Impact of TP53 mutation status on systemic treatment outcome in ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer

BackgroundWe analyzed whether co-occurring mutations influence the outcome of systemic therapy in ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Patients and methodsALK-rearranged stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients were analyzed with next-generation sequencing and fluorescence in situ hybridization analyses on a centralized diagnostic platform. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were determined in the total cohort and in treatment-related sub-cohorts. Cox regression analyses were carried out to exclude confounders.ResultsAmong 216 patients with ALK-rearranged NSCLC, the frequency of pathogenic TP53 mutations was 23.8%, while other co-occurring mutations were rare events. In ALK/TP53 co-mutated patients, median PFS and OS were significantly lower compared with TP53 wildtype patients [PFS 3.9 months (95% CI: 2.4–5.6) versus 10.3 months (95% CI: 8.6–12.0), P < 0.001; OS 15.0 months (95% CI: 5.0–24.9) versus 50.0 months (95% CI: 22.9–77.1), P = 0.002]. This difference was confirmed in all treatment-related subgroups including chemotherapy only [PFS first-line chemotherapy 2.6 months (95% CI: 1.3–4.1) versus 6.2 months (95% CI: 1.8–10.5), P = 0.021; OS 2.0 months (95% CI: 0.0–4.6) versus 9.0 months (95% CI: 6.1–11.9), P = 0.035], crizotinib plus chemotherapy [PFS crizotinib 5.0 months (95% CI: 2.9–7.2) versus 14.0 months (95% CI: 8.0–20.1), P < 0.001; OS 17.0 months (95% CI: 6.7–27.3) versus not reached, P = 0.049] and crizotinib followed by next-generation ALK-inhibitor [PFS next-generation inhibitor 5.4 months (95% CI: 0.1–10.7) versus 9.9 months (95% CI: 6.4–13.5), P = 0.039; OS 7.0 months versus 50.0 months (95% CI: not reached), P = 0.001).ConclusionsIn ALK-rearranged NSCLC co-occurring TP53 mutations predict an unfavorable outcome of systemic therapy. Our observations encourage future research to understand the underlying molecular mechanisms and to improve treatment outcome of the ALK/TP53 co-mutated subgroup.     

The interval from the last cycle of docetaxel-based chemotherapy to progression is associated with the efficacy of subsequent docetaxel in patients with prostate cancer

There is currently no standard treatment after first-line docetaxel-based chemotherapy for patients with castration-refractory prostate cancer (CRPC). Some patients are likely to discontinue first-line docetaxel-based chemotherapy because of either completed treatment or the occurrence of manageable side-effects. The aim of this study was to determine whether a rechallenge with docetaxel might be appropriate in patients with CRPC previously treated with docetaxel.Between December 2004 and July 2009, 39 patients diagnosed with metastatic cancer prostate at the Institut Gustave Roussy were administered subsequent docetaxel after front-line docetaxel-based chemotherapy. The medical records of these patients were extracted from the database. The PSA response rate (PSA decline ?30% and ?50%), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients receiving docetaxel as a subsequent line of therapy were evaluated using consensus criteria. The effect of pre-treatment variables on efficacy was studied.A PSA decline ?30% and ?50% was observed in 64% and 38% of patients, respectively, median PFS was 4.3 months [confidence interval (CI) 95%: 3.6–4.9] and median OS was 15.8 months (CI 95%: 11.7–20.3) in 39 patients who received subsequent docetaxel. The interval between the last cycle of first-line docetaxel and progression [median: 3.0 months; range: 1–30 months] was associated with PFS: median PFS was 3.4 months (CI 95%: 2.6–4.1) and 6.3 months (CI 95%: 3.0–5.6), respectively, in patients with an interval <3.0 months and an interval ?3.0 months, (p = 0.04). Tolerance of re-treatment with docetaxel was acceptable with no toxicity-related death.Re-treatment with subsequent docetaxel in patients with CRPC pretreated with first-line docetaxel is safe and demonstrates some activity. The interval from the last cycle of first-line docetaxel-based chemotherapy to progression is associated with the efficacy of subsequent docetaxel.     

Sequential therapy for the locally advanced larynx and hypopharynx cancer subgroup in TAX 324: survival,surgery, and organ preservation

BackgroundLocally advanced laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancers (LHC) represent a group of cancers for which surgery, laryngectomy-free survival (LFS), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) are clinically meaningful end points.Patients and methodsThese outcomes were analyzed in the subgroup of assessable LHC patients enrolled in TAX 324, a phase III trial of sequential therapy comparing docetaxel plus cisplatin and fluorouracil (TPF) against cisplatin and fluorouracil (PF), followed by chemoradiotherapy.ResultsAmong 501 patients enrolled in TAX 324, 166 had LHC (TPF, n = 90; PF, n = 76). Patient characteristics were similar between subgroups. Median OS for TPF was 59 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 31–not reached] versus 24 months (95% CI: 13–42) for PF [hazard ratio (HR) for death: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.41–0.94; P = 0.024]. Median PFS for TPF was 21 months (95% CI: 12–59) versus 11 months (95% CI: 8–14) for PF (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.45–0.97; P = 0.032). Among operable patients (TPF, n = 67; PF, n = 56), LFS was significantly greater with TPF (HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.37–0.95; P = 0.030). Three-year LFS with TPF was 52% versus 32% for PF. Fewer TPF patients had surgery (22% versus 42%; P = 0.030).ConclusionsIn locally advanced LHC, sequential therapy with induction TPF significantly improved survival and PFS versus PF. Among operable patients, TPF also significantly improved LFS and PFS. These results support the use of sequential TPF followed by carboplatin chemoradiotherapy as a treatment option for organ preservation or to improve survival in locally advanced LHC.     

High subcutaneous adipose tissue predicts the prognosis in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients in post chemotherapy setting

BackgroundCancer studies have shown that body mass index (BMI), skeletal muscle mass (SMM) and adipose tissue indexes are linked to overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). New treatments (abiraterone acetate, enzalutamide cabazitaxel, radium-223, sipuleucel-T) have improved patient outcomes in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Our objective was to analyse whether body composition parameters exert a prognostic role in mCRPC patients treated with next generation of androgen receptor (AR) axis inhibitors (abiraterone and enzalutamide).MethodsAll mCRPC patients from our institution who were enrolled in two prospective trials, assessing the efficacy of abiraterone acetate and the efficacy of enzalutamide, were selected. SMM, visceral and subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) indexes were assessed with computed tomography imaging by measuring cross-sectional areas of the tissues.ResultsIn the 120 patients with available data, median OS and PFS were respectively: 16 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = 12–19) and 4 months (95% [CI] = 3–6). OS was associated with the SAT index: median survival was 15 months (95% [CI] 9–18) for patients with a SAT index < median value and 18 months (95% [CI] 13–30) for patients with a SAT index above (P = 0.008). In multivariate analyses, only the occurrence of visceral metastasis (P = 0.004), pain (P = 0.015) and SAT index (P = 0.036) were statistically significant predictors of OS. From baseline to 3 months, the SMM index loss was 2.49 ± 0.44 cm²/m² (P < 0.001) corresponding to nearly 3.4 kg of muscle loss.ConclusionsHigh volume of SAT is independently associated with overall survival in mCRPC patients treated with next generation AR axis inhibitors.     

A prospective phase II study of combined androgen blockade in patients with androgen receptor-positive metastatic or locally advanced unresectable salivary gland carcinoma

BackgroundThere is no standard first-line chemotherapy for recurrent/metastatic (RM) or unresectable locally advanced (LA) salivary gland carcinoma (SGC).Patients and methodsWe conducted a single institution, open-label, single arm, phase II trial of combined androgen blockade (CAB) for androgen receptor (AR)-positive SGC. Leuprorelin acetate was administered subcutaneously at a dose of 3.75 mg every 4 weeks. Bicalutamide was administered orally at a daily dose of 80 mg. Patients were treated until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicities.ResultsThirty-six eligible patients were enrolled. Thirty-three patients had RM disease and three patients had LA disease. The pathological diagnoses were salivary duct carcinoma (34 patients, 94%) and adenocarcinoma, NOS (two patients, 6%). The best overall response rate was 41.7% [n = 15, 95% confidence interval (CI), 25.5%–59.2%], the clinical benefit rate was 75.0% (n = 27, 95% CI, 57.8%–87.9%). The median progression-free survival was 8.8 months (95% CI, 6.3–12.3 months) and the median overall survival was 30.5 months (95% CI, 16.8 months to not reached). Additional analyses between treatment outcomes and clinicopathological factors or biomarkers including AR positivity, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status, and its complex downstream signaling pathway gene mutations showed no statistically significant differences. Elevated grade 3 liver transaminases and increased serum creatinine were reported in two patients, respectively. Discontinuation of leuprorelin acetate or bicalutamide due to adverse event occurred in one patient.ConclusionThis study suggests that CAB has equivalent efficacy and less toxicity for patients with AR-positive RM or unresectable LA SGC compared with conventional chemotherapy, which warrants further study.Clinical Trial RegistrationUMIN-CTR (http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index-j.htm), identification number: UMIN000005703     

First-line anthracycline-based chemotherapy for angiosarcoma and other soft tissue sarcoma subtypes: Pooled analysis of eleven European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group trials

