Biosimilars: what the oncologist should know.

As originator biologic medicines lose patent protection, some biopharmaceutical companies are focusing on developing similar versions of these costly and complex therapies with a goal of providing more affordable treatment options. Many of these molecules, known as biosimilars, are now approved worldwide and several more are expected to be introduced in the near future. As more biosimilars become available, it is important for clinicians to become familiar with this new category of products and understand how biosimilars are developed, how their development differs from that of originator biologics and how they differ from generics. This review aims to provide the practicing clinician with the knowledge needed to understand biosimilars, along with some guidance on their use in treating oncologic diseases.

Efficacy and Safety of the Biosimilar ABP 215 Compared with Bevacizumab in Patients with Advanced Nonsquamous Non-small Cell Lung Cancer (MAPLE): A Randomized, Double-blind, Phase III Study.

PURPOSE: This phase III study compared clinical efficacy and safety of the biosimilar ABP 215 with bevacizumab reference product (RP) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to ABP 215 or bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every three weeks for 6 cycles. All patients received carboplatin and paclitaxel every three weeks for ≥4 and ≤6 cycles. The primary efficacy endpoint was risk ratio of objective response rate (ORR); clinical equivalence was confirmed if the 2-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) of the risk ratio was within the margin of 0.67 to 1.5. Secondary endpoints included risk difference of ORR, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS); pharmacokinetics, adverse events (AEs), and incidence of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) were monitored. RESULTS: A total of 820 patients were screened; 642 were randomized to ABP 215 (n = 328) and bevacizumab (n = 314). Overall, 128 (39.0%) and 131 (41.7%) patients in the ABP 215 and bevacizumab groups, respectively, had objective responses [ORR risk ratio: 0.93 (90% CI, 0.80-1.09)]. In the ABP 215 and bevacizumab group, 308 (95.1%) and 289 (93.5%) patients, respectively, had at least 1 AE; 13 (4.0%) and 11 (3.6%) experienced a fatal AE. Anti-VEGF toxicity was low and comparable between treatment groups. At week 19, median trough serum drug concentration was 132 µg/mL (ABP 215 group) and 129 µg/mL (bevacizumab group). No patient tested positive for neutralizing antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: ABP 215 is similar to bevacizumab RP with respect to clinical efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetics. The totality of evidence supports clinical equivalence of ABP 215 and bevacizumab.

'Dos and don'ts' in the management of hyponatremia.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The management of hyponatremia has evolved in recent years, particularly with the introduction of tolvaptan for hyponatremia secondary to the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion (SIADH). This commentary presents a summary of recent international recommendations in the form of a series of didactic 'dos and don'ts', in order to provide concise, practical guidance for practising clinicians focused on the investigation and management of euvolemic hyponatremia (SIADH). RESEARCH METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of international experts reviewed existing guidelines and the evidence cited within to summarize the recommendations in a practical method for use in clinical practice. RECOMMENDATIONS: The 'dos and don'ts' are presented under topic headings that include diagnosis and diagnostic tests, specific causes, correction of acute hyponatremia, correction rates for chronic hyponatremia, management of SIADH including fluid restriction, hypertonic saline and pharmacological strategies, and management of overcorrection. Within each topic, the authors summarize the published recommendations on managing hyponatremia and the use of specific agents for the treatment of SIADH. CONCLUSION: Practising clinicians can use these 'dos and don'ts' to provide clear, up-to-date guidance on how to manage hyponatremia and the use of tolvaptan in SIADH.

The diagnosis and management of inpatient hyponatraemia and SIADH.

BACKGROUND: Hyponatraemia is a very common medical condition that is associated with multiple poor clinical outcomes and is often managed suboptimally because of inadequate assessment and investigation. Previously published guidelines for its management are often complex and impractical to follow in a hospital environment, where patients may present to divergent specialists, as well as to generalists. DESIGN: A group of senior, experienced UK clinicians, met to develop a practical algorithm for the assessment and management of hyponatraemia in a hospital setting. The latest evidence was discussed and reviewed in the light of current clinical practicalities to ensure an up-to-date perspective. An algorithm was largely developed following consensus opinion, followed up with subsequent additions and amendments that were agreed by all authors during several rounds of review. RESULTS: We present a practical algorithm which includes a breakdown of the best methods to evaluate volume status, simple assessments for the diagnosis of the various causes and a straightforward approach to treatment to minimise complexity and maximise patient safety. CONCLUSION: The algorithm we have developed reflects the best available evidence and extensive clinical experience and provides practical, useable guidance to improve patient care.

Awareness and understanding of cancer immunotherapy in Europe.

The use of immunotherapy in the management of cancer is growing, and a range of new immunotherapeutic strategies is becoming available. It is important that people involved in the care of cancer understand how cancer immunotherapies differ from conventional chemotherapy and apply this knowledge to their clinical practice. Therefore, from August-September 2011 we undertook a survey of awareness, attitudes, and perceptions of cancer immunotherapy among 426 healthcare professionals (HCPs) in Europe with the aim of identifying and prioritizing educational needs. Nearly all (98%) HCPs were aware of cancer immunotherapy. While 68% of HCPs indicated a high level of interest in cancer immunotherapies, only 24% of the HCPs had direct experience with them. Overall perceptions of cancer immunotherapy among HCPs were largely positive (60%) and rarely negative (3%). The key advantages of cancer immunotherapy were perceived to be good safety and tolerability (75%), a targeted mechanism of action (61%) and good efficacy (48%). The leading barriers to use of immunotherapies were costs of treatment (58%), past clinical trial failures (45%), and access/formulary restrictions (44%). The results indicate that, among the respondents, awareness of cancer immunotherapy was high but that knowledge levels varied and direct experience with their use was limited. There appears to be a need for educational activities on cancer immunotherapy, as well as generation and communication of clinical data on long-term efficacy and safety.

Therapeutic vaccines for cancer: an overview of clinical trials.

The therapeutic potential of host-specific and tumour-specific immune responses is well recognized and, after many years, active immunotherapies directed at inducing or augmenting these responses are entering clinical practice. Antitumour immunization is a complex, multi-component task, and the optimal combinations of antigens, adjuvants, delivery vehicles and routes of administration are not yet identified. Active immunotherapy must also address the immunosuppressive and tolerogenic mechanisms deployed by tumours. This Review provides an overview of new results from clinical studies of therapeutic cancer vaccines directed against tumour-associated antigens and discusses their implications for the use of active immunotherapy.

Aflibercept and Docetaxel versus Docetaxel alone after platinum failure in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized, controlled phase III trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of aflibercept (ziv-aflibercept), a recombinant human fusion protein targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway, with or without docetaxel in platinum-pretreated patients with advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this international, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial, 913 patients were randomly assigned to (ziv-)aflibercept 6 mg/kg intravenous (IV; n = 456) or IV placebo (n = 457), both administered every 3 weeks and in combination with docetaxel 75 mg/m(2). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Other efficacy outcomes, safety, and immunogenicity were also assessed. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were balanced between arms; 12.3% of patients had received prior bevacizumab. (Ziv-)Aflibercept did not improve OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.17; stratified log-rank P = .90). The median OS was 10.1 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 11.6 months) for (ziv-)aflibercept and 10.4 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 11.9 months) for placebo. In exploratory analyses, median progression-free survival was 5.2 months (95% CI, 4.4 to 5.6 months) for (ziv-)aflibercept versus 4.1 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 4.3 months) for placebo (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94; P = .0035); overall response rate was 23.3% of evaluable patients (95% CI, 19.1% to 27.4%) in the (ziv-)aflibercept arm versus 8.9% (95% CI, 6.1% to 11.6%; P < .001) in the placebo arm. Grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurring more frequently in the (ziv-)aflibercept arm versus the placebo arm were neutropenia (28.0% v 21.1%, respectively), fatigue (11.1% v 4.2%, respectively), stomatitis (8.8% v 0.7%, respectively), and hypertension (7.3% v 0.9%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The addition of (ziv-)aflibercept to standard docetaxel therapy did not improve OS. In exploratory analyses, secondary efficacy end points did seem to be improved in the (ziv-)aflibercept arm. The study regimen was associated with increased toxicities, consistent with known anti-VEGF and chemotherapy-induced events.

Raltitrexed plus cisplatin is cost-effective compared with pemetrexed plus cisplatin in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma.

INTRODUCTION: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has previously recommended pemetrexed plus cisplatin for the treatment of patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) and WHO performance status 0-1. Subsequent to this appraisal, randomised controlled trial (RCT) data for raltitrexed plus cisplatin and comparing chemotherapy to active symptom control (ASC) has become available, allowing a more complete analysis of the comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness of first-line chemotherapy in MPM. METHODS: An adjusted indirect comparison is used to estimate the relative efficacy of raltitrexed plus cisplatin and pemetrexed plus cisplatin. A cost-effectiveness model is used to assess the lifetime costs and health outcomes associated with these comparators and ASC. Patient level data from the EORTC 08983 trial are used to estimate baseline progression and survival rates. Relative treatment effects are taken from RCTs; cost and utility data from the literature. RESULTS: Raltitrexed plus cisplatin and pemetrexed plus cisplatin were not found to be statistically significantly different with respect to overall response, progression free survival or overall survival. The cost-effectiveness analysis found raltitrexed plus cisplatin to be cost-effective at a cost per quality adjusted life year of £13,454 compared to cisplatin and £27,360 compared to ASC. Pemetrexed plus cisplatin is dominated by raltitrexed plus cisplatin as the raltitrexed combination offers marginally higher quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and life years (LYs) at a substantially lower total cost. CONCLUSION: Raltitrexed plus cisplatin is a cost-effective first-line treatment for MPM. This conclusion was maintained across a number of sensitivity analyses.

Omitting elective nodal irradiation during thoracic irradiation in limited-stage small cell lung cancer--evidence from a phase II trial.

Omitting elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in limited-stage disease small cell lung cancer (LD-SCLC) is expected to result in smaller radiation fields. We report on data from a randomised phase II trial that omitted ENI in patients receiving concurrent chemo-radiotherapy for LD-SCLC. 38 patients with LD-SCLC were randomised to receive once-daily (66 Gy in 33 fractions) or twice-daily (45 Gy in 30 fractions) radiotherapy (RT). 3D-conformal RT was given concurrently with cisplatin and etoposide starting with the second cycle of a total of four cycles. The gross tumour volume was defined as primary tumour with involved lymph nodes (nodes ≥1 cm in short axis) identifiable with CT imaging. ENI was not used. Six recurrence patterns were identified: recurrence within planning target volume (PTV) only, recurrence within PTV+regional nodal recurrence and/or distant recurrence, isolated nodal recurrence outside PTV, nodal recurrence outside PTV+distant recurrence, distant metastases only and no recurrence. At median follow-up 16.9 months, 31/38 patients were evaluable and 14/31 patients had relapsed. There were no isolated nodal recurrences. Eight patients relapsed with intra-thoracic disease: 2 within PTV only, 4 within PTV and distantly and 2 with nodal recurrence outside PTV plus distant metastases. Rates of grade 3+ acute oesophagitis and pneumonitis in the 31 evaluable patients were 23 and 3% respectively. In our study of LD-SCLC, omitting ENI based on CT imaging was not associated with a high risk of isolated nodal recurrence, although further prospective studies are needed to confirm this. Routine ENI omission will be further evaluated prospectively in the ongoing phase III CONVERT trial (NCT00433563).

Use of G-CSF during concurrent chemotherapy and thoracic radiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer safety data from a phase II trial.

