A phase IIb multicentre study comparing the efficacy of trabectedin to doxorubicin in patients with advanced or metastatic untreated soft tissue sarcoma: The TRUSTS trial

PurposeTo evaluate whether trabectedin as first-line chemotherapy for advanced/metastatic soft tissue sarcoma prolongs progression-free survival (PFS), compared to doxorubicin and, in the phase IIb part here, to select the most appropriate trabectedin treatment schedule (3-hour or 24-hour infusion) in terms of safety, convenience and efficacy.Patients and methodsIn this randomised multicentre prospective dose-selection phase IIb superiority trial, 133 patients were randomised between doxorubicin (n = 43), trabectedin (3-hour infusion, T3h) (n = 47) and trabectedin (24-hour infusion, T24h) (n = 43). PFS was defined as time from random assignment until objective progression by response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST 1.1), a global deterioration of the health status requiring discontinuation of the treatment, or death from any cause.ResultsThe study was terminated due to lack of superiority in both trabectedin treatment arms as compared to the doxorubicin control arm. Median PFS was 2.8 months in the T3h arm, 3.1 months in the T24h arm and 5.5 months in the doxorubicin arm. No significant improvements in PFS were observed in the trabectedin arms as compared to the doxorubicin arm (T24h versus doxorubicin: hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67–1.90, P = .675; T3h versus doxorubicin: HR 1.50, 95% CI 0.91–2.48, P = .944). Only one toxic death occurred in the T3h arm, but treatment had to be stopped due to toxicity in 7 (15.2%) (T3h), 8 (19.5%) (T24h) and 1 (2.5%) doxorubicin patients.ConclusionDoxorubicin continues to be the standard treatment in eligible patients with advanced/metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (STS). Trabectedin 1.5 mg/m²/24-hour infusion is the overall proven approach to delivering this agent in the second-line setting for patients with advanced or metastatic STS.     

A randomized phase II study evaluating different maintenance schedules of nab-paclitaxel in the first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer: final results of the IBCSG 42-12/BIG 2-12 SNAP trial

BackgroundThe phase II SNAP trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of alternative chemotherapy schedules for prolonged administration in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC), after a short induction at conventional doses.Patients and methodsBetween April 2013 and August 2015, 258 women untreated with chemotherapy for MBC were randomly assigned to receive three different maintenance chemotherapy schedules after three cycles of identical induction chemotherapy: arm A, nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m² days 1 and 15 Q28; arm B, nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m² days 1, 8 and 15 Q28; arm C, nab-paclitaxel 75 mg/m² days 1, 8, 15 and 22 Q28. Induction was three cycles nab-paclitaxel 150/125 mg/m², days 1, 8 and 15 Q28. The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of each maintenance schedule, in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), as compared with the historical reference of 7-month median PFS reported by previous studies with first-line docetaxel. One-sample, one-sided log-rank tests were utilized. Quality-of-life (QoL) evaluation was carried out, and the global indicator for physical well-being was defined as the primary QoL end point; completion rates of QoL forms were >90%.ResultsIn total, 255 patients were assessable for the primary end point. After 18.2-month median follow-up, 182 PFS events were observed. Median PFS was 7.9 months [90% confidence interval CI 6.8–8.4] in arm A, 9.0 months (90% CI 8.1–10.9) in arm B and 8.5 months (90% CI 6.7–9.5) in arm C. PFS in arm B was significantly longer than the historical reference of first-line docetaxel (P = 0.03). Grade ≥2 sensory neuropathy was reported in 37.9%, 36.1% and 31.2% of the patients in arm A, B and C, respectively (Grade ≥3 in 9.1%, 5.6% and 6.6% of the patients, respectively). Noteworthy, the QoL scores for sensory neuropathy did not worsen with prolonged nab-paclitaxel administration in any of the maintenance arms.ConclusionThe SNAP trial demonstrated that alternative nab-paclitaxel maintenance schedules with reduced dosages after a short induction at conventional doses are feasible and active in the first-line treatment of MBC.Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01746225     

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

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

Global Lung Oncology Branch trial 3 (GLOB3): final results of a randomised multinational phase III study alternating oral and i.v. vinorelbine plus cisplatin versus docetaxel plus cisplatin as first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Background: The study compared the efficacy of a first-line treatment with day 1 i.v. vinorelbine (NVBiv) and day 8 oral vinorelbine (NVBo) versus docetaxel (DCT) in a cisplatin-based combination in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, in terms of time to treatment failure (TTF), overall response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), tolerance and quality of life (QoL).Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive cisplatin 80 mg/m² with NVBiv 30 mg/m² on day 1 and NVBo 80 mg/m² on day 8 every 3 weeks, after a first cycle of NVBiv 25 mg/m² on day 1 and NVBo 60 mg/m² on day 8 (arm A) or cisplatin 75 mg/m² and DCT 75 mg/m² on day 1 every 3 weeks (arm B), for a maximum of six cycles in both arms.Results: From 2 February 2004 to 1 January 2006, 390 patients were entered in a randomised study and 381 were treated. The patient characteristics are as follows (arms A/B): metastatic (%) 80.5/84.8; patients with three or more organs involved (%) 45.3/40.8; median age 59.4/62.1 years; male 139/146; squamous (%) 34.2/33.5; adenocarcinoma (%) 41.6/39.3; median TTF (arms A/B in months) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 3.2 (3.0–4.2), 4.1 (3.4–4.5) (P = 0.19); overall response (arms A/B) (95% CI): 27.4% (21.2% to 34.2%), 27.2% (21.0% to 34.2%); median PFS (arms A/B in months) (95% CI): 4.9 (4.4–5.9), 5.1 (4.3–6.1) (P = 0.99) and median OS (arms A/B in months) (95% CI): 9.9 (8.4–11.6), 9.8 (8.8–11.5) (P = 0.58). The median survival for squamous histology was 8.87/9.82 months and for adenocarcinoma 11.73/11.60 months for arms A and B, respectively. Main haematological toxicity was grade 3–4 neutropenia: 24.4% (arm A) and 28.8% (arm B). QoL as measured by the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale was similar in both arms.Conclusions: Both arms provided similar efficacy in terms of response, time-related parameters and QoL, with an acceptable tolerance profile. In the current Global Lung Oncology Branch trial 3, NVBo was shown to be effective as a substitute for the i.v. formulation. This can relieve the burden of the i.v. injection on day 8 and can optimise the hospital's resources and improve patient convenience.     

A randomized trial of induction docetaxel–cisplatin–5FU followed by concomitant cisplatin-RT versus concomitant cisplatin-RT in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (GORTEC 2006-02)

BackgroundConcomitant chemotherapy (CT)–radiotherapy (RT) is a standard of care in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and a role for induction CT is not established.MethodsPatients with locally advanced NPC, WHO type 2 or 3, were randomized to induction TPF plus concomitant cisplatin-RT or concomitant cisplatin-RT alone. The TPF regimen consisted of three cycles of Docetaxel 75 mg/m² day 1; cisplatin 75 mg/m² day 1; 5FU 750 mg/m²/day days 1–5. RT consisted of 70 Gy in 7 weeks plus concomitant cisplatin 40 mg/m² weekly.ResultsA total of 83 patients were included in the study. Demographics and tumour characteristics were well balanced between both arms. Most of the patients (95%) in the TPF arm received three cycles of induction CT. The rate of grade 3–4 toxicity and the compliance (NCI-CTCAE v3) during cisplatin-RT were not different between both arms. With a median follow-up of 43.1 months, the 3-year PFS rate was 73.9% in the TPF arm versus 57.2% in the reference arm [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.44; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.20–0.97, P = 0.042]. Similarly the 3 years overall survival rate was 86.3% in the TPF arm versus 68.9% in the reference arm (HR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.15–1.04, P = 0.05).ConclusionIn conclusion, several important aspects can be emphasized: the compliance to induction TPF was good and TPF did not compromise the tolerance of the concomitant RT-cisplatin phase. The improved PFS and overall survival rates needs to be confirmed by further trials.     

Randomized trial on adjuvant treatment with FOLFIRI followed by docetaxel and cisplatin versus 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid for radically resected gastric cancer

BackgroundSome trial have demonstrated a benefit of adjuvant fluoropirimidine with or without platinum compounds compared with surgery alone. ITACA-S study was designed to evaluate whether a sequential treatment of FOLFIRI [irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (5-FU/LV)] followed by docetaxel plus cisplatin improves disease-free survival in comparison with 5-FU/LV in patients with radically resected gastric cancer.Patients and methodsPatients with resectable adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction were randomly assigned to either FOLFIRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m² day 1, LV 100 mg/m² as 2 h infusion and 5-FU 400 mg/m² as bolus, days 1 and 2 followed by 600 mg/m²/day as 22 h continuous infusion, q14 for four cycles) followed by docetaxel 75 mg/m² day 1, cisplatin 75 mg/m² day 1, q21 for three cycles (sequential arm) or De Gramont regimen (5-FU/LV arm).ResultsFrom February 2005 to August 2009, 1106 patients were enrolled, and 1100 included in the analysis: 562 in the sequential arm and 538 in the 5-FU/LV arm. With a median follow-up of 57.4 months, 581 patients recurred or died (297 sequential arm and 284 5-FU/LV arm), and 483 died (243 and 240, respectively). No statistically significant difference was detected for both disease-free [hazard ratio (HR) 1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85–1.17; P = 0.974] and overall survival (OS) (HR 0.98; 95% CI: 0.82–1.18; P = 0.865). Five-year disease-free and OS rates were 44.6% and 44.6%, 51.0% and 50.6% in the sequential and 5-FU/LV arm, respectively.ConclusionsA more intensive regimen failed to show any benefit in disease-free and OS versus monotherapy.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01640782.     

Randomised phase III trial of trabectedin versus doxorubicin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy in translocation-related sarcomas

AimThis randomised phase III trial evaluated first-line trabectedin versus doxorubicin-based chemotherapy (DXCT) in patients with advanced/metastatic translocation-related sarcomas (TRS).MethodsPatients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive trabectedin 1.5 mg/m² 24-h intravenous (i.v.) infusion every 3 weeks (q3wk) (Arm A), or doxorubicin 75 mg/m² i.v. q3wk, or doxorubicin 60 mg/m² i.v. plus ifosfamide (range, 6–9 g/m²) i.v. q3wk (Arm B). Progression-free survival (PFS) by independent review was the primary efficacy end-point.ResultsOne hundred and twenty-one patients were randomised; 88 of them had TRS confirmed by central pathology review (efficacy population). Twenty-nine PFS events were assessed by independent review (16 with trabectedin; 13 with DXCT). PFS showed non-significant difference between arms (stratified log rank test, p = 0.9573; hazard ratio = 0.86, p = 0.6992). At the time of this analysis, 63.9% and 58.3% of patients were alive in trabectedin and DXCT arms, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in survival curves. Response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) v.1.0 was significantly higher in DXCT arm (27.0% versus 5.9%), but response according to Choi criteria showed fewer differences between treatment arms (45.9% versus 37.3%). Safety profile was as expected for both arms, with higher incidence of severe neutropenia, alopecia and mucositis in the DXCT arm.ConclusionNeither trabectedin nor doxorubicin-based chemotherapy showed significant superiority in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced translocation-related sarcoma.     

Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab-based combination regimens in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: Final results from a randomised phase ii study of bevacizumab plus 5-fluorouracil,leucovorin plus irinotecan versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine plus irinotecan (FNCLCC ACCORD 13/0503 study)

BackgroundThe combination of bevacizumab and bolus 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and irinotecan is highly effective in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This randomised, multicenter, non-comparative phase II trial assessed the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab plus oral capecitabine plus irinotecan (XELIRI) or infusional 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin plus irinotecan (FOLFIRI) as first-line therapy for patients with mCRC.Patients and MethodsPatients received bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg on day 1 plus XELIRI (irinotecan 200 mg/m² on day 1 and oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m² bid on days 1–14) every 3 weeks or bevacizumab 5 mg/kg on day 1 plus FOLFIRI (5-fluorouracil 400 mg/m² on day 1 plus 2400 mg/m² as a 46-h infusion, leucovorin 400 mg/m² on day 1, and irinotecan 180 mg/m² on day 1) every 2 weeks. Patients aged ?65 years received a lower dose of capecitabine (800 mg/m² twice daily). The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate.ResultsA total of 145 patients were enrolled (bevacizumab–XELIRI, n = 72; bevacizumab–FOLFIRI, n = 73). The 6-month PFS rate was 82% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 71–90%) in the bevacizumab–XELIRI arm and 85% (95% CI 75–92%) in the bevacizumab–FOLFIRI arm. In both the bevacizumab–XELIRI and bevacizumab–FOLFIRI arms, median PFS and overall survival (OS) were 9 and 23 months, respectively. The most frequent toxicities were grade 3/4 neutropenia (bevacizumab–XELIRI 18%; bevacizumab–FOLFIRI 26%) and grade 3 diarrhoea (12% and 5%, respectively).ConclusionsThis randomised non-comparative study demonstrates that bevacizumab–XELIRI and bevacizumab–FOLFIRI are effective regimens for the first-line treatment of patients with mCRC with manageable toxicity profiles.     

Cisplatin alone or combined with gemcitabine in carcinomas of unknown primary: results of the randomised GEFCAPI 02 trial

PurposeTo compare the overall survival rates of good-prognosis carcinomas of an unknown primary site (CUPS) patients treated with cisplatin alone (C) or in combination with gemcitabine (CG).Patients and methodsGood prognosis was defined according to the GEFCAPI (Groupe d’Etude Français des Carcinomes de site Primitif Inconnu) classification by PS (Performance Status) ⩽1 and LDH (Lactate Deshydrogenase) within the normal range. Patients were randomly assigned to receive C or CG. Patients in the C arm received cisplatin 100 mg/m² repeated every 3 weeks. In the CG arm, chemotherapy consisted of gemcitabine 1250 mg/m² on days 1 and 8 and cisplatin 100 mg/m² IV on day 1, repeated every 3 weeks. The original plan was to accrue 192 patients in order to detect a 20% difference in overall survival.ResultsFifty-two patients were enrolled (arm A: 25; arm B: 27). The trial was stopped early due to insufficient accrual. The median overall survival (OS) rate was 11 months [95% confidence interval: 9–20] and 8 months [95% CI: 6–12], in the CG arm and in the C arm, respectively. The 1-year survival rate was 46% [95% CI: 28–64] in the combination arm and 35% [95% CI: 19–56] in the C arm (log rank test: p = 0.73). The median progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 5 [95% CI: 3–11] and 3 [95% CI: 1–8] months in the CG and in the C arm, respectively. The 1-year PFS rate was 29% [95% CI: 15–48] in the combination arm and 15% [95% CI: 5–35] in the C arm (log rank test: p = 0.27). No toxic deaths occurred. Grade 3–4 neutropenia (63% versus 12%) and grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia (37% versus 4%) were more frequent in the CG arm than in the C arm.ConclusionA non-significantly better outcome was observed with CG as compared to C in patients with CUP and a non-unfavourable prognosis. The toxicity profile of the combined arm was represented by haematologic toxicity with thrombocytopenia and leuconeutropenia. International collaboration is required to conduct phase III trials in patients with CUP.     

Efficacy and tolerability of trabectedin in elderly patients with sarcoma: subgroup analysis from a phase III,randomized controlled study of trabectedin or dacarbazine in patients with advanced liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma

BackgroundTreatment options for soft tissue sarcoma (STS) patients aged ≥65 years (elderly) can be limited by concerns regarding the increased risk of toxicity associated with standard systemic therapies. Trabectedin has demonstrated improved disease control in a phase III trial (ET743-SAR-3007) of patients with advanced liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma after failure of anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Since previous retrospective analyses have suggested that trabectedin has similar safety and efficacy outcomes regardless of patient age, we carried out a subgroup analysis of the safety and efficacy observed in elderly patients enrolled in this trial.Patients and methodsPatients were randomized 2 : 1 to trabectedin (n = 384) or dacarbazine (n = 193) administered intravenously every-3-weeks. The primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), time-to-progression, objective response rate (ORR), duration of response, symptom severity, and safety. A post hoc analysis was conducted in the elderly patient subgroup.ResultsAmong 131 (trabectedin = 94; dacarbazine = 37) elderly patients, disease characteristics were well-balanced and consistent with those of the total study population. Treatment exposure was longer in patients treated with trabectedin versus dacarbazine (median four versus two cycles, respectively), with a significantly higher proportion receiving prolonged therapy (≥6 cycles) in the trabectedin arm (43% versus 23%, respectively; P = 0.04). Elderly patients treated with trabectedin showed significantly improved PFS [4.9 versus 1.5 months, respectively; hazard ratio (HR)=0.40; P = 0.0002] but no statistically significant improvement in OS (15.1 versus 8.0 months, respectively; HR = 0.72; P = 0.18) or ORR (9% versus 3%, respectively; P = 0.43). The safety profile for elderly trabectedin-treated patients was comparable to that of the overall trabectedin-treated study population.ConclusionsThis subgroup analysis of the elderly population of ET743-SAR-3007 suggests that elderly patients with STS and good performance status can expect clinical benefit from trabectedin similar to that observed in younger patients.Trial registrationwww.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01343277.     

Long-term results of a randomised phase III trial of weekly versus three-weekly paclitaxel/platinum induction therapy followed by standard or extended three-weekly paclitaxel/platinum in European patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

BackgroundWeekly paclitaxel/carboplatin might improve survival in platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). We compared efficacy of first-line weekly to three-weekly paclitaxel/cis- or carboplatin (PCw and PC3w) induction therapy, followed by either three or six PC3w cycles.Patients and methodsIn this multicentre, randomised phase III trial with 2×2 design, patients with FIGO stage IIb–IV EOC were randomised to six cycles PCw (paclitaxel 90 mg/m², cisplatin 70 mg/m² or carboplatin AUC 4) or three cycles PC3w (paclitaxel 175 mg/m², cisplatin 75 mg/m² or carboplatin AUC 6), followed by either three or six cycles PC3w. Primary endpoints were progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were response rate (RR) and toxicity.ResultsOf 267 eligible patients, 133 received PCw and 134 PC3w. The first 105 patients received cisplatin, after protocol amendment the subsequent 162 patients received carboplatin. Weekly cisplatin was less well tolerated than weekly carboplatin. All PC3w cycles were well tolerated. At the end of all treatments, RR was 90.8% with no differences between the treatment arms. After a follow-up of median 10.3 years (range 7.1–14.8), median PFS was 18.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.9–21.0) months for PCw and 16.4 (95% CI 13.5–19.2) months for PC3w (p = 0.78). Median OS was 44.8 (95% CI 33.1–56.5) months for PCw and 41.1 (95% CI 34.4–47.7) months for PC3w (p = 0.98).ConclusionsThere was no benefit in terms of OS, PFS or RR for a weekly regimen nor for extended chemotherapy as first-line treatment for EOC in European patients.     

Vistusertib (dual m-TORC1/2 inhibitor) in combination with paclitaxel in patients with high-grade serous ovarian and squamous non-small-cell lung cancer

