BACKGROUND: Crizotinib produces high response rates and prolonged PFS in ALK+ NSCLC. Retrospective analyses suggest enhanced sensitivity to pemetrexed in crizotinib naive ALK+ NSCLC. Cross-resistance between crizotinib and pemetrexed has not been previously investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IV ALK+ NSCLC treated with PEM-CRIZ, or CRIZ-PEM were identified. Overall PFS and PFS excluding central nervous system events (eCNS) were compared. RESULTS: Objective response rates in evaluable patients were 66% (PEM-CRIZ) and 75% (CRIZ-PEM) for pemetrexed and 84% (CRIZ-PEM) and 66% (PEM-CRIZ) for crizotinib. For PEM-CRIZ (n = 29), median PFS and eCNS PFS were both 6 months with pemetrexed, and 10 and 14.5 months, respectively, with crizotinib. For CRIZ-PEM (n = 9), median PFS and eCNS PFS were 4.5 and 3 months, respectively, with pemetrexed, and 8.5 and 7.5 months, respectively, with crizotinib. There was a statistically significant increase in the risk of an overall PFS event with pemetrexed when administered after crizotinib (P = .0277; hazard ratio [HR], 2.5898; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1100-6.0424), but differences in the risk of an eCNS PFS event were not significant (P = 0.4913; HR, 1.3521; 95% CI, 0.5727-3.1920). Neither overall nor eCNS PFS for patients while taking crizotinib was associated with a sequence effect relative to pemetrexed. CONCLUSION: Crizotinib and pemetrexed are active drugs in ALK+ NSCLC. PFS benefit appeared higher with crizotinib than with pemetrexed. PFS benefit from pemetrexed was less after crizotinib compared with before crizotinib, however, this difference was only statistically significant for overall and not eCNS PFS. Pemetrexed exposure did not seem to affect crizotinib outcomes.
BACKGROUND:Crizotinib produces high response rates and prolonged PFS in ALK+ NSCLC. Retrospective analyses suggest enhanced sensitivity to pemetrexed in crizotinib naive ALK+ NSCLC. Cross-resistance between crizotinib and pemetrexed has not been previously investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IV ALK+ NSCLC treated with PEM-CRIZ, or CRIZ-PEM were identified. Overall PFS and PFS excluding central nervous system events (eCNS) were compared. RESULTS: Objective response rates in evaluable patients were 66% (PEM-CRIZ) and 75% (CRIZ-PEM) for pemetrexed and 84% (CRIZ-PEM) and 66% (PEM-CRIZ) for crizotinib. For PEM-CRIZ (n = 29), median PFS and eCNS PFS were both 6 months with pemetrexed, and 10 and 14.5 months, respectively, with crizotinib. For CRIZ-PEM (n = 9), median PFS and eCNS PFS were 4.5 and 3 months, respectively, with pemetrexed, and 8.5 and 7.5 months, respectively, with crizotinib. There was a statistically significant increase in the risk of an overall PFS event with pemetrexed when administered after crizotinib (P = .0277; hazard ratio [HR], 2.5898; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1100-6.0424), but differences in the risk of an eCNS PFS event were not significant (P = 0.4913; HR, 1.3521; 95% CI, 0.5727-3.1920). Neither overall nor eCNS PFS for patients while taking crizotinib was associated with a sequence effect relative to pemetrexed. CONCLUSION:Crizotinib and pemetrexed are active drugs in ALK+ NSCLC. PFS benefit appeared higher with crizotinib than with pemetrexed. PFS benefit from pemetrexed was less after crizotinib compared with before crizotinib, however, this difference was only statistically significant for overall and not eCNS PFS. Pemetrexed exposure did not seem to affect crizotinib outcomes.
Authors: C Shih; V J Chen; L S Gossett; S B Gates; W C MacKellar; L L Habeck; K A Shackelford; L G Mendelsohn; D J Soose; V F Patel; S L Andis; J R Bewley; E A Rayl; B A Moroson; G P Beardsley; W Kohler; M Ratnam; R M Schultz Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1997-03-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Paolo Ceppi; Marco Volante; Silvia Saviozzi; Ida Rapa; Silvia Novello; Alberto Cambieri; Marco Lo Iacono; Susanna Cappia; Mauro Papotti; Giorgio V Scagliotti Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Giorgio Scagliotti; Nasser Hanna; Frank Fossella; Katherine Sugarman; Johannes Blatter; Patrick Peterson; Lorinda Simms; Frances A Shepherd Journal: Oncologist Date: 2009-02-16
Authors: Owen A O'Connor; Steven Horwitz; Paul Hamlin; Carol Portlock; Craig H Moskowitz; Debra Sarasohn; Ellen Neylon; Jill Mastrella; Rachel Hamelers; Barbara Macgregor-Cortelli; Molly Patterson; Venkatraman E Seshan; Frank Sirotnak; Martin Fleisher; Diane R Mould; Mike Saunders; Andrew D Zelenetz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-08-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Francesco E Boccalatte; Claudia Voena; Chiara Riganti; Amalia Bosia; Lucia D'Amico; Ludovica Riera; Mangeng Cheng; Bruce Ruggeri; Ole N Jensen; Valerie L Goss; Kimberly Lee; Julie Nardone; John Rush; Roberto D Polakiewicz; Michael J Comb; Roberto Chiarle; Giorgio Inghirami Journal: Blood Date: 2008-10-09 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Alice T Shaw; Dong-Wan Kim; Kazuhiko Nakagawa; Takashi Seto; Lucio Crinó; Myung-Ju Ahn; Tommaso De Pas; Benjamin Besse; Benjamin J Solomon; Fiona Blackhall; Yi-Long Wu; Michael Thomas; Kenneth J O'Byrne; Denis Moro-Sibilot; D Ross Camidge; Tony Mok; Vera Hirsh; Gregory J Riely; Shrividya Iyer; Vanessa Tassell; Anna Polli; Keith D Wilner; Pasi A Jänne Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-06-01 Impact factor: 91.245