PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 21, 2013Journal of Clinical Oncology143 citationsOpen Access

Randomized International Phase III Trial of ERCC1 and RRM1 Expression–Based Chemotherapy Versus Gemcitabine/Carboplatin in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

View Full Paper
GBGerold BeplerCWCharles C. WilliamsMSMichael J. Schell

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

PURPOSE: We assessed whether chemotherapy selection based on in situ ERCC1 and RRM1 protein levels would improve survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to the trial's experimental arm, which consisted of gemcitabine/carboplatin if RRM1 and ERCC1 were low, docetaxel/carboplatin if RRM1 was high and ERCC1 was low, gemcitabine/docetaxel if RRM1 was low and ERCC1 was high, and docetaxel/vinorelbine if both were high. In the control arm, patients received gemcitabine/carboplatin. The trial was powered for a 32% improvement in 6-month progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Of 331 patients registered, 275 were eligible. The median number of cycles given was four in both arms. A tumor rebiopsy specifically for expression analysis was required in 17% of patients. The median time from informed consent to expression analysis was 11 days. We found no statistically significant differences between the experimental arm and the control arm in PFS (6.1 months v 6.9 months) or overall survival (11.0 months v 11.3 months). A subset analysis revealed that patients with low levels for both proteins who received the same treatment in both treatment arms had a statistically better PFS (P = .02) in the control arm (8.1 months) compared with the experimental arm (5.0 months). CONCLUSION: This demonstrates that protein expression analysis for therapeutic decision making is feasible in newly diagnosed patients with advanced-stage NSCLC. A tumor rebiopsy is safe, required in 17%, and acceptable to 89% (47 of 53) of patients.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Bepler et al. (2013) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a7041a426a7f98052dcc142https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2012.46.9783
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1ERCC1 and RRM1 in the International Adjuvant Lung Trial by Automated Quantitative in Situ Analysis2011 · 62 citations
  2. 2Randomized Phase III Trial of Gemcitabine-Based Chemotherapy With In Situ RRM1 and ERCC1 Protein Levels for Response Prediction in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer2009 · 172 citations
  3. 3New Guidelines to Evaluate the Response to Treatment in Solid Tumors2000 · 15,763 citations
  4. 4Improved Survival with Vemurafenib in Melanoma with BRAF V600E Mutation2011 · 7,743 citations
  5. 5Five-Year Follow-up of Patients Receiving Imatinib for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia2006 · 3,502 citations