Randomized phase III trial of amrubicin versus topotecan as second-line treatment for patients with small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Amrubicin, a third-generation anthracycline and potent topoisomerase II inhibitor, showed promising activity in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) in phase II trials. This phase III trial compared the safety and efficacy of amrubicin versus topotecan as second-line treatment for SCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 637 patients with refractory or sensitive SCLC were randomly assigned at a ratio of 2:1 to 21-day cycles of amrubicin 40 mg/m(2) intravenously (IV) on days 1 to 3 or topotecan 1.5 mg/m(2) IV on days 1 to 5. Primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. RESULTS: Median OS was 7.5 months with amrubicin versus 7.8 months with topotecan (hazard ratio [HR], 0.880; P = .170); in refractory patients, median OS was 6.2 and 5.7 months, respectively (HR, 0.77; P = .047). Median PFS was 4.1 months with amrubicin and 3.5 months with topotecan (HR, 0.802; P = .018). ORR was 31.1% with amrubicin and 16.9% with topotecan (odds ratio, 2.223; P < .001). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events in the amrubicin and topotecan arms were: neutropenia (41% v 54%; P = .004), thrombocytopenia (21% v 54%; P < .001), anemia (16% v 31%; P < .001), infections (16% v 10%; P = .043), febrile neutropenia (10% v 3%; P = .003), and cardiac disorders (5% v 5%; P = .759); transfusion rates were 32% and 53% (P < .001), respectively. NQO1 polymorphisms did not influence safety outcomes. CONCLUSION: Amrubicin did not improve survival when compared with topotecan in the second-line treatment of patients with SCLC. OS did not differ significantly between treatment groups, although an improvement in OS was noted in patients with refractory disease treated with amrubicin.

A randomized phase II study of bortezomib and pemetrexed, in combination or alone, in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: This is a phase II randomized study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bortezomib and pemetrexed alone or in combination, in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The primary end point was assessment of response rate. METHODS: A total of 155 patients were randomized (1:1:1) to pemetrexed (500mg/m(2)) on day 1 plus bortezomib (1.6mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 8 (Arm A) or pemetrexed (500mg/m(2)) on day 1 (Arm B) or bortezomib (1.6mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 8 (Arm C) of a 21 day cycle. Response rate was assessed by investigators using Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria and toxicity assessed by the National Cancer Institute-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) grading system. RESULTS: Response rate was 7% in Arm A, 4% in Arm B, and 0% in Arm C; disease control rates were 73%, 62%, and 43%, respectively. Median overall survival was 8.6 months in Arm A, 12.7 months in Arm B, and 7.8 months in Arm C; time to progression was 4.0 months, 2.9 months, and 1.4 months, respectively. Most common reported adverse events >/=grade 3 were neutropenia (19%), thrombocytopenia (15%), and dyspnea (13%) in Arm A, neutropenia (10%) in Arm B, and dyspnea (13%) and fatigue (10%) in Arm C. CONCLUSION: In previously treated NSCLC the addition of bortezomib to pemetrexed was well tolerated but offered no statistically significant response or survival advantage versus pemetrexed alone, while bortezomib alone showed no clinically significant activity.

Randomized multicenter phase II study of larotaxel (XRP9881) in combination with cisplatin or gemcitabine as first-line chemotherapy in nonirradiable stage IIIB or stage IV non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: This randomized phase II study investigated the efficacy and safety of a new taxane, larotaxel (XRP9881), in combination with either cisplatin or gemcitabine in the first-line treatment of patients with nonirradiable stage IIIB or stage IV non-small cell lung cancer to select the combination having the most promising antitumor activity. METHODS: Patients received either larotaxel (50 mg/m) as a 1-hour infusion, followed by a 1-hour infusion of cisplatin (75 mg/m), every 3 weeks (arm A), or gemcitabine (800 mg/m) as a 30 minute infusion, on days 1 and 8, and larotaxel (60 mg/m) as a 1-hour infusion, on day 8 (following gemcitabine), every 3 weeks (arm B). The primary end point was the objective response rate (per-protocol population). RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were randomized to arm A and 30 to arm B. The response rate was higher in arm A compared with arm B in both the per-protocol (26.7% versus 18.2%) and intention-to-treat (28.1% versus 13.3%) populations. In the intention-to-treat population, median progression-free survival for arm A versus arm B was 4.7 versus 3.3 months and median overall survival was 8.6 versus 7.3 months, respectively. Fifty percent of patients in arm A and 66.7% in arm B experienced at least one National Cancer Institute common toxicity criteria grade 3/4 adverse event and grade 3/4 neutropenia was observed in 46.9% and 41.4% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both larotaxel combinations were effective and manageable, however all measured efficacy parameters (response rate, progression free survival, and survival) seemed to favor the combination with cisplatin.

A randomized phase II pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of indisulam as second-line therapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to measure the objective tumor response rate following treatment with indisulam [E7070; N-(3-chloro-7-indolyl)-1,4-benzenedisulfonamide] as second-line therapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. The secondary aims were to determine progression-free survival, to assess the safety and tolerability of indisulam, and to study its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were randomized to receive indisulam every 3 weeks either as a single i.v. dose of 700 mg/m(2) on day one (dx1) or 130 mg/m(2) given on days 1 to 5 inclusive as a daily infusion (dx5). All patients had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were randomized. Only minor responses were seen. Myelosuppression, gastrointestinal symptoms, and lethargy were the most common toxicities and were more frequent in the dx1 arm. The pharmacokinetics of indisulam in each treatment schedule were adequately described using a previously developed population pharmacokinetic model and were mostly consistent with the results of the phase I program. Flow cytometric analysis of endobronchial and metastatic disease revealed a reduction in the fraction of cycling cells and an increase in apoptosis following indisulam compared with pretreatment levels. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that, despite evidence of tumor-specific indisulam-induced apoptosis, neither of these treatment schedules has single-agent activity as second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer.