Docetaxel and prednisone with or without lenalidomide in chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (MAINSAIL): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have few treatment options. We investigated the safety and efficacy of lenalidomide, an immunomodulatory agent with anti-angiogenic properties, in combination with docetaxel and prednisone in chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, we randomly assigned chemotherapy-naive patients with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in a 1:1 ratio to receive docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) on day 1 and prednisone (5 mg twice daily) on days 1-21 and either lenalidomide (25 mg) or placebo once daily on days 1-14 of each 21 day treatment cycle. Permuted block randomisation was done with an interactive voice response system and stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, geographic region, and type of disease progression. Clinicians, patients, and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat. Patients who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analyses. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00988208. FINDINGS: 1059 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned between Nov 11, 2009, and Nov 23, 2011 (533 to the lenalidomide group and 526 to the control group), and 1046 patients received study treatment (525 in the lenalidomide group and 521 in the placebo group). At data cutoff (Jan 13, 2012) after a median follow-up of 8 months (IQR 5-12), 221 patients had died: 129 in the lenalidomide group and 92 in the placebo group. Median overall survival was 17·7 months (95% CI 14·8-18·8) in the lenalidomide group and not reached in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·53, 95% CI 1·17-2·00, p=0·0017). The trial was subsequently closed early due to futility. The number of deaths that occurred during treatment or less than 28 days since the last dose were similar in both groups (18 [3%] of 525 patients in the lenalidomide group vs 13 [2%] of 521 patients). 109 (21%) patients in the lenalidomide group and 78 (15%) in the placebo group died more than 28 days from last dose, mainly due to disease progression. At least one grade 3 or higher adverse event was reported in 381 (73%) of 525 patients receiving lenalidomide and 303 (58%) of 521 patients receiving placebo. Grade 3-4 neutropenia (114 [22%] for lenalidomide vs 85 [16%] for placebo), febrile neutropenia (62 [12%] vs 23 [4%]), diarrhoea (37 [7%] vs 12 [2%]), pneumonia (24 [5%] vs five [1%]), dyspnoea (22 [4%] vs nine [2%]), asthenia (27 [5%] vs 17 [3%]), and pulmonary embolism (32 [6%] vs seven [1%]) occurred more frequently in the lenalidomide group than in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Overall survival with the combination of lenalidomide, docetaxel, and prednisone was significantly worse than with docetaxel and prednisone for chemotherapy-naive men with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. Further research with this treatment combination is not warranted. FUNDING: Celgene Corporation.

Randomised phase 2 study of pembrolizumab plus CC-486 versus pembrolizumab plus placebo in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Preclinical and early clinical studies suggest that combining epigenetic agents with checkpoint inhibitors can potentially improve outcomes in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This phase 2 trial examined second-line pembrolizumab + CC-486 (oral azacitidine) in patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Patients with one prior line of platinum-containing therapy were randomised in a ratio of 1:1 to CC-486 or placebo, on days 1-14, in combination with pembrolizumab on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Key secondary end-points included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety. RESULTS: Among 100 patients randomised (pembrolizumab + CC-486: 51; pembrolizumab + placebo: 49), most were male (57.0%), were white (87.0%) and had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1 (68.0%). No significant difference in PFS was observed between the pembrolizumab + CC-486 and pembrolizumab + placebo arms (median, 2.9 and 4.0 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 1.374; 90% confidence interval [CI], 0.926-2.038; P = 0.1789). Median OS was 11.9 months versus not estimable (HR, 1.375; 90% CI, 0.830-2.276; P = 0.2968); ORR was 20% versus 14%. Median treatment duration was shorter (15.0 versus 24.1 weeks), and the number of cycles was lower (5.0 versus 7.0) with pembrolizumab + CC-486 versus pembrolizumab + placebo. No new safety signals for CC-486 or pembrolizumab were detected. Treatment-emergent adverse events were more common in the pembrolizumab + CC-486 arm, particularly gastrointestinal, potentially impacting treatment feasibility. CONCLUSIONS: No improvement in PFS was observed with pembrolizumab + CC-486 versus pembrolizumab + placebo. Decreased treatment exposure due to adverse events may have impacted efficacy with pembrolizumab + CC-486.

Overcoming kinase resistance in chronic myeloid leukemia.

Imatinib is a small-molecule inhibitor of BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase activity, with proven efficacy and tolerability. Despite imatinib's activity, the development of resistance, whether BCR-ABL dependent or independent, is a concern. BCR-ABL-dependent resistance is commonly a result of mutations in the BCR-ABL gene, which can induce a structural predisposition towards the active conformation of the protein, resulting in a shift in the equilibrium of BCR-ABL from inactive, which imatinib binds, to active, which imatinib is unable to bind. BCR-ABL gene amplification may play a role in the development of imatinib resistance in patients with CML. There are a number of BCR-ABL-independent mechanisms of imatinib resistance, including the efflux protein multidrug resistance protein-1, of which imatinib is a substrate. Another mechanism may be the development of alternative pathways of disease progression, leading to less reliance on BCR-ABL; indeed, the SRC family tyrosine kinases LYN and HCK have been frequently implicated in treatment resistance and progression of CML. Clearly, imatinib resistance requires the development of other treatment options. Dasatinib, with increased binding potency (325-fold greater potency than imatinib for wild-type BCR-ABL), inhibition of both the active and inactive formation of BCR-ABL, and targeting of SRC family kinases, is the only agent approved for the treatment of patients with imatinib-resistant or -intolerant CML and Ph+ ALL. Dasatinib is highly active in all phases of these diseases, and is active in the majority of imatinib-resistant mutations, with the exception of T315I. The development of agents that effectively inhibit T315I mutations suggests that future treatment options will include combination therapy.

In vitro antiproliferative and antimigratory activity of dasatinib in neuroblastoma and Ewing sarcoma cell lines.

Neuroblastoma (NB) and Ewing sarcoma (ES) are neuroectodermal tumors typical of pediatric age that, despite aggressive treatment, still present a poor prognosis when in advanced stages. Studies indicate that c-KIT and platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) play a substantial role in the proliferation and survival of NB and ES cells. Dasatinib, an oral multi-targeted inhibitor of several kinases including BCR-ABL and SRC-family kinases, is also active against c-KIT and PDGFR. Here, we evaluated the effect of dasatinib on the NB cell lines SJ-N-KP, SK-N-BE, AF8 and IMR5, and on the ES lines PDE02, TC106 and 6647. Proliferation and viability assays showed that dasatinib exerts an antiproliferative activity with a peak effect occurring at 24 h. After a 24-h exposure to dasatinib at 100 nM, proliferation was inhibited by 29.4+/-5.7% in SJ-N-KP, 41.3+/-11.7% in IMR5, 35.3+/-7.6% in PDE02 and 14+/-10.6% in 6647. Dasatinib did not induce apoptosis in NB and ES cell lines. A possible antimigratory activity of dasatinib was evaluated by scratch test. Dasatinib at 100 nM inhibited the migration of NB and ES cell lines by a mean of 30.2 and 25.3%, respectively. This activity suggests a possible role of dasatinib in inhibiting metastasis and appears of particular interest, given the association between metastatic disease and poor prognosis in these tumors. In conclusion, the cytostatic and antimigratory activity of dasatinib in NB and ES cell lines and the lack of pro-apoptotic activity suggests a possible use for this compound in the treatment of these tumors as a combination with other cytotoxic therapy.

Quality-Adjusted Survival With nab-Paclitaxel Versus Standard Paclitaxel in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Q-TWiST Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In this analysis we compared quality-adjusted survival outcomes between nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) and standard paclitaxel (Pac) using data from the nab-P phase III registration trial in metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Quality-adjusted overall survival was estimated using the quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) approach. Overall survival was partitioned into time without progression/Grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) toxicity (TWiST), time with Grade ≥ 3 AE toxicity (TOX), and time after relapse (REL). Q-TWiST was calculated by multiplying mean time in each health state by its assigned utility (base-case utility values: time without symptoms of disease progression or toxicity of Grade ≥ 3 adverse events [TWiST] = 1.0, TOX = 0.5, and REL = 0.5). In threshold analyses, TOX and REL varied from 0.0 to 1.0 whereas TWiST was maintained at 1.0. Comparisons were made for the intent-to-treat population and the subset of patients initiating the study drugs as second or subsequent lines (2L+) of chemotherapy (per approved nab-P indication; 2L+ subpopulation). A ≥ 15% relative Q-TWiST gain (vs. mean Pac overall survival) was considered clearly clinically important. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat population, nab-P (n = 229) versus Pac (n = 225) resulted in nonsignificant gains of 1.4 months of mean Q-TWiST (11.6 vs. 10.2 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.03 to 2.8). In the 2L+ subpopulation, nab-P (n = 132) versus Pac (n = 136) resulted in a statistically significant gain of 2.2 months of mean Q-TWiST (10.5 vs. 8.4 months; 95% CI, 0.6-3.8), with a 17.1% relative Q-TWiST gain (threshold analysis range, 14.0%-19.5%, both figures significant). CONCLUSION: In its approved indication for metastatic breast cancer, nab-P showed a statistically significant and clearly clinically important improvement in quality-adjusted survival time versus Pac in the 2L+ subpopulation.

Circulating Tumor Cells in a Phase 3 Study of Docetaxel and Prednisone with or without Lenalidomide in Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer.

Elevated circulating tumor cell (CTC) blood levels (≥5 cells/7.5ml) convey a negative prognosis in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer but their prognostic significance in patients receiving chemotherapy is uncertain. The association between CTC counts (at baseline or after treatment), overall survival (OS), and response to docetaxel with lenalidomide was evaluated in a 208-patient subset from the MAINSAIL trial, which compared docetaxel-prednisone-lenalidomide and docetaxel-prednisone-placebo in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. Baseline CTCs were <5 cells/7.5ml blood in 87 (42%) patients and ≥5 cells/7.5ml in 121 (58%) patients. Neither tumor response nor prostate-specific antigen response correlated with baseline CTCs. However, CTC count ≥5 cells/7.5ml was significantly associated with lower OS (hazard ratio: 3.23, p = 0.0028). Increases in CTCs from <5 cells/7.5ml to ≥5 cells/7.5ml after three cycles were associated with significantly shorter OS (hazard ratio: 5.24, p=0.025), whereas CTC reductions from ≥5 cells/7.5ml to <5 cells/7.5ml were associated with the best prognosis (p=0.003). PATIENT SUMMARY: Our study in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients treated with docetaxel chemotherapy, with or without lenalidomide, showed that patient survival was best predicted by circulating tumor cell count at the start of treatment. A rising circulating tumor cell count after three cycles of therapy predicted poor survival, while a decline predicted good survival.

Association of Survival Benefit With Docetaxel in Prostate Cancer and Total Number of Cycles Administered: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Mainsail Study.

IMPORTANCE: The optimal total number of docetaxel cycles in patients with metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCPRC) has not been investigated yet. It is unknown whether it is beneficial for patients to continue treatment upon 6 cycles. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the number of docetaxel cycles administered to patients deriving clinical benefit was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (OS) in a post hoc analysis of the Mainsail trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Mainsail trial was a multinational randomized phase 3 study of 1059 patients with mCRPC receiving docetaxel, prednisone, and lenalidomide (DPL) or docetaxel, prednisone, and a placebo (DP). Study patients were treated until progressive disease or unacceptable adverse effects occurred. Median OS was found to be inferior in the DPL arm compared with the DP arm. As a result of increased toxic effects with the DPL combination, patients on DPL received fewer docetaxel cycles (median, 6) vs 8 cycles in the control group. As the dose intensity was comparable in both treatment arms, we investigated whether the number of docetaxel cycles administered to patients deriving clinical benefit on Mainsail was an independent prognostic factor for OS. We conducted primary univariate and multivariate analyses for the intention-to-treat population. Additional sensitivity analyses were done, excluding patients who stopped treatment for reasons of disease progression and those who received 4 or fewer cycles of docetaxel for other reasons, minimizing the effect of confounding factors. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Total number of docetaxel cycles delivered as an independent factor for OS. RESULTS: Overall, all 1059 patients from the Mainsail trial were included (mean [SD] age, 68.7 [7.89] years). Treatment with 8 or more cycles of docetaxel was associated with superior OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.909; 95% CI, 1.660-2.194; P < .001), irrespective of lenalidomide treatment (HR, 1.060; 95% CI, 0.924-1.215; P = .41). Likewise, in the sensitivity analysis, patients who received a greater number of docetaxel cycles had superior OS; patients who received more than 10 cycles had a median OS of 33.0 months compared with 26.9 months in patients treated with 8 to 10 cycles; and patients who received 5 to 7 cycles had a median OS of 22.8 months (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These findings suggest that continuation of docetaxel chemotherapy contributes to the survival benefit. Prospective validation is warranted.

