PARAMOUNT: Phase III Study of Maintenance Pemetrexed (Pem) Plus Best Supportive Care (BSC) Versus Placebo Plus BSC Immediately Following Induction Treatment.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
C.P. Belani 1, T. Brodowicz 2, P. Peterson 3, W. John 3, G. Scagliotti 4 1 Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA USA; 2 Medical University, Vienna,
Advertisements

PARAMOUNT: phase III study of pemetrexed continuation maintenance therapy in advanced non-squamous NSCLC.
Non-small Cell Lung Cancer
Paz-Ares LG et al. Proc ASCO 2011;Abstract CRA7510.
Can we select patients most likely to benefit from pemetrexed continuation maintenance? SEONC00109.
Questions and answers about PARAMOUNT: phase III study of pemetrexed continuation maintenance therapy in advanced non-squamous NSCLC.
Presented by Martin H. Cohen, M.D. at the 27 July 2004 meeting of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee.
Phase III Study Comparing Gemcitabine plus Cetuximab versus Gemcitabine in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Southwest.
First-Line TKI Use in EGFR Mutation-Positive NSCLC
Randomized phase III trial of trabectedin versus doxorubicin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy in translocation-related sarcomas (TRS) Sant P. Chawla,
1-line Treatment of Advanced-NSCLC WT Cesare Gridelli Division of Medical Oncology “S.G. Moscati” Hospital – Avellino (Italy)
Please note, these are the actual video-recorded proceedings from the live CME event and may include the use of trade names and other raw, unedited content.
1 SNDA Gemzar plus Carboplatin Treatment of Late Relapsing Ovarian Cancer.
Phase III Trial of Pazopanib in Locally Advanced and/or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Sternberg CN et al. ASCO 2009; Abstract (Oral Presentation)
NHL13: A Multicenter, Randomized Phase III Study of Rituximab as Maintenance Treatment versus Observation Alone in Patients with Aggressive B ‐ Cell Lymphoma.
Bevacizumab continuation versus no continuation after first-line chemo-bevacizumab therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized.
A paradigm shift in the treatment of advanced lung cancer: survival and symptom benefits with Tarceva Tudor-Eliade Ciuleanu Cancer Institute Ion Chiricuta.
AVADO TRIAL David Miles Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Middlesex, United Kingdom A randomized, double-blind study of bevacizumab in combination with docetaxel.
. Background Paclitaxel and Irinotecan in Platinum Refractory or Resistant Small Cell Lung Cancer: a Galician Lung Cancer.
C.P. Belani 1, D.M. Waterhouse 2, H.H. Ghazal 3, S. Ramalingam 4, J.M. Waples 5, R.E. Bordoni 6, G.A. Reznikoff 7, C.P. Curran 8, R. H. Greenberg 9 1 Penn.
CV-1 Trial 709 The ISEL Study (IRESSA ® Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer) Summary of Data as of December 16, 2004 Kevin Carroll, MSc Summary of Data.
until tumour progression until tumour progression
Low Dose Decitabine Versus Best Supportive Care in Elderly Patients with Intermediate or High Risk MDS Not Eligible for Intensive Chemotherapy: Final Results.
Moskowitz CH et al. Proc ASH 2014;Abstract 673.
A Phase III, Open-Label, Randomized, Multicenter Study of Eribulin Mesylate versus Capecitabine in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast.
Mok TS, Wu SL, Thongprasert S, et al. Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2009;361: Gefitinib Superior.
POPLAR: Atezolizumab Improved Survival vs Docetaxel in Patients With Advanced NSCLC and Increasing Levels of PD-L1 Expression CCO Independent Conference.
Weekly Paclitaxel Combined with Monthly Carboplatin versus Single-Agent Therapy in Patients Age 70 to 89: IFCT-0501 Randomized Phase III Study in Advanced.
1 LUX-Lung 3 clinical trial ECOG=Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Sequist LV et al. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(27): Treatment-naïve Advanced NSCLC.
CCO Independent Conference Coverage
Randomized phase III trial of gemcitabine and cisplatin vs. gemcitabine alone inpatients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and a performance status.
Phase I/II CheckMate 032: Nivolumab ± Ipilimumab in Advanced SCLC
CCO Independent Conference Highlights
Phase II SAKK 35/10 Trial: Rituximab Plus Lenalidomide Shows Durable Activity in Untreated Follicular Lymphoma New Findings in Hematology: Independent.
Summary Author: Dr. C. Tom Kouroukis, MD MSc FRCPC
Belani CP et al. ASCO 2009; Abstract CRA8000. (Oral Presentation)
A cura di Filippo de Marinis
CCO Independent Conference Highlights
CCO Independent Conference Highlights
Alessandra Gennari, MD PhD
Pazopanib: the role in the treatment of mRCC
Palumbo A et al. Proc ASH 2012;Abstract 200.
LUX-Lung 6 clinical trial
LUX-Lung 3 clinical trial
TERAPIA SEQUENZIALE E/O DI MANTENIMENTO DOPO UNA PRIMA LINEA: ANCORA UN TRATTAMENTO SPERIMENTALE? Paolo Bidoli S.C. Oncologia Medica A.O. San Gerardo Monza.
ASPEN: Prolonged PFS With Sunitinib vs Everolimus in Nonclear-Cell RCC CCO Independent Conference Highlights of the 2015 ASCO Annual Meeting* May 29 -
CCO Independent Conference Highlights
Attal M et al. Proc ASH 2010;Abstract 310.
Pomalidomide Plus Low-Dose Dex vs High-Dose Dex in Rel/Ref Myeloma
Rosell R et al. Proc ASCO 2011;Abstract 7503.
Maintenance Lapatinib After Chemotherapy in HER1/2-Positive Metastatic Bladder Cancer CCO Independent Conference Highlights of the 2015 ASCO Annual Meeting*
CREATE-X: Adjuvant Capecitabine in HER2-Negative Breast Cancer
Outcomes of patients in the North Trent region with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with maintenance pemetrexed following induction with platinum.
SQUIRE: Improved Survival With Necitumumab + Gemcitabine/Cisplatin vs Gemcitabine/Cisplatin as First-line Treatment in Patients With Squamous NSCLC Slideset.
Slide set on: McCarthy PL, Owzar K, Hofmeister CC, et al
NCI/CTEP 7435: Eribulin Active, Tolerable in Urothelial Cancer CCO Independent Conference Highlights of the 2015 ASCO Annual Meeting* May 29 - June 2,
Vahdat L et al. Proc SABCS 2012;Abstract P
ASCO Recap Palak Desai, MD.
KEYNOTE-012: Durable Efficacy With Pembrolizumab in PD-L1–Positive Gastric Cancer CCO Independent Conference Highlights of the 2015 ASCO Annual Meeting*
Ruolo di carboplatino + nab-paclitaxel nel trattamento di I linea nel carcinoma polmonare non a piccole cellule         P.Bidoli S.C. Oncologia Medica.
Intervista a Lucio Crinò
until tumour progression until tumour progression
Barrios C et al. SABCS 2009;Abstract 46.
Salles GA et al. Proc ASCO 2010;Abstract 8004.
Maintenance paradigm in non-squamous NSCLC
PARAMOUNT: Phase III study of maintenance pemetrexed (pem) plus best supportive care (BSC) versus placebo plus BSC immediately following induction treatment.
Domenica 03 giugno Highlight a cura di Filippo de Marinis
Intervista a Filippo de Marinis
LV5FU2-cisplatin followed by gemcitabine or the reverse sequence in metastatic pancreatic cancer: Preliminary results of a randomized phase III trial (FFCD.
PARAMOUNT: Descriptive Subgroup Analyses of Final Overall Survival for the Phase III Study of Maintenance Pemetrexed versus Placebo Following Induction.
Presentation transcript:

