Pemetrexed Continuation Maintenance Phase 3 Trials in Nonsquamous, Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Focus on 2-Year Overall Survival and Continuum of Care.

Although lung cancer prognosis remains poor for most patients, treatments developed in the past 2 decades have extended survival for many. For those with disease that responded to or those with stable disease after receipt of platinum-based chemotherapy, maintenance regimens enable continued targeting of tumors beyond the induction phase, which is limited by toxicity. This overview summarizes completed phase 3 trials of pemetrexed continuation maintenance treatment in nonsquamous, non-small-cell lung cancer with a focus on 2-year survival, and highlights similar ongoing trials. Some studies showed survival benefits of pemetrexed maintenance treatment versus control arms, with the potential for added benefit when combined with bevacizumab. Two-year survival rates underscore the value of maintenance therapy and suggest progress toward a clinical goal of managing non-small-cell lung cancer as a treatable chronic disease.

Rash management and treatment persistence of cancer patients treated with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors in the Truven MarketScan® research database.

PURPOSE: Rash toxicity is a common, expected class effect of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors. Although rash management is practiced, it is not well characterized in the real-world setting. We describe the management of rash that developed while receiving EGFR-inhibitor therapy and how rash affects treatment duration, using Truven MarketScan® Research Database, a US medical claims database. METHODS: Adult patients who received EGFR-inhibitor treatment between 2004 and 2015 after a diagnosis of colon, head and neck, lung, breast, or thyroid cancer were identified. Descriptive analyses were conducted to describe occurrence of rash during the EGFR-inhibitor treatment period, EGFR-inhibitor treatment persistence and management of rash, including treatment and cost. RESULTS: Of 44,533 eligible patients, 4649 (10.4%) had records of rash during the EGFR-inhibitor treatment period, and of patients experiencing rash, 2891 (62.2%) received prescription drugs for rash treatment. Treatment persistence with an EGFR inhibitor was longer among patients experiencing rash compared with no rash (median 178 vs. 80 days for EGFR-TKIs, 85 vs. 57 days for EGFR-monoclonal antibodies), especially among patients with rash who were treated for rash (208 days for EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors, 104 days for EGFR- monoclonal antibodies). Annualized cost during EGFR-inhibitor treatment was lowest among patients not experiencing rash (US$185,619), followed by rash patients receiving drugs for rash management (US$215,561), and highest among rash patients not treated for rash (US$267,105). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that management of EGFR inhibitor-associated rash could be important for EGFR-inhibitor treatment persistence.

Cetuximab plus platinum-based chemotherapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a randomized, double-blind safety study comparing cetuximab produced from two manufacturing processes using the EXTREME study regimen.

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab, in combination with platinum chemotherapy plus 5-fluoruracil (5-FU), is approved for the first-line treatment of recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). Cetuximab manufactured by ImClone (US commercial cetuximab) potentially results in higher systemic exposures than cetuximab manufactured by Boehringer Ingelheim (BI-manufactured cetuximab). This prospective, randomized, double-blind study compared the safety profiles of the two cetuximab formulations. METHODS: Patients with previously untreated locoregionally recurrent and/or metastatic SCCHN were randomly assigned to receive the same dose of US commercial cetuximab (Arm A) or BI-manufactured cetuximab (Arm B), each in combination with cisplatin or carboplatin plus 5-FU. The primary outcome was all-grade, all-cause treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: The majority of patients experienced ≥ 1 TEAE, regardless of causality (Arm A: 75/77 patients, 97.4%; Arm B: 68/71 patients, 95.8%). TEAEs with the highest incidence included nausea, fatigue, and hypomagnesemia in both arms. The absolute risk difference between the two arms for patients experiencing at least one adverse event (AE) was 0.029 (p = 0.281, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.024, 0.082) for AEs regardless of causality and 0.005 (p = 0.915, 95% CI: -0.092, 0.103) for AEs possibly related to study drug. There were no significant differences between the two arms in the incidence of acneiform rash, cardiac events, infusion reactions, or hypomagnesemia. Overall survival, progression-free survival, and overall response rates were similar in the two arms. CONCLUSIONS: There were no clinically meaningful differences in safety between US commercial cetuximab and BI-manufactured cetuximab in combination with platinum-based therapy with 5-FU in patients with locoregionally recurrent and/or metastatic SCCHN. The use of US commercial cetuximab in this combination chemotherapy regimen did not result in any unexpected safety signals. The efficacy results of this study are consistent with the efficacy results of the cetuximab arm of the EXTREME study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01081041 ; date of registration: March 3, 2010).