Association Between RECIST Changes and Survival in Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Receiving Docetaxel.

UNLABELLED: We explored the association between Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.0 and 1.1 changes and overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) from the control arms of the VENICE and MAINSAIL phase 3 trials, respectively, receiving docetaxel, prednisone, and placebo. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to evaluate the OS prognostic ability of RECIST changes after adjusting for prognostic factors. In the VENICE trial, the OS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.99; p=0.045) for patients with a partial response (PR) compared to those without PR, and 1.78 (95% CI 1.07-2.95; p=0.026) for those with progressive disease (PD) compared to those without PD. After adjusting for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) changes, PD remained significant (HR 1.85, 95% CI 1.10-3.12; p=0.020). Data from the MAINSAIL trial corroborated the association of PR (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22-1.18; p=0.12) and PD (HR 3.51, 95% CI 1.92-6.43; p<0.001) with OS. After adjusting for PSA changes, PD was associated with poor OS (HR 2.36, 95% CI 1.11-5.04; p=0.026). Given the association between RECIST changes and OS, more frequent detection of measurable disease with current imaging techniques, and the poor reliability of bone scan and PSA changes, assessment of RECIST changes on treatment with novel agents in patients with measurable tumors may provide an objective signal of efficacy. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, we found an association between changes in objectively measurable tumors according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and survival in patients with metastatic prostate cancer receiving docetaxel chemotherapy. Since bone scan and prostate-specific antigen changes are unreliable and measurable tumors are more frequently detected now because of better radiographic technology, a focus on RECIST changes should be considered during drug development to provide an objective signal of efficacy.

Meta-Analysis Evaluating the Impact of Site of Metastasis on Overall Survival in Men With Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Reports have suggested that metastatic site is an important predictor of overall survival (OS) in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), but these were based on a limited number of patients. We investigate the impact of site of metastases on OS of a substantial sample of men with mCRPC who received docetaxel chemotherapy in nine phase III trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from 8,820 men with mCRPC enrolled onto nine phase III trials were combined. Site of metastases was categorized as lymph node (LN) only, bone with or without LN (with no visceral metastases), any lung metastases (but no liver), and any liver metastases. RESULTS: Most patients had bone with or without LN metastases (72.8%), followed by visceral disease (20.8%) and LN-only disease (6.4%). Men with liver metastases had the worst median OS (13.5 months). Although men with lung metastases had better median OS (19.4 months) compared with men with liver metastases, they had significantly worse median survival duration than men with nonvisceral bone metastases (21.3 months). Men with LN-only disease had a median OS of 31.6 months. The pooled hazard ratios for death in men with lung metastases compared with men with bone with or without LN metastases and in men with any liver metastases compared with men with lung metastases were 1.14 (95% CI, 1.04 to 1.25; P = .007) and 1.52 (95% CI, 1.35 to 1.73; P < .0001), respectively. CONCLUSION: Specific sites of metastases in men with mCRPC are associated with differential OS, with successive increased lethality for lung and liver metastases compared with bone and nonvisceral involvement. These data may help in treatment decisions, the design of future clinical trials, and understanding the variation in biology of different sites of metastases in men with mCRPC.

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.

Gefitinib in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial--INTACT 2.

