Treatment rationale and study design for a phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of maintenance pemetrexed plus best supportive care versus best supportive care immediately following induction treatment with pemetrexed plus cisplatin for advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial Registry: Clinicaltrials.gov REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00789373 TRIAL ABBREVIATION: H3E-EW-S124.BACKGROUND: To improve the efficacy of first-line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), additional maintenance chemotherapy may be given after initial induction chemotherapy in patients who did not progress during the initial treatment, rather than waiting for disease progression to administer second-line treatment. Maintenance therapy may consist of an agent that either was or was not present in the induction regimen. The antifolate pemetrexed is efficacious in combination with cisplatin for first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC and has shown efficacy as a maintenance agent in studies in which it was not included in the induction regimen. We designed a phase III study to determine if pemetrexed maintenance therapy improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after cisplatin/pemetrexed induction therapy in patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Furthermore, since evidence suggests expression levels of thymidylate synthase, the primary target of pemetrexed, may be associated with responsiveness to pemetrexed, translational research will address whether thymidylate synthase expression correlates with efficacy outcomes of pemetrexed. METHODS/DESIGN: Approximately 900 patients will receive four cycles of induction chemotherapy consisting of pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) and cisplatin (75 mg/m2) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 who have not progressed during induction therapy will randomly receive (in a 2:1 ratio) one of two double-blind maintenance regimens: pemetrexed (500 mg/m2 on day 1 of a 21-day cycle) plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC. The primary objective is to compare PFS between treatment arms. Secondary objectives include a fully powered analysis of OS, objective tumor response rate, patient-reported outcomes, resource utilization, and toxicity. Tumor specimens for translational research will be obtained from consenting patients before induction treatment, with a second biopsy performed in eligible patients following the induction phase. DISCUSSION: Although using a drug as maintenance therapy that was not used in the induction regimen exposes patients to an agent with a different mechanism of action, evidence suggests that continued use of an agent present in the induction regimen as maintenance therapy enables the identification of patients most likely to benefit from maintenance treatment.Ye

Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma-Results from the International Expanded Access Program using pemetrexed alone or in combination with a platinum agent

AIM: Peritoneal mesothelioma (PM) has rarely been studied. The Expanded Access Program (EAP) provided access to 109 patients with PM. METHODS: This was a nonrandomized, open-label study conducted in chemo-naïve or previously treated patients with PM not amenable to curative surgery. Patients received pemetrexed (PEM) 500mg/m(2) alone or with cisplatin (CIS) 75mg/m(2) or carboplatin (CARBO) AUC 5 every 21 days, supplemented with standard vitamin B(12), folate, and dexamethasone. RESULTS: Response rates (95% CI) for PEM, PEM/CIS, and PEM/CARBO were 12.5% (3.5, 29.0), 20.0% (7.7, 38.6), and 24.1% (10.3, 43.5), respectively. Median survival for PEM was 10.3 months. One-year survival rates for PEM/CIS and PEM were 57.4% (95% CI: 10.3, 100) and 41.5% (95% CI: 4.6, 78.4), respectively, and were not available for PEM/CARBO. Anemia was the most common serious adverse event (6.4%). Neutropenia (34.6%) was the most frequent CTC grade 3 or 4 toxicity reported. CONCLUDING STATEMENT: PEM with or without a platinum agent was both active and well tolerated in patients with peritoneal mesothelioma

Survival without toxicity for cisplatin plus pemetrexed versus cisplatin plus gemcitabine in chemonaïve patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A risk-benefit analysis of a large phase III study

PubMed ID: 19473833Background: In a large phase III study, cisplatin and pemetrexed had non-inferior efficacy and better tolerability compared with cisplatin and gemcitabine in chemonaïve patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The current analysis characterised the clinical benefit (i.e. survival) relative to clinical risk (i.e. drug-related toxicity) of the doublets. Patients and methods: A total of 1669 patients (of 1725 randomised) received 500 mg/m 2 pemetrexed IV followed by 75 mg/m 2 cisplatin IV on day 1 or gemcitabine 1250 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8 and 75 mg/m 2 cisplatin on day 1, administered every 3 weeks for up to 6 cycles. Survival without toxicity (i.e. clinical benefit to risk) was defined as the time from randomisation to the first occurrence of any grade 3 or 4 drug-related toxicity or death, and was analysed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox methods. Results: In the overall patient population, survival without grade 3 or 4 drug-related toxicity was significantly longer for patients treated with cisplatin and pemetrexed versus cisplatin and gemcitabine (HR = 0.70; P < 0.001), as was survival without grade 4 drug-related toxicity (HR = 0.83; P < 0.001). For patients with non-squamous NSCLC, survival without toxicity with cisplatin and pemetrexed was superior to cisplatin and gemcitabine for grade 3 or 4 drug-related toxicity (HR = 0.64; P < 0.001) and for grade 4 drug-related toxicity (HR = 0.77; P < 0.001), whereas no treatment-arm difference was observed in the squamous subgroup. Conclusions: Patients with non-squamous NSCLC treated with front-line cisplatin and pemetrexed have superior survival without toxicity (i.e. clinical benefit-to-risk profile) compared with patients treated with cisplatin and gemcitabine. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Eli Lilly and Company Eli Lilly and CompanyDr. Renato Martins received honoraria and research funding from Eli Lilly and Company. Dr. Keunchil Park received an honorarium from Eli Lilly and Company for an Advisory meeting. Drs. Carla Visseren-Grul and Patrick Peterson are employees of Eli Lilly and Company, and as such, own Lilly stock. Dr. Tuncay Goksel received honoraria from Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, Roche and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Giorgio Scagliotti received honoraria from Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi-Aventis, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. Drs. Steven J.M. Gans, Shekar Patil and Janusz Rolski have no relationships to disclose. -- The study was sponsored and funded by Eli Lilly and Company. As the sponsor, Eli Lilly was involved in the study design, in the collection, analysis and interpretation of the data; in the writing of the manuscript; and in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The authors would like to thank all the patients for their participation in this study. They would also like to thank Mary Alice Miller Ph.D., Noelle Gasco and Donna Miller from Eli Lilly and Company for their writing, editorial and administrative assistance, respectively. -

Randomized double-blind phase II trial comparing gemcitabine plus LY293111 versus gemcitabine plus placebo in advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreas

LY293111 (LY) is a novel oral anticancer agent with leukotriene B4 receptor antagonist and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma agonist properties, producing promising results alone and in combination with gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer xenograft models. A phase I study proved that the combination (gemcitabine plus LY) is safe and well tolerated. Chemotherapy-naive patients with histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were randomly assigned to gemcitabine 1000 mg/m on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle and continuously administered LY 600 mg twice daily or gemcitabine 1000 mg/m on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle and daily oral placebo. Arms were balanced for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and disease stage. The primary end point was 6-month survival; secondary objectives include response rate (RR), progression-free survival, and overall survival. Six-month survival was not different between groups (P>0.2, 1-sided); progression-free survival and RR were not different (P>0.05, 2-sided). RR was also not impacted. LY did not increase grades 3-4 hematologic toxicities, but was associated with a trend toward more, grades 3-4 diarrhea. These results do not demonstrate any benefit to adding LY to gemcitabine in unpretreated patients with advanced pancreatic carcinom