A phase IIb multicentre study comparing the efficacy of trabectedin to doxorubicin in patients with advanced or metastatic untreated soft tissue sarcoma: The TRUSTS trial

PurposeTo evaluate whether trabectedin as first-line chemotherapy for advanced/metastatic soft tissue sarcoma prolongs progression-free survival (PFS), compared to doxorubicin and, in the phase IIb part here, to select the most appropriate trabectedin treatment schedule (3-hour or 24-hour infusion) in terms of safety, convenience and efficacy.Patients and methodsIn this randomised multicentre prospective dose-selection phase IIb superiority trial, 133 patients were randomised between doxorubicin (n = 43), trabectedin (3-hour infusion, T3h) (n = 47) and trabectedin (24-hour infusion, T24h) (n = 43). PFS was defined as time from random assignment until objective progression by response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST 1.1), a global deterioration of the health status requiring discontinuation of the treatment, or death from any cause.ResultsThe study was terminated due to lack of superiority in both trabectedin treatment arms as compared to the doxorubicin control arm. Median PFS was 2.8 months in the T3h arm, 3.1 months in the T24h arm and 5.5 months in the doxorubicin arm. No significant improvements in PFS were observed in the trabectedin arms as compared to the doxorubicin arm (T24h versus doxorubicin: hazard ratio (HR) 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67–1.90, P = .675; T3h versus doxorubicin: HR 1.50, 95% CI 0.91–2.48, P = .944). Only one toxic death occurred in the T3h arm, but treatment had to be stopped due to toxicity in 7 (15.2%) (T3h), 8 (19.5%) (T24h) and 1 (2.5%) doxorubicin patients.ConclusionDoxorubicin continues to be the standard treatment in eligible patients with advanced/metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (STS). Trabectedin 1.5 mg/m²/24-hour infusion is the overall proven approach to delivering this agent in the second-line setting for patients with advanced or metastatic STS.     

Trabectedin in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma: A retrospective national analysis of the French Sarcoma Group

AimThe French Sarcoma Group performed this retrospective analysis of the ‘RetrospectYon’ database with data of patients with recurrent advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) treated with trabectedin 1.5 mg/m² as a 24-h infusion every three weeks.MethodsPatients who achieved non-progressive disease after six initial cycles could receive long-term trabectedin treatment until disease progression.ResultsOverall, 885 patients from 25 French centres were included. Patients received a median of four trabectedin cycles (range: 1–28). The objective response rate was 17% (six complete/127 partial responses) and 50% (n = 403) of patients had stable disease for a disease control rate of 67%. After a median follow-up of 22.0 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 4.4 and 12.2 months, respectively. After six cycles, 227/304 patients with non-progressive disease received trabectedin until disease progression and obtained a significantly superior median PFS (11.7 versus 7.6 months, P < 0.003) and OS (24.9 versus 16.9 months, P < 0.001) compared with those who stopped trabectedin treatment. Deaths and unscheduled hospitalisation attributed to drug-related events occurred in 0.5% and 9.4% of patients, respectively.ConclusionThe results of this real-life study demonstrate that treatment with trabectedin of patients with STS yielded comparable or improved efficacy outcomes versus those observed in clinical trials. A long-term treatment with trabectedin given until disease progression is associated with significantly improved PFS and OS.     

A randomized trial of induction docetaxel–cisplatin–5FU followed by concomitant cisplatin-RT versus concomitant cisplatin-RT in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (GORTEC 2006-02)

BackgroundConcomitant chemotherapy (CT)–radiotherapy (RT) is a standard of care in locally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) and a role for induction CT is not established.MethodsPatients with locally advanced NPC, WHO type 2 or 3, were randomized to induction TPF plus concomitant cisplatin-RT or concomitant cisplatin-RT alone. The TPF regimen consisted of three cycles of Docetaxel 75 mg/m² day 1; cisplatin 75 mg/m² day 1; 5FU 750 mg/m²/day days 1–5. RT consisted of 70 Gy in 7 weeks plus concomitant cisplatin 40 mg/m² weekly.ResultsA total of 83 patients were included in the study. Demographics and tumour characteristics were well balanced between both arms. Most of the patients (95%) in the TPF arm received three cycles of induction CT. The rate of grade 3–4 toxicity and the compliance (NCI-CTCAE v3) during cisplatin-RT were not different between both arms. With a median follow-up of 43.1 months, the 3-year PFS rate was 73.9% in the TPF arm versus 57.2% in the reference arm [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.44; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.20–0.97, P = 0.042]. Similarly the 3 years overall survival rate was 86.3% in the TPF arm versus 68.9% in the reference arm (HR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.15–1.04, P = 0.05).ConclusionIn conclusion, several important aspects can be emphasized: the compliance to induction TPF was good and TPF did not compromise the tolerance of the concomitant RT-cisplatin phase. The improved PFS and overall survival rates needs to be confirmed by further trials.     

Randomised phase III trial of vinflunine plus capecitabine versus capecitabine alone in patients with advanced breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and resistant to taxane

BackgroundCapecitabine is an approved standard therapy for anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (BC). Vinflunine has demonstrated single-agent activity in phase II studies in this setting and activity and tolerability when combined with capecitabine. We compared the combination of vinflunine plus capecitabine (VC) with single-agent capecitabine.Patients and methodsPatients with locally recurrent/metastatic BC previously treated or resistant to an anthracycline and resistant to taxane therapy were randomly assigned to either vinflunine (280 mg/m², day 1) plus oral capecitabine [825 mg/m² twice daily (b.i.d.), days 1–14] every 3 weeks (q3w) or single-agent oral capecitabine (1250 mg/m² b.i.d., days 1–14) q3w. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by an independent review committee. The study had 90% power to detect a 30% improvement in PFS.ResultsOverall, 770 patients were randomised. PFS was significantly longer with VC than with capecitabine alone [hazard ratio, 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.71–0.99; log-rank P = 0.043; median 5.6 versus 4.3 months, respectively]. Median overall survival was 13.9 versus 11.7 months with VC versus capecitabine alone, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.83–1.15; log-rank P = 0.77). No difference in quality of life was observed between the two treatment arms. The most common adverse events (NCI CTCAE version 3.0) in the combination arm were haematological and gastrointestinal. Grade 4 neutropenia was more frequent with VC (12% versus 1% with capecitabine alone); febrile neutropenia occurred in 2% versus 0.5%, respectively. Hand-foot syndrome was less frequent with VC (grade 3: 4% versus 19% for capecitabine alone). Peripheral neuropathy was uncommon in both arms (grade 3: 1% versus 0.3%).ConclusionsVinflunine combined with capecitabine demonstrated a modest improvement in PFS and an acceptable safety profile compared with capecitabine alone in patients with anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated locally recurrent/metastatic BC.ClinicalTrials.govNCT01095003.     

A multicentre randomised trial comparing weekly paclitaxel + S-1 with weekly paclitaxel + 5-fluorouracil for patients with advanced gastric cancer

PurposeThis study aimed to compare the efficacy and toxicity of weekly paclitaxel plus S-1 with weekly paclitaxel plus 5-fluorouracil in treating advanced gastric cancer as first line regimen. The primary end-point was disease control rate (DCR).MethodsPatients with advanced or recurrent gastric cancer were randomly assigned to an experimental arm or a control arm. The experimental arm’s dosage schedule was paclitaxel 60 mg/m² (intravenous infusion) on days 1, 8 and 15 and S-1 80–120 mg/d (oral administration) on days 1–14. Control arm patients were given the same paclitaxel, combined with 5-fluorouracil 500 mg/m² (continuous intravenous infusion) on days 1–5; and leucovorin 20 mg/m² (intravenous infusion) on days 1–5. All schedules were repeated every 28 d.ResultsA total of 240 patients were enrolled and equally randomised into two arms. The overall response rate and DCR of the experimental arm was non-inferior to that of the control arm both in the per-protocol set and the full analysis set. The secondary end-point median progression-free survival (PFS) of the experimental and control arms was 153 and 129 d, with the hazard ratio of 0.641 (95% CI: 0.473–0.868, P = 0.004). The hazard ratio of the time to treatment failure of the two arms was 1.449 (95% CI: 0.705–2.980, P = 0.229). The six-month PFS rates of both arms were similar (31.3% versus 31.8%, P = 0.94). Cox regression analysis indicated that only treatment regimen and age were independent predictive factors for PFS. The most common adverse events were haematological and gastrointestinal. The rates of grade 3–4 adverse events were not significantly different between the two study arms and were mostly lower than 5%.ConclusionWeekly paclitaxel combined with S-1 is an active and well-tolerated regimen, supporting the view that S-1 can be an alternative for infusional 5-fluorouracil for advanced gastric cancer.     

