Combined, patient-level, analysis of two randomised trials evaluating the addition of denosumab to standard first-line chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC - The ETOP/EORTC SPLENDOUR and AMGEN-249 trials.

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy of adding denosumab to standard first-line chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC patients has been evaluated in two separate randomised trials (SPLENDOUR and AMGEN-249). In this pooled analysis, we will assess the combination-treatment effect in the largest available population, in order to conclude about the potential impact of denosumab in NSCLC. METHODS: Both trials included in this combined analysis, were randomised (SPLENDOUR 1:1, AMGEN-249 2:1) multi-centre trials stratified by histology, bone metastasis, geographical region and for SPLENDOUR only, ECOG PS. Cox proportional hazards models, were used to assess the treatment effect with respect to overall survival (OS; primary endpoint) and progression-free survival (PFS; secondary endpoint). Heterogeneity between trials was assessed, and subgroup analyses were performed. RESULTS: The pooled analysis was based on 740 randomised patients (SPLENDOUR:514; AMGEN-249:226), with 407 patients in the chemotherapy-denosumab arm and 333 in the chemotherapy-alone arm. In the chemotherapy-denosumab arm, at a median follow-up of 22.0 months, 277 (68.1%) deaths were reported with median OS 9.2 months (95%CI:[8.0-10.7]), while in the chemotherapy-alone arm, with similar median follow-up of 20.3 months, 230 (69.1%) deaths with median OS 9.9 months (95%CI:[8.2-11.2]). No significant denosumab effect was found (HR = 0.98; 95%CI:[0.82-1.18]; P = 0.85). Among subgroups, interaction was found between treatment and histology subtypes (P = 0.020), with a statistically significant benefit in the squamous group (HR = 0.70; 95%CI:[0.49-0.98]; P = 0.038), from 7.6 to 9.0 months median OS. With respect to PFS, 363 (89.2%) and 298 (89.5%) events were reported in the chemotherapy-denosumab and chemotherapy-alone arms, respectively, with corresponding medians 4.8 months (95%CI:[4.4-5.3]) and 4.9 months (95%CI:[4.3-5.4]). HR for PFS was 0.97(95%CI:[0.83-1.15]; P = 0.76), indicating that no significant denosumab benefit existed for PFS. CONCLUSION: In this pooled analysis, no statistically significant improvement was shown in PFS/OS with the combination of denosumab and chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC and no meaningful benefit in any of the subgroups.

Carboplatin plus etoposide versus topotecan as second-line treatment for patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Topotecan is currently the only drug approved in Europe in a second-line setting for the treatment of small-cell lung cancer. This study investigated whether the doublet of carboplatin plus etoposide was superior to topotecan as a second-line treatment in patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 38 hospitals in France, we enrolled patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced stage IV or locally relapsed small-cell lung cancer, who responded to first-line platinum plus etoposide treatment, but who had disease relapse or progression at least 90 days after completion of first-line treatment. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive combination carboplatin plus etoposide (six cycles of intravenous carboplatin [area under the curve 5 mg/mL per min] on day 1 plus intravenous etoposide [100 mg/m2 from day 1 to day 3]) or oral topotecan (2·3 mg/m2 from day 1 to day 5, for six cycles). Randomisation was done using the minimisation method with biased-coin balancing for ECOG performance status, response to the first-line chemotherapy, and treatment centre. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which was centrally reviewed and analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02738346. FINDINGS: Between July 18, 2013, and July 2, 2018, we enrolled and randomly assigned 164 patients (82 in each study group). One patient from each group withdrew consent, therefore 162 patients (81 in each group) were included in the intention-to-treat population. With a median follow-up of 22·7 months (IQR 20·0-37·3), median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the combination chemotherapy group than in the topotecan group (4·7 months, 90% CI 3·9-5·5 vs 2·7 months, 2·3-3·2; stratified hazard ratio 0·57, 90% CI 0·41-0·73; p=0·0041). The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (18 [22%] of 81 patients in the topotecan group vs 11 [14%] of 81 patients in the combination chemotherapy group), thrombocytopenia (29 [36%] vs 25 [31%]), anaemia (17 [21%] vs 20 [25%]), febrile neutropenia (nine [11%] vs five [6%]), and asthenia (eight [10%] vs seven [9%]). Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the topotecan group (both were febrile neutropenia with sepsis) and no treatment-related deaths occurred in the combination group. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that carboplatin plus etoposide rechallenge can be considered as a reasonable second-line chemotherapy option for patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING: Amgen and the French Lung Cancer Group (Groupe Français de Pneumo-Cancérologie).

