TY - JOUR
T1 - Efficacy of pemetrexed as second-line therapy in advanced NSCLC after either treatment-free interval or maintenance therapy with gemcitabine or erlotinib in IFCT-GFPC 05-02 phase III study
AU - Bylicki, Olivier
AU - Ferlay, Céline
AU - Chouaid, Christos
AU - Lavolé, Armelle
AU - Barlési, Fabrice
AU - Dubos, Cathérine
AU - Westeel, Virginie
AU - Créquit, Jacky
AU - Corre, Roman
AU - Vergnenègre, Alain
AU - Monnet, Isabelle
AU - Le Caer, Hervé
AU - Fournel, Pierre
AU - Vaylet, Fabien
AU - Falchero, Lionel
AU - Poudenx, Michel
AU - Linard, Pauline
AU - Pérol, David
AU - Zalcman, Gérald
AU - Pérol, Maurice
PY - 2013/1/1
Y1 - 2013/1/1
N2 - INTRODUCTION:: Maintenance therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) might lead to resistance to subsequent treatments. IFCT-GFPC 0502 study showed a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance compared with observation after cisplatin-gemcitabine chemotherapy. The trial included a pre-defined pemetrexed second-line therapy, allowing post-hoc assessment of its efficacy according to previous maintenance treatment or treatment-free interval. METHODS:: Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients were randomized after four cycles of cisplatin-gemcitabine chemotherapy to either observation or to receive maintenance therapy with gemcitabine or erlotinib. Pemetrexed was given as second-line treatment on disease progression in all arms. PFS and overall survival (OS) were assessed from the beginning of pemetrexed therapy according to randomization arm. RESULTS:: Of the 464 randomized patients, 360 (78 %) received second-line pemetrexed (130 [84%], 114 [74%], and 116 [75%] in observation, gemcitabine, and erlotinib arm, respectively). Median number of pemetrexed cycles was 3 (1-40) in all arms. Median PFS did not differ between gemcitabine and observation arms (4.2 versus 3.9 months, hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81 [0.62-1.06]) or between erlotinib and observation arms (4.2 versus 3.9 months, HR 0.83 [0.64-1.09]). OS data showed a non-significant improvement with gemcitabine arm versus observation arm (8.3 versus 7.5 months, HR 0.81 [0.61-1.07]) or erlotinib arm versus observation arm (9.1 versus 7.5 months, HR 0.80 [0.61-1.05]). Results were similar for non-squamous patients. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were comparable in all arms. CONCLUSIONS:: Maintenance therapy with gemcitabine continuation or erlotinib does not seem to impair efficacy of second-line pemetrexed comparatively to administration after a treatment-free interval.
AB - INTRODUCTION:: Maintenance therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) might lead to resistance to subsequent treatments. IFCT-GFPC 0502 study showed a progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with gemcitabine or erlotinib maintenance compared with observation after cisplatin-gemcitabine chemotherapy. The trial included a pre-defined pemetrexed second-line therapy, allowing post-hoc assessment of its efficacy according to previous maintenance treatment or treatment-free interval. METHODS:: Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients were randomized after four cycles of cisplatin-gemcitabine chemotherapy to either observation or to receive maintenance therapy with gemcitabine or erlotinib. Pemetrexed was given as second-line treatment on disease progression in all arms. PFS and overall survival (OS) were assessed from the beginning of pemetrexed therapy according to randomization arm. RESULTS:: Of the 464 randomized patients, 360 (78 %) received second-line pemetrexed (130 [84%], 114 [74%], and 116 [75%] in observation, gemcitabine, and erlotinib arm, respectively). Median number of pemetrexed cycles was 3 (1-40) in all arms. Median PFS did not differ between gemcitabine and observation arms (4.2 versus 3.9 months, hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81 [0.62-1.06]) or between erlotinib and observation arms (4.2 versus 3.9 months, HR 0.83 [0.64-1.09]). OS data showed a non-significant improvement with gemcitabine arm versus observation arm (8.3 versus 7.5 months, HR 0.81 [0.61-1.07]) or erlotinib arm versus observation arm (9.1 versus 7.5 months, HR 0.80 [0.61-1.05]). Results were similar for non-squamous patients. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were comparable in all arms. CONCLUSIONS:: Maintenance therapy with gemcitabine continuation or erlotinib does not seem to impair efficacy of second-line pemetrexed comparatively to administration after a treatment-free interval.
KW - Maintenance
KW - Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
KW - Pemetrexed
KW - Second line
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84880919039&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31828cb505
DO - 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31828cb505
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84880919039
SN - 1556-0864
VL - 8
SP - 906
EP - 914
JO - Journal of Thoracic Oncology
JF - Journal of Thoracic Oncology
IS - 7
ER -