Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PURPOSE: Bevacizumab and erlotinib have been shown to improve survival in stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This phase I/II trial was designed to incorporate these agents with induction and concurrent chemoradiotherapy in stage III NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received induction chemotherapy (carboplatin area under the curve [AUC] 6, paclitaxel 225 mg/m(2), and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg on days 1 and 22) followed by concurrent chemotherapy (carboplatin AUC 2 and paclitaxel 45 mg/m(2) weekly with bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every other week for four doses) and thoracic conformal radiation therapy (TCRT) to 74 Gy. In the phase I portion, cohort 1 received no erlotinib, whereas cohorts 2 and 3 received erlotinib at 100 and 150 mg, respectively, Tuesday through Friday, during TCRT. Consolidation therapy with erlotinib (150 mg daily) and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks) was planned 3 to 6 weeks later for six cycles. RESULTS: Forty-five eligible patients were enrolled. The objective response rates to induction and overall treatment were 39% (95% CI, 24% to 55%) and 60% (95% CI, 44% to 75%), respectively. The median progression-free and overall survival times were 10.2 months (95% CI, 8.4 to 18.3 months) and 18.4 months (95% CI, 13.4 to 31.7 months), respectively. The principal toxicity was esophagitis (29% grade 3 or 4 esophagitis, with one patient with grade 3 tracheoesophageal fistula), which was often prolonged. Consolidation therapy with bevacizumab and erlotinib was not feasible. CONCLUSION: The use of bevacizumab and erlotinib as administered in this trial is not recommended given the lack of an efficacy signal and the substantial risk of esophageal toxicity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Socinski et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: