Phase III Study Comparing Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine With Cisplatin Plus Pemetrexed in Chemotherapy-Naive Patients With Advanced-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Cisplatin plus gemcitabine is a standard regimen for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Phase II studies of pemetrexed plus platinum compounds have also shown activity in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This noninferiority, phase III, randomized study compared the overall survival between treatment arms using a fixed margin method (hazard ratio [HR] < 1.176) in 1,725 chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1. Patients received cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 (n = 863) or cisplatin 75 mg/m2 and pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 on day 1 (n = 862) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. RESULTS: Overall survival for cisplatin/pemetrexed was noninferior to cisplatin/gemcitabine (median survival, 10.3 v 10.3 months, respectively; HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.05). Overall survival was statistically superior for cisplatin/pemetrexed versus cisplatin/gemcitabine in patients with adenocarcinoma (n = 847; 12.6 v 10.9 months, respectively) and large-cell carcinoma histology (n = 153; 10.4 v 6.7 months, respectively). In contrast, in patients with squamous cell histology, there was a significant improvement in survival with cisplatin/gemcitabine versus cisplatin/pemetrexed (n = 473; 10.8 v 9.4 months, respectively). For cisplatin/pemetrexed, rates of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia (P ≤ .001); febrile neutropenia (P = .002); and alopecia (P < .001) were significantly lower, whereas grade 3 or 4 nausea (P = .004) was more common. CONCLUSION: In advanced NSCLC, cisplatin/pemetrexed provides similar efficacy with better tolerability and more convenient administration than cisplatin/gemcitabine. This is the first prospective phase III study in NSCLC to show survival differences based on histologic type.

Inhaled Sargramostim (Recombinant Human Granulocyte-Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor) for COVID-19-Associated Acute Hypoxemia: Results of the Phase 2, Randomized, Open-Label Trial (iLeukPulm).

INTRODUCTION: Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), a protein produced in the lung, is essential for pulmonary host defense and alveolar integrity. Prior studies suggest potential benefits in several pulmonary conditions, including acute respiratory distress syndrome and viral infections. This trial evaluated the effect of the addition of inhaled sargramostim (yeast-derived, glycosylated recombinant human GM-CSF) to standard of care (SOC) on oxygenation and clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19-associated acute hypoxemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized, controlled, open-label trial of hospitalized adults with COVID-19-associated hypoxemia (oxygen saturation <93% on ≥2 L/min oxygen supplementation and/or PaO2/FiO2 <350) randomized 2:1 to inhaled sargramostim (125 mcg twice daily for 5 days) plus SOC versus SOC alone. Institutional SOC before and during the study was not limited. Primary outcomes were change in the alveolar-arterial oxygen gradient (P(A-a)O2) by day 6 and the percentage of patients intubated within 14 days. Safety evaluations included treatment-emergent adverse events. Efficacy analyses were based on the modified intent-to-treat population, the subset of the intent-to-treat population that received ≥1 dose of any study treatment (sargramostim and/or SOC). An analysis of covariance approach was used to analyze changes in oxygenation measures. The intubation rate was analyzed using the chi-squared test. All analyses are considered descriptive. The study was institutional review board approved. RESULTS: In total, 122 patients were treated (sargramostim, n = 78; SOC, n = 44). The sargramostim arm experienced greater improvement in P(A-a)O2 by day 6 compared to SOC alone (least squares [LS] mean change from baseline [SE]: -102.3 [19.4] versus -30.5 [26.9] mmHg; LS mean difference: -71.7 [SE 33.2, 95% CI -137.7 to -5.8]; P = .033; n = 96). By day 14, 11.5% (9/78) of sargramostim and 15.9% (7/44) of SOC arms required intubation (P = .49). The 28-day mortality was 11.5% (9/78) and 13.6% (6/44) in the sargramostim and SOC arms, respectively (hazard ratio 0.85; P = .76). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 67.9% (53/78) and 70.5% (31/44) on the sargramostim and SOC arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of inhaled sargramostim to SOC improved P(A-a)O2, a measure of oxygenation, by day 6 in hospitalized patients with COVID-19-associated acute hypoxemia and was well tolerated. Inhaled sargramostim is delivered directly to the lung, minimizing systemic effects, and is simple to administer making it a feasible treatment option in patients in settings where other therapy routes may be difficult. Although proportionally lower rates of intubation and mortality were observed in sargramostim-treated patients, this study was insufficiently powered to demonstrate significant changes in these outcomes. However, the significant improvement in gas exchange with sargramostim shows this inhalational treatment enhances pulmonary efficiency in this severe respiratory illness. These data provide strong support for further evaluation of sargramostim in high-risk patients with COVID-19.

