Phase II study of pemetrexed in combination with cisplatin and cetuximab in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

PurposePlatinum/5-fluorouracil plus cetuximab is a standard systemic treatment for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). Pemetrexed has shown activity in SCCHN. This phase II study evaluated pemetrexed with cisplatin and cetuximab in recurrent/metastatic SCCHN.MethodsPatients received cetuximab 250 mg/m² (loading dose: 400 mg/m²) days 1, 8 and 15; pemetrexed 500 mg/m² + cisplatin 75 mg/m² on day 1, q3w up to six cycles and folic acid, vitamin B₁₂ and prophylactic medications. After a minimum of four cycles, responding patients were eligible for maintenance with pemetrexed and cetuximab, or either as monotherapy, until progression or toxicity. Efficacy (primary end-point: progression-free survival [PFS]) and toxicity were evaluated.ResultsSixty-six patients received ?1 cycle of the triplet. Most patients were male (80.3%), with a median age of 62 years and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1 (71.2%). Diagnoses included oropharynx (45.5%) and larynx (24.2%) cancers, with locoregional disease (51.5%) alone, or combined with distant metastases (48.5%). Median (m) PFS was 4.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.6, 5.4); median overall survival was 9.7 months (95% CI: 6.5, 13.1). Objective response rate was 29.3%; 23 patients had stable disease (39.7%). Drug-related grade 3/4 toxicities included neutropaenia (33.3%), fatigue (24.2%), anorexia (12.1%) and infection (10.6%). Five treatment-related deaths (7.6%) occurred.ConclusionsEfficacy results were consistent with current standard treatment for this patient population, but the pre-specified mPFS of 5.5 months was not achieved. Grade 3/4 toxicities were also consistent with standard treatment, although treatment-related deaths were higher than expected.     

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

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

A 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.     

Cetuximab,gemcitabine and capecitabine in patients with inoperable biliary tract cancer: A phase 2 study

PurposeBiliary tract cancer is rare and has dismal prognosis. Chemotherapy has its role in inoperable disease but the role of targeted agents like cetuximab remains to be defined. On the basis of high epidermal growth factor receptor expression of biliary tract cancers this study aims to investigate the efficacy of cetuximab, gemcitabine and capecitabine in an exploratory phase 2 trial.Patients and methodsInoperable biliary tract cancer patients were treated with the combination of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m² on day 1 and 8), capecitabine (1300 mg/m²/d on day 1–14) and weekly cetuximab (400 mg/m² loading and 250 mg/m² maintenance dose) in 21-d cycles until progression or the appearance of intolerable side-effects.ResultsOut of 34 patients (mean age 59.7 years) accrued in this study 16 had intrahepatic, eight extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and 10 gall bladder cancer. The best overall response rate was 17.6% (two complete responses and four partial responses) and the clinical benefit rate was 76.5%. After a median of 15.4 months follow-up the median progression free survival was 34.3 weeks and the median overall survival was 62.8 weeks. The performance status and chemotherapy efficacy were independent and significant markers of survival. Only moderate side-effects were registered in this study. KRAS mutation was evaluable in 24 tumours, all of these were of wild type.ConclusionThe efficacy of cetuximab, gemcitabine and capecitabine combination is encouraging and a well tolerated treatment of inoperable biliary tract cancers.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Effective local control of advanced soft tissue sarcoma with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery: A single institutional experience

PurposeThere is a sound theoretical basis but little clinical evidence substantiating the benefits of concurrent chemoradiotherapy with two-drug chemotherapy for locally advanced soft tissue sarcomas. Our five-year data on the feasibility and effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with systemically effective doses of adriamycin and ifosfamide combined is presented here.Patients and methodsBetween 2000 and 2011, 53 patients with UICC (2010) stage I (n = 1, 1.9%), II (n = 12, 22.7%) or III (n = 40, 75.5%) nonmetastatic soft tissue sarcoma received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with ifosfamide (1.5 g/m²/day, d1–5, q28) and doxorubicin (50 mg/m²/day, d3, q28) plus concurrent radiotherapy with a target dose of 50–64 Gy (median 60 Gy). The treatment of 34 patients (64.2%) was combined with hyperthermia.ResultsAt five years, the local control rate was 89.9% (± 5.7%), distant metastasis-free survival 66.6% (± 7.6%), and survival 83.3% (± 6%). The R0 resection rate was 81.1%. Radiotherapy was completed as planned in all patients and chemotherapy in 42/53 (70.2%). Grades III (n = 21, 29.6%) and IV (n = 18, 34%) leukopenia was the main acute adverse event. All acute and chronic non-hematologic toxicities were moderate.ConclusionNeoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for soft tissue sarcoma is associated with good feasibility, manageable acute and late toxicities, and high local efficacy.     

Randomised phase III trial of second-line irinotecan plus cisplatin versus irinotecan alone in patients with advanced gastric cancer refractory to S-1 monotherapy: TRICS trial

AimThe optimal second-line regimen for treating advanced gastric cancer (AGC) remains unclear. While irinotecan (CPT-11) plus cisplatin (CDDP) combination therapy and CPT-11 monotherapy have been explored in the second-line setting, the superiority of second-line platinum-based therapies for AGC patients initially treated with S-1 monotherapy has not yet been evaluated; therefore, we aimed to examine the survival benefit of CPT-11/CDDP combination over CPT-11 monotherapy.MethodsAGC patients showing progression after S-1 monotherapy for advanced cancer or recurrence within 6 months after completion of S-1 adjuvant therapy were randomly allocated to CPT-11/CDDP (CPT-11, 60 mg/m²; CDDP, 30 mg/m², q2w) or CPT-11 (150 mg/m², q2w).ResultsSixty-eight advanced and 95 recurrent cases were evaluated. The median overall survivals were 13.9 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.8–17.6) and 12.7 (95% CI: 10.3–17.2) months for CPT-11/CDDP and CPT-11, respectively (hazard ratio: 0.834; 95% CI: 0.596–1.167, P = 0.288). No significant differences were observed in the secondary end-points, including progression-free survival (4.6 [95% CI: 3.4–5.9] versus 4.1 [95% CI: 3.3–4.9] months) and response rate (16.9% [95% CI: 8.8–28.3] versus 15.4% [95% CI: 7.6–26.5]). The incidences of grade 3–4 anaemia (16% versus 4%) and elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase levels (5% versus 0%) were higher for CPT-11/CDDP than for CPT-11. Exploratory subgroup analysis revealed that CPT-11/CDDP was significantly more effective for intestinal-type AGC, compared with CPT-11 (overall survival: 15.8 versus 14.0 months; P = 0.019).ConclusionNo survival benefit was observed upon adding CDDP to CPT-11 after S-1 monotherapy failure.     

Multicentre phase II trial of capecitabine and oxaliplatin in combination with radiotherapy for unresectable colorectal cancer: The CORGI-L study

AimsThis study assessed radiotherapy combined with capecitabine and oxaliplatin in patients with primary, inextirpable colorectal adenocarcinoma.Patients and methodsForty-nine patients entered the trial. Two cycles of XELOX (capecitabine 1000 mg/m² bid d1-14 + oxaliplatin 130 mg/m² d1, q3w) were followed by radiotherapy (50.4 Gy), combined with capecitabine 825 mg/m² bid every radiotherapy day and oxaliplatin 60 mg/m² once weekly. The primary end-point was objective response.ResultsForty-seven patients were evaluable. Twenty-nine (62% [95% CI: 46–75%]) achieved complete or partial response. Thirty-eight (81%) went through surgery of whom 37 (97%) had an R0 resection and five (13%) had a pathological complete response. Seventy-eight percent were alive and estimated local progression rate was 11% at 2 years. The most common grade 3+ toxicity during chemoradiotherapy was diarrhoea (24%).ConclusionsXELOX-RT was feasible and showed promising efficacy when treating patients with primary inextirpable colorectal cancer, establishing high local control rate.     

A randomised,double-blind,phase II study of two doses of pemetrexed in the treatment of platinum-resistant,epithelial ovarian or primary peritoneal cancer

PurposeWe conducted a randomised phase II study to assess the safety and efficacy of standard versus high-dose pemetrexed in platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (PR-EOC). The expression of ten genes was also examined as potential biomarkers of pemetrexed/platinum activity.Patients and methodsPatients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m² (Pem500) or 900 mg/m² (Pem900) on day 1 of each 21-d cycle. Responses were defined per RECIST for measurable disease or by Gynaecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) CA-125 criteria for non-measurable disease.ResultsOf 102 patients randomised, 98 were evaluable for toxicity (47 Pem500, 51 Pem900) and 91 were evaluable for efficacy (43 Pem500, 48 Pem900) of whom 68 had measurable disease and 23 had CA-125-defined disease. The overall RR was 9.3% (95% CI: 2.6–22.1%) on Pem500 and 10.4% (95% CI: 3.5–22.7%) on Pem900. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.8 months on both arms, and the median survival was 11.9 and 10.3 months, respectively. Lower mRNA expression of excision repair cross-complementation group 1 (ERCC1) and reduced folate carrier 1 (RFC1) were associated with longer PFS and time to treatment failure, respectively. Grade 3/4 toxicities, including fatigue, nausea and vomiting, were numerically greater on Pem900. Pemetrexed-related SAEs occurred in 17% and 28% of Pem500 and Pem900 patients, respectively.ConclusionsPemetrexed has activity in PR-EOC equivalent to other agents in platinum-resistant disease; however, Pem500 has the preferable toxicity profile. ERCC1 and RFC1 may merit examination as predictive biomarkers in PR-EOC.     

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.     

A randomised phase III trial of the pharmacokinetic biomodulation of irinotecan using oral ciclosporin in advanced colorectal cancer: Results of the Panitumumab,Irinotecan & Ciclosporin in COLOrectal cancer therapy trial (PICCOLO)

BackgroundThe main toxicity of irinotecan in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) is delayed diarrhoea. Intestinal SN-38, released by deconjugation of the parent glucuronide excreted into the bile or produced in situ by intestinal carboxylesterase, is toxic to the intestinal epithelium. The canalicular transport of irinotecan and SN-38G is mediated by ABCC2 (MRP2) and ABCB1 (MDR1) which are both inhibited by ciclosporin. We tested whether irinotecan and ciclosporin was non-inferior for anti-cancer efficacy and superior for toxicity compared with single-agent irinotecan.MethodsSix hundred and seventy-two patients with advanced, measurable CRC following prior fluoropyrimidine-containing chemotherapy were randomised to either irinotecan 3-weekly 350 mg/m² (or 300 mg/m² if age >70 or performance status (PS) = 2) or 3-weekly irinotecan at 140 mg/m² (120 mg/m² if age >70 or PS = 2) with ciclosporin 3 mg/kg t.d.s. for three days by mouth starting on the morning before irinotecan. The primary end-point was the proportion of patients alive and progression-free at 12 weeks. The key secondary end-point was the incidence of grade ?3 diarrhoea within 12 weeks of randomisation.ResultsThe proportion of patients progression-free at 12 weeks with irinotecan was 53.4% compared to 47.2% with irinotecan plus ciclosporin (difference = ?6.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) [?13.8%, 1.3%]). Since the lower limit of the 95% CI crossed the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of ?10.6%, non-inferiority of irinotecan plus ciclosporin compared to irinotecan alone was not statistically demonstrated. 15.0% patients developed severe diarrhoea on irinotecan compared to 13.8% on irinotecan plus ciclosporin, a non-significant difference.InterpretationThe pharmacokinetic biomodulation of irinotecan using oral ciclosporin does not improve the therapeutic index of irinotecan in advanced CRC.FundingThe trial was funded by Cancer Research UK and supported by Amgen Pharma.     

Feasibility of preoperative and postoperative chemoradiotherapy in gastric adenocarcinoma. Two phase II studies done in parallel. Fédération Francophone de Cancérologie Digestive 0308

