Prospective Randomized Trial of Docetaxel Versus Best Supportive Care in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Previously Treated With Platinum-Based Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether treatment with single-agent docetaxel would result in longer survival than would best supportive care in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer who had previously been treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Secondary end points included assessment of response (docetaxel arm only), toxicity, and quality of life.PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with performance statuses of 0 to 2 and stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer with either measurable or evaluable lesions were eligible for entry onto the study if they had undergone one or more platinum-based chemotherapy regimens and if they had adequate hematology and biochemistry parameters. They were excluded if they had symptomatic brain metastases or if they had previously been treated with paclitaxel. Patients were stratified by performance status and best response to cisplatin chemotherapy and were then randomized to treatment with docetaxel 100 mg/m2 (49 patients) or 75 mg/m2 (55 patients) or best supportive care. Patients in both arms were assessed every 3 weeks. RESULTS: One hundred four patients (103 of whom were eligible for entry onto the study) were well balanced for prognostic factors. Of 84 patients with measurable lesions, six (7.1%) achieved partial responses (three patients at each dose level). Time to progression was longer for docetaxel patients than for best supportive care patients (10.6 v 6.7 weeks, respectively; P < .001), as was median survival (7.0 v 4.6 months; log-rank test, P = .047). The difference was more significant for docetaxel 75 mg/m2 patients, compared with corresponding best supportive care patients (7.5 v 4.6 months; log-rank test, P = .010; 1-year survival, 37% v 11%; χ2 test, P = .003). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 11 patients treated with docetaxel 100 mg/m2, three of whom died, and in one patient treated with docetaxel 75 mg/m2. Grade 3 or 4 nonhematologic toxicity, with the exception of diarrhea, occurred at a similar rate in both the docetaxel and best supportive care groups. CONCLUSION: Treatment with docetaxel is associated with significant prolongation of survival, and at a dose of 75 mg/m2, the benefits of docetaxel therapy outweigh the risks.

Nanoparticle Albumin-bound Paclitaxel Plus Carboplatin Induction Followed by Nanoparticle Albumin-bound Paclitaxel Maintenance in Squamous Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer (ABOUND.sqm): A Phase III Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated maintenance nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab) paclitaxel in the treatment of advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with treatment-naive squamous non-small-cell lung cancer received four 21-day cycles of nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 plus carboplatin area under the curve 6 on day 1 as induction therapy. Patients without disease progression after induction were randomized 2:1 to maintenance nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 (days 1 and 8 every 21 days) plus best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included safety and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Overall, 420 patients had received induction therapy; 202 (nab-paclitaxel plus BSC, 136; BSC, 66) had received maintenance therapy. Enrollment was discontinued after a preplanned interim futility analysis (patients could remain in the study at the investigator's discretion). The median PFS was 3.12 months for nab-paclitaxel plus BSC and 2.60 months for BSC; the difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-1.19; P = .36). The median OS (median follow-up, 24.2 months) was 17.18 months for nab-paclitaxel plus BSC and 12.16 months for BSC (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.48-1.02; nominal P = .07). An updated analysis (median follow-up, 28.4 months) revealed a median OS of 17.61 months for nab-paclitaxel plus BSC and 12.16 months for BSC (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.98; nominal P = .037). The most frequent grade 3 and 4 treatment-emergent adverse events for the entire study were neutropenia (53.1% [nab-paclitaxel plus BSC] vs. 50.0% [BSC]) and anemia (33.1% [nab-paclitaxel plus BSC] vs. 32.3% [BSC]). Only peripheral neuropathy had occurred in ≥ 5% of patients during maintenance therapy (13.1%; nab-paclitaxel plus BSC). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the ABOUND.sqm did not meet the primary endpoint of PFS. An updated OS analysis revealed a trend favoring nab-paclitaxel plus BSC.

nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin induction in squamous NSCLC: longitudinal quality of life while on chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Longitudinal data on the impact of treatment on quality of life (QoL) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are limited. In this palliative setting, treatment that does not deteriorate QoL is key. Here we report longitudinal QoL in patients with squamous NSCLC, receiving ≤4 cycles of nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin combination chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients received nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 days 1, 8, 15 + carboplatin area under the curve 6 mg•min/mL day 1 (q3w) for four cycles. QoL was assessed by the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and Euro-QoL-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) at baseline and each cycle (day 1). RESULTS: Two-hundred and six lesion-response-evaluable patients completed baseline + ≥1 postbaseline QoL assessment and were QoL evaluable. LCSS average total score and symptom burden index improved from baseline throughout four cycles. In the LCSS pulmonary symptoms score, 46% of patients reported clinically meaningful improvement (≥10 mm visual analog scale) from baseline. Individual EQ-5D-5L dimensions remained stable/improved in ≥83% of patients; ≈33% reported complete resolution of baseline problems at least once during four cycles. Generally, responders (unconfirmed complete/partial response) had higher scores vs nonresponders. CONCLUSION: In patients with squamous NSCLC, four cycles of nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin demonstrated clinically meaningful QoL improvements, with greater benefits in responders vs nonresponders.

Sunitinib plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel for first-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer: a phase III, randomized, open-label trial.

INTRODUCTION: A multicenter, open-label phase III study was conducted to test whether sunitinib plus paclitaxel prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) compared with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel as first-line treatment for patients with HER2(-) advanced breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with HER2(-) advanced breast cancer who were disease free for ≥ 12 months after adjuvant taxane treatment were randomized (1:1; planned enrollment 740 patients) to receive intravenous (I.V.) paclitaxel 90 mg/m(2) every week for 3 weeks in 4-week cycles plus either sunitinib 25 to 37.5 mg every day or bevacizumab 10 mg/kg I.V. every 2 weeks. [corrected] RESULTS: The trial was terminated early because of futility in reaching the primary endpoint as determined by the independent data monitoring committee during an interim futility analysis. At data cutoff, 242 patients had been randomized to sunitinib-paclitaxel and 243 patients to bevacizumab-paclitaxel. Median PFS was shorter with sunitinib-paclitaxel (7.4 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio [HR] 1.63 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.18-2.25]; 1-sided P = .999). At a median follow-up of 8.1 months, with 79% of sunitinib-paclitaxel and 87% of bevacizumab-paclitaxel patients alive, overall survival analysis favored bevacizumab-paclitaxel (HR 1.82 [95% CI, 1.16-2.86]; 1-sided P = .996). The objective response rate was 32% in both arms, but median duration of response was shorter with sunitinib-paclitaxel (6.3 vs. 14.8 months). Bevacizumab-paclitaxel was better tolerated than sunitinib-paclitaxel. This was primarily due to a high frequency of grade 3/4, treatment-related neutropenia with sunitinib-paclitaxel (52%) precluding delivery of the prescribed doses of both drugs. CONCLUSION: The sunitinib-paclitaxel regimen evaluated in this study was clinically inferior to the bevacizumab-paclitaxel regimen and is not a recommended treatment option for patients with advanced breast cancer.