|
|||||
|
|
||||||
Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 25, No 27 (September 20), 2007: pp. 4270-4277 © 2007 American Society of Clinical Oncology. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2006.10.5122 Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase II Study of Vandetanib Plus Docetaxel in Previously Treated Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer
From the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA; UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA; University of Szeged, Szeged; National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary; University Hospital Ostrava-Poruba, Ostrava; University Hospital, Medical Faculty in Pilsen, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA; Wayne State University/Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI; AstraZeneca, Alderley Park, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE; and The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX Address reprint requests to Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 432, Houston, TX 77030-4009; e-mail: rherbst{at}mdanderson.org
Purpose Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 and epidermal growth factor receptor kinase activity. The activity of vandetanib plus docetaxel was assessed in patients with previously treated non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods This two-part study comprised an open-label run-in phase and a double-blind randomized phase. Eligible patients had locally advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB/IV) NSCLC after failure of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary objective of the randomized phase was to prolong progression-free survival (PFS) in patients receiving vandetanib (100 or 300 mg/d) plus docetaxel (75 mg/m2 intravenous infusion every 21 days) versus placebo plus docetaxel. The study was designed to have more than 75% power to detect 50% prolongation at a one-sided significance level of P < .20. Secondary objectives included objective response rate, overall survival, safety and tolerability. Results In the randomized phase (n = 127), median PFS was 18.7 weeks for vandetanib 100 mg plus docetaxel (n = 42; hazard ratio v docetaxel = 0.64; one-sided P = .037); 17.0 weeks for vandetanib 300 mg plus docetaxel (n = 44; hazard ratio v docetaxel = 0.83; one-sided P = .231); and 12 weeks for docetaxel (n = 41). There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival among the three treatment arms. Common adverse events included diarrhea, rash, and asymptomatic prolongation of corrected QT (QTC) interval. Conclusion The primary objective was achieved, with vandetanib 100 mg plus docetaxel demonstrating a significant prolongation of PFS compared with docetaxel in relation to the prespecified significance level. On the basis of these encouraging data, phase III evaluation of vandetanib 100 mg plus docetaxel in second-line NSCLC has been initiated.
Patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have a 5-year survival rate of only 15%,1 and more effective treatment options are clearly needed.1 Validated therapeutic targets in NSCLC include vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), a key mediator of tumor angiogenesis, and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR).2-5 EGFR is known to regulate the production of VEGF and other proangiogenic factors,6 and resistance to EGFR inhibition has been associated with increased VEGF plasma levels,7 suggesting that combined inhibition of the VEGF/VEGF receptor (VEGFR) and EGFR pathways may be more effective than inhibiting either pathway alone. This hypothesis is supported by the encouraging antitumor activity observed in a phase I/II study of bevacizumab plus erlotinib in recurrent NSCLC (response rate, 20.0%; median survival, 12.6 months).8 Vandetanib (ZACTIMA; ZD6474; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, UK) is a once-daily, oral anticancer drug that inhibits VEGFR- and EGFR-dependent signaling.9 It is also a potent inhibitor of RET (Rearranged during Transfection) receptor tyrosine kinase activity, which is frequently activated by mutation or rearrangement in thyroid cancer.10-12 Phase I evaluation in American/Australian13 and Japanese14 patients with advanced tumors showed that vandetanib was generally well tolerated at daily oral doses of 300 mg/d or lower; notably, four of nine Japanese patients with refractory NSCLC experienced objective tumor responses ranging from 90 to 438 days.14 We report the results of a two-part, multicenter phase II study (6474IL/0006) of vandetanib with docetaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB/IV) NSCLC after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. The study consisted of an open-label run-in phase and a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized phase. A broad population was recruited, including patients with squamous cell histology and brain metastases.
