CODEL: phase III study of RT,RT + TMZ,or TMZ for newly diagnosed 1p/19q codeleted oligodendroglioma. Analysis from the initial study design

BackgroundWe report the analysis involving patients treated on the initial CODEL design.MethodsAdults (>18) with newly diagnosed 1p/19q World Health Organization (WHO) grade III oligodendroglioma were randomized to radiotherapy (RT; 5940 centigray ) alone (arm A); RT with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ) (arm B); or TMZ alone (arm C). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), arm A versus B. Secondary comparisons were performed for OS and progression-free survival (PFS), comparing pooled RT arms versus TMZ-alone arm.ResultsThirty-six patients were randomized equally. At median follow-up of 7.5 years, 83.3% (10/12) TMZ-alone patients progressed, versus 37.5% (9/24) on the RT arms. PFS was significantly shorter in TMZ-alone patients compared with RT patients (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.12; 95% CI: 1.26, 7.69; P = 0.014). Death from disease progression occurred in 3/12 (25%) of TMZ-alone patients and 4/24 (16.7%) on the RT arms. OS did not statistically differ between arms (comparison underpowered). After adjustment for isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) status (mutated/wildtype) in a Cox regression model utilizing IDH and RT treatment status as covariables (arm C vs pooled arms A + B), PFS remained shorter for patients not receiving RT (HR = 3.33; 95% CI: 1.31, 8.45; P = 0.011), but not OS ((HR = 2.78; 95% CI: 0.58, 13.22, P = 0.20). Grade 3+ adverse events occurred in 25%, 42%, and 33% of patients (arms A, B, and C). There were no differences between arms in neurocognitive decline comparing baseline to 3 months.ConclusionsTMZ-alone patients experienced significantly shorter PFS than patients treated on the RT arms. The ongoing CODEL trial has been redesigned to compare RT + PCV versus RT + TMZ.     

Activity of Sorafenib Plus Capecitabine in Previously Treated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Lessons Learned

• Treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) typically involves multiple lines of therapy with eventual development of treatment resistance.
• In this single‐arm, phase II study involving heavily pretreated patients, the combination of sorafenib and capecitabine yielded a clinically meaningful progression‐free survival of 6.2 months with an acceptable toxicity profile.
• This oral doublet therapy is worthy of continued investigation for clinical use in patients with mCRC.

BackgroundCapecitabine (Cape) is an oral prodrug of the antimetabolite 5‐fluorouracil. Sorafenib (Sor) inhibits multiple signaling pathways involved in angiogenesis and tumor proliferation. SorCape has been previously studied in metastatic breast cancer.MethodsThis single‐arm, phase II study was designed to evaluate the activity of SorCape in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients received Sor (200 mg p.o. b.i.d. max daily) and Cape (1,000 mg/m² p.o. b.i.d. on days 1–14) on a 21‐day treatment cycle. Primary endpoint was progression‐free survival (PFS) with preplanned comparison with historical controls.ResultsForty‐two patients were treated for a median number of 3.5 cycles (range 1–39). Median PFS was 6.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3–7.9) months, and overall survival (OS) was 8.8 (95% CI, 4.3–12.2) months. One patient (2.4%) had partial response (PR), and 22 patients (52.4%) had stable disease (SD) for a clinical benefit rate of 54.8% (95% CI, 38.7%–70.2%). Hand‐foot syndrome was the most common adverse event seen in 36 patients (85.7%) and was grade ≥ 3 in 16 patients (38.1%). One patient (2.4%) had a grade 4 sepsis, and one patient (2.4%) died while on treatment.ConclusionSorCape in this heavily pretreated population yielded a reasonable PFS with manageable but notable toxicity. The combination should be investigated further.     

Safety and Feasibility of Radiotherapy Plus Camrelizumab for Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Lessons Learned

• Radiotherapy plus anti–PD‐1 antibody as first‐line therapy is safe and feasible in locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).
• Tumor‐infiltrating and peripheral lymphocytes were associated with patient survival.
• Further studies combining chemoradiotherapy with immunotherapy in locally advanced ESCC and exploration of predictive biomarkers are warranted.

BackgroundWe conducted a phase Ib study of radiotherapy plus programmed cell death protein 1 (PD‐1) monoclonal antibody camrelizumab as first‐line treatment for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).MethodsWe planned to enroll 20 patients with newly diagnosed locally advanced ESCC. Patients received 60 Gy radiation (2.0 Gy/fraction, 5 fractions/week), with camrelizumab (200 mg every 2 weeks) starting with radiotherapy and continuing for 32 weeks (i.e., for 16 cycles). The primary endpoints were safety and feasibility. Secondary endpoints were rates of radiologic and pathologic response, overall survival (OS), and progression‐free survival (PFS). Study data were collected by the week during radiotherapy (RT), every month during the maintenance camrelizumab treatment, and every 3 months after treatment. Tumor microenvironment and peripheral blood were monitored at baseline and after 40 Gy radiation for association with efficacy.ResultsTwenty patients were enrolled and received treatment. One patient (patient 10) was excluded upon discovery of a second tumor in the bladder during treatment, leaving 19 patients for analysis. Toxicity was deemed tolerable. Fourteen (74%) patients had assessed objective response. At a median follow‐up time of 31.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 27.0–35.1), median OS and PFS times were 16.7 months (95% CI, 5.9–27.9) and 11.7 months (95% CI, 0–30.3), respectively. OS and PFS rates at 24 months were 31.6% and 35.5%, respectively. Kaplan‐Meier analysis revealed associations between the following factors and OS/PFS: tumor programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD‐L1) expression, PD‐1⁺CD8⁺, PD‐1⁺CD4⁺ T cells, and PD‐L1⁺CD4⁺ T cells; peripheral blood CD4⁺, CD8⁺, CD4⁺ regulatory T cells, and their subsets.ConclusionRadiotherapy plus camrelizumab had manageable toxicity and antitumor efficacy for locally advanced ESCC. Several biomarkers were associated with clinical benefit and deserve further study.     

A Randomized Phase II Study of AGS-16C3F Versus Axitinib in Previously Treated Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Lessons Learned

• The primary endpoint of this phase II study that evaluated the efficacy and safety of the investigational compound, AGS‐16C3F, versus axitinib in previously treated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) was not met.
• Median progression‐free survival, the primary endpoint, was 2.9 months with AGS‐16C3F and 5.7 months with axitinib (HR, 1.676; 95% CI, 1.107–2.537; p = .015), per investigator assessment
• The safety profile for each study drug was as expected, with the most commonly reported adverse events being fatigue (53%) and nausea (47%) in the AGS‐16C3F arm and fatigue (57%) and diarrhea (48%) in the axitinib arm.
• These results provide a benchmark for axitinib use in heavily pretreated patients with mRCC.

BackgroundAGS‐16C3F is a novel antibody‐drug conjugate that targets cell‐surface ectonucleotide pyrophosphatase/phosphodiesterase 3 (ENPP3) and is conjugated to a microtubule disruptive agent. Here we present findings from a phase II study of AGS‐16C3F versus axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).MethodsPatients with mRCC of any histology and disease progression during or after their last treatment regimen were randomized 1:1 to intravenous AGS‐16C3F 1.8 mg/kg every 3 weeks or oral axitinib 5 mg twice daily (starting dose). The primary objective was investigator‐assessed progression‐free survival (PFS) of AGS‐16C3F versus axitinib (RECIST version 1.1).ResultsIn the total population (N = 133), 63% (n = 84) of patients had completed the study at data cutoff (August 21, 2019). Median PFS was 2.9 months with AGS‐16C3F and 5.7 months with axitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 1.676; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.107–2.537; p = .015). There were no significant differences between arms in secondary efficacy endpoints, including overall survival (13.1 months, AGS‐16C3F and 15.4 months, axitinib; HR, 1.079; 95% CI, 0.681–1.707; p = .747). In the safety population (n = 131), the most commonly reported adverse events were fatigue (53%) and nausea (47%) in the AGS‐16C3F arm and fatigue (57%) and diarrhea (48%) in the axitinib arm. The incidence of diarrhea was lower in the AGS‐16C3F arm than in the axitinib arm (17% vs. 48%), and ocular toxicities were more frequent in the AGS‐16C3F arm than in the axitinib arm (44% vs. 26%).ConclusionThe investigational compound, AGS‐16C3F, did not meet the primary endpoint of this trial. These study results provide a benchmark for axitinib use in heavily pretreated patients with mRCC.     

A European,Observational, Prospective Trial of Trabectedin Plus Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin in Patients with Platinum-Sensitive Ovarian Cancer

PurposeThe noninterventional, prospective NIMES‐ROC phase IV study ({"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT02825420","term_id":"NCT02825420"}}NCT02825420) evaluated trabectedin plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in real‐life clinical practice.Patients and MethodsEligible participants included adults with platinum‐sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PS‐ROC) who had received one or more cycles of trabectedin/PLD before inclusion according to the marketing authorization. The primary endpoint was progression‐free survival (PFS) according to investigator criteria.ResultsTwo hundred eighteen patients from five European countries were evaluated, 72.5% of whom were pretreated with at least two prior chemotherapy lines and received a median of six cycles of trabectedin/PLD (range: 1–24). Median PFS was 9.46 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.9–10.9), and median overall survival (OS) was 23.56 months (95% CI, 18.1–34.1). Patients not pretreated with an antiangiogenic drug obtained larger median PFS (p < .007) and OS (p < .048), largely owning to differences between the two populations. Twenty‐four patients (11.0%) had a complete response, and 57 patients (26.1%) achieved a partial response for an objective response rate (ORR) of 37.2%. Fifty‐nine patients (27.1%) had disease stabilization for a disease control rate of 64.2%. No statistically significant difference in PFS, OS, or ORR was observed by BRCA1/2 status and platinum sensitivity. Most common grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia (30.3%), anemia (6.4%), thrombocytopenia (5.5%), and asthenia (5.0%). No deaths attributed to treatment‐related AEs or unexpected AEs occurred.ConclusionThe combination of trabectedin/PLD represents a clinically meaningful and safe option for patients with PS‐ROC regardless of prior treatment with an antiangiogenic drug, being comparable with previously observed outcomes in selected and less pretreated patients from clinical trials.Implications for PracticeThis noninterventional, prospective study, conducted in 57 reference sites across Europe, consistently confirmed that trabectedin plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in routine clinical practice represents a clinically meaningful and safe option for women with platinum‐sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. Although the study population represented a heterogeneous, older, and more pretreated population than those in prospective clinical trials, the combination of trabectedin plus PLD induced comparable clinical benefits, with a similar and manageable safety profile. Overall, these findings show that trabectedin in combination with PLD maintains antitumor activity when administered to heavily pretreated patients in real‐life clinical practice.     

Safety and Efficacy of Cetuximab-Based Salvage Chemotherapy After Checkpoint Inhibitors in Head and Neck Cancer

BackgroundThere are still few data on the activity and safety of cetuximab‐based salvage chemotherapy after immunotherapy (SCAI) in patients with squamous cell cancer of the head and neck (SCCHN).Materials and MethodsThis was a retrospective study of patients with SCCHN who received cetuximab‐based SCAI after programmed cell death protein 1 or programmed cell death ligand 1(PD[L]1) inhibitors. Overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) with SCAI and with last chemotherapy before immunotherapy (LCBI) by RECIST 1.1, percentage change from baseline in target lesions (PCTL), progression‐free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), treatment compliance, and toxicity were evaluated.ResultsBetween March 2016 and November 2019, 23 patients were identified. SCAI consisted of cetuximab‐based combinations (3‐weekly cisplatin‐5FU‐cetuximab [n = 2], weekly paclitaxel‐cetuximab [n = 17], weekly cisplatin‐cetuximab [n = 2], weekly carboplatin‐paclitaxel‐cetuximab [n = 2]). ORR was 56.5% (11 partial response, 2 complete response). DCR was 78.3%. Among 13 objective responders, median best PCTL was −53.5% (range, −30% to −100%). Median OS and PFS were 12 months and 6 months, respectively. In 10 patients receiving LCBI, ORR to LCBI was 40%, whereas ORR to SCAI achieved 60%. In LCBI‐treated patients, median PFS with LCBI was 8 months and median PFS and OS with SCAI were 7 months and 12 months, respectively. Reduced dose intensity of the chemotherapy and cetuximab components occurred in 82.6% and 52.2% of the patients. Grade 1 or 2 adverse events (AEs) occurred in all patients. Grade 3 or 4 AEs developed in 65%, being grade 3 in all of them except in one patient (grade 4 neutropenia). There were no treatment‐related deaths.ConclusionCetuximab‐based salvage chemotherapy after PD(L)1 inhibitors associated with high response rates and deep tumor reductions with a manageable safety profile. Subsequent lines of therapy may explain the long survival achieved in our series. These results invite to design studies to elucidate the best therapeutic sequence in patients with SCCHN in the immunotherapy era.Implications for PracticeCetuximab‐based salvage chemotherapy (SCAI) achieved high response rates in patients with recurrent/metastatic squamous cell cancer of the head and neck (SCCHN) after progression to PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors. Objective response rate was higher than and progression‐free survival was comparable to that of chemotherapy administered before immunotherapy (IO). In most patients, SCAI consisted of weekly, well‐tolerated regimens. These observations have implications for current practice because of the limited evidence to date in SCCHN and the scant therapeutic options in this disease and invite to elucidate which may be the best treatment sequence for patients with head and neck cancer in the IO era.     

Apatinib in Combination with S-1 as First-Line Treatment in Patients with Advanced Metastatic Gastric Cancer: Results from an Open,Exploratory, Single-Arm,Phase II Trial

Lessons Learned

• Apatinib combined with S‐1 was not superior to other chemotherapy regimens as first‐line therapy for advanced gastric cancer.
• There was a tendency for patients with lymph node metastasis to have prolonged median progression‐free survival and median overall survival, compared with patients with liver metastasis.

BackgroundThe best choice of first‐line chemotherapy regimen for patients with metastatic gastric cancer is still debated. We combined apatinib and S‐1 as a new first‐line therapy to treat advanced gastric cancer. The efficacy and safety of the combination were assessed, with the goal of determining the most appropriate subgroup of patients who could benefit from this new regimen.MethodsThis study was an open, exploratory single‐arm, phase II trial. Enrolled patients received apatinib plus S‐1 treatment (apatinib, 500 mg, once a day [qd], days 1–21; S‐1, 40 mg/m², bid, days 1–14). The primary endpoints were progression‐free survival (PFS) and safety of this new regimen. Next‐generation sequencing was used to explore potential biomarkers.ResultsA total of 30 patients were enrolled. The median progression‐free survival (mPFS) was 4.21 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.29–6.13 months). The median overall survival (mOS) was 7.49 months (95% CI, 4.81–10.17 months). Patients with lymph node metastasis had prolonged mPFS and mOS when compared with those with liver metastasis (mPFS, 4.21 vs. 1.84 months; mOS, 8.21 vs. 6.31 months, p = .08). The most common grade 3 to 4 adverse events were abdominal pain, dizziness, and diarrhea. Gene mutation profiles between the two subgroups were significantly different.ConclusionApatinib combined with S‐1 was not superior to other chemotherapy regimens as first‐line therapy for advanced gastric cancer. Toxicity was consistent with known profiles when given as monotherapy. There was a tendency toward prolonged mPFS and mOS in patients with lymph node metastasis compared with patients with liver metastasis, which could support the need to design a future clinical trial with a better defined patient population.     

Treatment Outcomes of Well-Differentiated High-Grade Neuroendocrine Tumors

IntroductionRecent classification of neuroendocrine neoplasms has defined well‐differentiated high‐grade neuroendocrine tumors (NET G3) as a distinct entity from poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma. The optimal treatment for NET G3 has not been well‐described. This study aimed to evaluate metastatic NET G3 response to different treatment regimens.Materials and MethodsThis was a retrospective study of patients with NET G3 within the Mayo Clinic database. Patients’ demographics along with treatment characteristics, responses, and survival were assessed. Primary endpoints were progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival. Secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR).ResultsTreatment data was available in 30 patients with median age of 59.5 years at diagnosis. The primary tumor was mostly pancreatic (73.3%). Ki‐67 index was ≥55% in 26.7% of cases. Treatments included capecitabine + temozolomide (CAPTEM) (n = 20), lutetium 177 DOTATATE (PRRT; n = 10), Platinum‐etoposide (EP; n = 8), FOLFOX (n = 7), and everolimus (n = 2). CAPTEM exhibited ORR 35%, DCR 65%, and median PFS 9.4 months (95% confidence interval, 2.96–16.07). Both EP and FOLFOX showed similar radiographic response rates with ORR 25.0% and 28.6%; however, median PFS durations were quite distinct at 2.94 and 13.04 months, respectively. PRRT had ORR of 20%, DCR of 70%, and median PFS of 9.13 months.ConclusionAmong patients with NET G3, CAPTEM was the most commonly used treatment with clinically meaningful efficacy and disease control. FOLFOX or PRRT are other potentially active treatment options. EP has some activity in NET G3, but responses appear to be short‐lived. Prospective studies evaluating different treatments effects in patients with NET G3 are needed to determine an optimal treatment strategy.Implications for PracticeHigh‐grade well‐differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (NET G3) are considered a different entity from low‐grade NET and neuroendocrine carcinoma in terms of prognosis and management. The oral combination of capecitabine and temozolomide is considered a good option in the management of metastatic NET G3 and may be preferred. FOLFOX is another systemic option with reasonable efficacy. Similar to other well‐differentiated neuroendocrine tumors, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy seems to have some efficacy in these tumors.     

Phase Ib/II Study of Biweekly TAS-102 in Combination with Bevacizumab for Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Refractory to Standard Therapies (BiTS Study)

Lessons Learned

• A biweekly TAS‐102 plus BEV schedule in patients with heavily pretreated mCRC showed equivalent efficacy with less toxicity compared with the current schedule of TAS‐102 plus BEV combination.
• Biweekly TAS‐102 plus BEV combination could reduce unnecessary dose reduction of TAS‐102, maintain higher doses, and possibly be effective even in cases without chemotherapy‐induced neutropenia (CIN).
• The prespecified subgroup analysis of this study showed an obvious association between CIN within the first two cycles and prognosis of biweekly TAS‐102 plus BEV.

BackgroundTAS‐102 (trifluridine/tipiracil) plus bevacizumab (BEV) combination therapy has shown promising activity in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, the previously reported dose and schedule for the TAS‐102 (70 mg/m²/day on days 1–5 and 8–12, every 4 weeks) plus BEV (5 mg/kg on day 1, every 2 weeks) regimen is complicated by severe hematological toxicities and difficult administration schedules. Here, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of a more convenient biweekly TAS‐102 plus BEV combination.MethodsPatients with mCRC who were refractory or intolerant to standard chemotherapies were enrolled. Patients received biweekly TAS‐102 (twice daily on days 1–5, every 2 weeks) with BEV (5mg/kg on day 1, every 2 weeks). The primary endpoint was progression‐free survival rate at 16 weeks (16‐w PFS rate).ResultsFrom October 2017 to January 2018, 46 patients were enrolled. The recommended phase II dose was determined to be TAS‐102 (70 mg/m²/day). Of the 44 eligible patients, the 16‐w PFS rate was 40.9% (95% confidence interval, 26.3%–56.8%), and the null hypothesis was rejected (p < .0001). Median progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival were 4.29 months and 10.86 months, respectively. Disease control rate was 59.1%. Common grade 3 or higher adverse events were hypertension (40.9%), neutropenia (15.9%), and leucopenia (15.9%).ConclusionBiweekly TAS‐102 plus BEV showed promising antitumor activity with safety.     

Somatostatin Analogs for Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: Any Benefit When Ki‐67 Is ≥10%?

BackgroundLong‐acting somatostatin analogs (SSAs) are the primary first‐line treatment of well‐differentiated advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), but data about their efficacy in pancreatic NETs (panNETs) with Ki‐67 ≥10% are still limited.Materials and MethodsTo assess the clinical outcomes of advanced, nonfunctioning, well‐differentiated panNETs with Ki‐67 ≥10% receiving first‐line long‐acting SSAs in a real‐world setting, we carried out a retrospective, multicenter study including patients treated between 2014–2018 across 10 centers of the NET CONNECT Network. The primary endpoints were time to next treatment (TNT) and progression‐free survival (PFS), whereas overall survival (OS) and treatment safety were secondary endpoints.ResultsA total of 73 patients were included (68 grade [G]2, 5 G3), with liver metastases in 61 cases (84%). After a median follow‐up of 36.4 months (range, 6–173), the median TNT and PFS were 14.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.6–16.2) and 11.9 months (95% CI, 8.6–14.1) respectively. No statistically significant difference was observed according to the somatostatin analog used (octreotide vs. lanreotide), whereas increased tumor grade (hazard ratio [HR], 4.4; 95% CI, 1.2–16.6; p = .04) and hepatic tumor load (HR, 2; 95% CI, 1–4; p = .03) were independently associated with shortened PFS. The median OS recorded was 86 months (95% CI, 56.8–86 months), with poor outcomes observed when the hepatic tumor burden was >25% (HR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.2–10; p = .01). Treatment‐related adverse events were reported in 14 patients, most frequently diarrhea.ConclusionSSAs exert antiproliferative activity in panNETs with Ki‐67 ≥10%, particularly in G2 tumors, as well as when hepatic tumor load is ≤25%.Implications for PracticeThe results of the study call into question the antiproliferative activity of somatostatin analogs (SSAs) in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors with Ki‐67 ≥10%. Patients with grade 2 tumors and with hepatic tumor load ≤25% appear to derive higher benefit from SSAs. Prospective studies are needed to validate these results to optimize tailored therapeutic strategies for this specific patient population.     

Proton Pump Inhibitor Use and the Efficacy of Chemotherapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Phase III Trial (AXEPT)

BackgroundConcomitant use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) with capecitabine was suggested to be associated with poor outcomes in gastrointestinal cancers. We analyzed the differential impact of PPI use on capecitabine and fluorouracil using the data set from the AXEPT trial, a phase III randomized trial that demonstrated the noninferiority of mXELIRI (modified XELIRI: capecitabine plus irinotecan) to FOLFIRI (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and irinotecan), either with or without bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.Patients and MethodsOut of the per‐protocol set (n = 620), patients with information on concomitant medications (n = 482) were included in this post hoc analysis. PPI use was defined as concomitant exposure of capecitabine and the use of any PPI for 20% or more of the study period. The treatment‐by‐PPI‐use interaction was examined after adjusting for stratification factors.ResultsOf the 482 patients, 49 (10.1%) used PPI. Among the PPI users, the mXELIRI group tended to have poorer overall survival compared with the FOLFIRI group. In contrast, among the nonusers, the overall survival of the mXELIRI group was significantly better than that of the FOLFIRI group. Similarly, a trend of worse progression‐free survival with mXELIRI compared with FOLFIRI was observed in PPI users but not in nonusers. Treatment‐by‐PPI‐use interaction was significant for overall survival and progression‐free survival.ConclusionThe significant interaction between PPI use and the type of fluoropyrimidine in terms of overall and progression‐free survival suggests that fluorouracil could be a more favorable option than capecitabine for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer using PPIs.Implications for PracticeThis study showed a significant interaction between the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and the type of fluoropyrimidines. This interaction mainly comes from the positive impact of PPIs in the survival outcomes in the fluorouracil arm rather than a negative impact of PPIs in the capecitabine arm. The possible drug‐drug interaction shown in this study suggests that fluorouracil, rather than capecitabine, could be a more appropriate choice of fluoropyrimidine for patients who are taking PPIs in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.     

A Phase II Study of Fulvestrant 500 mg as Maintenance Therapy in Hormone Receptor-Positive,Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Patients with Advanced Breast Cancer After First-Line Chemotherapy

Lessons Learned

• Fulvestrant 500 mg maintenance therapy showed a clinical benefit rate of 76% and median progression‐free survival of 16.1 months in patients who achieved objective responses or disease control after first‐line chemotherapy.
• Adverse events with fulvestrant maintenance therapy were consistent with the known safety profile of the drug.

BackgroundEvidence for maintenance hormonal therapy after chemotherapy for estrogen receptor (ER)–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative advanced breast cancer is scarce. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of fulvestrant 500 mg maintenance therapy in patients after first‐line chemotherapy.MethodsWe enrolled postmenopausal women with ER‐positive/HER2‐negative advanced breast cancer who attained tumor responses or disease control with four to eight cycles of chemotherapy as first‐line treatment. Fulvestrant 500 mg was injected on days 1, 15, and 29 and every 28 (±3) days thereafter. The primary endpoint was the clinical benefit rate (CBR); the secondary endpoints included the objective response rate (ORR), progression‐free survival (PFS), and safety.ResultsWe included 58 patients; the median follow‐up duration was 32.6 months. The CBR since commencing fulvestrant maintenance therapy was 76% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63%–86%), and ORR was 14% (95% CI, 6%–25%); eight patients achieved partial response. The median PFS for fulvestrant maintenance therapy was 16.1 months (95% CI, 10.3–21.0 months). Thirty‐nine patients (67%) reported at least one adverse event, of which most were grade 1/2, whereas three patients (5%) reported grade 3 adverse events.ConclusionFulvestrant 500 mg is a feasible and promising hormonal maintenance strategy in patients with ER‐positive/HER2‐negative advanced breast cancer who have no disease progression after first‐line chemotherapy.     

Optimal Avapritinib Treatment Strategies for Patients with Metastatic or Unresectable Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors

BackgroundAvapritinib, a novel inhibitor of KIT/PDGFRA, is approved in the U.S. for the treatment of adults with PDGFRA exon 18‐mutant unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (U/M GISTs). We assessed the safety of avapritinib and provide evidence‐based guidance on management of avapritinib‐associated adverse events (AEs), including cognitive effects and intracranial bleeding.Materials and MethodsWe performed a post hoc analysis of data from a two‐part, single‐arm dose escalation/expansion phase I study (NAVIGATOR; {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT02508532","term_id":"NCT02508532"}}NCT02508532) in patients with U/M GISTs treated with oral avapritinib 30–600 mg once daily. The primary endpoints were safety and tolerability; the impact of dose modification (interruption and/or reduction) on progression‐free survival (PFS) was a secondary endpoint. Efficacy analyses were limited to patients who started avapritinib at 300 mg (approved dose).ResultsOf 250 patients enrolled in the study, 74.0% presented with KIT mutation and 24.8% presented with PDGFRA exon 18‐mutation; 66.8% started avapritinib at 300 mg. The most common treatment‐related AEs (any grade) were nausea (59.2%), fatigue (50.0%), periorbital edema (42.0%), anemia (39.2%), diarrhea (36.0%), vomiting (36.0%), and increased lacrimation (30.8%). No treatment‐related deaths occurred. Among 167 patients starting on 300 mg avapritinib, all‐cause cognitive effects rate (grade 1–2) was 37.0% in all patients and 52.0% in patients ≥65 years. Cognitive effects improved to a lower grade more quickly with dose modification (1.3–3.1 weeks) than without (4.9–7.6 weeks). Median PFS was 11.4 months with dose modification and 7.2 months without.ConclusionTolerability‐guided dose modification of avapritinib is an effective strategy for managing AEs in patients with GISTs.Implications for PracticeEarly recognition of adverse events and tailored dose modification appear to be effective approaches for managing treatment‐related adverse events and maintaining patients on avapritinib. Dose reduction does not appear to result in reduced efficacy. Patients'' cognitive function should be assessed at baseline and monitored carefully throughout treatment with avapritinib for the onset of cognitive adverse events. Dose interruption is recommended at the first sign of any cognitive effect, including grade 1 events.     

Avelumab,a PD-L1 Inhibitor,in Combination with Hypofractionated Radiotherapy and the Abscopal Effect in Relapsed Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Lessons Learned

• Despite the initial optimism for using immune checkpoint inhibition in the treatment of multiple myeloma, subsequent clinical studies have been disappointing.
• Preclinical studies have suggested that priming the immune system with various modalities in addition to checkpoint inhibition may overcome the relative T‐cell exhaustion or senescence; however, in this small data set, radiotherapy with checkpoint inhibition did not appear to activate the antitumor immune response.

BackgroundExtramedullary disease (EMD) is recognized as an aggressive subentity of multiple myeloma (MM) with a need for novel therapeutic approaches. We therefore designed a proof‐of‐principle pilot study to evaluate the synergy between the combination of the anti–PD‐L1, avelumab, and concomitant hypofractionated radiotherapy.MethodsThis was a single‐arm phase II Simon two‐stage single center study that was prematurely terminated because of the COVID‐19 pandemic after enrolling four patients. Key eligibility included patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who had exhausted or were not candidates for standard therapy and had at least one lesion amenable to radiotherapy. Patients received avelumab until progression or intolerable toxicity and hypofractionated radiotherapy to a focal lesion in cycle 2. Radiotherapy was delayed until cycle 2 to allow the avelumab to reach a study state, given the important observation from previous studies that concomitant therapy is needed for the abscopal effect.ResultsAt a median potential follow‐up of 10.5 months, there were no objective responses, one minimal response, and two stable disease as best response. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 5.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.5–7.1 months), and no deaths occurred. There were no grade ≥3 and five grade 1–2 treatment‐related adverse events.ConclusionAvelumab in combination with radiotherapy for patients with RRMM and EMD was associated with very modest systemic clinical benefit; however, patients did benefit as usual from local radiotherapy. Furthermore, the combination was very well tolerated compared with historical RRMM treatment regimens.     

A Phase II Single Arm Pilot Study of the CHK1 Inhibitor Prexasertib (LY2606368) in BRCA Wild-Type,Advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Lessons Learned

• Monotherapy with prexasertib demonstrated modest activity in BRCA wild‐type, recurrent triple‐negative breast cancer, highlighting the unmet need for combination treatment strategies.
• Neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia are common with the use of prexasertib but are manageable with supportive care measures. Prophylactic use of granulocyte colony stimulating factor should be considered to avoid dose reductions or treatment delays.
• Pharmacodynamic studies showed prexasertib treatment induced DNA damage in peripheral immune cells.

BackgroundCell cycle checkpoint kinase 1 (CHK1) is a major G2/M cell cycle regulator in tumors with p53 dysfunction, such as triple‐negative breast cancer (TNBC). We hypothesized the second‐generation CHK1 inhibitor, prexasertib, would yield clinical activity in sporadic TNBC.MethodsThis single arm, phase II trial evaluated prexasertib at 105 mg/m² IV every 2 weeks in patients with metastatic/recurrent TNBC. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR).ResultsAll nine patients enrolled were germline BRCA wild‐type (BRCAwt) and had at least one prior treatment. One partial response (PR) was observed (ORR of 11.1%). Four patients experienced stable disease. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 86 days (range 17 to 159 days). Grade 3/4 treatment‐related adverse events included afebrile neutropenia (n = 8; 88.9%), anemia (n = 3; 33.3%), and thrombocytopenia (n = 1; 11.1%). Pharmacodynamic studies showed prexasertib treatment induced DNA damage in peripheral immune cells and demonstrated a decrease in activated/reinvigorated CD8 T cells; however, the one patient with a PR showed evidence of T‐cell recovery.ConclusionPrexasertib monotherapy had modest clinical efficacy in BRCAwt TNBC. Further studies of prexasertib in combination with other agents are needed.     

A Phase II Clinical Trial on the Combination Therapy of PHY906 Plus Capecitabine in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Lessons Learned

• A PHY906 and capecitabine combination could be effective as a salvage therapy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) previously treated with multiple systemic therapies.
• This traditional Chinese medicine formulation can work with Western cancer chemotherapeutic agents to improve clinical outcomes or alleviate side effects for patients with advanced HCC.

BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate efficacy and safety of capecitabine combined with a PHY906 (a pharmaceutical‐grade formulation of four traditional Chinese herbs) in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Asian patients who were positive for hepatitis B virus (HBV).MethodsThis study was an open‐label, phase II safety and efficacy clinical trial of PHY906 and capecitabine in patients with advanced HCC. Patients received 750 mg/m² capecitabine b.i.d. 14 days plus 800 mg of PHY906 b.i.d. on days 1–4 and days 8–11 every 21‐day cycle. The primary endpoint was 6‐month survival rate, and secondary endpoints were progression‐free survival, overall survival, disease control rate, and safety.ResultsThirty‐nine subjects completed the study with a 46.2% stable disease rate. The median progression‐free survival was 1.5 months, and median overall survival (mOS) was 6 months with a 51.3% 6‐month survival rate. The most common adverse events included lower hemoglobin, diarrhea, pain, abdomen (not otherwise specified), fatigue, increased aspartate aminotransferase, and bilirubin. Patients who (a) had not received previous chemotherapies or targeted therapy or (b) had lower starting alpha‐fetoprotein (AFP) levels or (c) had HBV infection showed better clinical outcome.ConclusionOur data showed that PHY906 increases the therapeutic index of capecitabine by enhancing its antitumor activity and reduces its toxicity profile in advanced HCC.     

Bevacizumab plus hypofractionated radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in elderly patients with glioblastoma: the randomized,open-label,phase II ARTE trial

BackgroundThe addition of bevacizumab to temozolomide-based chemoradiotherapy (TMZ/RT → TMZ) did not prolong overall survival (OS) in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma in phase III trials. Elderly and frail patients are underrepresented in clinical trials, but early reports suggested preferential benefit in this population.Patients and methodsARTE was a 2 : 1 randomized, multi-center, open-label, non-comparative phase II trial of hypofractionated RT (40 Gy in 15 fractions) with bevacizumab (10 mg/kg×14 days) (arm A, N = 50) or without bevacizumab (arm B, N = 25) in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma aged ≥65 years. The primary objective was to obtain evidence for prolongation of median OS by the addition of bevacizumab to RT. Response was assessed by RANO criteria. Quality of life (QoL) was monitored by the EORTC QLQ-C30/BN20 modules. Exploratory studies included molecular subtyping by 450k whole methylome and gene expression analyses.ResultsMedian PFS was longer in arm A than in arm B (7.6 and 4.8 months, P = 0.003), but OS was similar (12.1 and 12.2 months, P = 0.77). Clinical deterioration was delayed and more patients came off steroids in arm A. Prolonged PFS in arm A was confined to tumors with the receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) I methylation subtype (HR 0.25, P = 0.014) and proneural gene expression (HR 0.29, P = 0.025). In a Cox model of OS controlling for established prognostic factors, associations with more favorable outcome were identified for age <70 years (HR 0.52, P = 0.018) and Karnofsky performance score 90%–100% (HR 0.51, P = 0.026). Including molecular subtypes into that model identified an association of the RTK II gene methylation subtype with inferior OS (HR 1.73, P = 0.076).ConclusionEfficacy outcomes and exploratory analyses of ARTE do not support the hypothesis that the addition of bevacizumab to RT generally prolongs survival in elderly glioblastoma patients. Molecular biomarkers may identify patients with preferential benefit from bevacizumab.Clinical trial registration numberNCT01443676.     

IDH mutation and MGMT promoter methylation in glioblastoma: results of a prospective registry

Background

The relative contribution of isocitrate dehydrogenase mutations (mIDH) and O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter methylation (methMGMT) as biomarkers in glioblastoma remain poorly understood.

Methods

We investigated the association between methMGMT and mIDH with progression free survival and overall survival in a prospectively collected molecular registry of 274 glioblastoma patients.

Results

For glioblastoma patients who underwent Temozolomide and Radiation Therapy, OS and PFS was most favorable for those with tumors harboring both mIDH and methMGMT (median OS: 35.8 mo, median PFS: 27.5 mo); patients afflicted glioblastomas with either mIDH or methMGMT exhibited intermediate OS and PFS (mOS: 36 and 17.1 mo; mPFS: 12.2 mo and 9.9 mo, respectively); poorest OS and PFS was observed in wild type IDH1 (wtIDH1) glioblastomas that were MGMT promoter unmethylated (mOS: 15 mo, mPFS: 9.7 mo). For patients with wtIDH glioblastomas, TMZ+RT was associated with improved OS and PFS relative to patients treated with RT (OS: 15.4 mo v 9.6 mo, p < 0.001; PFS: 9.9 mo v 6.5 mo, p < 0.001). While TMZ+RT and RT treated mIDH patients exhibited improved overall survival relative to those with wtIDH, there were no differences between the TMZ+RT or RT group. These results suggest that mIDH1 conferred resistance to TMZ. Supporting this hypothesis, exogenous expression of mIDH1 in independent astrocytoma/glioblastoma lines resulted in a 3–10 fold increase in TMZ resistance after long-term passage.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates IDH mutation and MGMT promoter methylation status independently associate with favorable outcome in TMZ+RT treated glioblastoma patients. However, these biomarkers differentially impact clinical TMZ response.