Biweekly irinotecan plus cisplatin versus irinotecan alone as second-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer: A randomised phase III trial (TCOG GI-0801/BIRIP trial)

PurposeWe compared biweekly irinotecan plus cisplatin (BIRIP) with irinotecan alone as the second-line chemotherapy (SLC) for advanced gastric cancer (AGC).MethodsPatients with metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer refractory to S-1-based first-line chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive BIRIP (irinotecan 60 mg/m² plus cisplatin 30 mg/m², every 2 weeks) or irinotecan alone (irinotecan 150 mg/m², every 2 weeks). The primary end-point was to show the superiority of BIRIP to irinotecan in terms of progression free survival (PFS).Results130 patients were enrolled. PFS was significantly longer in the BIRIP group (3.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.0–4.7]) than in the irinotecan group (2.8 months [2], [3]; hazard ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.47–0.98; P = 0.0398). Median overall survival was 10.7 months in the BIRIP group and 10.1 months in the irinotecan group (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.69–1.44, P = 0.9823). The objective response rate was 22% in the BIRIP group and 16% in the irinotecan group (P = 0.4975). However, the disease control rate was significantly better in the BIRIP group (75%) than in the irinotecan group (54%, P = 0.0162). The incidences of grade 3 or worse adverse events did not differ between the two groups. Any grade elevation of serum creatinine was more common in the BIRIP group (25% versus 8%, P = 0.009), but any grade diarrhoea (17% versus 42%, P = 0.002) was more common in the irinotecan group.ConclusionBIRIP significantly prolonged PFS as compared with irinotecan alone and was tolerated as SLC, but did not demonstrate the survival benefit in this trial.     

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.     

S-1 and irinotecan plus bevacizumab versus mFOLFOX6 or CapeOX plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (TRICOLORE): a randomized,open-label,phase III,noninferiority trial

BackgroundCombination therapy with oral fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan has not yet been established as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We carried out a randomized, open-label, phase III trial to determine whether S-1 and irinotecan plus bevacizumab is noninferior to mFOLFOX6 or CapeOX plus bevacizumab in terms of progression-free survival (PFS).Patients and methodsPatients from 53 institutions who had previously untreated mCRC were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to receive either mFOLFOX6 or CapeOX plus bevacizumab (control group) or S-1 and irinotecan plus bevacizumab (experimental group; a 3-week regimen: intravenous infusions of irinotecan 150 mg/m² and bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg on day 1, oral S-1 80 mg/m² twice daily for 2 weeks, followed by a 1-week rest; or a 4-week regimen: irinotecan 100 mg/m² and bevacizumab 5 mg/kg on days 1 and 15, S-1 80 mg/m² twice daily for 2 weeks, followed by a 2-week rest). The primary end point was PFS. The noninferiority margin was 1.25; noninferiority would be established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) of the control group versus the experimental group was less than this margin.ResultBetween June 2012 and September 2014, 487 patients underwent randomization. Two hundred and forty-three patients assigned to the control group and 241 assigned to the experimental group were included in the primary analysis. Median PFS was 10.8 months (95% CI 9.6–11.6) in the control group and 14.0 months (95% CI 12.4–15.5) in the experimental group (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70–1.02; P < 0.0001 for noninferiority, P = 0.0815 for superiority). One hundred and fifty-seven patients (64.9%) in the control group and 140 (58.6%) in the experimental group had adverse events of grade 3 or higher.ConclusionS-1 and irinotecan plus bevacizumab is noninferior to mFOLFOX6 or CapeOX plus bevacizumab with respect to PFS as first-line treatment of mCRC and could be a new standard treatment.Clinical trials numberUMIN000007834     

A randomized phase II study of biweekly irinotecan monotherapy or a combination of irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (mFOLFIRI) in patients with metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma refractory to or progressive after first-line chemotherapy

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of irinotecan (CPT-11) monotherapy and CPT-11 plus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin (LV) combination (mFOLFIRI) as second-line treatment in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

Methods

A total of 59 patients were randomly assigned to either CPT-11 (150 mg/m² iv on day 1) or mFOLFIRI (CPT-11 150 mg/m² plus LV 20 mg/m² on day 1 followed by 5-FU 2,000 mg/m² over 48 h), every 2 weeks. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR).

