Validation of a Molecular Diagnostic Test for Circulating Tumor DNA by Next-Gen Sequencing.

A modified version of the PGDx elioTM Plasma Resolve assay was validated as a laboratory-developed test (LDT) for clinical use in the Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory at Fox Chase Cancer Center. The test detects single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and small insertions and deletions (indels) in 33 target genes using fragmented genomic DNA extracted from plasma. The analytical performance of this assay was assessed with reference standard DNA and 29 samples from cancer patients and detected 66 SNVs and 23 indels. Using 50 ng of input DNA, the sensitivity was 95.5% to detect SNVs at 0.5% allele frequency, and the specificity was 92.3%. The sensitivity to detect indels at 1% allele frequency was 70.4%. A cutoff of 0.25% variant allele frequency (VAF) was set up for diagnostic reporting. An inter-laboratory study of concordance with an orthologous test resulted in a positive percent agreement (PPA) of 91.7%.

Phase II Randomized Trial of Carboplatin, Pemetrexed, and Bevacizumab With and Without Atezolizumab in Stage IV Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Patients Who Harbor a Sensitizing EGFR Mutation or Have Never Smoked.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have never smoked or have tumors with mutations in EGFR generally derive minimal benefit from single-agent PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors. Prior data indicate that adding PD-L1 inhibition to anti-VEGF and cytotoxic chemotherapy may be a promising approach to overcoming immunotherapy resistance in these patients, however prospective validation is needed. This trial in progress (NCT03786692) is evaluating patients with stage IV NSCLC who have never smoked or who have tumors with sensitizing EGFR alterations to determine if a 4-drug combination of atezolizumab, carboplatin, pemetrexed, and bevacizumab can improve outcomes compared to carboplatin, pemetrexed and bevacizumab without atezolizumab. METHODS: This is a randomized, phase II, multicenter study evaluating carboplatin, pemetrexed, bevacizumab with and without atezolizumab in 117 patients with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC. Randomization is 2 to 1 favoring the atezolizumab containing arm. Eligible patients include: 1) those with tumors with sensitizing EGFR alterations in exons 19 or 21 or 2) patients who have never smoked and have wild-type tumors (ie, no EGFR, ALK or ROS1 alterations). Patients are defined as having never smoked if they have smoked less than 100 cigarettes in a lifetime. Patients with EGFR-mutated tumors must have disease progression or intolerance to prior tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints include overall survival (OS), response rate, duration of response, and time to response. CONCLUSION: This phase II trial is accruing patients at U.S. sites through the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). The trial opened in August 2019 and accrual is expected to be completed in the Fall of 2024.

Real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and the impact of PD-L1 and smoking in driver-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with immunotherapy.

PURPOSE: Prior data suggest driver-mutated NSCLC, especially EGFR and ALK tumors, poorly respond to immunotherapy. However, little research using real-world cohorts have been performed, nor is it clear whether PD-L1 and smoking history are predictive of outcomes in such tumors. This study assessed rwPFS in a large cohort with driver-mutated advanced NSCLC treated with single-agent PD-1/PDL-1 inhibitors. METHODS: Real-world data from 1746 patients were analyzed and rwPFS with immunotherapy was determined for EGFR, ALK, BRAF, and KRAS tumors. Kaplan-Meier curves characterized rwPFS and correlated with PD-L1 and smoking history. Comparisons were tested using log-rank. RESULTS: Median rwPFS and the percent progression-free at 12 months were greater among KRAS (3.3 months, 21.1%) and BRAF (3.6 months, 20.6%) as compared to EGFR (2.5 months, 8.1%) and ALK tumors (2.3 months, 11.2%). KRAS tumors with PD-L1 ≥ 1% had longer rwPFS than PD-L1 < 1% tumors (4.1 versus 3.2 months, p = 0.001). PD-L1 positivity did not predict rwPFS in EGFR, ALK, or BRAF tumors. However, a smoking history was associated with longer rwPFS in EGFR (2.6 versus 2.3 months, p = 0.048) and ALK tumors (3.0 versus 2.1 months, p = 0.049) as compared to no smoking history. CONCLUSION: Real-world PFS with immunotherapy was greater in KRAS and BRAF as compared to EGFR and ALK tumors. PD-L1 positivity was predictive in KRAS and not associated with rwPFS in other mutation types. While median rwPFS was short for EGFR and ALK tumors, small subsets were progression-free at 12 months. Better characterizing these subsets that benefit, along with developing strategies to overcome immunotherapy resistance in EGFR/ALK tumors are needed.

Treatment Rationale and Study Design for the RELAY Study: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind Study of Erlotinib With Ramucirumab or Placebo in Patients With Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutation-Positive Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: We present the treatment rationale and study design for the RELAY study (NCT02411448 ). This phase Ib/III study will assess safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the combination of ramucirumab with erlotinib in previously untreated stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer patients with an activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study is being conducted in approximately 120 sites in North America, Europe, and Asia and is currently open for enrollment. In part A (phase Ib), approximately 12 patients will receive ramucirumab (10 mg/kg) every 2 weeks with erlotinib (150 mg) every day. Dose-limiting toxicity will be assessed during 2 cycles (4 weeks) of treatment. In part B (phase III), approximately 450 patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive ramucirumab or placebo every 2 weeks with erlotinib daily until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other withdrawal criteria are met. The primary end point is progression-free survival, on the basis of investigator assessment. Secondary end points include overall survival, objective response rate, disease control rate, duration of response, safety, and quality of life. CONCLUSION: Erlotinib with ramucirumab combination was chosen because the addition of an antiangiogenic agent, such as ramucirumab, would further improve the efficacy of erlotinib, which is a standard of care in the first-line treatment of patients with activating EGFR mutations.

PROCLAIM: Randomized Phase III Trial of Pemetrexed-Cisplatin or Etoposide-Cisplatin Plus Thoracic Radiation Therapy Followed by Consolidation Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The phase III PROCLAIM study evaluated overall survival (OS) of concurrent pemetrexed-cisplatin and thoracic radiation therapy (TRT) followed by consolidation pemetrexed, versus etoposide-cisplatin and TRT followed by nonpemetrexed doublet consolidation therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IIIA/B unresectable nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer randomly received (1:1) pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) intravenously every 3 weeks for three cycles plus concurrent TRT (60 to 66 Gy) followed by pemetrexed consolidation every 3 weeks for four cycles (arm A), or standard therapy with etoposide 50 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) intravenously, every 4 weeks for two cycles plus concurrent TRT (60 to 66 Gy) followed by two cycles of consolidation platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (arm B). The primary objective was OS. The study was designed as a superiority trial with 80% power to detect an OS hazard ratio of 0.74 with a type 1 error of .05. RESULTS: Enrollment was stopped early because of futility. Five hundred ninety-eight patients were randomly assigned (301 to arm A, 297 to arm B) and 555 patients (283 in arm A, 272 in arm B) were treated. Arm A was not superior to arm B in terms of OS (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.20; median, 26.8 v 25.0 months; P = .831). Arm A had a significantly lower incidence of any drug-related grade 3 to 4 adverse events (64.0% v 76.8%; P = .001), including neutropenia (24.4% v 44.5%; P < .001), during the overall treatment period. CONCLUSION: Pemetrexed-cisplatin combined with TRT followed by consolidation pemetrexed was not superior to standard chemoradiotherapy for stage III unresectable nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

Pemetrexed With Platinum Combination as a Backbone for Targeted Therapy in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Standard platinum-based chemotherapy combinations for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have reached a plateau in terms of the survival benefit they offer for patients. In addition, the emerging clinical trend of tailored treatment based on patient characteristics has led to the development of therapeutic strategies that target specific cancer-related molecular pathways, including epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), angiogenesis, and anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors. Current research is focused on combining targeted therapy with platinum-based chemotherapy in an endeavor to achieve an additional benefit in specific patient populations. Currently, pemetrexed is indicated for use in the first-line, maintenance, and second-line settings for the treatment of nonsquamous NSCLC. The combination of pemetrexed and cisplatin is well tolerated and is the approved standard first-line therapy. Thus, the pemetrexed-platinum backbone provides an attractive option for combination with targeted therapies. This review aims to summarize the current knowledge and future prospects of the use of pemetrexed-platinum as a backbone for combination with targeted therapies for NSCLC.

Cost-effectiveness of first-line induction and maintenance treatment sequences in non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the U.S.

OBJECTIVES: Due to the lack of direct head-to-head trials, there are limited data regarding the comparative effectiveness of induction-maintenance sequences. The objective of this study was to develop a cost-effectiveness model to compare induction-maintenance sequences in the US for the treatment of advanced non-squamous NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Decision analytic modelling was used to synthesize the treatment effect and baseline risk estimates for nine induction and maintenance treatment sequences, reflecting treatments used in the US. The model was structured using an area-under-the-curve approach and sensitivity analyses were conducted. Model validation was conducted by an independent third party. RESULTS: All active maintenance therapy-containing regimens, with the exception of gemcitabine+cisplatin (first-line)→erlotinib (maintenance), were more costly than induction-only regimens. Concerning treatments that may be cost effective, the incremental costs per life-year gained were $121,425, $148,994, and $191,270 for gemcitabine+cisplatin→erlotinib versus gemcitabine+cisplatin→best supportive care (BSC), pemetrexed+cisplatin→BSC versus gemcitabine+cisplatin→erlotinib, and for pemetrexed+cisplatin→pemetrexed versus pemetrexed+cisplatin→BSC, respectively. All other regimens were found to be dominated (carboplatin+paclitaxel→BSC; carboplatin+paclitaxel→erlotinib; carboplatin+paclitaxel→pemetrexed; bevacizumab+carboplatin+paclitaxel→bevacizumab) or extendedly dominated (cisplatin+gemcitabine→pemetrexed). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated stability. CONCLUSIONS: Depending on the specific cost-effectiveness threshold used by a decision maker, the most cost-effective treatment sequence may include the referent comparator gemcitabine+cisplatin and the studied regimens of gemcitabine+cisplatin→erlotinib, pemetrexed+cisplatin→BSC, or pemetrexed+cisplatin→pemetrexed.

Concurrent pemetrexed and radiation therapy in the treatment of patients with inoperable stage III non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review of completed and ongoing studies.

Current standard for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is combined concurrent therapy with a platinum-based regimen. Preclinical synergistic activity of pemetrexed with radiation therapy (RT) and favorable toxicity profile has led to clinical trials evaluating pemetrexed in chemoradiation regimens. This literature search of concurrent pemetrexed and RT treatment of patients with stage III NSCLC included MEDLINE database, meeting abstracts, and the clinical trial registry database. Nineteen unique studies were represented across all databases including 11 phase I studies and eight phase II studies. Of the six phase II trials with mature data available, median overall survival ranged from 18.7 to 34 months. Esophagitis and pneumonitis occurred in 0-16% and 0-23% of patients, respectively. Of the ongoing trials, there is one phase III and four phase II trials with pemetrexed in locally advanced NSCLC. Pemetrexed can be administered safely at full systemic doses with either cisplatin or carboplatin concomitantly with radical doses of thoracic radiation therapy. While results from the ongoing phase III PROCLAIM trial are needed to address definitively the efficacy of pemetrexed-cisplatin plus RT in stage III NSCLC, available results from phase II trials suggest that this regimen has promising activity with an acceptable toxicity profile.

PRONOUNCE: randomized, open-label, phase III study of first-line pemetrexed + carboplatin followed by maintenance pemetrexed versus paclitaxel + carboplatin + bevacizumab followed by maintenance bevacizumab in patients ith advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: PRONOUNCE compared the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed+carboplatin followed by pemetrexed (Pem+Cb) with paclitaxel+carboplatin+bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab (Pac+Cb+Bev) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients ≥18 years of age with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC (American Joint Committee on Cancer v7.0), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1 were randomized (1:1) to four cycles of induction Pem+Cb (pemetrexed, 500 mg/m, carboplatin, area under the curve = 6) followed by Pem maintenance or Pac+Cb+Bev (paclitaxel, 200 mg/m, carboplatin, area under the curve = 6, and bevacizumab, 15 mg/kg) followed by Bev maintenance in the absence of progressive disease or discontinuation. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) without grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS). Secondary end points were PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Resource utilization was also assessed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the patients randomized to Pem+Cb (N = 182) and Pac+Cb+Bev (N = 179) were well balanced between the arms. Median (months) G4PFS was 3.91 for Pem+Cb and 2.86 for Pac+Cb+Bev (hazard ratio = 0.85, 90% confidence interval, 0.7-1.04; p = 0.176); PFS, OS, ORR, or DCR did not differ significantly between the arms. Significantly more drug-related grade 3/4 anemia (18.7% versus 5.4%) and thrombocytopenia (24.0% versus 9.6%) were reported for Pem+Cb. Significantly more grade 3/4 neutropenia (48.8% versus 24.6%), grade 1/2 alopecia (28.3% versus 8.2%), and grade 1/2 sensory neuropathy were reported for Pac+Cb+Bev. Number of hospitalizations and overall length of stay did not differ significantly between the arms. CONCLUSIONS: Pem+Cb did not produce significantly better G4PFS compared with Pac+Cb+Bev. Pem+Cb was not superior in PFS, OS, ORR, or DCR compared with Pac+Cb+Bev. Both regimens were well tolerated, although, toxicity profiles differed.

Study protocol: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in first-line treatment of squamous non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is a high unmet need for effective treatments for patients with squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Eli Lilly and Company is conducting a phase III, randomized, multicenter, open-label study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin plus necitumumab (GC + N) versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) for the first-line treatment of patients with stage IV squamous NSCLC. Given GC is not the only treatment commonly used for the treatment of squamous NSCLC, this study was designed to compare the survival, toxicity, and quality of life outcomes of current treatment strategies for squamous NSCLC in the first-line setting. METHODS/DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis (including indirect comparisons) of treatments used in squamous NSCLC will be conducted to assess the clinical efficacy (overall and progression-free survival), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and safety (grade 3-4 toxicity) of GC + N compared to other treatments used in squamous NSCLC. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines will be followed for all aspects of this study. A systematic literature review will be conducted to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating chemotherapy treatment in first-line NSCLC. Eligible articles will be restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) among chemotherapy-naïve advanced NSCLC cancer patients that report outcome data (survival, toxicity, or quality of life) for patients with squamous histology. Following data extraction and validation, data consistency and study heterogeneity will be assessed. A network meta-analysis will be conducted based on the available hazard ratios for overall and progression-free survival, odds ratios for published toxicity data, and mean difference of HRQoL scales. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted. DISCUSSION: This is a presentation of the study protocol only. Results and conclusions are pending completion of this study. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014008968.

Pemetrexed use in the adjuvant setting for completely resectable non-small-cell lung cancer.

Supported by evidence from the LACE (Lung Adjuvant Cisplatin Evaluation) metaanalysis, cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy is now recommended as the standard of care for patients with surgically resected early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) per American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology clinical practice guidelines. These standard regimens, which principally include cisplatin-etoposide and cisplatin-vinorelbine, are associated with long- and short-term toxicities. Hence, cisplatin-based regimens with an improved therapeutic index and optimal safety and tolerability profile are still needed. Pemetrexed, an antifolate, is currently indicated for first-line, maintenance, and second-line therapy for advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Pemetrexed-platinum, with or without targeted agents, has proven to be efficacious with an acceptable toxicity profile when given in the first-line metastatic setting. Therefore, it is reasonable that pemetrexed be investigated in the adjuvant setting. This review collates data from January 2000 through August 2012 on the use of pemetrexed-platinum regimens in the adjuvant setting either alone or in combination with targeted agents. To date, more than 1000 patients with early stage NSCLC have been enrolled in adjuvant therapy studies evaluating various pemetrexed-containing treatment regimens, and additional patients are being enrolled in ongoing studies. Current evidence appears to favor the combination with cisplatin over that with carboplatin. We await more robust safety and efficacy data from these ongoing adjuvant trials to define with clarity the role of pemetrexed-containing regimens in this setting.

