Promising results with exemestane in the first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer: a randomized phase II EORTC trial with a tamoxifen control

Because tamoxifen (TAM), a nonsteroidal antiestrogen, is routinely used in the adjuvant setting, other hormone therapies are needed as alternatives for first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Currently, exemestane (EXE) and other antiaromatase agents are indicated for use in patients who experience failure of TAM. In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, TAM-controlled (20 mg/day), phase II trial, we examined the activity and tolerability of EXE 25 mg/day for the first-line treatment of MBC in postmenopausal women. Exemestane was well tolerated and demonstrated substantial first-line antitumor activity based on intent-to-treat analysis of peer-reviewed responses. In the EXE arm, values for complete, partial, and objective response, clinical benefit, and time to tumor progression (TTP) exceeded those reported for TAM although no statistical comparison was made. Based on these encouraging results, a phase III trial will compare EXE and TAM.     

A GINECO randomized phase II trial of two capecitabine and weekly paclitaxel schedules in metastatic breast cancer

To determine whether capecitabine schedule adaptation improves the tolerability of capecitabine–paclitaxel combination therapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC), patients with anthracycline-pretreated HER2-negative MBC were randomized to either arm A (21-day cycles: capecitabine 1,000 mg/m² twice daily, days 1–14; paclitaxel 60 mg/m², days 1, 8, and 15) or arm B (28-day cycles: capecitabine 1,000 mg/m² twice daily, days 1–5, 8–12, and 15–19; paclitaxel 80 mg/m², days 1, 8, and 15). The primary endpoint was the incidence of dose reductions or delays >1 week for grade 3/4 toxicity. Secondary endpoints were efficacy and safety. All 130 randomized patients were evaluable for safety. Dose reduction or delay for grade 3/4 toxicity occurred in 39% of patients in arm A and 34% in arm B during cycles 1–6. In arm A, there were significantly more toxicity-related dose reductions (cycles 1–6: 82 vs. 67%, respectively; P = 0.05) and discontinuations (29 vs. 8%, respectively). Grade 3 diarrhea occurred in 12 and 0%, respectively, and grade 3 hand-foot syndrome in 12 versus 9%, respectively (grade 4 not applicable). There were no detectable differences in efficacy. Weekday capecitabine dosing with weekly paclitaxel may improve tolerability without a detrimental effect on efficacy, and merits further evaluation in patients suited to combination chemotherapy.     

A randomized phase II trial of capecitabine and two different schedules of irinotecan in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: efficacy, quality-of-life and toxicity.

BACKGROUND: To determine the efficacy, impact on quality-of-life (QoL) and tolerability of two different irinotecan administration schedules in combination with capecitabine as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We carried out a randomized phase II trial to select one of the following treatment regimens for further investigation: weekly irinotecan at a dose of 70 mg/m(2) days 1, 8, 15, 22, 29 (arm A) or 3-weekly irinotecan at a dose of 300/240 mg/m(2) day 1 and days 22 (arm B) in combination with capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily days 1-14 and days 22-35 every 6 weeks. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients with good performance status entered the trial. The two arms were well balanced for relevant patient and disease characteristics. The most frequent toxic effects were grade 3/4 diarrhea (arm A: 34%, B: 19%), grade 3/4 neutropenia (A: 5%, B: 19%) and grade 2/3 alopecia (A: 26%, B: 65%). Other grade 3/4 toxic effects were rare (<5%). Response rates were 34% [95% confidence interval (CI) 20% to 51%] in arm A and 35% (95% CI: 20% to 53%) in arm B. Median time to progression was 6.9 (4.6-10.1) and 9.2 (7.9-11.5) months and median overall survival was 17.4 (12.6-23.0+) and 24.7 (16.3-26.4+) months. Patients with an objective tumor response reported better physical well-being (P < 0.01), mood (P < 0.05), functional performance (P < 0.05) and less effort to cope (P < 0.05) compared with the non-responders and stable disease patients. CONCLUSIONS: The primary end point of this study was the objective response rate and based on the statistical design of the trial, the 3-weekly irinotecan schedule was selected over weekly irinotecan administration. The 3-weekly irinotecan schedule also seemed advantageous in terms of grade 3/4 diarrhea, time to progression, overall survival and patient convenience, but the study was not designed to detect differences in these parameters. In addition, tumor response was shown to have a beneficial effect on QoL indicators.     

