Treatment rationale and study design for a phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of maintenance pemetrexed plus best supportive care versus best supportive care immediately following induction treatment with pemetrexed plus cisplatin for advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: To improve the efficacy of first-line therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), additional maintenance chemotherapy may be given after initial induction chemotherapy in patients who did not progress during the initial treatment, rather than waiting for disease progression to administer second-line treatment. Maintenance therapy may consist of an agent that either was or was not present in the induction regimen. The antifolate pemetrexed is efficacious in combination with cisplatin for first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC and has shown efficacy as a maintenance agent in studies in which it was not included in the induction regimen. We designed a phase III study to determine if pemetrexed maintenance therapy improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after cisplatin/pemetrexed induction therapy in patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Furthermore, since evidence suggests expression levels of thymidylate synthase, the primary target of pemetrexed, may be associated with responsiveness to pemetrexed, translational research will address whether thymidylate synthase expression correlates with efficacy outcomes of pemetrexed. METHODS/DESIGN: Approximately 900 patients will receive four cycles of induction chemotherapy consisting of pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) and cisplatin (75 mg/m2) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 who have not progressed during induction therapy will randomly receive (in a 2:1 ratio) one of two double-blind maintenance regimens: pemetrexed (500 mg/m2 on day 1 of a 21-day cycle) plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC. The primary objective is to compare PFS between treatment arms. Secondary objectives include a fully powered analysis of OS, objective tumor response rate, patient-reported outcomes, resource utilization, and toxicity. Tumor specimens for translational research will be obtained from consenting patients before induction treatment, with a second biopsy performed in eligible patients following the induction phase. DISCUSSION: Although using a drug as maintenance therapy that was not used in the induction regimen exposes patients to an agent with a different mechanism of action, evidence suggests that continued use of an agent present in the induction regimen as maintenance therapy enables the identification of patients most likely to benefit from maintenance treatment.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in the treatment of high-risk febrile neutropenia: a multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) have been shown to help prevent febrile neutropenia in certain subgroups of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, but their role in treating febrile neutropenia is controversial. The purpose of our study was to evaluate-in a prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial-the efficacy of adding G-CSF to broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment of patients with solid tumors and high-risk febrile neutropenia. METHODS A total of 210 patients with solid tumors treated with conventional-dose chemotherapy who presented with fever and grade IV neutropenia were considered to be eligible for the trial. They met at least one of the following high-risk criteria: profound neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count <100/mm(3)), short latency from previous chemotherapy cycle (<10 days), sepsis or clinically documented infection at presentation, severe comorbidity, performance status of 3-4 (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scale), or prior inpatient status. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive the antibiotics ceftazidime and amikacin, with or without G-CSF (5 microg/kg per day). The primary study end point was the duration of hospitalization. All P values were two-sided. RESULTS Patients randomly assigned to receive G-CSF had a significantly shorter duration of grade IV neutropenia (median, 2 days versus 3 days; P = 0.0004), antibiotic therapy (median, 5 days versus 6 days; P = 0.013), and hospital stay (median, 5 days versus 7 days; P = 0.015) than patients in the control arm. The incidence of serious medical complications not present at the initial clinical evaluation was 10% in the G-CSF group and 17% in the control group (P = 0.12), including five deaths in each study arm. The median cost of hospital stay and the median overall cost per patient admission were reduced by 17% (P = 0.01) and by 11% (P = 0.07), respectively, in the G-CSF arm compared with the control arm. CONCLUSIONS Adding G-CSF to antibiotic therapy shortens the duration of neutropenia, reduces the duration of antibiotic therapy and hospitalization, and decreases hospital costs in patients with high-risk febrile neutropenia.

Plerixafor and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for first-line steady-state autologous peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in lymphoma and multiple myeloma: results of the prospective PREDICT trial.

In Europe, the combination of plerixafor + granulocyte colony-stimulating factor is approved for the mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells for autologous transplantation in patients with lymphoma and myeloma whose cells mobilize poorly. The purpose of this study was to further assess the safety and efficacy of plerixafor + granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for front-line mobilization in European patients with lymphoma or myeloma. In this multicenter, open label, single-arm study, patients received granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (10 μg/kg/day) subcutaneously for 4 days; on the evening of day 4 they were given plerixafor (0.24 mg/kg) subcutaneously. Patients underwent apheresis on day 5 after a morning dose of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. The primary study objective was to confirm the safety of mobilization with plerixafor. Secondary objectives included assessment of efficacy (apheresis yield, time to engraftment). The combination of plerixafor + granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was used to mobilize hematopoietic stem cells in 118 patients (90 with myeloma, 25 with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, 3 with Hodgkin's disease). Treatment-emergent plerixafor-related adverse events were reported in 24 patients. Most adverse events occurred within 1 hour after injection, were grade 1 or 2 in severity and included gastrointestinal disorders or injection-site reactions. The minimum cell yield (≥ 2 × 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg) was harvested in 98% of patients with myeloma and in 80% of those with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in a median of one apheresis. The optimum cell dose (≥ 5 × 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or ≥ 6 × 10(6) CD34(+) cells/kg for myeloma) was harvested in 89% of myeloma patients and 48% of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients. In this prospective, multicenter European study, mobilization with plerixafor + granulocyte colony-stimulating factor allowed the majority of patients with myeloma or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma to undergo transplantation with minimal toxicity, providing further data supporting the safety and efficacy of plerixafor + granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for front-line mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or myeloma.