Unmet needs in EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations in Central and Eastern Europe: reimbursement, diagnostic procedures, and treatment availability.

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in Europe, with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounting for approximately 85% of cases. NSCLC is a heterogeneous disease encompassing various oncogenic alterations. Among them, EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations, constituting 0.3-2.2% of NSCLC cases, rank as the third most common EGFR alteration after exon 19 deletions and the L858R point mutation in exon 21, also known as "typical" EGFR alterations. Recent advancements in understanding the molecular pathogenesis of NSCLC have led to significant breakthroughs in targeted therapies, revolutionizing treatment options for patients with specific genetic alterations.This article presents the outcomes of a Virtual Meeting conducted on the online platform (provided Within3©) from September 19 to October 30, 2022. The meeting focused on addressing the challenges in the diagnosis and treatment of NSCLC patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations. The participants consisted of healthcare professionals from ten Central and Eastern European countries who shared their experiences and opinions on various aspects, including epidemiology, treatment options, and diagnostic approaches employed in their respective healthcare institutions. The discussions were facilitated through open-ended and multiple-choice questions.The primary objective of this article is to provide an overview of the identified challenges associated with the diagnosis and treatment of this heterogeneous disease, based on the assessments of the meeting participants. Among the major emerging challenges discussed, the reimbursement issues concerning next-generation sequencing (NGS), a recommended method in NSCLC molecular diagnosis, and the availability of approved targeted treatments to enhance patient outcomes were of paramount importance. Furthermore, fostering community awareness of lung cancer and promoting harmonized lung cancer care were identified as areas deserving greater attention. Notably, the rapidly evolving treatment landscape, particularly with NGS for NSCLC patients with genomic alterations like EGFR, ALK, RET, MET, NTRK, and ROS1, necessitates prioritizing the development of new drugs, even for the relatively smaller subgroup with exon 20 insertion mutations.

The Unmet Diagnostic and Treatment Needs in Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of the Lung.

Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung (LCNEC) is currently classified as a rare lung cancer subtype, but given the high incidence of lung cancer, the overall number of cases is considerable. The pathologic diagnosis of LCNEC is mainly based on the microscopic appearance of the tumor cells, the mitotic rate, the amount of intra-tumoral necrosis, and the presence of positive neuroendocrine markers identified by immunohistochemistry. Recently, a subdivision into two main categories was proposed based on mutation signatures involving the RB1, TP53, KRAS, and STK11/LKB1 genes, into SCLC-like (small cell lung cancer-like) and NSCLC-like (non-small cell lung cancer-like) LCNEC. In terms of treatment, surgery is still the best option for resectable, stage I-IIIA cases. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy have conflicting evidence. Etoposide/platinum remains the standard chemotherapy regimen. However, based on the newly proposed LCNEC subtypes, some retrospective series report better outcomes using a pathology-driven chemotherapy approach. Encouraging outcomes have also been reported for immunotherapy and targeted therapy, but the real impact of these strategies is still being determined in the absence of adequate prospective clinical trials. The current paper scrutinized the epidemiology, reviewed the reliability of pathologic diagnosis, discussed the need for molecular subtyping, and reviewed the heterogeneity of treatment algorithms in LCNEC.

Perspectives for Cancer Care and Research in Central and Eastern Europe.

BACKGROUND: Discrepancies between the outcomes of cancer patients between Western European and Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries have often been observed. Despite the enormous economic and civilizational progress made in these countries after the abolishment of the communist regime, structural problems persist. SUMMARY: The present article reviews the domains of medical oncology education, human resources in oncology, cancer care, and clinical research in CEE in order to comprehensively assess the current situation and needs, describe important initiatives, and also propose ways to improving cancer outcomes in the region. Activities are under way to address these issues in national action plans to divert funding into oncology-related education, research, the purchase of equipment, and the attainment of modern hospital organization and structures. KEY MESSAGE: Over the past more than 30 years, CEE countries have made enormous economic and societal progress. Nevertheless, challenges especially in the health care sector persist.

Real-World Testing Practices, Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes in Patients from Central Eastern Europe with EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Chart Review Study (REFLECT).

The targeted therapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) against the epidermal growth factor receptor mutation (EGFRm) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) changed the treatment paradigm. REFLECT study (NCT04031898) explored EGFR/T790M testing and treatment patterns in EGFRm NSCLC patients receiving first- or second-generation (1G/2G) EGFR TKIs as front-line (1L) in eight countries. Pooled data from Central Eastern Europe (CEE) countries from this study (Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Slovenia) are presented here. This physician-led chart review study was conducted in patients with confirmed-EGFRm NSCLC initiating 1L 1G/2G EGFR TKIs between 2015-2018. The CEE cohort included 389 patients receiving 1L erlotinib (37%), afatinib (34%), and gefitinib (29%). Overall, 320 (82%) patients discontinued 1L, and 298 (77%) progression events were registered. Median progression free survival on 1L TKIs was 14.0 (95% CI: 12.6-15.6) months. Median overall survival from 1L start was 26.6 (95% CI: 24.1-29.0) months. Attrition rate between 1L and next line was 30%. Among patients with 1L progression, 200 (67%) were tested for T790M and 58% were positive. This first CEE analysis of treatments and outcomes in EGFRm NSCLC patients highlights the importance of using the most efficacious therapies currently available in 1L to reduce attrition and improve patient outcomes.

A Proposal to Redefine Pathologic Complete Remission as Endpoint following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Early Breast Cancer.

Many analyses of the efficacy of neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) for early breast cancer including a meta-analysis derived from 10 randomized trials came to the conclusion that patients who would achieve pathologic complete response (pCR) following NAT would experience significant improvement in disease-free and overall survival (OS). Thus, pCR was proposed as a surrogate endpoint for OS, with pCR representing a robust prognostic marker for survival at an individual level. In the current analysis, we argue that OS following NAT-induced pCR might have reflected the initial prognosis of patients mainly defined - among other factors - by the initial pathological lymph node status while being largely independent on the type of administrated treatment, thus pleading against the pCR surrogacy hypothesis. We therefore propose to redefine pCR as a surrogate endpoint of NAT trials by the involvement of additional biologic parameters.

ESMO 2017-my personal highlights.

This article is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all highlights presented at the recent ESMO Annual Meeting, but rather a summary from a personal point of view in three very different fields of oncology. Breast cancer and lung cancer are traditionally in the focus of interest, and again, relevant new data were presented. The third part of this overview is focused on novel treatment strategies in malignant lymphoma, a field that is also quickly evolving and traditionally underrepresented at meetings dealing with solid cancers.

Circulating heregulin level is associated with the efficacy of patritumab combined with erlotinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Patritumab is a fully human anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3) antibody that blocks activation by its ligand, heregulin (HRG). Preclinical studies have demonstrated the efficacy of patritumab in aberrantly high HRG-expressing non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the phase II randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind study HERALD (n=212 patients with NSCLC), patritumab plus erlotinib did not improve progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo plus erlotinib. The current study examined whether soluble HRG (sHRG) level in serum correlated with the efficacy of patritumab plus erlotinib. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Serum was obtained from participants prior to treatment (n=202). sHRG level was measured using a validated quantitative immune assay, and correlations with survival were blindly assessed. RESULTS: sHRG level was various (-1346-11,772pg/mL). Participants were divided into the sHRG-high or -low subgroups at the concentration defining near the third quartile, 980pg/mL. Patritumab plus erlotinib significantly improved PFS relative to placebo in the sHRG-high subgroup (n=46, hazard ratio 0.42 [0.19-0.96], p=0.0327). In contrast, the HRG-low subgroup (n=148) had no improvement in PFS with patritumab. CONCLUSION: sHRG seems to be a predictive biomarker for the efficacy of patritumab plus erlotinib in NSCLC patients.

The Effect of Necitumumab in Combination with Gemcitabine plus Cisplatin on Tolerability and on Quality of Life: Results from the Phase 3 SQUIRE Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Necitumumab, a second-generation, recombinant human immunoglobulin G1 epidermal growth factor receptor antibody in the phase 3 SQUIRE trial (NCT00981058), increased survival benefit for patients randomized to receive necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin compared with those who received gemcitabine-cisplatin. Here we characterize health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and tolerability results. METHODS: A total of 1093 patients with stage IV squamous non-small cell lung cancer were randomized 1:1 to receive necitumumab (800 mg absolute dose intravenously [IV]) plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (gemcitabine = 1250 mg/m(2) IV on days 1 and 8; cisplatin = 75 mg/m(2) IV on day 1) or gemcitabine-cisplatin alone (every 21 days) for up to six cycles. Patients receiving necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin without disease progression continued necitumumab until progression. HRQoL was measured by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS), and the European Quality of Life Five-Dimensions questionnaire. Efficacy and LCSS outcomes were analyzed using the baseline maximum severity score of the LCSS. Tolerability was measured in terms of exposure to the study treatment and adverse events. Hospitalization rates were collected. RESULTS: Most patients in both study arms similarly maintained Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and comparable LCSS and European Quality of Life Five-Dimensions questionnaire assessments. Patients with a higher baseline LCSS had a greater survival benefit on the necitumumab arm. Chemotherapy exposure was similar in both treatment arms; 51% of patients on the necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin arm continued on single-agent necitumumab. The most frequent grade 4 adverse events were neutropenia (6.1% versus 7.9%) and thrombocytopenia (3.2% versus 4.3%) in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin versus gemcitabine-cisplatin arms, respectively. Hospitalizations were slightly higher with necitumumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (36.4%) than with gemcitabine-cisplatin (34.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of necitumumab to gemcitabine-cisplatin was well tolerated, did not negatively affect HRQoL or toxicity, and particularly benefited patients with more severe baseline symptoms or lower HRQoL.

Docetaxel in the treatment of castrate resistant advanced prostate cancer: a paradigm in change.

Until last year, the international guidelines recommended the use of docetaxel in advanced prostate cancer (PC) at the time of progression following androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Nevertheless, two randomized phase III trials, CHAARTED and STAMPEDE, delivered level I evidence showing that upfront introduction of docetaxel, during the androgen sensitive course of disease, is able to significantly improve the patients' overall survival. As such, this strategy was rapidly included in the current guideline recommendations, with slightly different indications in the ESMO as compared to the NCCN version. Side effects of chemotherapy along with the possible higher benefit in high vs low-volume metastatic disease should be taken into consideration when choosing this alternative. The present paper makes a review of the current data supporting the new indication of docetaxel, and provides detailed information in order to assist the clinician in deciding the best treatment for patients with advanced PC.

Necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin alone as first-line therapy in patients with stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (SQUIRE): an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Necitumumab is a second-generation, recombinant, human immunoglobulin G1 EGFR antibody. In this study, we aimed to compare treatment with necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with previously untreated stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: We did this open-label, randomised phase 3 study at 184 investigative sites in 26 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2 and adequate organ function and who had not received previous chemotherapy for their disease were eligible for inclusion. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned centrally 1:1 to a maximum of six 3-week cycles of gemcitabine and cisplastin chemotherapy with or without necitumumab according to a block randomisation scheme (block size of four) by a telephone-based interactive voice response system or interactive web response system. Chemotherapy was gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) administered intravenously over 30 min on days 1 and 8 of a 3-week cycle and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) administered intravenously over 120 min on day 1 of a 3-week cycle. Necitumumab 800 mg, administered intravenously over a minimum of 50 min on days 1 and 8, was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or intolerable toxic side-effects occurred. Randomisation was stratified by ECOG performance status and geographical region. Neither physicians nor patients were masked to group assignment because of the expected occurrence of acne-like rash--a class effect of EGFR antibodies--that would have unmasked most patients and investigators to treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. We report the final clinical analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00981058. FINDINGS: Between Jan 7, 2010, and Feb 22, 2012, we enrolled 1093 patients and randomly assigned them to receive necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (n=545) or gemcitabine and cisplatin (n=548). Overall survival was significantly longer in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin alone group (median 11·5 months [95% CI 10·4-12·6]) vs 9·9 months [8·9-11·1]; stratified hazard ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·74-0·96; p=0·01]). In the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group, the number of patients with at least one grade 3 or worse adverse event was higher (388 [72%] of 538 patients) than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group (333 [62%] of 541), as was the incidence of serious adverse events (257 [48%] of 538 patients vs 203 [38%] of 541). More patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group had grade 3-4 hypomagnesaemia (47 [9%] of 538 patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group vs six [1%] of 541 in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group) and grade 3 rash (20 [4%] vs one [<1%]). Including events related to disease progression, adverse events with an outcome of death were reported for 66 (12%) of 538 patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group and 57 (11%) of 541 patients in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group; these were deemed to be related to study drugs in 15 (3%) and ten (2%) patients, respectively. Overall, we found that the safety profile of necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin was acceptable and in line with expectations. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that the addition of necitumumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy improves overall survival in patients with advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer and represents a new first-line treatment option for this disease. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin as first-line therapy in patients with stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (INSPIRE): an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Necitumumab is a second-generation recombinant human immunoglobulin G1 EGFR monoclonal antibody that competitively inhibits ligand binding. We aimed to compare necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin with pemetrexed and cisplatin alone in patients with previously untreated, stage IV, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We did this randomised, open-label, controlled phase 3 study at 103 sites in 20 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2 and adequate organ function, were randomly assigned 1:1 to treatment with a block randomisation scheme (block size of four) via a telephone-based interactive voice-response system or interactive web-response system. Patients received either cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 of a 3-week cycle for a maximum of six cycles alone, or with necitumumab 800 mg on days 1 and 8. Necitumumab was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Randomisation was stratified by smoking history, ECOG performance status, disease histology, and geographical region. Patients and study investigators were not masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00982111. FINDINGS: Between Nov 11, 2009, and Feb 2, 2011, we randomly assigned 633 patients to receive either necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin (n=315) or pemetrexed and cisplatin alone (n=318). Enrolment was stopped on Feb 2, 2011, after a recommendation from the independent data monitoring committee. There was no significant difference in overall survival between treatment groups, with a median overall survival of 11·3 months (95% CI 9·5-13·4) in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group versus 11·5 months (10·1-13·1) in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group (hazard ratio 1·01 [95% CI 0·84-1·21]; p=0·96). The incidence of grade 3 or worse adverse events, including deaths, was higher in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group than in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group; in particular, deaths regarded as related to study drug were reported in 15 (5%) of 304 patients in the necitumumab group versus nine (3%) of 312 patients in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group. Serious adverse events were likewise more frequent in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group than in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group (155 [51%] of 304 vs 127 [41%] of 312 patients). Patients in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group had more grade 3-4 rash (45 [15%] of 304 vs one [<1%] of 312 patients in the pemetrexed and cisplatin alone group), hypomagnesaemia (23 [8%] vs seven [2%] patients), and grade 3 or higher venous thromboembolic events (23 [8%] vs 11 [4%] patients) than did those in the pemetrexed and cisplatin alone group. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show no evidence to suggest that the addition of necitumumab to pemetrexed and cisplatin increases survival of previously untreated patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC. Unless future studies identify potentially useful predictive biomarkers, necitumumab is unlikely to provide benefit in this patient population when combined with pemetrexed and cisplatin. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Long-term and low-grade safety results of a phase III study (PARAMOUNT): maintenance pemetrexed plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care immediately after induction treatment with pemetrexed plus cisplatin for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In the PARAMOUNT ("A Phase 3, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Maintenance Pemetrexed plus Best Supportive Care vs. Best Supportive Care Immediately Following Induction Treatment with Pemetrexed Plus Cisplatin for Advanced Non-Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer") trial, patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NS-NSCLC) benefited from pemetrexed maintenance therapy after induction therapy with pemetrexed and cisplatin by extending survival, delaying disease progression, and maintaining quality of life (QoL). However, low-grade 1 or 2 toxicities during long-term maintenance treatment may become burdensome and impact QoL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients in this double-blind study (n = 539), who had completed 4 induction cycles (pemetrexed with cisplatin) without progressive disease (PD) and had an ECOG performance status of 0/1, were randomized 2:1 to pemetrexed maintenance (500 mg/m(2), day 1) plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC until PD. Adverse events (by maximum Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE] grade) and QoL (EuroQol 5-dimensional [EQ-5D] scale) were assessed. RESULTS: A median of 4 maintenance cycles was administered (range, pemetrexed 1-44; mean ± SD 7.9 ± 8.3; placebo 1-38; mean ± SD 5.0 ± 5.2), with 28% of pemetrexed and 12% of placebo patients receiving ≥ 10 maintenance cycles. The pemetrexed dose intensity was 94%. More patients receiving pemetrexed (12%) than placebo discontinued because of possible drug-related CTCAEs (4%; P = .005). Overall, pemetrexed was associated with significantly more (P < .05) low-grade events (grade 1/2 nausea, grade 2 anemia, edema, and neutropenia) than placebo. Overall, the incidence of low-grade fatigue, anemia, and neutropenia decreased with long-term pemetrexed exposure; however, renal events increased across treatment arms. EQ-5D analyses demonstrated no treatment-by-time interaction or overall treatment differences between the 2 arms. CONCLUSION: PARAMOUNT demonstrated a low incidence of low-grade toxicities with long-term pemetrexed exposure without compromising QoL in patients with NS-NSCLC.

Phase II trial of mapatumumab, a fully human agonist monoclonal antibody to tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand receptor 1 (TRAIL-R1), in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: This phase II study examined the efficacy of mapatumumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB or stage IV advanced primary NSCLC were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive up to 6 courses of standard-dose paclitaxel and carboplatin or a combination of paclitaxel, carboplatin, and mapatumumab (10 mg/kg or 30 mg/kg). Primary efficacy end points were overall response rate and median progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary efficacy end points included disease control rate, overall survival (OS), time to response, and duration of response. Exploratory studies included evaluation of historical biopsy materials for TRAIL-R1 expression by immunohistochemical analysis and serum levels of M30, a marker of apoptosis, before and after the first 2 doses of mapatumumab. Safety parameters, including adverse events (AEs), laboratory tests, and immunogenicity, were assessed. RESULTS: The majority of patients had stage IV disease (79%) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 (58%); baseline characteristics were similar across treatment arms. No improvements in response or disease control rates, PFS, or OS were gained from the addition of mapatumumab. Adverse events in the mapatumumab arms were generally consistent with toxicities seen in the carboplatin and paclitaxel control arm. Levels of M30 were highly variable, and consistent patterns were not seen across treatment arms. CONCLUSION: This study showed no clinical benefit from adding mapatumumab to carboplatin and paclitaxel in unselected patients with NSCLC. The combination was generally well tolerated. The possibility of subgroups sensitive to mapatumumab is discussed.

An international survey of practice patterns and difficulties in cancer pain management in Southeastern Europe: a Turkish & Balkan Oncology Group common initiative.

PURPOSE: While pain is highly prevalent in cancer patients and its management is universally challenging, it is more commonly undertreated in the developing world. Southeastern European countries have limited resources and manpower to allocate for delivery of effective care for cancer-related pain. The purpose of this study was to explore the practice methods and the barriers to effective pain management in Southeastern Europe. METHODS: We conducted a Web-based survey using a specially designed questionnaire among physicians practicing in member countries of the Balkan Union of Oncology (BUON). RESULTS: A representative from each of the member countries of BUON (including Armenia and Georgia) and close to 100 physicians from 8 countries responded. The majority (89%) of respondents were medical oncologists and had been practising for 10 years on average. For pain assessment, only 35.4% of the physicians used a formal pain scale. Of the respondents 34.1% were not able to reach the optimal doses of narcotic medications while managing cancer pain, mostly due to concerns about toxicity, such as constipation and nausea. Most physicians listed their inability to consult sub-specialists to seek assistance for improving pain management cases as one of the major difficulties in day-to- day clinical practice, along with lack of time. CONCLUSIONS: The limitations faced by our respondents seem to be related mostly to the shortcomings of the respective health care systems, along with the need for more experience and knowledge about the titration of pain medications and dealing with toxicities.

PARAMOUNT: Final overall survival results of the phase III study of maintenance pemetrexed versus placebo immediately after induction treatment with pemetrexed plus cisplatin for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: In the phase III PARAMOUNT trial, pemetrexed continuation maintenance therapy reduced the risk of disease progression versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.79; P < .001). Here we report final overall survival (OS) and updated safety data. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 939 patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) received four cycles of pemetrexed-cisplatin induction therapy; then, 539 patients with no disease progression and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (2:1) to maintenance pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2) on day 1 of 21-day cycles; n = 359) or placebo (n = 180). Log-rank test compared OS between arms as measured from random assignment (α = .0498). RESULTS: The mean number of maintenance cycles was 7.9 (range, one to 44) for pemetrexed and 5.0 (range, one to 38) for placebo. After 397 deaths (pemetrexed, 71%; placebo, 78%) and a median follow-up of 24.3 months for alive patients (95% CI, 23.2 to 25.1 months), pemetrexed therapy resulted in a statistically significant 22% reduction in the risk of death (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.96; P = .0195; median OS: pemetrexed, 13.9 months; placebo, 11.0 months). Survival on pemetrexed was consistently improved for all patient subgroups, including induction response: complete/partial responders (n = 234) OS HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.11 and stable disease (n = 285) OS HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.01). Postdiscontinuation therapy use was similar: pemetrexed, 64%; placebo, 72%. No new safety findings emerged. Drug-related grade 3 to 4 anemia, fatigue, and neutropenia were significantly higher in pemetrexed-treated patients. CONCLUSION: Pemetrexed continuation maintenance therapy is well-tolerated and offers superior OS compared with placebo, further demonstrating that it is an efficacious treatment strategy for patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC and good performance status who did not progress during pemetrexed-cisplatin induction therapy.

International, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase III study of motesanib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer: MONET1.

PURPOSE: We evaluated whether motesanib (a selective oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3; platelet-derived growth factor receptor; and Kit) combined with carboplatin/paclitaxel improved overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy alone in patients with nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and in the subset of patients with adenocarcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB/IV or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC (no prior systemic therapy for advanced disease) were randomly assigned 1:1 to carboplatin (area under the curve, 6 mg/ml · min) and paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) intravenously for up to six 3-week cycles plus either motesanib 125 mg (arm A) or placebo (arm B) once daily orally. OS was the primary end point. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), adverse events (AEs), and association between placental growth factor (PLGF) change and OS. RESULTS: A total of 1,090 patients with nonsquamous NSCLC were randomly assigned (arms A/B, n = 541 of 549); of those, 890 had adenocarcinoma (n = 448 of 442). Median OS in arms A and B was 13.0 and 11.0 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.04; P = .14); median OS for the adenocarcinoma subset was 13.5 and 11.0 months, respectively (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.03; P = .11). In descriptive analyses (arms A v B), median PFS was 5.6 months versus 5.4 months (P = < .001); ORR was 40% versus 26% (P < .001). There was no association between PLGF change and OS in arm A. The incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs (arms A and B, 73% and 59%, respectively) and grade 5 AEs (14% and 9%, respectively) was higher with motesanib treatment. CONCLUSION: Motesanib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel did not significantly improve OS over carboplatin/paclitaxel alone in patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC or in the adenocarcinoma subset.

Maintenance therapy with pemetrexed plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care after induction therapy with pemetrexed plus cisplatin for advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (PARAMOUNT): a double-blind, phase 3, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) benefit from pemetrexed maintenance therapy after induction therapy with a platinum-containing, non-pemetrexed doublet. The PARAMOUNT trial investigated whether continuation maintenance with pemetrexed improved progression-free survival after induction therapy with pemetrexed plus cisplatin. METHODS: In this double-blind, multicentre, phase 3, randomised placebo-controlled trial, patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC aged 18 years or older, with no previous systemic chemotherapy for lung cancer, with at least one measurable lesion, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 participated. Before randomisation, patients entered an induction phase which consisted of four cycles of induction pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2)) plus cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Patients who did not progress after completion of four cycles of induction and who had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 were stratified according to disease stage (IIIB or IV), ECOG performance status (0 or 1), and induction response (complete or partial response, or stable disease), and randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to receive maintenance therapy with either pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2) every 21 days) plus best supportive care or placebo plus best supportive care until disease progression. Randomisation was done with the Pocock and Simon minimisation method. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00789373. FINDINGS: Of the 1022 patients enrolled, 939 participated in the induction phase. Of these, 539 patients were randomly assigned to receive continuation maintenance with pemetrexed plus best supportive care (n=359) or with placebo plus best supportive care (n=180). Among the 359 patients randomised to continuation maintenance with pemetrexed, there was a significant reduction in the risk of disease progression over the placebo group (HR 0·62, 95% CI 0·49-0·79; p<0·0001). The median progression-free survival, measured from randomisation, was 4·1 months (95% CI 3·2-4·6) for pemetrexed and 2·8 months (2·6-3·1) for placebo. Possibly treatment-related laboratory grade 3-4 adverse events were more common in the pemetrexed group (33 [9%] of 359 patients) than in the placebo group (one [<1%] of 180 patients; p<0·0001), as were non-laboratory grade 3-5 adverse events (32 [9%] of 359 patients in the pemetrexed group; eight [4%] of 180 patients in the placebo group; p=0·080); one possibly treatment-related death was reported in each group. The most common adverse events of grade 3-4 in the pemetrexed group were anaemia (16 [4%] of 359 patients), neutropenia (13 [4%]), and fatigue (15 [4%]). In the placebo group, these adverse events were less common: anaemia (one [<1%] of 180 patients), neutropenia (none), and fatigue (one <1%]). The most frequent serious adverse events were anaemia (eight [2%] of 359 patients in the pemetrexed group vs none in the placebo group) and febrile neutropenia (five [1%] vs none). Discontinuations due to drug-related adverse events occurred in 19 (5%) patients in the pemetrexed group and six (3%) patients in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Continuation maintenance with pemetrexed is an effective and well tolerated treatment option for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC with good performance status who have not progressed after induction therapy with pemetrexed plus cisplatin. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Randomized, double-blind trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel with either daily oral cediranib or placebo in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: NCIC clinical trials group BR24 study.

