A Comparative Study Evaluating the Quality of Life and Survival Outcomes in Patients Receiving Chemotherapy Versus Oral Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor in the Third Line and Beyond Setting for Advanced NSCLC

Introduction

The outcomes in advanced NSCLC have improved owing to the availability of more effective systemic and improved supportive care. This has increased the number of patients who seek treatment in the third line and beyond setting. We conducted this study to compare the quality of life (QoL), toxicity, and outcomes in patients receiving chemotherapy and EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in this setting.

Methods

In this phase 3, randomized, open-label study, patients with stage III or IV NSCLC with disease progression on at least two prior lines of chemotherapy, with a life expectancy of at least 3 months, without prior EGFR TKI exposure, and stable brain metastases (if any) were included. Patients were randomized to receive chemotherapy (gemcitabine or docetaxel or paclitaxel or vinorelbine) or an EGFR TKI (erlotinib or gefitinib). The primary end point was the change in QoL at 8 to 10 weeks; the secondary outcomes were safety and overall survival (OS). Patients underwent clinical evaluation at every visit, and toxicity was assessed as per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.03. A radiological tumor response assessment was done every 8 to 12 weeks from the start of therapy. The QoL was assessed using the EORTC QLQ C30 and LC13 questionnaires. The change in QoL scores was calculated as the difference between scores at baseline and scores at 8 to 10 weeks (Δ) for each QoL domain. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the mean difference (Δ) for each domain. OS and progression-free survival (PFS) were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional regression analysis.

Results

A total of 246 patients were enrolled in the study, with 123 in each arm. There was a male predominance with 69.1% male patients in the chemotherapy arm and 70.7% in the EGFR TKI arm. The median age of patients in the chemotherapy arm was 54 years and 55 years in the chemotherapy and EGFR TKI arms, respectively. There was no significant difference in the change in QoL at baseline and the second visit (Δ) in both arms in all domains of EORTC QLQ C30 except cognitive function (p = 0.0045) and LC13 except alopecia (0.01249). The mean Δ Global Health Status was -28 in the chemotherapy arm and -26.8 in the EGFR TKI arm; this was not statistically significant (p = 0.973). The median follow-up was 88.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 39.04-137.15). On the intention-to-treat analysis, the median PFS was 3.13 months (95% CI: 2.15-4.11) in the chemotherapy arm and 2.26 months (95% CI: 2.1-2.43) in the EGFR TKI arm, with hazard ratio at 1.074 (95% CI: 0.83-1.38) (p = 0.58). There were 120 deaths in each arm. The median OS was 7.63 months (95% CI: 5.96-9.30) in the chemotherapy arm and 7.5 months in the EGFR TKI arm (95% CI: 5.85-9.14); hazard ratio at 1.033 (95% CI: 0.80-1.33) (p = 0.805). The toxicity profile was similar in both arms except for a significantly higher incidence of fatigue (p = 0.043), peripheral neuropathy (0.000), alopecia, hypokalemia (0.037), and pedal edema (0.007) in the chemotherapy arm and dry skin (p = 0.000) and skin rash (p = 0.019) in the EGFR TKI arm.

Conclusions

There was no significant difference in most QoL scales (except cognitive function and alopecia), OS, and PFS of patients with advanced NSCLC receiving an EGFR TKI as compared with chemotherapy TKI in the third-line setting. The toxicity profile is consistent with the known toxicities of the agents.

Repurposing pantoprazole in combination with systemic therapy in advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a phase I/II randomized study

Pantoprazole decreases the acidity of the tumor microenvironment by inhibiting proton pumps on the cancer cell. This possibly leads to increased sensitivity to cytotoxic therapy. We conducted a phase I/II randomized controlled trial in adult patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) planned for first-line palliative chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to chemotherapy + / - intravenous (IV) pantoprazole. The primary endpoint in phase I was to determine the maximum safe dose of intravenous pantoprazole, whereas it was progression-free survival (PFS) in phase II. The dose of IV pantoprazole established in phase I was 240 mg. Between Nov'18 and Oct'20, we recruited 120 patients in phase II, 59 on pantoprazole and 61 on the standard arm. Median age was 51 years (IQR 43-60), 80% were men. Systemic therapy was IV cisplatin in 22% and oral-metronomic-chemotherapy (OMC) in 78%. Addition of pantoprazole did not prolong PFS, which was 2.2 months (95% CI 2.07-3.19) in the pantoprazole arm and 2.5 months (95% CI 2.04-3.81, HR, 1.14; 95% CI 0.78-1.66; P = 0.48) in the standard arm. Response rates were similar; pantoprazole arm 8.5%, standard arm 6.6%; P = 0.175. Overall survival was also similar; 5.6 months (95% CI 4.47-8.51) in the pantoprazole arm and 5.4 months (95% CI 3.48-8.54, HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.72-1.57; P = 0.75) in the standard arm. Grade ≥ 3 toxicities were similar. Thus, pantoprazole 240 mg IV added to systemic therapy does not improve outcomes in patients with advanced HNSCC.

Audit of screen failure in 15 randomised studies from a low and middle-income country

Background

Growth and development in patient management occurs via randomised studies. Screen failure is a significant hurdle while conducting randomised studies. There is limited data available from low and middle-income countries about factors resulting in screen failure. Hence, this audit was performed to identify the proportion of patients who screen failed and to elucidate reasons for the same.

Methods

This was an audit of 15 randomised studies performed by medical oncology solid tumour unit II of Tata Memorial Centre. The screening logs of these studies were acquired. From the screening logs, data regarding the number of patients who had screen failed & reason for the same were obtained. Descriptive statistics were performed.

Results

A total of 7,481 patients were screened for 15 randomised clinical studies. Out of these, 3,666 (49.0%) patients were enrolled into trials and 3,815 (51.0%) screen failed. The most common reason for screen failure was 'not meeting inclusion criteria' (54.9%) followed by declining to take treatment (22.2%). Other factors that affect enrolment were 'not willing to stay in the locality of the trial site' (6.2%), being recruited in other studies (3.7%), poor performance status (PS) (3.4%), non-compliance (2.2%), meeting exclusion criteria (0.9%) and 'other' (6.5%).

Conclusion

The commonest causes of screen failure in lower and middle-income countries are non-meeting of inclusion criteria followed by declining to take treatment, not willing to stay in locality of trial site, recruited into other studies, poor PS, non-compliance, meeting exclusion criteria & 'other'. This information would help analysing and hence planning of newer strategies to decrease the rate of screen failure.

Geriatric assessment as a predictor of survival among older Indian patients with cancer

e24012

Background: ASCO guidelines recommend that geriatric assessment (GA) should be performed in all older adults with cancer. However, GA is labor- and time-intensive, hence the uptake is poor, especially in crowded resource poor-settings. There are no data correlating GA with overall survival (OS) outcomes from the Indian subcontinent. Methods: A prospective observational study in the geriatric oncology clinic of the Tata Memorial Hospital in Mumbai, India. Patients aged 60 years and above, with cancer who underwent a GA were enrolled. The domains assessed included: function (basic and instrumental activities of daily living, timed-up-and-go), nutrition (body mass index, unintentional weight loss, mini-nutritional assessment), comorbidities, cognition, psychological (depression, anxiety), social support, and medication (polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications). Patients with > 2 deranged GA domains were considered frail. Results: Between June 2018 and January 2022, 909 patients were enrolled. The median age was 69 (IQR, 60-88) years. Common malignancies included lung (40%), esophagus (21%) and head and neck (11%); 53% had metastatic disease. 80% had > 2 impaired domains in GA patients had vulnerabilities in a median of 3 (IQR, 0-5) domains. Median OS in fit patients based on the GA was 17.5 (95% CI, 13.9-21.0) months vs 12.1 (95% CI, 10.1-14.0) months in frail patients, (HR 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.88, p = 0.005), which remained significant after adjusting for age, sex, and stage (HR, 0.71; 95% CI: 0.53-0.94, p = 0.021). In the multivariate analysis (Table), the domains that were predictive of survival were nutrition (HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.47-0.92, p = 0.014), cognition (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.46-0.91, p = 0.012) and fatigue (HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.56-0.98, p = 0.038). Conclusions: In older Indian patients with cancer, GA is a powerful prognosticator of survival. In settings where a complete GA is not possible, nutrition, cognition, and fatigue should be the minimum domains assessed. Clinical trial information: CTRI/2020/04/024675. [Table: see text]

Prevalence and outcomes of frailty in older patients with cancer: A prospective study from geriatric oncology clinic

e24011

Background: Frail older patients present with increased symptom burden, medical complexity and reduced tolerance to medical and surgical interventions. Data regarding the prevalence of frailty and its association with outcomes, such as overall survival, is limited from India. This study aimed to establish the prevalence of frailty and its association with overall survival (OS) in older patients with cancer. Methods: This was a prospective study conducted in geriatric oncology clinic of Tata memorial hospital (Mumbai India). Patients aged 60 years and above referred to the clinic were included. Frailty was identified using the Rockwoods Clinical frailty scale, and patients with a score of five or more were diagnosed as frail. Demographic details, type of cancer, stage and multi-domains geriatric assessment was done. Cancer and Ageing Research group online toxicity tool was used to assess the chemotherapy toxicity risk. A t-test or two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to study the association between frailty status and non-categorical variables and the Pearson chi-squared test was used to measure the association between categorical variables. The Kaplan Meier survival estimation and the Cox proportional hazard model were used to perform the survival analysis. Results: Between June 2018 to January 2022, 909 patients were evaluated and 662 patients with clinical frailty score were included. The median age was 68 (60-86) years and 107 (16%) were above the age of 75 years. The most common malignancies were lung (39%), esophagus (21%) and head and neck (10%); 53% had metastatic disease. 192 (29%) were frail, and it prevalence increased with age. Frailty status was associated with poor OS (unadjusted HR: 2.512; 95% CI: 1.931-3.268). This association was significant even after adjusting for age, gender, BMI and stage of cancer (adjusted HR: 2.104; 95% CI: 1.598-2.770). Frailty was associated with comorbidities such as diabetes (32% vs 23%, p = 0.014), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (13% vs 7%, p = 0.045) and cardiovascular disease (19% vs 12%, p = 0.017). Among the geriatric domains, frail patients had greater incidence of polypharmacy (52% vs 33%, p < 0.01), slower gait speed (53% vs 12%, p < 0.01), impaired cognition (25% vs 7%, p < 0.01), poor nutritional status (51% vs 17%, p < 0.001), depression (29% vs 8%, p < 0.01) and anxiety (14% vs 5%, p < 0.01). Conclusions: The prevalence of frailty among older cancer patients is high. It is associated with poor physical, cognitive and psychological resilience and is associated with poor overall survival. Our study supports the routine assessment of frailty in older patients with cancer to guide treatment decisions. Clinical trial information: CTRI/2020/04/024675.

Phase III randomized controlled trial comparing chemotherapy to best supportive care in advanced esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer

4065

Background: Patients with advanced esophageal/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer have a dismal outcome. No study has unequivocally proven that systemic chemotherapy prolongs survival. Current NCCN guidelines recommend palliative/best supportive care as a first-line option for patients with unresectable locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic esophageal/GEJ cancers. Methods: Phase III randomized controlled study conducted in the Department of Medical Oncology at the Tata Memorial Hospital (Mumbai, India) in patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic esophageal or GEJ cancer, planned for palliative intent therapy. Patients aged 18 to 70 years, with a performance status < 2, were stratified based on histopathology, presence of metastatic disease and receipt of prior curative therapy, and randomized 1:1 to best supportive care alone, or best supportive care with chemotherapy consisting of intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 once-a-week, continued until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Best supportive care consisted of patient education and counselling, non-chemotherapeutic palliative measures like radiation, or stenting, placement of feeding tube, analgesia, antiemesis and other supportive medications, nutritional support, and referral to a patient support group. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included progression free survival (PFS), response rate, adverse events, and quality of life. Results: Between May 2016 and Dec 2020, we recruited 281 patients; 143 to chemotherapy and 138 to best supportive care. Histopathology was squamous in 269 (95.7%) patients. In the 143 patients in the chemotherapy arm, median number of paclitaxel cycles was 12 (IQR, 7-23). The response rate was 32%. Grade > 3 toxicities occurred in 82 (57%) patients who received paclitaxel; commonly hyponatremia (18%), anemia (11%), fatigue (10%), peripheral neuropathy (10%), infection (9%), and neutropenia (7%). Median PFS was 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.98-2.23) in the best supportive care arm, and 4.1 months in the chemotherapy arm (95% CI, 3.54-4.74); HR, 0.51 (95% CI, 0.39-0.64); P < 0.001. The 1-year OS was 11.6% in the best supportive care arm, versus 30.8% in the chemotherapy arm. Median OS was 4.2 months (95% CI, 2.93-5.42) in the best supportive care arm, and 8.6 months in the chemotherapy arm (95% CI, 7.56-9.66); HR, 0.52 (95% CI, 0.40-0.66); P < 0.001. Conclusions: Systemic chemotherapy significantly prolongs survival and should be considered the standard of care in patients with advanced esophageal and GEJ squamous cell carcinoma. Metronomic weekly paclitaxel is an attractive option, especially in LMICs with limited access to newer immunotherapy-based combination regimens. Clinical trial information: CTRI/2016/01/006474.

An observational study to evaluate factors predicting survival in patients of non-small cell lung cancer with poor performance status in resource-constrained settings

Background

A significant proportion of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients present with poor performance status (PS) at baseline are almost always excluded from the clinical trials leading to availability of only limited data in this subgroup.

Patients and methods

This was an observational single institutional study. The eligibility criteria for inclusion were a histologic or cytologic diagnosis of advanced NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS 3 or 4. All patients coming between June 2015 and December 2018 were evaluated for inclusion in this study.

Results

A total of 245 patients were enrolled in the study. The median age of the patients was 63 years (range 25–89), 142 (58%) were male, 196 (80%) had adenocarcinoma histology and 192 (78.4%) has PS 3 while rest (21.6%) had PS 4. Out of 245 patients, 192 (78.4%) received oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) and supportive care, 45 (18.4%) received supportive care alone, while 8 (3.2%) patients received chemotherapy along with supportive care. Median overall survival (OS) was 3 months (95% CI: 1.8–4.2) in patients who received oral TKI versus 1 month (1.0–2.9) in patients who received supportive care alone (log-rank p = 0.013). The median OS for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutant patients who received oral TKI was 12 months (95% CI: 7.7–16.3), while it was 3 months (95% CI: 1.5–4.5) for patients who were EGFR wild-type and received TKI on compassionate basis (HR = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.32–0.77; p = 0.001).

Conclusions

The use of oral TKI on a compassionate basis led to improvement in survival in the overall cohort of the patients; this was principally driven by EGFR-mutated patients.

A randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of the addition of oral metronomic chemotherapy after completion of standard chemoradiation versus observation in patients with locally advanced esophageal and gastroesophageal junction squamous cell carcinoma

163

Background: In RTOG 85-01, patients with locally advanced esophageal and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) had a median overall survival (OS) of 14 months and 5-year OS of 27%. Improving outcomes in these patients is an unmet need. We investigated the addition of oral metronomic chemotherapy (OMC) following definitive CRT. Methods: A randomized integrated phase II/III clinical trial (CTRI/2015/09/006204) in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus or the GEJ who had completed definitive radical CRT within the past 12 weeks, had an ECOG PS 0-2 and no clinical or radiologic evidence of progressive disease. Patients were stratified based on whether or not they had received induction chemotherapy followed by CRT, and then randomized 1:1 to receive OMC (celecoxib 200 mg twice daily and methotrexate 15 mg/m2 weekly) for 12 months or observation. The primary efficacy endpoint for the phase II portion was progression free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints were OS and toxicity. With a power of 70% and an alpha of 10%, we hypothesized a hazard ratio of 1.5, with a median follow-up of 6 months. The planned sample size for the phase II portion was 151 patients. The p-value for stopping the trial after the phase II part of the study was set at 0.2 for the PFS. Results: Between Jan 2016 and Dec 2019, we enrolled 151 patients, 75 to the OMC arm and 76 to observation. The median age was 57 years, 59% were male. The tumor originated in the upper thoracic esophagus in 79% patients, with median tumor length 6 cm. Induction chemotherapy was received by 14% of the patients. Concurrent CRT consisted of median 63 Gy in median 35 fractions; 91% patients received concurrent weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin with radiation. OMC was started at a median of 11 weeks (IQR, 9 to 12) from the start of CRT. Grade 3 or higher toxicities (regardless of relatedness to study intervention) were noted in 27 patients (17.9%), 18 in the OMC arm and 9 in the observation arm; P=0.071. The median time to disease progression or death was 23 months (95% CI, 7.9-38.1) in the OMC arm and not reached in the observation arm; HR, 1.33, 95% CI, 0.83-2.14; P=0.23. The 1-year PFS was 67% in both the arms; the 2-year PFS were 48% and 61% in the OMC and observation arms respectively. The median OS was 36 months (95% CI, 17.9-54) in the OMC arm and not reached in the observation arm; HR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.02-2.99; P, 0.037. The 1-year OS was 74.7% in the OMC arm and 88% in the observation arm; the 2-year OS was 53.9% in the OMC arm and 75% in the observation arm. Conclusion: Adjuvant oral metronomic chemotherapy after radical CRT does not improve outcomes in patients with locally advanced esophageal or GEJ squamous cell carcinoma. Clinical trial information: CTRI/2015/09/006204.

