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.

[KRAS and bronchial adenocarcinoma. Between disappointments and hopes]

A better understanding of oncogenesis and the development of targeted therapies have led to improved outcomes in the treatment of lung cancer. KRAS mutation has the potential to drive the oncogenesis of almost one third of lung adenocarcinomas but it leads to a highly complex proliferation signal involving multiple signaling pathways, explaining the disappointing results of various inhibition strategies of K-ras or its effectors. Nevertheless, recent data suggest different roles of distinct KRAS mutation subtypes and KRAS interactions with new genes in the field of synthetic lethality mechanisms open the way to new therapeutic possibilities. This review aims to provide an overview of: 1) epidemiological data and particularly the prognostic impact of KRAS mutations in non-small cell lung cancer, 2) the results of different drugs either being tested in humans or sources of hope.

Crizotinib therapy for advanced lung adenocarcinoma and a ROS1 rearrangement: results from the EUROS1 cohort

PURPOSE

Approximately 1% of lung adenocarcinomas are driven by oncogenic ROS1 rearrangement. Crizotinib is a potent inhibitor of both ROS1 and ALK kinase domains.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In the absence of a prospective clinical trial in Europe, we conducted a retrospective study in centers that tested for ROS1 rearrangement. Eligible patients had stage IV lung adenocarcinoma, had ROS1 rearrangement according to fluorescent in situ hybridization, and had received crizotinib therapy through an individual off-label use. Best response was assessed locally using RECIST (version 1.1). All other data were analyzed centrally.

RESULTS

We identified 32 eligible patients. One patient was excluded because next-generation sequencing was negative for ROS1 fusion. Median age was 50.5 years, 64.5% of patients were women, and 67.7% were never-smokers. Thirty patients were evaluable for progression-free survival (PFS), and 29 patients were evaluable for best response. We observed four patients with disease progression, two patients with stable disease, and objective response in 24 patients, including five complete responses (overall response rate, 80%; disease control rate, 86.7%). Median PFS was 9.1 months, and the PFS rate at 12 months was 44%. No unexpected adverse effects were observed. Twenty-six patients received pemetrexed (either alone or in combination with platinum and either before or after crizotinib) and had a response rate of 57.7% and a median PFS of 7.2 months.

CONCLUSION

Crizotinib was highly active at treating lung cancer in patients with a ROS1 rearrangement, suggesting that patients with lung adenocarcinomas should be tested for ROS1. Prospective clinical trials with crizotinib and other ROS1 inhibitors are ongoing or planned.

[Parapneumonic pleural effusions: Epidemiology, diagnosis, classification and management]

Parapneumonic pleural effusions represent the main cause of pleural infections. Their incidence is constantly increasing. Although by definition they are considered to be a "parapneumonic" phenomenon, the microbial epidemiology of these effusions differs from pneumonia with a higher prevalence of anaerobic bacteria. The first thoracentesis is the most important diagnostic stage because it allows for a distinction between complicated and non-complicated parapneumonic effusions. Only complicated parapneumonic effusions need to be drained. Therapeutic evacuation modalities include repeated therapeutic thoracentesis, chest tube drainage or thoracic surgery. The choice of the first-line evacuation treatment is still controversial and there are few prospective controlled studies. The effectiveness of fibrinolytic agents is not established except when they are combined with DNase. Antibiotics are mandatory; they should be initiated as quickly as possible and should be active against anaerobic bacteria except for in the context of pneumococcal infections. There are few data on the use of chest physiotherapy, which remains widely used. Mortality is still high and is influenced by underlying comorbidities.

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.

Iterative thoracentesis as first-line treatment of complicated parapneumonic effusion

Rationale

Optimal management of complicated parapneumonic effusions (CPPE) remains controversial.

Objectives

to assess safety and efficacy of iterative therapeutic thoracentesis (ITTC), the first-line treatment of CPPE in Rennes University Hospital.

Methods

Patients with CPPE were identified through our computerized database. We retrospectively studied all cases of CPPE initially managed with ITTC in our institution between 2001 and 2010. ITTC failure was defined by the need for additional treatment (i.e. surgery or percutaneous drainage), or death.

Results

Seventy-nine consecutive patients were included. The success rate was 81% (n = 64). Only 3 patients (4%) were referred to thoracic surgery. The one-year survival rate was 88%. On multivariate analysis, microorganisms observed in pleural fluid after Gram staining and first thoracentesis volume ≥450 mL were associated with ITTC failure with adjusted odds-ratios of 7.65 [95% CI, 1.44–40.67] and 6.97 [95% CI, 1.86–26.07], respectively. The main complications of ITTC were iatrogenic pneumothorax (n = 5, 6%) and vasovagal reactions (n = 3, 4%). None of the pneumothoraces required chest tube drainage, and no hemothorax or re-expansion pulmonary edema was observed.

Conclusions

Although not indicated in international recommendations, ITTC is safe and effective as first-line treatment of CPPE, with limited invasiveness.

Randomized, phase III study of gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance therapy versus observation, with predefined second-line treatment, after cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

This phase III study investigated whether continuation maintenance with gemcitabine or switch maintenance with erlotinib improves clinical outcome compared with observation in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease was controlled after cisplatin-gemcitabine induction chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Four hundred sixty-four patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC without tumor progression after four cycles of cisplatin-gemcitabine were randomly assigned to observation or to gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8 of a 3-week cycle) or daily erlotinib (150 mg/day) study arms. On disease progression, patients in all three arms received pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2) once every 21 days) as predefined second-line therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

PFS was significantly prolonged by gemcitabine (median, 3.8 v 1.9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.72; log-rank P < .001) and erlotinib (median, 2.9 v 1.9 months; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.88; log-rank P = .003) versus observation; this benefit was consistent across all clinical subgroups. Both maintenance strategies resulted in a nonsignificant improvement in overall survival (OS); patients who received second-line pemetrexed or with a performance status of 0 appeared to derive greater benefit. Exploratory analysis showed that magnitude of response to induction chemotherapy may affect the OS benefit as a result of gemcitabine maintenance. Maintenance gemcitabine and erlotinib were well tolerated with no unexpected adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Gemcitabine continuation maintenance or erlotinib switch maintenance significantly reduces disease progression in patients with advanced NSCLC treated with cisplatin-gemcitabine as first-line chemotherapy. Response to induction chemotherapy may affect OS only for continuation maintenance.

Induction (ICT) or consolidation chemotherapy (CT) with cisplatin (C) and paclitaxel (P) plus concurrent chemo-radiation (CT/TRT) with cisplatin and vinorelbine (V) for unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients (pts): Randomized phase II trial GFPC-GLOT-IFCT 02–01

7048

Background: Concurrent CT/TRT is the standard treatment for unresectable stage III NSCLC, but the optimal sequencing of TRT and CT is not well defined.Consolidation CT with taxane seems to be a good approach (SWOG 95–04). Methods: Unresectable stage III NSCLC pts (weight loss < 10%, ECOG PS 0–1, no supraclavicular lymph node or superior vena cava syndrome) were eligible. in Arm A, pts received 2 cycles of C 80 mg/m2 and P 200 mg/m2 followed by a concurrent CT/TRT including TRT as 66 Gy in 33 fractions and C 80 mg/m2 d1,29 and 57 and V d1,8,29,36,57 and 64. In Arm B, the same CT/TRT began on d1 followed by 2 cycles of C and P. The primary objective was response rate at the end of treatment, assessed by RECIST criteria. 132 pts were needed. Results: From 05/2002 to 03/2005, 133 pts were included by 35 centers. 5 pts were ineligible. Both groups were well-matched for baseline characteristics. 30 pts were stage IIIAN2 and 98 stage IIIB. Toxicities (106 pts analyzable) grade 3–4 by CTC and RTOG criteria (Arm A/Arm B) were: neutropenia 36%/41%, infection 11%/15%, esophagitis 6%/13%, pneumonitis 0%/1%. 5 toxic deaths were observed (2 sepsis, 1 massive hemoptysis, 1 post-irradiation pneumonitis, 1 esophageal fistula). In Arm A, objective response rate was 36% after ICT. At the end of treatment, response rate (Arm A/Arm B) was in intent to treat: progression 19%/19%, stable-disease 6%/11%, objective response 55%/48%. 13 pts were not evaluable for response in Arm A and 14 in Arm B [ table ]. Conclusions: Toxicities and response rates are similar in both arms, but ICT followed by CT/TRT appears to provide a better therapeutic outcome.

[Table: see text]

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Randomized multicentric phase II study of carboplatin/gemcitabine and cisplatin/vinorelbine in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine and carboplatin in the treatment of previously untreated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

A randomized phase II study was conducted by the Groupe Français de Pneumo-Cancérologie (GFPC) in 15 centers. The patients were randomized in either arm A (GC): gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8+carboplatin AUC 6 mg/(mLmin) on day 1; or in arm B (VP): vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 weekly+cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1. Treatment cycles were repeated every 3 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients were randomized with stage IV or stage III NSCLC with malignant pleural effusion: 51 patients in arm A and 49 patients in arm B. A total of 190 cycles were administered in the GC arm and 172 cycles in the VP arm, with a median of four cycles per patient in each arm. The dose intensity was 84.9% for gemcitabine, 99.8% for carboplatin, 97.7% for cisplatin and 67.7% for vinorelbine. The objective response rates were 19.6% (95% CI, 9.8-33.1) for GC and 29.2% (95% CI, 17.0-44.1) for VP in an ITT analysis. The response duration was 169 days in arm A and 226 days in arm B. The TTP was similar with 140 days (GC) and 148 days (VP), respectively. Overall survival rates were 334 days in the GC combination and 304 days in the VP combination. Overall, the treatment was safe and toxicities observed were different in each arm: neutropenia was the most common toxicity in the VP treatment, whereas thrombocytopenia was more frequent in the GC combination. Anemia was similar in both arms. Non-haematologic toxicity was mild. One toxic death in arm A and three toxic deaths in arm B were observed.

CONCLUSION

In terms of response rate, the gemcitabine-carboplatin combination was not efficient enough to allow further phase III study. Survival data are in the same range as the standard arm. This chemotherapy is feasible and may represent an alternative to a standard cisplatin-based regimen, allowing treatment in an outpatient setting.

Randomized phase III trial of sequential chemoradiotherapy compared with concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Groupe Lyon-Saint-Etienne d'Oncologie Thoracique-Groupe Français de Pneumo-Cancérologie NPC 95-01 Study

PURPOSE

We conducted a phase III study to compare the survival impact of concurrent versus sequential treatment with radiotherapy (RT) and chemotherapy (CT) in unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to one of the two treatment arms. In the sequential arm, patients received induction CT with cisplatin (120 mg/m2) on days 1, 29, and 57, and vinorelbine (30 mg/m2/wk) from day 1 to day 78, followed by thoracic RT at a dose of 66 Gy in 33 fractions (2 Gy per fraction and 5 fractions per week). In the concurrent arm, the same RT was started on day 1 with two concurrent cycles of cisplatin 20 mg/m2/d and etoposide 50 mg/m2/d (days 1 to 5 and days 29 to 33); patients then received consolidation therapy with cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on days 78 and 106 and vinorelbine 30 mg/m2/wk from days 78 to 127.

RESULTS

Two hundred five patients were randomly assigned. Pretreatment characteristics were well balanced between the two arms. There were six toxic deaths in the sequential arm and 10 in the concurrent arm. Median survival was 14.5 months in the sequential arm and 16.3 months in the concurrent arm (log-rank test P = .24). Two-, 3-, and 4-year survival rates were better in the concurrent arm (39%, 25%, and 21%, respectively) than in the sequential arm (26%, 19%, and 14%, respectively). Esophageal toxicity was significantly more frequent in the concurrent arm than in the sequential arm (32% v 3%).

CONCLUSION

Although not statistically significant, clinically important differences in the median, 2-, 3-, and 4-year survival rates were observed, with a trend in favor of concurrent chemoradiation therapy, suggesting that is the optimal strategy for patients with locally advanced NSCLC.