UpToDate
Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Medline ® Abstract for Reference 37

of 'Systemic therapy for the initial management of advanced non-small cell lung cancer without a driver mutation'

37
TI
PRONOUNCE: randomized, open-label, phase III study of first-line pemetrexed + carboplatin followed by maintenance pemetrexed versus paclitaxel + carboplatin + bevacizumab followed by maintenance bevacizumab in patients ith advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.
AU
Zinner RG, Obasaju CK, Spigel DR, Weaver RW, Beck JT, Waterhouse DM, Modiano MR, Hrinczenko B, Nikolinakos PG, Liu J, Koustenis AG, Winfree KB, Melemed SA, Guba SC, Ortuzar WI, Desaiah D, Treat JA, Govindan R, Ross HJ
SO
J Thorac Oncol. 2015;10(1):134.
 
INTRODUCTION: PRONOUNCE compared the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed+carboplatin followed by pemetrexed (Pem+Cb) with paclitaxel+carboplatin+bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab (Pac+Cb+Bev) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
METHODS: Patients≥18 years of age with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC (American Joint Committee on Cancer v7.0), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1 were randomized (1:1) to four cycles of induction Pem+Cb (pemetrexed, 500 mg/m, carboplatin, area under the curve = 6) followed by Pem maintenance or Pac+Cb+Bev (paclitaxel, 200 mg/m, carboplatin, area under the curve = 6, and bevacizumab, 15 mg/kg) followed by Bev maintenance in the absence of progressive disease or discontinuation. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) without grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS). Secondary end points were PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Resource utilization was also assessed.
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the patients randomized to Pem+Cb (N = 182) and Pac+Cb+Bev (N = 179) were well balanced between the arms. Median (months) G4PFS was 3.91 for Pem+Cb and 2.86 for Pac+Cb+Bev (hazard ratio = 0.85, 90% confidence interval, 0.7-1.04; p = 0.176); PFS, OS, ORR, or DCR did not differ significantly between the arms. Significantly more drug-related grade 3/4 anemia (18.7% versus 5.4%) and thrombocytopenia (24.0% versus 9.6%) were reported for Pem+Cb. Significantly more grade 3/4 neutropenia (48.8% versus 24.6%), grade 1/2 alopecia (28.3% versus 8.2%), and grade 1/2 sensory neuropathy were reported for Pac+Cb+Bev. Number of hospitalizations and overall length of stay did not differ significantly between the arms.
CONCLUSIONS: Pem+Cb did not produce significantly better G4PFS compared with Pac+Cb+Bev. Pem+Cb was not superior in PFS, OS, ORR, or DCR compared with Pac+Cb+Bev. Both regimens were well tolerated, although, toxicity profiles differed.
AD
*Department of Investigational Cancer therapeutics, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas;†Global Diversity/Med Affairs, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana;‡Medical Oncology, Tennessee Oncology, Nashville, Tennessee;§Hematology/Oncology, Florida Cancer Specialists, Fort Myers, Florida;•Medical Oncology, Highlands Oncology Group, Fayetteville, Arkansas;¶Hematology-Medical Oncology, Oncology Heamatology Care Inc., Blue Ash, Ohio; #Hematology&Oncology, Internal Medicine, ACRC/Arizona Clinical Research Center, Arizona Oncology, Tucson, Arizona; **Hematology and Oncology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan;††Northeast Georgia Cancer Care, University of Georgia Health Sciences University, Athens, Georgia;‡‡Statistics Oncology,§§CDK4/6 Product Team, GPORWE-Oncology,¶¶Oncology-Global Strategic Plan, ##Oncology-Early Phase, ***US Med Affairs and Late Phase Prod Dev,†††Global Medical Communications-Oncology, and‡‡‡Global Med Affair
PMID