4.6 Article

Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase II Trial Comparing Gemcitabine-Cisplatin plus the LTB4 Antagonist LY293111 versus Gemcitabine-Cisplatin plus Placebo in First-Line Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Journal

JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY
Volume 9, Issue 1, Pages 126-131

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1097/JTO.0000000000000037

Keywords

Cisplatin; Gemcitabine; hemotherapy; Leukotriene receptor agonist; Lung cancer; LY293111; Peroxisome proliferators; Activated receptor agonist

Funding

  1. Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: In this phase II study, patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive LY293111 (200 mg twice daily [200 LY293111] or 600 mg twice daily [600 LY293111]) or placebo for 7 days, followed by concurrent cisplatin (75 mg/m2; day 1) and gemcitabine (1250 mg/m2; days 1 and 8), every 21 days.The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, (PFS), with 75% power to detect 33% improvement compared with placebo (5 months). Methods: Of 200 randomized patients, 195 were treated. Demographics were well balanced across treatment arms: 65% of the patients were men; median age was 62 years; 85% had stage IV disease; and patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 (36%) or 1 (64%). Results: The most frequent study drug-related toxicities were nausea, vomiting, and fatigue. Response rates were similar across treatment arms (200 LY293111: 20%; 600 LY293111: 25%; placebo: 31%). Conclusions: Median PFS (95% confidence interval) was not significantly different across treatment arms (200 LY293111: 4.6 months [3.2-5.0]; 600 LY293111: 5.6 months [4.1-6.8]; placebo: 6.0 months [5.2-7.5]). LY293111 combined with gemcitabine-cisplatin did not increase median PFS compared with placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available