Hyperhydration with cisplatin does not influence pemetrexed exposure.

Pemetrexed is a cytotoxic drug for first-line treatment of lung cancer. It is often combined with other anticancer drugs such as cisplatin or carboplatin. In clinical practice, hyperhydration regimens are applied to overcome cisplatin-related nephrotoxicity. As pemetrexed is almost completely eliminated from the body by the kidneys, hyperhydration can result in augmented clearance. Furthermore, administration of large quantities of fluid may increase the volume of distribution of pemetrexed. Pharmacokinetics and, thus, efficacy and toxicity may be influenced by hyperhydration. This has not yet been properly studied. We performed a population pharmacokinetic analysis to assess hyperhydration as a covariate for pemetrexed clearance and for volume of distribution A relevant change was defined as >25% increase in clearance or volume of distribution. In our extensive dataset of 133 individuals, we found that hyperhydration did not significantly or relevantly explain variability in pemetrexed clearance (unchanged, P = .196) or volume of distribution (+7% change, P = .002), despite a power of >99% to detect a relevant change. Therefore, dose adjustments of pemetrexed are not required during hyperhydration with cisplatin.

Toxicity of pemetrexed during renal impairment explained-Implications for safe treatment.

Pemetrexed is an important component of first line treatment in patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer. However, a limitation is the contraindication in patients with renal impairment due to hematological toxicity. Currently, it is unknown how to safely dose pemetrexed in these patients. The aim of our study was to elucidate the relationship between pemetrexed exposure and toxicity to support the development of a safe dosing regimen in patients with renal impairment. A population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis was performed based on phase II study results in three patients with renal dysfunction, supplemented with data from 106 patients in early clinical studies. Findings were externally validated with data of different pemetrexed dosing regimens. Alternative dosing regimens were evaluated using the developed model. We found that pemetrexed toxicity was driven by the time above a toxicity threshold concentration. The threshold for vitamin-supplemented patients was 0.110 mg/mL (95% CI: 0.092-0.146 mg/mL). It was observed that in patients with renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]: <45 mL/min) the approved dose of 500 mg/m2 would yield a high probability of severe neutropenia in the range of 51.0% to 92.6%. A pemetrexed dose of 20 mg for patients (eGFR: 20 mL/min) is shown to be neutropenic-equivalent to the approved dose in patients with adequate renal function (eGFR: 90 mL/min), but would result in an approximately 13-fold lower area under the concentration-time curve. The pemetrexed exposure-toxicity relationship is explained by a toxicity threshold and substantially different from previously thought. Without prophylaxis for toxicity, it is unlikely that a therapeutic dose can be safely administered to patients with renal impairment.

Randomised phase 3 study of adjuvant chemotherapy with or without nadroparin in patients with completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer: the NVALT-8 study.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies suggest that low molecular weight heparin may delay the development of metastasis in patients with resected NSCLC. METHODS: Multicentre phase 3 study with patients with completely resected NSCLC who were randomised after surgery to receive chemotherapy with or without nadroparin. The main exclusion criteria were R1/2 and wedge/segmental resection. FDG-PET was required. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS). RESULTS: Among 235 registered patients, 202 were randomised (nadroparin: n = 100; control n = 102). Slow accrual enabled a decrease in the number of patients needed from 600 to 202, providing 80% power to compare RFS with 94 events (α = 0.05; 2-sided). There were no differences in bleeding events between the two groups. The median RFS was 65.2 months (95% CI, 36-NA) in the nadroparin arm and 37.7 months (95% CI, 22.7-NA) in the control arm (HR 0.77 (95% CI, 0.53-1.13, P = 0.19). FDG-PET SUVmax ≥10 predicted a greater likelihood of recurrence in the first year (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.22-0.9, P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant nadroparin did not improve RFS in patients with resected NSCLC. In this study, a high SUVmax predicted a greater likelihood of recurrence in the first year. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial registry: NTR1250/1217.

Improvement in population-based survival of stage IV NSCLC due to increased use of chemotherapy.

