A phase II randomized trial of gemcitabine-docetaxel versus gemcitabine-cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma

Quantitative comparison of the efficacies and safety profiles of three first-line non-platinum chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to quantify the efficacies and safety profiles of the three first-line non-platinum chemotherapy regimens recommended in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

Materials and Methods: The PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched comprehensively, and clinical trials involving patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with one of three first-line non-platinum regimens (gemcitabine combined with vinorelbine, gemcitabine combined with docetaxel, or gemcitabine alone) were included in the analysis. A parametric proportional hazard survival model was established to analyze the time course of overall survival (OS). The objective response rate (ORR) and incidence rates of grade 3–4 adverse events (AEs) were summarized using a single-arm meta-analysis with a random-effects model.

Results: Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. Age and performance status (PS) scores were significant predictors of OS. For each 10-years increase in age, mortality risk increased by 18.5%, and the mortality risk increased by 4% for every 10% increase in the proportion of patients with a PS score of 2. After correcting for the above factors, we found that the three first-line non-platinum chemotherapy regimens did not differ based on OS or toxicity.

Conclusion: There was no significant difference in OS or toxicity among the three first-line non-platinum chemotherapy regimens. Age and PS scores were significant predictors of OS, and their heterogeneity across different studies should be considered in cross-study comparisons and sample size estimations when designing clinical trials.

Correlations between objective response rate and survival-based endpoints in first-line advanced non-small cell lung Cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The study objective was to estimate the relationship between objective response and survival-based endpoints by drug class, in first-line advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line aNSCLC therapies reporting overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and/or objective response rate (ORR). Trial-level and arm-level linear regression models were fit, accounting for inclusion of immunotherapy (IO)-based or chemotherapy-only RCT arms. Weighted least squares-based R² were calculated along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For the main trial-level analysis of OS vs. ORR, the surrogate threshold effect was estimated. Exploratory analyses involved further stratification by: IO monotherapy vs. chemotherapy, dual-IO therapy vs. chemotherapy, and IO + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy.

RESULTS

From 17,040 records, 57 RCTs were included. In the main analysis, trial-level associations between OS and ORR were statistically significant in both the IO-based and chemotherapy-only strata, with R² estimates of 0.54 (95% CI: 0.26-0.81) and 0.34 (0.05-0.63), respectively. OS gains associated with a given ORR benefit were statistically significantly larger within IO vs. chemotherapy comparisons compared to chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy comparisons (p < 0.001). Exploratory analysis suggested a trend by IO type: for a given change in ORR, 'pure' IO (IO monotherapy and dual-IO) vs. chemotherapy RCTs tended to have a larger OS benefit than IO + chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy RCTs. For ORR vs. PFS, trial-level correlations were strong in the IO-based vs. chemotherapy (R² = 0.84; 0.72-0.95), and chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy strata (R² = 0.69; 0.49-0.88). For OS vs. PFS, correlations were moderate in both strata (R² = 0.49; 0.20-0.78 and R² = 0.49; 0.23-0.76).

CONCLUSION

The larger OS benefit per unit of ORR benefit in IO-based RCTs compared to chemotherapy-only RCTs provides an important addition to the established knowledge regarding the durability and depth of response in IO-based treatments.

An Open-Label Phase II Trial of Bevacizumab plus Docetaxel and Gemcitabine in Advanced, Previously Untreated Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Lessons Learned.

The combination of bevacizumab with docetaxel‐gemcitabine resulted in unacceptable toxicity, particularly a high rate of pulmonary toxicity (30%).

Despite promising efficacy, excessive toxicity of this regimen does not support its use in patients with advanced nonsquamous non‐small cell lung cancer.

Background.

Prior to immunotherapy, standard treatment for advanced non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was platinum doublet chemotherapy. In a previous phase II study, docetaxel‐gemcitabine demonstrated comparable efficacy and tolerability to platinum doublets. In this phase II trial, we evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of adding bevacizumab to docetaxel‐ gemcitabine in patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC.

Methods.

Patients with untreated advanced nonsquamous NSCLC were treated with up to six cycles of docetaxel‐gemcitabine‐bevacizumab, followed by bevacizumab until progression. The primary endpoint for this study was 1‐year progression‐free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were safety, overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). The planned sample size was 46 patients.

Results.

A total of 13 patients were enrolled and received a median of six cycles of chemotherapy and four cycles of bevacizumab. The treatment was poorly tolerated, with five patients requiring dose reduction and four discontinuing treatment for toxicity. Grade 3–5 nonhematologic toxicity was seen in 10 patients, and 4 (30%) were hospitalized with pulmonary toxicity possibly related to study drugs. At this point, enrollment was halted for safety concerns. The 12‐month PFS was 8%. In 11 evaluable patients, ORR was 72%, median PFS 6 months, and median OS was 11 months.

