A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase II Study Comparing Pemetrexed Plus Cisplatin Followed by Maintenance Pemetrexed versus Pemetrexed Alone in Patients with Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR)-Mutant Non-small Cell Lung Cancer after Failure of First-Line EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor: KCSG-LU12-13

Kwai Han Yoo; Su Jin Lee; Jinhyun Cho; Ki Hyeong Lee; Keon Uk Park; Ki Hwan Kim; Eun Kyung Cho; Yoon Hee Choi; Hye Ryun Kim; Hoon-Gu Kim; Heui June Ahn; Ha Yeon Lee; Hwan Jung Yun; Jin-Hyoung Kang; Jaeheon Jeong; Moon Young Choi; Sin-Ho Jung; Jong-Mu Sun; Se-Hoon Lee; Jin Seok Ahn; Keunchil Park; Myung-Ju Ahn

doi:10.4143/crt.2018.324

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Cancer Res Treat > Volume 51(2); 2019 > Article

Original Article A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase II Study Comparing Pemetrexed Plus Cisplatin Followed by Maintenance Pemetrexed versus Pemetrexed Alone in Patients with Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR)-Mutant Non-small Cell Lung Cancer after Failure of First-Line EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor: KCSG-LU12-13: Kwai Han Yoo, MD^1,2, Su Jin Lee, MD, PhD¹, Jinhyun Cho, MD³, Ki Hyeong Lee, MD, PhD⁴, Keon Uk Park, MD, PhD⁵, Ki Hwan Kim, MD, PhD⁶, Eun Kyung Cho, MD, PhD², Yoon Hee Choi, MD, PhD⁷, Hye Ryun Kim, MD, PhD⁸, Hoon-Gu Kim, MD, PhD⁹, Heui June Ahn, MD, PhD¹⁰, Ha Yeon Lee, MD, PhD¹¹, Hwan Jung Yun, MD, PhD¹², Jin-Hyoung Kang, MD, PhD¹³, Jaeheon Jeong, MD, PhD¹⁴, Moon Young Choi, MD, PhD¹⁵, Sin-Ho Jung, PhD¹⁶, Jong-Mu Sun, MD, PhD¹, Se-Hoon Lee, MD, PhD¹, Jin Seok Ahn, MD, PhD¹, Keunchil Park, MD, PhD¹, Myung-Ju Ahn, MD, PhD^1,; Cancer Research and Treatment : Official Journal of Korean Cancer Association 2019;51(2):718-726.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2018.324
Published online: September 3, 2018

¹Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

²Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Gachon University Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea

³Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Inha University Hospital, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, Korea

⁴Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chungbuk National University Hospital, Chungbuk National University College of Medicine, Cheongju, Korea

⁵Department of Hematology/Oncology, Keimyung Unversity Dongsan Hospital, Daegu, Korea

⁶Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, Seoul, Korea

⁷Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Dongnam Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences, Busan, Korea

⁸Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁹Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Gyeongsang Institute of Health Sciences, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine and Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital, Changwon, Korea

¹⁰Department of Internal Medicine, Gangneung Asan Hospital, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Gangneung, Korea

¹¹Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, National Medical Center, Seoul, Korea

¹²Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Chungnam National University Hospital, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea

¹³Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

¹⁴Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kyunghee University Hospital, Seoul, Korea

¹⁵Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Inje University Paik Hospital, Busan, Korea

¹⁶Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

Correspondence: Myung-Ju Ahn, MD, PhD Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06351, Korea
Tel: 82-2-3410-3438 Fax: 82-2-3410-1754 E-mail: silkahn@skku.edu

*Kwai Han Yoo and Su Jin Lee contributed equally to this work.

• Received: May 31, 2018 • Accepted: August 24, 2018

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

10,502 Views
352 Download
15 Web of Science
13 Crossref
12 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract

Purpose
The optimal cytotoxic regimens have not been established for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who develop disease progression on first-line epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI).
Materials and Methods
We conducted a multi-center randomized phase II trial to compare the clinical outcomes between pemetrexed plus cisplatin combination therapy followed by maintenance pemetrexed (PC) and pemetrexed monotherapy (P) after failure of first-line EGFR-TKI. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary objectives included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and safety and toxicity profiles.
Results
A total of 96 patientswere randomized, and 91 patientswere treated at 14 centers in Korea. The ORR was 34.8% (16/46) for the PC arm and 17.8% (8/45) for the P arm (p=0.066). With 23.4 months of follow-up, the median PFS was 5.4 months in the PC arm and 6.4 months in the P arm (p=0.114). The median OS was 17.9 months and 15.7 months in PC and P arms, respectively (p=0.787). Adverse events ≥ grade 3 were reported in 12 patients (26.1%) in the PC arm and nine patients (20.0%) in the P arm (p=0.491). The overall time trends of HRQOL were not significantly different between the two arms.
Conclusion
The outcomes of pemetrexed therapy in NSCLC patients with disease progression after firstline EGFR-TKI might not be improved by adding cisplatin.
Key words: Non-small cell lung carcinoma, Epidermal growth factor receptor, Mutation, Pemetrexed, Cisplatin, Quality of life

Introduction

Somatic mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene account for about 30%-40% of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) in Asian patients and 10%-15% of NSCLCs in Caucasian patients [1,2]. The introduction of firstgeneration EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs; gefitinib, erlotinib) and second-generation TKIs (afatinib) for the treatment of NSCLC patients with a sensitizing EGFR mutation has demonstrated a high response rate and prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with platinum doublet as first-line therapy [3-5].

However, almost all patients eventually develop acquired resistance to EGFR-TKIs, with a median PFS of 9-14 months [6-8]. A randomized phase III trial comparing pemetrexed/cisplatin/gefitinib with pemetrexed/cisplatin/placebo did not show improvement of clinical outcome in patients who showed disease progression on EGFR-TKI; therefore, platinum doublet chemotherapy is considered the standard treatment for this patient population [9]. Recently, a thirdgeneration EGFR-TKI (osimertinib) demonstrated significant improvement in response rate and PFS compared with platinum doublet chemotherapy in patients harboring the T79-0M mutation, which is the most common resistance mechanism to first- or second-generation EGFR-TKIs [10]. However, approximately 40%-60% of patients who develop resistance to EGFR-TKIs still need chemotherapy. Although platinum doublet chemotherapy is recommended as the treatment of choice in those patients, few data exist regarding the use of conventional chemotherapy for second-line treatment after failure of first-line EGFR-TKIs. D'Addario et al. [11] reported a 34.1% response rate and PFS of 6.8 months for a gemcitabine plus cisplatin regimen in NSCLC patients after failure of gefitinib. Wu et al. [12] performed retrospective analysis of second-line treatments after first-line gefitinib therapy and showed that platinum-based combination chemotherapy was associated with better PFS and overall survival (OS) than non-platinum regimens containing taxane or erlotinib.

Pemetrexed, a multi-target anti-folate agent, has been approved as second-line therapy regardless of first-line therapy (chemotherapy or targeted agents) in Korea, and only single-agent pemetrexed is available for patients who fail EGFR-TKIs. Our recent retrospective analysis showed that a combination of pemetrexed plus platinum had a better disease control rate than pemetrexed alone, suggesting the benefit of platinum doublets after failure of first-line EGFR-TKIs [13]. Moreover, the role of single-agent pemetrexed in this patient population has not been fully evaluated.

Based on these data, we conducted a prospective randomized phase II trial to compare the clinical outcomes between pemetrexed plus cisplatin combination therapy followed by maintenance pemetrexed and pemetrexed monotherapy in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC that progressed after first-line treatment with EGFR-TKIs.

Materials and Methods

1. Patient eligibility

We recruited patients who were at least 20 years old and had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, histologically confirmed non-squamous NSCLC harboring activating EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation on exon 21), and stage IIIb, IV, or recurrent disease that progressed after first-line treatment with EGFR-TKIs. Other detailed inclusion criteria were as follows: at least one measurable lesion by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1; asymptomatic brain metastasis or symptomatic brain metastasis treated with local treatment such as operation, whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT), or stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS); at least 2 weeks after WBRT or palliative radiotherapy (in the case of SRS, treatment delay was not required); adequate organ function; no other previous systemic cytotoxic chemotherapy (adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy was allowed); and provision of written informed consent. Exclusion criteria included uncontrolled systemic illness such as diabetes, heart failure, unstable angina, hypertension, or arrhythmia; postobstructive pneumonia or uncontrolled serious infection; pregnant or nursing women (women of reproductive potential had to agree to use an effective contraceptive method); uncontrolled symptomatic brain metastasis or presence of a third space that could not be controlled by drainage; prior history of malignancy within 5 years from study entry except for adequately treated basal cell or squamous cell skin cancer, in situ cervical cancer, or well-treated thyroid cancer.

2. Study design, endpoints, and treatments

In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase II trial, the primary endpoint was to compare PFS of pemetrexed plus cisplatin combination chemotherapy and pemetrexed as a single agent. Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), OS, safety and toxicity profiles, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL).

Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a pemetrexed plus cisplatin combination followed by maintenance pemetrexed (PC) arm and a pemetrexed only (P) arm. Block randomization and a non-stratified method were used. Patients in the PC arm were treated with four cycles of pemetrexed 500 mg/m² and cisplatin 70 mg/m² intravenously, followed by maintenance pemetrexed as a single agent for every 3 weeks until progression of disease (PD). Patients in the P arm were treated with pemetrexed 500 mg/m² monotherapy every 3 weeks until PD. Patients received vitamin B12, folate, and dexamethasone treatment as premedications for pemetrexed. Dose reductions, delays, and discontinuations due to toxicity were specified by the protocol.

3. Response and toxicity assessments

RECIST 1.1 criteria were used to assess the response to treatment by determining PFS and ORR. Tumor assessment by computed tomography was performed at baseline and repeated every other cycle until progression. Other followup assessments including laboratory tests and chest X-ray were repeated every cycle. After progression, patients continued to be followed up for survival every 8-12 weeks until death. Analyses for efficacy and safety were performed with patients receiving at least one dose of any study drug. Toxicity was assessed in accordance with the National Cancer Institute’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events ver. 4.0. The HRQOL was assessed every two cycles using a validated Korean version of EORTC QLQ-C30 ver. 3.0 and EORTC QLQ-LC13. The QLQ-C30 is composed of five functional scales, three symptom scales, and global health status, and analyses were performed separately according to these domains.

4. Statistical analysis

This study was designed as a phase 2 trial, and we calculated the sample size based on the results of previous phase 3 trials [14,15]. We assumed that the control arm (P arm) would have a median PFS of 3 months, and we were interested in the experimental arm (PC arm) for further investigation if its median PFS is 6 months or longer. To this end, we needed 85 eligible patients for this study (42-43 patients per arm). And assuming 10% dropout or ineligibility, approximately 96 randomly assigned patients (48 per arm) were needed for PFS analysis based on (1) exponential PFS models, (2) one-sided alpha=5% and power=90%, (3) a monthly accrual rate of 5-6 patients, and (4) an additional follow-up period of 1 year. The final data analysis was conducted when 70 events of progression were observed. For each arm, PFS and OS were summarized using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared to those of the other arm using the log-rank test. The response and toxicity were summarized using contingency tables. The ORR and incidence rate of toxicity were compared between the two arms using Pearson’s chi-square test or Fisher exact test. The HRQOL data were analyzed using Student’s t test or Wilcoxon exact test individually or by treatment arm. All tests of treatment effects were conducted at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, and all confidence intervals (CIs) were given at a two-sided 95% level, unless otherwise specified. Analyses were conducted using STATA ver. 14.2 and R 3.2.2 (College Station, TX).

5. Ethical statement

All the patients provided written informed consent, and the study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice guidelines. And the protocol was approved by each participating center’s institutional review board.

Results

1. Patient characteristics

From April 2013 to August 2015, a total of 96 patients were recruited from 14 centers in Korea and randomly allocated to PC or P arms. Among 96 randomized patients, 46 in the PC arm and 45 in the P arm were actually treated and formed the target population of analyses for efficacy and safety. Five patients who were not treated with investigational drugs due to withdrawal of consent or loss to follow-up were excluded from the analysis of efficacy and safety (Fig. 1). The clinical data cutoff was October 13, 2016. Patients allocated to the two arms were well balanced for baseline characteristics including age, sex, ECOG performance status, type of EGFR mutation, and stage (Table 1). The median age of all patients was 62 years, and 73% of patients were female. Patients in the P arm showed a higher rate of smoking than those in the PC arm, but without significance (p=0.104). Most of the patients were ECOG performance status 1 (85%). In both arms, two-thirds of the patients had exon 19 deletions, and one-third had L858R mutation. All patients were enrolled at stage IV. Fifteen patients (16%) underwent curative surgery, and 12 patients (13%) had received radiotherapy.

2. Treatment outcomes and survival

For the target population of efficacy analyses (n=91), the median number of cycles administered for both PC and P arms was 6 (range, 1 to 20 cycles for PC and 1 to 43 for P), although the mean number of cycles received was greater for P than for PC (9.6 vs. 7.1, p=0.047). The ORR was 34.8% (16/46) in the PC arm and 17.8% (8/45) in the P arm, without statistical significance (p=0.066). The disease control rate was 78.3% (36/46) in the PC arm and 66.7% (30/45) in the P arm. During chemotherapy, most patients maintained their initial performance status, although 10 patients (11%) experienced temporary worsening.

In a median follow-up of 23.4 months (range, 6.2 to 42.9 months), 70 patients showed disease progression, and 58 deaths occurred. The median PFS was 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.5 to 6.3) in the PC arm and 6.4 months (95% CI, 3.3 to 5.5) in the P arm, and there was no significant difference between the two arms (p=0.114) (Fig. 2A). The median OS was 17.9 months (95% CI, 14.8 to 21.0) and 15.7 months (95% CI, 13.3 to 18.0) in the PC and P arms, respectively (p=0.787) (Fig. 2B).

3. Safety and toxicity profiles

For the target population of efficacy analyses (n=91), 75 patients (82%) experienced one or more adverse events. The most common adverse event was gastrointestinal toxicities (n=44, 48.4%) including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation. Fatigue was the second most common adverse event (n=25, 27.5%), followed by skin change and/or alopecia (n=13, 14.3%), neuropathy (n=10, 11.0%), and neutropenia (n=6, 6.6%). Adverse events ≥ grade 3 were observed in 12 patients (26.1%) in the PC arm and nine patients (20.0%) in the P arm (p=0.491) (Table 2). Dose reduction (6 vs. 2 patients) and treatment delay (10 vs. 4 patients) were required more often in the PC arm; however, the difference was not significant (p=0.267 for dose reduction, p=0.145 for treatment delay).

4. HRQOL

HRQOL data were obtained from 71 patients (39 in the PC arm and 32 in the P arm) with 385 pairs of EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLO-LC13 questionnaires (185 pairs in the PC arm and 200 in the P arm). For functional scales, patients in the PC arm showed a higher score than patients in the P arm at baseline (p < 0.05); however, no significant differences were observed during follow-up. Likewise, patients in the P arm recorded higher scores for symptom scales than patients in the PC arm at baseline (p < 0.05), and there was no trend of a difference in statistical significance during chemotherapy. No significant difference was noted in global health status between the two arms (Fig. 3). In assessment of lung cancerassociated symptoms, treatment-related side effects, and pain medication according to questions from the QLQ-LC13, there were no trends of differences between the two arms from baseline through the period of receiving chemotherapy.

Discussion

This is the first prospective randomized study to compare pemetrexed plus cisplatin combination therapy with singleagent pemetrexed in patients who have failed first-line EGFR-TKIs. We found that PFS as a primary endpoint was not significantly different between the PC arm and the P arm (5.4 months vs. 6.4 months, p=0.114). And ORR also did not make statistically significant difference between two arms (34.8 vs. 17.8%, p=0.066). Furthermore, the PC arm did not show improved OS. Intriguingly, quality of life measured by HRQ-OL was similar between the two arms. Our results suggest that single-agent pemetrexed might be another treatment option for patients with failure of first-line EGFR-TKI.

In general, platinum doublet chemotherapy, especially the cisplatin/pemetrexed combination, has been considered standard treatment in patients with failure of targeted agents such as EGFR-TKIs or anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors as first-line therapy because these patients were not exposed to cytotoxic chemotherapy. Single-agent pemetrexed is considered only for patients with poor performance or old age. Accordingly, in the IMPRESS study, a randomized phase III trial comparing gefitinib/chemotherapy and chemotherapy in EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC resistant to first-line gefitinib, the cisplatin plus pemetrexed combination was used as the control arm [9]. A small-sized retrospective study reported prolonged PFS of pemetrexed singlet therapy comparing with nonpemetrexed-based platinum doublet after failure of first-line EGFR-TKIs [16]. Most recently, however, two studies published data indicating the efficacy of pemetrexed- based combination chemotherapy as second-line treatment after development of acquired resistance to firstline EGFR-TKIs [17,18]. These studies mutually emphasized the superiority of pemetrexed-containing regimens and combination regimens with platinum in a retrospective analysis. Our previous retrospective study also showed a trend favoring platinum/pemetrexed compared with single-agent pemetrexed in terms of ORR and PFS, which is inconsistent with the results of the current study.

Pemetrexed is a multi-target anti-folate agent and exerts its antitumoral effect mainly by inhibiting the thymidylate synthase (TS) enzyme. Several retrospective and prospective studies have reported an association between lower TS levels and better clinical outcomes for pemetrexed-based chemotherapy [15,19,20]. We did not analyze TS level in this study; however, considering that 5.4 months and 6.4 months of PFS in the PC and P arms, respectively, the TS level might be different between two arms. Therefore, additional analysis for the impact of TS expression on the efficacy of pemetrexed after EGFR-TKIs should be performed. Actually, three patients in the P arm experienced long-term PFS around 30 months (from 28 to 35 months) and are still ongoing. Further molecular analysis for these long-term responders to pemetrexed monotherapy are warranted. Considering the results of pemetrexed plus platinum therapy for NSCLC patients with failure of EGFR-TKIs in both unselected and T790Mpositive populations [9,10], the PFS of 5.4 months and 6.4 months in the PC and P arms in this study would be quite acceptable. Even though no significant differences were observed in PFS and OS between the two arms, PC combination therapy showed a relatively higher response rate and might be a reasonable option for patients who require rapid reduction of tumor burden.

Overall, the incidence of serious adverse events was similar between PC and P arms. Dose reduction and treatment delay were required more often in the PC arm, although the difference was not significant. Furthermore, quality of life assessed by EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC-13 did not show any difference between the two arms. These results might imply that both regimens are equally applicable and tolerable to patients whose disease progresses after EGFR-TKIs.

This study has several limitations. Repeat biopsy to evaluate the resistance mechanism, including T790M, was not performed. It has been reported that patients with the T790M resistance mutation experience an indolent clinical course [21-23]. Even though the two arms were well balanced in terms of patient characteristics, genetic heterogeneity might affect the clinical outcomes. Recently, a third-generation EGFR-TKI, osimertinib, has been approved in patients with T790M resistance mutation [24,25]. And another third-generation EGFR-TKI, olmutinib, received approval only in South Korea for the treatment of patients with T790M mutation-positive NSCLC [26]. Given that systemic chemotherapy is considered standard treatment in T790M-negative patients, it remains undetermined whether the cisplatin plus pemetrexed combination is better than single-agent pemetrexed. Further studies are warranted for this subgroup of the patient population.

In conclusion, pemetrexed plus cisplatin combination treatment and pemetrexed monotherapy might be both effective and well tolerated in EGFR mutation–positive patients who show disease progression on first-line EGFR-TKIs. These conventional regimens might be considered as treatment options.

NOTES

This study was supported in part by Lilly, Korea. However, the funder had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of this manuscript.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a grant from the National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number: 1420260).

Fig. 1.

Patient flow of this study. PC, pemetrexed plus cisplatin combination followed by maintenance pemetrexed; P, pemetrexed only; HRQOL, health-related quality of life.

Fig. 2.

Kaplan-Meier survival curves of progression-free survival (PFS) (A) and overall survival (OS) (B). PC, pemetrexed plus cisplatin combination followed by maintenance pemetrexed; P, pemetrexed only; CI, confidence interval.

Fig. 3.

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) assessed by EORTC QLQ-C30. PC, pemetrexed plus cisplatin combination followed by maintenance pemetrexed; P, pemetrexed only; CI, confidence interval.

Table 1.

Patient characteristics

	PC (n=48)	P (n=48)	Total (n=96)	p-value
Age (yr)	60 (32-82)	64 (31-84)	62 (31-84)	0.133
Male sex	11 (23)	15 (31)	26 (27)	0.358
Smoking, yes	9 (19)	16 (33)	25 (26)	0.014
ECOG
0	9 (19)	5 (10)	14 (15)	0.247
1	39 (81)	43 (90)	82 (85)
EGFR mutation
Deletion exon 19	32 (67)	32 (67)	64 (67)	> 0.999
L858R	16 (33)	16 (33)	32 (33)
Stage IV	48 (100)	48 (100)	96 (100)	> 0.999
Recurrence	1 (2)	7 (15)	8 (8)	0.029
Metastatic	47 (98)	41 (85)	88 (92)
Surgery	6 (13)	9 (19)	15 (16)	0.399
Radiotherapy	4 (8)	8 (17)	12 (13)	0.178

Values are presented as median (range) or number (%). PC, pemetrexed plus cisplatin combination followed by maintenance pemetrexed; P, pemetrexed only; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor.

Table 2.

Safety and toxicity profiles

	PC (n=46)			P (n=45)			PC+P (n=91)
	Gr 1-2	Gr ≥ 3	Total	Gr 1-2	Gr ≥ 3	Total	Gr 1-2	Gr ≥ 3	Total
Fatigue	14	0	14	10	1	11	24	1	25
GI toxicity	22	4	26	18	0	18	40	4	44
Bleeding or thrombocytopenia	1	0	1	1	0	1	2	0	2
Neutropenia	1	2	3	0	3	3	1	5	6
Neurotoxicity	8	0	8	2	0	2	10	0	10
Skin and alopecia	5	0	5	8	0	8	13	0	13
Myalgia and arthralgia	2	0	2	4	0	4	6	0	6
Others^a)	25	8	33	27	5	32	52	13	65

PC, pemetrexed plus cisplatin combination followed by maintenance pemetrexed; P, pemetrexed only; Gr, grade; GI, gastrointestinal.

^a) Others include headache, insomnia, dyspnea and pain on other sites than muscles and joints.

REFERENCES

1. Zhou W, Christiani DC. East meets West: ethnic differences in epidemiology and clinical behaviors of lung cancer between East Asians and Caucasians. Chin J Cancer. 2011;30:287–92. Article PubMed PMC
2. Zhang YL, Yuan JQ, Wang KF, Fu XH, Han XR, Threapleton D, et al. The prevalence of EGFR mutation in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Oncotarget. 2016;7:78985–93. Article PubMed PMC
3. Mok TS, Wu YL, Thongprasert S, Yang CH, Chu DT, Saijo N, et al. Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:947–57. Article PubMed
4. Zhou C, Wu YL, Chen G, Feng J, Liu XQ, Wang C, et al. Erlotinib versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-smallcell lung cancer (OPTIMAL, CTONG-0802): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:735–42. Article PubMed
5. Sequist LV, Yang JC, Yamamoto N, O'Byrne K, Hirsh V, Mok T, et al. Phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin plus pemetrexed in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3327–34. Article PubMed
6. Pao W, Miller VA, Politi KA, Riely GJ, Somwar R, Zakowski MF, et al. Acquired resistance of lung adenocarcinomas to gefitinib or erlotinib is associated with a second mutation in the EGFR kinase domain. PLoS Med. 2005;2:e73Article PubMed PMC
7. Onitsuka T, Uramoto H, Nose N, Takenoyama M, Hanagiri T, Sugio K, et al. Acquired resistance to gefitinib: the contribution of mechanisms other than the T790M, MET, and HGF status. Lung Cancer. 2010;68:198–203. Article PubMed
8. Gainor JF, Shaw AT. Emerging paradigms in the development of resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors in lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3987–96. Article PubMed PMC
9. Soria JC, Wu YL, Nakagawa K, Kim SW, Yang JJ, Ahn MJ, et al. Gefitinib plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in EGFR-mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer after progression on first-line gefitinib (IMPRESS): a phase 3 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:990–8. Article PubMed
10. Mok TS, Wu YL, Ahn MJ, Garassino MC, Kim HR, Ramalingam SS, et al. Osimertinib or platinum-pemetrexed in EGFR T790M-positive lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:629–40. Article PubMed
11. D'Addario G, Rauch D, Stupp R, Pless M, Stahel R, Mach N, et al. Multicenter phase II trial of gefitinib first-line therapy followed by chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): SAKK protocol 19/03. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:739–45. Article PubMed PDF
12. Wu JY, Shih JY, Yang CH, Chen KY, Ho CC, Yu CJ, et al. Second-line treatments after first-line gefitinib therapy in advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer. Int J Cancer. 2010;126:247–55. Article PubMed
13. Lee SJ, Sun JM, Lee SH, Ahn JS, Park K, Ahn MJ. Pemetrexed plus platinum versus pemetrexed alone in non-small cell lung cancer patients who have progressed after first-line EGFR TKIs. Lung Cancer. 2015;90:261–6. Article PubMed
14. Paz-Ares LG, de Marinis F, Dediu M, Thomas M, Pujol JL, Bidoli P, et al. PARAMOUNT: Final overall survival results of the phase III study of maintenance pemetrexed versus placebo immediately after induction treatment with pemetrexed plus cisplatin for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:2895–902. Article PubMed
15. Sun JM, Ahn JS, Jung SH, Sun J, Ha SY, Han J, et al. Pemetrexed plus cisplatin versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin according to thymidylate synthase expression in nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer: a biomarker-stratified randomized phase II trial. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2450–6. Article PubMed
16. Park S, Keam B, Kim SH, Kim KH, Kim YJ, Kim JS, et al. Pemetrexed singlet versus nonpemetrexed-based platinum doublet as second-line chemotherapy after first-line epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor failure in nonsmall cell lung cancer patients with EGFR mutations. Cancer Res Treat. 2015;47:630–7. Article PubMed PMC PDF
17. Tseng YH, Hung HY, Sung YC, Tseng YC, Lee YC, Whang-Peng J, et al. Efficacy of chemotherapy in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutated metastatic pulmonary adenocarcinoma patients who had acquired resistance to first-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). J Chemother. 2016;28:50–8. Article PubMed
18. Yang CJ, Tsai MJ, Hung JY, Liu TC, Chou SH, Lee JY, et al. Pemetrexed had significantly better clinical efficacy in patients with stage IV lung adenocarcinoma with susceptible EGFR mutations receiving platinum-based chemotherapy after developing resistance to the first-line gefitinib treatment. Onco Targets Ther. 2016;9:1579–87. Article PubMed PMC
19. Sun JM, Han J, Ahn JS, Park K, Ahn MJ. Significance of thymidylate synthase and thyroid transcription factor 1 expression in patients with nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer treated with pemetrexed-based chemotherapy. J Thorac Oncol. 2011;6:1392–9. Article PubMed
20. Nicolson MC, Fennell DA, Ferry D, O'Byrne K, Shah R, Potter V, et al. Thymidylate synthase expression and outcome of patients receiving pemetrexed for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer in a prospective blinded assessment phase II clinical trial. J Thorac Oncol. 2013;8:930–9. Article PubMed
21. Oxnard GR, Arcila ME, Sima CS, Riely GJ, Chmielecki J, Kris MG, et al. Acquired resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in EGFR-mutant lung cancer: distinct natural history of patients with tumors harboring the T790M mutation. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:1616–22. Article PubMed
22. Hata A, Katakami N, Yoshioka H, Takeshita J, Tanaka K, Nanjo S, et al. Rebiopsy of non-small cell lung cancer patients with acquired resistance to epidermal growth factor receptortyrosine kinase inhibitor: Comparison between T790M mutation-positive and mutation-negative populations. Cancer. 2013;119:4325–32. Article PubMed
23. Li W, Ren S, Li J, Li A, Fan L, Li X, et al. T790M mutation is associated with better efficacy of treatment beyond progression with EGFR-TKI in advanced NSCLC patients. Lung Cancer. 2014;84:295–300. Article PubMed
24. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology, non-small cell lung cancer (version 3.2017) [Internet]. Plymouth Meeting, PA: National Comprehensive Cancer Network; c2016. [cited 2016 Nov 16]. Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/nscl.pdf
25. Khozin S, Weinstock C, Blumenthal GM, Cheng J, He K, Zhuang L, et al. Osimertinib for the treatment of metastatic EGFR T790M mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23:2131–5. Article PubMed
26. Kim ES. Olmutinib: first global approval. Drugs. 2016;76:1153–7. Article PubMed PDF

