Durvalumab after Chemoradiotherapy in Limited-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant therapy with durvalumab, with or without tremelimumab, may have efficacy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer who do not have disease progression after standard concurrent platinum-based chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: In a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients to receive durvalumab at a dose of 1500 mg, durvalumab (1500 mg) plus tremelimumab at a dose of 75 mg (four doses only), or placebo every 4 weeks for up to 24 months. Randomization was stratified according to disease stage (I or II vs. III) and receipt of prophylactic cranial irradiation (yes vs. no). Results of the first planned interim analysis of the two primary end points of overall survival and progression-free survival (assessed on the basis of blinded independent central review according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1) with durvalumab as compared with placebo (data cutoff date, January 15, 2024) are reported; results in the durvalumab-tremelimumab group remain blinded. RESULTS: A total of 264 patients were assigned to the durvalumab group, 200 to the durvalumab-tremelimumab group, and 266 to the placebo group. Durvalumab therapy led to significantly longer overall survival than placebo (median, 55.9 months [95% confidence interval {CI}, 37.3 to not reached] vs. 33.4 months [95% CI, 25.5 to 39.9]; hazard ratio for death, 0.73; 98.321% CI, 0.54 to 0.98; P = 0.01), as well as to significantly longer progression-free survival (median 16.6 months [95% CI, 10.2 to 28.2] vs. 9.2 months [95% CI, 7.4 to 12.9]; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.76; 97.195% CI, 0.59 to 0.98; P = 0.02). The incidence of adverse events with a maximum grade of 3 or 4 was 24.4% among patients receiving durvalumab and 24.2% among patients receiving placebo; adverse events led to discontinuation in 16.4% and 10.6% of the patients, respectively, and led to death in 2.7% and 1.9%. Pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis with a maximum grade of 3 or 4 occurred in 3.1% of the patients in the durvalumab group and in 2.6% of those in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant therapy with durvalumab led to significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival than placebo among patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ADRIATIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03703297.).

Neoadjuvant Durvalumab Alone or Combined with Novel Immuno-Oncology Agents in Resectable Lung Cancer: The Phase II NeoCOAST Platform Trial.

Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy improves pathologic complete response rate and event-free survival in patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) versus chemotherapy alone. NeoCOAST was the first randomized, multidrug platform trial to examine novel neoadjuvant immuno-oncology combinations for patients with resectable NSCLC, using major pathologic response (MPR) rate as the primary endpoint. Eighty-three patients received a single cycle of treatment: 26 received durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) monotherapy, 21 received durvalumab plus oleclumab (anti-CD73), 20 received durvalumab plus monalizumab (anti-NKG2A), and 16 received durvalumab plus danvatirsen (anti-STAT3 antisense oligonucleotide). MPR rates were higher for patients in the combination arms versus durvalumab alone. Safety profiles for the combinations were similar to those of durvalumab alone. Multiplatform immune profiling suggested that improved MPR rates in the durvalumab plus oleclumab and durvalumab plus monalizumab arms were associated with enhanced effector immune infiltration of tumors, interferon responses and markers of tertiary lymphoid structure formation, and systemic functional immune cell activation. SIGNIFICANCE: A neoadjuvant platform trial can rapidly generate clinical and translational data using candidate surrogate endpoints like MPR. In NeoCOAST, patients with resectable NSCLC had improved MPR rates after durvalumab plus oleclumab or monalizumab versus durvalumab alone and tumoral transcriptomic signatures indicative of augmented immune cell activation and function. See related commentary by Cooper and Yu, p. 2306. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 2293.

