scholarly journals Randomized International Phase III Trial of ERCC1 and RRM1 Expression–Based Chemotherapy Versus Gemcitabine/Carboplatin in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (19) ◽  
pp. 2404-2412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerold Bepler ◽  
Charles Williams ◽  
Michael J. Schell ◽  
Wei Chen ◽  
Zhong Zheng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Expression Analysis ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Protein Levels

Purpose We assessed whether chemotherapy selection based on in situ ERCC1 and RRM1 protein levels would improve survival in patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods Eligible patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to the trial's experimental arm, which consisted of gemcitabine/carboplatin if RRM1 and ERCC1 were low, docetaxel/carboplatin if RRM1 was high and ERCC1 was low, gemcitabine/docetaxel if RRM1 was low and ERCC1 was high, and docetaxel/vinorelbine if both were high. In the control arm, patients received gemcitabine/carboplatin. The trial was powered for a 32% improvement in 6-month progression-free survival (PFS). Results Of 331 patients registered, 275 were eligible. The median number of cycles given was four in both arms. A tumor rebiopsy specifically for expression analysis was required in 17% of patients. The median time from informed consent to expression analysis was 11 days. We found no statistically significant differences between the experimental arm and the control arm in PFS (6.1 months v 6.9 months) or overall survival (11.0 months v 11.3 months). A subset analysis revealed that patients with low levels for both proteins who received the same treatment in both treatment arms had a statistically better PFS (P = .02) in the control arm (8.1 months) compared with the experimental arm (5.0 months). Conclusion This demonstrates that protein expression analysis for therapeutic decision making is feasible in newly diagnosed patients with advanced-stage NSCLC. A tumor rebiopsy is safe, required in 17%, and acceptable to 89% (47 of 53) of patients.

Phase III Study of Erlotinib in Combination With Cisplatin and Gemcitabine in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The Tarceva Lung Cancer Investigation Trial

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (12) ◽  
pp. 1545-1552 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrich Gatzemeier ◽  
Anna Pluzanska ◽  
Aleksandra Szczesna ◽  
Eckhard Kaukel ◽  
Jaromir Roubec ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Double Blind

Purpose Erlotinib is a potent inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase, with single-agent antitumor activity. Preclinically, erlotinib enhanced the cytotoxicity of chemotherapy. This phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of erlotinib in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine as first-line treatment for advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods Patients received erlotinib (150 mg/d) or placebo, combined with up to six 21-day cycles of chemotherapy (gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to disease progression (TTP), response rate (RR), duration of response, and quality of life (QoL). Results A total of 1,172 patients were enrolled. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were well balanced. There were no differences in OS (hazard ratio, 1.06; median, 43 v 44.1 weeks for erlotinib and placebo groups, respectively), TTP, RR, or QoL between treatment arms. In a small group of patients who had never smoked, OS and progression-free survival were increased in the erlotinib group; no other subgroups were found more likely to benefit. Erlotinib with chemotherapy was generally well tolerated; incidence of adverse events was similar between arms, except for an increase in rash and diarrhea with erlotinib (generally mild). Conclusion Erlotinib with concurrent cisplatin and gemcitabine showed no survival benefit compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced NSCLC.

Phase III Study Comparing Amrubicin Plus Cisplatin With Irinotecan Plus Cisplatin in the Treatment of Extensive-Disease Small-Cell Lung Cancer: JCOG 0509

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (12) ◽  
pp. 1262-1268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miyako Satouchi ◽  
Yoshikazu Kotani ◽  
Taro Shibata ◽  
Masahiko Ando ◽  
Kazuhiko Nakagawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Point Estimate ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Extensive Disease ◽  
Grade 3

Purpose This randomized phase III trial was conducted to confirm noninferiority of amrubicin plus cisplatin (AP) compared with irinotecan plus cisplatin (IP) in terms of overall survival (OS) in chemotherapy-naive patients with extensive-disease (ED) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Patients and Methods Chemotherapy-naive patients with ED-SCLC were randomly assigned to receive IP, composed of irinotecan 60 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 and cisplatin 60 mg/m2 on day 1 every 4 weeks, or AP, composed of amrubicin 40 mg/m2 on days 1, 2, and 3 and cisplatin 60 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks. Results A total of 284 patients were randomly assigned to IP (n = 142) and AP (n = 142) arms. The point estimate of OS hazard ratio (HR) for AP to IP in the second interim analysis exceeded the noninferior margin (HR, 1.31), resulting in early publication because of futility. In updated analysis, median survival time was 17.7 (IP) versus 15.0 months (AP; HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.85), median progression-free survival was 5.6 (IP) versus 5.1 months (AP; HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.73), and response rate was 72.3% (IP) versus 77.9% (AP; P = .33). Adverse events observed in IP and AP arms were grade 4 neutropenia (22.5% v 79.3%), grade 3 to 4 febrile neutropenia (10.6% v 32.1%), and grade 3 to 4 diarrhea (7.7% v 1.4%). Conclusion AP proved inferior to IP in this trial, perhaps because the efficacy of amrubicin as a salvage therapy was differentially beneficial to IP. IP remains the standard treatment for extensive-stage SCLC in Japan.