PARAMOUNT: Phase III Study of Maintenance Pemetrexed (Pem) Plus Best Supportive Care (BSC) Versus Placebo Plus BSC Immediately Following Induction Treatment with Pem Plus Cisplatin for Advanced Nonsquamous Non-small Cell Lung Cancer L. G. Paz-Ares 1, F. de Marinis 2, M. Dediu 3, M. Thomas 4, J.L. Pujol 5, P. Bidoli 6, O. Molinier 7, T.P. Sahoo 8, E. Laack 9, M. Reck 10, J. Corral 1, S. Melemed 11, W. John 11, N. Chouaki 12, A. H. Zimmermann 11, C. Visseren-Grul 13, C. Gridelli 14 1 University Hospital - Virgen del Rocio, Seville, Spain; 2 San Camillo - Forlanini Hospital, Rome, Italy; 3 Institute of Oncology, Bucharest, Romania; 4 Clinic for Thoracic Diseases at University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; 5 Montpellier Academic Hospital, Montpellier, France; 6 Medical Oncology Unit, S. Gerardo Hospital, Monza, Italy; 7 Le Mans Regional Hospital, Le Mans, France; 8 Jawaharlal Nehru Cancer Hospital and Research Center, Bhopal, India; 9 University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany; 10 Hospital Grosshansdorf, Grosshansdorf, Germany; 11 Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 12 Eli Lilly and Company, Suresnes, Hauts de Seine, France ; 13 Eli Lilly and Company, Houten, The Netherlands; 14 San Giuseppe Moscati Hospital, Avellino, Italy

Disclosure Information  Employment – None  Consultant or Advisory Role – Yes (Eli Lilly and Co.)  Stock Ownership – No  Honoraria – No  Research Funding – No  Testimony – No  Other – No

PARAMOUNT: Background  Most patients with NSCLC have stage IIIB/IV disease at the time of diagnosis 1  Platinum-based combinations are recommended as first-line treatment 2  Pemetrexed has demonstrated efficacy in treating advanced nonsquamous NSCLC: ─ in combination with cisplatin as a first-line doublet 3 ─ as a maintenance agent following a non-pemetrexed platinum doublet 4  Maintenance therapy is used to prolong tumor response or stable disease, with a goal of improving PFS and OS  Pemetrexed maintenance has not been studied following pemetrexed-platinum induction in a phase III setting Azzoli CG et al. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27:6251– Scagliotti GV et al. J Clin Oncol 2008;26: ; 4 Ciuleanu T et al. Lancet 2009;374:

PARAMOUNT: Study Design  Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase III study  Folic acid and vitamin B 12 administered to both arms Study Treatment Period Progression Induction Therapy (4 cycles)Maintenance Therapy (Until PD) 21 to 42 Days 500 mg/m 2 Pemetrexed + 75 mg/m 2 Cisplatin, d1, q21d CR, PR, SD PD Placebo + BSC, d1, q21d 500 mg/m 2 Pemetrexed + BSC, d1, q21d 2:1 Randomization Patients enrolled if: Nonsquamous NSCLC No prior systemic treatment for lung cancer ECOG PS 0/1 Stratified for: PS (0 vs 1) Disease stage (IIIB vs IV) prior to induction Response to induction (CR/PR vs SD)

PARAMOUNT: Study Objectives  Primary objective: progression-free survival (PFS)  Secondary objectives: ─ Overall survival (OS) ─ Objective tumor response rate (RR) (RECIST 1.0) ─ Patient-reported outcomes (EQ ‑ 5D) ─ Resource utilization ─ Adverse events (AEs)  All endpoints measured from date of randomization, after completion of induction chemotherapy

PARAMOUNT: Statistical Design  PFS: 90% power, assuming a minimum of 238 events and HR=0.65, α=0.05  900 patients planned to be enrolled in order to randomize an estimated 558 patients to maintenance therapy  Pre-planned full independent radiological review of PFS  Powered for secondary endpoint, OS ─ OS: 93% power, assuming a minimum 390 events and HR=0.70 ─ Alpha was controlled for both a preliminary analysis (α=0.0001) and final analysis of OS (α=0.0499)

400 Patients Not Randomized 217 Progressive Disease 62 Adverse Event 56 Death 29 Study Disease 15 AE 11 Drug-Related AE 1 Procedure-Related AE 65 Other Reasons 1022 Patients Screened 939 Patients Enrolled 539 Patients Randomized (2:1 Randomization) Pemetrexed Arm N=359 Placebo Arm N= Patients Failed Screening Induction Phase Maintenance Phase 136 (38%) Patients on Pemetrexed Maintenance at Data Cut Off 43 (24%) Patients on Placebo at Data Cut Off PARAMOUNT: Patient Disposition 548 Patients Eligible for Maint 8 Discontinued Pt Decision 1 Discontinued Phys Decision

PARAMOUNT: Patient Characteristics (Randomized Patients) *Protocol violations Pemetrexed (N=359) n (%) Placebo (N=180) n (%) Median age, yrs 6162 Age <65 yrs 238 (66)112 (62) Male 201 (56)112 (62) Caucasian 339 (94)171 (95) Smoker Ever smoker 275 (77)144 (80) Never smoker 82 (23)34 (19) ECOG PS (32) 55 (31) (68)123 (68) 2/3* 1 (0.3) 2 (1)

PARAMOUNT: Disease Characteristics (Randomized Patients) Pemetrexed (N=359) n (%) Placebo (N=180) n (%) Disease stage IV* 328 (91)161 (89) Histology Adenocarcinoma 310 (86)160 (89) Large cell 24 (7)12 (7) Other nonsquamous 25 (7) 8 (4) Induction response CR/PR 166 (46) 76 (42) SD 186 (52) 94 (52) PD/Unknown † 7 (2)10 (6) * Lung Cancer Staging System Version V † Protocol violations

PARAMOUNT: Drug Administration (Randomized Patients) Maintenance Phase Pemetrexed (N=359) Placebo (N=180) Patients treated* Number of cycles/patient Median44 Range Mean # of cycles Patients completing >6 cycles84 (23%)25 (14%) Dose intensity95%NA * Due to data cut off, some patients had been randomized but had not yet received maintenance treatment.

PFS Events Overview Progression Free Survival Pemetrexed N=359 Placebo N=180 Investigator Assessed Events184 (51%)118 (66%) Progression Events173 (94%)113 (96%) Deaths11 (6%)5 (4%)

PARAMOUNT: Investigator Assessed PFS (from Maintenance) Pemetrexed: median =4.1 mos ( ) Placebo: median =2.8 mos ( ) Log-rank P= Unadjusted HR: 0.62 ( ) Patients at Risk Pem + BSCN= Placebo + BSCN= Pem + BSC Placebo + BSC

 PFS results were internally consistent; benefit was seen across all subgroups Favors Pemetrexed Favors Placebo Treatment Hazard Ratio (95% CI) ─0.62 ─0.55 ─0.48 ─0.74 ─0.67 ─0.53 ─0.41 ─0.70 ─0.74 ─0.49 ─0.69 ─0.34 ─0.70 ─0.64 ─0.39 ─0.62 All Randomized Patients (N=539) Stage IV (n=489) Stage IIIB (n=50) Induction Response CR/PR (n=242) Induction Response SD (n=280) Pre-randomization PS 1 (n=366) Pre-randomization PS 0 (n=170) Non-smoker (n=116) Smoker (n=419) Male (n=313) Female (n=226) Age <70 (n=447) Age ≥70 (n=92) Age <65 (n=350) Age > 65 (n=189) Other Histologic Diagnosis (n=32) Large Cell Carcinoma (n=36) Adenocarcinoma (n=471) PARAMOUNT: Subgroup PFS Hazard Ratios

PARAMOUNT: Independently Reviewed PFS (from Maintenance) Pemetrexed: median =3.9 mos ( ) Placebo: median =2.6 mos ( ) Log-rank P= Unadjusted HR: 0.64 ( ) Pem + BSC Placebo + BSC  88% of patients were independently reviewed (472/539) Patients at Risk Pem + BSCN= Placebo + BSC N=

PARAMOUNT: Investigator Assessed PFS (from Induction) Pem: median = 6.90 ( ) Placebo: median = 5.59 ( ) Log Rank p< Unadjusted HR : 0.59 ( ) Pem + BSC Placebo + BSC Patients at Risk Pem + BSCN= Placebo + BSC N=

Pemetrexed (N=316) n (%) Placebo (N=156) n (%) P-value CR 00 PR 9 (2.8)1 (0.6) RR: CR+PR 9 (2.8)1 (0.6)0.176 SD 218 (69.0)92 (59.0) DCR: CR+PR+SD 227 (71.8)93 (59.6)0.009 PD 88 (27.8)61 (39.1) Other / ND 1 (0.3)2 (1.3) PARAMOUNT Independently Reviewed Tumor Response* (Maintenance) - All randomized patients * Response represents a further tumor reduction from the baseline response to induction therapy

PARAMOUNT: Health-related Quality of Life Assessment (EQ-5D) ◆ EQ-5D is a health-status questionnaire consisting of two parts: ─ Index score generated from five descriptive questions (relating to mobility, self-care, activities, discomfort, anxiety) ─ Visual analog scale: patients rate their present health ◆ Administered at: ─ Baseline (before induction) ─ Day 1 of each cycle of induction or maintenance therapy (prior to treatment) ─ 30-day post-discontinuation visit ◆ Compliance at all time points during maintenance phase was >80% ◆ No statistical differences in EQ-5D index score or visual analog scale were observed between treatment arms

PARAMOUNT: Drug-related Safety Events (Randomized Patients) Maintenance Phase Pemetrexed (N=359) (%) Placebo (N=180) (%) Drug-related deaths*0.6 Drug-related SAEs † Discontinuation due to AE ≥1 grade 3/4 drug-related CTCAE laboratory toxicities † ≥1 grade 3/4/5* drug-related CTCAE non-laboratory toxicities *On-study deaths: one on pemetrexed (pneumonia); one on placebo (NOS); one death within 30 days (endocarditis on pemetrexed) †Statistically significant between arms (Fisher’s exact test P≤0.05)

PARAMOUNT: CTCAEs Grade 3/4 Drug- related Toxicities (Randomized Patients) Grade 3/4 Event Pemetrexed N=359 (%) Placebo N=180 (%) Fatigue * Anemia * Neutropenia * 3.60 Leukopenia1.70 Anorexia0.30 Nausea0.30 Neuropathy-sensory Mucositis/stomatitis0.30 ALT (SGPT)0.30 *Statistically significant between arms (Fisher’s exact test P≤0.05)

PARAMOUNT: Conclusions  PARAMOUNT met its primary endpoint by showing significantly improved PFS in patients treated with pemetrexed continuation maintenance therapy as compared to placebo  The highly significant PFS results (HR = 0.62) demonstrate that pemetrexed continuation maintenance therapy is an effective treatment for patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC following pemetrexed plus cisplatin induction therapy  The independent review was comprehensive (88%) in the percentage of scans and confirmed the robustness of the primary endpoint of investigator-assessed PFS  Pemetrexed had a well-tolerated safety profile, similar to the previous pemetrexed maintenance trial in NSCLC 1  The study was fully powered for OS; this will be reported when data are mature 1 Ciuleanu T, et al. Lancet 2009;374:

Acknowledgements We thank all of the patients and their caregivers for participating in this trial. We thank all of the investigators and their support staff who generously participated in this work.