Potential Antiangiogenic Treatment Eligibility of Patients with Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: EPISQUAMAB Study (GFPC 2015-01).

BACKGROUND: Antiangiogenic agents have improved the prognosis of non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs), even though all the patients are not eligible to receive them because of counterindications linked to the tumor's characteristics or comorbidities. Much less information is available about the eligibility of patients with squamous non-small-cell lung cancers (SQ-NSCLCs) to receive antivascular endothelial growth-factor (VEGF) treatments, even though such molecules are being developed for this histology. This study was undertaken to determine the percentage of advanced SQ-NSCLC patients who would be eligible to receive an antiVEGF agent as second-line systemic therapy. METHODS: This observational, multicenter, prospective study evaluated advanced SQ-NSCLC patients' criteria for ineligibility to receive an antiVEGF during a multidisciplinary meeting to choose their standard second-line systemic therapy. RESULTS: Among the 317 patients included, 53.6% had at least one ineligibility criterion, and ~20% had at least two, with disease extension to large vessels (39.8%), tumor cavitation (20.5%), cardiovascular disease (11%) and/or hemoptysis (7.2%) being the most frequent. Patients with an ECOG performance score of 1/2 had more cardiovascular contraindications that those with scores of 0. CONCLUSION: Almost half of the SQ-NSCLC patients included in this study would have been eligible to receive an antiVEGF agent. The development of these molecules for these indications should be encouraged.

Early mortality in lung cancer: French prospective multicentre observational study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the progress seen in the last decade in diagnosis and treatment, lung cancer has still a bad prognosis and a substantial number of patients died within the weeks following diagnosis. The objective of this study was to quantify early mortality in lung cancer, to identify patients who are at high risk of early decease, and to describe their management in a real world. METHODS: Prospective observational study including consecutively all adult patients managed for primary lung cancer histologically or cytologically diagnosed in 2010 in the respiratory medicine department of one of the participating French general hospitals. Patients and cancer characteristics and first therapeutic strategy were collected at diagnosis. Dates of death were obtained from investigators or town council of the patient's birth place. All fatal cases were considered regardless of the cause of the death. Multivariate logistic regression model was used to determine the factors significantly and independently associated with death at 1 and 3 months. RESULTS: Seven thousand fifty-one patients from 104 centres were included in the study. Vital status was obtained for 6,981 patients. Respectively, 678 (9.7%) and 1,621 (23.2%) of the 6,981 patients with available data died within 1 and 3 months following diagnosis. As compared with the other patients, they were significantly older and frailer (based on performance status [PS] and recent weight loss) and more frequently reported stage IV tumour. Overall, 64.5% (1 month) and 42.8% (3 months) of patients had no cancer therapy and less than 1% were included in a therapeutic trial. CONCLUSION: About one in four patients died within 3 months following lung cancer diagnosis. Early mortality mainly involves frail patients with advanced cancer and is associated with lack of cancer therapy. This supports the need for early diagnosis and clinical trials in this population. Reducing early mortality to give supplementary time to patients to organise the future is a major challenge for 21(st) century physicians.

A randomized trial comparing adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus cisplatin with docetaxel plus cisplatin in patients with completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer with quality of life as the primary objective.

OBJECTIVES: Adjuvant chemotherapy with vinorelbine plus cisplatin (VC) improves survival in resected non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but has negative impact on quality of life (QoL). In advanced NSCLC, gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) and docetaxel plus cisplatin (DC) exhibit comparable efficacy, with possibly superior QoL compared to VC. This trial investigated these regimens in the adjuvant setting. METHODS: Patients with Stage IB to III NSCLC were eligible following standardized surgery. Overall, 136 patients were included, with 67 and 69 assigned to the GC and DC arms, respectively. Cisplatin (75 mg/m(2), Day [D] 1) plus gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2), D1 and D8) or docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) D1) were administered for three cycles. Primary end-point was QoL (EORTC QLQ-C30), with the study designed to detect a 10-point difference between arms. Overall survival, safety and cost were secondary end-points. RESULTS: No between-group imbalance was observed in terms of patient characteristics. At inclusion, global health status (GHS) scores (/100) were 63.5 and 62.7 in GC and DC, respectively (P = 0.8), improving to 64.5 and 65.4 after 3 months (P = 0.8). No significant difference in functional or symptoms scores was observed between the arms except for alopecia. Grade 3/4 haematological and non-haematological toxicities were found in 33.8 and 21.7% (P = 0.11), and 33.8 and 26.1% (P = 0.33) of patients, in GC and DC, respectively. At 2 years, 92.9 and 89.8% of patients remained alive in GC and DC, respectively (P = 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: DC and GC adjuvant chemotherapies for completely resected NSCLC were well tolerated and appear free of major QoL effects, and are therefore representing candidates for comparison with the standard VC regimen.

Cost-utility analysis of maintenance therapy with gemcitabine or erlotinib vs observation with predefined second-line treatment after cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC: IFCT-GFPC 0502-Eco phase III study.

BACKGROUND: The IFCT-GFPC 0502 phase III study reported prolongation of progression-free survival with gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance vs. observation after cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This analysis was undertaken to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of these strategies for the global population and pre-specified subgroups. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis evaluated the ICER of gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy vs. observation, from randomization until the end of follow-up. Direct medical costs (including drugs, hospitalization, follow-up examinations, second-line treatments and palliative care) were prospectively collected per patient during the trial, until death, from the primary health-insurance provider's perspective. Utility data were extracted from literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The ICERs for gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy were respectively 76,625 and 184,733 euros per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Gemcitabine continuation maintenance therapy had a favourable ICER in patients with PS = 0 (52,213 €/QALY), in responders to induction chemotherapy (64,296 €/QALY), regardless of histology (adenocarcinoma, 62,292 €/QALY, non adenocarcinoma, 83,291 €/QALY). Erlotinib maintenance showed a favourable ICER in patients with PS = 0 (94,908 €/QALY), in patients with adenocarcinoma (97,160 €/QALY) and in patient with objective response to induction (101,186 €/QALY), but it is not cost-effective in patients with PS =1, in patients with non-adenocarcinoma or with stable disease after induction chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine- or erlotinib-maintenance therapy had ICERs that varied as a function of histology, PS and response to first-line chemotherapy.

A phase II study of cisplatin with intravenous and oral vinorelbine as induction chemotherapy followed by concomitant chemoradiotherapy with oral vinorelbine and cisplatin for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant platinum-based chemotherapy and radiotherapy (CT-RT) is the recommended treatment for unresectable locally advanced stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We conducted a phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fractionated oral vinorelbine with cisplatin as induction CT followed by CT-RT. METHODS: Patients with stage III NSCLC received 2 induction cycles of intravenous vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 and cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1 and oral vinorelbine 60 mg/m2 on day 8. Responding patients received 2 more cycles of cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1 and oral vinorelbine 20 mg on days 1, 3 and 5 concomitantly with radiotherapy 2 Gy daily, 5 days/week for a total of 66 Gy. RESULTS: Seventy patients, median age 61 years, were enrolled. Overall response rate (ORR) was 50.0%; Disease Control Rate was 81.42%. Median PFS was 14.58 months [95% CI, 10.97-18.75]. Median OS was 17.08 months [95% CI, 13.57-29.57]. One-year and 2-year survival rates were 68.6% [95% CI, 57.7-79.4] and 37%. One patient had a grade 3 pulmonary radiation injury and 26.5% had graded 1/2 esophagitis. CONCLUSION: In non-operable IIIA-IIIB NSCLC, the combination oral vinorelbine (fractionated fixed dose) plus cisplatin, during concomitant CT-RT, could offer a well-tolerated option, with comparable activity to I.V. vinorelbine-based chemoradiotherapy regimens. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01839032.

