Progression-free survival results in postmenopausal Asian women: subgroup analysis from a phase III randomized trial of fulvestrant 500 mg vs anastrozole 1 mg for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (FALCON)

Background

The international, phase III FALCON study (NCT01602380) in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer (LA/MBC) who had not received prior endocrine therapy, demonstrated statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) for patients who received fulvestrant 500 mg vs anastrozole 1 mg. This subgroup analysis evaluated PFS in Asian (randomized in China, Japan, or Taiwan) and non-Asian patients from the FALCON study.

Methods

Eligible patients (estrogen receptor- and/or progesterone receptor-positive LA/MBC; World Health Organization performance status 0–2; ≥ 1 measurable/non-measurable lesion[s]) were randomized. PFS was assessed via Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1, surgery/radiotherapy for disease worsening, or death (any cause). Secondary endpoints included: objective response rate, clinical benefit rate, duration of response, and duration of clinical benefit. Consistency of effect across subgroups was assessed via hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a log-rank test. Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated.

Results

Of the 462 randomized patients, the Asian and non-Asian subgroups comprised 67 and 395 patients, respectively. In the Asian subgroup, median PFS was 16.6 and 15.9 months with fulvestrant and anastrozole, respectively (hazard ratio 0.81; 95% CI 0.44–1.50). In the non-Asian subgroup, median PFS was 16.5 and 13.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio 0.79; 95% CI 0.62–1.01). Secondary outcomes were numerically improved with fulvestrant vs anastrozole in both subgroups. AE profiles were generally consistent between Asian and non-Asian subgroups.

Conclusions

Results of this subgroup analysis suggest that treatment effects in the Asian patient subgroup are broadly consistent with the non-Asian population.

     

Fulvestrant 500?mg versus anastrozole 1?mg for the first-line treatment of advanced breast cancer: follow-up analysis from the randomized ‘FIRST’ study

Fulvestrant fIRst-line Study comparing endocrine Treatments is a phase II, randomized, open-label study comparing fulvestrant 500?mg with anastrozole 1?mg as first-line endocrine therapy for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) advanced breast cancer. At data cut-off, only 36?% of patients had progressed and the median time to progression (TTP) had not been reached for fulvestrant. Here, we report follow-up data for TTP for fulvestrant 500?mg versus anastrozole 1?mg. Key inclusion criteria were postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive and/or progesterone receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer and no prior endocrine therapy. Key exclusion criteria were presence of life-threatening metastases and prior treatment with a non-approved drug. Fulvestrant was administered 500?mg/month plus 500?mg on day 14 of month 1; anastrozole was administered 1?mg/day. TTP was defined by modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.0 before data cut-off for the primary analysis, and investigator opinion after data cut-off. Best overall response to subsequent therapy and serious adverse events are also reported. In total, 205 patients received fulvestrant 500?mg (n?=?102) or anastrozole (n?=?103). Follow-up analysis was performed when 79.5?% of patients had discontinued study treatment. Median TTP was 23.4?months for fulvestrant versus 13.1?months for anastrozole; a 34?% reduction in risk of progression (hazard ratio 0.66; 95?% confidence interval: 0.47, 0.92; P?=?0.01). Best overall response to subsequent therapy and clinical benefit rate for subsequent endocrine therapy was similar between the treatment groups. No new safety concerns for fulvestrant 500?mg were documented. These longer-term, follow-up results confirm efficacy benefit for fulvestrant 500?mg versus anastrozole as first-line endocrine therapy for HR+ advanced breast cancer in terms of TTP, and, importantly, show similar best overall response rates to subsequent endocrine therapy.     

Fulvestrant 500 mg in postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer: the initial clinical experience

Background

Fulvestrant 500 mg is currently approved for the treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer after failure of prior endocrine therapies.

Methods

A total of 117 postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer, who experienced progression after previous endocrine therapies, were treated with fulvestrant 500 mg between January 2012 and June 2014. Clinical response, time to progression (TTP) and adverse events were investigated.

Results

Ninety-nine patients had recurrent breast cancer and 18 patients had stage IV disease. Patients had received a median of two endocrine therapies and a median of two chemotherapies, prior to fulvestrant. There were 10 patients with partial response, 39 patients with long stable disease, 18 patients with stable disease, and 50 patients with progressive disease, so that the objective response rate was 8.5 %, with a clinical benefit rate of 41.9 %. The median TTP was 6.1 months. The absence of liver metastases, a small number of previous chemotherapies, and the longer duration of first-line endocrine therapy were positively correlated with TTP in univariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, a significant association was observed between TTP and duration of first-line endocrine therapy. Serious adverse events were observed in one patient with pulmonary embolism and in one patient with psychiatric symptoms.

Conclusions

Fulvestrant 500 mg is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer that had progressed after prior endocrine therapies. Patients with acquired resistance to endocrine therapies might be good candidates for fulvestrant therapy regardless of the number of prior endocrine treatments.

     

Epirubicin dose and sequential hormonal therapy—Mature results of the HMFEC randomised phase III trial in premenopausal patients with node positive early breast cancer

BackgroundThe hormonal manipulation 5-Fluoro-uracil Epirubicin Cyclophosphamide (HMFEC) trial was developed at a time of uncertainty around the dose intensity of chemotherapy given to premenopausal patients with node positive breast cancer and to the benefits of tailored endocrine therapy in such patients.Patients and methodsHMFEC was a multi-centre, phase III, open label, randomised controlled trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. Eligible patients were premenopausal with node positive early breast cancer; significant cardiac disease or uncontrolled hypertension was exclusion criterion. Patients were allocated to receive either eight cycles of FE₅₀C or FE₇₅C (given 3 weekly) with or without hormone manipulation (HM; tamoxifen or luteinising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists according to residual hormone levels at the end of chemotherapy) irrespective of ER status. The primary end-point was disease free survival (DFS). Principal analyses were by intention to treat (ITT); however, to reflect contemporary practice, subgroup analyses according to ER status were also conducted. The mature follow-up now available from this modest sized trial enables presentation of definitive results.ResultsBetween 1992 and 2000 a total of 785 patients were randomised into the HMFEC trial (203 FE₅₀C−HM, 191 FE₅₀C+HM, 198 FE₇₅C−HM, 193 FE₇₅C+HM). At a median follow-up of 7.4 years, 245 DFS events have been reported (92 ER−, 153 ER+/unknown). The effects on DFS were not statistically significantly different according to epirubicin dose (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63–1.06; p = 0.13 FE₇₅C versus FE₅₀C); however, FE₇₅C appeared to induce more alopecia and neutropenia. No statistically significant evidence was observed to support an improvement in DFS in patients allocated HM either overall (HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.68–1.13; p = 0.32) or in patients with ER+/unknown disease (HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.62–1.17; p = 0.32) although effect sizes are consistent with worthwhile clinical effects. Overall, there was no evidence of a difference in survival between any of the four treatment groups of the trial.ConclusionHigher doses of epirubicin cause more adverse events in the absence of clear improvement in overall survival. Endocrine therapy with either tamoxifen or goserelin provided no significant added benefit to cytotoxic chemotherapy in this group of patients.Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN98335268     

Biochemical modulation of 5-fluorouracil by leucovorin with or without interferon-α-2c in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: final results of a randomised phase III study

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) remains the mainstay of treatment for advanced colorectal carcinoma, although response rates are generally less than 20%. Improved therapeutic efficacy has been reported using biochemical modulation of 5-FU by leucovorin (LV) or interferon α (IFN), the combination of 5-FU/LV frequently considered as standard therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. In an attempt to enhance the cytotoxicity of 5-FU, a prospective randomised trial was initiated to compare 5-FU/LV with 5-FU/LV plus IFN. Patients were randomised to receive either LV, 100 mg/m² intravenously (i.v.), followed by 5-FU, 500 mg/m² as a 1-h i.v. infusion, daily for 4 days, followed by weekly infusions until week 8, or the same regimen of 5-FU/LV plus IFN-α-2c, 30 μg subcutaneously (s.c.), three times weekly. Cycles were repeated after a 2-week rest period. Among 269 enrolled patients, 219 were available for response and 243 for toxicity. An objective tumour response was observed in 38 of 107 (36%) and 28 of 112 (25%) patients in the treatment arms with and without IFN, respectively (difference not significant). There was no significant difference between the two groups in response duration (median 8.4 versus 12.1 months), time to treatment failure (median 6.5 versus 4.9 months), or overall survival (median 10.0 versus 12.6 months). However, patients in the IFN arm experienced significantly more haematological and gastrointestinal toxicity and more frequent alopecia. In conclusion, the addition of IFN to 5-FU/LV in the schedules and doses used in the study did not provide any clinical benefit over 5-FU/LV alone and cannot be recommended for routine use in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer.     

Sequential vinorelbine–capecitabine followed by docetaxel in advanced breast cancer: long-term results of a pilot phase II trial

Purpose To evaluate the response rate of the combination of capecitabine (C) and vinorelbine (V) followed by Docetaxel (D) in the 1st line treatment of advanced and metastatic breast cancer patients. Patients and methods Patients with measurable disease and no prior chemotherapy in advanced disease were eligible. Pts received V 25 mg/m² on day 1 and 8 in combination with C 825 mg/m² twice a day from day 1 to 14 every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by 12 consecutive weeks of D 25 mg/m²/w. Results Between March 2002 and November 2003, 40 patients were enrolled. Median age was 57 years. Of patients, 77.5% of pts had visceral involvement and 32.5% had more than two metastatic sites. In the adjuvant setting, 62.5% received anthracycline and 10% Taxanes. In the intent-to-treat population, an overall objective response was observed in 25 patients (62.5, 95% CI, 45.8–77.27) and stable disease in 5 (12.5%). Median time till progression (TTP) was 12.3 months (range 1.5–48; 95% CI, 10.05–14.54). The median survival was 35.7 months (range 2–47). Reported grade 3–4 toxicities under Navcap were neutropenia (4 pts), anemia (1 pt), thrombopenia (1 pt) and febrile neutropenia (3 pts). Reported grade 3–4 toxicities under weekly Docetaxel were neutropenia (1 pt), thrombopenia (2 pts), leucopenia (1 pt) and anemia (1 pt). Conclusion The sequential use of Navcap followed by weekly Docetaxel demonstrated an interesting efficacy with a prolonged TTP and OS and warrants further evaluation. This study was supported in part by Institut de Recherche Pierre-Fabre and by sanofi-aventis.     

Intermittent versus continuous chemotherapy in advanced colorectal cancer: a randomised ‘GISCAD’ trial

BackgroundIn advanced colorectal cancer, chemotherapy is usually administered without pauses and until progression but patients can experience cumulative toxicity and cannot tolerate a heavy therapeutic charge.AimThe aim of the present trial was to evaluate whether an intermittent chemotherapy with levo-leucovorin + 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) + irinotecan (CPT-11) was at least as effective as the same regimen given continuously, both administered until progression, in patients affected with advanced colorectal cancer and not previously exposed to chemotherapy for metastatic disease.Patients, materials and methodsA total of 337 patients from 27 institutions were randomised between levo-leucovorin, 100/mg/m² i.v. + 5-FU; 400 mg/m² i.v. bolus + 5-FU; 600 mg/m² 22-h continuous infusion, days 1 and 2 + CPT-11; 180 mg/m² day 1, administered every 2 weeks 2 months on and 2 months off (arm A) and the same regimen administered continuously (arm B), until progression in both arms. The main end point was overall survival (OS), the secondary progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity.ResultsAt a median follow-up of 41 months, OS was 18 months in arm A and 17 months in arm B [hazard ratio (HR), 0.88]. Also PFS was comparable in the two groups (6 months in both, with HR, 1.03), and even grades 3–4 toxicity (mainly myelosuppression, fever and diarrhoea) was similar. Second-line oxaliplatin-based treatment was administered in a similar percentage (66%) in the two arms. The median chemotherapy-free period (drug holiday) in arm A was 3.5 months.ConclusionReducing the charge of therapy in this population did not diminish the efficacy of treatment. Further studies with this strategy, including biologicals, are warranted.     

The efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy?+/??letrozole in postmenopausal women with locally advanced breast cancer: a randomized phase III clinical trial

This two-arm randomized clinical study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant concurrent chemotherapy and letrozole in postmenopausal women with locally advanced breast carcinoma. One hundred and one postmenopausal women aged 50-83 years with pathologically proven locally advanced (clinical stage T3, T4 and/or N2, N3) breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone (control arm, n = 51) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy concurrent with letrozole 2.5 mg (study arm, n = 50). Chemotherapy consisted of a median 4 (range 3-5) cycles of intravenous 5-fluorouracil 600 mg/m(2), doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2), and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2), every three weeks. All patients subsequently underwent modified radical mastectomy approximately two weeks after the last cycle of chemotherapy. Pathologic complete response rates were 25.5% and 10.2% in the study and the control group, respectively (P = 0.049). Similarly, clinical complete response rates were 27.6% and 10.2% in the study and the control group, respectively (P = 0.037). In the subgroup analysis of hormone receptor-positive cases, the complete response rates were more prominent in study group compared with control group. Common treatment-related side effects such as nausea, vomiting, bone marrow suppression, and mucositis were similar in both groups, but hot flush was more prevalent in study group compared with control group (P = 0.023). The addition of letrozole concurrently with neoadjuvant chemotherapy provides a higher clinical and pathologic response rates with acceptable toxicity compared with chemotherapy alone in postmenopausal women with locally advanced sensitive breast cancer.     

Comorbidity,age and overall survival in cetuximab-treated patients with advanced colorectal cancer (ACRC)—results from NCIC CTG CO.17: a phase III trial of cetuximab versus best supportive care

Background: The interplay between comorbidity, age and performance status (PS) as predictors of outcome in advanced colorectal cancer (ACRC) is poorly understood. We examined these factors as predictors of treatment toxicity and outcome in cetuximab-treated patients with ACRC.Patients and methods: Comorbidity was independently evaluated using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), a validated measure of comorbidity based on the presence of medical conditions weighted according to their effect on mortality. CCI score was correlated with clinical and outcome data.Results: Five hundred and seventy-two patients were included; 41% were ≥65 years and 25% had comorbidities at randomization. In multivariate analysis (MVA) of all covariates, only older age was associated with greater comorbidity (P = 0.008). Overall survival (OS) was significantly better for patients with greater comorbidity in univariate analysis (P = 0.047). Conversely, better PS was associated with better OS in MVA (hazard ratio 1.92 for PS = 2 versus PS = 0, P < 0.0001). Age was not associated with OS (P = 0.13). Elderly patients had significantly less grade ≥3 vomiting (P = 0.034) but more dyspnea (P = 0.005). Patients with greater comorbidity had significantly less grade ≥3 vomiting (P = 0.002) but more non-neutropenic fever (P = 0.005).Conclusion: Better PS was associated with improved OS. For patients with good PS, restricting cetuximab use in the setting of significant comorbidity does not appear justified.     