Gefitinib Versus Gefitinib Plus Pemetrexed and Carboplatin Chemotherapy in EGFR-Mutated Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

Standard first-line therapy for EGFR-mutant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-directed oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Adding pemetrexed and carboplatin chemotherapy to an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor may improve outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a phase III randomized trial in patients with advanced NSCLC harboring an EGFR-sensitizing mutation and a performance status of 0 to 2 who were planned to receive first-line palliative therapy. Random assignment was 1:1 to gefitinib 250 mg orally per day (Gef) or gefitinib 250 mg orally per day plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m² and carboplatin area under curve 5 intravenously every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by maintenance pemetrexed (gefitinib plus chemotherapy [Gef+C]). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included overall survival (OS), response rate, and toxicity.

RESULTS

Between 2016 and 2018, 350 patients were randomly assigned to Gef (n = 176) and Gef+C (n = 174). Twenty-one percent of patients had a performance status of 2, and 18% of patients had brain metastases. Median follow-up time was 17 months (range, 7 to 30 months). Radiologic response rates were 75% and 63% in the Gef+C and Gef arms, respectively (P = .01). Estimated median PFS was significantly longer with Gef+C than Gef (16 months [95% CI, 13.5 to 18.5 months] v 8 months [95% CI, 7.0 to 9.0 months], respectively; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.39 to 0.66]; P < .001). Estimated median OS was significantly longer with Gef+C than Gef (not reached v 17 months [95% CI, 13.5 to 20.5 months]; hazard ratio for death, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.31 to 0.65]; P < .001). Clinically relevant grade 3 or greater toxicities occurred in 51% and 25% of patients in the Gef+C and Gef arms, respectively (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Adding pemetrexed and carboplatin chemotherapy to gefitinib significantly prolonged PFS and OS but increased toxicity in patients with NSCLC.

Randomized phase 3 open label study of quality of life of patients on Pemetrexed versus Erlotinib as maintenance therapy for advanced non squamous non EGFR mutated non small cell lung cancer

Background: We planned to compare pemetrexed maintenance with erlotinib maintenance in non squamous non Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) mutated non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The null hypothesis for this study was that there would be no difference in quality of life (QOL) between pemetrexed and erlotinib maintenance.

Results: The QL2 scores at 3 months were 63.35 (SD 24.99) in pemetrexed arm and 63.01(SD 23.04) in erlotinib arm (p-0.793). Except in 1 domain, the scores were statistically similar between the 2 arms. In the domain of diarrhea, the score was higher as expected in the erlotinib arm (p-0.048). The median progression free survival was 4.5 months (95%CI 4.1–4.9 months) in pemetrexed arm versus 4.5 months (95%CI 3.8–5.2 months) in erlotinib arm (p-0.94). The median overall survival was 16.6 months (15.2–17.9 months) in pemetrexed arm versus 18.3 months (95% CI 13.75–22.91 months) in erlotinib arm (p-0.49).

Methods: The study was an open label, single centre, parallel, phase 3 randomized study with 1:1 randomization between maintenance pemetrexed arm and erlotinib arm. Adult patients (age > or = 18 years), with non squamous EGFR mutation, treated with first line palliative therapy, with non progressive disease post 4–6 cycles of pemetrexed-carboplatin were randomized. Primary outcome was change in the score of QOL (Global health status {QL2}) at 3 months. We estimated that with 200 patients, the study had 80% power to detect a significant difference between the two groups in the change in the global health status score at 3 months with an alpha error of 5%, with an effect size of 0.3 SD.

Conclusions: Maintenance pemetrexed post pemetrexed-platinum chemotherapy fails to improve QOL or time to event outcomes over maintenance erlotinib in EGFR mutation negative NSCLC.

Phase III randomized trial comparing gefitinib to gefitinib with pemetrexed-carboplatin chemotherapy in patients with advanced untreated EGFR mutant non-small cell lung cancer (gef vs gef+C)

9001

Background: Standard first-line therapy for EGFR mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is an EGFR-directed oral TKI. We evaluated whether adding pemetrexed-carboplatin to oral TKI would improve outcomes. Methods: Phase III randomized trial in advanced chemotherapy-naïve NSCLC harboring EGFR sensitizing mutation (exon 19, 21 or 18) with performance status (PS) 0 to 2 planned for palliative therapy. Patients were stratified for PS and EGFR mutation and randomly assigned (computer-generated randomization by independent biostatistician) 1:1 to gefitinib 250 mg orally daily (gef) or gefitinib 250 mg orally daily with pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 IV and carboplatin AUC 5 IV every 3 weeks for 4 cycles, followed by maintenance pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 IV every 3 weeks (gef+C). Restaging was every 2 to 3 mths; therapy continued until progression or intolerable toxicity. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included overall survival (OS), toxicity and response rate. Survival endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Results: Between Aug 2016 and Aug 2018, 350 patients were randomly assigned to gef (n = 177) and gef+C (n = 173). Median age was 54 yrs, 48% were females, 84% never-smokers, 21% were PS 2 and 18% had brain metastases. Median follow-up in surviving patients was 17 months (range, 7 to 30). Radiologic response rates were 81% and 69% in gef+C and gef respectively, P = 0.012. 234 patients (67%) have had events for PFS, 98 in gef+C and 136 in gef. Estimated median PFS was significantly longer with gef+C than gef (16 months, [95% CI, 13.7 to 18.3] vs. 8 months [95% CI, 7.1 to 8.9]; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.65; P < 0.001). 120 patients (34%) have died, 42 in gef+C and 78 in gef. Estimated median OS was significantly longer with gef+C than gef (not reached vs. 18 months [95% CI, 14.28 to 21.72]; hazard ratio for death, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.66; P < 0.001). Clinically relevant ≥ grade 3 toxicities occurred in 51% and 25% of patients in gef+C and gef arms respectively, P < 0.001. Conclusion: Adding pemetrexed-carboplatin chemotherapy to gefitinib significantly prolonged progression free and overall survival but also increased toxicity. Pemetrexed-carboplatin-gefitinib represents a new standard first-line therapy for EGFR mutant NSCLC. Clinical trial information: CTRI/2016/08/007149.

Phase III Non-inferiority Study Evaluating Efficacy and Safety of Low Dose Gemcitabine Compared to Standard Dose Gemcitabine With Platinum in Advanced Squamous Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Prolonged infusion of low dose gemcitabine (PLDG) in combination with platinum has shown promising activity in terms of improved response rate and progression free survival (PFS); especially in squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Hence, we conducted a phase 3 randomized non-inferiority study with the primary objective of comparing the overall survival (OS) between PLDG and standard dose of gemcitabine with platinum.

METHODOLOGY

Adult subjects (age ≥ 18 years), with stages IIIB-IV, NSCLC (squamous) and ECOG performance status of ≤ 2 were randomized 1:1 into either carboplatin with standard dose gemcitabine (1000 mg/m² intravenous over 30 min, days 1 and 8) (STD-G arm) or carboplatin along with low dose gemcitabine (250 mg/m² intravenous over 6 h, days 1 and 8) (LOW-G arm) for a maximum of 6 cycles. Tumor response was assessed by RECIST criteria version 1.1 every 2 cycles till 6th cycle and thereafter at 2 monthly intervals till progression. The primary endpoint was overall survival. 308 patients were randomized, 155 in STD-G arm and 153 in LOW-G arm, respectively.

RESULTS

The median overall survival in STD-G arm was 6.8 months (95%CI 5.3-8.5) versus 8.4 months (95%CI 7-10.3) in the LOW-G arm (HR-0.890 (90%CI 0.725-1.092). The results with per protocol analysis were in line with these results. There was no statistical difference in progression free survival (HR-0.949; 90%CI 0.867-1.280) and adverse event rate between the 2 arms.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that PLDG is an alternative to the standard gemcitabine schedule in squamous NSCLC, and either of these can be selected subject to patient convenience.

Thromboembolic events in patients with advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer treated with platinum-based chemotherapy: a prospective observational study

Objectives

Cancer is frequently complicated by thromboembolic events (TEs). We aimed to determine the incidence of TEs in lung cancer patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and study patients’ baseline and treatment attributes correlating with its onset.

Materials and methods

Advanced lung cancer patients started on platinum-based chemotherapy were evaluated at baseline and during routine visits for the development of TEs. The duration of follow-up was 4 weeks from the last chemotherapy. A TE occurring between the first dose of chemotherapy and 4 weeks after the last dose was considered to be chemotherapy associated.

Results

Of the 165 patients on platinum chemotherapy who completed follow-up, TEs occurred in 4.8% (8 out of 165) patients. Among these, three patients had developed venous pulmonary thromboembolism and five patients had developed cerebral infarction, out of which four had arterial cerebral infarction and one patient had a superior sagittal sinus thrombosis. The majority of events (7 out of 8) occurred within 100 days of starting platinum chemotherapy. Overall, the median time until occurrence of TE was 48 days (range, 10–130 days). None of the presumed risk factors were found be associated with the occurrence of TEs on univariate analysis.

Conclusions

Advanced lung cancer patients on platinum chemotherapy are predisposed to thromboembolism due to many factors. Despite its lower incidence in our study, exclusion of patients with prior thrombosis suggests the incidence of de novo thrombosis, and hence raises a valid question of the need of thromboprophylaxis in a selected group of patients.