Clinical Outcomes for Plasma-Based Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Versus Standard-of-Care Tissue Testing in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Somatic genomic testing is recommended by numerous expert guidelines to inform targeted therapy treatment for patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). The NILE study was a prospective observational study that demonstrated noninferiority of cell-free circulating tumor DNA (cfDNA)-based tumor genotyping compared to tissue-based genotyping to find targetable genomic alterations in patients with newly diagnosed nonsquamous aNSCLC. As the cohort has matured, clinical outcomes data can now be analyzed. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter North American study enrolled patients with previously untreated nonsquamous aNSCLC who had standard of care (SOC) tissue genotyping performed and concurrent comprehensive cfDNA analysis (Guardant360). Patients with targetable genomic alterations, as defined by NCCN guidelines, who were treated with physician's choice of therapy had objective response rates, disease control rate, and time to treatment collected and compared to published outcomes. RESULTS: Among 282 patients, 89 (31.6%) had an actionable biomarker, as defined by NCCN, detected by tissue (21.3%) and/or cfDNA (27.3%) analysis. Sixty-one (68.5%) of these were treated with an FDA-approved targeted therapy guided by somatic genotyping results (EGFR, ALK, ROS1). Thirty-three patients were eligible for clinical response evaluation and demonstrated an objective response rate of 58% and disease control rate of 94%. Twenty-five (76%) and 17 (52%) achieved a durable response > 6 months and 12 months, respectively. The time to treatment (TtT) was significantly faster for cfDNA-informed biomarker detection as compared to tissue genotyping (18 vs. 31 days, respectively; P = .0008). CONCLUSIONS: cfDNA detects guideline-recommended biomarkers at a rate similar to tissue genotyping, and therapeutic outcomes based on plasma-based comprehensive genomic profiling are comparable to published targeted therapy outcomes with tissue profiling, even in community-based centers.

A Phase II Study Evaluating Orteronel, an Inhibitor of Androgen Biosynthesis, in Patients With Androgen Receptor (AR)-Expressing Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC).

BACKGROUND: AR is a targetable pathway with AR modulation inhibiting estrogen- and androgen-mediated cell proliferation. Orteronel is an oral, selective, nonsteroidal inhibitor of 17, 20-lyase, a key enzyme in androgen biosynthesis. This study evaluated single-agent orteronel in AR+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: Male/female patients with AR+ MBC were grouped in Cohort 1: AR+ TNBC with l-3 prior chemotherapy regimens or Cohort 2: AR+ HR+ (estrogen [ER+]/ progesterone receptor [PR+] positive) HER2+/- with 1 to 3 prior hormonal and at least 1 prior chemotherapy regimen. Patients with HER2+ MBC must have received at least 2 lines of HER2-targeted therapy. Orteronel was administered at 300 mg BID; response rate was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Seventy patients were enrolled (Cohort 1, n = 26 and Cohort 2, n = 44). Median treatment duration was 7.1 weeks. Seven patients were on treatment for ≥6 months. One of the 21 evaluated patients in Cohort 1 (4.8%) had an objective response. In Cohort 2, none of the first 23 patients to be evaluated had a response and accrual was stopped. Median progression-free and overall survival were 1.8 and 8.3 months, respectively. Toxicities were predominantly Grade 1 or 2 nausea/vomiting (36%) and fatigue (31%). Grade 3 or 4 events in ≥5% of patients included increased amylase/lipase (10%) and hypertension (6%). CONCLUSIONS: Orteronel demonstrated limited clinical activity in heavily pre-treated AR+ MBC. Further development of orteronel in MBC is not recommended. Further efforts to validate the AR as a therapeutic target should focus on identifying new markers predictive of sensitivity to AR-targeted agents.

Continuous Versus 1-Year Fixed-Duration Nivolumab in Previously Treated Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: CheckMate 153.

PURPOSE: Limited data exist on the optimal duration of immunotherapy, including for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We present an exploratory analysis of CheckMate 153, a largely community-based phase IIIb/IV study, to evaluate the impact of 1-year fixed-duration versus continuous therapy on the efficacy and safety of nivolumab. METHODS: Patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC received nivolumab monotherapy (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks). Those still receiving treatment at 1 year, including patients perceived to be deriving benefit despite radiographic progression, were randomly assigned to continue nivolumab until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or to stop nivolumab with the option of on-study retreatment after disease progression (1-year fixed duration). RESULTS: Of 1,428 patients treated, 252 were randomly assigned to continuous (n = 127) or 1-year fixed-duration (n = 125) treatment (intent-to-treat [ITT] population). Of these, 89 and 85 patients in the continuous and 1-year fixed-duration arms, respectively, had not progressed (progression-free survival [PFS] population). With minimum post-random assignment follow-up of 13.5 months, median PFS was longer with continuous versus 1-year fixed-duration treatment (PFS population: 24.7 months v 9.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.56 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.84]). Median overall survival from random assignment was longer with continuous versus 1-year fixed-duration treatment in the PFS (not reached v 32.5 months; HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.99]) and ITT (not reached v 28.8 months; HR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.92]) populations. Few new-onset treatment-related adverse events occurred. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, these findings from an exploratory analysis represent the first randomized data on continuous versus fixed-duration immunotherapy in previously treated advanced NSCLC and suggest that continuing nivolumab beyond 1 year improves outcomes.

Combined lenvatinib and pembrolizumab as salvage therapy in advanced adrenal cortical carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: There is no effective systemic therapy for metastatic adrenal cortical carcinoma (ACC) after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. The efficacies of single-agent oral multikinase inhibitors (MKIs) or salvage immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) have been very limited. It is unknown whether combining CPIs, such as pembrolizumab (PEM), with other therapies, such as MKIs, could yield higher response rates in ACC, yet this combination has shown promise in other cancers. Herein, we describe the first case series using PEM in combination with the MKI lenvatinib (LEN) in patients with progressive, metastatic ACC. METHODS: A retrospective case series describing the use of LEN/PEM as salvage therapy in patients with progressive/metastatic ACC. RESULTS: Eight patients were treated with the LEN/PEM combination therapy. Half were female, and the median age at time of diagnosis was 38 years (range 21-49). Three (37.5%) patients had hormonally active ACC. The median number of prior lines of systemic therapy was 4 (range 2-9). Six (75%) patients had had disease progression on prior CPIs and five (62.5%) patients had progressed on prior MKI therapy. The median progression-free survival was 5.5 months (95% CI 1.8-not reached) and median duration of therapy was 8.5 months (range 2-22). Two (25%) patients had a partial response, one (12.5%) patient had stable disease, and five (62.5%) patients had progressive disease. None of the eight patients stopped therapy because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In our small cohort of heavily pretreated patients with ACC, the combination of LEN/PEM was associated with objective responses in a subset of patients without significant toxicity. This combination should be formally investigated in phase II clinical trial with robust correlative studies to identify predictors for response.

Safety, Efficacy, and Patient-Reported Health-Related Quality of Life and Symptom Burden with Nivolumab in Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Including Patients Aged 70 Years or Older or with Poor Performance Status (CheckMate 153).

INTRODUCTION: CheckMate 153 (NCT02066636) is a phase 3B/4 study assessing nivolumab in previously treated patients with advanced NSCLC. Eligibility criteria allowed enrollment of patients with poor prognostic features of advanced age or diminished Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), which are typically underrepresented in or excluded from randomized controlled trials. METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and an ECOG PS of 0 to 2 with disease progression after at least one systemic therapy received nivolumab (3 mg/kg every 2 weeks) until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. The primary end point was the incidence of grade 3 to 5 select treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). RESULTS: Among 1426 treated patients, 556 (39%) were aged 70 years or older and 128 (9%) had an ECOG PS of 2. The median treatment duration was 3.2 months. Across subgroups and the overall population, the incidences of select grade 3 to 5 TRAEs (6%-9%) and grade 3 or 4 TRAEs (12%-14%) were similar. One grade 5 TRAE was documented. The median overall survival time was comparable in the overall population (9.1 months) and patients aged 70 years or older (10.3 months) but shorter in patients with an ECOG PS of 2 (4.0 months). Patient-reported outcomes generally improved. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this large predominantly community-based study, which included patients aged 70 years or older and with an ECOG PS of 2, are consistent with registrational studies. As expected, the median overall survival for patients with an ECOG PS of 2 was lower than for the overall population but comparable with historical data.