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

The Survival and Financial Benefit of Investigator-Initiated Trials Conducted by Korean Cancer Study Group
Bum Jun Kim, Chi Hoon Maeng, Bhumsuk Keam, Young-Hyuck Im, Jungsil Ro, Kyung Hae Jung, Seock-Ah Im, Tae Won Kim, Jae Lyun Lee, Dae Seog Heo, Sang-We Kim, Keunchil Park, Myung-Ju Ahn, Byoung Chul Cho, Hoon-Kyo Kim, Yoon-Koo Kang, Jae Yong Cho, Hwan Jung Yu
Cancer Research and Treatment.2025; 57(1): 39. CrossRef
A randomised non-comparative phase II study of atezolizumab, bevacizumab and chemotherapy in EGFR-mutant NSCLC with acquired resistance – The ETOP 15-19 ABC-lung trial
R.A. Soo, K. Vervita, M. Früh, B.C. Cho, M. Majem, D. Rodriguez Abreu, K. Ribi, A. Callejo, T. Moran, M. Domine Gomez, M. Provencio, A. Addeo, J.Y. Han, A.L. Ortega Granados, M. Reck, A. Blasco, R. Garcia Campelo, M.A. Sala González, C. Britschgi, H. Rosc
Lung Cancer.2025; 202: 108454. CrossRef
Osimertinib with Chemotherapy in EGFR -Mutated NSCLC

New England Journal of Medicine.2024; 390(5): 478. CrossRef
Real-world outcomes on platinum-containing chemotherapy for EGFR-mutated advanced nonsquamous NSCLC with prior exposure to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors
Balazs Halmos, Pragya Rai, Jae Min, Xiaohan Hu, Diana Chirovsky, Mark Shamoun, Bin Zhao
Frontiers in Oncology.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Clinical efficacy and safety of pemetrexed with or without either Bevacizumab or Pembrolizumab in patients with metastatic nonsquamous non–small cell carcinoma
Wang Chun Kwok, Tan Fong Cheong, Ka Yan Chiang, James Chung Man Ho, David Chi Leung Lam, Mary Sau Man Ip, Terence Chi Chun Tam
Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology.2023; 19(1): 87. CrossRef
Factors associated with outcomes of second-line treatment for EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer patients after progression on first- or second-generation EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment
Cheng-Yu Chang, Chung-Yu Chen, Shih-Chieh Chang, Ching-Yi Chen, Yi-Chun Lai, Chun-Fu Chang, Yu-Feng Wei
Frontiers in Oncology.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Association of Quality-of-Life Outcomes in Cancer Drug Trials With Survival Outcomes and Drug Class
Joseph N. Samuel, Christopher M. Booth, Elizabeth Eisenhauer, Michael Brundage, Scott R. Berry, Bishal Gyawali
JAMA Oncology.2022; 8(6): 879. CrossRef
Drug resistance mechanisms and progress in the treatment of EGFR‑mutated lung adenocarcinoma (Review)
Ruizhu Sun, Zhansheng Hou, Yankui Zhang, Bo Jiang
Oncology Letters.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Haematological toxicity of pemetrexed in patients with metastatic non-squamous non-small cell carcinoma of lung with third-space fluid
Wang Chun Kwok, Tan Fong Cheong, Ka Yan Chiang, James Chung Man Ho, David Chi Leung Lam, Mary Sau Man Ip, Terence Chi Chun Tam
Lung Cancer.2021; 152: 15. CrossRef
Exploring the role of epidermal growth factor receptor variant III in meningeal tumors
Rashmi Rana, Vaishnavi Rathi, Kirti Chauhan, Kriti Jain, Satnam Singh Chhabra, Rajesh Acharya, Samir Kumar Kalra, Anshul Gupta, Sunila Jain, Nirmal Kumar Ganguly, Dharmendra Kumar Yadav, Timir Tripathi
PLOS ONE.2021; 16(9): e0255133. CrossRef
Risk factors of nephrotoxicity of maintenance pemetrexed in patients with metastatic non-squamous non-small cell carcinoma of lung
Wang Chun Kwok, Ka Yan Chiang, James Chung Man Ho, David Chi Leung Lam, Mary Sau Man Ip, Terence Chi Chun Tam
Lung Cancer.2021; 162: 169. CrossRef
Impact of Value Frameworks on the Magnitude of Clinical Benefit: Evaluating a Decade of Randomized Trials for Systemic Therapy in Solid Malignancies
Ellen Cusano, Chelsea Wong, Eddy Taguedong, Marcus Vaska, Tasnima Abedin, Nancy Nixon, Safiya Karim, Patricia Tang, Daniel Y. C. Heng, Doreen Ezeife
Current Oncology.2021; 28(6): 4894. CrossRef
Real world experience on maintenance chemotherapy with gemcitabine in second line setting for advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma
Wang Chun Kwok, David Chi Leung Lam, Ka Yan Chiang, James Chung Man Ho, Mary Sau Man Ip, Terence Chi Chun Tam
Journal of Chemotherapy.2020; 32(8): 429. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase II Study Comparing Pemetrexed Plus Cisplatin Followed by Maintenance Pemetrexed versus Pemetrexed Alone in Patients with Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR)-Mutant Non-small Cell Lung Cancer after Failure of First-Line EGFR Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor: KCSG-LU12-13

