Gemcitabine and Cisplatin Versus Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin, and Cisplatin in Advanced or Metastatic Bladder Cancer: Results of a Large, Randomized, Multinational, Multicenter, Phase III Study.

PURPOSE: Gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) and methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC) were compared in patients with locally advanced or metastatic transitional-cell carcinoma (TCC) of the urothelium. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IV TCC and no prior systemic chemotherapy were randomized to GC (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 days 1, 8, and 15; cisplatin 70 mg/m2 day 2) or standard MVAC every 28 days for a maximum of six cycles. RESULTS: Four hundred five patients were randomized (GC, n = 203; MVAC, n = 202). The groups were well-balanced with respect to prognostic factors. Overall survival was similar on both arms (hazards ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.32; P = .75), as were time to progressive disease (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.30), time to treatment failure (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.10), and response rate (GC, 49%; MVAC, 46%). More GC patients completed six cycles of therapy, with fewer dose adjustments. The toxic death rate was 1% on the GC arm and 3% on the MVAC arm. More GC than MVAC patients had grade 3/4 anemia (27% v 18%, respectively) and thrombocytopenia (57% v 21%, respectively). On both arms, the RBC transfusion rate was 13 of 100 cycles and grade 3/4 hemorrhage or hematuria was 2%; the platelet transfusion rate was four patients per 100 cycles and two patients per 100 cycles on GC and MVAC, respectively. More MVAC patients, compared with GC patients, had grade 3/4 neutropenia (82% v 71%, respectively), neutropenic fever (14% v 2%, respectively), neutropenic sepsis (12% v 1%, respectively), and grade 3/4 mucositis (22% v 1%, respectively) and alopecia (55% v 11%, respectively). Quality of life was maintained during treatment on both arms; however, more patients on GC fared better regarding weight, performance status, and fatigue. CONCLUSION: GC provides a similar survival advantage to MVAC with a better safety profile and tolerability. This better-risk benefit ratio should change the standard of care for patients with locally advanced and metastatic TCC from MVAC to GC.

Ramucirumab plus erlotinib versus placebo plus erlotinib in previously untreated EGFR-mutated metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (RELAY): exploratory analysis of next-generation sequencing results.

BACKGROUND: Ramucirumab plus erlotinib (RAM + ERL) demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) over placebo + ERL (PBO + ERL) in the phase III RELAY study of patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (EGFR+ mNSCLC; NCT02411448). Next-generation sequencing (NGS) was used to identify clinically relevant alterations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and explore their impact on treatment outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with EGFR+ mNSCLC were randomized 1 : 1 to ERL (150 mg/day) plus RAM (10 mg/kg)/PBO every 2 weeks. Liquid biopsies were to be prospectively collected at baseline, cycle 4 (C4), and postdiscontinuation follow-up. EGFR and co-occurring/treatment-emergent (TE) genomic alterations in ctDNA were analyzed using Guardant360 NGS platform. RESULTS: In those with valid baseline samples, detectable activating EGFR alterations in ctDNA (aEGFR+) were associated with shorter PFS [aEGFR+: 12.7 months (n = 255) versus aEGFR-: 22.0 months (n = 131); hazard ratio (HR) = 1.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42-2.51]. Irrespective of detectable/undetectable baseline aEGFR, RAM + ERL was associated with longer PFS versus PBO + ERL [aEGFR+: median PFS (mPFS) = 15.2 versus 11.1 months, HR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.46-0.85; aEGFR-: mPFS = 22.1 versus 19.2 months, HR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.49-1.30]. Baseline alterations co-occurring with aEGFR were identified in 69 genes, most commonly TP53 (43%), EGFR (other than aEGFR; 25%), and PIK3CA (10%). PFS was longer in RAM + ERL, irrespective of baseline co-occurring alterations. Clearance of baseline aEGFR by C4 was associated with longer PFS (mPFS = 14.1 versus 7.0 months, HR = 0.481, 95% CI 0.33-0.71). RAM + ERL improved PFS outcomes, irrespective of aEGFR mutation clearance. TE gene alterations were most commonly in EGFR [T790M (29%), other (19%)] and TP53 (16%). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline aEGFR alterations in ctDNA were associated with shorter mPFS. RAM + ERL was associated with improved PFS outcomes, irrespective of detectable/undetectable aEGFR, co-occurring baseline alterations, or aEGFR+ clearance by C4. aEGFR+ clearance by C4 was associated with improved PFS outcomes. Monitoring co-occurring alterations and aEGFR+ clearance may provide insights into mechanisms of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor resistance and the patients who may benefit from intensified treatment schedules.

RELAY, ramucirumab plus erlotinib versus placebo plus erlotinib in patients with untreated, EGFR-mutated, metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: Europe/United States subset analysis.

BACKGROUND: In EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC, dual EGFR/VEGFR inhibition compared to EGFR alone increases anti-tumor efficacy. The Phase III RELAY trial demonstrated superior PFS for ramucirumab plus erlotinib (RAM + ERL) over placebo plus erlotinib (PBO + ERL) (HR 0.591 [95% CI 0.461-0.760], p<0.0001). EGFR mutated NSCLC is less prevalent in Western versus Asian patients. This prespecified analysis evaluates efficacy and safety of RAM + ERL in EU and US patients enrolled in RELAY. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to ERL + RAM (10 mg/kg IV) or PBO Q2W. Treatment continued until unacceptable toxicity or progressive disease. Patients were stratified by geographic region (East Asia vs "other" [EU/US and Canada (EU/US)]). Objectives included PFS, ORR, DoR, OS, PFS2, safety and biomarker analysis. RESULTS: EU/US subset included 113/449 (25.9%) patients (58 RAM + ERL, 55 PBO + ERL). RAM + ERL improved PFS (20.6 vs 10.9 months, HR 0.605 [95% CI: 0.362-1.010]). ORR and DCR were similar, but median DoR was longer with RAM + ERL (18.0 vs 10.1 months, HR 0.527 [95% CI: 0.296-0.939]). OS and PFS2 were immature at data cut-off (censoring rates 81.0-81.8% and 67.3-79.3%, respectively). Most commonly reported Grade ≥3 TEAE for RAM + ERL was hypertension (17 [29.8%]) and for PBO + ERL, dermatitis acneiform (5 [9.1%]). CONCLUSION: EU/US subset analysis showed improved efficacy outcomes for RAM + ERL and a safety profile consistent with the overall population. Ramucirumab is a safe and effective addition to standard-of-care EGFR-TKI for EGFR mutation-positive metastatic NSCLC.

Cisplatin in the modern era: The backbone of first-line chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer.

The treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) may be changing, but the cisplatin-based doublet remains the foundation of treatment for the majority of patients with advanced NSCLC. In this respect, changes in practice to various aspects of cisplatin use, such as administration schedules and the choice of methods and frequency of monitoring for toxicities, have contributed to an incremental improvement in patient management and experience. Chemoresistance, however, limits the clinical utility of this drug in patients with advanced NSCLC. Better understanding of the molecular mechanisms of cisplatin resistance, identification of predictive markers and the development of newer, more effective and less toxic platinum agents is required. In addition to maximising potential benefits from advances in molecular biology and associated therapeutics, modification of existing cisplatin-based treatments can still lead to improvements in patient outcomes and experiences.

Feasibility of home delivery of pemetrexed in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility and adherence to home delivery (HD) of pemetrexed maintenance treatment in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (nsqNSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Exploratory, prospective, single-arm, Phase II study in advanced nsqNSCLC patients, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0/1 that did not progress after 4 first-line induction cycles of a platinum doublet. The first cycle of pemetrexed (500mg/m(2)) was hospital administered, further cycles were HD until progressive disease or discontinuation. Feasibility was assessed by the adherence rate to HD (probability of reversion to hospital administration or treatment discontinuation due to HD) as primary endpoint, and by health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL: EQ-5D, lung cancer symptom scale [LCSS]), satisfaction with HD, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: 52 patients (UK & Sweden) received a median of 4 (range 1-19) pemetrexed maintenance cycles. Adherence rate up to Cycle 6 was 98.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 86.4%, 99.7%). All but 2 patients remained on HD. 1 patient discontinued after Cycle 1 (patient decision), and 1 after Cycle 6 (non-compliance with oral dexamethasone). 87% (33/38) of the patients preferred home to hospital treatment and in 90% (28/31) of cases, physicians were satisfied with distant management of patients. During HD Cycles 2-4 mean change from baseline ranged from 3.0 to 7.7 for EQ-5D visual analog scale. The 6-month OS rate was 73% (95% CI: 58%, 83%). 1 patient had an HD-related adverse event (device-related infection, Grade 2) and 1 patient died after Cycle 1, before HD, due to a possibly drug-related atypical pneumonia. CONCLUSION: HD of pemetrexed maintenance treatment in patients with advanced nsqNSCLC was feasible, safe, and preferred by patients, while maintaining HRQoL. Physicians were satisfied with distant patient management.

Efficacy and safety of maintenance pemetrexed in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer following pemetrexed plus cisplatin induction treatment: A cross-trial comparison of two phase III trials.

OBJECTIVES: Two phase III trials of advanced NSCLC patients were compared to examine relative efficacy and safety of differing treatment regimens. The JMDB trial investigated first-line pemetrexed-cisplatin (pemetrexed 500mg/m(2) plus cisplatin 75mg/m(2) every 21 days; maximum: 6 cycles). The PARAMOUNT phase III trial compared maintenance pemetrexed versus placebo after patients with nonsquamous NSCLC completed 4 cycles of first-line pemetrexed-cisplatin without disease progression. METHODS: Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), analyzed by Kaplan-Meier and Cox methods, and toxicity rates were compared between the PARAMOUNT arms and a selected homogeneous population from JMDB: 346 patients with disease and prior treatment characteristics matching the PARAMOUNT population. RESULTS: Outcomes for the PARAMOUNT placebo arm were similar to the JMDB homogeneous group (median PFS: 5.6 versus 6.2 months, p=0.117, HR=1.16; median OS: 14.0 versus 14.2 months, p=0.979, HR=1.00). The PARAMOUNT maintenance pemetrexed group had statistically superior efficacy compared with the JMDB homogeneous group (median PFS: 7.5 versus 6.2 months, p<0.00001, HR=0.66; median OS: 16.9 versus 14.2 months, p=0.003, HR=0.75). Patients who received pemetrexed maintenance (median 4 cycles, range 1-44) following 4 cycles of pemetrexed-cisplatin exhibited a higher incidence of drug-related serious adverse events compared with JMDB patients (median 6 cycles of pemetrexed-cisplatin) (10.6% versus 2.9%); grade 3/4 fatigue and renal toxicity were also higher in the pemetrexed arm of PARAMOUNT. CONCLUSIONS: The across-trial comparison of a relevant JMDB study population with the two arms of the PARAMOUNT study supported the efficacy of the pemetrexed continuation maintenance strategy and suggested the results are not influenced by limiting the pemetrexed-cisplatin induction treatment to four cycles. Although longer exposure to pemetrexed-cisplatin or maintenance pemetrexed increased some toxicities, the overall incidence remained low, underscoring the relative safety of these treatment regimens.

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.

Randomized double-blind phase II trial comparing gemcitabine plus LY293111 versus gemcitabine plus placebo in advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.

BACKGROUND: LY293111 (LY) is a novel oral anticancer agent with leukotriene B4 receptor antagonist and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma agonist properties, producing promising results alone and in combination with gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer xenograft models. A phase I study proved that the combination (gemcitabine plus LY) is safe and well tolerated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were randomly assigned to gemcitabine 1000 mg/m on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle and continuously administered LY 600 mg twice daily or gemcitabine 1000 mg/m on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle and daily oral placebo. Arms were balanced for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and disease stage. The primary end point was 6-month survival; secondary objectives include response rate (RR), progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Six-month survival was not different between groups (P>0.2, 1-sided); progression-free survival and RR were not different (P>0.05, 2-sided). RR was also not impacted. LY did not increase grades 3-4 hematologic toxicities, but was associated with a trend toward more, grades 3-4 diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: These results do not demonstrate any benefit to adding LY to gemcitabine in unpretreated patients with advanced pancreatic carcinoma.

Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma-Results from the International Expanded Access Program using pemetrexed alone or in combination with a platinum agent.

AIM: Peritoneal mesothelioma (PM) has rarely been studied. The Expanded Access Program (EAP) provided access to 109 patients with PM. METHODS: This was a nonrandomized, open-label study conducted in chemo-naïve or previously treated patients with PM not amenable to curative surgery. Patients received pemetrexed (PEM) 500 mg/m2 alone or with cisplatin (CIS) 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin (CARBO) AUC 5 every 21 days, supplemented with standard vitamin B(12), folate, and dexamethasone. RESULTS: Response rates (95% CI) for PEM, PEM/CIS, and PEM/CARBO were 12.5% (3.5, 29.0), 20.0% (7.7, 38.6), and 24.1% (10.3, 43.5), respectively. Median survival for PEM was 10.3 months. One-year survival rates for PEM/CIS and PEM were 57.4% (95% CI: 10.3, 100) and 41.5% (95% CI: 4.6, 78.4), respectively, and were not available for PEM/CARBO. Anemia was the most common serious adverse event (6.4%). Neutropenia (34.6%) was the most frequent CTC grade 3 or 4 toxicity reported. CONCLUDING STATEMENT: PEM with or without a platinum agent was both active and well tolerated in patients with peritoneal mesothelioma.

A randomized phase III trial comparing standard and high-dose pemetrexed as second-line treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: This phase III randomized trial compared pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) (P500) with pemetrexed 900 mg/m(2) (P900) to determine whether higher dosing benefits non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients as second-line therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy, were randomly assigned to receive i.v. P500 or P900 every 3 week. RESULTS: Accrual was terminated with 588/600 patients enrolled because an interim analysis indicated a low probability of improved survival and numerically greater toxicity on the P900 arm. P900 patients were permitted to continue treatment at P500. No statistical difference was observed between the treatment arms (P500 versus P900) for median survival {6.7 versus 6.9 months, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.0132 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.837-1.226]}, progression-free survival [2.6 versus 2.8 months, HR = 0.9681 (95% CI 0.817-1.147)], or best overall tumor response [7.1% versus 4.3% (P = 0.1616)]. The incidence of drug-related grade 3/4 toxicity was typically <5% on both treatment arms, but was numerically higher on the P900 arm for most toxicity categories. CONCLUSIONS: P900 did not improve any efficacy measure over P500. P500 i.v. every 3 week remains the standard pemetrexed dose for second-line treatment of platinum-pretreated advanced NSCLC.

Gemcitabine and cisplatin versus methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin in advanced or metastatic bladder cancer: results of a large, randomized, multinational, multicenter, phase III study.

PURPOSE: Gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) and methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC) were compared in patients with locally advanced or metastatic transitional-cell carcinoma (TCC) of the urothelium. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IV TCC and no prior systemic chemotherapy were randomized to GC (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 days 1, 8 and 15; cisplatin 70 mg/m2 day 2) or standard MVAC every 28 days for a maximum of six cycles. RESULTS: Four hundred five patients were randomized (GC, n = 203; MVAC, n = 202). The groups were well-balanced with respect to prognostic factors. Overall survival was similar on both arms (hazards ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.32; P = .75), as were time to progressive disease (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.30), time to treatment failure (HR, 0.89; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.10), and response rate (GC, 49%; MVAC, 46%). More GC patients completed six cycles of therapy, with fewer dose adjustments. The toxic death rate was 1% on the GC arm and 3% on the MVAC arm. More GC than MVAC patients had grade 3/4 anemia (27% v 18%, respectively), and thrombocytopenia (57% v 21%, respectively). On both arms, the RBC transfusion rate was 13 of 100 cycles and grade 3/4 hemorrhage or hematuria was 2%; the platelet transfusion rate was four patients per 100 cycles and two patients per 100 cycles on GC and MVAC, respectively. More MVAC patients, compared with GC patients, had grade 3/4 neutropenia (82% v 71%, respectively), neutropenic fever (14% v 2%, respectively), neutropenic sepsis (12% v 1%, respectively), and grade 3/4 mucositis (22% v 1%, respectively) and alopecia (55% v 11%, respectively). Quality of life was maintained during treatment on both arms; however, more patients on GC fared better regarding weight, performance status, and fatigue. CONCLUSION: GC provides a similar survival advantage to MVAC with a better safety profile and tolerability. This better-risk benefit ratio should change the standard of care for patients with locally advanced and metastatic TCC from MVAC to GC.

Phase II study of gemcitabine in ovarian cancer.

This phase II study evaluated the response rate and toxicity of single-agent gemcitabine in 40 women with epithelial ovarian cancer, previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients had stage III or IV disease and progressive disease 1-12 months after the last treatment. Gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 was administered on days 1, 8 and 15 of each 28-day cycle as a 30-minute infusion. The overall response rate to gemcitabine was 22% (95% confidence intervals: 10-39%). Responses to gemcitabine were observed in patients with platinum-refractory disease, which suggests no cross resistance to platinum. Gemcitabine was well tolerated and no grade 4 toxicity was seen. This study confirms that gemcitabine is active and well tolerated in pre-treated women with ovarian cancer.