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.

Background: Patients with advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) benefit from pemetrexed maintenance therapy after induction therapy with a platinum-containing, non-pemetrexed doublet. The PARAMOUNT trial investigated whether continuation maintenance with pemetrexed improved progression-free survival after induction therapy with pemetrexed plus cisplatin., Methods: In this double-blind, multicentre, phase 3, randomised placebo-controlled trial, patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC aged 18 years or older, with no previous systemic chemotherapy for lung cancer, with at least one measurable lesion, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 participated. Before randomisation, patients entered an induction phase which consisted of four cycles of induction pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2)) plus cisplatin (75 mg/m(2)) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Patients who did not progress after completion of four cycles of induction and who had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 were stratified according to disease stage (IIIB or IV), ECOG performance status (0 or 1), and induction response (complete or partial response, or stable disease), and randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to receive maintenance therapy with either pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2) every 21 days) plus best supportive care or placebo plus best supportive care until disease progression. Randomisation was done with the Pocock and Simon minimisation method. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00789373., Findings: Of the 1022 patients enrolled, 939 participated in the induction phase. Of these, 539 patients were randomly assigned to receive continuation maintenance with pemetrexed plus best supportive care (n=359) or with placebo plus best supportive care (n=180). Among the 359 patients randomised to continuation maintenance with pemetrexed, there was a significant reduction in the risk of disease progression over the placebo group (HR 0·62, 95% CI 0·49-0·79; p<0·0001). The median progression-free survival, measured from randomisation, was 4·1 months (95% CI 3·2-4·6) for pemetrexed and 2·8 months (2·6-3·1) for placebo. Possibly treatment-related laboratory grade 3-4 adverse events were more common in the pemetrexed group (33 [9%] of 359 patients) than in the placebo group (one [<1%] of 180 patients; p<0·0001), as were non-laboratory grade 3-5 adverse events (32 [9%] of 359 patients in the pemetrexed group; eight [4%] of 180 patients in the placebo group; p=0·080); one possibly treatment-related death was reported in each group. The most common adverse events of grade 3-4 in the pemetrexed group were anaemia (16 [4%] of 359 patients), neutropenia (13 [4%]), and fatigue (15 [4%]). In the placebo group, these adverse events were less common: anaemia (one [<1%] of 180 patients), neutropenia (none), and fatigue (one <1%]). The most frequent serious adverse events were anaemia (eight [2%] of 359 patients in the pemetrexed group vs none in the placebo group) and febrile neutropenia (five [1%] vs none). Discontinuations due to drug-related adverse events occurred in 19 (5%) patients in the pemetrexed group and six (3%) patients in the placebo group., Interpretation: Continuation maintenance with pemetrexed is an effective and well tolerated treatment option for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC with good performance status who have not progressed after induction therapy with pemetrexed plus cisplatin., Funding: Eli Lilly and Company., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology (AIOT) and the European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP) realized the first conjunct educational meeting, open to European oncologists involved in the treatment of thoracic malignancies, entitled "Advanced non-small cell lung cancer: new perspectives in first-line setting"., Methods: The educational meeting included 8 interactive talks, held by European key opinion leaders, and 5 related clinical cases in which the attendees, divided in working tables based on their country origin, were involved for interactive discussion. The aim of this course was to elucidate the differences or similarities among the European countries in the first-line treatment of patients affected by advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Results: Twenty-two attendees of the following countries participated: Austria, France, Italy, Spain, Swiss, and UK. As expected, some discrepancies between the groups were identified concerning the approach to the diagnostic phase, the choice of first-line regimen, the duration of treatment and the use of maintenance therapy. These discrepancies were mainly due to familiarity with specific therapies and lack of access to certain therapies due to local regulatory issues., Conclusion: The European Medicine Agency grants marketing of drugs in all Europe, regulatory agency of each country can register the drug, but can also deny public reimbursement thus restricting the options of the oncologist. The European Oncology Associations should join to their effort to achieve a uniform access to the cancer therapy for all patients in Europe., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)