Search

Background Immunotherapy represents the standard of care in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), either as monotherapy in high programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors (≥50%) or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy regardless of PD-L1 status. However, most pivotal clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) did not include patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) 2. Hence, a consensus is lacking on the safety and efficacy of ICIs in this specific subgroup of patients. Materials and methods A virtual International Expert Panel took place in July 2021 with the aim of reviewing the available evidence on the use of ICIs in NSCLC patients with ECOG PS 2, both in clinical practice and in a research setting. Results All panelists expressed concern about the applicability of currently available PS scales to evaluate patients for ICI treatment. The panelists agreed that, though limited, the available data support the safety of single-agent immunotherapy in PS 2 NSCLC patients, whereas concern was raised on the safety of ICI combinations, mainly related to chemotherapy and/or anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 toxicity. On the basis of reviewed data, ICI efficacy may be speculated in PS 2 NSCLC patients; however, PS 2 remains a negative prognostic category as compared to PS 0-1 in patients treated with ICI, as it is for chemotherapy. The panelists defined high, medium and low priorities in clinical research. High priority was attributed to the inclusion of PS 2 patients in prospective clinical trials and the specific evaluation of combined ICI treatments with attenuated chemotherapy doses. Conclusions Based on the current evidence, the panelists outlined the major limitations affecting PS 2 patients with NSCLC and reached common considerations on the feasibility, safety and effectiveness of ICI monotherapy and ICI combinations in the first-line setting., Highlights • A consensus on the use of ICIs in lung cancer patients with PS 2 is lacking. • An International Expert Panel Meeting was held in 2021 to review and discuss available evidence on this topic. • Overall, agreement was reached on the safety of ICI monotherapy in PS 2 patients, with concerns for chemo–ICI combinations. • Common considerations were reached on the priorities for clinical research to investigate PS 2 lung cancer population.

Background The phase III CLinical Evaluation Of Pertuzumab And TRAstuzumab (CLEOPATRA) trial established the combination of pertuzumab, trastuzumab and docetaxel as standard first-line therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer (LR/mBC). The multicentre single-arm PERtUzumab global SafEty (PERUSE) study assessed the safety and efficacy of pertuzumab and trastuzumab combined with investigator-selected taxane in this setting. Patients and methods Eligible patients with inoperable HER2-positive LR/mBC and no prior systemic therapy for LR/mBC (except endocrine therapy) received docetaxel, paclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel with trastuzumab and pertuzumab until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Prespecified subgroup analyses included subgroups according to taxane, hormone receptor (HR) status and prior trastuzumab. Exploratory univariable analyses identified potential prognostic factors; those that remained significant in multivariable analysis were used to analyse PFS and OS in subgroups with all, some or none of these factors. Results Of 1436 treated patients, 588 (41%) initially received paclitaxel and 918 (64%) had HR-positive disease. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events were neutropenia (10%, mainly with docetaxel) and diarrhoea (8%). At the final analysis (median follow-up: 5.7 years), median PFS was 20.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) 18.9-23.1] months overall and was similar irrespective of HR status or taxane. Median OS was 65.3 (95% CI 60.9-70.9) months overall. OS was similar regardless of taxane backbone but was more favourable in patients with HR-positive than HR-negative LR/mBC. In exploratory analyses, trastuzumab-pretreated patients with visceral disease had the shortest median PFS (13.1 months) and OS (46.3 months). Conclusions Mature results from PERUSE show a safety and efficacy profile consistent with results from CLEOPATRA and median OS exceeding 5 years. Results suggest that paclitaxel is a valid alternative to docetaxel as backbone chemotherapy. Exploratory analyses suggest risk factors that could guide future trial design.

Background Lorlatinib, an ALK/ROS1 inhibitor, showed activity in ROS1+ NSCLC pretreated with crizotinib. However, molecular events predictive for tumor response during lorlatinib treatment are largely unknown. Methods The PFROST trial included ROS1+ NSCLCs refractory to crizotinib. Eligible patients received lorlatinib 100 mg daily until disease progression. Primary end point was response rate (RR). For all patients, pre-lorlatinib tumor tissue or blood sample collection was mandatory. At lorlatinib failure liquid biopsy was recommended. The samples were then run with the NEOliquid assay, specifically designed for liquid biopsies, or NEOselect, a panel optimized for formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor tissue, covering 39 cancer related genes. Results From June 2017 to April 2019, 22 ROS1+ crizotinib refractory lung adenocarcinoma patients were included in 10 Institutions. Median age was 56 years (range 39-82); male/female: 8/14; ECOG PS 0 (N = 8; 36.4%), PS1 (N = 14; 63,6%); The majority had brain metastases at baseline (N = 15; 68.1%), were never smokers (N = 13; 59.1%) and received lorlatinib as third-line therapy (N = 16; 72.7%). In all cases crizotinib was the last therapy before lorlatinib. Accrual is completed and 13 patients are still receiving therapy. A total of 18 patients were evaluable for response and 7 had confirmed complete (N = 1) or partial (N = 6) responses for an overall RR of 38.8%. In 4 patients, response to therapy was not yet evaluated. A total of 10 tissue biopsies and 20 blood samples obtained after crizotinib and before lorlatinib therapy were collected. For 7 samples analyses are ongoing. Among responders, no patient harbored a secondary ROS1 mutation. Conversely, no response was observed among patients with secondary ROS1 mutations (N = 1 ROS1S1861I, N = 1 ROS1 V2054A, N = 3 ROS1G2032R). All patients harboring the ROS1G2032R mutation rapidly progressed and maintained this aberration in liquid biopsy at the time of of lorlatinib failure. Conclusions In our study lorlatinib confirmed its efficacy in crizotinib resistant ROS1+ NSCLC. Molecular profile of refractory patients suggests reduced efficacy in individuals harbouring crizotinib-induced secondary ROS1 mutations. Clinical trial identification EudraCT Number: 2016-001259-34. Legal entity responsible for the study Fondazione Ricerca Traslazionale. Funding Has not received any funding. Disclosure L. Landi: Advisory / Consultancy: Pzifer; Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Boehringer Ingelheim. M. Tiseo: Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Eli Lilly; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Boehringer Ingelheim; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Otsuka; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Takeda; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Pierre Fabre. D.L. Cortinovis: Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Boehringer Ingelheim; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Amgen. A. Delmonte: Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy: Boehringer Ingelheim. D. Galetta: Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Eli Lilly; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Boehringer Ingelheim. R. Chiari: Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: Boehringer Ingelheim; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Takeda; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Roche; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: BMS; Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Novartis. L. Crino: Advisory / Consultancy: AbbVie; Advisory / Consultancy: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy: Novartis; Advisory / Consultancy: Bristol; Advisory / Consultancy: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca. F. Cappuzzo: Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Roche; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Pfizer; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Takeda; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Eli Lilly; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: MSD; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Boehringer Ingelheim. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

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. avb3 and avb5 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. Clinical trial registration ID number NCT00842712.

Combined inhibition of vascular, platelet-derived, and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) pathways may overcome refractoriness to single agents in platinum-pretreated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).This randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase II trial evaluated sunitinib 37.5 mg/day plus erlotinib 150 mg/day versus placebo plus erlotinib continuously in 4-week cycles. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed stage IIIB or IV NSCLC previously treated with one or two chemotherapy regimens, including one platinum-based regimen. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by an independent central review.One hundred and thirty-two patients were randomly assigned, and the median duration of follow-up was 17.7 months. The median PFS was 2.8 versus 2.0 months for the combination versus erlotinib alone (HR 0.898, P = 0.321). The median overall survival (OS) was 8.2 versus 7.6 months (HR 1.066, P = 0.617). Objective response rates (ORRs) were 4.6% and 3.0%, respectively. Sunitinib plus erlotinib was fairly well tolerated although most treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were more frequent than with erlotinib alone: diarrhea (55% versus 33%), rash (41% versus 30%), fatigue (31% versus 25%), decreased appetite (30% versus 13%), nausea (28% versus 14%), and thrombocytopenia (13% versus 0%).The addition of sunitinib to erlotinib did not significantly improve PFS in patients with advanced, platinum-pretreated NSCLC.

