Schild, Steven

Purpose To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of pemetrexed combined with bevacizumab as second-line therapy for patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and to correlate allelic variants in pemetrexed-metabolizing genes with clinical outcome. Patients and Methods Patients with previously treated NSCLC received pemetrexed (500 mg/m2 intravenous) combined with bevacizumab (15 mg/kg intravenous) every 3 weeks. The primary end point, evaluated using a one-stage Fleming design for detecting a true success rate of at least 70%, was the proportion of patients who were progression free and on treatment at 3 months. Polymorphisms in genes responsible for pemetrexed transport (reduced folate carrier [SLC19A1]) and metabolism (folylpolyglutamate synthase [FPGS] and gamma-glutamyl hydrolase [GGH]) evaluated in germline DNA (blood) were correlated with treatment outcome. Results Forty-eight evaluable patients (14 females and 34 males) received a median of four cycles (range, one to 20 cycles). The most common grade 3 or 4 nonhematologic adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (13%), dyspnea (10%), and thrombosis (10%). Grade 3 or 4 hematologic AEs were neutropenia (19%) and lymphopenia (13%). Twenty-four (57%; 95% CI, 41% to 72%) of the first 42 patients met the success criteria. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) times were 8.6 and 4.0 months, respectively. The exon 6 (2522)C→T polymorphism in SLC19A1 correlated with 3-month progression-free status (P = .01) and with PFS (P = .05). The IVS1(1307)C→T polymorphism in GGH correlated with OS (P = .04). Conclusion The study did not meet its primary end point. However, the median PFS time of 4 months is promising. Pharmacogenetic studies in larger cohorts are needed to definitively identify polymorphisms that predict for survival and toxicity of pemetrexed.

Purpose To evaluate the outcome of patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (L-SCLC) treated with cisplatin and etoposide (PE), early prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI), and high-dose twice-daily thoracic radiotherapy (bid RT). Patients and Methods A total of 76 assessable patients were treated on this phase II trial, which included six cycles of PE. PCI (25 Gy/10 fractions) was delivered during cycle 3 to responding patients. Cycles 4 and 5 included concurrent chemotherapy and thoracic RT (30 Gy/20 bid fractions, a 2-week break, and another 30 Gy/20 bid fractions). Results Of the 76 assessable patients, 74 patients (97%) suffered grade 3 or greater (3+) toxicity and 61 patients (80%) had grade 4 or greater (4+) toxicity. Of these adverse events, grade 3+ hematologic toxicity occurred in 72 patients (95%), and grade 3+ nonhematologic toxicity occurred in 55 patients (72%). Only one (2%) of the 61 patients who received PCI experienced treatment failure in the brain. The 5-year survival rate of the 76 assessable patients was 24% (median, 20 months). The 5-year survival rate of the 64 patients who received thoracic RT was 29% (median, 22 months). The 5-year cumulative incidence of in-field treatment failure was 34%. Conclusion This regimen included a high total dose of bid TRT, which resulted in a favorable 5-year survival rate. Local failure remains a problem that will require additional investigation. Newer technology should allow the safe administration of greater doses of RT, which should improve patient outcome. Data from eight trials were combined to demonstrate a relationship between RT dose fractionation and 5-year survival.