PURPOSE This phase II/III double-blind study assessed efficacy and safety of cediranib with standard chemotherapy as initial therapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (area under the serum concentration-time curve 6) were given every 3 weeks, with daily oral cediranib or placebo at 30 mg (first 45 patients received 45 mg). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary outcome of the phase II interim analysis; phase III would proceed if the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS < or = 0.77 and toxicity were acceptable. Results A total of 296 patients were enrolled, 251 to the 30-mg cohort. The phase II interim analysis demonstrated a significantly higher response rate (RR) for cediranib than for placebo, HR of 0.77 for PFS, no excess hemoptysis, and a similar number of deaths in each arm. The study was halted to review imbalances in assigned causes of death. In the primary phase II analysis (30-mg cohort), the adjusted HR for PFS was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.56 to 1.08) with a higher RR for cediranib than for placebo (38% v 16%; P < .0001). Cediranib patients had more hypertension, hypothyroidism, hand-foot syndrome, and GI toxicity. Hypoalbuminemia, age > or = 65 years, and female sex predicted increased toxicity. Survival update (N = 296) 10 months after study unblinding favored cediranib over placebo (median of 10.5 months v 10.1 months; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.06; P = .11). Causes of death in the cediranib 30-mg cohort were NSCLC (81%), protocol toxicity +/- NSCLC (13%), and other (6%); for the placebo group, they were 98%, 0%, and 2%, respectively. CONCLUSION The addition of cediranib to carboplatin/paclitaxel results in improved response and PFS, but does not appear tolerable at a 30-mg dose. Consequently, the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group and the Australasian Lung Cancer Trials Group initiated a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of cediranib 20 mg with carboplatin and paclitaxel in advanced NSCLC.

Phase III study of pemetrexed plus carboplatin compared with etoposide plus carboplatin in chemotherapy-naive patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Following a phase II trial in which pemetrexed-platinum demonstrated similar activity to that of historical etoposide-platinum controls, a phase III study was conducted to compare pemetrexed-carboplatin with etoposide-carboplatin for the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with ES-SCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of zero to 2 were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed-carboplatin (pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1; carboplatin at area under the serum concentration-time curve [AUC] 5 on day 1) or etoposide-carboplatin (etoposide 100 mg/m(2) on days 1 through 3; carboplatin AUC 5 on day 1) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary objective of the study was noninferiority of pemetrexed-carboplatin overall survival with a 15% margin. RESULTS: Accrual was terminated with 908 of 1,820 patients enrolled after results of a planned interim analysis. In the final analysis, pemetrexed-carboplatin was inferior to etoposide-carboplatin for overall survival (median, 8.1 v 10.6 months; hazard ratio [HR],1.56; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.92; log-rank P < .01) and progression-free survival (median, 3.8 v 5.4 months; HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.58 to 2.17; log-rank P < .01). Objective response rates were also significantly lower for pemetrexed-carboplatin (31% v 52%; P < .001). Pemetrexed-carboplatin had lower grade 3 to 4 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and leukopenia than etoposide-carboplatin; grade 3 to 4 thrombocytopenia was comparable between arms and anemia was higher in the pemetrexed-carboplatin arm. CONCLUSION: Pemetrexed-carboplatin is inferior for the treatment of ES-SCLC. Planned translational research and pharmacogenomic analyses of tumor and blood samples may help explain the study results and provide insight into new treatment strategies.