Randomized multicenter phase II study of larotaxel (XRP9881) in combination with cisplatin or gemcitabine as first-line chemotherapy in nonirradiable stage IIIB or stage IV non-small cell lung cancer.

Abstract

This randomized phase II study investigated the efficacy and safety of a new taxane, larotaxel (XRP9881), in combination with either cisplatin or gemcitabine in the first-line treatment of patients with nonirradiable stage IIIB or stage IV non-small cell lung cancer to select the combination having the most promising antitumor activity.
Patients received either larotaxel (50 mg/m) as a 1-hour infusion, followed by a 1-hour infusion of cisplatin (75 mg/m), every 3 weeks (arm A), or gemcitabine (800 mg/m) as a 30 minute infusion, on days 1 and 8, and larotaxel (60 mg/m) as a 1-hour infusion, on day 8 (following gemcitabine), every 3 weeks (arm B). The primary end point was the objective response rate (per-protocol population).
Thirty-two patients were randomized to arm A and 30 to arm B. The response rate was higher in arm A compared with arm B in both the per-protocol (26.7% versus 18.2%) and intention-to-treat (28.1% versus 13.3%) populations. In the intention-to-treat population, median progression-free survival for arm A versus arm B was 4.7 versus 3.3 months and median overall survival was 8.6 versus 7.3 months, respectively. Fifty percent of patients in arm A and 66.7% in arm B experienced at least one National Cancer Institute common toxicity criteria grade 3/4 adverse event and grade 3/4 neutropenia was observed in 46.9% and 41.4% of patients, respectively.
Both larotaxel combinations were effective and manageable, however all measured efficacy parameters (response rate, progression free survival, and survival) seemed to favor the combination with cisplatin.

Full text

Page 1

Published in: Journal of Thoracic Oncology (2008), vol.3, pp. 894-901
Status: Postprint (Author’s version)

Randomized Multicenter Phase II Study of Larotaxel (XRP9881) in
Combination with Cisplatin or Gemcitabine as First-Line Chemotherapy in
Nonirradiable Stage IIIB or Stage IV Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Petr Zatloukal, MD, * Radj Gervais, MD, † Johan Vansteenkiste, MD, PhD,‡ Léon Bosquee, MD,§Christiana
Sessa, MD,|| Etienne Brain, MD, PhD,¶ Eric Dansin, MD,# Thierry Urban, MD, PhD,**Nadine Dohollou, MD,
†† Michèle Besenval, MD, ‡‡ and Elisabeth Quoix, MD§§
*Department of Pneumology and Thoracic Surgery, 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Faculty Hospital Bulovka and Postgraduate
Medical School, Praha, Czech Republic; † Centre François Baclesse, Caen, France; ‡ Respiratory Oncology Unit (Pulmonology) and Leuven
Lung Cancer Group, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium; § Service de pneumologie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Sart-
Tilman, Liège, Belgium; || Ospedale San Giovanni, Bellinzona, Switzerland; ¶ Department of Medical Oncology, Centre René Huguenin,
Saint-Cloud, France; # Départment de Cancérologie générale, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France; **Service de pneumologie, Centre
Hospitalier Universitaire, Angers, France; †† Department of Medical Oncology, Polyclinique Bordeaux Nord Aquitaine, Bordeaux, France;
‡‡ Sanofi-Aventis, Antony, France; and §§ Service de pneumologie, University Hospital, Strasbourg, France.
Disclosure: Michèle Besenval is employed by the organization. The other authors declare no conflict of interest

ABSTRACT
Introduction: This randomized phase II study investigated the efficacy and safety of a new taxane, larotaxel
(XRP9881), in combination with either cisplatin or gemcitabine in the first-line treatment of patients with
nonirradiable stage IIIB or stage IV non-small cell lung cancer to select the combination having the most
promising antitumor activity.
Methods: Patients received either larotaxel (50 mg/m2) as a 1-hour infusion, followed by a 1-hour infusion of
cisplatin (75 mg/m2), every 3 weeks (arm A), or gemcitabine (800 mg/m2) as a 30 minute infusion, on days 1 and
8, and larotaxel (60 mg/m2) as a 1-hour infusion, on day 8 (following gemcitabine), every 3 weeks (arm B). The
primary end point was the objective response rate (per-protocol population).
Results: Thirty-two patients were randomized to arm A and 30 to arm B. The response rate was higher in arm A
compared with arm B in both the per-protocol (26.7% versus 18.2%) and intention-to-treat (28.1% versus
13.3%) populations. In the intention-to-treat population, median progression-free survival for arm A versus arm
B was 4.7 versus 3.3 months and median overall survival was 8.6 versus 7.3 months, respectively. Fifty percent
of patients in arm A and 66.7% in arm B experienced at least one National Cancer Institute common toxicity
criteria grade 3/4 adverse event and grade 3/4 neutropenia was observed in 46.9% and 41.4% of patients,
respectively.
Conclusions: Both larotaxel combinations were effective and manageable, however all measured efficacy
parameters (response rate, progression free survival, and survival) seemed to favor the combination with
cisplatin.
Key Words: Advanced NSCLC, Combination chemotherapy, First-line, Taxane, Larotaxel.

