Show simple item record

Pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin versus cisplatin monotherapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer

dc.contributor.authorUrba, Susanen_US
dc.contributor.authorvan Herpen, Carla M. L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSahoo, Tarini Prasaden_US
dc.contributor.authorShin, Dong M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorLicitra, Lisaen_US
dc.contributor.authorMezei, Klaraen_US
dc.contributor.authorReuter, Christophen_US
dc.contributor.authorHitt, Ricardoen_US
dc.contributor.authorRusso, Francescaen_US
dc.contributor.authorChang, Shao‐chunen_US
dc.contributor.authorHossain, Anwar M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorFrimodt‐moller, Benteen_US
dc.contributor.authorKoustenis, Andrewen_US
dc.contributor.authorHong, Ruey‐longen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-10-02T17:20:23Z
dc.date.available2013-11-04T19:53:16Zen_US
dc.date.issued2012-10-01en_US
dc.identifier.citationUrba, Susan; van Herpen, Carla M. L.; Sahoo, Tarini Prasad; Shin, Dong M.; Licitra, Lisa; Mezei, Klara; Reuter, Christoph; Hitt, Ricardo; Russo, Francesca; Chang, Shao‐chun ; Hossain, Anwar M.; Frimodt‐moller, Bente ; Koustenis, Andrew; Hong, Ruey‐long (2012). "Pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin versus cisplatin monotherapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer ." Cancer 118(19): 4694-4705. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/93741>en_US
dc.identifier.issn0008-543Xen_US
dc.identifier.issn1097-0142en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/93741
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) is associated with poor survival. Platinum‐based chemotherapy is often a first‐line treatment. Pemetrexed has shown single‐agent activity in SCCHN and in combination with cisplatin for other tumors. This trial examined the efficacy of pemetrexed‐cisplatin for SCCHN. METHODS: In a double‐blind phase 3 trial, patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN and no prior systemic therapy for metastatic disease were randomized to pemetrexed (500 mg/m 2 ) plus cisplatin (75 mg/m 2 ; n = 398) or placebo plus cisplatin (75 mg/m 2 ; n = 397) to assess overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Median OS was 7.3 months in the pemetrexed‐cisplatin arm and 6.3 months in the placebo‐cisplatin arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75‐1.02; P = .082). Median progression‐free survival (PFS, months) was similar in both treatment arms (pemetrexed‐cisplatin, 3.6; placebo‐cisplatin, 2.8; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.76‐1.03; P = .166). Among patients with performance status 0 or 1, pemetrexed‐cisplatin (n = 347) led to longer OS and PFS than placebo‐cisplatin (n = 343; 8.4 vs 6.7 months; HR, 0.83; P = .026; 4.0 vs 3.0 months; HR, 0.84; P = .044, respectively). Among patients with oropharyngeal cancers, pemetrexed‐cisplatin (n = 86) resulted in longer OS and PFS than placebo‐cisplatin (n = 106; 9.9 vs 6.1 months; HR, 0.59; P = .002; 4.0 vs 3.4 months; HR, 0.73; P = .047, respectively). Pemetrexed‐cisplatin toxicity was consistent with studies in other tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Pemetrexed‐cisplatin compared with placebo‐cisplatin did not significantly improve survival for the intent‐to‐treat population. However, in a prespecified subgroup analysis, pemetrexed‐cisplatin showed OS and PFS advantage for patients with performance status 0 or 1 or oropharyngeal cancers. Cancer 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society. In a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, phase 3 trial, patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck are randomized to pemetrexed plus cisplatin or placebo plus cisplatin to assess overall survival and secondary endpoints. Pemetrexed‐cisplatin does not significantly improve survival for the intention‐to‐treat population. However, in a preplanned subgroup analysis, pemetrexed‐cisplatin leads to longer overall survival and progression‐free survival for patients with performance status 0 or 1 and patients with oropharyngeal cancers.en_US
dc.publisherWiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Companyen_US
dc.subject.otherPemetrexeden_US
dc.subject.otherPhase 3en_US
dc.subject.otherClinical Trialen_US
dc.subject.otherHead and Neck Canceren_US
dc.subject.otherCisplatinen_US
dc.titlePemetrexed in combination with cisplatin versus cisplatin monotherapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck canceren_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPublic Healthen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelOncology and Hematologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumDivision of Hematology/Oncology, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, Michiganen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumUniversity of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Division of Hematology/Oncology, 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, C347 MIB, SPC 5848, Ann Arbor, MI 48109en_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Oncology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwanen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlandsen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherJawaharlal Nehru Cancer Hospital & Research Centre, Bhopal, Indiaen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgiaen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherHead and Neck Medical Oncology Unit, National Tumor Institute, Milan, Italyen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherOnkoradiologiai Osztaly Szent Istvan, Nyiregyhaza, Hungaryen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherDepartment of Hematology, Hannover Medical School, Hemostasis, Oncology and Stem Cell Transplantation, Hannover, Germanyen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherMedical Oncology Service, University Hospital 12th of October, Madrid, Spainen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherEli Lilly and Company, Florence, Italyen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indianaen_US
dc.contributor.affiliationotherEli Lilly and Company, Copenhagen, Denmarken_US
dc.identifier.pmid22434360en_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/93741/1/27449_ftp.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/cncr.27449en_US
dc.identifier.sourceCanceren_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYost KJ, Eton DT. Combining distribution‐ and anchor‐based approaches to determine minimally important differences: the FACIT experience. Eval Health Prof. 2005; 28: 172 ‐ 191.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNational Cancer Institute. Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0. 2006. Available at: http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/ctcaev3.pdf Accessed August 3, 2010.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceList MA, D'Antonio LL, Cella DF, et al. The Performance Status Scale for Head and Neck Cancer Patients and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy‐Head and Neck Scale. A study of utility and validity. Cancer. 1996; 77: 2294 ‐ 2301.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCella D (ed). Manual of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Measurement System (Version 4.1). Evanston, IL: Center for Outcomes Research and Education, Evanston Northwestern Healthcare and Northwestern University; 2004.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOzer H, Armitage JO, Bennett CL, et al. 2000 update of recommendations for the use of hematopoietic colony‐stimulating factors: evidence‐based, clinical practice guidelines. American Society of Clinical Oncology Growth Factors Expert Panel. J Clin Oncol. 2000; 18: 3558 ‐ 3585.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePocock SJ, Simon R. Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. Biometrics. 1975; 31: 103 ‐ 115.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGillison M, Koch WM, Capone RB, et al. Evidence for a causal association between human papillomavirus and a subset of head and neck cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000; 92: 709 ‐ 720.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGibson MK, Li Y, Murphy B, et al. Randomized phase III evaluation of cisplatin plus fluorouracil versus cisplatin plus paclitaxel in advanced head and neck cancer (E1395): an intergroup trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 3562 ‐ 3567.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceArgiris A, Karamouzis MV, Raben D, Ferris RL. Head and neck cancer. Lancet. 2008; 371: 1695 ‐ 1709.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGold KA, Lee HY, Kim ES. Targeted therapies in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer. 2009; 115: 922 ‐ 935.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHaddad RI, Shin DM. Recent advances in head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359: 1143 ‐ 1154.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceColevas AD. Chemotherapy options for patients with metastatic or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24: 2644 ‐ 2652.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceClavel M, Vermorken JB, Cognetti F, et al. Randomized comparison of cisplatin, methotrexate, bleomycin and vincristine (CABO) versus cisplatin and 5‐fluorouracil (CF) versus cisplatin (C) in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. A phase III study of the EORTC Head and Neck Cancer Cooperative Group. Ann Oncol. 1994; 5: 521 ‐ 526.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBurtness B, Goldwasser MA, Flood W, Mattar B, Forastiere AA; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Phase III randomized trial of cisplatin plus placebo compared with cisplatin plus cetuximab in metastatic/recurrent head and neck cancer: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 8646 ‐ 8654.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKlastersky J, Sculier JP, Ravez P, et al. A randomized study comparing a high and a standard dose of cisplatin in combination with etoposide in the treatment of advanced non‐small‐cell lung carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 1986; 4: 1780 ‐ 1786.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCockcroft DW, Gault MH. Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine. Nephron. 1976; 16: 31 ‐ 41.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTherasse 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. 2000; 92: 205 ‐ 216.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982; 5: 649 ‐ 655.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceForastiere AA, Metch B, Schuller DE, et al. Randomized comparison of cisplatin plus fluorouracil and carboplatin plus fluorouracil versus methotrexate in advanced squamous‐cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol. 1992; 10: 1245 ‐ 1251.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJacobs C, Lyman G, Velez‐Garcia E, et al. A phase III randomized study comparing cisplatin and fluorouracil as single agents and in combination for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J Clin Oncol. 1992; 10: 257 ‐ 263.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMorton RP, Rugman F, Dorman EB, et al. 1985. Cisplatinum and bleomycin for advanced or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a randomized factorial phase III controlled trial. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1985; 15: 283 ‐ 289.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceScagliotti GV, Parikh P, von Pawel J, et al. Phase III study comparing cisplatin plus gemcitabine with cisplatin plus pemetrexed in chemotherapy‐naive patients with advanced‐stage non‐small‐cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 3543 ‐ 3551.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVogelzang NJ, Rusthoven JJ, Symanowski J, et al. Phase III study of pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin versus cisplatin alone in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21: 2636 ‐ 2644.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferencePivot X, Raymond E, Laguerre B, et al. Pemetrexed disodium in recurrent locally advanced or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Br J Cancer. 2001; 85: 649 ‐ 655.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceShih C, Habeck LL, Mendelsohn LG, Chen VJ, Schultz RM. Multiple folate enzyme inhibition: mechanism of a novel pyrrolopyrimidine‐based antifolate LY231514 (MTA). Adv Enzyme Regul. 1998; 38: 135 ‐ 152.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSchultz RM, Patel VF, Worzalla JF, Shih C. Role of thymidylate synthase in the antitumor activity of the multitargeted antifolate, LY231514. Anticancer Res. 1999; 19: 437 ‐ 443.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTaylor EC, Kuhnt D, Shih C, et al. A dideazatetrahydrofolate analogue lacking a chiral center at C‐6, N‐[4‐[2‐(2‐amino‐3,4‐dihydro‐4‐oxo‐7H‐pyrrolo[2,3‐d]pyrimidin‐5‐yl)ethyl]benzoyl]‐L‐glutamic acid, is an inhibitor of thymidylate synthase. J Med Chem. 1992; 35: 4450 ‐ 4454.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceVermorken JB, Mesia R, Rivera F, et al. Platinum‐based chemotherapy plus cetuximab in head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359: 1116 ‐ 1127.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSorensen JB, Klee M, Palshof T, Hansen HH. Performance status assessment in cancer patients. An inter‐observer variability study. Br J Cancer. 1993; 67: 773 ‐ 775.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceConill C, Verger E, Salamero M. Performance status assessment in cancer patients. Cancer. 1990; 65: 1864 ‐ 1866.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCox DR. Regression models and life‐tables (with discussion). J R Stat Soc B. 1972; 34: 187 ‐ 220.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation of incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958; 53: 457 ‐ 481.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.