A phase Ib/II study of galunisertib in combination with nivolumab in solid tumors and non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: In this phase Ib/II open-label study, tumor immune suppression was targeted in patients with advanced refractory solid tumors and patients with recurrent/refractory non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using galunisertib with nivolumab. METHODS: Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years old, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 1, and were treatment-naive for anti-programmed cell death-1, its ligand, or transforming growth factor ß receptor 1 kinase inhibitors. Phase Ib was an open-label, dose-escalation assessment of the safety and tolerability of galunisertib with nivolumab in patients with advanced refractory solid tumors. Phase II evaluated the safety of galunisertib with nivolumab in NSCLC patients who had received prior platinum-based treatment but were immuno-oncology agent-naive. RESULTS: This trial was conducted between October 2015 and August 2020. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed in phase I. In the phase II NSCLC cohort (n = 25), patients received 150 mg twice daily galunisertib (14 days on/14 days off dosing schedule for all phases) plus nivolumab at 3 mg/kg (intravenously every 2 weeks). In this phase, the most frequent treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were pruritus (n = 9, 36%), fatigue (n = 8, 32%), and decreased appetite (n = 7, 28%). No grade 4 or 5 treatment-related AEs were observed. Six (24%) patients had confirmed partial response (PR) and 4 (16%) had stable disease; 1 additional patient had confirmed PR after initial pseudo-progression. The median duration of response was 7.43 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.75, NR). Among the 7 responders, including the delayed responder, 1 had high PD-L1 expression (≥ 50%). The median progression-free survival was 5.26 months (95% CI: 1.77, 9.20) and the median overall survival was 11.99 months (95% CI: 8.15, NR). Interferon gamma response genes were induced post-treatment and cell adhesion genes were repressed, although the association of these observations with tumor response and clinical outcomes was not statistically powered due to limited samples available. CONCLUSIONS: The study met its primary endpoint as galunisertib combined with nivolumab was well tolerated. Preliminary efficacy was observed in a subset of patients in the Phase 2 NSCLC cohort. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02423343; 22.04.2015).

Phase 1b/2a study of galunisertib, a small molecule inhibitor of transforming growth factor-beta receptor I, in combination with standard temozolomide-based radiochemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed malignant glioma.

Purpose Galunisertib, a TGF-ß inhibitor, has demonstrated antitumor effects in preclinical and radiographic responses in some patients with malignant glioma. This Phase 1b/2a trial investigated the clinical benefit of combining galunisertib with temozolomide-based radiochemotherapy (TMZ/RTX) in patients with newly diagnosed malignant glioma (NCT01220271). Methods This is an open-label, 2-arm Phase 1b/2a study (N = 56) of galunisertib (intermittent dosing: 14 days on/14 days off per cycle of 28 days) in combination with TMZ/RTX (n = 40), versus a control arm (TMZ/RTX, n = 16). The primary objective of Phase 1b was to determine the safe and tolerable Phase 2 dose of galunisertib. The primary objective of Phase 2a was to confirm the tolerability and pharmacodynamic profile of galunisertib with TMZ/RTX, and the secondary objectives included determining the efficacy and pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of galunisertib with TMZ/RTX in patients with glioblastoma. This study also characterized the changes in the major T-cell subsets during TMZ/RTX plus galunisertib treatment. Results In the Phase 2a study, efficacy results for patients treated with galunisertib plus TMZ/RTX or TMZ/RTX were: median overall survival (18.2 vs 17.9 months), median progression-free survival (7.6 vs 11.5 months), and disease control rate (80% [32/40] vs 56% [9/16] patients) respectively. PK profile of galunisertib plus TMZ/RTX regimen was consistent with previously published PK data of galunisertib. The overall safety profile across treatment arms was comparable. Conclusion No differences in efficacy, safety or pharmacokinetic variables were observed between the two treatment arms.

Biomarker and Histopathology Evaluation of Patients with Recurrent Glioblastoma Treated with Galunisertib, Lomustine, or the Combination of Galunisertib and Lomustine.

Galunisertib, a Transforming growth factor-ßRI (TGF-ßRI) kinase inhibitor, blocks TGF-ß-mediated tumor growth in glioblastoma. In a three-arm study of galunisertib (300 mg/day) monotherapy (intermittent dosing; each cycle =14 days on/14 days off), lomustine monotherapy, and galunisertib plus lomustine therapy, baseline tumor tissue was evaluated to identify markers associated with tumor stage (e.g., histopathology, Ki67, glial fibrillary acidic protein) and TGF-ß-related signaling (e.g., pSMAD2). Other pharmacodynamic assessments included chemokine, cytokine, and T cell subsets alterations. 158 patients were randomized to galunisertib plus lomustine (n = 79), galunisertib (n = 39) and placebo+lomustine (n = 40). In 127 of these patients, tissue was adequate for central pathology review and biomarker work. Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH1) negative glioblastoma patients with baseline pSMAD2⁺ in cytoplasm had median overall survival (OS) 9.5 months vs. 6.9 months for patients with no tumor pSMAD2 expression (p = 0.4574). Eight patients were IDH1 R132H⁺ and had a median OS of 10.4 months compared to 6.9 months for patients with negative IDH1 R132H (p = 0.5452). IDH1 status was associated with numerically higher plasma macrophage-derived chemokine (MDC/CCL22), higher whole blood FOXP3, and reduced tumor CD3⁺ T cell counts. Compared to the baseline, treatment with galunisertib monotherapy preserved CD4⁺ T cell counts, eosinophils, lymphocytes, and the CD4/CD8 ratio. The T-regulatory cell compartment was associated with better OS with MDC/CCL22 as a prominent prognostic marker.

Phase Ib/II Study of Enzalutamide with Samotolisib (LY3023414) or Placebo in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To report efficacy and safety of samotolisib (LY3023414; PI3K/mTOR dual kinase and DNA-dependent protein kinase inhibitor) plus enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) following cancer progression on abiraterone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled phase Ib/II study (NCT02407054), following a lead-in segment for evaluating safety and pharmacokinetics of samotolisib and enzalutamide combination, patients with advanced castration-resistant prostate cancer with progression on prior abiraterone were randomized to receive enzalutamide (160 mg daily)/samotolisib (200 mg twice daily) or placebo. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group criteria (PCWG2). Secondary and exploratory endpoints included radiographic PFS (rPFS) and biomarkers, respectively. Log-rank tests assessed treatment group differences. RESULTS: Overall, 13 and 129 patients were enrolled in phase Ib and II, respectively. Dose-limiting toxicity was not reported in patients during phase Ib and mean samotolisib exposures remained in the targeted range despite a 35% decrease when administered with enzalutamide. In phase II, median PCWG2-PFS and rPFS was significantly longer in the samotolisib/enzalutamide versus placebo/enzalutamide arm (3.8 vs. 2.8 months; P = 0.003 and 10.2 vs. 5.5 months; P = 0.03), respectively. Patients without androgen receptor splice variant 7 showed a significant and clinically meaningful rPFS benefit in the samotolisib/enzalutamide versus placebo/enzalutamide arm (13.2 months vs. 5.3 months; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Samotolisib/enzalutamide has tolerable side effects and significantly improved PFS in patients with mCRPC with cancer progression on abiraterone, and this may be enriched in patients with PTEN intact and no androgen receptor splice variant 7.

Safety and activity of the TGFß receptor I kinase inhibitor galunisertib plus the anti-PD-L1 antibody durvalumab in metastatic pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of the transforming growth factor beta (TGFß) receptor inhibitor galunisertib co-administered with the anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody durvalumab in recurrent/refractory metastatic pancreatic cancer previously treated with ≤2 systemic regimens. METHODS: This was a two-part, single-arm, multinational, phase Ib study. In a dose-finding phase, escalating oral doses of galunisertib were co-administered on days 1-14 with fixed-dose intravenous durvalumab 1500 mg on day 1 every 4 weeks (Q4W), followed by an expansion cohort phase. RESULTS: The galunisertib recommended phase II dose (RP2D) when co-administered with durvalumab 1500 mg Q4W was 150 mg two times per day. No dose-limiting toxicities were recorded. Among 32 patients treated with galunisertib RP2D, 1 patient had partial response, 7 had stable disease, 15 had objective progressive disease, and 9 were not evaluable. Disease control rate was 25.0%. Median overall survival and progression-free survival were 5.72 months (95% CI: 4.01 to 8.38) and 1.87 months (95% CI: 1.58 to 3.09), respectively. Pharmacokinetic profiles for combination therapy were comparable to those published for each drug. There was no association between potential biomarkers and treatment outcomes. CONCLUSION: Galunisertib 150 mg two times per day co-administered with durvalumab 1500 mg Q4W was tolerable. Clinical activity was limited. Studying this combination in patients in an earlier line of treatment or selected for predictive biomarkers of TGFß inhibition might be a more suitable approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02734160.

Phase II Study of the ALK5 Inhibitor Galunisertib in Very Low-, Low-, and Intermediate-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndromes.

PURPOSE: Overactivation of TGF-ß signaling is observed in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and is associated with dysplastic hematopoietic differentiation. Galunisertib, a first-in-class oral inhibitor of the TGF-ß receptor type 1 kinase (ALK5) has shown effectiveness in preclinical models of MDS and acceptable toxicity in phase I studies of solid malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A phase II multicenter study of galunisertib was conducted in patients with very low-, low-, or intermediate-risk MDS by the Revised International Prognostic Scoring System criteria with hemoglobin ≤ 10.0 g/dL. Patients received oral galunisertib 150 mg twice daily for 14 days on/14 days off. RESULTS: Ten of 41 evaluable patients (24.4%; 95% confidence interval, 12.4-40.3) achieved hematologic improvement erythroid response by International Working Group (IWG) 2006 criteria. A total of 18 of 41 patients (43.9%) achieved erythroid response as per IWG 2000 criteria. Nine of 28 (32.1%) of transfusion-dependent patients had hematologic improvement. A total of 18 of 41 (44%) patients had a significant reduction in fatigue. Overall median duration of response was 90 days in all patients. Rigorous stem and progenitor flow cytometry showed that patients with an early stem cell differentiation block were more likely to respond to galunisertib. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were grade 1 or 2 in 20 (49%) of 41 patients, including any-grade fatigue (8/41, 20%), diarrhea (7/41, 17%), pyrexia (5/41, 12%), and vomiting (5/41, 12%). CONCLUSIONS: In summary, galunisertib treatment has an acceptable safety profile and was associated with hematologic improvements in lower- and intermediate-risk MDS, with responses in heavily transfusion-dependent patients and in those with signs of an early stem cell differentiation block.

A Phase II randomized study of galunisertib monotherapy or galunisertib plus lomustine compared with lomustine monotherapy in patients with recurrent glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: The combination of galunisertib, a transforming growth factor (TGF)-ß receptor (R)1 kinase inhibitor, and lomustine was found to have antitumor activity in murine models of glioblastoma. METHODS: Galunisertib (300 mg/day) was given orally 14 days on/14 days off (intermittent dosing). Lomustine was given as approved. Patients were randomized in a 2:1:1 ratio to galunisertib + lomustine, galunisertib monotherapy, or placebo + lomustine. The primary objective was overall survival (OS); secondary objectives were safety, pharmacokinetics (PKs), and antitumor activity. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-eight patients were randomized: galunisertib + lomustine (N = 79), galunisertib (N = 39), and placebo + lomustine (N = 40). Baseline characteristics were: male (64.6%), white (75.3%), median age 58 years, ECOG performance status (PS) 1 (63.3%), and primary glioblastoma (93.7%). The PKs of galunisertib were not altered with lomustine, and galunisertib had a median half-life of ∼8 hours. Median OS in months (95% credible interval [CrI]) for galunisertib + lomustine was 6.7 (range: 5.3-8.5), 8.0 (range: 5.7-11.7) for galunisertib alone, and 7.5 (range: 5.6-10.3) for placebo + lomustine. There was no difference in OS for patients treated with galunisertib + lomustine compared with placebo + lomustine [P (HR < 1) = 26%]. Median progression-free survival of ∼2 months was observed in all 3 arms. Among 8 patients with IDH1 mutation, 7 patients were treated with galunisertib (monotherapy or with lomustine); OS ranged from 4 to 17 months. Patients treated with galunisertib alone had fewer drug-related grade 3/4 adverse events (n = 34) compared with lomustine-treated patients (10% vs 26%). Baseline PS, post-discontinuation of bevacizumab, tumor size, and baseline levels of MDC/CCL22 were correlated with OS. CONCLUSIONS: Galunisertib + lomustine failed to demonstrate improved OS relative to placebo + lomustine. Efficacy outcomes were similar in all 3 arms. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01582269, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Clinical development of galunisertib (LY2157299 monohydrate), a small molecule inhibitor of transforming growth factor-beta signaling pathway.

Transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-ß) signaling regulates a wide range of biological processes. TGF-ß plays an important role in tumorigenesis and contributes to the hallmarks of cancer, including tumor proliferation, invasion and metastasis, inflammation, angiogenesis, and escape of immune surveillance. There are several pharmacological approaches to block TGF-ß signaling, such as monoclonal antibodies, vaccines, antisense oligonucleotides, and small molecule inhibitors. Galunisertib (LY2157299 monohydrate) is an oral small molecule inhibitor of the TGF-ß receptor I kinase that specifically downregulates the phosphorylation of SMAD2, abrogating activation of the canonical pathway. Furthermore, galunisertib has antitumor activity in tumor-bearing animal models such as breast, colon, lung cancers, and hepatocellular carcinoma. Continuous long-term exposure to galunisertib caused cardiac toxicities in animals requiring adoption of a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic-based dosing strategy to allow further development. The use of such a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model defined a therapeutic window with an appropriate safety profile that enabled the clinical investigation of galunisertib. These efforts resulted in an intermittent dosing regimen (14 days on/14 days off, on a 28-day cycle) of galunisertib for all ongoing trials. Galunisertib is being investigated either as monotherapy or in combination with standard antitumor regimens (including nivolumab) in patients with cancer with high unmet medical needs such as glioblastoma, pancreatic cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma. The present review summarizes the past and current experiences with different pharmacological treatments that enabled galunisertib to be investigated in patients.

Exploratory Subset Analysis of African Americans From the PointBreak Study: Pemetrexed-Carboplatin-Bevacizumab Followed by Maintenance Pemetrexed-Bevacizumab Versus Paclitaxel-Carboplatin-Bevacizumab Followed by Maintenance Bevacizumab in Patients With Stage IIIB/IV Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: African Americans have a greater incidence of lung cancer than whites and have been underrepresented in clinical trials. In the PointBreak trial (pemetrexed-carboplatin-bevacizumab and maintenance pemetrexed-bevacizumab [PemCBev] vs. paclitaxel-carboplatin-bevacizumab and maintenance bevacizumab [PacCBev]), 10% of the patients were African American. PointBreak had negative findings; PemCBev did not demonstrate superior overall survival (OS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: PointBreak subgroup efficacy and safety data were retrospectively analyzed: African Americans versus whites for PemCBev; PemCBev versus PacCBev in African Americans; and academic versus community settings for African Americans. Hazard ratios (HRs) and P values were derived from a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model after adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: Of 939 intent-to-treat (ITT) patients, 94 were African American and 805 were white. African-American enrollment was uniform across the study sites (median, 1 African American per site). In the PemCBev arm, OS (HR, 1.125; P = .525), progression-free survival (PFS) (HR, 1.229; P = .251), response (P = .607), and toxicity profiles were similar in African Americans versus whites. For African Americans, OS (HR, 1.375; P = .209), PFS (HR, 0.902; P = .670), response (P = 1.000), and toxicity profiles were similar in the PemCBev versus PacCBev arm. For African Americans, no significant differences were seen in OS (HR, 0.661; P = .191) or PFS (HR, 0.969; P = .915) in academic versus community practice settings. CONCLUSION: In the PemCBev arm, this exploratory analysis showed no significant differences between African Americans and whites for the efficacy outcomes or toxicity profiles. Consistent with the ITT population negative trial result, for African Americans, the median OS was not superior for either arm. For African Americans, PFS and OS were similar in the academic and community settings. Additional outcomes data for African Americans should be collected in lung cancer studies.

