BACKGROUND:We conducted a randomize phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of topoisomerase II inhibitor amrubicin plus topoisomerase I inhibitor irinotecan (AI) compared with cisplatin plus irinotecan (PI) as first-line therapy in patients with extensive-disease (ED) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS:Chemo-naïve patients with pathologically proven ED-SCLC (including limited disease (LD) SCLC with malignant effusion) were enrolled. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either AI (amrubicin 90mg/m2 on day 1 and irinotecan 50mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle) or PI (cisplatin 60mg/m2 on day 1 and irinotecan 60mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle). The primary endpoint was overall survival proportion at 1 year. RESULTS:A total of 100 patients were randomly assigned to AI (n = 50) or to PI (n = 50). The 1-year overall survival proportions were 68.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 56.2-82.2%) for AI and 59.2% (46.9-74.7%) for PI (1-sided P = .18). Median survival time was 14.8 months for AI and 13.5 months for PI with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.618 (0.398-0.961, stratified log-rank test P = .031). Median progression-free survival time was 4.8 months for AI and 5.4 months for PI (stratified log-rank test, P = .54). Objective response rate was 70.0% (55.4-82.1%) for AI and 55.1% (40.2-69.3%) for PI (Fisher exact test, P = .15). There was no significant difference in hematological toxicity, whereas rates of vomiting, loss of appetite, diarrhea, and elevated serum creatinine are more frequent in PI. Interstitial lung disease (Grade 2 or 3) developed in 5 patients in AI and in 1 patient in PI. There was no treatment-related death. CONCLUSION:Although the study did not meet its primary endpoint, AI showed promising efficacy and good tolerability in chemo-naïve patients with ED-SCLC.

BackgroundNab-paclitaxel (nab-PTX) has better transfer to tumor tissue than cremophor-based paclitaxel. It suggests that the optimum dose of nab-PTX might be lower than the dose and schedule that is widely used. We designed a randomized phase II trial to examine the clinical utility and safety of nab-PTX in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MethodsPatients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive nab-PTX monotherapy at 100 mg/m(2) (group A) or 70 mg/m(2) (group B). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). ResultsFinally, 81 patients were randomized. Similar results were observed in both groups for PFS (3.75 vs. 3.71 months), OS (13.50 vs. 16.13 months), or ORR (20.5% vs. 23.1%). The incidences of grade 3 or worse AEs were 57.5% in group A and 41.5% in group B. The proportion of serious side effects was 10.0% in group A and 4.9% in group B. ConclusionBoth standard dose and low dose of nab-PTX monotherapy are active for previously treated NSCLC patients with better safety profile. Therefore, nab-PTX 70 mg/m(2) dose and schedule in the trial would be a reasonable option.

AbstractBackgroundThis study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the combination chemotherapy of docetaxel plus S‐1 in patients with previously treated non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared to docetaxel alone.MethodsPatients with previously treated NSCLC were randomly assigned to docetaxel alone (arm A) or a combination of docetaxel and S‐1 (arm B) for a maximum of four cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS).ResultsThe study was terminated early because of poor accrual. The number of patients evaluated were 74 and 77 in arm A and arm B, respectively. The median OS was 9.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.8–15.2) and 12.3 months (95% CI: 9.2–14.5) in arms A and B, respectively. In arms A and B, the median progression‐free survival was 3.5 months (95% CI: 2.7–4.0) and 4.1 months (95% CI: 3.2–4.7), respectively. No statistically significant difference was observed in OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.984, 95% CI: 0.682–1.419, p = 0.4569) or progression‐free survival (HR: 0.823, 95% CI: 0.528–1.282, p = 0.0953). The major toxicity was myelosuppression. The incidence of grade 3 or more neutropenia was higher in arm A than in arm B (44.6% vs. 35.1%). However, the incidence of grade 3 or more febrile neutropenia and infection with neutropenia (12.2% vs. 22.1%) was more frequently observed in arm B.ConclusionsThe prematurely terminated study did not show the benefit of two cytotoxic agents over single‐agent therapy for previously treated NSCLC patients.

Abstract Background Gefitinib (G) is a recommended molecular‐targeted agent for elderly patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)‐mutant non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Docetaxel (Doc) and pemetrexed (Pem) have similar efficacies, and either is often used as the sole agent during treatment. The efficacy of continuing G after progressive disease (PD) develops has been reported. It remains unclear whether the continuation of G in combination with a single cytotoxic agent beyond PD is beneficial for elderly patients. Here, we conducted a randomized phase II study to assess the efficacy and safety of cytotoxic chemotherapy with G for elderly patients with progressive EGFR‐mutant NSCLC. Methods Elderly patients with EGFR‐mutant NSCLC with PD previously treated with G were enrolled. Patients received Pem 500 mg/m or Doc 60 mg/m every 21 days and were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy with 250 mg G (G+ Doc/Pem arm) or without G (Doc/Pem arm) until further disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results This trial was terminated early owing to slow accrual. A group of 22 patients underwent analysis. The primary endpoint, progression‐free survival (PFS), was significantly longer in the G + Doc/Pem arm (median: 1.6 months vs. 5.6 months, hazard ratio = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.16–0.99, p = 0.0391). Adverse events ≥ grade 3 were more frequent in the G + Doc/Pem arm (45.5% vs. 90.9%, p = 0.032). Conclusions Patients on G and Pem or Doc beyond PD showed a longer PFS than those on single‐agent chemotherapy; however, it was associated with increased toxicity.

Objectives: Nab-paclitaxel (nab-PTX) has better transfer to tumor tissue than cremophor-based paclitaxel. It suggests that the optimum dose of nab-PTX might be lower than the dose and schedule that is widely used. We designed a randomized study to examine the clinical benefit and safety of nab-PTX in patients with previously treated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and methods: Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive nab-PTX at 100 mg/m 2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (group A) or 70 mg/m 2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (group B). The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and adverse events (AEs). Results: A total of 81 patients were randomized. Similar results were observed in both arms (A versus B) for PFS (3.75 versus 3.71 months, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.76 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-1.23]), OS (13.50 versus 16.13 months, HR = 0.93 [95% CI 0.52-1.67]), or ORR (20.5% versus 23.1%). The incidences of grade 3 or worse AEs were 57.5% in group A and 41.5% in group B. The proportion of serious side effects was 10.0% in group A and 4.9% in group B. Conclusions: Both 100 mg/m 2 and 70 mg/m 2 of nab-PTX monotherapy are active for patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC with better safety profile and numerically favored OS and ORR for 70 mg/m 2 dose. Therefore, nab-PTX 70 mg/m 2 dose and schedule in the trial would be a reasonable option in the treatment of NSCLC.

Background: Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a standard procedure for the pathological evaluation of the mediastinal nodal (N2) status of lung cancer; however, its feasibility in potentially operable patients with suspicion of minimal N2 disease remains unestablished. Patients and Methods: A prospective multicenter study was conducted to assess the feasibility of EBUS-TBNA in this setting. Patients with clinical stage IIIA-N2 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and mediastinal nodal enlargement on computed tomography (CT) were eligible; patients were ineligible when CT revealed bulky (> 3 cm in the long-axis diameter) N2 or multiple (≥ 3) station N2. If EBUS-TBNA revealed negative results, surgical staging procedures were mandatory. Results: Among 20 eligible patients, EBUS-TBNA provided pathological confirmation of N2 disease (true-positive) in 12 patients. Among 8 patients with negative results with EBUS-TBNA, 4 patients were pathologically diagnosed as having N2 disease with surgical staging procedures (false-negative), and 4 were finally diagnosed as having non-N2 disease with nodal dissection by thoracotomy (true-negative). As a result, the sensitivity of EBUS-TBNA for N2 evaluation (primary endpoint) was 75.0% (95% confidence interval 47.6-92.7%). No grade 3-5 adverse event were documented. Conclusion: EBUS-TBNA is potentially safe and useful in the pathological evaluation of N2 status even in potentially operable NSCLC patients with suspicion of minimal N2 disease on preoperative CT.

