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.

Colorectal cancer survival in the USA and Europe: a CONCORD high-resolution study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent to which stage at diagnosis and adherence to treatment guidelines may explain the persistent differences in colorectal cancer survival between the USA and Europe. DESIGN: A high-resolution study using detailed clinical data on Dukes' stage, diagnostic procedures, treatment and follow-up, collected directly from medical records by trained abstractors under a single protocol, with standardised quality control and central statistical analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 21 population-based registries in seven US states and nine European countries provided data for random samples comprising 12 523 adults (15-99 years) diagnosed with colorectal cancer during 1996-1998. OUTCOME MEASURES: Logistic regression models were used to compare adherence to 'standard care' in the USA and Europe. Net survival and excess risk of death were estimated with flexible parametric models. RESULTS: The proportion of Dukes' A and B tumours was similar in the USA and Europe, while that of Dukes' C was more frequent in the USA (38% vs 21%) and of Dukes' D more frequent in Europe (22% vs 10%). Resection with curative intent was more frequent in the USA (85% vs 75%). Elderly patients (75-99 years) were 70-90% less likely to receive radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Age-standardised 5-year net survival was similar in the USA (58%) and Northern and Western Europe (54-56%) and lowest in Eastern Europe (42%). The mean excess hazard up to 5 years after diagnosis was highest in Eastern Europe, especially among elderly patients and those with Dukes' D tumours. CONCLUSIONS: The wide differences in colorectal cancer survival between Europe and the USA in the late 1990s are probably attributable to earlier stage and more extensive use of surgery and adjuvant treatment in the USA. Elderly patients with colorectal cancer received surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy less often than younger patients, despite evidence that they could also have benefited.