Quality of life analyses from the randomized, open-label, phase III PointBreak study of pemetrexed-carboplatin-bevacizumab followed by maintenance pemetrexed-bevacizumab versus paclitaxel-carboplatin-bevacizumab followed by maintenance bevacizumab in patients with stage IIIB or IV nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment impact on quality of life (QoL) informs treatment management decisions in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NS NSCLC). QoL outcomes from the phase III PointBreak trial are reported. METHODS: Chemonaive patients (n = 939) with stage IIIB/IV nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1 were randomized (1:1) to pemetrexed-carboplatin-bevacizumab (pemetrexed arm) or paclitaxel-carboplatin-bevacizumab (paclitaxel arm). Patients without progressive disease received maintenance pemetrexed-bevacizumab (pemetrexed arm) or bevacizumab (paclitaxel arm). QoL was assessed using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)-General (FACT-G), FACT-Lung (FACT-L), and FACT/Gynecologic Oncology Group-Neurotoxicity (FACT-Ntx) instruments. Subscale scores, total scores, and trial outcome indices were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models. Post hoc analyses examined the association between baseline FACT scores and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Mean score differences in change from baseline significantly favored the pemetrexed arm for the neurotoxicity subscale score, FACT-Ntx total scores, and FACT-Ntx trial outcome index. They occurred at cycle 2 (p < 0.001) and persisted through induction cycles 2 to 4 and six maintenance cycles. Investigator-assessed, qualitative, drug-related differences in grade 2 (1.6% versus 10.6%) and grade 3 (0.0% versus 4.1%) sensory neuropathy and grade 3/4 fatigue (10.9% versus 5.0%, p = 0.0012) were observed between the pemetrexed and paclitaxel arms. Baseline FACT-G, FACT-L, and FACT-Ntx scores were significant prognostic factors for OS (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Randomized patients reported similar changes in QoL, except for less change from baseline in neurotoxicity on the pemetrexed arm; investigators reported greater neurotoxicity on the paclitaxel arm and greater fatigue on the pemetrexed arm. Higher baseline FACT scores were favorable prognostic factors for OS.

PRONOUNCE: randomized, open-label, phase III study of first-line pemetrexed + carboplatin followed by maintenance pemetrexed versus paclitaxel + carboplatin + bevacizumab followed by maintenance bevacizumab in patients ith advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: PRONOUNCE compared the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed+carboplatin followed by pemetrexed (Pem+Cb) with paclitaxel+carboplatin+bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab (Pac+Cb+Bev) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients ≥18 years of age with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC (American Joint Committee on Cancer v7.0), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1 were randomized (1:1) to four cycles of induction Pem+Cb (pemetrexed, 500 mg/m, carboplatin, area under the curve = 6) followed by Pem maintenance or Pac+Cb+Bev (paclitaxel, 200 mg/m, carboplatin, area under the curve = 6, and bevacizumab, 15 mg/kg) followed by Bev maintenance in the absence of progressive disease or discontinuation. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) without grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS). Secondary end points were PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Resource utilization was also assessed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the patients randomized to Pem+Cb (N = 182) and Pac+Cb+Bev (N = 179) were well balanced between the arms. Median (months) G4PFS was 3.91 for Pem+Cb and 2.86 for Pac+Cb+Bev (hazard ratio = 0.85, 90% confidence interval, 0.7-1.04; p = 0.176); PFS, OS, ORR, or DCR did not differ significantly between the arms. Significantly more drug-related grade 3/4 anemia (18.7% versus 5.4%) and thrombocytopenia (24.0% versus 9.6%) were reported for Pem+Cb. Significantly more grade 3/4 neutropenia (48.8% versus 24.6%), grade 1/2 alopecia (28.3% versus 8.2%), and grade 1/2 sensory neuropathy were reported for Pac+Cb+Bev. Number of hospitalizations and overall length of stay did not differ significantly between the arms. CONCLUSIONS: Pem+Cb did not produce significantly better G4PFS compared with Pac+Cb+Bev. Pem+Cb was not superior in PFS, OS, ORR, or DCR compared with Pac+Cb+Bev. Both regimens were well tolerated, although, toxicity profiles differed.

PointBreak: a randomized phase III study of pemetrexed plus carboplatin and bevacizumab followed by maintenance pemetrexed and bevacizumab versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin and bevacizumab followed by maintenance bevacizumab in patients with stage IIIB or IV nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: PointBreak (A Study of Pemetrexed, Carboplatin and Bevacizumab in Patients With Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer) compared the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed (Pem) plus carboplatin (C) plus bevacizumab (Bev) followed by pemetrexed plus bevacizumab (PemCBev) with paclitaxel (Pac) plus carboplatin (C) plus bevacizumab (Bev) followed by bevacizumab (PacCBev) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated stage IIIB or IV nonsquamous NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1 were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) or paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) combined with carboplatin area under the curve 6 and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks for up to four cycles. Eligible patients received maintenance until disease progression: pemetrexed plus bevacizumab (for the PemCBev group) or bevacizumab (for the PacCBev group). The primary end point of this superiority study was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Patients were randomly assigned to PemCBev (n = 472) or PacCBev (n = 467). For PemCBev versus PacCBev, OS hazard ratio (HR) was 1.00 (median OS, 12.6 v 13.4 months; P = .949); progression-free survival (PFS) HR was 0.83 (median PFS, 6.0 v 5.6 months; P = .012); overall response rate was 34.1% versus 33.0%; and disease control rate was 65.9% versus 69.8%. Significantly more study drug-related grade 3 or 4 anemia (14.5% v 2.7%), thrombocytopenia (23.3% v 5.6%), and fatigue (10.9% v 5.0%) occurred with PemCBev; significantly more grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (40.6% v 25.8%), febrile neutropenia (4.1% v 1.4%), sensory neuropathy (4.1% v 0%), and alopecia (grade 1 or 2; 36.8% v 6.6%) occurred with PacCBev. CONCLUSION: OS did not improve with the PemCBev regimen compared with the PacCBev regimen, although PFS was significantly improved with PemCBev. Toxicity profiles differed; both regimens demonstrated tolerability.

Pemetrexed therapy in elderly patients with good performance status: analysis of two phase III trials of patients with nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: A widely held misperception contends that all elderly patients, even those with good performance status (PS 0-1), are unable to tolerate aggressive chemotherapy. The objective of these analyses was to evaluate the survival and safety of treatment with pemetrexed in elderly patients with nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and PS 0-1. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two randomized studies, 1 reporting the activity of pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin vs. cisplatin and gemcitabine in chemotherapy-naive patients (N = 1725) and another comparing single-agent pemetrexed with placebo in the maintenance setting (N = 663) were retrospectively considered. Data from patients with nonsquamous advanced NSCLC with PS 0-1 in these studies were evaluated in 2 separate dichotomous analyses (< 65 years and ≥ 65 years and < 70 years and ≥ 70). Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate covariate-adjusted between-arm hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals for each age group. RESULTS: In the first-line study, 32.7% of the 1252 patients with nonsquamous NSCLC were ≥ 65 years and 12.8% were ≥ 70 years old. In the maintenance study, 33.1% of the 481 patients with nonsquamous NSCLC were ≥ 65 years and 16.0% were ≥ 70 years old. In both studies, the adjusted HRs for overall survival (range, 0.62-0.89) favored pemetrexed and were similar between the older and younger age groups. Dose intensity delivered and toxicities observed for patients treated with pemetrexed were manageable and similar between the older and younger age groups. CONCLUSIONS: For elderly patients with nonsquamous advanced NSCLC and PS 0-1, pemetrexed therapy, with its favorable toxicity profile, is a viable option, either in combination with cisplatin in the first-line setting or as maintenance therapy after initial chemotherapy.

