A Phase III Randomized Study Comparing a Chemotherapy with Cisplatin and Etoposide to a Etoposide Regimen without Cisplatin for Patients with Extensive Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In a literature meta-analysis, we showed survival benefits for regimens including cisplatin [hazard ratio (HR) 0.61; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.57-0.66] and for those including etoposide (HR 0.65; 0.61-0.69). That benefit was mainly observed when etoposide alone or in combination with cisplatin was included in the chemotherapy regimens. Our objective was to determine if chemotherapy with both drugs improves survival in comparison to a non-platinum regimen with etoposide. METHODS: Extensive small-cell lung cancer patients were randomized between cisplatin-etoposide (CE) and ifosfamide + etoposide + epirubicin regimen (IVE) between 2000 and 2013. RESULTS: 176 and 170 eligible patients were allocated to CE and IVE (315 deaths were required before analysis), respectively. Objective response rates were not significantly different: 60% with CE and 59% with IVE. No statistically significant difference in median survival and 1-year and 2-year was observed with rates of 9.6 months, 31 and 5% for CE and 10 months, 39 and 9% for IVE, respectively. HR was 0.84 (95% CI 0.68-1.05, p = 0.16). Only two prognostic factors for survival were retained in multivariate analysis: sex with HR = 0.69 (95% CI 0.49-0.97, p = 0.03) and performance status with HR = 0.53 (95% CI 0.49-0.97, p < 0.0001). After adjustment for these prognostic factors, HR for survival was 0.83 (95% CI 0.65-1.08, p = 0.17). There was more thrombopenia in the CE regimen and more leukopenia with IVE. CONCLUSION: Combination of CE failed to improve survival in comparison to an etoposide-containing regimen without cisplatin. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00658580?term=ELCWP+01994&rank=1, identifier NCT00658580.

Prospective Validation Obtained in a Similar Group of Patients and with Similar High Throughput Biological Tests Failed to Confirm Signatures for Prediction of Response to Chemotherapy and Survival in Advanced NSCLC: A Prospective Study from the European Lung Cancer Working Party.

AIM: Cisplatin doublets are standard 1st line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), without accurate predictor for response and survival, but important toxicity. Our aims were to identify predictive (for response) and prognostic (for survival) biological signatures in patients with NSCLC using messenger RNAs (mRNA) and miRNA expression. METHODS: Patients with pathologically proven untreated NSCLC, receiving 1st line cisplatin-vinorelbine and with an assessable lesion were eligible. A bronchial biopsy was lysed into Tripure Isolation Reagent on ice, snap frozen, and stored at -80°C. mRNA expression was analyzed using microarrays Agilent Technologies. miRNA expression was assessed using TaqMan Low Density Arrays (756 human miR panel, Applied Biosystems). Validation was performed by RT-PCR on the selected genes. Survival was measured from the registration date and response assessed by WHO criteria. RESULTS: Biopsies for transcriptomic analyses were obtained from 60 consecutive patients. No statistically significant differences were observed according to the main clinical characteristics, response rate (43 vs. 41%) or survival (median 25 vs. 29 months) between derivation and validation sets. In the derivation set (n = 38 patients), two mRNA and one miRNA predictive signatures for response were obtained. One mRNA and one miRNA prognostic signatures were derived from the first set, allowing an adequate distinction of patients with good and poor overall and progression-free survivals. None of these signatures could be validated in the validation set (n = 22 patients). CONCLUSION: In this prospective study with advanced NSCLC treated with cisplatin-vinorelbine, we were able to derive with high throughput techniques predictive and prognostic signatures based on transcriptomic analyses. However, these results could not be reproduced in an independent validation set. The role of miRNA and mRNA as predictive or prognostic factors remains a research topic and the use of high throughput technology in that context questionable. The ClinicalTrials.gov study identifier is NCT00864266 (www.clinicaltrials.gov).

An ELCWP phase III trial comparing ifosfamide and cisplatin regimens in advanced NSCLC.

AIM: While meta-analyses and clinical trials show improved survival in advanced NSCLC treated with platinum-containing chemotherapy, there are few data concerning front-line platinum-free ifosfamide-based regimens. We aimed to compare cisplatin-based chemotherapy to ifosfamide-gemcitabine (IG) with pre-defined second-line docetaxel. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 693 Untreated advanced inoperable NSCLC cases were randomised to either GIP (gemcitabine, ifosfamide, cisplatin), DP (docetaxel, cisplatin) or IG. Primary outcome was overall survival. RESULTS: Median age of the patients was 58 years with a predominance of males (75%), adenocarcinoma (56%), Karnofsky PS 80-100 (77%) and stage-IV disease (81%). Median survival times were 8.7, 8.8 and 8.3 months for IG, GIP and DP (p=0.79). GIP presented with (p<0.05) greater neutropenia, thrombopenia, vomiting, while greater cardiotoxicity, diarrhea, peripheral neuropathy were observed for DP and encephalopathy for IG. CONCLUSION: In advanced NSCLC, cisplatin-based CT is not superior to a platinum-free regimen (ifosfamide-gemcitabine) with a favourable toxicity profile.