Diagnostic value of plasma expression of microRNAs complementary to Drosha and Dicer in lung cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Lung cancer (LC) is diagnosed mostly in advanced, non-operable stage, with poor prognosis. The analysis of microRNAs may be a useful tool for early and non-invasive detection of cancer. Dicer and Drosha are enzymes with an essential role for microRNA biogenesis. The aim of our study was to analyze the expression of miRNA-27a-3p, miRNA-31, miRNA-182, miRNA-195 with the ability to reciprocal regulation of Dicer and Drosha expression in lung cancer patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The relative expression of microRNAs was detected by qPCR in plasma of 160 LC patients. The U-Mann Whitney test was used to compare the relative expression between particular groups of lung cancer patients and healthy individuals. The diagnostic value of microRNAs examination was analyzed using a receiver operating curve.

RESULTS

We demonstrated that the plasma levels of miRNA-27, miRNA-31 and miRNA-182 were significantly higher and miRNA-195 significantly lower in the whole group of LC patients and in patients with early stages of NSCLC, in comparison with healthy donors. ROC analysis showed that four studied microRNAs have a potential diagnostic value for early stages of NSCLC with AUC=0.95 for miRNA-27a (94% sensitivity and 81% specificity, p=0.0001), 0.71 for miRNA-31 (73% sensitivity and 61% specificity, p=0.001) 0.77 for miRNA-182 (70% sensitivity and 79% specificity, p=0.0001) and 0.82 for miRNA-195 (74% sensitivity and 80% specificity, p=0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

We have proved that the expression of miRNA-27a-3p, miRNA-31, miRNA-182, and miRNA-195 in patients with LC is different from the expression of these molecules in healthy people. The examination of these microRNAs in plasma could be used in non-invasive lung cancer diagnosis.

Pathophysiology and clinical characteristics of pain in most common locations in cancer patients

Pain is one of the most common symptoms in cancer patients, especially in advanced disease. However, pain also accompanies a significant percentage of patients during diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. In some patients pain may be the first symptom of the disease. The causes of pain in cancer patients are often multifactorial including direct and indirect cancer effects, anticancer therapy and co-morbidities. Moreover, pain in cancer patients often has mixed pathophysiology including both nociceptive and neuropathic components, especially in patients with bone metastases. In this article, basic knowledge regarding epidemiology, pathophysiology and clinical features of pain in cancer patients with a primary tumour localised in lung, gastrointestinal tract (stomach, colon and pancreas), breast in women and prostate in men are presented. Pain is a common symptom in cancer patients and its appropriate assessment and treatment may significantly improve in patients' and families' quality of life.

Cilengitide combined with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients: results of an open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study (CERTO)

BACKGROUND

This multicentre, open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study evaluated cilengitide in combination with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy, compared with cetuximab and chemotherapy alone, as first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive cetuximab plus platinum-based chemotherapy alone (control), or combined with cilengitide 2000 mg 1×/week i.v. (CIL-once) or 2×/week i.v. (CIL-twice). A protocol amendment limited enrolment to patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) histoscore ≥200 and closed the CIL-twice arm for practical feasibility issues. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; independent read); secondary end points included overall survival (OS), safety, and biomarker analyses. A comparison between the CIL-once and control arms is reported, both for the total cohorts, as well as for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200.

RESULTS

There were 85 patients in the CIL-once group and 84 in the control group. The PFS (independent read) was 6.2 versus 5.0 months for CIL-once versus control [hazard ratio (HR) 0.72; P = 0.085]; for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200, PFS was 6.8 versus 5.6 months, respectively (HR 0.57; P = 0.0446). Median OS was 13.6 for CIL-once versus 9.7 months for control (HR 0.81; P = 0.265). In patients with EGFR ≥200, OS was 13.2 versus 11.8 months, respectively (HR 0.95; P = 0.855). No major differences in adverse events between CIL-once and control were reported; nausea (59% versus 56%, respectively) and neutropenia (54% versus 46%, respectively) were the most frequent. There was no increased incidence of thromboembolic events or haemorrhage in cilengitide-treated patients. αvβ3 and αvβ5 expression was neither a predictive nor a prognostic indicator.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of cilengitide to cetuximab/chemotherapy indicated potential clinical activity, with a trend for PFS difference in the independent-read analysis. However, the observed inconsistencies across end points suggest additional investigations are required to substantiate a potential role of other integrin inhibitors in NSCLC treatment.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION ID NUMBER

NCT00842712.