Is there a role of surgery in patients with recurrent or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours responding to imatinib: A prospective randomised trial in China

ObjectivesFor advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) patients who are responding to imatinib mesylate, the role of surgery has not been formally demonstrated. This multicenter randomised controlled trial was designed to assess whether surgery to treat residual disease for patients with recurrent/metastatic GISTs responding to imatinib mesylate (IM) improved progression free survival (PFS) compared with IM treatment alone.MethodsBetween 3 and 12 months after starting IM for recurrent/metastatic GISTs, eligible patients were randomised to two arms: Arm A (surgery for residual disease) and Arm B (IM treatment alone). In Arm A (19 pts), surgery was performed to remove residual macroscopic lesions as completely as possible, and IM treatment continued after surgery. In Arm B (22 pts), IM was given alone at a dose of 400 mg per day until disease progression. The primary end-point was PFS measured from the date IM started. This study was registered in the ChiCTR registry with the ID number ChiCTR-TRC-00000244.ResultsThis randomised trial was closed early due to poor accrual. Only 41 patients were enrolled as opposed to 210 patients planned. 2-year PFS was 88.4% in the surgery arm and 57.7% in the IM-alone arm (P = 0.089). Median overall survival (mOS) was not reached in the surgery arm and 49 months in patients with IM-alone arm (P = 0.024).ConclusionsWhile no significant differences were observed in the two arms, this study suggests that surgical removal of the metastatic lesion may improve the outcome of advanced GIST patients and should stimulate additional research on this topic.     

90Y-clivatuzumab tetraxetan with or without low-dose gemcitabine: A phase Ib study in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer after two or more prior therapies

BackgroundFor patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, there are no approved or established treatments beyond the 2nd line. A Phase Ib study of fractionated radioimmunotherapy was undertaken in this setting, administering ⁹⁰Y-clivatuzumab tetraxetan (yttrium-90-radiolabelled humanised antibody targeting pancreatic adenocarcinoma mucin) with or without low radiosensitising doses of gemcitabine.MethodsFifty-eight patients with three (2–7) median prior treatments were treated on Arm A (N = 29, ⁹⁰Y-clivatuzumab tetraxetan, weekly 6.5 mCi/m² doses × 3, plus gemcitabine, weekly 200 mg/m² doses × 4 starting 1 week earlier) or Arm B (N = 29, ⁹⁰Y-clivatuzumab tetraxetan alone, weekly 6.5 mCi/m² doses × 3), repeating cycles after 4-week delays. Safety was the primary endpoint; efficacy was also evaluated.ResultsCytopaenias (predominantly transient thrombocytopenia) were the only significant toxicities. Fifty-three patients (27 Arm A, 26 Arm B, 91% overall) completed ⩾1 full treatment cycles, with 23 (12 Arm A, 11 Arm B; 40%) receiving multiple cycles, including seven (6 Arm A, 1 Arm B; 12%) given 3–9 cycles. Two patients in Arm A had partial responses by RECIST criteria. Kaplan–Meier overall survival (OS) appeared improved in Arm A versus B (hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95% CI: 0.29–0.86; P = 0.017, log-rank) and the median OS for Arm A versus Arm B increased to 7.9 versus 3.4 months with multiple cycles (HR 0.32, P = 0.004), including three patients in Arm A surviving >1 year.ConclusionsClinical studies of ⁹⁰Y-clivatuzumab tetraxetan combined with low-dose gemcitabine appear feasible in metastatic pancreatic cancer patients beyond 2nd line and a Phase III trial of this combination is now underway in this setting.     

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

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

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

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

Global Lung Oncology Branch trial 3 (GLOB3): final results of a randomised multinational phase III study alternating oral and i.v. vinorelbine plus cisplatin versus docetaxel plus cisplatin as first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Background: The study compared the efficacy of a first-line treatment with day 1 i.v. vinorelbine (NVBiv) and day 8 oral vinorelbine (NVBo) versus docetaxel (DCT) in a cisplatin-based combination in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, in terms of time to treatment failure (TTF), overall response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), tolerance and quality of life (QoL).Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive cisplatin 80 mg/m² with NVBiv 30 mg/m² on day 1 and NVBo 80 mg/m² on day 8 every 3 weeks, after a first cycle of NVBiv 25 mg/m² on day 1 and NVBo 60 mg/m² on day 8 (arm A) or cisplatin 75 mg/m² and DCT 75 mg/m² on day 1 every 3 weeks (arm B), for a maximum of six cycles in both arms.Results: From 2 February 2004 to 1 January 2006, 390 patients were entered in a randomised study and 381 were treated. The patient characteristics are as follows (arms A/B): metastatic (%) 80.5/84.8; patients with three or more organs involved (%) 45.3/40.8; median age 59.4/62.1 years; male 139/146; squamous (%) 34.2/33.5; adenocarcinoma (%) 41.6/39.3; median TTF (arms A/B in months) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 3.2 (3.0–4.2), 4.1 (3.4–4.5) (P = 0.19); overall response (arms A/B) (95% CI): 27.4% (21.2% to 34.2%), 27.2% (21.0% to 34.2%); median PFS (arms A/B in months) (95% CI): 4.9 (4.4–5.9), 5.1 (4.3–6.1) (P = 0.99) and median OS (arms A/B in months) (95% CI): 9.9 (8.4–11.6), 9.8 (8.8–11.5) (P = 0.58). The median survival for squamous histology was 8.87/9.82 months and for adenocarcinoma 11.73/11.60 months for arms A and B, respectively. Main haematological toxicity was grade 3–4 neutropenia: 24.4% (arm A) and 28.8% (arm B). QoL as measured by the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale was similar in both arms.Conclusions: Both arms provided similar efficacy in terms of response, time-related parameters and QoL, with an acceptable tolerance profile. In the current Global Lung Oncology Branch trial 3, NVBo was shown to be effective as a substitute for the i.v. formulation. This can relieve the burden of the i.v. injection on day 8 and can optimise the hospital's resources and improve patient convenience.     

Randomized phase III KEYNOTE-045 trial of pembrolizumab versus paclitaxel,docetaxel, or vinflunine in recurrent advanced urothelial cancer: results of >2 years of follow-up