There is paucity of data in the literature regarding the safety of combining granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) during chemo-radiotherapy (CTRT) in lung cancer patients. The ASCO 2006 recommendations advise against use of CSFs during concomitant mediastinal CTRT. The only randomised study evaluating CSFs in this context showed significant increase in grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia and an excess of pulmonary toxic deaths. In the context of a phase II trial, 38 patients with limited-stage small cell lung cancer were randomised to receive once-daily (66 Gy in 33 fractions) or twice-daily (45 Gy in 30 fractions) radiotherapy. Radiotherapy (RT) was given concurrently with cisplatin and etoposide. G-CSF was given as primary or secondary prophylaxis or as a therapeutic measure during an episode of febrile neutropenia according to local protocols. Common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) v3.0 was used to record toxicity. Thirteen (34%) of 38 patients received G-CSF concurrently with RT. With a median follow-up of 16.9 months, there were no treatment related deaths reported. Seven (54%) patients experienced grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia and 5 (38%) experienced grade 3/4 anaemia. Thirty-one percent required platelet transfusions. No episodes of bleeding were observed. There were no cases of grade 3/4 acute pneumonitis. These data suggests that with modern three-dimensional (3D) conformal RT, G-CSF administration concurrently with CTRT does not result in the increase risk of pulmonary toxicity, but does increase the risk of thrombocytopenia. Whether the risks of thrombocytopenia are outweighed by the outcome of timely early concurrent CTRT is being evaluated prospectively in the ongoing phase III CONVERT trial (NCT00433563) in which G-CSF is permitted during thoracic irradiation.

Outcomes of small-cell lung cancer patients treated with second-line chemotherapy: a multi-institutional retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) that progress after first-line chemotherapy have a poor prognosis and the evidence of a benefit from second-line (SL) chemotherapy is limited. Patients relapsing or progressing more than 90 days after completion of first-line treatment are considered platinum sensitive and may be rechallenged with platinum-based chemotherapy. Topotecan is approved as SL treatment independent of time to progression. This retrospective analysis evaluates the clinical outcomes of SCLC patients who received SL chemotherapy after platinum-etoposide chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 161 patients who received SL chemotherapy for SCLC. Patients were divided into four subgroups by type of SL treatment: (1) platinum-based rechallenge; (2) anthracycline-based regimens; (3) topotecan; (4) other single agents. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate (RR). Survival curves were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method. The Cox proportional hazard model was used for multivariate analysis to investigate factors influencing survival. RESULTS: The median age was 63. There were 125 males and 36 females. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) was 0, 1 and 2 in 12.5%, 62.5% and 25% of patients, respectively. Platinum sensitive/platinum resistant/platinum refractory/unknown=121/29/3/8 patients. Median time to SL chemotherapy was 6.9 months. The median PFS from starting second-line treatment was 4.3 months and median OS was 5.8 months. The overall RR was 22.9%. There was a trend toward higher RR (34.5% vs 17.5%, p for trend: 0.06) and OS (9.2 months vs 5.8 months, p=0.08) for patients with sensitive disease who were rechallenged with platinum-based chemotherapy. A multivariate analysis that adjusted for the time to SL treatment showed that a platinum-containing regimen achieves better RR, PFS and OS independently of the time to SL chemotherapy and that response to first-line treatment and PS at SL are the only independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: The outcome for second-line therapy for SCLC was poor and benefit appeared to be limited to those patients with good PS and rechallenged with platinum-based chemotherapy. Platinum-based rechallenge should be considered as a standard comparator in future randomized controlled trials of SL chemotherapy.

Maintenance and consolidation therapy in patients with unresectable stage III/IV non-small cell lung cancer.

Globally, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Current chemotherapy combinations for the first-line treatment of advanced disease (stage IIIB with malignant pleural effusion/stage IV) and chemoradiotherapy regimens for the treatment of unresectable locally advanced disease (stage IIIA and IIIB without malignant pleural effusion) appear to have reached an efficacy plateau. The addition of new compounds including targeted agents to standard first-line cytotoxic doublets, administered concurrently and/or as maintenance therapy in patients who have not experienced disease progression after such treatment, has been shown to improve efficacy beyond this plateau in patients with advanced disease. However, to date, such approaches have been less successful in the treatment of patients with unresectable locally advanced stage III disease. The purpose of this review is to summarize the data from recent randomized phase III studies involving agents administered as maintenance or consolidation therapy in the treatment of unresectable stage III/IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A possible alternative approach to the use of cytotoxic or molecularly targeted agents in this setting is the administration of therapeutic anticancer vaccines, which are designed to stimulate a host immunological response against the tumor. Current data in relation to the potential of vaccine therapy for NSCLC are therefore also reviewed, with a particular focus on belagenpumatucel-L and L-BLP25 vaccines, which are currently undergoing phase III evaluation as maintenance therapies in patients with unresectable stage III/IV NSCLC who have tumor control following first-line therapy.

