Randomized Phase III Trial of Pemetrexed Versus Docetaxel in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Previously Treated With Chemotherapy

Author(s): Nasser Hanna, Frances A. Shepherd, Frank V. Fossella, Jose R. Pereira, Filippo De Marinis, Joachim von Pawel, Ulrich Gatzemeier, Thomas Chang Yao Tsao, Miklos Pless, Thomas Muller, Hong-Liang Lim, Christopher Desch, Klara Szondy, Radj Gervais, Shaharyar, Christian Manegold, Sofia Paul, Paolo Paoletti, Lawrence Einhorn, and Paul A. Bunn Jr.

Source: DOI: 10.1200/JCO.22.02546 Journal of Clinical Oncology 41, no. 15 (May 20, 2023) 2682-2690.

Dr. Anjan Patel's Thoughts

Throwback by JCO! Docetaxel vs Pemetrexed in 2L NSCLC showed similar OS/PFS outcomes, but Pemetrexed was tolerated better particularly in terms of myelosuppression. Pemetrexed was active in squamous cancers as well.

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and toxicity of pemetrexed versus docetaxel in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) previously treated with chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients had a performance status 0 to 2, previous treatment with one prior chemotherapy regimen for advanced NSCLC, and adequate organ function. Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) day 1 with vitamin B12, folic acid, and dexamethasone or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 IV day 1 with dexamethasone every 21 days. The primary end point was overall survival.

RESULTS

Five hundred seventy-one patients were randomly assigned. Overall response rates were 9.1% and 8.8% (analysis of variance P = .105) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 2.9 months for each arm, and median survival time was 8.3 versus 7.9 months (P = not significant) for pemetrexed and docetaxel, respectively. The 1-year survival rate for each arm was 29.7%. Patients receiving docetaxel were more likely to have grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (40.2% v 5.3%; P < .001), febrile neutropenia (12.7% v 1.9%; P < .001), neutropenia with infections (3.3% v 0.0%; P = .004), hospitalizations for neutropenic fever (13.4% v 1.5%; P < .001), hospitalizations due to other drug related adverse events (10.5% v 6.4%; P = .092), use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support (19.2% v 2.6%, P < .001) and all grade alopecia (37.7% v 6.4%; P < .001) compared with patients receiving pemetrexed.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with pemetrexed resulted in clinically equivalent efficacy outcomes, but with significantly fewer side effects compared with docetaxel in the second-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC and should be considered a standard treatment option for second-line NSCLC when available.

Author Affiliations

From Indiana University and the Hoosier Oncology Group; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN; The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; University of Colorado Cancer Center, Denver, CO; Virginia Cancer Institute, Richmond, VA; Princess Margaret Hospital and the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Instituto Arnaldo Vieira de Carvalho, Sao Paolo, Brazil; San Camillo-Forlanini Hospitals, Rome, Italy; Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan; University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben Switzerland; Fachklinik München, Gauting; Hospital Grosshansdorf, Grosshansdorf; Krankenhaus Hofheim Am Taunus, Hofheim; Thoraxklinik-Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; National University Hospital, Singapore; Semmelweis Medical University Diosarok, Budapest, Hungary; Centre Francois Baclesse, Caen, France; Mayo Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan.

Neoadjuvant PD-1 and PD-L1 Blockade With Chemotherapy for Borderline Resectable and Unresectable Stage III Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

The phase II trial of neoadjuvant PD-1/PD-L1 blockade plus chemotherapy in borderline resectable and unresectable stage III NSCLC showed a significant improvement in event-free survival (EFS) with the combination (24.1 vs 10.6 months) compared to chemotherapy alone, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.62. Major pathological response rates were higher with immunotherapy (44.7% vs 22.3%), and no new safety signals were noted. The regimen improved surgical resection rates (68% vs 52%) without increasing perioperative complications. This validates chemoIO in the neoadjuvant setting particularly in whom we wish to pursue resection or avoid chemoradiation. It would be great to see this compared to chemoradiation followed by immunotherapy rather than chemotherapy alone.

Neoadjuvant Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus Chemotherapy in Resectable Lung Cancer

Results showed the median event-free survival (EFS) was 54.8 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs 20.9 months with chemotherapy. Three-year EFS rates were 56% vs 44%. Three-year overall survival (OS) rates were 73% vs 61% pathologic complete response rates were 20.4% vs 4.6%. This was three cycles of nivolumab and one dose of ipilimumab vs chemotherapy.

Datopotamab Deruxtecan in Advanced or Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer With Actionable Genomic Alterations: Results From the Phase II TROPION-Lung05 Study

Dato showed a confirmed overall response rate (ORR) of 42.7% with a complete response (CR) of 4.3%. The median duration of response was 7.0 months, with a disease control rate of 86.3% and a median overall survival (OS) of 15.6 months. This could be another option for EGFR mutant patients who had multiple lines of therapy.

A Multicenter Open-Label Randomized Phase II Study of Osimertinib With and Without Ramucirumab in Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor–Naïve EGFR-Mutant Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (RAMOSE trial)

Improved progression-free survival (PFS), now we have osimertinib and ramucirumab, amivantamab and Lazertinib (PFS 24.8 vs 23 months but NOT head to head).

Thoracic Radiotherapy Improves the Survival in Patients With EGFR-Mutated Oligo-Organ Metastatic Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor–Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled, Phase III Trial

Patients were treated with thoracic and extrathoracic radiation to oligometastatic sites and it seems to help with improving survival, something to consider especially with SBRT now. Do our radiation oncologists have additional input?