Search

Purpose: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remain significant clinical problems, especially in the delayed phase (24-120 h after chemotherapy). Amisulpride is a dopamine D 2 /D 3 -receptor antagonist previously shown to be an effective intravenous antiemetic. We conducted a randomised, double-blind study to characterise the dose response of oral amisulpride in delayed phase CINV., Methods: Chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving cisplatin ≥ 70 mg/m 2 or an anthracycline-cyclophosphamide regimen for breast cancer received, on day 1, 20 mg amisulpride and 8-16 mg ondansetron intravenously followed, once daily on days 2-4, by 10, 20 or 40 mg oral amisulpride or placebo. A control group receiving standard three-drug prophylaxis was enrolled for assay sensitivity purposes. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR), defined as no emesis or rescue medication use, in the delayed phase., Results: Three hundred eighteen subjects were evaluable per protocol. CR rate (24-120 h) was 20% with placebo and 46% with 10 mg amisulpride (p = 0.006 after multiplicity adjustment); in the three-drug control group, it was 59%. Emesis, nausea and 0-120-h CR rate were significantly improved with 10 mg amisulpride compared to placebo. Higher doses of amisulpride were not more effective than 10 mg. In patients with acute phase CR, delayed phase CR rate was 44% for placebo, 75% for 10 mg amisulpride (p = 0.022) and 70% for the 3-drug control. No significant differences were seen between groups in safety parameters., Conclusions: Amisulpride 10 mg orally is safe and superior to placebo at preventing delayed CINV caused by highly emetogenic chemotherapy., Trial Registration: NCT01857232.

Background: Variable chemotherapy exposure may cause toxicity or lack of efficacy. This study was initiated to validate pharmacokinetically (PK)-guided paclitaxel dosing in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to avoid supra- or subtherapeutic exposure., Patients and Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed, advanced NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive up to 6 cycles of 3-weekly carboplatin AUC 6 or cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) either with standard paclitaxel at 200 mg/m(2) (arm A) or PK-guided dosing of paclitaxel (arm B). In arm B, initial paclitaxel dose was adjusted to body surface area, age, sex, and subsequent doses were guided by neutropenia and previous-cycle paclitaxel exposure [time above a plasma concentration of 0.05 µM (Tc>0.05)] determined from a single blood sample on day 2. The primary end point was grade 4 neutropenia; secondary end points included neuropathy, radiological response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)., Results: Among 365 patients randomly assigned, grade 4 neutropenia was similar in both arms (19% versus 16%; P = 0.10). Neuropathy grade ≥2 (38% versus 23%, P < 0.001) and grade ≥3 (9% versus 2%, P < 0.001) was significantly lower in arm B, independent of the platinum drug used. The median final paclitaxel dose was significantly lower in arm B (199 versus 150 mg/m(2), P < 0.001). Response rate was similar in arms A and B (31% versus 27%, P = 0.405), as was adjusted median PFS [5.5 versus 4.9 months, hazard ratio (HR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91-1.49, P = 0.228] and OS (10.1 versus 9.5 months, HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.81-1.37, P = 0.682)., Conclusion: PK-guided dosing of paclitaxel does not improve severe neutropenia, but reduces paclitaxel-associated neuropathy and thereby improves the benefit-risk profile in patients with advanced NSCLC., Clinical Trial Information: NCT01326767 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01326767)., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Iniparib is a novel anticancer agent initially considered a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, but subsequently shown to act via non-selective protein modification through cysteine adducts. This randomized phase II study investigated the addition of iniparib to gemcitabine-cisplatin in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients., Patients and Methods: Patients with histologically confirmed stage IV NSCLC were randomized 2 : 1 to receive gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2), days 1/8) and cisplatin (75 mg/m(2), day 1) with [gemcitabine/cisplatin/iniparib (GCI)] or without [gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC)] iniparib (5.6 mg/kg, days 1/4/8/11) every 3 weeks for six cycles. The primary end point was the overall response rate (ORR). Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. The study was not designed for formal efficacy comparison, the control arm being to benchmark results against the literature., Results: One hundred and nineteen patients were randomized (39 GC and 80 GCI). More GCI patients were male (80% GCI and 67% GC) and had PS 0 (61% GCI and 49% GC). The ORR was 25.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 13.0%-42.1%] with GC versus 20.0% (95% CI 11.9%-30.4%) with GCI, which did not allow rejection of the null hypothesis (ORR with GCI ≤20%; P = 0.545). Median PFS was 4.3 (95% CI 2.8-5.6) months with GC and 5.7 (95% CI 4.6-6.6) months with GCI (hazard ratio 0.89, 95% CI 0.56-1.40). Median OS was 8.5 (95% CI 5.5 to not reached) months with GC, and 12.0 (95% CI 8.9-17.1) months with GCI (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.48-1.27). More GCI patients received second-line treatment (51% GC and 68% GCI). Toxicity was similar in the two arms. Grade 3-4 toxicities included asthenia (28% GC and 8% GCI), nausea (3% GC and 14% GCI), and decreased appetite (10% in each)., Conclusions: Addition of iniparib to GC did not improve ORR over GC alone. The GCI safety profile was comparable to GC alone. Imbalances in PS and gender distribution may have impacted study results regarding PFS and OS., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier NCT01086254., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: Enzastaurin is a serine/threonine kinase inhibitor that targets protein kinase C and AKT pathways. Enzastaurin and pemetrexed demonstrated synergy in preclinical studies. This trial was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of first-line enzastaurin plus cisplatin-pemetrexed in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: A safety lead-in phase (n = 13) of enzastaurin 125 or 250 mg twice daily was added to cisplatin-pemetrexed. A subsequent randomized, placebo-controlled phase II study (n = 22) of the combination was conducted to evaluate efficacy., Results: The combination was well tolerated and showed activity, with 7 (53.8%, 95% CI 26.7-80.9) confirmed partial responses and 2 stable diseases in 13 treated patients in the lead-in phase. However, the study was terminated early based on interim results from two phase II NSCLC studies of enzastaurin plus cytotoxic chemotherapy, which indicated no efficacy improvement., Conclusions: Enzastaurin and cisplatin-pemetrexed is tolerable with preliminary activity in patients with advanced NSCLC, but because of a lack of efficacy improvement in other phase II NSCLC studies, the study was terminated early., (Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: We compared an aprepitant regimen with a control regimen of ondansetron + dexamethasone given for 4 days., Patients and Methods: Patients scheduled to receive cisplatin > or =70 mg/m(2) were randomized to either the aprepitant regimen (aprepitant, ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; aprepitant and dexamethasone on days 2-3; dexamethasone on day 4) or control regimen (ondansetron + dexamethasone on days 1-4). Patients recorded vomiting, nausea and rescue therapy use. The primary end point was complete response (no vomiting and no use of rescue therapy) in the overall phase (days 1-5 post-cisplatin)., Results: Complete response rates were higher in the aprepitant than control group in the overall (72% versus 61%; P = 0.003), acute (day 1; 88% versus 79%; P = 0.005) and delayed phases (days 2-5; 74% versus 63%; P = 0.004), as were rates of no vomiting (overall 77% versus 62%, P < or = 0.001; acute 89% versus 81%, P = 0.004; delayed 79% versus 64%, P < or = 0.001). Rates of no rescue therapy were similar between groups., Conclusions: Compared with an antiemetic regimen in which ondansetron + dexamethasone were given for 4 days, the aprepitant regimen was superior in the acute, delayed and overall phases of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The aprepitant regimen should be considered a new standard of antiemetic therapy for cisplatin-treated patients. www.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NTC00090207.

