Erlotinib in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial to determine whether the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor erlotinib prolongs survival in non-small-cell lung cancer after the failure of first-line or second-line chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer, with performance status from 0 to 3, were eligible if they had received one or two prior chemotherapy regimens. The patients were stratified according to center, performance status, response to prior chemotherapy, number of prior regimens, and prior platinum-based therapy and were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive oral erlotinib, at a dose of 150 mg daily, or placebo. RESULTS: The median age of the 731 patients who underwent randomization was 61.4 years; 49 percent had received two prior chemotherapy regimens, and 93 percent had received platinum-based chemotherapy. The response rate was 8.9 percent in the erlotinib group and less than 1 percent in the placebo group (P<0.001); the median duration of the response was 7.9 months and 3.7 months, respectively. Progression-free survival was 2.2 months and 1.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.61, adjusted for stratification categories; P<0.001). Overall survival was 6.7 months and 4.7 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.70; P<0.001), in favor of erlotinib. Five percent of patients discontinued erlotinib because of toxic effects. CONCLUSIONS: Erlotinib can prolong survival in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer after first-line or second-line chemotherapy.

Meta-analysis of pemetrexed plus carboplatin doublet safety profile in first-line non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer studies.

OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis compared safety profiles (selected drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events [TEAEs]) of first-line pemetrexed plus carboplatin (PCb) area under the concentration-time curve 5 mg/min•mL (PCb5) or 6 mg/min•mL (PCb6), two widely used regimens in clinical practice for advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: All patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 every 21 days with either of two carboplatin doses for up to 4-6 cycles. Safety profiles of PCb doses were compared using three statistical analysis methods: frequency table analysis (FTA), generalized linear mixed effect model (GLMM), and the propensity score method. Efficacy outcomes of PCb5 and PCb6 regimens were summarized. RESULTS: A total of 486 patients mainly from the US, Europe, and East Asia were included in the analysis; 22% (n = 105) received PCb5 in one trial and 78% (n = 381) received PCb6 in four trials. The FTA comparison demonstrated that PCb5 vs PCb6 was associated with a statistically significantly lower incidence of TEAEs, including all-grade thrombocytopenia, anemia, fatigue, and vomiting, and grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia. In the GLMM analysis, PCb5 patients were numerically less likely to experience all-grade and grade 3/4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. The propensity score regression analysis showed PCb5 group patients were significantly less likely than PCb6 group patients to experience all-grade hematologic TEAEs and grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia and anemia. After applying propensity score 1:1 matching, FTA analysis showed that the PCb5 group had significantly less all-grade and grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities. Overall efficacy outcomes, including overall survival, progression-free survival, and response rate, were similar between the two carboplatin doses. CONCLUSIONS: Acknowledging the limitations of this meta-analysis of five trials, heterogeneous in patient's characteristics and trial designs, the results show that the PCb5 regimen was generally associated with a better safety profile than PCb6 across three statistical approaches, with no apparent impact on survival outcomes.

Gefitinib plus best supportive care in previously treated patients with refractory advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre study (Iressa Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer).

BACKGROUND: This placebo-controlled phase III study investigated the effect on survival of gefitinib as second-line or third-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: 1692 patients who were refractory to or intolerant of their latest chemotherapy regimen were randomly assigned in a ratio of two to one either gefitinib (250 mg/day) or placebo, plus best supportive care. The primary endpoint was survival in the overall population of patients and those with adenocarcinoma. The primary analysis of the population for survival was by intention to treat. This study has been submitted for registration with ClinicalTrials.gov, number 1839IL/709. FINDINGS: 1129 patients were assigned gefitinib and 563 placebo. At median follow-up of 7.2 months, median survival did not differ significantly between the groups in the overall population (5.6 months for gefitinib and 5.1 months for placebo; hazard ratio 0.89 [95% CI 0.77-1.02], p=0.087) or among the 812 patients with adenocarcinoma (6.3 months vs 5.4 months; 0.84 [0.68-1.03], p=0.089). Preplanned subgroup analyses showed significantly longer survival in the gefitinib group than the placebo group for never-smokers (n=375; 0.67 [0.49-0.92], p=0.012; median survival 8.9 vs 6.1 months) and patients of Asian origin (n=342; 0.66 [0.48-0.91], p=0.01; median survival 9.5 vs 5.5 months). Gefitinib was well tolerated, as in previous studies. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with gefitinib was not associated with significant improvement in survival in either coprimary population. There was pronounced heterogeneity in survival outcomes between groups of patients, with some evidence of benefit among never-smokers and patients of Asian origin.

Three-arm randomised controlled phase 2 study comparing pemetrexed and erlotinib to either pemetrexed or erlotinib alone as second-line treatment for never-smokers with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: This randomised controlled phase 2 study compared pemetrexed and erlotinib in combination with either agent alone in terms of efficacy and safety as second-line treatment in a clinically selected population of never-smokers with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients who had failed only one prior chemotherapy regimen and had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) ≤2 were randomised to either: pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus erlotinib 150 mg daily on days 2-14; erlotinib 150 mg daily; or pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle until discontinuation criteria were met. The primary endpoint, progression-free survival (PFS), was analysed using a multivariate Cox model. Firstly, a global comparison across the three arms was performed. If the global null hypothesis was rejected at a two-sided 0.2 significance level, pairwise comparisons of pemetrexed-erlotinib versus erlotinib or pemetrexed were then conducted using the same model. Statistical significance was claimed only if both global and pairwise null hypotheses were rejected at a two-sided 0.05 significance level. FINDINGS: A total of 240 patients (male, 35%; East Asian, 55%; ECOG PS 0-1, 93%) were included. A statistically significant difference in PFS was found across the three arms (global p=0.003), with pemetrexed-erlotinib significantly better than either single agent: HR=0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.40-0.81, p=0.002 versus erlotinib; HR=0.58, 95% CI: 0.39-0.85, p=0.005 versus pemetrexed. Median PFS (95% CI) was 7.4 (4.4, 12.9) months in pemetrexed-erlotinib, 3.8 (2.7, 6.3) months in erlotinib and 4.4 (3.0, 6.0) months in pemetrexed. Safety analyses showed a higher incidence of drug-related grade 3/4 toxicity in pemetrexed-erlotinib (60.0%) than in pemetrexed (28.9%) or erlotinib (12.0%); the majority being neutropenia, anaemia, rash and diarrhoea. INTERPRETATION: Pemetrexed-erlotinib significantly improved PFS compared to either drug alone in this clinically selected population. The combination had more toxicity, but was clinically manageable.

A randomized phase 3 trial comparing pemetrexed/carboplatin and docetaxel/carboplatin as first-line treatment for advanced, nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: This study compared survival without toxicity in patients with advanced, nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer who were treated with first-line pemetrexed/carboplatin or docetaxel/carboplatin. METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, phase 3 trial comprised patients randomized (1:1) to pemetrexed/carboplatin (n = 128) or docetaxel/carboplatin (n = 132). Patients received treatment on day 1 of each 21-day cycle (maximum of six cycles). Treatment included carboplatin (area under the curve = 5 mg/ml × min) and pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2)) or docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)). The primary outcome measure, survival without treatment-emergent grade 3/4 toxicity, was defined as the time from randomization to the first treatment-emergent grade 3/4 adverse event or death and was analyzed using a log-rank test. The analysis population included 106 patients in the pemetrexed/carboplatin (Pem/Carb) group and 105 patients in the docetaxel/carboplatin (Doc/Carb) group. RESULTS: Survival without treatment-emergent grade 3/4 toxicity was significantly longer in the Pem/Carb versus the Doc/Carb group (log-rank p < 0.001; median survival without treatment-emergent grade 3/4 toxicity: 3.2 versus 0.7 months; adjusted hazard ratio = 0.45 [95% confidence interval: 0.34-0.61]). Overall survival was similar in the Pem/Carb versus the Doc/Carb group (log-rank p = 0.934; median survival: 14.9 versus 14.7 months; adjusted hazard ratio = 0.93 [95% confidence interval: 0.66-1.32]). Compared with the Doc/Carb group, fewer patients in the Pem/Carb group experienced grade 3/4 drug-related, treatment-emergent neutropenia, leukopenia, or febrile neutropenia, and more patients experienced anemia and thrombocytopenia. There were three study drug-related deaths during treatment in each group. CONCLUSIONS: The favorable benefit-to-risk profile of pemetrexed/carboplatin suggests that pemetrexed/carboplatin is an appropriate first-line treatment option for chemonaïve patients with advanced, nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.

