free survival (P =.35; median time-to-event, 19.3 versus 22.3 weeks) between GV and GVP. Two hundred fourteen patients were assessable for best response. The overall response rates were 13.0% for GV versus 28.3% for GVP (P =.004; complete responders, 0% versus 3.8%; partial responders, 13.0% versus 24.5%). Hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity was significantly lower in the GV treatment arm compared with GVP. No statistically significant difference in quality of life was observed. CONCLUSION: In this phase III study, the cisplatin-based GVP regimen showed no survival benefit as first-line chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC when compared with the cisplatin-free GV regimen, which was substantially better tolerated.