This study aimed to investigate which factors were associated with the administration of chemotherapy for patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and their relation to survival at a population-based level. All patients with NSCLC stage IV from 2001 to 2012 were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry in the Eindhoven area (n = 5,428). Chemotherapy use and survival were evaluated by logistic and Cox regression analyses, respectively. The proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy increased from 30% in 2001 to 48% in 2012. Higher rates were found among younger patients [multivariable odds ratio (OR(≤ 64_vs._≥ 75_years)): 1.8 (95%CI 1.6-2.1)], high socioeconomic status [OR(high_vs._low): 1.8 (95%CI 1.6-2.2)], no comorbidity [OR0_vs._≥ 2 : 1.5 (95%CI 1.3-1.8)], diagnosed in recent years [OR(2010-2012_vs._2001-2003): 2.0 (95%CI 1.6-2.3)] and adenocarcinoma [ORsquamous_vs._adenocarcinoma : 0.8 (95%CI 0.6-0.9)]. Having liver metastasis was associated with reduced odds (OR(liver_ vs._brain): 0.8 (95%CI 0.7-1.0). The variation between hospitals was large, up to OR 2.0 (95%CI 1.5-2.6). Median survival increased from 18 weeks in 2001-2003 to 21 weeks in 2010-2012 (log-rank p = 0.007), and was 35 weeks in patients with and 10 weeks without chemotherapy. The multivariable hazard of death reduced significantly over time [HR(2001-2003_vs._2010-2012): 1.1 (95%CI 1.0-1.2), HR(2004-2005_vs._2010-2012): 1.2 (95%CI 1.1-1.3)] and only remained significant for 2004-2006 after additional adjustment for chemotherapy [final multivariable model, HR(2004-2006_vs._2010-2012): 1.1 (95%CI 1.0-1.2)]. Besides, prognostic factors were having chemotherapy [final multivariable model: HR 0.4 (95%CI 0.4-0.4)], female sex [HRmale_vs._female : 1.1 (95%CI 1.0-1.1)], socioeconomic status [HR(intermediate_and_high_vs._low) both 0.9 (95%CI 0.9-1.0)], comorbidity [HR(unknown_vs._≥ 2): 1.3 (95%CI 1.2-1.5)], histology [HRother_vs._adenocarcinoma : 1.1 (95%CI 1.1-1.2)], and location of metastasis [range: 1.2 (HR(lymph_nodes_vs._brain)) - 1.6 (HR(liver_vs._brain))]. In conclusion, population-based survival increased due to increasing administration rates of chemotherapy. The administration of chemotherapy was affected by hospital of diagnosis and both patient and tumour characteristics. Identifying patients who benefit from chemotherapy should become a key issue.

Phase III Study Comparing Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine With Cisplatin Plus Pemetrexed in Chemotherapy-Naive Patients With Advanced-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Cisplatin plus gemcitabine is a standard regimen for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Phase II studies of pemetrexed plus platinum compounds have also shown activity in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This noninferiority, phase III, randomized study compared the overall survival between treatment arms using a fixed margin method (hazard ratio [HR] < 1.176) in 1,725 chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1. Patients received cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 (n = 863) or cisplatin 75 mg/m2 and pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 on day 1 (n = 862) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. RESULTS: Overall survival for cisplatin/pemetrexed was noninferior to cisplatin/gemcitabine (median survival, 10.3 v 10.3 months, respectively; HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.05). Overall survival was statistically superior for cisplatin/pemetrexed versus cisplatin/gemcitabine in patients with adenocarcinoma (n = 847; 12.6 v 10.9 months, respectively) and large-cell carcinoma histology (n = 153; 10.4 v 6.7 months, respectively). In contrast, in patients with squamous cell histology, there was a significant improvement in survival with cisplatin/gemcitabine versus cisplatin/pemetrexed (n = 473; 10.8 v 9.4 months, respectively). For cisplatin/pemetrexed, rates of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia (P ≤ .001); febrile neutropenia (P = .002); and alopecia (P < .001) were significantly lower, whereas grade 3 or 4 nausea (P = .004) was more common. CONCLUSION: In advanced NSCLC, cisplatin/pemetrexed provides similar efficacy with better tolerability and more convenient administration than cisplatin/gemcitabine. This is the first prospective phase III study in NSCLC to show survival differences based on histologic type.

