Cemiplimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in non-small cell lung cancer with PD-L1 ≥ 1 %: A subgroup analysis from the EMPOWER-Lung 3 part 2 trial.

OBJECTIVES: EMPOWER-Lung 3 part 2 (NCT03409614), a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, assessed cemiplimab (anti-programmed cell death protein 1) plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without EGFR, ALK, or ROS1 aberrations, regardless of histology or PD-L1 expression levels. We report results from subgroup analysis of patients with PD-L1 expression ≥ 1 %. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive cemiplimab 350 mg or placebo with chemotherapy every 3 weeks for up to 108 weeks. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rates (ORRs), patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and safety were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 327 patients with PD-L1 ≥ 1 % (466 in the overall study), 217 received cemiplimab plus chemotherapy and 110 received chemotherapy alone. After median follow-up of 28.0 months, median OS for cemiplimab plus chemotherapy was 23.5 months (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 20.9-27.2) vs. 12.1 months (95 % CI: 10.1-15.7) for chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.51, 95 % CI: 0.38-0.69, P < 0.0001); median PFS was 8.3 months (95 % CI: 6.7-10.8) versus 5.5 months (95 % CI: 4.3-6.2; HR = 0.48; 95 % CI: 0.37-0.62, P < 0.0001), and ORR was 47.9 % versus 22.7 %, respectively. PRO results favored cemiplimab plus chemotherapy over chemotherapy alone. Improved efficacy over chemotherapy alone was observed in both squamous and non-squamous histology. Safety was consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSION: In this subgroup analysis from EMPOWER-Lung 3 part 2, cemiplimab plus chemotherapy demonstrated clinical benefit over chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced squamous or non-squamous NSCLC with PD-L1 ≥ 1 %.

First-line cemiplimab monotherapy and continued cemiplimab beyond progression plus chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 50% or more (EMPOWER-Lung 1): 35-month follow-up from a mutlicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cemiplimab provided significant survival benefit to patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumour expression of at least 50% and no actionable biomarkers at 1-year follow-up. In this exploratory analysis, we provide outcomes after 35 months' follow-up and the effect of adding chemotherapy to cemiplimab at the time of disease progression. METHODS: EMPOWER-Lung 1 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed squamous or non-squamous advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumour expression of 50% or more. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to intravenous cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks for up to 108 weeks, or until disease progression, or investigator's choice of chemotherapy. Central randomisation scheme generated by an interactive web response system governed the randomisation process that was stratified by histology and geographical region. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression free survival, as assessed by a blinded independent central review (BICR) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1. Patients with disease progression on cemiplimab could continue cemiplimab with the addition of up to four cycles of chemotherapy. We assessed response in these patients by BICR against a new baseline, defined as the last scan before chemotherapy initiation. The primary endpoints were assessed in all randomly assigned participants (ie, intention-to-treat population) and in those with a PD-L1 expression of at least 50%. We assessed adverse events in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540. FINDINGS: Between May 29, 2017, and March 4, 2020, we recruited 712 patients (607 [85%] were male and 105 [15%] were female). We randomly assigned 357 (50%) to cemiplimab and 355 (50%) to chemotherapy. 284 (50%) patients assigned to cemiplimab and 281 (50%) assigned to chemotherapy had verified PD-L1 expression of at least 50%. At 35 months' follow-up, among those with a verified PD-L1 expression of at least 50% median overall survival in the cemiplimab group was 26·1 months (95% CI 22·1-31·8; 149 [52%] of 284 died) versus 13·3 months (10·5-16·2; 188 [67%] of 281 died) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57, 95% CI 0·46-0·71; p<0·0001), median progression-free survival was 8·1 months (95% CI 6·2-8·8; 214 events occurred) in the cemiplimab group versus 5·3 months (4·3-6·1; 236 events occurred) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·51, 95% CI 0·42-0·62; p<0·0001). Continued cemiplimab plus chemotherapy as second-line therapy (n=64) resulted in a median progression-free survival of 6·6 months (6·1-9·3) and overall survival of 15·1 months (11·3-18·7). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia (15 [4%] of 356 patients in the cemiplimab group vs 60 [17%] of 343 in the control group), neutropenia (three [1%] vs 35 [10%]), and pneumonia (18 [5%] vs 13 [4%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in ten (3%) of 356 patients treated with cemiplimab (due to autoimmune myocarditis, cardiac failure, cardio-respiratory arrest, cardiopulmonary failure, septic shock, tumour hyperprogression, nephritis, respiratory failure, [n=1 each] and general disorders or unknown [n=2]) and in seven (2%) of 343 patients treated with chemotherapy (due to pneumonia and pulmonary embolism [n=2 each], and cardiac arrest, lung abscess, and myocardial infarction [n=1 each]). The safety profile of cemiplimab at 35 months, and of continued cemiplimab plus chemotherapy, was generally consistent with that previously observed for these treatments, with no new safety signals INTERPRETATION: At 35 months' follow-up, the survival benefit of cemiplimab for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer was at least as pronounced as at 1 year, affirming its use as first-line monotherapy for this population. Adding chemotherapy to cemiplimab at progression might provide a new second-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi.

Cemiplimab Plus Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Alone in Advanced NSCLC: 2-Year Follow-Up From the Phase 3 EMPOWER-Lung 3 Part 2 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: EMPOWER-Lung 3 part 2 (NCT03409614), a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, investigated cemiplimab (antiprogrammed cell death protein 1) plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC without EGFR, ALK, or ROS1 aberrations, with either squamous or nonsquamous histology, irrespective of programmed death-ligand 1 levels. At primary analysis, after 16.4 months of follow-up, cemiplimab plus chemotherapy improved median overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy alone (21.9 versus 13.0 mo, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53-0.93, p = 0.014). Here, we report protocol-specified final OS and 2-year follow-up results. METHODS: Patients (N = 466) were randomized 2:1 to receive histology-specific platinum-doublet chemotherapy, with 350 mg cemiplimab (n = 312) or placebo (n = 154) every 3 weeks for up to 108 weeks. Primary end point was OS; secondary end points included progression-free survival and objective response rates. RESULTS: After 28.4 months of median follow-up, median OS was 21.1 months (95% CI: 15.9-23.5) for cemiplimab plus chemotherapy versus 12.9 months (95% CI: 10.6-15.7) for chemotherapy alone (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.51-0.82, p = 0.0003); median progression-free survival was 8.2 months (95% CI: 6.4-9.0) versus 5.5 months (95% CI: 4.3-6.2) (HR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.44-0.68, p < 0.0001), and objective response rates were 43.6% versus 22.1%, respectively. Safety was generally consistent with previously reported data. Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher was 48.7% with cemiplimab plus chemotherapy and 32.7% with chemotherapy alone. CONCLUSIONS: At protocol-specified final OS analysis with 28.4 months of follow-up, the EMPOWER-Lung 3 study continued to reveal benefit of cemiplimab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced squamous or nonsquamous NSCLC, across programmed death-ligand 1 levels.

Real-World Outcomes and Prognostic Factors Among Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and High PD-L1 Expression Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors as First-Line Therapy.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard-of-care for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) and programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥50%. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the US de-identified electronic health record-derived Flatiron Health aNSCLC database (January 1, 2018, to July 31, 2021) among patients with PD-L1 ≥50% initiating first-line ICIs with or without chemotherapy. A clinical trial-like sub-cohort was also identified with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, adequate organ function, and no brain metastases or other primary cancers. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate time to treatment discontinuation, time to next treatment, progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) by ICI regimen (ICI+chemotherapy, ICI monotherapy) and PD-L1 expression (50-69%, 70-89%, 90-100%). Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine associations between ICI regimen, PD-L1 level, and OS, adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical variables. Results: A total of 2631 patients with aNSCLC initiating ICI+chemotherapy (n = 992) or ICI monotherapy (n = 1639) were included; median (Q1, Q3) age was 71 (63-78) years and 51.6% were male. The trial-like sub-cohort (n = 1029) generally had better outcomes vs. the overall cohort. Patients receiving ICI+chemotherapy generally had longer median OS vs. ICI monotherapy. Multivariable analyses showed no association between ICI regimen and OS among patients with PD-L1 70-89% (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-1.09) or 90-100% (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.77-1.08), but patients with PD-L1 50-69% receiving ICI+chemotherapy had longer OS (HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.64-0.99). Conclusion: Outcomes in real-world clinical trial-like patients with aNSCLC approached those reported in pivotal ICI trials in high PD-L1 expressers. ICI monotherapy offers a potential alternative in patients with PD-L1 ≥70% while avoiding potential chemotherapy toxicity exposure; the benefits are less clear in patients with PD-L1 50-69%. Future studies should confirm these findings.

Machine learning models for identifying predictors of clinical outcomes with first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard-of-care as first-line (1L) therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) without actionable oncogenic driver mutations. While clinical trials demonstrated benefits of ICIs over chemotherapy, variation in outcomes across patients has been observed and trial populations may not be representative of clinical practice. Predictive models can help understand heterogeneity of treatment effects, identify predictors of meaningful clinical outcomes, and may inform treatment decisions. We applied machine learning (ML)-based survival models to a real-world cohort of patients with aNSCLC who received 1L ICI therapy extracted from a US-based electronic health record database. Model performance was evaluated using metrics including concordance index (c-index), and we used explainability techniques to identify significant predictors of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The ML model achieved c-indices of 0.672 and 0.612 for OS and PFS, respectively, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed significant differences between low- and high-risk groups for OS and PFS (both log-rank test p < 0.0001). Identified predictors were mostly consistent with the published literature and/or clinical expectations and largely overlapped for OS and PFS; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, programmed cell death-ligand 1 expression levels, and serum albumin were among the top 5 predictors for both outcomes. Prospective and independent data set evaluation is required to confirm these results.

Characterizing the Shifting Real-World Treatment Landscape by PD-L1 Testing Status and Expression Level in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Contemporary real-world data on advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) treatment patterns across programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression levels and testing status are limited. METHODS: A retrospective cohort was selected of adults newly diagnosed with aNSCLC between January 1, 2018, and July 31, 2021, who initiated first-line treatments, which were described by PD-L1 status and expression levels (≥ 50%, 1-49%, < 1%). Treatment received before and after PD-L1 test results were described for patients initiating first-line treatment before PD-L1 results. For patients who initiated chemotherapy alone before PD-L1 results, the probability of receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) after PD-L1 results was estimated by PD-L1 level and associated factors were explored. RESULTS: Among 12,202 patients with aNSCLC initiating first-line treatment [54.7% male, mean (standard deviation) age 69.2 (9.4) years], the most common therapies were ICI-based regimens across PD-L1 levels, and chemotherapy alone among PD-L1-untested patients. Use of chemotherapy alone decreased between 2018 and 2019 and stabilized thereafter, accounting for 21-29% of first-line treatments across PD-L1 levels and 48% of untested patients in 2021. Of 1468 patients initiating first-line treatment before PD-L1 results, treatments remained unchanged in most patients after PD-L1 results. Among patients initiating chemotherapy alone before PD-L1 results, the probability of receiving ICIs within 45 days after test results was 40.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) 31.6-48.3%], 28.6% (95% CI 20.3-36.0%), and 22.9% (95% CI 16.9-28.4%) at PD-L1 ≥ 50%, 1-49%, and < 1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: While ICI-based regimens accounted for most first-line treatments across PD-L1 levels, chemotherapy alone was initiated in > 20% of patients tested for PD-L1 and 48% of untested patients in 2021. Patients who initiated chemotherapy alone had a low probability of receiving ICIs after PD-L1 test results. These results highlight the need for understanding the role and timing of PD-L1 test results for informing treatment decisions for patients with aNSCLC.

Network meta-analysis of immune-oncology monotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in patients with PD-L1 expression ⩾50.

Background: For patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and high (⩾50%) programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, effective first-line immune-oncology monotherapies with significant survival benefits are approved, cemiplimab being the most recent. In a phase III trial, cemiplimab demonstrated significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC and PD-L1 ⩾50%. A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to identify/compare the efficacy/safety of cemiplimab versus pembrolizumab or other immune-oncology monotherapies from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) published in November 2010-2020. Methods: Relevant RCTs were identified by searching databases and conference proceedings as per ISPOR, NICE, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. NMA with time-varying hazard ratios (HRs) was performed for OS and PFS. Analyses were conducted for objective response rate (ORR) and safety/tolerability. Fixed-effect models were used due to limited evidence. Various sensitivity analyses were conducted to validate the base case analyses. Results: The feasibility assessment determined that EMPOWER-Lung 1, KEYNOTE-024, and KEYNOTE-042 trials were eligible. IMpower110 was excluded because an incompatible PD-L1 assay (SP142) was used for patient selection. For first-line advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 ⩾50%, cemiplimab was associated with statistically significant improvements in PFS [HR (95% credible interval [CrI]): 0.65 (0.50-0.86), 1-12 months] and ORR [odds ratio (OR) (95% CrI): 1.64 (1.04-2.62)], and comparable OS [HR (95% CrI): 0.77 (0.54-1.10), 1-12 months] versus pembrolizumab. There was no evidence of differences between cemiplimab and pembrolizumab for Grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) [OR (95% CrI): 1.47 (0.83-2.60)], immune-mediated AEs [1.75 (0.33-7.49)], and all-cause discontinuation due to AEs [1.21 (0.58-2.61)]. Conclusions: Considering the limitations of indirect treatment comparisons, in patients with advanced NSCLC and PD-L1 ⩾50%, cemiplimab monotherapy demonstrated significant improvements in PFS and ORR, comparable OS, and no evidence of differences in safety/tolerability versus pembrolizumab.

Impact of the treatment crossover design on comparative efficacy in EMPOWER-Lung 1: Cemiplimab monotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Objectives: In randomized-controlled crossover design trials, overall survival (OS) treatment effect estimates are often confounded by the control group benefiting from treatment received post-progression. We estimated the adjusted OS treatment effect in EMPOWER-Lung 1 (NCT03088540) by accounting for the potential impact of crossover to cemiplimab among controls and continued cemiplimab treatment post-progression. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks (Q3W) or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Patients with disease progression while on or after chemotherapy could receive cemiplimab 350 mg Q3W for ≤108 weeks. Those who experienced progression on cemiplimab could continue cemiplimab at 350 mg Q3W for ≤108 additional weeks with four chemotherapy cycles added. Three adjustment methods accounted for crossover and/or continued treatment: simplified two-stage correction (with or without recensoring), inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW), and rank-preserving structural failure time model (RPSFT; with or without recensoring). Results: In the programmed cell death-ligand 1 ≥50% population (N=563; median 10.8-month follow-up), 38.2% (n=107/280) crossed over from chemotherapy to cemiplimab (71.3%, n=107/150, among those with confirmed progression) and 16.3% (n=46/283) received cemiplimab treatment after progression with the addition of histology-specific chemotherapy (38.7%, n=46/119, among those with confirmed progression). The unadjusted OS hazard ratio (HR) with cemiplimab versus chemotherapy was 0.566 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.418, 0.767). Simplified two-stage correction-the most suitable method based on published guidelines and trial characteristics-produced an OS HR of 0.490 (95% CI: 0.365, 0.654) without recensoring and 0.493 (95% CI: 0.361, 0.674) with recensoring. The IPCW and RPSFT methods produced estimates generally consistent with simplified two-stage correction. Conclusions: After adjusting for treatment crossover and continued cemiplimab treatment after progression with the addition of histology-specific chemotherapy observed in EMPOWER-Lung 1, cemiplimab continued to demonstrate a clinically important and statistically significant OS benefit versus chemotherapy, consistent with the primary analysis.

Trends in real-world biomarker testing and overall survival in US patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Background: Trends/outcomes associated with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-recommended biomarker testing to guide advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) treatment were assessed. Methods: Patients initiating first-line aNSCLC treatment were included using a nationwide electronic health record-derived database (1/1/2015-10/31/2021). Trends in pre-first-line biomarker testing (PD-L1, major genomic aberrations), factors associated with testing and associations between testing and outcomes were assessed. Results: PD-L1/genomic aberration testing rates increased from 33% (2016) to 81% (2018), then plateaued. Certain clinical and demographic factors were associated with a greater likelihood of PD-L1 testing. Patients tested for PD-L1 or genomic aberrations had longer overall survival (OS). Conclusion: Biomarker testing may be associated with improved OS in aNSCLC, though not all patients had equal access to testing.

Molecular diagnostics play a critical role in precision medicine. Treatment guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommend that patients newly diagnosed with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) undergo molecular testing for PD-L1 and genomic aberrations to guide treatment choices. Based on the results of such biomarker testing, physicians can select optimal treatments for individual patients. The aim of this study was to describe the latest trends and disparities in real-world biomarker testing with a focus on PD-L1 and to explore the impact of biomarker testing on outcomes in first-line treatment of aNSCLC in the United States. Patients initiating first-line aNSCLC treatment were identified in the Flatiron Health database (1/1/2015­10/31/2021; N = 30,631). Annual trends in pre-first-line biomarker testing (PD-L1, major genomic aberrations), demographic and clinical factors associated with PD-L1 testing, and associations between PD-L1 and/or ≥1 genomic aberration testing and outcomes (e.g., overall survival [OS], time-to-next treatment [TTNT]) were assessed. Biomarker testing in patients receiving first-line treatment for aNSCLC increased between 2015 and 2017 and plateaued between 2018 and 2021. By 2021, approximately 20% of patients did not receive PD-L1 testing before first-line treatment and not all patients had equal access to testing. Both PD-L1 and genomic aberration testing were associated with improved OS and TTNT. This is likely due to enhanced treatment decisions leading to optimal treatment selection. Future research is warranted to understand interventions to improve biomarker testing and reduce disparities between different patient populations to improve treatment outcomes.

The RECITE Study: A Canadian Prospective, Multicenter Study of the Incidence and Severity of Residual Neuromuscular Blockade.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade (NMB), defined as a train-of-four (TOF) ratio of <0.9, is an established risk factor for critical postoperative respiratory events and increased morbidity. At present, little is known about the occurrence of residual NMB in Canada. The RECITE (Residual Curarization and its Incidence at Tracheal Extubation) study was a prospective observational study at 8 hospitals in Canada investigating the incidence and severity of residual NMB. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing open or laparoscopic abdominal surgery expected to last <4 hours, ASA physical status I-III, and scheduled for general anesthesia with at least 1 dose of a nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking agent for endotracheal intubation or maintenance of neuromuscular relaxation were enrolled in the study. Neuromuscular function was assessed using acceleromyography with the TOF-Watch SX. All reported TOF ratios were normalized to the baseline values. The attending anesthesiologist and all other observers were blinded to the TOF ratio (T4/T1) results. The primary and secondary objectives were to determine the incidence and severity of residual NMB (TOF ratio <0.9) just before tracheal extubation and at arrival at the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). RESULTS: Three hundred and two participants were enrolled. Data were available for 241 patients at tracheal extubation and for 207 patients at PACU arrival. Rocuronium was the NMB agent used in 99% of cases. Neostigmine was used for reversal of NMB in 73.9% and 72.0% of patients with TE and PACU data, respectively. The incidence of residual NMB was 63.5% (95% confidence interval, 57.4%-69.6%) at tracheal extubation and 56.5% (95% confidence interval, 49.8%-63.3%) at arrival at the PACU. In an exploratory analysis, no statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of residual NMB according to gender, age, body mass index, ASA physical status, type of surgery, or comorbidities (all P > 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Residual paralysis is common at tracheal extubation and PACU arrival, despite qualitative neuromuscular monitoring and the use of neostigmine. More effective detection and management of NMB is needed to reduce the risks associated with residual NMB.

Phase II study of targeted therapy with temozolomide in acute myeloid leukaemia and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome patients pre-screened for low O(6) -methylguanine DNA methyltransferase expression.