8036^ Background: Two phase III trials (ECOG 4599 and BO17704) demonstrated that the addition of bevacizumab (Bev) to platinum-based regimens improved overall and/or progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with advanced non-squamous NSCLC (Sandler et al. NEJM 2006; Manegold et al. ESMO2008). However, no investigation with Bev has been conducted in Japanese NSCLC pts. Methods: This randomized, open-label phase II study compared a 3-weekly regimen of 15mg/kg of Bev plus carboplatin/paclitaxel (CP) versus CP alone. The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), response rate (RR) and safety. Eligibility criteria: histologically or cytologically documented previously untreated advanced or recurrent non-squamous NSCLC; ECOG PS 0–1; no brain metastases. A size of 180 pts was planned to be randomized to: C AUC=6 and P 200mg/m2 q3 wks for up to 6 cycles plus Bev continued to progression at 15mg/kg q3 wks, or CP alone at the randomization ratio of 2:1. The study was designed to observe a 20% reduction in the risk of a PFS event in the Bev arm compared with control. Results: Between 4/07 and 3/08, 180 pts were accrued. Three pts of them were ineligible and 3 pts were not dosed at all. PFS (as assessed by investigators) and RR were significantly improved. OS is immature due to short duration of follow up. Updated PFS results as assessed by the central review committee and OS data will be provided. No new safety signals for Bev were detected. Conclusions: This is the first study of Bev in Japanese pts with NSCLC. The addition of 15mg/kg of Bev to CP significantly improved PFS and RR. The HR of PFS seemed at least as good as previous trials outside Japan. Safety of Bev was within a range already reported. This study confirms the efficacy and safety of Bev in Japanese pts with NSCLC. [Table: see text] [Table: see text] ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy and Exceptions In compliance with the guidelines established by the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:519–521) and the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), ASCO strives to promote balance, independence, objectivity, and scientific rigor through disclosure of financial and other interests, and identification and management of potential conflicts. According to the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy, the following financial and other relationships must be disclosed: employment or leadership position, consultant or advisory role, stock ownership, honoraria, research funding, expert testimony, and other remuneration (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:520). The ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy disclosure requirements apply to all authors who submit abstracts to the Annual Meeting. For clinical trials that began accrual on or after April 29, 2004, ASCO's Policy places some restrictions on the financial relationships of principal investigators (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:521). If a principal investigator holds any restricted relationships, his or her abstract will be ineligible for placement in the 2009 Annual Meeting unless the ASCO Ethics Committee grants an exception. Among the circumstances that might justify an exception are that the principal investigator (1) is a widely acknowledged expert in a particular therapeutic area; (2) is the inventor of a unique technology or treatment being evaluated in the clinical trial; or (3) is involved in international clinical oncology research and has acted consistently with recognized international standards of ethics in the conduct of clinical research. NIH-sponsored trials are exempt from the Policy restrictions. Abstracts for which authors requested and have been granted an exception in accordance with ASCO's Policy are designated with a caret symbol (^) in the Annual Meeting Proceedings. For more information about the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy and the exceptions process, please visit www.asco.org/conflictofinterest .

INTRODUCTION:S-1 is an oral fluoropyrimidine derivative, including three pharmacological compounds: tegafur, gimeracil and oteracil, in a molar ratio of 1: 0.4: 1.AREAS COVERED:This review addresses the clinical evidence of S-1 in NSCLC in various clinical settings. Currently, S-1 for NSCLC is approved only in Japan. Prospective studies of S-1 as front-line and second-line chemotherapy with or without other agents and concurrent chemoradiotherapy are mainly reviewed. Only two Phase III clinical trials were published or presented for advanced NSCLC. S-1 and cisplatin is an active first-line chemotherapy regimen for advanced NSCLC and S-1 and carboplatin is noninferior to a carboplatin and paclitaexel regimen. The combination of S-1 and a platinum agent is active against NSCLC, regardless of tumor histology.EXPERT OPINION:It is becoming possible to design effective regimens with S-1 against NSCLC in various clinical settings considering the ethnic differences in pharmacokinetics and a greater understanding of the underlying molecular pathways or biomarkers of NSCLC. Further Phase III studies with S-1 for both early and advanced NSCLC are warranted worldwide.