Globally, lung cancer is the most frequently diagnosed malignancy and the disease remains the most common
cause of cancer-related death.1 The majority of tumors (~80%) are non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs).2
As a consequence of the absence of effective, clinically-validated screening procedures, most NSCLCs are
locally advanced or metastatic at presentation (stage IIIB and IV),3 and therefore nonresectable. Treatment for
advanced disease may comprise chemoradiotherapy (stage IIIB) or chemotherapy (stage IV).4 Such essentially
palliative treatment aims at controlling symptoms, improving quality of life, and lengthening survival.
A number of cytotoxic agents have been shown to be effective as first-line treatments for NSCLC. Currently,
patients with good performance status will commonly receive a doublet comprising a platinum analogue

Page 2

Published in: Journal of Thoracic Oncology (2008), vol.3, pp. 894-901
Status: Postprint (Author’s version)

(cisplatin or carbo-platin) combined with a third-generation cytotoxic agent (gemcitabine, vinorelbine, or a
taxane). Various combinations seem to be essentially equally effective,5,6 with differences between regimens
primarily limited to their side effect profiles.7,8 Nonplatinum-based doublets, especially gemcitabine plus a
taxane have been developed in an attempt to overcome cisplatin-associated toxicities. Results available at time of
this study led to the recommendation by American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2003 of their use as an
alternative to platinum-based doublets.4
The taxanes, paclitaxel and docetaxel, are both effective and approved in combination with platinum in first-line
NSCLC therapy.9 Docetaxel is also approved-as-a-single agent for second-line treatment. There is however a
need to increase the effectiveness of such compounds in relation to increasing cytotoxicity in taxane-resistant
tumors and decreasing systemic toxicity.10 Larotaxel (XRP9881) is a novel semi-synthetic taxane compound that
seems to be a potent microtubule stabilizer, blocking tubulin disassembly and thereby inhibiting mitosis. The
drug efflux pump, P-glycoprotein 1 (encoded by the multidrug resistance gene, ABCB1), which is commonly
overexpressed in tumors, may play a key role in taxane resistance. Larotaxel has a much lower affinity for P-
glycoprotein 1 than docetaxel and was shown to be active in cell lines resistant to doxorubicin, vinblastine,
paclitaxel, and docetaxel. In addition, this compound seems to cross the blood-brain barrier.11
Several phase I studies have explored different schedules of administration of larotaxel as a single agent and
have recommended dose levels for phase II studies of 60 and 90 mg/m2 for the every 3 weeks regimen.11-15
Hematologic toxicity was the main dose-limiting toxicity in all the tested regimens. Other nonhematologic
toxicities characteristically associated with taxanes, such as alopecia, gastrointestinal effects, neurosensory
disorders, hypersensitivity reactions, skin disorders, and fluid retention were generally mild or moderate.
Objective responses were observed in several tumor types. Of particular interest, Sessa and colleagues noted
responses in three NSCLC patients. In one case, a response was seen in both the patient's primary tumor and also
associated brain metastases.11 This study provided a rational basis for the further testing of larotaxel in advanced
NSCLC patients.
A preliminary three-arm phase I study investigated larotaxel in combination with cisplatin, gemcitabine, or vi-
norelbine. The recommended doses for the combination of larotaxel and cisplatin were 50 and 75 mg/m2,
respectively and for larotaxel and gemcitabine; 60 and 800 mg/m2, respectively. However, larotaxel combined
with vinorelbine showed poor tolerability, even at the lowest doses tested, and so this combination was rejected
for phase II development (manuscript in preparation). Using response rate as the primary efficacy measure, the
current phase II study was designed to investigate whether cisplatin or gemcitabine was the most appropriate
partner for larotaxel in patients with chemotherapy naive advanced NSCLC.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
Major Eligibility Criteria
Chemotherapy naive patients were eligible for inclusion if they had histologically or cytologically-confirmed
nonirradiable stage IIIB or stage IV NSCLC and were ≥18 and ≤75 years of age, with a life expectancy of at
least 12 weeks and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2. They were not to have
received surgery for NSCLC within the previous 4 weeks (excluding simple surgery for diagnosis or to implant a
venous access device) and required adequate hematologic (neutrophils >2 x 109/l, platelet count >100 x 109/1),
renal (creatinine within upper normal limits or if borderline, with a creatinine clearance >60 mL/min), and
hepatic (total bilirubin within normal limits, serum aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase and
alkaline phosphatase ≤2.5 times the upper limits of normal or aspartate aminotransferase/alanine
aminotransferase ≤ 1.5 times associated with alkaline phosphatase ≤5 times the upper limits of normal) function.
Patients were required to have at least one measurable lesion according to response evaluation criteria in solid
tumors criteria.16 The study was conducted in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki and written informed
patient consent was obtained before the implementation of any study-related procedures.
Main exclusion criteria were: a prior history of cancer (excluding basal cell skin or in situ disease); symptomatic
brain or leptomeningeal metastases; hypercalcemia (>2.8 mmol/l); peripheral neuropathy > grade 1; another
serious comorbid condition; had received prior chemotherapy or radiotherapy (except for bone metastases) or
were receiving another anticancer treatment or experimental drug.

Page 3

Published in: Journal of Thoracic Oncology (2008), vol.3, pp. 894-901
Status: Postprint (Author’s version)

Study Design and Treatments
This was a multicenter, randomized study conducted in 11 centers in four countries (France, Belgium, Czech
Republic and Switzerland). The primary objective was to select the combination having the most promising
antitumor activity (response rate). Patients were randomly assigned centrally into two arms. Those in arm A
received larotaxel (50 mg/m2) as a 1-hour infusion, followed after 30 minutes by a 1-hour infusion of cisplatin
(75 mg/m2), every 3 weeks. Patients in arm B received gemcitabine (800 mg/m2) as a 30 minute infusion, on
days 1 and 8, and larotaxel (60 mg/m2) as a 1-hour infusion, on day 8 (following gemcitabine, with no interval),
every 3 weeks. Administration of larotaxel on day 8 in this arm was selected to match docetaxel/gemcitabine
NSCLC schedules, which have been designed to avoid do-cetaxel-induced neutropenia (which generally occurs 5
to 8 days after administration) causing a delay in the day 8 administration of gemcitabine.17 All patients in arm A
received a setron (ondansetron or alternative) as a prophylactic antiemetic premedication from cycle 1. Patients
in this arm were to be adequately hydrated to avoid the nephrotoxicity secondary to cisplatin administration. No
prophylactic antiemetic drugs were allowed during the first cycle for patients in arm B. In subsequent cycles, in
the case of nausea/ vomiting, patients could receive preventive antiemetic treatment in compliance with the
standard protocol of the center. Prophylaxis with dexamethasone was given (16 mg the day before, 24 mg the
day of, and 16 mg the day after larotaxel administration).
Adverse events (AEs) were graded according to National Cancer Institute-Common Toxicity Criteria Version 2.
In the event of long lasting AEs, the cycle could be extended for 1 week. No dose reduction was permitted for
arm A and if such toxicity did not resolve by day 28, the patient was to discontinue the study treatment. For arm
B, in the case of severe toxicity related to larotaxel or gemcitabine, a dose reduction to 50 and/or 650 mg/m2,
respectively, was allowed.
The interval between day 1 of 2 consecutive cycles could be extended to 5 weeks for nondrug-related AEs, but
only once during the study. Treatment was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or the
withdrawal of patient consent.
Evaluations Before and During Therapy
Within 7 days before first study drug administration, medical history (including NSCLC histology/cytology,
prior surgery other than for cancer, concurrent illness, prior medications, history of allergy) was recorded and a
physical examination (height, weight, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, vital signs)
carried out. Standard hematologic and biochemical analyses and an evaluation of existing signs and symptoms
were also completed. Within 4 weeks before treatment a cardiologic examination and radiologic scanning of the
chest (x-ray or computed tomography; CT), abdomen (CT), brain (CT or magnetic resonance imaging) and when
indicated, bone (scan or x-ray) were carried out, encompassing all target and nontarget (when indicated) lesions.
During the study, a physical examination was carried out immediately before treatment, on day 1 of each cycle.
Toxicity was evaluated weekly. Hematologic assessments were carried out every week, or every other day in the
case of grade four neutropenia or thrombopenia (arm B) until recovery to grade ≤3 or <3, respectively.
Radiologic assessment of the chest and abdomen and all target and nontarget lesions was performed every 2
cycles (6 weeks) using the same method as the baseline evaluation.
Statistical Methods and Considerations
The intention-to-treat (ITT) population comprised all randomized patients. The per-protocol population (PPP)
was defined as a subset of the treated population: patients had to be eligible, evaluable for response, and without
any major protocol deviations during the course of the study. The safety population was the treated population,
defined as all patients who had been administered at least one (even incomplete) infusion of one study drug.
The primary objective was to rank the activity of the two test regimens using the Simon design.18 An
independent External Response Review Committee reviewed radiologic assessments to evaluate the best tumor
response and to establish the date of progression (response evaluation criteria in solid tumors16). The primary
efficacy variable was the objective response rate for the PPP, as assessed by the External Response Review
Committee and as defined by the percentage of patients achieving a confirmed complete (CR) or partial (PR)
response (CR + PR). Twenty-one patients/arm were to be included. Taking into account a likely rate of exclusion
from the PPP of 10%, 23 patients/arm were to be enrolled. With this sample size, and assuming that the lowest
response rate was 10%, there was a probability of 90% that the best treatment would be selected, provided that it
was superior to the other by at least 15%.

Page 4

Published in: Journal of Thoracic Oncology (2008), vol.3, pp. 894-901
Status: Postprint (Author’s version)

Secondary efficacy variables included: duration of response (DR; defined as the time interval between meeting
the criteria for a CR or PR and the date of the first documented progression or death from any cause), duration of
stable disease (SD) (defined as the time from randomization until disease progression or death for patients with
SD as best overall response)rprogression-free survival (PFS; defined as the time from randomization until disease
progression or death), and overall survival (OS; defined as the time from randomization until death). For DR and
PFS evaluations, progression or death occurring 84 days or more after the last evaluable tumor assessment was
censored back to the date of that assessment. OS was censored at the date of last contact or the cutoff date,
whichever came first.
Categoric variables were summarized by frequency and percentage. Ninety five percent confidence intervals
[95%] were calculated using the Clopper-Pearson exact method,19 where appropriate. Continuous variables were
presented with summary statistics (mean, standard deviation, median, range). Kaplan-Meier curves20 and
estimates21 (median and its 95% confidence interval) were used to analyze variables of duration and event.
RESULTS
Patient Demographics
Sixty-two patients were randomized between 30th July 2002 and 17th June 2003: 32 to arm A
(larotaxel/cisplatin) and 30 to arm B (larotaxel/gemcitabine). Patient characteristics at baseline were generally
well balanced between the arms, except gender (Table 1). Similarly, baseline tumor characteristics were well
balanced with only slight differences in the interarm frequencies of the number and type of organs involved and
stage of disease at first diagnosis (Table 1). The majority of patients had stage IV disease, with adenocarcinoma
being the most common histologic class. Most patients had three or more organs affected.
Treatment Administration
Thirty-two patients in arm A received a total of 127 cycles (median 4, range 1-8) and 30 patients in arm B
received a total 116 cycles (median 4, range 1-6). Table 2 summarizes drug exposure. Reflecting the absence of
protocol-permitted dose reduction in arm A, the relative dose intensity was 0.98 for both larotaxel and cisplatin.
In arm B, 28 of 30 patients received larotaxel, with 2 discontinuing treatment immediately after the first
gemcitabine infusion (day 1) following, in 1 case, grade 4 supraventricular arrhythmia and in 1 case, pulmonary
embolism (neither considered related to study treatment). The relative dose intensity in this arm for larotaxel was
0.94 and for gemcitabine was 0.93, with these intensities demonstrating the feasibility of the combination.
Although not allowed, 1 (3.1%) patient (1 cycle, 0.8%) in arm A did have a dose reduction (larotaxel; cycle 3)
following anemia. In arm B, 7 (23.3%) patients experienced a dose reduction in 9 cycles (7.8%), due to
hematologic toxicity for two patients, nonhematologic toxicity for three patients (diarrhea, nausea, and
vomiting); for the two remaining patients no specific reason was given. Among the 9 cycles with dose reduction,
larotaxel was reduced in eight and gemcitabine in one. Eleven patients (34.4%) in arm A and 13 patients (43.3%)
in arm B had a delay in at least 1 cycle. A total of 16 (12.6%) cycles were delayed in arm A and 22 Arm A,
larotaxel + cisplatin; Arn B, larotaxel + gemcitabine; PS, performance status; NSCLC, non-small cell lung
cancer. (19.0 %) in arm B. The most common reasons for cycle delays were other reason (administrative
reasons) in arm A and hematologic toxicity in arm B. All patients had discontinued treatment by the cutoff date
of 15th May 2005, with the most common reason in both arms being progressive disease, followed by no further
benefit expected and adverse event.

Page 5

Published in: Journal of Thoracic Oncology (2008), vol.3, pp. 894-901
Status: Postprint (Author’s version)

TABLE 1. Patient and Disease Characteristics at Baseline
Characteristic
Arm A
(N = 32)
Arm B
(N = 30)
All Patients
(N=62)
Gender, n (%)
Male
Female
Race, n (%)
Caucasian
Age, yr
Median (range)
<65 yr, n (%)
≥65 yr, n (%)
PS before first infusion, n (%)
Median (range)
0
1
2
Signs and symptoms at
baseline, n (%)
Histology type, n (%)
Adenocarcinoma
Large cell carcinoma
NSCLC undetermined
Squamous cell carcinoma
Stage of disease at baseline
IIIB
IV
Measurable disease, n (%)
Number of organs involved
1
2
3
4 or more
Organ involvement, n (%)
Lung
Soft tissue (lymph nodes)
Brain
Bone
Adrenal gland
Liver
Pleura
21 (65.6)
11 (34.4)
26 (86.7)
4(13.3)
47 (75.8)
15 (24.2)
32 (100.0) 30(100.0) 62 (100.0)
57 (43-75)
21 (65.6)
11 (34.4)
62 (40-72)
22 (73.3)
8 (26.7)
60 (40-75)
43 (69.4)
19 (30.6)
1 (0-2)
9 (28.1)
20 (62.5)
3 (9.4)
27 (84.4)

1 (0-2)
7 (23.3)
19 (63.3)
4(13.3)
28 (93.3)

1 (0-2)
16 (25.8)
39 (62.9)
7 (11.3)
55 (88.7)

17 (53.1)
2 (6.3)
2 (6.3)
11 (34.4)
15 (50.0)
4(13.3)
—
11 (36.7)
32 (51.6)
6 (9.7)
2 (3.2)
22 (35.5)
5 (15.6)
27 (84.4)
32 (100.0)
5 (16.7)
25 (83.3)
30 (100.0)
10 (16.1)
52 (83.9)
62 (100.0)
1 (3.1)
12 (37.5)
13 (40.6)
6 (18.8)
4 (13.3)
6 (20.0)
15 (50.0)
5 (16.7)
5 (8.1)
18 (29.0)
28 (45.2)
11 (17.7)
30 (93.8)
27 (84.4)
4(12.5)
9 (28.1)
6 (18.8)
5 (15.6)
5 (15.6)
24 (80.0)
22 (73.3)
6 (20.0)
5 (16.7)
8 (26.7)
7 (23.3)
6 (20.0)
54 (87.1)
49 (79.0)
10 (16.1)
14 (22.6)
14 (22.6)
12 (19.4)
11 (17.7)

Efficacy
Primary and secondary efficacy data are detailed in Table 3. There were no CR. Response rates in the PPP for
arm A and arm B were 26.7% and 18.2% and for the ITT population 28.1% and 13.3%, respectively. In addition,
40.0% and 36.4% (PPP), 40.6% and 33.3% (ITT) of patients respectively had SD. In brain lesions (10 patients),
no objective responses were observed but stabilization was achieved in three of four patients in arm A and one
of six in arm B.
As only 13 patients (including six censored in arm A and two in arm B) had an objective response, Kaplan-Meier
plots for DR were not constructed. The DR ranged between 1.45 + and 20.63+ months. Median PFS was similar
in arm A of the PPP compared with arm B (4.3 versus 4.4 months) but a difference of 1.4 months was observed
in the ITT population (4.7 versus 3.3 months, respectively). In arm B, two out of four patients with very short
PFS were excluded from the PPP (baseline tumor assessment done more than 31 days before first infusion) and
probably explain the difference in PFS between ITT and PPP. In the ITT population, median OS was 8.6 months
in arm A and 7.3 months in arm B (Figure 1) and the 1-year survival rate was 40.6% in arm A and 30.0% in arm

Page 6

Published in: Journal of Thoracic Oncology (2008), vol.3, pp. 894-901
Status: Postprint (Author’s version)

B.
Safety
Eight (25.0%) patients in arm A and nine (30.0%) patients in arm B experienced grade 3/4 treatment emergent
adverse events related to study treatment (Table 4). The highest incidences of such events (nonhematological)
were infection (9.4%) and vomiting (6.3%) in arm A, and infection (10.0%), diarrhea and allergic reaction
(6.7%) in arm B. Of note, a similar rate of patients experienced grade 3/4 infection related to study treatment.
However, more patients experienced grade 3/4 infection regardless of relationship to study treatment (with or
without neutropenia) in arm B compared with arm A (12.5% in arm A; 26.7% in arm B). Given that the excess
of infection cases in arm B seemed not to be related to treatment, that the patients were randomized to the study
arms and that there were no obvious imbalances in patient/ disease characteristics at baseline that might explain
this excess, this is most likely a chance finding.
Neutropenia was the most common grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity in both arms (arm A: 46.9%, arm B: 41.4%),
with grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia reported for only one patient (3.4%) in arm B. Two (6.3%) patients
experienced febrile neutropenia in arm A (no patients in arm B), and three (10.0%) patients experienced
neutropenic infection in each arm.
The incidence of peripheral neurotoxicity was similar in both arms (arm A: 18.8%, arm B: 20.0%) with no
patients experiencing grade 3. More any grade creatinine increase was noted for arm A compared with arm B
(37.5% versus 10%). However, this was grade 1 in all but two (6.3%) patients (grade 2, which subsequently
improved to grade 1).
One patient in arm A (3.1%) and four patients in arm B (13.3%) died within 30 days of the last treatment
administration (Table 5). Two of the deaths in arm B (6.7%) were considered to be related to study treatment:
one patient died of infection (with concomitant grade 3/4 neutropenia) on day 11 of the last infusion at cycle 2,
and another died of infection (with concomitant grade 3/4 neutropenia) on day 7 of the last infusion at cycle 1.

TABLE 2. Exposure to Treatment
Exposure Arm A Arm B

No. of treated patients
Cumulative dose, (mg/m2)
Median (range)
Actual dose intensity, (mg/m2/wk)
Median (range)
Relative dose intensity
Median (range)
Larotaxel Cisplatin Larotaxel Gemcitabine
32 32 28 30
200.9 (49.3-397.9) 301.4 (73.9-588.4) 238.0 (59.5-364.9) 6373.3 (767.1-9731.8)
16.3 (14.3-17.4) 24.5 (21.3-25.7) 18.9 (10.9-20.2) 498.3 (255.7-539.9)
0.98 (0.86-1.04) 0.98 (0.85-1.03) 0.94 (0.54-1.01) 0.93 (0.48-1.01)

Page 7

Published in: Journal of Thoracic Oncology (2008), vol.3, pp. 894-901
Status: Postprint (Author’s version)

TABLE 3. Primary and Secondary Efficacy Data in the Per-Protocol and ITT Populations
PPP ITT Parameter
Arm A (N = 30) Arm B (N = 22) Arm A (N = 32) Arm B (N = 30)
Response, n (%)
Complete response (CR)
Partial response (PR)
No change/stable disease
Progressive disease
Not evaluable
Overall response rate
(CR + PR)
[95% CI]
Median PFS (mo)
[95% CI]
Median overall survival (mo)
[95% CI]
1-yr survival (mo)

— — — —
8 (26.7)
12 (40.0)
8 (26.7)
2 (6.7)
8a (26.7)
4 (18.2)
8 (36.4)
9 (40.9)
1 (4.5)
4 (18.2)
9 (28.1)
13 (40.6)
8 (25.0)
2 (6.3)
9 (28.1)
4 (13.3)
10 (33.3)
10 (33.3)
6 (20)
4 (13.3)
[12.3, 45.9]
4.3
[2.76, 4.96]
ND


[5.2, 40.3]
4.4
[1.54, 6.08]
ND


[13.7, 46.7]
4.7
[2.92, 6.21]
8.6
[5.39, 16.03]
40.6%
[3.8, 30.7]
3.3
[1.45, 5.42]
7.3
[4.76, 11.07]
30.0%
a One patient achieving a response was ineligible for inclusion in the PPP population as a consequence of major protocol deviations at study
entry (baseline tumor assessment more than 31 d prior to first infusion and previous radiotherapy).
PPP, per-protocol population; ITT, intention to treat population; Arm A, larotaxel + cisplatin; Arm B, larotaxel + gemcitabine; PFS,
progression-free survival; ND, not determined; CI, confidence interval.

FIGURE 1. Kaplan-Meier curve for overall survival in the ITT population.

Page 8

Published in: Journal of Thoracic Oncology (2008), vol.3, pp. 894-901
Status: Postprint (Author’s version)

TABLE 4. Summary of Adverse Events in Each Study Arm, Treatment Emergent Adverse Events Related to
Study Treatment by Category and Terms (Reported for ≥2 Patients at Grade 3/4 or ≥3 Patients at any Grade)
and Hematological Toxicity
Adverse Events Summary, N (%) Arm A
(N = 32)
Arm B
(N = 30)
At least one TEAE regardless of
relationship to study treatment
At least one TEAE possibly or probably
related to study treatment
At least one grade 3/4 TEAE regardless of
relationship to study treatment
30 (93.8) 30 (100.0)
26 (81.3) 26 (86.7)
16 (50.0) 20 (66.7)
At least one grade 3/4 TEAE possibly or
probably related to study treatment
Adverse Events: NCI-CTC
Category/Term, N (%)
Allergy/immunology
Allergic reaction/hypersensitivity
Cardiovascular (general)
Edema
Constitutional symptoms
Fatigue
Fever
Dermatology
Alopecia
Rash/desquamation
Gastrointestinal
Anorexia
Constipation
Diarrhea
Nausea
Stomatitis/pharyngitis
Vomiting
Infection
Infectiona
Neurology
Neuropathy sensory
Pain
Abdominal pain cramping
Hematological
Leukopenia
Neutropenia
Anemia
Thrombocytopenia
Neutropenic complications
Febrile neutropenia
Related neutropenic infection
Grade 3
Related neutropenic infection
Grade 4
a Neutropenic infection.
Arm A, larotaxel + cisplatin; Arn B, larotaxel + gemcitabine; NCI-CTC, National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria; TEAE,
treatment emergent adverse event
8 (25.0) 9 (30.0)

Grade 3/4

Any Grade

Grade 3/4

Any Grade
3 (10.0)
3 (10.0)
5 (16.7)
3 (10.0)
11 (36.7)
9 (30.0)
3 (10.0)
19 (63.3)
16 (53.3)
5 (16.7)
19 (63.3)
7 (23.3)
2 (6.7)
10 (33.3)
15 (50.0)
4 (13.3)
10 (33.3)
4(13.3)
3 (10.0)
7 (23.3)
6 (20.0)
5 (16.7)
1 (3.3)
—
—
—
—
4(12.5)
4(12.5)
2 (6.3)
1 (3.1)
14 (43.8)
13 (40.6)
3 (9.4)
14 (43.8)
14 (43.8)
1 (3.1)
22 (68.8)
8 (25.0)
4(12.5)
10(31.3)
17 (53.1)
3 (9.4)
12 (37.5)
3 (9.4)
3 (9.4)
7 (21.9)
6 (18.8)
4 (12.5)
3 (9.4)

19 (59.4)
21 (65.6)
29 (90.6)
—






2 (6.7)
2 (6.7)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3 (10.0)
—
_
2 (6.7)
1 (3.3)
—
1 (3.3)
3 (10.0)
3 (10.0)
—
—
1 (3.3)
—

8 (27.6)
12 (41.4)
1 (3.4)
1 (3.4)

—
1 (3.3)

2 (6.7)

2 (6,3)
1 (3.1)
—
—
—
—
3 (9.4)
—
—
1 (3.1)
—
—
2 (6.3)
3 (9.4)
3 (9.4)
—
—
—
—

9 (28.1)
15 (46.9)
3 (9.4)
—

2 (6.3)
2 (6.3)

1 (3.1)


18 (62.1)
19 (65.5)
26 (89.7)
11 (37.9)

Page 9

Published in: Journal of Thoracic Oncology (2008), vol.3, pp. 894-901
Status: Postprint (Author’s version)

DISCUSSION
Cisplatin is one of the most efficient drugs in NSCLC, but requires hyperhydration and induces some cumulative
toxicities that may be difficult to manage such as renal impairment, peripheral neuropathy, and ototoxicity. To
decrease toxicity associated with cisplatin-based doublets, a number of studies have investigated whether
carboplatin-based and nonplatinum combinations including gemcitabine instead of cisplatin might confer
equivalent efficacy but lower toxicity. A first meta-analysis has suggested the superiority of cisplatin over
carboplatin in terms of survival.22 Another recent meta-analysis of 11 phase III studies has indicated that patients
treated with a platinum-based regimen benefited from a statistically significant reduction in the risk of death at 1
year (p = 0.04) compared with those receiving a nonplati-num regimen. This benefit was associated with a
significantly increased but acceptable risk of severe toxicity.23 Following these two meta-analyses, the standard
of care in this setting therefore remains a cisplatin-based doublet.
TABLE 5. Summary of Deaths
Arm A
(N = 32)
Arm B
(N = 30)
25 (83.3)
4 (13.3)
1 (3.3)
2 (6.7)
1 (3.3)
21 (70.0)
ALL
(N = 62)
54 (87.1)
5(8.1)
1 (1.6)
2 (3.2)
2 (3.2)
49 (79.0)
Total deaths
Within 30 d of last administration of study treatment
Malignant disease
Toxicity from study medication
Other causesa
More than 30 d after last administration of study
treatment
Malignant disease
Toxicity from study medication
Other causesb
a Other causes, "progression of lung cancer" in arm A and "cerebrovascular event" in arm B.
b Other cause, infection considered as not related to study treatment, occurring on day 63 after last study treatment administration.
29 (90.6)
1 (3.1)
—
—
1 (3.1)
28 (87.5)
27 (84.4)
—
1 (3.1)
21 (70.0)
—
—
48 (77.4)
—
1 (1.6)

The objective of the current study was to investigate the activity and tolerability of a new taxane, larotaxel,
combined with either cisplatin (arm A) or gemcitabine (arm B) in the first-line treatment of NSCLC. The
objective response rates favored arm A over arm B in both the per-protocol (difference of 8.5%) and ITT
(difference of 14.8%) populations. In addition, with the caution due to the small sample size in both arms, the
observed median OS time was longer in the ITT population for larotaxel combined to cisplatin compared with
larotaxel combined to gemcitabine by 8.6 and 7.3 months and the 1-year survival rate was higher (40.6% versus
30.0%, respectively).
Several phase II and large phase III studies have reported efficacy data for docetaxel/cisplatin or paclitaxel/
cisplatin combinations used as first-line treatments for advanced NSCLC. Response rates ranged between 17%
and 37%, with median OS lying between 7.4 and 11.3 months and 1-year survival between 31% and 48%.6,24-26
Efficacy parameters for larotaxel/cisplatin are therefore included within these ranges. However, efficacy
parameters for larotaxel/ gemcitabine generally compare less favorably with the taxane/gemcitabine arms of
phase II and III first-line NSCLC studies, in which response rates were reported to lie between 20% and 35%,
OS between 6.8 and 13 months and 1-year survival between 30% and 56%.27-31 Efficacy data in the current study
therefore favor the combination of larotaxel/ cisplatin, especially given the meta-analysis data indicating that
platinum-based doublets may generally be more effective than nonplatinum regimens.23
The overall incidence of grade 3/4 toxicities related to study treatment was comparable between arms. However,
grade 3/4 infection, with or without neutropenia was more common in arm B including two treatment-related
deaths, due to neutropenic infection. Levels of neurotoxicity were comparable between arms and with no grade
3/4 events observed. Severe neurotoxicity seemed to be less common than has previously been reported for
taxane/cisplatin combinations.6,24,26 Renal toxicity, which was more frequent in arm A, was mild (grade 1 or 2)
as was edema, which occurred in 3% and 10% of patients in arms A and B, respectively. Nail changes,
characteristically associated with taxane therapy,32 were not reported for any patient. The safety profile of both
combinations was considered to be acceptable.
In summary, although there were some differences in the safety profile, with more grade 1/2 renal toxicity with
larotaxel/cisplatin, and more infection with larotaxel/gemcit-abine, this study has demonstrated that larotaxel in

Page 10

Published in: Journal of Thoracic Oncology (2008), vol.3, pp. 894-901
Status: Postprint (Author’s version)

combination with either cisplatin or gemcitabine is feasible. As for previous new agents in NCSLC, and noting
that the results of this randomized phase II study cannot be generalized to other untested nonplatinum/larotaxel
combinations, the combination of larotaxel with cisplatin had a more favorable efficacy (comparable to
established taxane/cisplatin combinations) than the combination of larotaxel with a nonplatinum compound.
Future phase II studies exploring the efficacy of cisplatin/larotaxel/targeted agent combinations in this setting
can be envisaged.

Acknowledgments
We thank the patients who enrolled on this trial and the medical staff who contributed to their care.
References
1. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2005;55:74-108.
2. Cartman ML, Hatfield AC, Muers MF, et al. Lung cancer: district active treatment rates affect survival. J
Epidemiol Community Health 2002;56: 424-429.
3. Makitaro R, Paakko P, Huhti E, et al. Prospective population-based study on the survival of patients with lung
cancer. Eur Respir J 2002;19:1087-1092.
4. Pfister DG, Johnson DH, Azzoli CG, et al. American society of clinical oncology treatment of unresectable
non-small-cell lung cancer guideline: update 2003. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:330-353.
5. Kelly K, Crowley J, Bunn PA Jr, et al. Randomized phase III trial of paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus
vinorelbine plus cisplatin in the treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a Southwest
oncology group trial. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3210-3218.
6. Schiller JH, Harrington D, Belani CP, et al. Comparison of four chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-
small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;346:92-98.
7. Blackhall F, Thatcher N. Chemotherapy for advanced lung cancer. Eur J Cancer 2004;40:2345-2348.
8. Bunn PA Jr. Chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: who, what, when, why? J Clin Oncol
2002;20:23S-33S.
9. Rigas JR. Taxane-platinum combinations in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a review. Oncologist
2004;9(suppl 2): 16-23.
10. Bissery MC. Preclinical evaluation of new taxoids. Curr Pharm Des 2001;7:1251-1257.
11. Sessa C, Cuvier C, Caldiera S, et al. Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic studies of the taxoid derivative
RPR 109881A administered as a 1-hour or a 3-hour infusion in patients with advanced solid tumors. Ann Oncol
2002;13:1140-1150.
12. Kurata T, Shimada Y, Tamura T, et al. Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of a new taxoid, RPR 109881A,
given as a 1-hour intravenous infusion in patients with advanced solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 3164-
3471.
13. Gelmon KA, Latreille J, Tolcher A, et al. Phase I dose-finding study of a new taxane, RPR 109881 A,
administered as a one-hour intravenous infusion days 1 and 8 to patients with advanced solid tumors. J Clin
Oncol 2000;18:4098-4108.
14. Slaughter M, Pazdur R, Hoff PM, et al. Phase I trial of RPR 109881A (RPR), a novel taxoid derivative,
administered as a 24-hour continuous infusion. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998;16:abstract 748.
15. Barthier S, Dieras V, Kalla S, et al. A phase I and pharmacokinetics (PK) study of RPR 109881A given as 6-
hour iv infusion in patients (pts) with advanced solid tumors. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998;16:abstract 747.

Page 11

Published in: Journal of Thoracic Oncology (2008), vol.3, pp. 894-901
Status: Postprint (Author’s version)

16. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid
tumors. European organization for research and treatment of cancer, National cancer institute of the United
States, National cancer institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:205-216.
17. Georgoulias V, Kouroussis C, Androulakis N, et al. Front-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung
cancer with docetaxel and gemcitabine: a multicenter phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:914-920.
18. Simon R, Wittes RE, Ellenberg SS. Randomized phase II clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rep 1985;69:1375-
1381.
19. Clopper CJ, Pearson E. The use of confidence intervals or fiducial limits illustrated in cases of the binomial.
Biometrika 1934;26:404-413.
20. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc
1958;53:457-481.
21. Brookmeyer R, Crowley J. A confidence interval for the median survival time. Biometrics 1982;38:29-41.
22. Hotta K, Matsuo K, Ueoka H, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing cisplatin to
carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:3852-3859.
23. Pujol JL, Barlesi F, Daures JP. Should chemotherapy combinations for advanced non-small cell lung cancer
be platinum-based? A meta-analysis of phase III randomized trials. Lung Cancer 2006;51:335-345.
24. Fossella F, Pereira JR, von Pawel J, et.al.Randomized, multinational, phase III study of docetaxel plus
platinum combinations versus vinorel-bine plus cisplatin for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the TAX 326
study group. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:3016-3024.
25. Kubota K, Watanabe K, Kunitoh H, et al. Phase III randomized trial of docetaxel plus cisplatin versus
vindesine plus cisplatin in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer: the Japanese Taxotere Lung Cancer
Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:254-261.
26. Zalcberg J, Millward M, Bishop J, et al. Phase II study of docetaxel and cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell
lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 1948-1953.
27. Georgoulias V, Ardavanis A, Tsiafaki X, et al. Vinorelbine plus cisplatin versus docetaxel plus gemcitabine
in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:2937-2945.
28. Kosmidis P, Mylonakis N, Nicolaides C, et al. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus gemcitabine plus paclitaxel
in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:3578-3585.
29. Pujol JL, Breton JL, Gervais R, et al. Gemcitabine-docetaxel versus cisplatin-vinorelbine in advanced or
metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III study addressing the case for cisplatin. Ann Oncol
2005;16:602-610.
30. Rocha Lima CM, Rizvi NA, Zhang C, et al. Randomized phase II trial of gemcitabine plus irinotecan or
docetaxel in stage IIIB or stage IV NSCLC. Ann Oncol 2004;15:410-418.
31. Binder D, Schweisfurth H, Grab. C, et al. Docetaxel/gemcitabine or cisplatin/gemcitabine followed by
docetaxel in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): results of a
multicentre randomized phase II trial. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2006;60:143-150.
32. Minisini AM, Tosti A, Sobrero AF, et al. Taxane-induced nail changes: incidence, clinical presentation and
outcome. Ann Oncol 2003; 14:333-337.