First-cycle rash and survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer receiving cetuximab in combination with first-line chemotherapy : a subgroup analysis of data from the FLEX phase 3 study

Background: The randomised phase 3 First-Line Erbitux in Lung Cancer (FLEX) study showed that the addition of cetuximab to cisplatin and vinorelbine significantly improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The main cetuximab-related side-effect was acne-like rash. Here, we assessed the association of this acne-like rash with clinical benefit. Methods: We did a subgroup analysis of patients in the FLEX study, which enrolled patients with advanced NSCLC whose tumours expressed epidermal growth factor receptor. Our landmark analysis assessed if the development of acne-like rash in the first 21 days of treatment (first-cycle rash) was associated with clinical outcome, on the basis of patients in the intention-to-treat population alive on day 21. The FLEX study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798. Findings: 518 patients in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group-290 of whom had first-cycle rash-and 540 patients in the chemotherapy alone group were alive on day 21. Patients in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group with first-cycle rash had significantly prolonged overall survival compared with patients in the same treatment group without first-cycle rash (median 15·0 months [95% CI 12·8-16·4] vs 8·8 months [7·6-11·1]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·631 [0·515-0·774]; p<0·0001). Corresponding significant associations were also noted for progression-free survival (median 5·4 months [5·2-5·7] vs 4·3 months [4·1-5·3]; HR 0·741 [0·607-0·905]; p=0·0031) and response (rate 44·8% [39·0-50·8] vs 32·0% [26·0-38·5]; odds ratio 1·703 [1·186-2·448]; p=0·0039). Overall survival for patients without first-cycle rash was similar to that of patients that received chemotherapy alone (median 8·8 months [7·6-11·1] vs 10·3 months [9·6-11·3]; HR 1·085 [0·910-1·293]; p=0·36). The significant overall survival benefit for patients with first-cycle rash versus without was seen in all histology subgroups: adenocarcinoma (median 16·9 months, [14·1-20·6] vs 9·3 months [7·7-13·2]; HR 0·614 [0·453-0·832]; p=0·0015), squamous-cell carcinoma (median 13·2 months [10·6-16·0] vs 8·1 months [6·7-12·6]; HR 0·659 [0·472-0·921]; p=0·014), and carcinomas of other histology (median 12·6 months [9·2-16·4] vs 6·9 months [5·2-11·0]; HR 0·616 [0·392-0·966]; p=0·033). Interpretation: First-cycle rash was associated with a better outcome in patients with advanced NSCLC who received cisplatin and vinorelbine plus cetuximab as a first-line treatment. First-cycle rash might be a surrogate clinical marker that could be used to tailor cetuximab treatment for advanced NSCLC to those patients who would be most likely to derive a significant benefit. Funding: Merck KGaA. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd.

Randomized phase II trial of the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab combined with docetaxel in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer administered as first-line treatment : the M77001 study group

Purpose: This randomized, multicenter trial compared first-line trastuzumab plus docetaxel versus docetaxel alone in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to six cycles of docetaxel 100 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks, with or without trastuzumab 4 mg/kg loading dose followed by 2 mg/kg weekly until disease progression. Results: A total of 186 patients received at least one dose of the study drug. Trastuzumab plus docetaxel was significantly superior to docetaxel alone in terms of overall response rate (61% v 34%; P = .0002), overall survival (median, 31.2 v 22.7 months; P = .0325), time to disease progression (median, 11.7 v 6.1 months; P = .0001), time to treatment failure (median, 9.8 v 5.3 months; P = .0001), and duration of response (median, 11.7 v 5.7 months; P = .009). There was little difference in the number and severity of adverse events between the arms. Grade 3 to 4 neutropenia was seen more commonly with the combination (32%) than with docetaxel alone (22%), and there was a slightly higher incidence of febrile neutropenia in the combination arm (23% v 17%). One patient in the combination arm experienced symptomatic heart failure (1%). Another patient experienced symptomatic heart failure 5 months after discontinuation of trastuzumab because of disease progression, while being treated with an investigational anthracycline for 4 months. Conclusion: Trastuzumab combined with docetaxel is superior to docetaxel alone as first-line treatment of patients with HER2-positive MBC in terms of overall survival, response rate, response duration, time to progression, and time to treatment failure, with little additional toxicity. © 2005 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

EGFR expression as a predictor of survival for first-line chemotherapy plus cetuximab in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer : analysis of data from the phase 3 FLEX study

Background: Findings from the phase 3 First-Line ErbituX in lung cancer (FLEX) study showed that the addition of cetuximab to first-line chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·871, 95% CI 0·762-0·996; p=0·044) in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To define patients benefiting most from cetuximab, we studied the association of tumour EGFR expression level with clinical outcome in FLEX study patients. Methods: We used prospectively collected tumour EGFR expression data to generate an immunohistochemistry score for FLEX study patients on a continuous scale of 0-300. We used response data to select an outcome-based discriminatory threshold immunohistochemistry score for EGFR expression of 200. Treatment outcome was analysed in patients with low (immunohistochemistry score <200) and high (≥200) tumour EGFR expression. The primary endpoint in the FLEX study was overall survival. We analysed patients from the FLEX intention-to-treat (ITT) population. The FLEX study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00148798. Findings: Tumour EGFR immunohistochemistry data were available for 1121 of 1125 (99·6%) patients from the FLEX study ITT population. High EGFR expression was scored for 345 (31%) evaluable patients and low for 776 (69%) patients. For patients in the high EGFR expression group, overall survival was longer in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group than in the chemotherapy alone group (median 12·0 months [95% CI 10·2-15·2] vs 9·6 months [7·6-10·6]; HR 0·73, 0·58-0·93; p=0·011), with no meaningful increase in side-effects. We recorded no corresponding survival benefit for patients in the low EGFR expression group (median 9·8 months [8·9-12·2] vs 10·3 months [9·2-11·5]; HR 0·99, 0·84-1·16; p=0·88). A treatment interaction test assessing the difference in the HRs for overall survival between the EGFR expression groups suggested a predictive value for EGFR expression (p=0·044). Interpretation: High EGFR expression is a tumour biomarker that can predict survival benefit from the addition of cetuximab to first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. Assessment of EGFR expression could offer a personalised treatment approach in this setting. Funding: Merck KGaA. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd.

Randomized phase II study of cetuximab plus cisplatin/vinorelbine compared with cisplatin/vinorelbine alone as first-line therapy in EGFR-expressing advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Background: The Lung Cancer Cetuximab Study is an open-label, randomized phase II pilot study of cisplatin and vinorelbine combined with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted monoclonal antibody cetuximab versus cisplatin and vinorelbine alone, in patients with advanced EGFR-expressing, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). End points of the study are activity, safety and pharmacokinetics. Patients and methods: Following randomization, for a maximum of eight cycles, patients received three-weekly cycles of cisplatin (80 mg/m2, day 1) and vinorelbine (25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8) alone or following cetuximab treatment (initial dose 400 mg/m, followed by 250 mg/m2 weekly thereafter). Results: Eighty-six patients were randomly allocated to the study (43 per arm). Confirmed response rates were 28% in the cisplatin/vinorelbine arm (A) and 35% in the cetuximab plus cisplatin/vinorelbine arm (B). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.6 months in arm A and 5.0 months in arm B, with PFS rates at 12 months of 0% and 15%, respectively. Median survival was 7.3 months in arm A and 8.3 months in arm B. The 24-month survival rates were 0% and 16%, respectively. The cetuximab combination was well tolerated. Conclusion: In the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC, the combination of cetuximab plus cisplatin/vinorelbine demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and the potential to improve activity over cisplatin/vinorelbine alone. © 2007 European Society for Medical Oncology.

Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials of chemotherapy plus cetuximab as first-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES: Four randomized phase II/III trials investigated the addition of cetuximab to platinum-based, first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A meta-analysis was performed to examine the benefit/risk ratio for the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The meta-analysis included individual patient efficacy data from 2018 patients and individual patient safety data from 1970 patients comprising respectively the combined intention-to-treat and safety populations of the four trials. The effect of adding cetuximab to chemotherapy was measured by hazard ratios (HRs) obtained using a Cox proportional hazards model and odds ratios calculated by logistic regression. Survival rates at 1 year were calculated. All applied models were stratified by trial. Tests on heterogeneity of treatment effects across the trials and sensitivity analyses were performed for all endpoints. RESULTS: The meta-analysis demonstrated that the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival (HR 0.88, p=0.009, median 10.3 vs 9.4 months), progression-free survival (HR 0.90, p=0.045, median 4.7 vs 4.5 months) and response (odds ratio 1.46, p<0.001, overall response rate 32.2% vs 24.4%) compared with chemotherapy alone. The safety profile of chemotherapy plus cetuximab in the meta-analysis population was confirmed as manageable. Neither trials nor patient subgroups defined by key baseline characteristics showed significant heterogeneity for any endpoint. CONCLUSION: The addition of cetuximab to platinum-based, first-line chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC significantly improved outcome for all efficacy endpoints with an acceptable safety profile, indicating a favorable benefit/risk ratio.

2nd ESMO Consensus Conference on Lung Cancer : non-small-cell lung cancer first-line/second and further lines in advanced disease

To complement the existing treatment guidelines for all tumour types, ESMO organises consensus conferences to focus on specific issues in each type of tumour. The 2nd ESMO Consensus Conference on Lung Cancer was held on 11-12 May 2013 in Lugano. A total of 35 experts met to address several questions on non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in each of four areas: pathology and molecular biomarkers, first-line/second and further lines in advanced disease, early stage disease and locally-advanced disease. For each question, recommendations were made including reference to the grade of recommendation and level of evidence. This consensus paper focuses on 1st line / 2nd and further lines of treatment in advanced disease. © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved.

Resilience and work-life balance in first-line nurse manager

Purpose The aim of this study was to explore how first-line nurse managers constructed the meaning of resilience and its relationship to work-life balance for nurses in Korea. Methods Participants were 20 first-line nurse managers working in six university hospitals. Data were collected through in-depth interviews from December 2011 to August 2012, and analyzed using Strauss and Corbin's grounded theory method. Results Analysis revealed that participants perceived work-life balance and resilience to be shaped by dynamic, reflective processes. The features consisting resilience included "positive thinking", "flexibility", "assuming responsibility", and "separating work and life". This perception of resilience has the potential to facilitate a shift in focus from negative to positive experiences, from rigidity to flexibility, from task-centered to person-centered thinking, and from the organization to life. Conclusions Recognizing the importance of work-life balance in producing and sustaining resilience in first-line nurse managers could increase retention in the Korean nursing workforce.

EVERSUN: A phase 2 trial of alternating sunitinib and everolimus as first-line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma

Background We hypothesised that alternating inhibitors of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and mammalian target of rapamycin pathways would delay the development of resistance in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Patients and methods A single-arm, two-stage, multicentre, phase 2 trial to determine the activity, feasibility, and safety of 12-week cycles of sunitinib 50 mg daily 4 weeks on / 2 weeks off, alternating with everolimus 10 mg daily for 5 weeks on / 1 week off, until disease progression or prohibitive toxicity in favourable or intermediate-risk aRCC. The primary end point was proportion alive and progression-free at 6 months (PFS6m). The secondary end points were feasibility, tumour response, overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs). The correlative objective was to assess biomarkers and correlate with clinical outcome. Results We recruited 55 eligible participants from September 2010 to August 2012. Demographics: mean age 61, 71% male, favourable risk 16%, intermediate risk 84%. Cycle 2 commenced within 14 weeks for 80% of participants; 64% received ≥22 weeks of alternating therapy; 78% received ≥22 weeks of any treatment. PFS6m was 29/55 (53%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 40% to 66%). Tumour response rate was 7/55 (13%; 95% CI 4% to 22%, all partial responses). After median follow-up of 20 months, 47 of 55 (86%) had progressed with a median progression-free survival of 8 months (95% CI 5–10), and 30 of 55 (55%) had died with a median OS of 17 months (95% CI 12–undefined). AEs were consistent with those expected for each single agent. No convincing prognostic biomarkers were identified. Conclusions The EVERSUN regimen was feasible and safe, but its activity did not meet pre-specified values to warrant further research. This supports the current approach of continuing anti-VEGF therapy until progression or prohibitive toxicity before changing treatment.

Dasatinib, nilotinib and standard-dose imatinib for the first line treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia: Systematic reviews and economic analyses

- Background Nilotinib and dasatinib are now being considered as alternative treatments to imatinib as a first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML). - Objective This technology assessment reviews the available evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dasatinib, nilotinib and standard-dose imatinib for the first-line treatment of Philadelphia chromosome-positive CML. - Data sources Databases [including MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, the US Food and Drug Administration website and the European Medicines Agency website] were searched from search end date of the last technology appraisal report on this topic in October 2002 to September 2011. - Review methods A systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies; a review of surrogate relationships with survival; a review and critique of manufacturer submissions; and a model-based economic analysis. - Results Two clinical trials (dasatinib vs imatinib and nilotinib vs imatinib) were included in the effectiveness review. Survival was not significantly different for dasatinib or nilotinib compared with imatinib with the 24-month follow-up data available. The rates of complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) and major molecular response (MMR) were higher for patients receiving dasatinib than for those with imatinib for 12 months' follow-up (CCyR 83% vs 72%, p < 0.001; MMR 46% vs 28%, p < 0.0001). The rates of CCyR and MMR were higher for patients receiving nilotinib than for those receiving imatinib for 12 months' follow-up (CCyR 80% vs 65%, p < 0.001; MMR 44% vs 22%, p < 0.0001). An indirect comparison analysis showed no difference between dasatinib and nilotinib for CCyR or MMR rates for 12 months' follow-up (CCyR, odds ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.92; MMR, odds ratio 1.28, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.16). There is observational association evidence from imatinib studies supporting the use of CCyR and MMR at 12 months as surrogates for overall all-cause survival and progression-free survival in patients with CML in chronic phase. In the cost-effectiveness modelling scenario, analyses were provided to reflect the extensive structural uncertainty and different approaches to estimating OS. First-line dasatinib is predicted to provide very poor value for money compared with first-line imatinib, with deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of between £256,000 and £450,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Conversely, first-line nilotinib provided favourable ICERs at the willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000-30,000 per QALY. - Limitations Immaturity of empirical trial data relative to life expectancy, forcing either reliance on surrogate relationships or cumulative survival/treatment duration assumptions. - Conclusions From the two trials available, dasatinib and nilotinib have a statistically significant advantage compared with imatinib as measured by MMR or CCyR. Taking into account the treatment pathways for patients with CML, i.e. assuming the use of second-line nilotinib, first-line nilotinib appears to be more cost-effective than first-line imatinib. Dasatinib was not cost-effective if decision thresholds of £20,000 per QALY or £30,000 per QALY were used, compared with imatinib and nilotinib. Uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness analysis would be substantially reduced with better and more UK-specific data on the incidence and cost of stem cell transplantation in patients with chronic CML. - Funding The Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute for Health Research.

Complete cytogenetic response and major molecular response as surrogate outcomes for overall survival in first-line treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia: A case study for technology appraisal on the basis of surrogate outcomes evidence

Objectives In 2012, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence assessed dasatinib, nilotinib, and standard-dose imatinib as first-line treatment of chronic phase chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). Licensing of these alternative treatments was based on randomized controlled trials assessing complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) and major molecular response (MMR) at 12 months as primary end points. We use this case study to illustrate the validation of CCyR and MMR as surrogate outcomes for overall survival in CML and how this evidence was used to inform National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s recommendation on the public funding of these first-line treatments for CML. Methods We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the association between CCyR and MMR at 12 months and overall survival in patients with chronic phase CML. We estimated life expectancy by extrapolating long-term survival from the weighted overall survival stratified according to the achievement of CCyR and MMR. Results Five studies provided data on the observational association between CCyR or MMR and overall survival. Based on the pooled association between CCyR and MMR and overall survival, our modeling showed comparable predicted mean duration of survival (21–23 years) following first-line treatment with imatinib, dasatinib, or nilotinib. Conclusions This case study illustrates the consideration of surrogate outcome evidence in health technology assessment. Although it is often recommended that the acceptance of surrogate outcomes be based on randomized controlled trial data demonstrating an association between the treatment effect on both the surrogate outcome and the final outcome, this case study shows that policymakers may be willing to accept a lower level of evidence (i.e., observational association).

Afatinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (LUX-Lung 7): a phase 2B, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Background The irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib are approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of afatinib and gefitinib in this setting. Methods This multicentre, international, open-label, exploratory, randomised controlled phase 2B trial (LUX-Lung 7) was done at 64 centres in 13 countries. Treatment-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or gefitinib (250 mg per day) until disease progression, or beyond if deemed beneficial by the investigator. Randomisation, stratified by EGFR mutation type and status of brain metastases, was done centrally using a validated number generating system implemented via an interactive voice or web-based response system with a block size of four. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival by independent central review, time-to-treatment failure, and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01466660. Findings Between Dec 13, 2011, and Aug 8, 2013, 319 patients were randomly assigned (160 to afatinib and 159 to gefitinib). Median follow-up was 27·3 months (IQR 15·3–33·9). Progression-free survival (median 11·0 months [95% CI 10·6–12·9] with afatinib vs 10·9 months [9·1–11·5] with gefitinib; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·57–0·95], p=0·017) and time-to-treatment failure (median 13·7 months [95% CI 11·9–15·0] with afatinib vs 11·5 months [10·1–13·1] with gefitinib; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58–0·92], p=0·0073) were significantly longer with afatinib than with gefitinib. Overall survival data are not mature. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20 [13%] of 160 patients given afatinib vs two [1%] of 159 given gefitinib) and rash or acne (15 [9%] patients given afatinib vs five [3%] of those given gefitinib) and liver enzyme elevations (no patients given afatinib vs 14 [9%] of those given gefitinib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (11%) patients in the afatinib group and seven (4%) in the gefitinib group. Ten (6%) patients in each group discontinued treatment due to drug-related adverse events. 15 (9%) fatal adverse events occurred in the afatinib group and ten (6%) in the gefitinib group. All but one of these deaths were considered unrelated to treatment; one patient in the gefitinib group died from drug-related hepatic and renal failure. Interpretation Afatinib significantly improved outcomes in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC compared with gefitinib, with a manageable tolerability profile. These data are potentially important for clinical decision making in this patient population.

First-Line afatinib versus chemotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and common epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutations and brain metastases

Introduction Metastatic spread to the brain is common in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but these patients are generally excluded from prospective clinical trials. The studies, phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin plus pemetrexed in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations (LUX-Lung 3) and a randomized, open-label, phase III study of BIBW 2992 versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with stage IIIB or IV adenocarcinoma of the lung harbouring an EGFR activating mutation (LUX-Lung 6) investigated first-line afatinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy in epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) mutation-positive patients with NSCLC and included patients with brain metastases; prespecified subgroup analyses are assessed in this article. Methods For both LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6, prespecified subgroup analyses of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and objective response rate were undertaken in patients with asymptomatic brain metastases at baseline (n = 35 and n = 46, respectively). Post hoc analyses of clinical outcomes was undertaken in the combined data set (n = 81). Results In both studies, there was a trend toward improved PFS with afatinib versus chemotherapy in patients with brain metastases (LUX-Lung 3: 11.1 versus 5.4 months, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.54, p = 0.1378; LUX-Lung 6: 8.2 versus 4.7 months, HR = 0.47, p = 0.1060). The magnitude of PFS improvement with afatinib was similar to that observed in patients without brain metastases. In combined analysis, PFS was significantly improved with afatinib versus with chemotherapy in patients with brain metastases (8.2 versus 5.4 months; HR, 0.50; p = 0.0297). Afatinib significantly improved the objective response rate versus chemotherapy in patients with brain metastases. Safety findings were consistent with previous reports. Conclusions These findings lend support to the clinical activity of afatinib in EGFR mutation–positive patients with NSCLC and asymptomatic brain metastases.

Cilengitide combined with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients: Results of an open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study (CERTO)

Background: This multicentre, open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study evaluated cilengitide in combination with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy, compared with cetuximab and chemotherapy alone, as first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive cetuximab plus platinum-based chemotherapy alone (control), or combined with cilengitide 2000 mg 1×/week i.v. (CIL-once) or 2×/week i.v. (CIL-twice). A protocol amendment limited enrolment to patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) histoscore ≥200 and closed the CIL-twice arm for practical feasibility issues. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; independent read); secondary end points included overall survival (OS), safety, and biomarker analyses. A comparison between the CIL-once and control arms is reported, both for the total cohorts, as well as for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200. Results: There were 85 patients in the CIL-once group and 84 in the control group. The PFS (independent read) was 6.2 versus 5.0 months for CIL-once versus control [hazard ratio (HR) 0.72; P = 0.085]; for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200, PFS was 6.8 versus 5.6 months, respectively (HR 0.57; P = 0.0446). Median OS was 13.6 for CIL-once versus 9.7 months for control (HR 0.81; P = 0.265). In patients with EGFR ≥200, OS was 13.2 versus 11.8 months, respectively (HR 0.95; P = 0.855). No major differences in adverse events between CIL-once and control were reported; nausea (59% versus 56%, respectively) and neutropenia (54% versus 46%, respectively) were the most frequent. There was no increased incidence of thromboembolic events or haemorrhage in cilengitide-treated patients. αvβ3 and αvβ5 expression was neither a predictive nor a prognostic indicator. Conclusions: The addition of cilengitide to cetuximab/chemotherapy indicated potential clinical activity, with a trend for PFS difference in the independent-read analysis. However, the observed inconsistencies across end points suggest additional investigations are required to substantiate a potential role of other integrin inhibitors in NSCLC treatment.

Paclitaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line single-agent chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Randomized Study with cross-over.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of paclitaxel versus doxorubicin given as single agents in first-line therapy of advanced breast cancer (primary end point, progression-free survival ¿PFS) and to explore the degree of cross-resistance between the two agents. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred thirty-one patients were randomized to receive either paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2), 3-hour infusion every 3 weeks, or doxorubicin 75 mg/m(2), intravenous bolus every 3 weeks. Seven courses were planned unless progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred before the seven courses were finished. Patients who progressed within the seven courses underwent early cross-over to the alternative drug, while a delayed cross-over was optional for the remainder of patients at the time of disease progression. RESULTS: Objective response in first-line therapy was significantly better (P =.003) for doxorubicin (response rate ¿RR, 41%) than for paclitaxel (RR, 25%), with doxorubicin achieving a longer median PFS (7.5 months for doxorubicin v 3.9 months for paclitaxel, P <.001). In second-line therapy, cross-over to doxorubicin (91 patients) and to paclitaxel (77 patients) gave response rates of 30% and 16%, respectively. The median survival durations of 18.3 months for doxorubicin and 15.6 months for paclitaxel were not significantly different (P =.38). The doxorubicin arm had greater toxicity, but this was counterbalanced by better symptom control. CONCLUSION: At the dosages and schedules used in the present study, doxorubicin achieves better disease and symptom control than paclitaxel in first-line treatment. Doxorubicin and paclitaxel are not totally cross-resistant, which supports further investigation of these drugs in combination or in sequence, both in advanced disease and in the adjuvant setting.