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%.

Phase III study of matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor prinomastat in non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) degrade extracellular proteins and facilitate tumor growth, invasion, metastasis, and angiogenesis. This trial was undertaken to determine the effect of prinomastat, an inhibitor of selected MMPs, on the survival of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), when given in combination with gemcitabine-cisplatin chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients were randomly assigned to receive prinomastat 15 mg or placebo twice daily orally continuously, in combination with gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 day 1, every 21 days for up to six cycles. The planned sample size was 420 patients. RESULTS: Study results at an interim analysis and lack of efficacy in another phase III trial prompted early closure of this study. There were 362 patients randomized (181 on prinomastat and 181 on placebo). One hundred thirty-four patients had stage IIIB disease with T4 primary tumor, 193 had stage IV disease, and 34 had recurrent disease (one enrolled patient was ineligible with stage IIIA disease). Overall response rates for the two treatment arms were similar (27% for prinomastat v 26% for placebo; P = .81). There was no difference in overall survival or time to progression; for prinomastat versus placebo patients, the median overall survival times were 11.5 versus 10.8 months (P = .82), 1-year survival rates were 43% v 38% (P = .45), and progression-free survival times were 6.1 v 5.5 months (P = .11), respectively. The toxicities of prinomastat were arthralgia, stiffness, and joint swelling. Treatment interruption was required in 38% of prinomastat patients and 12% of placebo patients. CONCLUSION: Prinomastat does not improve the outcome of chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC.

Randomized phase III study of matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor BMS-275291 in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: National Cancer Institute of Canada-Clinical Trials Group Study BR.18.

PURPOSE: To determine whether BMS-275291, a broad-spectrum matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor (MMPI), added to systemic chemotherapy improved survival in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In early phase studies, BMS- 275291 was not associated with dose-limiting joint toxicity seen with other MMPIs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC, performance status (PS) 0 to 2, and adequate organ function were eligible. All patients received paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 plus carboplatin (area under the curve, 6 mg/mL-min) intravenously every 21 days for up to 8 cycles, and were randomly assigned to receive BMS-275291, 1,200 mg orally daily, or placebo until disease progression. The primary study end point was survival (OS); secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), response rates (RR), toxicity, and quality of life. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2002, 774 patients were randomly assigned. Pretreatment characteristics were well balanced between arms: median age, 61 years; male sex, 73%; stage IV, 79%; PS 0 to 1, 88%. Interim safety analysis revealed no survival advantage and increased toxicity in the experimental arm, and study treatment was stopped. Median OS, PFS and RR in the final analysis in the BMS-275291 arm were 8.6 months, 4.9 months, and 25.8% respectively, and in the control arm 9.2 months, 5.3 months, 33.7%. Toxicity was significantly higher in the BMS-275291 arm, including flu-like symptoms, rash, hypersensitivity reactions (8.6% v 2.4%), and febrile neutropenia (9.7% v 5.5%). CONCLUSION: BMS-275291 added to chemotherapy increases toxicity and does not improve survival in advanced NSCLC.

Efficient palliation in patients with small-cell lung cancer by a combination of paclitaxel, etoposide and carboplatin: quality of life and 6-years'-follow-up results from a randomised phase III trial.

PURPOSE: Based on the promising activity of paclitaxel in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) we conducted a randomized phase III trial to evaluate whether a combination of paclitaxel, carboplatin and etoposide phosphate (TEC) improves survival and time to progression as well as tolerability and quality of life (QoL) compared to a regimen of carboplatin, etoposide phosphate and vincristine (CEV) in SCLC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Six hundred and fourteen patients with stages I-IV SCLC were randomly assigned between January 1998 and December 1999 to both treatment arms. All patients were evaluated for response rate, survival, side effects and quality of life with overall survival (OS) serving as primary endpoint. A final analysis was done after a six-year follow-up. Survival curves were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves and tested with the log-rank test. Quality of life data were assessed in using the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire and evaluated by calculating and comparing the mean scores as well as applying longitudinal techniques. RESULTS: Six hundred and eight patients were evaluable for efficacy and toxicity. The long-term follow-up confirms the significant survival benefit for the paclitaxel, etoposide, carboplatin (TEC) regimen with a median OS of 12.5 months compared to 11.7 months for the CEV arm (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02-1.43; P=.030). The 5-year survival rates were 14% for the experimental versus 6 % for the CEV arm. Significant survival prolongation was also observed in the subgroup of patients with stage IV disease (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.00-1.60; P=.047). The previously reported clinical benefit in form of an overall reduction of grade 3/4 toxicity was backed by the results of the comprehensive QoL analysis we report hereby. TEC significantly improves the relevant QoL parameters like global overall QoL or physical functioning. CONCLUSION: When administered in combination with etoposide and carboplatin, paclitaxel is able to offer in SCLC patients with extensive disease a survival benefit without additional toxicities, but with gains in patient-reported quality of life. In terms of efficient palliative care, TEC might be seen as an alternative to standard cisplatin plus etoposide in patients requesting a powerful palliative regimen not compromising any survival benefit.

Gefitinib monotherapy in chemotherapy-naive patients with inoperable stage III/IV non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gefitinib is an orally active epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity in previously treated patients with advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, little is known of its activity as monotherapy in chemotherapy-naive patients. This phase II study (1839IL/0456) evaluated first-line gefitinib in patients with advanced-stage NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with proven inoperable stage III/IV NSCLC, no previous chemotherapy, and a performance status of 0-2 received gefitinib 250 mg per day until disease progression. Patient reevaluation was performed by radiography and computed tomography at regular intervals. RESULTS: Fifty-eight of 59 patients were available for analysis. Response rate (complete plus partial responses) was 5% (3 of 58 patients); 40% (23 of 58 patients) exhibited stable disease (overall disease control rate, 45% [26 of 58 patients]). Median progression-free survival was 7 weeks, and median overall survival was 29 weeks. All responders were women and/or nonsmokers with adenocarcinoma or bronchoalveolar carcinoma. Gefitinib treatment was well tolerated; skin toxicities occurred in 71% of patients, including severe skin toxicities in 2 patients, and mild to moderate diarrhea occurred in 50% of patients. CONCLUSION: Gefitinib monotherapy has some efficacy in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced-stage or metastatic NSCLC. However, activity seems to be limited to particular patient groups.

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.

Phase II study of pemetrexed with and without folic acid and vitamin B12 as front-line therapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma.

PURPOSE: This phase II clinical study evaluated the efficacy of pemetrexed for the treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with a histologically proven diagnosis of MPM, chemotherapy-naive measurable lesions, and adequate organ function received pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) intravenously over 10 minutes every 3 weeks. After a protocol change, most patients also received folic acid and vitamin B12 supplementation to improve safety. RESULTS: A total of 64 patients were enrolled. Nine (14.1%) of the 64 patients had a partial response. The Kaplan-Meier estimate for median overall survival was 10.7 months. Forty-three patients received vitamin supplementation for all courses of therapy, and 21 patients did not. Seven of the nine responders were vitamin supplemented. The median overall survival was 13.0 months for supplemented patients and 8.0 months for nonsupplemented patients. Vitamin-supplemented patients completed more cycles of therapy than nonsupplemented patients (median, six v two cycles, respectively). Grade 3/4 neutropenia (23.4%) and grade 3/4 leukopenia (18.8%) were the most common laboratory toxicities. Fatigue and febrile neutropenia were the most commonly reported nonlaboratory events (grade 3, 6.3%; grade 4, 0.0% each). The incidence of these toxicities was generally lower in the supplemented patients. CONCLUSION: Single-agent pemetrexed for MPM resulted in a moderate response rate (14.1%) and median overall survival of 10.7 months. Patients supplemented with folic acid and vitamin B12 tolerated treatment better (less toxicity and more cycles of treatment) and had a 5-month greater median overall survival than nonsupplemented patients. These results indicate that patients with MPM could benefit from single-agent pemetrexed treatment combined with vitamin supplementation.

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/m(2) intravenously (i.v.) day 1 with vitamin B(12), folic acid, and dexamethasone or docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) i.v. 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.

Gefitinib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial--INTACT 1.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the addition of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib (Iressa, ZD1839; AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE) to standard first-line gemcitabine and cisplatin provides clinical benefit over gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Gefitinib has demonstrated encouraging efficacy in advanced NSCLC in phase II trials in pretreated patients, and a phase I trial of gefitinib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin showed favorable tolerability. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial in chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable stage III or IV NSCLC. All patients received up to six cycles of chemotherapy (cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 of the 3-week cycle) plus either gefitinib 500 mg/d, gefitinib 250 mg/d, or placebo. Daily gefitinib or placebo was continued until disease progression. End points included overall survival (primary), time to progression, response rates, and safety evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 1,093 patients were enrolled. There was no difference in efficacy end points between the treatment groups: for the gefitinib 500 mg/d, gefitinib 250 mg/d, and placebo groups, respectively, median survival times were 9.9, 9.9, and 10.9 months (global ordered log-rank [GOLrank] P =.4560), median times to progression were 5.5, 5.8, and 6.0 months (GOLrank; P =.7633), and response rates were 49.7%, 50.3%, and 44.8%. No significant unexpected adverse events were seen. CONCLUSION: Gefitinib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC did not have improved efficacy over gemcitabine and cisplatin alone. The reasons for this remain obscure and require further preclinical testing.