Results

Following random assignment, 29 patients received CPT-11 and 30 patients mFOLFIRI. The ORR was 17.2 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 3.4–30.9] and 20.0 % (95 % CI 5.6–34.3) for the CPT-11 and mFOLFIRI arms, respectively (P = 0.525). There was no significant difference in median progression-free survival: 2.2 months (95 % CI 0.2–4.3) for CPT-11 versus 3.0 months (95 % CI 2.0–3.7) for mFOLFIRI (P = 0.481) or in median overall survival: 5.8 months (95 % CI 3.0–8.7), compared with 6.7 months (95 % CI 5.3–8.2) (P = 0.514). Grade 3/4 toxicity was observed in 21 and 28 events in the CPT-11 and mFOLFIRI arms, respectively.

Conclusions

Although this study had a small sample size and limited statistical power, CPT-11 monotherapy and mFOLFIRI appear to be equally active and tolerable as second-line chemotherapy for AGC. The addition of 5-FU/LV to CPT-11 did not significantly improve efficacy.     

Phase III study comparing oxaliplatin plus S-1 with cisplatin plus S-1 in chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced gastric cancer

BackgroundWe evaluated the efficacy and safety of S-1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX) as an alternative to cisplatin plus S-1 (CS) in first-line chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer (AGC).Patients and methodsIn this randomized, open-label, multicenter phase III study, patients were randomly assigned to receive SOX (80–120 mg/day S-1 for 2 weeks with 100 mg/m² oxaliplatin on day 1, every 3 weeks) or CS (S-1 for 3 weeks with 60 mg/m² cisplatin on day 8, every 5 weeks). The primary end points were noninferiority in progression-free survival (PFS) and relative efficacy in overall survival (OS) for SOX using adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with stratification factors; performance status and unresectable or recurrent (+adjuvant chemotherapy) disease.ResultsOverall, 685 patients were randomized from January 2010 to October 2011. In per-protocol population, SOX (n = 318) was noninferior to CS (n = 324) in PFS [median, 5.5 versus 5.4 months; HR 1.004, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.840–1.199; predefined noninferiority margin 1.30]. The median OS for SOX and CS were 14.1 and 13.1 months, respectively (HR 0.958 with 95% CI 0.803–1.142). In the intention-to-treat population (SOX, n = 339; CS, n = 337), the HRs in PFS and OS were 0.979 (95% CI 0.821–1.167) and 0.934 (95% CI 0.786–1.108), respectively. The most common ≥grade 3 adverse events (SOX versus CS) were neutropenia (19.5% versus 41.8%), anemia (15.1% versus 32.5%), hyponatremia (4.4% versus 13.4%), febrile neutropenia (0.9% versus 6.9%), and sensory neuropathy (4.7% versus 0%).ConclusionSOX is as effective as CS for AGC with favorable safety profile, therefore SOX can replace CS.Clinical trial numberJapicCTI-101021.     

Randomised phase II trial of photodynamic therapy plus oral fluoropyrimidine,S-1, versus photodynamic therapy alone for unresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma

BackgroundHilar cholangiocarcinoma is an uncommon cancer and its overall incidence is increasing. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) has been proposed as palliative management for unresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma (UHC). To date, little is known about the role of the addition of systemic chemotherapy to PDT for UHC. We performed a prospective, randomised, phase II trial to compare PDT plus S-1 and PDT alone for UHC.MethodsPatients with UHC were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to PDT plus S-1 or PDT alone. The primary end-point was overall survival. The secondary end-points were progression-free survival, complications, re-intervention rate and quality of life. This trial is registered with clinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00869635.FindingsBetween February 2009 and May 2012, we randomly assigned 21 patients to receive PDT plus S-1 and 22 to receive PDT alone. The UHC patients treated with PDT plus S-1 showed higher 1-year survival rate compared with the patients treated with PDT alone (76.2% versus 32%, P = 0.003) and prolonged overall survival (median 17 months, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.6–21.4, versus 8 months, 95% CI: 6–10, P = 0.005, hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; 95% CI: 0.17–0.75). Regarding the secondary end-points, PDT plus S-1 was associated with prolonged progression-free survival compared with PDT alone (median 10 months [95% CI: 4.1–16] versus 2 months [95% CI: 0.4–3.5], P = 0.009 (HR for progression 0.39, 95% CI: 0.19–0.83). There were no differences in the number of PDT sessions, the frequency of cholangitis, overall adverse events or the quality of life in either group.InterpretationsPDT plus S-1 was well tolerated and was associated with a significant improvement of overall survival and progression-free survival compared with PDT alone in patients with UHC. These findings warrant further clinical investigation of PDT plus S-1 in patients with UHC.     

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

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

Phase II/III study of second-line chemotherapy comparing irinotecan-alone with S-1 plus irinotecan in advanced gastric cancer refractory to first-line treatment with S-1 (JACCRO GC-05)

BackgroundIn Japan, S-1 plus cisplatin has been used as first-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Patients with no response to first-line treatment with S-1 often receive a taxane-alone or irinotecan-alone as second-line treatment. However, second-line treatment with S-1 plus irinotecan is widely used in patients with AGC resistant to first-line S-1-based chemotherapy. The goal of this trial was to determine whether the consecutive use of S-1 plus irinotecan improves survival when compared with irinotecan-alone as second-line treatment for AGC.Patients and methodsPatients who had disease progression during first-line S-1-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive S-1 plus irinotecan or irinotecan-alone. The S-1 plus irinotecan group received oral S-1 (40–60 mg/m²) on days 1–14 and intravenous irinotecan (150 mg/m²) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. The irinotecan-alone group received the same dose of irinotecan intravenously on day 1 of a 14-day cycle. The primary end point was overall survival (OS).ResultsFrom February 2008 to May 2011, a total of 304 patients were enrolled. The median OS was 8.8 months in the S-1 plus irinotecan group and 9.5 months in the irinotecan-alone group. This difference was not significant (hazard ratio for death, 0.99; 95% confidence interval 0.78–1.25; P = 0.92). Grade 3 or higher toxicities were more common in the S-1 plus irinotecan group than in the irinotecan-alone group.ConclusionThe consecutive use of S-1 plus irinotecan is not recommended as second-line treatment in patients who are refractory to S-1-based first-line chemotherapy.Clinical Trials.govNCT00639327.     

Multicenter phase II study of trastuzumab in combination with capecitabine and oxaliplatin for advanced gastric cancer

BackgroundTrastuzumab has been approved for use in combination with fluoropyrimidine plus cisplatin for the treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Although capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) is a standard first-line regimen for AGC, combination trastuzumab plus XELOX has not been studied.MethodsPatients with metastatic or unresectable HER2-positive AGC were diagnosed by either HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) 3+ or IHC 2+/fluorescence in-situ hybridisation (FISH)+ received intravenous trastuzumab (8 mg/kg for first cycle and 6 mg/kg for subsequent cycles on day 1) plus oral capecitabine (1000 mg/m² twice daily on days 1–14) and intravenous oxaliplatin (130 mg/m² on day 1), every 3 weeks. The primary end-point was the objective response rate, and secondary end-points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity profiles.ResultsFifty-five HER2-positive AGC patients were enrolled between August 2011 and February 2013. The median age was 57 years (range = 29–74). The confirmed objective response rate was 67% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 54–80%). After a median follow-up period of 13.8 months (range = 6.1–23.9), the median PFS and OS were 9.8 months (95% CI = 7.0–12.6) and 21.0 months (95% CI = 6.4–35.7), respectively. Frequently encountered grade 3–4 toxicities included neutropenia (18%), anaemia (11%), and peripheral neuropathy (11%). There was a treatment-related death caused by severe diarrhoea and complicated sepsis.ConclusionCombination of trastuzumab and XELOX is well tolerated and highly effective in patients with HER2-positive AGC.     

A randomised phase II study of pemetrexed versus pemetrexed + erlotinib as second-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer

IntroductionPemetrexed and erlotinib have been approved as second-line monotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This multicentre, randomised, open-label, parallel phase II study assessed efficacy and safety of pemetrexed versus pemetrexed + erlotinib in patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC.MethodsNSCLC stage III–IV patients who failed one prior platinum-based chemotherapy regimen, ≥1 measurable lesion by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤2 were eligible. Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m² with vitamin B₁₂ and folic acid q3w alone or combined with erlotinib 150 mg daily. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end-points were overall survival (OS), time-to-treatment failure (TTTF), response and toxicity.ResultsOf 165 randomised non-squamous patients, 159 were treated (pemetrexed: 83; pemetrexed + erlotinib: 76). The median PFS (months; 95% CI) was 2.89 (1.94, 3.38) for pemetrexed versus 3.19 (2.86, 4.70) for pemetrexed + erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.63; 95% CI: (0.44, 0.90); P = 0.0047). The median OS (months; 95% CI) was 7.75 (5.29, 10.41) for pemetrexed versus 11.83 (8.18, 16.66) for pemetrexed + erlotinib (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.98; P = 0.019). The median TTTF (months: 95% CI) was 2.4 (1.74, 2.99) for pemetrexed versus 3.0 (2.23, 4.07) for pemetrexed + erlotinib (HR 0.64; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.89; P = 0.0034). One patient died in pemetrexed + erlotinib arm due to febrile neutropenia. Grades 3/4 drug-related toxicities (in ≥5% of patients) in pemetrexed/pemetrexed + erlotinib were febrile neutropenia (2.4%/10.5%), diarrhoea (1.2%/5.3%), rash (1.2%/9.2%); anaemia (6%/11.8%), leukopenia (9.6%/23.7%), neutropenia (9.6%/25.0%), and thrombocytopenia (4.8%/14.5%).ConclusionsPemetrexed + erlotinib treatment significantly improved PFS, OS and TTTF in 2nd line non-squamous NSCLC and was associated with an increase in grade 3/4 toxicities compared with pemetrexed alone.     

Randomized controlled trial of S-1 versus docetaxel in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy (East Asia S-1 Trial in Lung Cancer)

BackgroundChemotherapy remains a viable option for the management of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) despite recent advances in molecular targeted therapy and immunotherapy. We evaluated the efficacy of oral 5-fluorouracil-based S-1 as second- or third-line therapy compared with standard docetaxel therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC.Patients and methodsPatients with advanced NSCLC previously treated with ≥1 platinum-based therapy were randomized 1 : 1 to docetaxel (60 mg/m² in Japan, 75 mg/m² at all other study sites; day 1 in a 3-week cycle) or S-1 (80–120 mg/day, depending on body surface area; days 1–28 in a 6-week cycle). The primary endpoint was overall survival. The non-inferiority margin was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.2.ResultsA total of 1154 patients (577 in each arm) were enrolled, with balanced patient characteristics between the two arms. Median overall survival was 12.75 and 12.52 months in the S-1 and docetaxel arms, respectively [HR 0.945; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.833–1.073; P = 0.3818]. The upper limit of 95% CI of HR fell below 1.2, confirming non-inferiority of S-1 to docetaxel. Difference in progression-free survival between treatments was not significant (HR 1.033; 95% CI 0.913–1.168; P = 0.6080). Response rate was 8.3% and 9.9% in the S-1 and docetaxel arms, respectively. Significant improvement was observed in the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status over time points in the S-1 arm. The most common adverse drug reactions were decreased appetite (50.4%), nausea (36.4%), and diarrhea (35.9%) in the S-1 arm, and neutropenia (54.8%), leukocytopenia (43.9%), and alopecia (46.6%) in the docetaxel arm.ConclusionS-1 is equally as efficacious as docetaxel and offers a treatment option for patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC.Clinical trial numberJapan Pharmaceutical Information Center, JapicCTI-101155.     

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.     

nab-Paclitaxel plus carboplatin or gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus carboplatin as first-line treatment of patients with triple-negative metastatic breast cancer: results from the tnAcity trial

BackgroundMetastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) has a poor prognosis and aggressive clinical course. tnAcity evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line nab-paclitaxel plus carboplatin (nab-P/C), nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nab-P/G), and gemcitabine plus carboplatin (G/C) in patients with mTNBC.Patients and methodsPatients with pathologically confirmed mTNBC and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic BC received (1 : 1 : 1) nab-P 125 mg/m² plus C AUC 2, nab-P 125 mg/m² plus G 1000 mg/m², or G 1000 mg/m² plus C AUC 2, all on days 1, 8 q3w. Phase II primary end point: investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), percentage of patients initiating cycle 6 with doublet therapy, and safety.ResultsIn total, 191 patients were enrolled (nab-P/C, n = 64; nab-P/G, n = 61; G/C, n = 66). PFS was significantly longer with nab-P/C versus nab-P/G [median, 8.3 versus 5.5 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.59 [95% CI, 0.38–0.92]; P = 0.02] or G/C (median, 8.3 versus 6.0 months; HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.37–0.90]; P = 0.02). OS was numerically longer with nab-P/C versus nab-P/G (median, 16.8 versus 12.1 months; HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.47–1.13]; P = 0.16) or G/C (median, 16.8 versus 12.6 months; HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.52–1.22]; P = 0.29). ORR was 73%, 39%, and 44%, respectively. In the nab-P/C, nab-P/G, and G/C groups, 64%, 56%, and 50% of patients initiated cycle 6 with a doublet. Grade ≥3 adverse events were mainly hematologic.ConclusionsFirst-line nab-P/C was active in mTNBC and resulted in a significantly longer PFS and improved risk/benefit profile versus nab-P/G or G/C.     

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.     

First-line pemetrexed plus cisplatin followed by gefitinib maintenance therapy versus gefitinib monotherapy in East Asian patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: A randomised,phase 3 trial

BackgroundIn the Iressa Pan-ASia Study (IPASS), gefitinib claimed improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus carboplatin-paclitaxel in clinically selected lung cancer patients. The primary objective of this study was to assess the PFS of pemetrexed-cisplatin (PC) followed by gefitinib maintenance versus gefitinib monotherapy in an IPASS-like population.MethodsIn this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, eligible patients were ⩾18 years, chemonaïve, East Asian, light ex-smokers/never-smokers with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0–1 and unknown epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation status who enrolled at 12 sites in Asia. Patients randomly received (1:1) pemetrexed (500 mg/m²) plus cisplatin (75 mg/m²) for six 21-day cycles, followed by gefitinib maintenance or gefitinib monotherapy (250 mg/day). Patient tissue was retrospectively analysed for EGFR mutations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01017874.FindingsBetween 23rd November 2009 and 27th April 2012, 253 patients entered, and 236 patients were randomly assigned to and treated with PC therapy (N = 114) and gefitinib monotherapy (N = 118). Between-arm baseline characteristics were balanced. PFS was not significantly different between treatment arms (p = 0.217). The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) was 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63–1.13). The HR should be cautiously interpreted as it was not constant. EGFR mutation status was determined for 74 tissue samples; 50 (67.6%) had mutations. In a pre-specified subgroup analysis, only the treatment-by-EGFR mutation interaction was significant (p = 0.008) for PFS. For the entire treatment period, a higher proportion of patients in the PC/gefitinib arm versus gefitinib experienced possibly drug-related grade 3–4 treatment-emergent adverse events (39 of 114 [34%] versus 19 of 118 [16%]; p = 0.002).InterpretationIn the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, PFS was not significantly different. In the biomarker-assessable population, front-line EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor monotherapy was not efficacious in patients with wild-type EGFR. Identification of EGFR mutation status is key in the management of advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.FundingEli Lilly and Company.     

Updated results from MONALEESA-2, a phase III trial of first-line ribociclib plus letrozole versus placebo plus letrozole in hormone receptor-positive,HER2-negative advanced breast cancer

BackgroundThe phase III MONALEESA-2 study demonstrated significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and a manageable toxicity profile for first-line ribociclib plus letrozole versus placebo plus letrozole in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2–) advanced breast cancer. Here, we report updated efficacy and safety data, together with exploratory biomarker analyses, from the MONALEESA-2 study.Patients and methodsA total of 668 postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2– recurrent/metastatic breast cancer were randomized (1 : 1; stratified by presence/absence of liver and/or lung metastases) to ribociclib (600 mg/day; 3-weeks-on/1-week-off; 28-day treatment cycles) plus letrozole (2.5 mg/day; continuous) or placebo plus letrozole. The primary end point was locally assessed PFS. The key secondary end point was overall survival (OS). Other secondary end points included overall response rate (ORR) and safety. Biomarker analysis was an exploratory end point.ResultsAt the time of the second interim analysis, the median duration of follow-up was 26.4 months. Median PFS was 25.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 23.0–30.3] for ribociclib plus letrozole and 16.0 months (95% CI 13.4–18.2) for placebo plus letrozole (hazard ratio 0.568; 95% CI 0.457–0.704; log-rank P = 9.63 × 10⁻⁸). Ribociclib treatment benefit was maintained irrespective of PIK3CA or TP53 mutation status, total Rb, Ki67, or p16 protein expression, and CDKN2A, CCND1, or ESR1 mRNA levels. Ribociclib benefit was more pronounced in patients with wild-type versus altered receptor tyrosine kinase genes. OS data remain immature, with 116 deaths observed; 50 in the ribociclib arm and 66 in the placebo arm (hazard ratio 0.746; 95% CI 0.517–1.078). The ORR was 42.5% versus 28.7% for all patients treated with ribociclib plus letrozole versus placebo plus letrozole, respectively, and 54.5% versus 38.8%, respectively, for patients with measurable disease. Safety results, after a further 11.1 months of follow-up, were comparable with those reported at the first analysis, with no new or unexpected toxicities observed, and no evidence of cumulative toxicity.ConclusionsThe improved efficacy outcomes and manageable tolerability observed with first-line ribociclib plus letrozole are maintained with longer follow-up, relative to letrozole monotherapy.Clinical trials numberNCT01958021     

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.     

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     

Abituzumab combined with cetuximab plus irinotecan versus cetuximab plus irinotecan alone for patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: the randomised phase I/II POSEIDON trial

BackgroundIntegrins are involved in tumour progression and metastasis, and differentially expressed on colorectal cancer (CRC) cells. Abituzumab (EMD 525797), a humanised monoclonal antibody targeting integrin αν heterodimers, has demonstrated preclinical activity. This trial was designed to assess the tolerability of different doses of abituzumab in combination with cetuximab and irinotecan (phase I) and explore the efficacy and tolerability of the combination versus that of cetuximab and irinotecan in patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) (phase II part).MethodsEligible patients had KRAS (exon 2) wild-type mCRC and had received prior oxaliplatin-containing therapy. The trial comprised an initial safety run-in using abituzumab doses up to 1000 mg combined with a standard of care (SoC: cetuximab plus irinotecan) and a phase II part in which patients were randomised 1 : 1 : 1 to receive abituzumab 500 mg (arm A) or 1000 mg (arm B) every 2 weeks combined with SoC, or SoC alone (arm C). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), response rate (RR) and tolerability. Associations between tumour integrin expression and outcomes were also assessed.ResultsPhase I showed that abituzumab doses up to 1000 mg were well tolerated in combination with SoC. Seventy-three (arm A), 71 (arm B) and 72 (arm C) patients were randomised to the phase II part. Baseline characteristics were balanced. PFS was similar in the three arms: arm A versus SoC, hazard ratio (HR) 1.13 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78–1.64]; arm B versus SoC, HR 1.11 (95% CI 0.77–1.61). RRs were also similar. A trend toward improved OS was observed: arm A versus SoC, HR 0.83 (95% CI 0.54–1.28); arm B versus SoC, HR 0.80 (95% CI 0.52–1.25). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in 72%, 78% and 67% of patients. High tumour integrin αvβ6 expression was associated with longer OS in arms A [HR 0.55 (0.30–1.00)] and B [HR 0.41 (0.21–0.81)] than in arm C.ConclusionThe primary PFS end point was not met, although predefined exploratory biomarker analyses identified subgroups of patients in whom abituzumab may have benefit. The tolerability of abituzumab combined with cetuximab and irinotecan was acceptable. Further study is warranted.ClinicalTrials.gov identifierNCT01008475     

Randomised,double-blind trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel with daily oral cediranib or placebo in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: NCIC Clinical Trials Group study BR29

IntroductionThis randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study evaluated the addition of cediranib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1–3, to standard carboplatin/paclitaxel chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.MethodsEligible patients received paclitaxel (200 mg/m²) and carboplatin (area under the concentration time curve 6) intravenously every 3 weeks. Daily oral cediranib/placebo 20 mg was commenced day 1 of cycle 1 and continued as monotherapy after completion of 4–6 cycles of chemotherapy. The primary end-point of the study was overall survival (OS). The trial would continue to full accrual if an interim analysis (IA) for progression-free survival (PFS), performed after 170 events of progression or death in the first 260 randomised patients, revealed a hazard ratio (HR) for PFS of ⩽0.70.ResultsThe trial was halted for futility at the IA (HR for PFS 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66–1.20, p = 0.45). A final analysis was performed on all 306 enrolled patients. The addition of cediranib increased response rate ([RR] 52% versus 34%, p = 0.001) but did not significantly improve PFS (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.71–1.18, p = 0.49) or OS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69–1.30, p = 0.72). Cediranib patients had more grade 3 hypertension, diarrhoea and anorexia.ConclusionsThe addition of cediranib 20 mg daily to carboplatin/paclitaxel chemotherapy increased RR and toxicity, but not survival.