Progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in glioblastoma: a literature-based meta-analysis from 91 trials

Background

The aim of this study was to determine correlations between progression-free survival (PFS) and the objective response rate (ORR) with overall survival (OS) in glioblastoma and to evaluate their potential use as surrogates for OS.

Method

Published glioblastoma trials reporting OS and ORR and/or PFS with sufficient detail were included in correlative analyses using weighted linear regression.

Results

Of 274 published unique glioblastoma trials, 91 were included. PFS and OS hazard ratios were strongly correlated; R² = 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71–0.99). Linear regression determined that a 10% PFS risk reduction would yield an 8.1% ± 0.8% OS risk reduction. R² between median PFS and median OS was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.59–0.79), with a higher value in trials using Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO; R² = 0.96, n = 8) versus Macdonald criteria (R² = 0.70; n = 83). No significant differences were demonstrated between temozolomide- and bevacizumab-containing regimens (P = .10) or between trials using RANO and Macdonald criteria (P = .49). The regression line slope between median PFS and OS was significantly higher in newly diagnosed versus recurrent disease (0.58 vs 0.35, P = .04). R² for 6-month PFS with 1-year OS and median OS were 0.60 (95% CI, 0.37–0.77) and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.42–0.77), respectively. Objective response rate and OS were poorly correlated (R² = 0.22).

Conclusion

In glioblastoma, PFS and OS are strongly correlated, indicating that PFS may be an appropriate surrogate for OS. Compared with OS, PFS offers earlier assessment and higher statistical power at the time of analysis.     

Lapatinib plus Letrozole as First‐Line Therapy for HER‐2+ Hormone Receptor–Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer

Objective.

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of letrozole plus lapatinib versus letrozole plus placebo in women with hormone receptor (HR)⁺ human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-2⁺ tumors receiving first-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

Patients and Methods.

Postmenopausal women (n = 1,286) with HR⁺ MBC were randomized to daily oral treatment with letrozole (2.5 mg) plus lapatinib (1,500 mg) versus letrozole (2.5 mg) plus placebo. Of the 1,286 patients enrolled in the phase III study, 219 had HER-2⁺ tumors. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in HER-2⁺ patients.

Results.

Results in the HR⁺ HER-2⁺ population (n = 219) are presented. The addition of lapatinib to letrozole resulted in a significantly lower risk for disease progression than with letrozole alone (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.53–0.96). The PFS time was 8.2 months, versus 3.0 months. The objective response rate (ORR) (28% versus 15%) and clinical benefit rate (CBR) (48% versus 29%) were also significantly greater in lapatinib-treated women. The most common adverse events in the lapatinib group were diarrhea (68%) and rash (46%), primarily grade 1 and 2.

Conclusions.

The addition of lapatinib to letrozole is well tolerated and leads to a significantly greater PFS time, ORR, and CBR than with letrozole alone in women with MBC who coexpress HR and HER-2.     

Nab-paclitaxel(abraxane)-based chemotherapy to treat elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer:a single center,randomized and open-label clinical trial

Background:The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of abraxane-based chemotherapy with/without nedaplatin in elderly patients with non-small-cell lung cancer(NSCLC).Materials and methods:From October 2009 to January 2013,48 elderly patients(>65 years) with NSCLC were investigated in this clinical trial.The patients were randomized and equally allocated into arms A and AP:(A) abraxane(130 mg/m~2,days 1,8);(B) abraxane + nedaplatin(20 mg/m~2 days 1-3,q3w).The parameters of objective response rate(ORR),disease control rate(DCR),progression-free survival(PFS),overall survival(OS) and side effects were evaluated between two arms.Results:Over 80%of the patients completed four cycles of chemotherapy.The total ORR was 21.3%,DCR was 55.3%,PFS 4.5 months and OS 12.6 months.No significant difference was found between arms A and AP in terms of ORR(16.7%vs.26.1%,P=0.665) or DCR(55.3%vs.56.5%,P=0.871).The median PFS in arm A was 3.3 months[25-75%confidence interval(CI):3.1-7.2]and 5.5 months(25-75%CI:3.2-7.0) in arm AP with no statistical significance(P=0.640).The median OS in arm A was 12.6 months(25-75%CI:5.7-26.2) and 15.1 months(25-75%CI:6.4-35.3) in arm AP with no statistical significance(P=0.770).The side effects were mainly grade 1-2.The incidence of grade 3-4 toxicities was 29.1%in arm A and 62.5%in arm AP with a statistical significance(P=0.020).Conclusions:Compared with combined therapy,abraxane alone chemotherapy was beneficial for elderly NSCLC patients with better tolerability and less adverse events,whereas did not significantly differ in terms of ORR,DCR,PFS or OS.     

