Gemcitabine and Cisplatin Versus Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin, and Cisplatin in Advanced or Metastatic Bladder Cancer: Results of a Large, Randomized, Multinational, Multicenter, Phase III Study.

PURPOSE: Gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) and methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC) were compared in patients with locally advanced or metastatic transitional-cell carcinoma (TCC) of the urothelium. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IV TCC and no prior systemic chemotherapy were randomized to GC (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 days 1, 8, and 15; cisplatin 70 mg/m2 day 2) or standard MVAC every 28 days for a maximum of six cycles. RESULTS: Four hundred five patients were randomized (GC, n = 203; MVAC, n = 202). The groups were well-balanced with respect to prognostic factors. Overall survival was similar on both arms (hazards ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.32; P = .75), as were time to progressive disease (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.30), time to treatment failure (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.10), and response rate (GC, 49%; MVAC, 46%). More GC patients completed six cycles of therapy, with fewer dose adjustments. The toxic death rate was 1% on the GC arm and 3% on the MVAC arm. More GC than MVAC patients had grade 3/4 anemia (27% v 18%, respectively) and thrombocytopenia (57% v 21%, respectively). On both arms, the RBC transfusion rate was 13 of 100 cycles and grade 3/4 hemorrhage or hematuria was 2%; the platelet transfusion rate was four patients per 100 cycles and two patients per 100 cycles on GC and MVAC, respectively. More MVAC patients, compared with GC patients, had grade 3/4 neutropenia (82% v 71%, respectively), neutropenic fever (14% v 2%, respectively), neutropenic sepsis (12% v 1%, respectively), and grade 3/4 mucositis (22% v 1%, respectively) and alopecia (55% v 11%, respectively). Quality of life was maintained during treatment on both arms; however, more patients on GC fared better regarding weight, performance status, and fatigue. CONCLUSION: GC provides a similar survival advantage to MVAC with a better safety profile and tolerability. This better-risk benefit ratio should change the standard of care for patients with locally advanced and metastatic TCC from MVAC to GC.

RELAY, ramucirumab plus erlotinib versus placebo plus erlotinib in patients with untreated, EGFR-mutated, metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: Europe/United States subset analysis.

BACKGROUND: In EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC, dual EGFR/VEGFR inhibition compared to EGFR alone increases anti-tumor efficacy. The Phase III RELAY trial demonstrated superior PFS for ramucirumab plus erlotinib (RAM + ERL) over placebo plus erlotinib (PBO + ERL) (HR 0.591 [95% CI 0.461-0.760], p<0.0001). EGFR mutated NSCLC is less prevalent in Western versus Asian patients. This prespecified analysis evaluates efficacy and safety of RAM + ERL in EU and US patients enrolled in RELAY. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to ERL + RAM (10 mg/kg IV) or PBO Q2W. Treatment continued until unacceptable toxicity or progressive disease. Patients were stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs "other" [EU/US and Canada (EU/US)]). Objectives included PFS, ORR, DoR, OS, PFS2, safety and biomarker analysis. RESULTS: EU/US subset included 113/449 (25.9%) patients (58 RAM + ERL, 55 PBO + ERL). RAM + ERL improved PFS (20.6 vs 10.9 months, HR 0.605 [95% CI: 0.362-1.010]). ORR and DCR were similar, but median DoR was longer with RAM + ERL (18.0 vs 10.1 months, HR 0.527 [95% CI: 0.296-0.939]). OS and PFS2 were immature at data cut-off (censoring rates 81.0-81.8% and 67.3-79.3%, respectively). Most commonly reported Grade ≥3 TEAE for RAM + ERL was hypertension (17 [29.8%]) and for PBO + ERL, dermatitis acneiform (5 [9.1%]). CONCLUSION: EU/US subset analysis showed improved efficacy outcomes for RAM + ERL and a safety profile consistent with the overall population. Ramucirumab is a safe and effective addition to standard-of-care EGFR-TKI for EGFR mutation-positive metastatic NSCLC.