Background: A previous study showed a survival benefit with maintenance therapy with pemetrexed in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, it remains unclear whether continuation maintenance therapy with pemetrexed is beneficial in Japanese patients. Here, we present our phase II study that assessed the efficacy and safety of cisplatin plus pemetrexed as induction chemotherapy, followed by maintenance therapy with pemetrexed in advanced NSCLC patients in Japan.Methods: Chemotherapy-nave patients received 500 mg/m(2) pemetrexed and 75 mg/m(2) cisplatin on day one every three weeks for four cycles. In patients who responded to therapy or achieved stable disease, pemetrexed was continued until disease progression. The primary endpoint of this study was the progression-free survival rate at six months (PFS-6).Results: Of the 35 patients initially enrolled in the study, 18 (51%) received maintenance chemotherapy with pemetrexed. The median PFS was 6.7 months, and the PFS-6 was 60% (95% confidence interval [CI], 42-76%). Median overall survival(OS) was 15.5 months(95% CI, 8.3-22.7 months). The median PFS and OS in patients who received maintenance chemotherapy with pemetrexed were 9.5 months and 25.3 months, respectively. The most frequently noted severe toxicity during induction chemotherapy was neutropenia, which occurred in seven patients. Two patients discontinued maintenance therapy owing to prolonged grade 2 edemain one patient and grade 3 neutropenia in another.Conclusion: Continuation maintenance chemotherapy with pemetrexed is associated with a survival benefit in patients who have completed induction chemotherapy for non-squamous NSCLC.

Background Four cycles of etoposide plus cisplatin and accelerated hyperfractionated thoracic radiotherapy (AHTRT) is the standard of care for limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Irinotecan plus cisplatin significantly improved overall survival compared with etoposide plus cisplatin for extensive-stage SCLC. We compared these regimens for overall survival of patients with limited-stage SCLC.Methods We did this phase 3 study in 36 institutions in Japan. Eligibility criteria included age 20-70 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, and adequate organ functions. Eligible patients with previously untreated limited-stage SCLC received one cycle of etoposide plus cisplatin (intravenous etoposide 100 mg/m(2) on days 1-3; intravenous cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1) plus AHTRT (1.5 Gy twice daily, 5 days a week, total 45 Gy over 3 weeks). Patients without progressive disease following induction therapy were randomised (1: 1 ratio, using a minimisation method with biased-coin assignment balancing on ECOG performance status [0 vs 1], response to induction chemoradiotherapy [complete response plus near complete response vs partial response and stable disease], and institution) to receive either three further cycles of consolidation etoposide plus cisplatin or irinotecan plus cisplatin (intravenous irinotecan 60 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 15; intravenous cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) on day 1). Patients, physicians, and investigators were aware of allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival after randomisation; primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00144989, and the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, number C000000095.Findings 281 patients were enrolled between Sept 1, 2002, and Oct 2, 2006. After induction etoposide plus cisplatin and AHTRT, 258 patients were randomised to consolidation etoposide plus cisplatin (n=129) or irinotecan plus cisplatin (n=129). In the etoposide plus cisplatin group, median overall survival was 3.2 years (95% CI 2.4-4.1). In the irinotecan and cisplatin group, median overall survival was 2.8 years (95% CI 2.4-3.6); overall survival did not differ between the two groups (hazard ratio 1.09 [95% CI 0.80-1.46], one-sided stratified log-rank p=0.70). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were neutropenia (120 [95%] in the etoposide plus cisplatin group vs 101 [78%] in the irinotecan plus cisplatin group), anaemia (44 [35%] vs 50 [39%]), thrombocytopenia (26 [21%] vs six [5%]), febrile neutropenia (21 [17%] vs 18 [14%]), and diarrhoea (two [2%] vs 13 [10%]). There was one treatment-related adverse event leading to death in each group (radiation pneumonitis in the etoposide plus cisplatin group; brain infarction in the irinotecan plus cisplatin group).Interpretation Four cycles of etoposide plus cisplatin and AHTRT should continue to be the standard of care for limited-stage SCLC.

Background: Gefitinib is an effective treatment for patients with non-small cell lung cancer who harbor activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. However, no optimal strategy has been established for these patients after gefitinib fails. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the survival benefit of continued gefitinib treatment in these cases.Patients and methods: We analyzed gefitinib responders with activating EGFR mutations who developed progressive disease (PD) during the course of therapy. Prognostic variables were analyzed using a Cox proportional-hazards model.Results: A total of 134 patients were retrospectively reviewed. Exon-19 deletion mutations and L858R point mutations were detected in 71 and 63 patients, respectively. Median survival time after PD with gefitinib was 14.3 months (95% confidence interval: 11.7-16.9). The median duration of continued gefitinib therapy beyond PD was 3.2 months. Statistical analysis showed that good performance status (0-1) (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.6), progression of a previously evaluated lesion (HR: 0.6), and at least 3 months of continued treatment (HR: 0.4) were independent prognostic factors.Conclusion: Continuation of gefitinib beyond PD is an effective optional treatment in EGFR-mutated patients. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

H. Saito1*, H. Yoshizawa2, K. Yoshimori3, N. Katakami4, N. Katsumata5, M. Kawahara6 & K. Eguchi7 Department of Respiratory Medicine, Aichi Cancer Center Aichi Hospital, Okazaki; Bioscience Medical Research Center, Niigata University Medical and Dental Hospital, Niigata; Department of Respiratory Medicine, Fukujuji Hospital, Kiyose; Division of Integrated Oncology, Institute of Biomedical Research and Innovation Hospital, Kobe; Department of Medical Oncology, Nippon Medical School, Musashikosugi Hospital, Kawasaki; Department of Medical Oncology, Otemae Hospital, Osaka; Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

AIM:Assessment of the efficacy of docetaxel plus carboplatin vs. paclitaxel plus carboplatin in Japanese patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).PATIENTS AND METHODS:Chemotherapy-naïve patients were randomly assigned at a ratio of 2 to 1 to receive six cycles of either docetaxel (60 mg/m(2)) plus carboplatin [area under the curve (AUC)=6 mg/ml min] or paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) plus carboplatin (same dose), on day 1 every 21 days. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS).RESULTS:A total of 90 patients were enrolled. Overall response rate, median PFS and median survival time in the docetaxel-plus-carboplatin group and the paclitaxel-plus-carboplatin group were 23% vs. 33%, 4.8 months vs. 5.1 months, and 17.6 months vs. 15.6 months, respectively. The docetaxel-plus-carboplatin group had a higher incidence of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (88% vs. 60%).CONCLUSION:Both regimens were similarly effective in Japanese patients with advanced NSCLC.

7017 Background: We previously reported the superiority of combined chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) over RT alone in elderly pts with locally advanced NSCLC (Atagi et al. ECCO2011). One and a half years follow-up data from last accrual are presented. Methods: Pts older than 70 years with unresectable stage III NSCLC were randomized to either RT alone (RT arm), a total dose of 60 Gy, or CRT arm including the same RT plus concurrent chemotherapy with carboplatin 30 mg/m2/day, 5 days/week × 20 days. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The planned sample size was 100 pts in each arm with one-sided alpha of 5% and 80% power to detect a difference in median survival time (MST) from 10 months in RT arm to 15 months in CRT arm. Results: Between Sep 2003 and May 2010, 200 pts were randomized. Baseline characteristics were similar in the RT (n=100) vs CRT (n=100) arms: median age, 77 vs 77 years; stage IIIB (n), 46 vs 49; PS 0/1/2 (n), 41/55/4 vs 41/56/3. The second planned interim analysis was performed 10 months after the completion of accrual. In accordance with the pre-specified stopping rule, the JCOG Data and Safety Monitoring Committee recommended early publication of this trial because of the difference in OS favoring the CRT arm. In the updated analysis, OS was better in the CRT arm than the RT arm (HR = .64, 95% CI = .46-.89, one-sided p = .0033 by stratified log-rank test). In each arm (RT/CRT), MST was 16.5 mo/22.4 mo with 3-year OS of 14.3%/34.6%, response rate of 44.9%/54.6% (p=.201) and median progression-free survival of 6.9 mo/8.9 mo (p=.003). Gr 3/4 toxicities were (RT/CRT): neutropenia 0%/57.3%, infection 4.1%/12.5%, dysphagia 0%/1.0%, late RT toxicities 7.4%/7.5%. The pattern of relapse site and post-protocol treatment were almost similar between the arms. Even after an adjustment by the Cox regression analysis with six variables [stage, PS, sex, age, histology, smoking status], CRT arm showed better survival (HR=.71, p=.038). Conclusions: The CRT using daily carboplatin is considered to be the standard treatment for elderly pts with locally advanced NSCLC.

Background It is unknown whether combined chemoradiotherapy improves overall survival in elderly patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The aim of this study was to assess whether radiotherapy plus carboplatin results in longer survival than radiotherapy alone in elderly patients with NSCLC.Methods This was a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial by the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG0301). Patients older than 70 years with unresectable stage III NSCLC were randomly assigned to chemoradiotherapy (60 Gy plus concurrent low-dose carboplatin [30 mg/m(2) per day, 5 days a week for 20 days]) or radiotherapy alone, using a minimisation method with biased-coin assignment balancing on Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs 1 vs 2), stage (IIIA vs IIIB), and institution. The primary endpoint was overall survival, which was analysed for the eligible population and stratified by ECOG performance status, stage, and institution. The trial was stopped early as a result of the second planned interim analysis. This study is registered with UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, number C000000060, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00132665.Findings 200 patients were enrolled from Sept 1, 2003 to May 27, 2010: 100 in the chemoradiotherapy group and 100 in the radiotherapy group. The second planned interim analysis was done 10 months after completion of patient accrual. At this time, median follow-up for censored cases was 19.4 months (IQR 10.3-33.5). In accordance with the prespecified stopping rule, the JCOG data and safety monitoring committee recommended early publication of this trial because the difference in overall survival favoured the chemoradiotherapy group. Median overall survival for the chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy alone groups were 22.4 months (95% CI 16.5-33.6) and 16.9 months (13.4-20.3), respectively (hazard ratio 0.68, 95.4% CI 0.47-0.98, stratified log-rank test one-sided p value=0.0179). More patients had grade 3-4 haematological toxic effects in the chemoradiotherapy group than in the radiotherapy alone group, including leucopenia (61 [63.5%] vs none), neutropenia (55 [57.3%] vs none), and thrombocytopenia (28 [29.2%] vs two [2.0%]). Grade 3 infection was more common with chemoradiotherapy (12 patients [12.5%]) than with radiotherapy (four patients [4.1%]). Incidences of grade 3-4 pneumonitis and late lung toxicity were similar between groups. There were seven treatment-related deaths: three of 100 patients (3.0%) in the chemoradiotherapy group and four of 100 (4.0%) in the radiotherapy group.Interpretation For a select group of elderly patients with locally advanced NSCLC, combination chemoradio therapy provides a clinically significant benefit over radiotherapy alone, and should be considered for this population.

We conducted a Phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a weekly combination of carboplatin and irinotecan regimen for patients with extensive disease small-cell lung cancer.Patients with previously untreated extensive disease small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2, were enrolled in this trial. Carboplatin area under the curve of two and irinotecan (50 mg/m(2)) were administered on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks. Treatment was continued up to a maximum of six cycles. The expected response rate was 85, and this regimen was considered sufficiently positive if 45 responses were observed in the 55 patients.Between December 2003 and September 2006, 56 patients were enrolled and 55 patients were eligible. Of 55 patients, 6 complete remissions and 37 partial remissions were achieved, and the response rate was 78.2 (95 confidence interval: 64.687.9). Major Grade 3 or more toxicities were leukocytopenia 3, neutropenia 15, anemia 7, infection 5, diarrhea 3, anorexia 7, nausea 6 and pneumothorax 1. The median survival was 13.9 months (95 confidence interval: 11.818.5) and the median progression-free survival was 5.7 months (95 confidence interval: 4.97.4).This Phase II trial of a weekly combination of carboplatin and irinotecan for extensive disease small-cell lung cancer was not positive for a response rate that is considered to be worthy of further Phase III trial.

ABSTRACT Background The standard treatment of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been considered to be chemo-radiotherapy (CRT). However, the benefit of this combined therapy for elderly patients (patients) is still unclear. This trial was set up to evaluate whether thoracic radiotherapy (RT) with daily low-dose carboplatin (CBDCA) would result in longer survival in elderly patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC than RT alone (JCOG0301). Methods Patients older than 70 years with unresectable stage III NSCLC were randomized to either RT alone (RT arm), a total dose of 60 Gy, or CRT arm including the same RT plus concurrent chemotherapy with carboplatin 30 mg/m2/day, 5 days/week for 20 days. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). The planned sample size was 100 patients in each arm with one-sided alpha of 5% and 80% power to detect a difference in median survival time (MST) from 10 months in the RT arm to 15 months in the CRT arm. Results Between September 2003 and May 2010, 200 patients were randomized. Baseline characteristics were similar in the RT (n = 100) versus CRT (n = 100) arms: median age, 77 versus 77 years; stage IIIB (n), 46 versus 49; PS 0/1/2 (n), 41/55/4 versus 41/56/3. The second planned interim analysis was carried out 10 months after the completion of accrual. In accordance with the pre-specified stopping rule, the JCOG Data and Safety Monitoring Committee recommended early publication of this trial because of the difference in OS favoring the CRT arm. In the updated analysis, OS was better in the CRT arm than the RT arm (HR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.46–0.89, one-sided P = 0.0033 by stratified log-rank test). In each arm (RT/CRT), MST was 16.5 months/22.4 months with 3-year OS of 14.3%/34.6%, response rate of 44.9%/54.6% (P = 0.201) and median progression-free survival of 6.9 months/8.9 months (P = 0.003). Grade 3/4 toxic effects were (RT/CRT): neutropenia 0%/57.3%, infection 4.1%/12.5%, dysphagia 0%/1.0%, late RT toxic effects 7.4%/7.5%. The pattern of relapse site and post-protocol treatment were almost similar between the arms. Even after an adjustment by the Cox regression analysis with six variables (stage, PS, sex, age, histology, smoking status), the CRT arm showed better survival (HR = 0.71, P = 0.038).