Phase I dose-escalation study of oral vinflunine in combination with erlotinib in pre-treated and unselected EGFR patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

Background

Erlotinib, the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and the intra-venous vinflunine vinca alkaloid microtubule inhibitor have been shown to be effective in the setting of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) palliative patients with acceptable toxicities. This phase I study was conducted to determine the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) and the safety of an all-oral combination. A potential pharmacokinetic drug–drug interaction was also investigated.

Patients and methods

Patients with unresectable stage IIIB or stage IV NSCLC who failed one or two previous chemotherapy regimens were treated with flat doses of oral vinflunine from day 1 to day 5 and from day 8 to day 12 every 3 weeks and erlotinib daily on a continuous basis. The dose levels of vinflunine/erlotinib were 95/100, 115/100, 115/150 and 135/100 mg.

Results

Thirty patients were enroled. The recommended dose was 115/150 mg and the MTD 135/100 mg. Dose-limiting toxicities included grade 3 febrile neutropenia (1 patient) and related death (1 patient). Non-haematologic grade 3/4 toxicities included fatigue, condition aggravated, hypokalaemia, tumour pain, acneiform dermatitis, diarrhoea, hyperbilirubinaemia and pulmonary haemorrhage, in one patient each. Of 25 patients evaluable for tumour response, 2 patients had partial response and 20 patients had stable disease.

Conclusion

The recommended doses for oral vinflunine and erlotinib combination were, respectively, 115 mg/day from day 1 to day 5 and from day 8 to day 12 every 3 weeks and 150 mg/day. There was no mutual impact on pharmacokinetics. The combination was safe but evaluation in phase II is needed to further refine the activity and toxicity that can be expected with prolonged administration of this dose schedule.

Phase I trial of axitinib combined with platinum doublets in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and other solid tumours

Background:

This phase I dose-finding trial evaluated safety, efficacy and pharmacokinetics of axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, combined with platinum doublets in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and other solid tumours.

Methods:

In all, 49 patients received axitinib 5 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) with paclitaxel/carboplatin or gemcitabine/cisplatin in 3-week cycles. Following determination of the maximum tolerated dose, a squamous cell NSCLC expansion cohort was enroled and received axitinib 5 mg b.i.d. with paclitaxel/carboplatin.

Results:

Two patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities: febrile neutropenia (n=1) in the paclitaxel/carboplatin cohort and fatigue (n=1) in the gemcitabine/cisplatin cohort. Common nonhaematologic treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (36.7%), diarrhoea (34.7%) and fatigue (28.6%). No grade⩾3 haemoptysis occurred among 12 patients with squamous cell NSCLC. The objective response rate was 37.0% for patients receiving axitinib/paclitaxel/carboplatin (n=27) and 23.8% for patients receiving axitinib/gemcitabine/cisplatin (n=21). Pharmacokinetics of axitinib and chemotherapeutic agents were similar when administered alone or in combination.

Conclusion:

Axitinib 5 mg b.i.d. may be combined with standard paclitaxel/carboplatin or gemcitabine/cisplatin regimens without evidence of overt drug–drug interactions. Both combinations demonstrated clinical efficacy and were well tolerated.

Third CECOG consensus on the systemic treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer

The current third consensus on the systemic treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) builds upon and updates similar publications on the subject by the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group (CECOG), which has published such consensus statements in the years 2002 and 2005 (Zielinski CC, Beinert T, Crawford J et al. Consensus on medical treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer--update 2004. Lung Cancer 2005; 50: 129-137). The principle of all CECOG consensus is such that evidence-based recommendations for state-of-the-art treatment are given upon which all participants and authors of the manuscript have to agree (Beslija S, Bonneterre J, Burstein HJ et al. Third consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2009; 20 (11): 1771-1785). This is of particular importance in diseases in which treatment options depend on very particular clinical and biologic variables (Zielinski CC, Beinert T, Crawford J et al. Consensus on medical treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer--update 2004. Lung Cancer 2005; 50: 129-137; Beslija S, Bonneterre J, Burstein HJ et al. Third consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2009; 20 (11): 1771-1785). Since the publication of the last CECOG consensus on the medical treatment of NSCLC, a series of diagnostic tools for the characterization of biomarkers for personalized therapy for NSCLC as well as therapeutic options including adjuvant treatment, targeted therapy, and maintenance treatment have emerged and strongly influenced the field. Thus, the present third consensus was generated that not only readdresses previous disease-related issues but also expands toward recent developments in the management of NSCLC. It is the aim of the present consensus to summarize minimal quality-oriented requirements for individual patients with NSCLC in its various stages based upon levels of evidence in the light of a rapidly expanding array of individual therapeutic options.

Prognostic factors in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: data from the phase III FLEX study

The FLEX study demonstrated that the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the FLEX intention to treat (ITT) population, we investigated the prognostic significance of particular baseline characteristics. Individual patient data from the treatment arms of the ITT population of the FLEX study were combined. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression models were used to investigate variables with potential prognostic value. The ITT population comprised 1125 patients. In the univariable analysis, longer median survival times were apparent for females compared with males (12.7 vs 9.3 months); patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 compared with 1 compared with 2 (13.5 vs 10.6 vs 5.9 months); never smokers compared with former smokers compared with current smokers (14.6 vs 11.1 vs 9.0); Asians compared with Caucasians (19.5 vs 9.6 months); patients with adenocarcinoma compared with squamous cell carcinoma (12.4 vs 9.3 months) and those with metastases to one site compared with two sites compared with three or more sites (12.4 months vs 9.8 months vs 6.4 months). Age (<65 vs ≥65 years), tumor stage (IIIB with pleural effusion vs IV) and percentage of tumor cells expressing EGFR (<40% vs ≥40%) were not identified as possible prognostic factors in relation to survival time. In multivariable analysis, a stepwise selection procedure identified age (<65 vs ≥65 years), gender, ECOG PS, smoking status, region, tumor histology, and number of organs involved as independent factors of prognostic value. In summary, in patients with advanced NSCLC enrolled in the FLEX study, and consistent with previous analyses, particular patient and disease characteristics at baseline were shown to be independent factors of prognostic value. The FLEX study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798.

A phase III randomized study of gemcitabine and cisplatin with or without PF-3512676 (TLR9 agonist) as first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

This open-label phase III study assessed the addition of Toll-like receptor 9-activating oligodeoxynucleotide PF-3512676 to gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomized (1:1) to receive six or fewer 3-week cycles of i.v. gemcitabine (1250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8) and cisplatin alone (75 mg/m2 on day 1, control arm) or combined with s.c. PF-3512676 0.2 mg/kg on days 8 and 15 of each chemotherapy cycle and weekly thereafter until progression or unacceptable toxicity (experimental arm). No crossover was planned. The primary end point was overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

A total of 839 patients were randomized. Baseline demographics were well balanced. Median OS (11.0 versus 10.7 months; P=0.98) and median progression-free survival (PFS) (both 5.1 months) were similar between groups. Grade≥3 hematologic adverse events (AEs), injection-site reactions, and influenza-like symptoms were more frequently reported among patients receiving PF-3512676. At the first-interim analysis, the Data Safety Monitoring Committee recommended study discontinuation. Administration of PF-3512676 was halted based on efficacy futility and increased grade≥3 AEs (experimental arm).

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of PF-3512676 to gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy did not improve OS or PFS but did increase toxicity.

Maintenance pemetrexed (Pem) plus best supportive care (BSC) versus placebo (Plac) plus BSC: A randomized phase III study in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

CRA8000

Background: Pemetrexed's efficacy, favorable tolerability profile, and ease of administration provided a strong rationale for evaluation as maintenance therapy in patients (pts) with advanced NSCLC. We present the final analyses for all outcomes, including overall survival (OS), from a phase III study of Pem vs. Plac (Ciuleanu, J Clin Oncol 26, 2008, A 8011) in pts with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC who had not progressed on four cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. Methods: In this double-blind trial, pts were randomized 2:1 to receive Pem (500 mg/m2, day 1) plus BSC or Plac plus BSC in 21-day cycles until disease progression. All pts received vitamin B12, folic acid, and dexamethasone. The final OS analysis was performed using an unadjusted Cox model. Overall α = 0.05 for PFS and OS. Results: In the 663 randomized pts (Pem 441: Plac 222), Pem resulted in significantly better OS (13.4 vs. 10.6 mos [HR 0.79, 95% CI: 0.65–0.95, P = 0.012]). As reported earlier, Pem also had better PFS (P <0.00001) and response (P <0.001) ( Table ). The improvements in PFS and OS were observed primarily in patients with non-squamous histology (PFS HR = 0.47 and OS HR = 0.70). Treatment by histology interaction for OS was significant (P = 0.038). Drug-related grade 3/4 toxicities were higher for Pem (16% vs 4%; P <0.001); specifically, fatigue (5% vs 0.5%) and neutropenia (2.9% vs. 0%). Grade 3/4 toxicities did not increase significantly in pts who received ≥6 and ≥10 cycles of Pem. There were no Pem-related deaths. Fewer pts in the Pem arm (51.5% vs 67.1%; P <0.001) received systemic post-discontinuation therapy. Conclusions: Pem maintenance therapy is well tolerated and offers superior OS and PFS compared with Plac, making it a new treatment paradigm for patients with advanced NSCLC who respond to initial therapy. This trial further validates that Pem has greater efficacy in patients with non-squamous histology.

[Table: see text]

[Table: see text]

Prognostic factors in advanced NSCLC: Experience from the FLEX trial

8083

Background: The FLEX trial demonstrated superior survival for cisplatin/vinorelbine plus cetuximab versus cisplatin/vinorelbine alone in patients with advanced EGFR-positive NSCLC. Here we report on the prognostic factors observed in the trial independent of cetuximab treatmentMethods: 1125 patients were randomized to cisplatin/vinorelbine plus cetuximab or cisplatin/vinorelbine alone. Prognostic factors were determined by both univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: Patient baseline characteristics were: 70% male, median age 59 (18–83) years, 31% older than 65 years, 94% stage IV, 47% adenocarcinoma, 34% squamous cell carcinoma, 83% ECOG 0/1. The trial confirmed the following prognostic factors in the univariate analysis: gender, performance status, histology, smoking status, and ethnicity. Females had longer survival than males (12.7 versus 9.3 months). Patients with ECOG performance status 0, 1, and 2 had median survival times of 13.5, 10.6 and 5.9 months, respectively. Patients with adenocarcinomas had a median survival of 12.4 months and those with squamous cell carcinomas had a median survival of 9.3 months. Smokers, former smokers, and never-smokers had median survival times of 9.0, 11.1 and 14.6 months, respectively. Outcome was better for Asians (n=121) compared to Caucasians (n=946) (median 19.5 versus 9.6 months). Age <65 and age ≥65 did not indicate prognosis. Multivariate analysis confirmed the prognostic significance of performance status, gender, smoking status, region (Europe versus Australasia), and histology. Conclusions: The FLEX trial confirmed several prognostic factors, including gender, performance status, histological subtype, ethnicity, and smoking status for patients with advanced NSCLC.

[Table: see text]

Axitinib (AG-013736; AG) combined with chemotherapy in patients (pts) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and other solid tumors