BackgroundAngiosarcoma is a rare subtype of soft tissue sarcoma (STS). Doxorubicin is the standard first-line chemotherapy for advanced STS. It is not known whether angiosarcoma response to anthracycline-based chemotherapy is different to other STS subtypes.MethodsPooled data were analysed from 11 prospective randomised and non-randomised European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) clinical trials of first-line anthracycline-based chemotherapy for advanced STS. Baseline patient characteristics, chemotherapy response, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of angiosarcoma patients were compared with other STS patients. Analysis was performed to identify factors prognostic for angiosarcoma response to chemotherapy, PFS and OS.ResultsWith a median follow-up of 4.2 years, data from 108 locally advanced and metastatic angiosarcoma patients and 2557 patients with other STS histologies were analysed. 25% of angiosarcoma patients had a complete or partial response to chemotherapy compared to 21% for other STS histotypes. The median PFS was 4.9 months and OS 9.9 months, which were not significantly different from other STS histotypes. In univariate analysis, bone metastases were an adverse prognostic factor for OS (hazard ratio (HR) 1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03–2.67; p = 0.036). Tumour grade was as an adverse prognostic factor for PFS (HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.01–2.92; p = 0.044) and OS (HR 2.03; 95% CI 1.16–3.56; p = 0.011). Compared to single agent anthracyclines, doxorubicin + ifosfamide was associated with improved PFS (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33–0.86; p = 0.010) and OS (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32–0.90; p = 0.018).ConclusionsAngiosarcoma response and survival following first-line anthracycline-based chemotherapy was similar to other STS histotypes. Our analysis provides a useful measure of angiosarcoma response to chemotherapy for comparison with future clinical trials.     

First-line single-agent panitumumab in frail elderly patients with wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer and poor prognostic factors: A phase II study of the Spanish Cooperative Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumours

BackgroundFrail elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are not candidates for chemotherapy. Monotherapy with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies may be an option for these patients with few systemic toxic effects.Patients and methodsSingle-arm, multicentre, phase II trial including patients ⩾70 years with wild-type (WT) KRAS (exon 2) mCRC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status ⩽ 3, KPC (Köhne Prognostic Classification) – defined intermediate or high risk status, frailty and/or ineligibility for chemotherapy. Patients received panitumumab until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end-point was progression free survival (PFS) rate at 6 months.ResultsThe study included 33 patients (intention-to-treat (ITT) population). Median age: 81 years; sex: 66.7% male; high-risk KPC status: 45.4%. Median treatment duration was 14 weeks and 6-month PFS rate was 36.4% (95% confidence interval (CI): 20.0–52.8). The objective response rate: 9.1% (95% CI: 0–18.9) (all partial responses), and there were 18 stable diseases (54.5%). Median PFS was 4.3 months (95% CI: 2.8–6.4) and median overall survival (OS) was 7.1 months (95% CI: 5.0–12.3). There were no deaths or grade 4–5 adverse events (AEs) related to panitumumab and the most common grade 3-related AE was rash acneiform (15.2%). A significant association between clinical response and RAS status was observed (P = 0.037). In the WT RAS subgroup (WT exons 2, 3, and 4 of KRAS and NRAS, N = 15), 6-month PFS rate was 53.3% (95% CI: 30.1–75.2) and median PFS and OS were 7.9 and 12.3 months, respectively.ConclusionsSingle-agent panitumumab is active and well tolerated and may be a therapeutic option for high-risk frail elderly patients with WT RAS tumours considered not candidates for chemotherapy (clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01126112).     

A randomised,open label phase III trial with nimotuzumab,an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody in the treatment of newly diagnosed adult glioblastoma

PurposeA randomised, open label phase III trial was conducted to evaluate efficacy of nimotuzumab, a monoclonal antibody against epidermal growth factor receptor (EGF-R) added to standard therapy for newly diagnosed glioblastoma.Patients and methods149 glioblastoma patients stratified as with or without residual tumour were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous nimotuzumab 400 mg weekly added to standard radiochemotherapy followed by 400 mg biweekly after twelve weeks or standard radiochemotherapy. Progression status after 52 weeks (12moPFS) and progression-free survival (PFS) based on Macdonald criteria were co-primary and overall survival (OS), toxicity and quality of life secondary end-points.Results142 patients were evaluated for efficacy (per protocol cohort). 12moPFS was 25.6% in the experimental arm and 20.3% in the control group. In residual tumour patients (n = 81) median PFS was 5.6 versus 4.0 months, (hazard ratio (HR), 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.55–1.37), for patients without residual tumour (n = 61) it was 10.6 versus 9.9 months, (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.57–1.77). Median OS in patients with residual tumour was 19.5 versus 16.7 months, (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.52–1.57; P = 0.7061), for patients without 23.3 versus 21.0 months (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.41–1.44; P = 0.4068). A small cohort of MGMT non-methylated patients with residual tumour showed PFS of 6.2 versus 4.0 months (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.35–1.67; P = 0.4997) and OS of 19.0 versus 13.8 months (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.27–1.64; P = 0.3648). EGF-R amplification did not correlate with clinical efficacy of nimotuzumab. Nimotuzumab was well tolerated.ConclusionThis study, albeit negative, contains hypothesis generating signals supporting evaluation of correlative, efficacy-predicting tumour parameters for nimotuzumab in the treatment of glioblastoma.     

Three-arm randomised controlled phase 2 study comparing pemetrexed and erlotinib to either pemetrexed or erlotinib alone as second-line treatment for never-smokers with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer

BackgroundThis randomised controlled phase 2 study compared pemetrexed and erlotinib in combination with either agent alone in terms of efficacy and safety as second-line treatment in a clinically selected population of never-smokers with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).MethodsPatients who had failed only one prior chemotherapy regimen and had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) ?2 were randomised to either: pemetrexed 500 mg/m² on day 1 plus erlotinib 150 mg daily on days 2–14; erlotinib 150 mg daily; or pemetrexed 500 mg/m² on day 1 of a 21-day cycle until discontinuation criteria were met. The primary endpoint, progression-free survival (PFS), was analysed using a multivariate Cox model. Firstly, a global comparison across the three arms was performed. If the global null hypothesis was rejected at a two-sided 0.2 significance level, pairwise comparisons of pemetrexed–erlotinib versus erlotinib or pemetrexed were then conducted using the same model. Statistical significance was claimed only if both global and pairwise null hypotheses were rejected at a two-sided 0.05 significance level.FindingsA total of 240 patients (male, 35%; East Asian, 55%; ECOG PS 0–1, 93%) were included. A statistically significant difference in PFS was found across the three arms (global p = 0.003), with pemetrexed–erlotinib significantly better than either single agent: HR = 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.40–0.81, p = 0.002 versus erlotinib; HR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.39–0.85, p = 0.005 versus pemetrexed. Median PFS (95% CI) was 7.4 (4.4, 12.9) months in pemetrexed–erlotinib, 3.8 (2.7, 6.3) months in erlotinib and 4.4 (3.0, 6.0) months in pemetrexed. Safety analyses showed a higher incidence of drug-related grade 3/4 toxicity in pemetrexed–erlotinib (60.0%) than in pemetrexed (28.9%) or erlotinib (12.0%); the majority being neutropenia, anaemia, rash and diarrhoea.InterpretationPemetrexed–erlotinib significantly improved PFS compared to either drug alone in this clinically selected population. The combination had more toxicity, but was clinically manageable.     

A phase III,randomized, open-label study of ASP8273 versus erlotinib or gefitinib in patients with advanced stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer

BackgroundASP8273, a novel, small molecule, irreversible tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) specifically inhibits the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in patients with activating mutations or EGFR T790M resistance mutations. The current study examines the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ASP8273 versus erlotinib or gefitinib in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with activating EGFR mutations not previously treated with an EGFR inhibitor.Patients and methodsThis global, phase III, open-label, randomized study evaluated ASP8273 versus erlotinib/gefitinib in patients with locally advanced, metastatic, or unresectable stage IIIB/IV NSCLC with activating EGFR mutations. They were ineligible if they received prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary end points included overall survival, investigator-assessed PFS, best overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate, duration of response (DoR), and the safety/tolerability profile.ResultsPatients (n = 530) were randomized 1 : 1 to receive ASP8273 (n = 267) or erlotinib/gefitinib (n = 263). Patient demographics between both treatment groups were generally balanced. Median PFS was 9.3 months (95% CI 5.6–11.1 months) for patients receiving ASP8273 and 9.6 months (95% CI 8.8–NE) for the erlotinib/gefitinib group, with a hazard ratio of 1.611 (P = 0.992). The ORR in the ASP8273 group was 33% (95% CI 27.4–39.0) versus 47.9% (95% CI 41.7–54.1) in the erlotinib/gefitinib group. Median DoR was similar for both groups (9.2 months for ASP8273 versus 9.0 months for erlotinib/gefitinib). More grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in patients receiving ASP8273 than in those receiving erlotinib/gefitinib (54.7% versus 43.5%). An independent data monitoring committee carried out an interim safety analysis and recommended discontinuing the study due to toxicity and limited predicted efficacy of ASP8273 relative to erlotinib/gefitinib.ConclusionsFirst-line ASP8273 did not show improved PFS or equivalent toxicities versus erlotinib/gefitinib.ClinicalTrial.gov numberNCT02588261.     