Financial difficulties, measured by the EORTC C30 questionnaire, were associated with worse quality of life and shorter overall survival of cancer patients enrolled in 16 academic clinical trials performed within the Italian public health system. The pooled database included 3670 patients with lung, breast or ovarian cancer. This finding support further studies on financial toxicity in Europe. Background Cancer may cause financial difficulties, but its impact in countries with public health systems is unknown. We evaluated the association of financial difficulties with clinical outcomes of cancer patients enrolled in academic clinical trials performed within the Italian public health system. Patients and methods Data were pooled from 16 prospective multicentre trials in lung, breast or ovarian cancer, using the EORTC quality of life (QOL) C30 questionnaire. Question 28 scores financial difficulties related to disease or treatment in four categories from ‘not at all’ to ‘very much’. We defined financial burden (FB) as any financial difficulty reported at baseline questionnaire, and financial toxicity (FT) as score worsening in a subsequent questionnaire. We investigated (i) the association of FB with clinical outcomes (survival, global QOL response [questions 29/30] and severe toxicity), and (ii) the association of FT with survival. Multivariable analyses were performed using logistic regression models or the Cox model adjusting for trial, gender, age, region and period of enrolment, baseline global QOL and, where appropriate, FB and global QOL response. Results are reported as odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results At baseline 26% of the 3670 study patients reported FB, significantly correlated with worse baseline global QOL. FB was not associated with risks of death (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85–1.04, P = 0.23) and severe toxicity (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76–1.06, P = 0.19) but was predictive of a higher chance of worse global QOL response (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08–1.70, P = 0.009). During treatment, 2735 (74.5%) patients filled in subsequent questionnaires and 616 (22.5%) developed FT that was significantly associated with an increased risk of death (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.05–1.37, P = 0.007). Several sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. Conclusion Even in a public health system, financial difficulties are associated with relevant cancer patients outcomes like QOL and survival. Clinical Trials number Any registered clinical trial number should be indicated after the abstract.

About 30-40% of patients affected by non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) develop, during the course of their disease, bone metastases. The prognosis of these patients is poor with a median survival of less than 1 year. The therapeutic approach includes: palliative radiotherapy, and systemic therapy. In clinical practice, zoledronate is the most commonly used bisphosphonate to prevent, reduce the incidence and delay the onset of skeletal-related events in patients with metastatic NSCLC. However, an Italian Association of Thoracic Oncology (AIOT) survey, conducted to evaluate how bisphosphonates were used in clinical practice for the treatment of lung cancer bone metastases in Italy, showed that the bisphosphonates treatment is still not routine and varies in duration. Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody directed against the receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B (RANK)-Ligand inhibiting the maturation of pre-osteoclasts into osteoclasts and is the first example of targeted therapy for bone metastases. An exploratory analysis showed that denosumab was associated with improved overall survival compared with zoledronate in patients with bone metastases from lung cancer. Biochemical markers of bone turnover to predict what patients are at greatest risk of developing skeletal-related events, and to direct treatment of bone metastases with either bisphosphonates or denosumab, are under investigation. This review is focused on the systemic management of bone metastases from NSCLC.

Lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Among lung cancers, 80% are classified as nonsmall- cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and are mostly diagnosed at an advanced stage (either locally advanced or metastatic disease). In the last years, the discovery of the pivotal role in tumorigenesis of the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) has provided a new class of targeted therapeutic agents: the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs). Since the first reports of an association between somatic mutations in EGFR exons 19 and 21 and response to EGFR-TKIs, treatment of advanced NSCLC has changed dramatically. Histologic profile, clinical characteristics, and mutational profile of lung carcinoma have all been reported as predictive factors of response to EGFR-TKIs and other targeted therapies. In advanced NSCLC patients harboring EGFR mutations, the use of EGFR TKIs in first-line treatment has provided an unusually large progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with a negligible toxicity when compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy in phase III randomized trials. Considering the findings regarding the excellent benefit and better safety profile of EGFR TKIs in EGFR mutation positive patients, these targeted therapeutic agents can be now considered as first-line treatment in this setting of patients. This review will discuss the new evidences in the role of EGFR-TKIs in the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC and their implication in the current clinical decision-making.

