RELAY, Ramucirumab Plus Erlotinib Versus Placebo Plus Erlotinib in Patients with Untreated, Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutation-Positive, Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Safety Profile and Manageability.

INTRODUCTION: RELAY was a global, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study that demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) for ramucirumab plus erlotinib (RAM + ERL) versus placebo plus erlotinib (PBO + ERL) in the first-line treatment of patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 19 deletion or exon 21 (L858R) mutation-positive, metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). OBJECTIVE: This article provides an in-depth analysis of the safety profile of RAM + ERL versus PBO + ERL observed in RELAY. METHODS: Eligible patients met these criteria: stage IV NSCLC; EGFR exon 19 deletion or exon 21 substitution (L858R) mutation; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1; and no central nervous system metastases. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive erlotinib 150 mg/day orally plus either ramucirumab 10 mg/kg intravenously or matching placebo once every 2 weeks, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was PFS. Safety was evaluated based on reported treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and clinical laboratory assessments. RESULTS: The safety population comprised 446 patients (221 in RAM+ERL arm; 225 in PBO + ERL arm) who received at least one dose of study drug between January 2016 and February 2018. The overall incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was higher with RAM + ERL than with PBO + ERL, primarily driven by grade 3 hypertension. Grade ≥ 3 dermatitis acneiform and diarrhea were also reported more frequently in the RAM + ERL arm. The increased incidence of AEs with RAM + ERL was easily detected through routine monitoring and managed through dose adjustments and appropriate supportive care. CONCLUSION: This in-depth safety analysis from RELAY supports that RAM + ERL, irrespective of the increased incidence of AEs, does not affect a patient's ability to benefit from treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02411448.

Ramucirumab Plus Erlotinib Versus Placebo Plus Erlotinib in Patients With Untreated Metastatic EGFR-Mutated NSCLC: RELAY Japanese Subset.

INTRODUCTION: The phase 3 RELAY global study (NCT02411448) revealed significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with ramucirumab plus erlotinib (RAM + ERL) compared with placebo plus ERL (PL + ERL) in untreated EGFR-mutated metastatic NSCLC (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46-0.76, p < 0.0001]). This prespecified analysis evaluates efficacy, safety, and postprogression EGFR T790M rates of RELAY patients enrolled in Japan. METHODS: Patients were randomized (1:1) to oral ERL (150 mg/d) plus intravenous RAM (10 mg/kg) or PL every 2 weeks. End points included PFS (primary), safety (secondary), and biomarker analyses (exploratory). Plasma samples collected at baseline and poststudy treatment discontinuation were evaluated for EGFR T790M mutations by next-generation sequencing. RESULTS: The Japanese subset included 211 of 449 (47.0%) RELAY patients (RAM + ERL, n = 106; PL + ERL, n = 105). Median PFS was 19.4 versus 11.2 months for RAM + ERL versus PL + ERL treatment (HR = 0.610 [0.431-0.864]) in the Japanese intent-to-treat population, 16.6 versus 12.5 months (HR = 0.701 [0.424-1.159]) in the EGFR exon 19 deletion subgroup, and 19.4 versus 10.9 months (HR = 0.514 [0.317-0.835]) in the EGFR exon 21 L858R subgroup, respectively. Adverse events of grade 3 or above with RAM + ERL included hypertension (24.8%, all grade 3) and dermatitis acneiform (23.8%). Postprogression treatment-emergent T790M rates were similar between arms (RAM + ERL: 47%, 9 of 19 patients; PL + ERL: 50%, 20 of 40 patients). CONCLUSIONS: Clinically meaningful efficacy was observed with RAM + ERL versus PL + ERL in the RELAY Japanese subset, with no new safety concerns. Postprogression T790M rates were similar across treatment arms, indicating the addition of RAM did not affect the ERL-associated EGFR T790M rates at disease progression.

RELAY Subgroup Analyses by EGFR Ex19del and Ex21L858R Mutations for Ramucirumab Plus Erlotinib in Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: In EGFR-mutated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), outcomes from EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors have differed historically by mutation type present, with lower benefit reported in patients with ex21L858R versus ex19del mutations. We investigated if EGFR-activating mutation subtypes impact treatment outcomes in the phase III RELAY study. Associations between EGFR mutation type and preexisting co-occurring and treatment-emergent genetic alterations were also explored. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic NSCLC, an EGFR ex19del or ex21L858R mutation, and no central nervous system metastases were randomized (1:1) to erlotinib (150 mg/day) with either ramucirumab (10 mg/kg; RAM+ERL) or placebo (PBO+ERL), every 2 weeks, until RECIST v1.1-defined progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary and exploratory endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), PFS2, time-to-chemotherapy (TTCT), safety, and next-generation sequencing analyses. RESULTS: Patients with ex19del and ex21L858R mutations had similar clinical characteristics and comutational profiles. One-year PFS rates for ex19del patients were 74% for RAM+ERL versus 54% for PBO+ERL; for ex21L858R rates were 70% (RAM+ERL) versus 47% (PBO+ERL). Similar treatment benefits (ORR, DOR, PFS2, and TTCT) were observed in RAM+ERL-treated patients with ex19del and ex21L858R. Baseline TP53 comutation was associated with superior outcomes for RAM+ERL in both ex19del and ex21L858R subgroups. EGFR T790M mutation rate at progression was similar between treatment arms and by mutation type. CONCLUSIONS: RAM+ERL provided significant clinical benefit for both EGFR ex19del and ex21L858R NSCLC, supporting this regimen as suitable for patients with either of these EGFR mutation types.

Dual EGFR-VEGF Pathway Inhibition: A Promising Strategy for Patients With EGFR-Mutant NSCLC.

The VEGF pathway has been recognized as a key mediator of angiogenesis to support tumorigenesis. Multiple therapeutic agents targeting VEGF and VEGF receptors have been developed and approved for use in NSCLCs. Preclinical studies have found that the VEGF and EGFR pathways share common downstream signaling, and these pathways can function exclusively of one another during oncogenesis. In EGFR-mutant NSCLCs, up-regulated EGFR signaling increases VEGF through hypoxia-independent mechanisms, and elevated VEGF, in turn, contributes to the emergence of resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). In clinical trials, the addition of anti-VEGF therapy to EGFR TKIs considerably improved clinical outcomes. In recently reported large randomized studies, the addition of bevacizumab or ramucirumab to EGFR TKIs substantially improved progression-free survival in patients with TKI-naive EGFR-mutant NSCLC. This article reviews the preclinical and clinical data supporting dual inhibition of EGFR and VEGF in EGFR-mutant NSCLC as a way to improve patient outcomes.

Ramucirumab or placebo plus erlotinib in EGFR-mutated, metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: East Asian subset of RELAY.

In the global phase III RELAY study, ramucirumab plus erlotinib (RAM + ERL) demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) to placebo plus erlotinib (PL + ERL) in untreated patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (hazard ratio (HR) [95% CI]: 0.59 [0.46-0.76]). This prespecified analysis assessed RAM + ERL efficacy and safety in the RELAY subset enrolled in East Asia (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong). Randomized (1:1) patients received oral ERL (150 mg/d) plus intravenous RAM (10 mg/kg) or PL Q2W. Primary endpoint was PFS (investigator-assessed). Key secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), duration of response (DoR), overall survival (OS), and safety. Exploratory endpoints included biomarker analyses and time to second progression (PFS2). Median PFS was 19.4 vs 12.5 mo for RAM + ERL (n = 166) vs PL + ERL (n = 170) (HR: 0.636 [0.485-0.833]; P = .0009). The 1-y PFS rate was 72.4% vs 52.2%, respectively. PFS benefit was consistent in most subgroups, including by EGFR mutation (Ex19del, Ex21.L858R). ORR and DCR were similar in both arms, but median DoR was longer with RAM + ERL. OS and PFS2 were immature at data cut-off (censoring rates, 81.2%-84.3% and 64.1%-70.5%, respectively). Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events were more frequent with RAM + ERL (70.7%) than PL + ERL (49.4%). Adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation were similar in both arms (RAM + ERL, 13.3%; PL + ERL, 12.9%), as were post-progression EGFR T790M mutation rates (43%; 50%). With superior PFS over PL + ERL and safety consistent with the overall RELAY population, RAM + ERL is a viable treatment option for EGFR-mutated metastatic NSCLC in East Asia.

Patient-reported outcomes in RELAY, a phase 3 trial of ramucirumab plus erlotinib versus placebo plus erlotinib in untreated EGFR-mutated metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: In the phase 3 RELAY trial, ramucirumab/erlotinib demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) over placebo/erlotinib in patients with EGFR-mutated metastatic NSCLC (median PFS 19.4 versus 12.4 months; HR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.46-0.76; p < .0001). Safety was consistent with established profiles for ramucirumab and erlotinib in NSCLC. Here, we present patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: Patients received oral erlotinib (150 mg daily) plus intravenous ramucirumab (10 mg/kg) or placebo Q2W until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. Patients completed the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and EQ-5D questionnaires at baseline and every other cycle. Analyses included time to deterioration (TtD) for LCSS via Kaplan-Meier method and Cox models and changes from baseline using mixed-model repeated-measures regression analysis. RESULTS: Overall patient compliance for LCSS and EQ-5D was >95%. TtD did not differ between treatment arms for LCSS Total Score (HR = 0.962, 95% CI = 0.690-1.343) and Average Symptom Burden Index (HR = 1.012, 95% CI = 0.732-1.400). TtD of individual LCSS items (appetite loss, fatigue, cough, shortness of breath, pain, symptom distress, difficulties with daily activities, quality of life) indicated no difference between arms; however, patient-reported blood in sputum was worse for ramucirumab/erlotinib (HR = 1.987, 95% CI = 1.206-3.275). Results of LCSS mean changes from baseline were consistent with TtD, indicating no significant differences between treatment arms except for blood in sputum. Mean changes from baseline in EQ-5D index score (p = .94) and visual analogue scale (p = .95) revealed no overall differences in health status between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' overall quality of life and symptom burden did not differ with the addition of ramucirumab to erlotinib compared to placebo/erlotinib. These data support the clinical benefit of ramucirumab/erlotinib in untreated EGFR-mutated metastatic NSCLC.

Ramucirumab plus erlotinib in patients with untreated, EGFR-mutated, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (RELAY): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Dual blockade of the EGFR and VEGF pathways in EGFR-mutated metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is supported by preclinical and clinical data, yet the approach is not widely implemented. RELAY assessed erlotinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) standard of care, plus ramucirumab, a human IgG1 VEGFR2 antagonist, or placebo in patients with untreated EGFR-mutated metastatic NSCLC. METHODS: This is a worldwide, double-blind, phase 3 trial done in 100 hospitals, clinics, and medical centres in 13 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older (20 years or older in Japan and Taiwan) at the time of study entry, had stage IV NSCLC, with an EGFR exon 19 deletion (ex19del) or exon 21 substitution (Leu858Arg) mutation, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and no CNS metastases. We randomly assigned eligible patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral erlotinib (150 mg/day) plus either intravenous ramucirumab (10 mg/kg) or matching placebo once every 2 weeks. Randomisation was done by an interactive web response system with a computer-generated sequence and stratified by sex, geographical region, EGFR mutation type, and EGFR testing method. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02411448, and is ongoing for long-term survival follow-up. FINDINGS: Between Jan 28, 2016, and Feb 1, 2018, 449 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment with ramucirumab plus erlotinib (n=224) or placebo plus erlotinib (n=225). Median duration of follow-up was 20·7 months (IQR 15·8-27·2). At the time of primary analysis, progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ramucirumab plus erlotinib group (19·4 months [95% CI 15·4-21·6]) than in the placebo plus erlotinib group (12·4 months [11·0-13·5]), with a stratified hazard ratio of 0·59 (95% CI 0·46-0·76; p<0·0001). Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 159 (72%) of 221 patients in the ramucirumab plus erlotinib group versus 121 (54%) of 225 in the placebo plus erlotinib group. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events in the ramucirumab plus erlotinib group were hypertension (52 [24%]; grade 3 only) and dermatitis acneiform (33 [15%]), and in the placebo plus erlotinib group were dermatitis acneiform (20 [9%]) and increased alanine aminotransferase (17 [8%]). Treatment-emergent serious adverse events were reported in 65 (29%) of 221 patients in the ramucirumab plus erlotinib group and 47 (21%) of 225 in the placebo plus erlotinib group. The most common serious adverse events of any grade in the ramucirumab plus erlotinib group were pneumonia (seven [3%]) and cellulitis and pneumothorax (four [2%], each); the most common in the placebo plus erlotinib group were pyrexia (four [2%]) and pneumothorax (three [1%]). One on-study treatment-related death due to an adverse event occurred (haemothorax after a thoracic drainage procedure for a pleural empyema) in the ramucirumab plus erlotinib group. INTERPRETATION: Ramucirumab plus erlotinib demonstrated superior progression-free survival compared with placebo plus erlotinib in patients with untreated EGFR-mutated metastatic NSCLC. Safety was consistent with the safety profiles of the individual compounds in advanced lung cancer. The RELAY regimen is a viable new treatment option for the initial treatment of EGFR-mutated metastatic NSCLC. FUNDING: Eli Lilly.

A phase 1b study of necitumumab in combination with abemaciclib in patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Necitumumab, an anti-EGFR antibody, and abemaciclib, a CDK4/6 inhibitor, have shown activity in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and have non-overlapping toxicities. A 2-part, single-arm, multicenter, phase 1b trial was conducted to test the safety and efficacy of necitumumab plus abemaciclib in patients with advanced NSCLC who had received ≤2 lines of chemotherapy, including a platinum-based one. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Part A was a dose-escalation phase for abemaciclib (100, 150, 200 mg, Q12 H) in combination with necitumumab 800 mg D1D8 Q3W to determine the recommended dose for the expansion cohort, Part B. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 3 months. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients entered the study: 71% male, 41% squamous histology, 15% never-smokers. In Part A (n = 15), the maximum tolerated dose of abemaciclib was 150 mg Q12H in combination with necitumumab 800 mg. In 57 patients treated at this dose level, the 3-month PFS rate was 32.3% (95% CI: 20.4-44.8); median PFS was 2.14 months (1.41-2.76). The overall response rate (ORR) was 5.3% (1.1-14.6). The median OS was 6.93 months (4.96-12.85). In the exploratory subgroup analysis of EGFR expression-negative patients (n = 10), both the 3-month PFS and ORR were 0.0%. The most common grade 3 treatment-emergent adverse events were fatigue (14%), dyspnea (9%), diarrhea (7%), vomiting (7%), and hypokalemia (7%). CONCLUSIONS: Abemaciclib 150 mg Q12H with necitumumab 800 mg did not produce an additive effect over single-agent activity in patients with Stage IV NSCLC. The safety profile was consistent with the individual study drugs.

PointBreak: a randomized phase III study of pemetrexed plus carboplatin and bevacizumab followed by maintenance pemetrexed and bevacizumab versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin and bevacizumab followed by maintenance bevacizumab in patients with stage IIIB or IV nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: PointBreak (A Study of Pemetrexed, Carboplatin and Bevacizumab in Patients With Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer) compared the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed (Pem) plus carboplatin (C) plus bevacizumab (Bev) followed by pemetrexed plus bevacizumab (PemCBev) with paclitaxel (Pac) plus carboplatin (C) plus bevacizumab (Bev) followed by bevacizumab (PacCBev) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated stage IIIB or IV nonsquamous NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1 were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) or paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) combined with carboplatin area under the curve 6 and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks for up to four cycles. Eligible patients received maintenance until disease progression: pemetrexed plus bevacizumab (for the PemCBev group) or bevacizumab (for the PacCBev group). The primary end point of this superiority study was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Patients were randomly assigned to PemCBev (n = 472) or PacCBev (n = 467). For PemCBev versus PacCBev, OS hazard ratio (HR) was 1.00 (median OS, 12.6 v 13.4 months; P = .949); progression-free survival (PFS) HR was 0.83 (median PFS, 6.0 v 5.6 months; P = .012); overall response rate was 34.1% versus 33.0%; and disease control rate was 65.9% versus 69.8%. Significantly more study drug-related grade 3 or 4 anemia (14.5% v 2.7%), thrombocytopenia (23.3% v 5.6%), and fatigue (10.9% v 5.0%) occurred with PemCBev; significantly more grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (40.6% v 25.8%), febrile neutropenia (4.1% v 1.4%), sensory neuropathy (4.1% v 0%), and alopecia (grade 1 or 2; 36.8% v 6.6%) occurred with PacCBev. CONCLUSION: OS did not improve with the PemCBev regimen compared with the PacCBev regimen, although PFS was significantly improved with PemCBev. Toxicity profiles differed; both regimens demonstrated tolerability.

Phase II study of pemetrexed and cisplatin plus cetuximab followed by pemetrexed and cetuximab maintenance therapy in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to determine if combined pemetrexed, cisplatin, and cetuximab was efficacious and safe as first-line treatment in advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this single-arm, multicenter clinical trial, patients with Stage IIIB/IV nonsquamous NSCLC received first-line therapy consisting of pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2)) and cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)) on Day 1 (21-day cycles) plus weekly cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) loading dose, then 250 mg/m(2)) for 4-6 cycles. Non-progressing patients received maintenance therapy consisting of pemetrexed and cetuximab as above until disease progression. All patients received vitamin supplementation, dexamethasone, and antihistamine prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), 1-year survival rate, translational research (TR) and safety. RESULTS: Of the 113 patients receiving study drug, 109 were protocol-qualified. All patients completed ≥1 cycle of induction, and 51 (45%) and 49 (43%) patients completed ≥1 cycle of maintenance with pemetrexed and cetuximab, respectively. The ORR (n = 109) was 38.5% (80% confidence interval [CI], 32.3-45.1%), all partial responses. Median PFS was 5.8 (80% CI, 4.4-6.7) months. One-year survival rate was 45% (80% CI, 39-51%). In exploratory analyses, there was some preliminary evidence of potential prognostic relationships with efficacy outcomes for epidermal growth factor receptor and thyroid transcription factor-1 protein expression, but not for KRAS mutation or for thymidylate synthase or folate receptor-alpha protein expression. Seventy-three (64.6%) patients had study drug-related Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs). Drug-related serious AEs were reported in 31 (27.4%) patients. There were 3 (2.7%) potentially drug-related deaths on-study or within 30 days of follow up. CONCLUSION: Pemetrexed, cisplatin, and cetuximab appeared efficacious and tolerable in advanced nonsquamous NSCLC patients. The TR outcomes are hypothesis-generating given the study's size and nonrandomized nature.

A phase II multicenter study of two different dosages of pemetrexed given in combination with cyclophosphamide as first-line treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Pemetrexed/cyclophosphamide was evaluated as first-line treatment for patients with locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer. In this randomized phase II study (NCT00190671), therapy consisted of either 600 mg/m(2) (P600) or 1,800 mg/m(2) (P1800) pemetrexed, followed by 600 mg/m(2) cyclophosphamide, every 21 days; 103 females (42 P600; 61 P1800) were enrolled. P600 was discontinued, as response rate (19.1%) was lower than targeted. In the P1800 arm, 20 patients had partial response (32.8%; 95% CI: 21.0-44.6) and 26 (42.6%) had stable disease. Median progression-free survival was 6.3 months (range: 0.3-31.1). P1800 plus cyclophosphamide 600 represents a regimen of reasonable efficacy and acceptable tolerability.

Pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin versus cisplatin monotherapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer: final results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) is associated with poor survival. Platinum-based chemotherapy is often a first-line treatment. Pemetrexed has shown single-agent activity in SCCHN and in combination with cisplatin for other tumors. This trial examined the efficacy of pemetrexed-cisplatin for SCCHN. METHODS: In a double-blind phase 3 trial, patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN and no prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease were randomized to pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2) ) plus cisplatin (75 mg/m(2) ; n = 398) or placebo plus cisplatin (75 mg/m(2) ; n = 397) to assess overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Median OS was 7.3 months in the pemetrexed-cisplatin arm and 6.3 months in the placebo-cisplatin arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-1.02; P = .082). Median progression-free survival (PFS, months) was similar in both treatment arms (pemetrexed-cisplatin, 3.6; placebo-cisplatin, 2.8; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.76-1.03; P = .166). Among patients with performance status 0 or 1, pemetrexed-cisplatin (n = 347) led to longer OS and PFS than placebo-cisplatin (n = 343; 8.4 vs 6.7 months; HR, 0.83; P = .026; 4.0 vs 3.0 months; HR, 0.84; P = .044, respectively). Among patients with oropharyngeal cancers, pemetrexed-cisplatin (n = 86) resulted in longer OS and PFS than placebo-cisplatin (n = 106; 9.9 vs 6.1 months; HR, 0.59; P = .002; 4.0 vs 3.4 months; HR, 0.73; P = .047, respectively). Pemetrexed-cisplatin toxicity was consistent with studies in other tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Pemetrexed-cisplatin compared with placebo-cisplatin did not significantly improve survival for the intent-to-treat population. However, in a prespecified subgroup analysis, pemetrexed-cisplatin showed OS and PFS advantage for patients with performance status 0 or 1 or oropharyngeal cancers.

Phase III study of gemcitabine plus docetaxel compared with capecitabine plus docetaxel for anthracycline-pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with metastatic breast cancer who are pretreated with anthracyclines frequently receive taxane-based combinations. This phase III study compared the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine-docetaxel (GD) with capecitabine-docetaxel (CD) in advanced breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to GD (G 1,000 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8; D 75 mg/m(2) day 1) or CD (C 1,250 mg/m(2) twice daily days 1 through 14; D 75 mg/m(2) day 1) every 21 days. Comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary objective. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were balanced between arms (N = 305). Median PFS was 8.05 months (95% CI, 6.60 to 8.71) for GD and 7.98 (95% CI, 6.93 to 8.77) for CD (log-rank P = .121). Overall response rate (ORR) was 32% in both arms, and overall survival (OS) was not different between arms (P = .983). Time to treatment failure (TTF; defined as discontinuation, progressive disease, death as a result of any cause, or the start of a new anticancer therapy) was superior in the GD arm (P = .059). Hematologic toxicity was similar in both arms, except for grades 3 to 4 leukopenia (GD, 78%; CD, 66%; P = .025) and transfusions (GD, 17%; CD, 7%; P = .0051). Grades 3 to 4 diarrhea, mucositis, and hand-and-foot syndrome were significantly higher in the CD arm. Fewer patients in the GD arm discontinued because of drug-related adverse events (13% v 27% in CD; P = .002). CONCLUSION: No difference was observed between GD and CD arms in PFS, ORR, and OS. TTF was longer in the GD arm. These findings, combined with a nonhematologic toxicity profile that favors GD over approved doses of CD, suggest that gemcitabine may be a better option than capecitabine in combination with docetaxel in this clinical setting.