Palbociclib as single agent or in combination with the endocrine therapy received before disease progression for estrogen receptor-positive,HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: TREnd trial

BackgroundThe activity of palbociclib as a single agent in advanced breast cancer has not been extensively studied, with the only available clinical data limited to heavily pretreated patients. Preclinical data suggests palbociclib may partially reverse endocrine resistance, though this hypothesis has not been evaluated in previous clinical studies. This phase II, open-label, multicenter study examined the activity of palbociclib monotherapy, as well as palbociclib given in combination with the same endocrine therapy (ET) that was received prior to disease progression, in postmenopausal women with moderately pretreated, estrogen receptor-positive, HER2 negative advanced breast cancer.Patients and methodsEligible women with advanced disease which had progressed on one or two prior ETs were randomized 1 : 1 to receive either palbociclib alone, or palbociclib in combination with the ET as previously received. Primary end point was clinical benefit rate (CBR); secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsBetween October 2012 and July 2016, a total of 115 patients were randomized. The CBR was 54% [95% confidence interval (CI): 41.5–63.7] for combination therapy, and 60% (95% CI: 47.8–72.9) for monotherapy. Median PFS was 10.8 months (95% CI: 5.6–12.7) for combination therapy, and 6.5 months (95% CI: 5.4–8.5) for monotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) 0.69; 95% CI: 0.4–1.1, exploratory P-value = 0.12]. Exploratory analyses revealed the PFS advantage for combination therapy was seen in the subgroup of patients who received prior ET for >6 months (HR 0.53; 95% CI: 0.3–0.9, exploratory P-value = 0.02), but not in those who received prior ET for ≤6 months.ConclusionPalbociclib has clinical activity as a single agent in women with moderately pretreated, oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Palbociclib may have potential to reverse endocrine resistance in patients with a history of previous durable response to ET.Clinical trial informationNCT02549430     

Genetic polymorphisms of SLC28A3, SLC29A1 and RRM1 predict clinical outcome in patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving gemcitabine plus paclitaxel chemotherapy

BackgroundPaclitaxel and gemcitabine (PG) combination chemotherapy is effective as a maintenance chemotherapeutic regimen in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients because it increases progression-free survival (PFS), which increases overall survival (OS). The primary purpose of our study was to investigate the association between genetic polymorphisms in the genes involved in PG pathways and clinical outcomes in MBC patients treated with PG chemotherapy.MethodsA total of 324 MBC patients were enrolled in this prospective multicenter trial of PG as the first-line chemotherapy. Eighty-five of the 324 patients from two institutes were available for analysis of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Germline DNA was extracted from peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Thirty-eight SNPs in 15 candidate genes selected from pathways that may influence the metabolism and transport of, or sensitivity, to PG were analysed.ResultsThe median PFS and OS of all 324 patients were 8.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.5–9.6 months) and 26.9 months (95% CI: 23.6–30.1 months), respectively. An SNP in SLC28A3 (rs7867504, C/T) was associated with OS (CC or CT versus TT: 37 versus 21 months, p = 0.027, hazard ratio [HR] 2.6, 95% CI: 1.1–6.3). SLC29A1 GA haplotype had a significantly shorter OS (p = 0.030, HR 3.391, 95% CI: 1.13–10.19). RRM1 (ribonucleotide reductase large subunit M1) SNP (rs9937), and haplotypes ATAA and ATGA were significantly associated with neurotoxicity.ConclusionGenetic polymorphisms in SLC28A3, SLC29A1 and RRM1 can influence the clinical outcome of MBC patients treated with PG chemotherapy. Further studies on the functional mechanisms relating to these germline polymorphisms in these genes are warranted.     

Anti-NaPi2b antibody–drug conjugate lifastuzumab vedotin (DNIB0600A) compared with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer in a randomized,open-label,phase II study

BackgroundLifastuzumab vedotin (LIFA) is a humanized anti-NaPi2b monoclonal antibody conjugated to a potent antimitotic agent, monomethyl auristatin E, which inhibits cell division by blocking the polymerization of tubulin. This study is the first to compare an antibody–drug conjugate (ADC) to standard-of-care in ovarian cancer (OC) patients.Patients and methodsPlatinum-resistant OC patients were randomized to receive LIFA [2.4 mg/kg, intravenously, every 3 weeks (Q3W)] or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) (40 mg/m², intravenously, Q4W). NaPi2b expression and serum CA-125 and HE4 levels were assessed. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in intent-to-treat (ITT) and NaPi2b-high patients.ResultsNinety-five patients were randomized (47 LIFA; 48 PLD). The stratified PFS hazard ratio was 0.78 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.46–1.31; P = 0.34] with a median PFS of 5.3 versus 3.1 months (LIFA versus PLD arm, respectively) in the ITT population, and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.40–1.26; P = 0.24) with a median PFS of 5.3 months versus 3.4 months (LIFA versus PLD arm, respectively) in NaPi2b-high patients. The objective response rate was 34% (95% CI, 22% to 49%, LIFA) versus 15% (95% CI, 7% to 28%, PLD) in the ITT population (P = 0.03), and 36% (95% CI, 22% to 52%, LIFA) versus 14% (95% CI, 6% to 27%, PLD) in NaPi2b-high patients (P = 0.02). Toxicities included grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) (46% LIFA; 51% PLD), serious AEs (30% both arms), and AEs leading to discontinuation of drug (9% LIFA; 8% PLD). Five (11%) LIFA versus 2 (4%) PLD patients had grade ≥2 neuropathy.ConclusionLIFA Q3W was well tolerated and improved objective response rate with a modest, nonstatistically significant improvement of PFS compared with PLD in platinum-resistant OC. While the response rate for the monomethyl auristatin E-containing ADC was promising, response durations were relatively short, thereby highlighting the importance of evaluating both response rates and duration of response when evaluating ADCs in OC.Clinical trials.govNCT01991210     