Repeat biopsy in epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-positive nonsmall cell lung cancer: Feasibility, limitations, and clinical utility in Indian patients

INTRODUCTION

The feasibility and success rate of repeat biopsy for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive lung cancers that have progressed on tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are varied and merits further assessment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

EGFR mutation-positive lung cancers were offered repeat biopsy upon progression on TKIs. Two groups of patients, first one on a clinical trial and second one from a database, were included for analysis. The feasibility to perform a repeat biopsy was analyzed in the first group. Success rate of biopsy and tissue adequacy for molecular testing was analyzed in both groups. Descriptive statistics were used for analyzing the demography, EGFR mutation type, tissue adequacy, and molecular profile at repeat biopsy. Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess normality of data. Two sample t-tests were used for comparison of proportions.

RESULTS

The feasibility of undergoing repeat biopsy was 77% (95% confidence interval [CI] of 69.4%-83.5%) in the first group (114/148 patients). Feasibility was not analyzed in the second group of patients. Out of 196 patients who underwent a repeat biopsy, 154 patients (78.6%; 95% CI: 72.2%-84.1%) had tumor tissue adequate for performing molecular testing. 27/196 (13.8%) patients did not have any evidence of malignancy on repeat biopsy whereas 15/196 (7.6%) patients had scanty tissue on repeat biopsy prohibiting molecular testing. Six patients (3.06%; 95% CI: 1.1%-6.5%) had small cell transformation. T790M mutation was detected in 12 out of the 42 patients (28.6%; 95% CI: 15.7-44.6) in whom EGFR testing was performed on repeat biopsy specimen.

CONCLUSION

Repeat biopsy was able to provide adequate tissue acquisition in only two-thirds of the patients. Liquid biopsy represents an important tool to bridge this gap.

Efficacy of gefitinib in epidermal growth factor receptor-activating mutation-positive nonsmall cell lung cancer: Does exon 19 deletion differ from exon 21 mutation?

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to evaluate the differential effect of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation status (exon 19 vs. 21) on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in treatment-naïve advanced EGFR mutation-positive nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with gefitinib as first-line agent.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of EGFR-mutated (exon 19 and 21) advanced-stage (Stage IIIB or IV), chemotherapy-naive NSCLC patients treated with gefitinib as first line in a phase 3 randomized study. Patients were treated with gefitinib 250 mg daily. Patients underwent axial imaging for response assessment on D42, D84, D126, and subsequently every 2 months till progression. Responding or stable patients were treated until progression or unacceptable toxicity. SPSS was used for statistical analysis. Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival estimation and log-rank test for comparison. Cox proportion hazard model was used for multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty-one patients were eligible for analysis, of which 78 were males and 63 were females. A total of 127 patients (90.1%) were ECOG 0-1 while 14 patients (9.1%) were ECOG >1. Exon 21 mutation was present in 65 patients (46.1%) and exon 19 mutation in 76 patients (53.9%). One hundred and thirty-three of 141 patients were evaluable for response. Response rate of patients having exon 19 mutation was 72.9% (51 patients, n = 70) while it was 55.6% in patients having exon 21 mutation (35 patients, n = 63) (P = 0.046). Median PFS in exon 19-mutated patients was 9.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.832-11.768) compared to 7.8 months (95% CI 5.543-10.0) (P = 0.699) in exon 21-mutated patients. The median OS in exon 19-mutated patients was 19.8 months (95% CI 16.8-22.7), and it was 16.5 months (95% CI 10.9-22.1) in exon 21-mutated patients (P = 0.215).

CONCLUSION

There were no differential outcomes in the Indian patients of advanced-stage NSCLC with exon 19 and 21 EGFR mutations treated with gefitinib.

Impact of exon 19 versus exon 21 EGFR-activating mutation on outcomes with upfront pemetrexed-carboplatin chemotherapy

Background

EGFR mutation subtype is a recognised factor impacting outcomes of patients receiving oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Evidence for the effect of this factor on outcomes in patients receiving pemetrexed is limited.

Methods

We completed a study comparing pemetrexed-platinum combination versus oral TKI in EGFR mutation-positive patients in lung cancer. We analysed the impact of EGFR mutation subtype, specifically, exon 19 and 21 on the PFS and OS of patients treated with pemetrexed (500 mg/m² on day 1) and carboplatin (AUC 5 on day 1) as first-line therapy. Patients underwent axial imaging for response assessment on D42, D84, D126 and subsequently every two months till progression. Patients post-progression were treated with gefitinib.