Ramucirumab versus placebo in combination with second-line FOLFIRI in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma that progressed during or after first-line therapy with bevacizumab, oxaliplatin, and a fluoropyrimidine (RAISE): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Angiogenesis is an important therapeutic target in colorectal carcinoma. Ramucirumab is a human IgG-1 monoclonal antibody that targets the extracellular domain of VEGF receptor 2. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ramucirumab versus placebo in combination with second-line FOLFIRI (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and irinotecan) for metastatic colorectal cancer in patients with disease progression during or after first-line therapy with bevacizumab, oxaliplatin, and a fluoropyrimidine. METHODS: Between Dec 14, 2010, and Aug 23, 2013, we enrolled patients into the multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 RAISE trial. Eligible patients had disease progression during or within 6 months of the last dose of first-line therapy. Patients were randomised (1:1) via a centralised, interactive voice-response system to receive 8 mg/kg intravenous ramucirumab plus FOLFIRI or matching placebo plus FOLFIRI every 2 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or death. Randomisation was stratified by region, KRAS mutation status, and time to disease progression after starting first-line treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01183780.ld FINDINGS: We enrolled 1072 patients (536 in each group). Median overall survival was 13·3 months (95% CI 12·4-14·5) for patients in the ramucirumab group versus 11·7 months (10·8-12·7) for the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·844 95% CI 0·730-0·976; log-rank p=0·0219). Survival benefit was consistent across subgroups of patients who received ramucirumab plus FOLFIRI. Grade 3 or worse adverse events seen in more than 5% of patients were neutropenia (203 [38%] of 529 patients in the ramucirumab group vs 123 [23%] of 528 in the placebo group, with febrile neutropenia incidence of 18 [3%] vs 13 [2%]), hypertension (59 [11%] vs 15 [3%]), diarrhoea (57 [11%] vs 51 [10%]), and fatigue (61 [12%] vs 41 [8%]). INTERPRETATION: Ramucirumab plus FOLFIRI significantly improved overall survival compared with placebo plus FOLFIRI as second-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma. No unexpected adverse events were identified and toxic effects were manageable. FUNDING: Eli Lilly.

Primary results of ROSE/TRIO-12, a randomized placebo-controlled phase III trial evaluating the addition of ramucirumab to first-line docetaxel chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Currently, antiangiogenic strategies in metastatic breast cancer have demonstrated modest improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) but not improved quality or duration of survival, warranting evaluation of new agents in a placebo-controlled setting. Ramucirumab is a human immunoglobulin G1 antibody that binds vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 and blocks ligand-stimulated activation. The ROSE/TRIO-012 trial evaluated ramucirumab with docetaxel in unresectable, locally recurrent, or metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multinational phase III trial, 1,144 patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) -negative breast cancer who had not received cytotoxic chemotherapy in the advanced setting were randomly assigned at a two-to-one ratio to receive docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) plus ramucirumab 10 mg/kg or docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) plus placebo once every 3 weeks. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other withdrawal criteria. Patients were stratified by previous taxane therapy, visceral metastasis, hormone receptor status, and geographic region. An independent data monitoring committee oversaw the trial. The primary end point was investigator-assessed PFS. RESULTS: Median PFS in patients treated with ramucirumab plus docetaxel was 9.5 months, compared with 8.2 months in patients who received placebo plus docetaxel (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; P = .077). Median overall survival was 27.3 months in patients who received ramucirumab plus docetaxel, compared with 27.2 months in patients who received placebo plus docetaxel (HR, 1.01; P = .915). Toxicities seen at significantly higher rates in patients receiving ramucirumab included fatigue, hypertension, febrile neutropenia, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, and stomatitis. CONCLUSION: Addition of ramucirumab to docetaxel in HER2-negative advanced breast cancer did not meaningfully improve important clinical outcomes.

Docetaxel or pemetrexed with or without cetuximab in recurrent or progressive non-small-cell lung cancer after platinum-based therapy: a phase 3, open-label, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Available preclinical and phase 2 clinical data suggest that the addition of cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody directed against the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), to chemotherapy might improve outcome in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to assess whether the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy improved progression-free survival in patients with recurrent or progressive NSCLC after platinum-based therapy. METHODS: In this unmasked, open-label randomised phase 3 trial we enrolled patients with metastatic, unresectable, or locally advanced NSCLC from 121 sites in Canada and the USA. Eligible patients were those aged 18 years or older who had experienced progressive disease during or after one previous platinum-based regimen. Initially, patients were randomly assigned to receive either pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2)) or docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) and then randomly assigned within each group to receive their chemotherapy with or without cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) at first dose and 250 mg/m(2) weekly thereafter) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. However, after a change in the standard of care, investigators chose whether to treat with pemetrexed or docetaxel on a patient-by-patient basis. The primary analysis was changed to compare progression-free survival with cetuximab plus pemetrexed versus pemetrexed, on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00095199. FINDINGS: Between Jan 10, 2005, and Feb 10, 2010, we enrolled 939 patients; data for one patient was accidentally discarded. Of the remaining 938 patients, 605 received pemetrexed (301 patients with cetuximab and 304 alone) and 333 received docetaxel (167 in combination with cetuximab and 166 alone). Median progression-free survival with cetuximab plus pemetrexed was 2·9 months (95% CI 2·7-3·2) versus 2·8 months (2·5-3·3) with pemetrexed (HR 1·03, 95% CI 0·87-1·21; p=0·76). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events with cetuximab plus pemetrexed were fatigue (33 [11%] of 292 patients), acneiform rash (31 [11%]), dyspnoea (29 [10%]), and decreased neutrophil count (28 [10%]), and with pemetrexed alone were dyspnoea (35 [12%] of 289 patients), decreased neutrophil count (26 [9%]), and fatigue (23 [8%]). A significantly higher proportion of patients in the cetuximab plus pemetrexed group (119 [41%] of 292 patients) experienced at least one serious adverse event than those patients in the pemetrexed group (85 [29%] of 289 patients; p=0·0054). Nine (3%) of 292 treated patients in the cetuximab and pemetrexed group died of adverse events compared with five (2%) of 289 treated patients in the pemetrexed alone group. INTERPRETATION: The use of cetuximab is not recommended in combination with chemotherapy in patients previously treated with platinum-based therapy. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company and ImClone Systems LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly and Company.

Biostatistics primer: what a clinician ought to know--prognostic and predictive factors.

Several prognostic factors in oncology have been established over the years, such as performance status, tumor size, and disease stage. The identification of prognostic and predictive factors is becoming increasingly important in medical research, particularly as scientific discoveries have led to better understanding of diseases and genetics, resulting in tailored therapy. Advances in drug discovery and better understanding of the mechanism of action, may also identify factors that may be prognostic and/or predictive. Prognostic or predictive factors may include patient characteristics such as age, ethnicity, sex, or smoking status, disease characteristics such as disease stage or nodal status, and molecular markers such as HER2 amplification and K ras mutation.It can be challenging to distinguish whether a factor is prognostic or predictive, based on what is reported in the literature. This article is intended to help the reader assess whether a factor is prognostic and/or predictive.

Biostatistics primer: what a clinician ought to know: hazard ratios.

Hazard ratios (HRs) are used commonly to report results from randomized clinical trials in oncology. However, they remain one of the most perplexing concepts for clinicians. A good understanding of HRs is needed to effectively interpret the medical literature to make important treatment decisions. This article provides clear guidelines to clinicians about how to appropriately interpret HRs. While this article focuses on the commonly used methods, the authors acknowledge that other statistical methods exist for analyzing survival data.