BackgroundNovel second-line treatments are needed for patients with advanced urothelial cancer (UC). Interim analysis of the phase III KEYNOTE-045 study showed a superior overall survival (OS) benefit of pembrolizumab, a programmed death 1 inhibitor, versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced UC that progressed on platinum-based chemotherapy. Here we report the long-term safety and efficacy outcomes of KEYNOTE-045.Patients and methodsAdult patients with histologically/cytologically confirmed UC whose disease progressed after first-line, platinum-containing chemotherapy were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to receive pembrolizumab [200 mg every 3 weeks (Q3W)] or investigator’s choice of paclitaxel (175 mg/m² Q3W), docetaxel (75 mg/m² Q3W), or vinflunine (320 mg/m² Q3W). Primary end points were OS and progression-free survival (PFS) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) by blinded independent central radiology review (BICR). A key secondary end point was objective response rate per RECIST v1.1 by BICR.ResultsA total of 542 patients were enrolled (pembrolizumab, n = 270; chemotherapy, n = 272). Median follow-up as of 26 October 2017 was 27.7 months. Median 1- and 2-year OS rates were higher with pembrolizumab (44.2% and 26.9%, respectively) than chemotherapy (29.8% and 14.3%, respectively). PFS rates did not differ between treatment arms; however, 1- and 2-year PFS rates were higher with pembrolizumab. The objective response rate was also higher with pembrolizumab (21.1% versus 11.0%). Median duration of response to pembrolizumab was not reached (range 1.6+ to 30.0+ months) versus chemotherapy (4.4 months; range 1.4+ to 29.9+ months). Pembrolizumab had lower rates of any grade (62.0% versus 90.6%) and grade ≥3 (16.5% versus 50.2%) treatment-related adverse events than chemotherapy.ConclusionsLong-term results (>2 years’ follow-up) were consistent with those of previously reported analyses, demonstrating continued clinical benefit of pembrolizumab over chemotherapy for efficacy and safety for treatment of locally advanced/metastatic, platinum-refractory UC.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02256436.     

Phase II randomized study of trabectedin given as two different every 3 weeks dose schedules (1.5 mg/m2 24 h or 1.3 mg/m2 3 h) to patients with relapsed,platinum-sensitive,advanced ovarian cancer

BackgroundThis randomized, open-label, phase II clinical trial evaluated the optimal regimen of trabectedin administered every 3 weeks in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed, advanced ovarian cancer (AOC).Patients and methodsPatients previously treated with less than two or two previous chemotherapy lines were randomized to receive trabectedin 1.5 mg/m² 24 h (arm A, n = 54) or 1.3 mg/m² 3 h (arm B, n = 53). Objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST was the primary efficacy end point. Toxic effects were graded according to the National Cancer Institute—Common Toxicity Criteria v. 2.0.ResultsORR was 38.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 25.9% to 53.1%; arm A] and 35.8% (95% CI 23.1% to 50.2%; arm B) (intention-to-treat primary analysis). Median time to progression was 6.2 months (95% CI 5.3–8.6 months; arm A) and 6.8 months (95% CI 4.6–7.4 months; arm B). Frequent severe adverse events were nausea/vomiting (24%, arm A; 15%, arm B) and fatigue (15%, arm A; 10%, arm B). Common severe laboratory abnormalities were transient, noncumulative neutropenia (55%, arm A; 37%, arm B) and transaminase increases (alanine aminotransferase, 55%, arm A; 59%, arm B).ConclusionsBoth every-3-weeks trabectedin regimes, 1.5 mg/m² 24 h and 1.3 mg/m² 3 h, were active and reasonably well tolerated in AOC platinum-sensitive patients. Trabectedin every-3-weeks has promising activity and deserves to be further evaluated in relapsed AOC.     

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

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

Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab-based combination regimens in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: Final results from a randomised phase ii study of bevacizumab plus 5-fluorouracil,leucovorin plus irinotecan versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine plus irinotecan (FNCLCC ACCORD 13/0503 study)

BackgroundThe combination of bevacizumab and bolus 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and irinotecan is highly effective in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This randomised, multicenter, non-comparative phase II trial assessed the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab plus oral capecitabine plus irinotecan (XELIRI) or infusional 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin plus irinotecan (FOLFIRI) as first-line therapy for patients with mCRC.Patients and MethodsPatients received bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg on day 1 plus XELIRI (irinotecan 200 mg/m² on day 1 and oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m² bid on days 1–14) every 3 weeks or bevacizumab 5 mg/kg on day 1 plus FOLFIRI (5-fluorouracil 400 mg/m² on day 1 plus 2400 mg/m² as a 46-h infusion, leucovorin 400 mg/m² on day 1, and irinotecan 180 mg/m² on day 1) every 2 weeks. Patients aged ?65 years received a lower dose of capecitabine (800 mg/m² twice daily). The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate.ResultsA total of 145 patients were enrolled (bevacizumab–XELIRI, n = 72; bevacizumab–FOLFIRI, n = 73). The 6-month PFS rate was 82% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 71–90%) in the bevacizumab–XELIRI arm and 85% (95% CI 75–92%) in the bevacizumab–FOLFIRI arm. In both the bevacizumab–XELIRI and bevacizumab–FOLFIRI arms, median PFS and overall survival (OS) were 9 and 23 months, respectively. The most frequent toxicities were grade 3/4 neutropenia (bevacizumab–XELIRI 18%; bevacizumab–FOLFIRI 26%) and grade 3 diarrhoea (12% and 5%, respectively).ConclusionsThis randomised non-comparative study demonstrates that bevacizumab–XELIRI and bevacizumab–FOLFIRI are effective regimens for the first-line treatment of patients with mCRC with manageable toxicity profiles.     

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.     

Safety results from a phase III study (TURANDOT trial by CECOG) of first-line bevacizumab in combination with capecitabine or paclitaxel for HER-2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer

BackgroundWe report safety data from a randomised, phase III study (CECOG/BC.1.3.005) evaluating first-line bevacizumab plus paclitaxel or capecitabine for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.Patients and methodsPatients aged ⩾18 years with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative breast adenocarcinoma were randomised to Arm A: bevacizumab 10 mg/kg days 1 and 15; paclitaxel 90 mg/m² days 1, 8, and 15, every 4 weeks; or Arm B: bevacizumab 15 mg/kg day 1; capecitabine 1000 mg/m² b.i.d., days 1–14, every 3 weeks, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or consent withdrawal.ResultsA post hoc interim safety analysis included 561 patients (Arm A: 284, Arm B: 277). The regimens demonstrated similar frequencies of all-grade and serious adverse events (SAEs), but different safety profiles. Treatment-related events occurred in 85.2% (Arm A) and 78.0% (Arm B) of patients. Fatigue was most common in Arm A (30.6% versus 23.5% Arm B), and hand–foot syndrome (HFS) most common in Arm B (49.5% versus 2.5% Arm A). Diarrhoea (Arm A: 0.4%, Arm B: 1.4%) and pulmonary embolism (Arm A: 0.7%, Arm B: 1.1%) were the most frequently reported SAEs.ConclusionThese findings are in-line with safety data for bevacizumab plus paclitaxel or capecitabine, reported in previous phase III trials.     

Efficacy and tolerability of trabectedin in elderly patients with sarcoma: subgroup analysis from a phase III,randomized controlled study of trabectedin or dacarbazine in patients with advanced liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma

BackgroundTreatment options for soft tissue sarcoma (STS) patients aged ≥65 years (elderly) can be limited by concerns regarding the increased risk of toxicity associated with standard systemic therapies. Trabectedin has demonstrated improved disease control in a phase III trial (ET743-SAR-3007) of patients with advanced liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma after failure of anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Since previous retrospective analyses have suggested that trabectedin has similar safety and efficacy outcomes regardless of patient age, we carried out a subgroup analysis of the safety and efficacy observed in elderly patients enrolled in this trial.Patients and methodsPatients were randomized 2 : 1 to trabectedin (n = 384) or dacarbazine (n = 193) administered intravenously every-3-weeks. The primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), time-to-progression, objective response rate (ORR), duration of response, symptom severity, and safety. A post hoc analysis was conducted in the elderly patient subgroup.ResultsAmong 131 (trabectedin = 94; dacarbazine = 37) elderly patients, disease characteristics were well-balanced and consistent with those of the total study population. Treatment exposure was longer in patients treated with trabectedin versus dacarbazine (median four versus two cycles, respectively), with a significantly higher proportion receiving prolonged therapy (≥6 cycles) in the trabectedin arm (43% versus 23%, respectively; P = 0.04). Elderly patients treated with trabectedin showed significantly improved PFS [4.9 versus 1.5 months, respectively; hazard ratio (HR)=0.40; P = 0.0002] but no statistically significant improvement in OS (15.1 versus 8.0 months, respectively; HR = 0.72; P = 0.18) or ORR (9% versus 3%, respectively; P = 0.43). The safety profile for elderly trabectedin-treated patients was comparable to that of the overall trabectedin-treated study population.ConclusionsThis subgroup analysis of the elderly population of ET743-SAR-3007 suggests that elderly patients with STS and good performance status can expect clinical benefit from trabectedin similar to that observed in younger patients.Trial registrationwww.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01343277.     

