Jamie E Chaft1, Mark Dunphy2, Jarushka Naidoo3, William D Travis4, Matthew Hellmann3, Kaitlin Woo5, Robert Downey6, Valerie Rusch6, Michelle S Ginsberg2, Christopher G Azzoli7, Mark G Kris3. 1. Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. Electronic address: chaftj@mskcc.org. 2. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 3. Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York; Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. 4. Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 5. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 6. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 7. Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although perioperative chemotherapy improves survival in patients with resectable lung cancers, systemic recurrence remains common. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy permits response assessment and an opportunity to switch treatment regimens. Response measured by fludeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) correlates with clinical outcomes better than computed tomography (CT) does. This trial assessed PET-measured response rate to alternative chemotherapy in patients with a suboptimal PET response after two cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: This phase II study enrolled patients with resectable stage IB-IIIA lung cancers (primary tumor ≥ 2 cm and peak standard uptake value [SUVpeak] ≥ 4.5). Patients had a pretreatment (18)F-FDG PET/CT scan before two cycles of cisplatin (or carboplatin) plus gemcitabine (squamous cell carcinoma) or pemetrexed (adenocarcinoma) and then a repeat PET/CT scan. If SUVpeak in the primary tumor decreased by at least 35%, patients continued the initial chemotherapy. Individuals with less than a 35% PET response were switched to vinorelbine plus docetaxel. Postoperative radiotherapy was recommended to all patients with positive N2 nodes. A Simon's optimal two-stage design was used to evaluate the primary end point of a PET Response in Solid Tumors-defined response rate to vinorelbine plus docetaxel in previously nonresponding patients. RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled. Fifteen patients (38% [95% confidence interval: 38-53]) had less than a 35% decrease in SUVpeak, and 13 received vinorelbine plus docetaxel. The study met its primary end point with 10 of 15 PET metabolic responses to alternate therapy (67%). Chemotherapy toxicities never precluded surgical exploration. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing (18)F-FDG PET/CT to assess response and change preoperative chemotherapy in nonresponding patients can improve radiographic measures of response. This adaptive approach can also be used to test new drugs, attempting to optimize perioperative chemotherapy to achieve better long-term outcomes.
INTRODUCTION: Although perioperative chemotherapy improves survival in patients with resectable lung cancers, systemic recurrence remains common. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy permits response assessment and an opportunity to switch treatment regimens. Response measured by fludeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) correlates with clinical outcomes better than computed tomography (CT) does. This trial assessed PET-measured response rate to alternative chemotherapy in patients with a suboptimal PET response after two cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: This phase II study enrolled patients with resectable stage IB-IIIA lung cancers (primary tumor ≥ 2 cm and peak standard uptake value [SUVpeak] ≥ 4.5). Patients had a pretreatment (18)F-FDG PET/CT scan before two cycles of cisplatin (or carboplatin) plus gemcitabine (squamous cell carcinoma) or pemetrexed (adenocarcinoma) and then a repeat PET/CT scan. If SUVpeak in the primary tumor decreased by at least 35%, patients continued the initial chemotherapy. Individuals with less than a 35% PET response were switched to vinorelbine plus docetaxel. Postoperative radiotherapy was recommended to all patients with positive N2 nodes. A Simon's optimal two-stage design was used to evaluate the primary end point of a PET Response in Solid Tumors-defined response rate to vinorelbine plus docetaxel in previously nonresponding patients. RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled. Fifteen patients (38% [95% confidence interval: 38-53]) had less than a 35% decrease in SUVpeak, and 13 received vinorelbine plus docetaxel. The study met its primary end point with 10 of 15 PET metabolic responses to alternate therapy (67%). Chemotherapy toxicities never precluded surgical exploration. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing (18)F-FDG PET/CT to assess response and change preoperative chemotherapy in nonresponding patients can improve radiographic measures of response. This adaptive approach can also be used to test new drugs, attempting to optimize perioperative chemotherapy to achieve better long-term outcomes.
Authors: Nehmat Houssami; Petra Macaskill; Gunter von Minckwitz; Michael L Marinovich; Eleftherios Mamounas Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Laura J Esserman; Donald A Berry; Angela DeMichele; Lisa Carey; Sarah E Davis; Meredith Buxton; Cliff Hudis; Joe W Gray; Charles Perou; Christina Yau; Chad Livasy; Helen Krontiras; Leslie Montgomery; Debasish Tripathy; Constance Lehman; Minetta C Liu; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Hope S Rugo; John T Carpenter; Lynn Dressler; David Chhieng; Baljit Singh; Carolyn Mies; Joseph Rabban; Yunn-Yi Chen; Dilip Giri; Laura van 't Veer; Nola Hylton Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-05-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Matthew D Hellmann; Jamie E Chaft; William N William; Valerie Rusch; Katherine M W Pisters; Neda Kalhor; Apar Pataer; William D Travis; Stephen G Swisher; Mark G Kris Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Asad A Shah; Mark F Berry; Ching Tzao; Mihir Gandhi; Mathias Worni; Ricardo Pietrobon; Thomas A D'Amico Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Stacey Su; Walter J Scott; Mark S Allen; Gail E Darling; Paul A Decker; Robert J McKenna; Bryan F Meyers Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2013-11-26 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: William N William; Apar Pataer; Neda Kalhor; Arlene M Correa; David C Rice; Ignacio I Wistuba; John Heymach; J Jack Lee; Edward S Kim; Reginald Munden; Kathryn A Gold; Vassiliki Papadimitrakopoulou; Stephen G Swisher; Jeremy J Erasmus Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Jamie E Chaft; Natasha Rekhtman; Camelia S Sima; Valerie Rusch; Mark G Kris; Maureen Zakowski; Christopher G Azzoli Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2013-08-22 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Jamie E Chaft; Andreas Rimner; Walter Weder; Christopher G Azzoli; Mark G Kris; Tina Cascone Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 65.011
Authors: Julio Francisco Jiménez-Bonilla; Remedios Quirce; I Martínez-Rodríguez; María De Arcocha-Torres; José Manuel Carril; Ignacio Banzo Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2016-09-30
Authors: Julien Ganem; Sebastien Thureau; Pierrick Gouel; Bernard Dubray; Mathieu Salaun; Edgar Texte; Pierre Vera Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-10-11 Impact factor: 3.240