Paclitaxel/Carboplatin/gemcitabine versus gemcitabine/vinorelbine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase II/III study of the Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network

Best first-line therapy for people with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, performance status 2 without a targetable mutation or with an unknown mutation status

BACKGROUND

Most people who are newly diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have advanced disease. For these people, survival is determined by various patient- and tumor-related factors, of which the performance status (PS) is the most important prognostic factor. People with PS 0 or 1 are usually treated with systemic therapies, whereas people with PS 3 or 4 most often receive supportive care. However, treatment for people with PS 2 without a targetable mutation remains unclear. Historically, people with a PS 2 cancer are frequently excluded from (important) clinical trials because of poorer outcomes and increased toxicity. We aim to address this knowledge gap, as this group of people represents a significant proportion (20% to 30%) of the total population with newly diagnosed lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the best first-line therapy for advanced lung cancer in people with performance status 2 without a targetable mutation or with an unknown mutation status.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 17 June 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different chemotherapy (with or without angiogenesis inhibitor) or immunotherapy regimens, specifically designed for people with PS 2 only or studies including a subgroup of these people.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. overall survival (OS), 2. health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and 3. toxicity/adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were 4. tumor response rate, 5. progression-free survival, and 6. survival rates at six and 12 months' treatment. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 trials in this review and identified one ongoing trial. Twenty studies compared chemotherapy with different regimens, of which 11 compared non-platinum therapy (monotherapy or doublet) versus platinum doublet. We found no studies comparing best supportive care with chemotherapy and only two abstracts analyzing chemotherapy versus immunotherapy. We found that platinum doublet therapy showed superior OS compared to non-platinum therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57 to 0.78; 7 trials, 697 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no differences in six-month survival rates (risk ratio [RR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.41; 6 trials, 632 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), whereas 12-month survival rates were improved for treatment with platinum doublet therapy (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.97; 11 trials, 1567 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). PFS and tumor response rate were also better for people treated with platinum doublet therapy, with moderate-certainty evidence (PFS: HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.77; 5 trials, 487 participants; tumor response rate: RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.05; 9 trials, 964 participants). When analyzing toxicity rates, we found that platinum doublet therapy increased grade 3 to 5 hematologic toxicities, all with low-certainty evidence (anemia: RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.00 to 3.92; neutropenia: RR 2.75, 95% CI 1.30 to 5.82; thrombocytopenia: RR 3.96, 95% CI 1.73 to 9.06; all 8 trials, 935 participants). Only four trials reported HRQoL data; however, the methodology was different per trial and we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Although evidence is limited, there were no differences in 12-month survival rates or tumor response rates between carboplatin and cisplatin regimens. With an indirect comparison, carboplatin seemed to have better 12-month survival rates than cisplatin compared to non-platinum therapy. The assessment of the efficacy of immunotherapy in people with PS 2 was limited. There might be a place for single-agent immunotherapy, but the data provided by the included studies did not encourage the use of double-agent immunotherapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review showed that as a first-line treatment for people with PS 2 with advanced NSCLC, platinum doublet therapy seems to be preferred over non-platinum therapy, with a higher response rate, PFS, and OS. Although the risk for grade 3 to 5 hematologic toxicity is higher, these events are often relatively mild and easy to treat. Since trials using checkpoint inhibitors in people with PS 2 are scarce, we identified an important knowledge gap regarding their role in people with advanced NSCLC and PS 2.

Lung Cancer Clinical Trials with a Seamless Phase II/III Design: Systematic Review

Current lung cancer clinical research focuses on biomarkers and personalized treatment strategies. Adaptive clinical trial designs have gained significant ground due to their increased flexibility, compared to the conventional model of drug development from phase I to phase IV trials. One such adaptive approach is the seamless phase II/III design, which has been used to reduce the total sample size and drug development time. In this context, an algorithmic systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE (PUBMED), SCOPUS, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until 31 June 2022 in order to identify lung cancer trials of systematic treatments that have employed the seamless phase II/III methodology and to describe their characteristics. The search strategy yielded a total of 1420 records that were screened through their title and abstract; 28 eligible trials were included in the systematic review. Based on the study endpoints, the most common subtype included phase II/III trials with inefficacy/futility analyses (61%; 17/28), followed by dose escalation phase II/III trials (18%; 5/28), one multi-arm multi stage trial and 5 trials with other design (18%). Most eligible trials were open-label (71%; 20/27), included patients with non-small cell lung cancer (82%; 23/28), evaluated targeted therapies and/or immunotherapies (82%; 23/28) and recruited patients with advanced disease (89.3%; 25/28). In conclusion, the seamless phase II/III design is a feasible and suitable approach in lung cancer research, with distinct design subcategories according to study endpoints.

Taxane-induced arthralgia and myalgia: A literature review

Purpose

Arthralgia and myalgia following taxane chemotherapy has been documented in the literature. However, these two toxicities associated with taxane treatment have not been closely examined in the literature, and data remain inconsistent in terms of the reported incidences of these toxicities. The purpose of this literature review was to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the incidence of taxane-induced arthralgia and myalgia, as well as to document the risk factors and preventative and therapeutic treatments that have been investigated.

Methods

A literature search was conducted in Ovid Medline, OldMedline, Embase, Embase Classic, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials using relevant subject headings and keywords such as: “arthralgia,” “myalgia,” “muscle pain,” “joint pain,” “taxane,” “chemotherapy,” “docetaxel,” “paclitaxel.”

Results

The reported incidences of arthralgia and myalgia were variable. Taxane chemotherapy was found to be associated with greater incidences of arthralgia and myalgia than non-taxane forms of chemotherapy. Moreover, docetaxel and nab-paclitaxel seem to be associated with lower incidences of arthralgia and myalgia than paclitaxel. Finally, the literature on prevention and therapeutic treatment of taxane-induced arthralgia and myalgia is scarce.

Conclusion

More studies should be done in order to more conclusively identify optimal therapeutic and preventative treatments as well as different risk factors. We recommend that a prospective study be done in order to better understand the true incidence of arthralgia and myalgia in patients being treated with the paclitaxel, docetaxel, and nab-paclitaxel.

Combination chemotherapy of gemcitabine and vinorelbine for pretreated non-small-cell lung cancer: a retrospective study

Background

Advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) eventually progresses after first-line chemotherapy, and usually requires salvage treatment. Although neither gemcitabine nor vinorelbine is approved as a candidate drug in the second- or further-line for NSCLC, they can be alternative drugs in terms of anti-tumor effects and toxicities. Actually, in our institution, we often use a combination of these two anti-tumor drugs in our daily practice.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 85 patients with advanced NSCLC who had received combination chemotherapy of gemcitabine and vinorelbine after a platinum-based regimen from June 2007 to June 2014 in Osaka Police Hospital, and performed Cox proportional hazard analyses in order to detect predictive factors for progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

Patient characteristics included a mean age of 65.5 years, 56 males, 54 adenocarcinoma, 53 European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0–1. Thirteen and 35 patients received the study treatment as the second- and third-line treatment, respectively. The overall response rate, disease control rate, PFS, and overall survival were 4.7% (95% confidence interval 1.3%–11.6%), 30.6% (21.0%–41.5%), 2.1 months (1.7–2.8 months), and 6.9 months (5.0–11.0 months). Twenty-one and six patients experienced grade 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia, respectively. European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0–1 was detected as a factor predicting longer PFS by univariate (hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.28–2.08; P<0.001) and multivariate (1.65, 1.27–2.14, P<0.001) analyses.

Conclusion

This combination was ineffective and harmful to pretreated patients with NSCLC. We do not recommend this regimen as a later-line treatment option.

Gemcitabine and Vinorelbine (GemVin) Regimen

The complexity of cancer chemotherapy requires pharmacists be familiar with the complicated regimens and highly toxic agents used. This column reviews various issues related to preparation, dispensing, and administration of antineoplastic therapy, and the agents, both commercially available and investigational, used to treat malignant diseases. Questions or suggestions for topics should be addressed to Dominic A. Solimando, Jr, President, Oncology Pharmacy Services, Inc., 4201 Wilson Blvd #110-545, Arlington, VA 22203, e-mail: OncRxSvc@comcast.net; or J. Aubrey Waddell, Professor, University of Tennessee College of Pharmacy; Oncology Pharmacist, Pharmacy Department, Blount Memorial Hospital, 907 E. Lamar Alexander Parkway, Maryville, TN 37804, e-mail: waddfour@charter.net.

Vinorelbine and gemcitabine vs vinorelbine and carboplatin as first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC. A phase III randomised controlled trial by the Norwegian Lung Cancer Study Group

Background:

Platinum-based doublet chemotherapy is the standard first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but earlier studies have suggested that non-platinum combinations are equally effective and better tolerated. We conducted a national, randomised study to compare a non-platinum with a platinum combination.

Methods:

Eligible patients had stage IIIB/IV NSCLC and performance status (PS) 0–2. Patients received up to three cycles of vinorelbine 60 mg m⁻² p.o.+gemcitabine 1000 mg m⁻² i.v. day 1 and 8 (VG) or vinorelbine 60 mg m⁻² p.o. day 1 and 8+carboplatin area under the curve=5 (Calvert's formula) i.v. day 1 (VC). Patients ⩾75 years received 75% of the dose. Endpoints were overall survival, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), toxicity, and the use of radiotherapy.

Results:

We randomised 444 patients from September 2007 to April 2009. The median age was 65 years, 58% were men and 25% had PS 2. Median survival was VG: 6.3 months; VC: 7.0 months, P=0.802. Vinorelbine plus carboplatin patients had more grade III/IV nausea/vomiting (VG: 4%, VC: 12%, P=0.008) and grade IV neutropenia (VG: 7%, VC: 19%, P<0.001). Infections, HRQoL and the use of radiotherapy did not differ significantly between the treatment groups.

Conclusion:

The two regimens yielded similar overall survival. The VG combination had only a slightly better toxicity profile.

[The status and prospects of treatment protocols for elderly patients with non-small cell lung cancer]

近年来，老年晚期肺癌发病率和死亡率呈明显上升趋势，但老年患者总体接受积极治疗的人数却明显少于非老年患者，同时因受到社会、经济、家庭等医疗以外诸多因素的影响，老年晚期肺癌患者治疗现状不容乐观。现就当前国内外老年非小细胞肺癌患者的治疗现状和趋势作一综述。

[American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline update on chemotherapy for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer]

本文旨在为Ⅳ期非小细胞肺癌患者的治疗提供更新版推荐。本文资料检索源自2002年以来公布的相关随机试验文献。此指南范围限于化疗与生物治疗。更新委员会对这些文献进行了总结并提供了推荐更新。162篇文献符合标准被纳入参考。本推荐基于可改善总生存期的治疗方法。仅改善无进展生存期的治疗方法推动了对毒性及生存质量的监测。对于体力状态评分为0分或1分患者的一线治疗，可推荐以铂类为基础的细胞毒性药物的两药联用。对铂类治疗有禁忌的患者，可采用非铂类细胞毒性两药联合。对于体力状态评分为2分的患者，单一细胞毒性药物即可。对于疾病进展或经过4个周期的治疗仍对治疗无反应的患者，应停止一线细胞毒性化疗。即使在6个周期后患者对治疗仍有反应，亦应停止两药细胞毒性化疗。对于伴有明确的表皮生长因子受体（epidermal growth factor receptor, EGFR）突变的患者，可推荐一线采用吉非替尼治疗；对于EGFR突变为阴性或不明确的患者，细胞毒性化疗更佳。除具有特定临床特征的患者外，可推荐贝伐单抗与卡铂-紫杉醇联用。对于通过免疫组化证实EGFR阳性的肿瘤患者，可推荐西妥昔单抗与顺铂-长春瑞滨联用。多西紫杉醇、厄洛替尼、吉非替尼或培美曲塞被推荐作为二线治疗。对于未曾接受过厄洛替尼或吉非替尼治疗的患者，可推荐厄洛替尼作为三线治疗。现有数据不足以推荐常规三线采用细胞毒性药物。已有的证据也不足以推荐常规应用分子标记物选择化疗。

American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline update on chemotherapy for stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer

The purpose of this article is to provide updated recommendations for the treatment of patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer. A literature search identified relevant randomized trials published since 2002. The scope of the guideline was narrowed to chemotherapy and biologic therapy. An Update Committee reviewed the literature and made updated recommendations. One hundred sixty-two publications met the inclusion criteria. Recommendations were based on treatment strategies that improve overall survival. Treatments that improve only progression-free survival prompted scrutiny of toxicity and quality of life. For first-line therapy in patients with performance status of 0 or 1, a platinum-based two-drug combination of cytotoxic drugs is recommended. Nonplatinum cytotoxic doublets are acceptable for patients with contraindications to platinum therapy. For patients with performance status of 2, a single cytotoxic drug is sufficient. Stop first-line cytotoxic chemotherapy at disease progression or after four cycles in patients who are not responding to treatment. Stop two-drug cytotoxic chemotherapy at six cycles even in patients who are responding to therapy. The first-line use of gefitinib may be recommended for patients with known epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation; for negative or unknown EGFR mutation status, cytotoxic chemotherapy is preferred. Bevacizumab is recommended with carboplatin-paclitaxel, except for patients with certain clinical characteristics. Cetuximab is recommended with cisplatin-vinorelbine for patients with EGFR-positive tumors by immunohistochemistry. Docetaxel, erlotinib, gefitinib, or pemetrexed is recommended as second-line therapy. Erlotinib is recommended as third-line therapy for patients who have not received prior erlotinib or gefitinib. Data are insufficient to recommend the routine third-line use of cytotoxic drugs. Data are insufficient to recommend routine use of molecular markers to select chemotherapy.