A randomized phase II study of paclitaxel and bevacizumab with and without gemcitabine as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel improved progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We examined the efficacy and safety of adding gemcitabine to paclitaxel/bevacizumab (PB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, randomized phase II trial, women with locally advanced or MBC were randomly assigned to receive paclitaxel 90 mg/m(2) (days 1, 8, 15) and bevacizumab 10 mg/kg (days 1, 15) with or without gemcitabine 1500 mg/m(2) (days 1, 15) in 28-day cycles. Patients with prior cytotoxic therapy for MBC were ineligible. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints were PFS, overall survival (OS), safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients received PB, and 93 received paclitaxel/bevacizumab/gemcitabine (PB+G). The ORRs were 48.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 38.5%-59.5%) and 58.7% (95% CI, 47.9%-68.9%; P = .117) with PB and PB+G, respectively. The median PFS was 8.8 months (95% CI, 8.1-10.4 months) and 11.3 months (95% CI, 9.7-12.7 months; P = .247; hazard ratio, 0.82); the median OS was 25.0 months (95% CI, 18.8-not assessable [N/A] months) and 24.3 months (95% CI, 20.3-N/A months; P = .475; hazard ratio, 0.84), with PB and PB+G, respectively. There was significantly more grade 3-4 neutropenia (P = .001) and dyspnea (P = .014) with PB+G. Patients treated with PB experienced more improvement in total FACT-B (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast) (P = .021), FACT-B Social/Family Well-being (P = .041), and Breast Cancer-Additional Concerns (P = .008) scores than patients treated with PB+G. CONCLUSION: The addition of gemcitabine to PB was not associated with a statistically significant improvement in ORR. Treatment with PB+G increased the incidence of severe neutropenia and dyspnea, although the regimen generally was well tolerated.

A randomized phase 2 study of erlotinib alone and in combination with bortezomib in previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: This phase 2 study was conducted to determine the efficacy and safety of erlotinib alone and with bortezomib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed relapsed or refractory stage IIIb/IV NSCLC were randomized (1:1; stratified by baseline histology, smoking history, sex) to receive erlotinib 150 mg/d alone (arm A; n = 25) or in combination with bortezomib 1.6 mg/m2, days 1 and 8 (arm B; n = 25) in 21-day cycles. Responses were assessed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Tumor samples were evaluated for mutations predicting response. Six additional patients received the combination in a prior dose deescalation stage and were included in safety analyses. RESULTS: Response rates were 16% in arm A and 9% in arm B; disease control rates were 52 and 45%, respectively. The study was halted at the planned interim analysis due to insufficient clinical activity in arm B. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 2.7 and 7.3 months in arm A, and 1.3 and 8.5 months in arm B. Six-month survival rates were 56.0% in both arms; 12-month rates were 40 and 30% in arms A and B, respectively. Response rate to erlotinib+/-bortezomib was significantly higher in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutations (50 versus 9% for wild type). The most common treatment-related grade > or =3 adverse event was skin rash (three patients in each treatment group). CONCLUSION: Insufficient activity was seen with erlotinib plus bortezomib in patients with relapsed/refractory advanced NSCLC to warrant a phase 3 study of the combination.

Randomized phase II study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin [corrected], with or without cetuximab, as first-line therapy for patients with advanced or metastatic non small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of cetuximab added to first-line gemcitabine/platinum in chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this noncomparative, randomized trial, chemotherapy-naïve patients with recurrent/metastatic NSCLC (stage IV or stage IIIB with malignant pleural effusion) were eligible. Patients received cisplatin (75 mg/m2 i.v., every 3 weeks) or carboplatin (area under the concentration-versus-time curve of 5 intravenously [i.v.], every 3 weeks), and gemcitabine (1,250 or 1,000 mg/m2 i.v., days 1 and 8) plus cetuximab (400 mg/m2 i.v. day 1, followed by 250 mg/m2 weekly), in arm A, or chemotherapy alone, in arm B. Response rate was the primary end point; safety, progression-free survival, and overall survival were secondary end points. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were randomly assigned to arm A and 66 to arm B. Partial responses were observed in 18 patients (27.7%; 95% CI, 17.3 to 40.2) in arm A and 12 (18.2%; 95% CI, 9.8 to 29.6) in arm B. Median progression-free survival was 5.09 months for arm A (95% CI, 4.17 to 5.98) and 4.21 months (95% CI, 3.81 to 5.49) in arm B. Median overall survival was 11.99 months (95% CI, 8.80 to 15.18) and 9.26 months (95% CI, 7.43 to 11.79) in arms A and B, respectively. Overall toxicity was acceptable and consistent with the profiles of the individual agents. CONCLUSION: First-line treatment with cetuximab plus gemcitabine/platinum is well tolerated and can be administered safely in patients with advanced NSCLC. Differences in response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival suggest that the addition of cetuximab to platinum/gemcitabine may improve clinical outcomes. Larger studies are in progress to address this hypothesis.

High-dose ifosfamide with mesna and granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (recombinant human G-CSF) in patients with unresectable malignant mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND: The current study was conducted to assess the activity and toxicity of high-dose ifosfamide and mesna with recombinant human granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF), given in an outpatient setting, in the treatment of patients with unresectable malignant mesothelioma. METHODS: Between September 1994 and September 1996, 41 patients with histologically verified, unresectable malignant mesothelioma were registered, 38 of whom were analyzable (2 were ineligible and 1 was nonanalyzable). Patients received intravenous ifosfamide at a dose of 2.8 g/m2 over 3 hours (total dose of 14 g/m2), plus mesna at a dose of 0.56 g/m2 prior to and at 4 hours and 8 hours after ifosfamide infusion daily for 5 days every 21 days. rhG-CSF at a dose of 5 microg/kg/day was administered subcutaneously on days 6-15. RESULTS: Response assessment could be determined adequately in 21 patients. Two patients obtained responses; 1 was a confirmed partial response (3%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0-14%) and 1 was an unconfirmed response (3%; 95% CI, 5-14%). Eleven patients had stable disease (29%), 7 patients developed disease progression (18%), 1 patient had an early death (3%), and 17 patients had inadequate assessment (45%). At the time of last follow-up, 36 of the 38 eligible patients had developed disease progression, with a median progression-free survival of 5 months (95% CI, 3-7 months) and 34 patients had died with a median survival of 7 months (95% CI, 6-9 months). Twenty-four patients (63%) and 7 patients (18%), respectively, had Grade (according to Southwestern Oncology Group Toxicity Criteria) 4 hematologic toxicities and Grade 4 nonhematological toxicities. There was one treatment-related death, the result of infection, pulmonary edema, and renal failure. CONCLUSIONS: This regimen demonstrated a low overall objective response rate with substantial toxicity, and in the opinion of the authors does not warrant further investigation in the treatment of patients with unresectable malignant mesothelioma.