Exploratory Subset Analysis of African Americans From the PointBreak Study: Pemetrexed-Carboplatin-Bevacizumab Followed by Maintenance Pemetrexed-Bevacizumab Versus Paclitaxel-Carboplatin-Bevacizumab Followed by Maintenance Bevacizumab in Patients With Stage IIIB/IV Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: African Americans have a greater incidence of lung cancer than whites and have been underrepresented in clinical trials. In the PointBreak trial (pemetrexed-carboplatin-bevacizumab and maintenance pemetrexed-bevacizumab [PemCBev] vs. paclitaxel-carboplatin-bevacizumab and maintenance bevacizumab [PacCBev]), 10% of the patients were African American. PointBreak had negative findings; PemCBev did not demonstrate superior overall survival (OS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: PointBreak subgroup efficacy and safety data were retrospectively analyzed: African Americans versus whites for PemCBev; PemCBev versus PacCBev in African Americans; and academic versus community settings for African Americans. Hazard ratios (HRs) and P values were derived from a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model after adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: Of 939 intent-to-treat (ITT) patients, 94 were African American and 805 were white. African-American enrollment was uniform across the study sites (median, 1 African American per site). In the PemCBev arm, OS (HR, 1.125; P = .525), progression-free survival (PFS) (HR, 1.229; P = .251), response (P = .607), and toxicity profiles were similar in African Americans versus whites. For African Americans, OS (HR, 1.375; P = .209), PFS (HR, 0.902; P = .670), response (P = 1.000), and toxicity profiles were similar in the PemCBev versus PacCBev arm. For African Americans, no significant differences were seen in OS (HR, 0.661; P = .191) or PFS (HR, 0.969; P = .915) in academic versus community practice settings. CONCLUSION: In the PemCBev arm, this exploratory analysis showed no significant differences between African Americans and whites for the efficacy outcomes or toxicity profiles. Consistent with the ITT population negative trial result, for African Americans, the median OS was not superior for either arm. For African Americans, PFS and OS were similar in the academic and community settings. Additional outcomes data for African Americans should be collected in lung cancer studies.

PRONOUNCE: randomized, open-label, phase III study of first-line pemetrexed + carboplatin followed by maintenance pemetrexed versus paclitaxel + carboplatin + bevacizumab followed by maintenance bevacizumab in patients ith advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: PRONOUNCE compared the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed+carboplatin followed by pemetrexed (Pem+Cb) with paclitaxel+carboplatin+bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab (Pac+Cb+Bev) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients ≥18 years of age with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC (American Joint Committee on Cancer v7.0), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1 were randomized (1:1) to four cycles of induction Pem+Cb (pemetrexed, 500 mg/m, carboplatin, area under the curve = 6) followed by Pem maintenance or Pac+Cb+Bev (paclitaxel, 200 mg/m, carboplatin, area under the curve = 6, and bevacizumab, 15 mg/kg) followed by Bev maintenance in the absence of progressive disease or discontinuation. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) without grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS). Secondary end points were PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Resource utilization was also assessed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the patients randomized to Pem+Cb (N = 182) and Pac+Cb+Bev (N = 179) were well balanced between the arms. Median (months) G4PFS was 3.91 for Pem+Cb and 2.86 for Pac+Cb+Bev (hazard ratio = 0.85, 90% confidence interval, 0.7-1.04; p = 0.176); PFS, OS, ORR, or DCR did not differ significantly between the arms. Significantly more drug-related grade 3/4 anemia (18.7% versus 5.4%) and thrombocytopenia (24.0% versus 9.6%) were reported for Pem+Cb. Significantly more grade 3/4 neutropenia (48.8% versus 24.6%), grade 1/2 alopecia (28.3% versus 8.2%), and grade 1/2 sensory neuropathy were reported for Pac+Cb+Bev. Number of hospitalizations and overall length of stay did not differ significantly between the arms. CONCLUSIONS: Pem+Cb did not produce significantly better G4PFS compared with Pac+Cb+Bev. Pem+Cb was not superior in PFS, OS, ORR, or DCR compared with Pac+Cb+Bev. Both regimens were well tolerated, although, toxicity profiles differed.

PointBreak: a randomized phase III study of pemetrexed plus carboplatin and bevacizumab followed by maintenance pemetrexed and bevacizumab versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin and bevacizumab followed by maintenance bevacizumab in patients with stage IIIB or IV nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: PointBreak (A Study of Pemetrexed, Carboplatin and Bevacizumab in Patients With Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer) compared the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed (Pem) plus carboplatin (C) plus bevacizumab (Bev) followed by pemetrexed plus bevacizumab (PemCBev) with paclitaxel (Pac) plus carboplatin (C) plus bevacizumab (Bev) followed by bevacizumab (PacCBev) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated stage IIIB or IV nonsquamous NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1 were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) or paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) combined with carboplatin area under the curve 6 and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks for up to four cycles. Eligible patients received maintenance until disease progression: pemetrexed plus bevacizumab (for the PemCBev group) or bevacizumab (for the PacCBev group). The primary end point of this superiority study was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Patients were randomly assigned to PemCBev (n = 472) or PacCBev (n = 467). For PemCBev versus PacCBev, OS hazard ratio (HR) was 1.00 (median OS, 12.6 v 13.4 months; P = .949); progression-free survival (PFS) HR was 0.83 (median PFS, 6.0 v 5.6 months; P = .012); overall response rate was 34.1% versus 33.0%; and disease control rate was 65.9% versus 69.8%. Significantly more study drug-related grade 3 or 4 anemia (14.5% v 2.7%), thrombocytopenia (23.3% v 5.6%), and fatigue (10.9% v 5.0%) occurred with PemCBev; significantly more grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (40.6% v 25.8%), febrile neutropenia (4.1% v 1.4%), sensory neuropathy (4.1% v 0%), and alopecia (grade 1 or 2; 36.8% v 6.6%) occurred with PacCBev. CONCLUSION: OS did not improve with the PemCBev regimen compared with the PacCBev regimen, although PFS was significantly improved with PemCBev. Toxicity profiles differed; both regimens demonstrated tolerability.

Prospective observational comparison of clinical outcomes between african-american and caucasian patients receiving second-line treatment with pemetrexed for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: This prospective observational study evaluated the effect of race on disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) in patients with NSCLC treated with second-line pemetrexed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligibility criteria included stage IIIB or IV NSCLC patients receiving single-agent pemetrexed for second-line therapy in routine clinical practice. Noninferiority was evaluated using logistic regression analysis of DCR, controlling for predefined covariates. Noninferiority was considered if the upper 95% confidence bound on the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for Caucasian vs. African-American individuals was less than 1.78, corresponding to a difference in proportion of 14% assuming Caucasian individuals to have a DCR of approximately 50%. The bound was chosen to be half of the anticipated difference between treatment and no second-line treatment. PFS and OS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Tools were used to measure functional status and symptom burden. RESULTS: The unadjusted DCR was 43.7% (117/268) for Caucasian and 45.0% (27/60) for African-American individuals (unadjusted OR, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-1.66). The adjusted OR in the final logistic regression model was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.43-1.58). This upper 95% confidence bound was within the prespecified acceptable bound of 1.78. Median PFS times (months) were 2.7 (95% CI, 2.4-3.4) for Caucasian and 3.0 (95% CI, 2.3-4.7) for African-American individuals (P = .91). Median OS times (months) were 6.7 (95% CI, 5.7-7.9) for Caucasian and 6.9 (95% CI, 4.5-8.9) for African-American individuals (P = .92). Baseline and functional status after baseline assessment and mean symptom burden did not differ substantially among races. CONCLUSION: African-American race was not considered to be a significant predictor of disease control after second-line treatment with pemetrexed.

Pemetrexed in head and neck cancer: a systematic review.

Pemetrexed has been evaluated as a novel chemotherapeutic for head and neck cancer (HNC). In this review, we examined the efficacy and tolerability of pemetrexed in patients with HNC. Relevant English-language literature was identified via PubMed and a review of published abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology annual meetings from January 2000 through September 2012. Search terms were "pemetrexed" (or "LY231514") and "head and neck cancer." Completed prospective phase I to III trials of pemetrexed alone or in combination with other agents or radiotherapy evaluating objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and/or overall survival (OS) were eligible; ten studies were reviewed. Results for ORR, PFS, and/or OS in patients receiving pemetrexed in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents and/or radiotherapy were promising in the first-line treatment setting. Pemetrexed was associated with acceptable grade 3-4 hematologic toxicities; it did not result in nonhematologic toxicities commonly seen with cisplatin, such as nephrotoxicity, ototoxicity, and neuropathy. In a single phase III randomized trial, although median OS was longer for patients treated with pemetrexed plus cisplatin (7.3 months) versus cisplatin plus placebo (6.3 months), the difference did not reach statistical significance (P=.082). Results of this review suggest that pemetrexed is an active chemotherapeutic in combination with other agents or radiotherapy in patients with HNC. In particular, the role of pemetrexed as a radiosensitizer and potential alternative to cisplatin warrants investigation. More research is needed to clearly define the role of pemetrexed in HNC treatment.

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.

Phase III trial of induction gemcitabine or paclitaxel plus carboplatin followed by paclitaxel consolidation in ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The safety and efficacy of gemcitabine plus carboplatin (GC) or paclitaxel plus carboplatin (TC) induction regimens with or without paclitaxel consolidation therapy were assessed in ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: Patients with stage IC-IV OC were randomized to either GC (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2), days 1 and 8, plus carboplatin area under the curve [AUC] 5, day 1) or TC (paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) plus carboplatin AUC 6, day 1) every 21 days for up to six cycles. Patients with complete response (CR) were allowed optional consolidation with paclitaxel 135 mg/m(2) every 28 days for ≤ 12 months. Patients without CR received single-agent crossover therapy at induction doses/schedules until CR, disease progression (PD), or unacceptable toxicity. PD or death in 636 patients was required to compare induction arms with 80% statistical power for progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Randomized induction therapy was received by 820 of 919 patients enrolled; 352 patients with CR received paclitaxel consolidation whereas 155 patients without CR received single-agent crossover therapy. PFS was similar for GC and TC (median, 20.0 and 22.2 months, respectively; P=.199). Despite high censoring rates (>52%), overall survival was longer for TC (median, 57.3 versus 43.8 months for GC; P=.013). Controlling for patient characteristics including performance status, residual tumor size, and tumor stage, there was no statistical difference in a multivariate analysis (HR=1.22; 95% CI=0.99-1.52; P=.067). CONCLUSIONS: GC does not improve PFS over TC as first-line induction chemotherapy in OC. Although favoring TC, overall survival analyses were limited by the study design and high censoring rates.

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.

Gemcitabine plus enzastaurin or single-agent gemcitabine in locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer: results of a phase II, randomized, noncomparative study.

PURPOSE: Gemcitabine (G) is standard therapy for pancreatic cancer. Enzastaurin (E) inhibits PKCß and PI3K/AKT signaling pathways with a dose-dependent effect on growth of pancreatic carcinoma xenografts. Data suggest that the GE combination may improve clinical outcomes. METHODS: Primary objective was overall survival (OS); secondary objectives assessed progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), quality of life (QOL), toxicity, and relationships between biomarker expression and clinical outcomes. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to GE or G treatment; GE arm: E 500 mg p.o. daily; loading-dose (1200 mg; Day 1 Cycle 1 only) and G 1000 mg/m(2) i.v. Days 1, 8, and 15 in 28-day cycles; G arm: G as in GE. Biomarker expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Randomization totaled 130 patients (GE = 86, G = 44); 121 patients were treated (GE = 82, G = 39). GE/G median OS was 5.6/5.1 months; median PFS was 3.4/3.0 months. GE responses: 1 complete response (CR, 1.2%), 6 partial response (PR, 7.4%), and 33 stable disease (SD, 40.7%); disease control rate (DCR=CR+PR+SD, 49.4%). G responses: 2 PR (5.3%) and 16 SD (42.1%); DCR (47.4%). No QOL differences were noted between arms. GE/G Grade 3-4 toxicities included: neutropenia (18.3%/28.2%); thrombocytopenia (14.6%/25.6%); and fatigue (11.0%/7.7%). No statistically significant relationships between biomarker expression and outcomes were observed. However, patients with low expression of cytoplasmic pGSK-3ß trended toward greater OS with GE treatment. CONCLUSIONS: OS, PFS, QOL, and RR were comparable between arms. Adding E to G did not increase hematologic toxicities. GE does not warrant further investigation in unselected pancreatic cancer patients.

Randomized, phase II trial of pemetrexed and carboplatin with or without enzastaurin versus docetaxel and carboplatin as first-line treatment of patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Enzastaurin is an oral serine/threonine kinase inhibitor that targets protein kinase C-beta (PKC-ß) and the phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase/AKT pathway. This trial assessed pemetrexed-carboplatin ± enzastaurin to docetaxel-carboplatin in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB (with pleural effusion) or IV non-small cell lung cancer and performance status 0 or 1 were randomized to one of the three arms: (A) pemetrexed 500 mg/m and carboplatin area under the curve 6 once every 3 weeks for up to 6 cycles with a loading dose of enzastaurin 1125 or 1200 mg followed by 500 mg daily until disease progression, (B) the same regimen of pemetrexed-carboplatin without enzastaurin, or (C) docetaxel 75 mg/m and carboplatin area under the curve 6 once every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary end point was time to disease progression (TTP). RESULTS: Between March 2006 and May 2008, 218 patients were randomized. Median TTP was 4.6 months for pemetrexed-carboplatin-enzastaurin, 6.0 months for pemetrexed-carboplatin, and 4.1 months for docetaxel-carboplatin (differences not significant). Median survival was 7.2 months for pemetrexed-carboplatin-enzastaurin, 12.7 months for pemetrexed-carboplatin, and 9.2 months for docetaxel-carboplatin (log-rank p = 0.05). Compared with the other arms, docetaxel-carboplatin was associated with lower rates of grade 3 thrombocytopenia and anemia but a higher rate of grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in TTP between the three arms, but survival was longer with pemetrexed-carboplatin compared with docetaxel-carboplatin. Enzastaurin did not add to the activity of pemetrexed-carboplatin.

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.

Phase III study of pemetrexed plus carboplatin compared with etoposide plus carboplatin in chemotherapy-naive patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Following a phase II trial in which pemetrexed-platinum demonstrated similar activity to that of historical etoposide-platinum controls, a phase III study was conducted to compare pemetrexed-carboplatin with etoposide-carboplatin for the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with ES-SCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of zero to 2 were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed-carboplatin (pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1; carboplatin at area under the serum concentration-time curve [AUC] 5 on day 1) or etoposide-carboplatin (etoposide 100 mg/m(2) on days 1 through 3; carboplatin AUC 5 on day 1) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary objective of the study was noninferiority of pemetrexed-carboplatin overall survival with a 15% margin. RESULTS: Accrual was terminated with 908 of 1,820 patients enrolled after results of a planned interim analysis. In the final analysis, pemetrexed-carboplatin was inferior to etoposide-carboplatin for overall survival (median, 8.1 v 10.6 months; hazard ratio [HR],1.56; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.92; log-rank P < .01) and progression-free survival (median, 3.8 v 5.4 months; HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.58 to 2.17; log-rank P < .01). Objective response rates were also significantly lower for pemetrexed-carboplatin (31% v 52%; P < .001). Pemetrexed-carboplatin had lower grade 3 to 4 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and leukopenia than etoposide-carboplatin; grade 3 to 4 thrombocytopenia was comparable between arms and anemia was higher in the pemetrexed-carboplatin arm. CONCLUSION: Pemetrexed-carboplatin is inferior for the treatment of ES-SCLC. Planned translational research and pharmacogenomic analyses of tumor and blood samples may help explain the study results and provide insight into new treatment strategies.

