Phase III Study Comparing Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine With Cisplatin Plus Pemetrexed in Chemotherapy-Naive Patients With Advanced-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

University of California, Davis, Davis, California, United States
Journal of Clinical Oncology (Impact Factor: 18.43). 07/2008; 26(21):3543-51. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.0375
Source: PubMed


Cisplatin plus gemcitabine is a standard regimen for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Phase II studies of pemetrexed plus platinum compounds have also shown activity in this setting.
This noninferiority, phase III, randomized study compared the overall survival between treatment arms using a fixed margin method (hazard ratio [HR] < 1.176) in 1,725 chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1. Patients received cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (n = 863) or cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 (n = 862) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles.
Overall survival for cisplatin/pemetrexed was noninferior to cisplatin/gemcitabine (median survival, 10.3 v 10.3 months, respectively; HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.05). Overall survival was statistically superior for cisplatin/pemetrexed versus cisplatin/gemcitabine in patients with adenocarcinoma (n = 847; 12.6 v 10.9 months, respectively) and large-cell carcinoma histology (n = 153; 10.4 v 6.7 months, respectively). In contrast, in patients with squamous cell histology, there was a significant improvement in survival with cisplatin/gemcitabine versus cisplatin/pemetrexed (n = 473; 10.8 v 9.4 months, respectively). For cisplatin/pemetrexed, rates of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia (P <or= .001); febrile neutropenia (P = .002); and alopecia (P < .001) were significantly lower, whereas grade 3 or 4 nausea (P = .004) was more common.
In advanced NSCLC, cisplatin/pemetrexed provides similar efficacy with better tolerability and more convenient administration than cisplatin/gemcitabine. This is the first prospective phase III study in NSCLC to show survival differences based on histologic type.

Download full-text


Available from: Raghunadharao Digumarti, Oct 04, 2015
  • Source
    • "Standard first-line therapy for advanced NSCLC consists of systemic platinum-based doublet chemotherapy, including cisplatin or carboplatin, combined with taxanes, pemetrexed and gemcitabine. Although several combinations are used, none has yet shown superiority [5] [6] [7]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The combination use of gefitinib and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) testing is a standard first-line therapy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we examined the cost-effectiveness of this approach in Japan. Our analysis compared the 'EGFR testing strategy', in which EGFR mutation testing was performed before treatment and patients with EGFR mutations received gefitinib while those without mutations received standard chemotherapy, to the 'no-testing strategy,' in which genetic testing was not conducted and all patients were treated with standard chemotherapy. A three-state Markov model was constructed to predict expected costs and outcomes for each strategy. We included only direct medical costs from the healthcare payer's perspective. Outcomes in the model were based on those reported in the Iressa Pan-Asia Study (IPASS). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted. The incremental cost and effectiveness per patient of the 'EGFR testing strategy' compared to the 'no-testing strategy' was estimated to be approximately JP¥122,000 (US$1180; US$1=JP¥104 as of February 2014) and 0.036 QALYs. The ICER was then calculated to be around JP¥3.38 million (US$32,500) per QALY gained. These results suggest that the 'EGFR testing strategy' is cost-effective compared with the 'no-testing strategy' when JP¥5.0 million to 6.0 million per QALY gained is considered an acceptable threshold. These results were supported by the sensitivity and scenario analyses. The combination use of gefitinib and EGFR testing can be considered a cost-effective first-line therapy compared to chemotherapy such as carboplatin-paclitaxel for the treatment for NSCLC in Japan. Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.. All rights reserved.
    Preview · Article · Jul 2015 · Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
  • Source
    • "Bevacizumab , a monoclonal antibody targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), was approved in 2006 in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel, specifically excluding patients with squamous carcinomas (SQC) because of an unacceptably high rate of severe hemoptysis [6]. Similarly, the survival benefit of pemetrexed, initially approved in 2004 for sec- J Cancer Res 2015;5(7):2229-2240 ond-line treatment, proved to be restricted to non-squamous histology [7]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Erlotinib, bevacizumab, and pemetrexed improved survival of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mN-SCLC) in clinical trials, but their benefits are restricted to non-squamous histology. We studied recent survival trends in mNSCLC subpopulations defined by histology and associated clinical factors correlating with adenocarcinoma or endothelial growth factor receptor mutations. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database, we calculated relative survival at 1 year from diagnosis for mNSCLC cases diagnosed in 2000-2011. Trends by histol-ogy, age, sex, race, prevalence of smoking or poverty, expressed as annual percent change (APC) using joinpoint regression, were compared by test of slope parallelism (P par). Among 226,446 cases, 47% had adenocarcinoma, 20% squamous carcinoma, 6% other, and 27% unspecified histology. The proportion of cases designated as ad-enocarcinoma significantly increased after 2005. One-year survival increased from 23.5% in 2000 to 30.5% in 2010, significantly more for adenocarcinoma (APC, 3.3%) than squamous carcinoma (APC, 2.1%, P par =0.0018). For patients with adenocarcinoma, these trends were significantly better for Asians than Whites (P par =0.012) and for areas with fewer smokers (P par =0.014). Such differences were not observed for squamous carcinoma (P par =0.87 and 0.14, respectively). The absolute disparity in one-year survival between adenocarcinoma and squamous carcinoma increased from 1.6% in 2000 to 5.5% in 2010. The disparity between Asians and Whites increased from 5.2% to 13.1%, respectively. These data demonstrate that improvement in survival of mNSCLC since 2000 is now evident on a population scale. The superior increment for patients with adenocarcinoma, particularly among Asians and in communities with fewer smokers, suggests impact of the newly introduced, histology-specific agents, rather than better supportive care alone. Growing disparities between adenocarcinoma and squamous carcinoma highlight the needs to intensify research on treatment for subgroups that did not benefit from recent advances.
    Full-text · Article · Jul 2015 · American Journal of Cancer Research
  • Source
    • "Apart from the entirely undifferentiated LCC, the current 2004-WHO classification recognizes five different variants of LCC, namely clear cell carcinoma (CCC), lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma (LELC), LCC with rhabdoid phenotype (LCC-R), basaloid carcinoma (BC) and large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) [1]. In our and others' views [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12], this sub-classification of LCC is a source of confusion, because BC shows a SQC lineage and should be classified accordingly, LELC should be restricted to Epstein–Barr virus-related neoplasms with SQC lineage (as seen in the relevant head & neck tumors), most LCC-R and at least two third of CCC are definitely poorly-differentiated ADC, and LCNEC belongs to the spectrum of NET. A rare subset of LCC do not react with any of the specific lineage markers ( " null phenotype " ) or shows immunohistochemistry (IHC) negativity for ADC markers in the presence of only focal positivity for squamous or NE markers ( " unclear phenotype " ) and remain part of the LCC- NOS category when dealing with surgical specimens, and of the NSCLC-NOS group in the case of cytology/biopsy samples, provided that metastatic or other uncommon pulmonary tumors (e.g., sarcomatoid or NUT midline carcinomas) have been reasonably excluded (Fig. 2). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Large cell carcinoma (LCC) is a merely descriptive term indicating a subtype of lung cancer with no specific features of small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), adenocarcinoma (ADC) or squamous cell carcinoma (SQC). This diagnosis is allowed on surgical specimens only, whereas its counterpart in biopsy/cytology samples is non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), not otherwise specified (NOS). Although these two terms do not fulfill the same concept, they can be interchangeable synonyms at the clinical level, reflecting, in different ways, the inability to define a specific subtype. Immunohistochemistry (IHC), next generation sequencing (NGS) analysis and, historically, electron microscopy have been unveiling diverse cell differentiation lineages in LCC, resulting in LCC-favor ADC, LCC-favor SQC and LCC-favor large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC), the latter hopefully to be included into the neuroendocrine tumor (NET) group in the future. Paradoxically, however, the interpretation issues of LCC/NSCLC-NOS are not diminishing, but even increasing albeight an accurate diagnosis is oncologically required and crucial. Also, rare LCC/NSCLC-NOS cases exhibiting null/unclear phenotype, are difficult to classify, and this terminology could be maintained for the sake of classification (basically these tumors are serendipitous ADC, as also confirmed by the lack of p40). In this review article, seven relevant issues to LCC have been addressed by using a question-answer methodology, with final key points discussing major interpretation issues. In conclusion, most LCC/NSCLC-NOS may be eventually re-classified and addressed by exploiting IHC and/or molecular testing to satisfy the criteria of precision medicine (the right drug, to the right patient, at the right time).
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2015 · Lung Cancer
Show more