Skin toxicity and efficacy of sunitinib and sorafenib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a national registry-based study

BackgroundA retrospective, registry-based analysis to assess the outcomes of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) patients treated with sunitinib and sorafenib who developed dermatologic adverse events was performed.Patients and MethodsData on mRCC patients treated with sunitinib or sorafenib were obtained from the Czech Clinical Registry of Renal Cell Cancer Patients. Outcomes of patients who developed hand–foot syndrome (HFS) of any grade and/or grade 3/4 rash during the treatment were compared with patients without HFS and no, mild, or moderate rash.ResultsThe cohort included 705 patients treated with sunitinib and 365 patients treated with sorafenib. For sunitinib, the median overall survival (OS) was 43.0 months versus 31.0 months (P = 0.027) and median progression-free survival (PFS) 20.8 months versus 11.1 months (P = 0.007) for patients with versus without dermatologic toxicity, respectively. For sorafenib, the median OS and PFS were 27.9 and 24.6 months (P = 0.244), and 12.2 and 8.8 months (P = 0.050), respectively. In multivariable Cox regression, the skin toxicity was significantly associated with longer OS in the sunitinib cohort.ConclusionThe presence of skin toxicity is associated with improved OS and PFS in patients with mRCC treated with sunitinib.     

Is Axitinib Still a Valid Option for mRCC in the Second-Line Setting? Prognostic Factor Analyses From the AXIS Trial

BackgroundAxitinib resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) versus sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma (mRCC) previously treated with sunitinib in the AXIS trial. We report post hoc analyses evaluating patient subgroups that may benefit more from axitinib in this setting.Patients and MethodsAXIS was an open-label randomized phase 3 trial (NCT00678392) in mRCC patients with disease that failed to respond to one prior systemic therapy. Univariate and multivariate analyses evaluated potential prognostic factors for improved PFS and overall survival (OS) after sunitinib. PFS and OS of axitinib versus sorafenib were assessed within subgroups identified according to these factors.ResultsOf 723 patients, 389 received first-line sunitinib; 194 and 195 were randomized to second-line axitinib and sorafenib, respectively. Identified prognostic factors were: nonbulky disease (sum of the longest diameter < 98 mm), favorable/intermediate risk disease (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center or International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium criteria), and no bone or liver metastases. In patients with all of these prognostic factors (n = 86), significantly longer PFS was observed for axitinib versus sorafenib (hazard ratio = 0.476; 95% confidence interval, 0.263-0.863; 2-sided P = .0126). OS (hazard ratio = 0.902; 95% confidence interval, 0.457-1.780; 2-sided P = .7661) was similar between treatments. Across subgroups, PFS was generally longer in patients treated with axitinib versus sorafenib, and OS was generally similar between the two treatments.ConclusionIn patients with mRCC, axitinib remains a suitable second-line treatment option across multiple subgroups. A relevant reduction in the risk of a PFS event was observed for axitinib compared to sorafenib in selected subgroups of patients.     

Identifying the target NSCLC patient for maintenance therapy: an analysis from a placebo-controlled,phase III trial of maintenance pemetrexed (H3E-MC-JMEN)

BackgroundThis was a post hoc analysis of patients with non-squamous histology from a phase III maintenance pemetrexed study in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Patients and methodsThe six symptom items' [average symptom burden index (ASBI)] mean at baseline was calculated using the lung cancer symptom scale (LCSS). Low and high symptom burden (LSB, ASBI < 25; HSB, ASBI ≥ 25) and performance status (PS: 0, 1) subgroups were analyzed for treatment effect on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using the Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for demographic/clinical factors.ResultsSignificantly longer PFS and OS for pemetrexed versus placebo occurred in LSB patients [PFS: median 5.1 versus 2.4 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.49, P < 0.0001; OS: median 17.5 versus 11.0 months, HR 0.63, P = 0.0012] and PS 0 patients (PFS: median 5.5 versus 1.7 months, HR 0.36, P < 0.0001; OS: median 17.7 versus 10.3 months, HR 0.54, P = 0.0019). Significantly longer PFS, but not OS, occurred in HSB patients (median 3.7 versus 2.8 months, HR 0.50, P = 0.0033) and PS 1 patients (median 4.4 versus 2.8 months, HR 0.60, P = 0.0002).ConclusionsASBI and PS are associated with survival for non-squamous NSCLC patients, suggesting that maintenance pemetrexed is useful for LSB or PS 0 patients following induction.     

Nanoparticle Albumin-bound Paclitaxel Plus Carboplatin Induction Followed by Nanoparticle Albumin-bound Paclitaxel Maintenance in Squamous Non–Small-cell Lung Cancer (ABOUND.sqm): A Phase III Randomized Clinical Trial

BackgroundWe evaluated maintenance nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab) paclitaxel in the treatment of advanced squamous non–small-cell lung cancer.Patients and MethodsPatients with treatment-naive squamous non–small-cell lung cancer received four 21-day cycles of nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m² on days 1, 8, 15 plus carboplatin area under the curve 6 on day 1 as induction therapy. Patients without disease progression after induction were randomized 2:1 to maintenance nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m² (days 1 and 8 every 21 days) plus best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included safety and overall survival (OS).ResultsOverall, 420 patients had received induction therapy; 202 (nab-paclitaxel plus BSC, 136; BSC, 66) had received maintenance therapy. Enrollment was discontinued after a preplanned interim futility analysis (patients could remain in the study at the investigator’s discretion). The median PFS was 3.12 months for nab-paclitaxel plus BSC and 2.60 months for BSC; the difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-1.19; P = .36). The median OS (median follow-up, 24.2 months) was 17.18 months for nab-paclitaxel plus BSC and 12.16 months for BSC (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.48-1.02; nominal P = .07). An updated analysis (median follow-up, 28.4 months) revealed a median OS of 17.61 months for nab-paclitaxel plus BSC and 12.16 months for BSC (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.47-0.98; nominal P = .037). The most frequent grade 3 and 4 treatment-emergent adverse events for the entire study were neutropenia (53.1% [nab-paclitaxel plus BSC] vs. 50.0% [BSC]) and anemia (33.1% [nab-paclitaxel plus BSC] vs. 32.3% [BSC]). Only peripheral neuropathy had occurred in ≥ 5% of patients during maintenance therapy (13.1%; nab-paclitaxel plus BSC).ConclusionsThe results of the ABOUND.sqm did not meet the primary endpoint of PFS. An updated OS analysis revealed a trend favoring nab-paclitaxel plus BSC.     

Masitinib in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after failure of imatinib: A randomized controlled open-label trial

BackgroundMasitinib is a highly selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity against the main oncogenic drivers of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Masitinib was evaluated in patients with advanced GIST after imatinib failure or intolerance.Patients and methodsProspective, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial. Patients with inoperable, advanced imatinib-resistant GIST were randomized (1 : 1) to receive masitinib (12 mg/kg/day) or sunitinib (50 mg/day 4-weeks-on/2-weeks-off) until progression, intolerance, or refusal. Primary efficacy analysis was noncomparative, testing whether masitinib attained a median progression-free survival (PFS) (blind centrally reviewed RECIST) threshold of >3 months according to the lower bound of the 90% unilateral confidence interval (CI). Secondary analyses on overall survival (OS) and PFS were comparative with results presented according to a two-sided 95% CI.ResultsForty-four patients were randomized to receive masitinib (n = 23) or sunitinib (n = 21). Median follow-up was 14 months. Patients receiving masitinib experienced less toxicity than those receiving sunitinib, with significantly lower occurrence of severe adverse events (52% versus 91%, respectively, P = 0.008). Median PFS (central RECIST) for the noncomparative primary analysis in the masitinib treatment arm was 3.71 months (90% CI 3.65). Secondary analyses showed that median OS was significantly longer for patients receiving masitinib followed by post-progression addition of sunitinib when compared against patients treated directly with sunitinib in second-line [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.27, 95% CI 0.09–0.85, P = 0.016]. This improvement was sustainable as evidenced by 26-month follow-up OS data (HR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.16–0.96, P = 0.033); an additional 12.4 months survival advantage being reported for the masitinib treatment arm. Risk of progression while under treatment with masitinib was in the same range as for sunitinib (HR = 1.1, 95% CI 0.6–2.2, P = 0.833).ConclusionsPrimary efficacy analysis ensured the masitinib treatment arm could satisfy a prespecified PFS threshold. Secondary efficacy analysis showed that masitinib followed by the standard of care generated a statistically significant survival benefit over standard of care. Encouraging median OS and safety data from this well-controlled and appropriately designed randomized trial indicate a positive benefit–risk ratio. Further development of masitinib in imatinib-resistant/intolerant patients with advanced GIST is warranted.     

Sunitinib in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: updated progression-free survival and final overall survival from a phase III randomized study

BackgroundIn a phase III trial in patients with advanced, well-differentiated, progressive pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, sunitinib 37.5 mg/day improved investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo (11.4 versus 5.5 months; HR, 0.42; P < 0.001). Here, we present PFS using retrospective blinded independent central review (BICR) and final median overall survival (OS), including an assessment highlighting the impact of patient crossover from placebo to sunitinib.Patients and methodsIn this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, cross-sectional imaging from patients was evaluated retrospectively by blinded third-party radiologists using a two-reader, two-time-point lock, followed by a sequential locked-read, batch-mode paradigm. OS was summarized using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model. Crossover-adjusted OS effect was derived using rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) analyses.ResultsOf 171 randomized patients (sunitinib, n = 86; placebo, n = 85), 160 (94%) had complete scan sets/time points. By BICR, median (95% confidence interval [CI]) PFS was 12.6 (11.1–20.6) months for sunitinib and 5.8 (3.8–7.2) months for placebo (HR, 0.32; 95% CI 0.18–0.55; P = 0.000015). Five years after study closure, median (95% CI) OS was 38.6 (25.6–56.4) months for sunitinib and 29.1 (16.4–36.8) months for placebo (HR, 0.73; 95% CI 0.50–1.06; P = 0.094), with 69% of placebo patients having crossed over to sunitinib. RPSFT analysis confirmed an OS benefit for sunitinib.ConclusionsBICR confirmed the doubling of PFS with sunitinib compared with placebo. Although the observed median OS improved by nearly 10 months, the effect estimate did not reach statistical significance, potentially due to crossover from placebo to sunitinib.Trial registration numberNCT00428597.     

Final Overall Survival Analysis of the SOGUG Phase 2 MAJA Study: Maintenance Vinflunine Versus Best Supportive Care After First-Line Chemotherapy in Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma

IntroductionThe MAJA study compared vinflunine (VFL) plus best supportive care (BSC) maintenance therapy versus BSC alone in advanced urothelial carcinoma responsive to first-line chemotherapy. The primary end point of progression-free survival was achieved. We present the final overall survival (OS) and long-term follow-up safety analyses.Patients and MethodsPatients were enrolled, and a subsequent post hoc analysis was performed on the basis of radiologic response or stabilization to first-line cisplatin/gemcitabine (CG) chemotherapy (4-6 cycles), according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). VFL + BSC versus BSC alone were randomly assigned until disease progression.ResultsAt final analysis, 58 patients (66.7%) had died while 29 (33.3%) had survived; the BSC arm had higher mortality (VFL + BSC, n = 26, 59.1% vs. BSC, n = 32, 74.4%). Median follow-up of surviving patients was 38.8 months (interquartile range, 23.8-61.6). Median OS was 16.7 months (95% confidence interval, 0-34.5) in VFL and 13.2 months (95% confidence interval, 6-20.4) in the BSC groups (hazard ratio, 0.736; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.24, P = .182). Post hoc group division did not affect median OS in either study arm.ConclusionFinal analysis supported a benefit of VFL in maintenance therapy in patients with disease control after first-line treatment with CG, with no unexpected long-term adverse effects. The study was insufficiently powered to show a significant OS advantage.     

Sorafenib as third- or fourth-line treatment of advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour and pretreatment including both imatinib and sunitinib,and nilotinib: A retrospective analysis

BackgroundTyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) improve the outcome of patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST), but treatment failure is frequent, and prognosis then bleak. Smaller trials in this setting suggested activity for sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor of receptor tyrosine kinases and RAF serine/threonine kinases.Patients and methodsWe retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of sorafenib, starting dose 400 mg twice daily, in a large community-based cohort of 124 patients treated in 12 European and one United States (U.S.) cancer centre. All but one patient had a WHO performance score 0–2. All had failed both imatinib and sunitinib, 68 patients nilotinib and 26 had failed investigational therapy, too.ResultsTwelve (10%) patients responded to sorafenib and 70 (57%) patients achieved disease stabilisation. Sorafenib was moderately tolerated, and toxicity reported in 56% of the patients. Rash, hand-foot-syndrome and diarrhea occurred frequently. Sorafenib dosage was reduced in a third of patients, but this did not have an impact on progression-free survival (PFS) (p = 0.15). Median PFS was 6.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.6–8.0 months) and median overall survival (OS) 13.5 months (95% CI, 10.0–21.0 months). Patients with a good performance status and those who responded to sorafenib had a significant better PFS.ConclusionWe conclude that sorafenib is active in GIST resistant to imatinib, sunitinib and nilotinib. These results warrant further investigation of sorafenib or similar molecules in GIST.     

Cytoreductive surgery for metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors followed by sunitinib compared to followed by imatinib-a multi-center cohort study

BackgroundThe progression-free survival (PFS) is not optimal when imatinib was recommended for treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) undergoing surgery after tumor local or multifocal progression.MethodsWe evaluate PFS of patients undergoing R0 resection or optimal cytoreductive surgery followed by sunitinib therapy compared with imatinib after tumor unifocal or multifocal progression.ResultsFrom January 2006 to June 2017, ninety-seven patients from thirteen medical centers were enrolled. Fifty-six patients continued imatinib therapy and 41 patients switched sunitinib treatment directly after R0 resection or optimal cytoreductive surgery. The PFS of sunitinib group was longer than that of imatinib group (30.0 months vs 12.0 months, p = 0.009). In subgroup analysis, the PFS of the sunitinib and imatinib groups were 25.5 months and 12.0 months in patients with tumor multifocal progression (p = 0.008), and 39.0 months and 13.0 months in patients with unifocal progression (p = 0.156), respectively. PFS of postoperative sunitinib group was also superior to the total PFS of postoperative imatinib group (PFS of postoperative imatinib plus PFS of subsequent sunitinib therapy (30.0 months vs 21.0 months, p = 0.012). The overall survival in the sunitinib and imatinib groups were 37.0 months and 33.0 months, respectively (p = 0.794).ConclusionsSurgery followed by sunitinib in GIST patients with unifocal or multifocal progression on imatinib may improve PFS, compared with surgery followed by imatinib.     

Bisphosphonates combined with sunitinib may improve the response rate, progression free survival and overall survival of patients with bone metastases from renal cell carcinoma

BackgroundBisphosphonates are used to prevent skeletal events of bone metastases, and may exhibit antitumour effects. We aimed to evaluate whether bisphosphonates can bring a response rate (RR), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefit to patients with bone metastasis from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) that is treated with sunitinib.MethodsWe performed a multicentre retrospective study of patients with bone metastases from RCC that was treated with sunitinib. The effect of bisphosphonates on RR, PFS and OS was tested with adjustment for known prognostic factors using a chi-square test from contingency table and partial likelihood test from Cox regression model.ResultsBetween 2004 and 2011, 209 patients with metastatic RCC were treated with sunitinib, 76 had bone metastases, 35 bisphosphonates users and 41 non-users. The groups of bisphosphonates users and non-users were balanced regarding known prognostic factors. Objective response was partial response/stable disease 86% (n = 30) versus 71% (n = 29), and progressive disease 14% (n = 5) versus 29% (n = 12) (p = 0.125, OR 2.48) in users versus non-users, respectively. Median PFS was 15 versus 5 months (HR = 0.55, p < 0.0001), and median OS was not reached (with a median follow-up time of 45 months) versus 14 months (HR = 0.4, p = 0.029), in favour of users. In multivariate analysis of the entire patient cohort (n = 76), factors associated with PFS were bisphosphonates use (HR = 0.58, p = 0.035), and pre-treatment neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio >3 (HR = 3.5, p = 0.009). Factors associated with OS were bisphosphonates use (HR = 0.5, p = 0.008), elevated pre-treatment alkaline phosphatase (HR = 2.9, p = 0.003) and sunitinib induced HTN (HR = 0.63, p < 0.0001).ConclusionsBisphosphonates may improve the RR, PFS and OS of sunitinib treatment in RCC with bone metastases.     