Cancer Res Treat. 2019;51(2):718-726. Published online September 3, 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2018.324

XML Download

Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
NOTES
REFERENCES

Fig. 1. Patient flow of this study. PC, pemetrexed plus cisplatin combination followed by maintenance pemetrexed; P, pemetrexed only; HRQOL, health-related quality of life.

Fig. 2. Kaplan-Meier survival curves of progression-free survival (PFS) (A) and overall survival (OS) (B). PC, pemetrexed plus cisplatin combination followed by maintenance pemetrexed; P, pemetrexed only; CI, confidence interval.

Fig. 3. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) assessed by EORTC QLQ-C30. PC, pemetrexed plus cisplatin combination followed by maintenance pemetrexed; P, pemetrexed only; CI, confidence interval.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

	PC (n=48)	P (n=48)	Total (n=96)	p-value
Age (yr)	60 (32-82)	64 (31-84)	62 (31-84)	0.133
Male sex	11 (23)	15 (31)	26 (27)	0.358
Smoking, yes	9 (19)	16 (33)	25 (26)	0.014
ECOG
0	9 (19)	5 (10)	14 (15)	0.247
1	39 (81)	43 (90)	82 (85)
EGFR mutation
Deletion exon 19	32 (67)	32 (67)	64 (67)	> 0.999
L858R	16 (33)	16 (33)	32 (33)
Stage IV	48 (100)	48 (100)	96 (100)	> 0.999
Recurrence	1 (2)	7 (15)	8 (8)	0.029
Metastatic	47 (98)	41 (85)	88 (92)
Surgery	6 (13)	9 (19)	15 (16)	0.399
Radiotherapy	4 (8)	8 (17)	12 (13)	0.178

	PC (n=46)			P (n=45)			PC+P (n=91)
	Gr 1-2	Gr ≥ 3	Total	Gr 1-2	Gr ≥ 3	Total	Gr 1-2	Gr ≥ 3	Total
Fatigue	14	0	14	10	1	11	24	1	25
GI toxicity	22	4	26	18	0	18	40	4	44
Bleeding or thrombocytopenia	1	0	1	1	0	1	2	0	2
Neutropenia	1	2	3	0	3	3	1	5	6
Neurotoxicity	8	0	8	2	0	2	10	0	10
Skin and alopecia	5	0	5	8	0	8	13	0	13
Myalgia and arthralgia	2	0	2	4	0	4	6	0	6
Others^a)	25	8	33	27	5	32	52	13	65

Table 1. Patient characteristics

Table 2. Safety and toxicity profiles

PC, pemetrexed plus cisplatin combination followed by maintenance pemetrexed; P, pemetrexed only; Gr, grade; GI, gastrointestinal.

Others include headache, insomnia, dyspnea and pain on other sites than muscles and joints.