Background: A phase III trial in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma demonstrated a survival advantage for pemetrexed plus cisplatin compared with single-agent cisplatin. Because post-study chemotherapy (PSC) may have influenced the outcome of the trial, we examined its use and association with survival., Patients and Methods: Eighty-four patients from the pemetrexed plus cisplatin arm and 105 patients from the single-agent cisplatin arm received PSC. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were compared by treatment groups, and by PSC and non-PSC subgroups., Results: The percentage of patients receiving PSC was imbalanced between the treatment arms. Fewer pemetrexed plus cisplatin treated patients received PSC (37.2% versus 47.3%). A multiple regression analysis performed in this trial showed that PSC had a statistically significant correlation with prolonged survival (P <0.01), adjusting for baseline prognostic factors and treatment intervention. The adjusted hazard ratio for PSC over non-PSC subgroups was 0.56 (confidence interval 0.44-0.72)., Conclusions: PSC in malignant pleural mesothelioma was significantly associated with prolonged survival. It is not known whether the reduced risk of death was associated with PSC or whether patients who had prolonged survival tended to receive more PSC. The pemetrexed plus cisplatin treatment group had a statistically significant survival advantage even though fewer patients from that arm of the trial received PSC. The potentially beneficial role of PSC should be assessed in prospective trials.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the addition of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib (Iressa, ZD1839; AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE) to standard first-line gemcitabine and cisplatin provides clinical benefit over gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Gefitinib has demonstrated encouraging efficacy in advanced NSCLC in phase II trials in pretreated patients, and a phase I trial of gefitinib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin showed favorable tolerability., Patients and Methods: This was a phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial in chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable stage III or IV NSCLC. All patients received up to six cycles of chemotherapy (cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 of the 3-week cycle) plus either gefitinib 500 mg/d, gefitinib 250 mg/d, or placebo. Daily gefitinib or placebo was continued until disease progression. End points included overall survival (primary), time to progression, response rates, and safety evaluation., Results: A total of 1,093 patients were enrolled. There was no difference in efficacy end points between the treatment groups: for the gefitinib 500 mg/d, gefitinib 250 mg/d, and placebo groups, respectively, median survival times were 9.9, 9.9, and 10.9 months (global ordered log-rank [GOLrank] P =.4560), median times to progression were 5.5, 5.8, and 6.0 months (GOLrank; P =.7633), and response rates were 49.7%, 50.3%, and 44.8%. No significant unexpected adverse events were seen., Conclusion: Gefitinib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC did not have improved efficacy over gemcitabine and cisplatin alone. The reasons for this remain obscure and require further preclinical testing.

Purpose: New effective chemotherapy is needed to improve the outcome of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Paclitaxel administered as a single agent or in combination with cisplatin has been shown to be a potentially new useful agent for the treatment of NSCLC., Patients and Methods: Between January 1995 and April 1996, 414 patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomized to received either a control arm of high-dose cisplatin (100 mg/m(2)) or a combination of paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2), 3-hour infusion) and cisplatin (80 mg/m(2)) every 21 days., Results: Compared with the cisplatin-only arm, there was a 9% improvement (95% confidence interval, 0% to 19%) in overall response rate for the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm (17% v 26%, respectively; P=.028). Median time to progression was 2.7 and 4.1 months in the control and paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, respectively (P=.026). The study, however, failed to show a significant improvement in median survival for the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm (8.6 months in the control arm v 8.1 months in the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, P=.862). There was more hematotoxicity, peripheral neuropathy, and arthralgia/myalgia on the paclitaxel/cisplatin arm, whereas the high-dose cisplatin arm produced more ototoxicity, nausea, vomiting, and nephrotoxicity. Quality of life (QOL) was similar overall between the two arms., Conclusion: This large randomized phase III trial failed to show a significant improvement in survival for the paclitaxel/cisplatin combination compared with high-dose cisplatin in patients with advanced NSCLC. However, the paclitaxel/cisplatin combination did produce a better clinical response, resulting in an increased time to progression while providing a similar QOL.

Purpose: The Hoosier Oncology Group has previously reported the results of its phase II trial of the combination of cisplatin plus gemcitabine. In that study of 27 assessable patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the response rate was 33%, with a median survival of 8.4 months. Based on such favorable results, the Hoosier Oncology Group designed this randomized phase III study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin compared with cisplatin alone in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized to receive either cisplatin (100 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 of a 28-day cycle) or the combination of cisplatin (100 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1) plus gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle)., Results: From August 1995 to February 1997, 522 assessable chemotherapy-naive patients were randomized. Toxicity was predominantly hematologic and was more pronounced in the combination arm, with grade 4 neutropenia occurring in 35.3% of patients compared with 1.2% of patients on the cisplatin monotherapy arm. The incidence of neutropenic fevers was less than 5% in both arms. Grade 4 thrombocytopenia occurred in 25. 4% of patients on the combination arm compared with 0.8% of patients on the cisplatin monotherapy arm. No serious hemorrhagic events related to thrombocytopenia were reported for either arm. The combination of gemcitabine plus cisplatin demonstrated a significant improvement over single-agent cisplatin with regard to response rate (30.4% compared with 11.1%, respectively; P <.0001), median time to progressive disease (5.6 months compared with 3.7 months, respectively; P =.0013), and overall survival (9.1 months compared with 7.6 months, respectively; P =.004)., Conclusions: For the first-line treatment of NSCLC, the regimen of gemcitabine plus cisplatin is superior to cisplatin alone in terms of response rate, time to disease progression, and overall survival.

We performed a clinical phase II trial of the combination of paclitaxel (Taxol; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, NJ) and cisplatin in patients with locally advanced (stage IIIB) or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), using a 3-hour infusion of paclitaxel followed by a 1-hour infusion of cisplatin. Treatment was repeated every 21 days, for a maximum of six cycles. The patients received paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 followed by cisplatin 75 mg/m2. At present, 52 chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB (17.3%) or stage IV (82.7%) NSCLC have been entered into this ongoing trial. Ten (19%) of the patients are women and 42 (81%) are men. With 197 courses of chemotherapy given, all 52 patients are evaluable for toxicity. Hematologic toxicities were moderate: World Health Organization (WHO) grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in 38.7% of the cycles (47.7% of patients), and WHO grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia was observed in 1.5% of cycles (3.8% of patients). Other toxicities consisted mainly of WHO grade 2 or 3 alopecia and nausea/vomiting. World Health Organization grade 1 or 2 polyneuropathy occurred in 30.4% and grade 3 or 4 only in 1% of all courses. Of 40 patients evaluable for response, a complete remission was noted in one patient, a partial remission occurred in 13 patients (32.5%), stable disease was seen in 14 patients (35%), and disease progressed in 12 patients (30%). These results suggest that the combination of paclitaxel and cisplatin is active and tolerable in the treatment of NSCLC. The efficacy of the combination seems high in this poor-prognosis population.

Purpose: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remain significant clinical problems, especially in the delayed phase (24-120 h after chemotherapy). Amisulpride is a dopamine D2/D3-receptor antagonist previously shown to be an effective intravenous antiemetic. We conducted a randomised, double-blind study to characterise the dose response of oral amisulpride in delayed phase CINV.Methods: Chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving cisplatin ≥ 70 mg/m2 or an anthracycline-cyclophosphamide regimen for breast cancer received, on day 1, 20 mg amisulpride and 8-16 mg ondansetron intravenously followed, once daily on days 2-4, by 10, 20 or 40 mg oral amisulpride or placebo. A control group receiving standard three-drug prophylaxis was enrolled for assay sensitivity purposes. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR), defined as no emesis or rescue medication use, in the delayed phase.Results: Three hundred eighteen subjects were evaluable per protocol. CR rate (24-120 h) was 20% with placebo and 46% with 10 mg amisulpride (p = 0.006 after multiplicity adjustment); in the three-drug control group, it was 59%. Emesis, nausea and 0-120-h CR rate were significantly improved with 10 mg amisulpride compared to placebo. Higher doses of amisulpride were not more effective than 10 mg. In patients with acute phase CR, delayed phase CR rate was 44% for placebo, 75% for 10 mg amisulpride (p = 0.022) and 70% for the 3-drug control. No significant differences were seen between groups in safety parameters.Conclusions: Amisulpride 10 mg orally is safe and superior to placebo at preventing delayed CINV caused by highly emetogenic chemotherapy.Trial Registration: NCT01857232. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Bevacizumab, the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agent, provides clinical benefit when combined with platinum-based chemotherapy in first-line advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. We report the final overall survival (OS) analysis from the phase III AVAiL trial. Patients and methods: Patients (n = 1043) received cisplatin 80 mg/m² and gemcitabine 1250 mg/m² for up to six cycles plus bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg (n = 345), bevacizumab 15 mg/kg (n = 351) or placebo (n = 347) every 3 weeks until progression. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); OS was a secondary end point. Results: Significant PFS prolongation with bevacizumab compared with placebo was maintained with longer followup {hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] 0.75 (0.64-0.87), P = 0.0003 and 0.85 (0.73-1.00), P = 0.0456} for the 7.5 and 15 mg/kg groups, respectively. Median OS was >13 months in all treatment groups; nevertheless, OS was not significantly increased with bevacizumab [HR (95% CI) 0.93 (0.78-1.11), P = 0.420 and 1.03 (0.86-1.23), P = 0.761] for the 7.5 and 15 mg/kg groups, respectively, versus placebo. Most patients (∼62%) received multiple lines of poststudy treatment. Updated safety results are consistent with those previously reported. Conclusions: Final analysis of AVAiL confirms the efficacy of bevacizumab when combined with cisplatin- gemcitabine. The PFS benefit did not translate into a significant OS benefit, possibly due to high use of efficacious second-line therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Baseline patient and disease characteristics are investigated in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in an effort to predict response to treatment and optimize patients’ outcomes. Histology has recently been identified in multiple NSCLC phase III trials as a predictive factor for survival in patients receiving pemetrexed regimens. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]