Virtual Library
Start Your Search
N. Chouaki
Author of
-
+
ORAL 20 - Chemoradiotherapy (ID 124)
- Event: WCLC 2015
- Type: Oral Session
- Track: Treatment of Locoregional Disease – NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:G. Blumenschein, J.Y. Chang
- Coordinates: 9/08/2015, 10:45 - 12:15, 201+203
-
+
ORAL20.02 - Safety Results of the Consolidation Phase of a Phase III (PROCLAIM): Pemetrexed, Cisplatin or Etoposide, Cisplatin plus Thoracic Radiation Therapy followed by Consolidation Cytotoxic Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (ID 645)
10:56 - 11:07 | Author(s): N. Chouaki
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background:
Standard treatment for inoperable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is concurrent chemoradiotherapy. However, many patients die from recurrent disease, indicating that new treatment strategies are needed.
Methods:
PROCLAIM is a phase III trial comparing overall survival in patients with unresectable stage III nonsquamous NSCLC receiving pemetrexed+cisplatin (PemCis) and concurrent radiotherapy for 3 cycles followed by 4 cycles of pemetrexed consolidation (Arm A) versus etoposide+cisplatin (EtoCis) and concurrent radiotherapy for 2 cycles followed by consolidation with a platinum-based doublet of choice for up to 2 cycles (Arm B). Possible consolidation therapies in Arm B were EtoCis, vinorelbine+cisplatin (VinCis), and paclitaxel+carboplatin (PacCarb). Overall efficacy and safety results for the intent-to-treat population will be presented in a separate disclosure. Safety was a secondary objective. Interim safety results for the concurrent phase were previously presented. Here we present safety results for the consolidation phase. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (v3.0, CTCAE). TEAE incidences were compared using Fisher’s exact test (two-sided α=0.05).
Results:
Of 598 randomized patients, 555 were treated in the concurrent phase (Arm A: N=283; Arm B: N=272), most of whom (Arm A: n=229 [80.9%]; Arm B: n=202 [74.3%]) continued on to the consolidation phase (Arm B patients: EtoCis [33.5%], PacCarb [26.8%], VinCis [14.0%]). Baseline characteristics, including age, gender, performance status, smoking status, stage, and origin, were well-balanced across arms. Percentages of patients in Arm A completing ≥2, ≥3, and 4 consolidation cycles were 95.2%, 84.3%, and 73.4%, respectively. Percentages of patients in Arm B completing 2 consolidation cycles (maximum) were EtoCis (89.0%), PacCarb (93.2%), and VinCis (86.8%). Mean dose intensities for pemetrexed, etoposide, vinorelbine, cisplatin, paclitaxel, and carboplatin were 95.4%, 94.0%, 84.2%, 91.2%, 88.7%, and 92.7%, respectively. More patients in Arm B, compared to Arm A, experienced dose reductions, dose omissions, and cycle delays. Patients in Arm B reported more grade 3/4/5 drug-related TEAEs than Arm A (51.0% versus 31.0%, p<0.001; Table). Rates of drug-related serious AEs were similar between groups (Arm A: 14.4%; Arm B: 13.4%).Drug-related Grade 3/4/5 TEAEs Occurring in ≥2% of Patients (or of Clinical Relevance) in the Consolidation Phase
CTCAE Arm A (N=229) n (%) Arm B (N=202) n (%) Neutrophils 27 (11.8) 76 (37.6)* Leukocytes 19 (8.3) 29 (14.4) Hemoglobin 6 (2.6) 9 (4.5) Platelets 5 (2.2) 10 (5.0) Febrile neutropenia 7 (3.1) 7 (3.5) Lymphopenia 8 (3.5) 5 (2.5) Pneumonitis/pulmonary infiltrates 5 (2.2) 2 (1.0) Fatigue 2 (0.9) 4 (2.0) Pneumonia 5 (2.2) 0 Esophagitis 0 3 (1.5) *p<0.001, Fisher’s exact test. Note: Of the TEAEs listed here, only one case (0.4%, Arm A, pneumonia) was grade 5.
Conclusion:
During the PROCLAIM consolidation phase, most patients were able to complete the planned number of cycles in either arm, with the highest dose intensity corresponding to pemetrexed. Pemetrexed consolidation had a significantly lower incidence of drug-related grade 3/4/5 TEAEs than the platinum doublets in Arm B. A more detailed analysis of Arm B (by treatment regimen) is underway.
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
P3.01 - Poster Session/ Treatment of Advanced Diseases – NSCLC (ID 208)
- Event: WCLC 2015
- Type: Poster
- Track: Treatment of Advanced Diseases - NSCLC
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 9/09/2015, 09:30 - 17:00, Exhibit Hall (Hall B+C)
-
+
P3.01-072 - Final Efficacy and Safety Results of ECOG Performance Status (PS) Subgroup Analyses From the SQUIRE Phase III Study (ID 1660)
09:30 - 09:30 | Author(s): N. Chouaki
- Abstract
Background:
As previously reported, the SQUIRE study demonstrated that the addition of necitumumab (N) to gemcitabine-cisplatin (GC) chemotherapy significantly improved survival in patients with stage IV squamous NSCLC. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety results are presented for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS 0–1/2 subgroups.
Methods:
Patients with stage IV squamous NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to N (800 mg iv, days 1 and 8) plus GC (G=1250 mg/m² iv, days 1 and 8; C=75 mg/m² iv, day 1) or GC alone every 21 days for up to six cycles in this multicenter, open-label study. N+GC patients without progression continued on N alone until progressive disease or intolerable toxicity. The study was powered for OS and PFS (previously reported). Preplanned subgroup analyses were performed for ECOG PS 0–1 and 2.
Results:
Subgroups PS 0–1/2 (n=996 [91%]/n=96 [9%]) were well balanced regarding baseline characteristics (males, 83% vs 86%; median age, 62 vs 65 yrs; smoking/ex-light smoker/nonsmoker, 91/4/5% vs 89/6/5%). GC median relative dose intensity was similar between PS 0–1/2 subgroups; N (overall) was higher for the PS 0–1 than for PS 2 subgroup (94.8% and 90.0%). Post-study therapy use was generally higher in the PS 0–1 than in the PS 2 subgroup, but was balanced between both arms. The OS hazard ratio (HR) for N+GC vs. GC was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.98; p=0.026) for PS 0–1 and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.51, 1.21; p=0.275) for PS 2. The PFS HR (N+GC vs. GC) was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.99; p=0.035) for PS 0–1 and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.50, 1.24; p=0.292) for PS 2. Select Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are shown in the table. The percentage of patients with adverse events leading to discontinuation of any study drug was lower in the PS 0–1 subgroup (N+GC=30%; GC=23%) than the PS 2 subgroup (N+GC=42%; GC=41%). The percentage of patients hospitalized was higher in the PS 0–1 subgroup (N+GC=43%; GC=34%) than the PS2 subgroup (N+GC=25%; GC=30%). Table. Select TEAEs
[*][Adverse events of possible relevance to treatment, according to either composite categories or preferred terms (febrile neutropenia only)]Grade ≥3 Event* PS 0-1 N+GC (%) N=490 PS 0-1 GC (%) N=495 PS 2 N+GC (%) N=48 PS 2 GC (%) N=46 Neutropenia 25.5 28.1 12.5 21.7 Febrile neutropenia 0.6 1.4 2.1 0 Anemia 11.2 10.3 4.2 17.4 Thrombocytopenia 10.4 10.5 8.3 13.0 Fatigue 7.1 7.1 8.3 6.5 Hypomagnesemia 9.8 1.0 4.2 2.2 Rash 7.8 0.4 0 0 Arterial thromboembolic events 3.7 1.8 6.3 4.3 Venous thromboembolic events 5.5 2.6 0 2.2
Conclusion:
OS and PFS treatment results for N+GC were consistent and considered favorable across subgroups including ECOG PS 2 patients. Administration of N+GC was well tolerated in PS 2 patients, with no evidence of an increased safety risk in this subgroup.
