Prognosis and conditional survival among women with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: An important question in determining long-term prognosis for women with ovarian cancer is whether risk of death changes the longer a woman lives. Large real-world datasets permit assessment of conditional survival (CS) given both prior overall survival (OS) and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS). METHODS: Using a longitudinal dataset from US oncology centers, this study included 6778 women with ovarian cancer. We calculated CS rates as the Kaplan-Meier probability of surviving an additional 1 or 5 years, given no mortality (OS) or disease progression (rwPFS) event in the previous 0.5-5 years since first-line chemotherapy initiation, adjusted for factors associated with OS based on multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: Median study follow-up was 9 years (range, 1-44) from first-line initiation to data cutoff (17-Feb-2021). Median OS was 58.0 months (95% CI, 54.9-60.8); median rwPFS was 18.4 months (17.4-19.4). The adjusted 1-year CS rate (ie, rate of 1 year additional survival) did not vary based on time alive, whereas the adjusted 5-year CS rate increased from 48.5% (47.0%-50.1%) for women who had already survived 6 months to 66.4% (63.3%-69.6%) for those already surviving 5 years (thus surviving 10 years total). The adjusted 1-year CS rate increased from 90.4% (89.5%-91.4%) with no rwPFS event at 6 months to 97.6% (96.4%-98.8%) with no rwPFS event at 5 years; adjusted 5-year CS rate increased from 53.7% (52.0%-55.5%) to 85.0% (81.2%-88.9%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis extends the concept of CS by also conditioning on time progression-free. Patients with longer rwPFS experience longer survival than patients with shorter rwPFS.

Comparison of advanced ovarian cancer patients treated with or without bevacizumab in the US Community Oncology Clinics.

Aim: Real-world data on treatment patterns and outcomes of advanced ovarian cancer (OC) patients since bevacizumab approval in first-line (1L) OC treatment were assessed. Materials & methods: In this descriptive retrospective study using the ConcertAI Oncology Dataset, patient characteristics, treatment patterns and real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) from start of 1L were evaluated among patients diagnosed with advanced OC between 2011-2020. Treatment data from structured sources were confirmed and/or supplemented by human review of unstructured data. Results: Median rwPFS for bevacizumab and non bevacizumab cohorts was 17.3 months (95% CI: 14.9, 20.4) and 15.7 months (95% CI: 12.3, 29.1), respectively. Patients with ≥10 doses during 1L had higher median rwPFS compared with patients receiving 3-9 doses. Conclusion: This real-world study suggests benefits of bevacizumab treatment in advanced OC were primarily experienced by patients who received ≥10 doses in 1L.

What is this article about? Bevacizumab (Avastin) is a medicine that treats cancer. It makes it harder for the cancer to get nutrients from blood. At first, you could only use it after other cancer medicine did not work. From 2018, bevacizumab could be used with cancer medicine as the first treatment. Experts said it should continue for a year after cancer medicine stopped. This would make it harder for the cancer to come back. What did we do? We checked if more patients got bevacizumab as their first medicine after 2018 approval. We also saw how long it took for the cancer to come back. We did this by looking at electronic medical records between January 2011 and August 2020. We looked for women who had cancer that was staring to spread or had spread. We compared women who got bevacizumab to women who only got other cancer medicines. What were the results? After 2018, more women got bevacizumab early. We saw that the cancer did not take longer to come back. We noticed that half the women took bevacizumab less than ten-times out of up to 22-times. The cancer took longer to come back for women who took bevacizumab ten or more times. What do the result mean? We do not know why so many women stopped treatment early. Other studies in different countries also showed better results for women who got more bevacizumab. This study can help doctors and patients decide how much bevacizumab to give when they might be thinking of stopping treatment.

Health-related quality of life with pembrolizumab or placebo plus chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer (KEYNOTE-826): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the KEYNOTE-826 study, the addition of the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab improved overall survival and progression-free survival (primary endpoints) versus placebo plus chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab, with manageable toxicity, in patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. In this Article, we report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from KEYNOTE-826. METHODS: KEYNOTE-826 is a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial in 151 cancer treatment centres in 19 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer not previously treated with systemic chemotherapy (previous radiosensitising chemotherapy was allowed) and not amenable to curative treatment and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by means of an interactive voice response system in a double-blind manner to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks intravenously for up to 35 cycles plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 50 mg/m2 or carboplatin area under the curve 5 mg/mL per min, intravenously) with or without bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks intravenously. Randomisation (block size of 4) was stratified by metastatic disease at diagnosis, planned bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 combined positive score. Patients, investigators, and other study personnel involved in study treatment administration or clinical evaluation of patients were unaware of treatment group assignments. PRO instruments were the EORTC Quality-of-Life-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), the EORTC cervical cancer module (QLQ-CX24), and the EuroQol-5 dimension-5 level (EQ-5D-5L) visual analogue scale, each collected before treatment at cycles 1-14 and every other cycle thereafter. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival per RECIST version 1.1 by investigator review. Change from baseline in QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)-quality of life (QoL) was a prespecified secondary endpoint and was assessed in the PRO full analysis population (all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and completed at least one post-baseline PRO assessment). Other PRO analyses were protocol-specified exploratory endpoints. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03635567, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Nov 20, 2018, and Jan 31, 2020, of 883 patients screened, 617 were randomly assigned (pembrolizumab group, n=308; placebo group, n=309). 587 (95%) of 617 patients received at least one dose of study treatment and completed at least one post-baseline PRO assessment and were therefore included in the PRO analyses (pembrolizumab group, n=290; placebo group, n=297). Median follow-up was 22·0 months (IQR 19·1-24·4). At week 30, QLQ-C30 completion was 199 (69%) of 290 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 168 (57%) of 297 patients in the placebo group; compliance was 199 (94%) of 211 and 168 (90%) of 186, respectively. The least squares mean change in QLQ-C30 GHS-QoL score from baseline to week 30 was -0·3 points (95% CI -3·1 to 2·6) in the pembrolizumab group and -1·3 points (-4·2 to 1·7) in the placebo group, with a between-group difference in least squares mean change of 1·0 point (95% CI -2·7 to 4·7). Median time to true deterioration in GHS-QoL was not reached (NR; 95% CI 13·4 months-NR) in the pembrolizumab group and 12·9 months (6·6-NR) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·65-1·09]). 122 (42%) of 290 patients in the pembrolizumab group versus 85 (29%) of 297 in the placebo group had improved GHS-QoL at any time during the study (p=0·0003). INTERPRETATION: Addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab did not negatively affect health-related quality of life. Along with the efficacy and safety results already reported from KEYNOTE-826, these data support the benefit of pembrolizumab and the value of immunotherapy in patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Comparison of pemetrexed plus cisplatin with other first-line doublets in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a combined analysis of three phase 3 trials.

INTRODUCTION: In a first-line study of advanced NSCLC, pemetrexed-cisplatin was more effective among patients with adenocarcinoma and large-cell carcinoma compared with gemcitabine-cisplatin (median survival of 11.8 versus 10.4 months, P=.005), while survival with pemetrexed-cisplatin was shorter than with gemcitabine-cisplatin in patients with squamous cell carcinoma. The comparability of pemetrexed-cisplatin to other commonly used regimens within histology subgroups needs to be explored. METHODS: This retrospective analysis combined the patient-level data from three phase 3 randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy of different third generation platinum- and non-platinum based doublets. Unadjusted median survival times and Cox covariate-adjusted treatment hazard ratio (HR) estimates were calculated. Overall results and subgroups by histological type were reported. RESULTS: This combined analysis consisted of 3467 patients. In the overall analysis, adjusted HRs favored pemetrexed (HR <1.0) to each of the other 5 regimens, though none of these HRs were statistically significant. Among patients with non-squamous histology, pemetrexed-cisplatin produced favorable HRs to each of the other regimens, achieving statistical significance when compared with vinorelbine-cisplatin (HR=0.67; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.50, 0.91) and gemcitabine-cisplatin (HR=0.85; 95% CI: 0.75, 0.97). Among patients with squamous histology, 4 of the 5 comparison regimens produced favorable HRs (HR >1.0) when compared with pemetrexed-cisplatin, with only the comparison with gemcitabine-cisplatin achieving statistical significance (HR=1.23; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.51). CONCLUSION: In the absence of randomized clinical trial data comparing pemetrexed-cisplatin to commonly used doublets in advanced NSCLC other than gemcitabine-cisplatin, this combined analysis of multiple trials provides estimates for such comparisons.