Resistance to temozolomide is largely mediated by the DNA repair enzyme O(6) -methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT). We conducted a prospective multicentre study of patients with previously untreated acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) who were not candidates for intensive therapy. Patient selection was based on MGMT expression by Western blot. Patients with MGMT:ACTB (ß-actin) ratio <0·2 were eligible to receive temozolomide 200 mg/m(2) /d ×7 d. Patients achieving a complete response (CR) could receive up to 12 monthly cycles of temozolomide ×5/28 d. Of 166 patients screened, 81 (49%) demonstrated low MGMT expression; 45 of these were treated with temozolomide. The overall response rate was 53%; 36% achieved complete clearance of blasts, with 27% achieving a CR/CR with incomplete platelet recovery (CRp). Factors associated with a trend toward a higher response rate included MDS, methylated MGMT promoter and standard cytogenetic risk group. Induction and post-remission cycles were well-tolerated and most patients were treated on an outpatient basis. Patient who achieved CR/CRp had a superior overall survival compared to partial or non-responders. In conclusion, targeted therapy based on pre-selection for low MGMT expression was associated with a higher response rate to temozolomide compared to previous reports of unselected patients.

Chemosensitized radiosurgery for recurrent brain metastases.

Temozolomide is known to penetrate the blood-brain barrier and sensitize brain tumors to radiation and has been used clinically to sensitize fractionated external beam radiotherapy. However, there are limited prospective clinical data available on the safety of temozolomide as a chemosensitizing agent administered with stereotactic radiosurgery. This is a phase I trial of previously irradiated patients with one to four progressive brain metastases and Karnofsky performance scale score ≥60 % enrolled in three sequential cohorts: temozolomide 100, 150 or 200 mg/(m(2) day) administered for 5 days. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) was administered on day 5. The SRS dose was dependent on target diameter: 15 Gy (31-40 mm), 18 Gy (21-30 mm) or 21 Gy (<20 mm). The primary endpoint was safety of increasing temozolomide doses. Secondary endpoints included local control and survival. 26 subjects were enrolled and 49 total metastatic lesions were treated. The median number of brain metastases was 1.5, with a median target diameter of 21 mm. The most common grade 1-2 adverse events irrespective of causality were vomiting (23 %), nausea (23 %), edema (12 %), seizure (8 %), psychosis (4 %) and thrombocytopenia (4 %). The frequency of nausea and vomiting did not appear to be dose-dependent. Grade 3-4 toxicities were not observed. Median overall survival was 10.2 months. Crude local control was 87.5 %, with a radiological response seen in eight of 24 evaluable patients (33.3 %), and stable disease >6 months in 13 of 24 patients (54.2 %). Temozolomide, at doses up to 200 mg/(m(2) day) × 5 days, prior to SRS is well tolerated, with no dose-limiting toxicities in patients with recurrent brain metastases. Local control of target lesions was >80 %.

Phase II trial of continuous dose-intense temozolomide in recurrent malignant glioma: RESCUE study.

PURPOSE Concomitant temozolomide (TMZ)/radiotherapy followed by adjuvant TMZ has increased survival in patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). However, few options are effective for patients who experience treatment failure. We conducted a multicenter, phase II study to assess the efficacy and safety of continuous dose-intense TMZ for recurrent GBM. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with malignant glioma at progression after standard TMZ 150 to 200 mg/m(2) x 5 days in a 28-day cycle for three or more cycles were stratified by tumor type (anaplastic glioma group A, GBM, group B). Ninety-one patients with GBM were prospectively divided into three groups (early [B1], extended [B2], and rechallenge [B3]) according to the timing of progression during adjuvant therapy. All patients received continuous dose-intense TMZ 50 mg/m(2)/d for up to 1 year or until progression occurred. Response was assessed by using RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors). Results A total of 116 of 120 patients were evaluable for efficacy. For patients with GBM, 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) was 23.9% (B1, 27.3%; B2, 7.4%; B3, 35.7%). One-year survival from time of study entry was 27.3%, 14.8%, and 28.6% for the B1, B2 and B3 groups, respectively. For patients with anaplastic glioma, 6-month PFS was 35.7%; 1-year survival was 60.7%. The most common grades 3 and 4 nonhematologic toxicities were nausea/vomiting (6.7%) and fatigue (5.8%). Grades 3 and 4 hematologic toxicities were uncommon. CONCLUSION Rechallenge with continuous dose-intense TMZ 50 mg/m(2)/d is a valuable therapeutic option for patients with recurrent GBM. Patients who experience progression during the first six cycles of conventional adjuvant TMZ therapy or after a treatment-free interval get the most benefit from therapy.

