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

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

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

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

Phase II randomized study of trabectedin given as two different every 3 weeks dose schedules (1.5 mg/m2 24 h or 1.3 mg/m2 3 h) to patients with relapsed,platinum-sensitive,advanced ovarian cancer

BackgroundThis randomized, open-label, phase II clinical trial evaluated the optimal regimen of trabectedin administered every 3 weeks in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed, advanced ovarian cancer (AOC).Patients and methodsPatients previously treated with less than two or two previous chemotherapy lines were randomized to receive trabectedin 1.5 mg/m² 24 h (arm A, n = 54) or 1.3 mg/m² 3 h (arm B, n = 53). Objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST was the primary efficacy end point. Toxic effects were graded according to the National Cancer Institute—Common Toxicity Criteria v. 2.0.ResultsORR was 38.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 25.9% to 53.1%; arm A] and 35.8% (95% CI 23.1% to 50.2%; arm B) (intention-to-treat primary analysis). Median time to progression was 6.2 months (95% CI 5.3–8.6 months; arm A) and 6.8 months (95% CI 4.6–7.4 months; arm B). Frequent severe adverse events were nausea/vomiting (24%, arm A; 15%, arm B) and fatigue (15%, arm A; 10%, arm B). Common severe laboratory abnormalities were transient, noncumulative neutropenia (55%, arm A; 37%, arm B) and transaminase increases (alanine aminotransferase, 55%, arm A; 59%, arm B).ConclusionsBoth every-3-weeks trabectedin regimes, 1.5 mg/m² 24 h and 1.3 mg/m² 3 h, were active and reasonably well tolerated in AOC platinum-sensitive patients. Trabectedin every-3-weeks has promising activity and deserves to be further evaluated in relapsed AOC.     

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

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

Comparison of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours and Choi criteria for response evaluation in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma treated with trabectedin: A retrospective analysis

BackgroundTo assess the additional value of density measurement using contrast-enhancement sequences (Choi assessment) in a real-life cohort of adult soft tissue sarcoma patients treated with trabectedin.MethodsEligibility criteria included adults (age ⩾18) treated between 01/2007 and 12/2011, with at least two trabectedin cycles after failure or intolerance to doxorubicin/ifosfamide. Baseline and first computed tomography (CT)-scans were centrally reviewed by an experienced radiologist.ResultsThe retrospective cohort consists of 134 (73 female) patients treated with trabectedin 1.5 mg/m² given as a 24-h infusion every 3 weeks. Patients received a median of five trabectedin cycles (range: 2–33) and the main cause of discontinuation was progressive disease (PD) (n = 105, 78.4%). Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) assessment was feasible in 128 (95.5%) patients, with Choi assessment performed in 92 (68.7%) patients, generally due to inadequate sequences or exclusive lung metastases. Concordance between both methods was fair (Kappa = 0.290). We identified five patients with false PD (i.e. PD according to RECIST but stable disease/partial response as per Choi). Univariate analysis did not identify any predictive factors for false PD. Median overall survival (OS) of patients with PD as per RECIST but stable disease/partial response (SD/PR) according to Choi was better than for patients with PD according to both RECIST and Choi (14 months versus 8 months; p = 0.052).ConclusionsChoi assessment may identify patients with false PD who achieved improved efficacy outcomes, suggesting that trabectedin may delay tumour progression even in the case of non-dimensional response. Dual size and tumour density assessment may be more suitable to evaluate responses to trabectedin in sarcoma patients as well as to improve the decision-making strategies for the continuation of trabectedin therapy.     

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.     

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

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

Biomarker assessment of the CBCSG006 trial: a randomized phase III trial of cisplatin plus gemcitabine compared with paclitaxel plus gemcitabine as first-line therapy for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer

BackgroundCBCSG006 trial reported the superior efficacy of cisplatin plus gemcitabine (GP) regimen than paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (GT) regimen as first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). This study focused on the updated survival data and the explorations of potential biomarkers for efficacy.Patients and methodsGerm-line mutations of homologous recombination (HR) panel, BRCA1/2 included, were evaluated in 55.9% (132/236) patients. PD-L1 expression was evaluated in 48.3% (114/236) patients. A nonparametric sliding-window subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot (STEPP) methodology was used to analyze the absolute survival benefits. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsMedian progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.73 [95% confidence interval (CI) 6.46–9.00] months for GP arm and 6.07 (95% CI 5.32–6.83) months for GT arm (P = 0.005). No significant difference in overall survival (OS) was observed. There was significant interaction between HR status and treatment for PFS and status of HR deficient significantly correlated with higher objective response rate (ORR) and longer PFS in GP arm than in GT arm (71.9% versus 38.7%, P = 0.008; 10.37 versus 4.30 months, P = 0.011). There was no significant interaction between germ-line BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2) status and treatment for PFS. Patients with gBRCA1/2 mutation had numerically higher ORR and prolonged PFS in GP arm than in GT arm (83.3% versus 37.5%, P = 0.086; 8.90 versus 3.20 months, P = 0.459). There was no significant interaction between PD-L1 status and treatment for PFS, and no significant differences in ORR, PFS or OS between two arms regardless of PD-L1 status. In STEPP analysis, patients with lower composite risks had more absolute benefits in PFS than those with higher composite risks.ConclusionsGP regimen has superior efficacy than GT regimen as first-line chemotherapy for mTNBC patients. Germ-line mutations of BRCA1/2 and HR panel are possible biomarkers for better performance of cisplatin-based regimens. A composite risk model was developed to guide patient selection for GP treatment in TNBC patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01287624.     

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     

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

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

Carboplatin and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus carboplatin and paclitaxel in very platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer patients: Results from a subset analysis of the CALYPSO phase III trial

AimTo perform a subset analysis of patients with very platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC) enrolled in the phase III CALYPSO trial.Patients and methodsThe international non-inferiority trial enrolled women with ROC that relapsed >6 months following first- or second-line platinum- and paclitaxel-based therapies. Patients were randomised to CD [carboplatin–pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD)] or CP (carboplatin–paclitaxel) and stratified by treatment-free interval (TFI). In this analysis, patients with a TFI > 24 months were analysed separately for progression free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint of CALYPSO, overall survival (OS) and safety.ResultsA total of 259 very platinum-sensitive patients were included (n = 131, CD; n = 128, CP). Median PFS was 12.0 months for the CD arm and 12.3 months for CP [HR = 1.05 (95% CI, 0.79–1.40); P = 0.73 for superiority] and median OS was 40.2 months for CD and 43.9 for CP [HR = 1.18 (95% CI 0.85–1.63); P = 0.33 for superiority]. Overall response rates were 42% and 38%, respectively (P = 0.46). Toxicities were more common with CP versus CD, including grade 3/4 neutropenia (40.8% versus 27.5%; P = 0.025), nausea (4.8% versus 3.1%; P = 0.47), allergic reaction (8% versus 3.1%; P = 0.082) sensory neuropathy (4.8% versus 2.3%; P = 0.27) and grade 2 alopecia (88% versus 9.2%; P < 0.001). Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (12.2% versus 3.2%; P = 0.007) and mucositis (2.3% versus 0%; P = 0.089) were more common with CD. Grade 3/4 hand-foot syndrome occurred rarely with CD (3 patients versus 0 in CP arm; P = 0.089).ConclusionCP and CD were equally effective treatment regimens for patients with very platinum-sensitive ROC. The favourable risk–benefit profile suggests carboplatin–PLD as treatment of choice for these patients.     

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

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

Prognostic impact of immune response in resectable colorectal liver metastases treated by surgery alone or surgery with perioperative FOLFOX in the randomised EORTC study 40983