Patients The main eligibility criteria were histologic or cytological confirmation of locally advanced or metastatic stage IIIB/IV NSCLC after failure of first-line platinum-based therapy, age at least 18 years, a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, a life expectancy of at least 12 weeks, and normal end organ function. Patients with squamous cell histology were eligible, and brain metastases were permitted if treated at least 4 weeks before study entry and clinically stable without steroid treatment for 1 week. Exclusion criteria included previous treatment with docetaxel or EGFR/VEGFR signaling inhibitors; chemotherapy within the last 4 to 6 weeks; or radiation therapy within the last 4 weeks. The trial was approved by all relevant institutional ethical committees, and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practice, and the AstraZeneca Bioethics policy. Each patient provided written informed consent.
Study Design and Treatment
The run-in phase was designed to detect acute toxicities or pharmacokinetic (PK) interaction between vandetanib and docetaxel. To assess each drug alone, the first doses were staggered so that docetaxel was administered on day 1 and vandetanib on day 2. An initial cohort received vandetanib 100 mg plus docetaxel; if dose-limiting toxicity was not observed by week 4 (by which time one dose of docetaxel had been administered at vandetanib steady-state levels), an additional cohort received vandetanib 300 mg plus docetaxel. After all patients in the second cohort had received 4 weeks of treatment with no safety concerns, a separate group of patients was recruited to the randomized phase. The primary objective of the randomized phase was to investigate whether progression-free survival (PFS) for docetaxel alone was prolonged by the addition of (a) vandetanib 100 mg or (b) vandetanib 300 mg.
PKs
Statistical Considerations
Safety and Tolerability
Run-In Phase Patients recruited to the run-in phase received vandetanib 100 mg plus docetaxel (V100+doc; n = 4) or vandetanib 300 mg plus docetaxel (V300+doc; n = 11); two additional patients enrolled onto study did not receive vandetanib during the run-in phase because of docetaxel-related toxicity on day 1. Both regimens were tolerated with a manageable adverse event profile (Table A1, online only). Combined use did not cause detectable changes in PK exposure to either drug (Figs A1 and A2, online only). These results supported continuation to the randomized phase of the study.
Randomized Phase
PFS PFS was analyzed per protocol at 97 progression events (data cutoff, November 30, 2004). For V100+doc versus docetaxel alone, the estimated hazard ratio was 0.64 (P = .037 [one-sided] and .074 [two-sided]; 95% CI, 0.38 to 1.05). For V300+doc versus docetaxel alone, the estimated hazard ratio was 0.83 (P = .231 [one-sided] and .461 [two-sided]; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.36). Median PFS was 12.0 (docetaxel alone), 18.7 (V100+doc), and 17.0 (V300+doc) weeks. Combined use of vandetanib (100 or 300 mg) with docetaxel prolonged PFS compared with docetaxel and placebo, with the V100+doc arm demonstrating a significant prolongation of PFS at less than the prespecified one-sided significance level of P < .20 (Fig 2A; Table 2).
Exploratory subgroup analyses suggest advantages in PFS for vandetanib/docetaxel versus placebo/docetaxel for both adenocarcinoma and other histologies (Fig 3A), as well as a more pronounced benefit in PFS for females (Fig 3B).
Secondary Efficacy Assessments Partial responses were observed in five (12%; docetaxel alone), 11 (26%; V100+doc), and eight (18%; V300+doc) patients, with stable disease lasting at least 6 weeks achieved in a further 44% (docetaxel alone), 57% (V100+doc), and 45% (V300+doc) of patients (Table 2). Overall survival was analyzed at 93 deaths (73%; data cutoff, March 15, 2006) and showed no statistically significant difference between either combination arm compared with docetaxel alone (Fig 2B; Table 2). The estimated hazard ratios for the V100+doc and V300+doc arms compared with docetaxel alone were 0.91 (P = .361 [one-sided] and .723 [two-sided]; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.52) and 1.28 (P = .833 [one-sided] and .334 [two-sided]; 95% CI, 0.78 to 2.10), respectively. Median overall survival was 13.4 (docetaxel alone), 13.1 (V100+doc), and 7.9 (V300+doc) months.
Safety and Tolerability
Seven patients experienced hemoptysis: docetaxel alone, n = 3, CTC grade 1, 3 or 4; V100+doc, n = 2, CTC grade 1 or 2; and V300+doc, n = 1, CTC grade 1. There were no fatal episodes of hemoptysis or CNS hemorrhages in patients receiving vandetanib, including those patients who entered with brain metastases; one patient in the run-in phase experienced necrotizing pneumonitis in the setting of a Pseudomonas infection and died as a result of fatal pulmonary hemorrhage 2 weeks after discontinuing treatment with vandetanib. Both vandetanib arms showed a modest increase in blood pressure at 6 weeks, when plasma levels of vandetanib had achieved steady state: the mean change in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, respectively, was –6.3 and –5.4 mmHg (docetaxel alone, n = 22); +1.5 and +2.6 mmHg (V100+doc; n = 34); and +0.2 and +4.7 mmHg (V300+doc; n = 30). No clinically symptomatic changes in ECG were observed between treatment groups, and all episodes of QTC prolongation were asymptomatic and manageable with dose interruption and/or reduction. One patient in the run-in phase experienced asymptomatic, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia in the setting of electrolyte abnormality and QTC prolongation, both of which normalized with electrolyte repletion. The incidence of protocol-defined QTC prolongation was numerically higher in the V300+doc arm (n = 5) compared with the V100+doc arm (n = 2); no patient in the docetaxel-alone arm experienced QTC prolongation. The median change in QTC interval from baseline at 6 weeks was +2 ms (docetaxel alone; n = 21), +14 ms (V100+doc; n = 29), and +26 ms (V300+doc; n = 25). The majority of all deaths (78%) resulted from disease progression (ie, primary cause of death recorded as NSCLC). Six deaths that were attributed to a serious adverse event occurred during study treatment (ie, primary cause of death other than NSCLC: respiratory insufficiency and hemoptysis [both n = 1; docetaxel alone]; intermittent atrial fibrillation and acute respiratory failure [both n = 1; V100+doc]; and exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and pulmonary embolism [both n = 1; V300+doc]. All were considered by the investigator to be unrelated to study treatments.
This study assessed vandetanib in combination with docetaxel for patients with platinum-refractory NSCLC. In the run-in phase, the combination was relatively well tolerated with no significant PK interaction. In the randomized phase, PFS was prolonged in both the V100+doc (median PFS, 18.7 weeks; hazard ratio = 0.64) and V300+doc arms (median PFS, 17.0 weeks; hazard ratio = 0.83) compared with docetaxel alone (median PFS, 12.0 weeks). The one-sided P value of .037 for V100+doc versus docetaxel alone is considered statistically significant in relation to the prespecified significance level of .20; (ie, less than 20% probability that the prolongation occurred by chance alone). These data suggest that the addition of vandetanib to docetaxel increases PFS and objective response rates compared with docetaxel alone. Previous randomized NSCLC studies that combined VEGF or EGFR inhibitors with chemotherapy have yielded mixed results. The addition of bevacizumab to carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy resulted in significantly improved overall survival and increased PFS and objective response rate compared with chemotherapy alone.16 These results, as well as randomized studies in other solid tumor types,17 suggest that VEGF blockade using the monoclonal antibody bevacizumab may enhance the effectiveness of chemotherapy. In contrast, adding the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) gefitinib or erlotinib to standard doublet chemotherapy failed to significantly improve objective response rates or overall survival in four different phase III studies,18-21 despite the fact that erlotinib monotherapy prolonged overall survival in the second-line setting compared with placebo.22 It has been hypothesized that EGFR blockade may slow proliferation and cause G1 cell cycle arrest in tumor cells with wild-type EGFR,23 thereby reducing cell cycle phase-dependent activity of chemotherapy. This provides a potential explanation for the failure of EGFR TKIs to enhance the efficacy of doublet chemotherapy in unselected patients with NSCLC, although specific subgroups (eg, nonsmokers) may have benefited.18 This study was designed to compare the V100+doc and V300+doc arms with the docetaxel-alone control arm, rather than to detect