Efficacy of pemetrexed as second-line therapy in advanced NSCLC after either treatment-free interval or maintenance therapy with gemcitabine or erlotinib in IFCT-GFPC 05-02 phase III study.

INTRODUCTION: Maintenance therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) might lead to resistance to subsequent treatments. IFCT-GFPC 0502 study showed a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance compared with observation after cisplatin-gemcitabine chemotherapy. The trial included a pre-defined pemetrexed second-line therapy, allowing post-hoc assessment of its efficacy according to previous maintenance treatment or treatment-free interval. METHODS: Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients were randomized after four cycles of cisplatin-gemcitabine chemotherapy to either observation or to receive maintenance therapy with gemcitabine or erlotinib. Pemetrexed was given as second-line treatment on disease progression in all arms. PFS and overall survival (OS) were assessed from the beginning of pemetrexed therapy according to randomization arm. RESULTS: Of the 464 randomized patients, 360 (78 %) received second-line pemetrexed (130 [84%], 114 [74%], and 116 [75%] in observation, gemcitabine, and erlotinib arm, respectively). Median number of pemetrexed cycles was 3 (1-40) in all arms. Median PFS did not differ between gemcitabine and observation arms (4.2 versus 3.9 months, hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81 [0.62-1.06]) or between erlotinib and observation arms (4.2 versus 3.9 months, HR 0.83 [0.64-1.09]). OS data showed a non-significant improvement with gemcitabine arm versus observation arm (8.3 versus 7.5 months, HR 0.81 [0.61-1.07]) or erlotinib arm versus observation arm (9.1 versus 7.5 months, HR 0.80 [0.61-1.05]). Results were similar for non-squamous patients. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were comparable in all arms. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance therapy with gemcitabine continuation or erlotinib does not seem to impair efficacy of second-line pemetrexed comparatively to administration after a treatment-free interval.

Randomized, phase III study of gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy versus observation, with predefined second-line treatment, after cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase III study investigated whether continuation maintenance with gemcitabine or switch maintenance with erlotinib improves clinical outcome compared with observation in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease was controlled after cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four hundred sixty-four patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC without tumor progression after four cycles of cisplatin-gemcitabine were randomly assigned to observation or to gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8 of a 3-week cycle) or daily erlotinib (150 mg/day) study arms. On disease progression, patients in all three arms received pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2) once every 21 days) as predefined second-line therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: PFS was significantly prolonged by gemcitabine (median, 3.8 v 1.9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.72; log-rank P < .001) and erlotinib (median, 2.9 v 1.9 months; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.88; log-rank P = .003) versus observation; this benefit was consistent across all clinical subgroups. Both maintenance strategies resulted in a nonsignificant improvement in overall survival (OS); patients who received second-line pemetrexed or with a performance status of 0 appeared to derive greater benefit. Exploratory analysis showed that magnitude of response to induction chemotherapy may affect the OS benefit as a result of gemcitabine maintenance. Maintenance gemcitabine and erlotinib were well tolerated with no unexpected adverse events. CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine continuation maintenance or erlotinib switch maintenance significantly reduces disease progression in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with cisplatin-gemcitabine as first-line chemotherapy. Response to induction chemotherapy may affect OS only for continuation maintenance.