Results

Fifty-one patients (36%) had exon 21 mutation, while 92 patients (64%) had exon 19 mutation. Response rates in evaluable patients was 47.7% in exon 19 patients (41 patients, n = 86) and 42.9 % in exon 21 patients (18 patients, n = 42). There was a significant increase in median overall survival for patients with exon 19 mutations (24.5 months, 95% CI: 21.3-27.7 months ) over the exon 21-mutated patients (18.1 months, 95% Cl: 13.5-22.6 months, p = 0.002). This differential impact was due to second-line gefitinib having a differential outcome on these mutations.

Conclusion

Pemetrexed-based chemotherapy does not have a differential impact on exon 19- or exon 21-mutated patients. However, second-line treatment with gefitinib has a favourable response and outcome in exon 19-mutated patients.

Phase III randomized trial comparing intravenous to oral iron in patients with cancer-related iron deficiency anemia not on erythropoiesis stimulating agents

AIM

We aimed to find the optimal route of iron supplementation in patients with malignancy and iron deficiency (true or functional) anemia not receiving erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESA).

METHODS

Adult patients with malignancy requiring chemotherapy, hemoglobin (Hb) <12 g/dL and serum ferritin <100 mcg/mL, transferrin saturation <20% or hypochromic red blood cells >10% were randomized to intravenous (IV) iron sucrose or oral ferrous sulfate. The primary endpoint was change in Hb from baseline to 6 weeks. Secondary endpoints included blood transfusion, quality of life (QoL), toxicity, response and overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 192 patients were enrolled over 5 years: 98 on IV arm and 94 on oral arm. Median age was 51 years; over 95% patients had solid tumors. The mean absolute increase in Hb at 6 weeks was 0.11 g/dL (standard deviation [SD]: 1.48) in IV arm and -0.16 g/dL (SD: 1.36) in oral arm, P = 0.23. Twenty-three percent patients on IV iron and 18% patients on oral iron had a rise in Hb of ≥1 g/dL at 6 weeks, P = 0.45. Thirteen patients (13.3%) on the IV iron arm and 14 patients (14.9%) on the oral arm required blood transfusion, P = 1.0. Gastrointestinal toxicity (any grade) developed in 41% patients on IV iron and 44% patients on oral iron, P = 1.0. 5 patients on IV iron and none on oral iron had hypersensitivity, P = 0.06. QoL was not significantly different between the two arms.

CONCLUSION

IV iron was not superior to oral iron in patients with malignancy on chemotherapy and iron deficiency anemia.

Phase III study of gefitinib or pemetrexed with carboplatin in EGFR-mutated advanced lung adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVE

Oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor has been shown to prolong progression-free survival (PFS) in estimated glomerular filtration rate (EGFR) mutation positive adenocarcinoma; however, the comparator arm has not included the current standard adenocarcinoma regimen (pemetrexed carboplatin induction followed by maintenance pemetrexed) and patients from Indian subcontinent. Hence, this study was carried out in Indian patients to compare gefitinib with the above-mentioned chemotherapy regimen.

METHODS

This was an open-labelled, randomised, parallel group study comparing gefitinib (250 mg orally daily) with pemetrexed (500 mg/m²) and carboplatin (area under the curve 5) doublet intravenous induction chemotherapy regimen followed by maintenance pemetrexed (500 mg/m²) in patients with EGFR-activating mutation-positive stage IIIB or stage IV adenocarcinoma lung in the first-line setting. The primary endpoint for the study was PFS. 260 patients were required to demonstrate a 50% improvement in PFS of gefitinib over chemotherapy, with 80% power and 5% type 1 error. With an expected 5% dropout rate, the sample size was 290 patients.

RESULTS

The median PFS in gefitinib arm was 8.4 months (95% CI 6.3 to 10.5 months) compared with 5.6 months (95% CI 4.2 to 7.0 months) in pemetrexed-carboplatin arm (HR: 95% CI 0.513 to 0.851; p -0.001). The impact of gefitinib on PFS was seen across all subgroups.There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between the two arms. Haematologicalgrade3-4toxicities likeanaemia,neutropaenia and thrombocytopaenia were common in the pemetrexed-carboplatin arm while grade3-4 acneiform rash and diarrhoeawere common in the gefitinib arm.

CONCLUSION

The study confirms the superiority of gefitinib in prolonging PFS against the most active chemotherapy regimen of pemetrexed-carboplatin followed by maintenance pemetrexed in EGFR-mutated lung adenocarcinoma. The median PFS in Indian patients in gefitinib arm is similar to that reported in east Asians and Caucasians.