Addition of the neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist aprepitant to standard antiemetic therapy improves control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in Latin America.

BACKGROUND: Aprepitant is a novel neurokinin 1 (NK(1)) antagonist that has been shown to improve control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) when added to a standard antiemetic regimen of a 5-hydroxytriptamine-3 antagonist plus a corticosteroid. The authors sought to evaluate further the efficacy and tolerability of aprepitant plus standard therapy in a large clinical trial. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-groups, Phase III study. Patients with cancer who were scheduled to receive treatment with high-dose cisplatin chemotherapy were randomized to receive 1 of 2 treatment regimens; the standard therapy group received intravenous ondansetron 32 mg and oral dexamethasone 20 mg on Day 1, and oral dexamethasone 8 mg twice daily on Days 2-4. The aprepitant group received oral aprepitant 125 mg, intravenous ondansetron 32 mg, and oral dexamethasone 12 mg on Day 1; oral aprepitant 80 mg and oral dexamethasone 8 mg once daily on Days 2-3; and oral dexamethasone 8 mg on Day 4. Patients recorded episodes of emesis, use of rescue therapy, and severity of nausea in a diary. A modified intent-to-treat approach was used to analyze the efficacy data. The primary endpoint was complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy) during the 5-day period postcisplatin. Treatment comparisons were made using logistic regression models, and reported adverse events and physical and laboratory assessments were used to assess tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 523 patients were evaluated for efficacy, and 568 patients were evaluated for safety. During the 5 days after chemotherapy, the percentages of patients who achieved a complete response were 62.7% in the aprepitant group (163 of 260 patients) versus 43.3% in the standard therapy group (114 of 263 patients; P < 0.001). For Day 1, the complete response rates were 82.8% for the aprepitant group and 68.4% for the standard therapy group (P < 0.001); for Days 2-5, the complete response rates were 67.7% in the aprepitant group and 46.8% in the standard therapy group (P < 0.001). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar between the 2 treatment groups (72.8% in the aprepitant group [206 of 283 patients] and 72.6% in the standard therapy group [207 of 285 patients]) as were rates of serious adverse events, discontinuations due to adverse events, and deaths. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cancer who are receiving high-dose cisplatin-based chemotherapy, therapy consisting of aprepitant (125 mg on Day 1 and 80 mg on Days 2-3) plus a standard regimen of ondansetron and dexamethasone provided superior antiemetic protection compared with standard therapy alone and was generally well tolerated.

Phase III study of carboplatin and paclitaxel alone or with sorafenib in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE This phase III, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial assessed the efficacy and safety of sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor, in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel in chemotherapy-naïve patients with unresectable stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Nine hundred twenty-six patients were randomly assigned to receive up to six 21-day cycles of carboplatin area under the curve 6 and paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) (CP) on day 1, followed by either sorafenib 400 mg twice a day (n = 464, arm A) or placebo (n = 462, arm B) on days 2 to 19. The maintenance phase after CP consisted of sorafenib 400 mg or placebo twice a day. The primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included progression-free survival and tumor response. RESULTS Overall demographics were balanced between arms; 223 patients (24%) had squamous cell histology. On the basis of a planned interim analysis, median OS was 10.7 months in arm A and 10.6 months in arm B (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.41; P = .915). The study was terminated after the interim analysis concluded that the study was highly unlikely to meet its primary end point. A prespecified exploratory analysis revealed that patients with squamous cell histology had greater mortality in arm A than in arm B (HR = 1.85; 95% CI, 1.22 to 2.81). Main grade 3 or 4 sorafenib-related toxicities included rash (8.4%), hand-foot skin reaction (7.8%), and diarrhea (3.5%). CONCLUSION No clinical benefit was observed from adding sorafenib to CP chemotherapy as first-line treatment for NSCLC(AU)