BackgroundFor resectable gastric cancer, both postoperative chemoradiotherapy and perioperative chemotherapy demonstrate high-level evidence for improved survival in Western populations. To evaluate the feasibility of pre- or postoperative chemoradiotherapy, we proposed two multicentre phase II studies.Patients and methodsPatients with localised, histologically confirmed gastric cancer and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status <2 judged suitable for curative resection were eligible. Eligible patients were assigned to either preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical resection or surgical resection followed by chemoradiotherapy depending on each centre. Chemoradiotherapy regimen included four courses of FOLFIRI (5 Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, Irinotecan) regimen then Concurrent fluorouracil at 200 mg/m²/d by continuous infusion 5 days each week. A dose of 50 Gy in 25 fractions in the preoperative study, or 45 Gy in 25 fractions in the postoperative study, was delivered. The primary end-point for both studies was the proportion of patients, who completed the therapeutic sequence.ResultsBetween September 2007 and January 2010, 63 patients were included in both studies. The postoperative study was stopped for futility at the first step. In the preoperative study, 31 patients (73.8%, confidence interval (CI) 95%: 65.8–90.1%) received complete therapeutic sequence. Serum albumin and dietary restriction evaluated by QLQ-STO22 (Quality of Life-Stomach module) score were significantly linked with chemoradiotherapy feasibility in univariate analysis with respectively Odds-ratio (OR) 1.16 [CI 95%: 1.01–1.33] and 0.17 [0.03–0.89], p = 0.04. Median overall survival time was 26.4 months in the preoperative study.ConclusionFeasibility of chemoradiotherapy was not achieved for these studies: 73.8% (CI 95%: 65.8–90.1) and 42.9% (CI 95%: 21.8–66%) in preoperative and postoperative settings respectively.     

A phase II study of cetuximab and radiation in elderly and/or poor performance status patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (N0422)

Background: Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a disease of the elderly. Seeking a tolerable but effective regimen, we tested cetuximab + radiation in elderly and/or poor performance status patients with locally advanced NSCLC.Patients and methods: Older patients [≥65 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0, 1, or 2] or younger patients (performance status of 2) received cetuximab 400 mg/m² i.v. on day 1 followed by weekly cetuximab 250 mg/m² i.v. with concomitant radiation of 6000 cGy in 30 fractions. The primary end point was the percentage who lived 11+ months.Results: This 57-patient cohort had a median age (range) of 77 years (60–87), and 12 (21%) had a performance status of 2. Forty of 57 (70%) lived 11+ months, thus exceeding the anticipated survival rate of 50%. The median survival was 15.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 13.1–19.3 months], and the median time to cancer progression was 7.2 months (95% CI 5.8–8.6 months). No treatment-related deaths occurred, but 31 patients experienced grade 3+ adverse events, most commonly fatigue, anorexia, dyspnea, rash, and dysphagia, each of which occurred in <10% of patients.Conclusion: This combination merits further study in this group of patients.     

Randomized phase II study of two intercalated combinations of eribulin mesylate and erlotinib in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

BackgroundThis phase II, open-label study investigated intercalated combinations of eribulin and erlotinib in unselected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapies.Patients and methodsEligible patients were randomized to eribulin mesylate 2.0 mg/m² on day 1 with erlotinib 150 mg on days 2–16 (21-day regimen) or eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg/m² on days 1 and 8 with erlotinib 150 mg on days 15–28 (28-day regimen). The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR).ResultsOne hundred and twenty-three patients received ≥1 cycle of therapy (63, 21-day regimen; 60, 28-day regimen). ORRs were 13% [95% confidence interval (CI) 6%–24%] and 17% (95% CI 8%–29%), and disease control rates were 48% (95% CI 35%–61%) and 63% (95% CI 50%–75%) for the 21- and 28-day regimens, respectively. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were similar with both regimens. Both regimens were well tolerated with common grade ≥3 toxicities being neutropenia, asthenia/fatigue, and dyspnoea. Sequential administration of erlotinib did not interfere with the pharmacokinetic profile of eribulin.ConclusionIntercalated combination of eribulin and erlotinib demonstrated modest activity and the addition of erlotinib did not appear to improve treatment outcome in an unselected population. The 28-day regimen is suitable for further investigation.Clinicaltrials.gov identifierNCT01104155.     

Induction chemotherapy with docetaxel,cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil followed by radiotherapy with cetuximab for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

PurposeTo determine the efficacy and feasibility of induction chemotherapy (ICT) with docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil followed by radiotherapy and cetuximab (C) in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer.Patients and methodsForty-nine previously untreated patients with local advanced stage III and IV squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) received three courses of ICT consisting of docetaxel 75 mg/m² day 1, cisplatin 75 mg/m² day 1 and infusional 5-fluorouracil 750 mg/m²/day on days 1–5 followed by radiotherapy plus C at 250 mg/m²/week (after an initial loading dose of 400 mg/m²).ResultsAfter completion of ICT 44 of 49 patients received radiotherapy plus C. Three months after therapy completion tumour response was observed in 33 patients and after two years, 25 patients were in complete remission (CR). The most common grade 4 toxicity during the whole treatment period was dermatitis (30%), followed by mucositis (27%) and neutropenia (17%) without fever. One toxic related death was observed during ICT. Two-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 59% and two-year overall survival (OS) rate was 63%, respectively.ConclusionConcurrent radiotherapy plus C after three courses of ICT was feasible and was associated with promising CR, PFS and OS rates. Further optimisation of dose and sequence is warranted.     

Phase II study of first-line bortezomib and cisplatin in malignant pleural mesothelioma and prospective validation of progression free survival rate as a primary end-point for mesothelioma clinical trials (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 08052)

BackgroundThis was a prospective phase II study of cisplatin and bortezomib (CB) in the first line treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) with validation of progression free survival rate at 18 weeks (PFSR-18)¹ as primary end-point.MethodsChemotherapy-naïve patients with histologically proven MPM and performance status (PS) 0/1, were treated with cisplatin 75 mg/m² on day 1 and bortezomib 1.3 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8, 11 every 3 weeks. The primary end-point validation utilised the landmark method.ResultsBetween 2007 and 2010 82 patients were entered. PFSR-18 was 53% (80% confidence intervals, CIs, 42–64%). The overall survival (OS) was 13.5 months (95% CI 10.5–15) with 56% (95% CI 44–66%) alive at 1 year. The median PFS was 5.1 months (95% CI 3.3–6.5) and the response rate was 28.4% (95% CI 18.9–39.5%).The most frequent grade 3–4 toxicities were hyponatremia (46%), hypokalaemia (17%), fatigue (12.2%), thrombocytopenia (11%), neutropenia (9.7%) and neurotoxicity (motor, sensory, other: 1.2%, 8.5%, 2.4%). There were two toxic deaths (32 and 74 days) due to acute pneumonitis and cardiac arrest.End-point validation showed that patients with no progression/progression at 18 weeks had median OS of 16.9/11.9 months, respectively. Hazard ratio was 0.46 (CI 0.32–0.67), logrank test and C-index were 0.007 and 0.60.ConclusionThe 50% PFSR-18 for CB was contained within the 80% CI for (42–64%). Therefore the null hypothesis could not be rejected. Accordingly this combination does not warrant further investigation. PFSR-18 was confirmed as a strong predictor of survival.     

A randomized,phase II trial of two dose schedules of carboplatin/paclitaxel/cetuximab in stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

Background: This trial investigated the efficacy and safety of weekly cetuximab combined with two different schedules of paclitaxel/carboplatin for stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Methods: A total of 168 patients with previously untreated stage IIIB/IV NSCLC were randomized to arm A, cetuximab (400 mg/m² day 1 followed by weekly 250 mg/m²) + paclitaxel (Taxol) (225 mg/m²)/carboplatin (AUC6) day 1 every 3 weeks or arm B, same cetuximab regimen plus paclitaxel (100 mg/m²) days 1, 8, and 15 every 3 weeks and carboplatin (AUC6) day 1 every 4 weeks. Treatment continued for a four-cycle maximum. Patients with a complete response, partial response, or stable disease after four cycles could receive cetuximab 250 mg/m²/week until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS).Results: Median PFS was 4.7 and 4.3 months for arms A and B, respectively (6-month PFS, 27.3% versus 30.9%). Median overall survival was 11.4 versus 9.8 months for arms A and B, respectively; estimated 1-year survival, 47.7% versus 39.3%; and objective response rate, 29.6% versus 25%. The regimen was well tolerated with rash and hematologic toxicity being most common.Conclusions: This study did not meet the prespecified benchmark of 35% 6-month PFS rate; both combination schedules of cetuximab plus paclitaxel/carboplatin were feasible and equivalent for treating advanced NSCLC.     

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.