Gemcitabine plus sorafenib versus gemcitabine alone in advanced biliary tract cancer: A double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre phase II AIO study with biomarker and serum programme

BackgroundSince sorafenib has shown activity in different tumour types and gemcitabine regimens improved the outcome for biliary tract cancer (BTC) patients, we evaluated first-line gemcitabine plus sorafenib in a double-blind phase II study.Patients and methods102 unresectable or metastatic BTC patients with histologically proven adenocarcinoma of gallbladder or intrahepatic bile ducts, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 0–2 were randomised to gemcitabine (1000 mg/m² once weekly, first 7-weeks + 1-week rest followed by once 3-weeks + 1-week rest) plus sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) or placebo. Treatment continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Tumour samples were prospectively stained for sorafenib targets and potential biomarkers. Serum samples (first two cycles) were measured for vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs), vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR-2) and stromal cell-derived factor 1 (SDF1)α by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).ResultsGemcitabine plus sorafenib was generally well tolerated. Four and three patients achieved partial responses in the sorafenib and placebo groups, respectively. There was no difference in the primary end-point, median progression-free survival (PFS) for gemcitabine plus sorafenib versus gemcitabine plus placebo (3.0 versus 4.9 months, P = 0.859), and no difference for median overall survival (OS) (8.4 versus 11.2 months, P = 0.775). Patients with liver metastasis after resection of primary BTC survived longer with sorafenib (P = 0.019) compared to placebo. Patients who developed hand-foot syndrome (HFS) showed longer PFS and OS than patients without HFS. Two sorafenib targets, VEGFR-2 and c-kit, were not expressed in BTC samples. VEGFR-3 and Hif1α were associated with lymph node metastases and T stage. Absence of PDGFRβ expression correlated with longer PFS.ConclusionThe addition of sorafenib to gemcitabine did not demonstrate improved efficacy in advanced BTC patients. Biomarker subgroup analysis suggested that some patients might benefit from combined treatment.     

Ipilimumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line therapy in extensive-disease-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomized,double-blind,multicenter phase 2 trial

BackgroundIpilimumab, an anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibody, demonstrated survival benefit in melanoma with immune-related (ir) adverse events (irAEs) managed by the protocol-defined guidelines. This phase 2 study evaluated ipilimumab + paclitaxel (Taxol)/carboplatin in extensive-disease-small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC).DesignPatients (n = 130) with chemotherapy-naïve ED-SCLC were randomized 1: 1: 1 to receive paclitaxel (175 mg/m²)/carboplatin (area under the curve = 6) with either placebo (control) or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg in two alternative regimens, concurrent ipilimumab (ipilimumab + paclitaxel/carboplatin followed by placebo + paclitaxel/carboplatin) or phased ipilimumab (placebo + paclitaxel/carboplatin followed by ipilimumab + paclitaxel/carboplatin). Treatment was administered every 3 weeks for a maximum of 18 weeks (induction), followed by maintenance ipilimumab or placebo every 12 weeks. End points included progression-free survival (PFS), irPFS, best overall response rate (BORR); irBORR, overall survival (OS), and safety.ResultsPhased ipilimumab, but not concurrent ipilimumab, improved irPFS versus control [HR (hazard ratio) = 0.64; P = 0.03]. No improvement in PFS (HR = 0.93; P = 0.37) or OS (HR = 0.75; P = 0.13) occurred. Phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab and control, respectively, were associated with median irPFS of 6.4, 5.7 and 5.3 months; median PFS of 5.2, 3.9 and 5.2 months; median OS of 12.9, 9.1 and 9.9 months. Overall rates of grade 3/4 irAEs were 17, 21 and 9% for phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab and control, respectively.ConclusionThese results suggest further investigation of ipilimumab in ED-SCLC.     

KRAS mutations are associated with inferior clinical outcome in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer,but are not predictive for benefit with cediranib

PurposeThe prognostic potential of KRAS mutations in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) patients and the impact of KRAS mutation status on the effectiveness of chemotherapy or vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signalling inhibitor therapy remain unclear. KRAS mutation status was evaluated retrospectively as a potential prognostic/predictive marker of clinical outcomes using tumour samples from patients with metastatic CRC receiving cediranib or placebo plus FOLFOX/XELOX in a Phase III trial (HORIZON II; NCT00399035).MethodsKRAS codon 12 and 13 mutation analyses were performed using a commercially available, allele-specific, amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS)-based polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay. Retrospective analyses of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) according to KRAS mutation status were performed for patients randomised to cediranib 20 mg or placebo.ResultsKRAS status was determined in 599/1076 patients (cediranib 20 mg, n = 285/502; cediranib 30 mg, n = 110/216; placebo, n = 204/358). Baseline characteristics were similar across KRAS mutant (n = 258; 24.0%), wild-type (n = 341; 31.7%) and status unknown (n = 477; 44.3%) groups. There was a trend towards improved PFS and OS in the wild-type versus mutant subgroups independent of treatment (cediranib 20 mg and placebo: PFS hazard ratio (HR) = 0.85 [median PFS: wild-type = 8.5 months; mutant = 8.3 months]; OS HR = 0.71 [median OS: wild-type = 20.9 months; mutant = 16.9 months]). Treatment effects were similar between KRAS subgroups for cediranib 20 mg versus placebo (PFS: wild-type HR = 0.78, mutant HR = 0.82; OS: wild-type HR = 0.92, mutant HR = 1.01).ConclusionData from this large randomised Phase III study show that KRAS codon 12/13 mutations have negative prognostic value in metastatic CRC patients receiving treatment with FOLFOX/XELOX, but KRAS mutation status is not predictive of treatment benefit with cediranib, using PFS or OS.     

Effect of docetaxel duration on clinical outcomes: exploratory analysis of CLEOPATRA,a phase III randomized controlled trial

BackgroundCombination pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel (D) is considered standard first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer. This post hoc, exploratory analysis of CLEOPATRA study data evaluated the clinical effects of D treatment duration within this regimen. The clinical benefits of pertuzumab and trastuzumab by different durations of D treatment were also evaluated.Patients and methodsPatients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer received trastuzumab and D plus pertuzumab or placebo. Clinical outcomes were analyzed by the number of D cycles that patients received (<6D, 6D, or >6D). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for each treatment arm within each D cycle group were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier approach. Time-dependent, multivariate Cox regression was applied to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for HER2-targeted therapy and D cycle groups.ResultsOverall, 804 patients received <6D (n = 119), 6D (n = 210), or >6D (n = 475) cycles. After adjusting for pertuzumab benefits versus placebo (PFS HR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.51–0.74, P < 0.0001; OS HR = 0.60, 95% CI, 0.49–0.74, P < 0.0001), >6D versus 6D cycles was not associated with statistically significant improvements in PFS (HR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.63–1.01, P = 0.0640) or OS (HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.69–1.12, P = 0.3073). Consistent improvements in PFS and OS were observed with pertuzumab versus placebo, irrespective of D duration. The HRs for PFS were 0.395, 0.615, and 0.633 for <6D, 6D, and >6D cycles, respectively (P < 0.05 for all D cycle groups). Corresponding HRs for OS were 0.577, 0.700, and 0.612, respectively (P < 0.05 for <6D and >6D).ConclusionsAfter accounting for pertuzumab benefits, more than six cycles of D treatment was not associated with significant improvements in either PFS or OS compared with six cycles. The addition of pertuzumab to trastuzumab improved clinical outcomes versus trastuzumab plus placebo, regardless of D treatment duration.ClinicalTrials.gov identifierNCT00567190.     

Randomised,double-blind trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel with daily oral cediranib or placebo in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: NCIC Clinical Trials Group study BR29

IntroductionThis randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study evaluated the addition of cediranib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1–3, to standard carboplatin/paclitaxel chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.MethodsEligible patients received paclitaxel (200 mg/m²) and carboplatin (area under the concentration time curve 6) intravenously every 3 weeks. Daily oral cediranib/placebo 20 mg was commenced day 1 of cycle 1 and continued as monotherapy after completion of 4–6 cycles of chemotherapy. The primary end-point of the study was overall survival (OS). The trial would continue to full accrual if an interim analysis (IA) for progression-free survival (PFS), performed after 170 events of progression or death in the first 260 randomised patients, revealed a hazard ratio (HR) for PFS of ⩽0.70.ResultsThe trial was halted for futility at the IA (HR for PFS 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66–1.20, p = 0.45). A final analysis was performed on all 306 enrolled patients. The addition of cediranib increased response rate ([RR] 52% versus 34%, p = 0.001) but did not significantly improve PFS (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.71–1.18, p = 0.49) or OS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69–1.30, p = 0.72). Cediranib patients had more grade 3 hypertension, diarrhoea and anorexia.ConclusionsThe addition of cediranib 20 mg daily to carboplatin/paclitaxel chemotherapy increased RR and toxicity, but not survival.     