Weekly docetaxel and gemcitabine as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer: results of a multicenter phase II study

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a multicenter phase II study to evaluate the clinical efficacy, toxicity, and dose intensity of a new weekly schedule of docetaxel and gemcitabine as first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer patients. METHODS: We enrolled 58 patients, 52% of whom had received a previous anthracycline-containing chemotherapy. The treatment schedule was: docetaxel 35 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 800 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1, 8, 15 every 28 days. RESULTS: All patients were assessable for toxicity and 56 for efficacy. Overall response rate was 64.3% with 16.1% of complete responses and 48.2% of partial responses. Median survival was 22.10 months (95% CI: 15.53-28.67) and median time to tumor progression was 13.6 months (95% CI: 10.71-16.49). The most common hematological toxicity was neutropenia (no febrile neutropenia), which occurred in 28 patients (48.3%) but grade 3-4 in only 8 patients (14%). Alopecia, the most common nonhematological toxicity, occurred in 20 (34.5%) patients, but only 5 patients (8.6%) experienced grade 3 alopecia. CONCLUSION: The activity of docetaxel and gemcitabine in metastatic breast cancer is confirmed. The promising results of the employed schedule, in agreement with other published studies, need to be further confirmed within a phase III study.     

A randomized, phase II, three-arm study of two schedules of ixabepilone or paclitaxel plus bevacizumab as first-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer

The aim of this phase II trial was to estimate the objective response rate (ORR) of two different schedules of ixabepilone [weekly or every 3 weeks (Q3W)] combined with bevacizumab, relative to a reference arm of weekly paclitaxel and bevacizumab. Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-normal, chemotherapy-naïve metastatic breast cancer (MBC) were randomized 3:3:2 to ixabepilone 16 mg/m² weekly plus bevacizumab 10 mg/kg Q2W (Arm A: n = 46); ixabepilone 40 mg/m² Q3W (reduced to 32 mg/m² after four cycles of treatment) plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg Q3W (Arm B: n = 45); or paclitaxel 90 mg/m² weekly plus bevacizumab 10 mg/kg intravenous infusion Q2W (Arm C: n = 32). Of 123 randomized patients, 122 were treated. All were followed for ≥19 months; 5 % of patients remained on study treatment at the time of this analysis. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was more common in Arm B (60 %) than Arms A (16 %) or C (22 %); other adverse events were similar. The investigator-assessed ORR was 48, 71, and 63 % for Arms A, B, and C, respectively. Median progression-free survival (randomized patients) was 9.6 months in Arm A, 11.9 months in Arm B, and 13.5 months in Arm C. In conclusion, ixabepilone Q3W plus bevacizumab has clinical activity as first-line therapy for MBC relative to paclitaxel plus bevacizumab, but with significantly greater risk of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia. In addition, these data suggest that weekly dosing of ixabepilone may be less active than Q3W dosing, but with less neutropenia.     

A randomized phase II study of paclitaxel and bevacizumab with and without gemcitabine as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer

Background

The addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel improved progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We examined the efficacy and safety of adding gemcitabine to paclitaxel/bevacizumab (PB).

Patients and Methods

In this multicenter, open-label, randomized phase II trial, women with locally advanced or MBC were randomly assigned to receive paclitaxel 90 mg/m² (days 1, 8, 15) and bevacizumab 10 mg/kg (days 1, 15) with or without gemcitabine 1500 mg/m² (days 1, 15) in 28-day cycles. Patients with prior cytotoxic therapy for MBC were ineligible. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints were PFS, overall survival (OS), safety, and quality of life.

Results

Ninety-four patients received PB, and 93 received paclitaxel/bevacizumab/gemcitabine (PB+G). The ORRs were 48.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 38.5%-59.5%) and 58.7% (95% CI, 47.9%-68.9%; P = .117) with PB and PB+G, respectively. The median PFS was 8.8 months (95% CI, 8.1-10.4 months) and 11.3 months (95% CI, 9.7-12.7 months; P = .247; hazard ratio, 0.82); the median OS was 25.0 months (95% CI, 18.8-not assessable [N/A] months) and 24.3 months (95% CI, 20.3-N/A months; P = .475; hazard ratio, 0.84), with PB and PB+G, respectively. There was significantly more grade 3-4 neutropenia (P = .001) and dyspnea (P = .014) with PB+G. Patients treated with PB experienced more improvement in total FACT-B (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast) (P = .021), FACT-B Social/Family Well-being (P = .041), and Breast Cancer-Additional Concerns (P = .008) scores than patients treated with PB+G.

Conclusion

The addition of gemcitabine to PB was not associated with a statistically significant improvement in ORR. Treatment with PB+G increased the incidence of severe neutropenia and dyspnea, although the regimen generally was well tolerated.     

Effectiveness of bevacizumab added to standard chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: final results for first-line treatment from the ITACa randomized clinical trial

BackgroundWe report the results from a first-line phase III randomized clinical trial on metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of adding bevacizumab (B) to standard first-line chemotherapy (CT).Patients and methodsmCRC patients were randomized to receive first-line CT (FOLFIRI or FOLFOX4) plus B (arm A) or CT only (arm B). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), response rate (ORR) and safety. Three hundred and fifty patients and 310 events were required to have an 80% statistical power to detect a difference in PFS between the groups.ResultsBetween November 2007 and March 2012, 376 patients were randomized. About 60% of patients received FOLFOX4 and 40% FOLFIRI. After a median follow-up of 36 months, 343 progressions and 275 deaths had been observed in the overall population. The median PFS was 9.6 [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.2–10.3] and 8.4 (95% CI 7.2–9.0) months for arms A and B, respectively, with a hazard ratio of 0.86 (95% CI 0.70–1.07; P = 0.182). No statistically significant differences in OS or ORR were observed. B-containing regimens were associated with more frequent hypertension, bleeding, proteinuria and asthenia.ConclusionsThe addition of B to standard first-line CT for mCRC did not provide a benefit in terms of PFS, OS or ORR. Further research is warranted to better identify the target population.Clinical trial numberNCT01878422.     

A randomized,phase II study of vandetanib maintenance for advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer following first-line platinum-doublet chemotherapy

Background

This randomized, phase II study investigated whether benefit could be obtained by giving vandetanib, an oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial and epithelial growth factor receptor, as a maintenance treatment in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

Patients were randomly assigned to either vandetanib or placebo after completion of 4 cycles of first-line chemotherapy. A progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 3 months was selected as the primary endpoint. We set a maximum PFS rate at 3 months to 30% (null hypothesis), and a minimum PFS rate at 3 months to 50% (alternative hypothesis).

Results

At the interim analysis, 9 of 24 patients in the vandetanib arm were progression-free at 3 months, whereas 7 of 24 in the placebo arm were progression-free. The placebo arm was closed at the first stage. The vandetanib arm proceeded to the second stage, and recruited a total of 75 patients. At the second stage, 28 out of 63 evaluable patients receiving vandetanib achieved PFS at 3 months. The alternative hypothesis that the PFS rate at 3 months is at least 50% was accepted. The median PFS was 2.7 months (95% CI, 1.9–4.4 months) in the vandetanib arm and 1.7 months (95% CI, 0.9–2.6 months) in the placebo arm. The most common adverse events in patients receiving vandetanib were rash (77.3%) and diarrhea (60.0%).

Conclusions

Maintenance therapy with vandetanib for patients with NSCLC after standard platinum doublet chemotherapy is well tolerated and may prolong PFS compared with placebo, and needs additional investigation.     

cis-platinum-based alternating non-cross-resistant chemotherapy as a first-line treatment in metastatic breast cancer. A phase II study

Exposure to multiple non-cross-resistant drugs should increase cell kill and the chance of achieving more complete and partial responses. Our earlier study in breast cancer showed that second-line CAP (cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, cis-platinum) treatment was not cross-resistant to the CMFVP (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil, vincristine, prednisolone) regimen and produced a 51% response rate. These facts initiated a phase II study which used an alternating CMFVP/CAP regimen. Altogether, 49 patients entered the study and 45 were evaluated (greater than 2 cycles). The CMFVP regimen consisted of cyclophosphamide (200 mg/m2 on days 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5), methotrexate (30 mg/m2 on days 2 and 4), 5-fluorouracil (500 mg/m2 on days 1, 3 and 5), vincristine (1.4 mg/m2 on days 1 and 5), and prednisolone (40 mg p.o. on days 1-5), and was alternated with the CAP schedule (300 mg/m2 cyclophosphamide on days 1, 3 and 5, 50 mg/m2 adriamycin on day 1, and 30 mg/m2 cis-platinum on days 1, 3 and 5). Overall response was high, and 37 patients out of 45 responded (82%), with a 28% CR rate (13/45). A particularly high response rate was observed in soft tissues (86%, 18/21) and visceral organs (84%, 16/19). Only 1 patient progressed (3%). The duration of remission was 4-21+ months (median, 12 months). Six of 13 CR patients were still disease free 15 months after the treatment was stopped. The duration of survival was 5-25+ months (median, 15+ months). Toxicity was moderate (myelosuppression in 53% of patients, mainly grade I-II; stomatitis in 11%, except for 100% alopecia and 90% nausea and vomiting). One drug-related death (bone marrow aplasia) was recorded. The high antitumorigenic activity of the alternating regimen used is encouraging and may call for a randomized study for the ultimate evaluation of this treatment approach.     

A phase II randomized study evaluating the addition of iniparib to gemcitabine plus cisplatin as first-line therapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

BackgroundIniparib is a novel anticancer agent initially considered a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, but subsequently shown to act via non-selective protein modification through cysteine adducts. This randomized phase II study investigated the addition of iniparib to gemcitabine–cisplatin in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.Patients and methodsPatients with histologically confirmed stage IV NSCLC were randomized 2 : 1 to receive gemcitabine (1250 mg/m², days 1/8) and cisplatin (75 mg/m², day 1) with [gemcitabine/cisplatin/iniparib (GCI)] or without [gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC)] iniparib (5.6 mg/kg, days 1/4/8/11) every 3 weeks for six cycles. The primary end point was the overall response rate (ORR). Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. The study was not designed for formal efficacy comparison, the control arm being to benchmark results against the literature.ResultsOne hundred and nineteen patients were randomized (39 GC and 80 GCI). More GCI patients were male (80% GCI and 67% GC) and had PS 0 (61% GCI and 49% GC). The ORR was 25.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) 13.0%–42.1%] with GC versus 20.0% (95% CI 11.9%–30.4%) with GCI, which did not allow rejection of the null hypothesis (ORR with GCI ≤20%; P = 0.545). Median PFS was 4.3 (95% CI 2.8–5.6) months with GC and 5.7 (95% CI 4.6–6.6) months with GCI (hazard ratio 0.89, 95% CI 0.56–1.40). Median OS was 8.5 (95% CI 5.5 to not reached) months with GC, and 12.0 (95% CI 8.9–17.1) months with GCI (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.48–1.27). More GCI patients received second-line treatment (51% GC and 68% GCI). Toxicity was similar in the two arms. Grade 3–4 toxicities included asthenia (28% GC and 8% GCI), nausea (3% GC and 14% GCI), and decreased appetite (10% in each).ConclusionsAddition of iniparib to GC did not improve ORR over GC alone. The GCI safety profile was comparable to GC alone. Imbalances in PS and gender distribution may have impacted study results regarding PFS and OS.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrial.gov Identifier NCT01086254.     

Gemcitabine as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a phase II trial.

OBJECTIVES: This phase II study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). METHODS: Women with histologically or cytologically confirmed bidimensionally measurable MBC not amendable to curative surgery or radiation were eligible. Prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease was not permitted. Patients received gemcitabine 1,200 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 and 15 for 3 weeks every 28 days for a maximum of 8 cycles. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients, with a median age of 58 years, were enrolled. The overall response rate for the 35 evaluable patients was 37.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.5-55.1%), with 2 complete responses and 11 partial responses. Median time to progression and survival were 5.1 months (95% CI, 3.5-8.8 months) and 21.1 months (95% CI, 11.0-26.9 months), respectively. Chemotherapy was well tolerated, with a median of 4 cycles completed. Grade 4 toxicities were 1 infection and 1 abnormal pulmonary function. Grade 3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 30.3% and 6.3% of patients, respectively. The most common grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity was nausea/vomiting (10.3%). Five of 21 patients had improved Karnofsky performance status (KPS) scores. CONCLUSION: Single-agent gemcitabine is active and well tolerated as first-line treatment in patients with MBC.     

Randomized multicenter phase II trial of two different schedules of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Capecitabine and oxaliplatin, two new agents with potential synergistic activity, have demonstrated promising antitumor efficacy in advanced colorectal cancer (ACC). Preclinical and clinical evidence indicating that dose intensification of the oral fluorouracil prodrug might result in improved therapeutic results led us to the present randomized multicenter phase II study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eighty-nine patients with bidimensionally measurable ACC previously untreated for metastatic disease were randomly allocated to receive oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) day 1 plus capecitabine 2,000 mg/m(2)/d days 1 to 14 every 3 weeks (arm A) or to receive oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) days 1 and 14 combined with capecitabine 3,500 mg/m(2) days 1 to 7 and 14 to 21 every 4 weeks (arm B). In both treatment arms, chemotherapy was continued for a total of 6 months unless there was prior evidence of progression of disease. RESULTS: Patients allocated to the high-dose capecitabine combination arm B had a higher radiologically confirmed response rate (54.5% v 42.2%) and a significantly longer median progression-free survival time than those allocated to control arm A (10.5 v 6.0 months; P =.0013). Median overall survival times cannot be calculated for either treatment arm at this point. Despite a 34% higher dose intensity of capecitabine in arm B, there was no difference in hematologic toxicity between treatment arms (neutropenia/thrombocytopenia: 60%/43% in arm B v 56%/33% in arm A). Similarly, the incidence rate and degree of nonhematologic adverse events were comparable: The most commonly encountered symptoms (all grades, arm A and arm B) included nausea/emesis (A: 58%; B: 62%), diarrhea (A: 44%; B: 31%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (A: 80%; B: 83%), and fatigue (A: 40%; B: 50%). CONCLUSION: Results of this study indicate that both combination regimens are feasible, tolerable, and clinically active. The dose-intensified bimonthly capecitabine arm, however, seems to be more effective in increasing both response rate and progression-free survival time.     

Addition of bevacizumab to bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer: results of a randomized phase II trial.

PURPOSE: Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor, increases survival when combined with irinotecan-based chemotherapy in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). This randomized, phase II trial compared bevacizumab plus fluorouracil and leucovorin (FU/LV) versus placebo plus FU/LV as first-line therapy in patients considered nonoptimal candidates for first-line irinotecan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had metastatic CRC and one of the following characteristics: age > or = 65 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1 or 2, serum albumin < or = 3.5 g/dL, or prior abdominal/pelvic radiotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned to FU/LV/placebo (n = 105) or FU/LV/bevacizumab (n = 104). The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points were progression-free survival, response rate, response duration, and quality of life. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Median survival was 16.6 months for the FU/LV/bevacizumab group and 12.9 months for the FU/LV/placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.79; P = .16). Median progression-free survival was 9.2 months (FU/LV/bevacizumab) and 5.5 months (FU/LV/placebo); hazard ratio was 0.50; P = .0002. Response rates were 26.0% (FU/LV/bevacizumab) and 15.2% (FU/LV/placebo) (P = .055); duration of response was 9.2 months (FU/LV/bevacizumab) and 6.8 months (FU/LV/placebo); hazard ratio was 0.42; P = .088. Grade 3 hypertension was more common with bevacizumab treatment (16% v 3%) but was controlled with oral medication and did not cause study drug discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Addition of bevacizumab to FU/LV as first-line therapy in CRC patients who were not considered optimal candidates for first-line irinotecan treatment provided clinically significant patient benefit, including statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival.     

A phase II trial of weekly paclitaxel, 5-fluorouracil,and leucovorin as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer

Purpose. This phase II multicenter trial evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of weekly paclitaxel, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin administered as first-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer. Patients and methods. The study enrolled 155 women with pathologically confirmed and measurable metastatic adenocarcinoma of the breast. Treatment consisted of paclitaxel 80 mg/m², 5-fluorouracil 425 mg/m², and leucovorin 20 mg/m² administered weekly 4 × per 4-week cycle in the first 40 patients enrolled (group 1), and weekly 3 × per 4-week cycle in the subsequent 115 patients (group 2) enrolled. Hematologic growth factor support was not routinely used. Twenty patients with hepatic dysfunction were enrolled to assess the tolerability of the regimen in this population. All therapies were delivered in an outpatient setting. Results. The overall response rate was 48%, with 12-month estimated survival rates of 53% and 65% for treatment groups 1 and 2, respectively. Response rates were not statistically different between the two treatment schedules. Therapy was well tolerated when delivered on the every 3 of 4-week schedule, including patients with hepatic involvement and those age q 65. Conclusion. Weekly therapy with paclitaxel and 5-fluorouracil with leucovorin is active as first-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer. Use of this regimen should be given consideration, particularly in patients who are not candidates for anthracycline-based therapy.     

A phase I-II study of bi-weekly paclitaxel as first-line treatment in metastatic breast cancer

Background: Single-agent bi-weekly paclitaxel was studied as first-line metastatic treatment for breast cancer in a phase I–II trial.Patients and methods: Thirty-eight women with metastatic breast cancer were enrolled. Thirty-seven are evaluable for toxicity, 35 for response.Results: The MTD was defined at 160 mg/m2 q two weeks with dose limiting toxicity in two patients consisting of hematological toxicity (1) and neurotoxicity (2). Twenty patients were treated at 150 mg/m2, the recommended dose. Response rates were two CRs and nine PRs (overall 61%) at the RD of 150 mg/m2 and three CRs and 11 PRs for an overall RR of 67% for the two top doses.Conclusions: The good drug tolerance, response rates, and convenience over weekly treatment suggest this may be a worthwhile regimen.     

Concurrent or sequential letrozole with adjuvant breast radiotherapy: final results of the CO-HO-RT phase II randomized trial

BackgroundWe present here final clinical results of the COHORT trial and both translational sub-studies aiming at identifying patients at risk of radiation-induced subcutaneous fibrosis (RISF): (i) radiation-induced lymphocyte apoptosis (RILA) and (ii) candidates of certain single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).Patients and methodsPost-menopausal patients with stage I–II breast cancer (n = 150) were enrolled and assigned to either concurrent (arm A) or sequential radiotherapy (RT)-letrozole (arm B). Among them, 121 were eligible for RILA and SNP assays. Grade ≥2 RISF were the primary end point. Secondary end points were lung and heart events and carcinologic outcome. RILA was performed to predict differences in RISF between individuals. A genome-wide association study was performed to identify SNPs associated with RILA and RISF. Analyses were done by intention to treat.ResultsAfter a median follow-up of 74 months, 5 patients developed a grade ≥2 RISF. No significant difference was observed between arms A and B. Neither grade ≥2 lung nor symptomatic cardiac toxicity was observed. Median RILA value of the five patients who had grade ≥2 RISF was significantly lower compared with those who developed grade ≤1 RISF (6.9% versus 13%, P = 0.02). Two SNPs were identified as being significantly associated with RILA: rs1182531 (P = 4.2 × 10^-9) and rs1182532 (P = 3.6 × 10^-8); both located within the PHACTR3 gene on chromosome 20q13.33.ConclusionsWith long-term follow-up, letrozole can safely be delivered concomitantly with adjuvant breast RT. Translational sub-studies showed that high RILA values were correlated with patients who did not develop RISF.Registered clinical trialNCT00208273.     

