BACKGROUND: Excision repair cross complementing 1 (ERCC1) and ribonucleotide reductase M1 (RRM1) are molecular determinants that predict sensitivity or resistance to platinum agents and gemcitabine, respectively. Tailored therapy using these molecular determinants suggested patient benefit in a previously reported phase 2 trial. Here, we report an individual patient analysis of prospectively accrued patients who were treated with the "personalized therapy" approach versus other "standard," noncustomized approaches. METHODS: Patients who had nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with extranodal metastatic disease and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0/1 were accrued to 4 phase 2 clinical trials conducted at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center: Trial A (first-line carboplatin/gemcitabine followed by docetaxel), Trial B (docetaxel and gefitinib in patients aged ≥70 years), Trial C (combination therapy with carboplatin/paclitaxel/atrasentan), and Trial D (personalized therapy based on ERCC1 and RRM1 expression). Patients with low RRM1/low ERCC1 expression received gemcitabine/carboplatin, patients with low RRM1/high ERCC1 expression received gemcitabine/docetaxel, patients with high RRM1/low ERCC1 expression received docetaxel/carboplatin, and patients with high RRM1/high ERCC1 expression received vinorelbine/docetaxel. Patients who were treated on Trials A, B, and C were pooled together and analyzed as the "standard therapy" group. Patients accrued to Trial D were called the "personalized therapy" group. Individual patient data were updated as of February 8, 2011. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: There were statistically significant improvements between the personalized therapy group versus the standard therapy group in response (44% vs 22%; P = .002), OS (median: 13.3 months vs 8.9 months; P = .016), and PFS (median: 7.0 months vs 4.3 months; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: The results from individual patient analyses suggest that ERCC1 and RRM1/tailored selection of first-line therapy improved survival over standard treatment-selection approaches.
BACKGROUND:Excision repair cross complementing 1 (ERCC1) and ribonucleotide reductase M1 (RRM1) are molecular determinants that predict sensitivity or resistance to platinum agents and gemcitabine, respectively. Tailored therapy using these molecular determinants suggested patient benefit in a previously reported phase 2 trial. Here, we report an individual patient analysis of prospectively accrued patients who were treated with the "personalized therapy" approach versus other "standard," noncustomized approaches. METHODS:Patients who had nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with extranodal metastatic disease and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0/1 were accrued to 4 phase 2 clinical trials conducted at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center: Trial A (first-line carboplatin/gemcitabine followed by docetaxel), Trial B (docetaxel and gefitinib in patients aged ≥70 years), Trial C (combination therapy with carboplatin/paclitaxel/atrasentan), and Trial D (personalized therapy based on ERCC1 and RRM1 expression). Patients with low RRM1/low ERCC1 expression received gemcitabine/carboplatin, patients with low RRM1/high ERCC1 expression received gemcitabine/docetaxel, patients with high RRM1/low ERCC1 expression received docetaxel/carboplatin, and patients with high RRM1/high ERCC1 expression received vinorelbine/docetaxel. Patients who were treated on Trials A, B, and C were pooled together and analyzed as the "standard therapy" group. Patients accrued to Trial D were called the "personalized therapy" group. Individual patient data were updated as of February 8, 2011. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: There were statistically significant improvements between the personalized therapy group versus the standard therapy group in response (44% vs 22%; P = .002), OS (median: 13.3 months vs 8.9 months; P = .016), and PFS (median: 7.0 months vs 4.3 months; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: The results from individual patient analyses suggest that ERCC1 and RRM1/tailored selection of first-line therapy improved survival over standard treatment-selection approaches.
Authors: Joan H Schiller; David Harrington; Chandra P Belani; Corey Langer; Alan Sandler; James Krook; Junming Zhu; David H Johnson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-01-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ken A Olaussen; Ariane Dunant; Pierre Fouret; Elisabeth Brambilla; Fabrice André; Vincent Haddad; Estelle Taranchon; Martin Filipits; Robert Pirker; Helmut H Popper; Rolf Stahel; Laure Sabatier; Jean-Pierre Pignon; Thomas Tursz; Thierry Le Chevalier; Jean-Charles Soria Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-09-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alberto Chiappori; George Simon; Charles Williams; Eric Haura; Caio Rocha-Lima; Henry Wagner; Gerold Bepler; Scott Antonia Journal: Oncology Date: 2005-07-12 Impact factor: 2.935
Authors: Alan Sandler; Robert Gray; Michael C Perry; Julie Brahmer; Joan H Schiller; Afshin Dowlati; Rogerio Lilenbaum; David H Johnson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-12-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: George Simon; Anupama Sharma; Xueli Li; Todd Hazelton; Frank Walsh; Charles Williams; Alberto Chiappori; Eric Haura; Tawee Tanvetyanon; Scott Antonia; Alan Cantor; Gerold Bepler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-07-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Manuel Cobo; Dolores Isla; Bartomeu Massuti; Ana Montes; Jose Miguel Sanchez; Mariano Provencio; Nuria Viñolas; Luis Paz-Ares; Guillermo Lopez-Vivanco; Miguel Angel Muñoz; Enriqueta Felip; Vicente Alberola; Carlos Camps; Manuel Domine; Jose Javier Sanchez; Maria Sanchez-Ronco; Kathleen Danenberg; Miquel Taron; David Gandara; Rafael Rosell Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-07-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Malcolm H Squires; Sarah B Fisher; Kevin E Fisher; Sameer H Patel; David A Kooby; Bassel F El-Rayes; Charles A Staley; Alton B Farris; Shishir K Maithel Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: J E Bauman; M C Austin; R Schmidt; B F Kurland; A Vaezi; D N Hayes; E Mendez; U Parvathaneni; X Chai; S Sampath; R G Martins Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-09-24 Impact factor: 7.640