A randomised,double-blind phase III study of pazopanib in patients with advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Final overall survival results and safety update

BackgroundIn this randomised phase III study (VEG105192; NCT00334282), pazopanib previously demonstrated statistically and clinically meaningful improvement of progression-free survival versus placebo in patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Final overall survival (OS) and updated safety results are now reported.MethodsTreatment-naive or cytokine-pretreated mRCC patients (n = 435) stratified and randomised (2:1) to pazopanib 800 mg daily or placebo, were treated until disease progression, death or unacceptable toxicity. Upon progression, placebo patients could receive pazopanib through an open-label study. Final OS in the intent-to-treat population was analysed using a stratified log-rank test. Rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) and inverse probability of censoring weighted (IPCW) analyses were performed post-hoc to adjust for crossover.FindingsThe difference in final OS between pazopanib- and placebo-treated patients was not statistically significant (22.9 versus 20.5 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71–1.16; one-sided P = .224). Early and frequent crossover from placebo to pazopanib and prolonged duration of crossover treatment confounded the OS analysis. In IPCW analyses, pazopanib decreased mortality (HR = 0.504; 95% CI, 0.315–0.762; two-sided P = .002). Similar, albeit non-significant, results were obtained in RPSFT analyses (HR = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.215–1.388; two-sided P = .172). Since the last cutoff, cumulative exposure to pazopanib increased by 30%. The pazopanib safety profile showed no new safety signals or changes in the type, frequency and severity of adverse events.InterpretationAlthough no significant difference in OS was observed in this study, extensive crossover from placebo to pazopanib confounded final OS analysis. Post-hoc analyses adjusting for crossover suggest OS benefit with pazopanib treatment for mRCC patients.     

Early ctDNA dynamics as a surrogate for progression-free survival in advanced breast cancer in the BEECH trial

BackgroundDynamic changes in circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) levels may predict long-term outcome. We utilised samples from a phase I/II randomised trial (BEECH) to assess ctDNA dynamics as a surrogate for progression-free survival (PFS) and early predictor of drug efficacy.Patients and methodsPatients with estrogen receptor-positive advanced metastatic breast cancer (ER+ mBC) in the BEECH study, paclitaxel plus placebo versus paclitaxel plus AKT inhibitor capivasertib, had plasma samples collected for ctDNA analysis at baseline and at multiple time points in the development cohort (safety run-in, part A) and validation cohort (randomised, part B). Baseline sample ctDNA sequencing identified mutations for longitudinal analysis and mutation-specific digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) assays were utilised to assess change in ctDNA abundance (allele fraction) between baseline and 872 on-treatment samples. Primary objective was to assess whether early suppression of ctDNA, based on pre-defined criteria from the development cohort, independently predicted outcome in the validation cohort.ResultsIn the development cohort, suppression of ctDNA was apparent after 8 days of treatment (P = 0.014), with cycle 2 day 1 (4 weeks) identified as the optimal time point to predict PFS from early ctDNA dynamics. In the validation cohort, median PFS was 11.1 months in patients with suppressed ctDNA at 4 weeks and 6.4 months in patients with high ctDNA (hazard ratio = 0.20, 95% confidence interval 0.083–0.50, P < 0.0001). There was no difference in the level of ctDNA suppression between patients randomised to capivasertib or placebo overall (P = 0.904) nor in the PIK3CA mutant subpopulation (P = 0.071). Clonal haematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) was evident in 30% (18/59) baseline samples, although CHIP had no effect on tolerance of chemotherapy nor on PFS.ConclusionEarly on-treatment ctDNA dynamics are a surrogate for PFS. Dynamic ctDNA assessment has the potential to substantially enhance early drug development.Clinical registration numberNCT01625286.     

BEECH: a dose-finding run-in followed by a randomised phase II study assessing the efficacy of AKT inhibitor capivasertib (AZD5363) combined with paclitaxel in patients with estrogen receptor-positive advanced or metastatic breast cancer,and in a PIK3CA mutant sub-population

BackgroundBEECH investigated the efficacy of capivasertib (AZD5363), an oral inhibitor of AKT isoforms 1–3, in combination with the first-line weekly paclitaxel for advanced or metastatic estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) breast cancer, and in a phosphoinositide 3-kinase, catalytic, alpha polypeptide mutation sub-population (PIK3CA+).Patients and methodsBEECH consisted of an open-label, phase Ib safety run-in (part A) in 38 patients with advanced breast cancer, and a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase II expansion (part B) in 110 women with ER+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer. In part A, patients received paclitaxel 90 mg/m² (days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle) with capivasertib taken twice daily (b.i.d.) at two intermittent ascending dosing schedules. In part B, patients were randomly assigned, stratified by PIK3CA mutation status, to receive paclitaxel with either capivasertib or placebo. The primary end point for part A was safety to recommend a dose and schedule for part B; primary end points for part B were progression-free survival (PFS) in the overall and PIK3CA+ sub-population.ResultsCapivasertib was well tolerated, with a 400 mg b.i.d. 4 days on/3 days off treatment schedule selected in part A. In part B, median PFS in the overall population was 10.9 months with capivasertib versus 8.4 months with placebo [hazard ratio (HR) 0.80; P = 0.308]. In the PIK3CA+ sub-population, median PFS was 10.9 months with capivasertib versus 10.8 months with placebo (HR 1.11; P = 0.760). Based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event v4.0, the most common grade ≥3 adverse events in the capivasertib group were diarrhoea, hyperglycaemia, neutropoenia and maculopapular rash. Dose intensity of paclitaxel was similar in both groups.ConclusionsCapivasertib had no apparent impact on the tolerability and dose intensity of paclitaxel. Adding capivasertib to weekly paclitaxel did not prolong PFS in the overall population or PIK3CA+ sub-population of ER+/HER2− advanced/metastatic breast cancer patients.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01625286.     

Carboplatin and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus carboplatin and paclitaxel in very platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer patients: Results from a subset analysis of the CALYPSO phase III trial

AimTo perform a subset analysis of patients with very platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) enrolled in the phase III CALYPSO trial.Patients and methodsThe international non-inferiority trial enrolled women with ROC that relapsed >6 months following first- or second-line platinum- and paclitaxel-based therapies. Patients were randomised to CD [carboplatin–pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD)] or CP (carboplatin–paclitaxel) and stratified by treatment-free interval (TFI). In this analysis, patients with a TFI > 24 months were analysed separately for progression free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint of CALYPSO, overall survival (OS) and safety.ResultsA total of 259 very platinum-sensitive patients were included (n = 131, CD; n = 128, CP). Median PFS was 12.0 months for the CD arm and 12.3 months for CP [HR = 1.05 (95% CI, 0.79–1.40); P = 0.73 for superiority] and median OS was 40.2 months for CD and 43.9 for CP [HR = 1.18 (95% CI 0.85–1.63); P = 0.33 for superiority]. Overall response rates were 42% and 38%, respectively (P = 0.46). Toxicities were more common with CP versus CD, including grade 3/4 neutropenia (40.8% versus 27.5%; P = 0.025), nausea (4.8% versus 3.1%; P = 0.47), allergic reaction (8% versus 3.1%; P = 0.082) sensory neuropathy (4.8% versus 2.3%; P = 0.27) and grade 2 alopecia (88% versus 9.2%; P < 0.001). Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (12.2% versus 3.2%; P = 0.007) and mucositis (2.3% versus 0%; P = 0.089) were more common with CD. Grade 3/4 hand-foot syndrome occurred rarely with CD (3 patients versus 0 in CP arm; P = 0.089).ConclusionCP and CD were equally effective treatment regimens for patients with very platinum-sensitive ROC. The favourable risk–benefit profile suggests carboplatin–PLD as treatment of choice for these patients.     

Maintenance pazopanib versus placebo in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients non-progressive after first line chemotherapy: A double blind randomised phase III study of the lung cancer group,EORTC 08092 (EudraCT: 2010-018566-23, NCT01208064)

BackgroundSwitch maintenance is an effective strategy in the treatment of advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). Pazopanib is an oral, multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). EORTC 08092 evaluated pazopanib given as maintenance treatment following standard first line platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC.MethodsPatients with non-progressive disease after 4–6 cycles of chemotherapy were randomised to receive either pazopanib 800 mg/day or matched placebo until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end-point was overall survival and secondary end-points were progression-free survival (PFS) and safety.ResultsA total of 600 patients were planned to be randomised. The trial was prematurely stopped following an early interim analysis, after 102 patients were randomised to pazopanib (n = 50) or placebo (n = 52). Median age was 64 years in both arms. Median overall survival was 17.4 months for pazopanib and 12.3 months for placebo (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.72 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40–1.28]; p = 0.257). Median PFS was 4.3 months versus 3.2 months (HR 0.67, [95% CI 0.43–1.03], p = 0.068). PFS rates at 4 months were 56% and 45% respectively. The majority of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were grade 1–2. Grade 3–4 AEs (pazopanib versus placebo) were hypertension (38% versus 8%), neutropenia (8% versus 0%), and elevated SGPT (6% versus 0%). Of the patients randomised to pazopanib, 22% withdrew due to a treatment-related AE.ConclusionsSwitch maintenance with pazopanib following platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC patients had limited side-effects. This study was stopped due to lack of efficacy by stringent criteria for PFS at a futility interim analysis.     

Three-arm randomised controlled phase 2 study comparing pemetrexed and erlotinib to either pemetrexed or erlotinib alone as second-line treatment for never-smokers with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer

BackgroundThis randomised controlled phase 2 study compared pemetrexed and erlotinib in combination with either agent alone in terms of efficacy and safety as second-line treatment in a clinically selected population of never-smokers with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).MethodsPatients who had failed only one prior chemotherapy regimen and had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) ?2 were randomised to either: pemetrexed 500 mg/m² on day 1 plus erlotinib 150 mg daily on days 2–14; erlotinib 150 mg daily; or pemetrexed 500 mg/m² on day 1 of a 21-day cycle until discontinuation criteria were met. The primary endpoint, progression-free survival (PFS), was analysed using a multivariate Cox model. Firstly, a global comparison across the three arms was performed. If the global null hypothesis was rejected at a two-sided 0.2 significance level, pairwise comparisons of pemetrexed–erlotinib versus erlotinib or pemetrexed were then conducted using the same model. Statistical significance was claimed only if both global and pairwise null hypotheses were rejected at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.FindingsA total of 240 patients (male, 35%; East Asian, 55%; ECOG PS 0–1, 93%) were included. A statistically significant difference in PFS was found across the three arms (global p = 0.003), with pemetrexed–erlotinib significantly better than either single agent: HR = 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.40–0.81, p = 0.002 versus erlotinib; HR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.39–0.85, p = 0.005 versus pemetrexed. Median PFS (95% CI) was 7.4 (4.4, 12.9) months in pemetrexed–erlotinib, 3.8 (2.7, 6.3) months in erlotinib and 4.4 (3.0, 6.0) months in pemetrexed. Safety analyses showed a higher incidence of drug-related grade 3/4 toxicity in pemetrexed–erlotinib (60.0%) than in pemetrexed (28.9%) or erlotinib (12.0%); the majority being neutropenia, anaemia, rash and diarrhoea.InterpretationPemetrexed–erlotinib significantly improved PFS compared to either drug alone in this clinically selected population. The combination had more toxicity, but was clinically manageable.     

Efficacy and safety findings from DREAM: a phase III study of DHP107 (oral paclitaxel) versus i.v. paclitaxel in patients with advanced gastric cancer after failure of first-line chemotherapy

BackgroundPaclitaxel is currently only available as an intravenous (i.v.) formulation. DHP107 is a novel oral formulation of lipid ingredients and paclitaxel. DHP107 demonstrated comparable efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics to i.v. paclitaxel as a second-line therapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). DREAM is a multicenter, open-label, prospective, randomized phase III study of patients with histologically/cytologically confirmed, unresectable/recurrent AGC after first-line therapy failure.Methods and materialsPatients were randomized 1 : 1 to DHP107 (200 mg/m² orally twice daily days 1, 8, 15 every 4 weeks) or i.v. paclitaxel (175 mg/m² day 1 every 3 weeks). Patients were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, disease status, and prior treatment; response was assessed (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) every 6 weeks. Primary end point: non-inferiority of progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points: overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. For the efficacy analysis, sequential tests for non-inferiority were carried out, first with a non-inferiority margin of 1.48, then with a margin of 1.25.ResultsBaseline characteristics were balanced in the 236 randomized patients (n = 118 per arm). Median PFS (per-protocol) was 3.0 (95% CI 1.7–4.0) months for DHP107 and 2.6 (95% CI 1.8–2.8) months for paclitaxel (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.85; 95% CI 0.64–1.13). A sensitivity analysis on PFS using independent central review showed similar results (HR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.70–1.24). Median OS (full analysis set) was 9.7 (95% CI 7.1 − 11.5) months for DHP107 versus 8.9 (95% CI 7.1–12.2) months for paclitaxel (HR = 1.04; 95% CI 0.76–1.41). ORR was 17.8% for DHP107 (CR 4.2%; PR 13.6%) versus 25.4% for paclitaxel (CR 3.4%; PR 22.0%). Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and mucositis were more common with DHP107; peripheral neuropathy was more common with paclitaxel. There were only few Grade≥3 adverse events, most commonly neutropenia (42% versus 53%); febrile neutropenia was reported infrequently (5.9% versus 2.5%). No hypersensitivity reactions occurred with DHP107 (paclitaxel 2.5%).ConclusionsDHP107 as a second-line treatment of AGC was non-inferior to paclitaxel for PFS; other efficacy and safety parameters were comparable. DHP107 is the first oral paclitaxel with proven efficacy/safety for the treatment of AGC.ClinicalTrials.govNCT01839773.     

A randomized,phase 2 study of cetuximab plus cisplatin with or without paclitaxel for the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

