Maintenance Chemotherapy in NSCLC
Download
1 / 49

Raul E. Storey M.D. PGY 5 Fellowship Program Hematology-Oncology Department - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 140 Views
  • Uploaded on

Maintenance Chemotherapy in NSCLC. Raul E. Storey M.D. PGY 5 Fellowship Program Hematology-Oncology Department James G. Brown Cancer Center University of Louisville. Advanced NSCLC: Maintenance Therapy.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Raul E. Storey M.D. PGY 5 Fellowship Program Hematology-Oncology Department' - peyton


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Maintenance Chemotherapy in NSCLC

Raul E. Storey M.D.

PGY 5

Fellowship Program

Hematology-Oncology Department

James G. Brown Cancer Center

University of Louisville


Advanced NSCLC: Maintenance Therapy

  • For patients without disease progression after first-line treatment, maintenance therapy is an option, but no clear standard yet exists

    • Goal is to prolong the duration of response and/or stable disease for as long as possible

    • Thereby enhancing PFS and overall survival

  • Maintenance may involve

    • Continuation maintenance (retaining a component of the original regimen)

    • Switch maintenance (substituting a new agent in the absence of PD)


Advanced NSCLC: Initial Chemotherapy

  • Standard frontline chemotherapy consists of a platinum doublet selected based on disease histology[1]

    • Pemetrexed-based regimens preferred for nonsquamous carcinoma[2,3]

    • Gemcitabine- or taxane-based regimens preferred for squamous carcinoma[1-3]

    • Pemetrexed and Cb/Tax, Avastin are SOC in nonsquamous

  • Studies indicate that no additional clinical benefit gained with 6 vs 4 cycles of initial therapy[4]

1. Schiller JH, et al. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:92-98. 2. Scagliotti GV, et al. J ClinOncol. 2008;26:3543-3551. 3. Scagliotti GV, et al. Oncologist. 2009;14:253-263. 4. Socinski MA, et al. J ClinOncol. 2002;20:1335-1343.


Agents Investigated in the Maintenance Setting

  • Pemetrexed

  • Gemcitabine

  • Docetaxel

  • EGFR TKIs

    • Erlotinib

    • Gefitinib


Agents Investigated in the Maintenance Setting

  • Pemetrexed

  • Gemcitabine

  • Docetaxel

  • EGFR TKIs

    • Erlotinib

    • Gefitinib

Approved agents noted in yellow


Switch Maintenance With Docetaxel

Patients without disease progression randomized 1:1

Immediate Docetaxel

(n = 153)

Chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC

(N = 566)

Gemcitabine/Carboplatin

for 4 cycles

Delayed Docetaxel*

(n = 156)

*Initiated at first evidence of progressive disease

  • Primary endpoint: OS

  • Other endpoints: PFS, ORR, safety, QOL

Fidias PM, et al. J ClinOncol. 2009;27:591-598.


Docetaxel Switch Maintenance: PFS

1.0

DelayedImmediate

0.8

0.6

Probability of PFS

0.4

0.2

0

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

30

33

36

39

42

45

48

Mos

Patients at Risk, nDelayed 156 59 28 18 13 6 1Immediate 153 109 72 42 26 5 2

  • Median PFS immediate vs delayed: 5.7 vs 2.7 mos (P = .0001)

Fidias PM, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:591-598.


Docetaxel switch maintenance os
Docetaxel Switch Maintenance: OS

  • Median OS immediate vs delayed: 12.3 vs 9.7 mos (P = .0853)

  • 1-yr survival immediate vs delayed: 51.1% vs 43.5%

1.0

DelayedImmediate

0.8

0.6

Probability of OS

0.4

0.2

0

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

42

48

54

60

Mos

Patients at Risk, nDelayed 156 109 65 42 21 6 2Immediate 153 119 73 49 28 13 2

Fidias PM, et al. J ClinOncol. 2009;27:591-598.



Study design
Study Design

  • Double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled, phase III trial

Randomized 2:1 according to sex, PS, stage, best response, nonplatinum drug, brain metastases

Pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 (d1,q21d) + BSC

(n = 441)*

Patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC, ECOG PS 0-1, 4 prior cycles of gem, doc, or tax + cis or carb, with CR, PR, or SD

Placebo (d1, q21d) + BSC (n = 222)*

  • Primary endpoint = PFS

*B12, folate, and dexamethasone given in both arms.


Pemetrexed maintenance vs placebo in nonsquamous nsclc
Pemetrexed Maintenance vs Placebo in Nonsquamous NSCLC

  • Primary endpoint: PFS

  • Other endpoints: OS, ORR, patient-reported outcomes, resource utilization, toxicity

Patients without disease progression randomized 2:1

Chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB/IV nonsquamous NSCLC

(N = 900 planned)

Pemetrexed + BSC

Pemetrexed/Cisplatin

for 4 cycles

Placebo + BSC

1. Paz-Ares LG, et al. BMC Cancer. 2010;10:85. 2. ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT00789373.


Pem bev vs bev as maintenance in nonsquamous nsclc
Pem/Bev vs Bev as Maintenance in Nonsquamous NSCLC

  • Primary endpoint: OS

  • Other endpoints: PFS, ORR, safety, QOL, PK

Patients without disease progression

Chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB/IV nonsquamous NSCLC

(N = 900 planned)

Pemetrexed/Carboplatin/

Bevacizumab for 4 cycles

Pemetrexed/Bevacizumab

Paclitaxel/Carboplatin/

Bevacizumab for 4 cycles

Bevacizumab

1. Patel JD, et al. Clin Lung Cancer. 2009;10:252-256. 2. ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT00762034.


Ecog e5508 pem vs bev vs pem bev as maintenance in nonsquamous nsclc
ECOG E5508: Pemvs Bev vsPem/Bev as Maintenance in Nonsquamous NSCLC

  • Primary endpoint: OS

  • Other endpoints: PFS, ORR, toxicity, PK

Patients without disease progression randomized 1:1:1

Bevacizumab

Chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB/IV nonsquamous NSCLC

(N = 1282 planned)

Carboplatin/Paclitaxel/

Bevacizumab for 4 cycles

Pemetrexed

Pemetrexed/Bevacizumab

ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT01107626.


Advanced nsclc gemcitabine maintenance therapy
Advanced NSCLC: Gemcitabine Maintenance Therapy

  • Primary endpoint: median time to progression

RANDOMIZE

Stage IV NSCLC (n = 352)

CR / PR / SD after cisplatin + gemcitabine (n = 206)

Maintenance gemcitabine

1250 mg/m2 Day 1, 8 Q3W

plus BSC

(No cisplatin)

n = 138

BSC only

(n =68)

Brodowicz T, et al. Lung Cancer. 2006;52:155-163.


Advanced nsclc gemcitabine maintenance therapy pfs
Advanced NSCLC: Gemcitabine Maintenance Therapy – PFS

  • Overall survival: 13.0 mos vs 11.0 mos, P = .19

PFS from the date of randomization to maintenance: P < .001

PFS from the date of starting first-line chemotherapy: P < .001

Brodowicz T, et al. Lung Cancer. 2006;52:155-163.


Ecog gemcitabine maintenance
ECOG: Gemcitabine Maintenance

Brodowicz T, et al. Lung Cancer. 2006;52:155-163.


Ifct gfpc 0502 gemcitabine vs erlotinib vs observation as maintenance
IFCT-GFPC 0502: GemcitabinevsErlotinibvs Observation as Maintenance

  • Patients stratified by sex, histology, smoking status, treatment center, and response/stabilization following first-line therapy

  • Primary endpoint: PFS

  • Other endpoints: OS, safety, symptom control, effect of EGFR status

Patients without disease progression randomized 1:1:1

Gemcitabine

(n = 154)

Chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC

(N = 834)

Cisplatin/Gemcitabine

for 4 cycles

Erlotinib

(n = 155)

Observation

(n = 155)

Perol M, et al. ASCO 2010. Abstract 7507.


Ifct gfpc 0502 treatment outcomes
IFCT-GFPC 0502: Treatment Outcomes

Perol M, et al. ASCO 2010. Abstract 7507.


Gemcitabine maintenance bsc vs bsc alone
Gemcitabine Maintenance + BSC vs BSC Alone

  • Patients stratified by PS, stage, best tumor response

  • Primary endpoint: OS

  • Other endpoints: PFS, ORR, safety

Patients without disease progression randomized 1:1

Gemcitabine + BSC

(n = 128)

Chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC

(N = 519)

Gemcitabine/Carboplatin

for 4 cycles

BSC

(n = 127)

Belani CP, et al. ASCO 2010. Abstract 7506.


Gemcitabine bsc vs bsc treatment outcomes
Gemcitabine + BSC vs BSC: Treatment Outcomes

  • Benefits of gemcitabine maintenance may have been nullified by patient population studied

    • Median patient age: 66.6 yrs

    • ECOG PS 2: 64%

Belani CP, et al. ASCO 2010. Abstract 7506.


Phase iii studies of egfr tki maintenance
Phase III Studies of EGFR TKI Maintenance

1. Cappuzzo F, et al. ASCO 2009. Abstract 8001. 2. Cappuzzo F, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:521-529. 3. Miller VA, et al. ASCO 2009. Abstract LBA8002. 4. Kabbinavar FF, et al. ASCO 2010. Abstract 7526. 5. Perol M, et al. ASCO 2010. Abstract 7507. 6. Gaafar RM, et al. ASCO 2010. Abstract 7518.




Pemetrexed toxicities and management
Pemetrexed Toxicities and Management

  • No difference in the incidence of serious toxicities observed in a retrospective analysis of pts who received vitamin B12 on the day of pemetrexed vs 1 wk earlier[1]

Socinski MA, et al. J ThoracOncol. 2008;3:1308-1316.


Cost effectiveness of maintenance therapy
Cost-Effectiveness of Maintenance Therapy

  • Few formal cost-effective analyses available

  • Recent economic analyses provide new insights

    • Pemetrexed as first-line maintenance in advanced nonsquamous NSCLC[1]

      • First study evaluate cost-effectiveness of maintenance

    • BR.21: erlotinib in second-line or third-line setting[2]

1.Klein R, et al. J ThoracOncol. 2010;5:1263-1272.

2. Bradbury PA, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:298-306.


Cost effectiveness of pemetrexed as first line maintenance in advanced nsclc
Cost-Effectiveness of Pemetrexed as First-Line Maintenance in Advanced NSCLC

  • Data sources: RCTs, Medicare reimbursement rates, retrospective claims database analysis

  • Pemetrexed may be cost-effective vs observation or other maintenance approaches, according to investigators

    • Incremental cost per life-yr gained, pemetrexedvs observation

      • $122,371 for patients with nonsquamous histology only

      • $205,597 for all patients with advanced NSCLC

  • Results suggest importance of histology in selecting patients for maintenance therapy with pemetrexed

Klein R, et al. J ThoracOncol. 2010;5:1263-1272.


Economic analysis of erlotinib in advanced nsclc
Economic Analysis of Erlotinib in Advanced NSCLC

  • BR.21: randomized, placebo-controlled trial of erlotinibvs placebo in patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC (N = 731)

  • Use of single-agent erlotinib in patients who had failed first-line or second-line therapy associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $94,638 per life-yr gained

  • Molecular markers (eg, EGFR gene copy number) may identify more/less cost-effective subgroups

Bradbury PA, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:298-306.


Maintenance individualization future directions
Maintenance Individualization: Future Directions

  • Studies needed to distinguish between patients who benefit from maintenance therapy vs those who can receive a treatment break

  • Response to first-line therapy

    • Objective response

    • SD

  • Clinical characteristics

    • Age

    • Gender

    • Performance status

    • Tumor burden and symptomatology

    • Molecular markers (eg, EGFR mutations)


Individualization of maintenance therapy
Individualization of Maintenance Therapy


Selection of maintenance therapy based on histology vs biomarkers
Selection of Maintenance Therapy Based on Histology vs Biomarkers

NCCN. Available at: http://www.nccn.org.


ad