ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: EXamining everolimus In a Study of Tuberous sclerosis 3 (EXIST-3) demonstrated significantly reduced seizure frequency (SF) with everolimus vs placebo. In this study, we evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of everolimus for tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC)-associated treatment-refractory seizures. METHODS: After completion of the core phase, patients could enter an open-label extension phase and receive everolimus (target exposure, 3-15 ng/mL) for ≥48 weeks. Efficacy end points included change from baseline in average weekly SF expressed as response rate (RR, ≥50% reduction) and median percentage reduction (PR). RESULTS: Of 366 patients, 361 received everolimus in core/extension phases. The RR was 31% (95% CI, 26.2-36.1; N = 352) at week 18, 46.6% (95% CI, 40.9-52.5; N = 298) at 1 year, and 57.7% (95% CI, 49.7-65.4; N = 163) at 2 years. Median PR in SF was 31.7% (95% CI, 28.5-36.1) at week 18, 46.7% (95% CI, 40.2-54) at 1 year, and 56.9% (95% CI, 50-68.4) at 2 years. Ninety-five patients (26.3%) discontinued everolimus before 2 years; 103 (28.5%) had <2 years of follow-up at study cutoff, and 40% were exposed to everolimus for ≥2 years. An analysis classifying discontinued patients as nonresponders showed an RR of 30.2% (95% CI, 25.5-35.2; N = 361) at week 18, 38.8% (95% CI, 33.7-44.1; N = 358) at 1 year, and 41% (95% CI, 34.6-47.7; N = 229) at 2 years, suggesting sustained benefit over time. The incidence of grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) (any cause) was 40.2%, and 13% discontinued because of AEs (pneumonia [1.7%] and stomatitis [1.4%]). Two deaths were suspected to be treatment-related (pneumonia and septic shock). CONCLUSIONS: Sustained reductions in TSC-associated treatment-refractory seizures over time were achieved with adjunctive everolimus. The safety profile was consistent with the core phase with no new safety concerns. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class IV evidence that long-term everolimus therapy reduces SF in patients with TSC-associated treatment-refractory seizures.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To improve the efficacy of first-line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), additional maintenance chemotherapy may be given after initial induction chemotherapy in patients who did not progress during the initial treatment, rather than waiting for disease progression to administer second-line treatment. Maintenance therapy may consist of an agent that either was or was not present in the induction regimen. The antifolate pemetrexed is efficacious in combination with cisplatin for first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC and has shown efficacy as a maintenance agent in studies in which it was not included in the induction regimen. We designed a phase III study to determine if pemetrexed maintenance therapy improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after cisplatin/pemetrexed induction therapy in patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Furthermore, since evidence suggests expression levels of thymidylate synthase, the primary target of pemetrexed, may be associated with responsiveness to pemetrexed, translational research will address whether thymidylate synthase expression correlates with efficacy outcomes of pemetrexed. METHODS/DESIGN: Approximately 900 patients will receive four cycles of induction chemotherapy consisting of pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) and cisplatin (75 mg/m2) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 who have not progressed during induction therapy will randomly receive (in a 2:1 ratio) one of two double-blind maintenance regimens: pemetrexed (500 mg/m2 on day 1 of a 21-day cycle) plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC. The primary objective is to compare PFS between treatment arms. Secondary objectives include a fully powered analysis of OS, objective tumor response rate, patient-reported outcomes, resource utilization, and toxicity. Tumor specimens for translational research will be obtained from consenting patients before induction treatment, with a second biopsy performed in eligible patients following the induction phase. DISCUSSION: Although using a drug as maintenance therapy that was not used in the induction regimen exposes patients to an agent with a different mechanism of action, evidence suggests that continued use of an agent present in the induction regimen as maintenance therapy enables the identification of patients most likely to benefit from maintenance treatment. TRIAL REGISTRY: Clinicaltrials.gov REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00789373 TRIAL ABBREVIATION: H3E-EW-S124.