Purpose Elderly patients often have comorbidities and other characteristics that make the selection of treatment daunting. Methods We have reviewed the available evidence in the literature to gauge the results of therapy for elderly lung cancer patients. Results The beneficial results achieved with adjuvant chemotherapy in the general population with early non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cannot be automatically extrapolated to the elderly, who are at higher risk of toxicity. Retrospective analyses of combined chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced NSCLC patients suggest equivalent therapeutic benefit for younger and older patients, despite heightened toxicity. There have been no elderly-specific phase III trials for locally advanced NSCLC. For advanced NSCLC, on the basis of evidence-based data, single-agent chemotherapy remains the standard of care for nonselected elderly patients. However, retrospective analyses suggest that the efficacy of platinum-based combination chemotherapy is similar in fit older and younger patients, with increased but acceptable toxicity for elderly patients. In limited-disease small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), sequential chemoradiotherapy is clearly less toxic compared with a standard concurrent approach, but our assessment of treatment is hindered by the absence of prospective elderly-specific trials. Although prophylactic cranial irradiation has emerged as a standard strategy, it should be omitted in patients with cognitive impairment. In extensive SCLC, etoposide in combination with either cisplatin or carboplatin has emerged as standard treatment; hematopoietic support may be necessary. Conclusion With the exception of advanced NSCLC, prospective elderly-specific studies are lacking. Available data suggest that outcomes in the fit elderly mirror results observed in younger patients, although toxicity is generally worse.

Purpose To answer the question, “should elderly non–small-cell lung cancer patients be offered elderly-specific trials?” Patients and Methods The North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) performed a pooled analysis of elderly patients who participated in elderly-specific trials (required age ≥ 65 years) and age-unspecified trials (required age ≥ 18 years). Between 1998 and 2000, all NCCTG non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with incurable cancer, age ≥ 65 years, and receiving first-line chemotherapy were included. A total of 118 elderly patients participated in elderly-specific trials, and 108, in age-unspecified trials. Demographics and outcomes were compared based on trial type. Results The median age of elderly patients in elderly-specific trials was greater: median (range): 73 years (65 to 87) and 70 years (65 to 85), respectively (P < .001), as was the percentage older than 80 years: 17% and 3%, respectively (P = .0008). Median survival times were 232 and 302 days, respectively (P = .08). After adjustment for baseline age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score, cancer stage, and body mass index, this survival difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio = 1.25; P = .16). Grade 3 or worse nonhematologic adverse event rates were greater in age-unspecified trials (81% v 57%, respectively; P < .001), as were grade 3 or worse hematologic events (68% v 10%, respectively; P < .001). Conclusion Elderly patients in NSCLC elderly-specific trials suffered lower rates of severe adverse events with no statistically significant differences in survival. It seems that elderly-specific trials are providing quality care and helping to define optimal cancer therapy in the elderly, particularly among the “oldest of the old.”

Purpose A randomized three-arm phase II study was undertaken to evaluate the optimum administration schedule of pemetrexed and gemcitabine in chemotherapy-naïve patients with non–small-cell lung cancer. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned to three schedules of pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 plus gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2, separated by a 90-minute interval, on a 21-day cycle as follows: schedule A, pemetrexed followed by gemcitabine on day 1 and gemcitabine on day 8; schedule B, gemcitabine followed by pemetrexed on day 1 and gemcitabine on day 8; and schedule C, gemcitabine on day 1 and pemetrexed followed by gemcitabine on day 8. Results One hundred fifty-two eligible patients (schedule A, n = 59; schedule B, n = 31, and schedule C, n = 62) received a median of five (schedule A), two (schedule B), and four (schedule C) treatment cycles. Overall, 66% of patients experienced grade 3 or 4 neutropenia. Common grade 3 and 4 nonhematologic toxicities were dyspnea (11%), fatigue (16%), and transaminase elevation (9%). Schedule A seemed less toxic compared with schedule C (grade 3 or 4 events: 86% v 94%, respectively; P = .19; grade 4 events: 39% v 48%, respectively; P = .30). Schedule B was closed at interim analysis for inferior efficacy. Schedule A, with a confirmed response rate of 31% (95% CI, 20% to 45%), met the protocol-defined efficacy criteria, whereas schedule C, with a confirmed response rate of 16.1% (95% CI, 11% to 34%), did not. Median survival time and time to progression were 11.4 and 4.4 months, respectively, with no observable difference between the arms. Conclusion Pemetrexed and gemcitabine administered as outlined for schedule A met the protocol-defined efficacy criteria, was less toxic compared with the other treatment schedules, and should be further evaluated.