A randomised, phase II study of intetumumab, an anti-αv-integrin mAb, alone and with dacarbazine in stage IV melanoma

Background:

α_v integrins are involved in angiogenesis and melanoma tumourigenesis. Intetumumab (CNTO 95) is a fully human anti-α_v-integrin monoclonal antibody.

Methods:

In a multicentre, randomised, phase II study, stage IV melanoma patients were randomised 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 to 1000 mg m⁻² dacarbazine+placebo (n=32), 1000 mg m⁻² dacarbazine+10 mg kg⁻¹ intetumumab (n=32), 10 mg kg⁻¹ intetumumab (n=33), or 5 mg kg⁻¹ intetumumab (n=32) q3w. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), adverse events, and pharmacokinetics.

Results:

No statistically significant differences in efficacy were observed between groups. In the dacarbazine+placebo, dacarbazine+intetumumab, 10 mg kg⁻¹ intetumumab, and 5 mg kg⁻¹ intetumumab groups, median PFS was 1.8, 2.5, 1.4, and 1.4 months; median OS was 8, 11, 15, and 9.8 months; and ORR of complete+partial response was 10, 3, 6, and 0%. Nonlinear intetumumab pharmacokinetics and potential intetumumab–dacarbazine interactions were observed. Transient, asymptomatic, nonrecurring, grade 1–2, uveitic reactions that resolved spontaneously or with topical steroids were seen in 22–30% of intetumumab-treated patients. Low-grade infusion-reaction symptoms (headache, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, fever, chills) were observed, as expected, in 16–73% of dacarbazine-treated patients. No intetumumab-related myelosuppression, laboratory/electrocardiogram abnormalities, or deaths occurred.

Conclusion:

With its favourable safety profile and a nonsignificant trend towards improved OS, intetumumab merits further investigation in advanced melanoma.     

Phase II study of NGR-hTNF in combination with doxorubicin in relapsed ovarian cancer patients

Background:

The NGR-hTNF (asparagine–glycine–arginine–human tumour necrosis factor) is able to promote antitumour immune responses and to improve the intratumoural doxorubicin uptake by selectively damaging tumour blood vessels.

Methods:

Patients progressing after ⩾1 platinum/taxane-based regimen received NGR-hTNF 0.8 μg m⁻² and doxorubicin 60 mg m⁻² every 3 weeks. Primary endpoint was a Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors-defined response rate with a target of more than 6 out of 37 responding patients.

Results:

A total of 37 patients with platinum-free interval lower than 6 months (PFI<6; n=25), or between 6 and 12 months (PFI=6–12; n=12) were enrolled. Median baseline peripheral blood lymphocyte count (PBLC) was 1.6 per ml (interquartile range, 1.2–2.1). In all, 18 patients (49%) received more than 6 cycles. Febrile neutropaenia was registered in one patient (3%). Among 35 assessable patients, 8 (23% 95% CI 12–39%) had partial response (2 with PFI<6; 6 with PFI=6–12) and 15 (43%) had stable disease (10 with PFI<6; 5 with PFI=6–12). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.0 months for all patients, 3.8 months for patients with PFI<6, and 7.8 months for patients with PFI=6–12. Median overall survival (OS) was 17.0 months. Patients with baseline PBLC higher than the first quartile had improved PFS (P=0.01) and OS (P=0.001).

Conclusion:

Tolerability and activity of this combination warrant further randomised testing in patients with PFI<6. The role of PBLC as a blood-based biomarker deserves further investigation.     

Treatment of everolimus-resistant metastatic renal cell carcinoma with VEGF-targeted therapies

Background:

Treatment of everolimus-resistant disease remains largely undefined in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We report on 40 patients (pts) who receive systemic treatment after failure of everolimus.

Patients and methods:

Forty pts received sunitinib (n=19), sorafenib (n=8), dovitinib (n=10) or bevacizumab/interferon (n=3) after failure of everolimus. Median progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and best tumour response (according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors) were analysed retrospectively. Kaplan–Meier, log-rank test and Cox regression analyses were used to estimate or predict OS and PFS.

Results:

Treatment of everolimus-resistant disease was associated with a PFS of 5.5 months. (range 0.4–22.3) and an objective partial remission (PR) in 4 pts (10%) and stable disease (SD) in 22 pts (55%). In univariate analyses, first-line treatment with sorafenib was the only variable to correlate with a prolonged PFS of treatment in everolimus-resistant disease (P=0.036). However, its significance as a predictive marker for subsequent therapy could not be verified in multivariate analyses.

Conclusions:

Vascular endothelial growth factor targeted therapy shows promising activity in everolimus-resistant metastatic renal cancer and warrants further studies.     

Bevacizumab in combination with biweekly capecitabine and irinotecan, as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Background:

Combination of capecitabine and irinotecan (XELIRI regimen) is an active and well tolerated treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this regimen in combination with bevacizumab (BV), as first-line treatment for mCRC.

Patients and methods:

A total of 46 consecutive patients received a combination of BV (5 mg kg⁻¹, day 1), irinotecan (175 mg m⁻², day 1) and capecitabine (1000 mg m⁻² twice daily on day 2–8), every 2 weeks. Patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was to determine the progression-free survival (PFS) and safety profile.

Results:

The overall response rate (ORR) was 67.4%, with a disease control rate (ORR+stable disease) of 93.5%. Median PFS and overall survival (OS) were 12.3 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 6.5–18.1 months) and 23.7 months (95% CI: 16.7–30.6 months), respectively. The most frequent grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were asthenia (7%), diarrhoea (7%), nausea (9%) and vomiting (7%).

Conclusion:

Bevacizumab combined with biweekly XELIRI is a highly active first-line regimen for mCRC treatment, showing encouraging PFS, ORR and OS with a good tolerability.     

Clinical Activity of Ipilimumab in Acral Melanoma: A Retrospective Review

Background.

Ipilimumab improves overall survival (OS) in advanced melanoma. Acral melanoma is an uncommon clinical subtype of this disease associated with poor prognosis. The clinical activity of ipilimumab has not been well-defined in advanced acral melanoma.

Methods.

We retrospectively reviewed the demographics, treatment history, and clinical outcomes for all patients with acral melanoma treated with ipilimumab from two academic centers between February 2006 and June 2013. Using Cox proportional hazards models, we assessed for factors that correlated with OS.

Results.

A total of 35 patients with acral melanoma received ipilimumab. Melanomas arose on volar surfaces (n = 28) and subungual sites (n = 7); stage M1c disease was present in 54%, and 45% had elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). Best response by RECIST 1.1 criteria was complete response in 1 patient, partial response in 3, and stable disease (SD) in 4 for an objective response rate (ORR) of 11.4% and a clinical benefit rate (ORR + SD) at 24 weeks of 22.9%. Median progression-free survival was 2.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.3–2.7 months); median OS was 16.7 months (95% CI: 10.9–22.5 months). Normal LDH and absolute lymphocyte count ≥1,000 at 7 weeks predicted longer OS. Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were noted in 16 patients including 7 with grade 3/4 irAEs (20%).

Conclusion.

Ipilimumab is clinically active in acral melanoma with similar ORR and OS compared with unselected melanoma populations. Ipilimumab remains a viable therapeutic option for patients with advanced acral melanoma.

Implications for Practice:

Ipilimumab is a commonly used immune therapy that improves survival in metastatic melanoma. The clinical activity of ipilimumab in certain rare melanoma subtypes, such as uveal or mucosal melanomas, is suboptimal. Acral melanoma is another unusual subtype of this disease that arises on the palms, soles, and nailbeds. In this study of 35 patients with acral melanoma from 2 centers, ipilimumab was found to have activity that appears equivalent to unselected melanoma (response rate of 11.4%, median overall survival of 16.7 months). Ipilimumab remains a viable treatment option for this melanoma subpopulation.     

Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Initially Treated with FOLFOX–Bevacizumab or FOLFIRI–Bevacizumab: Results From ARIES,a Bevacizumab Observational Cohort Study

Background.

