Quality of life analyses from the randomized, open-label, phase III PointBreak study of pemetrexed-carboplatin-bevacizumab followed by maintenance pemetrexed-bevacizumab versus paclitaxel-carboplatin-bevacizumab followed by maintenance bevacizumab in patients with stage IIIB or IV nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment impact on quality of life (QoL) informs treatment management decisions in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NS NSCLC). QoL outcomes from the phase III PointBreak trial are reported. METHODS: Chemonaive patients (n = 939) with stage IIIB/IV nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1 were randomized (1:1) to pemetrexed-carboplatin-bevacizumab (pemetrexed arm) or paclitaxel-carboplatin-bevacizumab (paclitaxel arm). Patients without progressive disease received maintenance pemetrexed-bevacizumab (pemetrexed arm) or bevacizumab (paclitaxel arm). QoL was assessed using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)-General (FACT-G), FACT-Lung (FACT-L), and FACT/Gynecologic Oncology Group-Neurotoxicity (FACT-Ntx) instruments. Subscale scores, total scores, and trial outcome indices were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models. Post hoc analyses examined the association between baseline FACT scores and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Mean score differences in change from baseline significantly favored the pemetrexed arm for the neurotoxicity subscale score, FACT-Ntx total scores, and FACT-Ntx trial outcome index. They occurred at cycle 2 (p < 0.001) and persisted through induction cycles 2 to 4 and six maintenance cycles. Investigator-assessed, qualitative, drug-related differences in grade 2 (1.6% versus 10.6%) and grade 3 (0.0% versus 4.1%) sensory neuropathy and grade 3/4 fatigue (10.9% versus 5.0%, p = 0.0012) were observed between the pemetrexed and paclitaxel arms. Baseline FACT-G, FACT-L, and FACT-Ntx scores were significant prognostic factors for OS (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Randomized patients reported similar changes in QoL, except for less change from baseline in neurotoxicity on the pemetrexed arm; investigators reported greater neurotoxicity on the paclitaxel arm and greater fatigue on the pemetrexed arm. Higher baseline FACT scores were favorable prognostic factors for OS.

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.

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.

Sorafenib or placebo with either gemcitabine or capecitabine in patients with HER-2-negative advanced breast cancer that progressed during or after bevacizumab.

PURPOSE: We assessed adding the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib to gemcitabine or capecitabine in patients with advanced breast cancer whose disease progressed during/after bevacizumab. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase IIb study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00493636) enrolled patients with locally advanced or metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer and prior bevacizumab treatment. Patients were randomized to chemotherapy with sorafenib (400 mg, twice daily) or matching placebo. Initially, chemotherapy was gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) i.v., days 1, 8/21), but later, capecitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) orally twice daily, days 1-14/21) was allowed as an alternative. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: One hundred and sixty patients were randomized. More patients received gemcitabine (82.5%) than capecitabine (17.5%). Sorafenib plus gemcitabine/capecitabine was associated with a statistically significant prolongation in PFS versus placebo plus gemcitabine/capecitabine [3.4 vs. 2.7 months; HR = 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-0.95; P = 0.02], time to progression was increased (median, 3.6 vs. 2.7 months; HR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.44-0.93; P = 0.02), and overall response rate was 19.8% versus 12.7% (P = 0.23). Median survival was 13.4 versus 11.4 months for sorafenib versus placebo (HR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.71-1.44; P = 0.95). Addition of sorafenib versus placebo increased grade 3/4 hand-foot skin reaction (39% vs. 5%), stomatitis (10% vs. 0%), fatigue (18% vs. 9%), and dose reductions that were more frequent (51.9% vs. 7.8%). CONCLUSION: The addition of sorafenib to gemcitabine/capecitabine provided a clinically small but statistically significant PFS benefit in HER2-negative advanced breast cancer patients whose disease progressed during/after bevacizumab. Combination treatment was associated with manageable toxicities but frequently required dose reductions.

A randomized phase II trial of vismodegib versus placebo with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI and bevacizumab in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Vismodegib, a Hedgehog pathway inhibitor, has preclinical activity in colorectal cancer (CRC) models. This trial assessed the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of adding vismodegib to first-line treatment for metastatic CRC (mCRC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were randomized to receive vismodegib (150 mg/day orally) or placebo, in combination with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (5 mg/kg) every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Key secondary objectives included evaluation of predictive biomarkers and pharmacokinetic drug interactions. RESULTS: A total of 199 patients with mCRC were treated on protocol (124 FOLFOX, 75 FOLFIRI). The median PFS hazard ratio (HR) for vismodegib treatment compared with placebo was 1.25 (90% CI: 0.89-1.76; P = 0.28). The overall response rates for placebo-treated and vismodegib-treated patients were 51% (90% CI: 43-60) and 46% (90% CI: 37-55), respectively. No vismodegib-associated benefit was observed in combination with either FOLFOX or FOLFIRI. Increased tumor tissue Hedgehog expression did not predict clinical benefit. Grade 3 to 5 adverse events reported for more than 5% of patients that occurred more frequently in the vismodegib-treated group were fatigue, nausea, asthenia, mucositis, peripheral sensory neuropathy, weight loss, decreased appetite, and dehydration. Vismodegib did not alter the pharmacokinetics of FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, or bevacizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Vismodegib does not add to the efficacy of standard therapy for mCRC. Compared with placebo, treatment intensity was lower for all regimen components in vismodegib-treated patients, suggesting that combined toxicity may have contributed to lack of efficacy.

Randomized placebo-controlled phase II trial of perifosine plus capecitabine as second- or third-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: In a multicenter, double-blind phase II trial, we compared the efficacy and safety of perifosine plus capecitabine (P-CAP) with placebo plus capecitabine (CAP) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who had progressed after as many as two prior therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 38) not previously treated with capecitabine received P-CAP (perifosine 50 mg orally once daily, days 1 to 21 and CAP 825 mg/m(2) orally twice daily, days 1 to 14) or CAP (825 mg/m(2) orally twice daily, days 1 to 14) in 21-day cycles until disease progression. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), safety, and tolerability. RESULTS: Twenty patients were randomly assigned to P-CAP and 18 to CAP. Median TTP (27.5 v 10.1 weeks; P < .001) and median OS (17.7 v 7.6 months; P = .0052) were improved in patients receiving P-CAP versus CAP. ORR was 20% v 7% in the P-CAP and CAP groups, respectively, and one patient in the P-CAP group had a complete response. A subset analysis of fluorouracil-refractory patients showed a median TTP of 17.6 v 9.0 weeks (P < .001) and median OS of 15.1 v 6.5 months (P = .0061). Toxicities, including diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, and hand-foot syndrome, were manageable. CONCLUSION: P-CAP showed promising clinical activity compared with CAP in previously treated patients with mCRC. A phase III trial is underway comparing P-CAP with CAP in patients with refractory mCRC.

Analysis of potential predictive markers of cetuximab benefit in BMS099, a phase III study of cetuximab and first-line taxane/carboplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE The anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibody cetuximab is efficacious in multiple tumor types. Patient selection with markers predictive of benefit may enhance its therapeutic index. This retrospective, correlative analysis of the phase III trial BMS099 of cetuximab in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was conducted to identify molecular markers for the selection of patients most likely to benefit from cetuximab. METHODS In BMS099, 676 chemotherapy-naïve patients with stage IIIB (pleural effusion) or stage IV NSCLC of any histology or EGFR expression status were randomly assigned to taxane/carboplatin (T/C) with or without cetuximab. Biomarkers analyzed included K-Ras and EGFR mutations by direct sequencing, EGFR protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC), and EGFR gene copy number by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). Relationships between biomarker status and progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and overall response rate (ORR) were assessed by log-rank tests per treatment arm for treatment-specific effects and across the total evaluable population. Results Tumor samples were available from 225 randomly assigned patients. K-Ras mutations were found in 17% of evaluable patients (35 of 202 patients), EGFR mutations were found in 10% (17 of 166 patients), EGFR positivity by IHC was found in 89% (131 of 148 patients), and FISH positivity was found in 52% (54 of 104 patients). No significant associations were found between biomarker status and PFS, OS, and ORR in the treatment-specific analyses. CONCLUSION In contrast with colorectal cancer, and within the limitations of the data set, efficacy parameters did not appear to correlate with K-Ras mutation status or with any of the EGFR-related biomarkers evaluated. Additional exploratory analyses are essential to identify predictive markers and to optimize patient selection for cetuximab therapy in NSCLC.

Cetuximab and first-line taxane/carboplatin chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results of the randomized multicenter phase III trial BMS099.

PURPOSE To evaluate the efficacy of cetuximab plus taxane/carboplatin (TC) as first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS This multicenter, open-label, phase III study enrolled 676 chemotherapy-naïve patients with stage IIIB (pleural effusion) or IV NSCLC, without restrictions by histology or epidermal growth factor receptor expression. Patients were randomly assigned to cetuximab/TC or TC. TC consisted of paclitaxel (225 mg/m(2)) or docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)), at the investigator's discretion, and carboplatin (area under the curve = 6) on day 1 every 3 weeks for < or = six cycles; cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) on day 1, 250 mg/m(2) weekly) was administered until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival assessed by independent radiologic review committee (PFS-IRRC); overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), quality of life (QoL), and safety were key secondary end points. PFS and ORR assessed by investigators were also evaluated. Results Median PFS-IRRC was 4.40 months with cetuximab/TC versus 4.24 months with TC (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.902; 95% CI, 0.761 to 1.069; P = .236). Median OS was 9.69 months with cetuximab/TC versus 8.38 months with TC (HR = 0.890; 95% CI, 0.754 to 1.051; P = .169). ORR-IRRC was 25.7% with cetuximab/TC versus 17.2% with TC (P = .007). The safety profile of this combination was manageable and consistent with its individual components. CONCLUSION The addition of cetuximab to TC did not significantly improve the primary end point, PFS-IRRC. There was significant improvement in ORR by IRRC. The difference in OS favored cetuximab but did not reach statistical significance.

Treatment of accidental intrathecal methotrexate overdose with intrathecal carboxypeptidase G2.

The bacterial enzyme carboxypeptidase G2 (CPDG2) rapidly hydrolyzes methotrexate to inactive metabolites. We administered recombinant CPDG2 (2000 U) intrathecally to seven cancer patients 3 to 9 hours after they had received an accidental overdose of intrathecal methotrexate (median dose = 364 mg; range = 155-600 mg). Four of the seven patients had cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) exchange to remove methotrexate before CPDG2 administration. Immediate symptoms of the methotrexate overdoses included seizures (n = 5), coma (n = 2), and cardiopulmonary compromise (n = 2). Before CPDG2 administration, the median concentrations of methotrexate in CSF were 264 microM (range = 97-510 microM) among patients who had CSF exchange and 8050 microM (range = 2439-16 500 microM) among patients who did not. After intrathecal CPDG2 administration, methotrexate concentrations in CSF declined by more than 98%. All patients recovered completely from the intrathecal methotrexate overdose except for two patients who had memory impairments. Antibodies to CPDG2 were not detected in plasma after treatment with intrathecal CPDG2. Intrathecal CPDG2 is well tolerated, rapidly decreases CSF methotrexate concentrations, and appears to be efficacious for treating accidental intrathecal methotrexate overdoses.

Single-agent rituximab as first-line and maintenance treatment for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma: a phase II trial of the Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and toxicity of first-line single-agent rituximab, followed by re-treatment with rituximab at 6-month intervals, in previously untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-four previously untreated patients with CLL/SLL received rituximab 375 mg/m2 weekly for 4 consecutive weeks. All patients were required to have one or more indications for treatment. Patients with objective response or stable disease continued to receive identical 4-week rituximab courses at 6-month intervals, for a total of four courses. RESULTS: The objective response rate after the first course of rituximab was 51% (4% complete responses). Twenty-eight patients received one or more additional courses of rituximab. At present, the overall response rate is 58%, with 9% complete responses. After a median follow-up of 20 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) time was 18.6 months, and the 1- and 2-year PFS rates were 62% and 49%, respectively. Treatment was well tolerated, with only two episodes of grade 3 to 4 infusion-related toxicity. No cumulative toxicity or opportunistic infections occurred. CONCLUSION: Single-agent rituximab, used at a standard dose and schedule, is active in the first-line treatment of patients with CLL/SLL, producing substantially higher response rates than previously reported in relapsed or refractory patients (51% v 13%, respectively). Re-treatment with rituximab at 6-month intervals is well tolerated. The PFS time of 18.6 months in patients with CLL/SLL seems shorter than the 36- to 40-month median PFSs previously reported with first-line plus maintenance rituximab in patients with follicular lymphoma. Additional follow-up is required to fully assess the impact of this treatment strategy.