• George R Simon, Michael J Schell, Mubeena Begum, Jongphil Kim, Alberto Chiappori, Eric Haura, Scott Antonia, and Gerold Bepler.
• Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina 29425-6350, USA. simong@musc.edu
• Cancer. 2012 May 1; 118 (9): 2525-31.

BackgroundExcision repair cross complementing 1 (ERCC1) and ribonucleotide reductase M1 (RRM1) are molecular determinants that predict sensitivity or resistance to platinum agents and gemcitabine, respectively. Tailored therapy using these molecular determinants suggested patient benefit in a previously reported phase 2 trial. Here, we report an individual patient analysis of prospectively accrued patients who were treated with the "personalized therapy" approach versus other "standard," noncustomized approaches.MethodsPatients who had nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with extranodal metastatic disease and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0/1 were accrued to 4 phase 2 clinical trials conducted at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center: Trial A (first-line carboplatin/gemcitabine followed by docetaxel), Trial B (docetaxel and gefitinib in patients aged ≥70 years), Trial C (combination therapy with carboplatin/paclitaxel/atrasentan), and Trial D (personalized therapy based on ERCC1 and RRM1 expression). Patients with low RRM1/low ERCC1 expression received gemcitabine/carboplatin, patients with low RRM1/high ERCC1 expression received gemcitabine/docetaxel, patients with high RRM1/low ERCC1 expression received docetaxel/carboplatin, and patients with high RRM1/high ERCC1 expression received vinorelbine/docetaxel. Patients who were treated on Trials A, B, and C were pooled together and analyzed as the "standard therapy" group. Patients accrued to Trial D were called the "personalized therapy" group. Individual patient data were updated as of February 8, 2011. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.ResultsThere were statistically significant improvements between the personalized therapy group versus the standard therapy group in response (44% vs 22%; P = .002), OS (median: 13.3 months vs 8.9 months; P = .016), and PFS (median: 7.0 months vs 4.3 months; P = .03).ConclusionsThe results from individual patient analyses suggest that ERCC1 and RRM1/tailored selection of first-line therapy improved survival over standard treatment-selection approaches.Copyright © 2011 American Cancer Society.

28 keywords...

hide…