Efficacy of erlotinib as first-line maintenance therapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsmall cell lung cancer who have not experienced disease progression or unacceptable toxicity during chemotherapy

Background: First-line maintenance with erlotinib in nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients without progression after four cycles of chemotherapy was well tolerated and significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo. Aim and Design: This open-label, single arm, Phase IV, interventional study was designed to evaluate erlotinib as first-line maintenance after chemotherapy in Indian NSCLC patients. Primary efficacy objective was to evaluate PFS rate (PFSR) at week 52 and secondary objectives were determination of PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate, and safety. Subjects and Methods: Patients were treated with erlotinib until disease progression/death/unacceptable toxicity or end of study. Patients with disease progression underwent scheduled clinical assessments every 12 weeks thereafter. Kaplan–Meier estimates were used to evaluate PFSR, PFS, and OS. The ORR was summarized using number and percentage along with two-sided 95% Clopper–Pearson confidence interval. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) was tabulated according to severity, outcome, and relationship to erlotinib. Results: Of the 51 enrolled patients, 47 patients completed the study (2: Continuing treatment, 41: Disease progression, and 4: Death) and four patients discontinued treatment (3: Lost to follow-up; 1: Withdrew consent). PFSR was 22.5% at 12 months, median PFS 99 days (14.14 weeks), and median OS was 671 days (22 months). The probability of OS was 74.5% at 14 months. The ORR was 25.5%, and disease control rate was 55.3%. AEs were reported in 62.7% and SAE in 7.8% of patients. Common AEs were diarrhea and rash. Conclusions: Erlotinib was well tolerated by Indian patients in first-line maintenance setting and resulted in median PFS of 14 weeks and median OS of 22 months better than previously reported and with no new safety concerns in this population

Tinzaparin vs warfarin for treatment of acute venous thromboembolism in patients with active cancer: A randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE Low-molecular-weight heparin is recommended over warfarin for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with active cancer largely based on results of a single, large trial. OBJECTIVE To study the efficacy and safety of tinzaparin vs warfarin for treatment of acute, symptomatic VTE in patients with active cancer. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS A randomized, open-label study with blinded central adjudication of study outcomes enrolled patients in 164 centers in Asia, Africa, Europe, and North, Central, and South America between August 2010 and November 2013. Adult patients with active cancer (defined as histologic diagnosis of cancer and receiving anticancer therapy or diagnosed with, or received such therapy, within the previous 6 months) and objectively documented proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism, with a life expectancy greater than 6 months and without contraindications for anticoagulation, were followed up for 180 days and for 30 days after the last study medication dose for collection of safety data. INTERVENTIONS Tinzaparin (175 IU/kg) once daily for 6 months vs conventional therapy with tinzaparin (175 IU/kg) once daily for 5 to 10 days followed by warfarin at a dose adjusted to maintain the international normalized ratio within the therapeutic range (2.0-3.0) for 6 months. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary efficacy outcome was a composite of centrally adjudicated recurrent DVT, fatal or nonfatal pulmonary embolism, and incidental VTE. Safety outcomes included major bleeding, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, and overall mortality. RESULTS Nine hundred patients were randomized and included in intention-to-treat efficacy and safety analyses. Recurrent VTE occurred in 31 of 449 patients treated with tinzaparin and 45 of 451 patients treated with warfarin (6-month cumulative incidence, 7.2% for tinzaparin vs 10.5% for warfarin; hazard ratio [HR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.41-1.03]; P = .07). There were no differences in major bleeding (12 patients for tinzaparin vs 11 patients for warfarin; HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.40-1.99]; P = .77) or overall mortality (150 patients for tinzaparin vs 138 patients for warfarin; HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.85-1.36]; P = .54). A significant reduction in clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding was observed with tinzaparin (49 of 449 patients for tinzaparin vs 69 of 451 patients for warfarin; HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.40-0.84]; P = .004). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with active cancer and acute symptomatic VTE, the use of full-dose tinzaparin (175 IU/kg) daily compared with warfarin for 6 months did not significantly reduce the composite measure of recurrent VTE and was not associated with reductions in overall mortality or major bleeding, but was associated with a lower rate of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Further studies are needed to assess whether the efficacy outcomes would be different in patients at higher risk of recurrent VTE