A randomised,double-blind,placebo-controlled trial of trametinib,an oral MEK inhibitor,in combination with gemcitabine for patients with untreated metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas

BackgroundTrametinib, an oral mitogen/extracellular signal-related kinase (MEK)1/2 inhibitor, holds promise for malignancies with rat sarcoma (RAS) mutations, like pancreas cancer. This phase II study was designed to determine overall survival (OS) in patients with pancreas cancer treated with trametinib and gemcitabine. Secondary end-points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR); safety end-points were also assessed.MethodsAdults with untreated metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were randomised (1:1) to receive intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² (weekly × 7 for 8 weeks, then days 1, 8 and 15 of 28-day cycles) plus trametinib or placebo 2 mg daily. RAS mutations were determined in circulating free DNA (cfDNA) and archival tumour tissue. OS was evaluated in kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) mutant and wild-type subgroups.ResultsBaseline characteristics for 160 patients were similar in both treatment arms. There was no significant difference in OS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.67–1.44; P = .453); median OS was 8.4 months with gemcitabine plus trametinib and 6.7 months with gemcitabine plus placebo. Median PFS (16 versus 15 weeks), ORR (22% versus 18%) and median DOR (23.9 versus 16.1 weeks) were also similar for trametinib and placebo arms, respectively. KRAS mutation-positive patients (n = 103) showed no difference in OS between arms. Thrombocytopenia, diarrhoea, rash and stomatitis were more frequent with trametinib, as was grade 3 anaemia.ConclusionsThe addition of trametinib to gemcitabine did not improve OS, PFS, ORR or DOR in patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreas cancer. Outcomes were independent of KRAS mutations determined by cfDNA.     

A double-blind,randomised, placebo-controlled,phase 2b study evaluating sorafenib in combination with paclitaxel as a first-line therapy in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer

BackgroundWe conducted a phase 2b, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled screening trial to evaluate the addition of the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib (antiproliferative/antiangiogenic) to first-line paclitaxel for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer.MethodsPatients were randomised to paclitaxel (90 mg/m², weekly, intravenously, 3 weeks on/1 week off) plus sorafenib (400 mg, orally, twice daily) or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). A sample size of 220 patients was planned with relative risk ?0.82 (1-sided α = 0.14) after 120 events supporting a treatment effect.FindingsPatients were randomised in India (n = 170), the United States (n = 52) and Brazil (n = 15). Median PFS was 6.9 months for sorafenib versus 5.6 months for placebo (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.788; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.558–1.112; P = 0.1715 [1-sided P = 0.0857]). The addition of sorafenib increased time to progression (median, 8.1 versus 5.6 months; HR = 0.674; 95% CI 0.465–0.975; P = 0.0343) and improved overall response (67% versus 54%; P = 0.0468). Overall survival did not statistically differ (median, 16.8 versus 17.4 months; HR = 1.022; 95% CI 0.715–1.461; P = 0.904). Grade 3/4 toxicities (sorafenib versus placebo) included hand-foot skin reaction (31% versus 3%), neutropenia (13% versus 7%) and anaemia (11% versus 6%). Two treatment-related deaths occurred (malaria and liver dysfunction) in the sorafenib arm.InterpretationThe addition of sorafenib to paclitaxel improved disease control but did not significantly improve PFS to support a phase 3 trial of similar design. Toxicity of the combination was manageable with dose reductions.FundingNorthwestern University, Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals.     

Overall survival with cisplatin–gemcitabine and bevacizumab or placebo as first-line therapy for nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomised phase III trial (AVAiL)

