Phase II trial of mapatumumab, a fully human agonist monoclonal antibody to tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand receptor 1 (TRAIL-R1), in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

This phase II study examined the efficacy of mapatumumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with stage IIIB or stage IV advanced primary NSCLC were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive up to 6 courses of standard-dose paclitaxel and carboplatin or a combination of paclitaxel, carboplatin, and mapatumumab (10 mg/kg or 30 mg/kg). Primary efficacy end points were overall response rate and median progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary efficacy end points included disease control rate, overall survival (OS), time to response, and duration of response. Exploratory studies included evaluation of historical biopsy materials for TRAIL-R1 expression by immunohistochemical analysis and serum levels of M30, a marker of apoptosis, before and after the first 2 doses of mapatumumab. Safety parameters, including adverse events (AEs), laboratory tests, and immunogenicity, were assessed.

RESULTS

The majority of patients had stage IV disease (79%) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 (58%); baseline characteristics were similar across treatment arms. No improvements in response or disease control rates, PFS, or OS were gained from the addition of mapatumumab. Adverse events in the mapatumumab arms were generally consistent with toxicities seen in the carboplatin and paclitaxel control arm. Levels of M30 were highly variable, and consistent patterns were not seen across treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

This study showed no clinical benefit from adding mapatumumab to carboplatin and paclitaxel in unselected patients with NSCLC. The combination was generally well tolerated. The possibility of subgroups sensitive to mapatumumab is discussed.

An international survey of practice patterns and difficulties in cancer pain management in Southeastern Europe: a Turkish & Balkan Oncology Group common initiative

PURPOSE

While pain is highly prevalent in cancer patients and its management is universally challenging, it is more commonly undertreated in the developing world. Southeastern European countries have limited resources and manpower to allocate for delivery of effective care for cancer-related pain. The purpose of this study was to explore the practice methods and the barriers to effective pain management in Southeastern Europe.

METHODS

We conducted a Web-based survey using a specially designed questionnaire among physicians practicing in member countries of the Balkan Union of Oncology (BUON).

RESULTS

A representative from each of the member countries of BUON (including Armenia and Georgia) and close to 100 physicians from 8 countries responded. The majority (89%) of respondents were medical oncologists and had been practising for 10 years on average. For pain assessment, only 35.4% of the physicians used a formal pain scale. Of the respondents 34.1% were not able to reach the optimal doses of narcotic medications while managing cancer pain, mostly due to concerns about toxicity, such as constipation and nausea. Most physicians listed their inability to consult sub-specialists to seek assistance for improving pain management cases as one of the major difficulties in day-to- day clinical practice, along with lack of time.

CONCLUSIONS

The limitations faced by our respondents seem to be related mostly to the shortcomings of the respective health care systems, along with the need for more experience and knowledge about the titration of pain medications and dealing with toxicities.

PARAMOUNT: Final overall survival results of the phase III study of maintenance pemetrexed versus placebo immediately after induction treatment with pemetrexed plus cisplatin for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

In the phase III PARAMOUNT trial, pemetrexed continuation maintenance therapy reduced the risk of disease progression versus placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.79; P < .001). Here we report final overall survival (OS) and updated safety data.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 939 patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) received four cycles of pemetrexed-cisplatin induction therapy; then, 539 patients with no disease progression and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (2:1) to maintenance pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2) on day 1 of 21-day cycles; n = 359) or placebo (n = 180). Log-rank test compared OS between arms as measured from random assignment (α = .0498).

RESULTS

The mean number of maintenance cycles was 7.9 (range, one to 44) for pemetrexed and 5.0 (range, one to 38) for placebo. After 397 deaths (pemetrexed, 71%; placebo, 78%) and a median follow-up of 24.3 months for alive patients (95% CI, 23.2 to 25.1 months), pemetrexed therapy resulted in a statistically significant 22% reduction in the risk of death (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.96; P = .0195; median OS: pemetrexed, 13.9 months; placebo, 11.0 months). Survival on pemetrexed was consistently improved for all patient subgroups, including induction response: complete/partial responders (n = 234) OS HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.11 and stable disease (n = 285) OS HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.01). Postdiscontinuation therapy use was similar: pemetrexed, 64%; placebo, 72%. No new safety findings emerged. Drug-related grade 3 to 4 anemia, fatigue, and neutropenia were significantly higher in pemetrexed-treated patients.

CONCLUSION

Pemetrexed continuation maintenance therapy is well-tolerated and offers superior OS compared with placebo, further demonstrating that it is an efficacious treatment strategy for patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC and good performance status who did not progress during pemetrexed-cisplatin induction therapy.

International, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase III study of motesanib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer: MONET1

PURPOSE

We evaluated whether motesanib (a selective oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3; platelet-derived growth factor receptor; and Kit) combined with carboplatin/paclitaxel improved overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy alone in patients with nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and in the subset of patients with adenocarcinoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with stage IIIB/IV or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC (no prior systemic therapy for advanced disease) were randomly assigned 1:1 to carboplatin (area under the curve, 6 mg/ml · min) and paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) intravenously for up to six 3-week cycles plus either motesanib 125 mg (arm A) or placebo (arm B) once daily orally. OS was the primary end point. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), adverse events (AEs), and association between placental growth factor (PLGF) change and OS.

RESULTS

A total of 1,090 patients with nonsquamous NSCLC were randomly assigned (arms A/B, n = 541 of 549); of those, 890 had adenocarcinoma (n = 448 of 442). Median OS in arms A and B was 13.0 and 11.0 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.04; P = .14); median OS for the adenocarcinoma subset was 13.5 and 11.0 months, respectively (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.03; P = .11). In descriptive analyses (arms A v B), median PFS was 5.6 months versus 5.4 months (P = < .001); ORR was 40% versus 26% (P < .001). There was no association between PLGF change and OS in arm A. The incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs (arms A and B, 73% and 59%, respectively) and grade 5 AEs (14% and 9%, respectively) was higher with motesanib treatment.

CONCLUSION

Motesanib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel did not significantly improve OS over carboplatin/paclitaxel alone in patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC or in the adenocarcinoma subset.

PARAMOUNT: Final overall survival (OS) results of the phase III study of maintenance pemetrexed (pem) plus best supportive care (BSC) versus placebo (plb) plus BSC immediately following induction treatment with pem plus cisplatin (cis) for advanced nonsquamous (NS) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

LBA7507

Background: The PARAMOUNT trial showed that pem continuation maintenance therapy significantly reduced the risk of disease progression over plb (HR=0.62; 95% CI: 0.49-0.79; p <0.0001) in patients (pts) with advanced NS NSCLC who had not progressed during pem-cis induction. Here we present the final OS data. Methods: In a double-blind, plb-controlled study, alpha-controlled for OS, 939 pts received induction (4 cycles of pem 500 mg/m2 and cis 75 mg/m2 on d1 of 21d cycles), and 539 pts who had not progressed and had an ECOG performance status (PS) of 0/1 were randomized (2:1) to maintenance pem (500 mg/m2, on day 1 of 21-day cycles) plus BSC or plb plus BSC until disease progression. All received B12, folic acid, and dexamethasone. After 397 deaths, a log-rank test compared OS between arms using anominal α level of 0.0498. Results: Pt characteristics were balanced between arms: median age 61 years; 58% men; 32% PS 0; 95% Caucasian; 86% adenocarcinoma; 45% complete/partial response (CR/PR) to induction. Pem resulted in a statistically significant 22% reduction in risk of death (HR=0.78). The HR was the same when measured from the beginning of induction. Survival improvement was similar for pts with an induction outcome of CR/PR versus stable disease. Conclusions: Pem continuation maintenance therapy offers superior OS compared with plb. These final results confirm that pem-cis induction followed by continuation pem further benefits pts compared with induction therapy alone, offering a change in the treatment paradigm for advanced NS NSCLC. [Table: see text]

PARAMOUNT: Final overall survival (OS) results of the phase III study of maintenance pemetrexed (pem) plus best supportive care (BSC) versus placebo (plb) plus BSC immediately following induction treatment with pem plus cisplatin (cis) for advanced nonsquamous (NS) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

LBA7507

The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstract.asco.org at 12:01 AM (EDT) on Monday, June 4, 2012, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2012, issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Monday edition of ASCO Daily News.

