Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance (RTQA) of Concurrent Chemoradiation Therapy for Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the PROCLAIM Phase 3 Trial.

PURPOSE: Chemoradiation therapy trials of different tumors, including lung cancer, have shown a correlation between protocol deviations and adverse outcomes. Radiation therapy quality assurance (RTQA) was mandated for all patients treated in the PROCLAIM trial evaluating 2 different chemoradiation therapy regimens. The RTQA results were evaluated from the PROCLAIM study, and the impact of irradiation deviations on efficacy outcomes was investigated. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The study was conducted from 2008 to 2014. Review of the irradiation plan was mandated for all patients. Real-time review was performed prior to irradiation start for the first enrolled patient at each site and randomly in 20% of additional patients, with non-real-time review in the remainder. The RTQA criteria evaluated included planning target volume coverage, dose homogeneity, volume of lung receiving ≥20 Gy, and maximum point dose to spinal cord. RESULTS: Major RTQA violations occurred in 40 of 554 patients, treated at 28 sites. Seven sites treated ≥2 patients with major violations. Stage IIIB disease and larger planning target volume were observed more frequently in patients with major violations. Major violations were more prevalent in sites treating either <6 patients or >15 patients. Patients treated at sites enrolling ≥2 patients with major violations (n = 86) had lower median overall survival (21.1 months vs 29.8 months; hazard ratio, 1.442) and progression-free survival (7.3 months vs 11.3 months; hazard ratio, 1.345) than patients treated at sites without major violations. These findings remained significant for overall survival on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Major violations in treatment plans were uncommon in the PROCLAIM study, possibly reflecting mandatory RTQA. The RTQA violations were more frequent in patients requiring more complex chemoradiation therapy plans. Poorer observed outcomes at centers with multiple major violations are hypothesis generating.

The Impact of Staging by Positron-Emission Tomography on Overall Survival and Progression-Free Survival in Patients With Locally Advanced NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the potential impact of stage migration because of positron-emission tomography (PET) scan staging on survival in the locally advanced (stage IIIA/B) NSCLC setting. METHODS: In PROCLAIM, 598 patients with stage IIIA/B nonsquamous NSCLC (intent-to-treat population) were randomized to either pemetrexed plus cisplatin and concurrent thoracic radiotherapy for 3 cycles followed by 4 cycles of pemetrexed consolidation or etoposide plus cisplatin and concurrent thoracic radiotherapy for 2 cycles followed by a consolidation platinum-based doublet regimen for up to 2 cycles. Baseline PET scan (PET Yes versus No) was one of the stratification factors. Subgroup analyses (PET Yes versus No) of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were conducted on the intent-to-treat population regardless of treatment, as the study did not show superior efficacy for either arm. RESULTS: Majority (491 of 598; 82.1%) of patients had a baseline PET scan staging performed. A longer median OS (PET Yes versus No: 27.2 versus 20.8; hazard ratio = 0.81, p = 0.130) and an improved median PFS (PET Yes versus No: 11.3 versus 9.2; hazard ratio = 0.73, p = 0.012) were observed for patients with PET scans compared to those with conventional staging in both treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Both a significantly improved PFS and a numerically longer OS in the PET Yes subgroup, compared to patients with conventional staging, are consistent with improved survival due to stage migration. The magnitude of differences in OS and PFS based on PET scan is a reminder of the potential for factors other than the therapeutic intervention to affect outcomes.

An East Asian subgroup analysis of PROCLAIM, a phase III trial of pemetrexed and cisplatin or etoposide and cisplatin plus thoracic radiation therapy followed by consolidation chemotherapy in locally advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.

