Search

Purpose: The controlled phase III trial SATURN demonstrated that maintenance therapy with erlotinib after the first-line platinum-based chemotherapy prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with advanced, non-progressive disease. We conducted the non-interventional study SATURN NIS to investigate the effectiveness and tolerability of erlotinib maintenance in daily clinical practice., Methods: This single-arm NIS screened 290 patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC (stage IIIB or IV) and stable disease after standard platinum-based first-line chemotherapy in 95 institutions across Germany. Erlotinib was dosed and administered corresponding to the terms of the marketing authorization at the time of recruitment. The main effectiveness endpoint was subjects' OS at 1 year. Subgroup analyses of survival estimates of OS and PFS were performed., Results: 272 patients were eligible for analysis (median age 66 years, 37.1% females, 99.6% Caucasian, median ECOG performance status 1, 61.8% adenocarcinoma, 96.3% of patients with stable disease). Maintenance therapy with erlotinib resulted in median OS comparable to that of the SATURN phase III trial 10.4 months [95% CI: (8.8; 12.5) vs. 11.9 months]. The 1-year survival rate was 45.6% [95% CI: (37.5%; 53.6%)]. No new safety signals were observed. As expected, patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations derived a greater benefit concerning OS and PFS than EGFR-wild-type patients. Moreover, a significant association of OS and PFS and the smoking status was observed., Conclusions: The results of this non-interventional study support the current clinical practice of erlotinib switch maintenance in EGFR-mutation-positive patients.

Objective: In recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC), there is a high demand on effective therapies with a mild toxicity profile. Treosulfan is an alkylating agent approved as oral (p.o.) and intravenous (i.v.) formulation for the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer. Data on safety and efficacy for either formulation are rare. For the first time we conducted a randomized phase III study comparing both formulations in women with ROC., Methods: Patients having received at least two previous lines of chemotherapy were randomly assigned to one of two treatment arms: treosulfan i.v. 7000 mg/m 2 d1 q4w or treosulfan p.o. 600 mg/m 2 d1-28 q8w. Primary endpoint was safety regarding hematological and gastrointestinal toxicity grade III/IV, secondary endpoints were other toxicities, clinical benefit rate (CBR), time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS) and quality of life., Results: 250 patients were treated with treosulfan i.v. (128) or treosulfan p.o. (122). In general treosulfan therapy was well tolerated in both treatment arms. Leukopenia grade III/IV occurred significantly more frequently in the p.o. arm (3.9% i.v. arm, 14.8% p.o. arm, p = 0.002). Other toxicities were similar in both arms. CBR was comparable between arms (41.4% i.v. arm, 36.9% p.o. arm). No difference in TTP (3.7 months i.v. arm, 3.5 months p.o. arm) or OS (13.6 months i.v. arm, 10.4 months p.o. arm, p = 0.087) occurred., Conclusions: Given the safety and efficacy results treosulfan is an acceptable option for heavily pretreated OC patients. Regarding the toxicity profile the i.v. application was better tolerated with less grade III and IV toxicities., Competing Interests: Compliance with ethical standardsConflict of interestJalid Sehouli declares that he received an educational grant from medac. Michael Patrick Lux declares that he received honoraria for lectures, honoraria for editorial board membership of a journal as well as non-financial support for congress visit from medac. Tanja Trarbach declares that iOMEDICO received financial support from medac. Oliver Tomè, Oumar Camara, Ingo Bernhard Runnebaum, Hans Werner Tessen, Beate Rautenberg, Radoslav Chekerov and Gerald Gitsch declare that there are no conflicts of interest.Ethical approvalAll procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.Informed consentInformed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.