Baseline quality of life and performance status as prognostic factors in patients with extensive-stage disease small cell lung cancer treated with pemetrexed plus carboplatin vs. etoposide plus carboplatin.

BACKGROUND: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is associated with poor prognosis due to its early metastatic potential and lack of improved outcomes with newer cytotoxic agents. Identifying factors associated with clinical outcomes can help clinicians determine which patients are more likely to benefit from therapy. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) subscales and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) were retrospectively analyzed as prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with extensive-stage disease (ED)-SCLC. METHODS: Using data from a Phase III trial of pemetrexed-carboplatin vs. etoposide-carboplatin, the effect of the prognostic factors on OS and PFS was analyzed via Cox models. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate OS and PFS parameters for the prognostic subgroups (defined by baseline FACT scores and ECOG PS). RESULTS: Patients with higher baseline FACT-General (FACT-G) score (≥ median) had significantly higher OS (hazard ratio [HR]=0.62, P<.0001) and PFS (HR=0.83, P=.032) compared with patients with lower FACT-G score (

Treatment rationale and study design for the pointbreak study: a randomized, open-label phase III study of pemetrexed/carboplatin/bevacizumab followed by maintenance pemetrexed/bevacizumab versus paclitaxel/carboplatin/bevacizumab followed by maintenance bevacizumab in patients with stage IIIB or IV nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

We present the treatment rationale and study design of the PointBreak study, a phase III study of pemetrexed/ carboplatin/bevacizumab induction followed by pemetrexed/bevacizumab maintenance (arm A) compared with paclitaxel/carboplatin/bevacizumab induction followed by bevacizumab maintenance (arm B) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Treatment consists of up to 4 cycles of induction therapy followed by maintenance therapy until disease progression or treatment discontinuation in approximately 900 patients (450 per treatment arm). The efficacy objectives of this study are to compare overall survival (OS), response rates, disease control rates, progression-free survival, and time to progressive disease between the 2 treatment arms. In addition, safety, quality of life, pharmacokinetics, and translational research will be investigated for both treatment arms. If the primary objective (OS) is achieved, this study will provide robust results on an alternative treatment option, pemetrexed/carboplatin/bevacizumab followed by maintenance therapy with pemetrexed/bevacizumab, for patients with nonsquamous NSCLC.

Phase III study of pemetrexed plus carboplatin compared with etoposide plus carboplatin in chemotherapy-naive patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Following a phase II trial in which pemetrexed-platinum demonstrated similar activity to that of historical etoposide-platinum controls, a phase III study was conducted to compare pemetrexed-carboplatin with etoposide-carboplatin for the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with ES-SCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of zero to 2 were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed-carboplatin (pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1; carboplatin at area under the serum concentration-time curve [AUC] 5 on day 1) or etoposide-carboplatin (etoposide 100 mg/m(2) on days 1 through 3; carboplatin AUC 5 on day 1) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary objective of the study was noninferiority of pemetrexed-carboplatin overall survival with a 15% margin. RESULTS: Accrual was terminated with 908 of 1,820 patients enrolled after results of a planned interim analysis. In the final analysis, pemetrexed-carboplatin was inferior to etoposide-carboplatin for overall survival (median, 8.1 v 10.6 months; hazard ratio [HR],1.56; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.92; log-rank P < .01) and progression-free survival (median, 3.8 v 5.4 months; HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.58 to 2.17; log-rank P < .01). Objective response rates were also significantly lower for pemetrexed-carboplatin (31% v 52%; P < .001). Pemetrexed-carboplatin had lower grade 3 to 4 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and leukopenia than etoposide-carboplatin; grade 3 to 4 thrombocytopenia was comparable between arms and anemia was higher in the pemetrexed-carboplatin arm. CONCLUSION: Pemetrexed-carboplatin is inferior for the treatment of ES-SCLC. Planned translational research and pharmacogenomic analyses of tumor and blood samples may help explain the study results and provide insight into new treatment strategies.