Virtual Library

 x 
My Library Virtual Library FAQ

Start Your Search

D. Waterhouse



Author of

  • +

    O15 - NSCLC - Chemotherapy II (ID 109)

    • Event: WCLC 2013
    • Type: Oral Abstract Session
    • Track: Medical Oncology
    • Presentations: 1
    • +

      O15.06 - Randomized Phase III Trial of Gemcitabine (G)/Carboplatin (C) with or without Iniparib (I) in Patients (Pts) with Previously Untreated Stage IV Squamous Lung Cancer (ID 3322)

      10:30 - 12:00  |  Author(s): D. Waterhouse

      • Abstract
      • Presentation
      • Slides

      Background
      Iniparib is an agent originally thought to function as an inhibitor of the DNA repair enzyme PARP-1, which is overexpressed in squamous lung cancers. Promising phase II activity and safety were reported with iniparib in combination with GC in pts with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (O’Shaughnessy, NEJM 2011); however, subsequent phase III data were negative. Further study of iniparib’s mechanism of action suggests that this agent induces DNA damage, cell cycle arrest in the G2/M phase, and potentiates DNA-damaging chemotherapies not through PARP inhibition. Herein we report the final results from an international Phase III trial (NCT01082549) of first-line chemotherapy and iniparib in pts with advanced squamous lung cancer.

      Methods
      Pts were randomized 1:1 to GC or GCI. All pts received G 1000 mg/m[2] IV days (D) 1 and 8, and C AUC=5 IV D1 of each 21-D cycle. Iniparib was dosed 5.6 mg/kg IV D 1, 4, 8, and 11. All pts were assessed for response per RECIST 1.1 every 6 weeks. Pts without evidence of progressive disease (PD) or other reason for discontinuation could remain on treatment beyond 6 cycles. Accrual of 780 pts provides 89% power to detect an improvement in survival from 8 months (mos) anticipated with GC to 10.7 mos with GCI (HR of 0.75). Eligibility: Pts with newly diagnosed stage IV (M1a and M1b) squamous lung cancer, ECOG PS 0-1. Exclusion criteria included: history of recent cardiac disease, untreated brain metastases, and treatment for early-stage lung cancer within 12 months of study entry. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Interim analyses for safety and futility were performed by an independent data safety monitoring board.

      Results
      780 pts were enrolled and randomized (GC, 390), (GCI, 390) from March 2010 to May 2012. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups (GC/GCI): median age 66 years (21-86); 74%/73% male; 30%/33% ECOG 0; 28%/33% current smokers; 66%/62% past smokers. The median number of cycles for GC/GCI were 4 (1-26)/5 (1-32). Dose reductions, dose intensity, and discontinuations due to tumor progression or adverse events were similar in both arms. The median OS for GC/GCI was 8.9 v. 8.9 months, HR 1.08 (0.92-1.28), p=.348. 1-year OS was 41 v. 40%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) for GC vs GCI was 4.9 v. 4.8 months, HR 0.99 (0.83-1.19), p=.92. The objective response rate (ORR) for GC v GCI was 34 v. 32%, p=.648. The safety profile was similar in both arms; anemia (28/26%), neutropenia (31/35%), thrombocytopenia (27/28%), and fatigue (6/9%).

      Conclusion
      The addition of iniparib did not improve the efficacy of GC in the treatment of pts with advanced squamous lung cancer. Further development of iniparib in squamous lung cancer is not recommended.

      Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.

      Only Active Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login or select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout.

  • +

    P1.10 - Poster Session 1 - Chemotherapy (ID 204)

    • Event: WCLC 2013
    • Type: Poster Session
    • Track: Medical Oncology
    • Presentations: 1
    • +

      P1.10-033 - Safety and Resource Use in PRONOUNCE: A randomized, phase 3, open-label study of Pemetrexed plus Carboplatin with maintenance Pemetrexed (PemC) and Paclitaxel plus Carboplatin plus Bevacizumab with maintenance Bevacizumab (PCB) in patients with advanced non-squamous (NS) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (ID 1680)

      09:30 - 16:30  |  Author(s): D. Waterhouse

      • Abstract

      Background
      Two combination chemotherapy regimens were compared in a Phase 3, randomized, open-label United States only study. The two-drug regimen of pemetrexed/carboplatin followed by maintenance pemetrexed (PemC) was compared to the three-drug regimen of paclitaxel/carboplatin/bevacizumab followed by maintenance bevacizumab (PCB). The primary endpoint of improved progress-free survival (PFS) without Grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS) for PemC over PCB was not met in PRONOUNCE, as reported by Zinner et al. (ASCO, 2013). No difference in PFS or overall survival (OS) for PemC vs. PCB was observed. Both regimens demonstrated tolerability, but toxicity profiles differed.

      Methods
      Patients 18+ years of age with Stage IV chemonaïve non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NS-NSCLC) were randomized to PemC (n=182) or PCB (n=179). Safety data were compared for patients who received ≥1 dose of study treatment (PemC:171; PCB:166), and resource use including concomitant medications, transfusions, and hospitalizations was recorded. Measures were compared between arms using Fisher’s exact test, if not otherwise specified. Protocol-defined chemotherapy infusion time was 0.7 hours for PemC and 4-5 hours for PCB. For the primary endpoint of G4PFS, the G4 events were reported regardless of drug causality.

      Results
      Of 152 G4PFS events for PemC, 37 (24.3%) resulted from first occurrence of a G4 event. Of 144 G4PFS events for PCB, 64 (44.4%) resulted from first occurrence of a G4 event. The safety profile for the entire study demonstrated that patients on PemC experienced significantly more drug-related Grade 3/4 anemia (18.7% vs. 5.4%; p<0.001), Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (24.0% vs. 9.6%; p<0.001), and Grade 1/2 nausea (46.8% vs. 28.9%; p<0.001). Patients on PCB experienced significantly more drug-related Grade 3/4 neutropenia (24.6% vs. 48.8%; p<0.001) and Grade 1/2 alopecia (8.2% vs. 28.3%; p<0.001). There was a significantly higher rate of drug-related Grade 1/2 sensory neuropathy (8.2% vs. 30.1%; p<0.001), Grade 1/2 hypertension (0.0% vs. 9.6%; p<0.001), Grade 1/2 hemorrhage in pulmonary/upper respiratory (1.8% vs. 13.3%; p< 0.001) and Grade 1/2 joint pain (1.8% vs. 13.9%; p<0.001) with PCB. Patients on PemC required more red blood cell (RBC) transfusions (34.5% vs. 11.4%; p<0.001), but there was no difference in platelet transfusions (p=0.621). Erythropoietic stimulating agents (ESAs) were used more frequently (19.9% vs. 7.2%; p<0.001) in PemC, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) use was significantly higher with PCB (17.0% vs. 30.1%; p=0.005). Requirement for antibiotics (p=0.323) and antiemetics (p=0.574) did not differ between PemC and PCB. There were no differences between PemC and PCB in the number of patients with at least one hospitalization (34.5% vs. 31.9%; p=0.645), and the mean length of stay between PemC (8.2d +/- 6.79) and PCB (8.8d +/- 7.33) did not differ (p=0.682;Wilcoxon rank sum test).

      Conclusion
      The toxicity profiles of PemC and PCB were consistent with previous reports. Toxicities documented as important to patients were split, with mild-to-moderate nausea more common for PemC and alopecia, infection and neuropathy more frequent for PCB. Resource intense toxicities were also divided. Hospitalizations did not differ between treatments. ESAs and RBC transfusions were more common with PemC, and G-CSF use was more common with PCB. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:NCT00948675