differences between the V100+doc and V300+doc arms. Definitive conclusions are, therefore, not possible, but the data suggest that the antitumor activity may have been higher in patients receiving the lower dose of vandetanib, with a higher response rate and longer time to progression in the V100+doc arm compared with the V300+doc arm. If true, one could speculate that at lower doses of vandetanib, the level of EGFR inhibition is not sufficiently high to antagonize chemotherapy. Furthermore, some preclinical studies of antiangiogenic agents have demonstrated a biphasic dose-response curve,24 illustrating that the maximum-tolerated dose of certain agents may not necessarily be the optimally effective dose. Conversely, a phase II trial comparing low- (7.5 mg/kg) and high- (15 mg/kg) dose bevacizumab with carboplatin and paclitaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC showed a trend towards greater efficacy for the higher dose.25 These data highlight the importance of developing surrogate markers for the assessing target modulation. The improvements in PFS and objective response rate with the addition of vandetanib did not translate into prolonged overall survival, with the V300+doc arm showing a trend toward shorter survival. One possibility is that the different outcomes for PFS and overall survival may have arisen by chance, given the modest sample size. In this context, patients in the docetaxel-alone arm had a markedly longer overall survival (13.4 months) than indicated in historical data from randomized phase III trials (5.7 to 7.9 months).26-28 Imbalances in subsequent therapies received and possible sex effects could have contributed to the differences. No increase in poststudy toxic deaths or other treatment-related serious adverse events was observed in the vandetanib arms (data not shown). Notably, randomized phase II testing showed an improvement in PFS, but not overall survival, in NSCLC patients receiving bevacizumab, carboplatin, and paclitaxel compared with carboplatin and paclitaxel alone.25 In the subsequent E4599 trial, an improvement in overall survival was observed in patients with nonsquamous histology receiving this regimen.16 In an exploratory subset analysis, a trend toward improved PFS was seen in patients with both adenocarcinoma and nonadenocarcinoma histologies treated with vandetanib 100 mg; in the V300+doc arm, a trend towards greater PFS benefit was seen only in the nonadenocarcinoma group (Fig 3). A trend toward greater benefit in females than in males was seen in both vandetanib arms compared with docetaxel alone. Interestingly, a subset analysis of the E4599 trial showed a significant benefit for males, but not females, receiving bevacizumab with chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone.16 The molecular mechanisms underlying possible sex differences merit further investigation. Randomized phase II trials may be useful for predicting toxicity, assessing dose, and guiding subsequent phase III development. Randomized phase II testing of bevacizumab with carboplatin and paclitaxel showed an increased incidence of life-threatening hemoptysis, which occurred in four of 13 patients with squamous cell histology and two of 54 with adenocarcinoma.25 Fatal hemoptysis has also been reported in two lung cancer patients treated with the VEGFR TKI AG-013736.29 In the current study, four of 37 patients with squamous cell histology experienced hemoptysis: two each in the V100+doc (grade 1 or 2) and docetaxel-alone (grade 3 or 4) arms. No CNS bleeds were observed. The relative absence of major hemoptysis in the vandetanib arms of this study may reflect differences between the patient populations (ie, platinum naïve v platinum refractory), chemotherapy or investigational agent (ie, potency, kinetics, or pharmacology), or chance. Nevertheless, it suggests that patients with squamous cell and other histologic subtypes may be treated safely with vandetanib. In summary, the combination of docetaxel and vandetanib was generally well tolerated, even in patients with squamous cell histology, with no significant PK interaction between the two agents. The study achieved its primary objective of PFS prolongation in patients receiving vandetanib 100 mg plus docetaxel (hazard ratio = 0.64, one-sided P = .037 in relation to the prespecified one-sided significance level of .20), with improvements in objective response rate and disease control rate also observed. A randomized phase III trial of docetaxel with or without vandetanib (100 mg) has been initiated.