Renal function-based versus standard dosing of pemetrexed: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Pemetrexed is a chemotherapeutic drug in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer and mesothelioma. Optimized dosing of pemetrexed based on renal function instead of body surface area (BSA) is hypothesized to reduce pharmacokinetic variability in systemic exposure and could therefore improve treatment outcomes. The aim of this study is to compare optimized dosing to standard BSA-based dosing. METHODS: A multicenter randomized (1:1) controlled trial was performed to assess superiority of optimized dosing versus BSA-based dosing in patients who were eligible for pemetrexed-based chemotherapy. The individual exposure to pemetrexed in terms of area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) was determined. The fraction of patients attaining to a predefined typical target AUC (164 mg × h/L ± 25%) was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 81 patients were included. Target attainment was not statistically significant different between both arms (89% vs. 84% (p = 0.505)). The AUC of pemetrexed was similar between the optimized dosing arm (n = 37) and the standard of care arm (n = 44) (155 mg × h/L vs 160 mg × h/L (p = 0.436). CONCLUSION: We could not show superiority of optimized dosing of pemetrexed in patients with an adequate renal function does not show added value on the attainment of a pharmacokinetic endpoint, safety, nor QoL compared to standard of care dosing. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03655821.

Estimating quality adjusted progression free survival of first-line treatments for EGFR mutation positive non small cell lung cancer patients in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Gefitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is an effective treatment in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with an activating mutation in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Randomised clinical trials showed a benefit in progression free survival for gefitinib versus doublet chemotherapy regimens in patients with an activated EGFR mutation (EGFR M+). From a patient perspective, progression free survival is important, but so is health-related quality of life. Therefore, this analysis evaluates the Quality Adjusted progression free survival of gefitinib versus three relevant doublet chemotherapies (gemcitabine/cisplatin (Gem/Cis); pemetrexed/cisplatin (Pem/Cis); paclitaxel/carboplatin (Pac/Carb)) in a Dutch health care setting in patients with EGFR M+ stage IIIB/IV NSCLC. This study uses progression free survival rather than overall survival for its time frame in order to better compare the treatments and to account for the influence that subsequent treatment lines would have on overall survival analysis. METHODS: Mean progression free survival for Pac/Carb was obtained by extrapolating the median progression free survival as reported in the Iressa-Pan-Asia Study (IPASS). Data from a network meta-analysis was used to estimate the mean progression free survival for therapies of interest relative to Pac/Carb. Adjustment for health-related quality of life was done by incorporating utilities for the Dutch population, obtained by converting FACT-L data (from IPASS) to utility values and multiplying these with the mean progression free survival for each treatment arm to determine the Quality Adjusted progression free survival. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was carried out to determine 95% credibility intervals. RESULTS: The Quality Adjusted progression free survival (PFS) (mean, (95% credibility interval)) was 5.2 months (4.5; 5.8) for Gem/Cis, 5.3 months (4.6; 6.1) for Pem/Cis; 4.9 months (4.4; 5.5) for Pac/Carb and 8.3 (7.0; 9.9) for gefitinib. CONCLUSIONS: In the Dutch health care setting, the previously established progression free survival benefit of first-line gefitinib in advanced NSCLC EGFR M+ patients in comparison to standard doublet chemotherapy is further supported by the Quality Adjusted PFS, which takes into account the additional health-related quality of life benefits of gefitinib over doublet chemotherapy.

Veliparib Plus Carboplatin and Paclitaxel Versus Investigator's Choice of Standard Chemotherapy in Patients With Advanced Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: This open-label Phase III trial (NCT02264990) evaluated the PARP inhibitor, veliparib, combined with carboplatin/paclitaxel versus chemotherapy alone for first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC). A 52-gene expression classifier (LP52) previously shown to identify patients more likely to respond to veliparib was evaluated as a planned correlative analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult current or former smokers with advanced non-squamous NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to veliparib (120 mg daily for 7 days/cycle) with carboplatin and paclitaxel or to investigators' choice of platinum doublet chemotherapy (up to 6, 21-day cycles), with optional pemetrexed maintenance. Prospective analysis of the LP52 signature was conducted using a clinical Qiagen/HTG assay. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) in LP52+ patients. RESULTS: Overall, 595 patients received veliparib + carboplatin/paclitaxel (n = 298) or chemotherapy alone (n = 297); 13% (n = 40) in each arm were LP52+. The primary endpoint was not met; median OS was 11.2 months with veliparib + carboplatin/paclitaxel versus 9.2 months with chemotherapy alone in the LP52+ subgroup (hazard ratio [HR] 0.644, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.396-1.048; P = .113). In the overall population, median OS was 12.1 months in both arms (HR 0.986, 95% CI: 0.827-1.176; P = .846). No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: In patients with non-squamous NSCLC, there was no significant improvement in OS with veliparib + carboplatin/paclitaxel versus chemotherapy alone, although a trend toward improved OS in the LP52+ population suggests this subgroup may benefit from veliparib. Statistical power was limited due to the small sample size.

Vandetanib plus docetaxel versus docetaxel as second-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ZODIAC): a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), and rearranged during transfection (RET) tyrosine kinases. In a randomised phase 2 study in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), adding vandetanib 100 mg to docetaxel significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with docetaxel alone, including a longer PFS in women. These results supported investigation of the combination in this larger, definitive phase 3 trial (ZODIAC). METHODS: Between May, 2006, and April, 2008, patients with locally advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB-IV) NSCLC after progression following first-line chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 through a third-party interactive voice system to receive vandetanib (100 mg/day) plus docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) intravenously every 21 days; maximum six cycles) or placebo plus docetaxel. The primary objective was comparison of PFS between the two groups in the intention-to-treat population. Women were a coprimary analysis population. This study has been completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00312377. FINDINGS: 1391 patients received vandetanib plus docetaxel (n=694 [197 women]) or placebo plus docetaxel (n=697 [224 women]). Vandetanib plus docetaxel led to a significant improvement in PFS versus placebo plus docetaxel (hazard ratio [HR] 0.79, 97.58% CI 0.70-0.90; p<0.0001); median PFS was 4.0 months in the vandetanib group versus 3.2 months in placebo group. A similar improvement in PFS with vandetanib plus docetaxel versus placebo plus docetaxel was seen in women (HR 0.79, 0.62-1.00, p=0.024); median PFS was 4.6 months in the vandetanib group versus 4.2 months in the placebo group. Among grade 3 or higher adverse events, rash (63/689 [9%] vs 7/690 [1%]), neutropenia (199/689 [29%] vs 164/690 [24%]), leukopenia (99/689 [14%] vs 77/690 [11%]), and febrile neutropenia (61/689 [9%] vs 48/690 [7%]) were more common with vandetanib plus docetaxel than with placebo plus docetaxel. The most common serious adverse event was febrile neutropenia (46/689 [7%] in the vandetanib group vs 38/690 [6%] in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: The addition of vandetanib to docetaxel provides a significant improvement in PFS in patients with advanced NSCLC after progression following first-line therapy.

Switch-maintenance gemcitabine after first-line chemotherapy in patients with malignant mesothelioma (NVALT19): an investigator-initiated, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Almost all patients with malignant mesothelioma eventually have disease progression after first-line therapy. Previous studies have investigated maintenance therapy, but none has shown a great effect. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of switch-maintenance gemcitabine in patients with malignant mesothelioma without disease progression after first-line chemotherapy. METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial in 18 hospitals in the Netherlands (NVALT19). We recruited patients aged older than 18 years with unresectable malignant mesothelioma with no evidence of disease progression after at least four cycles of first-line chemotherapy (with platinum and pemetrexed), who had a WHO performance status of 0-2, adequate organ function, and measurable or evaluable disease. Exclusion criteria were active uncontrolled infection or severe cardiac dysfunction, serious disabling conditions, symptomatic CNS metastases, radiotherapy within 2 weeks before enrolment, and concomitant use of any other drugs under investigation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using the minimisation method, to maintenance intravenous gemcitabine (1250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8, in cycles of 21 days) plus supportive care, or to best supportive care alone, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, serious intercurrent illness, patient request for discontinuation, or need for any other anticancer agent, except for palliative radiotherapy. A CT scan of the thorax or abdomen (or both) and pulmonary function tests were done at baseline and repeated every 6 weeks. The primary outcome was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all participants who received one or more doses of the study drug or had at least one visit for supportive care. Recruitment is now closed; treatment and follow-up are ongoing. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Registry, NTR4132/NL3847. FINDINGS: Between March 20, 2014, and Feb 27, 2019, 130 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to gemcitabine plus supportive care (65 patients [50%]) or supportive care alone (65 patients [50%]). No patients were lost to follow-up; median follow-up was 36·5 months (95% CI 34·2 to not reached), and one patient in the supportive care group withdrew consent. Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the gemcitabine group (median 6·2 months [95% CI 4·6-8·7]) than in the supportive care group (3·2 months [2·8-4·1]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·48 [95% CI 0·33-0·71]; p=0·0002). The benefit was confirmed by masked independent central review (HR 0·49 [0·33-0·72]; p=0·0002). Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 33 (52%) of 64 patients in the gemcitabine group and in ten (16%) of 62 patients in the supportive care group. The most frequent adverse events were anaemia, neutropenia, fatigue or asthenia, pain, and infection in the gemcitabine group, and pain, infection, and cough or dyspnoea in the supportive care group. One patient (2%) in the gemcitabine group died, due to a treatment-related infection. INTERPRETATION: Switch-maintenance gemcitabine, after first-line chemotherapy, significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with best supportive care alone, among patients with malignant mesothelioma. This study confirms the activity of gemcitabine in treating malignant mesothelioma. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society (Koningin Wilhelmina Fonds voor de Nederlandse Kankerbestrijding) and Stichting NVALT studies.

Immune monitoring in mesothelioma patients identifies novel immune-modulatory functions of gemcitabine associating with clinical response.

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine is a frequently used chemotherapeutic agent but its effects on the immune system are incompletely understood. Recently, the randomized NVALT19-trial revealed that maintenance gemcitabine after first-line chemotherapy significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared to best supportive care (BSC) in malignant mesothelioma. Whether these effects are paralleled by changes in circulating immune cell subsets is currently unknown. These analyses could offer improved mechanistic insights into the effects of gemcitabine on the host and guide development of effective combination therapies in mesothelioma. METHODS: We stained peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) at baseline and 3 weeks following start of gemcitabine or BSC treatment in a subgroup of mesothelioma patients included in the NVALT19-trial. In total, 24 paired samples including both MDSCs and PBMCs were included. We performed multicolour flow-cytometry to assess co-inhibitory and-stimulatory receptor- and cytokine expression and matched these parameters with PFS and OS. FINDINGS: Gemcitabine treatment was significantly associated with an increased NK-cell- and decreased T-regulatory cell proliferation whereas the opposite occurred in control patients. Furthermore, myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) frequencies were lower in gemcitabine-treated patients and this correlated with increased T-cell proliferation following treatment. Whereas gemcitabine variably altered co-inhibitory receptor expression, co-stimulatory molecules including ICOS, CD28 and HLA-DR were uniformly increased across CD4+ T-helper, CD8+ T- and NK-cells. Although preliminary in nature, the increase in NK-cell proliferation and PD-1 expression in T cells following gemcitabine treatment was associated with improved PFS and OS. INTERPRETATION: Gemcitabine treatment was associated with widespread effects on circulating immune cells of mesothelioma patients with responding patients displaying increased NK-cell and PD-1 + T-cell proliferation. These exploratory data provide a platform for future on treatment-biomarker development and novel combination treatment strategies.

International real-world study of DLL3 expression in patients with small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Expression of the Notch-family ligand delta-like protein 3 (DLL3), a potential therapeutic target in small cell lung cancer (SCLC), has not been assessed in the real-world setting. To identify the real-world utility of DLL3 as an SCLC therapeutic target, we performed the largest retrospective international noninterventional study to date to evaluate DLL3 prevalence in SCLC patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DLL3 expression was assessed using immunohistochemistry in archived histological and cytological specimens (independent and paired) and correlated to patient demographics, clinical disease characteristics, and survival. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with DLL3 expression in ≥25 % of tumor cells. DLL3 expression concordance was assessed in paired specimens. RESULTS: Independent tumor specimens were collected from 1073 patients. The mean age at biopsy was 66 years (SD, 10); 682 (64 %) patients were male. Paired specimens were collected from 36 patients. The mean age at biopsy was 62 years (SD, 11); 16 (44 %) patients were male. Most patients had ECOG performance status of 0-1, were smokers/ex-smokers, and received ≥1 prior therapy. Positive DLL3 expression (defined as ≥25 % of tumor cells) was identified in 895/1050 (85 %) patients with 1 specimen and evaluable DLL3 expression; 719/1050 (68 %) patients had high DLL3 expression (defined as ≥75 % of tumor cells). DLL3 expression concordance was 88 % between paired specimens (n = 17; Cohen's kappa P value, .9412). There was no significant difference in median overall survival from SCLC diagnosis for evaluable patients with nonmissing data based on DLL3 expression (negative DLL3 expression [n = 139], 9.5 months; positive DLL3 expression [n = 747], 9.5 months; all evaluable patients [n = 893, 9.5 months). CONCLUSION: These real-world epidemiologic findings indicate that DLL3 is robustly expressed across SCLC disease stages and remains stable despite treatment, consistent with available clinical trial data. There was no prognostic role for DLL3 observed in this study for overall survival.

Efficacy of Ibandronate Loading Dose on Rapid Pain Relief in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and Cancer Induced Bone Pain: The NVALT-9 Trial.

Introduction: Approximately 80% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with bone metastases have cancer induced bone pain (CIBP). Methods: The NVALT-9 was an open-label, single arm, phase II, multicenter study. Main inclusion criterion: bone metastasized NSCLC patients with uncontrolled CIBP [brief pain inventory [BPI] ≥ 5 over last 7 days]. Patients were treated with six milligram ibandronate intravenously (day 1-3) once a day. Main exclusion criteria: active secondary malignancy, systemic anti-tumor treatment and radiotherapy ≤4 weeks before study start, previous bisphosphonate treatment. Statistics: Simon's Optimal two-stage design with a 90% power to declare the treatment active if the pain response rate is ≥ 80% and 95% confidence to declare the treatment inactive if the pain response rate is ≤ 60%. If pain response is observed in ≤ 12 of the first 19 patients further enrollment will be stopped. Primary endpoint: bone pain response, defined as 25% decrease in worst pain score (PSc) over a 3-day period (day 5-7) compared to baseline PSc with maximum of 25% increase in mean analgesic consumption during the same period. Secondary endpoints: BPI score, quality of life, toxicity and World Health Organization Performance Score. Results: Of the 19 enrolled patients in the first stage, 18 were evaluable for response. All completed ibandronate treatment according to protocol. In 4 (22.2%), a bone pain response was observed. According to the stopping rule, further enrollment was halted. Discussion: Ibandronate loading doses lead to insufficient pain relief in NSCLC patients with CIBP.

Direct costs associated with the disease management of patients with unresectable advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in The Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: Disease management and costs of treatment of patients with unresectable advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in The Netherlands are not well known. METHODS: A retrospective medical chart review was performed by collecting data from the time of diagnosis until the time of death or the end of the evaluation period. In addition to the demographic data, information was collected on the overall management of the patient. Hospital resource utilisation data collected included number of outpatient specialist visits, number and length of hospitalisation, type and number of diagnostic and laboratory procedures, type and number of radiotherapy cycles and detailed information on chemotherapy. To evaluate the economic impact of second-line treatment, a distinction was made between patients who received only best supportive care (BSC, group A) and those who received chemotherapy as a second-line treatment in addition to BSC (group B). The study was performed from the hospital perspective and reports on 2005 costs. RESULTS: Of 102 patients, 74 belonged to group A and 28 to group B. Patient management included a multidisciplinary approach, the extent of which depended on symptoms of the disease and presence of metastases. The average total treatment cost per patient per year of unresectable advanced NSCLC in The Netherlands was euro32,840 in group A and euro31,187 in group B. In both groups, hospitalisation was the major cost driver. In group B second-line chemotherapy was the second largest contributor of the costs. In spite of the difference in numbers of treatment lines provided to patients in groups A and B the total average costs per patient per year were comparable. Overall, the management of unresectable advanced NSCLC appeared to conform with current guidelines in The Netherlands. CONCLUSION: These patients show high medical resource consumption, with hospitalisation being the main cost driver in both groups. As economic arguments are becoming increasingly important in medical decision making on both national and local levels, this information is relevant for both policy makers and specialists. These data can also be used in future research to evaluate the economic impact of new therapies in NSCLC, especially of those that aim to treat patients in an outpatient setting.

Implementation of Novel Molecular Biomarkers for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in the Netherlands: How to Deal With Increasing Complexity.

The diagnostic landscape of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is changing rapidly with the availability of novel treatments. Despite high-level healthcare in the Netherlands, not all patients with NSCLC are tested with the currently relevant predictive tumor markers that are necessary for optimal decision-making for today's available targeted or immunotherapy. An expert workshop on the molecular diagnosis of NSCLC involving pulmonary oncologists, clinical chemists, pathologists, and clinical scientists in molecular pathology was held in the Netherlands on December 10, 2018. The aims of the workshop were to facilitate cross-disciplinary discussions regarding standards of practice, and address recent developments and associated challenges that impact future practice. This paper presents a summary of the discussions and consensus opinions of the workshop participants on the initial challenges of harmonization of the detection and clinical use of predictive markers of NSCLC. A key theme identified was the need for broader and active participation of all stakeholders involved in molecular diagnostic services for NSCLC, including healthcare professionals across all disciplines, the hospitals and clinics involved in service delivery, healthcare insurers, and industry groups involved in diagnostic and treatment innovations. Such collaboration is essential to integrate different technologies into molecular diagnostics practice, to increase nationwide patient access to novel technologies, and to ensure consensus-preferred biomarkers are tested.

Phase III study of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide compared with carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with extensive disease small-cell lung cancer.

The progression-free survival (PFS) of cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/etoposide (CDE) and carboplatin/paclitaxel (CP) was compared in chemonaive patients with extensive disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC). A total of 203 patients were randomised to three-weekly CDE (n=102) or CP (n=101) for five cycles. Tumour response rates in CDE and CP were 60% and 61%. PFS of CP was 5.2 months, PFS of CDE 4.9 months (p=0.60). The major difference in toxicity between CDE and CP was grade 4 leukocytopaenia in 64% and 9% of the patients (p<0.0001), leading to febrile neutropaenia in 30% and 4% of the patients (p<0.0001), respectively. This was the reason for differences in the total number of hospital admissions (63 for CDE and 40 for CP, p=0.0025). This study failed to demonstrate any benefit in PFS with CP compared with CDE. CP was associated with significantly less haematological toxicity, leading to 37% less hospital admissions for febrile neutropaenia.

Anaemia management with epoetin alfa in lung cancer patients in The Netherlands.

Anaemia seriously threatens the quality of life (QOL) in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. In this article results are presented on the lung cancer population from a Dutch observational study. This study addressed the real-life situation of recombinant human erythropoietin (r-Hu-EPO or epoetin alfa) treatment in anaemic cancer patients receiving chemotherapy, with a focus on efficacy. In total 781 patients were enrolled in the observational study, including 382 patients with lung cancer. At enrolment patients were receiving epoetin alfa treatment and/or patients had a haemoglobin (Hb) level 11.3g/dl) was especially effective for NSCLC patients where it resulted in a stabilization of Hb at baseline level. For SCLC patients this strategy was less effective. Furthermore, early intervention seemed to diminish the need for a blood transfusion, i.e., the higher the Hb at epoetin initiation the more patients did not receive any blood transfusion. Results from this observational study demonstrate that epoetin alfa treatment corrects chemotherapy-related anaemia in both NSCLC as well as SCLC patients. Early epoetin alfa intervention seems advantageous for lung cancer patients both in terms of maintaining adequate Hb levels during chemotherapy as well as reducing transfusions.

Pulmonary injury associated with spray of a water-based nano-sized waterproofing product: a case study.