AimTo investigate whether the immune response in colorectal liver metastases is related to progression free survival (PFS) and if this may be influenced by systemic therapy.MethodsA retrospective central collection of tumour tissue was organised for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) study 40983, where patients with colorectal liver metastases were treated by either resection alone or resection with perioperative FOLFOX. Immunostaining on whole slides was performed to recognise T-lymphocytes (CD3+, CD4+, CD8+), B-lymphocytes (CD20+), macrophages (CD68+) and mast cells (CD117+) inside the tumour, at the tumour border (TNI) and in normal liver tissue surrounding the tumour (0.5–2 mm from the TNI). Immunological response was compared between treatment arms and correlated to PFS.ResultsTumour tissue and immune response profiles were available for 82 resected patients, 38 in the perioperative chemotherapy arm and 44 in the surgery alone arm. Baseline patient and disease characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. In response to chemotherapy, we observed increased CD3+ lymphocyte and mast cell counts inside the tumour (p < 0.01), lower CD4+ lymphocytes in the normal liver tissue (p = 0.02) and lower macrophage counts in normal tissue (p < 0.01) and at the TNI (p = 0.02). High number of CD3+ lymphocyte and mast cells, and high T-cell score were correlated with tumour regression grade (TRG). Prolonged PFS correlated with the presence of mast cells in the tumour (9.8 versus 16.5 months, Hazard ratio (HR) 0.54 p = 0.03), higher CD3+ lymphocyte count at the TNI (10.8 versus 22.8 months, HR 0.57, p = 0.03) and T-cell score >2 (10.8 versus 38.6 months, HR 0.51, p = 0.04).ConclusionOur analyses in the context of a randomised study suggest that chemotherapy influences immune cell profiles, independent of patient characteristics. Immune responses of lymphocytes and mast cells were associated with pathological response to chemotherapy and to increased PFS. High CD3+ lymphocytes at the tumour front and intratumoural mast cells appear to be prognostic for patients with colorectal liver metastases.     

Is there a role of surgery in patients with recurrent or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours responding to imatinib: A prospective randomised trial in China

ObjectivesFor advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) patients who are responding to imatinib mesylate, the role of surgery has not been formally demonstrated. This multicenter randomised controlled trial was designed to assess whether surgery to treat residual disease for patients with recurrent/metastatic GISTs responding to imatinib mesylate (IM) improved progression free survival (PFS) compared with IM treatment alone.MethodsBetween 3 and 12 months after starting IM for recurrent/metastatic GISTs, eligible patients were randomised to two arms: Arm A (surgery for residual disease) and Arm B (IM treatment alone). In Arm A (19 pts), surgery was performed to remove residual macroscopic lesions as completely as possible, and IM treatment continued after surgery. In Arm B (22 pts), IM was given alone at a dose of 400 mg per day until disease progression. The primary end-point was PFS measured from the date IM started. This study was registered in the ChiCTR registry with the ID number ChiCTR-TRC-00000244.ResultsThis randomised trial was closed early due to poor accrual. Only 41 patients were enrolled as opposed to 210 patients planned. 2-year PFS was 88.4% in the surgery arm and 57.7% in the IM-alone arm (P = 0.089). Median overall survival (mOS) was not reached in the surgery arm and 49 months in patients with IM-alone arm (P = 0.024).ConclusionsWhile no significant differences were observed in the two arms, this study suggests that surgical removal of the metastatic lesion may improve the outcome of advanced GIST patients and should stimulate additional research on this topic.     

Survival comparision of three-dimensional radiotherapy alone with concurrent chemoradiotherapy for non-surgical esophageal carcinoma

PurposeRadiotherapy is the main treatment method for patients with locally advanced, unresectable esophageal cancer. The aim of this study is to compare overall survival (OS) using 3D radiotherapy (3DRT) alone with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in 296 non-surgical esophageal carcinoma patients.Patents and methodsOver 10 years, of the 480 patients with esophageal carcinoma treated with 3DRT with or without chemotherapy, 148 patients each comprised 3DRT and CCRT groups after propensity score matching.ResultsThe 5- and 10-year OS (P = 0.337) and PFS (P = 0.715) rates for 3DRT alone were 22.0%, 14.4% and 26.1%, 23.2%, respectively, compared with 28.8%, 18.6% and 34.7%, 29.1% for CCRT, respectively. CCRT did not improve 5-year and 10-year OS or PFS in 60–70 Gy group (OS: 27.5% and 25.2%; 17.9% and 17.0%, P = 0.938; PFS: 38.3% and 31.8%; 31.9% and 27.8%, P = 0.890) nor reduce 10-year hematogenous metastasis (31.7% and 28.3%, P = 0.698). CCRT improved 5-year OS and PFS of 50.0–59.9 Gy group (OS: 33.3% and 12.0%, P = 0.029; PFS: 33.1% and 10.6%, P = 0.081). For 3DRT, the 5-year OS and PFS rates were significantly better in the 60–70 Gy group (P = 0.017) compared with 50.0–59.9 Gy group (P = 0.002). For CCRT group, 5-year OS and PFS favored the 50.0–59.9 Gy group, but the difference was insignificant. Major toxicities were greater with CCRT compared with 3DRT.ConclusionFor non-surgical esophageal carcinoma patients, 3DRT combined with CCRT was effective in prolonging both OS and PFS.     

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

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

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

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

The addition of pravastatin to chemotherapy in advanced gastric carcinoma: A randomised phase II trial

PurposeStatins have for long been considered to play a potential role in anticancer treatment based upon their ability to inhibit the mevalonate synthesis pathway. This randomised phase II trial compared the efficacy and safety of pravastatin added to epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine (ECC versus ECC + P) in patients with advanced gastric carcinoma.MethodsPatients were randomised to receive up to six cycles of 3-weekly ECC with or without pravastatin (40 mg, once daily from day 1 of the first cycle until day 21 of the last cycle). Primary end-point was progression-free rate at 6 months (PFR_6months). Secondary end-points were response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. For early termination in case of futility, a two-stage design was applied (P₀ = 50%; P₁ = 70%; α = 0.05; β = 0.10).ResultsThirty patients were enrolled. PFR_6months was 6/14 patients (42.8%) in the ECC + P arm, and 7/15 patients (46.7%) in the control arm, and therefore the study was terminated after the first stage. In the ECC and ECC + P arm, RR was 7/15 (46.7%) and 5/15 (33.3%), median PFS was 5 and 6 months and median OS was 6 and 8 months, respectively. Toxicity data showed no significant differences, although there was a trend towards more gastrointestinal side-effects such as diarrhoea and stomatitis in the ECC + P arm.ConclusionIn this randomised phase II trial the addition of pravastatin to ECC did not improve outcome in patients with advanced gastric cancer. Therefore, further testing of this combination in a randomised phase III trial cannot be recommended.     

A prospective randomised phase-II trial with gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus sunitinib in advanced pancreatic cancer: A study of the CESAR Central European Society for Anticancer Drug Research–EWIV

BackgroundPancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most common malignant tumours and is still associated with a poor prognosis in advanced disease. To improve the standard therapy with gemcitabine, we initiated a prospective randomised phase-II trial with gemcitabine (GEM) versus gemcitabine plus sunitinib (SUNGEM) based on data of in vitro trials and phase-I data for the combination treatment. The rational of adding sunitinib was its putative antiangiogenic mechanism of action.MethodsA total of 106 eligible patients with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic PDAC without previous system therapy were randomised to receive GEM at a dosage of 1.000 mg/m² d1, 8, 15 q28 versus a combination of SUNGEM at a dosage of GEM 1.000 mg/m² d1 + 8 and sunitinib 50 mg p.o. d1–14, q21d. The primary end-point was progression free survival (PFS), secondary end-points were overall survival (OS), toxicity and overall response rate (ORR).ResultsThe confirmatory analysis of PFS was based on the intend-to-treat (ITT) population (N = 106). The median PFS was 13.3 weeks (95% confidence interval (95%-CI): 10.4–18.1 weeks) for GEM and 11.6 weeks for SUNGEM (95%-CI: 7.0–18.0 weeks; p = 0.78 one-sided log-rank). The ORR was 6.1% (95%-CI: 0.7–20.2%) for GEM and for 7.1% (95%-CI: 0.9–23.5%) for SUNGEM (p = 0.87). The median time to progression (TTP) was 14.0 weeks (95%-CI: 12.4–22.3 weeks) for GEM and 18.0 weeks (95%-CI: 11.3–19.3 weeks) for SUNGEM (p = 0.60; two-sided log-rank). The median OS was 36.7 weeks (95%-CI: 20.6–49.0 weeks) for the GEM arm and 30.4 weeks (95%-CI: 18.1–37.6 weeks) for the SUNGEM (p = 0.78, one-sided log-rank). In regard to toxicities, suspected SAEs were reported in 53.7% in the GEM arm and 71.2% in the SUNGEM arm. Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was statistically significantly higher in the SUNGEM arm with 48.1% versus 27.8% in the GEM arm (p = 0.045, two sided log-rank).ConclusionsThe combination SUNGEM was not sufficient superior in locally advanced or metastatic PDAC compared to GEM alone in regard to efficacy but was associated with more toxicity.