Phase II multicenter trial of anthracycline rechallenge with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide for first-line therapy of metastatic breast cancer previously treated with adjuvant anthracyclines.

PURPOSE: Anthracyclines are a component of breast cancer chemotherapy regimens in both adjuvant and metastatic settings. Anthracycline rechallenge for metastatic disease, for those previously exposed to adjuvant anthracyclines, may not be considered because of concerns about efficacy, tolerability, and cumulative cardiotoxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, single-arm, phase II trial examined the efficacy and safety of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) 35 mg/m(2) plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) as first-line therapy, delivered every 3 weeks, in 70 patients who developed metastatic disease more than 12 months after completion of an adjuvant anthracycline-containing regimen. Seven patients discontinued treatment early and were excluded from the efficacy analysis. RESULTS: After a median of six cycles, the objective response rate was 38%. An additional 33% of patients achieved stable disease lasting more than 6 months, for an overall clinical benefit rate of 71%. The estimated median time to progression was 12.2 months. Median overall survival time was 16.5 months. Clinical response was equally robust in patients with and without prior taxane exposure. Treatment was well tolerated. The most common grade 3 to 4 toxicities were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE; 10%), dyspnea (9%), and neutropenia (9%). One (1.4%) of 70 patients discontinued treatment as a result of PPE. One patient (1.4%) experienced an infusion reaction requiring discontinuation. No symptomatic cardiac events were observed. CONCLUSION: PLD plus cyclophosphamide is effective and well tolerated in patients with metastatic breast cancer who have received prior adjuvant anthracycline-containing chemotherapy. The majority of patients experienced a clinical benefit without any significant impact on cardiac function.

Efficacy of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) plus carboplatin in ovarian cancer patients who recur within six to twelve months: a phase II study.

OBJECTIVES: Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin is one of the preferred alternatives for ovarian cancer patients with early relapse (<6 months) and taxane/carboplatin for late relapse (>12 months), but the optimal therapy for the partially platinum-sensitive (6-12 months) population has not been defined. This single-arm phase II trial was designed to assess the efficacy of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD)/carboplatin in ovarian cancer patients who relapse between 6 and 12 months after initial treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Ovarian cancer patients who previously completed a course of therapy with paclitaxel/carboplatin were administered PLD 30 mg/m(2) followed by carboplatin AUC 5 mg/mL/minute every 4 weeks. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients were enrolled in the study and 54 were eligible for the efficacy analysis, of whom most (75%) received at least 6 cycles of PLD/carboplatin. The objective response rate was 46% (4% CR and 42% PR), with an additional 33% experiencing disease stabilization >6 months. For those patients with measurable CA-125, the response rate was 66% (28% CR and 38% PR), with an additional 18% experiencing disease stabilization >6 months. Median time-to-progression was 10 months (1.5-25). Median overall survival was 19.1 months (2.2-38.9). The most frequent adverse effects were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and constipation. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of PLD/carboplatin is efficacious and well tolerated in women with partially platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer and represents a valuable alternative for patients who relapse within 6-12 months of completing paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy.

A phase II, open label, monotherapy study of liposomal doxorubicin in patients with metastatic malignant melanoma.

PURPOSE: This phase II study explored the efficacy and tolerability of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) given on a 2 week schedule in patients with advanced malignant melanoma previously untreated by chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with inoperable, advanced melanoma were treated with Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Caelyx) at a dose of 20 mg/m(2) every 2 weeks. Treatment cycles were repeated every 4 weeks for a maximum of 6 cycles. Patients with responding or stable disease at the end of study treatment, as assessed by using NCI CTG criteria, could continue PLD off-study. RESULTS: PLD administered as a 2 weekly IV infusion was well tolerated with mild infusion reactions usually associated with the first infusion. Myelosuppression was mild, as was nausea and vomiting. Palmar plantar erythrodysesthesia was also uncommon using this schedule. There were no objective responses seen in the 14 evaluable patients. Enrollment was stopped as per protocol, due to lack of activity. CONCLUSION: PLD was well tolerated using a 2 week schedule but failed to show any activity in chemotherapy naive patients with advanced malignant melanoma.