Mark G Faber1, Chong Wang2, Sruthi Kommi Reddy3, Alison Meagher4, Amy Early5, Hongbin Chen6, Grace K Dy7. 1. Department of Medicine, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA. Electronic address: Mark.Faber@Roswellpark.org. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA. Electronic address: Chong.Wang@Roswellpark.org. 3. Department of Medicine, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA. 4. Department of Pharmacy, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA. Electronic address: Alison.Meagher@Roswellpark.org. 5. Department of Medicine, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA. Electronic address: Amy.Early@Roswellpark.org. 6. Department of Medicine, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA. Electronic address: Hongbin.Chen@Roswellpark.org. 7. Department of Medicine, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA. Electronic address: Grace.Dy@Roswellpark.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Maintenance therapy with pemetrexed has shown survival benefit in patients with advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The recommended dose schedule is 500 mg/m 2 in 21-day cycles. Prolonged treatment with maintenance pemetrexed can result in cumulative toxicities. We sought to compare treatment outcomes in patients receiving an alternate maintenance schedule in realworld practice. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective study investigated patients with advanced stage (IIIB and IV) NSCLC receiving at least two doses of maintenance pemetrexed from May 1, 2011 to June 30, 2016. The objective was to compare time on treatment with maintenance pemetrexed therapy initiated at a standard schedule (q3 weeks) versus an alternate schedule (q4 weeks or longer). Also evaluated were progressionfree survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) differences between the two groups. RESULTS: 129 patients were included, of whom 40 started the alternate schedule no later than cycle 3 of treatment (29 of 40 patients initiated maintenance treatment on the alternate schedule). Average time on maintenance treatment for patients appeared to be longer in the patients who received the alternate schedule regimen (195 vs 263 days, p =0.008). OS trended towards better survival among patients receiving the alternate schedule regimen (11.9 vs 18.1 months, p =0.3). Limiting the analysis to ALK wildtype, the patients showed a similar trend, with median PFS (7.6 vs 11.5 months, p =0.46) and OS (11.9 vs 17.6 months, p =0.38), still favoring the alternate schedule. CONCLUSIONS: The alternate dosing schedule of maintenance pemetrexed (q4 weeks or longer) is feasible and not detrimental to OS. Future investigations evaluating the optimal administration schedule of maintenance pemetrexed is warranted.
BACKGROUND: Maintenance therapy with pemetrexed has shown survival benefit in patients with advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The recommended dose schedule is 500 mg/m 2 in 21-day cycles. Prolonged treatment with maintenance pemetrexed can result in cumulative toxicities. We sought to compare treatment outcomes in patients receiving an alternate maintenance schedule in realworld practice. METHODS: This single-center, retrospective study investigated patients with advanced stage (IIIB and IV) NSCLC receiving at least two doses of maintenance pemetrexed from May 1, 2011 to June 30, 2016. The objective was to compare time on treatment with maintenance pemetrexed therapy initiated at a standard schedule (q3 weeks) versus an alternate schedule (q4 weeks or longer). Also evaluated were progressionfree survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) differences between the two groups. RESULTS: 129 patients were included, of whom 40 started the alternate schedule no later than cycle 3 of treatment (29 of 40 patients initiated maintenance treatment on the alternate schedule). Average time on maintenance treatment for patients appeared to be longer in the patients who received the alternate schedule regimen (195 vs 263 days, p =0.008). OS trended towards better survival among patients receiving the alternate schedule regimen (11.9 vs 18.1 months, p =0.3). Limiting the analysis to ALK wildtype, the patients showed a similar trend, with median PFS (7.6 vs 11.5 months, p =0.46) and OS (11.9 vs 17.6 months, p =0.38), still favoring the alternate schedule. CONCLUSIONS: The alternate dosing schedule of maintenance pemetrexed (q4 weeks or longer) is feasible and not detrimental to OS. Future investigations evaluating the optimal administration schedule of maintenance pemetrexed is warranted.