PointBreak: A Randomized Phase III Study of Pemetrexed Plus Carboplatin and Bevacizumab Followed by Maintenance Pemetrexed and Bevacizumab Versus Paclitaxel Plus Carboplatin and Bevacizumab Followed by Maintenance Bevacizumab in Patients With Stage IIIB or IV Nonsquamous Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer
01 Dec 2013-Journal of Clinical Oncology (American Society of Clinical Oncology)-Vol. 31, Iss: 34, pp 4349-4357
TL;DR: OS did not improve with the Pemetrexed plus bevacizumab regimen compared with the PacCBev regimen, although PFS was significantly improved with PemCBev.
Abstract: Purpose PointBreak (A Study of Pemetrexed, Carboplatin and Bevacizumab in Patients With Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer) compared the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed (Pem) plus carboplatin (C) plus bevacizumab (Bev) followed by pemetrexed plus bevacizumab (PemCBev) with paclitaxel (Pac) plus carboplatin (C) plus bevacizumab (Bev) followed by bevacizumab (PacCBev) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non‐small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Citations
More filters
University of Turin1, Aix-Marseille University2, National Health Service3, University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust4, University of Ljubljana5, Karolinska University Hospital6, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Grenoble7, University of Aberdeen8, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust9, VU University Medical Center10, University of Salamanca11, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven12, University Hospital of Lausanne13
TL;DR: The ESMO Guidelines Committee concluded that current state-of-the-art oncology practices in France, Belgium, and the Netherlands are suitable for frontline use and recommend further research into these practices.
2,349 citations
01 Jan 2014
TL;DR: Lymphedema is a common complication after treatment for breast cancer and factors associated with increased risk of lymphedEMA include extent of axillary surgery, axillary radiation, infection, and patient obesity.
1,988 citations
Ohio State University1, Vanderbilt University2, Heidelberg University3, Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy4, Duke University5, University of Lausanne6, Lehigh University7, McMaster University8, Fox Chase Cancer Center9, University of Texas at Austin10, Nemocnice Na Bulovce11, Bristol-Myers Squibb12
TL;DR: Nivolumab was not associated with significantly longer progression‐free survival than chemotherapy among patients with previously untreated stage IV or recurrent NSCLC with a PD‐L1 expression level of 5% or more.
Abstract: BackgroundNivolumab has been associated with longer overall survival than docetaxel among patients with previously treated non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In an open-label phase 3 trial, we compared first-line nivolumab with chemotherapy in patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–positive NSCLC. MethodsWe randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with untreated stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and a PD-L1 tumor-expression level of 1% or more to receive nivolumab (administered intravenously at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight once every 2 weeks) or platinum-based chemotherapy (administered once every 3 weeks for up to six cycles). Patients receiving chemotherapy could cross over to receive nivolumab at the time of disease progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival, as assessed by means of blinded independent central review, among patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 5% or more. ResultsAmong the 423 patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 5% or more, the media...
1,840 citations
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center1, University of California, Los Angeles2, Yale University3, Fox Chase Cancer Center4, Johns Hopkins University5, Duke University6, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center7, University of Washington8, McMaster University9, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre10, University of Ottawa11, Bristol-Myers Squibb12
TL;DR: The primary outcome was safety and tolerability, assessed in all treated patients, and data from the latter two cohorts, which were considered potentially suitable for further clinical development, are presented.
Abstract: Summary Background Nivolumab has shown improved survival in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with chemotherapy. We assessed the safety and activity of combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab as first-line therapy for NSCLC. Methods The open-label, phase 1, multicohort study (CheckMate 012) cohorts reported here were enrolled at eight US academic centres. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed recurrent stage IIIb or stage IV, chemotherapy-naive NSCLC. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by an interactive voice response system to receive nivolumab 1 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks, nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 12 weeks, or nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicities, or withdrawal of consent. Data from the latter two cohorts, which were considered potentially suitable for further clinical development, are presented in this report; data from the other cohort (as well as several earlier cohorts) are described in the appendix. The primary outcome was safety and tolerability, assessed in all treated patients. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01454102. Findings Between May 15, 2014, and March 25, 2015, 78 patients were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab every 12 weeks (n=38) or nivolumab every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab every 6 weeks (n=40). One patient in the ipilimumab every-6-weeks cohort was excluded before treatment; therefore 77 patients actually received treatment (38 in the ipilimumab every-12-weeks cohort; 39 in the ipilimumab every-6-weeks cohort). At data cut-off on Jan 7, 2016, 29 (76%) patients in the ipilimumab every-12-weeks cohort and 32 (82%) in the ipilimumab every-6-weeks cohort had discontinued treatment. Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 14 (37%) patients in the ipilimumab every-12-weeks cohort and 13 (33%) patients in the every-6-weeks cohort; the most commonly reported grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were increased lipase (three [8%] and no patients), pneumonitis (two [5%] and one [3%] patients), adrenal insufficiency (one [3%] and two [5%] patients), and colitis (one [3%] and two [5%] patients). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 12 (32%) patients in the ipilimumab every-12-weeks cohort and 11 (28%) patients in the every-6-weeks cohort. Treatment-related adverse events (any grade) prompted treatment discontinuation in four (11%) patients in the every-12-weeks cohort and five (13%) patients in the every-6-weeks cohort. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Confirmed objective responses were achieved in 18 (47% [95% CI 31–64]) patients in the ipilimumab every-12-weeks cohort and 15 (38% [95% CI 23–55]) patients in the ipilimumab every-6-weeks cohort; median duration of response was not reached in either cohort, with median follow-up times of 12·8 months (IQR 9·3–15·5) in the ipilimumab every-12-weeks cohort and 11·8 months (6·7–15·9) in the ipilimumab every-6-weeks cohort. In patients with PD-L1 of 1% or greater, confirmed objective responses were achieved in 12 (57%) of 21 patients in the ipilimumab every-12-weeks cohort and 13 (57%) of 23 patients in the ipilimumab every-6-weeks cohort. Interpretation In NSCLC, first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab had a tolerable safety profile and showed encouraging clinical activity characterised by a high response rate and durable response. To our knowledge, the results of this study are the first suggestion of improved benefit compared with anti-PD-1 monotherapy in patients with NSCLC, supporting further assessment of this combination in a phase 3 study. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb.
784 citations
TL;DR: This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous guideline and recommends combination cytotoxic chemotherapy is recommended, guided by histology, with early concurrent palliative care.
Abstract: Purpose Provide evidence-based recommendations updating the 2015 ASCO guideline on systemic therapy for patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods The ASCO NSCLC Expert Panel made recommendations based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials from February 2014 to December 2016 plus the Cancer Care Ontario Program in Evidence-Based Care's update of a previous ASCO search. Results This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous guideline update. Fourteen randomized controlled trials provide the evidence base; earlier phase trials also informed recommendation development. Recommendations New or revised recommendations include the following. Regarding first-line treatment for patients with non-squamous cell carcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma (without positive markers, eg, EGFR/ALK /ROS1), if the patient has high programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, pembrolizumab should be used alone; if the patient has low PD-L1 expression, clinicians should offer standard chemotherapy. All other clinical scenarios follow 2015 recommendations. Regarding second-line treatment in patients who received first-line chemotherapy, without prior immune checkpoint therapy, if NSCLC tumor is positive for PD-L1 expression, clinicians should use single-agent nivolumab, pembrolizumab, or atezolizumab; if tumor has negative or unknown PD-L1 expression, clinicians should use nivolumab or atezolizumab. All immune checkpoint therapy is recommended alone plus in the absence of contraindications. For patients who received a prior first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor, clinicians should offer standard chemotherapy. For patients who cannot receive immune checkpoint inhibitor after chemotherapy, docetaxel is recommended; in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC, pemetrexed is recommended. In patients with a sensitizing EGFR mutation, disease progression after first-line epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy, and T790M mutation, osimertinib is recommended; if NSCLC lacks the T790M mutation, then chemotherapy is recommended. Patients with ROS1 gene rearrangement without prior crizotinib may be offered crizotinib, or if they previously received crizotinib, they may be offered chemotherapy.
695 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, the product-limit (PL) estimator was proposed to estimate the proportion of items in the population whose lifetimes would exceed t (in the absence of such losses), without making any assumption about the form of the function P(t).
Abstract: In lifetesting, medical follow-up, and other fields the observation of the time of occurrence of the event of interest (called a death) may be prevented for some of the items of the sample by the previous occurrence of some other event (called a loss). Losses may be either accidental or controlled, the latter resulting from a decision to terminate certain observations. In either case it is usually assumed in this paper that the lifetime (age at death) is independent of the potential loss time; in practice this assumption deserves careful scrutiny. Despite the resulting incompleteness of the data, it is desired to estimate the proportion P(t) of items in the population whose lifetimes would exceed t (in the absence of such losses), without making any assumption about the form of the function P(t). The observation for each item of a suitable initial event, marking the beginning of its lifetime, is presupposed. For random samples of size N the product-limit (PL) estimate can be defined as follows: L...
52,450 citations
TL;DR: The analysis of censored failure times is considered in this paper, where the hazard function is taken to be a function of the explanatory variables and unknown regression coefficients multiplied by an arbitrary and unknown function of time.
Abstract: The analysis of censored failure times is considered. It is assumed that on each individual arc available values of one or more explanatory variables. The hazard function (age-specific failure rate) is taken to be a function of the explanatory variables and unknown regression coefficients multiplied by an arbitrary and unknown function of time. A conditional likelihood is obtained, leading to inferences about the unknown regression coefficients. Some generalizations are outlined.
28,264 citations
Book•
17 Sep 2013
TL;DR: Purposes and Principles of Cancer Staging and End-Results Reporting are explained.
Abstract: General Information on Cancer Staging and End-Results Reporting.- Purposes and Principles of Cancer Staging.- Cancer Survival Analysis.- Head and Neck.- Lip and Oral Cavity.- Pharynx.- Larynx.- Nasal Cavity and Paranasal Sinuses.- Major Salivary Glands.- Thyroid.- Mucosal Melanoma of the Head and Neck.- Digestive System.- Esophagus and Esophagogastric Junction.- Stomach.- Small Intestine.- Colon and Rectum.- Anus.- Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor.- Neuroendocrine Tumors.- Liver.- Intrahepatic Bile Ducts.- Gallbladder.- Perihilar Bile Ducts.- Distal Bile Duct.- Ampulla of Vater.- Exocrine and Endocrine Pancreas.- Thorax.- Lung.- Pleural Mesothelioma.- Musculoskeletal Sites.- Bone.- Soft Tissue Sarcoma.- Skin.- Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Other Cutaneous Carcinomas.- Merkel Cell Carcinoma.- Melanoma of the Skin.- Breast.- Breast.- Gynecologic Sites.- Vulva.- Vagina.- Cervix Uteri.- Corpus Uteri.- Ovary and Primary Peritoneal Carcinoma.- Fallopian Tube.- Gestational Trophoblastic Tumors.- Genitourinary Sites.- Penis.- Prostate.- Testis.- Kidney.- Renal Pelvis and Ureter.- Urinary Bladder.- Urethra.- Adrenal.- Ophthalmic Sites.- Carcinoma of the Eyelid.- Carcinoma of the Conjunctiva.- Malignant Melanoma of the Conjunctiva.- Malignant Melanoma of the Uvea.- Retinoblastoma.- Carcinoma of the Lacrimal Gland.- Sarcoma of the Orbit.- Ocular Adnexal Lymphoma.- Central Nervous System.- Brain and Spinal Cord.- Lymphoid Neoplasms.- Lymphoid Neoplasms.
16,806 citations
TL;DR: A model by which a combined assessment of all existing lesions, characterized by target lesions and nontarget lesions, is used to extrapolate an overall response to treatment is proposed, which is largely validated by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group and integrated into the present guidelines.
Abstract: Anticancer cytotoxic agents go through a process by which their antitumor activity-on the basis of the amount of tumor shrinkage they could generate-has been investigated. In the late 1970s, the International Union Against Cancer and the World Health Organization introduced specific criteria for the codification of tumor response evaluation. In 1994, several organizations involved in clinical research combined forces to tackle the review of these criteria on the basis of the experience and knowledge acquired since then. After several years of intensive discussions, a new set of guidelines is ready that will supersede the former criteria. In parallel to this initiative, one of the participating groups developed a model by which response rates could be derived from unidimensional measurement of tumor lesions instead of the usual bidimensional approach. This new concept has been largely validated by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group and integrated into the present guidelines. This special article also provides some philosophic background to clarify the various purposes of response evaluation. It proposes a model by which a combined assessment of all existing lesions, characterized by target lesions (to be measured) and nontarget lesions, is used to extrapolate an overall response to treatment. Methods of assessing tumor lesions are better codified, briefly within the guidelines and in more detail in Appendix I. All other aspects of response evaluation have been discussed, reviewed, and amended whenever appropriate.
14,926 citations
TL;DR: A formula has been developed to predict Creatinine clearance from serum creatinine (Scr) in adult males: Ccr = (140 – age) (wt kg)/72 × Scr (mg/100ml) (15% less i).
Abstract: A formula has been developed to predict creatinine clearance (Ccr) from serum creatinine (Scr) in adult males: Ccr = (140 – age) (wt kg)/72 × Scr(mg/100ml) (15% less i
14,211 citations