BACKGROUND: In most reported cases of lung trauma with water proofing products, volatile organic compounds (VOC) have a prominent role. Here we report on a case involving ten workers exposed to a sprayed product containing nanoparticles in a water solution with only a few percent VOC. CASE PRESENTATION: Ten workers suffered from respiratory symptoms following spray impregnation of hardwood furniture using a waterproofing product that contained positively charged fluorinated acrylate copolymer solid cores with a median diameter of 70 nm (1.3 w%) in aqueous suspension with 3.3 w% VOC and 0.3 w% quaternary ammonium. The worker who applied one liter of the product in a wood workshop, using an air mix spray gun, did not report any health complaints. Another worker, who entered the workshop 3 h later and had rolled and smoked two cigarettes, was hospitalized with severe chemical pneumonitis. A chest X-ray (CXR) showed bilateral infiltrative impairment in the lower lobe regions. On the next day a second CXR showed increased patchiness marking in all fields. A high-resolution Computer Tomography (CT)-scan demonstrated extensive bilateral areas of ground-glass opacities predominantly in the lower regions of the upper lobes, the right middle lobe and the apical regions of the lower lobes, compatible with severe chemical pneumonitis. On the following morning, nine workers in an adjacent workplace in the same building, experienced dry cough, chest tightness and substernal pain upon physical exercise. Reconstruction of the spray application in a climate chamber confirmed trimethyl silanol, glycol ethers and fluoroalkenes in the gas phase. Immediately after the spray application, aerosols were observed at a maximum concentration of 6.3 × 104 cm-3. Mass concentrations were 0.095 and 10 mg/m3 in the size ranges 5.6-560 nm and 0.22-30 µm, respectively, decreasing to less than 10 µg/m3 in both size ranges after 15 h. CONCLUSION: The hospitalized worker had smoked cigarettes contaminated with fluoropolymers which is a plausible explanation for the lung trauma. Respiratory symptoms in the nine workers may be caused by inhalation of particles that became airborne by resuspension from surfaces when workers entered the adjacent workplace the next day. A contribution from VOC appears less likely because measurements and modelling showed that concentrations in the mg/m3 range could have occurred only if the building was assumed to be completely airtight.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Erlotinib versus Docetaxel in Patients with Advanced Squamous Cell Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Failing First-Line Platinum-Based Doublet Chemotherapy Stratified by VeriStrat Good versus VeriStrat Poor. The European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP) EMPHASIS-lung Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Docetaxel and erlotinib are registered second-line treatments for wild-type EGFR NSCLC. Previous studies suggested a predictive value of the VeriStrat test in second-line therapy of NSCLC, classifying patients as either VeriStrat good or VeriStrat poor. EMPHASIS-lung aimed at exploring this predictive effect in patients with squamous cell NSCLC. The trial closed prematurely because of low accrual and results from other trials. Our analysis includes an exploratory combined analysis with results from the PROSE trial. METHODS: EMPHASIS-lung was a randomized phase III multicenter trial exploring the differential effect of second-line erlotinib versus docetaxel on progression-free survival (PFS) in VeriStrat good versus VeriStrat poor patients with squamous cell NSCLC. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients were randomized, with 72.5% categorized as VeriStrat good. Patient characteristics were balanced between VeriStrat status and treatment groups. The median PFS times with docetaxel and erlotinib treatment in the VeriStrat good cohort were 4.1 and 1.6 months, respectively, versus 1.9 and 2.1 months, respectively, in the VeriStrat poor cohort. The median overall survival (OS) times with docetaxel and erlotinib treatment in the VeriStrat good cohort were 7.8 and 8.4 months, respectively, and 4.4 and 5.2 months, respectively, in the VeriStrat poor cohort. An additional exploratory analysis was performed; in it, 47 patients from the squamous cell subgroup of PROSE were included in a combined analysis, contributing with 45 PFS and 41 OS events. CONCLUSIONS: The final analysis of EMPHASIS-lung did not show a differential effect on PFS for erlotinib versus docetaxel stratified by VeriStrat status. Similarly, in the combined analysis, no significant treatment by VeriStrat status interaction was observed (interaction p = 0.24 for PFS and 0.45 for OS, stratified by study).

Prevention of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia by prophylactic antibiotics plus or minus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in small-cell lung cancer: a Dutch Randomized Phase III Study.

PURPOSE: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a major complication of chemotherapy. Antibiotics as well as granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) are effective in preventing FN. This multicenter randomized phase III trial determines whether the addition of G-CSF to antibiotic prophylaxis can further reduce the incidence of FN in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) at the risk of FN. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (N = 175) were stratified for stage of disease, performance status, age, and prior chemotherapy treatment, and were randomly assigned for treatment with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide (CDE), followed by prophylactic antibiotics alone (ciprofloxacin and roxithromycin) or by antibiotics in combination with G-CSF on days 4 to 13. RESULTS: In cycle 1, 20 patients (24%) in the antibiotics group developed FN compared with nine patients (10%) in the antibiotics plus G-CSF group (P = .01). In cycles 2 to 5, the incidences of FN were practically the same in both groups (17% v 11%). Only the treatment parameters (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.78) and age (1.067 per year; 95% CI, 1.013 to 1.0124) were related to the probability of FN in cycle 1. CONCLUSION: Primary G-CSF prophylaxis added to primary antibiotic prophylaxis is effective in reducing FN and infections in SCLC patients at the risk of FN with the first cycle of CDE chemotherapy. For patients with similar risk of FN, the combined use of prophylactic antibiotics plus G-CSF can be considered, specifically in the first cycle of chemotherapy.