Dataset Information

A randomized, multicenter phase II study comparing efficacy, safety and tolerability of two dosing regimens of cisplatin and pemetrexed in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Pemetrexed and cisplatin is a first-line standard in non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer without targetable mutations. It became the backbone of checkpoint-inhibitor-chemotherapy combinations. Single high doses of cisplatin pose toxicity risks and require hyperhydration, potentially prolonging outpatient application. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy, safety and tolerability of split-dose cisplatin with the standard schedule.

Methods

Patients with metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned to up to six 21-day cycles of pemetrexed 500 mg/m² and cisplatin 75 mg/m² on day 1 (arm A), or pemetrexed 500 mg/m² (day 1) and cisplatin 40 mg/m² (day 1 + 8, arm B), followed by pemetrexed maintenance. Primary endpoint was objective response rate. Secondary objectives were overall survival, progression-free survival, time to progression, treatment compliance, toxicity profile, and quality of life.

Results

We enrolled 130 patients (129 evaluable). Median cycle numbers in A and B were six (1-6) and five (1-6). Dose intensities were comparable between arms. More patients in A received pemetrexed maintenance (24.2% versus 11.1%). With 16 (24.2%) in A and 19 (30.2%) patients in B achieving objective responses [odds ratio 0.74 (0.34-1.62), p = 0.55] the primary endpoint was met. Overall survival was not different between arms (median 14.4 versus 14.9 months); [HR = 1.07; (0.68-1.68), p = 0.78]. Median progression-free survival was 7.0 months in A and 6.2 months in B [HR = 1.63; (1.17-2.38); p = 0.01]. Adverse events of CTCAE grade ⩾3, particularly hematological, were more frequent in B. No difference in grade 4 and 5 infections between arms was noted. Treatment-related asthenia and nausea/vomiting of any grade were more frequent in A. Global health status, fatigue and constipation measured on day 1 of cycle 4 demonstrated superior scores in B.

Conclusion

Pemetrexed and split-dose cisplatin is safe and effective. Advantages of split-dose cisplatin with regard to specific toxicities allow personalization of this important chemotherapy backbone.

Trial registration

European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT) number 2011-001963-37.

SUBMITTER: Metzenmacher M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8164550 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients with advanced sarcomas have a poor prognosis and few treatment options that improve overall survival. We assessed the efficacy and tolerability of pemetrexed and cisplatin combination therapy in patients with refractory bone and soft tissue sarcoma (STS).Patients and methodsPatients were included in this multicenter, phase II study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03809637) if they progressed after receiving one or more chemotherapy regimens containing an anthracycline and/or ifosfamide. Pemetrexed was first administered intravenously, followed by cisplatin, over a cycle of 21 days, for a maximum of six cycles. The primary endpoint was a progression-free rate (PFR) at 3 months (3-month PFR).ResultsFrom January 2017 to September 2019, we enrolled 37 patients; of these, 73% had previously undergone three or more rounds of chemotherapy. Five patients (13.5%) exhibited objective responses, including two patients (2/6, 33.3%) with malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors, one patient (1/4, 25%) with synovial sarcoma, one patient (1/4, 25%) with undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma, and one patient (1/4, 25%) with angiosarcoma. The median progression-free survival was 2.6 months, and the 3-month PFR was 45.9% (n = 17). None of the four patients with osteosarcoma exhibited objective responses or were progression free at 3 months. The most frequent treatment-related grade 3-4 toxicities included neutropenia (16.2%), anemia (13.5%), thrombocytopenia (13.5%), and fatigue (8.1%). Among 26 patients (70.3%) available for immunohistochemical assessments, patients in the low-excision repair cross-complementation group 1 (ERCC1) and low-thymidylate synthase expression groups showed a tendency for longer overall survival.ConclusionsCombination therapy with pemetrexed and cisplatin was associated with clinically meaningful and sustained responses among patients with advanced and refractory STS. The combination therapy met its predefined primary study endpoint.

Project description:Regorafenib is an oral multitargeted kinase inhibitor with potent antiangiogenic activity. In this phase I trial we evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of regorafenib with cisplatin and pemetrexed for patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancers (nsNSCLCs). Nine patients enrolled before premature termination of the study. Five of 9 (56%) patients had a partial response and the median progression-free survival was 7 months (range, 1.5-15.1 months). Regorafenib had acceptable tolerability and minor pharmacokinetic interactions in combination with standard doses of cisplatin and pemetrexed in patients with advanced nsNSCLCs.The combination of bevacizumab, an antiangiogenesis agent, with cytotoxic chemotherapy improves survival in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancers (nsNSCLCs). Regorafenib is an oral multitargeted kinase inhibitor with potent antiangiogenic activity that is approved for patients with advanced colorectal cancer and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. In this phase I trial we evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and efficacy of regorafenib with cisplatin and pemetrexed for patients with advanced nsNSCLCs.Chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced nsNSCLCs were treated with regorafenib 60 mg/d continuously and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) with pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) once every 21 days for up to 6 cycles. Thereafter, regorafenib with or without pemetrexed could be continued as maintenance.Nine patients enrolled before premature termination of the study because of slow recruitment and a change in the development strategy of regorafenib by the study sponsor. Five patients experienced at least 1 treatment-related Grade 3 adverse event. No Grade 4 or 5 toxicity occurred. Five of 9 (56%) patients had a partial response and the median progression-free survival was 7 months (range, 1.5-15.1 months). Minor PK interactions between regorafenib and chemotherapy were observed.Regorafenib had acceptable tolerability and minor PK interactions in combination with standard doses of cisplatin and pemetrexed in patients with advanced nsNSCLCs. Encouraging activity was appreciated in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced nsNSCLCs. However, the small number of patients treated limits conclusions that can be drawn from these results.

Project description:IntroductionLittle data is available on patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC treated with erlotinib specifically after failure of first-line pemetrexed-containing chemotherapy. We assessed the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of erlotinib in a real-world setting.MethodsProspective single-arm, open-label, multicenter, non-interventional study of erlotinib (150mg daily) in inoperable stage III/IV NSCLC after progression on first-line pemetrexed-containing chemotherapy without EGFR-mutation selection. Patients were followed according to routine practice and response assessment was performed using RECIST 1.1. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included best confirmed overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and overall survival (OS). Adverse events were recorded. An independent dataset was used to validate the results.ResultsIn all, 59 patients were screened, 57 enrolled, and 54 (36 men; median age 65 years) included in the per-protocol analysis. Median PFS was 1.8 (95% CI 1.4-2.6) months, with 11% (95% CI 5-21%) alive and progression-free at 6 months. The ORR was 0.0% (97.5% CI 0.0-6.8%) and the DCR 34.6% (95% CI 21.9-49.0%). Median overall survival was 5.8 (95% CI 3.3-8.6) months with 28% (95% CI 17-42%) alive at one year. Rash occurred in 60.7% (95% CI 46.7-73.5%), with severe rash in 12.5% (95% CI 5.1-24.1%). Any grade diarrhea was observed in 42.8% (95% CI 29.7-56.8%), with grade 3 occurring in 7.1% (95% CI 1.9-17.2%). Erlotinib was stopped in 21.0% (95% CI 11.3-33.9%) of patients due to adverse events, which were treatment related in 7%.ConclusionSecond-line erlotinib after pemetrexed treatment results in similar real-world outcomes as reported after non-pemetrexed containing first-line therapy. However, the overall duration of response in unselected patients remains limited and other effective treatments have in the meantime been introduced. No new safety signals were detected.

Project description:BackgroundMaintenance therapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) aims to extend disease control after first-line chemotherapy with active and well-tolerated agents. The utility of continuation maintenance therapy requires further research.MethodsThis multicenter, randomized, phase 2 study compared continuation maintenance therapy with pemetrexed (500 mg/m2 every 21 days) and best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone in patients with advanced, non-squamous NSCLC who had not progressed after 4 cycles of induction chemotherapy with pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) and cisplatin (75 mg/m2). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) from randomization, was analyzed using a Cox model, stratified for the tumor response at the end of induction therapy, at a one-sided alpha of 0.2. Secondary endpoints: response and disease control rates, overall survival (OS), one year survival rates, and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).ResultsA total of 106 patients commenced induction therapy, of whom 55 patients were randomized to maintenance pemetrexed/BSC (n = 28) or BSC (n = 27). Although the median PFS time for maintenance phase for both arms was 3.2 months, the one-sided p-value for the PFS HR comparison was less than the prespecified limit of 0.2 (HR = 0.76, two-sided 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42 to 1.37; one-sided p-value = 0.1815), indicating that PFS was sufficiently long in the pemetrexed/BSC arm to warrant further investigation. Similar PFS results were observed for the overall study period (induction plus maintenance) and when the PFS analysis was adjusted for sex, baseline disease stage, and the ECOG PS prior to randomization. The median OS for the maintenance phase was 12.2 months (95%CI: 5.6 to 20.6) for the pemetrexed/BSC arm and 11.8 months (95% CI: 6.3 to 25.6) for BSC arm. The one-year survival probabilities were similar for both arms for the maintenance phase and the overall study period. Both the induction and continuation maintenance therapies were generally well-tolerated, and similar proportion of patients in each arm experienced at least 1 grade 3/4 TEAE (pemetrexed/BSC, 17.9%; BSC, 18.5%).ConclusionsContinuation pemetrexed maintenance therapy resulted in promising PFS with an acceptable safety profile in a Middle Eastern population with advanced non-squamous NSCLC and is worthy of further investigation.Trial registrationNCT00606021.

Project description:Background: Gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) and methotrexate, vinblastine, adriamycin, and cisplatin (MVAC) have been the first-line treatments for advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (AMUC). However, their effects are unsatisfactory, and more drugs and regimens still need to be explored. Objective: We aimed to comprehensively compare all possible regimens with GC or MVAC in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by network meta-analysis. Methods: We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for RCTs that evaluated regimens compared to GC or MVAC on AMUC patients. The major outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR). A network meta-analysis was used to assess the effectiveness and safety of the included treatment regimens, and the regimens were then clustered by the average linkage method. Results: A total of 19 trials that assessed 3,363 AMUC patients were included. For PFS, paclitaxel plus GC (PGC) was significantly superior to GC (log hazard ratio (HR): -0.16; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.32, 0.00) with a moderate level of reliability. However, there was no significant difference between PGC and MVAC (log HR: -0.03; 95% CI: -0.27, 0.20). For OS, PGC was significantly superior to GC (log HR:-0.17; 95% CI: -0.33, -0.00) with a moderate reliability level but not significantly different from MVAC (log HR: -0.10; 95% CI: -0.35, 0.15). Analysis of ORR showed that PGC was superior to MVAC (log odds ratio (OR): 0.59; 95% CI: 0.02, 1.16) with a low reliability level and GC (log OR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.12, 0.71) with a moderate reliability level. In the cluster results, PGC and sorafenib plus GC (GCS) exhibited relative advantages in efficiency, followed by MVAC and apatorsen plus GC (GCA); however, PGC, gemcitabine plus carboplatin (GP), and MVAC had more serious side effects. Conclusions: In our analysis, PGC was superior to MVAC and GC in only the ORR results and superior to GC in the OS and PFS results but was not significantly different from MVAC. More individualized therapies with targeted drugs need to be studied.