Cilengitide combined with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients: results of an open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study (CERTO).

BACKGROUND: This multicentre, open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study evaluated cilengitide in combination with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy, compared with cetuximab and chemotherapy alone, as first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive cetuximab plus platinum-based chemotherapy alone (control), or combined with cilengitide 2000 mg 1×/week i.v. (CIL-once) or 2×/week i.v. (CIL-twice). A protocol amendment limited enrolment to patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) histoscore ≥200 and closed the CIL-twice arm for practical feasibility issues. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; independent read); secondary end points included overall survival (OS), safety, and biomarker analyses. A comparison between the CIL-once and control arms is reported, both for the total cohorts, as well as for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200. RESULTS: There were 85 patients in the CIL-once group and 84 in the control group. The PFS (independent read) was 6.2 versus 5.0 months for CIL-once versus control [hazard ratio (HR) 0.72; P = 0.085]; for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200, PFS was 6.8 versus 5.6 months, respectively (HR 0.57; P = 0.0446). Median OS was 13.6 for CIL-once versus 9.7 months for control (HR 0.81; P = 0.265). In patients with EGFR ≥200, OS was 13.2 versus 11.8 months, respectively (HR 0.95; P = 0.855). No major differences in adverse events between CIL-once and control were reported; nausea (59% versus 56%, respectively) and neutropenia (54% versus 46%, respectively) were the most frequent. There was no increased incidence of thromboembolic events or haemorrhage in cilengitide-treated patients. αvß3 and αvß5 expression was neither a predictive nor a prognostic indicator. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of cilengitide to cetuximab/chemotherapy indicated potential clinical activity, with a trend for PFS difference in the independent-read analysis. However, the observed inconsistencies across end points suggest additional investigations are required to substantiate a potential role of other integrin inhibitors in NSCLC treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION ID NUMBER: NCT00842712.

Cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and cetuximab (PFE) with or without cilengitide in recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: results of the randomized phase I/II ADVANTAGE trial (phase II part).

BACKGROUND: Recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M-SCCHN) overexpresses αvß5 integrin. Cilengitide selectively inhibits αvß3 and αvß5 integrins and is investigated as a treatment strategy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The phase I/II study ADVANTAGE evaluated cilengitide combined with cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and cetuximab (PFE) in R/M-SCCHN. The phase II part reported here was an open-label, randomized, controlled trial investigating progression-free survival (PFS). Patients received up to six cycles of PFE alone or combined with cilengitide 2000 mg once (CIL1W) or twice (CIL2W) weekly. Thereafter, patients received maintenance therapy (cilengitide arms: cilengitide plus cetuximab; PFE-alone arm: cetuximab only) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-two patients were treated. Median PFS per investigator read was similar for CIL1W + PFE, CIL2W + PFE, and PFE alone (6.4, 5.6, and 5.7 months, respectively). Accordingly, median overall survival and objective response rates were not improved with cilengitide (12.4 months/47%, 10.6 months/27%, and 11.6 months/36%, respectively). No clinically meaningful safety differences were observed between groups. None of the tested biomarkers (expression of integrins, CD31, Ki-67, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2, vascular endothelial-cadherin, type IV collagen, epidermal growth factor receptor, or p16 for human papillomavirus) were predictive of outcome. CONCLUSION: Neither of the cilengitide-containing regimens demonstrated a PFS benefit over PFE alone in R/M-SCCHN patients.