3559

Background: AG is an oral, potent and selective inhibitor of VEGFRs 1, 2, 3. Anti-VEGF therapies combined with chemotherapy improve survival vs chemotherapy alone in pts with advanced solid tumors, including NSCLC. This phase I trial assessed AG combined with chemotherapy. Methods: Pts with advanced solid tumors without prior treatment with platins or taxanes received paclitaxel/carboplatin (P: 200 mg/m2 / C: AUC 6 mg*min/mL) every 3 weeks + AG at lead-in doses of 1, 3 or 5 mg BID. AG was increased to 5 mg BID post lead-in. Another cohort of pts with any prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease received AG 5 mg BID + gemcitabine/cisplatin (G: 1250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 / Cis: 80 mg/m2 on day 1) in 3-week cycles. For all cohorts, cycle 1 consisted of a 3–5-day lead-in period followed by AG for 18 days. On day 19, AG was held and then continued without interruption on day 3, cycle 2. Following determination of the maximum tolerated doses (MTDs) of AG + P/C or G/Cis, pts with squamous NSCLC were enrolled into an expansion cohort (prior anti-VEGF therapy not permitted) and received AG 5 mg BID + P/C. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), adverse events (AEs), objective response rate (ORR), and pharmacokinetics (PK) were evaluated. Results: A total of 47 pts were enrolled; 26 pts were evaluable in the P/C cohort (including 12 pts with squamous NSCLC) and 21 pts in the G/Cis cohort. The MTD for AG in combination with standard doses of P/C and G/Cis was 5 mg BID. DLTs included fatigue, proteinuria and rash (1 each). Treatment-related AEs included hypertension (42%), diarrhea (35%) and fatigue (35%) in the P/C cohort, and headache (29%), hypertension (29%) and fatigue (24%) in the G/Cis cohort. There was no grade ≥3 hemoptysis among 12 pts with squamous NSCLC. The ORR was 29% and 26% for P/C (n = 24) and G/Cis (n = 19) cohorts, respectively. AG, P, C, G and Cis PK parameters and profiles were similar when administered alone and in combination (eg P: mean (%CV) AUCinf 20,822 (21) and 20,596 (21) ng.h/mL, respectively). Conclusions: AG 5 mg BID can be combined with standard P/C and G/Cis regimens with no apparent overlapping toxicities and unaltered PK. Both combinations have antitumor activity. In pts with squamous NSCLC, AG + P/C was well tolerated with no evidence of grade ≥3 hemoptysis.

[Table: see text]

Time interval between final protocol approval (FPA) and inclusion of the first patient into randomized clinical trials (RCTs) performed by the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group (CECOG): A 10-year experience

6546

Background: CECOG has been formed in 1999 to unite centers of clinical oncology from Central and Southeastern Europe and Israel in order to conduct and coordinate multicenter oncology RCTs. Based on the European legislation passed in 2001 (Directive 2001/20/EC), clinical trials must get ethical approval and approval from the competent authorities (CA). However, the duration of these regulatory procedures to initiate a clinical trial is a factor determining the competitive position in clinical research. Methods: Within the last 10 years, CECOG conducted trials in breast, colorectal, esophago-gastric, NSCLC, pancreatic, prostate cancer and GIST. We analyzed the dates of FPA, the approvals by Ethics Review Boards (ERB) and CAs, the letters of agreement between sponsor and site (LoA), the site initiation and the inclusion of the first patient in a total of 6 multicenter trials in 25 CECOG study centers in Austria, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Poland, Romania, Serbia, and Slovakia. Results: The average time interval from FPA to the inclusion of the first patient was 18.4 ± 9.4 months. Most of this time has been spent for regulatory procedures, i.e. the approval by ERBs (9.6 ± 7.2 months) and CAs (10.0 ± 6.6 months). The LoA were signed 11.5 ± 9.4 months after FPA. The time interval from approval by the CAs to site initiation was 3.3 ± 3.7 months and the interval between site initiation and the inclusion of the first patient was 4.2 ± 4.5 months. Conclusions: The ‘paper to patient process‘ - the time interval between the approval of the final study protocol and the inclusion of the first patient - required 18.4 months on average in 6 multicenter trials conducted by CECOG. As the regulatory procedures used up more than 50% of duration of the whole process, optimization is necessary and realistic in order to make novel therapies available to patients more quickly.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Maintenance pemetrexed (Pem) plus best supportive care (BSC) versus placebo (Plac) plus BSC: A randomized phase III study in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

CRA8000

The full, final text of this abstract will be available in Part II of the 2009 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings, distributed onsite at the Meeting on May 30, 2009, and as a supplement to the June 20, 2009, issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

[Table: see text]

Randomized, multicenter phase III study of ranpirnase plus doxorubicin (DOX) versus DOX in patients with unresectable malignant mesothelioma (MM)