Mature results of a randomized phase II multicenter study of exemestane versus tamoxifen as first-line hormone therapy for postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Women with hormone-responsive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) may respond to or have stable disease with a number of hormone therapies. We explored the efficacy and safety of the steroidal aromatase inactivator exemestane as first-line hormonal therapy in MBC in postmenopausal women. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with measurable disease were eligible if they had received no prior hormone therapy for metastatic disease and had hormone receptor positive disease or hormone receptor unknown disease with a long disease-free interval from adjuvant therapy. They were randomized to tamoxifen 20 mg/day or exemestane 25 mg/day in this open-label study. RESULTS: Blinded independently reviewed response rates for exemestane and tamoxifen were 41% and 17%, respectively. Fifty-seven per cent of exemestane- and 42% of tamoxifen-treated patients experienced clinical benefit, defined as complete or partial response, or disease stabilization lasting at least 6 months. There was a low incidence of severe flushing, sweating, nausea and edema in women who received exemestane. One exemestane-treated patient had a pulmonary embolism with grade 4 dyspnea. CONCLUSIONS: Exemestane is well tolerated and active in the first-line treatment of hormone-responsive MBC. An ongoing EORTC phase III trial is comparing the efficacy, measuring time-to-disease progression, of exemestane and tamoxifen.     

Multicentric phase II trial of gemcitabine plus epirubicin plus paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer

In this phase II, multicentre trial, patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) were treated with a combination of gemcitabine, epirubicin and paclitaxel (GET). The primary objective of this study was to determine the tolerability and activity in terms of complete responce (CR) and overall response rate of the GET combination in this patient population. Patients with no prior treatment for MBC, and at least one bidimensionally measurable lesion received gemcitabine 1000 mg m(-2) intravenously (i.v.) over 30 min on days 1 and 4, followed by epirubicin i.v. at 90 mg m(-2) on day 1, and paclitaxel 175 mg m(-2) over 3 h on day 1, every 21 days, up to eight courses. From May 1999 to June 2000, 48 patients were enrolled from seven Italian institutions. A total of 297 chemotherapy courses were administered with a median of six cycles patient(-1) (range 1-8). Seven patients (15%) obtained CR and 27 patients (56%) had partial responce, for an overall response rate of 71% (95% CI: 58.3-83.7). After a median follow-up of 23.7 months (range 7.0-34.4), median progression-free survival was 10.5 months (95% CI: 9.2-11.7), and median overall survival 25.9 months. The main haematological toxicity consisted of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia that occurred in 62% of cycles (22% grade 4 and 40% grade 3). The GET combination is active and well tolerated as first-line chemotherapy for MBC.     

A phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study evaluating vinflunine in combination with epirubicin as first-line treatment in metastatic breast cancer

Background

Vinflunine (VFL) is a bifluorinated tubulin-targeted agent of the vinca alkaloids class active in advanced stage breast cancer. We conducted a phase I study combining VFL with epirubicin (EPR) to establish the recommended dose (RD), to evaluate the safety and efficacy profiles and to investigate potential pharmacokinetic (PK) drug–drug interaction (DDI).

Patients and methods

Two schedules (day 1 every 3 weeks; days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) were investigated as first-line chemotherapy of metastatic breast cancer patient. PK DDI was evaluated through population PK approaches.

Results

Thirty-nine patients received a total of 197 cycles of the VFL–EPR combination (median 6). The RDs were VFL 250 mg/m² + EPR 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks for schedule 1 and VFL 170 mg/m² + EPR 35 mg/m² every 3 weeks for schedule 2. The PK analysis demonstrated no clinically relevant mutual DDI between VFL and EPR. The main dose-limiting toxicity was neutropenia. The most frequent non-haematological adverse events were nausea, fatigue, constipation, vomiting, anorexia and stomatitis. Objective response rate was achieved in 45.9 % of the patients.

Conclusion

VFL–EPR combination is feasible with manageable toxicity. The antitumour activity was promising and supports further evaluation.