Observation of the treatment and outcomes of patients receiving chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC in Europe (ACTION study).

OBJECTIVE: The ACTION (Assessment of Cost and ouTcomes of chemotherapy In an Observational setting) study investigated associations between chemotherapy, patient/disease characteristics and outcomes in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in clinical practice. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Chemonaïve NSCLC patients from five European countries were observed for 18 months from initiation of first-line chemotherapy; care was at the physician's discretion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Survival and associated prognostic factors were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and a Cox proportional hazards model, respectively. Cluster analyses of baseline patient characteristics were also performed. Toxicity data were not considered in these analyses. RESULTS: A total of 975 eligible patients with NSCLC (Stage IIIb/IV) were enrolled and provided baseline and response data; cluster analysis was performed on 829 patients and survival data were available from 906 patients. In first-line treatment, a 39.8% response rate, a 39.5% 1-year survival rate and unadjusted median survival of 9.3 months were observed. Prognostic factors for survival included performance status (PS), number of metastatic organs, gender and age. Five patient clusters were identified, highlighting patient heterogeneity in terms of baseline condition and age. PS was maintained or improved throughout first-line and second-line chemotherapy in half the patients receiving these treatments. CONCLUSIONS: ACTION provides valuable information about patient population, disease characteristics, treatment choices, prescribing patterns and outcomes in routine clinical practice in advanced NSCLC in Europe. Our findings suggest that maintenance of PS after first and subsequent lines of chemotherapy, and survival rates may both be higher than previously anticipated. Our results also showed an association between age and survival, which suggests that age should not exclude patients from receiving chemotherapy if they meet all other eligibility criteria.

Gefitinib for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer.

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD: The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is a leading target for treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Recent trials of the small-molecule EGFR inhibitor gefitinib have now more clearly defined indications for usage, and clinical and molecular factors predictive of benefit. AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW: A systematic search of the literature (Medline, ASCO, WCLC meeting abstracts) was performed from January 2000 to January 2010. The Phase III INTEREST study found gefitinib in unselected, pretreated patients was not inferior to docetaxel chemotherapy in overall survival, offering improved quality of life and superior toxicity profile. The Phase III IPASS study demonstrated improved progression-free survival with gefitinib compared with paclitaxel-carboplatin chemotherapy in chemotherapy-naive, never/light ex-smokers with adenocarcinoma histology. Stratifying for EGFR mutation revealed mutation-positive patients had superior outcomes with gefitinib compared with chemotherapy. Subsequent studies (WJOG4305, NEJ002), selecting only EGFR mutation-positive patients prospectively confirm this finding. WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN: The profile of gefitinib and landmark trials in NSCLC are summarized. How biomarkers may further optimize therapeutic benefit is highlighted. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Gefitinib is expected to have an important impact on management of pretreated and selected chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC. In addition, activating EGFR mutations are proven to be of value for prediction of those who will derive most benefit.

Expert consensus on the management of erlotinib-associated cutaneous toxicity in the u.k.

Rash has been reported in up to 76% of patients with lung cancer who have received the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRI) erlotinib. It has also been observed in patients treated with other agents that have a similar mode of action. Erlotinib-associated skin toxicity typically presents as a papulopustular, follicular, acneiform rash. In most cases, it is mild, transient, and well tolerated, but in 8%-12% of patients, it may be sufficiently severe and persistent to necessitate intervention. Increasingly strong data suggest that the incidence and severity of skin toxicity may be predictive of response and survival in patients treated with erlotinib. This has prompted some clinicians to consider "treatment to rash" (i.e., increasing the dosage until a rash appears) as a rational management strategy. In 2007, an international consensus was developed for the management of EGFRI-associated skin toxicity. Subsequently, a multidisciplinary group (the U.K. Erlotinib Skin Toxicity Management Consensus Group) met to validate and modify the international recommendations for U.K. use, with specific reference to erlotinib. Although many aspects of the international consensus were approved by the group as being relevant for the U.K., certain parts were modified. The resulting expert opinion is a practical and workable version of the international proposal that considers all applicable national issues regarding the management of erlotinib-associated skin toxicity.