Conclusion.

Docetaxel, gemcitabine, and bevacizumab at this dose and schedule resulted in excessive toxicity. Despite promising efficacy, in light of efficacious and safe alternative therapies, this regimen should not be used to treat advanced NSCLC.

Association between the XRCC1 polymorphisms and clinical outcomes of advanced NSCLC treated with platinum-based chemotherapy: a meta-analysis based on the PRISMA statement

Background

Base excision repair (BER) pathway is a DNA repair pathway that is important in carcinogenesis and in response to DNA-damaging chemotherapy. XRCC1 is one of important molecular markers for BER. So far, the role of XRCC1 polymorphisms with clinical outcomes of advanced NSCLC treated with platinum-based chemotherapy is inconclusive. To explore the relationship between XRCC1 polymorphisms and platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC patients, we performed this meta-analysis.

Methods

Crude odds ratios (ORs), Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were adopted to assess the strength of association between XRCC1 polymorphisms and response rate, Overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) of advanced NSCLC treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Q test and I² test were used for the assessment of heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were conducted when heterogeneity exists. Begg’s funnel plots and Egger’s linear regression test were used to estimate publication bias. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the stability of the result.

Results

A total of 19 studies including 2815 individuals were eligible for the analysis, results showed XRCC1 194Arg allele was negatively associated with the objective response rate relative to 194Trp, and results of homozygous model, dominant model and heterozygous model suggested a gene dosage effect negative correlation between 194Arg allele and objective response rate(ArgArg vs TrpTrp: OR = 0.64(95%CI: 0.44-0.91); ArgArg + TrpArg vs TrpTrp: OR = 0.79(95%CI: 0.57-1.11); TrpArg vs TrpTrp: OR = 1.05(95%CI: 0.73-1.51)). XRCC1 399Gln may indicate favorable overall survival (GlnGln + GlnArg vs ArgArg: HR = 0.65(95%CI: 0.43–0.98)) and favorable PFS (GlnGln vs ArgArg: HR = 0.72(95%CI: 0.48–0.97)) in Asian patients; while in Caucasian patients, XRCC1 399Gln indicated poorer overall survival (GlnGln vs ArgArg: HR = 2.29(95%CI: 1.25–3.33)).

Conclusions

Our results indicated that in NSCLC patients treated with platinum-based regimen, XRCC1 194Arg allele suggest poor objective response rate, the GlnGln genotype of XRCC1 399 suggest poorer overall survival in Caucasian patients, and longer PFS in Asian patients.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-017-3487-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Salvage treatment with irinotecan/cisplatin versus pemetrexed/cisplatin in patients with non-small cell lung cancer pre-treated with a non-platinum-based regimen in the first-line setting: a randomized phase II study of the Hellenic Oncology Research Group (HORG)

BACKGROUND

Platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard front-line treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, non-platinum combinations of third-generation chemotherapeutic agents are considered an alternative therapeutic option for patients who cannot tolerate the toxic effects of platinum compounds. In this study, the efficacy and toxicity of the combination of irinotecan plus cisplatin (IC) was compared to pemetrexed plus cisplatin (PC) regimen, in platinum-naïve patients with advanced NSCLC, who had been previously treated with the combination of a taxane plus gemcitabine.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 124 patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC were randomly assigned to either irinotecan 110 mg/m² on day 1 and 100 mg/m² on day 8 plus cisplatin 80 mg/m² on day 8 every 3 weeks (IC arm) or pemetrexed 500 mg/m² plus cisplatin 80 mg/m² on day 1 every 3 weeks (PC arm). The primary endpoint of the study was the overall response rate (ORR).

RESULTS

The ORR and median progression-free survival (PFS) in the IC arm were 18 % and 3.3 months, respectively, while in the PC arm were 19 % and 4.2 months (p = ns). Median overall survival (OS) was significantly higher in patients with PC (6.9 vs. 10.9; p = 0.013). PC regimen had a better toxicity profile compared to IC, with a statistically significant lower incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenia (3 vs. 31 %; p = 0.0001) and diarrhea (1.6 vs. 14.7 %, p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with advanced NSCLC pretreated with docetaxel/gemcitabine, the combination of pemetrexed/cisplatin is associated with increased OS and is better tolerated than the combination of irinotecan/cisplatin and should be considered as a valid therapeutic option for platinum-naive, previously treated patients. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT00614965.

Chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the elderly population

BACKGROUND

Approximately 50% of patients with newly diagnosed non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are over 70 years of age at diagnosis. Despite this fact, these patients are underrepresented in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). As a consequence, the most appropriate regimens for these patients are controversial, and the role of single-agent or combination therapy is unclear. In this setting, a critical systematic review of RCTs in this group of patients is warranted.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of different cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens for previously untreated elderly patients with advanced (stage IIIB and IV) NSCLC. To also assess the impact of cytotoxic chemotherapy on quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1966 to 31 October 2014), EMBASE (1974 to 31 October 2014), and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to 31 October 2014). In addition, we handsearched the proceedings of major conferences, reference lists from relevant resources, and the ClinicalTrial.gov database.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only RCTs that compared non-platinum single-agent therapy versus non-platinum combination therapy, or non-platinum therapy versus platinum combination therapy in patients over 70 years of age with advanced NSCLC. We allowed inclusion of RCTs specifically designed for the elderly population and those designed for elderly subgroup analyses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed search results, and a third review author resolved disagreements. We analyzed the following endpoints: overall survival (OS), one-year survival rate (1yOS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), major adverse events, and quality of life (QoL).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 51 trials in the review: non-platinum single-agent therapy versus non-platinum combination therapy (seven trials) and non-platinum combination therapy versus platinum combination therapy (44 trials). Non-platinum single-agent versus non-platinum combination therapy Low-quality evidence suggests that these treatments have similar effects on overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.17; participants = 1062; five RCTs), 1yOS (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.07; participants = 992; four RCTs), and PFS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07; participants = 942; four RCTs). Non-platinum combination therapy may better improve ORR compared with non-platinum single-agent therapy (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.26; participants = 1014; five RCTs; low-quality evidence).Differences in effects on major adverse events between treatment groups were as follows: anemia: RR 1.10, 95% 0.53 to 2.31; participants = 983; four RCTs; very low-quality evidence; neutropenia: RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.65; participants = 983; four RCTs; low-quality evidence; and thrombocytopenia: RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.89; participants = 914; three RCTs; very low-quality evidence. Only two RCTs assessed quality of life; however, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis because of the paucity of available data. Non-platinum therapy versus platinum combination therapy Platinum combination therapy probably improves OS (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.85; participants = 1705; 13 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence), 1yOS (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.96; participants = 813; 13 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence), and ORR (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.85; participants = 1432; 11 RCTs; moderate-quality evidence) compared with non-platinum therapies. Platinum combination therapy may also improve PFS, although our confidence in this finding is limited because the quality of evidence was low (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93; participants = 1273; nine RCTs).Effects on major adverse events between treatment groups were as follows: anemia: RR 2.53, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.76; participants = 1437; 11 RCTs; low-quality evidence; thrombocytopenia: RR 3.59, 95% CI 2.22 to 5.82; participants = 1260; nine RCTs; low-quality evidence; fatigue: RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.38; participants = 1150; seven RCTs; emesis: RR 3.64, 95% CI 1.82 to 7.29; participants = 1193; eight RCTs; and peripheral neuropathy: RR 7.02, 95% CI 2.42 to 20.41; participants = 776; five RCTs; low-quality evidence. Only five RCTs assessed QoL; however, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis because of the paucity of available data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people over the age of 70 with advanced NSCLC who do not have significant co-morbidities, increased survival with platinum combination therapy needs to be balanced against higher risk of major adverse events when compared with non-platinum therapy. For people who are not suitable candidates for platinum treatment, we have found low-quality evidence suggesting that non-platinum combination and single-agent therapy regimens have similar effects on survival. We are uncertain as to the comparability of their adverse event profiles. Additional evidence on quality of life gathered from additional studies is needed to help inform decision making.

Phase II study of axitinib with doublet chemotherapy in patients with advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer

Background

Axitinib is an orally active and potent tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2 and 3. This phase II study assessed the efficacy and safety of axitinib combined with cisplatin/gemcitabine in chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced/metastatic (stage IIIB/IV) squamous non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

Axitinib (starting dose 5 mg twice daily [bid]; titrated up or down to 2–10 mg bid) was administered orally on a continuous schedule with cisplatin (80 mg/m² intravenously [i.v.] every 3 weeks) and gemcitabine (1,250 mg/m² i.v. on days 1 and 8 of each 3-week cycle), and was continued as monotherapy after completion of six cycles (maximum) of chemotherapy. The primary study endpoint was objective response rate, as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours.

Results

Of the 38 patients treated, one (2.6%) patient achieved a complete response and 14 (36.8%) patients had a partial response; nine (23.7%) patients showed stable disease and three (7.9%) patients had disease progression. Median progression-free survival was 6.2 months, and median overall survival was 14.2 months. The estimated probability of survival at 12 months and 24 months was 63.2% and 30.8%, respectively. The most frequent grade ≥3 toxicities were neutropaenia and hypertension (13.2% each). Three (7.9%) patients experienced haemoptysis, of which one case (2.6%) was fatal.

Conclusions

Treatment with the combination of axitinib and cisplatin/gemcitabine demonstrated anti-tumour activity in patients with advanced/metastatic squamous NSCLC and the fatal haemoptysis rate was low. However, without a reference arm (cisplatin/gemcitabine alone), it is not conclusive whether the combination is better than chemotherapy alone. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, registration # NCT00735904, on August 13, 2008.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1350-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Non-platinum doublets were as effective as platinum-based doublets for chemotherapy-naïve advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in the era of third-generation agents

PURPOSE

The aim was to compare the efficacy between doublets of third-generation agents (non-platinum) and doublets of platinum plus a third-generation agent (platinum-based) for chemotherapy-naïve advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

We conducted a literature-based meta-analysis to compare the efficacy between doublets of third-generation agents and doublets of platinum plus a third-generation agent for chemotherapy-naïve advanced NSCLC. The primary end point was overall survival, and the secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate. Subgroup analyses were also conducted by different non-platinum doublet regimens or different platinum-based doublets. A descriptive review for toxicity was performed.

RESULTS

Sixteen randomized controlled trials were identified ultimately. Results demonstrated that the efficacy of non-platinum doublets was comparable with platinum-based doublets according to the overall survival (HR = 1.03, 95 % CI = 0.98-1.08, p = 0.29). Subgroup analyses by different non-platinum doublets also showed the efficacy of all the third-generation doublets, such as vinorelbine plus gemcitabine, vinorelbine plus paclitaxel, gemcitabine plus paclitaxel, and gemcitabine plus docetaxel, was comparable with platinum-based doublets (HR = 1.00, 95 % CI = 0.78-1.27, p = 0.98; HR = 0.97, 95 % CI = 0.80-1.18, p = 0.79; HR = 1.05, 95 % CI = 0.99-1.12, p = 0.11; HR = 1.01, 95 % CI = 0.92-1.10, p = 0.87; respectively). Subgroup analyses by different platinum-based doublets indicated that the efficacy of the third-generation doublets were equal to both cisplatin-based doublets and carboplatin-based doublets (HR = 1.08, 95 % CI = 1.00-1.17, p = 0.05; HR = 1.00, 95 % CI = 0.94-1.05, p = 0.94; respectively). The secondary end points indicated that platinum-based doublets might have an advantage in PFS but not in response rate (HR = 1.06, 95 % CI = 1.01-1.12, p = 0.03; RR = 0.99, 95 % CI = 0.90-1.08, p = 0.81; respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-platinum doublets were as effective as platinum-based doublets with different toxicity profile for chemotherapy-naïve advanced NSCLC in the era of third-generation agents.

Pulmonary toxicity among cancer patients treated with a combination of docetaxel and gemcitabine: a meta-analysis of clinical trials

PURPOSE

The combination of docetaxel and gemcitabine was tested in several studies in patients with lung, breast, and pancreatic cancers and other tumor entities. Some studies reported cases of severe or even fatal pulmonary toxicity that led to early termination of some trials. We created a meta-analysis model of published studies to identify explanatory factors for docetaxel-gemcitabine-dependent pulmonary toxicity.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE/Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Clinical Trials database for prospective full-text studies that used a schedule of docetaxel and gemcitabine to treat a malignant disease. We performed a meta-analysis for proportions using the arcsine transformation and a meta-regression using a generalized linear mixed model based on a binomial distribution and a logit link.

RESULTS

We included 103 trials with 113 treatment arms comprising 5,065 patients (major entities included non-small cell lung cancer (n = 2,550), breast cancer (n = 1,119), pancreatic cancer (n = 466), and urothelial cancer (n = 161)). For the incidence of severe lung toxicity (common toxicity criteria [CTC] grades 3-5), we found a combined estimate of 2.70% (95% CI 2.26, 3.14). The estimate for the proportion of fatal cases was 0.35% (95% CI 0.21, 0.58). We found that the sequence of the chemotherapy schedule had no influence on the incidence of severe pulmonary adverse events (F-test F = 0.65, df = 3,113, P = 0.58) nor did the study phase, treatment line or ethnicity of the participants. We found that patients with breast cancer, compared to lung cancer patients, developed severe lung toxicity less frequently (OR = 0.18, 95% CI (0.09, 0.36)).

CONCLUSION

We could not demonstrate that a particular chemotherapy sequence of docetaxel-gemcitabine is associated with excess pulmonary toxicity. Patients with lung cancer are at a higher risk for severe pulmonary side effects with docetaxel-gemcitabine than are patients with breast cancer.