Search

Background: This study compared the efficacy and safety of treatment with erlotinib plus pazopanib versus erlotinib plus placebo in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Methods: Patients with progressive-stage IV NSCLC after either 1 or 2 previous chemotherapy regimens were randomized to receive erlotinib (150 mg by mouth daily) with either pazopanib (600 mg by mouth daily) or placebo. During treatment, patients were evaluated every 8 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. After a study amendment, pretreatment serum specimens for the VeriStrat assay were collected. The predictive value of the VeriStrat score (good vs poor) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed in the overall population and in each treatment group.Results: One hundred ninety-two eligible patients were randomized between February 2010 and February 2011. PFS was prolonged with erlotinib plus pazopanib versus erlotinib plus placebo (median, 2.6 vs 1.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.58; P = .001). There was no difference in the OS of the 2 groups. A good VeriStrat score predicted longer PFS and OS in the entire group and predicted longer PFS in the subgroup receiving erlotinib plus pazopanib. The addition of pazopanib increased toxicity, and this was consistent with the known toxicity profile.Conclusions: The addition of pazopanib to erlotinib in an unselected group of patients with previously treated NSCLC improved PFS and increased treatment-related toxicity, but it had no influence on OS. The efficacy of both regimens was modest. Patients receiving erlotinib plus pazopanib had longer PFS if they had a good VeriStrat score versus a poor one. Cancer 2018;124:2355-64. © 2018 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The best treatment for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and a poor performance status is not well defined. In this phase 2 trial, patients were randomized to receive treatment with either single-agent pemetrexed or 1 of 2 combination regimens.Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed nonsquamous NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 were stratified by age and serum albumin level and were randomized (1:1:1) to 1 of 3 regimens: pemetrexed (arm 1), pemetrexed and bevacizumab (arm 2), or pemetrexed, carboplatin, and bevacizumab (arm 3). The response to treatment was assessed every 2 cycles; responding and stable patients continued treatment until progression or unacceptable toxicity.Results: One hundred seventy-two patients were randomized, 162 patients began the study treatment, and 146 patients completed 2 cycles and were evaluated for their response. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.8 months in arm 1, 4.0 months in arm 2, and 4.8 months in arm 3. The overall response rates were 15% in arm 1, 31% in arm 2, and 44% in arm 3. The overall survival was similar in the 3 treatment arms. All 3 regimens were relatively well tolerated. Patients receiving bevacizumab had an increased incidence of hypertension, proteinuria, and bleeding episodes, but most events were mild or moderate.Conclusions: All 3 regimens were feasible for patients with advanced NSCLC and an ECOG performance status of 2. The addition of bevacizumab to pemetrexed increased the overall response rate. The efficacy of pemetrexed/carboplatin/bevacizumab (median PFS, 4.8 months) approached the prespecified study PFS goal of 5 months. Larger studies will be necessary to define the role of bevacizumab in addition to standard pemetrexed and carboplatin in this population. Cancer 2018;124:1982-91. © 2018 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of belinostat, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, when added to paclitaxel/carboplatin in the empiric first-line treatment of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site (CUP). METHODS In this randomized phase 2 trial, previously untreated patients with CUP were randomized to receive belinostat plus paclitaxel/carboplatin (group A) or paclitaxel/carboplatin alone (group B) repeated every 21 days. Patients were re-evaluated every 2 cycles, and those without disease progression continued treatment for 6 cycles. Patients in group A then continued receiving single-agent belinostat, whereas patients in group B stopped treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS): The authors postulated that the addition of belinostat would improve PFS from 5 months (expected with paclitaxel/carboplatin) to 8 months. RESULTS In total, 89 patients were randomized (group A, n = 44; group B, n = 45), and the demographics and disease characteristics were balanced between the 2 groups. The addition of belinostat to paclitaxel/carboplatin did not improve PFS (group A, 5.4 months [95% confidence interval, 3.0-6.0 months]; group B, 5.3 months [95% confidence interval, 2.8-6.6 months]; P = .85). Overall survival was 12.4 months for group A versus 9.1 months for group B ( P = .20). The response rate favored the belinostat group (45% vs 21%; P = .02). Belinostat resulted in a modest increase in treatment toxicity. CONCLUSIONS The addition of belinostat to paclitaxel/carboplatin did not improve the PFS of patients with CUP who were receiving first-line therapy, although the patients who received belinostat had a higher investigator-assessed response rate. Future trials in CUP should focus on specific subsets, defined either by the predicted tissue of origin or by the identification of targetable molecular abnormalities. Cancer 2015;121:1654-1661. © 2015 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the study which evaluates the efficacy and toxicity of bortezomib taken weekly to treat patients with recurrent multiple myeloma. It states that a schedule of weekly bortezomib is effective in patients with previously treated myeloma. The study shows that the weekly treatment is a reasonable alternative for patients that have difficulties in receiving twice-weekly treatment.

The article analyzes the effectiveness and toxicity of the combination of fludarabine and rituximab, followed by a monoclonal antibody called alemtuzumab, as first-line treatment for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL). Four courses of fludarabine and rituximab were administered to patients. Study populations were required to give written informed consent before participating in a nonrandomized phase 2 trial. Characteristics of patients who entered the trial are cited.

The article compares the efficacy of weekly docetaxel with the combination of docetaxel and gemcitabine in elderly or poor performance status patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) based on a randomized clinical trial in the U.S. The study involved 350 patients who were randomized and 345 of them received treatment. It found that treatment with docetaxel/gemcitabine produced a modest improvement but had no impact on survival when compared with single-agent weekly docetaxel.