Phase II Study of Bendamustine and Ofatumumab in Elderly Patients with Newly Diagnosed Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Who Are Poor Candidates for R-CHOP Chemotherapy.

LESSONS LEARNED: The combination of ofatumumab and bendamustine in elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma demonstrated modest efficacy compared with standard of care.The poor response may have been due to patient age and the high rate of treatment discontinuation. BACKGROUND: This phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of bendamustine and ofatumumab in elderly patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who were not candidates for rituximab cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP). METHODS: Patients received IV 90 mg/m2 bendamustine on days 1 and 2 of cycles 1 through 6 and IV 1,000 mg ofatumumab on days 1 and 8 of cycle 1 and on day 1 of cycles 2 through 6. Both drugs were administered at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved dose for combination therapy. All patients received premedications before each infusion of ofatumumab and hematopoietic growth factors. Treatment was administered in 21-day cycles, with restaging after cycle 3 and cycle 6. The primary endpoint was complete response rate (CRR). RESULTS: Twelve of 21 enrolled patients completed treatment; median age was 83 years. The most common reasons for treatment discontinuation were disease progression (three patients), intercurrent illness (two patients), and death (one patient due to drug-related sepsis and bowel necrosis and one patient due to unknown cause). Thrombocytopenia (14%), neutropenia (10%), diarrhea (10%), vomiting (10%), and dehydration (10%) were the most common grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events. The overall response rate was 90.5% and the CRR was 33.3%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 8.6 and 12.0 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: The combination of ofatumumab and bendamustine is feasible in elderly patients with DLBCL.

Clinical Utility of Comprehensive Cell-free DNA Analysis to Identify Genomic Biomarkers in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Complete and timely tissue genotyping is challenging, leading to significant numbers of patients with newly diagnosed metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) being undergenotyped for all eight genomic biomarkers recommended by professional guidelines. We aimed to demonstrate noninferiority of comprehensive cell-free DNA (cfDNA) relative to physician discretion standard-of-care (SOC) tissue genotyping to identify guideline-recommended biomarkers in patients with mNSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospectively enrolled patients with previously untreated mNSCLC undergoing physician discretion SOC tissue genotyping submitted a pretreatment blood sample for comprehensive cfDNA analysis (Guardant360). RESULTS: Among 282 patients, physician discretion SOC tissue genotyping identified a guideline-recommended biomarker in 60 patients versus 77 cfDNA identified patients (21.3% vs. 27.3%; P < 0.0001 for noninferiority). In tissue-positive patients, the biomarker was identified alone (12/60) or concordant with cfDNA (48/60), an 80% cfDNA clinical sensitivity for any guideline-recommended biomarker. For FDA-approved targets (EGFR, ALK, ROS1, BRAF) concordance was >98.2% with 100% positive predictive value for cfDNA versus tissue (34/34 EGFR-, ALK-, or BRAF-positive patients). Utilizing cfDNA, in addition to tissue, increased detection by 48%, from 60 to 89 patients, including those with negative, not assessed, or insufficient tissue results. cfDNA median turnaround time was significantly faster than tissue (9 vs. 15 days; P < 0.0001). Guideline-complete genotyping was significantly more likely (268 vs. 51; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In the largest cfDNA study in previously untreated mNSCLC, a validated comprehensive cfDNA test identifies guideline-recommended biomarkers at a rate at least as high as SOC tissue genotyping, with high tissue concordance, more rapidly and completely than tissue-based genotyping.See related commentary by Meador and Oxnard, p. 4583.

Erlotinib plus either pazopanib or placebo in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial with correlated serum proteomic signatures.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the efficacy and safety of treatment with erlotinib plus pazopanib versus erlotinib plus placebo in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients with progressive-stage IV NSCLC after either 1 or 2 previous chemotherapy regimens were randomized to receive erlotinib (150 mg by mouth daily) with either pazopanib (600 mg by mouth daily) or placebo. During treatment, patients were evaluated every 8 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. After a study amendment, pretreatment serum specimens for the VeriStrat assay were collected. The predictive value of the VeriStrat score (good vs poor) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed in the overall population and in each treatment group. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-two eligible patients were randomized between February 2010 and February 2011. PFS was prolonged with erlotinib plus pazopanib versus erlotinib plus placebo (median, 2.6 vs 1.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.58; P = .001). There was no difference in the OS of the 2 groups. A good VeriStrat score predicted longer PFS and OS in the entire group and predicted longer PFS in the subgroup receiving erlotinib plus pazopanib. The addition of pazopanib increased toxicity, and this was consistent with the known toxicity profile. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of pazopanib to erlotinib in an unselected group of patients with previously treated NSCLC improved PFS and increased treatment-related toxicity, but it had no influence on OS. The efficacy of both regimens was modest. Patients receiving erlotinib plus pazopanib had longer PFS if they had a good VeriStrat score versus a poor one. Cancer 2018;124:2355-64. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Amrubicin and carboplatin with pegfilgrastim in patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer: A phase II trial of the Sarah Cannon Oncology Research Consortium.

PURPOSE: First-line treatment for patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (SCLC) includes treatment with platinum-based combination chemotherapy. Amrubicin is a synthetic anthracycline with single-agent activity in relapsed/refractory SCLC. In an attempt to improve treatment efficacy, we evaluated amrubicin/carboplatin as first-line therapy for extensive-stage SCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter phase II trial, patients received amrubicin (30 mg/m2 daily on Days 1, 2, and 3) and carboplatin (AUC = 5 on Day 1); cycles were repeated every 21 days for 4 cycles. Pegfilgrastim (6 mg subcutaneously) was administered on Day 4 of all cycles. Overall survival (OS) proportion at 1 year was the primary endpoint. The target 1-year OS rate was 47%, an improvement of 35% from historical results with carboplatin/etoposide. RESULTS: Eighty patients received study treatment, and 62% completed the planned 4 courses. The overall response rate was 74% (13% complete responses). The 1-year survival rate was 38% (95% CI: 25, 50). The median survival was 10 months. Myelosuppression was severe but manageable. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of amrubicin/carboplatin was an active first-line treatment for extensive stage SCLC, but showed no indication of increased efficacy compared to standard treatments. Severe myelosuppression was common with this regimen, in spite of prophylactic pegfilgrastim. These results are consistent with those of other trials in showing no role for amrubicin in the first-line treatment of SCLC.