Background We evaluated the efficacy and safety of single-dose fosaprepitant in combination with intravenous granisetron and dexamethasone. Patients and methods Patients receiving chemotherapy including cisplatin (≥70 mg/m2) were eligible. A total of 347 patients (21% had received cisplatin with vomiting) were enrolled in this trial to receive the fosaprepitant regimen (fosaprepitant 150 mg, intravenous, on day 1 in combination with granisetron, 40 μg/kg, intravenous, on day 1 and dexamethasone, intravenous, on days 1–3) or the control regimen (placebo plus intravenous granisetron and dexamethasone). The primary end point was the percentage of patients who had a complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy) over the entire treatment course (0–120 h). Results The percentage of patients with a complete response was significantly higher in the fosaprepitant group than in the control group (64% versus 47%, P = 0.0015). The fosaprepitant regimen was more effective than the control regimen in both the acute (0–24 h postchemotherapy) phase (94% versus 81%, P = 0.0006) and the delayed (24–120 h postchemotherapy) phase (65% versus 49%, P = 0.0025). Conclusions Single-dose fosaprepitant used in combination with granisetron and dexamethasone was well-tolerated and effective in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic cancer chemotherapy, including high-dose cisplatin.

7028 Background: Four cycles of EP plus AHTRT is the standard treatment for LD-SCLC. IP demonstrated statistically significant overall survival (OS) improvement compared to EP for extensive-stage SCLC (JCOG9511; Noda, et al.NEJM, 2002). EP plus AHTRT followed by 3 cycles of IP is feasible with acceptable toxicities for LD-SCLC (Kubota, et al. CCR,2005). Methods: Eligibility criteria included patients with previously untreated LD-SCLC with measurable lesion, ECOG PS of 0-1, age: 20=<, =<70 years old. Eligible patients received one cycle of EP (etoposide 100 mg/m 2 on days 1-3 and cisplatin 80mg/m 2 on day 1) plus AHTRT (1.5 Gy b.i.d. total 45 Gy/3 weeks). Patients who achieved CR, good PR, PR or SD with induction EP/AHTRT were randomized to receive either 3 cycles of consolidation EP or IP (irinotecan 60 mg/m 2 and cisplatin 60 mg/m 2 on days 1, 8, 15). Patients with CR or good PR after consolidation chemotherapy received prophylactic cranial irradiation. The primary endpoint is OS after the randomization. The planned sample size for randomization is 250 with a one-sided alpha of 2.5% and at least 70% power to detect a difference between gruops, 30% in EP versus 42.5% in IP group in 3-year survival. Results: From Sep 2002 to Sep 2006, 281 patients from 36 institutions were registered. After the induction EP/AHTRT, 258 patients were randomized to consolidation EP (n=129) or IP (n=129). Patient demographics were well balanced between the two groups. At the final analysis, the superiority of IP in OS was not demonstrated (hazard ratio of IP to EP, 1.085 [95%CI: 0.80-1.46]; one sided p=0.70, stratifield log-rank test). Grade 3/4 neutropenia (95%/78%), anemia (35%/39%), thrombocytopenia (21%/5%), neutropenic fever (17%/14%), diarrhea (2%/10%) were observed in EP and IP groups, respectively. Conclusions: EP plus AHTRT followed by 3 cycles of IP failed to demonstrate survival advantage over 4 cycles of EP plus AHTRT which still is the standard treatment for LD-SCLC. [Table: see text]