Dataset Information

A pooled analysis of advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer patients with stable treated brain metastases in two phase II trials receiving bevacizumab and pemetrexed as second-line therapy.

ABSTRACT: Background:Brain metastases are a common complication of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with brain metastases were excluded from the registration trials of bevacizumab that showed a survival benefit with the use of angiogenesis inhibition. Methods:In this study, we pooled data from two separate trials designed to evaluate the risk of central nervous system (CNS) hemorrhage in patients with stable treated brain metastases to look specifically at both the safety and efficacy of bevacizumab and pemetrexed when used as second-line treatment in NSCLC patients with stable treated brain metastases. Results:We report acceptable safety and promising efficacy from our analysis. Conclusions:Our study adds further evidence of safety of administering pemetrexed and bevacizumab to patients with stable brain metastases. There is increasing roles for systemic therapies to treat stable brain metastases for patients with advanced NSCLC.

SUBMITTER: Gubens MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5863135 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A pooled analysis of advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer patients with stable treated brain metastases in two phase II trials receiving bevacizumab and pemetrexed as second-line therapy.

Gubens Matthew A MA Chuang Jody C JC Akerley Wallace W Langer Corey J CJ Clément-Duchêne Christelle C San Pedro-Salcedo Melanie M Colevas A Dimitrios AD Dragnev Konstantin K Socinski Mark A MA Wakelee Heather A HA

Journal of thoracic disease 20180101 1

<h4>Background</h4>Brain metastases are a common complication of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with brain metastases were excluded from the registration trials of bevacizumab that showed a survival benefit with the use of angiogenesis inhibition.<h4>Methods</h4>In this study, we pooled data from two separate trials designed to evaluate the risk of central nervous system (CNS) hemorrhage in patients with stable treated brain metastases to look specifically at both the safe ...[more]

PMID: 29600052

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.

Project description:AimTo investigate the safety and efficacy of adding bevacizumab to first-line chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with peritoneal disease.MethodsWe compared rates of gastrointestinal perforation in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and peritoneal disease receiving first-line chemotherapy with and without bevacizumab in three distinct cohorts: (1) the AGITG MAX trial (Phase III randomised clinical trial comparing capecitabine vs capecitabine and bevacizumab vs capecitabine, bevacizumab and mitomycinC); (2) the prospective Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer (TRACC) registry (any first-line regimen ± bevacizumab); and (3) two cancer centres in New South Wales, Australia [Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centre and Liverpool Cancer Therapy Centre (NSWCC) from January 2005 to Decenber 2012, (any first-line regimen ± bevacizumab). For the AGITG MAX trial capecitabine was compared to the other two arms (capecitabine/bevacizumab and capecitabine/bevacizumab/mitomycinC). In the AGITG MAX trial and the TRACC registry rates of gastrointestinal perforation were also collected in patients who did not have peritoneal metastases. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, chemotherapy duration, and overall survival. Time-to-event outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test.ResultsEighty-four MAX, 179 TRACC and 69 NSWCC patients had peritoneal disease. There were no gastrointestinal perforations recorded in either the MAX subgroup or the NSWCC cohorts. Of the patients without peritoneal disease in the MAX trial, 4/300 (1.3%) in the bevacizumab arms had gastrointestinal perforations compared to 1/123 (0.8%) in the capecitabine alone arm. In the TRACC registry 3/126 (2.4%) patients who had received bevacizumab had a gastrointestinal perforation compared to 1/53 (1.9%) in the chemotherapy alone arm. In a further analysis of patients without peritoneal metastases in the TRACC registry, the rate of gastrointestinal perforations was 9/369 (2.4%) in the chemotherapy/bevacizumab group and 5/177 (2.8%) in the chemotherapy alone group. The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy was associated with improved progression-free survival in all three cohorts: MAX 6.9 m vs 4.9 m, HR = 0.64 (95%CI: 0.42-1.02); P = 0.063; TRACC 9.1 m vs 5.5 m, HR = 0.61 (95%CI: 0.37-0.86); P = 0.009; NSWCC 8.7 m vs 6.8 m, HR = 0.75 (95%CI: 0.43-1.32); P = 0.32. Chemotherapy duration was similar across the groups.ConclusionPatients with peritoneal disease do not appear to have an increased risk of gastrointestinal perforations when receiving first-line therapy with bevacizumab compared to systemic therapy alone.

Dataset Information

A pooled analysis of advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer patients with stable treated brain metastases in two phase II trials receiving bevacizumab and pemetrexed as second-line therapy.

Publications

A pooled analysis of advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer patients with stable treated brain metastases in two phase II trials receiving bevacizumab and pemetrexed as second-line therapy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets