Efficacy of combining targeted therapy with pemetrexed or docetaxel as second-line treatment in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials

The efficacy and safety of platinum plus gemcitabine (PG) chemotherapy with or without molecular targeted agent (MTA) in first-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

BACKGROUND

Trials investigating the efficacy and safety of combining molecular targeted agent (MTA) with platinum-gemcitabine (PG) in first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have shown inconsistent findings. This meta-analysis aimed to explore whether the addition of MTAs to PG in NSCLC could provide a survival benefit with a tolerable toxicity.

METHODS

Web of knowledge, PubMed, Ovid, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant studies and extract data on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and common grade 3 or 4 adverse events. Subgroup analyses were conducted on the basis of race and the type of MTA.

RESULTS

Twelve trials with a total of 6143 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with PG chemotherapy, combination therapy of MTA with PG did not improve OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.90-1.01) but improved PFS (HR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.66-0.89) and ORR (risk ratio [RR] = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.11-1.60). Subanalysis indicated that there was more incidence of grade 3 or 4 rash (RR = 11.20, 95% CI = 6.07-20.68), anemia (RR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.01-1.46), diarrhea (RR = 2.62, 95% CI = 1.21-5.65), and anorexia (RR = 2.08, 95% CI = 1.12-3.88) in combining epidermal growth factor receptor targeted therapy group compared to PG group. An increased risk of grade 3 or 4 rash (RR = 5.08, 95% CI = 1.53-16.79), thrombocytopenia (RR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.03-2.18), and hypertension (RR = 2.36, 95% CI = 1.05-5.32) was observed in sorafenib combination group.

CONCLUSION

The combination of PG plus MTA was superior to PG alone in terms of PFS and ORR but not in OS. The combination chemotherapy also showed a higher frequency of grade 3 or higher toxic effects in patients with advanced NSCLC than PG chemotherapy.

Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Multiple treatments are frequently available for a given condition, and clinicians and patients need a comprehensive, up-to-date synthesis of evidence for all competing treatments. We aimed to quantify the waste of research related to the failure of systematic reviews to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis over time.

METHODS

We performed a series of systematic overviews and networks of randomized trials assessing the gap between evidence covered by systematic reviews and available trials of second-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other resources sequentially by year from 2009 to March 2, 2015. We sequentially compared the amount of evidence missing from systematic reviews to the randomized evidence available for inclusion each year. We constructed cumulative networks of randomized evidence over time and evaluated the proportion of trials, patients, treatments, and treatment comparisons not covered by systematic reviews on December 31 each year from 2009 to 2015.

RESULTS

We identified 77 trials (28,636 patients) assessing 47 treatments with 54 comparisons and 29 systematic reviews (13 published after 2013). From 2009 to 2015, the evidence covered by existing systematic reviews was consistently incomplete: 45 % to 70 % of trials; 30 % to 58 % of patients; 40 % to 66 % of treatments; and 38 % to 71 % of comparisons were missing. In the cumulative networks of randomized evidence, 10 % to 17 % of treatment comparisons were partially covered by systematic reviews and 55 % to 85 % were partially or not covered.

CONCLUSIONS

We illustrate how systematic reviews of a given condition provide a fragmented, out-of-date panorama of the evidence for all treatments. This waste of research might be reduced by the development of live cumulative network meta-analyses.

A Randomized, Open-Label Phase II Trial of Volasertib as Monotherapy and in Combination With Standard-Dose Pemetrexed Compared With Pemetrexed Monotherapy in Second-Line Treatment for Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Second-line therapy options that improve survival for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are needed. This randomized, phase II trial (n [ 143) investigated volasertib monotherapy or in combination with pemetrexed compared with pemetrexed monotherapy in patients with NSCLC whose disease had progressed after previous platinum-based chemotherapy. The combination of volasertib with pemetrexed did not improve efficacy compared with pemetrexed monotherapy.

INTRODUCTION

Volasertib is a potent, selective, cell cycle kinase inhibitor that induces mitotic arrest and apoptosis by targeting Polo-like kinase. In this study we compared volasertib, volasertib with pemetrexed, and pemetrexed alone in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease progressed after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A run-in phase (n = 12) was used to determine whether volasertib could be combined in full dose with pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2). Subsequent patients were randomized to volasertib (n = 37), volasertib with pemetrexed (n = 47), or pemetrexed (n = 47) administered on day 1 every 21 days. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included objective response rate and pharmacokinetics.

RESULTS

Volasertib 300 mg was chosen for the randomized phase. Recruitment to single-agent volasertib was stopped early because of lack of efficacy. Median PFS was 5.3 months with pemetrexed compared with 3.3 months with volasertib with pemetrexed (hazard ratio [HR], 1.141; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-1.771) and 1.4 months with volasertib (HR, 2.045; 95% CI, 1.27-3.292). ORRs were 10.6% with pemetrexed, 21.3% for volasertib with pemetrexed, and 8.1% with volasertib. The most common all-grade related adverse events (pemetrexed/volasertib with pemetrexed/volasertib) were: fatigue (28 [61%]/27 [59%]/11 [31%]), nausea (21 [46%]/19 [41%]/0 [0%]), decreased apetite (14 [31%]/13 [28%]/2 [6%]), neutropenia (4 [9%]/8 [17%]/9 [25%]), rash (9 [20%]/8 [17%]/2 [6%]), vomiting (6 [13%]/13 [28%]/0 [0%]), and diarrhea (8 [17%]/11 [24%]/0 [0%]). Pharmacokinetics analyses showed no drug-drug interactions between volasertib and pemetrexed.

CONCLUSION

For treatment in the second-line for advanced or metastatic NSCLC, the combination of volasertib with standard pemetrexed did not increase toxicity significantly but also did not improve efficacy compared with single-agent pemetrexed.

Efficacy and safety of docetaxel for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of Phase III randomized controlled trials

Background

Several clinical trials have performed risk–benefit analyses comparing docetaxel and pemetrexed or docetaxel and vinca alkaloid, but the efficacy and safety remain uncertain. The aim was to conduct a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of docetaxel and pemetrexed or docetaxel and vinca alkaloid for non-small-cell lung cancer.

Methods

This meta-analysis of Phase III randomized controlled trials was performed after searching PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the ISI Web of Knowledge for randomized controlled trials. Outcome analyses were overall survival, progression-free survival, and overall response rate with 95% confidence intervals and major grade 3/4 toxicity.

Results

Seven eligible trials involving 2,080 patients were retrieved for analysis. Docetaxel enhanced progression-free survival and overall response rate compared with vinca alkaloid as first-line treatment (P<0.05). However, there was no difference between docetaxel and pemetrexed as both first-line and second-line treatment (P>0.05). With regard to the grade 3/4 toxicity, compared with pemetrexed, docetaxel led to higher neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (P<0.05), but there was no difference in non-hematological toxicity (P>0.05). Docetaxel led to a lower rate of anemia as first-line treatment (P<0.05). Moreover, docetaxel caused less grade 3/4 hematological and non-hematological toxicity compared with vinca alkaloid.

Conclusion

Docetaxel leads to a better result than vinca alkaloid in effectiveness and safety on patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer as first-line therapy. Docetaxel also causes lower toxicity as second-line therapy compared with vinca alkaloid. However, the differences in efficacy and safety between docetaxel and pemetrexed are not obvious. Further clinical study with more details, such as sex, age, histology, and so on, should be considered for illustrating the differences between these two drugs.