PURPOSE: Preclinical studies indicate that gefitinib (Iressa, ZD1839; AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE), an orally active epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, may enhance antitumor efficacy of cytotoxics, and combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin had acceptable tolerability in a phase I trial. Gefitinib monotherapy demonstrated unparalleled antitumor activity for a biologic agent, with less toxicity than docetaxel, in phase II trials in refractory, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial evaluated gefitinib plus paclitaxel and carboplatin in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received paclitaxel 225 mg/m(2) and carboplatin area under concentration/time curve of 6 mg/min/mL (day 1 every 3 weeks) plus gefitinib 500 mg/d, gefitinib 250 mg/d, or placebo. After a maximum of six cycles, daily gefitinib or placebo continued until disease progression. End points included overall survival, time to progression (TTP), response rate (RR), and safety evaluation. Results A total of 1,037 patients were recruited. Baseline demographic characteristics were well balanced. There was no difference in overall survival (median, 8.7, 9.8, and 9.9 months for gefitinib 500 mg/d, 250 mg/d, and placebo, respectively; P =.64), TTP, or RR between arms. Expected dose-related diarrhea and skin toxicity were observed in gefitinib-treated patients, with no new significant/unexpected safety findings from combination with chemotherapy. Subset analysis of patients with adenocarcinoma who received > or = 90 days' chemotherapy demonstrated statistically significant prolonged survival, suggesting a gefitinib maintenance effect. CONCLUSION: Gefitinib showed no added benefit in survival, TTP, or RR compared with standard chemotherapy alone. This large, placebo-controlled trial confirmed the favorable gefitinib safety profile observed in phase I and II monotherapy trials.

A pilot trial of gefitinib in combination with docetaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

Despite improvements in conventional treatment, patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have a poor prognosis, leaving a significant unmet need for novel treatments. One such novel, biologically targeted agent is the orally active epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib. This open-label pilot trial investigated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of 2 doses of gefitinib (250 and 500 mg per day) combined with docetaxel (75 mg/m2) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC as first- and second-line chemotherapy. Eighteen patients were recruited: 6 received gefitinib 250 mg per day plus docetaxel; 12 received gefitinib 500 mg per day plus docetaxel. Combination therapy was feasible with no overlapping toxicities. No patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) at 250 mg per day; 1 patient had 2 DLT events at 500 mg per day (grade 3 rash and diarrhea for >4 days). Adverse events were mild to moderate, including fatigue, mucositis, nausea, anorexia, rash, diarrhea, and fever. Docetaxel did not appear to alter steady-state exposure to gefitinib. The effect of gefitinib on exposure to docetaxel was equivocal; with the exception of 2 patients in the gefitinib 250 mg per day dose group, there appeared to be no trend toward a higher or lower exposure to docetaxel when given in the presence of gefitinib compared with that when given alone. Combination therapy was associated with antitumor activity and responses were seen with gefitinib in 2 of 6 patients at 250 mg per day and 4 of 12 patients at 500 mg per day. This combination is feasible and has an acceptable and predictable safety profile, as well as associated antitumor activity.

A phase I study of pomalidomide (CC-4047) in combination with cisplatin and etoposide in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: This phase I/IIA study evaluated the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), safety, and clinical benefit of pomalidomide, an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD), combined with cisplatin+etoposide chemotherapy, in treatment-naive patients with extensive-stage (ES) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, dose-escalation study, patients received 21-day cycles of oral pomalidomide (1, 3, 5, and 4 mg/day) on days 1 to 14, plus cisplatin 25 mg/m and etoposide 100 mg/m administered intravenously on days 1 to 3; the MTD was determined during cycle 1 (standard 3+3 dose-escalation design), followed by a five-cycle extension phase. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients with ES SCLC, with a median age of 64.5 years received one or more doses of the study medication. Dose-limiting toxicities included grade 4 cerebral ischemia and grade 5 sepsis (1-mg cohort), grade 4 transient ischemic attack (5-mg cohort), and grade 5 neutropenic infection (5-mg cohort). The MTD for pomalidomide was 4 mg/day. In the MTD phase, the most common pomalidomide-related adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (72.7%), nausea (45.5%), and neutropenia (40.9%); 31.8% of patients experienced pomalidomide-related serious AEs and 40.9% cisplatin/etoposide-related serious AEs. Overall response rate was 31.8% (7 of 22); these were partial responses. Stable disease and progressive disease occurred in four patients (18.2%) each. The median response duration was 12.4 weeks. Median overall survival was 49.6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Pomalidomide at the MTD of 4 mg/day plus standard cisplatin+etoposide seems safe in treatment-naive patients with ES SCLC. However, addition of pomalidomide does not seem to improve the therapeutic index of chemotherapy alone.