AIM: PROCLAIM, a phase III trial of patients with nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer comparing concurrent pemetrexed-cisplatin and thoracic radiation therapy followed by consolidation pemetrexed, did not meet its primary endpoint of superior overall survival versus etoposide-cisplatin and thoracic radiation therapy followed by a consolidation platinum doublet of choice. The results from an East Asian subgroup analysis are presented here. METHODS: A subgroup analysis was performed for all patients randomized from China (n = 61), Taiwan (n = 25), and Korea (n = 11). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment arms for East Asian patients. In the 97 randomized East Asian patients, median overall survival was 26.8 months for the pemetrexed-cisplatin arm and 36.3 months for the etoposide-cisplatin arm (hazard ratio: 1.23; 95% confidence interval: 0.70-2.14; P = 0.469). Median progression-free survival was 10.0 months for the pemetrexed-cisplatin arm and 7.6 months for the etoposide-cisplatin arm (hazard ratio: 0.97; 95% confidence interval: 0.61-1.54; P = 0.890). The objective response rate was 47.7% in the pemetrexed-cisplatin arm and 34.0% in the etoposide-cisplatin arm (P = 0.167). In the 90 treated East Asian patients, the overall incidence of drug-related grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events was significantly lower in the pemetrexed-cisplatin arm versus the etoposide-cisplatin arm (61.4% vs 91.3%; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: For East Asian patients, pemetrexed-cisplatin combined with thoracic radiation therapy, followed by consolidation pemetrexed, did not improve overall survival but did have a good safety profile with a trend for improved progression-free survival and objective response rate compared to standard chemoradiotherapy for stage III unresectable nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.

Phase II Study of Concurrent Pemetrexed, Cisplatin, and Radiation Therapy for Stage IIIA/B Unresectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Concurrent thoracic radiation and platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard of care for treatment of unresectable stage IIIA-IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but the optimal drug regimen has not been established. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the present single-arm phase II trial, patients with previously untreated, unresectable stage IIIA-IIIB NSCLC (all histologic types) were treated with pemetrexed-cisplatin (500 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1 and 22, 20 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1-5 and days 22-26) concurrent with radiotherapy (61-66 Gy in 31-35 fractions), followed by 2 cycles of consolidation pemetrexed-cisplatin (75 mg(2)) therapy. The primary endpoint was the 1-year overall survival (OS) rate. The study treatment was considered active if the 1-year OS rate was ≥ 70%. RESULTS: A total of 39 patients, including 6 from the previous phase I trial who had been treated at the recommended phase II dose, were eligible for analysis. The most common drug-related grade 3 to 4 adverse events during the concurrent phase were hematologic and 5.1% of patients experienced grade 3 esophagitis. The response rate was 45.9% (17 of 37 patients), with no complete responses. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS survival rates were 79.5%, 56.4%, and 46.2%, respectively. The median OS, time to progressive disease, and progression-free survival was 30.3, 13.7, and 11.8 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Full-dose cisplatin and pemetrexed can be administered concurrently with conventional doses of thoracic radiation. The median and 1-year OS rates were favorable compared with published clinical trials in this setting. The regimen was tolerable, and the toxicity profile was consistent with the known toxicity profiles of pemetrexed, cisplatin, and radiation.

PROCLAIM: Randomized Phase III Trial of Pemetrexed-Cisplatin or Etoposide-Cisplatin Plus Thoracic Radiation Therapy Followed by Consolidation Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The phase III PROCLAIM study evaluated overall survival (OS) of concurrent pemetrexed-cisplatin and thoracic radiation therapy (TRT) followed by consolidation pemetrexed, versus etoposide-cisplatin and TRT followed by nonpemetrexed doublet consolidation therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IIIA/B unresectable nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer randomly received (1:1) pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) intravenously every 3 weeks for three cycles plus concurrent TRT (60 to 66 Gy) followed by pemetrexed consolidation every 3 weeks for four cycles (arm A), or standard therapy with etoposide 50 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) intravenously, every 4 weeks for two cycles plus concurrent TRT (60 to 66 Gy) followed by two cycles of consolidation platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (arm B). The primary objective was OS. The study was designed as a superiority trial with 80% power to detect an OS hazard ratio of 0.74 with a type 1 error of .05. RESULTS: Enrollment was stopped early because of futility. Five hundred ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned (301 to arm A, 297 to arm B) and 555 patients (283 in arm A, 272 in arm B) were treated. Arm A was not superior to arm B in terms of OS (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.20; median, 26.8 v 25.0 months; P = .831). Arm A had a significantly lower incidence of any drug-related grade 3 to 4 adverse events (64.0% v 76.8%; P = .001), including neutropenia (24.4% v 44.5%; P < .001), during the overall treatment period. CONCLUSION: Pemetrexed-cisplatin combined with TRT followed by consolidation pemetrexed was not superior to standard chemoradiotherapy for stage III unresectable nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

Phase I trial of radiation with concurrent and consolidation pemetrexed and cisplatin in patients with unresectable stage IIIA/B non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of concurrent pemetrexed/cisplatin/thoracic radiotherapy followed by consolidation pemetrexed/cisplatin for unresectable Stage IIIA/B non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible patients with <5% weight loss and good performance status received two cycles of pemetrexed (300, 400, or 500 mg/m(2) on Days 1 and 22 for Dose Levels 1, 2, and 3/4, respectively) and cisplatin (25 mg/m(2) Days 1-3 for Dose Levels 1-3; 20 mg/m(2) Days 1-5 for Dose Level 4) concurrent with thoracic radiation (61-66 Gy in 31-35 fractions). Consolidation consisted of two cycles of pemetrexed/cisplatin (500 mg/m(2), 75 mg/m(2)) 21 days apart, after concurrent therapy. RESULTS: Between January 2006 and October 2007, 16 patients entered the study. Median follow-up was 17.2 months. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed. Median radiation dose was 64 Gy (range, 45-66 Gy). Rates of significant Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity were 38% and 7%, respectively. One patient experienced Grade 3 acute esophagitis, and 2 experienced late (Grade 3) esophageal stricture, successfully managed with dilation. One patient experienced Grade 3 pneumonitis. The overall response rate was 88%. One-year overall survival was 81%. CONCLUSIONS: Full systemic dose pemetrexed seems to be safe with full-dose cisplatin and thoracic radiation in Stage IIIA/B NSCLC. Pemetrexed is the first third-generation cytotoxic agent tolerable at full dose in this setting. A Phase II study evaluating Dose Level 4 is ongoing.

Phase II, double-blind, randomized trial of capecitabine plus enzastaurin versus capecitabine plus placebo in patients with metastatic or recurrent breast cancer after prior anthracycline and taxane therapy.

Capecitabine is frequently used in the treatment of recurrent/progressive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) after prior anthracycline and taxane therapy. With the intention of improving the efficacy of single agent capecitabine, we initiated a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase II study of the novel serine/threonine kinase inhibitor enzastaurin in combination with capecitabine in a heavily pretreated patient population. Patients received capecitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) twice daily plus enzastaurin 500 mg/day, or capecitabine plus placebo. The capecitabine was administered for the first 14 days of each 21 day cycle. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) using the log-rank test (1-sided significance level of 0.20). Of 109 patients assessed for eligibility, 85 were enrolled, randomized, and treated (42 and 43 patients in each respective treatment group). The study was terminated early following a preplanned futility analysis. Median PFS (95% CI) was 2.8 (2.1-4.6) months with capecitabine plus enzastaurin versus 4.3 (2.9-6.2) months with capecitabine plus placebo (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.728 [1.00-2.97]; P = 0.048). Median overall survival (95% CI) was lower with capecitabine plus enzastaurin than with capecitabine plus placebo (9.9 [7.0-16.6] months vs 14.9 [9.9-19.3] months, P = 0.181). Grade 3/4 adverse events were more frequent with capecitabine plus enzastaurin (42.9% vs 32.6%). Given the lack of PFS benefit, capecitabine plus enzastaurin is unsuitable as therapy for patients with recurrent/progressive MBC after prior anthracycline and taxane therapy. This trial is registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov (identifier: NCT00437294).

Phase II, double-blinded, randomized study of enzastaurin plus pemetrexed as second-line therapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: We examined the efficacy of enzastaurin plus pemetrexed as second-line therapy in patients with advanced (stage IIIA/B or IV) non-small cell lung cancer in a double-blinded, randomized, phase II study. METHODS: Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m intravenously on day 1 of 21-day cycles (day 8 in cycle 1) plus oral enzastaurin (250 mg two times per day; combination arm) or placebo (pemetrexed arm). Both arms received supplementation with vitamin B12, folic acid, and dexamethasone. An interim analysis was conducted to determine whether efficacy would warrant a phase III study. RESULTS: The interim analysis showed no evidence of improved progression-free survival with enzastaurin. At final analysis (N = 160, 80 in each arm), baseline characteristics were well balanced. There was no significant difference in progression-free survival (3.0 months, p = 0.544) or overall survival (9.6 months in combination arm and 7.4 months in pemetrexed arm, p = 0.171). Drug-related serious adverse events included cerebrovascular accident, palpitations, and renal failure (n = 1, each) in combination arm and neutropenic sepsis, thrombocytopenia, and panniculitis (n = 1, each) in pemetrexed arm. Nonhematologic drug-related grade 3/4 toxicities were similar in both arms. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities were higher with the combination, specifically leukopenia (6.3% versus 0%), neutropenia (15.2% versus 5.0%), and thrombocytopenia (8.9% versus 1.3%). Of the 26 deaths reported on-study or within 30 days of discontinuation (10 in combination arm and 16 in pemetrexed arm), none were drug related. CONCLUSION: The combination regimen of enzastaurin and pemetrexed is well tolerated but does not improve efficacy over pemetrexed and placebo as second-line treatment of unselected patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

A phase II study of biweekly pemetrexed and gemcitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Pemetrexed (PEM) is a novel folate antimetabolite which inhibits thymidylate synthase, dihydrofolate reductase and glycinamide ribonucleotide formyl transferase. This phase II study was designed to assess the efficacy of Gemcitabine (GEM) and PEM given in a novel schedule in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. METHODS: Eligible patients had MBC and received one prior chemotherapy regimen for metastatic disease; Performance status (PS) 0-2; measurable disease (RECIST criteria). PEM(500 mg/m2) was administered intravenously (IV) over 10 min prior to GEM(1,500 mg/m2) IV given over 30 min on day 1 every 14 days. RESULTS: Median age of the 16 patients in the study was 54 years (range 33-77). Fourteen patients had a PS of 0/1 and were evaluable for response. There were no reported complete or partial responses, seven patients with stable disease, six patients with disease progression and one patient with unknown response. Most common toxicities were skin rash: Grade 1/2(8) and Grade 3/4(1). Grade 3/4 non-hematological toxicities were fatigue(1); anorexia(1); pneumonia(1); peripheral ischemia(1) and elevation of liver transaminases(1). Three patients experienced febrile neutropenia (FN). This study did not meet the predefined criteria to proceed with additional accrual. CONCLUSIONS: This regimen of PEM and GEM showed no clinical activity in the dose and schedule tested.

PROCLAIM: A phase III study of pemetrexed, cisplatin, and radiation therapy followed by consolidation pemetrexed versus etoposide, cisplatin, and radiation therapy followed by consolidation cytotoxic chemotherapy of choice in locally advanced stage III non-small-cell lung cancer of other than predominantly squamous cell histology.

This clinical trial summary provides the background and rationale for a randomized trial examining the benefits of pemetrexed/ cisplatin chemotherapy combined with radiation followed by consolidation pemetrexed in patients with unresectable stage IIIA/B non-small-cell lung cancer. The rationale for the selection of the control arm is provided, and study design limitations are discussed. The primary outcome is survival, and secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, toxicities, and 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival rates. Radiation quality control is a key component of the trial.

Systematic review of systemic adjuvant therapy for patients at high risk for recurrent melanoma.

The authors examined the role of systemic adjuvant therapy in patients with high-risk, resected, primary melanoma. Outcomes of interest included overall survival, disease-free survival, adverse effects, and quality of life. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to locate randomized controlled trials, practice guidelines, meta-analyses, and reviews published between 1980 and 2004. Thirty-seven randomized controlled trials, 2 meta-analyses, and 1 systematic review were identified that investigated interferon, levamisole, vaccine, or chemotherapy as adjuvant therapy. For high-dose interferon-alpha, the results from 3 randomized trials conducted by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group were pooled, and a meta-analysis of 2-year death rates yielded a risk ratio of 0.85 (95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.99; P = .03). Five randomized trials comparing low-dose interferon-alpha with observation only after surgery did not detect a statistically significant improvement in overall survival. A meta-analysis of 4 levamisole trials did not demonstrate a significant survival benefit for levamisole over control; similarly, no survival benefit was demonstrated by data from randomized controlled trials with vaccines (9 trials) or with chemotherapy (10 trials). In this review of the available literature, no systemic adjuvant therapy was identified that conferred a significant overall survival benefit in patients with high-risk, resected, primary melanoma. However, high-dose interferon should be considered in the treatment of these patients, because such therapy is associated with a significant improvement in disease-free survival and a reduction in 2-year mortality. Until the results of ongoing trials are available, the authors could not state with confidence whether such therapy benefits patients with microscopically detected, sentinel lymph node-positive disease.

Enhanced viral and tumor immunity with intranodal injection of canary pox viruses expressing the melanoma antigen, gp100.

