-
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Oct 2019To compare the efficacy and safety of first line treatments for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of first line treatments for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor mutated, non-small cell lung cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety of first line treatments for patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and several international conference databases, from inception to 20 May 2019.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing two or more treatments in the first line setting for patients with advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC were included in a bayesian network meta-analysis. Eligible studies reported at least one of the following clinical outcome measures: progression free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, and adverse events of grade 3 or higher.
RESULTS
18 eligible trials involved 4628 patients and 12 treatments: EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs; osimertinib, dacomitinib, afatinib, erlotinib, gefitinib, and icotinib), pemetrexed based chemotherapy, pemetrexed free chemotherapy, and combination treatments (afatinib plus cetuximab, erlotinib plus bevacizumab, gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy, and gefitinib plus pemetrexed). Consistent with gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0.95, 95% credible interval 0.72 to 1.24), osimertinib showed the most favourable progression free survival, with significant differences versus dacomitinib (0.74, 0.55 to 1.00), afatinib (0.52, 0.40 to 0.68), erlotinib (0.48, 0.40 to 0.57), gefitinib (0.44, 0.37 to 0.52), icotinib (0.39, 0.24 to 0.62), pemetrexed based chemotherapy (0.24, 0.17 to 0.33), pemetrexed free chemotherapy (0.16, 0.13 to 0.20), afatinib plus cetuximab (0.44, 0.28 to 0.71), and gefitinib plus pemetrexed (0.65, 0.46 to 0.92). Osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy were also consistent (0.94, 0.66 to 1.35) in providing the best overall survival benefit. Combination treatments caused more toxicity in general, especially erlotinib plus bevacizumab, which caused the most adverse events of grade 3 or higher. Different toxicity spectrums were revealed for individual EGFR-TKIs. Subgroup analyses by the two most common EGFR mutation types indicated that osimertinib was associated with the best progression free survival in patients with the exon 19 deletion, and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy was associated with the best progression free survival in patients with the Leu858Arg mutation.
CONCLUSIONS
These results indicate that osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy were associated with the best progression free survival and overall survival benefits for patients with advanced EGFR mutated NSCLC, compared with other first line treatments. The treatments resulting in the best progression free survival for patients with the exon 19 deletion and Leu858Arg mutations were osimertinib and gefitinib plus pemetrexed based chemotherapy, respectively.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42018111954.
Topics: Biomarkers, Tumor; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; ErbB Receptors; Humans; Mutation; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 31591158
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l5460 -
Cancer Apr 2023This study compares the safety and efficacy of first-line treatments for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of first-line treatments for patients with advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutated, non-small cell cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
This study compares the safety and efficacy of first-line treatments for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. Abstracts related to lung cancer presented at important international conferences were also reviewed. Randomized clinical trials that qualified the inclusion criteria were subjected to Bayesian network meta-analysis and systematically reviewed.
RESULTS
The authors included a total of nine studies including 2441 patients and seven first-line treatments (ensartinib, brigatinib, crizotinib, lorlatinib, alectinib, ceritinib, and pemetrexed-based chemotherapy). Overall, lorlatinib appeared to confer the best progression-free survival (PFS) (probability of being the best [Prbest], 90%; surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA], 98%), and the same conclusion was obtained on paired comparisons (lorlatinib vs. ceritinib [hazard ratio (HR), 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20-0.47); lorlatinib vs. chemotherapy [HR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.12-0.23]; crizotinib vs. lorlatinib [HR, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-5.2]; and brigatinib vs. lorlatinib [HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.8]). Alectinib conferred the best overall survival (OS) and safety profile. In the Asian population, ensartinib conferred the best PFS (Prbest 50%, SUCRA 87%), and for patients with brain metastases at baseline, lorlatinib showed the best PFS (Prbest 70%, SUCRA 93%).
CONCLUSIONS
For first-line treatment of patients with ALK-positive NSCLC, lorlatinib was associated with the best PFS and objective response rate, but poorer safety profile, whereas alectinib demonstrated the best OS and safety profile. In Asians, ensartinib conferred the best PFS benefit, and in the brain baseline metastasis population, lorlatinib conferred the best PFS benefit.
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY
Among the many molecularly targeted drugs currently used to treat anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer, lorlatinib may be one of the most effective targeted drugs. Lung cancer has long been at the top of cancer rankings in terms of incidence and mortality. Today, the treatment of lung cancer has moved into the era of precision therapy. In this article, we use a statistical approach to compare the efficacy and safety of targeted drugs that have been used in the first-line treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutations to improve the reference for clinicians to make treatment decisions in the real world.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Lung Neoplasms; Crizotinib; Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Lactams, Macrocyclic; Protein Kinase Inhibitors
PubMed: 36748799
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34664 -
International Journal of Clinical... Jun 2014Lung cancer accounts for 20 % of cancer deaths in Spain. The most frequent subtype (87 %) is non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Pemetrexed is a recently marketed drug... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Lung cancer accounts for 20 % of cancer deaths in Spain. The most frequent subtype (87 %) is non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Pemetrexed is a recently marketed drug added to NSCLC therapeutic arsenal. It seems to have become one of the most used options for the treatment of this condition over the last 3 years.
AIM OF THE REVIEW
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed in NSCLC, in the different therapy lines. Method A systematic search of published literature was conducted using the main databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and the Center for Reviews and Dissemination) and subsequently a search of referenced literature was performed. We included clinical trials, meta-analyses and systematic reviews. The evaluation of the quality of the articles was performed by pairs using specific assessment scales, Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) adapted for CASP Spain. Then we extracted data on efficacy and safety according to the treatment line assessed.
RESULTS
We identified 277 references. Finally, nine clinical trials and a meta-analysis complied with inclusion criteria. In first-line induction, treatment with pemetrexed associated with a platinum was similar in terms of efficacy to other alternative chemotherapy regimens, except in patients with non-squamous histology, in whom survival was higher in the experimental group. In maintenance treatment, greater efficacy was seen with pemetrexed in patients with non-squamous histology. In second-line treatment, there were no significant differences in terms of efficacy and safety for pemetrexed treatment versus other chemotherapy options. The most frequent adverse reactions were: hematological, gastrointestinal and neurological. All were significantly less frequent with pemetrexed versus other alternative therapies, except for liver toxicity.
CONCLUSIONS
Due to the high degree of uncertainty as to its efficacy in certain subgroups of patients, including conflicting data; to its recent incorporation, and therefore lack of safety data in the medium and long term, and the high budgetary impact of its incorporation into health systems, it seems reasonable to optimize its use, identifying those patients who may benefit most.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Glutamates; Guanine; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Pemetrexed; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spain
PubMed: 24590919
DOI: 10.1007/s11096-014-9920-2 -
Journal of Thoracic Oncology : Official... Feb 2011Adenocarcinoma is the most common histologic type of lung cancer. To address advances in oncology, molecular biology, pathology, radiology, and surgery of lung... (Review)
Review
International association for the study of lung cancer/american thoracic society/european respiratory society international multidisciplinary classification of lung adenocarcinoma.
INTRODUCTION
Adenocarcinoma is the most common histologic type of lung cancer. To address advances in oncology, molecular biology, pathology, radiology, and surgery of lung adenocarcinoma, an international multidisciplinary classification was sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, American Thoracic Society, and European Respiratory Society. This new adenocarcinoma classification is needed to provide uniform terminology and diagnostic criteria, especially for bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC), the overall approach to small nonresection cancer specimens, and for multidisciplinary strategic management of tissue for molecular and immunohistochemical studies.
METHODS
An international core panel of experts representing all three societies was formed with oncologists/pulmonologists, pathologists, radiologists, molecular biologists, and thoracic surgeons. A systematic review was performed under the guidance of the American Thoracic Society Documents Development and Implementation Committee. The search strategy identified 11,368 citations of which 312 articles met specified eligibility criteria and were retrieved for full text review. A series of meetings were held to discuss the development of the new classification, to develop the recommendations, and to write the current document. Recommendations for key questions were graded by strength and quality of the evidence according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
The classification addresses both resection specimens, and small biopsies and cytology. The terms BAC and mixed subtype adenocarcinoma are no longer used. For resection specimens, new concepts are introduced such as adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA) for small solitary adenocarcinomas with either pure lepidic growth (AIS) or predominant lepidic growth with ≤ 5 mm invasion (MIA) to define patients who, if they undergo complete resection, will have 100% or near 100% disease-specific survival, respectively. AIS and MIA are usually nonmucinous but rarely may be mucinous. Invasive adenocarcinomas are classified by predominant pattern after using comprehensive histologic subtyping with lepidic (formerly most mixed subtype tumors with nonmucinous BAC), acinar, papillary, and solid patterns; micropapillary is added as a new histologic subtype. Variants include invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma (formerly mucinous BAC), colloid, fetal, and enteric adenocarcinoma. This classification provides guidance for small biopsies and cytology specimens, as approximately 70% of lung cancers are diagnosed in such samples. Non-small cell lung carcinomas (NSCLCs), in patients with advanced-stage disease, are to be classified into more specific types such as adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma, whenever possible for several reasons: (1) adenocarcinoma or NSCLC not otherwise specified should be tested for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations as the presence of these mutations is predictive of responsiveness to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, (2) adenocarcinoma histology is a strong predictor for improved outcome with pemetrexed therapy compared with squamous cell carcinoma, and (3) potential life-threatening hemorrhage may occur in patients with squamous cell carcinoma who receive bevacizumab. If the tumor cannot be classified based on light microscopy alone, special studies such as immunohistochemistry and/or mucin stains should be applied to classify the tumor further. Use of the term NSCLC not otherwise specified should be minimized.
CONCLUSIONS
This new classification strategy is based on a multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis of lung adenocarcinoma that incorporates clinical, molecular, radiologic, and surgical issues, but it is primarily based on histology. This classification is intended to support clinical practice, and research investigation and clinical trials. As EGFR mutation is a validated predictive marker for response and progression-free survival with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced lung adenocarcinoma, we recommend that patients with advanced adenocarcinomas be tested for EGFR mutation. This has implications for strategic management of tissue, particularly for small biopsies and cytology samples, to maximize high-quality tissue available for molecular studies. Potential impact for tumor, node, and metastasis staging include adjustment of the size T factor according to only the invasive component (1) pathologically in invasive tumors with lepidic areas or (2) radiologically by measuring the solid component of part-solid nodules.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Neoplasm Staging; Societies, Medical
PubMed: 21252716
DOI: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e318206a221 -
Oral Oncology Jun 2013Pemetrexed has been evaluated as a novel chemotherapeutic for head and neck cancer (HNC). In this review, we examined the efficacy and tolerability of pemetrexed in... (Review)
Review
Pemetrexed has been evaluated as a novel chemotherapeutic for head and neck cancer (HNC). In this review, we examined the efficacy and tolerability of pemetrexed in patients with HNC. Relevant English-language literature was identified via PubMed and a review of published abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology annual meetings from January 2000 through September 2012. Search terms were "pemetrexed" (or "LY231514") and "head and neck cancer." Completed prospective phase I to III trials of pemetrexed alone or in combination with other agents or radiotherapy evaluating objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and/or overall survival (OS) were eligible; ten studies were reviewed. Results for ORR, PFS, and/or OS in patients receiving pemetrexed in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents and/or radiotherapy were promising in the first-line treatment setting. Pemetrexed was associated with acceptable grade 3-4 hematologic toxicities; it did not result in nonhematologic toxicities commonly seen with cisplatin, such as nephrotoxicity, ototoxicity, and neuropathy. In a single phase III randomized trial, although median OS was longer for patients treated with pemetrexed plus cisplatin (7.3 months) versus cisplatin plus placebo (6.3 months), the difference did not reach statistical significance (P=.082). Results of this review suggest that pemetrexed is an active chemotherapeutic in combination with other agents or radiotherapy in patients with HNC. In particular, the role of pemetrexed as a radiosensitizer and potential alternative to cisplatin warrants investigation. More research is needed to clearly define the role of pemetrexed in HNC treatment.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Glutamates; Guanine; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Pemetrexed
PubMed: 23466170
DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2013.01.007 -
Lung Cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Sep 2019Platinum-based chemotherapy is the mainstay of first-line (1L) therapy for advanced non-small cell cancer (NSCLC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Platinum-based chemotherapy is the mainstay of first-line (1L) therapy for advanced non-small cell cancer (NSCLC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the relative efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of carboplatin- versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy in 1L NSCLC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A meta-analysis by the Cochrane group (2013) was updated. Systematic searches of CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences database, clinicaltrials.gov and conference proceedings were conducted to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2013-January 2018 which compared carboplatin and cisplatin combined with: gemcitabine, vinorelbine, docetaxel, paclitaxel, irinotecan, or pemetrexed. Endpoints included overall survival (OS), one-year OS, objective response rate (ORR), grade 3/4 drug-related toxicities, and HRQoL.
RESULTS
Twelve RCTs (2,048 patients) were identified from 4,139 records for inclusion in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in OS (hazards ratio [HR]: 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96, 1.21) and one-year OS (relative risk [RR]: 0.97, CI: 0.89, 1.07) between carboplatin- and cisplatin-based chemotherapy. A small effect on ORR favouring cisplatin was detected (RR = 0.88; CI: 0.78, 0.99). Differences in drug-related toxicities were observed between carboplatin- and cisplatin-based chemotherapy for thrombocytopenia, anaemia, neurotoxicity, and the risk of nausea/vomiting. Three RCTs comparing HRQoL between carboplatin- and cisplatin-based chemotherapy found no significant differences.
CONCLUSIONS
This updated evidence base corroborates findings of previous meta-analyses showing no difference in OS between carboplatin- and cisplatin-based chemotherapy, despite a slight benefit in ORR for cisplatin. Toxicity profiles should be considered alongside patients' comorbidities in the choice of therapy.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carboplatin; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Cisplatin; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Odds Ratio; Publication Bias; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31446995
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2019.07.010 -
PloS One 2016Gemcitabine and pemetrexed have been used as maintenance therapy. However, few systematic reviews and meta-analyses have assessed their effects in the newest studies.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Gemcitabine and pemetrexed have been used as maintenance therapy. However, few systematic reviews and meta-analyses have assessed their effects in the newest studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the role of gemcitabine and pemetrexed in the maintenance treatment of non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC).
METHODS
We performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases from their inceptions to September 16, 2015. We also searched the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) databases from 2008 to 2015. Two authors independently extracted the data. The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias graph was used to assess the risk of bias. The GRADE system was used to assess the grading of evidence, and a meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 11.0 software.
RESULTS
Eleven randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies were collected. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis and divided into the following 4 groups: gemcitabine vs. best supportive care (BSC)/observation, pemetrexed vs. BSC/placebo, pemetrexed + bevacizumab vs. bevacizumab and pemetrexed vs. bevacizumab. Gemcitabine exhibited significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with BSC (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.62, p = 0.000). Pemetrexed exhibited significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.54, p = 0.000) and OS (HR = 0.75, p = 0.000) compared with BSC. Pemetrexed + bevacizumab almost exhibited significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.71, p = 0.051) compared with bevacizumab. Pemetrexed exhibited no improvement in PFS or overall survival (OS) compared with bevacizumab. Regarding the grade, the GRADE system indicated that the gemcitabine group was "MODERATE", the pemetrexed group was "HIGH", and both the pemetrexed + bevacizumab vs. bevacizumab groups and pemetrexed vs. B groups were "LOW".
CONCLUSIONS
Gemcitabine or pemetrexed compared with BSC/observation/placebo significantly improved PFS or OS. Whether pemetrexed + bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab alone significantly improves PFS requires further investigation.
Topics: Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Deoxycytidine; Disease-Free Survival; Female; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Male; Pemetrexed; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Rate; Gemcitabine
PubMed: 26954503
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149247 -
Current Medical Research and Opinion Apr 2012Two new agents have recently been licensed as maintenance therapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by the US Food and Drug Administration. This paper aims... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
Two new agents have recently been licensed as maintenance therapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by the US Food and Drug Administration. This paper aims to systematically review the evidence from all available clinical trials of erlotinib and pemetrexed as maintenance therapy for advanced NSCLC.
METHODS
Systematic literature searches were performed in PUBMED, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. Abstracts presented at two conferences were also researched. The effects of erlotinib and pemetrexed on overall survival and progression-free survival were compared using an indirect treatment comparison method with placebo or observation as a common comparator.
RESULTS
Five randomized controlled studies were included. Both interventions offered significant advantages for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo or observation. Using indirect comparison meta-analysis, the relative hazards ratio of pemetrexed compared with erlotinib for PFS was 0.71 (95% CI 0.60-0.85; p = 0.0001), suggested that pemetrexed was superior to erlotinib in terms of progression-free survival. Although relative hazards ratio for OS showed no significant difference between the two agents (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.71-1.08, p = 0.22).
CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence to suggest that maintenance treatment with erlotinib or pemetrexed has clinically relevant and statistically significant advantages over treatment with placebo or observation in patients with advanced NSCLC.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Databases, Factual; Disease-Free Survival; Erlotinib Hydrochloride; Glutamates; Guanine; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Pemetrexed; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Quinazolines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Survival Rate
PubMed: 22414178
DOI: 10.1185/03007995.2012.675880 -
Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer... 2014Our aim was to conduct a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed and docetaxel for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Our aim was to conduct a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed and docetaxel for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, China Biology Medicine Database for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and toxicities of pemetrexed versus docetaxel as a treatment for advanced NSCLC. We limited the languages to English and Chinese. Two reviewers independently screened articles to identify eligible trials according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and assessed the methodological quality of included trials, and then extracted data. The meta-analysis was performed using STATA12.0.
RESULTS
Six RCTs involving 1,414 patients were identified. We found that there was no statistically significant differences in overall response rate, survival time, progression-free survival, disease control rate, and 1-2 yr survival rate (p>0.050) but it is worthy of mention that patients in the pemetrexed arms had significantly higher 3-yr survival rate (P=0.002). With regard to the grade 3 or 4 hematological toxicity, compared with docetaxel, pemetrexed led to lower rate of grade 3-4 febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, and leukocyts toxicity (p<0.001). There was no significant difference in anemia between the two arms (p=0.08). In addition, pemetrexed led to higher rate of grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia toxicity (p=0.03). As for the non-hematological toxicities, compared with docetaxel, pemetrexed group had lower rate of grade 3-4 diarrhea and alopecia.
CONCLUSIONS
Pemetrexed was almost as effective as docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC. At the same time, pemetrexed might increase the 3-yr survival rate. As for safety, pemetrexed led to lower rate of grade 3-4 febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, leukocytes, diarrhea and alopecia toxicity. However, it was associated with a higher rate of grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Chemotherapy-Induced Febrile Neutropenia; Disease-Free Survival; Docetaxel; Glutamates; Guanine; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Pemetrexed; Taxoids; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24870732
DOI: 10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.8.3419 -
Lung Cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Mar 2015Current standard for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is combined concurrent therapy with a platinum-based regimen. Preclinical synergistic activity... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Concurrent pemetrexed and radiation therapy in the treatment of patients with inoperable stage III non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review of completed and ongoing studies.
Current standard for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is combined concurrent therapy with a platinum-based regimen. Preclinical synergistic activity of pemetrexed with radiation therapy (RT) and favorable toxicity profile has led to clinical trials evaluating pemetrexed in chemoradiation regimens. This literature search of concurrent pemetrexed and RT treatment of patients with stage III NSCLC included MEDLINE database, meeting abstracts, and the clinical trial registry database. Nineteen unique studies were represented across all databases including 11 phase I studies and eight phase II studies. Of the six phase II trials with mature data available, median overall survival ranged from 18.7 to 34 months. Esophagitis and pneumonitis occurred in 0-16% and 0-23% of patients, respectively. Of the ongoing trials, there is one phase III and four phase II trials with pemetrexed in locally advanced NSCLC. Pemetrexed can be administered safely at full systemic doses with either cisplatin or carboplatin concomitantly with radical doses of thoracic radiation therapy. While results from the ongoing phase III PROCLAIM trial are needed to address definitively the efficacy of pemetrexed-cisplatin plus RT in stage III NSCLC, available results from phase II trials suggest that this regimen has promising activity with an acceptable toxicity profile.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Chemoradiotherapy; Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Combined Modality Therapy; Glutamates; Guanine; Humans; Lung Neoplasms; Neoplasm Staging; Pemetrexed; Radiotherapy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25650301
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2014.12.003