BackgroundWe have previously shown that raised p-S6K levels correlate with resistance to chemotherapy in ovarian cancer. We hypothesised that inhibiting p-S6K signalling with the dual m-TORC1/2 inhibitor in patients receiving weekly paclitaxel could improve outcomes in such patients.Patients and methodsIn dose escalation, weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m²) was given 6/7 weeks in combination with two intermittent schedules of vistusertib (dosing starting on the day of paclitaxel): schedule A, vistusertib dosed bd for 3 consecutive days per week (3/7 days) and schedule B, vistusertib dosed bd for 2 consecutive days per week (2/7 days). After establishing a recommended phase II dose (RP2D), expansion cohorts in high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) and squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (sqNSCLC) were explored in 25 and 40 patients, respectively.ResultsThe dose-escalation arms comprised 22 patients with advanced solid tumours. The dose-limiting toxicities were fatigue and mucositis in schedule A and rash in schedule B. On the basis of toxicity and pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) evaluations, the RP2D was established as 80 mg/m² paclitaxel with 50 mg vistusertib bd 3/7 days for 6/7 weeks. In the HGSOC expansion, RECIST and GCIG CA125 response rates were 13/25 (52%) and 16/25 (64%), respectively, with median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 5.8 months (95% CI: 3.28–18.54). The RP2D was not well tolerated in the SqNSCLC expansion, but toxicities were manageable after the daily vistusertib dose was reduced to 25 mg bd for the following 23 patients. The RECIST response rate in this group was 8/23 (35%), and the mPFS was 5.8 months (95% CI: 2.76–21.25).DiscussionIn this phase I trial, we report a highly active and well-tolerated combination of vistusertib, administered as an intermittent schedule with weekly paclitaxel, in patients with HGSOC and SqNSCLC.Clinical trial registrationClinicialTrials.gov identifier: CNCT02193633     

Trabectedin in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma: A retrospective national analysis of the French Sarcoma Group

AimThe French Sarcoma Group performed this retrospective analysis of the ‘RetrospectYon’ database with data of patients with recurrent advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) treated with trabectedin 1.5 mg/m² as a 24-h infusion every three weeks.MethodsPatients who achieved non-progressive disease after six initial cycles could receive long-term trabectedin treatment until disease progression.ResultsOverall, 885 patients from 25 French centres were included. Patients received a median of four trabectedin cycles (range: 1–28). The objective response rate was 17% (six complete/127 partial responses) and 50% (n = 403) of patients had stable disease for a disease control rate of 67%. After a median follow-up of 22.0 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 4.4 and 12.2 months, respectively. After six cycles, 227/304 patients with non-progressive disease received trabectedin until disease progression and obtained a significantly superior median PFS (11.7 versus 7.6 months, P < 0.003) and OS (24.9 versus 16.9 months, P < 0.001) compared with those who stopped trabectedin treatment. Deaths and unscheduled hospitalisation attributed to drug-related events occurred in 0.5% and 9.4% of patients, respectively.ConclusionThe results of this real-life study demonstrate that treatment with trabectedin of patients with STS yielded comparable or improved efficacy outcomes versus those observed in clinical trials. A long-term treatment with trabectedin given until disease progression is associated with significantly improved PFS and OS.     

Final results of the IFCT-0803 study,a phase II study of cetuximab,pemetrexed, cisplatin,and concurrent radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced,unresectable, stage III,non-squamous,non-small-cell lung cancer

PurposeRoughly 20% of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer exhibit locally advanced, unresectable, stage III disease. Concurrent platinum-based chemoradiotherapy is the backbone treatment, which is followed by maintenance immunotherapy, yet with poor long-term prognosis. This phase II trial (IFCT-0803) sought to evaluate whether adding cetuximab to cisplatin and pemetrexed chemoradiotherapy would improve its efficacy in these patients.Materials and methodsEligible patients received weekly cetuximab (loading dose 400 mg/m² day 1; subsequent weekly 250 mg/m² doses until two weeks postradiotherapy). Chemotherapy comprised cisplatin (75 mg/m²) and pemetrexed (500 mg/m²), both delivered on day 1 of a 21-day cycle of maximally four. Irradiation with maximally 66 Gy started on day 22. Disease control rate at week 16 was the primary endpoint.ResultsOne hundred and six patients were included (99 eligible patients). Compliance exceeded 95% for day 1 of chemotherapy cycles 1 to 4, with 76% patients receiving the 12 planned cetuximab doses. Maximal grade 3 toxicity occurred in 63% patients, and maximal grade 4 in 9.6%. The primary endpoint involving the first 95 eligible patients comprised two (2.1%) complete responses, 57 (60.0%) partial responses, and 27 (28.4%) stable diseases. This 90.5% disease control rate (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 84.6%–96.4%) was achieved at week 16. After median 63.0-month follow-up, one-year and two-year survival rates were 75.8% and 59.5%. Median overall survival was 35.8 months (95% CI: 23.5–NR), and median progression-free survival 14.4 months (95% CI: 11.2–18.8), with one-year and two-year progression-free survival rates of 57.6% and 34.3%.ConclusionThese survival rates compare favourably with published data, thus justifying further development of cetuximab-based induction chemoradiotherapy.     

Maintenance sunitinib or observation in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A phase II randomised trial

BackgroundNew strategies to prolong disease control warrant investigation in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. This open-label, randomised, multi-centre phase II trial explored the role of maintenance sunitinib after first-line chemotherapy in this setting.MethodsPatients with pathologic diagnosis of metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, performance status >50%, no progression after 6 months of chemotherapy were centrally randomised by an independent contract research organisation, which was also responsible for data collection and monitoring, to observation (arm A) or sunitinib at 37.5 mg daily until progression or a maximum of 6 months (arm B). The primary outcome measure was the probability of being progression-free at 6 months (PFS-6) from randomisation. Assuming P0 = 10%; P1 = 30%, α .10; β .10, the target accrual was 26 patients per arm.Results28 per arm were randomised. One arm B patient had kidney cancer and was excluded. Sunitinib was given for a median of 91 days (7–186). Main grade 3–4 toxicity was thrombocytopenia, neutropenia and hand–foot syndrome (12%), diarrhoea 8%. In arm A versus B, PFS-6 was 3.6% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0–10.6%) and 22.2% (95% CI: 6.2–38.2%; P < 0.01); 2y overall survival was 7.1% (95% CI: 0–16.8%) and 22.9% (95% CI: 5.8–40.0%; P = 0.11), stable disease 21.4% and 51.9% (P = 0.02).ConclusionThis is the first randomised trial on maintenance therapy in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The primary end-point was fulfilled and 2y overall survival was remarkably high, suggesting that maintenance sunitinib is promising and should be further explored in this patient population.     

Efficacy of everolimus plus octreotide LAR in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumor and carcinoid syndrome: final overall survival from the randomized,placebo-controlled phase 3 RADIANT-2 study

BackgroundIn the phase 3 RADIANT-2 study, everolimus plus octreotide long-acting repeatable (LAR) showed improvement of 5.1 months in median progression-free survival versus placebo plus octreotide LAR among patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors associated with carcinoid syndrome. The progression-free survival P-value was marginally above the prespecified threshold for statistical significance. Here, we report final overall survival (OS) and key safety update from RADIANT-2.Patients and methodsThe RADIANT-2 trial compared everolimus (10 mg/day, orally; n = 216) versus placebo (n = 213), both in conjunction with octreotide LAR (30 mg, intramuscularly, every 28 days). Patients, unblinded at the time of progression or after end of double-blind core phase following primary analysis, were offered open-label everolimus with octreotide LAR (open-label phase). In the open-label phase, patients had similar safety and efficacy assessments as those in the core phase. For OS, hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs using unadjusted Cox model and a Cox model adjusted for prespecified baseline covariates were calculated.ResultsA total of 170 patients received open-label everolimus (143 crossed over from the placebo arm; 27 in the everolimus arm continued to receive the same treatment after unblinding). The median OS (95% CI) after 271 events was 29.2 months (23.8–35.9) for the everolimus arm and 35.2 months (30.0–44.7) for the placebo arm (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.92–1.49). HR adjusted for baseline covariates was 1.08 (95% CI, 0.84–1.38). The most frequent drug-related grade 3 or 4 AEs reported during the open-label phase were diarrhea (5.3%), fatigue (4.7%), and stomatitis (4.1%). Deaths related to pulmonary or cardiac failure were observed more frequently in the everolimus arm.ConclusionNo significant difference in OS was observed for the everolimus plus octreotide LAR and placebo plus octreotide LAR arms of the RADIANT-2 study, even after adjusting for imbalances in the baseline covariates.Clinical Trial NumberNCT00412061, www.clinicaltrials.gov     

Activity of trabectedin in germline BRCA1/2-mutated metastatic breast cancer: results of an international first-in-class phase II study

BackgroundBreast cancer is a heterogeneous disease defined by both germline and somatic abnormalities. In preclinical models, tumors carrying homologous recombination defects are highly sensitive to trabectedin. This phase II trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of trabectedin in BRCA1/2 germline mutation carriers with pretreated metastatic breast cancer (MBC).Patients and methodsTrabectedin 1.3 mg/m² as a 3-h i.v. infusion was administered every 3 weeks until progression or intolerance. The primary efficacy end point was the objective response rate (ORR) as per RECIST. Secondary efficacy end points comprised time-to-event end points, and changes in tumor volume and expression of tumor marker CA15.3. Safety was evaluated using the NCI-CTCAE.ResultsForty BRCA1/2 germline mutation carriers with MBC were included. Confirmed partial response (PR) occurred in 6 of 35 assessable patients [ORR = 17%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 7% to 34%] and lasted 1.4–6.8 months. Median PFS was 3.9 months (95% CI 1.6–5.5 months). Eight patients (21%) showed changes in tumor volume, and 14 (40%) a clinical benefit. Trabectedin-related adverse events were generally mild/moderate, the most common being fatigue, nausea, constipation and anorexia. Severe laboratory abnormalities (neutropenia, transaminase increases) were mostly transient and noncumulative, and were managed by dose adjustments.ConclusionsWith the caveat of the limited patient number, trabectedin monotherapy showed activity and was well tolerated in heavily pretreated MBC patients selected for germline BRCA mutation. These results prompt further evaluation of trabectedin alone or combined with other specific drugs in this indication.ClinicalTrials.govNCT00580112.     

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

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

Randomised phase III trial of second-line irinotecan plus cisplatin versus irinotecan alone in patients with advanced gastric cancer refractory to S-1 monotherapy: TRICS trial

AimThe optimal second-line regimen for treating advanced gastric cancer (AGC) remains unclear. While irinotecan (CPT-11) plus cisplatin (CDDP) combination therapy and CPT-11 monotherapy have been explored in the second-line setting, the superiority of second-line platinum-based therapies for AGC patients initially treated with S-1 monotherapy has not yet been evaluated; therefore, we aimed to examine the survival benefit of CPT-11/CDDP combination over CPT-11 monotherapy.MethodsAGC patients showing progression after S-1 monotherapy for advanced cancer or recurrence within 6 months after completion of S-1 adjuvant therapy were randomly allocated to CPT-11/CDDP (CPT-11, 60 mg/m²; CDDP, 30 mg/m², q2w) or CPT-11 (150 mg/m², q2w).ResultsSixty-eight advanced and 95 recurrent cases were evaluated. The median overall survivals were 13.9 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.8–17.6) and 12.7 (95% CI: 10.3–17.2) months for CPT-11/CDDP and CPT-11, respectively (hazard ratio: 0.834; 95% CI: 0.596–1.167, P = 0.288). No significant differences were observed in the secondary end-points, including progression-free survival (4.6 [95% CI: 3.4–5.9] versus 4.1 [95% CI: 3.3–4.9] months) and response rate (16.9% [95% CI: 8.8–28.3] versus 15.4% [95% CI: 7.6–26.5]). The incidences of grade 3–4 anaemia (16% versus 4%) and elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase levels (5% versus 0%) were higher for CPT-11/CDDP than for CPT-11. Exploratory subgroup analysis revealed that CPT-11/CDDP was significantly more effective for intestinal-type AGC, compared with CPT-11 (overall survival: 15.8 versus 14.0 months; P = 0.019).ConclusionNo survival benefit was observed upon adding CDDP to CPT-11 after S-1 monotherapy failure.