BACKGROUND: The route of administration and extent of helper T-cell activation are factors that are likely to be important for the development of effective cancer vaccines. In order to optimize CD8(+) cytotoxic T-lymphocyte (CTL) responses, the immunologic effects of direct lymph node (LN) injections of canary pox virus (ALVAC) vectors (expressing the melanoma antigen, gp100) and immunogenic gp100 peptides, along with concomitant injections of the helper adjuvant, tetanus toxoid, were studied in high-risk HLA-A*0201(+) patients. METHODS: Forty-two patients were vaccinated using six different protocols. Twenty-three patients were 'primed' with ALVAC(2)-gp100m and 'boosted' with gp100 peptides, either subcutaneously or into an LN. Intranodal (IN) peptides, alone, were administered to six patients. Thirteen patients were given tetanus toxoid initially, and with each gp100 vaccination. Toxicity was recorded and immunologic responses were determined in 35 patients by enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISPOT) and gp100-tetramer binding assays and anti-ALVAC(2) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs). RESULTS: All vaccine protocols were tolerated well. Using stringent criteria for immunologic response, 8 of 18 patients responded to the viral vaccines, in striking contrast to peptides only (0 of 6 patients) or with help in trans from tetanus-reactive T-cells (1 of 11 patients). Changes in gp100-reactive CTL frequencies and ALVAC antibodies were greatest when viruses were injected directly into LNs. CONCLUSIONS: IN injections of ALVAC(2)-gp100m viruses are feasible, safe, and may be a superior method of vaccination in humans. CTL responses to this vaccine were not enhanced by tetanus toxoid.

Cost analysis of secondary prophylaxis with oral clodronate versus pamidronate in metastatic breast cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the direct medical costs of secondary prophylaxis with bisphosphonates (BPs) in bone metastases (BMs) of breast cancer (BCa) from a payer perspective. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study adopted an incidence-based chart review of consecutive BCa patients with BMs who received prophylactic treatment with orally administered (po) clodronate (CLODpo group), or intravenously administered (iv) pamidronate (PAM group) in 1997 at two large oncology centers in Toronto, Ontario. We evaluated the difference in costs of management of patients among the CLODpo and PAM groups using an intent-to-treat analysis from diagnosis of BMs to death, or last follow-up. The results are presented as observed mean and average lifetime (including terminal care) costs per patient. RESULTS: The observed mean costs in the PAM and CLODpo groups were 49,472 dollars and 50,307 dollars (2002 Canadian dollars), respectively. The difference in costs between the CLODpo (n=34) and PAM (n=18) groups was not significant (P=0.64), and remained robust after sensitivity analyses. The corresponding average lifetime costs were 65,677 dollars in the CLODpo group and 61,254 dollars in the PAM group. Inpatient and terminal care were the major cost drivers, comprising 45% and 25% of overall costs. Of all hospitalizations, 46% were associated with complications from BMs. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis, which was based on a convenience sample, failed to reveal a statistically significant difference in the observed mean costs between groups of patients who initiated treatment with po clodronate versus iv pamidronate. The cost estimates from this study can be used for future corroborative economic analyses.

Amplification of virus-induced antimelanoma T-cell reactivity by high-dose interferon-alpha2b: implications for cancer vaccines.

PURPOSE: The therapeutic effectiveness of cancer vaccines, composed of tumor antigens that are also self-antigens, may be limited by the normal mechanisms that preserve immunological tolerance. Consistent with this notion, we found that vaccination of melanoma patients with recombinant viral vaccines expressing gp100 (a melanoma antigen also expressed by normal melanocytes) produced only transient increases in noncytotoxic T cells specific for immunodominant gp100 epitopes. To improve the therapeutic effects of these vaccines, IFN-alpha2b (IFN-alpha) was administered to some high-risk patients. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: 7 HLA-A*0201(+) patients were injected with high doses of IFN-alpha (20 MU/m(2) x 20 doses) at various times after completing the vaccination protocol. Clinical toxicity and responses were documented, and the effects on gp100-reactive T cells were measured by IFN-gamma enzyme-linked immunospot assays, tetramers of HLA-A*0201 and gp100 epitopes, and cellular cytotoxicity assays. RESULTS: In patients who had previously responded to vaccination, high doses of IFN-alpha recalled gp100-reactive T cells with the ability to kill gp100-expressing tumor targets in vitro. Concomitant with the reappearance of these cytotoxic T cells, tumor regression was observed in the two patients with clinically evident metastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: The finding that high-dose IFN recalls previously activated tumor-reactive T cells with potent killing ability suggests a strategy to maintain antitumor responses initiated by cancer vaccines.