Author of

• 11946

  +

  P2.24 - Poster Session 2 - Supportive Care (ID 157)

  • Event: WCLC 2013
  • Type: Poster Session
  • Track: Supportive Care
  • Presentations: 1
  • Moderators:
  • Coordinates: 10/29/2013, 09:30 - 16:30, Exhibit Hall, Ground Level

  • 11953

    +

    P2.24-007 - First-line Pemetrexed plus Cisplatin followed by maintenance Pemetrexed vs Carboplatin-Paclitaxel plus Bevacizumab followed by maintenance Bevacizumab (ERACLE) in advanced non squamous non-small Cell Lung Cancer : a Quality of Life-oriented, multicenter randomized phase III trial of the GOIM (Gruppo Oncologico Italia Meridionale). (ID 749)

    09:30 - 09:30  |  Author(s): A. Misino
    • Abstract

    Background
    Chemotherapy (CT) for advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NS-NSCLC) without oncogenic drivers remains palliative with suggested similar efficacy and survival among different regimens. Histotype, maintenance therapy (m) and quality of life (QoL) have been explored to improve patients (pts) outcome. The ERACLE trial (NCT01303926), a QoL-oriented phase III trial, was designed to compare the QoL for two CT regimens.

    Methods
    Pts with stage IIIB/IV NS-NSCLC (ECOG 0/1) were randomized (1:1) to receive first-line CT. Arm A received 6 cycles of Cisplatin (C) (75 mg/m[2])/Pemetrexed (P) (500 mg/m[2]) q3w, followed by mP (500 mg/m[2]), while Arm B received Carboplatin (Cb) AUC 6/Paclitaxel (T) 200 mg/m[2] plus Bevacizumab (Be) 15 mg/kg q3w for 6 cycles, followed by mBe 15 mg/kg. Both treatments were administered until progression, unacceptable toxicity or death. Stratification was based on Study Centre and disease stage. Co-Primary endpoints were EQ5D Index (EQ5D-I) and EQ5D-VAS (Euro-QoL questionnaire). Quality of life data were collected at three time points during the induction phase and at 12 and 18 weeks during the maintenance phase. Secondary endpoints were QoL over time, safety and activity of CT arms. A sample size of 49 pts per arm (that have not progressed during initial CT and during maintenance therapy for at least 12 weeks) would have 91% chance to have 12-point Minimal Interesting Difference (MID) between arms for EQ5D-VAS, and 87% chance to find 0.137 MID between arms for EQ5D-I. It is assumed that about 20% of pts in both arms experience progressive disease before the evaluation of the primary endpoint. The study sample was then increased to 118.

    Results
    From 1/2011 to 3/2012, 118 pts were randomized to Arm A (n=60) or Arm B (n=58). Baseline demographics were well balanced across arms; Arm A/Arm B male: 70%/77.6%, PS 0: 78.3%/79.3%, stage IV 95%/93%, smokers: 63%/52% . Seventy four pts (62,7%) received maintenance chemotherapy. Treatment differences (mean change from baseline), EQ5D-VAS = 1.82 (95%CI -8.60 to 12.24; P=0.73), EQ5D-I = 0.15 (95%CI 0.01 to 0.29), favoured arm A. Safety was as expected without relevant haematological toxicity and with a significant impact of G3/4 alopecia (p=0.002) and G 1-3 neurotoxicity in ARM B (p=0.008) during induction. Response rates were (Arm A/Arm B) partial responses 40%/51%; stable disease 48.3%/27.6%. The Hazard Ratio (HR) for Progression Free Survival Arm A/Arm B [Cox's analysis] was 0.62 (95%CI 0.41 to 0.95) p=0.03 and HR for Overall Survival Arm A/Arm B [Cox's analysis] was 0.69 (95%CI 0.61 to 1.04) p=0.08.

    Conclusion
    Arm A showed better (over the MID) health profile (EQ5D-I) as compared to Arm B. EQ5D-VAS didn’t find any significant difference between treatment arms. By assuming equal activity, the choice of a treatment for advanced NSCLC should be mainly based on QoL.