The Avastin® Registry: Investigation of Effectiveness and Safety (ARIES) study is a prospective, community-based observational cohort study that evaluated the effectiveness and safety of first-line treatment patterns, assessing the impact of chemotherapy choice and treatment duration.

Methods.

The ARIES study enrolled patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving first-line chemotherapy with bevacizumab and followed them longitudinally. The protocol did not specify treatment regimens or assessments. Analyses included all patients who initiated bevacizumab in combination with either first-line oxaliplatin with infusional 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFOX) or irinotecan with infusional 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFIRI). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) times were estimated using Kaplan–Meier methods. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated with multivariate Cox regression analysis, adjusting for potential confounding factors.

Results.

In total, 1,550 patients with first-line mCRC were enrolled (median follow-up, 21 months) and most received FOLFOX–bevacizumab (n = 968) or FOLFIRI–bevacizumab (n = 243) as first-line therapy. The baseline characteristics and median treatment duration were generally similar between subgroups. There were no significant differences in the median PFS (10.3 months vs. 10.2 months) or OS (23.7 months vs. 25.5 months) time between the FOLFOX–bevacizumab and FOLFIRI–bevacizumab subgroups, respectively, by unadjusted analyses. Multivariate analyses showed FOLFIRI–bevacizumab resulted in a similar PFS (HR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88–1.21) and OS (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.78–1.16) outcome as with FOLFOX–bevacizumab. The incidence proportions of bevacizumab-associated adverse events were similar for FOLFOX- and FOLFIRI-based therapies.

Conclusions.

In first-line mCRC patients, the FOLFOX–bevacizumab and FOLFIRI–bevacizumab regimens were associated with similar treatment patterns and clinical outcomes.     

Everolimus in metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients intolerant to previous VEGFr-TKI therapy: a RECORD-1 subgroup analysis

Background:

A relevant percentage of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma develop intolerance to vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFr-TKIs) and require careful selection of subsequent treatment. This retrospective analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of everolimus in patients enrolled in the phase-III RECORD-1 trial who discontinued previous VEGFr-TKI therapy because of toxicity.

Methods:

Patients with an adverse event (AE) as their primary reason for discontinuation of previous VEGFr-TKI therapy were included. Median progression-free survival (PFS) for VEGFr-TKI-intolerant patients in each arm was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and effect on PFS (hazard ratio (HR)) was calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model.

Results:

In VEGFr-TKI-intolerant patients (n=58, 14%), median PFS was 5.4 months with everolimus and 1.9 months with placebo (HR: 0.32; P=0.004). In sunitinib-intolerant patients (n=26), median PFS was 5.1 months with everolimus and 2.8 months with placebo (HR: 0.28; P=0.033). Grade 3/4 AEs reported with everolimus in VEGFr-TKI-intolerant patients included infections (16%), fatigue (7%) and stomatitis (4%). The toxicity profile of everolimus was similar in the VEGFr-TKI-intolerant and overall study populations.

Conclusion:

Everolimus is well tolerated and efficacious with no increased toxicity in patients intolerant to VEGFr-TKI therapy.     

Treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer with lapatinib and capecitabine in the lapatinib expanded access programme, including efficacy in brain metastases �C the UK experience

Background:

The global lapatinib expanded access programme provided access to lapatinib combined with capecitabine for women with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who previously received anthracycline, taxane and trastuzumab.

Methods:

Progression-free survival (PFS) and safety data for 356 patients recruited from the United Kingdom are reported. Efficacy was assessed in 162 patients from the five lead centres, including objective tumour response rate (ORR), time to disease progression (TTP) and efficacy in those with central nervous system (CNS) metastases. Correlation of PFS and ORR with previous capecitabine treatment was also documented.

Results:

Overall, PFS for the 356 UK patients was 21 weeks (95% CI: 17.6–24.7). In the 162 assessable patients, ORR was 21% (95% CI: 15–27%) and median TTP was 22 weeks (95% CI: 17–27). Efficacy was greater in capecitabine-naive patients (ORR 23 vs 16.3%, P=0.008). For 34 patients with CNS metastases, ORR was 21% (95% CI: 9–39%), with evidence of improvement in neurological symptoms, and median TTP was 22 weeks (95% CI: 15–28).

Conclusions:

Lapatinib combined with capecitabine is an active treatment option for women with refractory HER2-positive MBC, including those with progressive CNS disease.     

First-line XELOX plus bevacizumab followed by XELOX plus bevacizumab or single-agent bevacizumab as maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: the phase III MACRO TTD study

Purpose.

The aim of this phase III trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab alone with those of bevacizumab and capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) as maintenance treatment following induction chemotherapy with XELOX plus bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Patients and Methods.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of bevacizumab, capecitabine, and oxaliplatin every 3 weeks followed by XELOX plus bevacizumab or bevacizumab alone until progression. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS) interval; secondary endpoints were the overall survival (OS) time, objective response rate (RR), time to response, duration of response, and safety.

Results.

The intent-to-treat population comprised 480 patients (XELOX plus bevacizumab, n = 239; bevacizumab, n = 241); there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. The median follow-up was 29.0 months (range, 0–53.2 months). There were no statistically significant differences in the median PFS or OS times or in the RR between the two arms. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities in the XELOX plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab arms were diarrhea, hand–foot syndrome, and neuropathy.

Conclusion.

Although the noninferiority of bevacizumab versus XELOX plus bevacizumab cannot be confirmed, we can reliably exclude a median PFS detriment >3 weeks. This study suggests that maintenance therapy with single-agent bevacizumab may be an appropriate option following induction XELOX plus bevacizumab in mCRC patients.     

A randomised,double-blind,placebo-controlled phase 2 study of trebananib (AMG 386) in combination with FOLFIRI in patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal carcinoma

Background:

This phase 2 study evaluated trebananib (AMG 386), an investigational peptide-Fc fusion protein that neutralises the interaction between angiopoietins-1/2 and the Tie2 receptor, plus FOLFIRI as second-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Methods:

Patients had adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum with progression within 6 months of receiving only one prior fluoropyrimidine/oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy regimen for metastatic disease. All patients received FOLFIRI and were randomised 2 : 1 to also receive intravenous trebananib 10 mg kg⁻¹ once weekly (QW) (Arm A) or placebo QW (Arm B). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS).

Results:

One hundred and forty-four patients were randomised (Arms A/B, n=95/49). Median PFS in Arms A and B was 3.5 and 5.2 months (hazard ratio (HR) 1.23; 95% CI, 0.81–1.86; P=0.33) and median overall survival (OS) was 11.9 and 8.8 months, respectively (HR 0.90; 95% CI; 0.53–1.54; P=0.70). Objective response rate (ORR) was 14% and 0% in Arms A and B, respectively. Incidence of grade ⩾3 adverse events was similar between treatment arms (Arm A, 61% Arm B, 65%) and included pulmonary embolism (1%/4%), deep vein thrombosis (5%/2%), and hypertension (1%/0%).

Conclusion:

Administration of trebananib plus FOLFIRI did not prolong PFS compared with placebo plus FOLFIRI. Toxicities were manageable and consistent with those known for FOLFIRI and trebananib.     

Oxaliplatin, irinotecan and capecitabine as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): a dose-finding study and pharmacogenomic analysis

Background:

A dose-finding study was performed to evaluate the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and the recommended dose (RD) of escalating the doses of capecitabine and fixed doses of irinotecan and oxaliplatin on a biweekly schedule for metastatic colorectal cancer patients (mCRC). A pharmacogenomic analysis was performed to investigate the association between SNPs and treatment outcome.

Methods:

Eighty-seven chemotherapy-naïve mCRC patients were recruited through a two-step study design; 27 were included in the dose-finding study and 60 in the pharmacogenomic analysis. Oxaliplatin (85 mg m^-2) and CPT-11 (150 mg m^-2), both on day 1, and capecitabine doses ranging from 850 to 1500 mg m^-2 bid on days 1–7 were explored. Peripheral blood samples were used to genotype 13 SNPs in 10 genes related to drug metabolism or efficacy. Univariate and multivariate Cox analysis was performed to examine associations between SNPs, ORR and PFS.

Results:

The capecitabine RD was 1000 mg m⁻² bid. Diarrhoea and neutropenia were the DLTs. After a median follow-up of 52.5 months, the median PFS and OS were 12 (95% CI; 10.6–13.4) and 27 months (95% CI; 17.2–36.8), respectively.The GSTP1-G genotype, the Köhne low-risk category and use of a consolidation approach strongly correlated with decreased risk of progression. Patients with all favourable variables showed a median PFS of 42 months vs 3.4 months in the group with all adverse factors. A superior clinical response was obtained in patients with one GSTP1-G allele as compared with GSTP1-AA carriers (P=0.004).

Conclusion:

First-line therapy with oxaliplatin, irinotecan and capecitabine is efficient and well-tolerated. The GSTP1 polymorphism A>G status was significantly associated with ORR and PFS in mCRC treated with this triplet therapy.     

Efficacy and tolerability of bevacizumab plus capecitabine as first-line therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Background:

Molecularly targeted agents with anti-angiogenic activity, including bevacizumab, have demonstrated clinical activity in patients with advanced/metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This multicentre phase II study involving patients from several Asian countries sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bevacizumab plus capecitabine in this population.

Methods:

Histologically proven/clinically diagnosed advanced HCC patients received bevacizumab 7.5 mg kg^–1 on day 1 and capecitabine 800 mg m^–2 twice daily on days 1–14 every 3 weeks as first-line therapy.

Results:

A total of 45 patients were enrolled; 44 (96%) had extrahepatic metastasis and/or major vessel invasion and 30 (67%) had hepatitis B. No grade 3/4 haematological toxicity occurred. Treatment-related grade 3/4 non-haematological toxicities included diarrhoea (n=2, 4%), nausea/vomiting (n=1, 2%), gastrointestinal bleeding (n=4, 9%) and hand–foot syndrome (n=4, 9%). The overall response rate (RECIST) was 9% and the disease control rate was 52%. Overall, median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 2.7 and 5.9 months, respectively. Median PFS and OS were 3.6 and 8.2 months, respectively, for Cancer of the Liver Italian Programme (CLIP) score ⩽3 patients, and 1.4 and 3.3 months, respectively, for CLIP score 4 patients.

Conclusion:

The bevacizumab–capecitabine combination shows good tolerability and modest anti-tumour activity in patients with advanced HCC.     

A Pooled Analysis of Gemcitabine Plus Docetaxel Versus Capecitabine Plus Docetaxel in Metastatic Breast Cancer

Introduction.

In two randomized phase III trials of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), gemcitabine-docetaxel (GD) and capecitabine-docetaxel (CD) had similar efficacy, but distinct safety profiles.

Methods.

Data from two GD versus CD studies were pooled; overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR) were determined. Cox proportional hazards models identified prognostic factors associated with improved OS and PFS. Using a multivariate prognostic model incorporating identified adverse prognostic factors, we grouped MBC patients into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories. Hazard ratios (HRs) of GD over CD for OS and PFS were determined for subsets of patients.

Results.

Baseline demographics of the pooled population were mostly well balanced. In the pooled population, there were no significant differences between GD versus CD for OS (HR = 1.02; p = .824), PFS (HR = 1.15; p = .079), and ORR (p = .526). In the pooled crossover population, there were trends toward improved OS (HR = 0.82; p = .171) and PFS (HR = 0.93; p = .557) with GD. Several prognostic factors (including prior adjuvant taxane) for improved OS or PFS were identified; however, there were no significant interactions between treatment arms and prognostic factors for PFS or OS, except number of metastatic sites. In the prognostic model, median OS and PFS were numerically lower in the high-risk group versus the intermediate- and low-risk groups.

Conclusion.

This analysis confirms the lack of efficacy difference between GD and CD in the pooled population, crossover population, and almost all subpopulations. Several prognostic factors were associated with improved outcomes in the pooled population.     

The Opioid Rotation Ratio of Hydrocodone to Strong Opioids in Cancer Patients

Purpose.

Cancer pain management guidelines recommend initial treatment with intermediate-strength analgesics such as hydrocodone and subsequent escalation to stronger opioids such as morphine. There are no published studies on the process of opioid rotation (OR) from hydrocodone to strong opioids in cancer patients. Our aim was to determine the opioid rotation ratio (ORR) of hydrocodone to morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) in cancer outpatients.

Patients and Methods.

We reviewed the records of consecutive patient visits at our supportive care center in 2011–2012 for OR from hydrocodone to stronger opioids. Data regarding demographics, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), and MEDD were collected from patients who returned for follow-up within 6 weeks. Linear regression analysis was used to estimate the ORR between hydrocodone and MEDD. Successful OR was defined as 2-point or 30% reduction in the pain score and continuation of the new opioid at follow-up.

