Efficacy and safety of vandetanib, a dual VEGFR and EGFR inhibitor, in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Vandetanib, an oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and epidermal growth factor receptor signaling, has attracted wide interest in treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to assess its efficacy and safety via a systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods: Trials comparing vandetanib-based therapy and non-vandetanib therapy for advanced NSCLC were identified. Endpoints evaluated were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective tumor response rate (ORR), and toxicity. Results: Seven trials including 4,492 patients were included in the analysis. As compared with placebo, vandetanib yielded a clear benefit for ORR (odds ratio (OR) = 2.04; 95% CI, 1.60-2.61; P < 0.001), and a clinically and statistically significant 25% improvement in PFS (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.66-0.85; P < 0.001). However, these benefits did not translate into a significant improvement in OS (HR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88-1.04; P = 0.291). Subgroup analyses showed that vandetanib 100mg/d was associated with greater antitumor activity than 300mg/d when given in combination with chemotherapy. In addition, the pooled results demonstrated no statistically significant difference between vandetanib and single-targeted agents in PFS, ORR or OS. Vandetanib was associated with more frequent adverse events. Conclusions: Vandetanib, as compared with placebo, significantly increases ORR and PFS, but does not improve OS in the treatment of advanced NSCLC. As compared with single-targeted agent, vandetanib does not provide any efficacy advantage. Furthermore grade 3 or greater toxicity proved greater in the vandetanib arm.     

Gemcitabine plus sorafenib versus gemcitabine alone in advanced biliary tract cancer: A double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre phase II AIO study with biomarker and serum programme

BackgroundSince sorafenib has shown activity in different tumour types and gemcitabine regimens improved the outcome for biliary tract cancer (BTC) patients, we evaluated first-line gemcitabine plus sorafenib in a double-blind phase II study.Patients and methods102 unresectable or metastatic BTC patients with histologically proven adenocarcinoma of gallbladder or intrahepatic bile ducts, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 0–2 were randomised to gemcitabine (1000 mg/m² once weekly, first 7-weeks + 1-week rest followed by once 3-weeks + 1-week rest) plus sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) or placebo. Treatment continued until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Tumour samples were prospectively stained for sorafenib targets and potential biomarkers. Serum samples (first two cycles) were measured for vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFs), vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR-2) and stromal cell-derived factor 1 (SDF1)α by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).ResultsGemcitabine plus sorafenib was generally well tolerated. Four and three patients achieved partial responses in the sorafenib and placebo groups, respectively. There was no difference in the primary end-point, median progression-free survival (PFS) for gemcitabine plus sorafenib versus gemcitabine plus placebo (3.0 versus 4.9 months, P = 0.859), and no difference for median overall survival (OS) (8.4 versus 11.2 months, P = 0.775). Patients with liver metastasis after resection of primary BTC survived longer with sorafenib (P = 0.019) compared to placebo. Patients who developed hand-foot syndrome (HFS) showed longer PFS and OS than patients without HFS. Two sorafenib targets, VEGFR-2 and c-kit, were not expressed in BTC samples. VEGFR-3 and Hif1α were associated with lymph node metastases and T stage. Absence of PDGFRβ expression correlated with longer PFS.ConclusionThe addition of sorafenib to gemcitabine did not demonstrate improved efficacy in advanced BTC patients. Biomarker subgroup analysis suggested that some patients might benefit from combined treatment.     

Randomised phase II study of docetaxel plus vandetanib versus docetaxel followed by vandetanib in patients with persistent or recurrent epithelial ovarian,fallopian tube or primary peritoneal carcinoma: SWOG S0904

BackgroundVandetanib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGFR-2/3, EGFR and RET, which has demonstrated clinical activity as a single agent and in combination with taxanes. We explored the efficacy, safety and toxicity of docetaxel and vandetanib in women with recurrent ovarian cancer (OC).MethodsWomen with refractory or progressive OC were randomised 1:1 to docetaxel (75 mg/m², IV) + vandetanib (100 mg daily, PO, D + V) or docetaxel (75 mg/m², D). Up to three additional cytotoxic regimens for recurrence and prior anti-angiogenic agents (as primary therapy) were allowed. The primary end-point was progression free survival (PFS). The study had 84% power to detect a PFS hazard ratio of 0.65, using a one-sided P of 0.1. This corresponds to an increase in median PFS from 3.6 months to 5.6 months. Patients progressing on D were allowed to receive single agent vandetanib (D → V).Results131 Patients were enrolled; two were excluded. 16% had received prior anti-angiogenic therapy. The median PFS estimates were 3.0 mos (D + V) versus 3.5 (D); HR: 0.99 (80% CI: 0.79–1.26). 61 Patients on D + V were assessable for toxicity; 20(33%) had treatment-related Grade (G) 4 events, primarily haematologic. Similarly, 17 (27%) of 64 patients receiving D had G4 events, primarily haematologic. 27 Evaluable patients crossed-over to V. 1/27(4%) experienced a G4 event. G3 diarrhoea was observed in 4% D → V patients. Median OS was 14 mos (D + V) versus 18 mos (D → V); HR(OS): 1.25 (80% CI: 0.93–1.68). Crossover vandetanib response was 4% (1/27 evaluable patients). High plasma IL-8 levels were associated with response to D + V.ConclusionsCombination docetaxel + vandetanib did not prolong PFS relative to docetaxel alone in OC patients. No unexpected safety issues were identified.     

BAYPAN study: a double-blind phase III randomized trial comparing gemcitabine plus sorafenib and gemcitabine plus placebo in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer

BackgroundSorafenib is an oral anticancer agent targeting Ras-dependent signaling and angiogenic pathways. A phase I trial demonstrated that the combination of gemcitabine and sorafenib was well tolerated and had activity in advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) patients. The BAYPAN study was a multicentric, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized phase III trial comparing gemcitabine/sorafenib and gemcitabine/placebo in the treatment of APC.Patients and methodsThe patient eligibility criteria were locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, no prior therapy for advanced disease and a performance status of zero to two. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). The patients received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² i.v., weekly seven times followed by 1 rest week, then weekly three times every 4 weeks plus sorafenib 200 mg or placebo, two tablets p.o., twice daily continuously.ResultsBetween December 2006 and September 2009, 104 patients were enrolled on the study (52 pts in each arm) and 102 patients were treated. The median and the 6-month PFS were 5.7 months and 48% for gemcitabine/placebo and 3.8 months and 33% for gemcitabine/sorafenib (P = 0.902, stratified log-rank test), respectively. The median overall survivals were 9.2 and 8 months, respectively (P = 0.231, log-rank test). The overall response rates were similar (19 and 23%, respectively).ConclusionThe addition of sorafenib to gemcitabine does not improve PFS in APC patients.     

A randomized,phase II study of vandetanib maintenance for advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer following first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy

Background

This randomized, phase II study investigated whether benefit could be obtained by giving vandetanib, an oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial and epithelial growth factor receptor, as a maintenance treatment in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

Patients were randomly assigned to either vandetanib or placebo after completion of 4 cycles of first-line chemotherapy. A progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 3 months was selected as the primary endpoint. We set a maximum PFS rate at 3 months to 30% (null hypothesis), and a minimum PFS rate at 3 months to 50% (alternative hypothesis).

Results

At the interim analysis, 9 of 24 patients in the vandetanib arm were progression-free at 3 months, whereas 7 of 24 in the placebo arm were progression-free. The placebo arm was closed at the first stage. The vandetanib arm proceeded to the second stage, and recruited a total of 75 patients. At the second stage, 28 out of 63 evaluable patients receiving vandetanib achieved PFS at 3 months. The alternative hypothesis that the PFS rate at 3 months is at least 50% was accepted. The median PFS was 2.7 months (95% CI, 1.9–4.4 months) in the vandetanib arm and 1.7 months (95% CI, 0.9–2.6 months) in the placebo arm. The most common adverse events in patients receiving vandetanib were rash (77.3%) and diarrhea (60.0%).

Conclusions

Maintenance therapy with vandetanib for patients with NSCLC after standard platinum doublet chemotherapy is well tolerated and may prolong PFS compared with placebo, and needs additional investigation.     

A randomised,double-blind,placebo-controlled trial of trametinib,an oral MEK inhibitor,in combination with gemcitabine for patients with untreated metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas

BackgroundTrametinib, an oral mitogen/extracellular signal-related kinase (MEK)1/2 inhibitor, holds promise for malignancies with rat sarcoma (RAS) mutations, like pancreas cancer. This phase II study was designed to determine overall survival (OS) in patients with pancreas cancer treated with trametinib and gemcitabine. Secondary end-points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR); safety end-points were also assessed.MethodsAdults with untreated metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were randomised (1:1) to receive intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² (weekly × 7 for 8 weeks, then days 1, 8 and 15 of 28-day cycles) plus trametinib or placebo 2 mg daily. RAS mutations were determined in circulating free DNA (cfDNA) and archival tumour tissue. OS was evaluated in kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) mutant and wild-type subgroups.ResultsBaseline characteristics for 160 patients were similar in both treatment arms. There was no significant difference in OS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.67–1.44; P = .453); median OS was 8.4 months with gemcitabine plus trametinib and 6.7 months with gemcitabine plus placebo. Median PFS (16 versus 15 weeks), ORR (22% versus 18%) and median DOR (23.9 versus 16.1 weeks) were also similar for trametinib and placebo arms, respectively. KRAS mutation-positive patients (n = 103) showed no difference in OS between arms. Thrombocytopenia, diarrhoea, rash and stomatitis were more frequent with trametinib, as was grade 3 anaemia.ConclusionsThe addition of trametinib to gemcitabine did not improve OS, PFS, ORR or DOR in patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreas cancer. Outcomes were independent of KRAS mutations determined by cfDNA.     

A phase I/II trial of vandetanib for patients with recurrent malignant glioma

Vandetanib is a once-daily multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor–2, epidermal growth factor receptor, and the rearranged-during-transfection oncogene. A phase I trial was conducted to describe the pharmacokinetics of vandetanib in patients with recurrent glioma on enzyme-inducing anti-epileptic drugs (EIAEDs) and to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in this population. A phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of vandetanib in patients with recurrent malignant glioma not on EIAEDs as measured by 6-month progression-free survival (PFS6). In the phase I trial, 15 patients were treated with vandetanib at doses of 300, 400, and 500 mg/day, in a standard dose-escalation design. The MTD in patients on EIAEDs was 400 mg/day, and steady-state levels were similar to those measured in patients not on EIAEDs. Dose-limiting toxicities were prolonged QTc and thromboembolism. Thirty-two patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and 32 patients with recurrent anaplastic gliomas (AGs) were treated in the phase II trial, at a dosage of 300 mg/day on 28-day cycles. Six patients (4 GBM, 2 AG) had radiographic response. PFS6 was 6.5% in the GBM arm and 7.0% in the AG arm. Median overall survival was 6.3 months in the GBM arm and 7.6 months in the AG arm. Seizures were an unexpected toxicity of therapy. Vandetanib did not have significant activity in unselected patients with recurrent malignant glioma.     

Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus docetaxel versus capecitabine plus docetaxel with planned crossover to the alternate single agent in metastatic breast cancer

BackgroundSafety and efficacy of gemcitabine plus docetaxel (GD) and capecitabine plus docetaxel (CD) were compared in patients with metastatic breast cancer, where the alternate crossover monotherapy (GD→C or CD→G) was predetermined.Patients and methodsPatients were randomly assigned to 3-week cycles of either gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² on days 1 and 8 plus docetaxel 75 mg/m² on day 1 or capecitabine 1000 mg/m² twice daily on days 1–14 plus docetaxel 75 mg/m² day 1. Upon progression, patients received crossover monotherapy. Primary end point was time to progression (TtP). Secondary end points evaluated overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs).ResultsDespite over-accrual of 475 patients, the trial matured with only 324 of 385 planned TtP events due to patient discontinuations. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status was not captured in this study. More CD patients (28%) discontinued due to AEs than GD patients (18.0%, P = 0.009). TtP [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.101, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.885–1.370, P = 0.387] and OS (HR = 1.031, 95% CI 0.830–1.280, P = 0.785) were not significantly different comparing GD and CD. ORR was not statistically different (P = 0.239) comparing GD (72 of 207, 34.8%) and CD (78 of 191, 40.8%). TtP, OS, and ORR were not significantly different comparing crossover groups. GD caused greater fatigue, hepatotoxicity, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia but not febrile neutropenia; CD caused more hand–foot syndrome, gastrointestinal toxicity, and mucositis.ConclusionsGD and CD produced similar efficacy and toxicity profiles consistent with prior clinical experience.     

An open-label study of vandetanib with pemetrexed in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer

Background: Vandetanib (ZACTIMA^TM; ZD6474) is a once-daily,oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptorand epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. The safety andtolerability of vandetanib plus pemetrexed was assessed in patientswith advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods: Patients with previously treated NSCLC(stage IIIB/IV) received once-daily oral vandetanib (100 or300 mg) with pemetrexed (500 mg/m² i.v. infusion every 21 days). Results: Patients received vandetanib 100 mg + pemetrexed (n= 10) or vandetanib 300 mg + pemetrexed (n = 11). The protocoldefinition of a tolerable dose [vandetanib-related dose-limitingtoxicity (DLT) in less than 2 patients] was met in both dosecohorts, with one DLT reported in each: asymptomatic QTc prolongation(>100 ms increase from baseline, but absolute QTc <500ms) in the 100 mg cohort and interstitial lung disease, whichresolved after steroid therapy, in the 300 mg cohort. The mostcommon adverse events were rash, anorexia, fatigue and diarrhea(all n = 10). Conclusion: Vandetanib and pemetrexed in combination were generallywell tolerated in patients with advanced NSCLC. Key words: Angiogenesis, EGFR, advanced NSCLC, pemetrexed, vandetanib Received for publication June 22, 2008. Revision received September 9, 2008. Accepted for publication September 10, 2008.     

A phase II,multicenter, open-label randomized study of motesanib or bevacizumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer

BackgroundThis phase II study estimated the difference in objective response rate (ORR) among patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving paclitaxel–carboplatin (CP) plus motesanib or bevacizumab.Patients and methodsChemotherapy-naive patients (N = 186) were randomized 1:1:1 to receive CP plus motesanib 125 mg once daily (qd) (arm A), motesanib 75 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) 5 days on/2 days off (arm B), or bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks (q3w) (arm C). The primary end point was ORR (per RECIST). Other end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), motesanib pharmacokinetics, and adverse events (AEs).ResultsORRs in the three arms were as follows: arm A, 30% (95% confidence interval 18% to 43%); arm B, 23% (13% to 36%); and arm C, 37% (25% to 50%). Median PFS in arm A was 7.7 months, arm B 5.8 months, and arm C 8.3 months; median OS for arm A was 14.0 months, arm B 12.8 months, and arm C 14.0 months. Incidence of AEs was greater in arms A and B than in arm C. More grade 5 AEs not attributable to disease progression occurred in arm B (n = 10) than in arms A (n = 4) and C (n = 4). Motesanib plasma C_max and C_min values were consistent with its pharmacokinetic properties observed in previous studies.ConclusionsThe efficacy of 125 mg qd motesanib or bevacizumab plus CP was estimated to be comparable. Toxicity was higher but manageable in both motesanib arms. Efficacy and tolerability of motesanib 125 mg qd plus CP in advanced nonsquamous NSCLC are being further investigated in a phase III study.     

Treatment outcomes of gemcitabine alone versus gemcitabine plus platinum for advanced biliary tract cancer: a Korean Cancer Study Group retrospective analysis

Purpose

ABC-02 trial of gemcitabine plus cisplatin combination showed prolongation of overall survival in biliary tract cancer (BTC) patients. In this multicenter retrospective study, we evaluated the treatment outcome of gemcitabine combined with platinum (GP) compared to that of gemcitabine (G) alone in Korean BTC patients.

Methods

One hundred and fifty-one patients with histologically confirmed biliary tract adenocarcinoma were enrolled at nine institutions between July 2003 and May 2011, including 100 treated with GP and 51 treated with G.

Results

With a median follow-up of 7.7 months (range 0.4–38.3 months), the median overall survival (OS) was 12.4 months [95 % confidence interval (CI) 9.4–15.6 months] of the G group, which was not significantly different for the median OS of 11.0 months (95 % CI 9.7–12.3 months) of the GP group (p = 0.599). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.9 months (95 % CI 0.8–7.0 months) in the G group and 3.3 months (95 % CI 2.6–4.0 months) in the GP group (p = 0.504). Overall response rates (ORR) were 18.8 % in G group and 23.9 % in GP group (p = 0.485).

Conclusions

There was no significant difference in ORR, PFS, or OS for patients between the G group and the GP group, which was different from the ABC-02 trial. Therefore, gemcitabine monotherapy and GP combination are both effective regimens for Korean BTC patients.     

A phase 3 randomized,double-blind,placebo-controlled trial of ganitumab or placebo in combination with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: the GAMMA trial

This double-blind, phase 3 study assessed the efficacy and safety of ganitumab plus gemcitabine as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. The study was stopped after a preplanned futility analysis indicated a positive outcome was unlikely at primary analysis. Ganitumab plus gemcitabine had manageable toxicity but did not improve OS versus gemcitabine alone in unselected patients.BackgroundThis double-blind, phase 3 study assessed the efficacy and safety of ganitumab combined with gemcitabine as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer.Patients and methodsPatients with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned 2 : 2 : 1 to receive intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² (days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus placebo, ganitumab 12 mg/kg, or ganitumab 20 mg/kg (days 1 and 15 of each cycle). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and efficacy by levels of circulating biomarkers.ResultsOverall, 322 patients were randomly assigned to placebo, 318 to ganitumab 12 mg/kg, and 160 to ganitumab 20 mg/kg. The study was stopped based on results from a preplanned futility analysis; the final results are reported. Median OS was 7.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 6.3-8.2] in the placebo arm, 7.0 months (95% CI, 6.2-8.5) in the ganitumab 12-mg/kg arm [hazard ratio (HR), 1.00; 95% CI, 0.82-1.21; P = 0.494], and 7.1 months (95% CI, 6.4-8.5) in the ganitumab 20-mg/kg arm (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.76-1.23; P = 0.397). Median PFS was 3.7, 3.6 (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84-1.20; P = 0.520), and 3.7 months (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.77–1.22; P = 0.403), respectively. No unexpected toxicity was observed with ganitumab plus gemcitabine. The circulating biomarkers assessed [insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), IGF-binding protein-2, and -3] were not associated with a treatment effect on OS or PFS by ganitumab.ConclusionGanitumab combined with gemcitabine had manageable toxicity but did not improve OS, compared with gemcitabine alone in unselected patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01231347.     

First-line erlotinib versus gemcitabine/cisplatin in patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer: analyses from the phase III,randomized, open-label,ENSURE study

BackgroundThe phase III, randomized, open-label ENSURE study (NCT01342965) evaluated first-line erlotinib versus gemcitabine/cisplatin (GP) in patients from China, Malaysia and the Philippines with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Patients and methodsPatients ≥18 years old with histologically/cytologically confirmed stage IIIB/IV EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–2 were randomized 1:1 to receive erlotinib (oral; 150 mg once daily until progression/unacceptable toxicity) or GP [G 1250 mg/m² i.v. days 1 and 8 (3-weekly cycle); P 75 mg/m² i.v. day 1, (3-weekly cycle) for up to four cycles]. Primary end point: investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Other end points include objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety.ResultsA total of 217 patients were randomized: 110 to erlotinib and 107 to GP. Investigator-assessed median PFS was 11.0 months versus 5.5 months, erlotinib versus GP, respectively [hazard ratio (HR), 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22–0.51; log-rank P < 0.0001]. Independent Review Committee-assessed median PFS was consistent (HR, 0.42). Median OS was 26.3 versus 25.5 months, erlotinib versus GP, respectively (HR, 0.91, 95% CI 0.63–1.31; log-rank P =.607). ORR was 62.7% for erlotinib and 33.6% for GP. Treatment-related serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 2.7% versus 10.6% of erlotinib and GP patients, respectively. The most common grade ≥3 AEs were rash (6.4%) with erlotinib, and neutropenia (25.0%), leukopenia (14.4%), and anemia (12.5%) with GP.ConclusionThese analyses demonstrate that first-line erlotinib provides a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus GP in Asian patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC (NCT01342965).     

Randomized controlled study of gemcitabine plus S-1 combination chemotherapy versus gemcitabine for unresectable pancreatic cancer

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) combination chemotherapy in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.