A randomized,double-blind,phase II study of erlotinib with or without sunitinib for the second-line treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

BackgroundCombined inhibition of vascular, platelet-derived, and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) pathways may overcome refractoriness to single agents in platinum-pretreated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Patients and methodsThis randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase II trial evaluated sunitinib 37.5 mg/day plus erlotinib 150 mg/day versus placebo plus erlotinib continuously in 4-week cycles. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed stage IIIB or IV NSCLC previously treated with one or two chemotherapy regimens, including one platinum-based regimen. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by an independent central review.ResultsOne hundred and thirty-two patients were randomly assigned, and the median duration of follow-up was 17.7 months. The median PFS was 2.8 versus 2.0 months for the combination versus erlotinib alone (HR 0.898, P = 0.321). The median overall survival (OS) was 8.2 versus 7.6 months (HR 1.066, P = 0.617). Objective response rates (ORRs) were 4.6% and 3.0%, respectively. Sunitinib plus erlotinib was fairly well tolerated although most treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were more frequent than with erlotinib alone: diarrhea (55% versus 33%), rash (41% versus 30%), fatigue (31% versus 25%), decreased appetite (30% versus 13%), nausea (28% versus 14%), and thrombocytopenia (13% versus 0%).ConclusionsThe addition of sunitinib to erlotinib did not significantly improve PFS in patients with advanced, platinum-pretreated NSCLC.     

Phase II open-label study of erlotinib in combination with gemcitabine in unresectable and/or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: relationship between skin rash and survival (Pantar study)

BackgroundSkin rash is an adverse event which might be associated with longer survival in patients treated with epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors. The aim of this nonrandomised phase II clinical trial is to prospectively evaluate the relationship between skin rash and overall survival (OS) in advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with erlotinib plus gemcitabine.Patients and methodsPatients were given gemcitabine (1000 mg/m²/week, 3 weeks every 4 weeks) plus erlotinib (100 mg/day orally continuously) until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was OS.ResultsA total of 153 eligible patients were enrolled (grade ≥ 2 rash, 25%; grade < 2 rash, 75%). OS was longer in patients with grade ≥2 rash versus grade <2 (11 versus 5 months; P < 0.001). Progression-free survival was longer in patients with grade ≥2 rash versus grade <2 (6 versus 3 months; P < 0.001) and shorter in those without rash versus grade 1 (2 versus 4 months; P = 0.005) or grade ≥2 (2 versus 6 months; P < 0.001). Patients with grade ≥2 rash showed higher rates of overall response (21% versus 7%; P < 0.05) and disease control (84% versus 43%; P < 0.05) versus grade <2.ConclusionsThis study prospectively confirms the relationship between rash and longer OS in unresectable locally advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with erlotinib plus gemcitabine.     

R-CHOP Vs DA-EPOCH-R for Double-Expressor Lymphoma: A University of California Hematologic Malignancies Consortium Retrospective Analysis

BackgroundManaging double-expressor lymphomas (DEL) is controversial given the dearth of data and lack of standardized guidelines on this high-risk subset of lymphomas. No prospective and few retrospective studies limited by either their sample size or short follow-up address the question of initial treatment of choice for DEL. We performed the largest analysis to date exploring R-CHOP vs DA-EPOCH-R in DEL.MethodsAdults with DEL diagnosed from 6/2012-2/2021 at 4 unique sites were retrospectively analyzed. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint. Key secondary endpoints include overall survival (OS), overall and complete response rates (ORR and CRR), cumulative incidence of relapse, and autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (autoHCT) utilization.Results155 patients were included, 61 treated with R-CHOP and 94 with DA-EPOCH-R. 3-year PFS and OS were similar between R-CHOP and DA-EPOCH-R, 33.2% vs 57.2%,(P = .063), and 72.2% vs 71.6% (P = .43) after median follow-up times of 2.43 and 2.89 years, respectively. Patients <65 had improved PFS with DA-EPOCH-R, hazard ratio 0.41 (P = .01). CRR and ORR rates were also similar. Relapse rates were not statistically different, 51.9% vs 28.6% (P = .069). AutoHCT utilization was higher with R-CHOP vs DA-EPOCH-R, 23.0% vs 8.5% (P = .017).ConclusionsOur findings do not support the use of DA-EPOCH-R over R-CHOP for DEL. Patients <65 years may experience longer PFS with DA-EPOCH-R, but limitations to the analysis make this interpretation difficult.     

Negative impact of bone metastasis on outcome in clear-cell renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib

BackgroundThe aim of our study was to determine whether the presence of bone metastases affects outcomes in patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (m-ccRCC) receiving sunitinib.Patients and methodsWe reviewed the charts of all patients in four academic centers in Belgium and France who started first-line sunitinib (50 mg/day; 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off) between January 2005 and December 2008. Data were collected on known prognostic factors for metastatic renal cell carcinoma and metastatic sites. Response and progression were evaluated by computed tomography scan (according to RECIST).ResultsTwo hundred twenty-three patients were identified. With a median follow-up of 40 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) were significantly shorter in patients with bone metastases than in those without: respectively, 8.2 versus 19.1 months (P < 0.0001) and 19.5 versus 38.5 months (P < 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, taking on account platelet count, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, number of metastatic sites, neutrophil count, corrected serum calcium, time from diagnosis to systemic treatment, and the presence of bone metastases, bone metastasis was the independent variable most significantly associated with poor PFS (P < 0.0001) and OS (P = 0.001).ConclusionThe presence of bone metastases in m-ccRCC patients has a significant and clinically relevant negative impact on outcome on sunitinib.     

COMPARZ Post Hoc Analysis: Characterizing Pazopanib Responders With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

BackgroundThe phase III COMPARZ study showed noninferior efficacy of pazopanib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma. In this COMPARZ post hoc analysis we characterized pazopanib responders, patient subgroups with better outcomes, and the effect of dose modification on efficacy and safety.Patients and MethodsPatients were randomized to pazopanib 800 mg/d (n = 557) or sunitinib 50 mg/d, 4 weeks on/2 weeks off (n = 553). Secondary end points included time to complete response (CR)/partial response (PR); the proportion of patients with CR/PR ≥10 months and progression-free survival (PFS) ≥10 months; efficacy in patients with baseline metastasis; and logistic regression analyses of patient characteristics associated with CR/PR ≥10 months. Median PFS, objective response rate (ORR), and safety were evaluated in patients with or without dose reductions or interruptions lasting ≥7 days.ResultsMedian time to response was numerically shorter for patients treated with pazopanib versus sunitinib (11.9 vs. 17.4 weeks). Similar percentages of pazopanib and sunitinib patients had CR/PR ≥10 months (14% and 13%, respectively), and PFS ≥10 months (31% and 34%, respectively). For patients without versus with adverse event (AE)-related dose reductions, median PFS, median overall survival, and ORR were 7.3 versus 12.5 months, 21.7 versus 36.8 months, and 22% versus 42% (all P < .0001) for pazopanib, and 5.5 versus 13.8 months, 18.1 versus 38.0 months, and 16% versus 34% (all P < .0001) for sunitinib; results were similar for dose interruptions.ConclusionDose modifications when required because of AEs were associated with improved efficacy, suggesting that AEs might be used as a surrogate marker of adequate dosing for individual patients.     

Phase I Trial of Cisplatin,Pemetrexed, and Imatinib Mesylate in Chemonaive Patients With Unresectable Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

BackgroundWe conducted a phase I trial of cisplatin/pemetrexed/imatinib mesylate, an oral platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) inhibitor, in chemonaive patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).MethodsA standard 3 + 3 dose-escalating trial was used with the end points of maximum tolerated dose (MTD), response rate, survival, safety/toxicity, and tumor PDGFR levels.ResultsSeventeen patients with MPM were enrolled. The most common (any grade) side effects were nausea, fatigue, hypomagnesemia, and anemia. The MTD was established at dose level 3 (imatinib 600 mg) with a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of nausea and vomiting. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.9 months and the median overall survival (OS) was 8.8 months. Patients with a sarcomatoid subtype had worse PFS (P = .01) and OS (P = .009), whereas they had a better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0-1 predicted for improved OS (P = .001) and PFS (P = .013). The 6 patients who completed all 6 treatment cycles had better OS (P = .006); the median PFS was 9.6 months and the OS was 22.4 months. In the translational studies, 14 patients had adequate tumor tissue that could be assessed for immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Patients with higher than median p-PDGFRα IHC expression had a better OS (P = .013). When assessed as a continuous variable, higher p-PDGFRα in tumor cells correlated with an improved OS (P = .045). None of the other 4 IHC biomarkers were predictive or prognostic for survival. Twelve patients had successful PDGFRB FISH results, but none met the criteria of ≥ 4 copies of the PDGFRB gene; thus a correlation with clinical outcomes could not be done.ConclusionThe cisplatin/pemetrexed/imatinib mesylate combination had clinical benefit in some patients with MPM but was not well tolerated. Further investigation into alternative antiangiogenic agents, including PDGFRα inhibitors, is warranted.     

Postprogression survival for first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer

BackgroundWith the increasing availability of active agents, the importance of postprogression survival (PPS) has been recognised for several malignancies. However, little is known of PPS in advanced gastric cancer.Patients and methodsA literature search identified 43 randomised trials in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced gastric cancer. We partitioned overall survival (OS) into progression-free survival (PFS) and PPS, and then examined the correlation between median OS and either median PFS or median PPS. The correlation between differences in OS (ΔOS) and those in PFS (ΔPFS) between trial arms was also investigated.ResultsThe average median OS was significantly longer in recent (2006 and later) trials than in older (2005 and earlier) trials (10.60 versus 8.64 months, P < 0.001), as was the average median PPS (5.34 versus 3.74 months, P = 0.001). Median PPS was correlated with median OS for all trials (r = 0.732), and this correlation was more pronounced in recent trials (r = 0.850). By contrast, the correlation between median PFS and median OS was less pronounced in recent trials (r = 0.282), as was that between ΔPFS and ΔOS (r = 0.365).ConclusionAn increase in median PPS was found in accordance with an increase in median OS in recent trials compared with older trials for patients with advanced gastric cancer.     

Assessment of progression-free survival as a surrogate end-point for overall survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BackgroundTo determine suitability of progression-free survival (PFS) as a surrogate end-point for overall survival (OS), we evaluated the relationship between PFS and OS in 750 treatment-naïve metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients who received sunitinib or interferon-alpha (IFN-α) in a phase III study.MethodsThe relationship between PFS and post-progression survival (PPS; the difference between PFS and OS) was studied, which correctly removes inherent dependencies between PFS and OS, to properly estimate whether and to what extent PFS can serve as a surrogate for OS. A Weibull parametric model to failure time data was fit to determine whether longer PFS was significantly and meaningfully predictive of longer PPS. In a sensitivity analysis by Kaplan–Meier non-parametric method, PPS curves for three approximately equal numbered groups of patients categorised by PFS were compared by log-rank test.ResultsIn the Weibull parametric model, longer PFS was significantly predictive of longer PPS (P < 0.001). The model also allowed prediction of estimated median PPS duration from actual PFS times. In the Kaplan–Meier (non-parametric) analysis, incrementally longer PFS was also associated with longer PPS, and the PPS curves for the three PFS groups were significantly different (P < 0.0001).ConclusionsA positive relationship was found between PFS and PPS duration in individual mRCC patients randomised to first-line treatment with sunitinib or IFN-α. These results indicate that PFS can act as a surrogate end-point for OS in the first-line mRCC setting and provide clinical researchers with a potentially useful approach to estimate median PPS based on PFS.     

Long-term follow-up results of the multicenter phase II trial of regorafenib in patients with metastatic and/or unresectable GI stromal tumor after failure of standard tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy

BackgroundThis investigator-initiated trial provided the justification for the phase III GRID study resulting in worldwide regulatory approval of regorafenib as a third-line therapy for patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). We report the genotype analyses, long-term safety, and activity results from this initial trial of regorafenib in GIST.Patients and methodsThe trial was conducted between February 2010 and January 2014, among adult patients with metastatic GIST, after failure of at least imatinib and sunitinib. Patients received regorafenib orally, 160 mg once daily, days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle. Clinical benefit rate (CBR), defined as complete or partial response (PR), or stable disease lasting ≥16 weeks per RECIST 1.1, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), long-term safety data, and metabolic response by functional imaging were assessed.ResultsThirty-three patients received at least one dose of regorafenib. The median follow-up was 41 months. CBR was documented in 25 of 33 patients [76%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 58% to 89%], including six PRs. The median PFS was 13.2 months (95% CI 9.2–18.3 months) including four patients who remained progression-free at study closure, each achieving clinical benefit for more than 3 years (range 36.8–43.5 months). The median OS was 25 months (95% CI 13.2–39.1 months). Patients whose tumors harbored a KIT exon 11 mutation demonstrated the longest median PFS (13.4 months), whereas patients with KIT/PDGFRA wild-type, non-SDH-deficient tumors experienced a median 1.6 months PFS (P < 0.0001). Long-term safety profile is consistent with previous reports; hand–foot skin reaction and hypertension were the most common reasons for dose reduction. Notably, regorafenib induced objective responses and durable benefit in SDH-deficient GIST.ConclusionsLong-term follow-up of patients with metastatic GIST treated with regorafenib suggests particular benefit among patients with primary KIT exon 11 mutations and those with SDH-deficient GIST. Dose modifications are frequently required to manage treatment-related toxicities.Clinical trial numberNCT01068769.     

Randomized phase II study of axitinib versus placebo plus best supportive care in second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of axitinib, a potent and selective vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1–3 inhibitor, combined with best supportive care (BSC) was evaluated in a global, randomized, placebo-controlled phase II trial in patients with locally advanced or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).Patients and methodsPatients with HCC and Child–Pugh Class A who progressed on or were intolerant to one prior antiangiogenic therapy were stratified by tumour invasion (presence/absence of extrahepatic spread and/or vascular invasion) and region (Asian/non-Asian) and randomized (2:1) to axitinib/BSC (starting dose 5 mg twice-daily) or placebo/BSC. The primary end point was overall survival (OS).ResultsThe estimated hazard ratio for OS was 0.907 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.646–1.274; one-sided stratified P = 0.287] for axitinib/BSC (n = 134) versus placebo/BSC (n = 68), with the median (95% CI) of 12.7 (10.2–14.9) versus 9.7 (5.9–11.8) months, respectively. Results of prespecified subgroup analyses in Asian versus non-Asian patients or presence versus absence of tumour invasion were consistent with the overall population. Improvements favouring axitinib/BSC (P < 0.01) were observed in secondary efficacy end point analyses [progression-free survival (PFS), time to tumour progression (TTP), and clinical benefit rate (CBR)], and were retained among Asian patients in the prespecified subgroup analyses. Overall response rate did not differ significantly between treatments and patient-reported outcomes favoured placebo/BSC. Most common all-causality adverse events with axitinib/BSC were diarrhoea (54%), hypertension (54%), and decreased appetite (47%). Baseline serum analyses identified potential new prognostic (interleukin-6, E-selectin, interleukin-8, angiopoietin-2, migration inhibitory factor, and c-MET) or predictive (E-selectin and stromal-derived factor-1) factors for survival.ConclusionsAxitinib/BSC did not improve OS over placebo/BSC in the overall population or in stratification subgroups. However, axitinib/BSC resulted in significantly longer PFS and TTP and higher CBR, with acceptable toxicity in patients with advanced HCC.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01210495.