The current third consensus on the systemic treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) builds upon and updates similar publications on the subject by the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group (CECOG), which has published such consensus statements in the years 2002 and 2005 (Zielinski CC, Beinert T, Crawford J et al. Consensus on medical treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer--update 2004. Lung Cancer 2005; 50: 129-137). The principle of all CECOG consensus is such that evidence-based recommendations for state-of-the-art treatment are given upon which all participants and authors of the manuscript have to agree (Beslija S, Bonneterre J, Burstein HJ et al. Third consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2009; 20 (11): 1771-1785). This is of particular importance in diseases in which treatment options depend on very particular clinical and biologic variables (Zielinski CC, Beinert T, Crawford J et al. Consensus on medical treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer--update 2004. Lung Cancer 2005; 50: 129-137; Beslija S, Bonneterre J, Burstein HJ et al. Third consensus on medical treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2009; 20 (11): 1771-1785). Since the publication of the last CECOG consensus on the medical treatment of NSCLC, a series of diagnostic tools for the characterization of biomarkers for personalized therapy for NSCLC as well as therapeutic options including adjuvant treatment, targeted therapy, and maintenance treatment have emerged and strongly influenced the field. Thus, the present third consensus was generated that not only readdresses previous disease-related issues but also expands toward recent developments in the management of NSCLC. It is the aim of the present consensus to summarize minimal quality-oriented requirements for individual patients with NSCLC in its various stages based upon levels of evidence in the light of a rapidly expanding array of individual therapeutic options.

Background: Sorafenib is a small-molecule multitargeted kinase inhibitor that blocks the activation of C-RAF, B-RAF, c-KIT, FLT-3, RET, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR-2), VEGFR-3 and platelet-derived growth factor receptor b. The aim of this multicenter, randomized phase II study was to evaluate clinical activity and safety of sorafenib in combination with erlotinib or gemcitabine in unselected untreated elderly patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: The trial was designed to select the most promising sorafenib-containing combination in previously untreated elderly (‡70 years) stage IIIB or IV NSCLC patients, with performance status of zero to two. Patients were randomly assigned to one of the following combinations: gemcitabine, 1200 mg/m 2 days 1 and 8, every 21 days, for a maximum of six cycles, plus sorafenib, 800 mg/day, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (arm 1); or erlotinib, 150 mg/day, plus sorafenib, 800 mg/day, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (arm 2). A selection design was applied with 1-year survival rate as the primary end point of the study, requiring 58 patients. Results: Sixty patients were randomly allocated to the study (31 patients in arm 1 and 29 patients in arm 2). After a median follow-up of 15 months, 10 patients [32%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 16% to 49%] in arm 1 and 13 patients (45%, 95% CI 27% to 63%) in arm 2 were alive at 1 year. Median overall survival was 6.6 and 12.6 months in arm 1 and arm 2, respectively. Observed toxic effects were consistent with the expected drug profiles. Conclusions: The combination of erlotinib and sorafenib was feasible in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC and was associated with a higher 1-year survival rate than the other arm. According to the selection design, this combination warrants further investigation in phase III trials.

Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) represents a common health issue in the elderly population. Nevertheless, the paucity of large, well-conducted prospective trials makes it difficult to provide evidence-based clinical recommendations for these patients. The present paper reviews the currently available evidence regarding treatment of all stages of NSCLC in elderly patients. Surgery remains the standard for early-stage disease, though pneumonectomy is associated with higher incidence of postoperative mortality in elderly patients. Given the lack of demonstrated benefit for the use of adjuvant radiotherapy, it is also not recommended in elderly patients. Elderly patients seem to derive the same benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy as younger patients do, with no significant increase in toxicity. For locally advanced NSCLC, concurrent chemoradiotherapy may be offered to selected elderly patients as there is a higher risk for toxicity reported in the elderly population. Third-generation single-agent treatment is considered the standard of care for patients with advanced/metastatic disease. Platinum-based combination chemotherapy needs to be evaluated in prospective trials. Unfortunately, with the exception of advanced/metastatic NSCLC, prospective elderly-specific NSCLC trials are lacking and the majority of recommendations made are based on retrospective data, which might suffer from selection bias. Prospective elderly-specific trials are needed.

The treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has evolved substantially during the last years. Chemotherapy remains the cornerstone of treatment and prolongs survival with a positive impact on quality of life. However, we seem to have reached a plateau of activity in the treatment of NSCLC. Recently, the addition of bevacizumab or cetuximab to chemotherapy doublets has improved the outcome in selected patients with advanced NSCLC. Furthermore, the use of erlotinib and gefitinib is an alternative for second line treatment. Advances in our understanding of molecular biology of cancer and mechanisms of tumourigenesis have further enabled the discovery of several potential molecular targets and development of novel 'targeted therapies'. The purpose of this study is to review current data on the role of targeted therapies in the treatment of advanced NSCLC.

Purpose Since our individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis (MA) of supportive care and chemotherapy for non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), published in 1995, many trials have been completed. An updated, IPD MA has been carried out to assess newer regimens and determine conclusively the effect of chemotherapy. Methods Systematic searches for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were undertaken, followed by central collection, checking, and reanalysis of updated IPD. Results from RCTs were combined to calculate individual and pooled hazard ratios (HRs). Results Data were obtained from 2,714 patients from 16 RCTs. There were 1,293 deaths among 1,399 patients assigned supportive care and chemotherapy and 1,240 among 1,315 assigned supportive care alone. Results showed a significant benefit of chemotherapy (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.83; P ≤ .0001), equivalent to a relative increase in survival of 23% or an absolute improvement in survival of 9% at 12 months, increasing survival from 20% to 29%. There was no clear evidence that this effect was influenced by the drugs used (P = .63) or whether they were used as single agents or in combination (P = .40). Despite changes in patient demographics, the effect of chemotherapy in recent trials did not differ from those included previously (P = .77). There was no clear evidence of a difference or trend in the relative effect of chemotherapy across patient subgroups. Conclusion This MA of chemotherapy in the supportive care setting demonstrates conclusively that chemotherapy improves overall survival in all patients with advanced NSCLC. Therefore, all patients who are fit enough and wish to receive chemotherapy should do so.

Advances in the knowledge of tumor biology and mechanisms of oncogenesis has granted the singling out of several molecular targets for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment. Among these targets, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), or HER1, has received particular attention in lung cancer treatment. Erlotinib, an orally available inhibitor of EGFR tyrosine kinase in a phase III randomized placebo-controlled trial (BR.21), has been proven to prolong survival in NSCLC patients after first or second line chemotherapy. Skin rash is the most common adverse event associated with erlotinib treatment and it is often cause of negative impact on patients' quality of life. There is no specific treatment for this toxicity due to the lack of evidence-based data and recommendations. A panel of Italian oncologists, who had participated to clinical trials and to the Expanded Access Program for erlotinib in NSCLC treatment, and dermatologists with experience with cutaneous toxicity from EGFR inhibitors, attended a Meeting held in Rome on December 2006 to discuss skin rash from erlotinib and to provide suggestions for managing this frequent side-effect.

New blood vessel formation, known as angiogenesis is a fundamental event in the process of tumor growth and metastatic dissemination. Due to its central role in tumor angiogenesis, the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and its receptor have been a major focus of basic research and drug development in the field of oncology, including the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Approaches targeting VEGF include monoclonal antibodies and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs). Bevacizumab (Avastin) is an anti-VEGF recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody. A very recent randomized phase III trial demonstrated a statistically significant advantage in median survival favouring the combination of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in the treatment of advanced non-squamous NSCLC. This study represents the first evidence of superior efficacy of targeted therapy combined with chemotherapy over chemotherapy alone in the treatment of NSCLC. ZD6474 is an orally bioavailable inhibitor of VEGFR-2 tyrosine kinase. First evidences of antitumor activity and its excellent toxicity profile make it a promising targeted agent for the treatment of NSCLC. A recent phase I/II study examined the combination of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR)-TKI erlotinib and bevacizumab in patients with non-squamous stage IIIB/IV NSCLC. Data on antitumor activity of this combination have to be considered very promising. Clinical trials of multiple targeted therapy may represent the second generation studies in the treatment of NSCLC.

The lung cancer global incidence has regularly increased during the last decades. Non Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately 80% of all lung tumors. Different schedules including cisplatin plus gemcitabine or vinorelbine or paclitaxel or docetaxel or irinotecan showed advantages in terms of response rate, toxicity and quality of life, but little improvement in terms of survival. Some advantage was documented in favour of the combination including cisplatin plus a new drug versus monochemotherapy with new drugs. The large phase III studies performed with doublets containing new drugs and platinum are not free of criticism but in summary the research involving more than 3000 patients failed to indicate a standard regimen. With the aim of strengthen the phase III studies results, a meta-analysis tested the survival outcomes of published randomized trials, analysing the effects of the combination of gemcitabine and platinum compounds versus any platinum-based regimens. Gemcitabine-platinum combinations appear to offer a statistically significant superior efficacy in terms of overall survival and progression free survival as compared to other platinum-based regimens. Considering the palliative role of chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC and in order to reduce toxicity, not cisplatin-containing regimens were investigated. The results support the suggestion from the last ASCO guidelines: first-line chemotherapy of advanced NSCLC should be a two-drug combination regimen and not platin-based chemotherapy may be used as alternative to platinum-based regimens. The new frontier is represented by pharmacogenomic. The potential benefits of the pharmacogenomic approach lay in the possibility of predicting the patient chemotherapy response developing customized chemotherapeutic combinations and limiting severe side effects.

The elderly and patients with Performance Status (PS) of 2, constitute the so-called special patient population. The tolerability of chemotherapy in this population is globally worse, and treatment approaches should be different. Platinum-based combination chemotherapy is currently recommended as the standard treatment for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but its role in special patient population is controversial. The best treatment for elderly patients with advanced NSCLC is still debated. In the first randomized study dedicated to elderly NSCLC patients, single-agent vinorelbine showed superiority over supportive care alone, both in terms of survival and quality of life. In a large randomized trial, gemcitabine plus vinorelbine failed to show any advantage over either agent alone. Subset analyses suggest that the efficacy of platinum-based combination chemotherapy is similar in fit older and younger patients, with an acceptable increase in toxicity for elderly patients. However, the role of platin-based chemotherapy needs to be defined in prospective randomised trials. With the current evidence, single-agent chemotherapy with a third-generation drug (vinorelbine, gemcitabine, taxanes) should be the recommended option for non-selected elderly patients with advanced NSCLC. Also for PS2 patients there is no consensus on standard treatment. On the basis of current evidence, chemotherapy treatment appears justified for patients with advanced NSCLC and PS2. Single-agent chemotherapy (gemcitabine, vinorelbine, taxanes) could be the preferred option, although carboplatin-based or low-dose cisplatin-based doublets may represent alternative options. Stronger evidence is expected from new clinical research specifically focused on PS2 patients. High priority should be given to the evaluation of tolerability and efficacy of platinum-based combinations and role of new targeted therapies.

Vinorelbine intravenously (i.v.) demonstrated its efficacy and tolerability in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, including elderly subjects. Since vinorelbine is now available as an oral formulation this phase II open study was designed to evaluate its activity and tolerability in advanced, elderly NSCLC patients. A total of 56 chemonaive patients were recruited from April 2001 through to March 2002. The dosage schedule, already tested in younger NSCLC patients, was 60 mg/m(2)once a week for three weeks (first cycle), followed by 80 mg/m(2) once a week until disease progression or development of unacceptable toxicity. A limited sampling scheme was used for performing pharmacokinetic analysis on 52 of 56 patients enrolled in the study. Treatment was well tolerated with grade 3/4 neutropenia in 11/17 patients (20/30%) and febrile neutropenia in 1 (2%). Six partial responses (11%) and 25 stable disease responses were recorded, with a disease control rate of 55%. Median overall survival was 8.2 months (95% Confidence Interval (CI) [6.2-11.3]). The clinical benefit response rate was 31% on 32 evaluable patients. Pharmacokinetic profiles appeared quite similar to the historical profiles recorded following i.v. administration. Oral vinorelbine appears to be a reasonable alternative to i.v. vinorelbine, both in terms of activity and tolerability, in advanced, elderly NSCLC patients.

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) may be considered typical of advanced age. More than 50% of NSCLC patients are diagnosed over the age of 65 and approximately one-third of all patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are over the age of 70. Elderly patients tolerate chemotherapy poorly compared to their younger counterpart because of the progressive reduction of organ function and comorbidities related to age. For this reason, these patients are often not considered eligible for aggressive cisplatin-based chemotherapy, the standard medical treatment of advanced NSCLC. At present, for early stages there are no indications for adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Combined chemo-radiotherapy in locally advanced disease, particularly with concurrent approach should be investigated in specific trials before to be preferred in clinical practice to radiation therapy alone. In advanced disease, prospective phase II trials have demonstrated suitable toxicity profile and good antitumor activity for single agent chemotherapy with the recently developed drugs vinorelbine, gemcitabine and taxanes. Moreover, vinorelbine, compared to best supportive care in a phase III randomized trial, has proven to improve survival and quality of life. A phase III randomized trial showed that polychemotherapy with gemcitabine and vinorelbine does not improve any outcome as compared to single agent chemotherapy with vinorelbine or gemcitabine. In clinical practice, single agent chemotherapy should remain the standard treatment. Feasibility of cisplatin-based polychemotherapy remains an open issue and has to be proven prospectively. The two main research-lines to explore in the near future are the introduction of biological agents in the treatment schemes and the development of specifically designed schedules of platin-based regimens. However, practicing a multidimensional geriatric asessment for individualized treatment choice in NSCLC elderly patients is mandatory.

CCNU and methotrexate were employed as salvage treatment in 34 small cell lung cancer patients resistant to CAV/PE alternating Induction chemotherapy. In the 33 evaluable patients we observed an objective response rate of 21.2 % and 3 % complete response; median survival was 4 months with 2 patients alive 18 months from starting salvage chemotherapy. The treatment was well tolerated. CCNU and methotrexate has shown to be a moderately active and tolerable salvage treatment for small cell lung cancer after CAV/PE alternating first-line chemotherapy.

Objectives Two phase III trials of advanced NSCLC patients were compared to examine relative efficacy and safety of differing treatment regimens. The JMDB trial investigated first-line pemetrexed–cisplatin (pemetrexed 500 mg/m 2 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m 2 every 21 days; maximum: 6 cycles). The PARAMOUNT phase III trial compared maintenance pemetrexed versus placebo after patients with nonsquamous NSCLC completed 4 cycles of first-line pemetrexed–cisplatin without disease progression. Methods Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), analyzed by Kaplan–Meier and Cox methods, and toxicity rates were compared between the PARAMOUNT arms and a selected homogeneous population from JMDB: 346 patients with disease and prior treatment characteristics matching the PARAMOUNT population. Results Outcomes for the PARAMOUNT placebo arm were similar to the JMDB homogeneous group (median PFS: 5.6 versus 6.2 months, p = 0.117, HR = 1.16; median OS: 14.0 versus 14.2 months, p = 0.979, HR = 1.00). The PARAMOUNT maintenance pemetrexed group had statistically superior efficacy compared with the JMDB homogeneous group (median PFS: 7.5 versus 6.2 months, p p = 0.003, HR = 0.75). Patients who received pemetrexed maintenance (median 4 cycles, range 1–44) following 4 cycles of pemetrexed–cisplatin exhibited a higher incidence of drug-related serious adverse events compared with JMDB patients (median 6 cycles of pemetrexed–cisplatin) (10.6% versus 2.9%); grade 3/4 fatigue and renal toxicity were also higher in the pemetrexed arm of PARAMOUNT. Conclusions The across-trial comparison of a relevant JMDB study population with the two arms of the PARAMOUNT study supported the efficacy of the pemetrexed continuation maintenance strategy and suggested the results are not influenced by limiting the pemetrexed–cisplatin induction treatment to four cycles. Although longer exposure to pemetrexed–cisplatin or maintenance pemetrexed increased some toxicities, the overall incidence remained low, underscoring the relative safety of these treatment regimens.

A multicentre phase 2 trial (single-stage design) was undertaken to test the efficacy and toxicity of carboplatin (AUC 6 according to Calvert) plus paclitaxel (175 mg/m23-h infusion) every 4 weeks in the first line treatment of patients affected by extensive small cell lung cancer. The primary end-point of the trial was the objective response rate. 31 objective responses among 50 patients were considered necessary to proceed to a phase 3 trial. 48 patients were enrolled (median age 59 years). Treatment was very well tolerated. 3 patients (6.2%) had a complete response and 23 (47.9%) a partial response, for an overall response rate of 54.2% (95% CI: 39.2–68.6) Median time to progression was 5.7 months (95% CI: 5.2–6.2). Median survival was 9.6 months (95% CI: 7.2–14.6), with a median follow-up time of alive patients of 12 months. At 1 year, the probability of being progression-free or alive was 0.16 and 0.43, respectively. In conclusion, carboplatin plus paclitaxel as given in the present study is very well tolerated but not sufficiently active to warrant phase 3 comparison with standard chemotherapy regimens. © 2001 Cancer Research Campaign http://www.bjcancer.com

Summary Background To explore a new schedule of gemcitabine–cisplatin (GP) combination therapy using two different cisplatin doses in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods From May to December 1997, 92 chemonaive patients entered the study and 88 (28 with locally advanced and 60 with disseminated NSCLC) were evaluable for response and toxicity (45 in arm A and 43 in arm B). Patients were randomly assigned to arm A or arm B. Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 was given on days 1–8 plus cisplatin 100 mg/m2 in arm A and cisplatin 70 mg/m2 in arm B on day 2 of every 21-day cycle. Results The overall response rates in arms A and B were 42% (95% confidence interval (CI): 27.8%–56.7%) and 47% (95% CI: 31.6%–61.5%), respectively. Median duration of response was 9.7 months (range 1.8 to 30.9 months; 13.1 and 9.5 months for arm A and B, respectively), and median survival was 12 months (range 0.2 to 31.1 months; 15.4 and 11.5 months for arm A and B, respectively). Major WHO grade 3–4 toxicities in arm A vs. arm B included: thrombocytopenia (23% vs. 17% of courses), leukopenia (15% vs. 4% of courses), anemia (7% vs. 6% of courses), and nausea-vomiting (20% vs. 7% of patients). Grade 1–2 nephrotoxicity occurred in 20% of patients in arm A and in 7% of patients in arm B, with one grade 4 episode in arm A. Six patients discontinued treatment because of toxicities, 5 in arm A and 1 in arm B. Conclusions Results of this trial indicate that both schedules are feasible and active, with a milder toxicity in the arm with the lower cisplatin dose.

Our aim was to study the activity and toxicity of the gemcitabine plus vinorelbine (Gem Vin) combination and to identify the optimal dose. Previously untreated patients aged < 70 years, with stage IV or IIIb (not candidates for radiotherapy) non-small cell lung cancer were eligible. Studied dose-levels of Gem Vin, administered on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks, were (mg m–2): level I = 1000/25; level II = 1200/25; level III = 1000/30; level IV = 1200/30. A feasibility study was performed at each dose-level, followed by a single-stage phase II study. Dose-level IV was unfeasible because of grade 4 neutropenia. Overall, out of 126 patients enrolled in phase II studies, there were one complete and 32 partial responses (response rate 26%: 95% CI 18–34%). Response rates were 27.9%, 21.4% and 29.3% at levels I, II and III, respectively. The treatment was well tolerated. Toxicity was less frequent and severe at level I. Overall median survival was 33 weeks (95% CI 28–40). Descriptive quality of life analysis showed that patients with a worse baseline global health status score tended to drop out of the study earlier than those with a better score. Gem Vin is feasible at different doses. It is sufficiently active and well tolerated. A phase III study to compare the effect on quality of life of Gem Vin (level I) vs cisplatin-based chemotherapy is ongoing. © 2000 Cancer Research Campaign