BackgroundBevacizumab, the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agent, provides clinical benefit when combined with platinum-based chemotherapy in first-line advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. We report the final overall survival (OS) analysis from the phase III AVAiL trial.Patients and methodsPatients (n = 1043) received cisplatin 80 mg/m² and gemcitabine 1250 mg/m² for up to six cycles plus bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg (n = 345), bevacizumab 15 mg/kg (n = 351) or placebo (n = 347) every 3 weeks until progression. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); OS was a secondary end point.ResultsSignificant PFS prolongation with bevacizumab compared with placebo was maintained with longer follow-up {hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] 0.75 (0.64–0.87), P = 0.0003 and 0.85 (0.73–1.00), P = 0.0456} for the 7.5 and 15 mg/kg groups, respectively. Median OS was >13 months in all treatment groups; nevertheless, OS was not significantly increased with bevacizumab [HR (95% CI) 0.93 (0.78–1.11), P = 0.420 and 1.03 (0.86–1.23), P = 0.761] for the 7.5 and 15 mg/kg groups, respectively, versus placebo. Most patients (∼62%) received multiple lines of poststudy treatment. Updated safety results are consistent with those previously reported.ConclusionsFinal analysis of AVAiL confirms the efficacy of bevacizumab when combined with cisplatin–gemcitabine. The PFS benefit did not translate into a significant OS benefit, possibly due to high use of efficacious second-line therapies.     

nab-Paclitaxel plus carboplatin or gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus carboplatin as first-line treatment of patients with triple-negative metastatic breast cancer: results from the tnAcity trial

BackgroundMetastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) has a poor prognosis and aggressive clinical course. tnAcity evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line nab-paclitaxel plus carboplatin (nab-P/C), nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nab-P/G), and gemcitabine plus carboplatin (G/C) in patients with mTNBC.Patients and methodsPatients with pathologically confirmed mTNBC and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic BC received (1 : 1 : 1) nab-P 125 mg/m² plus C AUC 2, nab-P 125 mg/m² plus G 1000 mg/m², or G 1000 mg/m² plus C AUC 2, all on days 1, 8 q3w. Phase II primary end point: investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), percentage of patients initiating cycle 6 with doublet therapy, and safety.ResultsIn total, 191 patients were enrolled (nab-P/C, n = 64; nab-P/G, n = 61; G/C, n = 66). PFS was significantly longer with nab-P/C versus nab-P/G [median, 8.3 versus 5.5 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.59 [95% CI, 0.38–0.92]; P = 0.02] or G/C (median, 8.3 versus 6.0 months; HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.37–0.90]; P = 0.02). OS was numerically longer with nab-P/C versus nab-P/G (median, 16.8 versus 12.1 months; HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.47–1.13]; P = 0.16) or G/C (median, 16.8 versus 12.6 months; HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.52–1.22]; P = 0.29). ORR was 73%, 39%, and 44%, respectively. In the nab-P/C, nab-P/G, and G/C groups, 64%, 56%, and 50% of patients initiated cycle 6 with a doublet. Grade ≥3 adverse events were mainly hematologic.ConclusionsFirst-line nab-P/C was active in mTNBC and resulted in a significantly longer PFS and improved risk/benefit profile versus nab-P/G or G/C.     

Updated results from MONALEESA-2, a phase III trial of first-line ribociclib plus letrozole versus placebo plus letrozole in hormone receptor-positive,HER2-negative advanced breast cancer

BackgroundThe phase III MONALEESA-2 study demonstrated significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and a manageable toxicity profile for first-line ribociclib plus letrozole versus placebo plus letrozole in patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2–) advanced breast cancer. Here, we report updated efficacy and safety data, together with exploratory biomarker analyses, from the MONALEESA-2 study.Patients and methodsA total of 668 postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2– recurrent/metastatic breast cancer were randomized (1 : 1; stratified by presence/absence of liver and/or lung metastases) to ribociclib (600 mg/day; 3-weeks-on/1-week-off; 28-day treatment cycles) plus letrozole (2.5 mg/day; continuous) or placebo plus letrozole. The primary end point was locally assessed PFS. The key secondary end point was overall survival (OS). Other secondary end points included overall response rate (ORR) and safety. Biomarker analysis was an exploratory end point.ResultsAt the time of the second interim analysis, the median duration of follow-up was 26.4 months. Median PFS was 25.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 23.0–30.3] for ribociclib plus letrozole and 16.0 months (95% CI 13.4–18.2) for placebo plus letrozole (hazard ratio 0.568; 95% CI 0.457–0.704; log-rank P = 9.63 × 10⁻⁸). Ribociclib treatment benefit was maintained irrespective of PIK3CA or TP53 mutation status, total Rb, Ki67, or p16 protein expression, and CDKN2A, CCND1, or ESR1 mRNA levels. Ribociclib benefit was more pronounced in patients with wild-type versus altered receptor tyrosine kinase genes. OS data remain immature, with 116 deaths observed; 50 in the ribociclib arm and 66 in the placebo arm (hazard ratio 0.746; 95% CI 0.517–1.078). The ORR was 42.5% versus 28.7% for all patients treated with ribociclib plus letrozole versus placebo plus letrozole, respectively, and 54.5% versus 38.8%, respectively, for patients with measurable disease. Safety results, after a further 11.1 months of follow-up, were comparable with those reported at the first analysis, with no new or unexpected toxicities observed, and no evidence of cumulative toxicity.ConclusionsThe improved efficacy outcomes and manageable tolerability observed with first-line ribociclib plus letrozole are maintained with longer follow-up, relative to letrozole monotherapy.Clinical trials numberNCT01958021     

Clinical considerations of the role of palbociclib in the management of advanced breast cancer patients with and without visceral metastases

BackgroundThis report assesses the efficacy and safety of palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) in women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) with or without visceral metastases.Patients and methodsPre- and postmenopausal women with disease progression following prior ET (PALOMA-3; N = 521) and postmenopausal women untreated for ABC (PALOMA-2; N = 666) were randomized 2 : 1 to ET (fulvestrant or letrozole, respectively) plus palbociclib or placebo. Progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and patient-reported quality of life (QoL) were evaluated by prior treatment and visceral involvement.ResultsVisceral metastases incidence was higher in patients with prior resistance to ET (58.3%, PALOMA-3) than in patients naive to ET in the ABC setting (48.6%, PALOMA-2). In patients with prior resistance to ET and visceral metastases, median PFS (mPFS) was 9.2 months with palbociclib plus fulvestrant versus 3.4 months with placebo plus fulvestrant [hazard ratio (HR), 0.47; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.35–0.61], and objective response rate (ORR) was 28.0% versus 6.7%, respectively. In patients with nonvisceral metastases, mPFS was 16.6 versus 7.3 months, HR 0.53; 95% CI 0.36–0.77. In patients with visceral disease and naive to ET in the advanced disease setting, mPFS was 19.3 months with palbociclib plus letrozole versus 12.9 months with placebo plus letrozole (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.47–0.85); ORR was 55.1% versus 40.0%; in patients with nonvisceral disease, mPFS was not reached with palbociclib plus letrozole versus 16.8 months with placebo plus letrozole (HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.36–0.70). In patients with prior resistance to ET with visceral metastases, palbociclib plus fulvestrant significantly delayed deterioration of QoL versus placebo plus fulvestrant, whereas patient-reported QoL was maintained with palbociclib plus letrozole in patients naive to endocrine-based therapy for ABC.ConclusionsPalbociclib plus ET prolonged mPFS in patients with visceral metastases, increased ORRs, and in patients previously treated for ABC, delayed QoL deterioration, presenting a standard treatment option among patients with visceral metastases amenable to endocrine-based therapy.Clinical trial registrationNCT01942135, NCT01740427     

Randomised,placebo-controlled,double-blind,parallel-group phase III study evaluating aflibercept in patients receiving first-line treatment with gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer

BackgroundThis phase III study investigated the addition of aflibercept to gemcitabine, in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.Patients and methodsPatients with metastatic pancreatic cancer were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous (i.v.) aflibercept, 4 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or matching placebo combined with gemcitabine, 1000 mg/m² i.v. weekly for 7 weeks out of 8, then weekly for 3 weeks out of 4 until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity or withdrawal of consent. The primary objective was to demonstrate an improvement in overall survival (OS) between the treatment arms.ResultsThe study was stopped for futility following a planned interim analysis of OS in 427 randomised patients. With a median follow-up of 7.9 months, based on the 546 patients at study termination, median OS was 7.8 months in the gemcitabine plus placebo arm (n = 275) versus 6.5 months in the gemcitabine plus aflibercept arm (n = 271), which was not significant (hazard ratio 1.165, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.921–1.473, p = 0.2034). Median progression-free survival was 3.7 months in both arms. Treatment discontinuations due to adverse events were more frequent in the aflibercept than in the placebo-containing arm (23% versus 12%).ConclusionAdding aflibercept to gemcitabine did not improve OS in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.     

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

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

Multicentre randomised phase II trial of gemcitabine + platinum,with or without trastuzumab,in advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma overexpressing Her2

AimTo investigate the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine and platinum salt, with or without trastuzumab, in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma overexpressing Her2.MethodsThe main eligibility criterion was Her2 overexpression on immunohistochemistry (IHC 2+ or 3+) of primary tumour tissue confirmed by fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH). Patients were randomised to Arm A: gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² (days 1 and 8) plus either cisplatin (70 mg/m²) or carboplatin (AUC = 5) (day 1 every 3 weeks) or Arm B: added trastuzumab (8 mg/kg loading dose, then 6 mg/kg every 21 days until progression). The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsAmong 563 screened patients, 75 (13.3%) were Her2 positive (IHC 2+/3+ and FISH+) and 61 met all eligibility criteria (median age, 64 years; 54/61 males; 50/61 baseline ECOG-PS 0-1; 11 locally advanced and 50 metastatic). There was no significant difference between Arms A and B in median PFS (10.2 versus 8.2 months, respectively, p = 0.689), objective response rate (65.5% versus 53.2%, p = 0.39), and median overall survival (15.7 versus 14.1 months, respectively, p = 0.684). In an exploratory analysis, trastuzumab-treated patients receiving cisplatin rather than carboplatin-based chemotherapy fared better (PFS: 10.6 versus 8.0; OS: 33.1 versus 9.5 months). Myelosuppression was the main grade 3/4 toxicity. A case of grade 3 cardiotoxicity and one death from febrile neutropenia occurred in arm B.ConclusionThe unexpectedly low incidence of Her2 overexpression precluded the detection of a significant difference in efficacy on addition of trastuzumab to platinum-based chemotherapy with gemcitabine. However, the satisfactory tolerance of the combination warrants further studies, especially of the cisplatin-based combination, in well-defined patient subsets.     

Effect of docetaxel duration on clinical outcomes: exploratory analysis of CLEOPATRA,a phase III randomized controlled trial

BackgroundCombination pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel (D) is considered standard first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer. This post hoc, exploratory analysis of CLEOPATRA study data evaluated the clinical effects of D treatment duration within this regimen. The clinical benefits of pertuzumab and trastuzumab by different durations of D treatment were also evaluated.Patients and methodsPatients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer received trastuzumab and D plus pertuzumab or placebo. Clinical outcomes were analyzed by the number of D cycles that patients received (<6D, 6D, or >6D). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for each treatment arm within each D cycle group were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier approach. Time-dependent, multivariate Cox regression was applied to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for HER2-targeted therapy and D cycle groups.ResultsOverall, 804 patients received <6D (n = 119), 6D (n = 210), or >6D (n = 475) cycles. After adjusting for pertuzumab benefits versus placebo (PFS HR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.51–0.74, P < 0.0001; OS HR = 0.60, 95% CI, 0.49–0.74, P < 0.0001), >6D versus 6D cycles was not associated with statistically significant improvements in PFS (HR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.63–1.01, P = 0.0640) or OS (HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.69–1.12, P = 0.3073). Consistent improvements in PFS and OS were observed with pertuzumab versus placebo, irrespective of D duration. The HRs for PFS were 0.395, 0.615, and 0.633 for <6D, 6D, and >6D cycles, respectively (P < 0.05 for all D cycle groups). Corresponding HRs for OS were 0.577, 0.700, and 0.612, respectively (P < 0.05 for <6D and >6D).ConclusionsAfter accounting for pertuzumab benefits, more than six cycles of D treatment was not associated with significant improvements in either PFS or OS compared with six cycles. The addition of pertuzumab to trastuzumab improved clinical outcomes versus trastuzumab plus placebo, regardless of D treatment duration.ClinicalTrials.gov identifierNCT00567190.     

Maintenance pazopanib versus placebo in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer patients non-progressive after first line chemotherapy: A double blind randomised phase III study of the lung cancer group,EORTC 08092 (EudraCT: 2010-018566-23, NCT01208064)

BackgroundSwitch maintenance is an effective strategy in the treatment of advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). Pazopanib is an oral, multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). EORTC 08092 evaluated pazopanib given as maintenance treatment following standard first line platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC.MethodsPatients with non-progressive disease after 4–6 cycles of chemotherapy were randomised to receive either pazopanib 800 mg/day or matched placebo until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end-point was overall survival and secondary end-points were progression-free survival (PFS) and safety.ResultsA total of 600 patients were planned to be randomised. The trial was prematurely stopped following an early interim analysis, after 102 patients were randomised to pazopanib (n = 50) or placebo (n = 52). Median age was 64 years in both arms. Median overall survival was 17.4 months for pazopanib and 12.3 months for placebo (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.72 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40–1.28]; p = 0.257). Median PFS was 4.3 months versus 3.2 months (HR 0.67, [95% CI 0.43–1.03], p = 0.068). PFS rates at 4 months were 56% and 45% respectively. The majority of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were grade 1–2. Grade 3–4 AEs (pazopanib versus placebo) were hypertension (38% versus 8%), neutropenia (8% versus 0%), and elevated SGPT (6% versus 0%). Of the patients randomised to pazopanib, 22% withdrew due to a treatment-related AE.ConclusionsSwitch maintenance with pazopanib following platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC patients had limited side-effects. This study was stopped due to lack of efficacy by stringent criteria for PFS at a futility interim analysis.     

Nintedanib for the treatment of patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (LUME-Colon 1): a phase III,international, randomized,placebo-controlled study

BackgroundAngiogenesis is critical to colorectal cancer (CRC) growth and metastasis. Phase I/II studies have demonstrated the efficacy of nintedanib, a triple angiokinase inhibitor, in patients with metastatic CRC. This global, randomized, phase III study investigated the efficacy and safety of nintedanib in patients with refractory CRC after failure of standard therapies.Patients and methodsEligible patients (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–1, with histologically/cytologically confirmed metastatic/locally advanced CRC adenocarcinoma unamenable to surgery and/or radiotherapy) were randomized 1 : 1 to receive nintedanib (200 mg twice daily) or placebo (twice daily), until disease progression or undue toxicity. Patients were stratified by previous regorafenib, time from onset of metastatic disease to randomization, and region. Co-primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by central review. Secondary end points included objective tumor response and disease control by central review.ResultsFrom October 2014 to January 2016, 768 patients were randomized; 765 were treated (nintedanib n = 384; placebo n = 381). Median follow-up was 13.4 months (interquartile range 11.1–15.7). OS was not improved [median OS 6.4 months with nintedanib versus 6.0 months with placebo; hazard ratio (HR), 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.86–1.19; P = 0.8659]. There was a significant but modest increase in PFS with nintedanib versus placebo (median PFS 1.5 versus 1.4 months, respectively; HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.49–0.69; P < 0.0001). There were no complete or partial responses. Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 97% of 384 nintedanib-treated patients and 93% of 381 placebo-treated patients. The most frequent grade ≥3 AEs were liver-related AEs (nintedanib 16%; placebo 8%) and fatigue (nintedanib 9%; placebo 6%).ConclusionsThe study failed to meet both co-primary end points. Nintedanib did not improve OS and was associated with a significant but modest increase in PFS versus placebo. Nintedanib was well tolerated.ClinicalTrials.gov numberNCT02149108 (LUME-Colon 1).     

KRAS mutations are associated with inferior clinical outcome in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer,but are not predictive for benefit with cediranib

PurposeThe prognostic potential of KRAS mutations in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) patients and the impact of KRAS mutation status on the effectiveness of chemotherapy or vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signalling inhibitor therapy remain unclear. KRAS mutation status was evaluated retrospectively as a potential prognostic/predictive marker of clinical outcomes using tumour samples from patients with metastatic CRC receiving cediranib or placebo plus FOLFOX/XELOX in a Phase III trial (HORIZON II; NCT00399035).MethodsKRAS codon 12 and 13 mutation analyses were performed using a commercially available, allele-specific, amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS)-based polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay. Retrospective analyses of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) according to KRAS mutation status were performed for patients randomised to cediranib 20 mg or placebo.ResultsKRAS status was determined in 599/1076 patients (cediranib 20 mg, n = 285/502; cediranib 30 mg, n = 110/216; placebo, n = 204/358). Baseline characteristics were similar across KRAS mutant (n = 258; 24.0%), wild-type (n = 341; 31.7%) and status unknown (n = 477; 44.3%) groups. There was a trend towards improved PFS and OS in the wild-type versus mutant subgroups independent of treatment (cediranib 20 mg and placebo: PFS hazard ratio (HR) = 0.85 [median PFS: wild-type = 8.5 months; mutant = 8.3 months]; OS HR = 0.71 [median OS: wild-type = 20.9 months; mutant = 16.9 months]). Treatment effects were similar between KRAS subgroups for cediranib 20 mg versus placebo (PFS: wild-type HR = 0.78, mutant HR = 0.82; OS: wild-type HR = 0.92, mutant HR = 1.01).ConclusionData from this large randomised Phase III study show that KRAS codon 12/13 mutations have negative prognostic value in metastatic CRC patients receiving treatment with FOLFOX/XELOX, but KRAS mutation status is not predictive of treatment benefit with cediranib, using PFS or OS.     

Sunitinib objective response in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Analysis of 1059 patients treated on clinical trials

BackgroundRetrospective analyses were performed in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) to characterise the objective response (OR) rate to sunitinib and differentiate pretreatment features and outcomes of patients with early (response by ⩽12 weeks) versus late response, and responders versus non-responders.MethodsData were pooled from 1059 patients in six trials. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by Brookmeyer and Crowley method and compared between groups by log-rank test. Baseline characteristics were compared by Fisher-exact, t-, or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Associations between characteristics and survival were investigated by Cox proportional regression analysis.Results398 patients (38%) had confirmed OR (12 complete responses); 26%, 61%, 79% and 86% responded by 6, 12, 18 and 24 weeks, respectively. Median (range) time to tumour response (TTR) was 10.6 (2.7–94.4) weeks and was similar in treatment-naïve and cytokine-refractory patients. Median response duration in early and late responders was 52.0 and 55.0 weeks, respectively. Median PFS in early versus late responders was 13.8 versus 20.2 months (P = 0.001); however, median OS did not significantly differ (37.8 versus 40.8 months; P = 0.144). Early responders had more lung metastases (P < 0.01), but baseline characteristics were otherwise mostly similar. Median PFS (16.3 versus 5.3 months) and OS (40.1 versus 14.5 months) were longer in responders versus non-responders (both P < 0.001); responders had more favourable prognostic factors.ConclusionsOR occurred in 38% of sunitinib-treated mRCC patients. Sixty-one percent of responses occurred by 12 weeks of therapy, and responders had favourable pretreatment features and significantly longer survival.     

Sorafenib as third- or fourth-line treatment of advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour and pretreatment including both imatinib and sunitinib,and nilotinib: A retrospective analysis

BackgroundTyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) improve the outcome of patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST), but treatment failure is frequent, and prognosis then bleak. Smaller trials in this setting suggested activity for sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor of receptor tyrosine kinases and RAF serine/threonine kinases.Patients and methodsWe retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of sorafenib, starting dose 400 mg twice daily, in a large community-based cohort of 124 patients treated in 12 European and one United States (U.S.) cancer centre. All but one patient had a WHO performance score 0–2. All had failed both imatinib and sunitinib, 68 patients nilotinib and 26 had failed investigational therapy, too.ResultsTwelve (10%) patients responded to sorafenib and 70 (57%) patients achieved disease stabilisation. Sorafenib was moderately tolerated, and toxicity reported in 56% of the patients. Rash, hand-foot-syndrome and diarrhea occurred frequently. Sorafenib dosage was reduced in a third of patients, but this did not have an impact on progression-free survival (PFS) (p = 0.15). Median PFS was 6.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.6–8.0 months) and median overall survival (OS) 13.5 months (95% CI, 10.0–21.0 months). Patients with a good performance status and those who responded to sorafenib had a significant better PFS.ConclusionWe conclude that sorafenib is active in GIST resistant to imatinib, sunitinib and nilotinib. These results warrant further investigation of sorafenib or similar molecules in GIST.     

