Summary Background Ipilimumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 to enhance antitumour immunity. Our aim was to assess the use of ipilimumab after ...radiotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that progressed after docetaxel chemotherapy. Methods We did a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial in which men with at least one bone metastasis from castration-resistant prostate cancer that had progressed after docetaxel treatment were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive bone-directed radiotherapy (8 Gy in one fraction) followed by either ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to four doses. Non-progressing patients could continue to receive ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg or placebo as maintenance therapy every 3 months until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effect, or death. Patients were randomly assigned to either treatment group via a minimisation algorithm, and stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, alkaline phosphatase concentration, haemoglobin concentration, and investigator site. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00861614. Findings From May 26, 2009, to Feb 15, 2012, 799 patients were randomly assigned (399 to ipilimumab and 400 to placebo), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Median overall survival was 11·2 months (95% CI 9·5–12·7) with ipilimumab and 10·0 months (8·3–11·0) with placebo (hazard ratio HR 0·85, 0·72–1·00; p=0·053). However, the assessment of the proportional hazards assumption showed that it was violated (p=0·0031). A piecewise hazard model showed that the HR changed over time: the HR for 0–5 months was 1·46 (95% CI 1·10–1·95), for 5–12 months was 0·65 (0·50–0·85), and beyond 12 months was 0·60 (0·43–0·86). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were immune-related, occurring in 101 (26%) patients in the ipilimumab group and 11 (3%) of patients in the placebo group. The most frequent grade 3–4 adverse events included diarrhoea (64 16% of 393 patients in the ipilimumab group vs seven 2% of 396 in the placebo group), fatigue (40 11% vs 35 9%), anaemia (40 10% vs 43 11%), and colitis (18 5% vs 0). Four (1%) deaths occurred because of toxic effects of the study drug, all in the ipilimumab group. Interpretation Although there was no significant difference between the ipilimumab group and the placebo group in terms of overall survival in the primary analysis, there were signs of activity with the drug that warrant further investigation. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Summary Background Necitumumab is a second-generation recombinant human immunoglobulin G1 EGFR monoclonal antibody that competitively inhibits ligand binding. We aimed to compare necitumumab plus ...pemetrexed and cisplatin with pemetrexed and cisplatin alone in patients with previously untreated, stage IV, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods We did this randomised, open-label, controlled phase 3 study at 103 sites in 20 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–2 and adequate organ function, were randomly assigned 1:1 to treatment with a block randomisation scheme (block size of four) via a telephone-based interactive voice-response system or interactive web-response system. Patients received either cisplatin 75 mg/m2 and pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of a 3-week cycle for a maximum of six cycles alone, or with necitumumab 800 mg on days 1 and 8. Necitumumab was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Randomisation was stratified by smoking history, ECOG performance status, disease histology, and geographical region. Patients and study investigators were not masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00982111. Findings Between Nov 11, 2009, and Feb 2, 2011, we randomly assigned 633 patients to receive either necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin (n=315) or pemetrexed and cisplatin alone (n=318). Enrolment was stopped on Feb 2, 2011, after a recommendation from the independent data monitoring committee. There was no significant difference in overall survival between treatment groups, with a median overall survival of 11·3 months (95% CI 9·5–13·4) in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group versus 11·5 months (10·1–13·1) in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group (hazard ratio 1·01 95% CI 0·84–1·21; p=0·96). The incidence of grade 3 or worse adverse events, including deaths, was higher in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group than in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group; in particular, deaths regarded as related to study drug were reported in 15 (5%) of 304 patients in the necitumumab group versus nine (3%) of 312 patients in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group. Serious adverse events were likewise more frequent in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group than in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group (155 51% of 304 vs 127 41% of 312 patients). Patients in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group had more grade 3–4 rash (45 15% of 304 vs one <1% of 312 patients in the pemetrexed and cisplatin alone group), hypomagnesaemia (23 8% vs seven 2% patients), and grade 3 or higher venous thromboembolic events (23 8% vs 11 4% patients) than did those in the pemetrexed and cisplatin alone group. Interpretation Our findings show no evidence to suggest that the addition of necitumumab to pemetrexed and cisplatin increases survival of previously untreated patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC. Unless future studies identify potentially useful predictive biomarkers, necitumumab is unlikely to provide benefit in this patient population when combined with pemetrexed and cisplatin. Funding Eli Lilly and Company.
