Rash management and treatment persistence of cancer patients treated with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors in the Truven MarketScan® research database.

PURPOSE: Rash toxicity is a common, expected class effect of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors. Although rash management is practiced, it is not well characterized in the real-world setting. We describe the management of rash that developed while receiving EGFR-inhibitor therapy and how rash affects treatment duration, using Truven MarketScan® Research Database, a US medical claims database. METHODS: Adult patients who received EGFR-inhibitor treatment between 2004 and 2015 after a diagnosis of colon, head and neck, lung, breast, or thyroid cancer were identified. Descriptive analyses were conducted to describe occurrence of rash during the EGFR-inhibitor treatment period, EGFR-inhibitor treatment persistence and management of rash, including treatment and cost. RESULTS: Of 44,533 eligible patients, 4649 (10.4%) had records of rash during the EGFR-inhibitor treatment period, and of patients experiencing rash, 2891 (62.2%) received prescription drugs for rash treatment. Treatment persistence with an EGFR inhibitor was longer among patients experiencing rash compared with no rash (median 178 vs. 80 days for EGFR-TKIs, 85 vs. 57 days for EGFR-monoclonal antibodies), especially among patients with rash who were treated for rash (208 days for EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors, 104 days for EGFR- monoclonal antibodies). Annualized cost during EGFR-inhibitor treatment was lowest among patients not experiencing rash (US$185,619), followed by rash patients receiving drugs for rash management (US$215,561), and highest among rash patients not treated for rash (US$267,105). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that management of EGFR inhibitor-associated rash could be important for EGFR-inhibitor treatment persistence.

Cetuximab plus platinum-based chemotherapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a randomized, double-blind safety study comparing cetuximab produced from two manufacturing processes using the EXTREME study regimen.

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab, in combination with platinum chemotherapy plus 5-fluoruracil (5-FU), is approved for the first-line treatment of recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). Cetuximab manufactured by ImClone (US commercial cetuximab) potentially results in higher systemic exposures than cetuximab manufactured by Boehringer Ingelheim (BI-manufactured cetuximab). This prospective, randomized, double-blind study compared the safety profiles of the two cetuximab formulations. METHODS: Patients with previously untreated locoregionally recurrent and/or metastatic SCCHN were randomly assigned to receive the same dose of US commercial cetuximab (Arm A) or BI-manufactured cetuximab (Arm B), each in combination with cisplatin or carboplatin plus 5-FU. The primary outcome was all-grade, all-cause treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: The majority of patients experienced ≥ 1 TEAE, regardless of causality (Arm A: 75/77 patients, 97.4%; Arm B: 68/71 patients, 95.8%). TEAEs with the highest incidence included nausea, fatigue, and hypomagnesemia in both arms. The absolute risk difference between the two arms for patients experiencing at least one adverse event (AE) was 0.029 (p = 0.281, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.024, 0.082) for AEs regardless of causality and 0.005 (p = 0.915, 95% CI: -0.092, 0.103) for AEs possibly related to study drug. There were no significant differences between the two arms in the incidence of acneiform rash, cardiac events, infusion reactions, or hypomagnesemia. Overall survival, progression-free survival, and overall response rates were similar in the two arms. CONCLUSIONS: There were no clinically meaningful differences in safety between US commercial cetuximab and BI-manufactured cetuximab in combination with platinum-based therapy with 5-FU in patients with locoregionally recurrent and/or metastatic SCCHN. The use of US commercial cetuximab in this combination chemotherapy regimen did not result in any unexpected safety signals. The efficacy results of this study are consistent with the efficacy results of the cetuximab arm of the EXTREME study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01081041 ; date of registration: March 3, 2010).

Gemcitabine plus enzastaurin or single-agent gemcitabine in locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer: results of a phase II, randomized, noncomparative study.

PURPOSE: Gemcitabine (G) is standard therapy for pancreatic cancer. Enzastaurin (E) inhibits PKCß and PI3K/AKT signaling pathways with a dose-dependent effect on growth of pancreatic carcinoma xenografts. Data suggest that the GE combination may improve clinical outcomes. METHODS: Primary objective was overall survival (OS); secondary objectives assessed progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), quality of life (QOL), toxicity, and relationships between biomarker expression and clinical outcomes. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to GE or G treatment; GE arm: E 500 mg p.o. daily; loading-dose (1200 mg; Day 1 Cycle 1 only) and G 1000 mg/m(2) i.v. Days 1, 8, and 15 in 28-day cycles; G arm: G as in GE. Biomarker expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Randomization totaled 130 patients (GE = 86, G = 44); 121 patients were treated (GE = 82, G = 39). GE/G median OS was 5.6/5.1 months; median PFS was 3.4/3.0 months. GE responses: 1 complete response (CR, 1.2%), 6 partial response (PR, 7.4%), and 33 stable disease (SD, 40.7%); disease control rate (DCR=CR+PR+SD, 49.4%). G responses: 2 PR (5.3%) and 16 SD (42.1%); DCR (47.4%). No QOL differences were noted between arms. GE/G Grade 3-4 toxicities included: neutropenia (18.3%/28.2%); thrombocytopenia (14.6%/25.6%); and fatigue (11.0%/7.7%). No statistically significant relationships between biomarker expression and outcomes were observed. However, patients with low expression of cytoplasmic pGSK-3ß trended toward greater OS with GE treatment. CONCLUSIONS: OS, PFS, QOL, and RR were comparable between arms. Adding E to G did not increase hematologic toxicities. GE does not warrant further investigation in unselected pancreatic cancer patients.

Phase III trial of induction gemcitabine or paclitaxel plus carboplatin followed by paclitaxel consolidation in ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The safety and efficacy of gemcitabine plus carboplatin (GC) or paclitaxel plus carboplatin (TC) induction regimens with or without paclitaxel consolidation therapy were assessed in ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: Patients with stage IC-IV OC were randomized to either GC (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2), days 1 and 8, plus carboplatin area under the curve [AUC] 5, day 1) or TC (paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) plus carboplatin AUC 6, day 1) every 21 days for up to six cycles. Patients with complete response (CR) were allowed optional consolidation with paclitaxel 135 mg/m(2) every 28 days for ≤ 12 months. Patients without CR received single-agent crossover therapy at induction doses/schedules until CR, disease progression (PD), or unacceptable toxicity. PD or death in 636 patients was required to compare induction arms with 80% statistical power for progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Randomized induction therapy was received by 820 of 919 patients enrolled; 352 patients with CR received paclitaxel consolidation whereas 155 patients without CR received single-agent crossover therapy. PFS was similar for GC and TC (median, 20.0 and 22.2 months, respectively; P=.199). Despite high censoring rates (>52%), overall survival was longer for TC (median, 57.3 versus 43.8 months for GC; P=.013). Controlling for patient characteristics including performance status, residual tumor size, and tumor stage, there was no statistical difference in a multivariate analysis (HR=1.22; 95% CI=0.99-1.52; P=.067). CONCLUSIONS: GC does not improve PFS over TC as first-line induction chemotherapy in OC. Although favoring TC, overall survival analyses were limited by the study design and high censoring rates.

Clinical Trials Participation Among African Americans and the Ethics of Trust: Leadership Perspectives.

Background: Assuring health equity throughout the U.S. continues to challenge the public and private research enterprise. Even with some progress, racial and ethnic health disparities continue, particularly among African Americans. Health equity for African Americans is improbable unless participation in clinical trials is measurably increased. Method: To inform efforts to enhance participation, interviews were conducted with three African American leadership groups from across the country to document their perceptions of why the research community is unable to engage African Americans effectively in clinical trials. The results of thirty-five interviews, conducted from three leadership groups, were analyzed and are reported in this article. The leadership groups include health/education, faith, and civic society. Ethical Considerations: This research was conducted based upon the ethical protocols of the National Center for Bioethics in Research and Health Care, research ethics, and confidentiality. Results: Findings indicate that trustworthiness must precede trust; both are essential in enhancing African American participation in research, especially in less understood clinical trials. Conclusion: Respondents agreed that the research community must demonstrate trustworthiness before trust can be established. They also indicated the importance of increasing the number of African American researchers in leadership roles. Also, suggestions were made regarding the need to develop short and long-term positive relationships between the research community and the African American population, at various levels, if increases in participation in clinical trials are expected. With the likely development of new clinical research and the attention to increasing excess deaths among African Americans, there must be representative numbers of African Americans and other underserved populations in leadership roles if health disparities are to be eliminated and health equity is to be achieved.

