Erlotinib and bevacizumab versus cisplatin, gemcitabine and bevacizumab in unselected nonsquamous nonsmall cell lung cancer.

Erlotinib with bevacizumab showed promising activity in recurrent nonsquamous (NS) nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The INNOVATIONS study was designed to assess in first-line treatment of unselected cisplatin-eligible patients this combination compared to cisplatin, gemcitabine and bevacizumab. Stage IIIB/IV patients with NS-NSCLC were randomised on erlotinib (150 mg daily) and bevacizumab (15 mg·kg(-1) on day 1, every 3 weeks) (EB) until progression, or cisplatin (80 mg·m(-2) on day 1, every 3 weeks) and gemcitabine (1250 mg·m(-2) on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks) up to six cycles and bevacizumab (15 mg·kg(-1) on day 1, every 3 weeks) (PGB) until progression. 224 patients were randomised (EB n=111, PGB n=113). The response rate (12% versus 36%; p<0.0001), progression-free survival (median 3.5 versus 6.9 months; hazard ratio (HR) 1.85, 95% CI 1.39-2.45; p<0.0001) and overall survival (median 12.6 versus 17.8 months; HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01-1.97; p=0.04) clearly favoured PGB. In patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutations (n=32), response rate, progression-free survival and overall survival were not superior with EB. Platinum-based combination chemotherapy remains the standard of care in first-line treatment of unselected NS-NSCLC. Molecular targeted approaches strongly mandate appropriate testing and patient selection.

Topotecan/cisplatin compared with cisplatin/etoposide as first-line treatment for patients with extensive disease small-cell lung cancer: final results of a randomized phase III trial.

INTRODUCTION: This phase III study compared efficacy and safety of topotecan-cisplatin (TP) versus topotecan-etoposide (TE) versus cisplatin-etoposide (PE) in chemo-naïve extensive disease small-cell lung cancer patients. METHODS: Seven hundred and ninety-five previously untreated patients were randomly assigned to TP (topotecan 1mg/m IV, d1-5; cisplatin 75 mg/m IV, d5; n = 358), PE (cisplatin 75 mg/m IV, d1; etoposide 100 mg/m IV, d1-3; n = 345) or TE (topotecan 1mg/m IV, d1-5; etoposide 80 mg/m IV, d3-5; n = 92). Primary endpoint was superiority of TP compared with PE, with the possibility to switch to a noninferiority test. RESULTS: The TE arm was closed after recommendations by the Independent Data Safety Monitoring Board. Median survival was similar and met the predefined endpoint of noninferiority of TP to PE (44.9 versus 40.9 weeks; p = 0.40). One-year survival rate showed 39.7% for TP versus 36.1% for PE (p = 0.29). Median time to progression was significantly longer with TP (27.4 versus 24.3 weeks, p = 0.01). Overall response rates were significantly higher for TP (55.5% versus 45.5%, p = 0.01).Hematologic toxicity was slightly higher for TP regarding G 3/4 neutropenia (35.7/35.8%), G 3/4 thrombocytopenia (18.7/4.8%), G 3/4 anemia (11.6/6.7%), febrile neutropenia (2.0/2.7%), sepsis (1.7/1.2%), and toxicity-related deaths (5.2/2.7%). CONCLUSION: TP is noninferior to PE in overall survival and superior in time to progression and overall response rates. Because of slightly worse toxicity profile TP is not a first-line standard treatment for patients with extensive disease small-cell lung cancer.