Adapted EXTREME regimen in the first-line treatment of fit, older patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (ELAN-FIT): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: A standard treatment for fit, older patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is yet to be established. In the previous EXTREME trial, few older patients were included. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of an adapted EXTREME regimen in fit, older patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. METHODS: This single-arm, phase 2 study was done at 22 centres in France. Eligible patients were aged 70 years or older and assessed as not frail (fit) using the ELAN Geriatric Evaluation (EGE) and had recurrent or metastatic HNSCC in the first-line setting that was not eligible for local therapy (surgery or radiotherapy), and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. The adapted EXTREME regimen consisted of six cycles of fluorouracil 4000 mg/m2 on days 1-4, carboplatin with an area under the curve of 5 on day 1, and cetuximab on days 1, 8, and 15 (400 mg/m2 on cycle 1-day 1, and 250 mg/m2 subsequently), all intravenously, with cycles starting every 21 days. In patients with disease control after two to six cycles, cetuximab 500 mg/m2 was continued once every 2 weeks as maintenance therapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was systematically administered and erythropoietin was recommended during chemotherapy. The study was based on the two-stage Bryant and Day design, combining efficacy and toxicity endpoints. The primary efficacy endpoint was objective response rate at week 12 after the start of treatment, assessed by central review (with an unacceptable rate of ≤15%). The primary toxicity endpoint was morbidity, defined as grade 4-5 adverse events, or cutaneous rash (grade ≥3) that required cetuximab to be discontinued, during the chemotherapy phase, or a decrease in functional autonomy (Activities of Daily Living score decrease ≥2 points from baseline) at 1 month after the end of chemotherapy (with an unacceptable morbidity rate of >40%). Analysis of the coprimary endpoints, and of safety in the chemotherapy phase, was based on the per-protocol population, defined as eligible patients who received at least one cycle of the adapted EXTREME regimen. Safety in the maintenance phase was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of cetuximab as maintenance therapy. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01864772, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Sept 27, 2013, and June 20, 2018, 85 patients were enrolled, of whom 78 were in the per-protocol population. 66 (85%) patients were male and 12 (15%) were female, and the median age was 75 years (IQR 72-79). The median number of chemotherapy cycles received was five (IQR 3-6). Objective response at week 12 was observed in 31 patients (40% [95% CI 30-51]) and morbidity events were observed in 24 patients (31% [22-42]). No fatal adverse events occurred. Four patients presented with a decrease in functional autonomy 1 month after the end of chemotherapy versus baseline. During chemotherapy, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were haematological events (leukopenia [22 patients; 28%], neutropenia [20; 26%], thrombocytopenia [15; 19%], and anaemia [12; 15%]), oral mucositis (14; 18%), fatigue (11; 14%), rash acneiform (ten; 13%), and hypomagnesaemia (nine; 12%). Among 44 patients who received cetuximab during the maintenance phase, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypomagnesaemia (six patients; 14%) and acneiform rash (six; 14%). INTERPRETATION: The study met its primary objectives on objective response and morbidity, and showed overall survival to be as good as in younger patients treated with standard regimens, indicating that the adapted EXTREME regimen could be used in older patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC who are deemed fit with use of a geriatric evaluation tool adapted to patients with head and neck cancer, such as the EGE. FUNDING: French programme PAIR-VADS 2011 (sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, the Fondation ARC, and the Ligue Contre le Cancer), Sandoz, GEFLUC, and GEMLUC. TRANSLATION: For the French translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Management of patients with synchronous head-and-neck and lung cancers: SYNCHRON GFPC 15-01 study.

Purpose: Few data have been published on the management of patients with synchronous head-and-neck cancer (HNC) and lung cancer (LC). This observational study was undertaken to describe the management of these patients in multiple centers. Materials and Methods: All patients consecutively diagnosed with synchronous HNC and LC in 26 French centers were included. Information was collected on patients' clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes. Those characteristics and treatments were analyzed descriptively. Kaplan-Meier progression-free and overall survival probabilities were estimated. Results: The study included 132 patients: 83% male; median age: 63.7 (range: 62.1-65.4) years; all current or former smokers; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status: 0 or 1 for 21.9% or 65.9% of the patients, respectively; cardiovascular comorbidities: 63%; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: 33%; and previous cancer: 11%. HNC histology was 98% squamous: 23.5% oral cavity, 26.5% oropharyngeal, 22.0% hypopharyngeal, and 28.0% laryngeal. LCs were mainly localized (47.7% Stage I and 9.9% Stage II): 38% squamous, 49% adenocarcinomas, and 13% others. LC diagnosis impacted HNC management for 38% of the patients, with a median time from HNC diagnosis to first HNC treatment of 40 days. HNC impacted LC management for 48% of the patients, with a median time from LC diagnosis-to-LC treatment interval of 41 days. Conclusions: Synchronous LC at HNC diagnosis impacted management and outcomes of both cancers. Specific recommendations should be elaborated to improve the management of these patients.

Carboplatin plus etoposide versus topotecan as second-line treatment for patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Topotecan is currently the only drug approved in Europe in a second-line setting for the treatment of small-cell lung cancer. This study investigated whether the doublet of carboplatin plus etoposide was superior to topotecan as a second-line treatment in patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 38 hospitals in France, we enrolled patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced stage IV or locally relapsed small-cell lung cancer, who responded to first-line platinum plus etoposide treatment, but who had disease relapse or progression at least 90 days after completion of first-line treatment. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive combination carboplatin plus etoposide (six cycles of intravenous carboplatin [area under the curve 5 mg/mL per min] on day 1 plus intravenous etoposide [100 mg/m2 from day 1 to day 3]) or oral topotecan (2·3 mg/m2 from day 1 to day 5, for six cycles). Randomisation was done using the minimisation method with biased-coin balancing for ECOG performance status, response to the first-line chemotherapy, and treatment centre. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, which was centrally reviewed and analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02738346. FINDINGS: Between July 18, 2013, and July 2, 2018, we enrolled and randomly assigned 164 patients (82 in each study group). One patient from each group withdrew consent, therefore 162 patients (81 in each group) were included in the intention-to-treat population. With a median follow-up of 22·7 months (IQR 20·0-37·3), median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the combination chemotherapy group than in the topotecan group (4·7 months, 90% CI 3·9-5·5 vs 2·7 months, 2·3-3·2; stratified hazard ratio 0·57, 90% CI 0·41-0·73; p=0·0041). The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (18 [22%] of 81 patients in the topotecan group vs 11 [14%] of 81 patients in the combination chemotherapy group), thrombocytopenia (29 [36%] vs 25 [31%]), anaemia (17 [21%] vs 20 [25%]), febrile neutropenia (nine [11%] vs five [6%]), and asthenia (eight [10%] vs seven [9%]). Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the topotecan group (both were febrile neutropenia with sepsis) and no treatment-related deaths occurred in the combination group. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that carboplatin plus etoposide rechallenge can be considered as a reasonable second-line chemotherapy option for patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING: Amgen and the French Lung Cancer Group (Groupe Français de Pneumo-Cancérologie).

Treatment of inoperable elderly head and neck cancer patients.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Elderly head and neck cancer (HNC) patients are very rarely enrolled in clinical trials, and even more so in dedicated trials in curative or palliative setting. As a result, no standards of treatment exist for this population and thus, adaptation of standard treatments is commonly used. RECENT FINDINGS: The choice between a monotherapy and a platinum-cetuximab combination is based on the performance status, which is not suitable and/or sufficient to evaluate the patient ability to receive a systemic treatment combined or not with radiotherapy. The evaluation of functional age using geriatric assessment is recommended. However, access to comprehensive geriatric assessment is limited in many centers, and the choice of the type of treatment is often not based on objective and reproducible criteria. As a result, fragile elderly HNC patients may be overtreated with a risk of increased toxicity and fit patients proposed for suboptimal treatment with a risk of failure of tumor control. SUMMARY: It is therefore crucial to develop and evaluate customized treatments by enrolling elderly HNC patients in dedicated therapeutics trials, such as the ELAN (Elderly Head and Neck Cancer) studies or new approaches involving promising immunotherapies. To administer the most suitable therapy, a simple and reproducible geriatric assessment could efficiently guide practitioners.