Treatment-by-histology interaction analyses in three phase III trials show superiority of pemetrexed in nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Recently, histology has emerged as a predictive factor for pemetrexed efficacy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). These analyses evaluate whether the differential efficacy of pemetrexed by NSCLC histology is reproducible and consistent across three registration studies of different lines of therapy (first-line/second-line and maintenance settings). METHODS: The reported studies for patients with advanced NSCLC were pemetrexed versus docetaxel in previously treated patients (N = 571), cisplatin plus pemetrexed versus cisplatin plus gemcitabine in chemotherapy-naive patients (N = 1725), and maintenance pemetrexed plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care (N = 663). Cox models of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were used to test for a significant treatment-by-histology interaction (THI). A significant THI indicates that the efficacy benefit for pemetrexed relative to the control arm is greater in patients with nonsquamous histology than in those with squamous histology. Subsequent Cox models were used to estimate hazard ratios for OS and PFS according to histology. RESULTS: Histology was well balanced between treatment arms in each study. Across all three studies, no clinically relevant differences were observed for the safety profile of pemetrexed among histologic groups. THIs were statistically significant in all three studies for OS (p = 0.001, 0.002, and 0.033, respectively) and PFS (p = 0.004, 0.002, and 0.036, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These analyses demonstrate a statistically significant interaction between treatment effect and NSCLC histology, indicating superior efficacy of pemetrexed in nonsquamous patients compared with other standard treatment options. Thus, histology is consistently predictive of the improved efficacy of pemetrexed in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC.

Safety and resource utilization by non-small cell lung cancer histology: results from the randomized phase III study of pemetrexed plus cisplatin versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin in chemonaïve patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: A prespecified analysis of the large, randomized, phase III study in advanced non-small cell lung cancer showed significant improvement in survival for nonsquamous patients treated with pemetrexed/cisplatin versus gemcitabine/cisplatin. Selected grade 3/4 toxicities and resource utilization favored pemetrexed in the overall population, but detailed safety results by histology have not been reported. METHODS: Treated patients were included in this analysis of safety by histology. At each cycle, adverse events were assessed, and concomitant medications, transfusions, and hospitalizations were recorded. Measures were summarized by histology and compared between arms with Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: When analyzed by squamous and nonsquamous histology, safety and resource utilization for each treatment arm paralleled those of the overall population. Selected toxicities did not vary by histology. Concomitant medication use and hospitalizations were also very similar to the patterns observed in the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: Although previous efficacy analyses showed a significant pemetrexed treatment advantage for nonsquamous patients, results of this analysis indicate that safety and resource utilization do not vary by histology and are consistent with the overall population. The safety and resource utilization of patients treated with pemetrexed/cisplatin are predictable, reproducible, and consistent with the established favorable safety profile of pemetrexed, regardless of histology.

Efficacy and safety of cisplatin/pemetrexed versus cisplatin/gemcitabine as first-line treatment in East Asian patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: results of an exploratory subgroup analysis of a phase III trial.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted an exploratory, post hoc, subgroup analysis of the East Asian (EA) patients in a multinational phase III trial to determine whether the efficacy results for this subgroup were consistent with those observed for the entire study population. METHODS: Thousand seven hundred twenty-five patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), including 126 EA patients (7.3%) from Taiwan and Korea, were enrolled in the trial and randomly assigned first-line chemotherapy with cisplatin and pemetrexed (CP; n = 862) or cisplatin and gemcitabine (CG; n = 863). Adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare overall survival and progression-free survival between the treatment arms in the EA subgroup. Median time-to-event data were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Consistent with the results for the entire study population, survival in the EA subgroup trended in favor of CP over CG in patients with non-squamous histology, despite the more frequent use of post discontinuation targeted therapy in the CG arm. The opposite trend was noted for patients with squamous tumors. A higher proportion of patients in the EA subgroup were never smokers compared with the entire study population. A trend toward improved survival with CP compared with CG was seen regardless of smoking status, particularly in non-squamous patients. CONCLUSIONS: The key finding of this subgroup analysis was that the NSCLC histology effect on treatment outcomes for pemetrexed-treated patients seen in the entire study population was also apparent in the EA subgroup. The potential prognostic influence of race, histology subtype, and smoking status should be assessed in future NSCLC studies.

The differential efficacy of pemetrexed according to NSCLC histology: a review of two Phase III studies.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies of pemetrexed have identified a predictive role for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) histology. We further reviewed the differential efficacy of pemetrexed according to histology in two large, phase III NSCLC trials. METHODS: One study tested pemetrexed versus docetaxel in previously treated patients (n = 571) and the other tested cisplatin plus pemetrexed versus cisplatin plus gemcitabine in chemotherapy-naive patients (n = 1,725) with advanced NSCLC. Cox proportional hazard models were used to test for covariate-adjusted treatment-by-histology interactions (THIs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). For each histologic subgroup, the Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate unadjusted within-arm medians, and Cox models were used to estimate covariate-adjusted between-arm hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: In both studies, treatment arms were well balanced for histology. THIs were statistically significant (p < .005) for both OS and PFS. Nonsquamous patients treated with pemetrexed-based therapy experienced longer survival than the comparators (HR, 0.78 and 0.84, respectively), whereas squamous patients had shorter survival (HR, 1.56 and 1.23, respectively). Whereas the efficacy of pemetrexed regimens differed according to histology, it did not differ for docetaxel or for cisplatin plus gemcitabine. Pemetrexed was well tolerated across histologic groups. CONCLUSIONS: The consistency of these results across studies confirms the predictive effect of histology for pemetrexed and the survival advantage for pemetrexed in patients with nonsquamous histology. These analyses suggest pemetrexed should not be recommended for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma, but, because of efficacy and safety advantages, pemetrexed may be preferable to other agents for treatment of patients with nonsquamous NSCLC.

Pemetrexed combined with paclitaxel: a dose-finding study evaluating three schedules in solid tumors.

The objectives of this phase I study were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended phase II dose (RD), antitumor activity, safety, and pharmacokinetics of pemetrexed-paclitaxel combination. Patients (N = 95) with advanced solid tumors were assigned to three schedules (21-day cycles [q21d]). Starting doses for each schedule of pemetrexed and paclitaxel, respectively, were: (S1) 400 and 135 mg/m(2) on d1; (S2) 400 mg/m(2) d1 and 40 mg/m(2) d1 and d8; S3) 400 mg/m(2) d8 and 30 mg/m(2) d1 and d8. MTD was 500/135 mg/m(2) (S1), 400/40 mg/m(2) (S2), and 500/120 mg/m(2) (S3). Most common dose limiting toxicities were febrile neutropenia, fatigue, and neuromotor toxicities. Most common toxicity was grade 3/4 lymphopenia. Four patients had partial response, 43 patients had stable disease. The RD determined was pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) (d8) and paclitaxel 90 mg/m(2) (d1 and d8), q21d. The combination was well tolerated and showed efficacy in thyroid carcinoma and mesothelioma.

The prognostic and predictive role of histology in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a literature review.

INTRODUCTION: The importance of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) histologic subtype has increased during the last few decades because of an unprecedented shift in epidemiology and an increasing number of target-specific chemotherapeutic agents. This review examined histology as a potential prognostic and/or predictive factor of clinical outcomes in advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Literature searches of articles from 1982 to 2007 were conducted. We identified publications detailing phase II or III studies, retrospective analyses, and meta-analyses that reported a statistically significant prognostic or predictive role for histology. RESULTS: Of 408 publications identified, 11 reported a prognostic association between histology and clinical outcomes, and 7 suggested that histologic subtype was predictive of outcomes in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with specific cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. Fourteen publications reported histology was prognostic and/or predictive in patients treated with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors. Inadequate data collection, test methodology, or study design-including insufficient sample size, misclassified samples, and grouping of histologic subtypes for analysis-may have obscured the interpretation of the role of histology in many of the studies. CONCLUSIONS: Although differences in study design and analyses make definitive conclusions difficult, evidence suggests that histology may be prognostic or predictive of clinical efficacy outcomes. To determine which patients would benefit from specific treatments and to further understand the role of histology, future studies should focus on establishing a definitive histologic diagnosis, and should include an analysis of histologic subtypes and efficacy outcomes.

