Trabectedin plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) versus PLD in recurrent ovarian cancer: Overall survival analysis

AimTrabectedin in combination with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) improves progression-free survival (PFS) compared to PLD alone in recurrent ovarian cancer (J Clin Oncol 2010;28:3107–14).MethodsWomen, stratified by performance status (0–1 versus 2) and platinum sensitivity (platinum-free interval [PFI] <6 versus ⩾6 months), were randomly assigned to receive PLD 30 mg/m² IV followed by a 3-h infusion of trabectedin 1.1 mg/m² every 3 weeks or PLD 50 mg/m² every 4 weeks. The study was powered to show a 33% increase in overall survival (OS) after 520 deaths had occurred.ResultsAfter a median follow-up of 47.4 months, there were 522 deaths among 672 subjects. The median OS for trabectedin + PLD and PLD arms was 22.2 and 18.9 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72–1.02; p = 0.0835). An unexpected but significant imbalance in the PFI favouring the PLD arm (mean PFI: PLD = 13.3 months, trabectedin + PLD = 10.6 months) was identified. On the basis of this finding, an unplanned hypothesis generating analysis adjusting for the PFI imbalance and other prognostic factors suggested an improvement in OS associated with the trabectedin + PLD arm (HR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.69–0.98; p = 0.0285). In another unplanned exploratory analysis, the subset of patients with a PFI of 6–12 months had the largest difference in OS (HR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.47–0.86; p = 0.0027).ConclusionsThe final OS analysis did not meet the protocol-defined criterion for statistical significance. Despite stratification on platinum sensitivity, there was an imbalance in mean platinum free interval that had an effect on OS.     

Long-term results of a randomised phase III trial of weekly versus three-weekly paclitaxel/platinum induction therapy followed by standard or extended three-weekly paclitaxel/platinum in European patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

BackgroundWeekly paclitaxel/carboplatin might improve survival in platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). We compared efficacy of first-line weekly to three-weekly paclitaxel/cis- or carboplatin (PCw and PC3w) induction therapy, followed by either three or six PC3w cycles.Patients and methodsIn this multicentre, randomised phase III trial with 2×2 design, patients with FIGO stage IIb–IV EOC were randomised to six cycles PCw (paclitaxel 90 mg/m², cisplatin 70 mg/m² or carboplatin AUC 4) or three cycles PC3w (paclitaxel 175 mg/m², cisplatin 75 mg/m² or carboplatin AUC 6), followed by either three or six cycles PC3w. Primary endpoints were progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were response rate (RR) and toxicity.ResultsOf 267 eligible patients, 133 received PCw and 134 PC3w. The first 105 patients received cisplatin, after protocol amendment the subsequent 162 patients received carboplatin. Weekly cisplatin was less well tolerated than weekly carboplatin. All PC3w cycles were well tolerated. At the end of all treatments, RR was 90.8% with no differences between the treatment arms. After a follow-up of median 10.3 years (range 7.1–14.8), median PFS was 18.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.9–21.0) months for PCw and 16.4 (95% CI 13.5–19.2) months for PC3w (p = 0.78). Median OS was 44.8 (95% CI 33.1–56.5) months for PCw and 41.1 (95% CI 34.4–47.7) months for PC3w (p = 0.98).ConclusionsThere was no benefit in terms of OS, PFS or RR for a weekly regimen nor for extended chemotherapy as first-line treatment for EOC in European patients.     

Randomised trial of sequential versus concurrent chemo-radiotherapy in patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (EORTC 08972-22973)

A randomised phase III study was performed comparing sequential (S) and concurrent (C) chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.MethodsOne hundred and fifty-eight patients were randomised to receive two courses of Gemcitabine (1250 mg/m² days 1, 8) and Cisplatin (75 mg/m² day 2) prior to, or daily low-dose Cisplatin (6 mg/m²) concurrent with radiotherapy, consisting of 24 fractions of 2.75 Gy in 32 days, with a total dose of 66 Gy.ResultsAcute haematological toxicity grade 3/4 was more pronounced in the sequential (S) (30% versus 6%), oesophagitis grade 3/4 more frequent in the concurrent (C) arm (5% versus 14%). Late oesophagitis grade 3 was 4% (S and C), pneumonitis grade 3/4 14% (S) and 18% (C). Because of the poor power of the study no significant differences in median survival (MS), overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) could be detected. MS was 16.2 (S) and 16.5 (C) months, 2-year OS was 34% (S) and 39% (C), 3-year OS was 22% (S) and 34% (C).ConclusionRadiotherapy 66 Gy given concurrently with daily low-dose Cisplatin or after two courses of Gemcitabine/Cisplatin was well tolerated. Due to early closure no conclusions can be reached on the relative merits; both arms showed good OS.     

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

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

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     

What is the clinical benefit of preoperative chemoradiotherapy with 5FU/leucovorin for T3-4 rectal cancer in a pooled analysis of EORTC 22921 and FFCD 9203 trials: Surrogacy in question?

BackgroundTwo phase III trials of neoadjuvant treatment in T3-4 rectal cancer established that adding chemotherapy (CRT) to radiotherapy (RT) improves pathological complete response (pCR) and local control (LC). We combined trials to assess the clinical benefit of CRT on overall (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) and to explore the surrogacy of pCR and LC.Patients and methodsIndividual patient data from European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 22921 (1011 patients) and FFCD 9203 (756 patients) were pooled. Meta-analysis methodology was used to compare neoadjuvant CRT to RT for OS, PFS LC and distant progression (DP). Weighted linear regression was used to estimate trial-level association (surrogacy R²) between treatment effects on candidate surrogate (pCR, LC, DP) and OS.ResultsThe median follow-up was 5.6 years. Compared to RT (881 pts), CRT (886 pts) did not prolong OS, DP or PFS. The 5-y OS-rate was 66.3% with CRT versus 65.9% in RT (hazard ratios (HR) = 1.04 {0.88–1.21}). CRT significantly improved LC (HR = 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.41–0.72). PFS was validated as surrogate for OS with R² = 0.88. Neoadjuvant treatment effects on LC (R² = 0.17) or DP (R² = 0.31) did not predict effects on OS.ConclusionPreoperative CRT does not prolong OS or PFS. pCR or LC do not qualify as surrogate for PFS or OS while PFS is surrogate. Phase III trials should use OS or PFS as primary endpoint.     

Paclitaxel and bevacizumab with or without capecitabine as first-line treatment for HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer: A multicentre,open-label,randomised phase 2 trial

BackgroundThe addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel or capecitabine has demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) as compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (LR/MBC). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line therapy of paclitaxel and bevacizumab with or without capecitabine in patients with HER2-negative LR/MBC.MethodsIn this multicentre, open-label, randomised phase II trial, women with HER2-negative LR/MBC were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to paclitaxel (90 mg/m² intravenously [IV] on days 1, 8, and 15) and bevacizumab (10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 15) every 4 weeks for six cycles, followed by bevacizumab (15 mg/kg IV on day 1) every 3 weeks (AT) or to paclitaxel (90 mg/m² IV on days 1 and 8), bevacizumab (15 mg/kg IV on day 1) and capecitabine (825 mg/m² orally twice daily on days 1–14) every 3 weeks for eight cycles, followed by bevacizumab and capecitabine at the same doses every 3 weeks (ATX). The primary end-point was investigator-assessed PFS. Secondary end-points included ORR, duration of response, overall survival (OS) and safety. Exploratory analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact of capecitabine on OS and to validate a novel prognostic model. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2006-006058-83.FindingsMedian PFS was significantly longer in ATX as compared with AT (11.2 months versus 8.4 months; stratified hazard ratio (HR), 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.41–0.67; p < 0.0001). The ORR in ATX patients with measurable disease (n = 268) was higher than that in AT (69% versus 51%; p = 0.01). The median duration of response was 6.8 versus 5.4 months for, respectively, ATX and AT (p < 0.0001). Median OS was 24.2 months for ATX and 23.1 months for AT (p = 0.53). The increased rate of grade 3–4 adverse events related to the addition of capecitabine, being hand-foot syndrome (34% versus 0% for AT) and neutropenia (20% versus 12% for AT), generally did not preclude continuation of treatment. Exploratory analyses indicated that 1) patients receiving capecitabine at some line for treatment have significantly improved OS and 2) a prognostic model can classify patients into three risk groups associated with OS.InterpretationIn patients with HER2-negative LR/MBC, addition of capecitabine to paclitaxel and bevacizumab significantly improved PFS, ORR and response duration. This combination was reasonably well tolerated and may be considered of use as first-line treatment in rapidly progressive disease.FundingF. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, the Netherlands.     

To predict progression-free survival and overall survival in metastatic renal cancer treated with sorafenib: pilot study using dynamic contrast-enhanced Doppler ultrasound

IntroductionThe objective of this study was to evaluate dynamic contrast-enhanced Doppler ultrasound (DCE-US) with perfusion software (Vascular Recognition Imaging) and contrast agent injection as a predictor of tumour response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).Patients and methodsThirty patients with a metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) already enrolled in a double-blind randomised study were evaluated. Examinations were performed at baseline, and after 3 and 6 weeks on sorafenib or a placebo in patients with tumour targets that were accessible to DCE-US.ResultsA total of 85 examinations were performed, 30 at baseline, 28 at 3 weeks and 27 at 6 weeks. The combination of a decrease in contrast uptake exceeding 10% and stability or a decrease in tumour volume allowed us to discriminate seven good responders and 20 poor responders at 3 weeks. There was a statistically significant difference in PFS (p = 10⁻⁴) and OS (p = 10⁻⁴) between good and poor responders.ConclusionDCE-US is a new noninvasive imaging technique which might be an effective tool for evaluating antiangiogenic drugs in renal cancer.     

Gemcitabine and split-dose paclitaxel or docetaxel in metastatic breast cancer: a randomised phase II study

PurposeThe purpose was to evaluate the activity and toxicity of split-dose paclitaxel or docetaxel in combination with gemcitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who had previously received anthracyclines.Patients and methodsA total of 210 patients were randomly assigned to one of three treatment arms: gemcitabine 1250 mg/m² Days 1 and 8 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m² as a 3-h infusion on Day 1 (GP1); gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² Days 1 and 8 and paclitaxel 100 mg/m² as a 1-h infusion on Days 1 and 8 (GP2); gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² Days 1 and 8 and docetaxel 40 mg/m² as a 1-h infusion on Days 1 and 8 (GD). Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks.ResultsFor the 204 patients evaluable for response assessment, the response rates were 48.6% for GP1, 52.2% for GP2, and 52.3% for GD. Median response duration, time to treatment failure, and time to progression (TTP) were similar in each arm. Median TTP for GP1, GP2 and GD was 7.5, 7.0 and 7.4 months, respectively. For the 208 patients evaluable for safety, the most common grade 3/4 toxicity for each regimen was neutropaenia, with 64%, 57%, and 68% for GP1, GP2, and GD, respectively. Grade 4 neutropaenia, grade 3/4 anaemia, febrile neutropaenia, and diarrhoea were more common in the docetaxel arm, as was the use of intravenous antibiotics and blood transfusions.ConclusionThe study confirmed the high activity of gemcitabine–taxane combinations in MBC. Split-dose paclitaxel had similar activity and toxicity to the 3-weekly administration. The split-dose docetaxel regimen had similar activity to the paclitaxel combinations though associated with higher toxicity.     

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.     

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.     

Cisplatin alone or combined with gemcitabine in carcinomas of unknown primary: results of the randomised GEFCAPI 02 trial

PurposeTo compare the overall survival rates of good-prognosis carcinomas of an unknown primary site (CUPS) patients treated with cisplatin alone (C) or in combination with gemcitabine (CG).Patients and methodsGood prognosis was defined according to the GEFCAPI (Groupe d’Etude Français des Carcinomes de site Primitif Inconnu) classification by PS (Performance Status) ⩽1 and LDH (Lactate Deshydrogenase) within the normal range. Patients were randomly assigned to receive C or CG. Patients in the C arm received cisplatin 100 mg/m² repeated every 3 weeks. In the CG arm, chemotherapy consisted of gemcitabine 1250 mg/m² on days 1 and 8 and cisplatin 100 mg/m² IV on day 1, repeated every 3 weeks. The original plan was to accrue 192 patients in order to detect a 20% difference in overall survival.ResultsFifty-two patients were enrolled (arm A: 25; arm B: 27). The trial was stopped early due to insufficient accrual. The median overall survival (OS) rate was 11 months [95% confidence interval: 9–20] and 8 months [95% CI: 6–12], in the CG arm and in the C arm, respectively. The 1-year survival rate was 46% [95% CI: 28–64] in the combination arm and 35% [95% CI: 19–56] in the C arm (log rank test: p = 0.73). The median progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 5 [95% CI: 3–11] and 3 [95% CI: 1–8] months in the CG and in the C arm, respectively. The 1-year PFS rate was 29% [95% CI: 15–48] in the combination arm and 15% [95% CI: 5–35] in the C arm (log rank test: p = 0.27). No toxic deaths occurred. Grade 3–4 neutropenia (63% versus 12%) and grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia (37% versus 4%) were more frequent in the CG arm than in the C arm.ConclusionA non-significantly better outcome was observed with CG as compared to C in patients with CUP and a non-unfavourable prognosis. The toxicity profile of the combined arm was represented by haematologic toxicity with thrombocytopenia and leuconeutropenia. International collaboration is required to conduct phase III trials in patients with CUP.     

Adjuvant dibromodulcitol and BCNU chemotherapy in anaplastic astrocytoma: results of a randomised European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer phase III study (EORTC study 26882)

BackgroundIn a previous randomised EORTC study on adjuvant dibromodulcitol (DBD) and bichloroethylnitrosourea (BCNU) in adults with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and anaplastic astrocytoma (AA), a clinically significant trend towards a longer overall survival (OS) and a progression-free survival (PFS) was observed in the subgroup of AA. The aim of the present study was to test this adjuvant regimen in a larger number of AA patients.MethodsContinuation of the previous phase III trial for newly diagnosed AA according to the local pathologist. Patients were randomised to either radiotherapy only or to radiotherapy in combination with BCNU on day 2 and weekly DBD, followed by adjuvant DBD and BCNU in cycles of six weeks for a maximum total treatment duration of one year. OS was the primary end-point.ResultsPatients (193 ) with newly diagnosed AA according to local pathological assessment were randomised to radiotherapy (RT) alone (n = 99), or to RT plus DBD/BCNU (n = 94); 12 patients were considered not eligible. At central pathology review, over half (53%) of the locally diagnosed AA cases could not be confirmed. On intent-to-treat analysis, no statistically significant differences in OS (p = 0.111) and PFS (p = 0.087) were observed, median OS after RT was only 23.9 months 95% confidence interval (CI), [18.4–34.0] after RT plus DBD/BCNU 27.3 months 95% CI [21.4–46.8].ConclusionNo statistically significant improvement in survival was observed after BCNU/DBD adjuvant chemotherapy in AA patients. The trend towards improved survival is consistent with previous reports. Central pathology review of grade 3 tumours remains crucial.     

Carboplatin and paclitaxel versus cisplatin, paclitaxel and doxorubicin for first-line chemotherapy of advanced ovarian cancer: a Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group (HeCOG) study

IntroductionThe combination of Carboplatin and Paclitaxel is considered the standard of care as initial chemotherapy for Advanced Ovarian Cancer (AOC). We compared this regimen with the combination of Cisplatin, Paclitaxel and Doxorubicin.Patients and methodsPatients with AOC were randomised to either six courses of Paclitaxel 175 mg/m² plus Carboplatin 7AUC or Paclitaxel at the same dose plus Cisplatin 75 mg/m² plus Doxorubicin 40 mg/m².ResultsAnalysis was performed on 451 patients. The treatment groups were well balanced with regard to patient and disease characteristics. Performance status (PS) was better in the anthracycline arm. In terms of severe toxicity, the only significant difference between the two groups was the development of febrile neutropaenia in the anthracycline arm. Overall response rate was similar in both groups. With a median follow-up of 57.5 months, a marginal significance towards improved Progression-Free Survival (PFS) was noted in favour of the anthracycline arm, whilst there was no difference in overall survival. In multivariate analysis the hazard of disease progression at any time was significantly decreased by 25.5% for patients of the anthracycline arm.ConclusionThe combination of Cisplatin, Paclitaxel and Doxorubicin demonstrates a marginal PFS improvement, but no additional survival benefit when compared with the standard Carboplatin/Paclitaxel regimen.     

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.     

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.     

A phase 2 randomised study of ramucirumab (IMC-1121B) with or without dacarbazine in patients with metastatic melanoma

BackgroundTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of ramucirumab (IMC-1121B; LY3009806), a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2, alone and in combination with dacarbazine in chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic melanoma (MM).MethodsEligible patients received ramucirumab (10 mg/kg) + dacarbazine (1000 mg/m²) (Arm A) or ramucirumab only (10 mg/kg) (Arm B) every 3 weeks. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end-points included overall survival (OS), overall response and safety.FindingsOf 106 randomised patients, 102 received study treatment (Arm A, N = 52; Arm B, N = 50). Baseline characteristics were similar in both arms. Median PFS was 2.6 months (Arm A) and 1.7 months (Arm B); median 6-month PFS rates were 30.7% and 17.9% and 12-month PFS rates were 23.7% and 15.6%, respectively. In Arm A, 9 (17.3%) patients had partial response (PR) and 19 (36.5%), stable disease (SD); PR and SD in Arm B were 2 (4.0%) and 21 (42.0%), respectively. Median OS was 8.7 months in Arm A and 11.1 months in Arm B. Patients in both arms tolerated the treatment with limited Grade 3/4 toxicities.InterpretationRamucirumab alone or in combination with dacarbazine was associated with an acceptable safety profile in patients with MM. Although the study was not powered for comparison between treatment arms, PFS appeared greater with combination therapy. Sustained disease control was observed on both study arm.     

Evaluation of paclitaxel/carboplatin in a dose dense or weekly regimen in 66 patients with recurrent or primary metastatic cervical cancer

Background and aimsTo evaluate paclitaxel/carboplatin in a dose dense (TCdd) and weekly (TCw) regimen in recurrent or primary metastatic cervical cancer.MethodsSix courses of paclitaxel (90 mg/m²) and carboplatin (area under the curve (AUC) 4) were administered on d1, d8 q3 wks in TCdd. Eighteen courses of paclitaxel (60 mg/m²) and carboplatin (AUC 2.7) were administered weekly in TCw. Response rates were determined using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) 1.1 criteria. Toxicity was evaluated according to the National Cancer Institute-Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI-CTC) Criteria.ResultsSixty-six patients were included (44 TCdd and 22 TCw). TCdd and TCw were administered as first-line chemotherapy in 48% and 41%, second-line in 43% and 18%, and third/fourth-line in 9% and 41%, respectively. Response (confirmed or unconfirmed) was observed in 58% and 36% for TCdd and TCw, respectively. As first-line, the response rates for TCdd and TCw were the same (55%). As second or more line, the response rates for TCdd and TCw were 61% and 29%, respectively. In patients, receiving TCdd as first-line systemic treatment, median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was 10 and 5 months. As first-line, the median OS for TCw also was 10 months (median PFS not reached). There was no statistical difference in PFS or OS between patients treated with TCw or TCdd. Grade 3–4 toxicity was mostly bone-marrow related and was more common with TCdd. Febrile neutropenia was observed in 0% and 12% of the patients treated with TCw and TCdd, respectively.ConclusionsCombination of paclitaxel and carboplatin in a dose dense regimen or weekly regimen resulted in favourable response rate and toxicity profile compared with cisplatin-based combination regimens. TCdd appears to be more toxic than TCw, but resulted in higher response rates than TCw in patients with recurrent metastatic cervical cancer who received prior chemotherapy.     

A randomised,open-label phase II trial of afatinib versus cetuximab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

PurposeThis randomised phase II trial aimed to compare efficacy of the irreversible ErbB family blocker, afatinib, with cetuximab in patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma (mCRC) with progression following oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based regimens. Efficacy in patients with KRAS mutations was also evaluated.Patients and methodsPatients with KRAS wild-type tumours were randomised 2:1 to afatinib (40 mg/day, increasing to 50 mg/day if minimal toxicity) or cetuximab weekly (400 mg/m² loading dose, then 250 mg/m²/week) according to number of previous chemotherapy lines. All patients with KRAS-mutated tumours received afatinib. Primary end-points were objective response (OR) for the wild-type group and disease control for the KRAS-mutated group. Secondary end-points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).ResultsPatients with KRAS wild-type tumours (n = 50) received afatinib (n = 36) or cetuximab (n = 14). Unconfirmed and confirmed ORs were 3% and 0% for afatinib versus 20% and 13% for cetuximab (odds ratio: 0.122 [P = 0.0735] and <0.001, respectively). Median PFS was 46.0 and 144.5 days for afatinib and cetuximab, respectively. Median OS was 355 days with afatinib but not reached for cetuximab. In the KRAS-mutated group (n = 41), five (12%) patients achieved confirmed disease control (stable disease; P = 0.6394 [comparison versus 10%]); no ORs were reported. Median PFS and OS were 41.0 and 173 days, respectively. Most frequent treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea and rash across groups.ConclusionsThe efficacy of afatinib was inferior to cetuximab in patients with KRAS wild-type mCRC. In patients with KRAS-mutated tumours, disease control was modest with afatinib. Afatinib had a manageable safety profile.     

Randomized multicenter phase II trial of cisplatin and ifosfamide with or without paclitaxel in recurrent or metastatic carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group (HeCOG) study

BackgroundWe undertook a randomized phase II trial to test whether the addition of paclitaxel (Taxol) to the cisplatin and ifosfamide (IP) combination could improve objective response (OR) rate, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with recurrent or metastatic cancer of the uterine cervix.Patients and methodsOne hundred and fifty-three patients were randomly allocated to receive either the IP regimen (ifosfamide 1.5 g/m², daily, on days 1–3 and cisplatin 70 mg/m² on day 2) or the same combination with the addition of paclitaxel 175 mg/m² on day 1 [ifosfamide, paclitaxel and cisplatinum (ITP) regimen]. Cycles were administered every 4 weeks on an outpatient basis.ResultsA modest increase in neurotoxicity was observed with the triplet combination. OR rate was significantly higher in the ITP group (59% versus 33%, P = 0.002). Median PFS was 7.9 and 6.3 months for patients in the ITP and IP arms, respectively (P = 0.023). Median OS was 15.4 months and 13.2 months in the ITP and IP arms, respectively (P = 0.048). In multivariate analysis, the triplet yielded a hazard ratio of 0.70 for relapse or progression (P = 0.046) and 0.75 for death (P = 0.124) compared with the doublet.ConclusionThe ITP combination merits further investigation in randomized phase III studies.