Dataset Information

65Plus: open-label study of bevacizumab in combination with pemetrexed or pemetrexed/carboplatin as first-line treatment of patients with advanced or recurrent nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

ABSTRACT: Background:The aim of the study was to investigate in terms of noninferiority the efficacy and safety of a monochemotherapy regimen of pemetrexed plus bevacizumab (BevPem) versus carboplatin/pemetrexed plus bevacizumab (BevCPem) in elderly patients as first-line treatment for advanced metastatic or recurrent nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and methods:65Plus was a Phase III, randomized, open-label study. In total, 253 patients received BevPem (n=119) or BevCPem (n=134). The primary outcome measure was progression-free survival. Secondary end points were overall survival, tumor response, and safety outcomes. Evaluations were performed for the whole study population and stratified according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS). Results:Noninferiority of BevPem in comparison to BevCPem could not be demonstrated for the overall population (P=0.7864). Significant superiority of the combined treatment BevCPem was seen in patients of ECOG PS 0-1 (median PFS 5.1 vs 6.9 months, HR 1.353, 95% CI 1.03-1.777), while the opposite tendency was observed in patients with ECOG PS 2 (median PFS 2.9 vs 1.5 months, HR 0.628, 95% CI 0.195-2.025). Overall, better tolerability was found for the BevPem group, irrespective of ECOG PS. Conclusion:Results from the 65plus study give evidence that BevPem and BevCPem treatments may exert differential effects on PFS, depending on the patients ECOG PS. It appears that patients with better ECOG PS (0-1) benefited more from the combined treatment with carboplatin, while the group comprising more severely impaired patients (ECOG PS 2) benefited more from the monochemotherapy.

SUBMITTER: Schuette W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5683796 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

65Plus: open-label study of bevacizumab in combination with pemetrexed or pemetrexed/carboplatin as first-line treatment of patients with advanced or recurrent nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

Schuette Wolfgang W Schneider Claus-Peter CP Engel-Riedel Walburga W Schumann Christian C Kohlhaeufl Martin M Serke Monika Heidi Ursel MHU Hoeffken Gert G Kortsik Cornelius C Reck Martin M

Lung Cancer (Auckland, N.Z.) 20171106

<h4>Background</h4>The aim of the study was to investigate in terms of noninferiority the efficacy and safety of a monochemotherapy regimen of pemetrexed plus bevacizumab (BevPem) versus carboplatin/pemetrexed plus bevacizumab (BevCPem) in elderly patients as first-line treatment for advanced metastatic or recurrent nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).<h4>Materials and methods</h4>65Plus was a Phase III, randomized, open-label study. In total, 253 patients received BevPem (n=119) or B ...[more]

PMID: 29158696

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPRONOUNCE compared the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed+carboplatin followed by pemetrexed (Pem+Cb) with paclitaxel+carboplatin+bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab (Pac+Cb+Bev) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).MethodsPatients ≥18 years of age with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC (American Joint Committee on Cancer v7.0), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1 were randomized (1:1) to four cycles of induction Pem+Cb (pemetrexed, 500 mg/m, carboplatin, area under the curve = 6) followed by Pem maintenance or Pac+Cb+Bev (paclitaxel, 200 mg/m, carboplatin, area under the curve = 6, and bevacizumab, 15 mg/kg) followed by Bev maintenance in the absence of progressive disease or discontinuation. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) without grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS). Secondary end points were PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Resource utilization was also assessed.ResultsBaseline characteristics of the patients randomized to Pem+Cb (N = 182) and Pac+Cb+Bev (N = 179) were well balanced between the arms. Median (months) G4PFS was 3.91 for Pem+Cb and 2.86 for Pac+Cb+Bev (hazard ratio = 0.85, 90% confidence interval, 0.7-1.04; p = 0.176); PFS, OS, ORR, or DCR did not differ significantly between the arms. Significantly more drug-related grade 3/4 anemia (18.7% versus 5.4%) and thrombocytopenia (24.0% versus 9.6%) were reported for Pem+Cb. Significantly more grade 3/4 neutropenia (48.8% versus 24.6%), grade 1/2 alopecia (28.3% versus 8.2%), and grade 1/2 sensory neuropathy were reported for Pac+Cb+Bev. Number of hospitalizations and overall length of stay did not differ significantly between the arms.ConclusionsPem+Cb did not produce significantly better G4PFS compared with Pac+Cb+Bev. Pem+Cb was not superior in PFS, OS, ORR, or DCR compared with Pac+Cb+Bev. Both regimens were well tolerated, although, toxicity profiles differed.

Dataset Information

65Plus: open-label study of bevacizumab in combination with pemetrexed or pemetrexed/carboplatin as first-line treatment of patients with advanced or recurrent nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

Publications

65Plus: open-label study of bevacizumab in combination with pemetrexed or pemetrexed/carboplatin as first-line treatment of patients with advanced or recurrent nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets