Phase I study of afatinib combined with nintedanib in patients with advanced solid tumours

Background:

This Phase I study evaluated continuous- and intermittent-dosing (every other week) of afatinib plus nintedanib in patients with advanced solid tumours.

Methods:

In the dose-escalation phase (n=45), maximum tolerated doses (MTDs) were determined for continuous/intermittent afatinib 10, 20, 30 or 40 mg once daily plus continuous nintedanib 150 or 200 mg twice daily. Secondary objectives included safety and efficacy. Clinical activity of continuous afatinib plus nintedanib at the MTD was further evaluated in an expansion phase (n=25).

Results:

The most frequent dose-limiting toxicities were diarrhoea (11%) and transaminase elevations (7%). Maximum tolerated doses were afatinib 30 mg continuously plus nintedanib 150 mg, and afatinib 40 mg intermittently plus nintedanib 150 mg. Treatment-related adverse events (mostly Grade ⩽3) included diarrhoea (98%), asthenia (64%), nausea (62%) and vomiting (60%). In the dose-escalation phase, two patients had partial responses (PRs) and 27 (60%) had stable disease (SD). In the expansion phase, one complete response and three PRs were observed (all non-small cell lung cancer), with SD in 13 (52%) patients. No pharmacokinetic interactions were observed.

Conclusions:

MTDs of continuous or intermittent afatinib plus nintedanib demonstrated a manageable safety profile with proactive management of diarrhoea. Antitumour activity was observed in patients with solid tumours.     

Phase II trial evaluating the feasibility of interdigitating folfox with chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced and metastatic rectal cancer

Background:

Patients (pts) with metastatic rectal cancer and symptomatic primary, require local and systemic control. Chemotherapy used during chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is adequate for radiosensitisation, but suboptimal for systemic control. The aim of this phase II study was to assess tolerability, local/systemic benefits, of a novel regimen delivering interdigitating intensive chemotherapy with radical CRT.

Methods:

Eligible pts had untreated synchronous symptomatic primary/metastatic rectal cancer. A total of 12 weeks of treatment with split-course pelvic CRT (total 50.4 Gy with concurrent oxaliplatin and 5-FU infusion) alternating with FOLFOX chemotherapy. All pts staged with CT, MRI and FDG-PET pre and post treatment.

Results:

Twenty-six pts were treated. Rectal primary MRI stage: T3 81% and T4 15%. Liver metastases in 81%. Twenty-four pts (92%) completed the 12-week regimen. All patients received planned RT dose, and for both agents over 88% of patients achieved a relative dose intensity of >75%. Grade 3 toxicities: neutropenia 23%, diarrhoea 15%, and radiation skin reaction 12%. Grade 4 toxicity: neutropenia 15%. FDG-PET metabolic response rate for rectal primary 96%, and for metastatic disease 60%.

Conclusions:

Delivery of interdigitating chemotherapy with radical CRT was feasible to treat both primary and metastatic rectal cancer. High completion and response rates were encouraging.     

Combination neratinib (HKI-272) and paclitaxel therapy in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer

Introduction:

Neratinib is a potent irreversible pan-ErbB tyrosine kinase inhibitor that has demonstrated antitumour activity and an acceptable safety profile in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-2-positive breast cancer and other solid tumours.

Methods:

This was a phase I/II, open-label, two-part study. Part 1 was a dose-escalation study to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of neratinib plus paclitaxel in patients with solid tumours. Part 2 evaluated the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of the combination at the MTD in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer.

Results:

Eight patients were included in the dose-escalation study; no dose-limiting toxicities were observed, and an MTD of oral neratinib 240 mg once daily plus intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg m⁻² on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle was determined. A total of 102 patients with HER2-positive breast cancer were enrolled in part 2. The overall median treatment duration was 47.9 weeks (range: 0.1–147.3 weeks). Common treatment-emergent adverse events (all grades/grade ⩾3) included diarrhoea (92%/29% none grade 4), peripheral sensory neuropathy (51%/3%), neutropenia (50%/20%), alopecia (46%/0%), leukopenia (41%/18%), anaemia (37%/8%), and nausea (34%/1%). Three (3%) patients discontinued treatment due to an adverse event (mouth ulceration, left ventricular ejection fraction reduction, and acute renal failure). Among the 99 evaluable patients in part 2 of the study, the overall response rate (ORR) was 73% (95% confidence interval (CI): 62.9–81.2%), including 7 (7%) patients who achieved a complete response; an additional 9 (9%) patients achieved stable disease for at least 24 weeks. ORR was 71% among patients with 0/1 prior chemotherapy regimen for metastatic disease and no prior lapatinib, and 77% among those with 2/3 prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease with prior lapatinib permitted. Kaplan–Meier median progression-free survival was 57.0 weeks (95% CI: 47.7–81.6 weeks). Pharmacokinetic analyses indicated no interaction between neratinib and paclitaxel.

Conclusion:

The combination of neratinib and paclitaxel was associated with higher toxicity than that of neratinib as a single agent, but was manageable with antidiarrhoeal agents and dose reductions in general. The combination therapy also demonstrated a high rate of response in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. A phase III trial is ongoing to assess the benefit and risk of this combination in the first-line setting.     

A phase IIa dose-finding and safety study of first-line pertuzumab in combination with trastuzumab,capecitabine and cisplatin in patients with HER2-positive advanced gastric cancer

Background:

Pertuzumab plus trastuzumab provides a more comprehensive blockade of HER2 signalling than trastuzumab alone. Therefore, we conducted a phase IIa study of the pharmacokinetics and safety of pertuzumab plus trastuzumab and chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer (aGC).

Methods:

Patients received pertuzumab 840 mg for cycle 1 and 420 mg q3w for cycles 2–6 (Arm A) or pertuzumab 840 mg q3w for six cycles (Arm B). Trastuzumab, cisplatin and capecitabine were also given for six cycles, then trastuzumab q3w until disease progression or unmanageable toxicity. The co-primary endpoints were day 43 pertuzumab serum trough concentration (C_min) and safety.

Results:

Thirty patients were randomised. Mean pertuzumab C_min at day 43 was 40.0 μg ml⁻¹ (s.d.: 17.3) in Arm A and 62.7 μg ml⁻¹ (29.1) in Arm B. Mean day 43 C_min in Arm A was ∼37% lower than that seen in metastatic breast cancer. The safety profiles were similar between arms and treatment was well tolerated. Partial responses were achieved by 86% and 55% of patients in Arms A and B, respectively.

Conclusions:

On the basis of the pharmacokinetic and safety data, the 840 mg q3w pertuzumab dose has been selected for a phase III study of pertuzumab, trastuzumab and chemotherapy in HER2-positive aGC.     

Cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for integrating MRI into breast cancer screening for women at high risk

Background:

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended for women at high risk for breast cancer. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of alternative screening strategies involving MRI.

Methods:

Using a microsimulation model, we generated life histories under different risk profiles, and assessed the impact of screening on quality-adjusted life-years, and lifetime costs, both discounted at 3%. We compared 12 screening strategies combining annual or biennial MRI with mammography and clinical breast examination (CBE) in intervals of 0.5, 1, or 2 years vs without, and reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

Results:

Based on an ICER threshold of $100 000/QALY, the most cost-effective strategy for women at 25% lifetime risk was to stagger MRI and mammography plus CBE every year from age 30 to 74, yielding ICER $58 400 (compared to biennial MRI alone). At 50% lifetime risk and with 70% reduction in MRI cost, the recommended strategy was to stagger MRI and mammography plus CBE every 6 months (ICER=$84 400). At 75% lifetime risk, the recommended strategy is biennial MRI combined with mammography plus CBE every 6 months (ICER=$62 800).

Conclusions:

The high costs of MRI and its lower specificity are limiting factors for annual screening schedule of MRI, except for women at sufficiently high risk.     

Nasal septum perforation: a side effect of bevacizumab chemotherapy in breast cancer patients

Background:

Bevacizumab is an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor approved in association with paclitaxel or docetaxel as first line in patients (pts) with metastatic breast cancer. Rare cases of nasal septum perforations have been reported. We report our experience of nasal perforation in breast cancer pts receiving bevacizumab and chemotherapy either in the adjuvant or in the metastatic settings.

Methods:

Between 1 January and 31 December 2009, 70 pts received bevacizumab together with chemotherapy. All the pts who had received bevacizumab were referred to the ENT specialist. Symptoms potentially related were looked for. Side effects were graded according to CTCAE.

Results:

Five nasal septum perforations were diagnosed (5 out of 70; 7.14%). Bevacizumab dose was 15 mg kg⁻¹ 3 weekly. Three pts were metastatic. Bevacizumab was associated with docetaxel (100 mg m⁻² every 3 weeks) in two pts and with weekly paclitaxel in one. The last two pts received bevacizumab in combination with anthracyclin and then taxanes in the adjuvant setting. In these two cases, nasal septum perforation occurred at the time of docetaxel treatment.

Conclusion:

A high incidence of nasal septum perforation has been shown in pts with breast cancer receiving bevacizumab together with chemotherapy. Several mechanisms could be involved (mucositis, delayed tissue repair, antiangiogenic action of taxanes).     

A randomised,double-blind,placebo-controlled multi-centre phase III trial of XELIRI/FOLFIRI plus simvastatin for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Background:

The purpose of this randomised phase III trial was to evaluate whether the addition of simvastatin, a synthetic 3-hydroxy-3methyglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor, to XELIRI/FOLFIRI chemotherapy regimens confers a clinical benefit to patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer.

Methods:

We undertook a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial of 269 patients previously treated for metastatic colorectal cancer and enrolled in 5 centres in South Korea. Patients were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to one of the following groups: FOLFIRI/XELIRI plus simvastatin (40 mg) or FOLFIRI/XELIRI plus placebo. The FOLFIRI regimen consisted of irinotecan at 180 mg m⁻² as a 90-min infusion, leucovorin at 200 mg m⁻² as a 2-h infusion, and a bolus injection of 5-FU 400 mg m⁻² followed by a 46-h continuous infusion of 5-FU at 2400 mg m⁻². The XELIRI regimen consisted of irinotecan at 250 mg m⁻² as a 90-min infusion with capecitabine 1000 mg m⁻² twice daily for 14 days. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included response rate, duration of response, overall survival (OS), time to progression, and toxicity.

Results:

Between April 2010 and July 2013, 269 patients were enrolled and assigned to treatment groups (134 simvastatin, 135 placebo). The median PFS was 5.9 months (95% CI, 4.5–7.3) in the XELIRI/FOLFIRI plus simvastatin group and 7.0 months (95% CI, 5.4–8.6) in the XELIRI/FOLFIRI plus placebo group (P=0.937). No significant difference was observed between the two groups with respect to OS (median, 15.9 months (simvastatin) vs 19.9 months (placebo), P=0.826). Grade ⩾3 nausea and anorexia were noted slightly more often in patients in the simvastatin arm compared with with the placebo arm (4.5% vs 0.7%, 3.0% vs 0%, respectively).

Conclusions:

The addition of 40 mg simvastatin to the XELIRI/FOLFIRI regimens did not improve PFS in patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer nor did it increase toxicity.     

Adjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancer: a randomised phase 3 trial of mitomycin-C plus either short-term doxifluridine or long-term doxifluridine plus cisplatin after curative D2 gastrectomy (AMC0201)

Background:

This phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy of new adjuvant chemotherapy (MFP), which intensified the mitomycin-C (MMC) plus short-term doxifluridine (Mf) for gastric cancer.

Patients and methods:

A total of 855 patients (424 in Mf, 431 in MFP) with pathological stage II–IV (M0) gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy were randomly assigned to receive either Mf (MMC 20 mg m⁻², followed by oral doxifluridine 460–600 mg m⁻² per day for 3 months) or MFP (MMC 20 mg m⁻², followed by oral doxifluridine 460–600 mg m⁻² per day for 12 months with 6 monthly infusions of 60 mg m⁻² of cisplatin) chemotherapy.

Results:

With a median follow-up of 6.6 years, there was no difference between the two groups in recurrence-free survival (RFS) (5-year RFS 61.1% in Mf and 57.9% in MFP; hazard ratio 1.10 (95% CI 0.89–1.35); P=0.39) and overall survival (OS) (5-year OS 66.5% in Mf and 65.0% in MFP; hazard ratio 1.11 (95% CI 0.89–1.39); P=0.33).

Conclusion:

Intensification of Mf adjuvant chemotherapy by prolonging the duration of oral fluoropyrimidine and adding cisplatin was safe but not effective to improve the survivals in curatively resected gastric cancer patients.     

First-line bevacizumab and capecitabine–oxaliplatin in elderly patients with mCRC: GEMCAD phase II BECOX study

Background:

Subgroup analyses of clinical studies suggest that bevacizumab plus XELOX is effective and tolerable in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The prospective BECOX study examined the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab plus XELOX, followed by bevacizumab plus capecitabine in elderly patients with mCRC.

Methods:

Patients aged ⩾70 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 out of 1 and confirmed mCRC were included. Patients received bevacizumab 7.5 mg kg⁻¹ and oxaliplatin 130 mg m⁻² on day 1, plus capecitabine 1000 mg m⁻² bid orally on days 1–14 every 21 days; oxaliplatin was discontinued after 6 cycles. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP).

Results:

The intent-to-treat population comprised 68 patients (65% male, median age 76 years). Median TTP was 11.1 months; median overall survival was 20.4 months; overall response rate was 46%. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events included diarrhoea (18%) and asthenia (16%). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events of special interest for bevacizumab included deep-vein thrombosis (6%) and pulmonary embolism (4%).

Conclusions:

Bevacizumab plus XELOX was effective and well tolerated in elderly patients in the BECOX study. The adverse-event profile was similar to previous reports; no new safety concerns were identified. Fit elderly patients with mCRC should be considered for treatment with bevacizumab plus XELOX.     

Phase I/II trial of capecitabine and oxaliplatin in combination with bevacizumab and imatinib in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: AIO KRK 0205

Background:

Combined inhibition of platelet-derived growth factor receptor beta signalling and vascular endothelial growth factor promotes vascular normalisation in preclinical models and may lead to increased delivery of chemotherapy to tumour tissue. This phase I/II trial assessed the safety and efficacy of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) plus bevacizumab and imatinib in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Methods:

Two dose levels (I/II) were defined: capecitabine 850/1000 mg m⁻² twice daily on days 1–14; oxaliplatin 100/130 mg m⁻² on day 1; bevacizumab 7.5 mg kg⁻¹ on day 1; imatinib 300 mg day⁻¹ on days 1–21 every 21 days. The primary study endpoint was safety. The phase II secondary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS).

Results:

Dose level I was chosen for phase II testing because, even though further dose escalation was permitted by the protocol, gastrointestinal toxicities were considered to be clinically significant. A total of 49 patients were evaluated. The 6-month PFS rate was 76%, median PFS was 10.6 months and median overall survival was 23.2 months. Haematological toxicities were generally mild. Sensory neuropathy and diarrhoea were the most common grade 3 toxicities.

Conclusion:

The combination of XELOX with bevacizumab and imatinib is tolerable and has promising efficacy.     

A phase I dose-escalation study of eribulin and S-1 for metastatic breast cancer

Background:

We evaluated the safety, maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, recommended dose for phase II (P2RD), and preliminary anticancer activity of a combination eribulin and S-1 therapeutic in metastatic breast cancer patients pretreated with anthracycline and taxane.

Method:

Patients aged 20–74 years were recruited. In level 1, patients received S-1 (65 mg m⁻²) from day 1 to 14, and eribulin (1.1 mg m⁻²) on day 1 and 8 in a 21-day cycle. In level 2, eribulin was increased to 1.4 mg m⁻². In level 3, S-1 was increased to 80 mg m⁻².

Results:

Twelve patients were enrolled into three cohorts. Planned dose escalation was completed, with one case exhibiting dose-limiting toxicity (grade 3 hypokalaemia) at level 3, without reaching the MTD. The P2RD was determined to be level 2 (eribulin 1.4 mg m⁻² and S-1 65 mg m⁻²). The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicity was neutropenia (83.3%), followed by febrile neutropenia (25.0%). Five of eleven patients (41.7%) with measurable disease had a partial response. Pharmacokinetics were characterised by dose-dependent elimination and nonlinear exposure.

Conclusion:

Dose level 3 was not tolerated owing to febrile neutropenia development. Thus, intermediate dose level 2 was recommended for further evaluation. Preliminary antitumour activity warrants further investigation in this setting.     

Phase I study of olaparib in combination with liposomal doxorubicin in patients with advanced solid tumours

Background:

Olaparib, an oral PARP inhibitor, has shown antitumour activity as monotherapy in patients with germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA)-mutated breast and ovarian cancer. This study evaluated olaparib capsules in combination with liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in patients with advanced solid tumours ({"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00819221","term_id":"NCT00819221"}}NCT00819221).

Methods:

Patients received 28-day cycles of olaparib, continuously (days 1–28) or intermittently (days 1–7), plus PLD (40 mg m⁻², day 1); seven olaparib dose cohorts (50–400 mg bid) were explored to determine the recommended dose. Assessments included safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and preliminary efficacy (objective response rate (ORR)).

Results:

Of 44 patients treated (ovarian, n=28; breast, n=13; other/unknown, n=3), two experienced dose-limiting toxicities (grade 3 stomatitis and fatal pneumonia/pneumonitis (200 mg per 28-day cycle); grade 4 thrombocytopenia (400 mg per 7-day cycle)). The maximum tolerated dose was not reached using continuous olaparib 400 mg bid plus PLD. Grade ⩾3 and serious AEs were reported for 27 (61%) and 12 (27%) patients, respectively. No major pharmacokinetic interference was observed between olaparib and PLD. The ORR was 33% (n=14 out of 42; complete response, n=3). A total of 13 responders had ovarian cancer: 10 were platinum-sensitive, 11 had a gBRCA mutation.

Conclusions:

Continuous/intermittent olaparib (up to 400 mg bid) combined with PLD (40 mg m⁻²) was generally tolerated and showed evidence of antitumour activity in ovarian cancer.     

Influence of comorbidity on the effect of adjuvant treatment and age in patients with early-stage breast cancer

Background:

Prevalence of comorbidity at breast cancer diagnosis increases with age and is likely to influence the likelihood of receiving treatment according to guidelines. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of breast cancer treatment on mortality, taking age at diagnosis and comorbidity into account.

Methods:

Four nationwide population registries in Denmark: the Danish Civil Registration System, the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group, the Danish National Patient Register, and the Danish Register of Causes of Death provided information on 62 591 women diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer, 1990–2008, of whom data on treatment were available for 39 943. Comorbidity was measured using the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Adjuvant treatment were categorised as none, chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and unknown. Multivariable Cox modelling assessed the effect of comorbidity on breast cancer-specific mortality and other cause mortality according to treatment, adjusting for age at diagnosis and other clinical prognostic factors.

Results:

The impact of comorbidity on mortality was most pronounced in patients aged 50–79 years. Patients receiving chemotherapy with mild to moderate comorbidity had HR 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI); 0.82–1.19) and 1.06 (95% CI; 0.77–1.46) for breast cancer-specific mortality, respectively, compared with patients without comorbidity.

Conclusion:

Comorbidity at breast cancer diagnosis is an independent adverse prognostic factor for death after breast cancer. We identified a subgroup of patients with mild to moderate comorbidity receiving chemotherapy who had similar breast cancer mortality as patients with no comorbidity.     

Trastuzumab or lapatinib with standard chemotherapy for HER2-positive breast cancer: results from the GEICAM/2006-14 trial

Background:

The addition of trastuzumab (T) and lapatinib (L) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy increases the pathological complete response (pCR) rate in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive early breast cancer. We investigated the efficacy of T or L with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and specific efficacy biomarkers.

Methods:

Patients with stages I–III (including inflammatory) HER2-positive breast cancer were randomised to receive epirubicin (E) plus cyclophosphamide (C) × 4 cycles followed by docetaxel (D) plus either T (EC-DT) or L (EC-DL). End points included pCR (primary), clinical response, toxicity, and pCR-predictive biomarkers.

Results:

We randomised 102 patients to EC-DT (50) and EC-DL (52). Median age was 48, 56% were premenopausal and 58% had oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumours. Pathological complete response in breast was 52.1% (95% CI:38.0–66.2%) for EC-DT and 25.5% (95% CI:13.5–37.5%) for EC-DL (P=0.0065). Pathological complete response in breast and axilla was 47.9% for EC-DT and 23.5% for EC-DL (P=0.011). Grade 3–4 toxicity did not differ across treatments, except for diarrhoea (2% in EC-DT vs 13.5% in EC-DL, P=0.030). Multivariate analyses showed that treatment (P=0.036) and ER (P=0.014) were the only predictors of pCR in both groups.

Conclusion:

EC-DT exhibited higher efficacy and lower toxicity than EC-DL. Of the different biomarkers studied, only the absence of ER expression was associated with increased pCR.     

A phase 1 Bayesian dose selection study of bortezomib and sunitinib in patients with refractory solid tumor malignancies

Background:

This phase 1 trial utilising a Bayesian continual reassessment method evaluated bortezomib and sunitinib to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), and recommended doses of the combination.

Methods:

Patients with advanced solid organ malignancies were enrolled and received bortezomib weekly with sunitinib daily for 4 weeks, every 6 weeks. Initial doses were sunitinib 25 mg and bortezomib 1 mg m⁻². Cohort size and dose level estimation was performed utilising the Escalation with Overdose Control (EWOC) adaptive method. Seven dose levels were evaluated; initially, sunitinib was increased to a goal dose of 50 mg with fixed bortezomib, then bortezomib was increased. Efficacy assessment occurred after each cycle using RECIST criteria.

Results:

Thirty patients were evaluable. During sunitinib escalation, DLTs of grade 4 thrombocytopenia (14%) and neutropenia (6%) at sunitinib 50 mg and bortezomib 1.3 mg m⁻² were seen. Subsequent experience showed tolerability and activity for sunitinib 37.5 mg and bortezomib 1.9 mg m⁻². Common grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, hypertension, and diarrhoea. The recommended doses for further study are bortezomib 1.9 mg m⁻² and sunitinib 37.5 mg. Four partial responses were seen. Stable disease >6 months was noted in an additional six patients.

Conclusion:

Bortezomib and sunitinib are well tolerated and have anticancer activity, particularly in thyroid cancer. A phase 2 study of this combination in thyroid cancer patients is planned.     

A phase I combination dose-escalation study of eribulin mesylate and gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumours: a study of the Princess Margaret Consortium

Background:

Eribulin mesylate is a synthetic microtubule inhibitor that showed cytotoxic synergy in combination with gemcitabine preclinically. This combination was assessed in a Phase I dose-finding trial in patients diagnosed with advanced solid tumours who had received up to two prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease (CP cohort).

Methods:

Dose escalation was performed in a 3+3 design to identify the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Two additional expansion cohorts in women with gynaecologic cancers at the RP2D (G), and further dose escalation of metastatic chemotherapy-naive patients (CN), were evaluated.

Results:

45 patients were treated: 21 (CP), 10 (G) and 14 (CN). The initial combination of eribulin and gemcitabine was administered on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle; however, due to 2 out of 6 dose-limiting haematological toxicities at the first dose level, a reduced dose-intense schedule was assessed. The RP2D was defined at 1.0 mg m⁻² eribulin and 1000 mg m⁻² gemcitabine day 1 and 8 q3 weeks. No other significant toxicities were observed in the G expansion cohort. Neutropenia prevented further dose escalation in the CN cohort. Objective responses were seen in all three cohorts – 2/21 (CP), 1/10 (G) and 2/14 (CN).

Conclusions:

The combination of eribulin and gemcitabine was well tolerated at the RP2D.     

Phase II trial of docetaxel,cisplatin and 5FU chemotherapy in locally advanced and metastatic penis cancer (CRUK/09/001)

Background:

Penis cancer is rare and clinical trial evidence on which to base treatment decisions is limited. Case reports suggest that the combination of docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-flurouracil (TPF) is highly active in this disease.

Methods:

Twenty-nine patients with locally advanced or metastatic squamous carcinoma of the penis were recruited into a single-arm phase II trial from nine UK centres. Up to three cycles of chemotherapy were received (docetaxel 75 mg m⁻² day 1, cisplatin 60 mg m⁻² day 1, 5-flurouracil 750 mg m⁻² per day days 1–5, repeated every 3 weeks). Primary outcome was objective response (assessed by RECIST). Fourteen or more responses in 26 evaluable patients were required to confirm a response rate of 60% or higher (Fleming-A''Hern design), warranting further evaluation. Secondary endpoints included toxicity and survival.

Results:

10/26 evaluable patients (38.5%, 95% CI: 20.2–59.4) achieved an objective response. Two patients with locally advanced disease achieved radiological complete remission. 65.5% of patients experienced at least one grade 3/4 adverse event.

Conclusion:

Docetaxel, cisplatin and 5FU did not reach the pre-determined threshold for further research and caused significant toxicity. Our results do not support the routine use of TPF. The observed complete responses support further investigation of combination chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting.     

Cetuximab and platinum-based chemoradio- or chemotherapy of patients with epidermal growth factor receptor expressing adenoid cystic carcinoma: a phase II trial

Background:

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is highly expressed in adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC). The efficacy and toxicity of cetuximab with concomitant platinum-based chemoradio- or chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic ACC, respectively, was evaluated.

Methods:

Eligible patients (9 with locally advanced tumour and 12 with metastases) had positive tumour EGFR expression. The cetuximab loading dose (400 mg m⁻²) was followed by 250 mg m⁻² per week. Locally advanced tumours were irradiated (mean dose 65 Gy) and treated with concomitant cisplatin (75 mg m⁻², intravenously). Patients with metastases received concomitant cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (4 × 1000 mg m⁻²).

Results:

For patients with locally advanced disease (median follow-up: 52 months), the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 64 months and the 2-year overall survival (OS) rate was 100%. For patients with metastases (median follow-up: 72 months), the median PFS and OS were 13 and 24 months, respectively. In both groups the objective response rate was >40%. Skin rash, in-field dermatitis, mucositis and vomiting were the most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events.

Conclusion:

In this single-arm study, the efficacy of cetuximab plus chemoradio- or chemotherapy appeared favourable as compared with historical controls. All side effects were manageable and did not hamper the treatment.     

Dose escalation to rash for erlotinib plus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer: the phase II RACHEL study

Background:

This phase II, open-label, randomised study evaluated whether patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving erlotinib/gemcitabine derived survival benefits from increasing the erlotinib dose.

Methods:

After a 4-week run-in period (gemcitabine 1000 mg m⁻² once weekly plus erlotinib 100 mg per day), patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who developed grade 0/1 rash were randomised to receive gemcitabine plus erlotinib dose escalation (150 mg, increasing by 50 mg every 2 weeks (maximum 250 mg); n=71) or gemcitabine plus standard-dose erlotinib (100 mg per day; n=75). The primary end point was to determine whether overall survival (OS) was improved by increasing the erlotinib dose. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), incidence of grade ⩾2 rash, and safety.

Results:

Erlotinib dose escalation induced grade ⩾2 rash in 29 out of 71 (41.4%) patients compared with 7 out of 75 (9.3%) patients on standard dose. Efficacy was not significantly different in the dose-escalation arm compared with the standard-dose arm (OS: median 7.0 vs 8.4 months, respectively, hazard ratio (HR), 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88–1.80; P=0.2026; PFS: median 3.5 vs 4.5 months, respectively, HR, 1.09, 95% CI: 0.77–1.54; P=0.6298). Incidence of adverse events was comparable between randomised arms.

Conclusion:

The erlotinib dose-escalation strategy induced rash in some patients; there was no evidence that the higher dose translated into increased benefit.