A phase I trial of gemcitabine, docetaxel and carboplatin administered every 2 weeks as first line treatment in patients with advanced breast cancer

Objective  To determine the maximum tolerated doses (MTDs) and dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) of gemcitabine (GEM), docetaxel (DOC) and carboplatin (CARBO) combination. Patients and methods  A total of 33 previously untreated HER-2 negative patients with stage IIIB-IV breast cancer received escalated doses of GEM, DOC and CARBO all given sequentially on day 1 every 2 weeks. Twenty-three patients (70%) had previously received adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Results  The recommended MTDs are GEM 1,500 mg/m², DOC 50 mg/m² and CARBO 3AUC. Seven dose levels were evaluated and neutropenia was the primary dose-limiting event. Of 319 chemotherapy cycles delivered, grade 3–4 neutropenia occurred in 13.5% of them with two cases of febrile neutropenia. Diarrhea and asthenia were the most common non-hematological toxicities. Three (16%) complete and 6 (32%) partial responses were observed among 19 patients with measurable disease. Conclusion  The biweekly administration of GEM, DOC and CARBO is a well-tolerated regimen which merits further evaluation.     

Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy of advanced resectable rectal cancer: results of a randomised trial comparing modulation of 5-fluorouracil with folinic acid or with interferon-α

Background:

Standard adjuvant chemoradiotherapy of rectal cancer still consists of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) only. Its cytotoxicity is enhanced by folinic acid (FA) and interferon-α (INFα). In this trial, the effects of FA and IFNα on adjuvant 5-FU chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer were investigated.

Methods:

Patients with R₀-resected rectal cancer (UICC stage II and III) were stratified and randomised to a 12-month adjuvant chemoradiotherapy with 5-FU, 5-FU+FA, or 5-FU+IFNα. All patients received levamisol and local irradiation with 50.4 Gy.

Results:

Median follow-up was 4.9 years (n=796). Toxicities (WHO III+IV) were observed in 32, 28, and 58% of patients receiving 5-FU, 5-FU+FA, and 5-FU+IFNα, respectively. No differences between the groups were observed for local or distant recurrence. Five-year overall survival (OS) rates were 60.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 54.3–65.8), 60.4% (54.4–65.8), and 59.9% (53.0–66.1) for 5-FU, 5-FU+FA, and 5-FU+IFNα, respectively. A subgroup analysis in stage II (pT3/4pN0) disease (n=271) revealed that the addition of FA tended to reduce the 5-year local recurrence (LR) rate by 55% and increase recurrence-free survival and OS rates by 12 and 13%, respectively, relative to 5-FU alone.

Conclusions:

Interferon-α cannot be recommended for adjuvant chemoradiotherapy of rectal cancer. In UICC stage II disease, the addition of FA tended to lower LR and increased survival. The addition of FA to 5-FU may be an effective option for adjuvant chemoradiotherapy of UICC stage II rectal cancer.     

Health-related quality of life and psychological distress of breast cancer patients after surgery during a phase III randomized trial comparing continuation of tamoxifen with switching to anastrozole after adjuvant tamoxifen for 1–4 years: N-SAS BC 03

To investigate whether the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients switching from tamoxifen to anastrozole in a randomized trial is identical to that of those who continued tamoxifen after 1–4 years of adjuvant tamoxifen in Japanese postmenopausal breast cancer patients. Eligible patients for the randomized trial, the National Surgical Adjuvant Study of Breast Cancer 03, were recurrence-free postmenopausal women who had received definitive surgery for primary breast cancer with positive hormone receptor(s), and had been taking tamoxifen for 1–4 years postoperatively. They were randomly assigned to continue tamoxifen or to switch to anastrozole for a total duration of five years. Subjects were asked to reply to a self-administered QOL questionnaire survey to assess HRQOL (FACT-B [breast cancer scale], FACT-ES [endocrine symptom scale]) and psychological distress (CES-D: Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale) at randomization (baseline), 3 months, 1, and 2 years after randomization, respectively. At baseline 694 patients (346 in the tamoxifen group and 348 in the anastrozole group) responded to the survey. The total scores of FACT-G, FACT-ES, and those of the FACT-G physical well-being subscale were statistically significantly better in the tamoxifen group than in the anastrozole group (P = 0.042, 0.038, and 0.005, respectively). However, there was no statistically significant difference between the treatment groups in the CES-D scores. Continuation of tamoxifen treatment after adjuvant tamoxifen for 1–4 years may provide Japanese breast cancer patients with better HRQOL than by switching to anastrozole.     

Simvastatin plus capecitabine–cisplatin versus placebo plus capecitabine–cisplatin in patients with previously untreated advanced gastric cancer: A double-blind randomised phase 3 study

PurposeWe aimed to the addition of synthetic 3-hydroxy-3-methyglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor, simvastatin to capecitabine–cisplatin (XP) in patients with previously untreated advanced gastric cancer (AGC).MethodsIn this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with histological or cytological confirmed metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) at nine centres in Korea. Patients, stratified by disease measurability and participating site, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive capecitabine 1000 mg/m² twice daily for 14 days and cisplatin 80 mg/m² on day 1 every 3 weeks plus either simvastatin 40 mg or placebo, once daily. Cisplatin was given for 8 cycles; capecitabine and simvastatin were administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicities. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01099085.ResultsBetween February 2009 and November 2012, 244 patients were enrolled and assigned to treatment groups (120 simvastatin, 124 placebo). Median progression free survival (PFS) for 120 patients allocated XP plus simvastatin was 5.2 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.3–6.1) compared with 4.63 months (95% CI 3.5–5.7) for 124 patients who were allocated to XP plus placebo (hazard ratio 0.930, 95% CI 0.684–1.264; p = 0.642). 63 (52.5%) of 120 patients in simvastatin group and 70 (56.4%) of 124 had grade 3 or higher adverse events.ConclusionsAddition of 40 mg simvastatin to XP does not increase PFS in our trial, although it does not increase toxicity. Low dose of simvastatin (40 mg) to chemotherapy is not recommended in untargeted population with AGC.     

Fulvestrant: a further treatment option for patients with metastatic uterine cancer?

BACKGROUND: Metastatic uterine cancer is notoriously difficult to treat, presenting a poor prognosis and a median survival time of less than 1 year. We present the successful use of the antiestrogen fulvestrant in an endocrine therapy-naive patient with advanced uterine cancer. CASE REPORT: A 64-year-old female presented with advanced uterine cancer 7.0 x 6.0 x 5.5 cm in size, with infiltration of the bladder. Previous chemotherapy and radiotherapy had been unsuccessful in preventing disease progression, and the patient developed hepatic metastases. As the tumor expressed a high level of estrogen receptor, treatment with fulvestrant 250 mg/month was initiated. RESULTS: 25 months after commencing fulvestrant treatment, the tumor had decreased in size to 4.8 x 3.5 x 3.2 cm, and the hepatic metastases were no longer detectable. Throughout treatment, the patient maintained a Karnofsky performance index of 90%. CONCLUSION: We suggest that fulvestrant may be an active and well-tolerated treatment option for patients with estrogen receptor- positive advanced uterine cancer.     

Quality of life with talazoparib versus physician’s choice of chemotherapy in patients with advanced breast cancer and germline BRCA1/2 mutation: patient-reported outcomes from the EMBRACA phase III trial

BackgroundIn the EMBRACA phase III trial, talazoparib (1 mg daily, orally) demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus physician’s choice of chemotherapy (PCT; capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine) in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer carrying a germline BRCA1/2 mutation; we evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs).Patients and methodsPatients were randomized 2 : 1 to receive talazoparib or PCT. PROs were assessed at day 1 (baseline), the start of each treatment cycle (every 3 weeks), and at the end of treatment, using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-30) and its breast cancer module, QLQ-BR23. Prespecified exploratory analyses included a longitudinal mixed-effect model comparing treatment arms and a time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration (TTD) analysis carried out in the global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL), and all functional and symptom scales from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and -BR23 questionnaires. Between-arm TTD comparisons were made using a stratified log-rank test and a Cox proportional hazards model.ResultsBaseline scores were similar between arms. Statistically significant estimated overall improvement from baseline in GHS/QoL was seen for talazoparib compared with statistically significant deterioration for PCT {3.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2, 4.8] versus −5.4 [95% CI −8.8, −2.0]; between arms, P < 0.0001}. A statistically significant greater delay was observed in TTD in GHS/QoL, favoring talazoparib over PCT [hazard ratio, 0.38 (95% CI 0.26, 0.55; median, 24.3 versus 6.3 months, respectively; P < 0.0001)]. A statistically significant overall change and a statistically significant delay in TTD, all favoring talazoparib, were also observed in multiple functions and symptoms.ConclusionPatients who received talazoparib had significant overall improvements and significant delay in TTD in multiple cancer-related and breast cancer-specific symptoms, functions, and GHS/QoL.ClinicalTrials.govNCT01945775.     

Neoadjuvant tamoxifen for operable breast cancer: a need for phase III studies?

We conducted a case-control study to analyze the effect of neoadjuvant tamoxifen on steroid receptors and histologic grade and to evaluate the feasibility of phase III studies in operable breast cancer. Between 1987 and 1990, 107 patients without clinical metastases who had had no chemotherapy preoperatively, were treated preoperatively with 20 mg/day of tamoxifen for 3 weeks. Of them, 92 were matched with controls for age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, presence or absence of lymph node involvement, and preoperative radiotherapy. The percentage of ER1 tumors (P = .03) and the mean and median ER levels (P<.001 for both) were lower in the tamoxifen group than in the control group. In six patients analyzed longitudinally, the mean ER decreased from 52 to 19 fmol/mg protein. The difference in relapse-free survival between the two groups was not significant (mean follow-up 87 months). This study suggests a decrease in ER content in patients treated with neoadjuvant tamoxifen. This change may thus be taken into account when ER determination is performed after tamoxifen therapy is started. Further randomized trials should determine whether patients with operable breast cancer benefit from neoadjuvant tamoxifen treatment.     

Phase III,randomised trial of avelumab versus physician’s choice of chemotherapy as third-line treatment of patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer: primary analysis of JAVELIN Gastric 300

BackgroundThere currently are no internationally recognised treatment guidelines for patients with advanced gastric cancer/gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC) in whom two prior lines of therapy have failed. The randomised, phase III JAVELIN Gastric 300 trial compared avelumab versus physician’s choice of chemotherapy as third-line therapy in patients with advanced GC/GEJC.Patients and methodsPatients with unresectable, recurrent, locally advanced, or metastatic GC/GEJC were recruited at 147 sites globally. All patients were randomised to receive either avelumab 10 mg/kg by intravenous infusion every 2 weeks or physician’s choice of chemotherapy (paclitaxel 80 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15 or irinotecan 150 mg/m² on days 1 and 15, each of a 4-week treatment cycle); patients ineligible for chemotherapy received best supportive care. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety.ResultsA total of 371 patients were randomised. The trial did not meet its primary end point of improving OS {median, 4.6 versus 5.0 months; hazard ratio (HR)=1.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9–1.4]; P = 0.81} or the secondary end points of PFS [median, 1.4 versus 2.7 months; HR=1.73 (95% CI 1.4–2.2); P > 0.99] or ORR (2.2% versus 4.3%) in the avelumab versus chemotherapy arms, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade occurred in 90 patients (48.9%) and 131 patients (74.0%) in the avelumab and chemotherapy arms, respectively. Grade ≥3 TRAEs occurred in 17 patients (9.2%) in the avelumab arm and in 56 patients (31.6%) in the chemotherapy arm.ConclusionsTreatment of patients with GC/GEJC with single-agent avelumab in the third-line setting did not result in an improvement in OS or PFS compared with chemotherapy. Avelumab showed a more manageable safety profile than chemotherapy.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02625623.