Phase 2 study of pemetrexed plus carboplatin, or pemetrexed plus cisplatin with concurrent radiation therapy followed by pemetrexed consolidation in patients with favorable-prognosis inoperable stage IIIA/B non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: There is no consensus chemotherapy regimen with concurrent radiotherapy (RT) for inoperable stage IIIA/B non-small-cell lung cancer. This trial evaluated pemetrexed with carboplatin (PCb) or cisplatin (PC) with concurrent RT followed by consolidation pemetrexed. METHODS: In this open-label, noncomparative phase II trial, patients with inoperable stage IIIA/B non-small-cell lung cancer (initially all histologies, later restricted to nonsquamous) were randomized (1:1) to PCb or PC with concurrent RT (64-68 Gy over days 1-45). Consolidation pemetrexed monotherapy was administered every 21 days for three cycles. Primary endpoint was 2-year overall survival (OS) rate. RESULTS: From June 2007 to November 2009, 98 patients were enrolled (PCb: 46; PC: 52). The 2-year OS rate was PCb: 45.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 29.5-60.0%); PC: 58.4% (95% CI, 42.6-71.3%), and in nonsquamous patients was PCb: 48.0% (95% CI, 29.0-64.8%); PC: 55.8% (95% CI, 38.0-70.3%). Median time to disease progression was PCb: 8.8 months (95% CI, 6.0-12.6 months); PC: 13.1 months (95% CI, 8.3-not evaluable [NE]). Median OS (months) was PCb: 18.7 (95% CI, 12.9-NE); PC: 27.0 (95% CI, 23.2-NE). The objective response rates (ORRs) were PCb: 52.2%; PC: 46.2%. Grade 4 treatment-related toxicities (% PCb/% PC) were: anemia, 0/1.9; neutropenia, 6.5/3.8; thrombocytopenia, 4.3/1.9; and esophagitis, 0/1.9. Most patients completed scheduled chemotherapy and RT during induction and consolidation phases. No drug-related deaths were reported during chemoradiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Because of study design, efficacy comparisons cannot be made. However, both combinations with concurrent RT were active and well tolerated.

Comparison of pemetrexed plus cisplatin with other first-line doublets in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a combined analysis of three phase 3 trials.

INTRODUCTION: In a first-line study of advanced NSCLC, pemetrexed-cisplatin was more effective among patients with adenocarcinoma and large-cell carcinoma compared with gemcitabine-cisplatin (median survival of 11.8 versus 10.4 months, P=.005), while survival with pemetrexed-cisplatin was shorter than with gemcitabine-cisplatin in patients with squamous cell carcinoma. The comparability of pemetrexed-cisplatin to other commonly used regimens within histology subgroups needs to be explored. METHODS: This retrospective analysis combined the patient-level data from three phase 3 randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy of different third generation platinum- and non-platinum based doublets. Unadjusted median survival times and Cox covariate-adjusted treatment hazard ratio (HR) estimates were calculated. Overall results and subgroups by histological type were reported. RESULTS: This combined analysis consisted of 3467 patients. In the overall analysis, adjusted HRs favored pemetrexed (HR <1.0) to each of the other 5 regimens, though none of these HRs were statistically significant. Among patients with non-squamous histology, pemetrexed-cisplatin produced favorable HRs to each of the other regimens, achieving statistical significance when compared with vinorelbine-cisplatin (HR=0.67; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.50, 0.91) and gemcitabine-cisplatin (HR=0.85; 95% CI: 0.75, 0.97). Among patients with squamous histology, 4 of the 5 comparison regimens produced favorable HRs (HR >1.0) when compared with pemetrexed-cisplatin, with only the comparison with gemcitabine-cisplatin achieving statistical significance (HR=1.23; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.51). CONCLUSION: In the absence of randomized clinical trial data comparing pemetrexed-cisplatin to commonly used doublets in advanced NSCLC other than gemcitabine-cisplatin, this combined analysis of multiple trials provides estimates for such comparisons.

Phase i study of 'dose-dense' pemetrexed plus carboplatin/radiotherapy for locally advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: This phase I study investigates the feasibility of carboplatin plus dose-dense (q2-week) pemetrexed given concurrently with radiotherapy (XRT) for locally advanced and oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Eligible patients had Stage III or IV (oligometastatic) NSCLC. Patients received XRT to 63 Gy in standard fractionation. Patients received concurrent carboplatin (AUC = 6) during weeks 1 and 5 of XRT, and pemetrexed during weeks 1, 3, 5, and 7 of XRT. The starting dose level (level 1) of pemetrexed was 300 mg/m2. Following the finding of dose limiting toxicity (DLT) in dose level 1, an amended dose level (level 1A) continued pemetrexed at 300 mg/m2, but with involved field radiation instead of extended nodal irradiation. Consolidation consisted of carboplatin (AUC = 6) and pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) q3 weeks × 2 -3 cycles. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were enrolled. Fourteen patients are evaluable for toxicity analysis. Of the initial 6 patients treated on dose level 1, two experienced DLTs (one grade 4 sepsis, one prolonged grade 3 esophagitis). There was one DLT (grade 5 pneumonitis) in the 8 patients treated on dose level 1A. In 16 patients evaluable for response (4 with oligometastatic stage IV disease and 12 with stage III disease), the median follow-up time is 17.8 months. Thirteen of 16 patients had in field local regional response. The actuarial median survival time was 28.6 months in all patients and 34.7 months (estimated) in stage III patients. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent carboplatin with dose-dense (q2week) pemetrexed at 300 mg/m2 with involved field XRT is feasible and encouraging in patients with locally advanced and oligometastatic NSCLC.