Early ctDNA dynamics as a surrogate for progression-free survival in advanced breast cancer in the BEECH trial

BackgroundDynamic changes in circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) levels may predict long-term outcome. We utilised samples from a phase I/II randomised trial (BEECH) to assess ctDNA dynamics as a surrogate for progression-free survival (PFS) and early predictor of drug efficacy.Patients and methodsPatients with estrogen receptor-positive advanced metastatic breast cancer (ER+ mBC) in the BEECH study, paclitaxel plus placebo versus paclitaxel plus AKT inhibitor capivasertib, had plasma samples collected for ctDNA analysis at baseline and at multiple time points in the development cohort (safety run-in, part A) and validation cohort (randomised, part B). Baseline sample ctDNA sequencing identified mutations for longitudinal analysis and mutation-specific digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) assays were utilised to assess change in ctDNA abundance (allele fraction) between baseline and 872 on-treatment samples. Primary objective was to assess whether early suppression of ctDNA, based on pre-defined criteria from the development cohort, independently predicted outcome in the validation cohort.ResultsIn the development cohort, suppression of ctDNA was apparent after 8 days of treatment (P = 0.014), with cycle 2 day 1 (4 weeks) identified as the optimal time point to predict PFS from early ctDNA dynamics. In the validation cohort, median PFS was 11.1 months in patients with suppressed ctDNA at 4 weeks and 6.4 months in patients with high ctDNA (hazard ratio = 0.20, 95% confidence interval 0.083–0.50, P < 0.0001). There was no difference in the level of ctDNA suppression between patients randomised to capivasertib or placebo overall (P = 0.904) nor in the PIK3CA mutant subpopulation (P = 0.071). Clonal haematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) was evident in 30% (18/59) baseline samples, although CHIP had no effect on tolerance of chemotherapy nor on PFS.ConclusionEarly on-treatment ctDNA dynamics are a surrogate for PFS. Dynamic ctDNA assessment has the potential to substantially enhance early drug development.Clinical registration numberNCT01625286.     

Incidence of brain metastases in renal cell carcinoma treated with sorafenib

Background: This retrospective study evaluated the incidence of brain metastases in a subgroup of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who were randomly assigned to receive sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor (400 mg b.i.d.), versus placebo in the phase III Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial (TARGET).Patients and methods: Patients enrolled in TARGET at two centres (Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France, n = 85; Central Clinical Hospital of Military Medical Academy, Warsaw, Poland, n = 54) made up the current subgroup, who were retrospectively evaluated for the incidence of brain metastases during follow-up. The association between treatment (sorafenib versus placebo) and occurrence of brain metastases was evaluated by univariate analysis.Results: The overall incidence of brain metastases in patients receiving sorafenib was 3% (2 of 70 patients) compared with 12% (8 of 69 patients) in patients receiving placebo (P < 0.05). The incidence of brain metastases was also significantly lower in the sorafenib group after 1 (P = 0.0447) and 2 years (P = 0.005) of treatment compared with the placebo group.Conclusions: In this subpopulation, sorafenib may reduce the occurrence of brain metastases. Antiangiogenic therapy, such as sorafenib, could be an effective preventive therapy for brain metastases in advanced RCC.     

Sorafenib and sunitinib for elderly patients with renal cell carcinoma

BackgroundSunitinib and sorafenib are small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors with known antitumor activity in advanced renal cell carcinoma.Materials and MethodsWe retrospectively assess the response and tolerance of elderly patients with renal cell carcinoma to these two agents. Data of patients aged ≥ 70 years receiving sorafenib or sunitinib at the Centre Léon Bérard were analyzed. Forty-eight patients received sorafenib or sunitinib as a first line treatment, 8 received sorafenib followed by sunitinib and 4 received the reverse sequence. Objective responses (ORs), stable disease (SD), toxicity, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were reported.ResultsSorafenib and sunitinib achieved similar OR + SD rates (79% vs. 71% respectively). Median PFS was 6 months in first-line sorafenib treated patients and 5 months in the sunitinib group. Median OS was 16 months in first-line sorafenib-treated patients and 15 months in the sunitinib group. In patients receiving sorafenib followed by sunitinib, median PFS was 11.5 months, and median OS was 13.1 months. With the reverse sequence, median PFS was 8.1 months and median OS was 15 months. Treatment modifications were more frequent in sunitinib-treated patients, in first or second line (75% vs. 50%). Limitations are the retrospective design of the study and the small number of patients.ConclusionFirst-line sunitinib and sorafenib seem equally efficient in elderly patients treated for advanced renal carcinomas, but sunitinib is less well tolerated. Sequential treatment with sorafenib followed by sunitinib seems to be better tolerated. These results should be confirmed in a larger prospective study.     

Dabrafenib plus trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in patients with metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma: long-term survival and safety analysis of a phase 3 study

BackgroundPrevious analysis of COMBI-d (NCT01584648) demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with combination dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. This study was continued to assess 3-year landmark efficacy and safety after ≥36-month follow-up for all living patients.Patients and methodsThis double-blind, phase 3 study enrolled previously untreated patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma. Patients were randomized to receive dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or dabrafenib plus placebo. The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints were OS, overall response, duration of response, safety, and pharmacokinetics.ResultsBetween 4 May and 30 November 2012, a total of 423 of 947 screened patients were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (n= 211) or dabrafenib monotherapy (n = 212). At data cut-off (15 February 2016), outcomes remained superior with the combination: 3-year PFS was 22% with dabrafenib plus trametinib versus 12% with monotherapy, and 3-year OS was 44% versus 32%, respectively. Twenty-five patients receiving monotherapy crossed over to combination therapy, with continued follow-up under the monotherapy arm (per intent-to-treat principle). Of combination-arm patients alive at 3 years, 58% remained on dabrafenib plus trametinib. Three-year OS with the combination reached 62% in the most favourable subgroup (normal lactate dehydrogenase and <3 organ sites with metastasis) versus only 25% in the unfavourable subgroup (elevated lactate dehydrogenase). The dabrafenib plus trametinib safety profile was consistent with previous clinical trial observations, and no new safety signals were detected with long-term use.ConclusionsThese data demonstrate that durable (≥3 years) survival is achievable with dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma and support long-term first-line use of the combination in this setting.     

Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin versus gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin as first-line therapy for advanced biliary tract cancers: a multicenter,open-label,randomized, phase III,noninferiority trial

BackgroundCapecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) has shown modest activity and tolerable toxicity in a phase II trial for biliary tract cancers (BTCs). Meanwhile, gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin (GEMOX) has been the reference arm in recent phase II and III trials for BTCs. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of XELOX versus GEMOX as first-line therapy for advanced BCTs.Patients and methodsIn this open-label, randomized, phase III, noninferiority trial, we randomly selected patients with metastatic BCTs to receive GEMOX (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² on days 1 and 8, and oxaliplatin 100 mg/m² on day 1) or XELOX (capecitabine 1000 mg/m², twice daily, on days 1–14 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m² on day 1) as first-line treatment, given every 3 weeks, totaling eight cycles. The primary end point was to prove the noninferiority of XELOX to GEMOX in terms of 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate.ResultsIn total, 114 patients randomly received GEMOX and 108 randomly received XELOX. The median PFS was 5.3 months for the GEMOX group and 5.8 months for the XELOX group. The 6-month PFS rate was 44.5% for the GEMOX group and 46.7% for the XELOX group. The 95% confidence interval of the 6-month PFS rate difference between both groups was −12% to 16%, meeting the criteria for noninferiority of XELOX to GEMOX. There was no difference in objective response (P=0.171) and median overall survival (P=0.131) between both groups. The most common grade three to four adverse events were neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. No patient died of treatment-related causes. The XELOX group had significantly lower frequencies of hospital visits than the GEMOX group (P<0.001).ConclusionXELOX showed significant noninferiority to GEMOX in terms of 6-month PFS rate. Thus, XELOX could be an alternative first-line treatment of BCTs.Trial RegistrationThis study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT01470443).