Giorgio V Scagliotti1, Enriqueta Felip, Benjamin Besse, Joachim von Pawel, Anders Mellemgaard, Martin Reck, Lionel Bosquee, Christos Chouaid, Pilar Lianes-Barragán, Elaine M Paul, Rodrigo Ruiz-Soto, Entisar Sigal, Lone H Ottesen, Thierry Lechevalier. 1. *Department of Clinical and Biological Sciences, University of Turin, Orbassano, Torino, Italy; †Department of Oncology, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain; ‡Department of Cancer Medicine, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; §Asklepios Clinic, Asklepios Fachkliniken München-Gauting, Gauting, Germany; ‖Department of Oncology, Herlev Hospital, Onkologisk afdeling, Herlev, Denmark; ¶Department of Thoracic Oncology, Hospital Grosshansdorf, Grosshansdorf, Germany; #Department of Respiratory Medicine, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liege, Liege, Belgium; **Department of Respiratory Medicine, Hopital Saint-Antoine, Paris Cedex, France; ††Department of Medical Oncology, Hospital de Mataro, Mataro, Spain; and ‡‡Oncology Research and Development, GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; Collegeville, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Uxbridge, United Kingdom.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This randomized open-label phase II study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of pazopanib in combination with pemetrexed compared with the standard cisplatin/pemetrexed doublet in patients with previously untreated, advanced, nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: Patients were randomized (2:1 ratio) to receive pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) intravenously once every 3 weeks plus either oral pazopanib 800 mg daily or cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) intravenously once every 3 weeks up to six cycles. All patients received folic acid, vitamin B12, and steroid prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: The study was terminated after 106 of 150 patients were randomized due to a higher incidence of adverse events leading to withdrawal from the study and severe and fatal adverse events in the pazopanib/pemetrexed arm than in the cisplatin/pemetrexed arm. At the time enrolment was discontinued, there were three fatal adverse events in the pazopanib/pemetrexed arm, including ileus, tumor embolism, and bronchopneumonia/sepsis. Treatment with pazopanib/pemetrexed was discontinued resulting in more PFS data censored for patients in the pazopanib/pemetrexed arm than those in the cisplatin/pemetrexed arm. There was no statistically significant difference between the pazopanib/pemetrexed and cisplatin/pemetrexed arms for PFS (median PFS, 25.0 versus 22.9 weeks, respectively; hazard ratio = 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.43%-1.28%; p = 0.26) or objective response rate (23% versus 34%, respectively; 95% confidence interval, -30.6% to 7.2%; p = 0.21). CONCLUSION: The combination of pazopanib/pemetrexed in first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer showed some antitumor activity but had unacceptable levels of toxicity.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: This randomized open-label phase II study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of pazopanib in combination with pemetrexed compared with the standard cisplatin/pemetrexed doublet in patients with previously untreated, advanced, nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS:Patients were randomized (2:1 ratio) to receive pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) intravenously once every 3 weeks plus either oral pazopanib 800 mg daily or cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) intravenously once every 3 weeks up to six cycles. All patients received folic acid, vitamin B12, and steroid prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: The study was terminated after 106 of 150 patients were randomized due to a higher incidence of adverse events leading to withdrawal from the study and severe and fatal adverse events in the pazopanib/pemetrexed arm than in the cisplatin/pemetrexed arm. At the time enrolment was discontinued, there were three fatal adverse events in the pazopanib/pemetrexed arm, including ileus, tumor embolism, and bronchopneumonia/sepsis. Treatment with pazopanib/pemetrexed was discontinued resulting in more PFS data censored for patients in the pazopanib/pemetrexed arm than those in the cisplatin/pemetrexed arm. There was no statistically significant difference between the pazopanib/pemetrexed and cisplatin/pemetrexed arms for PFS (median PFS, 25.0 versus 22.9 weeks, respectively; hazard ratio = 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.43%-1.28%; p = 0.26) or objective response rate (23% versus 34%, respectively; 95% confidence interval, -30.6% to 7.2%; p = 0.21). CONCLUSION: The combination of pazopanib/pemetrexed in first-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer showed some antitumor activity but had unacceptable levels of toxicity.
Authors: Seung Tae Kim; Soomin Ahn; Jeeyun Lee; Su Jin Lee; Se Hoon Park; Young Suk Park; Ho Yeong Lim; Won Ki Kang; Kyoung-Mee Kim; Joon Oh Park Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 4.553