Randomised, multicentre phase II study assessing two doses of docetaxel (75 or 100 mg/m2) as second-line monotherapy fornon-small-cell lung cancer

Interaction of Docetaxel with Phosphatidylcholine Membranes: A Combined Experimental and Computational Study

The antineoplastic drug Docetaxel is a second generation taxane which is used against a great variety of cancers. The drug is highly lipophilic and produces a great array of severe toxic effects that limit its therapeutic effectiveness. The study of the interaction between Docetaxel and membranes is very scarce, however, it is required in order to get clues in relation with its function, mechanism of toxicity and possibilities of new formulations. Using phosphatidylcholine biomimetic membranes, we examine the interaction of Docetaxel with the phospholipid bilayer combining an experimental study, employing a series of biophysical techniques like Differential Scanning Calorimetry, X-Ray Diffraction and Infrared Spectroscopy, and a Molecular Dynamics simulation. Our experimental results indicated that Docetaxel incorporated into DPPC bilayer perturbing the gel to liquid crystalline phase transition and giving rise to immiscibility when the amount of the drug is increased. The drug promotes the gel ripple phase, increasing the bilayer thickness in the fluid phase, and is also able to alter the hydrogen-bonding interactions in the interfacial region of the bilayer producing a dehydration effect. The results from computational simulation agree with the experimental ones and located the Docetaxel molecule forming small clusters in the region of the carbon 8 of the acyl chain palisade overlapping with the carbonyl region of the phospholipid. Our results support the idea that the anticancer drug is embedded into the phospholipid bilayer to a limited amount and produces structural perturbations which might affect the function of the membrane.

Transforming approaches to treating TRK fusion cancer: historical comparison of larotrectinib and histology-specific therapies

OBJECTIVE

The results from basket trials utilized to gain regulatory approval of tumor-agnostic therapies can be difficult to interpret without the context of a comparator arm. We describe the role and efficacy of histology-based treatments to provide a historical comparison with larotrectinib.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted on the clinical outcomes of current histology-based standard of care treatments used in non-small cell lung cancer, colorectal cancer, thyroid cancer, gliomas, soft tissue sarcoma, salivary gland cancer, and infantile fibrosarcoma (7 of the 21 tumor histologies in the larotrectinib trials). The review focused on advanced stage/metastatic disease to make a historical comparison with larotrectinib.

RESULTS

Larotrectinib provides positive outcomes in both adult and pediatric patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors known to harbor NTRK gene fusions across a wide range of tumor types. Although the numbers of patients per tumor type are limited, the results of this historical comparison demonstrated that larotrectinib is an efficacious treatment option when naïvely indirectly compared with historical treatments across all 7 reviewed tumor types, especially in comparison to later lines of therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilizing larotrectinib as a case example across these types of historical comparisons shows that larotrectinib provides positive efficacy outcomes in TRK fusion cancer across tumor histologies known to harbor NTRK gene fusions that may be preferable to historical treatments.

Comparative Efficacy of Second- and Subsequent-line Treatments for Metastatic NSCLC: A Fractional Polynomials Network Meta-analysis of Cancer Immunotherapies

BACKGROUND

Extended onset of treatment effect and longer-term survival with anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)/programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) immunotherapies, atezolizumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab, have changed the landscape of second- or subsequent-line (2L+) treatments for adults with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This systematic literature review included phase I to IV randomized, controlled trials of 2L+ NSCLC therapies from MEDLINE, Embase, and secondary sources.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies of treatments approved in the European Union or United States had to be in English with ≥ 10 patients per arm. A fractional polynomials network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted because traditional NMA of hazard ratios does not account for delayed onset of clinical effect or long-term survival observed in PD-L1/PD-1 inhibitor trials. Adjusted analyses accounted for treatment switching in the atezolizumab OAK trial. Expected survival time reflected area under the curve over the time horizon. Expected overall survival (OS) was ranked by median ranking with 95% credible intervals and by surface under the cumulative ranking curve. Of 25,115 screened records, 28 studies were included in the quantitative analyses of OS and progression-free survival.

