6 research outputs found

    Randomized Phase III Trial Comparing Single-Agent Paclitaxel Poliglumex (CT-2103, PPX) with Single-Agent Gemcitabine or Vinorelbine for the Treatment of PS 2 Patients with Chemotherapy-Naïve Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and impaired performance status (PS >or= 2) have limited life expectancies and decreased tolerance for drug-induced toxicities. Current treatment guidelines indicate that PS 2 patients benefit from systemic therapy. Further refinement of treatment in these patients requires reduction of treatment-associated toxicities while maintaining or improving efficacy. Paclitaxel poliglumex (PPX), a macromolecular polymer-drug conjugate of paclitaxel and poly-l-glutamic acid, may enhance the therapeutic index of paclitaxel. METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive PS 2 patients with advanced NSCLC randomly received single-agent PPX (175 mg/m) or a comparator (single-agent vinorelbine or gemcitabine). The primary end point of this study was overall survival. RESULTS: Overall survival was similar between treatment arms (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.95; log-rank p = 0.686). Median and 1-year survival were 7.3 months and 26%, respectively, for PPX versus 6.6 months and 26% for the control arm. There was a nonsignificant trend toward improved survival in women in the PPX arm compared with standard single agents (HR = 0.65; p = 0.069). The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events in the treatment versus control arm were dyspnea (13% versus 17%, respectively) and fatigue (10% versus 9%). Grade 3/4 neutropenia and anemia were reduced in the PPX arm (2% versus 8% and 3% versus 9%, respectively). Neuropathy, a taxane-specific toxicity, was more common in the PPX arm; grade 3 neuropathy was limited to 3%. CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent PPX, dosed at 175 mg/m, is active and well tolerated in PS 2 patients with advanced NSCLC. Patients on PPX required fewer red blood cell transfusions, hematopoietic growth factors, opioid analgesics, and clinic visits than patients receiving gemcitabine or vinorelbine

    Randomized Phase III Trial Comparing Single-Agent Paclitaxel Poliglumex (CT-2103, PPX) with Single-Agent Gemcitabine or Vinorelbine for the Treatment of PS 2 Patients with Chemotherapy-Naïve Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

    Get PDF
    BackgroundPatients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and impaired performance status (PS ≥ 2) have limited life expectancies and decreased tolerance for drug-induced toxicities. Current treatment guidelines indicate that PS 2 patients benefit from systemic therapy. Further refinement of treatment in these patients requires reduction of treatment-associated toxicities while maintaining or improving efficacy. Paclitaxel poliglumex (PPX), a macromolecular polymer–drug conjugate of paclitaxel and poly-l-glutamic acid, may enhance the therapeutic index of paclitaxel.MethodsChemotherapy-naive PS 2 patients with advanced NSCLC randomly received single-agent PPX (175 mg/m2) or a comparator (single-agent vinorelbine or gemcitabine). The primary end point of this study was overall survival.ResultsOverall survival was similar between treatment arms (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.95; log-rank p = 0.686). Median and 1-year survival were 7.3 months and 26%, respectively, for PPX versus 6.6 months and 26% for the control arm. There was a nonsignificant trend toward improved survival in women in the PPX arm compared with standard single agents (HR = 0.65; p = 0.069). The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events in the treatment versus control arm were dyspnea (13% versus 17%, respectively) and fatigue (10% versus 9%). Grade 3/4 neutropenia and anemia were reduced in the PPX arm (2% versus 8% and 3% versus 9%, respectively). Neuropathy, a taxane-specific toxicity, was more common in the PPX arm; grade 3 neuropathy was limited to 3%.ConclusionsSingle-agent PPX, dosed at 175 mg/m2, is active and well tolerated in PS 2 patients with advanced NSCLC. Patients on PPX required fewer red blood cell transfusions, hematopoietic growth factors, opioid analgesics, and clinic visits than patients receiving gemcitabine or vinorelbine

    Analysis of KRAS/NRAS mutations in a phase III study of panitumumab with FOLFIRI compared with FOLFIRI alone as second-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer

    No full text
    We evaluated the influence of RAS mutation status on the treatment effect of panitumumab in a prospective-retrospective analysis of a randomized, multicenter phase III study of panitumumab plus fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) versus FOLFIRI alone as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT0039183). Outcomes were from the study's primary analysis. RAS mutations beyond KRAS exon 2 (KRAS exons 3, 4; NRAS exons 2, 3, 4; BRAF exon 15) were detected by bidirectional Sanger sequencing in wild-type KRAS exon 2 tumor specimens. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were coprimary endpoints. The RAS ascertainment rate was 85%; 18% of wild-type KRAS exon 2 tumors harbored other RAS mutations. For PFS and OS, the hazard ratio (HR) for panitumumab plus FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI alone more strongly favored panitumumab in the wild-type RAS population than in the wild-type KRAS exon 2 population [PFS HR, 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.91); P = 0.007 vs. 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59-0.90); P = 0.004; OS HR, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.63-1.03); P = 0.08 vs. 0.85 (95% CI, 0.70-1.04); P = 0.12]. Patients with RAS mutations were unlikely to benefit from panitumumab. Among RAS wild-type patients, the objective response rate was 41% in the panitumumab-FOLFIRI group versus 10% in the FOLFIRI group. Patients with RAS mutations were unlikely to benefit from panitumumab-FOLFIRI and the benefit-risk of panitumumab-FOLFIRI was improved in the wild-type RAS population compared with the wild-type KRAS exon 2 population. These findings support RAS testing for patients with mCRC. Clin Cancer Res; 21(24); 5469-79. ©2015 AACR.See related commentary by Salazar and Ciardiello, p. 541
    corecore