Benefit in lung function improvement and side-effect profile of long-term responders: an analysis of 14 NSCLC patients treated for at least 9 months with gefitinib.

BACKGROUND: Gefitinib is the first approved EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor indicated for the treatment of patients with locally advanced (IIIB) or metastatic NSCLC after failure of platinum-based first-line therapy and docetaxel chemotherapy. Following rapid approval in Japan and accelerated approval based on phase-II results in the US, a large compassionate-use program has been set up in parallel to extended phase-III testing. Offering therefore access to state-of-the-art therapy to patients who are not candidates for clinical studies; Iressatrade mark EAP allows physicians to test the new EGFR inhibitor across a heterogeneous patient population characteristic for advanced NSCLC. PATIENT AND METHODS: After having treated 240 patients at the Grosshansdorf hospital, we have retrospectively analysed the efficacy and tolerability of 250 mg/day gefitinib in patients showing a long-term tumor control. We reviewed the patient records of 14 patients with advanced NSCLC that received daily gefitinib for at least 9 months. RESULTS: Long-term tumor control, defined as confirmed objective tumor response for at least 6 months or disease stabilisation for above 9 months, was observed in chemo-naive patients as well as in fourth-line therapy patients for the latter ones independently of the composition of prior chemotherapy. Most patients (9/14) with such a lasting benefit were female; patients' histology was in most cases uniform: adenocarcinomas were dominant in women and bronchioloalveolar carcinoma in men. Patients with moderate to severe dyspnoea benefited from a measurable improvement of their respiratory capacity. No cumulative toxicity was observed; characteristic side-effects for gefitinib as grades 1-2 diarrhoea or mild to moderate skin toxicity were well manageable. CONCLUSION: For 14 (6%) out of 240 patients with patterns of diffuse disseminated metastatic disease, gefitinib offered a lasting tumor control with a disease progression-free survival interval between 9 and 25 months. In parallel to therapy, patients' performance status (PS) could be conserved or even improved in many cases. Patients with lung function impairment, as well as patients with other disease-related symptoms obtained additional therapy benefits.

Topotecan and etoposide as first-line therapy for extensive disease small cell lung cancer: a phase II trial of a platinum-free regimen.

In the treatment of extensive disease of small cell lung cancer (ED SCLC) there is an urgent need for more effective and better-tolerated drug regimens. We report on a prospective phase II trial performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a platinum-free regimen--containing topotecan and etoposide--in the first-line treatment of ED SCLC. Between December 1999 and July 2001, 28 chemotherapy-naive patients with ED SCLC were recruited; 9 patients had stage IIIB disease and 19 patients had stage IV disease. Based on phase I results, patients received treatment with intravenous topotecan 1 mg/m2 (days 1-5) followed by intravenous etoposide 75 mg/m2 (days 8-10). Treatment courses were repeated every 28 days for a maximum of 6 cycles. A confirmed response rate of 46.4% with 1 complete response (CR) and 12 partial responses (PR) (95% CI=27.5-66.1%) was observed. Stable disease (SD) was observed in 18% of patients. The median time to response was 7.9 weeks (range: 7.7-15.1 weeks) and median survival was 29.9 weeks (range from 3.3 to 91.4 weeks). Main toxicities encountered were haematological with Grade III/IV neutropenia in 2.6/1.5% of courses and Grade III/IV thrombocytopenia in 1.8%/0.7% of courses. These toxicities were manageable and were not associated with clinical sequels. Non-haematological toxicities were generally mild with no Grade III/IV toxicities reported apart from Grade III alopecia. The combination therapy of topotecan and etoposide is active in first-line chemotherapy for patients with ED SCLC. The regimen showed a tolerable safety profile. Since drug scheduling plays a critical role in the combination of topoisomerase I and II inhibitors, concurrent administration of topotecan and etoposide might increase the efficacy.