RESULTS

PD-L1/PD-1 inhibitors had comparable expected 5-year OS; all performed better than other treatment options. In unadjusted analyses, surface under the cumulative ranking curve ranked nivolumab first (87.9%), followed by atezolizumab (85.8%) and pembrolizumab (82.8%). Analyses adjusted for patients switching from docetaxel to immunotherapy ranked atezolizumab first (89.6%), followed by nivolumab (86.5%) and pembrolizumab (81.9%).

CONCLUSION

This NMA applied an appropriate approach for indirect comparisons, including cancer immunotherapies, and supported robustness of PD-L1/PD-1 immunotherapies for 2L+ treatment of NSCLC.

Relative efficacy of interventions in the treatment of second-line non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that has progressed after first-line treatment has a poor prognosis. Recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have demonstrated survival benefits of alternative treatments to docetaxel. However, information is lacking on which patients benefit the most and what drug or regimen is optimal. We report a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of second-line treatments in all subgroup combinations determined by histology, programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation.

METHODS

MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Biosciences Information Service (using the Dialog Platform), Cochrane Library, and abstracts from scientific meetings were searched for RCTs published up to September 2015. Key outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Bayesian hierarchical exchangeable NMAs were conducted to calculate mean survival times and relative differences for eight subgroups, using docetaxel as the reference comparator. For OS, the NMA was based on hazard ratios applied to a first-order fractional polynomial model fitted to the reference treatment. For PFS, a second-order fractional polynomial model was fitted to reconstructed patient-level data for the entire network of evidence.

RESULTS

The search identified 30 studies containing 17 different treatment regimens. Docetaxel plus ramucirumab was associated with a significant improvement in OS and PFS, relative to docetaxel, regardless of patient type. Docetaxel plus nintedanib showed similar efficacy to docetaxel plus ramucirumab in the nonsquamous populations. EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) erlotinib and gefitinib showed superior levels of efficacy in EGFR mutation-positive populations and the one PD-1 immunotherapy (nivolumab) studied showed superior efficacy in the populations exhibiting high PD-L1 expression.

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of head-to-head comparisons, we performed a mixed-treatment analysis to synthesize evidence of the efficacy of each treatment. Benefits are optimized by targeting specific treatments to individual patients guided by histology, PD-L1 expression, and EGFR mutation status.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This review is registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42014013780 available at www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO ).

Erlotinib and gefitinib for treating non-small cell lung cancer that has progressed following prior chemotherapy (review of NICE technology appraisals 162 and 175): a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer is the second most diagnosed cancer in the UK. Over 70% of lung cancers are non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs). Patients with stage III or IV NSCLC may be offered treatment to improve survival, disease control and quality of life. One-third of these patients receive further treatment following disease progression; these treatments are the focus of this systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of erlotinib [Tarceva(®), Roche (UK) Ltd] and gefitinib (IRESSA(®), AstraZeneca) compared with each other, docetaxel or best supportive care (BSC) for the treatment of NSCLC after disease progression following prior chemotherapy. The effectiveness of treatment with gefitinib was considered only for patients with epidermal growth factor mutation-positive (EGFR M+) disease.

DATA SOURCES

Four electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, PubMed) were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and economic evaluations. Manufacturers' evidence submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence were also considered.

REVIEW METHODS

Outcomes for three distinct patient groups based on EGFR mutation status [EGFR M+, epidermal growth factor mutation negative (EGFR M-) and epidermal growth factor mutation status unknown (EGFR unknown)] were considered. Heterogeneity of the data precluded statistical analysis. A de novo economic model was developed to compare treatments (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained).