CNS response to osimertinib in patients with T790M-positive advanced NSCLC: pooled data from two phase II trials

BackgroundCentral nervous system (CNS) metastases are common in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Osimertinib has shown systemic efficacy in patients with CNS metastases, and early clinical evidence shows efficacy in the CNS. To evaluate osimertinib activity further, we present a pre-specified subgroup analysis of CNS response using pooled data from two phase II studies: AURA extension (NCT01802632) and AURA2 (NCT02094261).Patients and methodsPatients with T790M-positive advanced NSCLC, who had progressed following prior epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment, received osimertinib 80 mg od (n = 411). Patients with stable, asymptomatic CNS metastases were eligible for enrolment; prior CNS treatment was allowed. Patients with ≥1 measurable CNS lesion (per RECIST 1.1) on baseline brain scan by blinded independent central neuroradiology review (BICR) were included in the evaluable for CNS response set (cEFR). The primary outcome for this CNS analysis was CNS objective response rate (ORR) by BICR; secondary outcomes included CNS duration of response, disease control rate (DCR) and progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsOf 128 patients with CNS metastases on baseline brain scans, 50 were included in the cEFR. Confirmed CNS ORR and DCR were 54% [27/50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 39–68] and 92% (46/50; 95% CI 81–98), respectively. CNS response was observed regardless of prior radiotherapy to the brain. Median CNS duration of response (22% maturity) was not reached (range, 1–15 months); at 9 months, 75% (95% CI 53–88) of patients were estimated to remain in response. Median follow-up for CNS PFS was 11 months; median CNS PFS was not reached (95% CI, 7, not calculable). The safety profile observed in the cEFR was consistent with the overall patient population.ConclusionsOsimertinib demonstrated clinically meaningful efficacy against CNS metastases, with a high DCR, encouraging ORR, and safety profile consistent with that reported previously.ClinicalTrials.gov numberNCT01802632; NCT02094261     

Maintenance pazopanib versus placebo in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients non-progressive after first line chemotherapy: A double blind randomised phase III study of the lung cancer group,EORTC 08092 (EudraCT: 2010-018566-23, NCT01208064)

BackgroundSwitch maintenance is an effective strategy in the treatment of advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). Pazopanib is an oral, multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). EORTC 08092 evaluated pazopanib given as maintenance treatment following standard first line platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC.MethodsPatients with non-progressive disease after 4–6 cycles of chemotherapy were randomised to receive either pazopanib 800 mg/day or matched placebo until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end-point was overall survival and secondary end-points were progression-free survival (PFS) and safety.ResultsA total of 600 patients were planned to be randomised. The trial was prematurely stopped following an early interim analysis, after 102 patients were randomised to pazopanib (n = 50) or placebo (n = 52). Median age was 64 years in both arms. Median overall survival was 17.4 months for pazopanib and 12.3 months for placebo (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.72 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40–1.28]; p = 0.257). Median PFS was 4.3 months versus 3.2 months (HR 0.67, [95% CI 0.43–1.03], p = 0.068). PFS rates at 4 months were 56% and 45% respectively. The majority of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were grade 1–2. Grade 3–4 AEs (pazopanib versus placebo) were hypertension (38% versus 8%), neutropenia (8% versus 0%), and elevated SGPT (6% versus 0%). Of the patients randomised to pazopanib, 22% withdrew due to a treatment-related AE.ConclusionsSwitch maintenance with pazopanib following platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC patients had limited side-effects. This study was stopped due to lack of efficacy by stringent criteria for PFS at a futility interim analysis.     

Efficacy and safety findings from DREAM: a phase III study of DHP107 (oral paclitaxel) versus i.v. paclitaxel in patients with advanced gastric cancer after failure of first-line chemotherapy

BackgroundPaclitaxel is currently only available as an intravenous (i.v.) formulation. DHP107 is a novel oral formulation of lipid ingredients and paclitaxel. DHP107 demonstrated comparable efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics to i.v. paclitaxel as a second-line therapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). DREAM is a multicenter, open-label, prospective, randomized phase III study of patients with histologically/cytologically confirmed, unresectable/recurrent AGC after first-line therapy failure.Methods and materialsPatients were randomized 1 : 1 to DHP107 (200 mg/m² orally twice daily days 1, 8, 15 every 4 weeks) or i.v. paclitaxel (175 mg/m² day 1 every 3 weeks). Patients were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, disease status, and prior treatment; response was assessed (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) every 6 weeks. Primary end point: non-inferiority of progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points: overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. For the efficacy analysis, sequential tests for non-inferiority were carried out, first with a non-inferiority margin of 1.48, then with a margin of 1.25.ResultsBaseline characteristics were balanced in the 236 randomized patients (n = 118 per arm). Median PFS (per-protocol) was 3.0 (95% CI 1.7–4.0) months for DHP107 and 2.6 (95% CI 1.8–2.8) months for paclitaxel (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.85; 95% CI 0.64–1.13). A sensitivity analysis on PFS using independent central review showed similar results (HR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.70–1.24). Median OS (full analysis set) was 9.7 (95% CI 7.1 − 11.5) months for DHP107 versus 8.9 (95% CI 7.1–12.2) months for paclitaxel (HR = 1.04; 95% CI 0.76–1.41). ORR was 17.8% for DHP107 (CR 4.2%; PR 13.6%) versus 25.4% for paclitaxel (CR 3.4%; PR 22.0%). Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and mucositis were more common with DHP107; peripheral neuropathy was more common with paclitaxel. There were only few Grade≥3 adverse events, most commonly neutropenia (42% versus 53%); febrile neutropenia was reported infrequently (5.9% versus 2.5%). No hypersensitivity reactions occurred with DHP107 (paclitaxel 2.5%).ConclusionsDHP107 as a second-line treatment of AGC was non-inferior to paclitaxel for PFS; other efficacy and safety parameters were comparable. DHP107 is the first oral paclitaxel with proven efficacy/safety for the treatment of AGC.ClinicalTrials.govNCT01839773.     

Improved overall survival after implementation of targeted therapy for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Results from the Danish Renal Cancer Group (DARENCA) study-2

AimTo evaluate the implementation of targeted therapy on overall survival (OS) in a complete national cohort of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).MethodsAll Danish patients with mRCC referred for first line treatment with immunotherapy, TKIs or mTOR-inhibitors between 2006 and 2010 were included. Baseline and outcome data were collected retrospectively. Prognostics factors were identified using log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazard model. Differences in distributions were tested with the Chi-square test.Results1049 patients were referred; 744 patients received first line treatment. From 2006 to 2010 we observed a significant increase in the number of referred patients; a significant increase in treated patients (64% versus 75%, P = 0.0188); a significant increase in first line targeted therapy (22% versus 75%, P < 0.0001); a significant increase in second line treatment (20% versus 40%, P = 0.0104), a significant increased median OS (11.5 versus 17.2 months, P = 0.0435) whereas survival for untreated patients remained unchanged. Multivariate analysis validated known prognostic factors. Moreover, treatment start years 2008 (HR 0.74, 95% CI, 0.55–0.99; P = 0.0415), 2009 (HR 0.72, 95% CI, 0.54–0.96; P = 0.0277) and 2010 (HR 0.63, 95% CI, 0.47–0.86; P = 0.0035) compared to 2006, and more than two treatment lines received for patients with performance status 0–1 (HR 0.76, 95% CI, 0.58–0.99; P = 0.0397) and performance status 2–3 (HR 0.19, 95% CI, 0.06–0.60; P = 0.0051) were significantly associated with longer OS.ConclusionThis retrospective study documents that the implementation of targeted therapy has resulted in significantly improved treatment rates and overall survival in a complete national cohort of treated mRCC patients.     

Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) as second-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III noninferiority study

BackgroundTo demonstrate the noninferiority of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer after prior irinotecan-based chemotherapy.Patients and methodsA total of 627 patients were randomly assigned to receive XELOX (n = 313) or FOLFOX-4 (n = 314) following disease progression/recurrence or intolerance to irinotecan-based chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsPFS for XELOX was noninferior to FOLFOX-4 [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83–1.14] in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Median PFS was 4.7 months with XELOX versus 4.8 months with FOLFOX-4. The robustness of the primary analysis was supported by multivariate and subgroup analyses. Median overall survival in the ITT population was 11.9 months with XELOX versus 12.5 months with FOLFOX-4 (HR = 1.02; 95% CI 0.86–1.21). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 50% of XELOX- and 65% of FOLFOX-4-treated patients. Whereas grade 3/4 neutropenia (35% versus 5% with XELOX) and febrile neutropenia (4% versus < 1%) were more common with FOLFOX-4, grade 3/4 diarrhea (19% versus 5% with FOLFOX-4) and grade 3 hand–foot syndrome (4% versus < 1%) were more common with XELOX.ConclusionXELOX is noninferior to FOLFOX-4 when administered as second-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.     

Prognostic and predictive role of neutrophil/lymphocytes ratio in metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective analysis of the TRIBE study by GONO

BackgroundNeutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), defined as absolute neutrophils count divided by absolute lymphocytes count, has been reported as poor prognostic factor in several neoplastic diseases but only a few data are available about unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients (pts). The aim of our study was to evaluate the prognostic and predictive role of NLR in the TRIBE trial.Patients and methodsPts enrolled in TRIBE trial were included. TRIBE is a multicentre phase III trial randomizing unresectable and previously untreated mCRC pts to receive FOLFOXIRI or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. A cut-off value of 3 was adopted to discriminate pts with low (NLR < 3) versus high (NLR ≥ 3) NLR, as primary analysis. As secondary analysis, NLR was treated as an ordinal variable with three levels based on terciles distribution.ResultsNLR at baseline was available for 413 patients. After multiple imputation at univariate analysis, patients with high NLR had significantly shorter progression-free survival (PFS) [hazard ratio (HR) 1.27 (95% CI 1.05–1.55), P = 0.017] and overall survival (OS) [HR 1.56 (95% CI 1.25–1.95), P < 0.001] than patients with low NLR. In the multivariable model, NLR retained a significant association with OS [HR 1.44 (95% CI 1.14–1.82), P = 0.014] but not with PFS [HR 1.18 (95% CI 0.95–1.46), P = 0.375]. No interaction effect between treatment arm and NLR was evident in terms of PFS (P for interaction = 0.536) or OS (P for interaction = 0.831). Patients with low [HR 0.84 (95% CI 0.64–1.08)] and high [HR 0.73 (95% CI 0.54–0.97)] NLR achieved similar PFS benefit from the triplet and consistent results were obtained in terms of OS [HR 0.83 (95% CI 0.62–1.12) for low NLR; HR 0.82 (95% CI 0.59–1.12) for high NLR].ConclusionThis study confirmed the prognostic role of NLR in mCRC pts treated with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in the first line, showing the worse prognosis of pts with high NLR. The advantage of the triplet is independent of NLR at baseline.     

Mechanism of drug resistance in relation to site of metastasis: Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials in advanced breast cancer according to anticancer strategy

BackgroundBreast cancer is heterogeneous at different levels: biologic subtypes, intratumoral areas, and sites of metastases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) classify metastatic sites as visceral or non-visceral, but this has little influence in treatment decisions, particularly in the absence of clinical urgency. Indeed, it is unclear if response to treatments differs among sites of metastases.Patients and methodsRCTs investigating 3 different anticancer strategies in metastatic breast cancer were identified: (1) new hormonal therapy, (2) new targeted therapies in hormone receptor positive tumours (everolimus or palbociclib), and (3) new anti-HER2 therapies. RCTs reporting hazard ratios (HR) for Progression Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) for sub-groups based on sites of metastases were weighted using generic inverse variance approach, and pooled in meta-analyses using Revman 5.3. Subgroup difference was tested with Chi² statistics.ResultsEleven RCTs (6701 pts.) qualified. There was a significant difference in PFS between women with visceral versus non-visceral metastases when two endocrine strategies were compared, with benefits limited to women with visceral metastases [Pooled HR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77–0.95 versus 1.02 (0.88–1.18) for non-visceral; p(difference) = 0.05]. However, combination of an endocrine therapy and a targeted therapy was associated with better PFS compared to endocrine therapy alone for both groups [HR 0.51 (0.43–0.60) versus 0.45 (0.36–0.56) for non-visceral; p(difference) = 0. 36]. Novel HER-2 targeted therapies were associated with significantly better PFS and OS only in visceral metastases [HR 0.59 (0.52–0.66) versus 0.71(0.44–1.13) for non-visceral, p(difference) = 0.45, for PFS; and 0.64 (0.56–0.73) versus 0.82 (0.57 = 1.19) for non-visceral, p(difference) = 0.20, for OS].ConclusionCombination of targeted agents and endocrine therapy results in concordant, superior PFS suggesting targetable endocrine resistance across metastatic sites. Discordant responses with endocrine strategy alone support use of targeted therapy, rather than change in endocrine agent at disease progression. HER2 targeted therapies may be less effective in areas of poor vascularization.