Although all authors completed the disclosure declaration, the following authors or their immediate family members indicated a financial interest. No conflict exists for drugs or devices used in a study if they are not being evaluated as part of the investigation. For a detailed description of the disclosure categories, or for more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to the Author Disclosure Declaration and the Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest section in Information for Contributors.
Employment: Sarah J. Kennedy, AstraZeneca; Jeannie Hou, AstraZeneca Leadership: N/A Consultant: John V. Heymach, AstraZeneca; Bruce E. Johnson, Genzyme; Roy S. Herbst, AstraZeneca Stock: N/A Honoraria: Roy S. Herbst, AstraZeneca Research Funds: John V. Heymach, Funds, AstraZeneca; Milo
Conception and design: John V. Heymach, Bruce E. Johnson, Chandra P. Belani, Roy S. Herbst Financial support: Jeannie Hou Administrative support: Jeannie Hou
Provision of study materials or patients: John V. Heymach, Bruce E. Johnson, Diane Prager, Jaromir Roubec, Milo
Collection and assembly of data: Bruce E. Johnson, Edit Csada, Milo Data analysis and interpretation: John V. Heymach, Bruce E. Johnson, Chandra P. Belani, Sarah J. Kennedy, Jeannie Hou, Roy S. Herbst Manuscript writing: John V. Heymach, Bruce E. Johnson, Chandra P. Belani, Sarah J. Kennedy, Jeannie Hou, Roy S. Herbst Final approval of manuscript: John V. Heymach, Bruce E. Johnson, Edit Csada, Chandra P. Belani, Jeannie Hou, Roy S. Herbst
The following individuals were also investigators in this study: Pal Magyar, Milan Kuta, Gabor Kovacs, Roger Cohen, Janos Strausz, William Purcell, Troy Guthrie, Maria Szilasi, John Cole, Jana Skrickova, Jeffrey Crawford, Philip Stella, Robert Bolin, Hal Gerstein, Harvey Zimbler, Charles Henderson, Frantisek Salajka, and William Cook. We thank John Matthew for editorial assistance.
Supported by AstraZeneca. J.V.H. is a Damon Runyon-Lilly Clinical Investigator supported in part by the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation (CI 24-04) and the American Society for Clinical Oncology Career Development Award. Presented in part at the 40th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, June 5-8, 2004, New Orleans, LA; 41st Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, May 13-17, 2005, Orlando, FL; 11th World Conference on Lung Cancer, July 3-6, 2005, Barcelona, Spain; and the 42nd Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, June 2-6, 2006, Atlanta, GA. ZACTIMA is a trademark of the AstraZeneca group of companies. Authors disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this article.
