- Email: [email protected]
Amrubicin (Amr) Versus Docetaxel (Dtx) As Second- or Third-Line Treatment for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (Nsclc): a Randomized Phase III Trial
Annals of Oncology 25 (Supplement 4): iv426–iv470, 2014 doi:10.1093/annonc/mdu349.15
NSCLC, metastatic
17
Third Department of Internal Medicine, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, JAPAN Medical Oncology, Kinki University School of Medicine, Osakasayama, JAPAN
18
1236P
AMRUBICIN (AMR) VERSUS DOCETAXEL (DTX) AS SECONDOR THIRD-LINE TREATMENT FOR NON-SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER (NSCLC): A RANDOMIZED PHASE III TRIAL
abstracts
© European Society for Medical Oncology 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: [email protected].
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annonc/article-abstract/25/suppl_4/iv432/2241949 by guest on 25 October 2019
N. Katakami1, H. Yoshioka2, H. Okamoto3, Y. Iwamoto4, T. Seto5, T. Takahashi6, N. Sunaga7, S. Kudoh8, K. Chikamori9, M. Harada10, H. Tanaka11, H. Saka12, K. Takeda13, N. Nogami14, N. Masuda15, T. Harada16, N. Yamamoto17, K. Nakagawa18 1 Division of Integrated Oncology, Institute of Biomedical Research and Innovation, Kobe, JAPAN 2 Respiratory Medicine Dept., Kurashiki Central Hospital, Kurashiki, JAPAN 3 Department of Respiratory Medicine, Yokohama Municipal Citizen’s Hospital, Yokohama, JAPAN 4 Medical Oncology, Hiroshima City Hospital, Hiroshima, JAPAN 5 Department of Thoracic Oncology, National Kyushu Cancer Center, Fukuoka, JAPAN 6 Division of Thoracic Oncology, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka, JAPAN 7 Department of Respiratory Disease, Gunma University Hospital, Maebashi, JAPAN 8 Department of Clinical Oncology, Osaka City University Hospital, Osaka, JAPAN 9 Respiratory Medicine, NHO Yamaguchi-Ube Medical Center, Ube, JAPAN 10 Department of Pulmonary Disease, National Hospital Organization Hokkaido Cancer Center, Sapporo, JAPAN 11 Department of Internal Medicine, Niigata Cancer Center Hospital, Niigata, JAPAN 12 Medical Oncology & Respiratory Medicine, National Hospital Organization Nagoya Medical Center, Nagoya, JAPAN 13 Department of Clinical Oncology, Osaka City General Hospital, Osaka, JAPAN 14 Dept of Thoracic Oncology, NHO Shikoku Cancer Center, Matsuyama, JAPAN 15 Department of Respiratory Medicine, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Sagamihara, JAPAN 16 Department of Respiratory Disease, Hokkaido Social Insurance Hospital, Sapporo, JAPAN
Aim: DTX is one of the standard drugs for patients ( pts) with previously treated NSCLC. However, its efficacy seems insufficient. The efficacy of AMR for NSCLC has been previously reported. Thus, we conducted a randomized phase III trial comparing AMR to DTX, sponsored by Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd. Methods: We enrolled pts with NSCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status 0-1, undergoing second- or third-line treatment, and aged 20–74 years. Pts were classified by histology, prior treatment, and institution into 2 groups and then randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to treatment with AMR (35 mg/m2/day i.v., on days 1–3, q3w) or DTX (60 mg/m2/day i.v., on day 1, q3w). We planned a sample size of 100 patients per group, with a 2-sided alpha of 5% and power of 90%. We hypothesized a median progression-free survival (PFS) time of 3.3 and 2.0 months for AMR and DTX, respectively. The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v 4.03. Results: From October 2010 to June 2012, 202 pts were enrolled from 32 institutions. Patient characteristics were well balanced between both groups. OS was measured after a median follow-up of 13.5 months. Median PFS was 3.6 and 3.0 months with AMR and DTX, respectively (adjusted Hazard Rate (HR) 0.96, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.69–1.34, p = 0.831). Median OS was 14.6 and 13.5 months with AMR and DTX, respectively (adjusted HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.72–1.43, p = 0.933). ORR was 14.8% and 18.8% with AMR and DTX, respectively ( p = 0.544). DCR was 55.7% for both AMR and DTX ( p = 1.000). The most frequent adverse events (≥grade 3) for AMR and DTX were neutropenia (82.7% and 78.8%, respectively) and leukopenia (63.3% and 70.7%, respectively). Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the DTX arm: a case of interstitial pneumonia and another of drowning in a bath. Conclusions: We were not able to demonstrate superiority of AMR over DTX for PFS, despite the 20-day PFS prolongation. Our results suggest that AMR may become a treatment option for patients with previously treated NSCLC. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
NSCLC, metastatic
17
Third Department of Internal Medicine, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, JAPAN Medical Oncology, Kinki University School of Medicine, Osakasayama, JAPAN
18
1236P
AMRUBICIN (AMR) VERSUS DOCETAXEL (DTX) AS SECONDOR THIRD-LINE TREATMENT FOR NON-SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER (NSCLC): A RANDOMIZED PHASE III TRIAL
abstracts
© European Society for Medical Oncology 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: [email protected].
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/annonc/article-abstract/25/suppl_4/iv432/2241949 by guest on 25 October 2019
N. Katakami1, H. Yoshioka2, H. Okamoto3, Y. Iwamoto4, T. Seto5, T. Takahashi6, N. Sunaga7, S. Kudoh8, K. Chikamori9, M. Harada10, H. Tanaka11, H. Saka12, K. Takeda13, N. Nogami14, N. Masuda15, T. Harada16, N. Yamamoto17, K. Nakagawa18 1 Division of Integrated Oncology, Institute of Biomedical Research and Innovation, Kobe, JAPAN 2 Respiratory Medicine Dept., Kurashiki Central Hospital, Kurashiki, JAPAN 3 Department of Respiratory Medicine, Yokohama Municipal Citizen’s Hospital, Yokohama, JAPAN 4 Medical Oncology, Hiroshima City Hospital, Hiroshima, JAPAN 5 Department of Thoracic Oncology, National Kyushu Cancer Center, Fukuoka, JAPAN 6 Division of Thoracic Oncology, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka, JAPAN 7 Department of Respiratory Disease, Gunma University Hospital, Maebashi, JAPAN 8 Department of Clinical Oncology, Osaka City University Hospital, Osaka, JAPAN 9 Respiratory Medicine, NHO Yamaguchi-Ube Medical Center, Ube, JAPAN 10 Department of Pulmonary Disease, National Hospital Organization Hokkaido Cancer Center, Sapporo, JAPAN 11 Department of Internal Medicine, Niigata Cancer Center Hospital, Niigata, JAPAN 12 Medical Oncology & Respiratory Medicine, National Hospital Organization Nagoya Medical Center, Nagoya, JAPAN 13 Department of Clinical Oncology, Osaka City General Hospital, Osaka, JAPAN 14 Dept of Thoracic Oncology, NHO Shikoku Cancer Center, Matsuyama, JAPAN 15 Department of Respiratory Medicine, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Sagamihara, JAPAN 16 Department of Respiratory Disease, Hokkaido Social Insurance Hospital, Sapporo, JAPAN
Aim: DTX is one of the standard drugs for patients ( pts) with previously treated NSCLC. However, its efficacy seems insufficient. The efficacy of AMR for NSCLC has been previously reported. Thus, we conducted a randomized phase III trial comparing AMR to DTX, sponsored by Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd. Methods: We enrolled pts with NSCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status 0-1, undergoing second- or third-line treatment, and aged 20–74 years. Pts were classified by histology, prior treatment, and institution into 2 groups and then randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to treatment with AMR (35 mg/m2/day i.v., on days 1–3, q3w) or DTX (60 mg/m2/day i.v., on day 1, q3w). We planned a sample size of 100 patients per group, with a 2-sided alpha of 5% and power of 90%. We hypothesized a median progression-free survival (PFS) time of 3.3 and 2.0 months for AMR and DTX, respectively. The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v 4.03. Results: From October 2010 to June 2012, 202 pts were enrolled from 32 institutions. Patient characteristics were well balanced between both groups. OS was measured after a median follow-up of 13.5 months. Median PFS was 3.6 and 3.0 months with AMR and DTX, respectively (adjusted Hazard Rate (HR) 0.96, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.69–1.34, p = 0.831). Median OS was 14.6 and 13.5 months with AMR and DTX, respectively (adjusted HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.72–1.43, p = 0.933). ORR was 14.8% and 18.8% with AMR and DTX, respectively ( p = 0.544). DCR was 55.7% for both AMR and DTX ( p = 1.000). The most frequent adverse events (≥grade 3) for AMR and DTX were neutropenia (82.7% and 78.8%, respectively) and leukopenia (63.3% and 70.7%, respectively). Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the DTX arm: a case of interstitial pneumonia and another of drowning in a bath. Conclusions: We were not able to demonstrate superiority of AMR over DTX for PFS, despite the 20-day PFS prolongation. Our results suggest that AMR may become a treatment option for patients with previously treated NSCLC. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.