A retrospective analysis of outcomes by age in a three-arm phase III trial of gemcitabine in combination with carboplatin or paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel plus carboplatin for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Sufficient data are currently unavailable to assist in defining suitable regimens for patients ≥ 70 years with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Chemonaïve patients with a performance status (PS) of 0 or 1 and stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomized to gemcitabine 1000mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 5.5 on day 1; the same schedule of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel 200mg/m(2) on day 1; or paclitaxel 225mg/m(2) on day 1 plus carboplatin AUC 6.0 on day 1. Cycles were every 21 days up to 6. Efficacy and toxicity results were compared by age groups. RESULTS: Overall survival (OS) between patients <70 years (8.6 months, 95% CI: 7.9, 9.5) and ≥ 70 years (7.9 months, 95% CI: 7.1, 9.5) was similar. OS was 8.8 months (95% CI: 7.5, 10.3) among patients 70-74 years, 6.5 months (95% CI: 5.6, 9.3) among patients 75-79 years, and 7.9 months (95% CI: 6.3, 10.3) among patients ≥ 80 years. OS was lower among patients 75-79 years compared with patients 70-74 years (P=0.04). Compared with patients <70 years, patients ≥ 70 years experienced similar rates of myelosuppresion, but younger patients experienced more vomiting and nausea. There was no clear pattern with respect to differences in efficacy by treatments across age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the similarity of patient outcomes across age groups, doublet chemotherapy is feasible among carefully selected elderly patients with good PS.

Randomized, phase II trial of pemetrexed and carboplatin with or without enzastaurin versus docetaxel and carboplatin as first-line treatment of patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Enzastaurin is an oral serine/threonine kinase inhibitor that targets protein kinase C-beta (PKC-ß) and the phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase/AKT pathway. This trial assessed pemetrexed-carboplatin ± enzastaurin to docetaxel-carboplatin in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB (with pleural effusion) or IV non-small cell lung cancer and performance status 0 or 1 were randomized to one of the three arms: (A) pemetrexed 500 mg/m and carboplatin area under the curve 6 once every 3 weeks for up to 6 cycles with a loading dose of enzastaurin 1125 or 1200 mg followed by 500 mg daily until disease progression, (B) the same regimen of pemetrexed-carboplatin without enzastaurin, or (C) docetaxel 75 mg/m and carboplatin area under the curve 6 once every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary end point was time to disease progression (TTP). RESULTS: Between March 2006 and May 2008, 218 patients were randomized. Median TTP was 4.6 months for pemetrexed-carboplatin-enzastaurin, 6.0 months for pemetrexed-carboplatin, and 4.1 months for docetaxel-carboplatin (differences not significant). Median survival was 7.2 months for pemetrexed-carboplatin-enzastaurin, 12.7 months for pemetrexed-carboplatin, and 9.2 months for docetaxel-carboplatin (log-rank p = 0.05). Compared with the other arms, docetaxel-carboplatin was associated with lower rates of grade 3 thrombocytopenia and anemia but a higher rate of grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in TTP between the three arms, but survival was longer with pemetrexed-carboplatin compared with docetaxel-carboplatin. Enzastaurin did not add to the activity of pemetrexed-carboplatin.

A Comparison of white and African American outcomes from a three-arm, randomized, phase III multicenter trial of advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of race on the efficacy and safety of standard chemotherapy doublet regimens in African American patients, we conducted a subgroup analysis of a phase III randomized trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemonaïve patients with a performance status of 0 or 1 and stage IIIB or IV non-small cell lung cancer were randomized to arm A: gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the curve 5.5 on day 1; arm B: the same schedule of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 on day 1; or arm C: paclitaxel 225 mg/m2 on day 1 plus carboplatin area under the curve 6.0 on day 1. Cycles were repeated every 21 days up to 6. A site selection tool identified institutions with potential to recruit a minority population. Outcome and toxicity data of white and African American patients were compared. RESULTS: Of 1135 total patients, 972 were white (85.6%) and 138 were African American (12.2%). Median survival was 8.3 months for white patients (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.7-9.3) and 9.1 months for African American patients (95% CI: 8.2-11.1). Response rates were 29.1 and 29.0%, respectively. Rates of grade 3 or 4 toxicities were comparable. Among African Americans, median survival was 7.2 months (95% CI: 5.1-10.1) for gemcitabine-carboplatin (n = 47), 10.5 months (95% CI: 7.1-15.4) for gemcitabine-paclitaxel (n = 42), and 10.2 months (95% CI: 8.5-13.2) for paclitaxel-carboplatin (n = 49). CONCLUSION: Whites and African Americans had similar outcomes, although there was some variability in survival among African Americans across the three treatment groups.

A retrospective analysis of outcomes across histological subgroups in a three-arm phase III trial of gemcitabine in combination with carboplatin or paclitaxel versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Three phase III trials have shown pemetrexed to be associated with improved clinical outcomes among patients with adenocarcinoma and large cell histology compared with patients with squamous histology in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The current retrospective analysis examined whether differences were present by histology in a three-arm trial of gemcitabine-carboplatin (GCb) or gemcitabine-paclitaxel (GP) versus a standard regimen of paclitaxel-carboplatin (PCb). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 1135 chemonaïve patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomly allocated to receive: gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 5.5 day 1 (GCb); or gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8 plus paclitaxel 200mg/m(2) day 1 (GP); or paclitaxel 225 mg/m(2) plus carboplatin AUC 6.0 day 1 (PCb). Cycles were repeated every 21 days up to 6 cycles or disease progression. Clinical results were retrospectively analyzed in by patient histology. RESULTS: 202 patients (17.8%) had squamous, 555 (48.9%) had adenocarcinoma, 45 (4.0%) had large cell, and 333 (29.3%) had another histologic type. The overall response rate for squamous patients was greater than non-squamous (35.1% versus 27.8%, P=0.04). Median survival (9.5 months for squamous and 8.3 months for non-squamous) and median time to progression (5.0 months for squamous and 4.4 months for non-squamous) did not significantly vary by histologic group. For squamous histology, median survival was 6.6 months for GCb, 10.2 months for GP, and 10.3 months for PCb. For non-squamous disease, median survival was 8.2 months for GCb, 8.4 months for GP, and 8.3 months for PCb. A formal test for a histology-by-treatment interaction effect between GCb and PCb was significant (P=0.04). CONCLUSION: In this trial of commonly used agents for advanced NSCLC, overall survival and time to progression were similar when comparing patients across histologies. The effect of treatment, however, varied across histologies.

Outcomes associated with brain metastases in a three-arm phase III trial of gemcitabine-containing regimens versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases (BMs) are a common complication of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Because of historical data indicating a poor prognosis for patients with BM, few randomized phase III studies of advanced NSCLC have included patients with BM at presentation. Because the potential benefits of systemic therapy in patients with BM are uncertain, we analyzed data from a recent phase III study. METHODS: One thousand one hundred thirty-five chemonaïve patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC were randomized to receive gemcitabine/carboplatin, gemcitabine/paclitaxel, or paclitaxel/carboplatin. Stratification was based on presence or absence of BM, stage, and baseline weight loss. Patients with BM were required to be clinically stable after treatment with radiotherapy or surgery before entry. Results were retrospectively analyzed by presence or absence of BM at study entry. RESULTS: Rate of BM was 17.1% overall. The response rate was 28.9% for patients with BM (n = 194) versus 29.1% without BM (n = 941). Time to progression was 4.3 months with BM and 4.6 months without BM (p = 0.03). Median survival was 7.7 months (95% confidence interval: 6.7-9.3) among patients with BM (n = 194) and 8.6 months (95% confidence interval: 7.9-9.5) for patients without BM (n = 941), p = 0.09. Rates of hematologic adverse events were not different among patients with and without BM. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in response, survival, or hematologic toxicity for patients with or without BM; however, patients with BM had a small but significantly shorter time to progression. Nonprogressing patients with treated BM are appropriate candidates for systemic therapy and entry into clinical trials.