Cost-effectiveness of second-line chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer: an economic, randomized, prospective, multicenter phase III trial comparing docetaxel and pemetrexed: the GFPC 05-06 study.

BACKGROUND: There are few data on the cost-effectiveness of second-line chemotherapies for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The objective of this phase III, randomized, multicenter, prospective study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of docetaxel and pemetrexed, two widely used drugs. METHODS: We compared, from a payer's perspective, the directs costs and effectiveness of docetaxel (75 mg/m, arm A) and pemetrexed (500 mg/m, arm B) administered every 3 weeks to NSCLC patients who had progressed after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Monthly health utilities (based on disease states: responding, stable or progressive, and grade 3/4 toxicities) were derived from the literature. Costs were prospectively assessed. RESULTS: One hundred fifty patients were enrolled between February 2006 and June 2008. The patients in the docetaxel and pemetrexed arms had similar clinical characteristics and treatment efficacy (respective objective response rates 10.7% and 12%; median progression-free survival times 2.8 and 2.5 months; median survival times 8.0 and 6.4 months, respectively). Grade 3/4 toxicities were significantly less frequent with pemetrexed (52.0% versus 33.3%, p = 0.02). Docetaxel was associated with lower treatment-period costs (€9709 ± €6272 versus €13,436 ± €6508, p < 0.001). Docetaxel had a more favorable cost-utility ratio than pemetrexed. When compared with best supportive care, the cost-utility was €32,652/quality-adjusted life year for docetaxel and €40,980/quality-adjusted life year for pemetrexed. CONCLUSION: Second-line treatment for NSCLC is more cost-effective with docetaxel than with pemetrexed. Both strategies have acceptable cost-effectiveness ratios compared with commonly used and reimbursed regimens for advanced NSCLC.

An open multicenter phase II trial of weekly docetaxel for advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer in elderly patients with significant comorbidity and/or poor performance status: The GFPC 02-02b study.

CONTEXT: The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and activity of weekly docetaxel monotherapy in frail elderly patients with advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer, selected on the basis of their precise age, general condition, and number of comorbid disorders (Charlson score). METHODS: Analysis of the response rate, toxicity, quality of life, median survival and 1-year survival rates after 1-3 six-week cycles of docetaxel 30mg/m(2) weekly. RESULTS: Fifty patients were enrolled and 42 were assessable. Five patients (10%, [3.7-22.6]) had objective responses, 14 (28%, [16.9-41.6]) had stable disease, and 23 (46%, [32.6-52.8]) progressed. The main grade 3-4 toxicity was fatigue (30%). Quality of life remained stable during treatment. The median survival time was 4.3 months, and the 1-year survival rate was 21.8%. CONCLUSION: In frail elderly patients selected on the basis of their age, general condition and comorbidity, weekly docetaxel monotherapy has acceptable toxicity and does not negatively affect quality of life. In contrast, it has only moderate activity.

[Radio-chemotherapy combinations in non operable localized non small cell lung carcinoma: updates and perspectives]. / Les associations de radio-chimiothérapie dans les carcinomes bronchiques non à petites cellules localisés inopérables: actualités et perspectives.

Optimal treatment of non operable localized non small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) continues to evolve. Increasing overall survival must evolute through improving local tumoral control and eradication of probable occult metastasis. Historically, median survival varies between 7 and 10 months with a standard conventional fractionated radiotherapy (RT). Induction chemotherapy (CT) followed by RT has demonstrated its superiority over RT alone, modality which is widely utilised. Other studies revealed best results with decreasing metastatic relapses. Three independent meta-analysis confirmed benefit obtained with cisplatin based CT followed by RT that allowed to consider this association as a gold standard. Other authors demonstrated an improvement of local control and survival with concomitant RT-CT or hyperfractionated accelerated RT. Results of all of these new therapeutic modalities still poor. Implication of new CT drugs has conducted for an emergence of new studies finding to demonstrate more encouraging results. Randomized trials are conducted in this way.