Updated May 2014
Palliative systemic therapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) including chemotherapy and targeted therapy may improve symptoms related to cancer and quality of life. Systemic therapy may also improve progression free survival and/or overall survival. Systemic therapy is an option for palliation of patients with NSCLC provided there is a full discussion of the benefits, limitations and toxicities of treatment. Active patient participation in decision-making is crucial. Outcome measurements should reflect more than just the selected disease measures (e.g. survival), but other concerns as well, including symptom control and quality-of-life, patients’ values or meaning of life, their feelings about themselves, and their perceptions and attitudes about a specific treatment.
After an assessment of the patient’s stage and general medical condition the choice of systemic therapy is guided by histologic subtype. The two broad categories of NSCLC histopathology are squamous and non-squamous. Adequate sample sizes are required to perform immunohistochemical tests in order to determine the histologic subtype. These are best obtained through core or excisional biopsies. Cytology from fine needle aspiration biopsies, sputa or pleural fluid (unless a cell block can be performed) often does not yield adequate tissue for subtyping. In addition, further genotyping can only performed on adequate samples to determine patient eligibility for therapies targeting EGFR mutations and EMLA4-ALK rearrangements. These will be discussed in further detail. Other actionable molecular targets will be likely be available in the not-too-distant future. The recent collaboration between the Europe based Clinical Cancer Genome Project and Network Genomic Medicine found that in 1255 lung cancer specimens suitable for genetic analysis there was at least one cancer-causing mutation or alteration “potentially amenable to specific therapeutic intervention” in 55% of them.1 In a prospective set of 5145 lung cancer patients, the 75% who could have genotyping of their tumors done (whether or not they had an actionable mutation) had a median OS of 31.6 months compared to just 15.1 months for those not able to be genotyped.1 Ideally, testing for EFGR and ALK (recommended in advanced NSCLC only) would be initiated at the time of diagnosis so that the results would be available at the time of oncology consultation.
Targeted Therapy Plus Chemotherapy
Over the years several biological targeting drugs have been added to first line platin-doublet chemotherapy to improve the modest results. The most studied have been those targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and the epidermal growth factor receptor (EFGR).
The ligand of the VEGFR is expressed in NSCLC. Over-expression is associated with poor prognosis. Bevacizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds the VEGF and therefore prevents binding with its receptor. This results in inhibited tumor revascularization and/or neovascularization which are critical for tumor growth. Several trials have looked at the addition of bevacizumab to first line platin-based doublet chemotherapy. A phase II trial found unacceptable rates of fatal hemoptysis in patients with predominantly squamous cell carcinoma.29 As a result, the first phase III trial, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group E4599, randomized 878 patients with nonsquamous NSCLC and absence of significant bleeding to 6 cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel alone or the same chemotherapy with bevacizumab at a dose of 15mg/kg every 3 weeks. The bevacizumab continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The chemotherapy plus bevacizumab arm was superior to the chemotherapy alone arm with respect to RR (35% versus 15%; p<0.001), mPFS (6.2 months versus 4.5 months; HR 0.66 p<0.001) as well as mOS (12.3 months versus 10.3 months; HR 0.79 p=0.003). There were still significantly more fatal bleeding events in the bevacizumab arm than in the chemotherapy alone arm.30 The subsequent AVAiL study looked at the addition of bevacizumab to the European standard of cisplatin and gemcitabine as well as 2 different doses of bevacizumab in a similar group of patients. 1043 patients were randomized to 3 arms: cisplatin and gemcitabine plus placebo versus cisplatin and gemcitabine plus bevacizumab 7.5mg/kg versus cisplatin and gemcitabine plus bevacizumab 15mg/kg. In all 3 arms patients received up to 6 cycles of chemotherapy and then continued on “maintenance” bevacizumab until PD or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint of mPFS was significantly better with both bevacizumab groups than placebo (6.7 months for low-dose and 6.5 months for high dose bevacizumab versus 6.1 months for placebo; HR 0.75 [95% CI 0.64-0.87 p=0.0003] and 0.85 [95% CI 0.73-1.00 p=.0.456] respectively). The mOS was just over 13 months for all groups despite the fact that post study therapies were similar in all arms and <1% of those on the placebo arm received subsequent bevacizumab. As with ECOG 4599, the number of fatal pulmonary events was significantly higher in both bevacizumab groups.31-32 A meta-analysis based on the data from these and other trials showed that bevacizumab only modestly improved PFS and OS compared to chemotherapy alone (a smaller absolute benefit than other interventions adopted as standard of care) but it also showed that grade 3 toxicities were significantly greater when bevacizumab was added to chemotherapy.33 In another meta-analysis of RCTs, bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy or biological therapy, compared with chemotherapy alone , was associated with increased-related mortality34.Lastly, the cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab is likely unfavourable in a typical NSCLC population.35 Because of these factors current practice at the BCCA does not incorporate bevacizumab in standard systemic therapy. In fact no provincial funding agency in Canada has approved bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy as standard of care.
Cetuximab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to the extracellular domain of the EGFR to interfere with downstream signaling of this pathway. Two studies combined cetuximab with platin-based chemotherapy. The FLEX trial randomized 1125 patients to cisplatin plus vinorelbine or the same chemotherapy plus cetuximab. Up to 6 cycles of chemotherapy was delivered while the cetuximab was maintained until PD or unacceptable toxicity. The mPFS was 4.8 months in both groups but the RR (36% versus 29%) and mOS (11.3 months versus 10.1 months HR 0.87 95% CI 0.762-0.996, p=0.996) favoured the cetuximab group. Toxicities including rash, diarrhea and febrile neutropenia were worse in the cetuximab arm however.36 The BMS-099 study randomized 676 patients to carboplatin plus either docetaxel or paclitaxel or the same chemotherapy plus cetuximab. Up to 6 cycles of chemotherapy was delivered and, again, the cetuximab was continued as maintenance. When assessed by independent radiologic review the mPFS was similar in both groups (4.2 months versus 4.4 months for the cetuximab arm). The mOS was 9.7 months in the cetuximab group and 8.4 months in the chemotherapy alone group but this was not statistically significant (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75-1.05, p=0.169).37 Because of the inconsistent OS benefit in clinical trials and unfavourable cost-effectiveness current practice at the BCCA does not incorporate cetuximab into standard therapy.
Several large randomized studies in patients unselected for EGFR mutations showed no benefit to the addition of a first-generation EFGR TKI to platin-doublet chemotherapy.
Duration of First-Line Therapy
There is no evidence that continuing doublet chemotherapy beyond 4 to 6 cycles in responding patients prolongs survival and cumulative treatment toxicity is a concern and should be minimized. Maintenance therapy with single agent chemotherapy or EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors may improve outcomes in patients with stable or responding disease after initial doublet chemotherapy and this topic will be discussed separately below.
Second-Line Systemic Therapy and Beyond
Many patients who receive first-line doublet chemotherapy will be willing and able to receive further systemic therapies. The choice of therapies depends on the histologic subtype, prior systemic therapy, genotype, extent of disease and multiple patient factors including age, ECOG PS, comorbidities and patient preference.
For patients with advanced NSCLC without a driver mutation who received initial first line platin-based combination chemotherapy single agent chemotherapy with a non-cross-resistant agent is usually the preferred approach in the second line setting. Pemetrexed and docetaxel are the most commonly prescribed second-line chemotherapy drugs.
Docetaxel was studied in a phase III trial of 104 previously treated patients who were randomized to either 100mg/m2 every 3 weeks or 75mg/m2 every 3 weeks or BSC. The high dose arm proved too toxic but the docetaxel 75mg/m2 arm was superior to BSC in terms of mOS (7.5 versus 4.6 months), pain control and deterioration in QOL.38 Another study demonstrated similar efficacy but better tolerability of weekly docetaxel at a dose of 33.3 mg/m2 for 6 weeks out of 8 weeks.39Second-line docetaxel is approved in BC after progression following first-line platin-doublet chemotherapy that did not contain docetaxel.
Pemetrexed was compared to docetaxel in the second-line setting. 571 patients were randomized to either pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 or docetaxel 75mg/m2 both given every 3 weeks until PD or unacceptable toxicity. The usual folic acid, vitamin B12 and dexamethasone premedications were given with the pemetrexed. In the overall analysis, both drugs were equivalent in terms of RR (9% for both) and mOS (8 months for both). The hematolologic toxicity was better with pemetrexed.40 In a subsequent analysis of this and another trial based on histology that mirrors combination studies in the first-line setting, mOS was better with pemetrexed than docetaxel in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC (9.3 months versus 8.0 months, HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61-1.00) while the reverse was true in squamous cell carcinoma where pemetrexed had a lesser impact on mOS than docetaxel (6.2 months versus 7.4 months, HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.08-2.26).41 It is reasonable to consider second-line docetaxel for those with squamous cell carcinoma who did not receive docetaxel in the first line setting and second-line pemetrexed for those with non-squamous histology who did not receive pemetrexed in the first line setting.
First-generation EGFR TKI erlotinib can also be considered second or third line therapy in EGFRwt NSCLC. The NCIC BR.21 trial randomized patients to erlotinib and BSC or placebo and BSC after first line platin-doublet chemotherapy. Almost half of the patients also received second-line docetaxel before being randomized. In these patients unselected for EGFR mutations the erlotinib significantly improved mOS compared to BSC (6.7 months versus 4.7 months, HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.58-0.85).42 Despite these results single agent chemotherapy is still preferred over EGFR TKIs in EGFRwt NSCLC after first-line platin-doublet chemotherapy, especially for patients who had clinical benefit (PR+SD) from first-line chemotherapy. The TAILOR trial is one of several studies that randomized patients with EGFRwt NSCLC to either chemotherapy or an EGFR TKI. In this trial 222 patients were randomized to erlotinib or docetaxel 75mg/m2 every 3 weeks. Median PFS was superior in the docetaxel arm (2.9 months versus 2.4 months, HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53-0.95) as was mOS (8.2 months versus 5.4 months, HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53-1.00). In a planned subgroup analysis those patients with ECOG PS 2 and those who progressed while receiving first-line platin doublet chemotherapy did not have greater benefit from docetaxel with respect to PFS or OS.43 These observations reinforce the concept that patient as well as tumor factors must be considered when deciding on the most appropriate second and third line therapies.
While continuing platin doublet therapy beyond 4 to 6 cycles in those with a response or stable disease can improve PFS, cumulative toxicities can have a negative impact on QOL and survival is not likely impacted. In contrast, single agent maintenance therapy can improve PFS while having a smaller impact on QOL and may also improve OS. The choice of post-doublet systemic therapy depends both on the regimen used in the first line setting as well as patient factors. These include PS, toxicities of the original therapy and philosophy of care i.e. balancing QOL with treatment benefits and toxicities. Close observation with institution of second-line systemic therapy at the time of disease progression is an acceptable alternative for the well-informed patient.
Pemetrexed, docetaxel and gemcitabine have all been shown to improve PFS versus no maintenance therapy. A large RCT of maintenance pemetrexed after a response or stable disease from 4 cycles of one of three platin-containing doublets not including pemetrexed showed significantly improved mPFS (4.3 versus 2.6 months) and mOS (13.4 versus 10.6 months). This trial has been criticized because only 19% of the placebo group received pemetrexed in the second-line setting. The benefit of maintenance pemetrexed was limited to those with non-squamous NSCLC and supports the preference of this drug in this population.44 The more recent PARAMOUNT study in an all non-squamous NSCLC population showed that maintenance pemetrexed after a response or SD from 4 cycles of cisplatin/pemetrexed also significantly improved mPFS (4.1 versus 2.8 months) and mOS (13.9 versus 11.0 months) compared to placebo.45 The PointBreak study, however, is not supportive of maintenance pemetrexed or the concept that nonsquamous NSCLC are better treated with pemetrexed versus other platin-companion drugs. In this study exclusively nonsquamous NSCLC patients were randomized to either carboplatin/pemetrexed/bevacizumab followed by maintenance pemetrexed/bevacizumab or carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab. The pemetrexed arm was superior in terms of mPFS (6.0 versus 5.6 months) but not mOS (12.6 versus 13.4 months).46 Cost-effectiveness of maintenance pemetrexed has also not been well established. Overall, however, the data are supportive of maintenance pemetrexed as an option for suitable patients with non-squamous NSCLC who have had SD or a response from 4 to 6 cycles of platin-based doublet chemotherapy and is approved at the BC Cancer Agency for patients who did not receive pemetrexed as part of their induction regimen.
Maintenance docetaxel was studied in a population of patients who had not progressed after 4 cycles of carboplatin/gemcitabine. Those randomized to receive up to 6 cycles of immediate docetaxel had significantly improved mPFS compared to those who were randomized to observation and second-line docetaxel at disease progression (5.7 versus 2.7 months) but there was only a trend to improved mOS (12.3 versus 9.7 months, p=0.09) in the maintenance group. Like other maintenance studies this one was criticized because only 63% of the delayed group received second-line docetaxel. Those who did had similar outcomes compared to those who received immediate docetaxel.47 Maintenance gemcitabine has also been shown in a large RCT to improve mPFS after first line platin-doublet chemotherapy without a significant improvement in mOS compared to placebo.48 Maintenance docetaxel and gemcitabine are not as well supported as maintenance pemetrexed and are not approved at the BC Cancer Agency.
Several trials have explored the value of maintenance EGFR TK inhibitors in unselected patients with NSCLC with a response or SD after first line doublet chemotherapy. The two most robust trials demonstrated significantly improved mPFS with maintenance erlotinib versus placebo but no improvement in mOS. The SATURN trial demonstrated significantly improved mPFS (12.3 versus 11.1 weeks) but not mOS (12.0 versus 11.0 months).49 The PFS advantage was preserved in the 89% with EGFR wildtype cancers when tissue samples were subsequently reanalyzed.50 The ATLAS study showed similar results in a population of patients who received bevacizumab in combination with platin-doublet chemotherapy. Those randomized to maintenance bevacizumab/erlotinib had significantly improved mPFS (4.8 versus 3.7 months) but not mOS (14.4 versus 13.2 months) compared to those who received bevacizumab and placebo.51 EGFR status was determined in 45% and both mPFS and mOS were significantly improved in those with an EGFR mutation. The significance of these results and the value of maintenance EGFR TKIs in patients with known EGFR mutations are unclear with the availability of first line EGFR TKIs in EGFRm+ NSCLC. The comparative value of maintenance pemetrexed versus maintenance erlotinib in EGFRwt NSCLC is also unclear.
1. The Clinical Lung Cancer Genome Project (CLCGP) and Network Genomic Medicine (NGM): A Genomics-Based Classification of Human Lung Tumors. Sci Transl Med 5: 209ra153, 2013
2. Lynch TJ, Bell DW, Sordella R, et al: Activating Mutations in the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Underlying Responsiveness of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer to Gefitinib. NEJM 350: 2129-39, 2004
3. Paez JG, Janne PA, Lee JC, et al: EGFR Mutations in Lung Cancer: Correlation with Clinical Response to Gefitinib Therapy. Science 304: 1497-1500, 2004
4. Mok TS, Wu Y-L, Thongprasert S, et al: Gefitinib or Carboplatin-Paclitaxel in Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma. NEJM 361: 947-957, 2009
5. Fukuoka M, Wu Y-L, Thongprasert S, et al: Biomarker Analyses and Final Overall Survival Results From a Phase III, Randomized, Open-Label, First-Line Study of Gefitinib Versus Carboplatin/Paclitaxel in Clinically Selected Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in Asia (IPASS). JCO 29: 2866-2874, 2011
6. Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EURTAC): a multicentre, open-label, randomized phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncology 13: 239-246, 2012
7. Solca F, Dahl G, Zoephel A, et al: Target Binding Properties and Cellular Activity of Afatinib (BIBW 2992), an IrreversibleErbB Family Blocker. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 343: 342-350, 2012
8. Sequist LV, Yang JC-H, Yamamoto N, et al: Phase III Study of Afatinib or Cisplatin Plus Pemetrexed in Patients With Metastatic Lung Adenocarcinoma With EGFR Mutations. JCO 31: 3327-3334, 2013
9. Yang JC-H, Hirsch V, Schuler M, et al: Symptom Control and Quality of Life in LUX-Lung 3: A Phase III Study of Afatinib or Cisplatin/Pemetrexed in Patients With EGFR Mutations. JCO 31: 3342-3350, 2013
10. Wu Y-L, Zhou C, Hu C-P, et al: Afatinib versus cisplatin plus gemcitabine for first-line treatment of Asian patients with advanced non-small-lung cancer harbouring EGFR mutations (LUX-Lung 6): an open-label, randomized phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncology 15: 213-222, 2014
11. Lee CK, Brown C, Gralla R, et al: Impact of EGFR Inhibitor in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer on Progression-Free and Overall Survival: A Meta-Analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 105: 595-605, 2013
12. Miller VA, Hirsch V, Cadranel J, et al: Afetinib versus placebo for patients with advanced, metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer after failure of erlotinib, gefitinib, or both, and one or two lines of chemotherapy (LUX-Lung 1): a phase 2b/3 randomized trial. The Lancet Oncology 13: e186 2012
13. Soda M, Choi YL, Enomoto M, et al: Identification of the transforming EMLA4-ALK fusion gene in non-small-cell lung cancer. Nature 448: 561-567, 2007
14. Camidge DR, Bang Y-J, Kwak EL, et al: Activity and safety of crizotinib in patients with ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: updated results from a phase 1 study. Lancet Oncology 13: 1011-1019, 2012
15. Kim D-W, Ahn M-J, Shi Y, et al: Results of a global phase II study with crizotinib in advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). JCO 30 (suppl; abstr 7533), 2012
16. Shaw A, Kim D-W, Nakagawa K, et al: Crizotinib versus Chemotherapy in Advanced ALK-Positive Lung Cancer. NEJM 368: 2385-2394, 2013
17. Shaw A, Yeap BY, Mino-Kenudson M, et al: Clinical Features and Outcomes of Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Who Harbor EML4-ALK. J Clin Oncol 26: 4247-4253, 2009
18. Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group: Chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis using updated data on individual patients from 52 randomized clinical trials. BMJ 311: 899-909
19. Schiller JH, Harrington D, Belani CP, et al: Comparison of four chemotherapy regimens for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. NEJM 346: 92-98, 2002
20. Fossella F, Pereira JR, von Pawel J, et al: Randomized, Multinational, Phase III Study of Docetaxel Plus Platinum Combinations Versus Vinorelbine Plus Cisplatin for Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The TAX 326 Study Group. J Clin Oncol 21: 3016-3024, 2003
21. Scagliotti GV, De Marinis F, Rinaldi M, et al: Phase III randomized trial comparing three platinum-based doublets in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 20: 4285-4291, 2002
22. Kelly K, Crowley J, Bunn PA, et al: Randomized phase III trial of paclitaxel plus carboplatin versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin in the treatments of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group trial. J Clin Oncol 19: 3210-3218, 2001
23. Scagliotti GV, Parikh P, von Pawel J, et al: Phase III Study Comparing Cisplatin plus Gemcitabine with Cisplatin plus Pemetrexed in Chemotherapy-Naïve Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J Clin Oncol 26: 3543-3551, 2008
24. Syrigos KN, Vansteenkiste J, Parikh P, et al: Prognostic and predictive factors in a randomized phase III trial comparing cisplatin-pemetrexed versus cisplatin-gemcitabine in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann of Oncol 21: 556-561, 2009
25. Hotta K, Matsuo K, Ueoka K, et al: Meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing cisplatin to carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 22: 3852-3859, 2004
26. Ardizzoni A, Tiseo M, Boni L, et al: CISCA (cisplatin versus carboplatin) meta-analysis: An individual patient data meta-analysis comparing cisplatin versus carboplatin-based chemotherapy in first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J Natl Cancer Inst 99: 847-857, 2007
27. D’Addario G, Pintilie M, Leighl NB, et al: Platinum-based versus non-platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of the published literature. J Clin Oncol23: 2926-2936, 2005
28. Rajeswaran A, Trojan A, Burnand B, et al: Efficacy and side effects of cisplatin and carboplatin-based doublet chemotherapeutic regimens versus non-platinum-based doublet chemotherapeutic regimens as first line treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung carcinoma: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Lung Cancer 59: 1-11, 2008
29. Johnson DH, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny WS, et al: Randomized Phase II Trial Comparing Bevacizumab Plus Carboplatin and Paclitaxel With Carboplatin and Paclitaxel Alone in Previously Untreated Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J Clin Oncol 22: 2184-91, 2004.
30. Sandler A, Gray R, Perry, MC, et al: Paclitaxel-Carboplatin Alone or With Bevacizumab for Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. NEJM 355: 2542-50, 2006.
31. Reck M, von Pawel J, Zatloukal P, et al: Phase III Trial of Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine With Either Placebo or Bevacizumab As First-Line Therapy for Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: AVAiL. J Clin Oncol 27: 1227-1234, 2009.
32. Reck M, von Pawel J, Zatloukal P, et al: Overall survival with cisplatin-gemcitabine and bevacizumab or placebo as first-line therapy for nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomized phase III trial (AVAiL). Annals of Oncology 21: 1804-1809, 2010.
33. Soria J-C, Mauguen A, Reck M, et al: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, phase II/III trials adding bevacizumab to platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 24: 20-30, 2013.
34. Ranpura V, Hanapi S and Wu s: Treatment-Related Mortality With Bevacizumab in Cancer Patients. A Meta-analysis. JAMA 305: 487-494, 2011.
35. Dasanu CA: Bevacizumab in lung cancer: Lackluster performance and unjustified expense? J Oncol Pharm Practice 18: 1-2, 2012.
36. Pirker R, Peirera JR, Szczesna A, et al: Cetuximab plus chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (FLEX): an open-label randomized phase III trial. Lancet 373: 1525-1531, 2009.
37. Lynch TJ, Patel T, Dreisbach L, el al: Cetuximab and First-Line Taxane/Carboplatin Chemotherapy in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results of the Randomized Multicenter Phase III Trial BMS099. J Clin Oncol 28: 911-917, 2010.
38. Shepherd FA, Dancey J, Ramlau R, et al: Prospective Randomized Trial of Docetaxel Versus Best Supportive Care in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Previously Treated With Platinum-Based Chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 18: 2095-2103, 2000.
39. Gridelli C, Gallo C, Di Maio M, et al: A randomized clinical trial of two docetaxel regimens (weekly vs 3 week) in the second-line treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. The DISTAL 01 study. Br J Cancer 91:1996-2004, 2004.
40. Hanna N, Shepherd FA, Fossella FV, et al: Randomized Phase III Trial of Pemetrexed Versus Docetaxel in Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Previously Treated With Chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 22: 1589-1597, 2004.
41. Scagliotti G, Hanna N, Fossella F, et al: The Differential Efficacy of Pemetrexed According to NSCLC Histology: A Review of Two Phase III Studies. The Oncologist 14: 253-263, 2009.
42. Shepherd FA, Pereira JR, Ciuleanu T, et al: Erlotinib in Previously Treated Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. NEJM 353: 123-132, 2005.
43. Garassino MC, Martelli O, Broggini M, et al: Erlotinib versus docetaxel as second-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and wild-type EGFR tumours (TAILOR): a randomized controlled trial. Lancet Oncology 14: 981-988, 2013.
44. Ciuleanu T, Brodowicz T, Zielinski C, et al: Maintenance pemetrexed plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care for non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study. The Lancet 374: 1432-1440, 2009.
45. Paz-Ares LG, de Marinis F, Dediu M, 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 31:2895-2902, 2013.
46. Patel JD, Socinski MA, Garon EB, et al: PointBreak: A Randomized Phase III study of Pemetrexed Plus Carboplatin and Bevacizumab Followed by Maintenance Pemetrexed and Bevacizumab Versus Paclitaxel Plus Carboplatin and Bevacizumab Followed by Maintenance Bevacizumab in Patients With Stage IIIB or IV Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J Clin Oncol 31:4349-4357 2013.
47. Fidias PM, Dakhil SR, Lyss AP, et al: Phase III Study of Immediate Compared With Delayed Docetaxel After Front-Line Therapy With Gemcitabine Plus Carboplatin in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J Clin Oncol 27:591-598, 2008.
48. Perol M, Chouaid C, Perol D, et al: Randomized, Phase III Study of Gemcitabine or Erlotinib Maintenance Therapy Versus Observation, With Predefined Second-Line Treatment, After Cisplatin-Gemcitabine Induction Chemotherapy in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J Clin Oncol 30:3516-3524, 2012.
49. Cappuzzo F, Ciuleanu T, Stelmakh L, et al: Erlotinib as maintenance treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3. Lancet Oncology 11:521-529, 2010.
50. Brugger W, Triller N, Blasinska-Morawiec M, Curescu S, et al: Prospective Molecular Marker Analysis of EGFR and KRASFrom a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of Erlotinib Maintenance Therapy in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J Clin Oncol 29:4113-4120, 2011.
51. Johnson BE, Kabbinavar F, Fehrenbacher L, et al: ATLAS: Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase IIIB Trial Comparing Bevacizumab Therapy With or Without Erlotinib, After Completion of Chemotherapy, With Bevacizumab for First-Line Treatment of Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J Clin Oncol 31:3926-3934, 2013.
52. Lilenbaum R, Axelrod R, Thomas S, et al: Randomized Phase II Trial of Erlotinib or Standard Chemotherapy in Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer and a Performance Status of 2. J Clin Oncol 26: 863-869, 2008.
53. The Elderly Lung Cancer Vinorelbine Italian Study Group: Effects of Vinorelbine on Quality of Life and Survival of Elderly Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 91:66-72, 1999.
54. Kudoh S, Takeda K, Nakagawa K, et al: Phase III Study of Docetaxel Compared With Vinorelbine in Elderly Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results of the West Japan Thoracic Oncology Group Trial (WJTOG 9904). J Clin Oncol 24: 3657-3663, 2006.
55. Gridelli C, Perrone F, Gallo C, et al: Chemotherapy for Elderly Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Lung Cancer: The Multicenter Italian Lung Cancer in the Elderly Study (MILES) Phase III Randomized Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 95:362-372, 2003.
56. Quoix E, Zalcman G, Oster J-P, et al: Carboplatin and weekly paclitaxel doublet chemotherapy compared with monotherapy in elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: IFCT-0501 randomized phase 3 trial. Lancet 378: 1079-1088, 2011.
57. Zukin M, Barrios CH, Pereira JR, et al: Randomized Phase III Trial of Single-Agent Pemetrexed Versus Carboplatin and Pemetrexed in Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of 2. J Clin Oncol 31: 2849-2853, 2013.