Randomized phase III placebo-controlled trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel with or without the vascular disrupting agent vadimezan (ASA404) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase III trial was conducted to test whether the novel vascular disrupting agent ASA404 (vadimezan), when combined with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, improves survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) versus chemotherapy alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced stage IIIB or IV NSCLC, stratified by sex and tumor histology, were randomly assigned 1:1 to paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (area under the curve, 6.0) with or without ASA404 (1,800 mg m(2)), given intravenously once every 3 weeks for six cycles followed by maintenance ASA404 or placebo. Primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: One thousand two hundred ninety-nine patients were randomly assigned. The trial was stopped for futility at interim analysis. At final analysis, there was no difference in OS seen between ASA404 (n = 649) and placebo (n = 650) arms: median OS was 13.4 and 12.7 months respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.19; P = .535). Similarly, no OS difference was seen in the histologic (squamous or nonsquamous) and sex (male or female) strata. Median PFS was 5.5 months in both arms (HR, 1.04; P = .727), while ORR was 25% in both arms (P = 1.0). Overall rate of adverse events (AEs) was comparable between the ASA404 and placebo arms. Grade 4 neutropenia (27% v 19%) and infusion site pain (10% v 0.5%) were reported more frequently in the ASA404 arm. CONCLUSION: The addition of ASA404 to carboplatin and paclitaxel, although generally well tolerated, failed to improve frontline efficacy in advanced NSCLC.

Epidermal growth factor receptor expression analysis in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with gefitinib or placebo in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Two large, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (IRESSA NSCLC Trial Assessing Combination Therapy; INTACT 1 and 2) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) failed to show survival benefit for gefitinib (IRESSA) in combination with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) staining was assessed retrospectively in relation to survival response to gefitinib in combination with chemotherapy. METHODS: Tumor biopsies obtained prior to start of therapy were assessed by immunohistochemistry for EGFR using the Dako EGFR pharmDx assay (Dako, Denmark). Analyses were stratified by trial and performed independently for patients randomized to placebo and gefitinib as well as for both treatment groups combined. A restricted backwards elimination Cox regression analysis was conducted to identify independent EGFR factors that were statistically significant (P < 0.10), and these were also tested for treatment interaction to assess if they served as predictive factors. RESULTS: Analyses found two statistically significant EGFR-based prognostic factors representing growth pattern and percent membrane staining in patients treated with gefitinib (P = 0.0023), placebo (P = 0.0128), and both combined (P < 0.0001). The prognostic effect was independent of other known prognostic factors. There was no predictive effect of either the growth pattern or membrane staining variable. CONCLUSIONS: While some previous studies indicate that higher EGFR expression correlates with poor survival, our analyses provide statistically significant evidence that the combination of EGFR expression and growth pattern is a strong prognostic indicator for improved survival within this setting. The effects of membrane staining and growth pattern are still significant when adjusting for mutation.

Gefitinib (IRESSA) with vinorelbine or vinorelbine/cisplatin for chemotherapy-naive non-small cell lung cancer patients.

This phase I study assessed the safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of gefitinib (IRESSA) combined with vinorelbine or vinorelbine/cisplatin in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients received gefitinib 250 mg/day and vinorelbine (group A; n = 6) or vinorelbine/cisplatin (group B; n = 8). An additional set of group B patients (n = 9) received gefitinib 500 mg/day with vinorelbine/cisplatin. Adverse events were consistent with individual treatments of gefitinib (mild reversible rash, diarrhea) and chemotherapy (asthenia, fever, nausea, vomiting, constipation), although there was a higher than expected incidence of Common Toxicity Criteria grade 3 or 4 hematologic adverse events, specifically febrile neutropenia and neutropenia. Pharmacokinetic data suggested that neither of the chemotherapy regimens affected steady-state exposure to gefitinib and also that steady-state gefitinib did not alter exposure to vinorelbine or cisplatin. Objective, durable antitumor activity was observed: five partial responses (one in group A; four in group B) and six patients with stable disease (all in group B). The safety data demonstrated that gefitinib with vinorelbine or vinorelbine/cisplatin resulted in severe myelosuppression leading to an unacceptable rate of febrile neutropenia. This study does not support the concurrent administration of gefitinib and vinorelbine, with or without cisplatin, as a valid treatment for advanced NSCLC.