IFCT-GFPC-1101 trial: A multicenter phase III assessing a maintenance strategy determined by response to induction chemotherapy compared to continuation maintenance with pemetrexed in patients (pts) with advanced non-squamous (NSQ) NSCLC.

Abstract

9003 Background: Benefit coming from maintenance treatment appears greater for switch maintenance in pts with disease stabilization (SD) while it might be larger for continuation maintenance in pts with objective response (OR). This study assessed a maintenance strategy conditioned by response to cisplatin-gemcitabine (CG): continuation maintenance with G for pts with OR and switch maintenance with pemetrexed (P) for pts with SD compared with a control arm using P continuation maintenance following cisplatin-pemetrexed (CP) induction regimen. Methods: Eligibility criteria included age 18-70 years, PS of 0-1, untreated stage IV NSQ NSCLC without EGFR mutation or ALK rearrangement, ineligibility to bevacizumab. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive either experimental CG arm: CG (4 cycles) followed by G maintenance in case of OR followed by second-line P or switch maintenance with P for pts with SD, or standard CP arm: 4 cycles CP induction regimen followed by maintenance P. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint; secondary endpoints included PFS, response rate and safety. Results: Between Jul 2012 and Jun 2016, 932 pts were randomized (CG: 467, CP: 465). Pts characteristics were balanced between the arms. 255 pts (54.6%) in the CG arm received maintenance treatment (G: 142, P: 113) while 274 pts (58.9%) received P maintenance in the CP arm. Median number of maintenance cycles was 5 for G and 4 for P in both arms. The OS adjusted HR was 0.97 (95% CI 0.84, 1.13; p=0.72); median OS: 10.9m CG vs. 10.4m CP. The HR for PFS was 0.96 (95% CI 0.84, 1.10; p=0.56); median PFS: 5.0m CG vs. 4.7m CP. Safety profile was as expected during induction chemotherapy. During maintenance, grade ≥3 hematological AEs occurred in 28% and 31% of pts in CG and CP, respectively, with febrile neutropenia (2.4% vs. 1.1%), anemia (9.4% vs. 11.7%), thrombocytopenia (6.7% vs. 5.8%). No grade ≥3 non-hematological AEs occurred in >5% of pts except for asthenia (3.9% CG vs. 5.1% CP). Conclusions: Adapting maintenance strategy according to response to induction chemotherapy does not improve patient outcome. Clinical trial information: NCT01631136.

Keywords

Affiliated Institutions

• Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille FR
• Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal Toulon-La Seyne-sur-Mer FR
• Hôpital Larrey FR
• Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris FR
• Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille FR
• Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Tours FR
• Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Caen Normandie FR
• Hôpital Louis Pradel FR
• Centre Antoine Lacassagne FR
• Sorbonne Université FR
• Hôpital Lyon Sud FR
• Aix-Marseille Université FR
• Hôpital Tenon FR
• Université Marie et Louis Pasteur
• Hôpital d'instruction des Armées Percy FR
• Hospices Civils de Lyon FR
• Centre Hospitalier du Mans FR
• Université de franche-comté FR
• Centre François Baclesse FR
• Centre Léon Bérard FR

Related Publications