Impact of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage IB non-small-cell lung cancer: an analysis of 112 consecutively treated patients

PURPOSE

The impact of adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) in the management of radically resected stage IB non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is highly debated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of this category of patients treated at our institution.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed the survival data of patients with pathologic stage IB NSCLC, who received at least 1 cycle of adjuvant CT. CT was planned to be platinum based and to be delivered for 6 cycles.

RESULTS

One hundred and twelve consecutively treated patients were evaluated.

PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS

median age 60 years, median tumor diameter 4 cm, 87% underwent lobectomy and 13% pneumonectomy, 58% had visceral pleural involvement (VPI). After a median follow up of 46 months, the estimated 5-year disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 68% and 77%, respectively. The mean number of CT cycles was 5.2 (range 3-6), with 82% of patients receiving ≥ 5 cycles. The median cisplatin dose intensity (DI) was 22 mg/m(2)/week, and the relative DI was 85%. Median total cisplatin (CDDP) dose/patient was 416 mg/m(2). A total of 31 (27.6%) relapses were recorded, of which 81% were distant. Multivariate analysis showed no significant interaction between overall survival and the following variables: gender, type of surgery, histology, tumor volume, VPI.

CONCLUSION

Our results compare favorably with the historical data evaluating the outcome of stage IB patients treated by surgery alone in a customary medical setting. Overall, our data support the use of adjuvant CT in stage IB NSCLC patients.

Maintenance therapy with pemetrexed plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care after induction therapy with pemetrexed plus cisplatin for advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (PARAMOUNT): a double-blind, phase 3, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) benefit from pemetrexed maintenance therapy after induction therapy with a platinum-containing, non-pemetrexed doublet. The PARAMOUNT trial investigated whether continuation maintenance with pemetrexed improved progression-free survival after induction therapy with pemetrexed plus cisplatin.

METHODS

In this double-blind, multicentre, phase 3, randomised placebo-controlled trial, patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC aged 18 years or older, with no previous systemic chemotherapy for lung cancer, with at least one measurable lesion, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 participated. Before randomisation, patients entered an induction phase which consisted of four cycles of induction pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2)) plus cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Patients who did not progress after completion of four cycles of induction and who had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 were stratified according to disease stage (IIIB or IV), ECOG performance status (0 or 1), and induction response (complete or partial response, or stable disease), and randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to receive maintenance therapy with either pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2) every 21 days) plus best supportive care or placebo plus best supportive care until disease progression. Randomisation was done with the Pocock and Simon minimisation method. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00789373.

FINDINGS

Of the 1022 patients enrolled, 939 participated in the induction phase. Of these, 539 patients were randomly assigned to receive continuation maintenance with pemetrexed plus best supportive care (n=359) or with placebo plus best supportive care (n=180). Among the 359 patients randomised to continuation maintenance with pemetrexed, there was a significant reduction in the risk of disease progression over the placebo group (HR 0·62, 95% CI 0·49-0·79; p<0·0001). The median progression-free survival, measured from randomisation, was 4·1 months (95% CI 3·2-4·6) for pemetrexed and 2·8 months (2·6-3·1) for placebo. Possibly treatment-related laboratory grade 3-4 adverse events were more common in the pemetrexed group (33 [9%] of 359 patients) than in the placebo group (one [<1%] of 180 patients; p<0·0001), as were non-laboratory grade 3-5 adverse events (32 [9%] of 359 patients in the pemetrexed group; eight [4%] of 180 patients in the placebo group; p=0·080); one possibly treatment-related death was reported in each group. The most common adverse events of grade 3-4 in the pemetrexed group were anaemia (16 [4%] of 359 patients), neutropenia (13 [4%]), and fatigue (15 [4%]). In the placebo group, these adverse events were less common: anaemia (one [<1%] of 180 patients), neutropenia (none), and fatigue (one <1%]). The most frequent serious adverse events were anaemia (eight [2%] of 359 patients in the pemetrexed group vs none in the placebo group) and febrile neutropenia (five [1%] vs none). Discontinuations due to drug-related adverse events occurred in 19 (5%) patients in the pemetrexed group and six (3%) patients in the placebo group.

INTERPRETATION

Continuation maintenance with pemetrexed is an effective and well tolerated treatment option for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC with good performance status who have not progressed after induction therapy with pemetrexed plus cisplatin.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

Maintenance therapy with pemetrexed plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care after induction therapy with pemetrexed plus cisplatin for advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (PARAMOUNT): a double-blind, phase 3, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) benefit from pemetrexed maintenance therapy after induction therapy with a platinum-containing, non-pemetrexed doublet. The PARAMOUNT trial investigated whether continuation maintenance with pemetrexed improved progression-free survival after induction therapy with pemetrexed plus cisplatin.

METHODS

In this double-blind, multicentre, phase 3, randomised placebo-controlled trial, patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC aged 18 years or older, with no previous systemic chemotherapy for lung cancer, with at least one measurable lesion, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 participated. Before randomisation, patients entered an induction phase which consisted of four cycles of induction pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2)) plus cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Patients who did not progress after completion of four cycles of induction and who had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 were stratified according to disease stage (IIIB or IV), ECOG performance status (0 or 1), and induction response (complete or partial response, or stable disease), and randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to receive maintenance therapy with either pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2) every 21 days) plus best supportive care or placebo plus best supportive care until disease progression. Randomisation was done with the Pocock and Simon minimisation method. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00789373.

FINDINGS

Of the 1022 patients enrolled, 939 participated in the induction phase. Of these, 539 patients were randomly assigned to receive continuation maintenance with pemetrexed plus best supportive care (n=359) or with placebo plus best supportive care (n=180). Among the 359 patients randomised to continuation maintenance with pemetrexed, there was a significant reduction in the risk of disease progression over the placebo group (HR 0·62, 95% CI 0·49-0·79; p<0·0001). The median progression-free survival, measured from randomisation, was 4·1 months (95% CI 3·2-4·6) for pemetrexed and 2·8 months (2·6-3·1) for placebo. Possibly treatment-related laboratory grade 3-4 adverse events were more common in the pemetrexed group (33 [9%] of 359 patients) than in the placebo group (one [<1%] of 180 patients; p<0·0001), as were non-laboratory grade 3-5 adverse events (32 [9%] of 359 patients in the pemetrexed group; eight [4%] of 180 patients in the placebo group; p=0·080); one possibly treatment-related death was reported in each group. The most common adverse events of grade 3-4 in the pemetrexed group were anaemia (16 [4%] of 359 patients), neutropenia (13 [4%]), and fatigue (15 [4%]). In the placebo group, these adverse events were less common: anaemia (one [<1%] of 180 patients), neutropenia (none), and fatigue (one <1%]). The most frequent serious adverse events were anaemia (eight [2%] of 359 patients in the pemetrexed group vs none in the placebo group) and febrile neutropenia (five [1%] vs none). Discontinuations due to drug-related adverse events occurred in 19 (5%) patients in the pemetrexed group and six (3%) patients in the placebo group.

INTERPRETATION

Continuation maintenance with pemetrexed is an effective and well tolerated treatment option for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC with good performance status who have not progressed after induction therapy with pemetrexed plus cisplatin.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

Controversies in the management of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: maintenance therapy

The majority of patients with non-small cell lung (NSCLC) present with advanced, metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis. The current state of the art for the management of this condition is first- and second-line chemotherapy (CT), along with appropriate supporting care measures, which are supposed to alleviate symptoms and to improve survival. During the last years, maintenance therapy (MT) was included in the therapeutic algorithm for these patients. MT could be defined as continuation of an active treatment until disease progression in patients who demonstrated a non-progressing status following induction chemotherapy. Despite the results of several randomized trials showing a significant benefit by using this approach, the strategy is far from being universally accepted. The internationally recognized guidelines provide different recommendation when it comes to this topic, while some major drawbacks in the design of the positive clinical trials may have distorted the relevance of the communicated data. This paper aimed to review the most contentious aspects which should be considered while contemplating the use of MT in the daily clinical practice.