A randomized phase III trial comparing standard and high-dose pemetrexed as second-line treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: This phase III randomized trial compared pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) (P500) with pemetrexed 900 mg/m(2) (P900) to determine whether higher dosing benefits non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients as second-line therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy, were randomly assigned to receive i.v. P500 or P900 every 3 week. RESULTS: Accrual was terminated with 588/600 patients enrolled because an interim analysis indicated a low probability of improved survival and numerically greater toxicity on the P900 arm. P900 patients were permitted to continue treatment at P500. No statistical difference was observed between the treatment arms (P500 versus P900) for median survival {6.7 versus 6.9 months, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.0132 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.837-1.226]}, progression-free survival [2.6 versus 2.8 months, HR = 0.9681 (95% CI 0.817-1.147)], or best overall tumor response [7.1% versus 4.3% (P = 0.1616)]. The incidence of drug-related grade 3/4 toxicity was typically <5% on both treatment arms, but was numerically higher on the P900 arm for most toxicity categories. CONCLUSIONS: P900 did not improve any efficacy measure over P500. P500 i.v. every 3 week remains the standard pemetrexed dose for second-line treatment of platinum-pretreated advanced NSCLC.

Gemcitabine and cisplatin versus methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin in advanced or metastatic bladder cancer: results of a large, randomized, multinational, multicenter, phase III study.

PURPOSE: Gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) and methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC) were compared in patients with locally advanced or metastatic transitional-cell carcinoma (TCC) of the urothelium. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IV TCC and no prior systemic chemotherapy were randomized to GC (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 days 1, 8 and 15; cisplatin 70 mg/m2 day 2) or standard MVAC every 28 days for a maximum of six cycles. RESULTS: Four hundred five patients were randomized (GC, n = 203; MVAC, n = 202). The groups were well-balanced with respect to prognostic factors. Overall survival was similar on both arms (hazards ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.32; P = .75), as were time to progressive disease (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.30), time to treatment failure (HR, 0.89; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.10), and response rate (GC, 49%; MVAC, 46%). More GC patients completed six cycles of therapy, with fewer dose adjustments. The toxic death rate was 1% on the GC arm and 3% on the MVAC arm. More GC than MVAC patients had grade 3/4 anemia (27% v 18%, respectively), and thrombocytopenia (57% v 21%, respectively). On both arms, the RBC transfusion rate was 13 of 100 cycles and grade 3/4 hemorrhage or hematuria was 2%; the platelet transfusion rate was four patients per 100 cycles and two patients per 100 cycles on GC and MVAC, respectively. More MVAC patients, compared with GC patients, had grade 3/4 neutropenia (82% v 71%, respectively), neutropenic fever (14% v 2%, respectively), neutropenic sepsis (12% v 1%, respectively), and grade 3/4 mucositis (22% v 1%, respectively) and alopecia (55% v 11%, respectively). Quality of life was maintained during treatment on both arms; however, more patients on GC fared better regarding weight, performance status, and fatigue. CONCLUSION: GC provides a similar survival advantage to MVAC with a better safety profile and tolerability. This better-risk benefit ratio should change the standard of care for patients with locally advanced and metastatic TCC from MVAC to GC.

Phase II study of gemcitabine in ovarian cancer.

This phase II study evaluated the response rate and toxicity of single-agent gemcitabine in 40 women with epithelial ovarian cancer, previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients had stage III or IV disease and progressive disease 1-12 months after the last treatment. Gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 was administered on days 1, 8 and 15 of each 28-day cycle as a 30-minute infusion. The overall response rate to gemcitabine was 22% (95% confidence intervals: 10-39%). Responses to gemcitabine were observed in patients with platinum-refractory disease, which suggests no cross resistance to platinum. Gemcitabine was well tolerated and no grade 4 toxicity was seen. This study confirms that gemcitabine is active and well tolerated in pre-treated women with ovarian cancer.