No study left behind: a network meta-analysis in non-small-cell lung cancer demonstrating the importance of considering all relevant data.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the importance of considering all relevant indirect data in a network meta-analysis of treatments for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: A recent National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence appraisal focussed on the indirect comparison of docetaxel with erlotinib in second-line treatment of NSCLC based on trials including a common comparator. We compared the results of this analysis to a network meta-analysis including other trials that formed a network of evidence. We also examined the importance of allowing for the correlations between the estimated treatment effects that can arise when analysing such networks. RESULTS: The analysis of the restricted network including only trials of docetaxel and erlotinib linked via the common placebo comparator produced an estimated mean hazard ratio (HR) for erlotinib compared with docetaxel of 1.55 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-2.97). In contrast, the network meta-analysis produced an estimated HR for erlotinib compared with docetaxel of 0.83 (95% CI 0.65-1.06). Analyzing the wider network improved the precision of estimated treatment effects, altered their rankings and also allowed further treatments to be compared. Some of the estimated treatment effects from the wider network were highly correlated. CONCLUSIONS: This empirical example shows the importance of considering all potentially relevant data when comparing treatments. Care should therefore be taken to consider all relevant information, including correlations induced by the network of trial data, when comparing treatments.

First- and second-line treatment of advanced metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a global view.

Treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer is dependent on disease stage. For patients with metastasis or locally advanced disease, the importance of finding therapeutic schemes that may benefit this population is important. This review discusses therapeutic options for first- and second-line treatment in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. According to current data, the combination of two cytotoxic agents is the optimum first-line treatment for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer and performance status of 0-1. Addition of bevacizumab has shown to provide an even longer survival and to increase response rate. Within the first-line setting, erlotinib appears to be effective in the treatment of elderly patients who would not derive a benefit from standard chemotherapy or those refusing standard chemotherapy. The administration of erlotinib as first-line maintenance therapy is being assessed. There are currently three drugs approved for second-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer after failure of first-line chemotherapy. These drugs have proven to be effective in phase III trials. In the phase III trial BR.21 study, the response rate was 8.9% in the erlonitib group, and less than 1% in placebo; median response duration was 7.9 months and 3.7 months, respectively; and the median survival was 6.7 months and 4.7 with erlotinib and placebo, respectively. One-year survival was 31% and 21% with erlotinib and placebo, respectively. In addition, the BR.21 trial revealed that significantly greater improvements in overall quality of life and in both physical and emotional functioning were observed in the erlotinib arm as compared with the placebo arm. Erlotinib is not significantly associated with hematologic adverse effects. Erlotinib is administered orally, and does not require concomitant administration of other drugs, thus causing patients less inconvenience. Analysis of data from different subgroups included in the BR.21 trial show that overall survival is similar among women and men, among patients with adenocarcinoma and epidermoid carcinoma or Asian patients compared with other ethnicities. Combination of erlotinib and bevacizumab in the second-line treatment of patients with advanced disease has been evaluated as anti-angiogenic properties. This combination therapy has provided promising results which should be confirmed in future studies.

Gemcitabine and carboplatin in combination for the treatment of advanced, metastatic, non-small cell lung cancer.

The universally accepted first-line treatment for advanced (stage IIIB effusion/IV) non-small-cell lung cancer in patients with a good performance status is a platinum drug in combination with one of gemcitabine, paclitaxel, vinorelbine or docetaxel. Although cisplatin is generally the favoured platinum agent, gemcitabine partnered with carboplatin is convenient to administer and has a favourable toxicity profile. Here, the pharmacology, preclinical and clinical data to support the use of this regimen for the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer is evaluated.