Operational strategies in US cancer centers of excellence that support the successful accrual of racial and ethnic minorities in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Study populations in clinical research must reflect US changing demographics, especially with the rise of precision medicine. However, racial and ethnic minority groups (REMGs) have low rates of participation in cancer clinical trials. METHODS: Criteria were developed to identify cancer centers able to accrue a higher than average proportion of REMGs into clinical trials. Comprehensive interviews were conducted with leaders of these cancer centers to identify operational strategies contributing to enhanced accrual of REMGs. RESULTS: Eight US cancer centers reported a REMG accrual rate range in cancer research between 10 and 50% in a 12-month reporting period and met other criteria for inclusion. Fourteen leaders participated in this assessment. Key findings were that centers: had a metric collection and reporting approach; routinely captured race and ethnicity data within databases accessible to research staff; had operational standards to support access and inclusion; developed practices to facilitate sustained patient participation during clinical trials; had strategies to decrease recruitment time and optimize clinical study design; and identified low-resource strategies for REMG accrual. There was also a clear commitment to establish processes that support the patient's provider as the key influencer of patient recruitment into clinical trials. CONCLUSION: We have identified operational practices that facilitate increased inclusion of REMGs in cancer trials. In order to establish a sustainable cancer center inclusion research strategy, it is valuable to include an operational framework that is informed by leading US cancer centers of excellence.

US Cancer Centers of Excellence Strategies for Increased Inclusion of Racial and Ethnic Minorities in Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Participation of racial and ethnic minority groups (REMGs) in cancer trials is disproportionately low despite a high prevalence of certain cancers in REMG populations. We aimed to identify notable practices used by leading US cancer centers that facilitate REMG participation in cancer trials. METHODS: The National Minority Quality Forum and Sustainable Healthy Communities Diverse Cancer Communities Working Group developed criteria by which to identify eligible US cancer centers-REMGs comprise 10% or more of the catchment area; a 10% to 50% yearly accrual rate of REMGs in cancer trials; and the presence of formal community outreach and diversity enrollment programs. Cancer center leaders were interviewed to ascertain notable practices that facilitate REMG accrual in clinical trials. RESULTS: Eight cancer centers that met the Communities Working Group criteria were invited to participate in in-depth interviews. Notable strategies for increased REMG accrual to cancer trials were reported across five broad themes: commitment and center leadership, investigator training and mentoring, community engagement, patient engagement, and operational practices. Specific notable practices included increased engagement of health care professionals, the presence of formal processes for obtaining REMG patient/caregiver input on research projects, and engagement of community groups to drive REMG participation. Centers also reported an increase in the allocation of resources to improving health disparities and increased dedication of research staff to REMG engagement. CONCLUSION: We have identified notable practices that facilitate increased participation of REMGs in cancer trials. Wide implementation of such strategies across cancer centers is essential to ensure that all populations benefit from advances in an era of increasingly personalized treatment of cancer.

Efficacy and safety of pemetrexed in elderly cancer patients: results of an integrated analysis.

PURPOSE: To analyze pemetrexed in elderly patients (>or=65 years) based on data collected in three randomized, phase III registration trials. METHODS: Patients who received pemetrexed as monotherapy or in combination with another drug were included in this analysis (N=764). In all studies, pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) was administered every 21 days. Data from patients receiving pemetrexed were stratified by age +/-65 years. RESULTS: Out of the 764 patients randomized, 271 were >or=65 years of age (35.4%). Of these, 28% had non-small cell lung cancer, 41% pancreatic cancer, and 31% had malignant pleural mesothelioma that was either locally advanced or metastatic. The overall response rate of the integrated database of elderly patients was 21.4%, with complete response in three patients (1.11% in >or=65 years vs. 1.01% in <65 years), partial response in 55 (20.30% vs. 19.68%), and stable disease in 116 (42.80% vs. 43.00%). Median survival time was 8.34 months in both groups, and median time to progressive disease was 4.80 months versus 4.60. Toxicity observed in the elderly group included 70 patients (25.8% vs. 17.0%; p=0.005) with grade 4 toxicity; myelosuppression was the major toxicity, with grade 3/4 neutropenia in 33% versus 22% (p<0.05), and thrombocytopenia in 13% versus 6% (p<0.05). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 4.8% versus 4.7% of patients. Non-hematological grade 3/4 events were fatigue (10.3% vs. 9.5%) and nausea (6.3% vs. 6.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Pemetrexed produced similar treatment effects in older and younger patients, and appeared to be well tolerated in the elderly population. This analysis was limited by the pooling of different disease types and the lack of uniform treatment regimens.

Pemetrexed Continuation Maintenance Phase 3 Trials in Nonsquamous, Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Focus on 2-Year Overall Survival and Continuum of Care.

Although lung cancer prognosis remains poor for most patients, treatments developed in the past 2 decades have extended survival for many. For those with disease that responded to or those with stable disease after receipt of platinum-based chemotherapy, maintenance regimens enable continued targeting of tumors beyond the induction phase, which is limited by toxicity. This overview summarizes completed phase 3 trials of pemetrexed continuation maintenance treatment in nonsquamous, non-small-cell lung cancer with a focus on 2-year survival, and highlights similar ongoing trials. Some studies showed survival benefits of pemetrexed maintenance treatment versus control arms, with the potential for added benefit when combined with bevacizumab. Two-year survival rates underscore the value of maintenance therapy and suggest progress toward a clinical goal of managing non-small-cell lung cancer as a treatable chronic disease.

Efficacy and Safety of Necitumumab Continuation Therapy in the Phase III SQUIRE Study of Patients With Stage IV Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In a retrospective analysis of the SQUamous NSCLC treatment with the Inhibitor of EGF REceptor (SQUIRE) study, we investigated the efficacy and safety of single-agent necitumumab continuation therapy in patients with stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer and in a subpopulation of patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-expressing tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 for ≤ 6 cycles of gemcitabine and cisplatin either with or without necitumumab. Patients who received necitumumab continued receiving single-agent necitumumab until progressive disease (necitumumab continuation). Tissue collection was mandatory in SQUIRE. EGFR protein expression was assessed using immunohistochemistry in a central lab. In this subgroup analysis we compared patients treated with necitumumab monotherapy after completion of ≥ 4 cycles of chemotherapy with those in the chemotherapy arm who were progression-free and did not discontinue because of adverse events (AEs) after completion of ≥ 4 cycles of chemotherapy (gemcitabine-cisplatin nonprogressors). The same analysis was done for the subgroup of EGFR-expressing patients (EGFR > 0). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics and chemotherapy exposure were well balanced between the necitumumab continuation (n = 261) and gemcitabine-cisplatin nonprogressor (n = 215) arms and in the EGFR-expressing population. Median overall survival (OS) from randomization in the necitumumab with gemcitabine-cisplatin versus gemcitabine-cisplatin nonprogressor arm was 15.9 versus 15.0 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-1.05) and median progression-free survival (PFS) from randomization was 7.4 versus 6.9 months (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70-1.06). OS and PFS benefits were similar when assessed from the postinduction period and in EGFR-expressing patients. No new safety findings emerged. CONCLUSION: There was a consistent treatment effect in favor of necitumumab continuation versus that in gemcitabine-cisplatin nonprogressors, with no unexpected increases in AEs in intention-to-treat as well as EGFR-expressing populations.

Current and Emergent Therapy Options for Advanced Squamous Cell Lung Cancer.

Squamous cell lung cancer (SqCLC) is a distinct histologic subtype of NSCLC that is challenging to treat because of specific clinicopathologic characteristics, which include older age, advanced disease at diagnosis, comorbid diseases, and the central location of tumors. These characteristics have a bearing on treatment outcomes in advanced SqCLC, resulting in a median survival approximately 30% shorter than for patients with other NSCLC subtypes. In the context of the specific features of SqCLC, we review challenges of treating SqCLC and the current guideline-recommended treatments for advanced (metastatic) SqCLC in different patient subpopulations. We also evaluate recently approved treatment options, including necitumumab, afatinib, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and atezolizumab; discuss the survival benefits associated with each agent in the advanced SqCLC population; and propose a treatment algorithm incorporating these agents for this challenging-to-treat disease. Lastly, we review the preliminary clinical evidence for immunotherapy agents in development for advanced NSCLC.

Molecular and Immune Biomarker Testing in Squamous-Cell Lung Cancer: Effect of Current and Future Therapies and Technologies.

Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, including squamous-cell lung cancer (SqCLC), typically present at an advanced stage. The current treatment landscape, which includes chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery, immunotherapy, and targeted agents, is rapidly evolving, including for patients with SqCLC. Prompt molecular and immune biomarker testing can serve to guide optimal treatment choices, and immune biomarker testing is becoming more important for this patient population. In this review we provide an overview of current and emerging practices and technologies for molecular and immune biomarker testing in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, with a focus on SqCLC.

Single-arm, open label study of pemetrexed plus cisplatin in chemotherapy naïve patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: outcomes of an expanded access program.

BACKGROUND: An expanded access program (EAP) provided patient access to pemetrexed prior to its commercial availability. The current report consists of US patients in the EAP who had chemotherapy naïve pleural mesothelioma. METHODS: Eligible patients had a histologic or cytologic diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma that was not amenable to curative treatment with surgery. Study treatment consisted of pemetrexed 500mg/m(2) in combination with cisplatin 75mg/m(2) once every 21 days. Vitamin B12, folic acid, and dexamethasone were administered as prophylaxis. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported by investigators and compiled in a pharmacovigilance database for all patients enrolled in the EAP. RESULTS: Of 1056 patients receiving at least one dose of pemetrexed in the EAP, 728 had chemotherapy naïve pleural mesothelioma. Median age of this group was 70 years (range 23-89 years) and 84% were male. Among 615 patients, overall response rate was 20.5%, including 12 complete responses (2.0%) and 114 partial responses (18.5%). An additional 290 patients (47.2%) had stable disease. Median survival for all 728 patients was 10.8 months (95% CI=9.8, 12.3; 60.3% censorship) and 1 year survival was 45.4%. The most commonly reported SAEs in the overall EAP irrespective of causality were dehydration (7.2%), nausea (5.2%), vomiting (4.9%), dyspnea (3.8%), and pulmonary embolism (2.4%). CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort, 67.7% of patients treated with first-line chemotherapy experienced a response or stable disease. Survival time and toxicity from this EAP were promising for this difficult-to-treat disease.

An Open-Label, Randomized, Controlled Phase II Study of Paclitaxel-Carboplatin Chemotherapy With Necitumumab Versus Paclitaxel-Carboplatin Alone in First-Line Treatment of Patients With Stage IV Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The combination of necitumumab with gemcitabine-cisplatin significantly improved overall survival (OS) in patients with stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), in the phase III SQUamous NSCLC treatment with the Inhibitor of EGF REceptor (SQUIRE) trial. Paclitaxel-carboplatin was selected as an alternative standard of care in the current phase II study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized (stratified according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and sex) 2:1 to ≤ six 3-week cycles (Q3W) of paclitaxel and carboplatin with or without necitumumab. Chemotherapy was paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 on day 1 Q3W and carboplatin area under the curve 6 on day 1 Q3W. Necitumumab 800 mg, on days 1 and 8, was continued until disease progression or intolerable toxicity occurred. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) on the basis of Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-seven patients were randomized to the necitumumab-containing arm (n = 110) or the chemotherapy-only arm (n = 57). The combination of necitumumab with chemotherapy resulted in an ORR of 48.9% versus 40.0%. Median progression-free survival and OS were 5.4 versus 5.6 months (hazard ratio [HR], 1.0) and 13.2 versus 11.2 months (HR, 0.83; P = .379) in each treatment arm, respectively. Disease control rate was 87.2% versus 84.0%. Grade ≥ 3 adverse events typically associated with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies showing a > 2% increase were hypomagnesemia (5.7% vs. 0) and rash (2.8% vs. 0). Any Grade thromboembolic events occurred in < 4% of patients in either arm. CONCLUSION: The results of our study support previously reported results that the combination of necitumumab with chemotherapy improves survival in patients with advanced squamous NSCLC and shows a safety profile consistent with that of EGFR monoclonal antibodies.

Randomized phase II trial of three schedules of pemetrexed and gemcitabine as front-line therapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: A randomized three-arm phase II study was undertaken to evaluate the optimum administration schedule of pemetrexed and gemcitabine in chemotherapy-naïve patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to three schedules of pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 plus gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2, separated by a 90-minute interval, on a 21-day cycle as follows: schedule A, pemetrexed followed by gemcitabine on day 1 and gemcitabine on day 8; schedule B, gemcitabine followed by pemetrexed on day 1 and gemcitabine on day 8; and schedule C, gemcitabine on day 1 and pemetrexed followed by gemcitabine on day 8. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-two eligible patients (schedule A, n = 59; schedule B, n = 31, and schedule C, n = 62) received a median of five (schedule A), two (schedule B), and four (schedule C) treatment cycles. Overall, 66% of patients experienced grade 3 or 4 neutropenia. Common grade 3 and 4 nonhematologic toxicities were dyspnea (11%), fatigue (16%), and transaminase elevation (9%). Schedule A seemed less toxic compared with schedule C (grade 3 or 4 events: 86% v 94%, respectively; P = .19; grade 4 events: 39% v 48%, respectively; P = .30). Schedule B was closed at interim analysis for inferior efficacy. Schedule A, with a confirmed response rate of 31% (95% CI, 20% to 45%), met the protocol-defined efficacy criteria, whereas schedule C, with a confirmed response rate of 16.1% (95% CI, 11% to 34%), did not. Median survival time and time to progression were 11.4 and 4.4 months, respectively, with no observable difference between the arms. CONCLUSION: Pemetrexed and gemcitabine administered as outlined for schedule A met the protocol-defined efficacy criteria, was less toxic compared with the other treatment schedules, and should be further evaluated.

Administration of pemetrexed immediately following gemcitabine as front-line therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Pemetrexed and gemcitabine have demonstrated independent anti-tumor activity in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The combination of these two therapies may produce synergistic anti-tumor effects. Previous studies of this combination have included a 90-min separation between the two drugs. More recent preclinical studies have suggested that this delay in administration might be unnecessary. This phase II study was designed to determine the objective tumor response rate and toxicity when pemetrexed was administered immediately after gemcitabine on day 1. METHODS: Chemonaïve patients stage IIIB with pleural effusion or stage IV NSCLC were enrolled. Treatment consisted of gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 (30-min intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8) and pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 (10-min i.v. infusion, immediately following gemcitabine, on day 1) every 21 days. All patients received folic acid, vitamin B12, and steroid prophylaxis. RESULTS: The 53 enrolled patients completed a total of 199 cycles (median=4.0, mean=3.8). Best tumor response consisted of 1 complete response (2.0%), 15 partial responses (30.6%), 17 with stable disease (34.7%), and 16 with progressive disease (32.7%). Median time to disease progression was 3.3 months and median survival was 10.3 months. Grades 3/4 hematologic toxicities (% patients) consisted of: neutropenia (43.4), anemia (9.4), febrile neutropenia (7.5%) and thrombocytopenia (1.9). The most common grades 3 or 4 non-hematologic events were: dyspnea (15.1), fatigue (11.3), and pyrexia (9.4). One patient (1.9%) experienced grade 2 alopecia. CONCLUSION: This schedule of pemetrexed plus gemcitabine is tolerable and offered the advantage of not requiring a 90-min delay between the two drugs. Response rate, survival, time to disease progression, and toxicity were acceptable and similar to other NSCLC regimens.

Pemetrexed clinical studies in performance status 2 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (Review).

Because poor performance status (PS) is an independent prognostic factor in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), PS scores are widely used by oncologists to make treatment decisions. Advanced NSCLC patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS of 2 have poor prognoses and are frequently excluded from clinical trials. This article reviews the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed in this patient group. We identified English-language literature (through March 2015) involving completed and ongoing studies through searches of PubMed, meeting abstracts, ClinicalTrials.gov and the European Clinical Trials Register; search terms included 'pemetrexed,' 'NSCLC' and 'PS2'. Only studies reporting ≥1 subset analysis of PS2 patients receiving pemetrexed were chosen. Our search identified a total of ten pemetrexed studies in PS2 patients. Eight studies included only chemonaive patients, one study included both chemonaive patients and patients with one prior chemotherapy regimen and one study included only patients with one prior regimen. In subset analyses in these studies, PS2 patients had worse outcomes than PS0-1 patients regardless of treatment. In a phase 3 study, chemonaive advanced NSCLC patients with PS2 receiving pemetrexed­carboplatin versus pemetrexed experienced improved overall survival [hazard ratio (HR)=0.62; P=0.001], progression-free survival (HR=0.46; P<0.001) and response (P=0.032). This review confirms the poorer outcomes in PS2 vs. PS0-1 patients. Although it is not an approved combination therapy, in clinical studies, PS2 patients treated with pemetrexed plus carboplatin as first-line therapy had improved response rates and survival. Additional research on PS2 patients is needed.

Pemetrexed With Platinum Combination as a Backbone for Targeted Therapy in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Standard platinum-based chemotherapy combinations for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have reached a plateau in terms of the survival benefit they offer for patients. In addition, the emerging clinical trend of tailored treatment based on patient characteristics has led to the development of therapeutic strategies that target specific cancer-related molecular pathways, including epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), angiogenesis, and anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors. Current research is focused on combining targeted therapy with platinum-based chemotherapy in an endeavor to achieve an additional benefit in specific patient populations. Currently, pemetrexed is indicated for use in the first-line, maintenance, and second-line settings for the treatment of nonsquamous NSCLC. The combination of pemetrexed and cisplatin is well tolerated and is the approved standard first-line therapy. Thus, the pemetrexed-platinum backbone provides an attractive option for combination with targeted therapies. This review aims to summarize the current knowledge and future prospects of the use of pemetrexed-platinum as a backbone for combination with targeted therapies for NSCLC.

The Effect of Necitumumab in Combination with Gemcitabine plus Cisplatin on Tolerability and on Quality of Life: Results from the Phase 3 SQUIRE Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Necitumumab, a second-generation, recombinant human immunoglobulin G1 epidermal growth factor receptor antibody in the phase 3 SQUIRE trial (NCT00981058), increased survival benefit for patients randomized to receive necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin compared with those who received gemcitabine-cisplatin. Here we characterize health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and tolerability results. METHODS: A total of 1093 patients with stage IV squamous non-small cell lung cancer were randomized 1:1 to receive necitumumab (800 mg absolute dose intravenously [IV]) plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (gemcitabine = 1250 mg/m(2) IV on days 1 and 8; cisplatin = 75 mg/m(2) IV on day 1) or gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (every 21 days) for up to six cycles. Patients receiving necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin without disease progression continued necitumumab until progression. HRQoL was measured by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS), and the European Quality of Life Five-Dimensions questionnaire. Efficacy and LCSS outcomes were analyzed using the baseline maximum severity score of the LCSS. Tolerability was measured in terms of exposure to the study treatment and adverse events. Hospitalization rates were collected. RESULTS: Most patients in both study arms similarly maintained Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and comparable LCSS and European Quality of Life Five-Dimensions questionnaire assessments. Patients with a higher baseline LCSS had a greater survival benefit on the necitumumab arm. Chemotherapy exposure was similar in both treatment arms; 51% of patients on the necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin arm continued on single-agent necitumumab. The most frequent grade 4 adverse events were neutropenia (6.1% versus 7.9%) and thrombocytopenia (3.2% versus 4.3%) in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin versus gemcitabine-cisplatin arms, respectively. Hospitalizations were slightly higher with necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (36.4%) than with gemcitabine-cisplatin (34.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of necitumumab to gemcitabine-cisplatin was well tolerated, did not negatively affect HRQoL or toxicity, and particularly benefited patients with more severe baseline symptoms or lower HRQoL.

Incremental Innovation and Progress in Advanced Squamous Cell Lung Cancer: Current Status and Future Impact of Treatment.

Squamous cell lung cancer (sqCLC) is an aggressive form of cancer that poses many therapeutic challenges. Patients tend to be older, present at a later stage, and have a high incidence of comorbidities, which can compromise treatment delivery and exacerbate toxicity. In addition, certain agents routinely available for nonsquamous cell histologic subtypes, such as bevacizumab and pemetrexed, are contraindicated or lack efficacy in sqCLC. Therapeutic progress has been much slower for advanced sqCLC, with median survival times of approximately 9 to 11 months in most studies. Herein, we discuss the current therapeutic landscape for patients with sqCLC versus with nonsquamous NSCLC. Current evidence indicates that new targeted treatments, notably monoclonal antibodies such as ramucirumab and necitumumab, and immunotherapies such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab can provide survival prolongation, although the benefits are still relatively modest. These incremental improvements, all realized since 2012, in aggregate, will very likely have a clinically meaningful impact for patients with sqCLC. We also discuss recent genomic studies of sqCLC that have identified potentially actionable molecular targets, as well as the relevant targeted agents in clinical development. Finally, we discuss the magnitude of survival benefit and the risk-to-benefit ratio that would prove clinically meaningful in this underserved patient population with unmet needs.