Randomized phase II trial of Onartuzumab in combination with erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Increased hepatocyte growth factor/MET signaling is associated with poor prognosis and acquired resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) -targeted drugs in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated whether dual inhibition of MET/EGFR results in clinical benefit in patients with NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with recurrent NSCLC were randomly assigned at a ratio of one to one to receive onartuzumab plus erlotinib or placebo plus erlotinib; crossover was allowed at progression. Tumor tissue was required to assess MET status by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Coprimary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and MET-positive (MET IHC diagnostic positive) populations; additional end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, and safety. RESULTS: There was no improvement in PFS or OS in the ITT population (n = 137; PFS hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; P = .69; OS HR, 0.80; P = .34). MET-positive patients (n = 66) treated with erlotinib plus onartuzumab showed improvement in both PFS (HR, .53; P = .04) and OS (HR, .37; P = .002). Conversely, clinical outcomes were worse in MET-negative patients treated with onartuzumab plus erlotinib (n = 62; PFS HR, 1.82; P = .05; OS HR, 1.78; P = .16). MET-positive control patients had worse outcomes versus MET-negative control patients (n = 62; PFS HR, 1.71; P = .06; OS HR, 2.61; P = .004). Incidence of peripheral edema was increased in onartuzumab-treated patients. CONCLUSION: Onartuzumab plus erlotinib was associated with improved PFS and OS in the MET-positive population. These results combined with the worse outcomes observed in MET-negative patients treated with onartuzumab highlight the importance of diagnostic testing in drug development.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II trial of sorafenib and erlotinib or erlotinib alone in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor, has shown preliminary activity in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with advanced NSCLC were treated with erlotinib with or without sorafenib in this multicenter phase II trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Key eligibility criteria included the following: stage IIIB or IV NSCLC; one to two prior regimens; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2; and measurable disease. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to sorafenib (400 mg orally twice a day) plus erlotinib (150 mg orally daily) or placebo plus erlotinib and stratified by squamous/nonsquamous histology and prior bevacizumab. Treatment efficacy, measured by progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR), was compared. Treatment of 168 patients allowed detection of 40% improvement in the historical PFS of 2.2 months with single-agent erlotinib. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-eight patients enrolled from February 2008 to February 2009. Clinical characteristics of the two groups were similar. ORRs for sorafenib/erlotinib and placebo/erlotinib were 8% and 11%, respectively (P = .56); disease control rates were 54% and 38%, respectively (P = .056). Median PFS was 3.38 months for sorafenib/erlotinib versus 1.94 months for placebo/erlotinib (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.22; P = .196). Seventy-two patients consented to analyses of tumor epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). In 67 patients with EGFR wild-type (WT) tumors, median PFS was 3.38 months for sorafenib/erlotinib versus 1.77 months for placebo/erlotinib (P = .018); median overall survival (OS) was 8 months for sorafenib/erlotinib versus 4.5 months for placebo/erlotinib (P = .019). An OS advantage for sorafenib/erlotinib was suggested among 43 patients with fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) EGFR-negative tumors (P = .064). Both regimens were tolerable, with modest toxicity increase with sorafenib. CONCLUSION: Although there was little difference in ORR or PFS, subset analyses in EGFR WT and EGFR FISH-negative patients suggest a benefit for the combination of erlotinib/sorafenib compared with single-agent erlotinib with respect to PFS and OS.

Economic evaluation of weekly epoetin alfa versus biweekly darbepoetin alfa for chemotherapy-induced anaemia: evidence from a 16-week randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: A 16-week, open-label, multicentre, randomised trial of weekly epoetin alfa 40 000 units versus biweekly darbepoetin alfa 200microg among 358 patients with solid-tumour cancers and chemotherapy-induced anaemia demonstrated superior haematological outcomes with epoetin alfa. We sought to compare resource use, costs and clinical outcomes between treatment groups and report the results using a cost-consequences framework. METHODS: Pre-specified methods were used to assign costs (US dollars, year 2004-5 values) to medical resources and patient time using a societal perspective. Costs for inpatient care, outpatient care and physician services were based on US Medicare reimbursement rates. Indirect costs assigned to patient time spent receiving study medication were based on the mean hourly wage in the US. In the base-case analysis, the average wholesale price was used to assign costs to medications. Clinical outcomes included all haemoglobin levels and transfusions recorded throughout the trial. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of different costing methods, cost sources, perspectives and methods to assign haemoglobin values following a blood transfusion. RESULTS: Over a mean follow-up duration of 11.8 weeks, the average cost of study medications and their administration was the single largest component of total costs and was similar between groups (epoetin alfa 5979 US dollars and darbepoetin alfa 5935 US dollars, difference 44 US dollars; 95% CI -590, 692). There were no significant differences in the proportions of patients hospitalised (epoetin alfa 24.6%, darbepoetin alfa 22.0%; p = 0.57). Patients randomised to epoetin alfa experienced more inpatient days, on average, than patients randomised to darbepoetin alfa (2.6 vs 1.6, 95% CI for the difference, 0.07, 2.27). However, with regard to transfusions, patients in the epoetin alfa arm required fewer units of blood than patients in the darbepoetin alfa arm (0.46 vs 0.88, 95% CI for the difference -0.77, -0.08). Mean total costs, comprising costs for study medications and their administration, inpatient care, transfusions, unplanned radiation therapy, haematology and laboratory services, chemotherapy and non-chemotherapy drugs and indirect costs were 14,976 US dollars in the epoetin alfa arm compared with 14,101 US dollars in the darbepoetin alfa arm, a difference of 875 US dollars (95% CI for difference -849, 2607), of which 98% of the difference was attributable to higher inpatient costs in the epoetin alfa arm (2374 US dollars vs 1520 US dollars; 95% CI for difference -33, 1955). Assessments of multiple clinical measures demonstrated improved outcomes with epoetin alfa relative to darbepoetin alfa. CONCLUSION: Most clinical outcome measures suggested greater improvement with epoetin alfa relative to darbepoetin alfa, but most costs for both agents appeared similar. Decision makers must evaluate the differences in costs and efficacy measures that are most relevant from their perspectives.

Shifting guidelines for myeloid growth factors: applications in cancer chemotherapy.

Neutropenia is a frequent dose-limiting complication of chemotherapy. Although myeloid growth factors decrease the risk of febrile neutropenia and the resulting complications of hospitalizations, dose delays, and dose reductions, not all patients need or benefit from the prophylactic administration of myeloid growth factors. A recent risk model showed that the predictors of febrile neutropenia include anthracycline use, poor performance status, and low pretreatment blood counts. These predictors may be used in addition to the intensity of the chosen chemotherapy regimen to determine whether a patient warrants primary prophylaxis with myeloid growth factors. The 2005 guidelines of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network call for primary prophylactic use in all patients with a risk of febrile neutropenia above 20%. Other recent studies show that pegylated filgrastim is also effective at preventing febrile neutropenia in patients receiving intermediate- risk chemotherapy.

Early hemoglobin response and alternative metrics of efficacy with erythropoietic agents for chemotherapy-related anemia.

OBJECTIVE: To examine associations between early hemoglobin response and alternative measures of efficacy following treatment with an erythropoietic agent for chemotherapy-related anemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Preliminary data from an ongoing randomized, multicenter, 16-week, open-label clinical trial of epoetin alfa versus darbepoetin alfa were used to dichotomize patients based on attainment of early hemoglobin response (> or = 1 g/dL increase in hemoglobin level within 4 weeks of treatment initiation). Measures of efficacy were compared between patients with early hemoglobin response and those without. Sensitivity analyses were then performed to evaluate the impact of various methods for handling censored data and hemoglobin values following blood transfusion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy measures included: the proportion of patients with a > or = 1 g/dL increase in hemoglobin by 4 weeks or a > or = 2 g/dL increase by 8 weeks; mean hemoglobin levels at 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks; area under the curve for change in hemoglobin level; proportion of patients who required a blood transfusion after 4 weeks; proportion of follow-up days on which patients had hemoglobin levels within the therapeutic range of 11 g/dL to 13 g/dL; and proportion of patients who never had a hemoglobin level within this range. RESULTS: A total of 274 patients were included (66.1% female, mean age 62.4), of whom 48.9% had an early hemoglobin response and 51.1% did not. Mean duration of follow-up was 10.1 +/- 5.05 weeks. All metrics indicated superior longer-term response among patients with early hemoglobin response compared to patients without early response. The findings were robust across sensitivity analyses. Although the analysis establishes a significant relationship between early hemoglobin response and alternative efficacy metrics, causality cannot be inferred. CONCLUSIONS: Early hemoglobin response is significantly associated with various metrics of clinical response to erythropoietic agents and is an appropriate measure for evaluating treatment effects.