Understanding the Role of Comparative Clinical Studies in the Development of Oncology Biosimilars.

Biosimilars have the potential to broaden patient access to biologics and provide cost savings for health care systems. During the development of a biosimilar, data that directly compare the proposed biosimilar with the reference product are required. Such comparative data are generated in a stepwise hierarchical process that begins with extensive laboratory-based structural analyses and functional assays. This initial analytical phase serves as the foundation for the demonstration of biosimilarity and is followed by nonclinical in vivo testing (if required) and then clinical evaluation, including a comparative pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics study that is usually conducted in healthy volunteers. The development program typically culminates with a comparative clinical efficacy study. The aim of this study is to confirm clinical equivalence of the potential biosimilar and reference product on the basis of prespecified margins, using a study population and efficacy end point that are sufficiently sensitive for detecting potential product-related differences. Such studies also include detailed analyses of safety as well as evaluation of immunogenicity. As biosimilars become more widely available in oncology, especially with recent regulatory approvals of rituximab, trastuzumab, and bevacizumab biosimilars, it is critically important that clinicians understand how the comparative clinical study differs from a traditional phase III efficacy and safety study in the development of a novel biologic originator product. Here, we review the role of comparative clinical studies in biosimilar development, with a focus on trials conducted to support approved trastuzumab biosimilars. We discuss the study populations and end points used, extrapolation of indications, and the confirmatory nature of these studies within the totality of evidence supporting biosimilarity.

PF-06439535 (a Bevacizumab Biosimilar) Compared with Reference Bevacizumab (Avastin®), Both Plus Paclitaxel and Carboplatin, as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Non-Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized, Double-Blind Study.

BACKGROUND: PF-06439535 is a bevacizumab biosimilar. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of PF-06439535 with that of reference bevacizumab (Avastin®) sourced from the EU (bevacizumab-EU), each with paclitaxel and carboplatin, in the first-line treatment of advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: In this double-blind, parallel-group study, we recruited patients from 159 centers in 27 countries. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive PF-06439535 plus paclitaxel and carboplatin or bevacizumab-EU plus paclitaxel and carboplatin on day 1 of each 21-day cycle for 4-6 cycles, followed by blinded monotherapy with PF-06439535 or bevacizumab-EU until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or the end of the study. Randomization was stratified by region, sex, and smoking history. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) in accordance with RECIST 1.1, based on responses achieved by week 19 and confirmed by week 25. RESULTS: Between 21 May 2015 and 14 November 2016, 719 patients were randomized to the PF-06439535 group (n = 358) or the bevacizumab-EU group (n = 361). As of data cutoff for analysis of the primary endpoint (8 May 2017), 45.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 40.01-50.57) of patients in the PF-06439535 group and 44.6% (95% CI 39.40-49.89) of patients in the bevacizumab-EU group achieved an objective response by week 19 that was confirmed by week 25. The unstratified ORR risk ratio was 1.015 (95% CI 0.863-1.193; 90% CI 0.886-1.163), and the unstratified ORR risk difference was 0.653% (95% CI - 6.608 to 7.908); all three CIs fell within pre-specified equivalence margins. Using final data after study completion (22 December 2017), no notable differences in progression-free survival or overall survival were observed between the groups. The most frequently reported grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events were hypertension, neutropenia, and anemia. There were no clinically meaningful differences in safety, pharmacokinetics, or immunogenicity across treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Among patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC, PF-06439535 demonstrated similarity to bevacizumab-EU in terms of efficacy. Safety profiles for the two treatments were comparable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02364999. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who benefit from axitinib dose titration: analysis from a randomised, double-blind phase II study.

BACKGROUND: A prospective, randomised phase II study demonstrated clinical benefit of axitinib dose titration in a subset of treatment-naïve patients treated with axitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. This analysis evaluated patient baseline characteristics that may impact overall survival (OS) with axitinib dose titration. METHODS: Following a 4-week lead-in period during which all patients received axitinib 5 mg twice-daily (bid); patients meeting the predefined randomisation criteria were randomly assigned to receive axitinib 5 mg bid plus either axitinib or placebo titration. In exploratory analyses, patients were grouped into those who achieved OS ≥24 versus < 24 months, and compared their baseline characteristics with Fisher's exact test or Cochran-Armitage trend exact test, with a 5% significance level. Potential predictive baseline characteristics associated with effect of axitinib dose titration on OS were investigated using a Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: Overall, 112 patients were randomised. Three of 56 patients receiving axitinib titration were censored; of the remaining 53, 33 (62%) achieved OS ≥24 months versus 20 (38%) with OS < 24 months. Patients with OS ≥24 vs. < 24 months, respectively, had significantly fewer metastatic sites (≤2 metastases: 52% vs. 10%; ≥3 metastases: 48% vs. 90%), fewer lymph node (45% vs. 75%) or liver (15% vs. 45%) metastases, higher haemoglobin level (i.e., ≥ lower limit of normal: 67% vs. 25%) at baseline, lower neutrophil (≤ upper limit of normal, 97% vs. 75%) and platelet (≤ upper limit of normal, 82% vs. 50%) levels at baseline and ≥ 1 year between histopathological diagnosis and treatment (64% vs. 15%). The primary reason for treatment discontinuation in both OS groups was disease progression. The frequency of toxicity-related discontinuation was comparable between the 2 groups, indicating that it was not a factor for a shorter OS. The multivariate analysis showed that ≥1 year from histopathological diagnosis to treatment and baseline haemoglobin level equal or greater than lower limit of normal were significant covariates associated with favourable OS in patients receiving axitinib titration. CONCLUSIONS: The current analyses identified potentially predictive factors that could help selecting patients who may benefit from axitinib dose titration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00835978. Registered prospectively, February 4, 2009.

Demystifying biosimilars: development, regulation and clinical use.

Biologics are an integral component in the treatment of various diseases. However, limited patient access to these medicines remains a significant global challenge, prompting development of safe and effective biosimilars. A biosimilar is 'highly similar to a reference (originator) product, for which there are no clinically meaningful differences between the two products in terms of safety, purity and potency'. Biosimilars have the potential to offer possible benefits, including lower treatment costs, thereby increasing patient access and clinical use, which may lead to better overall outcomes. Improved understanding of biosimilars may enhance confidence and trust in these agents. As increasing numbers of biosimilars achieve regulatory approval, this overview aims to address enduring knowledge gaps regarding the development and use of biosimilars.

Bevacizumab biosimilars: scientific justification for extrapolation of indications.

The first biosimilar of bevacizumab was approved by the US FDA; other potential biosimilars of bevacizumab are in late-stage clinical development. Their availability offers opportunity for increased patient access across a number of oncologic indications. The regulatory pathway for biosimilar approval relies on the totality of evidence that includes a comprehensive analytical assessment, and a clinical comparability study in a relevant disease patient population. Extrapolation of indications for a biosimilar to other eligible indications held by the originator, in the absence of direct clinical comparison, frequently forms part of the regulatory judgment. Herein, we consider the evidence required to demonstrate biosimilarity for bevacizumab biosimilars, with particular focus on the rationale for extrapolation across oncologic indications.

Long-term Duration of First-Line Axitinib Treatment in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a retrospective analysis of two clinical trials in treatment-naïve patients (n = 402) with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with axitinib. Our objective was to compare duration of treatment (DT) and clinical outcome in patients who achieved DT >18 months (longer DT) versus ≤18 months (shorter DT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: DT, objective response rate (ORR), tumor shrinkage, and overall survival (OS) were summarized for patients with longer and shorter DT. RESULTS: Overall, 152 patients (37.8%) had longer DT and 250 (62.2%) had shorter DT (median, 34.7 vs. 6.5 months, respectively). ORR in all 402 patients with advanced RCC was 43.5%. ORR was 75% for longer DT versus 24.4% for shorter DT (p < 0.0001). More patients with longer DT versus shorter DT had ≥10% tumor shrinkage at first scan (74.8% vs. 55.3%; p = 0.0001) and maximum on-study tumor shrinkage was greater in longer-DT versus shorter-DT group (-51.8% vs. -22.1%; p < 0.0001). Median OS was 32.6 months in the overall population while in the patients with longer DT the median was not reached. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) grade ≥3 were more frequent in longer-DT versus shorter-DT and included hypertension (25.7% vs. 18.8%), diarrhea (15.1% vs. 4.4%), and weight decrease (11.2% vs. 3.2%); however, these AEs decreased over time in both groups. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0, favorable hematology values, no bone or liver metastases, and baseline tumor burden below the overall median were associated with longer DT. CONCLUSIONS: Longer duration (>18 months) of axitinib treatment was associated with increased frequency of early tumor shrinkage, greater magnitude of tumor shrinkage, and a favorable OS.

Overall survival of first-line axitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Japanese subgroup analysis from phase II study.

Subgroup analyses of a randomized global phase II study of axitinib showed objective response rate of 66% and median progression-free survival of 27.6 months in treatment-naïve Japanese patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This analysis evaluated overall survival (OS) and safety in 44 Japanese patients and compared the results with 169 non-Japanese patients. In addition, baseline characteristics for predictive factors that may influence OS in first-line metastatic RCC were explored in all patients using a Cox proportional hazard model. With median follow-up of 33 months, fewer than half (16 of 44) of the Japanese patients had died and median OS was not reached (95% confidence interval [CI], 38.8 months-not estimable), whereas 107 of 169 (63%) non-Japanese patients had died and median OS was 33.9 months (95% CI, 28.9-42.7). Estimated 1-year, 2-year and 3-year survival probability (95% CI) was 86.4% (76.2-96.5), 75.0% (62.2-87.8) and 68.2% (54.4-81.9), respectively, in Japanese patients, and was higher than that in non-Japanese patients (75.1% [68.4-81.8], 62.1% [54.5-69.7] and 47.2% [39.3-55.1], respectively). The updated safety analysis did not reveal any new adverse events of concern among Japanese or non-Japanese patients. The multivariate analysis identified that lower baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, lower baseline tumor burden, and longer time from histopathological diagnosis to treatment were significant positive predictors of OS. The current analysis confirmed the clinical activity of axitinib in treatment-naïve Japanese patients with metastatic RCC, with an acceptable toxicity profile.

Axitinib Versus Sorafenib in First-Line Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Overall Survival From a Randomized Phase III Trial.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized phase III trial in treatment-naive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), axitinib versus sorafenib yielded numerically longer progression-free survival (median, 10.1 vs. 6.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 1-sided P = .038) and significantly higher objective response rate (32% vs. 15%; 1-sided P = .0006). In this article, we report overall survival (OS) and updated safety results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Previously untreated patients with metastatic RCC (n = 288), stratified according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS; 0 vs. 1), were randomized 2:1 to receive axitinib 5 mg twice per day (b.i.d.; n = 192) or sorafenib 400 mg b.i.d. (n = 96). RESULTS: Median OS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 21.7 months (18.0-31.7) with axitinib versus 23.3 months (18.1-33.2) with sorafenib (stratified HR, 0.995; 95% CI, 0.731-1.356; 1-sided P = .4883). Among patients with ECOG PS of 0, median OS was numerically longer with axitinib than with sorafenib (41.2 vs. 31.9 months; HR, 0.811, 1-sided P = .1748), whereas among patients with ECOG PS 1, median OS was shorter with axitinib than with sorafenib (14.2 vs. 19.8 months; HR, 1.203; 1-sided; P = .7973). Incidence and severity of common adverse events were consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSION: OS was similar between axitinib and sorafenib in treatment-naive patients with metastatic RCC, and no new safety signals emerged.

Key predictive factors for efficacy of axitinib in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma: subgroup analysis in Japanese patients from a randomized, double-blind phase II study.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct Japanese subgroup analyses of a randomized, global Phase II study of axitinib with and without dose titration in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma and to explore predictive factors for axitinib efficacy in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: The data included 44 Japanese and 169 non-Japanese treatment-naïve patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Patients received twice-daily axitinib 5 mg during a 4-week lead-in period. Patients who met the pre-defined randomization criteria were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and randomly assigned (1:1) to axitinib or placebo titration. The primary endpoint was objective response rate; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival and safety. Predictive factors were analyzed using data from all patients. RESULTS: The objective response rate (95% confidence interval) was 66% (50-80%) vs. 44% (36-52%) in Japanese and non-Japanese patients, respectively. At the primary analysis, median progression-free survival could not be estimated for Japanese patients, and was 27.6 months (95% confidence interval: 16.6-33.2) in an updated analysis. Hypertension, diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome, dysphonia, hypothyroidism and proteinuria were common adverse events in Japanese patients. Due to a small number of randomized patients, effects of axitinib dose titration could not sufficiently be confirmed among Japanese patients. The multivariate analysis identified time from histopathological diagnosis to treatment and sum of the longest diameter for target lesion at baseline as independent predictive factors for progression-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Axitinib is effective and well tolerated as first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma therapy in Japanese patients. Predictive factors for axitinib efficacy endpoints identified in this setting warrant further investigation.

Overall Survival Analysis From a Randomized Phase II Study of Axitinib With or Without Dose Titration in First-Line Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized phase II trial in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), objective response rate was significantly higher with axitinib versus placebo titration (54% vs. 34%; 1-sided P = .019). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with mRCC (n = 213) received axitinib 5 mg twice per day (b.i.d.) for 4 weeks. Patients meeting dose titration criteria were randomized to receive axitinib 5 mg b.i.d. with axitinib or placebo titration (n = 56 each); 91 patients ineligible for randomization continued axitinib 5 mg b.i.d.; 10 discontinued before randomization. RESULTS: Median overall survival (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 42.7 months (24.7-not estimable) with axitinib titration versus 30.4 months (23.7-45.0) with placebo titration (stratified hazard ratio, 0.785; 95% CI, 0.485-1.272; 1-sided P = .162), and 41.6 months (95% CI, 33.0-not estimable) in nonrandomized patients. Safety data were consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSION: Median overall survival was numerically longer in patients with first-line mRCC who received axitinib versus placebo titration. No new safety signal was observed after long-term axitinib treatment in first-line mRCC.

Population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling of 24-h diastolic ambulatory blood pressure changes mediated by axitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Increased blood pressure (BP) is commonly observed in patients treated with vascular endothelial growth factor pathway inhibitors, including axitinib. Ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and pharmacokinetic data were collected in a randomised, double-blind phase II study of axitinib with or without dose titration in previously untreated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. OBJECTIVE: Aims of these analyses were to (1) develop a population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model for describing the relationship between axitinib exposure and changes in diastolic BP (dBP) and (2) simulate changes in dBP with different axitinib dosing regimens. METHODS: We employed a three-stage modelling approach, which included development of (1) a baseline 24-h ABPM model, (2) a pharmacokinetic model from serial and sparse pharmacokinetic data, and (3) an indirect-response, maximum-effect (Emax) model to evaluate the exposure-driven effect of axitinib on dBP. Simulations (N = 1,000) were performed using the final pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model to evaluate dBP changes on days 4 and 15 of treatment with different axitinib doses. RESULTS: Baseline ABPM data from 62 patients were best described by 24-h mean dBP and two cosine terms. The final indirect-response Emax model showed good agreement between observed 24-h ABPM data and population and individual predictions. The maximum increase in dBP was 20.8 %, and the axitinib concentration at which 50 % of the maximal increase in dBP was reached was 12.4 ng/mL. CONCLUSION: Our model adequately describes the relationship between axitinib exposure and dBP increases. Results from these analyses may potentially be applied to infer dBP changes in patients administered axitinib at nonstandard doses.

Axitinib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a randomised open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In previous clinical trials of patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma, patients treated with axitinib as second-line therapy had longer median progression-free survival than those treated with sorafenib. We therefore undertook a phase 3 trial comparing axitinib with sorafenib in patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients with treatment-naive, measurable, clear-cell metastatic renal-cell carcinoma from 13 countries were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and then randomly assigned (2:1) by a centralised registration system to receive axitinib 5 mg twice daily, or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed by masked independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00920816. FINDINGS: Between June 14, 2010, and April 21, 2011, we randomly assigned 192 patients to receive axitinib, and 96 patients to receive sorafenib. The cutoff date for this analysis was July 27, 2012, when 171 (59%) of 288 patients died or had disease progression, as assessed by the independent review committee. There was no significant difference in median progression-free survival between patients treated with axitinib or sorafenib (10·1 months [95% CI 7·2-12·1] vs 6·5 months [4·7-8·3], respectively; stratified hazard ratio 0·77, 95% CI 0·56-1·05). Any-grade adverse events that were more common (≥10% difference) with axitinib than with sorafenib were diarrhoea (94 [50%] of 189 patients vs 38 [40%] of 96 patients), hypertension (92 [49%] vs 28 [29%]), weight decrease (69 [37%] vs 23 [24%]), decreased appetite (54 [29%] vs 18 [19%]), dysphonia (44 [23%] vs ten [10%]), hypothyroidism (39 [21%] vs seven [7%]), and upper abdominal pain (31 [16%] vs six [6%]); those more common with sorafenib than with axitinib included palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (PPE; 37 [39%] of 96 patients vs 50 [26%] of 189), rash (19 [20%] vs 18 [10%]), alopecia (18 [19%] vs eight [4%]), and erythema (18 [19%] vs five [3%]). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in patients treated with axitinib included hypertension (26 [14%] of 189 patients), diarrhoea (17 [9%]), asthenia (16 [8%]), weight decrease (16 [8%]), and PPE (14 [7%]); common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in patients treated with sorafenib included PPE (15 [16%] of 96 patients), diarrhoea (five [5%]), and asthenia (five [5%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 64 (34%) of 189 patients receiving axitinib, and 24 (25%) of 96 patients receiving sorafenib. INTERPRETATION: Axitinib did not significantly increase progression-free survival in patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma compared with those treated with sorafenib, but did demonstrate clinical activity and an acceptable safety profile. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc.

Axitinib with or without dose titration for first-line metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a randomised double-blind phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Population pharmacokinetic data suggest axitinib plasma exposure correlates with efficacy in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. Axitinib dose titration might optimise exposure and improve outcomes. We prospectively assessed the efficacy and safety of axitinib dose titration in previously untreated patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 2 study, patients were enrolled from 49 hospitals and outpatient clinics in the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Russia, Spain, and USA. Patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma received axitinib 5 mg twice daily during a 4 week lead-in period. Those patients with blood pressure 150/90 mm Hg or lower, no grade 3 or 4 treatment-related toxic effects, no dose reductions, and no more than two antihypertensive drugs for 2 consecutive weeks were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs 1), and then randomly assigned (1:1) to either masked titration with axitinib to total twice daily doses of 7 mg, and then 10 mg, if tolerated, or placebo titration. Patients who did not meet these criteria continued without titration. The primary objective was comparison of the proportion of patients achieving an objective response between randomised groups. Safety analyses were based on all patients who received at least one dose of axitinib. FINDINGS: Between Sept 2, 2009, and Feb 28, 2011, we enrolled 213 patients, of whom 112 were randomly assigned to either the axitinib titration group (56 patients) or the placebo titration group (56 patients). 91 were not eligible for titration, and ten withdrew during the lead-in period. 30 patients (54%, 95% CI 40-67) in the axitinib titration group had an objective response, as did 19 patients (34%, 22-48]) in the placebo titration group (one-sided p=0·019). 54 (59%, 95% CI 49-70) of non-randomised patients achieved an objective response. Common grade 3 or worse, all-causality adverse events in treated patients were hypertension (ten [18%] of 56 in the axitinib titration group vs five [9%] of 56 in the placebo titration group vs 45 [49%] of 91 in the non-randomised group), diarrhoea (seven [13%] vs two [4%] vs eight [9%]), and decreased weight (four [7%] vs three [5%] vs six [7%]). One or more all-causality serious adverse events were reported in 15 (27%) patients in the axitinib titration group, 13 (23%) patients in the placebo titration group, and 35 (38%) non-randomised patients. The most common serious adverse events in all 213 patients were disease progression and dehydration (eight each [4%]), and diarrhoea, vomiting, pneumonia, and decreased appetite (four each [2%]). INTERPRETATION: The greater proportion of patients in the axitinib titration group achieving an objective response supports the concept of individual axitinib dose titration in selected patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. Axitinib shows clinical activity with a manageable safety profile in treatment-naive patients with this disease.

Diastolic blood pressure as a biomarker of axitinib efficacy in solid tumors.