7507

Background: Ranpirnase (Onconase), a novel ribonuclease with preclinical activity against various tumors, has led to a median survival of 8.3 ms (one year survival: 42%) in a multicentre phase II trial in chemonaive and pretreated pts whom met the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) prognostic criteria for group 1–4 (Mikulski, J Clin Oncol 20, 2001). Methods: This multicenter controlled phase III trial compared efficacy and safety of Dox (one of the most active single agents when the study was planned) with or without ranpirnase. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, response rate, safety and disease related symptoms. Eligibility criteria: histologically proven unresectable MM; CALGB group 1–4, ECOG PS 0–1, adequate organ function. Stratification was performed according to CALGB group and histology (epitheloid vs. non-epitheloid). One line of prior therapy was permitted. Between 08/01 and 09/07 413 eligible pts were randomized to DOX 60 mg/m2 every 3 wks with or without ranpirnase 240 μg/m2 weekly (cycle 1) and 480 μg/m2 in subsequent cycles (maximum 6) if no severe toxicity had occurred. The study was designed to detect an increase of 4 ms (9 vs. 13) in median OS (MST) using a two-sided logrank test (α = 5%) with 90% power. Results: Both arms were well balanced (DOX + ranpirnase / DOX: 203/210 pts): Mean age 62.2/61.8 yrs; males 157/156; PS 0 52/60; PS 1 151/150; prior chemo 65/65 pts (pemetrexed 35/35; other chemo 30/30). CALGB groups 14/14 (1), 45/51 (2), 117/115 (3), 27/30 (4). In the intent to treat population (ITT) there was no significant difference in OS (MST: 11.1 vs 10.7 ms; HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82–1.26) whilst in a preplanned analysis including 130 pretreated patients a significant advantage in survival in favor of DOX + ranpirnase was found (MST: 10.5 vs 9 ms; HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.02–2.17). The safety profile for both treatment arms was similar. Most frequent side effects reported for both treatment groups included nausea, fatigue and alopecia. Conclusions: Combination of ranpirnase and DOX is a safe and feasible treatment in unresectable MM and showed a significant impact on survival of pretreated patients compared to DOX alone.

[Table: see text]

Epoetin delta: efficacy in the treatment of anaemia in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

AIMS

To assess the effect of epoetin delta on anaemia in patients with cancer who were receiving chemotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This report includes data from two 12-week studies of epoetin delta: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of three times weekly epoetin delta (150 or 300IU/kg) and an open-label extension collecting further efficacy and safety information, in which patients initially received epoetin delta 150IU/kg. Co-primary end points for the double-blind study were an increase in haemoglobin levels and a reduction in the requirement for red blood cell transfusions compared with placebo.

RESULTS

Double-blind study: 313 cancer patients were randomised to epoetin delta or placebo. Epoetin delta was associated with a significantly greater increase in haemoglobin levels from baseline compared with placebo (epoetin delta 150 and 300IU/kg vs placebo: 2.5 and 2.5g/dl vs 0.6g/dl; P<0.0001 for both comparisons), meeting one co-primary end point. However, there were no significant differences between groups in the proportion of patients requiring red blood cell transfusions (epoetin delta 150 and 300IU/kg vs placebo: 26.0 and 21.9% vs 26.9%), the second co-primary end point. Open-label study: 149 patients entered the extension study. During the extension, haemoglobin levels were maintained and a higher proportion of patients who previously received placebo required transfusions than those who had previously received epoetin delta (previous epoetin delta 150 and 300IU/kg: 7.1 and 11.4% vs previous placebo: 15.9%). Adverse events were as expected for this population in both studies.

CONCLUSION

Epoetin delta shows potential as a treatment for anaemia in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

Palliative radiotherapy versus palliative chemoradiotherapy in treatment of NSCLC stage IIIA and IIIB: Phase II randomized trial

18128

Background: The optimal treatment for stage IIIA/IIIB NSCLC patients who do not qualify for radical treatment has not been identified. Different palliative radiotherapy regimens and chemotherapy are used but have not been compared. We decided to combine short chemotherapy and radiotherapy (CT-RT) in order to improve therapeutic index of radiotherapy (RT). Methods: Eligibility criteria: Locally advanced, inoperable patients (pts) in IIIA (N2 positive) -IIIB clinical stage with tumor larger than 8 cm in longest diameter or/and FEV1 smaller than 40%, PS: 0–2 (ECOG), non-eligible for radical CT-RT. Treatment: RT arm - 3-D radiotherapy, 30 Gy/3 Gy, 2 weeks. CT-RT arm - two cycles of CT (cisplatin: 80 mg/m2; d 1, 22; vinorelbine: 25 mg/m2 iv; d 1,8,22,29) followed by RT as in Arm 1 with concurrent third cycle of CT (cisplatin 80 mg/m2, d 43; vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 iv., d 43, 50). Study design: Phase II, two-center, randomized study, stratification IIIA vs. IIIB, PS 0–1 vs. 2, treating center (Warsaw vs. Olsztyn). Two-stage design, a and β errors = 0,1; p1 minus p0 = 0,20. Planned sample size - 46 pts/arm. Primary endpoint: response rate (RECIST). Secondary end-points: overall survival (OS), toxicity, progression free survival (PFS). Results: During 2 years 104 pts randomized, 98 eligible for toxicity and survival/progression analysis, 82 for response assessment. Demographics: median age - 65 (45–78), IIIA/IIIB: 27/71 pts. PS 0–1/2: 72/26. Well balanced between arms. Response rate: RT arm- 26%, CT-RT arm- 46%, median OS for RT arm - 195 days, CT-RT arm 2 - 385 days, log-rank test p=0,047, median PFS for RT arm - 140 days, CT-RT arm - 172 days, log-rank test p=0,16. Toxicity: deaths - 2 in RT arm, 2 in CT-RT arm; hematological G3–4 - 0 in RT arm, Arm CT- RT: anemia - 2, thrombocytopenia - 6, neutropenia - 11, esophagitis - 2. Other G3–4: RT arm -3, CT-RT arm -1. Conclusions: Palliative radiotherapy (30Gy) with chemotherapy postponed to progression is a suboptimal treatment for patients with locally advanced NSCLC. 2 cycles of cisplatin/vinorelbine plus RT concomitantly with 3 cycle increases clinical response rate and significantly prolongs survival at the cost of acceptable toxicity in palliative setting.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Erlotinib in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Interim safety analysis of the TRUST study

7645

Background: In patients (pts) with relapsed NSCLC, erlotinib 150 mg/d significantly prolonged survival, delayed symptom progression, and improved quality of life versus placebo (Shepherd et al, N Engl J Med 2005;353:123–32). TRUST is an open label, non- randomized trial initiated to provide erlotinib access to pts with advanced NSCLC. Methods: Eligible pts had stage IIIb/IV NSCLC, and had failed or were unsuitable for chemotherapy. Erlotinib (150 mg/d p.o.) was given until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Pts were monitored monthly. Results: In November 2006, data were available for 5,015 pts (ITT population) from 51 countries. Median age was 63y (range 19–95). Pt characteristics (%) were: male/female 62/38; Caucasian/Oriental/other 76/19/5; non-smoker/ex- or current-smoker 28/71 (no data 1); ECOG PS 0/1/2/3 21/53/20/6; adenocarcinoma/squamous cell/other 53/25/21; stage IIIb/IV 22/78; erlotinib 1st/2nd/3rd-line/other 14/48/37/1. Safety data were available for 4,423 pts, 55% of whom had at least one adverse event (AE). Only 5% had one or more erlotinib- related serious AEs, the most common being gastrointestinal (GI) disorders (86 pts; 63 grade [gr] 3/4). 6% of pts discontinued treatment due to erlotinib-related AEs: GI disorders in 96 pts (54 gr 3/4), skin disorders in 92 (50 gr 3/4). Unexpected erlotinib-related AEs occurred in 10% of pts (4% gr 1, 3% gr 2, 3% gr 3/4). As expected, rash was observed in 70% of pts, with the majority (84%) being of gr 1/2. 80% pts received >4 weeks of erlotinib. Among 4,405 pts, only 14% had dose reductions, mainly due to rash (83%) and diarrhea (21%). Similar safety results were seen for 2nd-line pts only. Efficacy for all and 2nd-line pts will be presented. Conclusions: These results, achieved through routine clinical use of erlotinib in unselected pts with advanced NSCLC, confirm the favorable tolerability profile seen with erlotinib in selected patients in the clinical trial setting.

[Table: see text]