Gemcitabine plus Paclitaxel versus Paclitaxel monotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer and prior anthracycline treatment.

PURPOSE: The objective of this phase III global study was to compare the efficacy of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel (GT) versus paclitaxel in patients with advanced breast cancer. It was designed as a pivotal study for the approval of G for a breast cancer treatment indication. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who relapsed after adjuvant anthracyclines were randomly assigned to gemcitabine,1,250 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8 plus paclitaxel, 175 mg/m(2) on day 1; or, to paclitaxel at same dose on day 1 (both arms administered every 21 days, unblinded). The primary end point was overall survival (OS) and secondary end points were time to progression (TTP), response rate (RR), progression-free survival, response duration, and toxicity. This final OS analysis was planned at 380 deaths. RESULTS: A total of 266 patients were randomly assigned to GT and 263 to paclitaxel. Median survival on GT was 18.6 months versus 15.8 months on paclitaxel (log-rank P = . 0489), with an adjusted Cox hazard ratio of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.96; P = .0187). The TTP was longer (6.14 v 3.98 months; log-rank P = .0002) and the RR was better (41.4% v 26.2%; P = .0002) on GT. There was more grade 3 to 4 neutropenia on GT and grade 2 to 4 fatigue and neuropathy were slightly more prevalent on GT. CONCLUSION: This phase III study documents a role for gemcitabine in advanced breast cancer after anthracycline-based adjuvant therapy. The results establish GT as a reasonable choice for women who require cytoreduction with manageable toxicities and validate ongoing testing of GT in the adjuvant setting.

Phase III study comparing cisplatin plus gemcitabine with cisplatin plus pemetrexed in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Cisplatin plus gemcitabine is a standard regimen for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Phase II studies of pemetrexed plus platinum compounds have also shown activity in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This noninferiority, phase III, randomized study compared the overall survival between treatment arms using a fixed margin method (hazard ratio [HR] < 1.176) in 1,725 chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1. Patients received cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (n = 863) or cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 (n = 862) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. RESULTS: Overall survival for cisplatin/pemetrexed was noninferior to cisplatin/gemcitabine (median survival, 10.3 v 10.3 months, respectively; HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.05). Overall survival was statistically superior for cisplatin/pemetrexed versus cisplatin/gemcitabine in patients with adenocarcinoma (n = 847; 12.6 v 10.9 months, respectively) and large-cell carcinoma histology (n = 153; 10.4 v 6.7 months, respectively). In contrast, in patients with squamous cell histology, there was a significant improvement in survival with cisplatin/gemcitabine versus cisplatin/pemetrexed (n = 473; 10.8 v 9.4 months, respectively). For cisplatin/pemetrexed, rates of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia (P

A randomized, double-blind, phase II study of two doses of pemetrexed as first-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Pemetrexed has shown varied response rates in advanced breast cancer. This randomized, double-blind, phase II study was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of two doses of pemetrexed in a homogeneous population. A secondary objective was to identify molecular biomarkers correlating with response and toxicity. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with newly diagnosed metastatic breast cancer or locally recurrent breast cancer received 600 mg/m(2) (P600 arm) or 900 mg/m(2) (P900 arm) of pemetrexed on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. All patients received folic acid and vitamin B(12) supplementation. RESULTS: The P600 (47 patients) and P900 (45 patients) arms had response rates of 17.0% (95% confidence interval, 7.7-30.8%) and 15.6% (95% confidence interval, 6.5-29.5%) with approximately 50% stable disease per arm, median progression-free survival of 4.2 and 4.1 months, and median times to tumor progression of 4.2 and 4.6 months, respectively. Both arms exhibited minimal toxicity (grade 3/4 neutropenia <20%, leukopenia <9%, and other toxicities <5%). Tumor samples from 49 patients were assessed for the expression levels of 12 pemetrexed-related genes. Folylpolyglutamate synthetase and thymidine phosphorylase correlated with efficacy. Best response rates and median time to tumor progression for high versus low thymidine phosphorylase expression were 27.6% versus 6.3% (P = 0.023) and 5.4 versus 1.9 months (P = 0.076), and for folylpolyglutamate synthetase were 37.5% versus 10.0% (P = 0.115) and 8.6 versus 3.0 months (P = 0.019), respectively. gamma-Glutamyl hydrolase expression correlated with grade 3/4 toxicities: 78.6% for high versus 27.3% for low gamma-glutamyl hydrolase (P = 0.024). CONCLUSION: The two pemetrexed doses yielded similar efficacy and safety profiles. Exploratory biomarker analysis identified efficacy and toxicity correlations and warrants further evaluation.

Phase I/II pharmacokinetic study of pemetrexed and epirubicin in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pemetrexed and epirubicin are each active in patients with advanced/metastatic breast cancer (MBC). This phase I/II study evaluated these drugs as a combination regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with locally advanced or MBC were enrolled. Pemetrexed 400-600 mg/m2 and epirubicin 60-90 mg/m2 were administered on day 1 every 21 days. The recommended phase II dose was evaluated in a 2-stage design. RESULTS: Phase I enrolled 34 patients and evaluated 5 dose levels. Dose-limiting toxicities were neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. Patients received a median of 7.5 cycles (range, 1-8 cycles), and promising efficacy (partial response [PR], 32%; stable disease [SD], 50%) was observed. Pharmacokinetics of pemetrexed was unchanged when combined with epirubicin. Selected phase II regimen (pemetrexed 600 mg/m2 and epirubicin 75 mg/m2) was administered to 22 patients (median, 4.5 cycles; range 1-13 cycles). Five patients experienced a PR (23%), and 10 experienced SD (46%). This response was below the predefined efficacy requirements for subsequent enrollment, and accrual was stopped. Median time to progression was 5.3 months (95% CI, 3.1-8.9 months), and median time to treatment failure was 3.5 months (95% CI, 2.6-5.9 months). CONCLUSION: The regimen is safe but cannot be recommended as first-line chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer because of the low response rate.

A phase I study of pemetrexed (ALIMTA) and cyclophosphamide in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of pemetrexed and cyclophosphamide combination therapy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer and WHO performance status 0 to 2 were eligible. Pemetrexed (range, 400-2,400 mg/m(2)) was administered on day 1 of a 21-day schedule followed by cyclophosphamide (range, 400-800 mg/m(2)). Folic acid and vitamin B(12) supplementation began 1 to 2 weeks before the first pemetrexed dose. RESULTS: Fifty-seven pretreated patients were enrolled and received 342 cycles (median, 4 cycles; range, 1-26) through 14 dose levels. The MTD of pemetrexed was 2,400 mg/m(2) (combined with cyclophosphamide, 600 mg/m(2)) with dose-limiting toxicities of grade 4 neutropenia with grade 4 infection and grade 3 diarrhea. Other grade 3 or 4 toxicities included (febrile) neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, elevated alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase, and diarrhea. Pharmacokinetic analysis indicated that pemetrexed clearance and central volume of distribution were 40% lower than single-agent reference data, yielding a 68% increase in total systemic exposure and a 56% increase in maximal plasma concentration. Among the 50 patients evaluable for efficacy, 13 (26%) patients had a partial response and 17 (34%) patients had stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: Pemetrexed was generally well tolerated. The observed toxicities were consistent with the known toxicity profiles of pemetrexed and cyclophosphamide. Considering the MTD and the toxicity and efficacy results in this and prior studies, a low (600 mg/m(2)) and a high (1,800 mg/m(2)) dose of pemetrexed with cyclophosphamide (600 mg/m(2)) will be evaluated in the consecutive prospective randomized phase II study.