Summary Background The optimum dose of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is unknown. A meta-analysis suggested that the incidence of brain ...metastases might be reduced with higher PCI doses. This randomised clinical trial compared the effect of standard versus higher PCI doses on the incidence of brain metastases. Methods Between September, 1999, and December, 2005, 720 patients with limited-stage SCLC in complete remission after chemotherapy and thoracic radiotherapy from 157 centres in 22 countries were randomly assigned to a standard (n=360, 25 Gy in 10 daily fractions of 2·5 Gy) or higher PCI total dose (n=360, 36 Gy) delivered using either conventional (18 daily fractions of 2 Gy) or accelerated hyperfractionated (24 fractions in 16 days with two daily sessions of 1·5 Gy separated by a minimum interval of 6 h) radiotherapy. All of the treatment schedules excluded weekends. Randomisation was stratified according to medical centre, age (≤60 and >60 years), and interval between the start of induction treatment and the date of randomisation (≤90, 91–180, and >180 days). Eligible patients were randomised blindly by the data centre of the Institut Gustave Roussy (PCI99-01 and IFCT) using minimisation, and by the data centres of EORTC (EORTC ROG and LG) and RTOG (for CALGB, ECOG, RTOG, and SWOG), both using block stratification. The primary endpoint was the incidence of brain metastases at 2 years. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00005062. Findings Five patients in the standard-dose group and four in the higher-dose group did not receive PCI; nonetheless, all randomised patients were included in the effectiveness anlysis. After a median follow-up of 39 months (range 0–89 months), 145 patients had brain metastases; 82 in the standard-dose group and 63 in the higher-dose group. There was no significant difference in the 2-year incidence of brain metastases between the standard PCI dose group and the higher-dose group, at 29% (95% CI 24–35) and 23% (18–29), respectively (hazard ratio HR 0·80 95% CI 0·57–1·11, p=0·18). 226 patients in the standard-dose group and 252 in the higher-dose group died; 2-year overall survival was 42% (95% CI 37–48) in the standard-dose group and 37% (32–42) in the higher-dose group (HR 1·20 1·00–1·44; p=0·05). The lower overall survival in the higher-dose group is probably due to increased cancer-related mortality: 189 patients in the standard group versus 218 in the higher-dose group died of progressive disease. Five serious adverse events occurred in the standard-dose group versus zero in the higher-dose group. The most common acute toxic events were fatigue (106 30% patients in the standard-dose group vs 121 34% in the higher-dose group), headache (85 24% vs 99 28%), and nausea or vomiting (80 23% vs 101 28%). Interpretation No significant reduction in the total incidence of brain metastases was observed after higher-dose PCI, but there was a significant increase in mortality. PCI at 25 Gy should remain the standard of care in limited-stage SCLC. Funding Institut Gustave-Roussy, Association pour la Recherche sur le Cancer (2001), Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique (2007). The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) contribution to this trial was supported by grants 5U10 CA11488-30 through 5U10 CA011488-38 from the US National Cancer Institute.
Summary Background Pemetrexed maintenance therapy significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival compared with placebo, and had a good safety profile in a phase 3 ...placebo-controlled study in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Results for quality of life, symptom palliation, and tolerability are presented here. Methods After four cycles of platinum-based induction therapy, 663 patients with stage IIIB or stage IV NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) from March 15, 2005, to July 20, 2007, using the Pocock and Simon minimisation method to receive pemetrexed (500 mg/m2 every 21 days; n=441) or placebo (n=222) plus best supportive care until disease progression. The primary efficacy data have been reported previously. Patients completed the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) at baseline, after each cycle, and post-discontinuation. Worsening of symptoms was defined as an increase of 15 mm or more from baseline on a 100 mm scale for each LCSS item. The primary outcome for these quality-of-life analyses was time to worsening of symptoms, analysed for all randomised patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00102804. Findings Baseline characteristics, including LCSS scores, were well balanced between groups. Baseline LCSS scores were low, indicating low symptom burden for patients without disease progression after completion of first-line treatment. Longer time to worsening was recorded for pain (hazard ratio HR 0·76, 95% CI 0·59–0·99; p=0·041) and haemoptysis (HR 0·58, 95% CI 0·34–0·97; p=0·038) with pemetrexed than with placebo; no other significant differences in analyses of time to worsening were noted. Additional longitudinal analyses showed a greater increase in loss of appetite in the pemetrexed group than in the placebo group (4·3 mm vs 0·2 mm; p=0·028). Rates of resource use were statistically higher for pemetrexed than for placebo: admissions to hospital for drug-related adverse events (19 4% vs none; p=0·001), transfusions (42 10% vs seven 3%; p=0·003), and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (26 6% vs four 2%; p=0·017). Interpretation Quality of life during maintenance therapy with pemetrexed is similar to placebo, except for a small increase in loss of appetite, and significantly delayed worsening of pain and haemoptysis. In view of the improvements in overall and progression-free survival noted with pemetrexed maintenance therapy, such treatment is an option for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC who have not progressed after platinum-based induction therapy. Funding Eli Lilly.
PDF