A retrospective analysis of outcomes by age in a three-arm phase III trial of gemcitabine in combination with carboplatin or paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel plus carboplatin for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Sufficient data are currently unavailable to assist in defining suitable regimens for patients ≥ 70 years with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Chemonaïve patients with a performance status (PS) of 0 or 1 and stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomized to gemcitabine 1000mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 5.5 on day 1; the same schedule of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel 200mg/m(2) on day 1; or paclitaxel 225mg/m(2) on day 1 plus carboplatin AUC 6.0 on day 1. Cycles were every 21 days up to 6. Efficacy and toxicity results were compared by age groups. RESULTS: Overall survival (OS) between patients <70 years (8.6 months, 95% CI: 7.9, 9.5) and ≥ 70 years (7.9 months, 95% CI: 7.1, 9.5) was similar. OS was 8.8 months (95% CI: 7.5, 10.3) among patients 70-74 years, 6.5 months (95% CI: 5.6, 9.3) among patients 75-79 years, and 7.9 months (95% CI: 6.3, 10.3) among patients ≥ 80 years. OS was lower among patients 75-79 years compared with patients 70-74 years (P=0.04). Compared with patients <70 years, patients ≥ 70 years experienced similar rates of myelosuppresion, but younger patients experienced more vomiting and nausea. There was no clear pattern with respect to differences in efficacy by treatments across age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the similarity of patient outcomes across age groups, doublet chemotherapy is feasible among carefully selected elderly patients with good PS.

Treatment rationale and study design for a randomized trial of pemetrexed/carboplatin followed by maintenance pemetrexed versus paclitaxel/carboplatin/bevacizumab followed by maintenance bevacizumab in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer of nonsquamous histology.

Herein we describe a companion ongoing randomized phase III study in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with chemotherapy-naive advanced disease will be randomized to receive either pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 plus carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 6 for 4 cycles followed by maintenance pemetrexed (arm A) or paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 plus carboplatin AUC 6 plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg for 4 cycles followed by maintenance bevacizumab (arm B). Cycles are 3 weeks. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS)without grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS) and will test the hypothesis that G4PFS is superior for the pemetrexed-containing combination. This type of endpoint has been used previously in clinical trials in which survival outcomes have been shown to be similar between treatment regimens; thus, a regimen that reduces the risk of toxicity is clinically relevant, particularly in the palliative setting. The study will enroll approximately 360 patients (180 per arm), allowing for a 10% drop-out. Assuming a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75, this study will have an 80% statistical power to detect superiority of arm A over arm B with the use of a 1-sided log-rank test and a type I error of 0.05. If the true median G4PFS for arm B is 3 months, then the HR of 0.75 equals approximately 1 month of improvement in median G4PFS for arm A. A gatekeeper strategy will be used to sequentially test PFS. This strategy will preserve the overall type I error rate when conducting statistical tests on both G4PFS and PFS.

A Comparison of white and African American outcomes from a three-arm, randomized, phase III multicenter trial of advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of race on the efficacy and safety of standard chemotherapy doublet regimens in African American patients, we conducted a subgroup analysis of a phase III randomized trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemonaïve patients with a performance status of 0 or 1 and stage IIIB or IV non-small cell lung cancer were randomized to arm A: gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the curve 5.5 on day 1; arm B: the same schedule of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 on day 1; or arm C: paclitaxel 225 mg/m2 on day 1 plus carboplatin area under the curve 6.0 on day 1. Cycles were repeated every 21 days up to 6. A site selection tool identified institutions with potential to recruit a minority population. Outcome and toxicity data of white and African American patients were compared. RESULTS: Of 1135 total patients, 972 were white (85.6%) and 138 were African American (12.2%). Median survival was 8.3 months for white patients (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.7-9.3) and 9.1 months for African American patients (95% CI: 8.2-11.1). Response rates were 29.1 and 29.0%, respectively. Rates of grade 3 or 4 toxicities were comparable. Among African Americans, median survival was 7.2 months (95% CI: 5.1-10.1) for gemcitabine-carboplatin (n = 47), 10.5 months (95% CI: 7.1-15.4) for gemcitabine-paclitaxel (n = 42), and 10.2 months (95% CI: 8.5-13.2) for paclitaxel-carboplatin (n = 49). CONCLUSION: Whites and African Americans had similar outcomes, although there was some variability in survival among African Americans across the three treatment groups.

Randomized phase II trial of cisplatin, etoposide, and radiation followed by gemcitabine alone or by combined gemcitabine and docetaxel in stage III A/B unresectable non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Southwest Oncology Group 9504 demonstrated the feasibility and potential benefit of docetaxel consolidation after etoposide, cisplatin, and radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Our study assessed consolidation with either gemcitabine alone or with docetaxel after identical chemoradiation as used in Southwest Oncology Group 9504. METHODS: Patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer and good performance status were included. Treatment consisted of concurrent cisplatin 50 mg/m on days 1 and 8 plus etoposide 50 mg/m on days 1 to 5 for two 28-day cycles plus radiotherapy (62 Gy, 2 Gy daily in 31 fractions over 7 weeks), followed by randomization to either gemcitabine 1000 mg/m on days 1 and 8 (G) or gemcitabine 1000 mg/m on days 1 and 8 plus docetaxel 75 mg/m on day 1 (GD) every 21 days for three cycles. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients were entered, 81 received induction therapy, and 64 were randomized (32 in each arm). Grade 3 or four events, including neutropenia (56.3% vs. 28.1%, p = 0.03), anemia (18.8% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.05), and fatigue (15.6% vs. 6.3%, p = NS), were more frequent with GD compared with G. Among all patients, median survival from registration was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval: 16.4-33.8), and 2-year survival was 46.7% (95% confidence interval: 35.6-57.1). From randomization, median progression-free survival was 5.4 months for G and 13.4 months for GD, and median survival was 16.1 months for G and 29.5 months for GD. Two-year survival rates were 40.6% for G and 55.7% for GD. CONCLUSION: The doublet, as expected, resulted in more toxicity, particularly myelosuppression and fatigue. Survival associated with the GD treatment arm of this trial exceeds that of previously reported trials.

A retrospective analysis of outcomes across histological subgroups in a three-arm phase III trial of gemcitabine in combination with carboplatin or paclitaxel versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Three phase III trials have shown pemetrexed to be associated with improved clinical outcomes among patients with adenocarcinoma and large cell histology compared with patients with squamous histology in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The current retrospective analysis examined whether differences were present by histology in a three-arm trial of gemcitabine-carboplatin (GCb) or gemcitabine-paclitaxel (GP) versus a standard regimen of paclitaxel-carboplatin (PCb). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 1135 chemonaïve patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomly allocated to receive: gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 5.5 day 1 (GCb); or gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8 plus paclitaxel 200mg/m(2) day 1 (GP); or paclitaxel 225 mg/m(2) plus carboplatin AUC 6.0 day 1 (PCb). Cycles were repeated every 21 days up to 6 cycles or disease progression. Clinical results were retrospectively analyzed in by patient histology. RESULTS: 202 patients (17.8%) had squamous, 555 (48.9%) had adenocarcinoma, 45 (4.0%) had large cell, and 333 (29.3%) had another histologic type. The overall response rate for squamous patients was greater than non-squamous (35.1% versus 27.8%, P=0.04). Median survival (9.5 months for squamous and 8.3 months for non-squamous) and median time to progression (5.0 months for squamous and 4.4 months for non-squamous) did not significantly vary by histologic group. For squamous histology, median survival was 6.6 months for GCb, 10.2 months for GP, and 10.3 months for PCb. For non-squamous disease, median survival was 8.2 months for GCb, 8.4 months for GP, and 8.3 months for PCb. A formal test for a histology-by-treatment interaction effect between GCb and PCb was significant (P=0.04). CONCLUSION: In this trial of commonly used agents for advanced NSCLC, overall survival and time to progression were similar when comparing patients across histologies. The effect of treatment, however, varied across histologies.

Outcomes associated with brain metastases in a three-arm phase III trial of gemcitabine-containing regimens versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases (BMs) are a common complication of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Because of historical data indicating a poor prognosis for patients with BM, few randomized phase III studies of advanced NSCLC have included patients with BM at presentation. Because the potential benefits of systemic therapy in patients with BM are uncertain, we analyzed data from a recent phase III study. METHODS: One thousand one hundred thirty-five chemonaïve patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC were randomized to receive gemcitabine/carboplatin, gemcitabine/paclitaxel, or paclitaxel/carboplatin. Stratification was based on presence or absence of BM, stage, and baseline weight loss. Patients with BM were required to be clinically stable after treatment with radiotherapy or surgery before entry. Results were retrospectively analyzed by presence or absence of BM at study entry. RESULTS: Rate of BM was 17.1% overall. The response rate was 28.9% for patients with BM (n = 194) versus 29.1% without BM (n = 941). Time to progression was 4.3 months with BM and 4.6 months without BM (p = 0.03). Median survival was 7.7 months (95% confidence interval: 6.7-9.3) among patients with BM (n = 194) and 8.6 months (95% confidence interval: 7.9-9.5) for patients without BM (n = 941), p = 0.09. Rates of hematologic adverse events were not different among patients with and without BM. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in response, survival, or hematologic toxicity for patients with or without BM; however, patients with BM had a small but significantly shorter time to progression. Nonprogressing patients with treated BM are appropriate candidates for systemic therapy and entry into clinical trials.

Randomized phase III trial of gemcitabine-based chemotherapy with in situ RRM1 and ERCC1 protein levels for response prediction in non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the efficacy of gemcitabine versus gemcitabine and carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and a performance status (PS) of 2 and assessed if tumoral RRM1 and ERCC1 protein levels are predictive of response to therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized phase III trial was conducted in community-based oncology practices. Tumor specimens were collected a priori and shipped to a single laboratory for blinded determination of in situ RRM1 and ERCC1 protein expression levels by an automated quantitative immunofluorescent-based technology. RESULTS: One hundred seventy patients were randomly assigned. Overall median survival was 5.1 months for gemcitabine and 6.7 months for gemcitabine and carboplatin (P = .24). RRM1 (range, 5.3 to 105.6; median, 34.1) and ERCC1 (range, 5.2 to 131.3; median, 34.7) values were significantly and inversely correlated with disease response (r = -0.41; P = .001 for RRM1; r = -0.39; P = .003 for ERCC1; ie, response was better for patients with low levels of expression). A model for response prediction that included RRM1, ERCC1, and treatment arm, was highly predictive of the treatment response observed (P = .0005). We did not find statistically significant associations between survival and RRM1 or ERCC1 levels. CONCLUSION: Single-agent chemotherapy remains the standard of care for patients with advanced NSCLC and poor PS. Quantitative analysis of RRM1 and ERCC1 protein expression in routinely collected tumor specimens in community oncology practices is predictive of response to gemcitabine and gemcitabine and carboplatin therapy. Oncologists should consider including in situ expression analysis for these proteins into their therapeutic decisions.

Assessing quality of life following neoadjuvant therapy for early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): results from a prospective analysis using the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS).

BACKGROUND: The assessment of the impact of neoadjuvant therapy on quality of life (QL) has rarely been prospectively planned and evaluated, although validated QL instruments are available-such as the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) used in this study. The modest but significant survival gains reported with neoadjuvant and adjuvant approaches need to be viewed in terms of the added risks and toxicities associated with two or three modalities of treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The objective was to compare patient-determined QL ratings from baseline (prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy) with those in subsequent months of follow-up. All patients had clinical stage I or II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and participated in one of two similar randomized protocols. Patients received preoperative chemotherapy (three cycles) of gemcitabine plus carboplatin or paclitaxel in one trial or gemcitabine plus carboplatin or cisplatin in the second. Patients completed the LCSS at baseline, every 3 weeks preoperatively, and every 3 months postoperatively up to 12 months. RESULTS: Full QL data are available for 43 patients with at least one postsurgical evaluation and for 23 patients with evaluation at 1-year postsurgery. In patients with at least one postsurgical evaluation, 84% had an ECOG performance status of 0, 93% had a complete resection, and 67% (95% CI = 52, 81) of patients experienced improved or stable symptoms. A subgroup of patients (14 of 43) reported worsening of QL (33%). These patients experienced a mean worsening of 66% in individual symptom parameters, with an average of seven of nine LCSS symptom parameters declining. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients reported improved or stable QL. Prospectively planned QL assessment is feasible with neoadjuvant trials and adds useful information not otherwise attainable.

Venous and arterial thromboembolism in severe sepsis.

The burden of thromboembolism (TE) in severe sepsis is largely unknown. We assessed the prevalence of venous and arterial TE in patients with severe sepsis over a four-week period. We performed a retrospective analysis of a pooled database of three randomized, placebo-controlled trials of two novel pharmacological agents for the treatment of severe sepsis, drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DrotAA) and secretory phospholipase A2 inhibitor (sPLA(2)I). The study was conducted at intensive care units of the participating institutions. A total of 2,649 patients with known or suspected infection and sepsis-associated acute organ dysfunction were enrolled in the three trials and were assigned to treatment groups (DrotAA=850; sPLA2I=578; placebo=1221). The database was queried for venous and arterial TE, using investigator reports of serious adverse events. Eighty-four of 2,649 patients (3.2%; 95% confidence interval, 2.5% to 3.9%) developed at least one thromboembolic event over 28 days. Nearly three-quarters of episodes were atheroembolic (n=62); 25% involved the deep venous system (n=25). Ischemic stroke (n=30) and venous thromboembolism (n=25) each occurred in about 1% of patients. Ischemic stroke and acute coronary syndrome had a higher peak incidence during the first five days compared to venous TE onset, which was more constant over the 28-day period. Subgroup analysis by pooled treatment groups yielded TE rates of 2.0% (DrotAA), 3.5% (placebo), and 4.0% (sPLA2I), respectively. Clinically manifest TE occurred in about 3% of severe sepsis patients treated in the intensive care unit over a 28-day period. Arterial TE may be more common than previously recognized. More accurate estimates of TE prevalence and relationship to sepsis await future studies.

Phase 1/2 dose escalating study of twice-monthly pemetrexed and gemcitabine in patients with advanced cancer and non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Pemetrexed is synergistic with gemcitabine in preclinical models of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The optimal dose and utility of gemcitabine and pemetrexed was evaluated in a dose-escalating study. METHODS: The phase 1 study included patients with advanced tumors, whereas the phase 2 study included patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Gemcitabine was infused over 30 minutes, followed by pemetrexed administered over 10 minutes on day 1 of a 14-day cycle. Treatment continued for 12 cycles or until disease progression. All patients received folic acid, Vitamin B12, and steroid prophylaxis. RESULTS: Maximum tolerated dose was gemcitabine 1500 mg/m, followed by pemetrexed 500 mg/m. Fifty-three patients (29 male, 24 female) were enrolled in the phase 2 study. Response rate was 20.8% (95% CI: 0.108-0.341), and the clinical benefit rate (CR + PR + SD) was 64.2%. Median time to disease progression was 4.6 months (95% CI: 2.79-6.18), median survival was 10.1 month (95% CI: 5.95-14.09, censorship = 20.75%), and 1-year survival was 41.0%. Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events (% of patients) were neutropenia (28.3%), fatigue (22.6%), and febrile neutropenia (9.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Twice-monthly gemcitabine and pemetrexed was well tolerated, with overall survival and clinical benefit indicating disease activity in NSCLC patients.

Efficacy and safety of pemetrexed in elderly cancer patients: results of an integrated analysis.

PURPOSE: To analyze pemetrexed in elderly patients (>or=65 years) based on data collected in three randomized, phase III registration trials. METHODS: Patients who received pemetrexed as monotherapy or in combination with another drug were included in this analysis (N=764). In all studies, pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) was administered every 21 days. Data from patients receiving pemetrexed were stratified by age +/-65 years. RESULTS: Out of the 764 patients randomized, 271 were >or=65 years of age (35.4%). Of these, 28% had non-small cell lung cancer, 41% pancreatic cancer, and 31% had malignant pleural mesothelioma that was either locally advanced or metastatic. The overall response rate of the integrated database of elderly patients was 21.4%, with complete response in three patients (1.11% in >or=65 years vs. 1.01% in <65 years), partial response in 55 (20.30% vs. 19.68%), and stable disease in 116 (42.80% vs. 43.00%). Median survival time was 8.34 months in both groups, and median time to progressive disease was 4.80 months versus 4.60. Toxicity observed in the elderly group included 70 patients (25.8% vs. 17.0%; p=0.005) with grade 4 toxicity; myelosuppression was the major toxicity, with grade 3/4 neutropenia in 33% versus 22% (p<0.05), and thrombocytopenia in 13% versus 6% (p<0.05). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 4.8% versus 4.7% of patients. Non-hematological grade 3/4 events were fatigue (10.3% vs. 9.5%) and nausea (6.3% vs. 6.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Pemetrexed produced similar treatment effects in older and younger patients, and appeared to be well tolerated in the elderly population. This analysis was limited by the pooling of different disease types and the lack of uniform treatment regimens.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine-containing regimens in patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection alone remains suboptimal for patients with early-stage (I or II) non-small cell lung cancer. Two similar randomized phase II trials were conducted to define an active preoperative regimen in this disease state. METHODS: In the first study, patients were randomized to receive gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1 (GC) or gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the curve 5.5 on day 1 (GCb). In the second trial, patients received the same regimen of GCb or gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 plus paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 on day 1 (GP). Cycles were repeated every 21 days for three cycles. The primary end point was pathologic complete response (pCR) rate. RESULTS: Eighty-seven eligible patients were randomized (GC n = 12, GP n = 35, and GCb n = 40), and 71 (82%) underwent surgery after chemotherapy. The confirmed pCR rate was 2.3% (2 of 87, 95% confidence interval 0.3-8.1). Clinical response rate was 28.7%, complete resection rate was 91.5% (65 of 71 patients), and perioperative mortality rate was 2.8%. As of October 2006, median survival for all patients was 45 months (65.5% censored), with 87.2% alive at 1 year and 69.8% alive at 2 years. DISCUSSION: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine was feasible and well tolerated, and outcomes were similar to other reports of this treatment strategy. However, no regimen achieved the predefined pCR rate that would be sufficient to warrant further evaluation in the phase III setting. This trial design provides an efficient way of providing a rationale for choosing or rejecting regimens of potential value.

Single-arm, open label study of pemetrexed plus cisplatin in chemotherapy naïve patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: outcomes of an expanded access program.

BACKGROUND: An expanded access program (EAP) provided patient access to pemetrexed prior to its commercial availability. The current report consists of US patients in the EAP who had chemotherapy naïve pleural mesothelioma. METHODS: Eligible patients had a histologic or cytologic diagnosis of malignant mesothelioma that was not amenable to curative treatment with surgery. Study treatment consisted of pemetrexed 500mg/m(2) in combination with cisplatin 75mg/m(2) once every 21 days. Vitamin B12, folic acid, and dexamethasone were administered as prophylaxis. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported by investigators and compiled in a pharmacovigilance database for all patients enrolled in the EAP. RESULTS: Of 1056 patients receiving at least one dose of pemetrexed in the EAP, 728 had chemotherapy naïve pleural mesothelioma. Median age of this group was 70 years (range 23-89 years) and 84% were male. Among 615 patients, overall response rate was 20.5%, including 12 complete responses (2.0%) and 114 partial responses (18.5%). An additional 290 patients (47.2%) had stable disease. Median survival for all 728 patients was 10.8 months (95% CI=9.8, 12.3; 60.3% censorship) and 1 year survival was 45.4%. The most commonly reported SAEs in the overall EAP irrespective of causality were dehydration (7.2%), nausea (5.2%), vomiting (4.9%), dyspnea (3.8%), and pulmonary embolism (2.4%). CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort, 67.7% of patients treated with first-line chemotherapy experienced a response or stable disease. Survival time and toxicity from this EAP were promising for this difficult-to-treat disease.

Randomized phase II trial of pemetrexed combined with either cisplatin or carboplatin in untreated extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Given the activity and tolerability of pemetrexed/platinum combinations in non-small-cell lung cancer, and the success of novel therapeutic strategies employed in recent extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) trials, a randomized phase II trial was initiated to evaluate the use of cisplatin or carboplatin plus pemetrexed in previously untreated ES-SCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or pemetrexed plus carboplatin area under the concentration curve 5. Treatment was administered once every 21 days for a maximum of six cycles. All patients received folic acid, vitamin B12, and steroid prophylaxis. RESULTS: Between December 19, 2002, and May 17, 2004, 78 patients were enrolled onto this multicenter trial. Median age was 63 years (range, 46 to 82 years) for cisplatin/pemetrexed and 66 years (range, 47 to 75 years) for carboplatin/pemetrexed. Median survival time (MST) for cisplatin/pemetrexed was 7.6 months, with a 1-year survivorship of 33.4% and a response rate of 35% (95% CI, 20.6% to 51.7%). The MST for carboplatin/pemetrexed was 10.4 months, with a 1-year survivorship of 39.0% and a response rate of 39.5% (95% CI, 24.0 to 56.6). Median time to progression for cisplatin/pemetrexed was 4.9 months and for carboplatin/pemetrexed was 4.5 months. Median dose-intensity (actual/planned dose) was 98.94% for cisplatin and 99.95% for pemetrexed in the cisplatin/pemetrexed group and 93.21% for carboplatin and 98.50% for pemetrexed in the carboplatin/pemetrexed group. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities included neutropenia (15.8% v 20.0%) and thrombocytopenia (13.2% v 22.9%) in the cisplatin/pemetrexed and carboplatin/pemetrexed treatment groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Pemetrexed/platinum doublets had activity and appeared to be well-tolerated in first-line ES-SCLC.

Administration of pemetrexed immediately following gemcitabine as front-line therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Pemetrexed and gemcitabine have demonstrated independent anti-tumor activity in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The combination of these two therapies may produce synergistic anti-tumor effects. Previous studies of this combination have included a 90-min separation between the two drugs. More recent preclinical studies have suggested that this delay in administration might be unnecessary. This phase II study was designed to determine the objective tumor response rate and toxicity when pemetrexed was administered immediately after gemcitabine on day 1. METHODS: Chemonaïve patients stage IIIB with pleural effusion or stage IV NSCLC were enrolled. Treatment consisted of gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 (30-min intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8) and pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 (10-min i.v. infusion, immediately following gemcitabine, on day 1) every 21 days. All patients received folic acid, vitamin B12, and steroid prophylaxis. RESULTS: The 53 enrolled patients completed a total of 199 cycles (median=4.0, mean=3.8). Best tumor response consisted of 1 complete response (2.0%), 15 partial responses (30.6%), 17 with stable disease (34.7%), and 16 with progressive disease (32.7%). Median time to disease progression was 3.3 months and median survival was 10.3 months. Grades 3/4 hematologic toxicities (% patients) consisted of: neutropenia (43.4), anemia (9.4), febrile neutropenia (7.5%) and thrombocytopenia (1.9). The most common grades 3 or 4 non-hematologic events were: dyspnea (15.1), fatigue (11.3), and pyrexia (9.4). One patient (1.9%) experienced grade 2 alopecia. CONCLUSION: This schedule of pemetrexed plus gemcitabine is tolerable and offered the advantage of not requiring a 90-min delay between the two drugs. Response rate, survival, time to disease progression, and toxicity were acceptable and similar to other NSCLC regimens.

Pemetrexed alone or in combination with cisplatin in previously treated malignant pleural mesothelioma: outcomes from a phase IIIB expanded access program.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized phase III trial, pemetrexed plus cisplatin was associated with improved survival compared with cisplatin alone for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). However, there are limited data available on the efficacy of these and other chemotherapy regimens in patients who have received previous systemic chemotherapy. To gather additional efficacy and safety data of pemetrexed/cisplatin and pemetrexed alone in previously treated patients, we examined patients treated on the Eli Lilly and Company expanded access program (EAP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with malignant mesothelioma were enrolled in this trial. Of 1056 patients receiving at least one dose of the study drug, 187 (17.7%) were previously treated patients with MPM. Patients were treated every 21 days with pemetrexed 500 mg/m alone (n = 91) or in combination with cisplatin 75 mg/m (n = 96) for a maximum of six cycles. All patients received folic acid and vitamin B12 supplementation and steroid prophylaxis. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported by investigators and compiled in a pharmaco-vigilance database for all patients enrolled in the EAP. RESULTS: Median age of the previously treated pleural mesothelioma subset was 66 years (range, 27-87 years). Based on 153 evaluable patients (a subset of the larger intent-to-treat population of 187), the overall response rate was 32.5% for pemetrexed and cisplatin and 5.5% for pemetrexed alone. The disease control rate (response rate + stable disease) was 68.7% for pemetrexed and cisplatin and 46.6% for pemetrexed alone. Median survival was 7.6 months for pemetrexed plus cisplatin (67% censored) and 4.1 months for pemetrexed alone (55% censored). The most commonly reported serious adverse events in the overall EAP irrespective of causality were dehydration (7.2%), nausea (5.2%), vomiting (4.9%), dyspnea (3.8%), and pulmonary embolism (2.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The data from this EAP study suggest that patients with previously treated MPM can benefit from treatment with pemetrexed alone or in combination with cisplatin. The treatment is associated with acceptable toxicity.