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.

Role of Kras Status in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Receiving First-Line Chemotherapy plus Bevacizumab: A TTD Group Cooperative Study

BACKGROUND In the MACRO study, patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were randomised to first-line treatment with 6 cycles of capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) plus bevacizumab followed by either single-agent bevacizumab or XELOX plus bevacizumab until disease progression. An additional retrospective analysis was performed to define the prognostic value of tumour KRAS status on progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and response rates. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS KRAS data (tumour KRAS status and type of mutation) were collected by questionnaire from participating centres that performed KRAS analyses. These data were then cross-referenced with efficacy data for relevant patients in the MACRO study database. KRAS status was analysed in 394 of the 480 patients (82.1%) in the MACRO study. Wild-type (WT) KRAS tumours were found in 219 patients (56%) and mutant (MT) KRAS in 175 patients (44%). Median PFS was 10.9 months for patients with WT KRAS and 9.4 months for patients with MT KRAS tumours (p=0.0038; HR: 1.40; 95% CI:1.12-1.77). The difference in OS was also significant: 26.7 months versus 18.0 months for WT versus MT KRAS, respectively (p=0.0002; HR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.23-1.96). Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that KRAS was an independent variable for both PFS and OS. Responses were observed in 126 patients (57.5%) with WT KRAS tumours and 76 patients (43.4%) with MT KRAS tumours (p=0.0054; OR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.18-2.64). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE This analysis of the MACRO study suggests a prognostic role for tumour KRAS status in patients with mCRC treated with XELOX plus bevacizumab. For both PFS and OS, KRAS status was an independent factor in univariate and multivariate analyses.

Clinical and Virological Efficacy of Etravirine Plus Two Active Nucleos(t)ide Analogs in an Heterogeneous HIV-Infected Population.

Etravirine (ETV) is recommended in combination with a boosted protease inhibitor plus an optimized background regimen for salvage therapy, but there is limited experience with its use in combination with two nucleos(t)ide reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). This multicenter study aimed to assess the efficacy of this combination in two scenarios: group A) subjects without virologic failure on or no experience with non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) switched due to adverse events and group B) subjects switched after a virologic failure on an efavirenz- or nevirapine-based regimen. The primary endpoint was efficacy at 52 weeks analysed by intention-to-treat. Virologic failure was defined as the inability to suppress plasma HIV-RNA to <50 copies/mL after 24 weeks on treatment, or a confirmed viral load >200 copies/mL in patients who had previously achieved a viral suppression or had an undetectable viral load at inclusion. Two hundred eighty seven patients were included. Treatment efficacy rates in group A and B were 88.0% (CI95, 83.9-92.1%) and 77.4% (CI95, 65.0-89.7%), respectively; the rates reached 97.2% (CI95, 95.1-99.3%) and 90.5% (CI95, 81.7-99.3), by on-treatment analysis. The once-a-day ETV treatment was as effective as the twice daily dosing regimen. Grade 1-2 adverse events were observed motivating a treatment switch in 4.2% of the subjects. In conclusion, ETV (once- or twice daily) plus two analogs is a suitable, well-tolerated combination both as a switching strategy and after failure with first generation NNRTIs, ensuring full drug activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01437241.