Phase III Study of Pemetrexed in Combination With Cisplatin Versus Cisplatin Alone in Patients With Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma.

PURPOSE: Patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, a rapidly progressing malignancy with a median survival time of 6 to 9 months, have previously responded poorly to chemotherapy. We conducted a phase III trial to determine whether treatment with pemetrexed and cisplatin results in survival time superior to that achieved with cisplatin alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients who were not eligible for curative surgery were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1, or cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1. Both regimens were given intravenously every 21 days. RESULTS: A total of 456 patients were assigned: 226 received pemetrexed and cisplatin, 222 received cisplatin alone, and eight never received therapy. Median survival time in the pemetrexed/cisplatin arm was 12.1 months versus 9.3 months in the control arm (P = .020, two-sided log-rank test). The hazard ratio for death of patients in the pemetrexed/cisplatin arm versus those in the control arm was 0.77. Median time to progression was significantly longer in the pemetrexed/cisplatin arm: 5.7 months versus 3.9 months (P = .001). Response rates were 41.3% in the pemetrexed/cisplatin arm versus 16.7% in the control arm (P < .0001). After 117 patients had enrolled, folic acid and vitamin B12 were added to reduce toxicity, resulting in a significant reduction in toxicities in the pemetrexed/cisplatin arm. CONCLUSION: Treatment with pemetrexed plus cisplatin and vitamin supplementation resulted in superior survival time, time to progression, and response rates compared with treatment with cisplatin alone in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. Addition of folic acid and vitamin B12 significantly reduced toxicity without adversely affecting survival time.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Pemetrexed Versus Docetaxel in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Previously Treated With Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and toxicity of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had a performance status 0 to 2, previous treatment with one prior chemotherapy regimen for advanced NSCLC, and adequate organ function. Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) day 1 with vitamin B12, folic acid, and dexamethasone or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 IV day 1 with dexamethasone every 21 days. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: Five hundred seventy-one patients were randomly assigned. Overall response rates were 9.1% and 8.8% (analysis of variance P = .105) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 2.9 months for each arm, and median survival time was 8.3 versus 7.9 months (P = not significant) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. The 1-year survival rate for each arm was 29.7%. Patients receiving docetaxel were more likely to have grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (40.2% v 5.3%; P < .001), febrile neutropenia (12.7% v 1.9%; P < .001), neutropenia with infections (3.3% v 0.0%; P = .004), hospitalizations for neutropenic fever (13.4% v 1.5%; P < .001), hospitalizations due to other drug related adverse events (10.5% v 6.4%; P = .092), use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support (19.2% v 2.6%, P < .001) and all grade alopecia (37.7% v 6.4%; P < .001) compared with patients receiving pemetrexed. CONCLUSION: Treatment with pemetrexed resulted in clinically equivalent efficacy outcomes, but with significantly fewer side effects compared with docetaxel in the second-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC and should be considered a standard treatment option for second-line NSCLC when available.

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.

First-cycle rash and survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer receiving cetuximab in combination with first-line chemotherapy: a subgroup analysis of data from the FLEX phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The randomised phase 3 First-Line Erbitux in Lung Cancer (FLEX) study showed that the addition of cetuximab to cisplatin and vinorelbine significantly improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The main cetuximab-related side-effect was acne-like rash. Here, we assessed the association of this acne-like rash with clinical benefit. METHODS: We did a subgroup analysis of patients in the FLEX study, which enrolled patients with advanced NSCLC whose tumours expressed epidermal growth factor receptor. Our landmark analysis assessed if the development of acne-like rash in the first 21 days of treatment (first-cycle rash) was associated with clinical outcome, on the basis of patients in the intention-to-treat population alive on day 21. The FLEX study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798. FINDINGS: 518 patients in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group-290 of whom had first-cycle rash-and 540 patients in the chemotherapy alone group were alive on day 21. Patients in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group with first-cycle rash had significantly prolonged overall survival compared with patients in the same treatment group without first-cycle rash (median 15·0 months [95% CI 12·8-16·4] vs 8·8 months [7·6-11·1]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·631 [0·515-0·774]; p<0·0001). Corresponding significant associations were also noted for progression-free survival (median 5·4 months [5·2-5·7] vs 4·3 months [4·1-5·3]; HR 0·741 [0·607-0·905]; p=0·0031) and response (rate 44·8% [39·0-50·8] vs 32·0% [26·0-38·5]; odds ratio 1·703 [1·186-2·448]; p=0·0039). Overall survival for patients without first-cycle rash was similar to that of patients that received chemotherapy alone (median 8·8 months [7·6-11·1] vs 10·3 months [9·6-11·3]; HR 1·085 [0·910-1·293]; p=0·36). The significant overall survival benefit for patients with first-cycle rash versus without was seen in all histology subgroups: adenocarcinoma (median 16·9 months, [14·1-20·6] vs 9·3 months [7·7-13·2]; HR 0·614 [0·453-0·832]; p=0·0015), squamous-cell carcinoma (median 13·2 months [10·6-16·0] vs 8·1 months [6·7-12·6]; HR 0·659 [0·472-0·921]; p=0·014), and carcinomas of other histology (median 12·6 months [9·2-16·4] vs 6·9 months [5·2-11·0]; HR 0·616 [0·392-0·966]; p=0·033). INTERPRETATION: First-cycle rash was associated with a better outcome in patients with advanced NSCLC who received cisplatin and vinorelbine plus cetuximab as a first-line treatment. First-cycle rash might be a surrogate clinical marker that could be used to tailor cetuximab treatment for advanced NSCLC to those patients who would be most likely to derive a significant benefit.