scholarly journals Phase III study of selpercatinib vs chemotherapy +/− pembrolizumab in untreated RET positive non-small-cell lung cancer

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin J Solomon ◽  
Cai Cun Zhou ◽  
Alexander Drilon ◽  
Keunchil Park ◽  
Jürgen Wolf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Treatment Naïve

Selpercatinib, a novel, highly selective and potent, inhibitor of RET, demonstrated clinically meaningful antitumor activity with manageable toxicity in heavily pretreated and treatment-naive RET fusion-positive non-small-cell lung cancer patients in a Phase I/II clinical trial. LIBRETTO-431 (NCT04194944) is a randomized, global, multicenter, open-label, Phase III trial, evaluating selpercatinib versus carboplatin or cisplatin and pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without pembrolizumab in treatment-naive patients with locally advanced/metastatic RET fusion-positive nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. The primary end point is progression-free survival by independent review. Key secondary end points include overall survival, response rate, duration of response and progression-free survival. Clinical trial registration: NCT04194944 (ClinicalTrials.gov)

Gemcitabine Plus Vinorelbine Compared With Cisplatin Plus Vinorelbine or Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine for Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase III Trial of the Italian GEMVIN Investigators and the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group

2003 ◽  
Vol 21 (16) ◽  
pp. 3025-3034 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cesare Gridelli ◽  
Ciro Gallo ◽  
Frances A. Shepherd ◽  
Alfonso Illiano ◽  
Francovito Piantedosi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
European Organization ◽  
Grade 3

Purpose: Platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens are the standard treatment for patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), although toxicity is common and may significantly affect the patient’s quality of life (QoL). This trial aimed to assess whether a combination of gemcitabine and vinorelbine had benefits in terms of QoL, without influencing negatively on survival, compared with cisplatin-containing regimens. Patients and Methods: Patients with stage IIIB (effusion and supraclavicular nodes) or IV documented NSCLC who were younger than 70 years of age were randomly assigned gemcitabine plus vinorelbine (GemVin) or either gemcitabine plus cisplatin or vinorelbine plus cisplatin (cisplatin-based). European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer scales were used for QoL analysis. Results: Five hundred one patients were randomly assigned to treatment. The median age was 62 years. There were no significant differences in global QoL scores between the two arms after 2 months of treatment. However, worsening scores for appetite, vomiting, and alopecia were significantly more common in the cisplatin-based arm. Median survival was 38 v 32 weeks and median progression-free survival was 23 v 17 weeks in the cisplatin-based versus GemVin arms, respectively. For the GemVin arm the hazard ratio for death was 1.15 (90% confidence interval [CI], 0.96 to 1.37) and the hazard ratio for progression was 1.29 (90% CI, 1.10 to 1.52). Grade 3 or 4 myelosuppression, vomiting, alopecia, and ototoxicity were significantly more frequent with cisplatin-based treatment. Conclusion: Global QoL is not improved with GemVin, although advantages in some components of QoL were apparent. GemVin is less toxic than standard cisplatin-based chemotherapy. There is a nonsignificant slight survival advantage with cisplatin-based chemotherapy. GemVin could be offered to advanced NSCLC patients who express concern about toxicity.

scholarly journals Brigatinib vs Alectinib in Crizotinib-Resistant Advanced Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (ALTA-3)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanjay Popat ◽  
Geoffrey Liu ◽  
Shun Lu ◽  
Gregory Song ◽  
Xin Ma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Anaplastic Lymphoma ◽  
End Point

Crizotinib is highly efficacious and more tolerable than chemotherapy for ALK+ non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but its progression-free survival benefit and intracranial efficacy have limitations. Head-to-head comparisons of next-generation ALK inhibitors in patients with ALK+ NSCLC progressing on crizotinib will contribute toward optimizing survival. This international, Phase III, randomized, open-label study (ALTA-3) will therefore assign patients with locally advanced or metastatic ALK+ NSCLC progressing on crizotinib to receive either brigatinib 180 mg qd (7-day lead-in at 90 mg qd) or alectinib 600 mg twice daily. The primary end point is progression-free survival as assessed by a blinded Independent Review Committee; the key secondary end point is overall survival. Trial registration number: NCT03596866  (ClinicalTrials.gov)

Phase II trial of carfilzomib and irinotecan in relapsed small cell lung cancer (NCT01941316).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8513-8513 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne M. Arnold ◽  
Kari Chansky ◽  
Maria Quintos Baggstrom ◽  
Michael A. Thompson ◽  
Rachel E. Sanborn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Platinum Sensitive ◽  
Platinum Refractory

