Switch-maintenance gemcitabine after first-line chemotherapy in patients with malignant mesothelioma (NVALT19):an investigator-initiated, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial

Background Almost all patients with malignant mesothelioma eventually have disease progression after first-line therapy. Previous studies have investigated maintenance therapy, but none has shown a great effect. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of switch-maintenance gemcitabine in patients with malignant mesothelioma without disease progression after first-line chemotherapy. Methods We did a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial in 18 hospitals in the Netherlands (NVALT19). We recruited patients aged older than 18 years with unresectable malignant mesothelioma with no evidence of disease progression after at least four cycles of first-line chemotherapy (with platinum and pemetrexed), who had a WHO performance status of 0-2, adequate organ function, and measurable or evaluable disease. Exclusion criteria were active uncontrolled infection or severe cardiac dysfunction, serious disabling conditions, symptomatic CNS metastases, radiotherapy within 2 weeks before enrolment, and concomitant use of any other drugs under investigation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using the minimisation method, to maintenance intravenous gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, in cycles of 21 days) plus supportive care, or to best supportive care alone, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, serious intercurrent illness, patient request for discontinuation, or need for any other anticancer agent, except for palliative radiotherapy. A CT scan of the thorax or abdomen (or both) and pulmonary function tests were done at baseline and repeated every 6 weeks. The primary outcome was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was analysed in all participants who received one or more doses of the study drug or had at least one visit for supportive care. Recruitment is now closed; treatment and follow-up are ongoing. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Registry, NTR4132/NL3847. Findings Between March 20, 2014, and Feb 27, 2019, 130 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to gemcitabine plus supportive care (65 patients [50%]) or supportive care alone (65 patients [50%]). No patients were lost to follow-up; median follow-up was 36.5 months (95% CI 34.2 to not reached), and one patient in the supportive care group withdrew consent. Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the gemcitabine group (median 6.2 months [95% CI 4.6-8.7]) than in the supportive care group (3.2 months [2.8-4.1]; hazard ratio [HR] 0.48 [95% CI 0.33-0.71]; p=0.0002). The benefit was confirmed by masked independent central review (HR 0.49 [0.33-0.72]; p=0.0002). Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 33 ( 52%) of 64 patients in the gemcitabine group and in ten (16%) of 62 patients in the supportive care group. The most frequent adverse events were anaemia, neutropenia, fatigue or asthenia, pain, and infection in the gemcitabine group, and pain, infection, and cough or dyspnoea in the supportive care group. One patient (2%) in the gemcitabine group died, due to a treatment-related infection. Interpretation Switch-maintenance gemcitabine, after first-line chemotherapy, significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with best supportive care alone, among patients with malignant mesothelioma. This study confirms the activity of gemcitabine in treating malignant mesothelioma

Treatment satisfaction of patients with advanced non small cell lung cancer receiving platinum based chemotherapy:Results from a prospective cohort study (personal)

Introduction. In patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer, the treatment benefits and risks need to be constantly weighed. We explored patient-reported satisfaction with therapy (SWT) and assessed its value in addition to quality of life (QoL) and adverse events (AEs). Patients and methods. In a prospective multicenter cohort study, patients with stage IIIB/IV non–small-cell lung cancer received platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy. They completed the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQoL-BREF) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) before and during chemotherapy. After the last cycle, patients reported on SWT, expectations of therapy, and feelings about side effects (FSE) using the Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire. The explained variance (R2) of QoL after treatment by SWT was calculated. Using multivariable linear regression, we examined the association of SWT with patient- and treatment-related variables, FSE, and AEs. Results. Eighty-nine patients finished 4 cycles of chemotherapy, 65 of whom completed the Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire. Fifty-six patients (86.2%) would probably or definitely decide to undergo the same treatment again, regardless of deterioration or improvement in QoL or a high or low frequency of AEs during chemotherapy. The explained variance of QoL by SWT was greatest for the EORTC QLQ C-30 global health status/QoL scale (R2 = 0.170). Patient age (β = 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05-0.82), FSE (β = 0.17; 95% CI, 0.06-0.29), and tumor response (β = 7.93; 95% CI (1.64 to 14.22)) were independently associated with SWT. Conclusion. SWT could provide important supplementary information in addition to QoL assessments and treatment toxicities. Tumor response, older age, and FSE score were associated with better SWT. These insights could affect decision-making during palliative chemotherap

Randomized phase III study of docetaxel versus docetaxel plus intercalated erlotinib in patients with relapsed non-squamous non-small cell lung carcinoma

Background: Earlier preclinical and phase II research showed enhanced effect of docetaxel plus intercalated erlotinib. The NVALT-18 phase III study was designed to compare docetaxel with docetaxel plus intercalated erlotinib in relapsed metastasized non-squamous (NSQ) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Patients with relapsed Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) wild type (WT) NSQ-NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 every 21 days (control), or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 plus erlotinib 150 mg/day orally on day 2–16 every 21 days (experimental arm). Progression free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint, secondary objectives were duration of response, overall survival (OS) and toxicity. Results: Between October 2016 and April 2018 a total of 45 patients were randomized and received treatment in the control (N = 23) or experimental arm (N = 22), the study was stopped due to slow accrual. Median PFS was 4.0 months (95% CI: 1.5–7.1) versus 1.9 months (95% CI 1.4–3.5), p = 0.01 respectively; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 2.51 (95% CI: 1.16–5.43). Corresponding median OS was 10.6 months (95% CI: 7.0–8.6) versus 4.7 months (95% CI: 3.2–8.6), p = 0.004, with an adjusted HR of 3.67 (95% CI: 1.46–9.27). Toxicity was higher with combination therapy, with toxicity ≥ CTCAE grade 3 in N = 6 (26%) in the control arm and N = 17 (77%) in the experimental arm (p < 0.001), mainly consisting of gastrointestinal symptoms and leukopenia. Conclusions: Our study shows detrimental effects of docetaxel plus intercalated erlotinib, and strongly discourages further exploration of this combination in clinical practice

Randomized phase III study of docetaxel versus docetaxel plus intercalated erlotinib in patients with relapsed non-squamous non-small cell lung carcinoma

Background: Earlier preclinical and phase II research showed enhanced effect of docetaxel plus intercalated erlotinib. The NVALT-18 phase III study was designed to compare docetaxel with docetaxel plus intercalated erlotinib in relapsed metastasized non-squamous (NSQ) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Patients with relapsed Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) wild type (WT) NSQ-NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 every 21 days (control), or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 plus erlotinib 150 mg/day orally on day 2–16 every 21 days (experimental arm). Progression free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint, secondary objectives were duration of response, overall survival (OS) and toxicity. Results: Between October 2016 and April 2018 a total of 45 patients were randomized and received treatment in the control (N = 23) or experimental arm (N = 22), the study was stopped due to slow accrual. Median PFS was 4.0 months (95% CI: 1.5–7.1) versus 1.9 months (95% CI 1.4–3.5), p = 0.01 respectively; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 2.51 (95% CI: 1.16–5.43). Corresponding median OS was 10.6 months (95% CI: 7.0–8.6) versus 4.7 months (95% CI: 3.2–8.6), p = 0.004, with an adjusted HR of 3.67 (95% CI: 1.46–9.27). Toxicity was higher with combination therapy, with toxicity ≥ CTCAE grade 3 in N = 6 (26%) in the control arm and N = 17 (77%) in the experimental arm (p &lt; 0.001), mainly consisting of gastrointestinal symptoms and leukopenia. Conclusions: Our study shows detrimental effects of docetaxel plus intercalated erlotinib, and strongly discourages further exploration of this combination in clinical practice.</p