An international, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase III study (MONET1) of motesanib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel (C/P) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

LBA7512

Background: This study evaluated whether motesanib (a selective oral inhibitor of VEGFR 1, 2 and 3; PDGFR and Kit) plus C/P improved overall survival (OS) compared with placebo + C/P in patients (pts) with nonsquamous NSCLC and in a subset of pts with adenocarcinoma. Methods: Pts had stage IIIB/IV or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC and no prior systemic therapy for advanced NSCLC. The study initially enrolled all histologies but was amended to exclude pts with squamous NSCLC owing to a high rate of hemoptysis. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive up to six 3-wk cycles of C (AUC 6 mg/mL·min) and P (200 mg/m2) with either motesanib 125 mg QD (Arm A) or placebo QD (Arm B) orally continuously. The primary endpoint was OS; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), objective response rate (ORR) and association between placental growth factor (PLGF) change and OS. OS was evaluated using a stratified Cox model and 2-sided log-rank test (α=0.03 for nonsquamous pts and α=0.02 for adenocarcinoma pts). Results: 1090 pts with nonsquamous NSCLC were randomized (Arm A/B, n=541/549); 890 had adenocarcinoma (n=448/442). 61% were men; median age was 60 years (range 21–87); 83% had stage IV disease. At the time of analysis, 753 pts had died (608 pts with adenocarcinoma). Median follow-up was 10.6 mo. OS was not significantly improved in Arm A compared with Arm B (Table). In Arm A, PLGF analysis did not show an association with OS. The incidence of grade ≥3 AEs in Arms A/B was 73/59%. Grade ≥3 AEs occurring more frequently in Arm A than B included neutropenia (22/15%), diarrhea (9/1%), hypertension (7/1%) and cholecystitis (3/0%). The incidence of grade 5 AEs was 14/9% in Arms A/B. Conclusions: In pts with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC, treatment with motesanib + C/P did not significantly improve OS compared with C/P alone.

[Table: see text]

PARAMOUNT: Phase III study of maintenance pemetrexed (pem) plus best supportive care (BSC) versus placebo plus BSC immediately following induction treatment with pem plus cisplatin for advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

CRA7510

Background: The PARAMOUNT trial investigated whether pem continuation maintenance therapy improves progression-free survival (PFS) after pem-cisplatin induction therapy in patients (pts) with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Methods: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 939 pts participated in the induction phase, specified as four cycles of induction pem (500 mg/m2) and cisplatin (75 mg/m2) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Pts who had not progressed during pem-cisplatin induction and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) of 0/1 (n=539; 57.4%) were randomized (2:1, stratified for disease stage, PS, and induction response) to maintenance pem (500 mg/m2 on day 1 of a 21-day cycle) plus BSC (n=359) or placebo plus BSC (n=180) until disease progression. All pts received vitamin B12, folic acid, and dexamethasone. The primary endpoint was PFS (target: HR=0.65, two-sided alpha=0.05; 90% power with minimum of 238 events). Results: Pt characteristics were balanced between arms: median age=61 years; 58% male; 95% Caucasian; 32% PS 0; 91% stage IV; 87% adenocarcinoma; and 45% induction complete/partial response. Pem continuation maintenance resulted in a 36% reduction in the risk of progression (HR=0.64, 95% CI: 0.51-0.81; P=0.00025). The median independently reviewed PFS (472 pts, 297 events), measured from randomization, was 3.9 months (95% CI: 3.0-4.2) on the pem arm, and 2.6 months (95% CI: 2.2-2.9) on the placebo arm. The disease control rate (% pts with response/stable disease) was 71.8% on the pem arm, and 59.6% on the placebo arm (P=0.009). The drug-related serious adverse event (AE) rate was 8.9% on the pem arm, and 9.2% of pts had grade 3/4 laboratory Common Toxicity Criteria AEs. On the placebo arm, the rates were 2.8% and 0.6%, respectively. Discontinuations due to AEs were 5.3% on the pem arm, 3.3% on the placebo arm. Conclusions: PARAMOUNT met its primary endpoint and showed that pem continuation maintenance following pem-cisplatin induction is an effective and well tolerated treatment for pts with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC.

A randomized phase II trial of mapatumumab, a TRAIL-R1 agonist monoclonal antibody, in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC

LBA7501

Background: Mapatumumab, a fully human agonist monoclonal antibody, targets and activates the death receptor TRAIL-R1. We conducted this randomized, controlled phase II trial to evaluate mapatumumab in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel as first-line therapy in advanced non-small call lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods: Patients were required to have histologically or cytologically confirmed Stage IIIB or IV advanced primary NSCLC with measurable disease by RECIST. Patients were randomly assigned to Arm A, paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 + carboplatin AUC 6.0 (PC); Arm B, PC + mapatumumab 10 mg/kg; or Arm C, PC + mapatumumab 30 mg/kg. Cycles were repeated every 21 days; patients completed up to 6 cycles in the absence of evidence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients in Arms B and C could receive additional cycles of mapatumumab in the absence of disease progression. The co-primary endpoints were response rate (RR; complete response + partial response) and progression-free survival (PFS). Images were read by independent radiologists blinded to treatment group assignment, as well as locally.

Results: 111 patients were enrolled at 22 sites in 4 countries. Addition of mapatumumab to PC did not improve RR or PFS. RR and PFS, based on the independent read, and overall survival results are summarized below. The results based on local reading also showed no benefit from the addition of mapatumumab to PC. Adverse events were generally balanced across treatment groups; there was no evidence that mapatumumab exacerbated toxicities associated with PC.

Conclusions: The results do not support further evaluation of mapatumumab in combination with PC in patients with advanced NSCLC. Additional trials of mapatumumab in other indications are ongoing.

[Table: see text]

[Table: see text]

Randomized, double-blind trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel with either daily oral cediranib or placebo in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: NCIC clinical trials group BR24 study

PURPOSE This phase II/III double-blind study assessed efficacy and safety of cediranib with standard chemotherapy as initial therapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (area under the serum concentration-time curve 6) were given every 3 weeks, with daily oral cediranib or placebo at 30 mg (first 45 patients received 45 mg). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary outcome of the phase II interim analysis; phase III would proceed if the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS < or = 0.77 and toxicity were acceptable. Results A total of 296 patients were enrolled, 251 to the 30-mg cohort. The phase II interim analysis demonstrated a significantly higher response rate (RR) for cediranib than for placebo, HR of 0.77 for PFS, no excess hemoptysis, and a similar number of deaths in each arm. The study was halted to review imbalances in assigned causes of death. In the primary phase II analysis (30-mg cohort), the adjusted HR for PFS was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.56 to 1.08) with a higher RR for cediranib than for placebo (38% v 16%; P < .0001). Cediranib patients had more hypertension, hypothyroidism, hand-foot syndrome, and GI toxicity. Hypoalbuminemia, age > or = 65 years, and female sex predicted increased toxicity. Survival update (N = 296) 10 months after study unblinding favored cediranib over placebo (median of 10.5 months v 10.1 months; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.06; P = .11). Causes of death in the cediranib 30-mg cohort were NSCLC (81%), protocol toxicity +/- NSCLC (13%), and other (6%); for the placebo group, they were 98%, 0%, and 2%, respectively. CONCLUSION The addition of cediranib to carboplatin/paclitaxel results in improved response and PFS, but does not appear tolerable at a 30-mg dose. Consequently, the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group and the Australasian Lung Cancer Trials Group initiated a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of cediranib 20 mg with carboplatin and paclitaxel in advanced NSCLC.

Controversies around the use of monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer

First line combination chemotherapy (CT) using platinum-based doublets is established as a standard of care for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Nevertheless, no significant advances have been recorded during the last years in this field. Therefore, there is a wide consensus among physicians that a plateau has already been reached with this strategy. Targeted therapy using tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and monoclonal antibodies emerged as a new field of development in the NSCLC therapeutics. Recently, the results of the phase III trials testing antibodies against vascular endothelial growth factor-VEGF (bevacizumab) and epidermal growth factor receptor-EGFR (cetuximab) challenged the paradigm of the platinum doublets as a gold standard in advanced NSCLC. Their appearance was enthusiastically commended both by patients and the oncological community. However, all medical oncologists have the responsibility to carefully analyze the real benefits of these new agents, to balance the advantages against the implicit risks of therapy and to make the decision having in mind the best interest of their patients. Last but not least, the associated health economic burden should also be considered. This paper addresses some issues related to the use of cetuximab and bevacizumab in advanced NSCLC. The main controversial aspects regarding patient selection, the real benefit of therapy, the molecular and clinical predictors, and the impact of other independent variables are carefully examined and presented. Due to many unsolved questions, no definite conclusions can be supported. The final decision about the optimal use of these agents is left to the clinical judgment of each treating physician.

Phase III study of pemetrexed plus carboplatin compared with etoposide plus carboplatin in chemotherapy-naive patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer

PURPOSE

Following a phase II trial in which pemetrexed-platinum demonstrated similar activity to that of historical etoposide-platinum controls, a phase III study was conducted to compare pemetrexed-carboplatin with etoposide-carboplatin for the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Chemotherapy-naive patients with ES-SCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of zero to 2 were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed-carboplatin (pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1; carboplatin at area under the serum concentration-time curve [AUC] 5 on day 1) or etoposide-carboplatin (etoposide 100 mg/m(2) on days 1 through 3; carboplatin AUC 5 on day 1) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary objective of the study was noninferiority of pemetrexed-carboplatin overall survival with a 15% margin.

RESULTS

Accrual was terminated with 908 of 1,820 patients enrolled after results of a planned interim analysis. In the final analysis, pemetrexed-carboplatin was inferior to etoposide-carboplatin for overall survival (median, 8.1 v 10.6 months; hazard ratio [HR],1.56; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.92; log-rank P < .01) and progression-free survival (median, 3.8 v 5.4 months; HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.58 to 2.17; log-rank P < .01). Objective response rates were also significantly lower for pemetrexed-carboplatin (31% v 52%; P < .001). Pemetrexed-carboplatin had lower grade 3 to 4 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and leukopenia than etoposide-carboplatin; grade 3 to 4 thrombocytopenia was comparable between arms and anemia was higher in the pemetrexed-carboplatin arm.

CONCLUSION

Pemetrexed-carboplatin is inferior for the treatment of ES-SCLC. Planned translational research and pharmacogenomic analyses of tumor and blood samples may help explain the study results and provide insight into new treatment strategies.

Adjuvant therapy with aromatase inhibitors in postmenopausal, estrogen receptor- positive breast cancer patients: upfront or sequential?

For decades tamoxifen (TAM) has been the mainstay hormonal treatment for estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer patients. Nevertheless, during the last years, for postmenopausal women particularly, the third generation aromatase inhibitors (AI) became the preferred alternative. The results of the randomized trials showed that AI were superior to TAM in terms of efficacy, and were accompanied by a different but fairly convenient side effects profile. Subsequently, all updated guidelines recommend the use of AI in the adjuvant setting for this category of patients, either upfront, following 2-3 years of TAM or as extended adjuvant therapy, after 5 years of TAM. However, no consensus has been reached regarding the best strategy to be used, and the expert opinion is divided, based on the available evidence. The controversial aspect of whether AI should be used upfront or following 2-3 years of TAM is further detailed in this manuscript, and some useful recommendations are provided in order to facilitate the decision-making process during the current clinical practice.