1 / 9

C.P. Belani 1 , T. Brodowicz 2 , P. Peterson 3 , W. John 3 , G. Scagliotti 4

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, Austria; 3 Eli Lilly and Co., IN, USA; 4 University of Torino, Orbassano, Italy.

nell
Download Presentation

C.P. Belani 1 , T. Brodowicz 2 , P. Peterson 3 , W. John 3 , G. Scagliotti 4

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. C.P. Belani1, T. Brodowicz2, P. Peterson3, W. John3, G. Scagliotti 4 1Penn State Cancer Institute, Hershey, PA USA; 2Medical University, Vienna, Austria; 3Eli Lilly and Co., IN, USA; 4University of Torino, Orbassano, Italy Nonsquamous Histology: A Predictor of Efficacy for Pemetrexed Treatment. An Analysis of Phase III Trials Using Treatment-by-Histology Interaction (THI) in Advanced NSCLC

  2. The identification of predictive factors may allow a tailored- approach to the treatment of patients Treatment-by-histology interaction (THI) analyses predicts the relative efficacy of a specific treatment versus a comparator Randomized phase III study of pemetrexed vs. docetaxel indicated a predictive role for histology in NSCLC, as well as a differential treatment effect by histology for pemetrexed1 We report the results of THI analyses performed on two large randomized trials evaluating the effects of pemetrexed. Role of Histology as a Predictive Factor 1Peterson, et al. WCLC. 2007; P2-328, Seoul, Korea.

  3. Study Design – Pemetrexed/Cisplatin vs. Gemcitabine/Cisplatin Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Multicenter, Phase III Trial Cisplatin 75 mg/m2 d1+ Pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 d1 (N=862) Randomization factors: • Stage • PS • Gender • Histo vs. cyto dx • Brain mets. hx 1:1 Randomization Each cycle repeated q3weeks up to 6 cycles Cisplatin 75 mg/m2 d 1 + Gem 1.25 mg/m2d 1 & 8 (N=863) Median OS Cis Pemetrexed 10.3 mos Cis Gemcitabine 10.3 mos HR=0.94(95% CI: 0.84–0.1.05) Cis/Pem noninferior vs Cis/Gem # Nonsquamous pts : CisPem 71.7%, CisGem 72.4% B12, folate, and dexamethasone given in both arms

  4. Study Design – Maintenance Pemetrexed vs. Placebo Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Multicenter, Phase III Trial • Stage IIIB/IV NSCLC • PS 0-1 • 4 prior cycles of gem, doc, or tax + cis or carb, with CR, PR, or SD Randomization factors: • gender • PS • stage • best tumor response to induction • non-platinum induction drug • brain mets Pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 (q21d)+ BSC (N=441) 2:1 Randomization Placebo (d1, q21d) + BSC (N=222) Median PFS Pemetrexed 4.04 mos Placebo 1.97 mos HR=0.599 (95% CI: 0.49–0.73) p <0.00001 # Nonsquamous pts : Pemetrexed 74%, Placebo 70.3% B12, folate, and dexamethasone given in both arms

  5. Treatment-by-Histology Analysis • Presence of THI implies that histologic- subtype will be predictive of the treatment effect • Analysis of the 2 studies performed to determine the treatment effect for pemetrexed relative to the control arm (non-squamous histology vs. those with squamous histology) • THI analyses, prospectively planned for both the studies utilized adjusted Cox proportional hazard models of PFS & OS

  6. The Interaction Test The interaction parameter Exp (B3) is a ratio of two hazard ratios: HR for non-squamous over squamous (for Pemetrexed patients) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HR for non-squamous over squamous (for Comparator arm patients) Exp (B3) can also be re-written as the following ratio: HR for Pemetrexed over the Comparator (for Non-squamous patients) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HR for Pemetrexed over the Comparator (for Squamous patients) So the interaction HR Exp (B3) is the treatment effect for the non-squamous subgroup divided by the treatment effect for the squamous subgroup. The test for interaction has null hypothesis “H0: Exp (B3) = 1.00”. When we say that there is a "treatment by histology interaction", we are saying that the treatment effect varies significantly between the subgroups, i.e. that Exp (B3) differs significantly from 1.00.

  7. Treatment-by-Histology Interactions * PFS data independently reviewed; OS data is preliminary

  8. Efficacy by Histology * PFS data independently reviewed (N=430 nonsquamous; N=151 squamous); OS data is preliminary

  9. Conclusions • These two large, randomized, phase III studies, provide evidence of significant interaction between NSCLC histology and a pemetrexed treatment effect, regardless of the control arm treatment • The consistency of these results across studies confirms that the treatment advantage for pemetrexed in patients with non-squamous histology is reproducible • Non-squamous histology is predictive of the improved efficacy of pemetrexed in patients with NSCLC

More Related