Gefitinib for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gefitinib for the first-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, in accordance with the licensed indication, based upon the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal process. The submitted clinical evidence consisted of the IRESSA Pan-ASian Study (IPASS); a phase III open-label randomised controlled trial conducted in 87 centres in East Asia which compared the use of gefitinib with paclitaxel/carboplatin in 1217 chemotherapy (CTX)-naive patients with stage IIIB/IV pulmonary adenocarcinoma. The manufacturer's submission focused on a subgroup of patients in IPASS who were epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutation-positive (M+) (n = 261; 21% of the total IPASS population). The primary clinical outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes included overall survival, clinically relevant improvement in quality of life and adverse events (AEs). Cost-effectiveness was measured in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). In the overall population, PFS was significantly longer in patients treated with gefitinib than in those treated with paclitaxel/carboplatin (hazard ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 0.85; p < 0.0001). The manufacturer reported an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 20,744 pounds per QALY gained for the target population. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis illustrated that for patients who are EGFR M+, gefitinib compared with doublet CTX was not likely to be cost-effective at what would usually be considered standard levels of willingness to pay for an additional QALY; the mean ICER for gefitinib EGFR M+ versus doublet CTX EGFR M+ was reported as 35,700 pounds per QALY. Additional analysis by the ERG included amendments to the base-case analysis, including an alternative approach to projecting survival, inclusion of two important additional comparators, sensitivity to EGFR M+ prevalence, and AE costs and disutilities. The manufacturer's submission provides clinical evidence to support the use of gefitinib in EGFR M+ patients with adenocarcinoma histology only. Before patients can be offered first-line treatment with gefitinib they must undergo EGFR mutation status testing which is currently not routinely available in the NHS. At the time of writing, the guidance document issued by NICE on 28 July 2010 states that 'Gefitinib is recommended as an option for the first-line treatment of people with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) if they test positive for the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase (EGFR-TK) mutation and the manufacturer provides gefitinib at the fixed price agreed under the patient access scheme'.

Can increasing the dose of radiation by HDR brachytherapy boost following pre operative chemoradiotherapy for advanced rectal cancer improve surgical outcomes?

AIM: Preoperative radiotherapy has been shown to improve local control in advanced rectal carcinoma compared with surgery alone. Several large randomized trials have confirmed that chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is better than radiotherapy alone. This pilot study was designed to increase the radiation dose using high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy boost following preoperative CRT to evaluate whether this strategy improves the outcome of surgery without increase in toxicity. METHOD: Since October 2004, we have used the new rectal HDR applicator for brachytherapy boost in 68 patients following CRT. The patients had CT and MRI Scans as part of staging. All had locally advanced disease either bulky low T2 or T3 with threatened circumferential resection margin and multiple suspicious lymph nodes. They were offered preoperative CRT either by 5-FU infusion 1 g/m(2) day 1-4 (week 1 + 5) or by oral capecitabine 825 mg/m(2) Monday-Friday for 5 weeks together with CT planned external beam RT 45Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks (CRT). Those downstage on repeat MRI scan were offered additional HDR Boost 10Gy directly to the tumour followed by surgery 6-8 weeks later [group A]. Four patients proceeded directly to surgery but because of involved resection margin had a HDR brachytherapy boost as postoperative treatment [group B]. Thirty patients were not planned for immediate surgery after CRT and brachytherapy boost, as they were either elderly or considered high risk for anaesthesia [group C]. RESULTS: There were 34 patients (median age 67 (range 39-81) years in group A, including 24 men). The PS was 0-1. The clinical stage at presentation was cT2 in five, cT3 in 23 and T4 in six patients and cN0 in 2, cN1 in 21 and N2 in 11. Thirty-three patients had CRT, and one had radiotherapy alone. All patients completed treatment without interruption. Twenty-nine patients had surgery following CRT and brachytherapy boost including anterior resection in 10 patients, Abdominoperineal excision (APR) in 18 and Hartmann's resection in one. Five patients did not have the intended surgery. Twenty-four (83%) patients had an RO resection compared with 63% having conventional preoperative CRT using bolus 5FU regimes. Pathological complete remission (pCR) was achieved in 9 (31%) compared with 12% patients having conventional CRT. There was no increase in G 3-4 toxicity from RT and no delay in wound healing or increase in anastomotic leakage. One of the four patients in group B developed local recurrence. The thirty patients in group C who had modified radical CRT followed by brachytherapy boost as a definitive treatment will be reported in a further communication. CONCLUSION: Increasing the dose of radiation by HDR brachytherapy boost appears to improve the RO resection and pCR rates compared with conventional CRT. The follow up is too short to judge its effect on disease-free survival. This study will be extended to compare this strategy in a randomized phase III trial with conventional CRT in patients who are not fit for more intensive CRT (HERCULES).

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer: a comparison between intravenous 5-fluorouracil and oral capecitabine.

INTRODUCTION: Capecitabine provides an attractive alternative to intravenous (IV) 5-flourouracil (5-FU) in chemoradiation regimes for rectal cancer by avoiding the need for intravenous access and inpatient stay. We aimed to compare retrospectively the efficacy of concurrent capecitabine with IV 5-FU in preoperative pelvic chemoradiation schedules for rectal cancer in our centre. METHOD: Patients treated from January 2005 to June 2007 were included. Information was collected on patient characteristics; treatment details; pathological response to treatment; recurrence and survival. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS V17. RESULTS: All patients had pelvic radiation. Ninety-nine patients were treated with capecitabine and 97 with 5-FU. The two groups were well matched for age, sex and TNM stage. There were significantly more PS (performance status) 0 patients in the capecitabine group (51%vs 30%) (P = 0.001). Of the 99 patients in the capecitabine group, 91 (92%) were able to undergo surgery with 84 (93%) achieving R0 resection. In the 5-FU group, these proportions were 87 (90%) and 70 (80%). The difference in the rate of R0 resection was statistically significant (P = 0.024). The APR rate was 35% in the capecitabine group compared with 47% in the 5-FU group (P = 0.06). There was no significant difference in pathological complete response (pCR) rates between capecitabine (14%) and 5-FU(12%). A higher pCR rate (30%) was observed in patients who underwent a brachytherapy boost (P = 0.051). There were three local recurrences in the whole patient group, (capecitabine 1; 5-FU 2). Thirty-five patients had distant metastases, 14 in the capecitabine and 21 in the 5-FU group. There was no significant difference in the risk of recurrence between the two groups. Six patients in each group had grade 3 toxicity with diarrhoea being more common with capecitabine. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy with capecitabine for rectal cancer is efficacious and comparable to 5-FU (IV). It is more convenient, is well tolerated and avoids the need for inpatient admission.

Weekly fluorouracil at 425 mg/m(2) plus low-dose folinic acid for 24 weeks as adjuvant treatment for colorectal cancer: assessment of toxicity and delivery.

AIMS: To assess the toxicity and dose delivery of weekly bolus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) at 425 mg/m(2) plus low-dose folinic acid (FA) for 24 weeks as adjuvant treatment for colorectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected on toxicity and dose reductions, stoppages, delays and intensity from 100 consecutive patients receiving this adjuvant regimen after curative surgery. RESULTS: There were 53 men and 47 women (median age: 64 and 65 years, respectively); 77 patients with colon cancer and 23 with cancer of the rectum; 34 patients with Dukes' stage B and 66 with Dukes' stage C. Thirty-seven patients experienced at least one grade 3 or 4 toxicity, mainly diarrhoea (20 patients) or fatigue (14 patients). Only one grade 4 toxicity was noted (diarrhoea). In multivariate analysis, increased grade 3 and 4 toxicity was significantly associated with female gender (P = 0.001) and age >65 years (P = 0.046). Forty patients completed the 24 cycles without dose reduction or delay. Forty-one patients required at least one dose reduction. The median 'conventional' dose intensity (DI), calculated from the first cycle to the last, was 408 mg/m(2)/week (96%). The median DI over 24 weeks was 387 mg/m(2)/week (91%). A higher median 24-week DI was delivered to men (407 mg/m(2)/week, 96%) than women (361 mg/m(2)/ week, 85%; P = 0.009). Women older than 65 years showed a significantly reduced median DI over 24 weeks (347 mg/ m(2)/week, 82%) compared with men aged 65 years or younger (407 mg/m(2)/week, 96%; P = 0.049) and men older than 65 years (425 mg/m(2)/week, 100%; P = 0.001), although the difference against women aged 65 years or younger (377 mg/ m(2)/week, 89%) was not statistically significant (P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: This regimen has shown what might be considered high rates of grade 3 and 4 toxicity for an adjuvant treatment, although the delivered DI was acceptable. Caution is urged in the treatment of elderly female patients who have statistically higher rates of grade 3 and 4 toxicity and lower DI.