Search

Background: The goals of this multinational retrospective study were to describe treatment patterns and survival outcomes by receipt of molecular testing and molecular status of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Methods: This chart review study, conducted in Italy, Spain, Germany, Australia, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Brazil, included 1440 patients with newly diagnosed advanced (stage IIIB/IV) NSCLC initiating systemic therapy from January 2011 through June 2013, with follow-up until July 2016. We evaluated treatment patterns and survival by histology, line of therapy, molecular testing, and test results for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation and/or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangement. Country-specific data were analyzed descriptively and presented as ranges (lowest to highest country). Overall survival (OS) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method., Results: Patients with ≥1 molecular test varied from 43% (Brazil) to 85% (Taiwan). Numerically greater proportions of patients who were female, Asian, or never/former-smokers, and those with nonsquamous histology or stage-IV NSCLC, received a test. Testing was common for nonsquamous NSCLC (54%, Brazil, to 91%, Taiwan), with positive EGFR and ALK tests from 17% (Brazil and Spain) to 67% (Taiwan) and from 0% (Brazil) to 60% (Taiwan), respectively. First-line treatment regimens for nonsquamous NSCLC with positive EGFR/ALK tests included targeted therapy for 30% (Germany) to 89% (Japan); with negative/inconclusive test results, platinum-based combinations for 88% (Japan) to 98% (Brazil); and if not tested, platinum-based combinations for 80% (Australia) to 95% (Japan), except in Taiwan, where 44% received single agents. Median OS from first-line therapy initiation was 10.0 (Japan) to 26.7 (Taiwan) months for those tested and 7.6 (Australia/Brazil) to 19.3 (Taiwan) months for those not tested., Conclusions: We observed substantial variation among countries in testing percentages, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes. Efforts to optimize molecular testing rates should be implemented in the context of each country's health care scenario., Competing Interests: Dae Ho Lee reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CJ Healthcare, Eli Lilly, Jansen, Merck, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Ono, Pfizer, Roche, and Samyang Biopharm for participating in advisory boards; and receipt of consulting fees from the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS), Korea, and Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA), Korea. Ming-Sound Tsao reports honoraria for advisory board meetings from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Ventana/Roche, and Merck. Hiroshi Isobe has received payment for speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Chugai, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., and Eli Lilly Japan, K.K. Smita Kothari, Ashwini Arunachalam, Xiting Cao, and Thomas Burke are employees of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, which supplied the funding for this study. Amparo Valladares is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme de España S.A., Madrid, Spain. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Purpose: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. This randomized, placebo-controlled phase III study assessed the efficacy of vandetanib plus pemetrexed as second-line therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer., Patients and Methods: Patients (N = 534) were randomly assigned to receive vandetanib 100 mg/d plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) every 21 days (n = 256) or placebo plus pemetrexed (n = 278). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point; overall survival, objective response rate, disease control rate, time to deterioration of symptoms, and safety were secondary assessments., Results: There was no significant difference in PFS between treatment arms (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 97.58% CI, 0.69 to 1.06; P = .108). Overall survival was also not significantly different (HR, 0.86; 97.54% CI, 0.65 to 1.13; P = .219). Statistically significant improvements in objective response rate (19% v 8%; P < .001) and time to deterioration of symptoms (HR, 0.71; P = .0052; median, 18.1 weeks for vandetanib and 12.1 weeks for placebo) were observed in patients receiving vandetanib. Adding vandetanib to pemetrexed increased the incidence of some adverse events, including rash, diarrhea, and hypertension, while showing a reduced incidence of nausea, vomiting, anemia, fatigue, and asthenia with no reduction in the dose intensity of pemetrexed., Conclusion: This study did not meet the primary end point of statistically significant PFS prolongation with vandetanib plus pemetrexed versus placebo plus pemetrexed. The vandetanib combination showed a significantly higher objective response rate and a significant delay in the time to worsening of lung cancer symptoms versus the placebo arm as well as an acceptable safety profile in this patient population.