Multicenter phase II trial of neoadjuvant pemetrexed plus cisplatin followed by extrapleural pneumonectomy and radiation for malignant pleural mesothelioma.

PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant pemetrexed plus cisplatin was administered, followed by extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) and hemithoracic radiation (RT), to assess the feasibility and efficacy of trimodality therapy in stage I to III malignant pleural mesothelioma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Requirements included stage T1-3 N0-2 disease, no prior surgical resection, adequate organ function (including predicted postoperative forced expiratory volume in 1 second > or = 35%), and performance status 0 to 1. Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) plus cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) for four cycles. Patients without disease progression underwent EPP followed by RT (54 Gy). The primary end point was pathologic complete response (pCR) rate. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients received chemotherapy. All four cycles were administered to 83% of patients. The radiologic response rate was 32.5% (95% CI, 22.2 to 44.1). Fifty-seven patients proceeded to EPP, which was completed in 54 patients. Three pCRs were observed (5% of EPP). Forty of 44 patients completed irradiation. Median survival in the overall population was 16.8 months (95% CI, 13.6 to 23.2 months; censorship, 33.8%). Patients completing all therapy had a median survival of 29.1 months and a 2-year survival rate of 61.2%. Radiologic response of complete or partial response was associated with a median survival of 26.0 months compared with 13.9 months for patients with stable disease or progressive disease (P = .05). CONCLUSION: This multicenter trial showed that trimodality therapy with neoadjuvant pemetrexed plus cisplatin is feasible with a reasonable long-term survival rate, particularly for patients who completed all therapy. Radiologic response to chemotherapy, but not sex, histology, disease stage, or nodal status, was associated with improved survival.

Impact of preoperative chemotherapy on pulmonary function tests in resectable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Several chemotherapy agents, including gemcitabine and paclitaxel, have been reported to cause interstitial pneumonitis. The incidence of pulmonary toxicity from the combination of gemcitabine and paclitaxel is reported to be approximately 5%. In this report, pulmonary function test (PFT) results were analyzed from two similar randomized phase 2 trials that tested platinum and nonplatinum regimens preoperatively in patients with stage I or II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: The regimens included gemcitabine plus carboplatin, paclitaxel, or cisplatin. PFT and dyspnea scores were obtained at baseline and postchemotherapy, and were compared to one of several secondary end points, including ability to undergo surgical resection. RESULTS: Baseline PFT scores varied with smoking status. Mean levels of diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (Dlco) adjusted for hemoglobin declined 8% from pre- to postinduction (Wilcoxon signed rank test, p < 0.0001). Changes in FVC, FEV(1), and total lung capacity were not statistically significant after chemotherapy. Although 27% of patients in the study had some reduction in PFT results, only 2 of the 85 eligible patients did not undergo surgery due to PFT reduction following chemotherapy. One patient in the study experienced a clinically significant respiratory toxicity (grade 3 dyspnea). Pulmonary toxicity was only statistically associated with male gender. CONCLUSION: In the preoperative setting, gemcitabine-based chemotherapy was well tolerated. The most commonly affected PFT parameter postchemotherapy was the Dlco. Although 15% of patients had a significant reduction in the Dlco postchemotherapy, it did not correlate with clinical symptoms or affect the ability to undergo surgical resection.