8513 Background: Relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is incurable with limited therapeutic options. This phase II study evaluated efficacy and tolerability of carfilzomib + irinotecan in SCLC pts who progressed after prior platinum-based therapy, based on expected synergy of proteosome inhibitor carfilzomib and topisomerase 1 inhibitor irinotecan. Methods: SCLC pts who progressed after one platinum-containing regimen (no maintenance therapy allowed) for recurrent/metastatic disease were eligible. Pts were stratified by response to platinum-based therapy: sensitive (progressive disease (PD) > 90 days after chemo) versus refractory (PD 30 to 90 days after chemo). Pts were treated with up to 6 cycles of carfilzomib (20/36 mg.m2 D1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16 q28D) and irinotecan (125 mg/m2 D1, 8, 15 q28D), imaging was performed every 2 cycles. The primary efficacy endpoint was 6-month overall survival (OS). Results: 62 pts enrolled and were evaluable for efficacy and adverse events. The 6-month OS was 59% in the platinum sensitive stratum and 54% in the platinum refractory stratum. Overall response rate: sensitive stratum 21.6% (1.6% CR + 16.4% PR) and refractory stratum 12.5% (all PR). Disease control (SD+PR+CR) was 68% in platinum sensitive and 56% in refractory patients. Progression free survival and OS were 3.6 months (95% CI 2.6 - 4.6) and 6.9 months (95% CI 4.3 - 12.3) in the sensitive stratum, and 3.3 months (95% CI 1.8 – 3.9) and 6.8 months (95% CI 4.1-11) in the refractory stratum. Twenty-nine pts (47%) experienced at least one grade 3 AE and 8 subjects had grade 4 toxicities: decreased neutrophils, leukocytes, and lymphocytes, diarrhea, vomiting, sepsis, hypokalemia, hypocalcemia, and dehydration. There were three treatment related deaths: myocardial infarction (possible), lung infection (possible), sepsis (probable). Conclusions: In previously treated pts with relapsed SCLC, irinotecan and carfilzomib was effective in platinum-sensitive and, notably, platinum-refractory pts with similar toxicity profile. This combination is a viable option in relapsed SCLC, can be considered following progression on immunotherapy (IO) or in subjects who cannot receive IO, and should be further explored in a randomized phase III trial. Clinical trial information: NCT01941316.

Practical Management of Oligometastatic Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katie Jasper ◽  
Brendon Stiles ◽  
Fiona McDonald ◽  
David A. Palma
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Local Ablation ◽  
Oligometastatic Disease ◽  
Practical Management

Local ablative therapies, including surgery or stereotactic radiotherapy (SABR), are becoming an integral component in the treatment of oligometastatic disease in non–small-cell lung cancer. In this review, we summarize recent randomized evidence supporting progression-free survival and overall survival benefits of local ablation in these patients, as well as upcoming phase III data which should help us better understand the ideal treatment conditions and provide more insight into the oligometastatic state. Since practical management of oligometastatic disease in non–small-cell lung cancer can be challenging, we discuss a modern framework to identify patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics that can best guide management.

Phase III Study of Immediate Compared With Delayed Docetaxel After Front-Line Therapy With Gemcitabine Plus Carboplatin in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 591-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Panos M. Fidias ◽  
Shaker R. Dakhil ◽  
Alan P. Lyss ◽  
David M. Loesch ◽  
David M. Waterhouse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Front Line ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Docetaxel Group

PurposeGemcitabine plus carboplatin (GC) is active as front-line treatment for advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). For patients without progression, timing of second-line chemotherapy for optimum clinical benefit remains uncertain. This phase III, randomized trial assessed the efficacy and safety of docetaxel administered either immediately after GC or at disease progression.Patients and MethodsThe chemotherapy-naïve patients enrolled had either stage IIIB NSCLC with pleural effusion or stage IV NSCLC. Gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2) was administered on days 1 and 8 followed by carboplatin (area under the curve = 5) on day 1. After four 21-day cycles, patients who did not have progression were randomly assigned either to an immediate docetaxel group (docetaxel 75 mg/m2on day 1 every 21 days, with maximum of six cycles) or to a delayed docetaxel group. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) measured from random assignment. Additional analyses included tumor response, toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS), and quality of life (QOL).ResultsEnrollment totaled 566 patients; 398 patients completed GC; 309 patients were randomly assigned equally to the two docetaxel treatment groups. Toxicity profiles were generally comparable for the docetaxel groups. Median PFS for immediate docetaxel (5.7 months) was significantly greater (P = .0001) than for delayed docetaxel (2.7 months). Median OS for immediate docetaxel (12.3 months) was greater than for delayed docetaxel (9.7 months), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .0853). QOL results were not statistically different (P = .76) between docetaxel groups.ConclusionWe observed a statistically significant improvement in PFS and a nonstatistically significant increase in OS when docetaxel was administered immediately after front-line GC, without increasing toxicity or decreasing QOL.

Aflibercept and Docetaxel Versus Docetaxel Alone After Platinum Failure in Patients With Advanced or Metastatic Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized, Controlled Phase III Trial

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (29) ◽  
pp. 3640-3647 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodryg Ramlau ◽  
Vera Gorbunova ◽  
Tudor Eliade Ciuleanu ◽  
Silvia Novello ◽  
Mustafa Ozguroglu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Protein Targeting ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Phase Iii Trial

Purpose To compare the efficacy of aflibercept (ziv-aflibercept), a recombinant human fusion protein targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway, with or without docetaxel in platinum-pretreated patients with advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer. Patients and Methods In this international, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial, 913 patients were randomly assigned to (ziv-)aflibercept 6 mg/kg intravenous (IV; n = 456) or IV placebo (n = 457), both administered every 3 weeks and in combination with docetaxel 75 mg/m2. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Other efficacy outcomes, safety, and immunogenicity were also assessed. Results Patient characteristics were balanced between arms; 12.3% of patients had received prior bevacizumab. (Ziv-)Aflibercept did not improve OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.17; stratified log-rank P = .90). The median OS was 10.1 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 11.6 months) for (ziv-)aflibercept and 10.4 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 11.9 months) for placebo. In exploratory analyses, median progression-free survival was 5.2 months (95% CI, 4.4 to 5.6 months) for (ziv-)aflibercept versus 4.1 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 4.3 months) for placebo (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94; P = .0035); overall response rate was 23.3% of evaluable patients (95% CI, 19.1% to 27.4%) in the (ziv-)aflibercept arm versus 8.9% (95% CI, 6.1% to 11.6%; P < .001) in the placebo arm. Grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurring more frequently in the (ziv-)aflibercept arm versus the placebo arm were neutropenia (28.0% v 21.1%, respectively), fatigue (11.1% v 4.2%, respectively), stomatitis (8.8% v 0.7%, respectively), and hypertension (7.3% v 0.9%, respectively). Conclusion The addition of (ziv-)aflibercept to standard docetaxel therapy did not improve OS. In exploratory analyses, secondary efficacy end points did seem to be improved in the (ziv-)aflibercept arm. The study regimen was associated with increased toxicities, consistent with known anti-VEGF and chemotherapy-induced events.

scholarly journals Phase III randomized study of carboplatin pemetrexed with or without bevacizumab with initial versus “at progression” cerebral radiotherapy in advanced non squamous non-small cell lung cancer with asymptomatic brain metastasis

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 175883592110069
Author(s):  
Isabelle Monnet ◽  
Alain Vergnenègre ◽  
Gilles Robinet ◽  
Henri Berard ◽  
Regine Lamy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Open Label

Background: The role and timing of whole or stereotaxic brain radiotherapy (BR) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) and asymptomatic brain metastases (aBMs) are not well established. This study investigates whether deferring BR until cerebral progression was superior to upfront BR for patients with aNSCLC and aBM. Methods: This open-label, multicenter, phase III trial, randomized (1:1) aNSCLC patients with aBMs to receive upfront BR and chemotherapy: platin–pemetrexed and bevacizumab in eligible patients, followed by maintenance pemetrexed with or without bevacizumab, BR arm, or the same chemotherapy with BR only at cerebral progression, chemotherapy (ChT) arm. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), global, extra-cerebral and cerebral objective response rate (ORR), toxicity, and quality of life [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02162537]. Results: The trial was stopped early because of slow recruitment. Among 95 included patients, 91 were randomized in 24 centers: 45 to BR and 46 to ChT arms (age: 60 ± 8.1, men: 79%, PS 0/1: 51.7%/48.3%; adenocarcinomas: 92.2%, extra-cerebral metastases: 57.8%, without differences between arms.) Significantly more patients in the BR-arm received BR compare with those in the ChT arm (87% versus 20%; p < 0.001); there were no significant differences between BR and ChT arms for median PFS: 4.7, 95% confidence interval (CI):3.4–7.5 versus 4.8, 95% CI: 2.4–6.5 months, for median OS: 8.5, 95% CI:.6–11.1 versus 8.3, 95% CI:4.5–11.5 months, cerebral and extra-cerebral ORR (27% versus 13%, p = 0.064, and 30% versus 41%, p = 0.245, respectively). The ChT arm had more grade 3/4 neutropenia than the BR arm (13% versus 6%, p = 0.045); others toxicities were comparable. Conclusion: The significant BR rate difference between the two arms suggests that upfront BR is not mandatory in aNSCLC with aBM but this trial failed to show that deferring BR for aBM is superior in terms of PFS from upfront BR.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document