A randomised phase II study of combination chemotherapy with epirubicin,cisplatin and capecitabine (ECX) or cisplatin and capecitabine (CX) in advanced gastric cancer

BackgroundBoth cisplatin/capecitabine (CX) and epirubicin plus CX (ECX) have clearly demonstrated efficacy against advanced gastric cancer (AGC).MethodsChemotherapy-naïve patients with histologically confirmed, measurable AGC were randomised to receive CX (cisplatin 75 mg/m² iv on day 1 and capecitabine 1000 mg/m² bid po on days 1–14) or ECX (epirubicin 50 mg/m² plus CX) every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).ResultsOf the 91 registered patients, 45 patients were treated with CX and 44 with ECX. A total of 241 CX (median, 6; range, 1–12) and 201 ECX (median, 5; range, 1–11) cycles were delivered. Treatment duration was similar for both arms (4.4 for CX versus 4.2 months for ECX). There was no relevant difference in the occurrence of overall grade 3 or 4 toxicities between the CX and ECX arms (80% versus 78%, respectively; P = 0.516). However, none in the CX and 12% in the ECX arm discontinued treatment because of toxicity. There were no significant differences in therapeutic efficacy between CX and ECX with respect to the response rate (38% versus 37%, respectively) and PFS (6.4 versus 6.5 months).ConclusionBoth CX and ECX appear to be active as first-line chemotherapy for AGC, and the safety profiles are acceptable. Given the comparable efficacy results, CX could be a reasonable standard chemotherapy for untreated AGC patients.     

A randomized phase II study evaluating different maintenance schedules of nab-paclitaxel in the first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer: final results of the IBCSG 42-12/BIG 2-12 SNAP trial

BackgroundThe phase II SNAP trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of alternative chemotherapy schedules for prolonged administration in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC), after a short induction at conventional doses.Patients and methodsBetween April 2013 and August 2015, 258 women untreated with chemotherapy for MBC were randomly assigned to receive three different maintenance chemotherapy schedules after three cycles of identical induction chemotherapy: arm A, nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m² days 1 and 15 Q28; arm B, nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m² days 1, 8 and 15 Q28; arm C, nab-paclitaxel 75 mg/m² days 1, 8, 15 and 22 Q28. Induction was three cycles nab-paclitaxel 150/125 mg/m², days 1, 8 and 15 Q28. The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of each maintenance schedule, in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), as compared with the historical reference of 7-month median PFS reported by previous studies with first-line docetaxel. One-sample, one-sided log-rank tests were utilized. Quality-of-life (QoL) evaluation was carried out, and the global indicator for physical well-being was defined as the primary QoL end point; completion rates of QoL forms were >90%.ResultsIn total, 255 patients were assessable for the primary end point. After 18.2-month median follow-up, 182 PFS events were observed. Median PFS was 7.9 months [90% confidence interval CI 6.8–8.4] in arm A, 9.0 months (90% CI 8.1–10.9) in arm B and 8.5 months (90% CI 6.7–9.5) in arm C. PFS in arm B was significantly longer than the historical reference of first-line docetaxel (P = 0.03). Grade ≥2 sensory neuropathy was reported in 37.9%, 36.1% and 31.2% of the patients in arm A, B and C, respectively (Grade ≥3 in 9.1%, 5.6% and 6.6% of the patients, respectively). Noteworthy, the QoL scores for sensory neuropathy did not worsen with prolonged nab-paclitaxel administration in any of the maintenance arms.ConclusionThe SNAP trial demonstrated that alternative nab-paclitaxel maintenance schedules with reduced dosages after a short induction at conventional doses are feasible and active in the first-line treatment of MBC.Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01746225