Methods

Patients were randomly assigned to receive GS (oral S-1 60 mg/m² daily on days 1–15 every 3 weeks and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m² on days 8 and 15) or gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

One hundred and one patients were randomly assigned. PFS was significantly longer in the GS arm with an estimated hazard ratio (HR) of 0.65 (95 % CI 0.43–0.98; P = 0.039; median 5.3 vs 3.8 months). Objective response rate (ORR) was also better in the GS arm (21.6 vs 6 %, P = 0.048). Median survival was 8.6 months for GS and 8.6 months for GEM (HR 0.93; 95 % CI 0.61–1.41; P = 0.714). Grade 3–4 neutropenia (44 vs 19.6 %, P = 0.011) and thrombocytopenia (26 vs 8.7 %, P = 0.051) were more frequent in the GS arm.

Conclusions

GS therapy improved PFS and ORR with acceptable toxicity profile in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.     

A phase III randomized study of gemcitabine and cisplatin with or without PF-3512676 (TLR9 agonist) as first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

BackgroundThis open-label phase III study assessed the addition of Toll-like receptor 9-activating oligodeoxynucleotide PF-3512676 to gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Patients and methodsChemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomized (1:1) to receive six or fewer 3-week cycles of i.v. gemcitabine (1250 mg/m² on days 1 and 8) and cisplatin alone (75 mg/m² on day 1, control arm) or combined with s.c. PF-3512676 0.2 mg/kg on days 8 and 15 of each chemotherapy cycle and weekly thereafter until progression or unacceptable toxicity (experimental arm). No crossover was planned. The primary end point was overall survival (OS).ResultsA total of 839 patients were randomized. Baseline demographics were well balanced. Median OS (11.0 versus 10.7 months; P = 0.98) and median progression-free survival (PFS) (both 5.1 months) were similar between groups. Grade ≥3 hematologic adverse events (AEs), injection-site reactions, and influenza-like symptoms were more frequently reported among patients receiving PF-3512676. At the first-interim analysis, the Data Safety Monitoring Committee recommended study discontinuation. Administration of PF-3512676 was halted based on efficacy futility and increased grade ≥3 AEs (experimental arm).ConclusionsAddition of PF-3512676 to gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy did not improve OS or PFS but did increase toxicity.     

EGFR biomarkers predict benefit from vandetanib in combination with docetaxel in a randomized phase III study of second-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer

BackgroundZODIAC was a randomized phase III study of second-line treatment in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that evaluated the addition of vandetanib to docetaxel. The study showed a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival and objective response rate, but not in overall survival for unselected patients. This study evaluated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutation, copy number gain, and protein expression, and KRAS gene mutation, in pretreatment tumor samples as potential biomarkers predicting benefit from vandetanib as second-line treatment of NSCLC.Patients and methodsAfter progression following first-line chemotherapy, 1391 patients with locally advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB/IV) NSCLC were randomized 1 : 1 to receive vandetanib (100 mg/day) plus docetaxel (75 mg/m² every 21 days) or placebo plus docetaxel in the ZODIAC study. Archival tumor samples (n = 570) were collected from consenting patients (n = 958) for predefined, prospective biomarker analyses.ResultsOf evaluable samples, 14% were EGFR mutation positive, 35% were EGFR FISH positive, 88% were EGFR protein expression positive, and 13% were KRAS mutation positive. Compared with the overall study population, in which progression-free survival (PFS) [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.79] but not OS (HR = 0.91) were significantly improved with vandetanib, there was greater relative clinical benefit for patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumors [PFS HR 0.51, confidence interval (CI) 0.25–1.06 and OS HR 0.46, CI 0.14–1.57] and EGFR FISH-positive tumors (PFS HR 0.61, CI 0.39–0.94 and OS HR 0.48, CI 0.28–0.84). Similarly, patients with EGFR mutation or FISH-positive tumor samples who received vandetanib had an increased chance of objective tumor response (odds ratios 3.34, CI 0.8–13.89, and 3.90, CI 1.02–14.82, respectively). There did not appear to be benefit for vandetanib in patients with KRAS mutation-positive tumors.ConclusionsHigh EGFR gene copy number or activating EGFR mutations may identify patient subgroups who receive increased clinical benefit from vandetanib in combination with docetaxel in second-line NSCLC.ClinicalTrials.govNCT00312377.     