BackgroundB490 (EudraCT# 2011-002564-24) is a randomized, phase 2b, noninferiority study investigating the efficacy and safety of first-line cetuximab plus cisplatin with/without paclitaxel (CetCis versus CetCisPac) in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN).Patients and methodsEligible patients had confirmed R/M SCCHN (oral cavity/oropharynx/larynx/hypopharynx/paranasal sinus) and no prior therapy for R/M disease. Cetuximab was administered on day 1 (2-h infusion, 400 mg/m²), then weekly (1-h infusions, 250 mg/m²). Cisplatin was given as a 1-h infusion (CetCis arm: 100 mg/m²; CetCisPac arm: 75 mg/m²) on day 1 of each cycle for a maximum of six cycles. Paclitaxel was administered as a 3-h infusion (175 mg/m²) on day 1 of each cycle. After six cycles, maintenance cetuximab was administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). We assumed a noninferiority margin of 1.40 as compatible with efficacy.ResultsA total of 201 patients were randomized 1 : 1 to each regimen; 191 were assessable. PFS with CetCis (median, 6 months) was noninferior to PFS with CetCisPac (median, 7 months) [HR for CetCis versus CetCisPac 0.99; 95% CI: 0.72–1.36,P = 0.906; margin of noninferiority (90% CI of 1.4) not reached]. Median overall survival was 13 versus 11 months (HR = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.53–1.11,P = 0.117). The overall response rates were 41.8% versus 51.7%, respectively (OR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.38–1.20,P = 0.181). Grade ≥3 adverse event rates were 76% and 73% for CetCis versus CetCisPac, respectively, while grade 4 toxicities were lower in the two-drug versus three-drug arm (14% versus 33%,P = 0.015). No toxic death or sepsis were reported and cardiac events were negligible (1%).ConclusionThe two-drug CetCis regimen proved to be noninferior in PFS to a three-drug combination with CetCisPac. The median OS of both regimens is comparable with that observed in EXTREME, while the life-threatening toxicity rate appeared reduced.Clinical trial numberEudraCT# 2011-002564-24.     

Influence of low absolute lymphocyte count of patients with nongerminal center type diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with R-CHOP therapy

BackgroundRituximab has dramatic impact on outcome of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), especially nongerminal center (non-GC) type. A low absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) before rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, adriamycin, and prednisone (R-CHOP) therapy as a surrogate marker of immune status is associated with poor clinical outcome in DLBCL. Therefore, we hypothesized that low ALC before R-CHOP would have effect on the survival in non-GC type.Patients and methodsOne hundred and thirty-six DLBCL patients who were treated with R-CHOP from 2003 to 2007 were analyzed in the present study.ResultsALC ≥1.0 × 10⁹/l predicted a longer 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) and 3-year overall survival (OS) versus ALC <1.0 × 10⁹/l (82.6% versus 60.0%, P = 0.005 and 87.2% versus 62.0%, P < 0.001, respectively). Non-GC type had similar PFS and OS to germinal center type (68.2% versus 80.0%, P = 0.074 and 72.7% versus 82.9%, P = 0.111, respectively). However, considering clinical influence of the ALC according to immunophenotype, low ALC in non-GC type DLBCL was associated with lower PFS and OS compared with others (PFS, P = 0.002; OS, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that low ALC in non-GC type had lower PFS [hazard ratio (HR) = 3.324, P = 0.001] and OS (HR = 4.318, P < 0.001), independent of international prognostic index.ConclusionA low ALC in non-GC type DLBCL counteracted the beneficial effect of rituximab on survival.     

A randomised,double-blind,placebo-controlled trial of trametinib,an oral MEK inhibitor,in combination with gemcitabine for patients with untreated metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas

BackgroundTrametinib, an oral mitogen/extracellular signal-related kinase (MEK)1/2 inhibitor, holds promise for malignancies with rat sarcoma (RAS) mutations, like pancreas cancer. This phase II study was designed to determine overall survival (OS) in patients with pancreas cancer treated with trametinib and gemcitabine. Secondary end-points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR); safety end-points were also assessed.MethodsAdults with untreated metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were randomised (1:1) to receive intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² (weekly × 7 for 8 weeks, then days 1, 8 and 15 of 28-day cycles) plus trametinib or placebo 2 mg daily. RAS mutations were determined in circulating free DNA (cfDNA) and archival tumour tissue. OS was evaluated in kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) mutant and wild-type subgroups.ResultsBaseline characteristics for 160 patients were similar in both treatment arms. There was no significant difference in OS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.67–1.44; P = .453); median OS was 8.4 months with gemcitabine plus trametinib and 6.7 months with gemcitabine plus placebo. Median PFS (16 versus 15 weeks), ORR (22% versus 18%) and median DOR (23.9 versus 16.1 weeks) were also similar for trametinib and placebo arms, respectively. KRAS mutation-positive patients (n = 103) showed no difference in OS between arms. Thrombocytopenia, diarrhoea, rash and stomatitis were more frequent with trametinib, as was grade 3 anaemia.ConclusionsThe addition of trametinib to gemcitabine did not improve OS, PFS, ORR or DOR in patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreas cancer. Outcomes were independent of KRAS mutations determined by cfDNA.     

Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody combined with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil in patients with metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma after radical radiotherapy: a multicentre,open-label,phase II clinical trial

BackgroundWe conducted a single-arm phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects (AEs) of an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody, nimotuzumab, combined with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (PF) as first-line treatment in recurrent metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma after radical radiotherapy.MethodsPatients who met the eligibility criteria were recruited from ten institutions (ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT01616849). A Simon optimal two-stage design was used to calculate the sample size. All patients received weekly nimotuzumab (200 mg) added to cisplatin (100 mg/m² D1) and 5-fluorouracil (4 g/m² continuous infusion D1–4) every 3-weekly for a maximum of six cycles. Primary end point was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary end points included disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and AEs.ResultsA total of 35 patients were enrolled (13 in stage 1 and 22 in stage 2). Overall ORR and DCR were 71.4% (25/35) and 85.7% (30/35), respectively. Median PFS and OS were 7.0 (95% CI 5.8–8.2) months and 16.3 (95% CI 11.4–21.3) months, respectively. Unplanned exploratory analyses suggest that patients who received ≥2400 mg nimotuzumab and ≥4 cycles of PF had superior ORR, PFS and OS than those who did not (88.9% versus 12.5%, P < 0.001; 7.4 versus 2.7 months, P = 0.081; 17.0 versus 8.0 months, P = 0.202). Favourable subgroups included patients with lung metastasis [HR_OS 0.324 (95% CI 0.146–0.717), P = 0.008] and disease-free interval of >12 months [HR_OS 0.307 (95% CI 0.131–0.724), P = 0.004], but no difference was observed for metastatic burden. The only major grade 3/4 AE was leukopenia (62.9%).ConclusionCombination nimotuzumab-PF chemotherapy demonstrates potential efficacy, and is well tolerated as first-line chemotherapy regimen in recurrent metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma.     

A multicentre randomised trial comparing weekly paclitaxel + S-1 with weekly paclitaxel + 5-fluorouracil for patients with advanced gastric cancer

PurposeThis study aimed to compare the efficacy and toxicity of weekly paclitaxel plus S-1 with weekly paclitaxel plus 5-fluorouracil in treating advanced gastric cancer as first line regimen. The primary end-point was disease control rate (DCR).MethodsPatients with advanced or recurrent gastric cancer were randomly assigned to an experimental arm or a control arm. The experimental arm’s dosage schedule was paclitaxel 60 mg/m² (intravenous infusion) on days 1, 8 and 15 and S-1 80–120 mg/d (oral administration) on days 1–14. Control arm patients were given the same paclitaxel, combined with 5-fluorouracil 500 mg/m² (continuous intravenous infusion) on days 1–5; and leucovorin 20 mg/m² (intravenous infusion) on days 1–5. All schedules were repeated every 28 d.ResultsA total of 240 patients were enrolled and equally randomised into two arms. The overall response rate and DCR of the experimental arm was non-inferior to that of the control arm both in the per-protocol set and the full analysis set. The secondary end-point median progression-free survival (PFS) of the experimental and control arms was 153 and 129 d, with the hazard ratio of 0.641 (95% CI: 0.473–0.868, P = 0.004). The hazard ratio of the time to treatment failure of the two arms was 1.449 (95% CI: 0.705–2.980, P = 0.229). The six-month PFS rates of both arms were similar (31.3% versus 31.8%, P = 0.94). Cox regression analysis indicated that only treatment regimen and age were independent predictive factors for PFS. The most common adverse events were haematological and gastrointestinal. The rates of grade 3–4 adverse events were not significantly different between the two study arms and were mostly lower than 5%.ConclusionWeekly paclitaxel combined with S-1 is an active and well-tolerated regimen, supporting the view that S-1 can be an alternative for infusional 5-fluorouracil for advanced gastric cancer.     

Nintedanib for the treatment of patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (LUME-Colon 1): a phase III,international, randomized,placebo-controlled study

BackgroundAngiogenesis is critical to colorectal cancer (CRC) growth and metastasis. Phase I/II studies have demonstrated the efficacy of nintedanib, a triple angiokinase inhibitor, in patients with metastatic CRC. This global, randomized, phase III study investigated the efficacy and safety of nintedanib in patients with refractory CRC after failure of standard therapies.Patients and methodsEligible patients (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–1, with histologically/cytologically confirmed metastatic/locally advanced CRC adenocarcinoma unamenable to surgery and/or radiotherapy) were randomized 1 : 1 to receive nintedanib (200 mg twice daily) or placebo (twice daily), until disease progression or undue toxicity. Patients were stratified by previous regorafenib, time from onset of metastatic disease to randomization, and region. Co-primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by central review. Secondary end points included objective tumor response and disease control by central review.ResultsFrom October 2014 to January 2016, 768 patients were randomized; 765 were treated (nintedanib n = 384; placebo n = 381). Median follow-up was 13.4 months (interquartile range 11.1–15.7). OS was not improved [median OS 6.4 months with nintedanib versus 6.0 months with placebo; hazard ratio (HR), 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.86–1.19; P = 0.8659]. There was a significant but modest increase in PFS with nintedanib versus placebo (median PFS 1.5 versus 1.4 months, respectively; HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.49–0.69; P < 0.0001). There were no complete or partial responses. Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 97% of 384 nintedanib-treated patients and 93% of 381 placebo-treated patients. The most frequent grade ≥3 AEs were liver-related AEs (nintedanib 16%; placebo 8%) and fatigue (nintedanib 9%; placebo 6%).ConclusionsThe study failed to meet both co-primary end points. Nintedanib did not improve OS and was associated with a significant but modest increase in PFS versus placebo. Nintedanib was well tolerated.ClinicalTrials.gov numberNCT02149108 (LUME-Colon 1).     