Results.

Overall, 170 patients underwent OR from hydrocodone to stronger opioid. The median age was 59 years, and 81% had advanced cancer. The median time between OR and follow-up was 21 days. We found 53% had a successful OR with significant improvement in the ESAS pain and symptom distress scores. In 100 patients with complete OR and no worsening of pain at follow-up, the median ORR from hydrocodone to MEDD was 1.5 (quintiles 1–3: 0.9–2). The ORR was associated with hydrocodone dose (r = −.52; p < .0001) and was lower in patients receiving ≥40 mg of hydrocodone per day (p < .0001). The median ORR of hydrocodone to morphine was 1.5 (n = 44) and hydrocodone to oxycodone was 0.9 (n = 24).

Conclusion.

The median ORR from hydrocodone to MEDD was 1.5 and varied according to hydrocodone dose.     

Triple-negative subtype predicts poor overall survival and high locoregional relapse in inflammatory breast cancer

Background.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that expression of estrogen/progesterone receptor (ER/PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-2 is important for predicting overall survival (OS), distant relapse (DR), and locoregional relapse (LRR) in early and advanced breast cancer patients. However, these findings have not been confirmed for inflammatory breast cancer (IBC), which has different biological features than non-IBC.

Methods.

We retrospectively analyzed the records of 316 women who presented to MD Anderson Cancer Center in 1989–2008 with newly diagnosed IBC without distant metastases. Most patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, mastectomy, and postmastectomy radiation. Patients were grouped according to receptor status: ER⁺ (ER⁺/PR⁺ and HER-2−; n = 105), ER⁺HER-2⁺ (ER⁺/PR⁺ and HER-2⁺; n = 37), HER-2⁺ (ER⁻/PR⁻ and HER-2⁺; n = 83), or triple-negative (TN) (ER⁻PR⁻HER-2⁻; n = 91). Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods were used to assess LRR, DR, and OS rates and their associations with prognostic factors.

Results.

The median age was 50 years (range, 24–83 years). The median follow-up time and median OS time for all patients were both 33 months. The 5-year actuarial OS rates were 58.7% for the entire cohort, 69.7% for ER⁺ patients, 73.5% for ER⁺HER-2⁺ patients, 54.0% for HER=2⁺ patients, and 42.7% for TN patients (p < .0001); 5-year LRR rates were 20.3%, 8.0%, 12.6%, 22.6%, and 38.6%, respectively, for the four subgroups (p < .0001); and 5-year DR rates were 45.5%, 28.8%, 50.1%, 52.1%, and 56.7%, respectively (p < .001). OS and LRR rates were worse for TN patients than for any other subgroup (p < .0001–.03).

Conclusions.

TN disease is associated with worse OS, DR, and LRR outcomes in IBC patients, indicating the need for developing new locoregional and systemic treatment strategies for patients with this aggressive subtype.     

The outcomes and safety of single-agent sorafenib in the treatment of elderly patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)

Background.

With the aging population, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the elderly represents a significant health burden. We aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy and tolerability of single-agent sorafenib in treating elderly patients with advanced HCC versus the younger population.

Methods.

We retrospectively analyzed a consecutive cohort of advanced HCC patients with Child-Pugh A or B liver function and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0–2 treated with sorafenib. The patients were categorized into older (age ≥70 years) and younger (age <70 years) groups. Treatment outcomes and related adverse events (AEs) were compared.

Results.

In total, 172 patients, 35 in the older (median age, 73 years) and 137 in the younger (median age, 55 years) group, were analyzed. The median progression-free survival time was similar in the older and younger groups (2.99 months versus 3.09 months; p = .275), as was the overall survival time (5.32 months versus 5.16 months; p = .310). Grade 3 or 4 AEs were observed in 68.6% of older and 62.7% of younger patients (p = .560), with neutropenia (11.4% versus 0.7%; p = .007), malaise (11.4% versus 2.2%; p = .033), and mucositis (5.7% versus 0.0%; p = .041) being more frequently reported in the elderly cohort.

Conclusions.

The survival benefits and overall treatment-related AEs of sorafenib are comparable in elderly and younger advanced HCC patients. Nevertheless, more vigilant monitoring in the elderly is warranted because they are more susceptible to develop neutropenia, malaise, and mucositis.