Phase 2 placebo-controlled,double-blind trial of dasatinib added to gemcitabine for patients with locally-advanced pancreatic cancer

BackgroundPancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a high mortality rate with limited treatment options. Gemcitabine provides a marginal survival benefit for patients with advanced PDAC. Dasatinib is a competitive inhibitor of Src kinase, which is overexpressed in PDAC tumors. Dasatinib and gemcitabine were combined in a phase 1 clinical trial where stable disease was achieved in two of eight patients with gemcitabine-refractory PDAC.Patients and methodsThis placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, phase II study compared the combination of gemcitabine plus dasatinib to gemcitabine plus placebo in patients with locally advanced, non-metastatic PDAC. Patients received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² (30-min IV infusion) on days 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle combined with either 100 mg oral dasatinib or placebo tablets daily. The primary objective was overall survival (OS), with safety and progression-free survival (PFS) as secondary objectives. Exploratory endpoints included overall response rate, freedom from distant metastasis, pain and fatigue progression and response rate, and CA19-9 response rate.ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference in OS between the two treatment groups (HR = 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81–1.65; P = 0.5656). Secondary and exploratory endpoint analyses also showed no statistically significant differences. The burden of toxicity was higher in the dasatinib arm.ConclusionsDasatinib failed to show increased OS or PFS in patients with locally advanced PDAC. Alternative combinations or trial designs may show a role for src inhibition in PDAC treatment.     

Combination gemcitabine plus S-1 versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin for advanced/recurrent biliary tract cancer: the FUGA-BT (JCOG1113) randomized phase III clinical trial

BackgroundGemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) is the standard treatment of advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC); however, it causes nausea, vomiting, and anorexia, and requires hydration. Gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) reportedly has equal to, or better, efficacy and an acceptable toxicity profile. We aimed to confirm the non-inferiority of GS to GC for patients with advanced/recurrent BTC in terms of overall survival (OS).Patients and methodsWe undertook a phase III randomized trial in 33 institutions in Japan. Eligibility criteria included chemotherapy-naïve patients with recurrent or unresectable BTC, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of 0 − 1, and adequate organ function. The calculated sample size was 350 with a one-sided α of 5%, a power of 80%, and non-inferiority margin hazard ratio (HR) of 1.155. The primary end point was OS, while the secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), adverse events (AEs), and clinically significant AEs defined as grade ≥2 fatigue, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, oral mucositis, or diarrhea.ResultsBetween May 2013 and March 2016, 354 patients were enrolled. GS was found to be non-inferior to GC [median OS: 13.4 months with GC and 15.1 months with GS, HR, 0.945; 90% confidence interval (CI), 0.78–1.15; P = 0.046 for non-inferiority]. The median PFS was 5.8 months with GC and 6.8 months with GS (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.70–1.07). The RR was 32.4% with GC and 29.8% with GS. Both treatments were generally well-tolerated. Clinically significant AEs were observed in 35.1% of patients in the GC arm and 29.9% in the GS arm.ConclusionsGS, which does not require hydration, should be considered a new, convenient standard of care option for patients with advanced/recurrent BTC.Clinical Trial numberThis trial has been registered with the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm), number UMIN000010667.     

A multicenter randomized phase III trial of vinorelbine/gemcitabine doublet versus capecitabine monotherapy in anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated women with metastatic breast cancer

BackgroundThe Breast Cancer Study Group of the Hellenic Oncology Research Group conducted a phase III trial of single-agent capecitabine versus the vinorelbine/gemcitabine doublet in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes. The primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of combination treatment in terms of progression-free survival (PFS).Patients and methodsWomen with MBC were randomly assigned to receive either capecitabine (Cap arm: 1250 mg/m² twice daily, on days 1–14) or vinorelbine/gemcitabine doublet (VG arm: vinorelbine 25 mg/m²; gemcitabine 1000 mg/m²; both drugs on days 1 and 15).ResultsSeventy-four women were treated on each arm and median PFS was 5.4 versus 5.2 months (P = 0.736), for VG and Cap, respectively. Median overall survival was 20.4 months for the VG arm and 22.4 months for the Cap arm (P = 0.319). Overall response rate was 28.4% in the VG arm and 24.3% in the Cap arm (P = 0.576). Both regimens were generally well tolerated. Neutropenia and fatigue were more common with VG arm and hand–foot syndrome with Cap arm.ConclusionsThis trial failed to demonstrate superiority of vinorelbine/gemcitabine doublet over single-agent capecitabine in terms of PFS. Given the favorable toxicity and convenience of oral administration, single-agent capecitabine is recommended for compliant patients.