1. American Cancer Society: Cancer facts and figures. http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2006PWSecured.pdf 2. Fukuoka M, Yano S, Giaccone G, et al: Multi-institutional randomized phase II trial of gefitinib for previously treated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 21:2237-2246, 2003 3. Kris MG, Natale RB, Herbst RS, et al: Efficacy of gefitinib, an inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase, in symptomatic patients with non-small cell lung cancer: A randomized trial. JAMA 290:2149-2158, 2003 4. Shepherd FA, Pereira J, Ciuleanu TE, et al: A randomized placebo-controlled trial of erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) following failure of 1st line or 2nd line chemotherapy: A National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCIC CTG) trial. J Clin Oncol 22:622s, 2004 (abstr 7022) 5. Thatcher N, Chang A, Parikh P, et al: Gefitinib plus best supportive care in previously treated patients with refractory advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Results from a randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre study (Iressa Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer). Lancet 366:1527-1537, 2005[CrossRef][Medline] 6. Ciardiello F, Troiani T, Bianco R, et al: Interaction between the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathways: A rational approach for multi-target anticancer therapy. Ann Oncol 17:vii109-vii114, 2006 7. Viloria-Petit AM, Kerbel RS: Acquired resistance to EGFR inhibitors: Mechanisms and prevention strategies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 58:914-926, 2004[CrossRef][Medline] 8. Herbst RS, Johnson DH, Mininberg E, et al: Phase I/II trial evaluating the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody bevacizumab in combination with the HER-1/epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib for patients with recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:2544-2555, 2005 9. Wedge SR, Ogilvie DJ, Dukes M, et al: ZD6474 inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor signaling, angiogenesis, and tumor growth following oral administration. Cancer Res 62:4645-4655, 2002 10. Carlomagno F, Vitagliano D, Guida T, et al: ZD6474, an orally available inhibitor of KDR tyrosine kinase activity, efficiently blocks oncogenic RET kinases. Cancer Res 62:7284-7290, 2002 11. Carlomagno F, Guida T, Anaganti S, et al: Disease associated mutations at valine 804 in the RET receptor tyrosine kinase confer resistance to selective kinase inhibitors. Oncogene 23:6056-6063, 2004[CrossRef][Medline] 12. Santoro M, Melillo RM, Carlomagno F, et al: Minireview: RET: Normal and abnormal functions. Endocrinology 145:5448-5451, 2004 13. Holden SN, Eckhardt SG, Basser R, et al: Clinical evaluation of ZD6474, an orally active inhibitor of VEGF and EGF receptor signaling, in patients with solid, malignant tumors. Ann Oncol 16:1391-1397, 2005 14. Tamura T, Minami H, Yamada Y, et al: A phase I dose-escalation study of ZD6474 in Japanese patients with solid, malignant tumors. J Thoracic Oncol 1:1002-1009, 2006 15. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al: New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:205-216, 2000 16. Sandler A, Gray R, Perry MC, et al: Paclitaxel-carboplatin alone or with bevacizumab for non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 355:2542-2550, 2006 17. Hurwitz H, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny W, et al: Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 350:2335-2342, 2004 18. Herbst RS, Prager D, Hermann R, et al: TRIBUTE: A phase III trial of erlotinib hydrochloride (OSI-774) combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:5892-5899, 2005 19. Gatzemeier U, Pluzanska A, Szczesna A, et al: Results of a phase III trial of erlotinib (OSI-774) combined with cisplatin and gemcitabine (GC) chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J Clin Oncol 22:619s, 2004 (abstr 7010) 20. Herbst RS, Giaccone G, Schiller JH, et al: Gefitinib in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase III trial—INTACT 2. J Clin Oncol 22:785-794, 2004 21. Giaccone G, Herbst RS, Manegold C, et al: Gefitinib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A phase III trial—INTACT 1. J Clin Oncol 22:777-784, 2004 22. Shepherd FA, Rodrigues PJ, Ciuleanu T, et al: Erlotinib in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 353:123-132, 2005 23. Davies AM, Ho C, Lara PN Jr, et al: Pharmacodynamic separation of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors and chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer 7:385-388, 2006[Medline] 24. Celik I, Surucu O, Dietz C, et al: Therapeutic efficacy of endostatin exhibits a biphasic dose-response curve. Cancer Res 65:11044-11050, 2005 25. Johnson DH, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny WF, 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 22:2184-2191, 2004 26. Fossella FV, DeVore R, Kerr RN, et al: Randomized phase III trial of docetaxel versus vinorelbine or ifosfamide in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens: The TAX 320 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 18:2354-2362, 2000 27. 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 28. 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 29. Rugo HS, Herbst RS, Liu G, et al: Phase I trial of the oral antiangiogenesis agent AG-013736 in patients with advanced solid tumors: Pharmacokinetic and clinical results. J Clin Oncol 23:5474-5483, 2005 Submitted December 20, 2006; accepted June 28, 2007.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Copyright © 2007 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
|