BACKGROUND: The current study was conducted to assess the efficacy and toxicity of sorafenib as front-line therapy in patients with stage IIIB (pleural effusion) or IV nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients received sorafenib 400 mg twice daily by mouth continuously, and were evaluated every 2 weeks during the first 8 weeks. Patients who manifested clinical progression during this period proceeded to receive standard of care. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective tumor response. A 2-stage Fleming design was used such that if at most 1 confirmed partial response (PR) or complete response was observed in the first 20 patients (stage 1), the treatment would be considered ineffective, and further enrollment would be discontinued. RESULTS: Only 1 PR was observed in the first 20 patients. By the time of study closure, 5 additional patients who were already being screened for study inclusion were enrolled. Of the 25 patients (15 women, 10 men; 4 stage IIIB, 21 stage IV; median age, 67 years [range, 45-85 years]), there were 3 (12%) PRs and 6 (24%) cases with stable disease observed. The median time-to-progression and progression-free survival was 2.8 months. Seven (28%) patients remained progression-free at 24 weeks. No grade 3 or higher hematologic adverse events were observed. Thirteen (52%) patients had a grade 3 nonhematologic adverse event, with fatigue (20%), diarrhea (8%), and dyspnea (8%) being the most common. CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib is not effective as front-line therapy in the general unselected NSCLC population. The window of opportunity design is feasible for estimating the activity of novel compounds. Cancer 2010.
BACKGROUND: The current study was conducted to assess the efficacy and toxicity of sorafenib as front-line therapy in patients with stage IIIB (pleural effusion) or IV nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS:Patients received sorafenib 400 mg twice daily by mouth continuously, and were evaluated every 2 weeks during the first 8 weeks. Patients who manifested clinical progression during this period proceeded to receive standard of care. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective tumor response. A 2-stage Fleming design was used such that if at most 1 confirmed partial response (PR) or complete response was observed in the first 20 patients (stage 1), the treatment would be considered ineffective, and further enrollment would be discontinued. RESULTS: Only 1 PR was observed in the first 20 patients. By the time of study closure, 5 additional patients who were already being screened for study inclusion were enrolled. Of the 25 patients (15 women, 10 men; 4 stage IIIB, 21 stage IV; median age, 67 years [range, 45-85 years]), there were 3 (12%) PRs and 6 (24%) cases with stable disease observed. The median time-to-progression and progression-free survival was 2.8 months. Seven (28%) patients remained progression-free at 24 weeks. No grade 3 or higher hematologic adverse events were observed. Thirteen (52%) patients had a grade 3 nonhematologic adverse event, with fatigue (20%), diarrhea (8%), and dyspnea (8%) being the most common. CONCLUSIONS:Sorafenib is not effective as front-line therapy in the general unselected NSCLC population. The window of opportunity design is feasible for estimating the activity of novel compounds. Cancer 2010.
Authors: Mark J Ratain; Tim Eisen; Walter M Stadler; Keith T Flaherty; Stan B Kaye; Gary L Rosner; Martin Gore; Apurva A Desai; Amita Patnaik; Henry Q Xiong; Eric Rowinsky; James L Abbruzzese; Chenghua Xia; Ronit Simantov; Brian Schwartz; Peter J O'Dwyer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-04-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Lillian L Siu; Ahmad Awada; Chris H Takimoto; Martine Piccart; Brian Schwartz; Tom Giannaris; Chetan Lathia; Oana Petrenciuc; Malcolm J Moore Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-01-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Chunrong Yu; Laura M Bruzek; Xue Wei Meng; Gregory J Gores; Christopher A Carter; Scott H Kaufmann; Alex A Adjei Journal: Oncogene Date: 2005-10-20 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Bernard Escudier; Tim Eisen; Walter M Stadler; Cezary Szczylik; Stéphane Oudard; Michael Siebels; Sylvie Negrier; Christine Chevreau; Ewa Solska; Apurva A Desai; Frédéric Rolland; Tomasz Demkow; Thomas E Hutson; Martin Gore; Scott Freeman; Brian Schwartz; Minghua Shan; Ronit Simantov; Ronald M Bukowski Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: George R Blumenschein; Ulrich Gatzemeier; Frank Fossella; David J Stewart; Lisa Cupit; Frank Cihon; James O'Leary; Martin Reck Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-08-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Scott M Wilhelm; Christopher Carter; Liya Tang; Dean Wilkie; Angela McNabola; Hong Rong; Charles Chen; Xiaomei Zhang; Patrick Vincent; Mark McHugh; Yichen Cao; Jaleel Shujath; Susan Gawlak; Deepa Eveleigh; Bruce Rowley; Li Liu; Lila Adnane; Mark Lynch; Daniel Auclair; Ian Taylor; Rich Gedrich; Andrei Voznesensky; Bernd Riedl; Leonard E Post; Gideon Bollag; Pamela A Trail Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2004-10-01 Impact factor: 13.312
Authors: S A Rasbridge; C E Gillett; A M Seymour; K Patel; M A Richards; R D Rubens; R R Millis Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1994-08 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Heather A Wakelee; Ju-Whei Lee; Nasser H Hanna; Anne M Traynor; David P Carbone; Joan H Schiller Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: James Mattina; Nathalie MacKinnon; Valerie C Henderson; Dean Fergusson; Jonathan Kimmelman Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 12.701