Start Your Search
O03 - NSCLC - Targeted Therapies I (ID 113)
- Event: WCLC 2013
- Type: Oral Abstract Session
- Track: Medical Oncology
- Presentations: 1
O03.01 - GALAXY-1: Randomized phase II study of docetaxel with or without ganetespib in advanced lung adenocarcinoma: Results in biomarker sub-groups and all adenocarcinoma patients. (ID 1715)
10:30 - 12:00 | Author(s): M.R. Modiano
Ganetespib (G) is a highly potent 2[nd]-generation Hsp90 inhibitor showing synergistic activity with docetaxel (D) in NSCLC xenografts. G has a favorable clinical safety profile and has shown single-agent clinical activity in NSCLC patients with tumors harboring EML4-ALK translocations and KRAS mutations (mKRAS).
We conducted a randomized, international open-label Phase 2 study of D with or without G in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma, one prior systemic therapy, and ECOG PS 0/1. D was given at 75 mg/m on Day 1 of a three-week cycle in both arms. In the combination arm, G was given at 150 mg/m on Days 1 and 15. The co-primary endpoints were PFS in patients with elevated LDH (eLDH) levels, or tumors harboring KRAS mutation. Key secondary endpoints were OS and PFS in all adenocarcinoma patients. Target enrollment was 240 adenocarcinoma patients, including 120 eLDH and 80 mKRAS patients. The study was initiated in all NSCLC patients and amended to include only those with adenocarcinoma histology.
Enrollment of 252 adenocarcinoma patients completed in November 2012; enrollment of eLDH (total N=112) and mKRAS (total N= 86) patients completed in May 2013. In all adenocarcinoma patients (N=252), baseline characteristics were balanced between the two arms (median age 60 years, males 56%, PS 0 41% and never-smokers 25%). Median numbers of cycles delivered were 6 and 4 for D+G and D, respectively. Grade 3/4 adverse events for the D+G and D alone arms were: neutropenia 37% vs. 38%; fatigue 6% vs. 3%; anemia 8% vs. 2%; diarrhea 3% vs. 0; fever with neutropenia 11% vs. 2%. A pre-specified analysis was conducted in May 2013. PFS HR for eLDH population (N=76) was 0.88 (90% CI: 0.57, 1.36, p=0.310); OS HR was 0.63 (90% CI: 0.40, 0.99, p=0.046). PFS HR for mKRAS population (N=63) was 0.83 (90% CI: 0.51, 1.37, p=0.271); and OS HR was 0.85 (90% CI: 0.48, 1.50, p=0.313). OS HR in the all adenocarcinoma population was 0.82 (90% CI: 0.62, 1.09, p=0.082), and the PFS HR was 0.84 (90% CI: 0.65, 1.07, p=0.038). For patients that were enrolled >6 months after diagnosis of advanced NSCLC (N=176), a pre-specified stratification factor, the OS HR was 0.61 (90% CI: 0.43, 0.87, p=0.0093), and the PFS HR was 0.61 (90% CI: 0.45, 0.83, p=0.0041). Final data analysis is expected by end of September 2013. Updated PFS and OS results for all populations will be presented at the meeting.
Survival improvement was noted in all adenocarcinoma patients with the addition of ganetespib to docetaxel. The maximal benefit was achieved in patients with eLDH and those diagnosed with advanced NSCLC >6 months prior to study entry.
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
- Coordinates: 10/28/2013, 09:30 - 16:30, Exhibit Hall, Ground Level
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): M.R. Modiano
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.
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.
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).
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