PREDOMOS study, impact of a social intervention program for socially isolated elderly cancer patients: update to the study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Social isolation potentiates the risk of death by cancer in the older cancer patient population. The PREDOMOS study investigates the impact of establishing a Program of Social intervention associated with techniques of Domotic and Remote assistance on the improvement of quality of life of older isolated patients, treated for locally advanced or metastatic cancer. This paper updates the pilot trial protocol. METHODS/DESIGN: The original protocol was published in Trials, accessible at https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-017-1894-7 . This update reports on the eligibility criteria expansion and on the adjunction of a cost-utility analysis. We widened the eligible population to patients with locally advanced or metastatic cancer including malignant hemopathies (except acute myeloid leukemia) and to patients in the first and second lines of oncologic treatment. We restricted the inclusion to patients with a Mini Mental State Examination score strictly over 24. In addition to the secondary outcomes outlined in the protocol, a medico-economic analysis has been added to evaluate both the health benefits and costs of the two strategies and calculate the incremental cost-utility ratio of the innovative program assessed, compared to the standard practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02829762 . Registered on 29 June 2016.

Impact of a comprehensive geriatric assessment to manage elderly patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancers: An open phase II study using concurrent cisplatin-oral vinorelbine and radiotherapy (GFPC 08-06).

INTRODUCTION: Few data have been published on the optimal management of elderly patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancers (La-NSCLC). This prospective, multicenter, phase II study was undertaken to evaluate the ability of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) to select the elderly La-NSCLC patients who potentially may benefit from concurrent radio-chemotherapy. METHODS: The main inclusion criteria were: La-NSCLC, >70 years old, at least one measurable target, ECOG performance status (PS) 0/1 and normal CGA. Weekly cisplatin (30 mg/m2) and oral vinorelbine (30 mg/m2) were combined with standard thoracic radiotherapy (66 Gy, 33 fractions) for 6.5 weeks. The primary evaluation criterion was <15% clinically relevant grade >2 toxicity. Secondary criteria were response rates, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Among the 49 patients screened, 40 were included: 87.5% men, median age: 75.1 (70-84) years, 67.5% with PS 0, 52.5% squamous cell carcinomas. The full concurrent regimen was administrated in 77.5% of the cases (chemotherapy: 85%, radiotherapy: 90%); 22.5% of the patients experienced toxicity grade >2 (with three treatment-imputed deaths), 15% when restricted to clinically relevant >2 grade toxicities. One (2.6%) patient achieved a complete response, 53.8% had partial responses and 35.9% stable disease. Median PFS was 15 (95%CI: 8,7-35,2) months, OS 21.8 (95%CI: 16-NR) months and 1-, 2- and 4-year survival rates were 77.5%, 45% and 34.8%. CONCLUSION: CGA was able to select fit elderly patients with La-NSCLCs eligible for concurrent chemoradiotherapy with a satisfactory risk/benefit ratio.

Prognostic role of a comprehensive geriatric assessment on the management of elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a pooled analysis of two prospective phase II trials by the GFPC Group.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic role of a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) on the management of elderly patients with advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains to be established. The objective of this analysis was to determine the prognostic role of each CGA domain on overall survival (OS) among elderly patients with advanced-stage NSCLC. METHODS: We pooled individual data from two prospective, randomized phases II trials in patients over 65 years old with advanced-stage NSCLC, who were considered fit (0405 trial) or no-fit (0505 trial) based on a CGA. Both trials compared first-line chemotherapy followed by second-line erlotinib with the reverse strategy in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. Factors prognostic of OS were sought by using the Kaplan-Meier method and the log rank test for univariate analysis, and a Cox model for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Analysis performed on 194 patients (mean age: 77 years, male gender: 70%, never- or ex-smokers: 56%) showed, in univariate analysis that performance status (PS), smoking status, Charlson, simplified Charlson, nutritional scores, and a mobility score were prognostics of OS. In multivariate analysis, PS [HR: 1.4 (1.02-1.9), P=0.04] and the Charlson score [HR: 1.46 (1.07-1.99), P=0.02] were independently prognostic of OS, while the nutritional score [HR: 0.69 (0.46-1.04), P=0.07] and the mobility score [HR: 0.25 (0.06-1.01), P=0.06] were close to significance. CONCLUSIONS: PS and comorbidities appear to be the main predictors of OS in elderly advanced NSCLC patients selected on the basis of CGA.

PREDOMOS study, impact of a social intervention program for socially isolated elderly cancer patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cancer incidence and social isolation increase along with advanced age, and social isolation potentiates the relative risk of death by cancer. Once spotted, social isolation can be averted with the intervention of a multidisciplinary team. Techniques of automation and remote assistance have already demonstrated their positive impact on falls prevention and quality of life (QoL), though little is known about their impact on socially isolated elderly patients supported for cancer. The primary objective of the PREDOMOS study is to evaluate the impact of establishing a Program of Social intervention associated with techniques of Domotic and Remote assistance (PS-DR) on the improvement of QoL of elderly isolated patients, treated for locally advanced or metastatic cancer. The secondary objectives include treatment failure, tolerance, survival, and autonomy. METHODS/DESIGN: This trial is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, open-label, two-parallel group study. The setting is 10 French oncogeriatric centers. Inclusion criteria are patients aged at least 70 years with a social isolation risk and a histological diagnosis of cancer, locally advanced or metastatic disease. The groups are (1) the control group, receiving usual care; (2) the experimental group, receiving usual care associating with monthly social assistance, domotic, and remote assistance. Participants are randomized in a 1:1 allocation ratio. Evaluation times involve inclusion (randomization) and follow-up (12 months). The primary endpoint is QoL at 3 months (via European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ C30); secondary endpoints are social isolation, time to treatment failure, toxicity, dose response-intensity, survival, autonomy, and QoL at 6 months. For the sample size, 320 individuals are required to obtain 90% power to detect a 10-point difference (standard deviation 25) in QoL score between the two groups (20% loss to follow-up patients expected). DISCUSSION: The randomized controlled design is the most appropriate design to demonstrate the efficacy of a new experimental strategy (Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group classification). National and international recommendations could be updated based on the findings of this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02829762 . Registered on 29 June 2016.

Use of a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment for the Management of Elderly Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The Phase III Randomized ESOGIA-GFPC-GECP 08-02 Study.

PURPOSE: Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is recommended to assess the vulnerability of elderly patients, but its integration in cancer treatment decision making has never been prospectively evaluated. Here, in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we compared a standard strategy of chemotherapy allocation on the basis of performance status (PS) and age with an experimental strategy on the basis of CGA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a multicenter, open-label, phase III trial, elderly patients ≥ 70 years old with a PS of 0 to 2 and stage IV NSCLC were randomly assigned between chemotherapy allocation on the basis of PS and age (standard arm: carboplatin-based doublet if PS ≤ 1 and age ≤ 75 years; docetaxel if PS = 2 or age > 75 years) and treatment allocation on the basis of CGA (CGA arm: carboplatin-based doublet for fit patients, docetaxel for vulnerable patients, and best supportive care for frail patients). The primary end point was treatment failure free survival (TFFS). Secondary end points were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, tolerability, and quality of life. RESULTS: Four hundred ninety-four patients were randomly assigned (standard arm, n = 251; CGA arm, n = 243). Median age was 77 years. In the standard and CGA arms, 35.1% and 45.7% of patients received a carboplatin-based doublet, 64.9% and 31.3% received docetaxel, and 0% and 23.0% received best supportive care, respectively. In the standard and CGA arms, median TFFS times were 3.2 and 3.1 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.1), and median OS times were 6.4 and 6.1 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.1). Patients in the CGA arm, compared with standard arm patients, experienced significantly less all grade toxicity (85.6% v 93.4%, respectively P = .015) and fewer treatment failures as a result of toxicity (4.8% v 11.8%, respectively; P = .007). CONCLUSION: In elderly patients with advanced NSCLC, treatment allocation on the basis of CGA failed to improve the TFFS or OS but slightly reduced treatment toxicity.

Induction or consolidation chemotherapy for unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with concurrent chemoradiation: a randomised phase II trial GFPC - IFCT 02-01.

PURPOSE: The objective of this randomised phase II study was to evaluate the impact in terms of response and toxicities of induction or consolidation chemotherapy respectively before or after concurrent chemoradiotherapy in unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the induction arm, patients received induction chemotherapy with cisplatin (80 mg/m(2)) and paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) on days 1 and 29 followed by a concurrent chemoradiotherapy (66 Gy in 33 fractions, cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) days 1, 29 and 57, vinorelbine 15 mg/m(2) days 1, 8, 29, 36, 57 and 64). In consolidation arm, the same concurrent chemoradiotherapy began on day 1 followed by two cycles of cisplatin and paclitaxel. RESULTS: One hundred twenty seven patients were randomised. The intent to treat response rates in induction and consolidation arms were 58% and 56% respectively. Median survival was 19.6 months in induction arm and 16.3 months in consolidation arm and 4-year survival rates were 21% and 30% respectively. Haematologic and non-haematologic toxicities were similar in both arms, except grade 3/4 oesophagitis, more frequent in consolidation arm than in induction arm (17% versus 10%). CONCLUSION: Cisplatin-based chemotherapy as induction or consolidation with concurrent chemoradiotherapy can be administrated safely. Response rates were similar in both arms with a trend in favour for consolidation arm for long-term survival.