PURPOSE: To evaluate if diastolic blood pressure (dBP) ≥90 mm Hg during axitinib treatment is a marker of efficacy. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The relationship between dBP ≥90 mm Hg and efficacy was retrospectively explored across 5 phase II studies of single-agent axitinib for the treatment of 4 different tumor types. All patients had baseline BP ≤140/90 mm Hg and were stratified into 2 groups based on in-clinic BP measurements after initiating therapy: those with dBP <90 mm Hg throughout therapy and those with at least 1 dBP ≥90 mm Hg. Median overall survival (mOS), median progression-free survival (mPFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events were evaluated by dBP group in individual and pooled analyses. RESULTS: Two-hundred thirty patients were evaluated. Patients with dBP ≥90 mm Hg had a significantly lower relative risk of death than those with dBP <90 mm Hg [adjusted HR (95% CI) = 0.55 (0.39, 0.77); P < 0.001]. The relative risk of progression was also lower in patients with dBP ≥90 mm Hg [HR (95% CI) = 0.76 (0.54, 1.06), P = 0.107], and ORR was significantly higher (43.9% vs. 12.0%; P < 0.001). In an 8-week landmark analysis, mOS (25.8 vs. 14.9 months) and mPFS (10.2 vs. 7.1 months) were greater for patients in the ≥90 mm Hg group. Adverse events were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Axitinib efficacy correlated with dBP ≥90 mm Hg. Further investigation of dBP as a predictive biomarker of efficacy in patients receiving axitinib is warranted.

Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase II study of axitinib plus docetaxel versus docetaxel plus placebo in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase II study assessed safety and efficacy of axitinib plus docetaxel in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with MBC were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive docetaxel 80 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks plus axitinib 5 mg twice per day (combination arm) or placebo (placebo arm), following a lead-in phase I trial. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP). RESULTS: In all, 168 patients were enrolled; 112 were randomly assigned to axitinib and 56 to placebo. Median TTP was numerically longer in the combination arm than in the placebo arm (8.1 v 7.1 months), but this difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.87; one-sided P = .156). The difference in median TTP was greatest among patients who had received prior adjuvant chemotherapy (9.2 v 7.0 months; P = .043, prespecified subgroup analysis). Objective response rate was higher in the combination arm (41.1% v 23.6%; P = .011). The most common grades 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events (combination/placebo) included diarrhea (10.8%/0%), fatigue (10.8%/5.4%), stomatitis (12.6%/1.8%), mucositis (9.0%/0%), asthenia (7.2%/0%), and hypertension (4.5%/0%). Three patients in the combination arm experienced serious thromboembolic events (one death). Febrile neutropenia was more frequent in the combination arm (15.3% v 7.1%); rates of other hematologic toxicities were comparable. Increased toxicity with axitinib was generally managed by dose reduction and/or growth factor support. CONCLUSION: The addition of axitinib to docetaxel did not improve TTP in first-line MBC treatment. Combination therapy may be more effective in patients previously exposed to adjuvant chemotherapy.

Does federal funding for breastfeeding research target our national health objectives?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the number and dollar amount of federally funded research projects in the area of infant nutrition/breastfeeding/lactation from 1994 to 1996, and the impact of these funded projects on the achievement of our national goals for increasing the rates of breastfeeding initiation and duration. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects database, available through the National Institutes of Health. Abstracts of funded projects were identified, printed, and subjected to content analysis. Key information identified from the abstracts included: National Institutes of Health institute, center, or division funding the project; type of extramural funding; amount of federal dollars awarded; and a classification of the project's impact (direct, indirect, or none) on achievement of the Healthy People 2000 goals for breastfeeding. RESULTS: The final sample consisted of 362 abstracts in the broad category of infant nutrition/breastfeeding/lactation, which were awarded approximately 40.4 million dollars in federal research funds over the 3 years addressed in this study. Of this amount, only 13.7% (5.6 million dollars) was awarded to projects determined to have either a direct or indirect impact on achieving the Healthy People 2000 goals for increasing the incidence and duration of breastfeeding. A total of 27 (7.5%) funded projects in this category, reflecting $4.1 million, had no relationship to breastfeeding per se, as they involved the use of human milk composition and technologies to improve artificial milks and develop new pharmaceuticals and therapies. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest an incongruity between the national priorities for breastfeeding and the funding of scientific research in this content area, and provide important information for researchers and policymakers with respect to identification and redirection of funding priorities.