Molecular biomarkers in non-small-cell lung cancer: a retrospective analysis of data from the phase 3 FLEX study.

BACKGROUND: Findings from the phase 3 FLEX study showed that the addition of cetuximab to cisplatin and vinorelbine significantly improved overall survival, compared with cisplatin and vinorelbine alone, in the first-line treatment of EGFR-expressing, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated whether candidate biomarkers were predictive for the efficacy of chemotherapy plus cetuximab in this setting. METHODS: Genomic DNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumour tissue of patients enrolled in the FLEX study was screened for KRAS codon 12 and 13 and EGFR kinase domain mutations with PCR-based assays. In FFPE tissue sections, EGFR copy number was assessed by dual-colour fluorescence in-situ hybridisation and PTEN expression by immunohistochemistry. Treatment outcome was investigated according to biomarker status in all available samples from patients in the intention-to-treat population. The primary endpoint in the FLEX study was overall survival. The FLEX study, which is ongoing but not recruiting participants, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798. FINDINGS: KRAS mutations were detected in 75 of 395 (19%) tumours and activating EGFR mutations in 64 of 436 (15%). EGFR copy number was scored as increased in 102 of 279 (37%) tumours and PTEN expression as negative in 107 of 303 (35%). Comparisons of treatment outcome between the two groups (chemotherapy plus cetuximab vs chemotherapy alone) according to biomarker status provided no indication that these biomarkers were of predictive value. Activating EGFR mutations were identified as indicators of good prognosis, with patients in both treatment groups whose tumours carried such mutations having improved survival compared with those whose tumours did not (chemotherapy plus cetuximab: median 17·5 months [95% CI 11·7-23·4] vs 8·5 months [7·1-10·8], hazard ratio [HR] 0·52 [0·32-0·84], p=0·0063; chemotherapy alone: 23·8 months [15·2-not reached] vs 10·0 months [8·7-11·0], HR 0·35 [0·21-0·59], p<0·0001). Expression of PTEN seemed to be a potential indicator of good prognosis, with patients whose tumours expressed PTEN having improved survival compared with those whose tumours did not, although this finding was not significant (chemotherapy plus cetuximab: median 11·4 months [8·6-13·6] vs 6·8 months [5·9-12·7], HR 0·80 [0·55-1·16], p=0·24; chemotherapy alone: 11·0 months [9·2-12·6] vs 9·3 months [7·6-11·9], HR 0·77 [0·54-1·10], p=0·16). INTERPRETATION: The efficacy of chemotherapy plus cetuximab in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC seems to be independent of each of the biomarkers assessed. FUNDING: Merck KGaA.

Cetuximab plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (FLEX): an open-label randomised phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Use of cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), has the potential to increase survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. We therefore compared chemotherapy plus cetuximab with chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced EGFR-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: In a multinational, multicentre, open-label, phase III trial, chemotherapy-naive patients (>or=18 years) with advanced EGFR-expressing histologically or cytologically proven stage wet IIIB or stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to chemotherapy plus cetuximab or just chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) intravenous infusion on day 1, and vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8 of every 3-week cycle) for up to six cycles. Cetuximab-at a starting dose of 400 mg/m(2) intravenous infusion over 2 h on day 1, and from day 8 onwards at 250 mg/m(2) over 1 h per week-was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity had occurred. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798. FINDINGS: Between October, 2004, and January, 2006, 1125 patients were randomly assigned to chemotherapy plus cetuximab (n=557) or chemotherapy alone (n=568). Patients given chemotherapy plus cetuximab survived longer than those in the chemotherapy-alone group (median 11.3 months vs 10.1 months; hazard ratio for death 0.871 [95% CI 0.762-0.996]; p=0.044). The main cetuximab-related adverse event was acne-like rash (57 [10%] of 548, grade 3). INTERPRETATION: Addition of cetuximab to platinum-based chemotherapy represents a new treatment option for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING: Merck KGaA.

A phase II pharmacodynamic study of erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: To examine potential markers of clinical benefit and the effects of erlotinib on the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling pathway in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients refractory to platinum-based chemotherapy. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were given erlotinib (150 mg/d). Tumor biopsies were done immediately before treatment and in a subgroup of patients after 6 weeks' treatment. RESULTS: Of 73 evaluable patients, 7 (10%) had partial response and 28 (38%) had stable disease. In 53 patients with baseline tumor samples, no relationship was observed between pretreatment levels of EGFR, phosphorylated (p)-EGFR, p-AKT, p-mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK), or p27 and clinical benefit (i.e., response, or stable disease >/=12 weeks). Tumors from 15 of 57 patients had high EGFR gene copy number, assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH positive), 10 of whom had clinical benefit, compared with 5 of 42 FISH-negative patients. FISH-positive patients had longer median progression-free [137 versus 43 days, P = 0.002; hazard ratio (HR), 0.37] and overall (226 versus 106 days, P = 0.267; HR, 0.70) survival than FISH-negative patients. In paired biopsy samples from 14 patients, p-EGFR (P = 0.002), p-MAPK (P = 0.001), and Ki-67 (P = 0.025) levels were significantly reduced after 6 weeks' treatment. Apoptosis was significantly increased in patients with clinical benefit (P = 0.029), and may be a marker of clinical benefit. CONCLUSION: In this study, EGFR FISH-positive status was associated with improved outcome after erlotinib therapy. Erlotinib led to reduced levels of p-EGFR, p-MAPK, and Ki-67, and stimulated apoptosis in tumor samples from patients with clinical benefit.

Incidence of febrile neutropenia and myelotoxicity of chemotherapy: a meta-analysis of biosimilar G-CSF studies in breast cancer, lung cancer, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this meta-analysis of 3 clinical studies, conducted with breast cancer, lung cancer, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients, was to compare a new granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) biosimilar, XM02, with filgrastim in terms of its prophylactic effect on the development of febrile neutropenia (FN) during the first chemotherapy cycle in relation to the myelotoxic potency of the applied chemotherapy regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Overall, 608 patients (363 under XM02 and 245 under filgrastim) were included in the meta-analysis. The majority of patients were allocated to the chemotherapy categories docetaxel-doxorubicin (45.4%) and cyclophosphamide-hydroxy daunomycin (adriamycin)-oncovin (vincristine)-prednisolone (CHOP)/platinum(Pt)-vinorelbine or Pt-vinblastine/ Pt-etoposide (43.1%); another 11.5% were allocated to the category Pt-gemcitabine/Pt-docetaxel or Pt-paclitaxel. RESULTS: FN in the XM02 and filgrastim groups was reported for 12.1 and 12.5% of patients, respectively, under docetaxeldoxorubicin, for 13.5 and 11.9% under CHOP/Pt-vinorelbine or Pt-vinblastine/Pt-etoposide, and for 15.6 and 12.0% under Pt-gemcitabine/Pt-docetaxel or Pt-paclitaxel. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of FN in the first cycle of chemotherapy under primary G-CSF prophylaxis is low (in the range of 12-16%) and not directly correlated with the myelotoxic potency of the applied chemotherapy regimen. XM02 demonstrated to be non-inferior to filgrastim regarding the incidence of FN, irrespective of the myelotoxicity of the chemotherapy regimen.

Oral vinorelbine in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer: rationale and implications for patient management.

Vinorelbine is an established treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), both as a single agent and in combination chemotherapy. Recently, an oral form of this agent has been developed. Before accepting an established agent in a different administration form, rigorous testing is required to answer such questions as reliable bioavailability, continued safety and preservation of efficacy. In addition, an oral agent must provide patient convenience and acceptance, while being an economically sound approach. Oral vinorelbine was found to have acceptable and reliable pharmacokinetic profiles at clinically relevant dosage levels. Oral vinorelbine was found to have approximately 40% bioavailability; thus, a dose of 80 mg/m(2) orally is the equivalent of 30 mg/m(2) intravenously, and 60 mg/m(2) orally is the equivalent of 25 mg/m(2) intravenously. Studies also concluded a lack of food effect on the administration of oral vinorelbine. In addition, no drug-drug interactions were found with a variety of commonly used antineoplastic agents.Vinorelbine, either orally or intravenously, has been investigated in randomised phase II trials as a single agent and in combination with cisplatin or carboplatin in patients with NSCLC. In general, response and survival results with oral vinorelbine appeared similar to the intravenous agent. Adverse-effect profiles were also similar for the two formulations. Clearly, the issue of venous irritation does not exist with oral vinorelbine; however, nausea and vomiting were more frequent when vinorelbine was administered orally compared with intravenously when no planned antiemetic therapy is given.

[Non-small cell lung cancer - diagnostics and stage-adapted therapy]. / Nichtkleinzelliges Lungenkarzinom - Diagnostik und stadienadaptierte Therapie.

Non-small cell lung cancer is a common disease. Adeno- and squamous-cell type are the most frequent subtypes, the former with rising incidence. The clinical picture is nonspecific until late in the course of the disease. The most important diagnostic tools are chest X-ray, computed tomogram of the chest, and bronchoscopy. Additional tests often used for staging are abdominal ultrasound, computed tomography of the abdomen, bone scintigraphy, and magnetic resonance imaging of the head. Positron emission tomography is of rising importance. Therapy is guided by stage. Stage I disease is a domain of surgery, in stage II combined with adjuvant chemotherapy. In stage III, multimodality treatment, mostly chemoradiotherapy, is indicated. Stage IV disease is treated with palliative chemotherapy. Newer, so-called targeted therapies are more and more implemented into therapy. There are three substances approved for second-line therapy with response rates of just under 10%.