RESULTS

Twelve trials were included in the review. The use of gefitinib was compared with chemotherapy (n = 6) or BSC (n = 1), and the use of erlotinib was compared with chemotherapy (n = 3) or BSC (n = 1). One trial compared the use of gefitinib with the use of erlotinib. No trials included solely EGFR M+ patients; all data were derived from retrospective subgroup analyses from six RCTs [Kim ST, Uhm JE, Lee J, Sun JM, Sohn I, Kim SW, et al. Randomized phase II study of gefitinib versus erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer who failed previous chemotherapy. Lung Cancer 2012;75:82-8, V-15-32, Tarceva In Treatment of Advanced NSCLC (TITAN), BR.21, IRESSA Survival Evaluation in Lung cancer (ISEL) and IRESSA NSCLC Trial Evaluating REsponse and Survival versus Taxotere (INTEREST)]. These limited data precluded conclusions regarding the clinical effectiveness of any treatment for EGFR M+ patients. For EGFR M- patients, data were derived from the TArceva Italian Lung Optimization tRial (TAILOR) trial and Docetaxel and Erlotinib Lung Cancer Trial (DELTA). Retrospective data were also derived from subgroup analyses of BR.21, Kim et al., TITAN, INTEREST and ISEL. The only statistically significant reported results were for progression-free survival (PFS) for TAILOR and DELTA, and favoured docetaxel over erlotinib [TAILOR hazard ratio (HR) 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 1.82; DELTA HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.92]. In EGFR unknown patients, nine trials (INTEREST, IRESSA as Second-line Therapy in Advanced NSCLC - KoreA, Li, Second-line Indication of Gefitinib in NSCLC, V-15-32, ISEL, DELTA, TITAN and BR.21) reported overall survival data and only one (BR.21) reported a statistically significant result favouring the use of erlotinib over BSC (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85). For PFS, BR.21 favoured the use of erlotinib when compared with BSC (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.74) and the use of gefitinib was favoured when compared with BSC (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.92) in ISEL. Limitations in the clinical data precluded assessment of cost-effectiveness of treatments for an EGFR M+ population by the Assessment Group (AG). The AG's economic model suggested that for the EGFR M- population, the use of erlotinib was not cost-effective compared with the use of docetaxel and compared with BSC. For EGFR unknown patients, the use of erlotinib was not cost-effective when compared with BSC.

CONCLUSIONS/FUTURE WORK

The lack of clinical data available for distinct patient populations limited the conclusions of the assessment. Future trials should distinguish between patients with EGFR M+ and EGFR M- disease.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Feasibility re-evaluation of 75 mg/m² docetaxel in Japanese patients with previously treated non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to re-evaluate the feasibility of docetaxel at doses of up to 75 mg/m² in Japanese patients with previously treated non-small cell lung cancer.

METHODS

Patients received escalated doses of docetaxel at 70 mg/m² (level 1) or 75 mg/m² (level 2) every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicities. Dose escalation was decided on the basis of dose-limiting toxicity in the first cycle of chemotherapy.

RESULTS

At dose level 1, dose-limiting toxicity--Grade 3 febrile neutropenia--was observed in one of the six patients and at dose level 2, it was seen in one of the first six patients. Therefore, an additional 14 patients were enrolled at dose level 2, as originally planned. Among the total of 20 patients at dose level 2, 6 (<33%) developed dose-limiting toxicity in the first cycle: febrile neutropenia in 5 and pneumonia in 1. Finally, 10 (50%) of the 20 patients experienced toxicities that met the dose-limiting toxicity criteria, including 8 with febrile neutropenia throughout the treatment period, but this was manageable with dose reduction or appropriate supportive care. Other observed toxicities were predictable from the safety profile of decetaxel and were also well managed. Four partial responses were observed, giving an overall response rate of 15.4%. The median progression-free survival period of the patients overall was 4.0 months (95% confidence interval 1.4-6.6 months).

CONCLUSIONS

Although docetaxel administration at an initial dose of 75 mg/m² requires careful attention because of the high incidence of febrile neutropenia, this dose is considered feasible according to the protocol definition in Japanese patients with previously treated non-small cell lung cancer.

Pharmacoethnicity of docetaxel-induced severe neutropenia: integrated analysis of published phase II and III trials

BACKGROUND

Ethnic differences in drug susceptibility and toxicity are a major concern, not only in drug development but also in the clinical setting. We review the toxicity profiles of docetaxel according to dose and ethnicity.

METHODS

We analyzed phase II and III clinical trials that included a once-every-3-weeks single-agent docetaxel arm. Logistic regression analysis was applied to identify the significant variables affecting the reported incidence of docetaxel-induced severe neutropenia.

RESULTS

Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified studies conducted in Asia [odds ratio (OR) 19.0; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 3.64-99.0] and docetaxel dose (OR 1.08; 95% CI 1.03-1.13) as independent variables for the incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenia.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant difference in the incidence of docetaxel-induced severe neutropenia between Asian and non-Asian clinical studies. Physicians and pharmacists should consider ethnic diversity in docetaxel toxicity when interpreting the results of clinical trials.

The risk of febrile neutropenia in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer treated with docetaxel: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We aimed to assess the incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients with non small cell lung cancer treated with docetaxel as second line chemotherapy by systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies. Published studies were retrieved and included if they considered docetaxel at the licensed dose after a previous chemotherapy regimen, and reported the proportion of patients getting FN. Meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the proportion of patients who experience one or more episodes of FN. The pooled, random effects meta-analysis estimate for the proportion of patients who experience one or more episodes of FN on docetaxel was 5.95% (95% CI 4.22-8.31) based on 13 studies, comprising 1609 patients. No significant differences were seen either between studies that permitted the use of prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors or between phase II and phase III trials.Evidence from randomised controlled trials suggests that the incidence of FN with docetaxel is around 6% and therefore an important factor to consider in the choice of the chemotherapy regimen.

Does an optimal therapeutic sequence exist in advanced non-small cell lung cancer?

BACKGROUND

A growing percentage of patients affected by advanced non-small cell lung cancer who progressed after first-line chemotherapy still have a good performance status and require second-line treatment.

OBJECTIVE

An overview of the state of the art of second-line therapeutic options is presented.

METHODS

The scope of the review is to give an update on the therapeutic options currently available for the second-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Among chemotherapeutic drugs docetaxel and pemetrexed have been approved for second-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Although the drugs are equiactive in terms of response rate and survival parameters the latter has a clear-cut advantage in terms of tolerability and quality of life. Therefore, pemetrexed is considered the best second-line therapeutic option in order to avoid severe side effects. Among biologic agents the tyrosine kinase inhibitors gefinitib and erlotinib have been largely tested, but only the latter has been approved for second- and third-line treatment. Erlotinib has been reported to be particularly active in patients with adenocarcinoma, in females, in patients of Asian ethnicity and in epidermal growth factor receptor mutations and it is also active in the third-line setting. At present, no direct head to head comparison of erlotinib with any chemotherapeutic agent has been performed. A rational decision tree may therefore include pemetrexed or docetaxel (the former preferred for tolerability) or erlotinib as standard second-line therapy. Erlotinib has been also shown to be active as third-line treatment: however, in cases of patients with clinical characteristics suggesting a good response to tyrosine kinase inhibitors, erlotinib may be employed in an earlier phase.

Second-line paclitaxel in non-small cell lung cancer initially treated with cisplatin: a study by the European Lung Cancer Working Party

In the context of a phase III trial comparing in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) sequential to conventional administration of cisplatin-based chemotherapy and paclitaxel, we evaluated the activity of paclitaxel as second-line chemotherapy and investigated any relation of its efficacy with the type of failure after cisplatin. Patients received three courses of induction GIP (gemcitabine, ifosfamide, cisplatin). Non-progressing patients were randomised between three further courses of GIP or three courses of paclitaxel. Second-line paclitaxel was given to patients with primary failure (PF) to GIP and to those progressing after randomisation to further GIP (secondary failure or SF). One hundred sixty patients received second-line paclitaxel. Response rates were 7.7% for PF and 11.6% for SF (P=0.42). Median survival times (calculated from paclitaxel start) were 4.1 and 7.1 months for PF and SF (P=0.002). In multivariate analysis, three variables were independently associated with better survival: SF (hazard ratio (HR)=1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08–2.22; P=0.02), normal haemoglobin level (HR=1.56, 95% CI 1.08–2.26; P=0.02) and minimal weight loss (HR=1.79, 95% CI 1.26–2.55; P=0.001). Paclitaxel in NSCLC patients, whether given for primary or for SF after cisplatin-based chemotherapy, demonstrates activity similar to other drugs considered active as second-line therapy.

Randomized phase III study of 3-weekly versus weekly docetaxel in pretreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a Spanish Lung Cancer Group trial

BACKGROUND

Docetaxel is a widely accepted second-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a risk of myelotoxicity. This study evaluated the efficacy and toxicity profile of two docetaxel regimens in NSCLC patients who had failed first-line non-docetaxel-based chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 259 patients from 33 Spanish centers were randomized to receive either docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) administered every 3 weeks (3W arm) or docetaxel 36 mg/m(2) given weekly (1W arm) for 6 weeks followed by 2 weeks of rest. The primary end point was 1-year survival; secondary end points were median survival, time to progression, response and toxicity.

RESULTS

One-year survival was 27% in the 3W and 22% in the 1W arm. Median time to progression was also similar in the two arms. Median survival was 6.6 months in the 3W arm versus 5.4 months in the 1W arm (P = 0.075). Response rates were 9.3% in the 3W arm and 4.8% in the 1W arm. More patients in the 1W arm experienced mucositis [1W, nine patients (7.2%); 3W, two patients (1.6%); P = 0.032], while febrile neutropenia was significantly higher in the 3W arm [3W, 10 patients (7.8%); 1W, one patient (0.8%); P = 0.010].

CONCLUSIONS

Both weekly and 3-weekly docetaxel were effective and well-tolerated, with different toxicity profiles. In general, there was no indication to recommend the weekly schedule. However, the significant lower rate of febrile neutropenia observed in the weekly schedule makes it a good alternative for patients at risk of severe neutropenia.

Second-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Among advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, most will resist or relapse after first-line chemotherapy. As a result, second-line therapy has been a major focus for clinical research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review was carried out from 1996 to February 2005.

RESULTS

Second-line chemotherapy provides pre-treated NSCLC patients with a clear survival advantage. Docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks is the present standard second-line chemotherapy. Despite promising results regarding efficacy and toxicity in phase III studies, a docetaxel weekly schedule could not be recommended. Pemetrexed recently emerged as an alternative with similar efficacy and less toxicity. Although the combination of two drugs was not associated with a survival benefit when compared with single-agent chemotherapy, such regimens induced a dramatic increase in toxicities and therefore mono-chemotherapy remains the standard as second-line therapy. Finally, few new agents were reported with better results than those used previously and clinical research on second-line therapy currently focuses on combinations with targeted therapies.

CONCLUSION

Second-line chemotherapy offers NSCLC patients a small but significant survival improvement. However, this field of clinical research needs further investigations in order to answer certain remaining questions especially concerning targeted therapies.

Second-Line Treatment Options in Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Comparison of Cytotoxic Agents and Targeted Therapies

Current options for the second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) include cytotoxic drugs, such as docetaxel and pemetrexed, and targeted therapies. Docetaxel was approved in the United States and Europe in 2000 after two phase III trials showed drug superiority versus best supportive care alone and versus alternative single-agent chemotherapy. Pemetrexed was approved in the United States and Europe in 2004 after a phase III trial showed that, compared with docetaxel, it had comparable activity (median survival time of approximately 8 months in both arms) and a more favorable toxicity profile: grade 3-4 neutropenia was observed in 5.3% versus 40.2% of patients in the pemetrexed and docetaxel arms, respectively, while febrile neutropenia was observed in 1.9% versus 12.7% of patients, respectively. In the United States, gefitinib and erlotinib have also been approved for the treatment of recurrent NSCLC (in 2003 and 2004, respectively), while in Europe the registration of these agents is currently under evaluation. This review focuses on the use of docetaxel and pemetrexed for the second-line treatment of NSCLC and compares these drugs with targeted therapies, highlighting the latest developments in pharmacogenomics that might lead to a more tailored approach to treatment.

Safety and efficacy of trastuzumab every 3 weeks combined with cytotoxic chemotherapy in patients with HER2-positive recurrent breast cancer: findings from a case series

BACKGROUND

Trastuzumab has been repeatedly shown to result in significant clinical benefits and was subsequently accepted as the treatment of choice for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer - particularly as first-line treatment in combination with taxanes and as monotherapy in the second-line or third-line setting. Trastuzumab is currently licensed as a weekly treatment, although a 3-weekly schedule could be used conveniently in combination with other cytotoxic agents that are administered on a 3-weekly basis in metastatic breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We determined the safety of i.v. trastuzumab (8 mg/kg followed by 6 mg/kg) every 3 weeks in combination with chemotherapeutic agents administered in 3-weekly courses (docetaxel, vinorelbine and capecitabine) in 31 patients with HER2-positive recurrent locoregional and/or metastatic breast cancer.

RESULTS

3-weekly trastuzumab appeared to be as well tolerated as the standard once-weekly schedule. All myelosuppressive adverse events and the majority of non-hematological adverse events were typical and characteristic of the individual concomitant cytotoxic agents. Transient trastuzumab-related infusion reactions occurred in 5 patients and 1 patient developed cardiac dysfunction, which recovered after discontinuation of trastuzumab. Efficacy appeared favourable: 18 clinical responses (3 complete and 15 partial) and 8 disease stabilizations gave an overall response rate of 58% (70% in the 20 patients receiving first-line therapy). Median progression-free and overall survival times were 9.9 months (95% CI: 6.3-13.5) and 23.1 months (95% CI: 19.2-27.0), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings will likely encourage further evaluation of this more convenient 3-weekly trastuzumab regimen in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

Phase II randomised trial comparing docetaxel given every 3 weeks with weekly schedule as second-line therapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

BACKGROUND

Taxotere (docetaxel) at the dose of 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks is a standard therapy for pretreated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety profile of two schedules of docetaxel administration (every 3 weeks versus weekly) in patients with pretreated NSCLC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From February 2000 to February 2001, 125 patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC were randomised after failure of a previous platinum-based regimen to receive either docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) administered every 3 weeks (Dq3w) or docetaxel 40 mg/m(2) given weekly for 6 weeks followed by 2 weeks of rest (Dqw). Safety evaluations focused on grade 3-4 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, nausea-vomiting and asthenia.

RESULTS

Patients' characteristics were well balanced between arms. The most common National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI-CTC) grade 3-4 toxicity was neutropenia, which occurred in 48.4% of Dq3w patients versus 15.9% of Dqw patients (P=0.001). In addition, febrile neutropenia were observed in 6.5% of patients in Dq3w versus 0% in Dqw. Grade 3-4 asthenia was more frequent in Dqw. Other non-haematological toxicities were very rare. Regarding efficacy, there was a trend towards a better disease control rate in Dq3w: 32.2% versus 25.4% in Dqw. Median time to progression and survival were rather similar in both arms, respectively: 2.1 months (range 2-3.2) and 5.8 months (range 4.0-7.0) in Dq3w and 1.8 months (range 1.6-2.3) and 5.5 months (range 3.7-6.6) in Dqw.

CONCLUSIONS

While both schedules had a favourable safety profile, a significant lower rate of severe neutropenia was observed in the weekly arm. Both regimens had similar efficacy. The weekly regimen could be considered as a good alternative for patients at risk of severe neutropenia.