Renal insufficiency is the leading cause of double maintenance (bevacizumab and pemetrexed) discontinuation for toxicity to advanced non-small cell lung cancer in real world setting.

OBJECTIVES: In advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), maintenance therapy has emerged as a novel therapeutic reference for patients with non-progressive disease after platinum-based induction chemotherapy. However, the use of double maintenance (DM) with pemetrexed and bevacizumab is still being evaluated in terms of its clinical benefits and safety profile. The objective of this retrospective study was to describe the reasons for DM discontinuation in a real-world setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC were eligible if they had received at least 4 cycles of induction chemotherapy, followed by at least 1 cycle of DM. They were identified by using the oncology pharmacy database of 17 French centers. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients who began a DM after induction chemotherapy were identified from September 2009 to April 2013. Among the 78 patients who had stopped DM at the time of the analysis, the main reasons for discontinuation were disease progression (42%), adverse events (33%), and personal preference (8%). The most frequent toxicity responsible for DM discontinuation was renal insufficiency (54%). CONCLUSION: For patients with advanced NSCLC eligible for DM therapy, a particular attention should be paid to potential renal failure. Kidney function should be monitored carefully before and during DM to detect and manage early this adverse event.

A randomized trial comparing adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus cisplatin with docetaxel plus cisplatin in patients with completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer with quality of life as the primary objective.

OBJECTIVES: Adjuvant chemotherapy with vinorelbine plus cisplatin (VC) improves survival in resected non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but has negative impact on quality of life (QoL). In advanced NSCLC, gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) and docetaxel plus cisplatin (DC) exhibit comparable efficacy, with possibly superior QoL compared to VC. This trial investigated these regimens in the adjuvant setting. METHODS: Patients with Stage IB to III NSCLC were eligible following standardized surgery. Overall, 136 patients were included, with 67 and 69 assigned to the GC and DC arms, respectively. Cisplatin (75 mg/m(2), Day [D] 1) plus gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2), D1 and D8) or docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) D1) were administered for three cycles. Primary end-point was QoL (EORTC QLQ-C30), with the study designed to detect a 10-point difference between arms. Overall survival, safety and cost were secondary end-points. RESULTS: No between-group imbalance was observed in terms of patient characteristics. At inclusion, global health status (GHS) scores (/100) were 63.5 and 62.7 in GC and DC, respectively (P = 0.8), improving to 64.5 and 65.4 after 3 months (P = 0.8). No significant difference in functional or symptoms scores was observed between the arms except for alopecia. Grade 3/4 haematological and non-haematological toxicities were found in 33.8 and 21.7% (P = 0.11), and 33.8 and 26.1% (P = 0.33) of patients, in GC and DC, respectively. At 2 years, 92.9 and 89.8% of patients remained alive in GC and DC, respectively (P = 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: DC and GC adjuvant chemotherapies for completely resected NSCLC were well tolerated and appear free of major QoL effects, and are therefore representing candidates for comparison with the standard VC regimen.

Second-line oral chemotherapy (lomustine, cyclophosphamide, etoposide) versus intravenous therapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine) in patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer: a randomized phase II study of GFPC 0501.

BACKGROUND: No reference second-line treatment of small-cell lung cancer is available. The aim of the present phase II randomized trial (Groupe Français de Pneumo-Cancérologie 0501) was to compare, in patients with progressive small-cell lung cancer after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, oral multidrug chemotherapy (lomustine, cyclophosphamide, etoposide) and intravenous therapy with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine (CAV) in terms of efficacy and tolerance. The primary endpoint was overall survival. The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, response rate, and tolerance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study randomized 131 patients (76.7% male; median age, 61 ± 8.1 years, 85.5% with a performance status of 0-1), 65 to oral therapy and 66 to the CAV arm. No statistically significant differences were found in the baseline patient characteristics. RESULTS: The OS and PFS was 6.1 and 3 months for the oral arm and 5.8 and 3.1 months for the CAV arm, respectively. The control disease rate was 61.6% and 45.5% in oral and CAV arms, respectively. No unexpected adverse events occurred, and no statistically significant difference was found between the 2 arms in terms of toxicity (grade 4 hematologic adverse events in 32.3% and 31.8% of patients in the oral and CAV arms, respectively). CONCLUSION: Compared with CAV, oral therapy in this setting appears as feasible as, but not superior to, the efficacy in the CAV arm.

Cost-utility analysis of maintenance therapy with gemcitabine or erlotinib vs observation with predefined second-line treatment after cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC: IFCT-GFPC 0502-Eco phase III study.

BACKGROUND: The IFCT-GFPC 0502 phase III study reported prolongation of progression-free survival with gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance vs. observation after cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This analysis was undertaken to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of these strategies for the global population and pre-specified subgroups. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis evaluated the ICER of gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy vs. observation, from randomization until the end of follow-up. Direct medical costs (including drugs, hospitalization, follow-up examinations, second-line treatments and palliative care) were prospectively collected per patient during the trial, until death, from the primary health-insurance provider's perspective. Utility data were extracted from literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The ICERs for gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy were respectively 76,625 and 184,733 euros per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Gemcitabine continuation maintenance therapy had a favourable ICER in patients with PS = 0 (52,213 €/QALY), in responders to induction chemotherapy (64,296 €/QALY), regardless of histology (adenocarcinoma, 62,292 €/QALY, non adenocarcinoma, 83,291 €/QALY). Erlotinib maintenance showed a favourable ICER in patients with PS = 0 (94,908 €/QALY), in patients with adenocarcinoma (97,160 €/QALY) and in patient with objective response to induction (101,186 €/QALY), but it is not cost-effective in patients with PS =1, in patients with non-adenocarcinoma or with stable disease after induction chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine- or erlotinib-maintenance therapy had ICERs that varied as a function of histology, PS and response to first-line chemotherapy.

Feasibility and clinical impact of re-biopsy in advanced non small-cell lung cancer: a prospective multicenter study in a real-world setting (GFPC study 12-01).

OBJECTIVES: When advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) progresses during first-line treatment, re-biopsy may be indicated to detect a possible new biological profile (comparison to initial status, emergence of resistance biomarkers, or assessment of new biomarkers). The aim of this pragmatic prospective multicenter study was to assess the feasibility and clinical utility of re-biopsy in advanced NSCLC in a real-world setting. METHODS: The main inclusion criteria were advanced NSCLC with an indication for repeat biopsy identified by the patient's clinician. The primary outcome was the percentage of successful procedures. Secondary outcomes were the type of procedure, new biological status, tolerability of the procedure, and clinical utility (treatment modification). RESULTS: From May 2012 to May 2013, 18 centers enrolled 100 patients (males: 44%; median age: 64.8 years; PS 0/1: 88%; adenocarcinoma: 89%; EGFR mutated: 50%; no initial biological profile: 16.4%). Re-biopsy was not possible in 19.5% of cases and provided no or too few tumor cells in 25.6% of cases. Repeat biopsy was useful for guiding treatment in 30.4% (25/82) of cases. Complications were infrequent (2 cases of moderate bleeding and 1 case of pneumothorax). CONCLUSION: Re-biopsy of advanced NSCLC is feasible in the real-world setting, with acceptable adverse events. Guidelines are needed on the indications of re-biopsy, the choice of procedure, the sampling site, and laboratory analysis.

How old is "too old" for translational research?

BACKGROUND: Targeted therapies are now widely used for lung cancer management. Numerous biomarkers are performed in these patients in the diagnosis phase and have consequences on patient's management. There are some changes during elderly which can influence the biology of cancer; particularly mitochondrial dysfunction and deregulation of nutrient sensing. Elderly patients are candidate to these biological assessments, like younger ones. METHODS: We review all the published papers based on Mesh carries with "elderly", "lung cancer", "targeted therapy". RESULTS: After description of biological modification during elderly, the use of targeted therapies in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is presented and discussed. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and antiangiogenic molecules were depicted in selected or unselected population. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted therapies can be used in older patients with lung cancer and are sometimes an optimal choice in this particular population.

Assessment of palliative care for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in France: a prospective observational multicenter study (GFPC 0804 study).

INTRODUCTION: Few studies assessed, in real life, symptoms, specific interventions and factors influencing palliative care (PC) initiation for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The objective of this study was to examine, in a prospective cohort of advanced NSCLC patients, PC use and factors associated with early (≤3 months after diagnosis) PC initiation. METHODS: It was an observational multicenter study. Each center included 10 consecutive patients with PC initiation. RESULTS: 514 patients were enrolled by 39 centers (age: 62.3 ± 10.7 years, performance status: 0/1; 68.6% cases). At baseline, the most frequent symptoms concerned pain (43.6%), malnutrition (37%) and psychological disorders (25.3%). Specific interventions were infrequent for pain control and malnutrition, but were more numerous for psychological and social problems and terminal care. Median time between diagnosis and PC initiation was 35 [13-84] days, median PC duration was 4.2 [0.6-9.3] months. Median overall survival was 8.6 [6.6-10.7] months; median survival after PC initiation was 3.6 [3.2-4.5] months. In multivariate analysis, only PS ≥2 was linked to early PC. CONCLUSION: This study showed that early PC initiation is not a standard for patients with advanced NSCLC.

Efficacy of pemetrexed as second-line therapy in advanced NSCLC after either treatment-free interval or maintenance therapy with gemcitabine or erlotinib in IFCT-GFPC 05-02 phase III study.

INTRODUCTION: Maintenance therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) might lead to resistance to subsequent treatments. IFCT-GFPC 0502 study showed a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance compared with observation after cisplatin-gemcitabine chemotherapy. The trial included a pre-defined pemetrexed second-line therapy, allowing post-hoc assessment of its efficacy according to previous maintenance treatment or treatment-free interval. METHODS: Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients were randomized after four cycles of cisplatin-gemcitabine chemotherapy to either observation or to receive maintenance therapy with gemcitabine or erlotinib. Pemetrexed was given as second-line treatment on disease progression in all arms. PFS and overall survival (OS) were assessed from the beginning of pemetrexed therapy according to randomization arm. RESULTS: Of the 464 randomized patients, 360 (78 %) received second-line pemetrexed (130 [84%], 114 [74%], and 116 [75%] in observation, gemcitabine, and erlotinib arm, respectively). Median number of pemetrexed cycles was 3 (1-40) in all arms. Median PFS did not differ between gemcitabine and observation arms (4.2 versus 3.9 months, hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81 [0.62-1.06]) or between erlotinib and observation arms (4.2 versus 3.9 months, HR 0.83 [0.64-1.09]). OS data showed a non-significant improvement with gemcitabine arm versus observation arm (8.3 versus 7.5 months, HR 0.81 [0.61-1.07]) or erlotinib arm versus observation arm (9.1 versus 7.5 months, HR 0.80 [0.61-1.05]). Results were similar for non-squamous patients. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were comparable in all arms. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance therapy with gemcitabine continuation or erlotinib does not seem to impair efficacy of second-line pemetrexed comparatively to administration after a treatment-free interval.

Cost analysis of erlotinib versus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer in frail elderly patients participating in a prospective phase 2 study (GFPC 0505).

BACKGROUND: A large proportion of elderly patients (>70 years) with newly diagnosed NSCLC are shown to be frail by a comprehensive geriatric assessment. This population is more vulnerable to adverse effects of chemotherapy and might thus benefit more from targeted therapy. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of erlotinib followed by chemotherapy after progression, compared with the reverse strategy, in frail elderly patients with advanced NSCLC participating in a prospective randomized phase II trial (GFPC 0505). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Outcomes (progression-free survival and overall survival) and costs (limited to direct medical costs, from the third-party payer perspective) were collected prospectively until second progression. Costs after progression and health utilities (based on disease states and grade 3-4 toxicities) were derived from the literature. RESULTS: Median overall survival, QALYs, and total costs for the erlotinib-first strategy were 3.9 months, 0.33, and €15,233, respectively, compared with 4.4 months, 0.35, and €15,363 for the chemotherapy-first strategy. There was no significant difference between the 2 strategies in term of cost-effectiveness (respectively €47,381 and €44,350 per QALY). CONCLUSION: No difference in cost-effectiveness was found between an erlotinib-first strategy and a chemotherapy-first strategy in frail elderly patients with NSCLC.