Clinical Oncology Center, Nagasaki University Hospital, Nagasaki, Japan.
Division of Respiratory Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Japanese Red Cross Nagasaki Genbaku Hospital, Nagasaki, Japan.
Lung Cancer. 2019 Jun;132:1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2019.01.008. Epub 2019 Apr 5.
To evaluate the efficacy and safety, we conducted a randomized phase II study of pemetrexed (Pem) versus Pem + bevacizumab (Bev) for elderly patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSqNSCLC).
The eligibility criteria were as follows: NSqNSCLC, no prior therapy, stage IIIB/IV disease or postoperative recurrence, age: ≥75 years, performance status (PS): 0-1, and adequate bone marrow function. The patients were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive Pem or Pem + Bev. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints were the response rate, OS, toxicities, and cost-effectiveness.
Forty-one patients were enrolled and 40 (20 from each group) were assessable. Their characteristics were as follows: male/female = 23/17; median age (range) = 78 (75-83); stage IIIB/IV/postoperative recurrence = 1/30/9; PS 0/1 = 11/29. All cases involved adenocarcinoma. There was no significant intergroup difference in PFS and the median PFS (95% confidence interval) values of the Pem and Pem + Bev groups were 5.4 (3.0-7.4) and 5.5 (3.6-9.9) months, respectively (p = 0.66). The response rate was significantly higher in the Pem + Bev group (15% vs. 55%, p = 0.0146), and there was no significant difference in OS (median: 16.0 vs. 16.4 months, p = 0.58). Grade 3 and 4 leukopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia were seen in 10 and 30, 20 and 55, and 5 and 5 cases, respectively. Drug costs were higher in the Pem + Bev group (median: 1,522,008 vs. 3,368,428 JPY, p = 0.01). No treatment-related deaths occurred.
Adding Bev to Pem did not result in improved survival in the elderly NSqNSCLC patients. Compared with Pem + Bev, Pem monotherapy had similar effects on survival, a more favorable toxicity profile, and was more cost-effective in elderly NSqNSCLC patients. Pem monotherapy might be one of the optional regimen for NSqNSCLC patients aged ≥75 years.
为了评估疗效和安全性,我们开展了一项培美曲塞(Pem)对比培美曲塞联合贝伐珠单抗(Bev)用于治疗老年非鳞状非小细胞肺癌(NSqNSCLC)患者的随机 II 期研究。
入选标准为:NSqNSCLC、未经治疗、III 期/IV 期疾病或术后复发、年龄≥75 岁、体力状态(PS):0-1 分、骨髓功能充足。患者按 1:1 比例随机分配接受培美曲塞或培美曲塞联合贝伐珠单抗治疗。主要终点为无进展生存期(PFS)。次要终点为缓解率、总生存期(OS)、毒性和成本效益。
共纳入 41 例患者,40 例(每组 20 例)可评估。患者特征如下:男/女=23/17;中位年龄(范围)=78(75-83)岁;III 期/IV 期/术后复发=1/30/9;PS 0/1=11/29。所有病例均为腺癌。PFS 无显著组间差异,培美曲塞组和培美曲塞联合贝伐珠单抗组中位 PFS(95%置信区间)值分别为 5.4(3.0-7.4)和 5.5(3.6-9.9)个月(p=0.66)。培美曲塞联合贝伐珠单抗组的缓解率显著更高(15% vs. 55%,p=0.0146),OS 无显著差异(中位:16.0 vs. 16.4 个月,p=0.58)。3 级和 4 级白细胞减少、中性粒细胞减少和血小板减少分别见于 10 例和 30 例、20 例和 55 例、5 例和 5 例。培美曲塞联合贝伐珠单抗组药物费用较高(中位:1522008 日元 vs. 3368428 日元,p=0.01)。无治疗相关死亡。
在老年 NSqNSCLC 患者中,培美曲塞联合贝伐珠单抗并未改善生存。与培美曲塞联合贝伐珠单抗相比,培美曲塞单药治疗在老年 NSqNSCLC 患者中的生存获益相似,毒性谱更有利,且更具成本效益。培美曲塞单药治疗可能是≥75 岁 NSqNSCLC 患者的可选方案之一。