Search

Prior studies have demonstrated an association between excision repair cross-complementation group 1 (ERCC1) expression level and outcomes in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of ERCC1 on survival for patients with stage IIIB/IV non-squamous NSCLC (NS-NSCLC) enrolled in the INNOVATIONS trial, thus receiving as treatment either erlotinib/bevacizumab (EB) or cisplatin/gemcitabine/bevacizumab (PGB). We retrospectively analyzed tumor tissue of 72 patients using immunohistochemistry to assess the expression of ERCC1. The distribution between treatment arms was equal (36 patients each). Two different H scores were calculated and correlated with survival. In ERCC1-positive patients, no significant difference in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) between treatment arms has been detected. ERCC1-negative patients benefited from PGB compared to EB arm (H score: HR = 0.377, 95% CI [0.167-0.849], p = 0.0151; modified H score: HR = 0.484, 95% CI [0.234-1.004], p = 0.0468). With respect to the scoring system, in the EB-arm, a significant superior PFS turned out in ERCC1-positive patients when employing the H-score (HR = 0.430, 95% CI [0.188-0.981], p = 0.0397; median 4.9 vs. 3.9 months), but not with the modified H-score. Our findings support the hypothesis that NS-NSCLC displaying a low ERCC1 expression might benefit from cisplatin-based chemotherapy. High expression indicated better PFS in the EB arm supporting the prognostic impact. However, as impact of ERCC1-assessment even might depend on scoring systems differences, the need in standardization of assessment methodology is emphasized.

Erlotinib with bevacizumab showed promising activity in recurrent nonsquamous (NS) nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The INNOVATIONS study was designed to assess in first-line treatment of unselected cisplatin-eligible patients this combination compared to cisplatin, gemcitabine and bevacizumab. Stage IIIB/IV patients with NS-NSCLC were randomised on erlotinib (150 mg daily) and bevacizumab (15 mg·kg(-1) on day 1, every 3 weeks) (EB) until progression, or cisplatin (80 mg·m(-2) on day 1, every 3 weeks) and gemcitabine (1250 mg·m(-2) on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks) up to six cycles and bevacizumab (15 mg·kg(-1) on day 1, every 3 weeks) (PGB) until progression. 224 patients were randomised (EB n=111, PGB n=113). The response rate (12% versus 36%; p<0.0001), progression-free survival (median 3.5 versus 6.9 months; hazard ratio (HR) 1.85, 95% CI 1.39-2.45; p<0.0001) and overall survival (median 12.6 versus 17.8 months; HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01-1.97; p=0.04) clearly favoured PGB. In patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutations (n=32), response rate, progression-free survival and overall survival were not superior with EB. Platinum-based combination chemotherapy remains the standard of care in first-line treatment of unselected NS-NSCLC. Molecular targeted approaches strongly mandate appropriate testing and patient selection., (Copyright ©ERS 2015.)

Background: The combination of oral vinorelbine plus cisplatin has been studied in numerous trials as first-line treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) regardless of histologic subtype. NAVoTrial 01 is the first study that explores this combination specifically in nonsquamous (NS) NSCLC by assessing the feasibility of this doublet (ratio 1:2) in an investigational approach. A reference arm with pemetrexed plus cisplatin was included. Maintenance therapy with single-agent therapy after 4 cycles of combination therapy was included in the study schedules because it reflected a trend in first-line treatment of NSCLC., Patients and Methods: Stage IIIB/IV untreated/relapsed patients with NS NSCLC received a 3-week cycle of pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 (arm A) or oral vinorelbine 80 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (first cycle 60 mg/m(2)) and cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 (arm B). After 4 cycles, patients without disease progression received single-agent maintenance treatment with pemetrexed or oral vinorelbine., Results: Overall, 153 patients were randomized (arm A/arm B: 51/102). Disease control rate (%) for arm A was 76.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 62.5-87.2) and for arm B it was 75.0 (95% CI, 65.3-83.1), Response rates for arm A were 31.4% (95% CI, 19.1-45.9) and for arm B were 24.0% (95% CI, 16.0-33.6). Median progression-free survival for arm A was 4.3 months (95% CI, 3.8-5.6) and for arm B it was 4.2 months (95% CI, 3.6-4.7). Median survival for arm A was 10.8 months (95% CI, 7.0-16.4) and for arm B it was 10.2 months (95% CI, 7.8-11.9). Main grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities were neutropenia 18.3% (arm A) and 44.0% (arm B), whereas febrile neutropenia was reported in 2% of patients in each arm., Conclusion: Oral vinorelbine and cisplatin had an efficacy in line with that achieved with a standard treatment such as pemetrexed and cisplatin, coupled with an acceptable safety profile., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Adjuvant chemotherapy is beneficial in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, balancing toxicity and efficacy mandates improvement., Patients and Methods: Patients with completely resected stages IB-pT3N1 NSCLC were randomly assigned to either four cycles cisplatin (C: 50 mg/m(2) day (d)1 + 8) and vinorelbine (V: 25 mg/m(2) d1, 8, 15, 22) q4 weeks or four cycles cisplatin (75 mg/m(2) d1) and pemetrexed (Px: 500 mg/m(2) d1) q3 weeks. Primary objective was the clinical feasibility rate (no grade (G)4 neutropenia/thrombocytopenia or thrombocytopenia with bleeding, no G3/4 febrile neutropenia or non-hematological toxicity; no premature withdrawal/death). Secondary objectives were drug delivery and efficacy., Results: One hundred and thirty two patients were randomized (stages: 38% IB, 10% IIA, 47% IIB, 5% pT3pN1; histology: 43% squamous, 57% non-squamous). The feasibility rates were 95.5% (cisplatin and pemetrexed, CPx) and 75.4% (cisplatin and vinorelbine, CVb) (P = 0.001); hematological G3/4 toxic effects were 10% (CPx) and 74% (CVb) (P < 0.001), non-hematological toxic effects were comparable (33% and 31%, P = 0.798). Delivery of total mean doses was 90% of planned with CPx, but 66% (cisplatin) and 64% (vinorelbine) with CVb (P < 0.0001). The median number of cycles [treatment time (weeks)] was 4 for CPx (11.2) and 3 for CVb (9.9). Time to withdrawal from therapy differed significantly between arms favoring CPx (P < 0.001)., Conclusion: Adjuvant chemotherapy with CPx is safe and feasible with less toxicity and superior dose delivery compared with CVb.