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

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.

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2012.42.6932 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 30 (29) ◽

pp. 3640-3647 ◽

Cited By ~ 119

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.

Download Full-text

Phase III double-blind study comparing the efficacy and safety of proposed biosimilar MYL-1402O and reference bevacizumab in stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer

Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology ◽

10.1177/17588359211045845 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 13 ◽

pp. 175883592110458

Author(s):

Mark A. Socinski ◽

Cornelius F. Waller ◽

Tazeen Idris ◽

Igor Bondarenko ◽

Alexander Luft ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Lung Cancer ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽

Cell Lung Cancer ◽

Small Cell ◽

Phase Iii ◽

European Medicines Agency ◽

Small Cell Lung ◽

Serious Adverse Events ◽

Double Blind

Purpose: This phase III study compared the efficacy and safety of proposed biosimilar MYL-1402O with reference bevacizumab (BEV), as first-line treatment for patients with stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients and methods: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive MYL-1402O or bevacizumab with carboplatin-paclitaxel up to 18 weeks (6 cycles), followed by up to 24 weeks (8 cycles) of bevacizumab monotherapy. The primary objective was comparison of overall response rate (ORR), based on independently reviewed best tumor responses as assessed during the first 18 weeks. ORR was analyzed per US Food and Drug Administration (ratio of ORR) and European Medicines Agency (difference in ORRs) requirements for equivalence evaluation. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, disease control rate, duration of response, overall survival, safety, and immunogenicity over a period of 42 weeks, and pharmacokinetics (up to 18 weeks). Results: A total of 671 patients were included in the intent-to-treat population. The ratio of ORR was 0.96 [confidence interval (CI) 0.83, 1.12] and the difference in ORR was −1.6 (CI −9.0, 5.9) between treatment arms; CIs were within the predefined equivalence margins. Overall, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events was comparable. Treatment-emergent anti-drug antibody (ADA) positivity was transient, with no notable differences between treatment arms (6.5% versus 4.8% ADA positivity rate in MYL-1402O versus BEV, respectively). The incidence of neutralizing antibody post-baseline was lower in the MYL-1402O arm (0.6%) compared to the bevacizumab arm (2.5%). Conclusions: MYL-1402O is therapeutically equivalent to bevacizumab, based on the ORR analyses, with comparable secondary endpoints. Trial Registry Information EU Clinical Trials Register, Registration # EudraCT no. 2015-005141-32 https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2015-005141-32 Plain language summary Previous studies established bioequivalence of the proposed bevacizumab biosimilar MYL-1402O to reference bevacizumab. In this randomized, double-blind, phase III trial, MYL-1402O ( n = 337) demonstrated comparable efficacy to bevacizumab ( n = 334) in treating advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer per Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency requirements for equivalence; the ratio of objective response rate (ORR) was 0.96 [90% confidence interval (CI) 0.83, 1.12] and the difference in ORR (MYL-1402O:bevacizumab) was −1.6 (95% CI −9.0, 5.9). Median progression-free survival at 42 weeks was comparable: 7.6 (7.0, 9.5) with MYL-1402O versus 9.0 (7.2, 9.7) months ( p = 0.0906) with bevacizumab, by independent review. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to death (2.4% vs 1.5%), serious adverse events (17.6% vs 16.7%), and antidrug antibodies (6.5% vs 4.8%), were comparable in the MYL-1402O vs bevacizumab arms, respectively. The incidence of neutralizing antibody post-baseline was lower with MYL-1402O (0.6%) than with bevacizumab (2.5%). These findings confirm therapeutic equivalence of MYL-1402O to bevacizumab, providing opportunities for improving access to bevacizumab.

Download Full-text

Correction: Efficacy and Safety of the Biosimilar ABP 215 Compared with Bevacizumab in Patients with Advanced Nonsquamous Non–small Cell Lung Cancer (MAPLE): A Randomized, Double-blind, Phase III Study

Clinical Cancer Research ◽

10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-19-1098 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 25 (10) ◽

pp. 3193-3193

Author(s):

Nicholas Thatcher ◽

Jerome H. Goldschmidt ◽

Michael Thomas ◽

Michael Schenker ◽

Zhiying Pan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Lung Cancer ◽

Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽

Cell Lung Cancer ◽

Small Cell ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Small Cell Lung ◽

Double Blind ◽

Phase Iii Study

Download Full-text

Treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Focus on Pemetrexed Disodium

Clinical Medicine Insights Therapeutics ◽

10.4137/cmt.s5262 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 2 ◽

pp. CMT.S5262

Author(s):

Josephine Feliciano ◽

Jyoti Patel

Keyword(s):

Lung Cancer ◽

Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽

Cell Lung Cancer ◽

Single Agent ◽

Folic Acid Supplementation ◽

Small Cell ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Hematologic Toxicity ◽

Small Cell Lung ◽

Line Setting

Pemetrexed (Alimta, Eli Lilly) is a multi-targeted anti-folate originally approved for its use in malignant mesothelioma. Based on results from phase III clinical investigations, it is now approved for use as a single agent in the second-line setting and in combination with platinum therapy in the first-line setting for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. It is also under investigation in earlier stages of non small cell lung cancer including in the adjuvant setting and with radiation. It has shown to be particularly efficacious for non-squamous histology and is well tolerated. Toxicity includes, but is not limited to hematologic toxicity and gastrointestinal toxicity, which are minimized by vitamin B12 and folic acid supplementation. Recent analyses also suggest cost-effectiveness of this agent in patient with advanced, non-squamous cell non-small cell lung cancer.

Download Full-text

Nintedanib plus pemetrexed versus placebo plus pemetrexed in patients with relapsed or refractory, advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LUME-Lung 2): A randomized, double-blind, phase III trial

Lung Cancer ◽

10.1016/j.lungcan.2016.10.011 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 102 ◽

pp. 65-73 ◽

Cited By ~ 47

Author(s):

Nasser H. Hanna ◽

Rolf Kaiser ◽

Richard N. Sullivan ◽

Osvaldo Rudy Aren ◽

Myung-Ju Ahn ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Lung Cancer ◽

Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽

Cell Lung Cancer ◽

Small Cell ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Small Cell Lung ◽

Double Blind ◽

Phase Iii Trial

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2013.53.5153 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 32 (12) ◽

pp. 1262-1268 ◽

Cited By ~ 46

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.

Download Full-text

Impact of Baseline Steroids on Efficacy of Programmed Cell Death-1 and Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Blockade in Patients With Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2018.79.0006 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 36 (28) ◽

pp. 2872-2878 ◽

Cited By ~ 260

Author(s):

Kathryn C. Arbour ◽

Laura Mezquita ◽

Niamh Long ◽

Hira Rizvi ◽

Edouard Auclin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Lung Cancer ◽

Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽

Cell Lung Cancer ◽

Single Agent ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Small Cell ◽

Cancer Center ◽

Small Cell Lung ◽

Programmed Death ◽

Programmed Cell Death 1

Purpose Treatment with programmed cell death-1 or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-(L)1) inhibitors is now standard therapy for patients with lung cancer. The immunosuppressive effect of corticosteroids may reduce efficacy of PD-(L)1 blockade. On-treatment corticosteroids for treatment of immune-related adverse events do not seem to affect efficacy, but the potential impact of baseline corticosteroids at the time of treatment initiation is unknown. Clinical trials typically excluded patients who received baseline corticosteroids, which led us to use real-world data to examine the effect of corticosteroids at treatment initiation. Methods We identified patients who were PD-(L)1–naïve with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer from two institutions—Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Gustave Roussy Cancer Center—who were treated with single-agent PD-(L)1 blockade. Clinical and pharmacy records were reviewed to identify corticosteroid use at the time of beginning anti–PD-(L)1 therapy. We performed multivariable analyses using Cox proportional hazards regression model and logistic regression. Results Ninety (14%) of 640 patients treated with single-agent PD-(L)1 blockade received corticosteroids of ≥ 10 mg of prednisone equivalent daily at the start of the PD-(L)1 blockade. Common indications for corticosteroids were dyspnea (33%), fatigue (21%), and brain metastases (19%). In both independent cohorts, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (n = 455) and Gustave Roussy Cancer Center (n = 185), baseline corticosteroids were associated with decreased overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival with PD-(L)1 blockade. In a multivariable analysis of the pooled population, adjusting for smoking history, performance status, and history of brain metastases, baseline corticosteroids remained significantly associated with decreased progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.3; P = .03), and overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.7; P < .001). Conclusion Baseline corticosteroid use of ≥ 10 mg of prednisone equivalent was associated with poorer outcome in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer who were treated with PD-(L)1 blockade. Prudent use of corticosteroids at the time of initiating PD-(L)1 blockade is recommended.

Download Full-text

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

Future Oncology ◽

10.2217/fon-2020-0935 ◽

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)

Download Full-text