Effects of erlotinib first-line maintenance therapy versus placebo on the health-related quality of life of patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

IntroductionMaintenance therapy can delay progression and prolong survival in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). As treatment for mNSCLC is non-curative, its impact on patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important consideration. SATURN (Sequential Tarceva in Unresectable NSCLC) was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study investigating the impact of erlotinib maintenance therapy on HRQoL in patients with locally advanced or recurrent NSCLC.Patients and MethodsEligible patients who had previously completed four cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy were randomised 1:1 to receive erlotinib 150 mg/day or placebo until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or death. Patient HRQoL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung questionnaire, in terms of time to symptom progression (TSP), time to deterioration (TTD) in Trial Outcome Index (TOI) and TTD. Exploratory analysis was based on time to analgesia and appearance of key symptoms (pain, cough and dyspnoea).ResultsCompared with placebo, erlotinib maintenance therapy prolonged progression-free and overall survival by 41% and 23%, respectively. At baseline, HRQoL measures were comparable between the two treatment groups. Maintenance therapy with erlotinib did not impact on deterioration in HRQoL: TSP (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.91 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74–1.12]; n = 785), TTD in TOI (HR = 1.06 [95% CI 0.87–1.31]; n = 781) and TTD in HRQoL (HR = 0.96 [95% CI 0.79–1.16]; n = 776). Time to pain and time to analgesic use were significantly delayed in patients receiving erlotinib compared with placebo (HR = 0.61 [95% CI 0.42–0.88]; p = 0.0080 and HR = 0.66 [95% CI 0.46–0.94]; p = 0.0199, respectively). A non-significant trend towards delayed time to cough and time to dyspnoea (HR = 0.77 [95% CI 0.49–1.21] and HR = 0.75 [95% CI 0.48–1.17], respectively) was also observed.ConclusionsErlotinib maintenance therapy significantly extends progression-free survival without compromising patient HRQoL in comparison with placebo, with some improvement in symptoms.     

Paclitaxel and bevacizumab with or without capecitabine as first-line treatment for HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer: A multicentre,open-label,randomised phase 2 trial

BackgroundThe addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel or capecitabine has demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) as compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (LR/MBC). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line therapy of paclitaxel and bevacizumab with or without capecitabine in patients with HER2-negative LR/MBC.MethodsIn this multicentre, open-label, randomised phase II trial, women with HER2-negative LR/MBC were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to paclitaxel (90 mg/m² intravenously [IV] on days 1, 8, and 15) and bevacizumab (10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 15) every 4 weeks for six cycles, followed by bevacizumab (15 mg/kg IV on day 1) every 3 weeks (AT) or to paclitaxel (90 mg/m² IV on days 1 and 8), bevacizumab (15 mg/kg IV on day 1) and capecitabine (825 mg/m² orally twice daily on days 1–14) every 3 weeks for eight cycles, followed by bevacizumab and capecitabine at the same doses every 3 weeks (ATX). The primary end-point was investigator-assessed PFS. Secondary end-points included ORR, duration of response, overall survival (OS) and safety. Exploratory analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact of capecitabine on OS and to validate a novel prognostic model. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2006-006058-83.FindingsMedian PFS was significantly longer in ATX as compared with AT (11.2 months versus 8.4 months; stratified hazard ratio (HR), 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.41–0.67; p < 0.0001). The ORR in ATX patients with measurable disease (n = 268) was higher than that in AT (69% versus 51%; p = 0.01). The median duration of response was 6.8 versus 5.4 months for, respectively, ATX and AT (p < 0.0001). Median OS was 24.2 months for ATX and 23.1 months for AT (p = 0.53). The increased rate of grade 3–4 adverse events related to the addition of capecitabine, being hand-foot syndrome (34% versus 0% for AT) and neutropenia (20% versus 12% for AT), generally did not preclude continuation of treatment. Exploratory analyses indicated that 1) patients receiving capecitabine at some line for treatment have significantly improved OS and 2) a prognostic model can classify patients into three risk groups associated with OS.InterpretationIn patients with HER2-negative LR/MBC, addition of capecitabine to paclitaxel and bevacizumab significantly improved PFS, ORR and response duration. This combination was reasonably well tolerated and may be considered of use as first-line treatment in rapidly progressive disease.FundingF. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, the Netherlands.