Tianhong Li1, Bilal Piperdi2, William V Walsh3, Mimi Kim4, Laurel A Beckett5, Rasim Gucalp2, Missak Haigentz2, Venu G Bathini3, Huiyu Wen6, Kaili Zhou6, Patricia B Pasquinelli6, Srikanth Gajavelli2, Meera Sreedhara3, Xianhong Xie4, Primo N Lara6, David R Gandara6, Roman Perez-Soler2. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA; Veterans Affairs Northern California Health Care System, Mather, CA. Electronic address: thli@ucdavis.edu. 2. Department of Oncology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY. 3. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School-Cancer Center of Excellence, Worcester, MA. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA; Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA. 6. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of California Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pharmacodynamic separation of pemetrexed and erlotinib avoids negative cellular interactions and results in antitumor synergy in erlotinib-resistant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cells, independent of EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor) genotype. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with platinum-treated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC were randomly assigned 1:2 to pemetrexed alone (500 mg/m2 provided intravenously on day 1) or pemetrexed followed by erlotinib (150 mg provided orally once daily on days 2-17) every 21 days. EGFR genotype was centrally confirmed by Sequenom multiplex oncogenotyping assay. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS), which would be considered promising for future study if median PFS was ≥ 4.5 months. RESULTS: Of 83 patients enrolled, 79 were randomized to eitherpemetrexed alone (n = 27) or in combination (n = 52). Fifty-nine (79%) of 75 eligible patients had tumors with confirmed EGFR genotype: 7 with activating mutations and 52 wild type. Median PFS was 4.7 and 2.9 months in the combination and pemetrexed-alone groups, respectively. In patients with EGFR wild-type tumors, median PFS was 5.3 and 3.5 months in the combination and pemetrexed-alone groups, respectively. Objective response rate (29% vs. 10%, P = .17), 6-month PFS (45% vs. 29%, P = .26), and 12-month PFS (23% vs. 10%, P = .28) were all higher in the combination arm. Rash (67% vs. 26%, P = .0007) and diarrhea (44% vs. 11%, P = .003) were significantly more common in the combination arm. CONCLUSION: In patients with unselected or EGFR wild-type advanced nonsquamous NSCLC, pharmacodynamic separation of pemetrexed and intercalated erlotinib had promising antitumor activity without new safety concerns. The combination merits further evaluation as maintenance or second-line therapy against new standards in patients with EGFR wild-type advanced NSCLC. Published by Elsevier Inc.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Pharmacodynamic separation of pemetrexed and erlotinib avoids negative cellular interactions and results in antitumor synergy in erlotinib-resistant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cells, independent of EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor) genotype. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with platinum-treated metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC were randomly assigned 1:2 to pemetrexed alone (500 mg/m2 provided intravenously on day 1) or pemetrexed followed by erlotinib (150 mg provided orally once daily on days 2-17) every 21 days. EGFR genotype was centrally confirmed by Sequenom multiplex oncogenotyping assay. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS), which would be considered promising for future study if median PFS was ≥ 4.5 months. RESULTS: Of 83 patients enrolled, 79 were randomized to either pemetrexed alone (n = 27) or in combination (n = 52). Fifty-nine (79%) of 75 eligible patients had tumors with confirmed EGFR genotype: 7 with activating mutations and 52 wild type. Median PFS was 4.7 and 2.9 months in the combination and pemetrexed-alone groups, respectively. In patients with EGFR wild-type tumors, median PFS was 5.3 and 3.5 months in the combination and pemetrexed-alone groups, respectively. Objective response rate (29% vs. 10%, P = .17), 6-month PFS (45% vs. 29%, P = .26), and 12-month PFS (23% vs. 10%, P = .28) were all higher in the combination arm. Rash (67% vs. 26%, P = .0007) and diarrhea (44% vs. 11%, P = .003) were significantly more common in the combination arm. CONCLUSION: In patients with unselected or EGFR wild-type advanced nonsquamous NSCLC, pharmacodynamic separation of pemetrexed and intercalated erlotinib had promising antitumor activity without new safety concerns. The combination merits further evaluation as maintenance or second-line therapy against new standards in patients with EGFR wild-type advanced NSCLC. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
EGFR wild type; Multiplex genotyping; Plasma circulating tumor DNA; Randomized phase 2 study; Second line
Authors: Fred R Hirsch; Fairooz Kabbinavar; Tim Eisen; Renato Martins; Fredrick M Schnell; Rafal Dziadziuszko; Katherine Richardson; Frank Richardson; Bret Wacker; David W Sternberg; Jason Rusk; Wilbur A Franklin; Marileila Varella-Garcia; Paul A Bunn; Ross Camidge; D Ross Camidge Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-08-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David S Ettinger; Douglas E Wood; Wallace Akerley; Lyudmila A Bazhenova; Hossein Borghaei; David Ross Camidge; Richard T Cheney; Lucian R Chirieac; Thomas A D'Amico; Todd L Demmy; Thomas J Dilling; M Chris Dobelbower; Ramaswamy Govindan; Frederic W Grannis; Leora Horn; Thierry M Jahan; Ritsuko Komaki; Lee M Krug; Rudy P Lackner; Michael Lanuti; Rogerio Lilenbaum; Jules Lin; Billy W Loo; Renato Martins; Gregory A Otterson; Jyoti D Patel; Katherine M Pisters; Karen Reckamp; Gregory J Riely; Eric Rohren; Steven E Schild; Theresa A Shapiro; Scott J Swanson; Kurt Tauer; Stephen C Yang; Kristina Gregory; Miranda Hughes Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Frank Diehl; Kerstin Schmidt; Michael A Choti; Katharine Romans; Steven Goodman; Meng Li; Katherine Thornton; Nishant Agrawal; Lori Sokoll; Steve A Szabo; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Luis A Diaz Journal: Nat Med Date: 2007-07-31 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Pasi A Jänne; James Chih-Hsin Yang; Dong-Wan Kim; David Planchard; Yuichiro Ohe; Suresh S Ramalingam; Myung-Ju Ahn; Sang-We Kim; Wu-Chou Su; Leora Horn; Daniel Haggstrom; Enriqueta Felip; Joo-Hang Kim; Paul Frewer; Mireille Cantarini; Kathryn H Brown; Paul A Dickinson; Serban Ghiorghiu; Malcolm Ranson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ernest Nadal; Dolores Bautista; Luis Cabezón-Gutiérrez; Ana Laura Ortega; Héctor Torres; David Carcedo; Lucía Ruiz de Alda; J Francisco Garcia; Paula Vieitez; Federico Rojo Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 4.430