Amisulpride prevents nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remain significant clinical problems, especially in the delayed phase (24-120 h after chemotherapy). Amisulpride is a dopamine D2/D3-receptor antagonist previously shown to be an effective intravenous antiemetic. We conducted a randomised, double-blind study to characterise the dose response of oral amisulpride in delayed phase CINV. METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving cisplatin ≥ 70 mg/m2 or an anthracycline-cyclophosphamide regimen for breast cancer received, on day 1, 20 mg amisulpride and 8-16 mg ondansetron intravenously followed, once daily on days 2-4, by 10, 20 or 40 mg oral amisulpride or placebo. A control group receiving standard three-drug prophylaxis was enrolled for assay sensitivity purposes. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR), defined as no emesis or rescue medication use, in the delayed phase. RESULTS: Three hundred eighteen subjects were evaluable per protocol. CR rate (24-120 h) was 20% with placebo and 46% with 10 mg amisulpride (p = 0.006 after multiplicity adjustment); in the three-drug control group, it was 59%. Emesis, nausea and 0-120-h CR rate were significantly improved with 10 mg amisulpride compared to placebo. Higher doses of amisulpride were not more effective than 10 mg. In patients with acute phase CR, delayed phase CR rate was 44% for placebo, 75% for 10 mg amisulpride (p = 0.022) and 70% for the 3-drug control. No significant differences were seen between groups in safety parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Amisulpride 10 mg orally is safe and superior to placebo at preventing delayed CINV caused by highly emetogenic chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01857232.

Long-term survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with atezolizumab versus docetaxel: Results from the randomised phase III OAK study.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency for previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer based on OAK-a randomised, phase III trial that showed significantly improved survival with atezolizumab versus docetaxel regardless of PD-L1 expression. With longer follow-up, we summarised the characteristics of long-term survivors (LTSs). METHODS: In OAK (NCT02008227), patients were randomised 1:1 to receive atezolizumab or docetaxel until loss of clinical benefit or disease progression, respectively. Overall survival was evaluated after a 26-month minimum follow-up, including in patient subgroups defined by best overall response (BOR). LTSs were defined as patients who lived ≥24 months since randomisation. Non-LTSs died within 24 months, and patients censored before 24 months were excluded from the analysis. The baseline characteristics, including biomarkers, BOR, subsequent non-protocol therapy (NPT) and safety, are reported. RESULTS: Survival benefit with atezolizumab was observed across all patient subgroups defined by BOR. More atezolizumab-treated patients were LTSs versus those treated with docetaxel (28% versus 18%). Most atezolizumab responders were LTSs (77%) versus only 48% of docetaxel responders. However, 21% of atezolizumab-arm LTSs had progressive disease (PD) as BOR, and more atezolizumab-arm LTSs than non-LTSs continued treatment post-PD. Fifty-two percent of docetaxel-arm LTSs received immunotherapy as subsequent NPT. Despite extended treatment duration in atezolizumab-arm LTSs (median, 18 months), atezolizumab was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: After >2 years of follow-up, atezolizumab continued to provide durable survival benefit versus docetaxel, with tolerable safety. Atezolizumab-arm LTSs were enriched for patients with high PD-L1 expression and included PD-L1-negative patients. Long-term survival was not limited to responders.

Everolimus with paclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line treatment for metastatic large-cell neuroendocrine lung carcinoma: a multicenter phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung (LCNEC) is a rare disease with poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Neuroendocrine tumors frequently show overactivation of the mTOR pathway. Based on the good activity of the mTOR inhibitor everolimus in different types of neuroendocrine tumors and the results of a previous phase I trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of everolimus in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel as upfront treatment for patients with advanced LCNEC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter phase II trial chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IV LCNEC received 5 mg everolimus daily combined with paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC 5 every 3 weeks for a maximum of four cycles followed by maintenance everolimus 5 mg daily until progression. Efficacy parameters were determined based on central radiologic assessment. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients with a mean age of 62 ±9 years and a predominance of male (71%) smokers (98%) were enrolled in 10 German centers. The overall response rate was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI] 31%-60%), the disease control rate 74% (CI 59%-85%), the median progression-free survival 4.4 (CI 3.2-6) months and the median overall survival 9.9 (CI 6.9-11.7) months. The progression-free survival rate at 3 months (primary end point) was 76% (CI 64%-88%) according to Kaplan-Meier. Grade-3/4 toxicities occurred in 51% of patients and mainly consisted of general physical health deterioration (8%), cytopenias (24%), infections (10%) and gastrointestinal problems (8%). Typical everolimus-related adverse events, like stomatitis, rash and ocular problems occurred only in a minority of patients (<15%) and were exclusively of grade 1-2. CONCLUSION: Everolimus in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel is an effective and well-tolerated first-line treatment for patients with metastatic LCNEC. REGISTERED CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBERS: EudraCT number 2010-022273-34, NCT01317615.

Open-label, randomized study of individualized, pharmacokinetically (PK)-guided dosing of paclitaxel combined with carboplatin or cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

BACKGROUND: Variable chemotherapy exposure may cause toxicity or lack of efficacy. This study was initiated to validate pharmacokinetically (PK)-guided paclitaxel dosing in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to avoid supra- or subtherapeutic exposure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed, advanced NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive up to 6 cycles of 3-weekly carboplatin AUC 6 or cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) either with standard paclitaxel at 200 mg/m(2) (arm A) or PK-guided dosing of paclitaxel (arm B). In arm B, initial paclitaxel dose was adjusted to body surface area, age, sex, and subsequent doses were guided by neutropenia and previous-cycle paclitaxel exposure [time above a plasma concentration of 0.05 µM (Tc>0.05)] determined from a single blood sample on day 2. The primary end point was grade 4 neutropenia; secondary end points included neuropathy, radiological response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Among 365 patients randomly assigned, grade 4 neutropenia was similar in both arms (19% versus 16%; P = 0.10). Neuropathy grade ≥2 (38% versus 23%, P < 0.001) and grade ≥3 (9% versus 2%, P < 0.001) was significantly lower in arm B, independent of the platinum drug used. The median final paclitaxel dose was significantly lower in arm B (199 versus 150 mg/m(2), P < 0.001). Response rate was similar in arms A and B (31% versus 27%, P = 0.405), as was adjusted median PFS [5.5 versus 4.9 months, hazard ratio (HR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91-1.49, P = 0.228] and OS (10.1 versus 9.5 months, HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.81-1.37, P = 0.682). CONCLUSION: PK-guided dosing of paclitaxel does not improve severe neutropenia, but reduces paclitaxel-associated neuropathy and thereby improves the benefit-risk profile in patients with advanced NSCLC. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: NCT01326767 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01326767).

A randomized phase II study of the telomerase inhibitor imetelstat as maintenance therapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Continuation or 'switch' maintenance therapy is commonly used in patients with advancd non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we evaluated the efficacy of the telomerase inhibitor, imetelstat, as switch maintenance therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The primary end point of this open-label, randomized phase II study was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients with non-progressive, advanced NSCLC after platinum-based doublet (first-line) chemotherapy (with or without bevacizumab), any histology, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1 were eligible. Randomization was 2 : 1 in favor of imetelstat, administered at 9.4 mg/kg on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle, or observation. Telomere length (TL) biomarker exploratory analysis was carried out in tumor tissue by quantitative PCR (qPCR) and telomerase fluorescence in situ hybridization. RESULTS: Of 116 patients enrolled, 114 were evaluable. Grade 3/4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were more frequent with imetelstat. Median PFS was 2.8 and 2.6 months for imetelstat-treated versus control [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.844; 95% CI 0.54-1.31; P = 0.446]. Median survival time favored imetelstat (14.3 versus 11.5 months), although not significantly (HR = 0.68; 95% CI 0.41-1.12; P = 0.129). Exploratory analysis demonstrated a trend toward longer median PFS (HR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.14-1.3; P = 0.124) and overall survival (OS; HR = 0.41; 95% CI 0.11-1.46; P = 0.155) in imetelstat-treated patients with short TL, but no improvement in median PFS and OS in patients with long TL (HR = 0.86; 95% CI 0.39-1.88; and HR = 0.51; 95% CI 0.2-1.28; P = 0.145). CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance imetelstat failed to improve PFS in advanced NSCLC patients responding to first-line therapy. There was a trend toward a improvement in median PFS and OS in patients with short TL. Short TL as a predictive biomarker will require further investigation for the clinical development of imetelstat.

A phase II randomized study evaluating the addition of iniparib to gemcitabine plus cisplatin as first-line therapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Iniparib is a novel anticancer agent initially considered a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, but subsequently shown to act via non-selective protein modification through cysteine adducts. This randomized phase II study investigated the addition of iniparib to gemcitabine-cisplatin in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed stage IV NSCLC were randomized 2 : 1 to receive gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2), days 1/8) and cisplatin (75 mg/m(2), day 1) with [gemcitabine/cisplatin/iniparib (GCI)] or without [gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC)] iniparib (5.6 mg/kg, days 1/4/8/11) every 3 weeks for six cycles. The primary end point was the overall response rate (ORR). Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. The study was not designed for formal efficacy comparison, the control arm being to benchmark results against the literature. RESULTS: One hundred and nineteen patients were randomized (39 GC and 80 GCI). More GCI patients were male (80% GCI and 67% GC) and had PS 0 (61% GCI and 49% GC). The ORR was 25.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 13.0%-42.1%] with GC versus 20.0% (95% CI 11.9%-30.4%) with GCI, which did not allow rejection of the null hypothesis (ORR with GCI ≤20%; P = 0.545). Median PFS was 4.3 (95% CI 2.8-5.6) months with GC and 5.7 (95% CI 4.6-6.6) months with GCI (hazard ratio 0.89, 95% CI 0.56-1.40). Median OS was 8.5 (95% CI 5.5 to not reached) months with GC, and 12.0 (95% CI 8.9-17.1) months with GCI (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.48-1.27). More GCI patients received second-line treatment (51% GC and 68% GCI). Toxicity was similar in the two arms. Grade 3-4 toxicities included asthenia (28% GC and 8% GCI), nausea (3% GC and 14% GCI), and decreased appetite (10% in each). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of iniparib to GC did not improve ORR over GC alone. The GCI safety profile was comparable to GC alone. Imbalances in PS and gender distribution may have impacted study results regarding PFS and OS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier NCT01086254.

Tasisulam sodium (LY573636 sodium) as third-line treatment in patients with unresectable, metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase-II study.

INTRODUCTION: Tasisulam sodium (hereafter referred to as tasisulam) is a novel anticancer compound that induces apoptosis and exhibits antiangiogenesis activity in a broad range of cancer models, including non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Tasisulam was administered as a 2-hour infusion every 21 days as third-line treatment in patients with advanced (stage IIIB/IV) NSCLC. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients received a Cmax target dose of 420 µg/ml. Median time to progression was 3.12 months, median progression-free survival was 2.69 months, and median overall survival was 8.48 months. There were no objective responses; 43.8% of patients achieved stable disease. A high rate of grade-4 hematologic toxicity in the first 30 patients led to exploration of a lower Cmax target dose of 380 µg/ml. The rate of grade-4 hematologic toxicity (thrombocytopenia and/or neutropenia) at the 380-µg/ml dose (n = 20) was 20% versus 34% at the 420-µg/ml dose. CONCLUSIONS: Tasisulam has only modest activity as a third-line treatment of patients with unresectable/metastatic NSCLC. The high rate of grade-4 hematologic toxicity observed with this highly albumin- bound compound in this patient population provided challenges for fixed Cmax-based dosing. Alternative dosing methods, including varying the Cmax target dose by predose albumin, are under investigation in other studies.

Prognostic factors in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: data from the phase III FLEX study.

The FLEX study demonstrated that the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the FLEX intention to treat (ITT) population, we investigated the prognostic significance of particular baseline characteristics. Individual patient data from the treatment arms of the ITT population of the FLEX study were combined. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were used to investigate variables with potential prognostic value. The ITT population comprised 1125 patients. In the univariable analysis, longer median survival times were apparent for females compared with males (12.7 vs 9.3 months); patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 compared with 1 compared with 2 (13.5 vs 10.6 vs 5.9 months); never smokers compared with former smokers compared with current smokers (14.6 vs 11.1 vs 9.0); Asians compared with Caucasians (19.5 vs 9.6 months); patients with adenocarcinoma compared with squamous cell carcinoma (12.4 vs 9.3 months) and those with metastases to one site compared with two sites compared with three or more sites (12.4 months vs 9.8 months vs 6.4 months). Age (<65 vs ≥65 years), tumor stage (IIIB with pleural effusion vs IV) and percentage of tumor cells expressing EGFR (<40% vs ≥40%) were not identified as possible prognostic factors in relation to survival time. In multivariable analysis, a stepwise selection procedure identified age (<65 vs ≥65 years), gender, ECOG PS, smoking status, region, tumor histology, and number of organs involved as independent factors of prognostic value. In summary, in patients with advanced NSCLC enrolled in the FLEX study, and consistent with previous analyses, particular patient and disease characteristics at baseline were shown to be independent factors of prognostic value. The FLEX study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798.

Biomarker analysis in a phase III study of pemetrexed-carboplatin versus etoposide-carboplatin in chemonaive patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Clinical results of a randomized phase III trial comparing pemetrexed-carboplatin (PC) with etoposide-carboplatin (EC) in chemonaive patients with extensive-stage disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) resulted in trial closure for futility; biomarker analyses using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are described herein. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thymidylate synthase (TS), excision repair cross complementing-1 (ERCC1), glycinamide ribonucleotide formyltransferase (GARFT), and folylpolyglutamate synthetase (FPGS) were investigated using IHC (n=395). SNPs were genotyped for TS, FPGS, γ-glutamyl hydrolase (GGH), methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR), folate receptor-α FR-α, and solute carrier 19A1 (SLC19A1; n=611). RESULTS: None of the IHC biomarkers (folate pathway or ERCC1) were found to be predictive or prognostic in this setting. rs2838952 (adjacent to SLC19A1) had significant treatment-independent association with overall survival (OS; hazard ratio 0.590, P=0.01). Nine GGH-associated SNPs interacted with rs3788205 (SLC19A1) for OS on the PC arm. rs12379987 (FPGS) interacted with treatment for OS (interaction P=0.036). CONCLUSION: Potential ERCC1 and folate pathway IHC biomarkers failed to predict outcome in either study arm in ED-SCLC. SNPs in regions including FPGS and SLC19A1 and interacting SNPs in GGH and SLC19A1 were associated with differences in OS; however, none of these SNPs predicted for greater survival with PC over EC.

A phase II double-blind study to investigate efficacy and safety of two doses of the triple angiokinase inhibitor BIBF 1120 in patients with relapsed advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: To assess the efficacy, safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of BIBF 1120 in patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic relapsed NSCLC in whom first- or second-line platinum-based chemotherapy failed were randomly allocated to daily 250 mg BIBF 1120 b.i.d. or 150 mg BIBF 1120 b.i.d. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective tumour response (RECIST). Incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) were reported. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients received BIBF 1120. Median PFS was 6.9 weeks, with no significant difference between treatment arms. Median overall survival (OS) was 21.9 weeks. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 0-1 patients (n = 56) had a median PFS of 11.6 weeks and a median OS of 37.7 weeks. Tumour stabilisation was achieved in 46% of patients (ECOG 0-1 patients: 59%), with one confirmed partial response (250 mg b.i.d.). Most commonly reported drug-related AEs were nausea (57.5%), diarrhoea (47.9%), vomiting (42.5%), anorexia (28.8%), abdominal pain (13.7%) and reversible alanine transaminase (13.7%) and aspartate aminotransferase elevations (9.6%). BIBF 1120 displayed dose-linear pharmacokinetic characteristics. CONCLUSION: Continuous treatment with BIBF 1120 was well tolerated, with no difference in efficacy between treatment arms. PFS and objective response with single-agent treatment in advanced disease warrants further exploration.

Overall survival with cisplatin-gemcitabine and bevacizumab or placebo as first-line therapy for nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomised phase III trial (AVAiL).

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab, the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agent, provides clinical benefit when combined with platinum-based chemotherapy in first-line advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. We report the final overall survival (OS) analysis from the phase III AVAiL trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 1043) received cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) and gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) for up to six cycles plus bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg (n = 345), bevacizumab 15 mg/kg (n = 351) or placebo (n = 347) every 3 weeks until progression. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); OS was a secondary end point. RESULTS: Significant PFS prolongation with bevacizumab compared with placebo was maintained with longer follow-up {hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] 0.75 (0.64-0.87), P = 0.0003 and 0.85 (0.73-1.00), P = 0.0456} for the 7.5 and 15 mg/kg groups, respectively. Median OS was >13 months in all treatment groups; nevertheless, OS was not significantly increased with bevacizumab [HR (95% CI) 0.93 (0.78-1.11), P = 0.420 and 1.03 (0.86-1.23), P = 0.761] for the 7.5 and 15 mg/kg groups, respectively, versus placebo. Most patients ( approximately 62%) received multiple lines of poststudy treatment. Updated safety results are consistent with those previously reported. CONCLUSIONS: Final analysis of AVAiL confirms the efficacy of bevacizumab when combined with cisplatin-gemcitabine. The PFS benefit did not translate into a significant OS benefit, possibly due to high use of efficacious second-line therapies.

Prognostic and predictive factors in a randomized phase III trial comparing cisplatin-pemetrexed versus cisplatin-gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Baseline patient and disease characteristics are investigated in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in an effort to predict response to treatment and optimize patients' outcomes. Histology has recently been identified in multiple NSCLC phase III trials as a predictive factor for survival in patients receiving pemetrexed regimens. METHODS: Cox-adjusted models were used to further analyze a randomized phase III study in 1725 chemonaive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) of zero or one who received cisplatin plus pemetrexed (CP; C, 75 mg/m(2) and P, 500 mg/m(2)) or cisplatin plus gemcitabine (CG; C, 75 mg/m(2) and G, 1250 mg/m(2)) every 21 days. RESULTS: Histology was confirmed to be predictive of CP efficacy and may also be prognostic. Gender, ethnicity, disease stage, smoking status, and PS were not predictive in either treatment arm but were shown to be prognostic in the nonsquamous population, consistent with the results in the overall NSCLC population. CONCLUSIONS: NSCLC histology significantly predicts efficacy outcomes for patients receiving pemetrexed. Several other factors are prognostic for the overall study population as well as a subset of patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC.

Randomised phase II study of ASA404 combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel in previously untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

ASA404 (5,6-dimethylxanthenone-4-acetic acid or DMXAA) is a small-molecule tumour-vascular disrupting agent (Tumour-VDA). This randomised phase II study evaluated ASA404 plus standard therapy of carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with histologically confirmed stage IIIb or IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not previously treated with chemotherapy. Patients were randomised to receive

Phase I/II study of a 3 weekly oral taxane (DJ-927) in patients with recurrent, advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: A phase I/II study was performed to assess the efficacy and toxicity of a new oral taxane in patients with recurrent, advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who were treated with one prior, taxane free chemotherapy regimen, were eligible for this study. A single oral dose of DJ-927 (27 mg/m) was given every 3 weeks. In case of good tolerance, one dose escalation to 35 mg/m was allowed. Response and toxicity were measured and plasma pharmacokinetic analysis was performed during the first course. RESULTS: From October 2004 to September 2005, 36 patients gave informed consent and 34 received medication. The mean age was 58 years (range, 33-75 years). The majority of patients were pretreated with a combination of cisplatin and gemcitabine. Median interval between end of first treatment and the registration of this study was 7 months (range, 0.8-22 months). Twelve patients died on study of which eight due to disease progression. In four patients with preexisting cardiac disease, toxicity led to cardiac worsening and subsequent death. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria were neutropenia in 18 patients (53%), anemia in six patients (18%), nausea and fatigue in two patients (6%), febrile neutropenia and neurotoxicity in one patient (3%). The overall response rate for all patients was 5.6% (Confidence Interval [CI] 0.7-18.7%). The percentage of patients with stabilization for >6 weeks was 47%. The median time to progression was 97 days (CI: 47-167 days) and the median survival time was 120 days (CI: 68-222 days) for the ITT group. Since only a minority of patients (3) tolerated the higher drug dose we omitted this dose level because of hematological toxicity. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed that the median area under the curve (t = 0-168 hours) was 1752 +/- 1355 ngr/ml/h and the half-life was 167 +/- 77 hours. CONCLUSION: When administered once every 3 weeks, this oral taxane formulation of DJ-927 was well-absorbed with a long terminal half-life of 167 +/- 77 hour. DJ-927 has antitumor activity against Non-small Cell Lung Cancer when given as second-line monotherapy (overall response rate in 5.6%; CI 0.7-18.7%). Ten patients experienced SD for more than 8 weeks. Different types of dose administration (metronomic dosing) or combination with other cytotoxic agents should be considered in future studies.

Phase III trial comparing paclitaxel poliglumex vs docetaxel in the second-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer.

Paclitaxel poliglumex (PPX), a macromolecule drug conjugate linking paclitaxel to polyglutamic acid, reduces systemic exposure to peak concentrations of free paclitaxel. Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had received one prior platinum-based chemotherapy received 175 or 210 mg m(-2) PPX or 75 mg m(-2) docetaxel. The study enrolled 849 previously treated NSCLC patients with advanced disease. Median survival (6.9 months in both arms, hazard ratio=1.09, P=0.257), 1-year survival (PPX=25%, docetaxel=29%, P=0.134), and time to progression (PPX=2 months, docetaxel=2.6 months, P=0.075) were similar between treatment arms. Paclitaxel poliglumex was associated with significantly less grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (P<0.001) and febrile neutropenia (P=0.006). Grade 3 or 4 neuropathy (P<0.001) was more common in the PPX arm. Patients receiving PPX had less alopecia and did not receive routine premedications. More patients discontinued due to adverse events in the PPX arm compared to the docetaxel arm (34 vs 16%, P<0.001). Paclitaxel poliglumex and docetaxel produced similar survival results but had different toxicity profiles. Compared with docetaxel, PPX had less febrile neutropenia and less alopecia, shorter infusion times, and elimination of routine use of medications to prevent hypersensitivity reactions. Paclitaxel poliglumex at a dose of 210 mg m(-2) resulted in increased neurotoxicity compared with docetaxel.

Comparison of an aprepitant regimen with a multiple-day ondansetron regimen, both with dexamethasone, for antiemetic efficacy in high-dose cisplatin treatment.

BACKGROUND: We compared an aprepitant regimen with a control regimen of ondansetron + dexamethasone given for 4 days. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients scheduled to receive cisplatin > or =70 mg/m(2) were randomized to either the aprepitant regimen (aprepitant, ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; aprepitant and dexamethasone on days 2-3; dexamethasone on day 4) or control regimen (ondansetron + dexamethasone on days 1-4). Patients recorded vomiting, nausea and rescue therapy use. The primary end point was complete response (no vomiting and no use of rescue therapy) in the overall phase (days 1-5 post-cisplatin). RESULTS: Complete response rates were higher in the aprepitant than control group in the overall (72% versus 61%; P = 0.003), acute (day 1; 88% versus 79%; P = 0.005) and delayed phases (days 2-5; 74% versus 63%; P = 0.004), as were rates of no vomiting (overall 77% versus 62%, P < or = 0.001; acute 89% versus 81%, P = 0.004; delayed 79% versus 64%, P < or = 0.001). Rates of no rescue therapy were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with an antiemetic regimen in which ondansetron + dexamethasone were given for 4 days, the aprepitant regimen was superior in the acute, delayed and overall phases of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The aprepitant regimen should be considered a new standard of antiemetic therapy for cisplatin-treated patients. www.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NTC00090207.

Efficacy of a toxicity-adjusted topotecan therapy in recurrent small cell lung cancer.

The present prospective multicentre trial investigated whether topotecan, given at a starting dose of 1.25 mg.m(-2) with individual dose adjustment, can improve safety in patients with relapsed/refractory small cell lung cancer without loss of efficacy. Patients received topotecan intravenously on days 1-5, every 21 days, for up to six courses. In the absence of relevant haematotoxicities, topotecan was increased to 1.5 mg.m(-2) and reduced to 1.0 mg.m(-2) in case of severe haematotoxicities. Of 170 recruited patients, 73.2% had stage IV disease and 63.4% had platinum-containing pre-treatment. Patients received a total of 521 courses. In 72.6% of those courses, the dose remained at 1.25 mg.m(-2); in 9.1% it was reduced and in 18.3% it increased. Overall response rate was 14.1% including one complete response; 28.8% had stable disease. Median duration of response was 13.6 weeks and median survival was 23.4 weeks. Clinical benefit was obvious for sensitive as well as for refractory patients. Haematotoxicity of grade 3 or 4 was clearly lower compared with the standard dose of 1.5 mg.m(-2). In conclusion, topotecan at a dose of 1.25 mg.m(-2) appears to be as effective as the dose of 1.5 mg.m(-2), but with reduced toxicity. Since patients with recurrent small cell lung cancer have a poor prognosis, they benefit especially from good tolerability.

Second-line (post-study) chemotherapy received by patients treated in the phase III trial of pemetrexed plus cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in malignant pleural mesothelioma.

BACKGROUND: A phase III trial in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma demonstrated a survival advantage for pemetrexed plus cisplatin compared with single-agent cisplatin. Because post-study chemotherapy (PSC) may have influenced the outcome of the trial, we examined its use and association with survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty-four patients from the pemetrexed plus cisplatin arm and 105 patients from the single-agent cisplatin arm received PSC. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were compared by treatment groups, and by PSC and non-PSC subgroups. RESULTS: The percentage of patients receiving PSC was imbalanced between the treatment arms. Fewer pemetrexed plus cisplatin treated patients received PSC (37.2% versus 47.3%). A multiple regression analysis performed in this trial showed that PSC had a statistically significant correlation with prolonged survival (P <0.01), adjusting for baseline prognostic factors and treatment intervention. The adjusted hazard ratio for PSC over non-PSC subgroups was 0.56 (confidence interval 0.44-0.72). CONCLUSIONS: PSC in malignant pleural mesothelioma was significantly associated with prolonged survival. It is not known whether the reduced risk of death was associated with PSC or whether patients who had prolonged survival tended to receive more PSC. The pemetrexed plus cisplatin treatment group had a statistically significant survival advantage even though fewer patients from that arm of the trial received PSC. The potentially beneficial role of PSC should be assessed in prospective trials.

Phase III study of matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor prinomastat in non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) degrade extracellular proteins and facilitate tumor growth, invasion, metastasis, and angiogenesis. This trial was undertaken to determine the effect of prinomastat, an inhibitor of selected MMPs, on the survival of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), when given in combination with gemcitabine-cisplatin chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients were randomly assigned to receive prinomastat 15 mg or placebo twice daily orally continuously, in combination with gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 day 1, every 21 days for up to six cycles. The planned sample size was 420 patients. RESULTS: Study results at an interim analysis and lack of efficacy in another phase III trial prompted early closure of this study. There were 362 patients randomized (181 on prinomastat and 181 on placebo). One hundred thirty-four patients had stage IIIB disease with T4 primary tumor, 193 had stage IV disease, and 34 had recurrent disease (one enrolled patient was ineligible with stage IIIA disease). Overall response rates for the two treatment arms were similar (27% for prinomastat v 26% for placebo; P = .81). There was no difference in overall survival or time to progression; for prinomastat versus placebo patients, the median overall survival times were 11.5 versus 10.8 months (P = .82), 1-year survival rates were 43% v 38% (P = .45), and progression-free survival times were 6.1 v 5.5 months (P = .11), respectively. The toxicities of prinomastat were arthralgia, stiffness, and joint swelling. Treatment interruption was required in 38% of prinomastat patients and 12% of placebo patients. CONCLUSION: Prinomastat does not improve the outcome of chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC.