Pembrolizumab With or Without Lenvatinib for First-Line Metastatic NSCLC With Programmed Cell Death-Ligand 1 Tumor Proportion Score of at least 1% (LEAP-007): A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was found to have antitumor activity and acceptable safety in previously treated metastatic NSCLC. We evaluated first-line lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus placebo plus pembrolizumab in metastatic NSCLC in the LEAP-007 study (NCT03829332/NCT04676412). METHODS: Patients with previously untreated stage IV NSCLC with programmed cell death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score of at least 1% without targetable EGFR/ROS1/ALK aberrations were randomized 1:1 to lenvatinib 20 mg or placebo once daily; all patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and overall survival (OS). We report results from a prespecified nonbinding futility analysis of OS performed at the fourth independent data and safety monitoring committee review (futility bound: one-sided p < 0.4960). RESULTS: A total of 623 patients were randomized. At median follow-up of 15.9 months, median (95% confidence interval [CI]) OS was 14.1 (11.4‒19.0) months in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group versus 16.4 (12.6‒20.6) months in the placebo plus pembrolizumab group (hazard ratio = 1.10 [95% CI: 0.87‒1.39], p = 0.79744 [futility criterion met]). Median (95% CI) PFS was 6.6 (6.1‒8.2) months versus 4.2 (4.1‒6.2) months, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.78 [95% CI: 0.64‒0.95]). Grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 57.9% of patients (179 of 309) versus 24.4% (76 of 312). Per data and safety monitoring committee recommendation, the study was unblinded and lenvatinib and placebo were discontinued. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab did not have a favorable benefit‒risk profile versus placebo plus pembrolizumab. Pembrolizumab monotherapy remains an approved treatment option in many regions for first-line metastatic NSCLC with programmed cell death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score of at least 1% without EGFR/ALK alterations.

Efficacy and safety of cosibelimab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, in metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Programmed cell death receptor-1 (PD-1)-blocking antibodies are approved to treat metastatic or locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) cases ineligible for curative surgery or radiation. Notwithstanding, some patients experience inadequate responses or severe immune-related adverse events (AEs), indicating the need for improved therapies. Cosibelimab is a high-affinity programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-blocking antibody that activates innate and adaptive immunity by blocking PD-L1 interaction with PD-1 and B7-1 receptors. It is an unmodified immunoglobulin G1 subtype with a functional Fc domain capable of inducing antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and complement-dependent cytotoxicity. Here, we present results of the pivotal study of patients with metastatic CSCC from an open-label, multicenter, multiregional, multicohort, phase 1 trial of cosibelimab. METHODS: In this trial, participants with metastatic CSCC received cosibelimab 800 mg intravenously every 2 weeks. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by independent central review using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, V.1.1. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR) and safety. RESULTS: Objective response was observed in 37 of 78 participants (47.4% (95% CI: 36.0% to 59.1%)), with median follow-up of 15.4 months (range: 0.4 to 40.5) as of data cut-off. Median DOR was not reached (range: 1.4+ to 34.1+ months), with response ongoing in 73.0% of participants. Common treatment-emergent AEs (≥15%) were fatigue (26.9%), rash (16.7%), and anemia (15.4%). Eighteen participants (23.1%) experienced immune-related AEs (grade 3: n=2 (2.6%); no grade 4/5). No treatment-related deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Cosibelimab demonstrated clinically meaningful ORR and DOR and was associated with a manageable safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03212404.

Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus EXTREME Regimen as First-Line Treatment for Recurrent/Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: The Final Results of CheckMate 651.

PURPOSE: CheckMate 651 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02741570) evaluated first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus EXTREME (cetuximab plus cisplatin/carboplatin plus fluorouracil ≤ six cycles, then cetuximab maintenance) in recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN). METHODS: Patients without prior systemic therapy for R/M SCCHN were randomly assigned 1:1 to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or EXTREME. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) in the all randomly assigned and programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥ 20 populations. Secondary end points included OS in the programmed death-ligand 1 CPS ≥ 1 population, and progression-free survival, objective response rate, and duration of response in the all randomly assigned and CPS ≥ 20 populations. RESULTS: Among 947 patients randomly assigned, 38.3% had CPS ≥ 20. There were no statistically significant differences in OS with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus EXTREME in the all randomly assigned (median: 13.9 v 13.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 97.9% CI, 0.80 to 1.13; P = .4951) and CPS ≥ 20 (median: 17.6 v 14.6 months; HR, 0.78; 97.51% CI, 0.59 to 1.03; P = .0469) populations. In patients with CPS ≥ 1, the median OS was 15.7 versus 13.2 months (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.97). Among patients with CPS ≥ 20, the median progression-free survival was 5.4 months (nivolumab plus ipilimumab) versus 7.0 months (EXTREME), objective response rate was 34.1% versus 36.0%, and median duration of response was 32.6 versus 7.0 months. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 28.2% of patients treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 70.7% treated with EXTREME. CONCLUSION: CheckMate 651 did not meet its primary end points of OS in the all randomly assigned or CPS ≥ 20 populations. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed a favorable safety profile compared with EXTREME. There continues to be a need for new therapies in patients with R/M SCCHN.

Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes With Two Different Starting Doses of Lenvatinib in Combination With Everolimus for Previously Treated Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Preserving health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is an important goal during renal cell carcinoma treatment. We report HRQOL outcomes from a phase II trial (NCT03173560). PATIENTS AND METHODS: HRQOL data were collected during a multicenter, randomized, open-label phase II study comparing the safety and efficacy of 2 different starting doses of lenvatinib (18 mg vs. 14 mg daily) in combination with everolimus (5 mg daily), following one prior vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted treatment. HRQOL was measured using 3 different instruments-FKSI-DRS, EORTC QLQ-C30, and EQ-5D-3L-which were all secondary endpoints. Change from baseline was assessed using linear mixed-effects models. Deterioration events for time to deterioration (TTD) analyses were defined using established thresholds for minimally important differences in the change from baseline for each scale. TTD for each treatment arm was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the 343 participants randomly assigned to 18 mg lenvatinib (n = 171) and 14 mg lenvatinib (n = 172) were well balanced. Least-squares mean estimates for change from baseline were favorable for the 18 mg group over the 14 mg group for the FKSI-DRS and most EORTC QLQ-C30 scales, but differences between treatments did not exceed the minimally important thresholds. Median TTD was longer among participants in the 18 mg group than those in the 14 mg group for most scales. CONCLUSIONS: Participants who received an 18 mg lenvatinib starting dose had favorable HRQOL scores and longer TTD on most scales compared with those who received a 14 mg starting dose.

Assessing the Safety and Efficacy of Two Starting Doses of Lenvatinib Plus Everolimus in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase 2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib (18 mg) plus everolimus (5 mg) is approved for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after one or more prior antiangiogenic therapies. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a lower starting dose of lenvatinib has comparable efficacy with improved tolerability for patients with advanced RCC treated with lenvatinib plus everolimus. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized, open-label, phase 2 global trial was conducted in patients with advanced clear cell RCC and disease progression after one prior vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy (prior anti-programmed death-1/programmed death ligand-1 therapy permitted). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to the 14- or 18-mg lenvatinib starting dose, both in combination with everolimus 5 mg/d. Patients in the 14-mg arm were to be uptitrated to lenvatinib 18 mg at cycle 2, day 1, barring intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) requiring dose reduction occurring in the first 28-d cycle. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary efficacy endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) as of week 24 (ORRwk24); the noninferiority threshold of the 14- versus 18-mg arm was p ≤ 0.045. The primary safety endpoint was the proportion of patients with intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 TEAEs within 24 wk of randomization. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The ORRwk24 for the 14-mg arm (32% [95% confidence interval {CI} 25-39]) was not noninferior to the ORRwk24 in the 18-mg arm (35% [95% CI 27-42]; odds ratio: 0.88; 90% CI 0.59-1.32; p = 0.3). The proportion of intolerable grade 2 or any grade ≥3 TEAEs was similar between the two arms (14 mg, 83% vs 18 mg, 80%; p = 0.5). The secondary endpoints of overall ORR, progression-free survival, and overall survival numerically favored the 18-mg arm. A limitation of this study was that the study design did not allow for a full comparison of progression-free survival between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings support the approved dosing regimen of lenvatinib 18 mg plus everolimus 5 mg daily for patients with advanced RCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we examined two doses of lenvatinib (the approved 18-mg dose and a lower dose of 14 mg) in people with advanced renal cell carcinoma to determine whether the lower dose (which was increased to the approved 18-mg dose after the first treatment cycle) could improve safety without affecting efficacy. The results showed that the efficacy of the lower lenvatinib dose (14 mg) was not the same as that of the approved (18 mg) dose, although safety results were similar, so the approved lenvatinib 18-mg dose should still be used.

A multicenter, single-arm, basket design, phase II study of NC-6004 plus gemcitabine in patients with advanced unresectable lung, biliary tract, or bladder cancer.

NC-6004 is a nanoparticle developed using micellar technology that can improve release of cisplatin, a standard treatment for many cancer types, and achieve selective distribution to tumors. Here, in the Phase II portion of this study, the activity, safety, tolerability, and effects on quality of life of NC-6004 in combination with gemcitabine was examined in 34 squamous non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) patients, 50 biliary tract cancer patients, and 13 bladder cancer patients. All patients received 135 mg/m2 NC-6004 on day one and 1,250 mg/m2 gemcitabine on days one and eight. The median progression-free survival was 3.9 months in NSCLC patients, 4.3 months in biliary tract cancer patients, and 6.8 months in bladder cancer patients fit for cisplatin treatment. The most frequently reported Grade 3 Treatment Emergent Adverse Events across all cohorts were nausea, anemia and neutropenia, and hyponatremia. Quality of life measures for patients who received the combined therapy were generally consistent with expectations for patients undergoing chemotherapy. Overall, combined NC-6004 and gemcitabine treatment resulted in long-lasting antitumor activity and had a favorable safety profile, suggesting that it should be investigated further as a therapy for various types of cancer.

AMG 386 in combination with sorafenib in patients with metastatic clear cell carcinoma of the kidney: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the tolerability and antitumor activity of AMG 386, a peptibody (a peptide Fc fusion) that neutralizes the interaction of angiopoietin-1 and angiopoietin-2 with Tie2 (tyrosine kinase with immunoglobulin-like and EGF-like domains 2), plus sorafenib in patients with clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in a randomized controlled study. METHODS: Previously untreated patients with mRCC were randomized 1:1:1 to receive sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily plus intravenous AMG 386 at 10 mg/kg (arm A) or 3 mg/kg (arm B) or placebo (arm C) once weekly (qw). Patients in arm C could receive open-label AMG 386 at 10 mg/kg qw plus sorafenib following disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 152 patients were randomized. Median PFS was 9.0, 8.5, and 9.0 months in arms A, B, and C, respectively (hazard ratio for arms A and B vs arm C, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-1.30; P = .523). The objective response rate (95% CI) for arms A, B, and C, respectively, was 38% (25%-53%), 37% (24%-52%), and 25% (14%-40%). Among 30 patients in arm C who had disease progression and subsequently received open-label AMG 386 at 10 mg/kg qw, the objective response rate was 3% (95% CI, 0%-17%). Frequently occurring adverse events (AEs) included diarrhea (arms A/B/C, 70%/67%/56%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (52%/47%/54%), alopecia (50%/45%/50%), and hypertension (42%/49%/46%). Fifteen patients had grade 4 AEs (arms A/B/C, n = 3/7/5); 4 had fatal AEs (n = 2/1/1), with 1 (abdominal pain, arm B) considered possibly related to AMG 386. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mRCC, AMG 386 plus sorafenib was tolerable but did not significantly improve PFS compared with placebo plus sorafenib.

Therapeutic vaccination with TG4010 and first-line chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a controlled phase 2B trial.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy is the standard of care for advanced stages of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). TG4010 is a targeted immunotherapy based on a poxvirus (modified vaccinia virus Ankara) that codes for MUC1 tumour-associated antigen and interleukin 2. This study assessed TG4010 in combination with first-line chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC. METHODS: 148 patients with advanced (stage IIIB [wet] or IV) NSCLC expressing MUC1 by immunohistochemistry, and with performance status 0 or 1, were enrolled in parallel groups in this open-label, phase 2B study. 74 patients were allocated to the combination therapy group, and received TG4010 (10(8) plaque forming units) plus cisplatin (75 mg/m(2) on day 1) and gemcitabine (1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8) repeated every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. 74 patients allocated to the control group received the same chemotherapy alone. Patients were allocated using a dynamic minimisation procedure stratified by centre, performance status, and disease stage. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS), with a target rate of 40% or higher in the experimental group. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00415818. FINDINGS: 6-month PFS was 43·2% (32 of 74; 95% CI 33·4-53·5) in the TG4010 plus chemotherapy group, and 35·1% (26 of 74; 25·9-45·3) in the chemotherapy alone group. Fever, abdominal pain, and injection-site pain of any grade according to National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria were more common in the TG4010 group than in the chemotherapy alone group: 17 of 73 patients (23·3%) versus six of 72 (8·3%), 12 (16·4%) versus two (2·8%), and four (5·5%) versus zero (0%), respectively. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (33 [45·2%] of patients in the TG4010 plus chemotherapy group vs 31 [43·1%] in the chemotherapy alone group) and fatigue (18 [24·7%] vs 13 [18·1%]); the only grade 3-4 events that differed significantly between groups were anorexia (three [4·1%] vs 10 [13·9%]) and pleural effusion (none vs four [5·6%]). 38 of 73 patients (52·1%) in the TG4010 plus chemotherapy group and 34 of 72 (47·2%) in the chemotherapy alone group had at least one serious adverse event. INTERPRETATION: This phase 2B study suggests that TG4010 enhances the effect of chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC. A confirmatory phase 2B-3 trial has been initiated. FUNDING: Transgene SA, Advanced Diagnostics for New Therapeutic Approaches (ADNA)/OSEO.

The trifunctional antibody catumaxomab for the treatment of malignant ascites due to epithelial cancer: Results of a prospective randomized phase II/III trial.

Malignant ascites is a common manifestation of advanced cancers, and treatment options are limited. The trifunctional antibody catumaxomab (anti-epithelial cell-adhesion molecule x anti-CD3) represents a targeted immunotherapy for the intraperitoneal (i.p.) treatment of malignant ascites secondary to epithelial cancers. In this phase II/III trial (EudraCT 2004-000723-15; NCT00836654), cancer patients (n = 258) with recurrent symptomatic malignant ascites resistant to conventional chemotherapy were randomized to paracentesis plus catumaxomab (catumaxomab) or paracentesis alone (control) and stratified by cancer type (129 ovarian and 129 nonovarian). Catumaxomab was administered as an i.p. infusion on Days 0, 3, 7 and 10 at doses of 10, 20, 50 and 150 mug, respectively. The primary efficacy endpoint was puncture-free survival. Secondary efficacy parameters included time to next paracentesis, ascites signs and symptoms and overall survival (OS). Puncture-free survival was significantly longer in the catumaxomab group (median 46 days) than the control group (median 11 days) (hazard ratio = 0.254: p < 0.0001) as was median time to next paracentesis (77 versus 13 days; p < 0.0001). In addition, catumaxomab patients had fewer signs and symptoms of ascites than control patients. OS showed a positive trend for the catumaxomab group and, in a prospectively planned analysis, was significantly prolonged in patients with gastric cancer (n = 66; 71 versus 44 days; p = 0.0313). Although adverse events associated with catumaxomab were frequent, they were manageable, generally reversible and mainly related to its immunologic mode of action. Catumaxomab showed a clear clinical benefit in patients with malignant ascites secondary to epithelial cancers, especially gastric cancer, with an acceptable safety profile.

Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin with and without cetuximab in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: This randomized study assessed whether the best overall response rate (ORR) of cetuximab combined with oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (FOLFOX-4) was superior to that of FOLFOX-4 alone as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. The influence of KRAS mutation status was investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) initial dose followed by 250 mg/m(2)/wk thereafter) plus FOLFOX-4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) on day 1, plus leucovorin 200 mg/m(2) and fluorouracil as a 400 mg/m(2) bolus followed by a 600 mg/m(2) infusion during 22 hours on days 1 and 2; n = 169) or FOLFOX-4 alone (n = 168). Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. KRAS mutation status was assessed in the subset of patients with assessable tumor samples (n = 233). RESULTS: The confirmed ORR for cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 was higher than with FOLFOX-4 alone (46% v 36%). A statistically significant increase in the odds for a response with the addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX-4 could not be established (odds ratio = 1.52; P = .064). In patients with KRAS wild-type tumors, the addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX-4 was associated with a clinically significant increased chance of response (ORR = 61% v 37%; odds ratio = 2.54; P = .011) and a lower risk of disease progression (hazard ratio = 0.57; P = .0163) compared with FOLFOX-4 alone. Cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: KRAS mutational status was shown to be a highly predictive selection criterion in relation to the treatment decision regarding the addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX-4 for previously untreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Phase II study of vinorelbine (alternating intravenous and oral) in combination with docetaxel as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Combination of intravenous (i.v.) vinorelbine and docetaxel was shown to be feasible and effective in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). In an effort to improve patient convenience, we investigated in first-line treatment a regimen alternating i.v. and oral vinorelbine in combination with docetaxel. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-nine patients (median age, 53 years) with MBC received a maximum of 6 cycles consisting of i.v. vinorelbine 20 mg/m(2) plus docetaxel 60 mg/m(2) given on day 1, and oral vinorelbine 60 mg/m(2) on day 15 every 3 weeks in an open-label, multicentre phase II study (recommended dose established in phase I study [1]). RESULTS: Sixty-three percent of the patient had received prior adjuvant chemotherapy and 78% presented visceral involvement. Twenty-four responses were documented and validated by an independent panel review, yielding response rates of 49% (95% CI: 34-64) in the 49 enrolled patients and 55.8% (95% CI: 40-71) in the 43 evaluable patients. Median duration of response was 9.4 months. Median progression-free survival and median overall survival were 5.5 and 33.2 months, respectively. Neutropenia was the main dose-limiting toxicity but complications were uncommon, four patients having experienced febrile neutropenia and one having developed neutropenic infection. Other frequently reported adverse events included alopecia, fatigue, stomatitis, constipation, diarrhoea and nausea, which were rarely severe. CONCLUSIONS: This regimen alternating oral and i.v. vinorelbine in combination with docetaxel is effective and manageable. Vinorelbine i.v. per oral day 1 per day 15-docetaxel day 1 every 3 weeks represents a convenient option to combine docetaxel and vinorelbine for the palliative treatment of MBC.

Oxaliplatin plus irinotecan compared with irinotecan alone as second-line treatment after single-agent fluoropyrimidine therapy for metastatic colorectal carcinoma.

UNLABELLED: PURPOSE To determine whether irinotecan plus oxaliplatin (IROX) is superior to irinotecan alone in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) previously treated with single-agent fluoropyrimidines. PATIENTS AND METHODS A phase III, randomized, open-label, multicenter study of patients with metastatic or recurrent CRC that had progressed or recurred during or after adjuvant or first-line fluoropyrimidines (fluorouracil/leucovorin or capecitabine, the latter only for metastatic CRC). Patients received IROX (irinotecan 200 mg/m(2) plus oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2)) or irinotecan alone (350 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks. RESULTS: At the data cutoff (when 447 of 628 randomly assigned patients had died), median overall survival was 13.4 months (95% CI, 12.4 to 14.7 months) and 11.1 month (95% CI, 10.0 to 12.7 months) in the IROX and irinotecan groups, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.94; P = .0072). Overall response rate (22% v 7%, respectively; P < .0001), median time to progression (5.3 v 2.8 months, respectively; P < .0001), and improvement in tumor-related symptoms (32% v 19%, respectively; P = .0072) were also improved with IROX as compared with irinotecan. With the exception of granulocytopenia (25% v 13%), diarrhea (28% v 23%), and sensory disturbances (5% v 0%), grade 3 to 4 toxicities were comparable between the IROX and irinotecan groups, respectively. CONCLUSION IROX is an effective treatment for metastatic CRC that has progressed after first-line fluoropyrimidine therapy. IROX improves efficacy compared with irinotecan alone, providing an additional option in the postadjuvant or second-line treatment setting for patients who experience treatment failure with single-agent fluoropyrimidine therapy.

Bevacizumab plus interferon alfa-2a for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a randomised, double-blind phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition is a valid therapeutic approach in renal cell carcinoma. Therefore, an investigation of the combination treatment of the humanised anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody bevacizumab with interferon alfa was warranted. METHODS: In a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase III trial, 649 patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma were randomised to receive interferon alfa-2a (9 MIU subcutaneously three times weekly) and bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks; n=327) or placebo and interferon alfa-2a (n=322). The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival and safety. An interim analysis of overall survival was prespecified after 250 deaths. On the basis of new second-line therapies that became available while the trial was in progress, which could have confounded analyses of overall survival data, we agreed with regulatory agencies that the pre-planned final analysis of progression-free survival would be acceptable for regulatory submission. The protocol was amended to allow the study to be unblinded at this point. The final analysis of progression-free survival is reported here. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with centerwatch.com, number BO17705E. FINDINGS: 325 patients in the bevacizumab plus interferon alfa group and 316 in the placebo plus interferon alfa group received at least one dose of study treatment. At the time of unblinding, 230 progression events had occurred in the bevacizumab plus interferon alfa group and 275 in the control group; there were 114 deaths in the bevacizumab plus interferon alfa group and 137 in the control group. Median duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer in the bevacizumab plus interferon alfa group than it was in the control group (10.2 months vs 5.4 months; HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.52-0.75; p=0.0001). Increases in progression-free survival were seen with bevacizumab plus interferon alfa irrespective of risk group or whether reduced-dose interferon alfa was received. Deaths due to adverse events were reported in eight (2%) patients who received one or more doses of bevacizumab and seven (2%) of those who did not receive the drug. Only three deaths in the bevacizumab arm were considered by investigators to be possibly related to bevacizumab. The most commonly reported grade 3 or worse adverse events were fatigue (40 [12%] patients in the bevacizumab group vs 25 [8%] in the control group) and asthenia (34 [10%] vs 20 [7%]). INTERPRETATION: The combination of bevacizumab with interferon alfa as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma results in a significant improvement in progression-free survival, compared with interferon alfa alone.

[Small-cell lung cancer diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations of Polish Lung Cancer Group]. / Drobnokomórkowy rak pluca - zalecenia diagnostyczno-terapeutyczne Polskiej Grupy Raka Pluca.

Small-cell lung cancer is characterized by an aggressive clinical course with high tendency for early dissemination. At presentation, patients are usually symptomatic and with hilar or mediastinal mass at radiography. Staging should be focused on identifying any evidence of distant spread. Chemotherapy including cisplatin and etoposide is a cornerstone of treatment for all patients. Limited-stage disease should be managed by chemotherapy combined with concurrent chest irradiation. All patients who achieve complete response should be considered for elective cranial irradiation. Surgical treatment may be used in highly selected patients with TNM stage I disease, and surgery should always be combined with chemotherapy. Extensive-stage disease should be managed by multi-agent chemotherapy alone. Long-term survivors should undergo careful monitoring for development of a second primary tumour.

Open-label, uncontrolled, multicenter phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of cetuximab as a single agent in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck who failed to respond to platinum-based therapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the epidermal growth factor receptor-directed monoclonal antibody cetuximab administered as a single agent in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) who experience disease progression on platinum therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An open-label multicenter study in which patients with disease progression on two to six cycles of platinum therapy received single-agent cetuximab (initial dose 400 mg/m2 followed by subsequent weekly doses of 250 mg/m2) for > or = 6 weeks (single-agent phase). Patients who experienced disease progression could receive salvage therapy with cetuximab plus platinum (combination-therapy phase). From June 2001 to December 2002, 103 patients were enrolled and treated with cetuximab, 53 of whom subsequently received combination therapy. RESULTS: In the single-agent phase, response rate was 13%, disease control rate (complete response/partial response/stable disease) was 46%, and median time to progression (TTP) was 70 days. During the combination-therapy phase, the objective response rate was zero, disease control rate was 26%, and TTP was 50 days. Median overall survival was 178 days. Treatment was well tolerated. The most common cetuximab-related adverse events in the single-agent phase were skin reactions, particularly rash (49% of patients, mainly grade 1 or 2). There was one treatment-related death due to an infusion-related reaction. CONCLUSION: Single-agent cetuximab was active and generally well tolerated in the treatment of recurrent and/or metastatic SCCHN that progressed on platinum therapy. Response was comparable to that seen with cetuximab plus platinum combination regimens in the same setting.

Phase III study of gemcitabine and cisplatin with or without aprinocarsen, a protein kinase C-alpha antisense oligonucleotide, in patients with advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine whether aprinocarsen, an antisense oligonucleotide directed against protein kinase C-alpha, when added to the chemotherapy regimen of gemcitabine and cisplatin improved survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated stage IIIB/IV NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, were randomly assigned to either a control arm of gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1, or experimental arms consisting of the identical chemotherapy plus aprinocarsen 2 mg/kg/d as continuous infusion for 14 days, starting on either day 1 or 3 days before chemotherapy. Cycles were repeated every 21 days. RESULTS: A total of 670 patients were randomly assigned between the control (n = 328) and experimental arms (n = 342). Due to the results from another phase III study of aprinocarsen in NSCLC, further enrollment was stopped, and the study was terminated early. The median number of cycles was four on the control arm and three on the combined experimental arms. Median overall survival was not different between the two groups (control, 10.4 months [95% CI, 8.6 to 12.2]; experimental, 10.0 months [95% CI, 8.4 to 10.8]; P = .613; hazard ratio = 1.05 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.25]). Response rates (control arm, 35.0%; experimental arms, 28.9%; P = .124) and other time-to-event measures were not significantly different. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were significantly increased for thrombocytopenia (P < .0001), epistaxis, and thrombosis/embolism in the experimental arms. CONCLUSION: Adding aprinocarsen to gemcitabine and cisplatin regimen did not enhance survival and other efficacy measures in patients with advanced NSCLC.

Capecitabine as adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin is the standard adjuvant treatment for colon cancer. The oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine is an established alternative to bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. We evaluated capecitabine in the adjuvant setting. METHODS: We randomly assigned a total of 1987 patients with resected stage III colon cancer to receive either oral capecitabine (1004 patients) or bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin (Mayo Clinic regimen; 983 patients) over a period of 24 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was at least equivalence in disease-free survival; the primary safety end point was the incidence of grade 3 or 4 toxic effects due to fluoropyrimidines. RESULTS: Disease-free survival in the capecitabine group was at least equivalent to that in the fluorouracil-plus-leucovorin group (in the intention-to-treat analysis, P<0.001 for the comparison of the upper limit of the hazard ratio with the noninferiority margin of 1.20). Capecitabine improved relapse-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.74 to 0.99; P=0.04) and was associated with significantly fewer adverse events than fluorouracil plus leucovorin (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Oral capecitabine is an effective alternative to intravenous fluorouracil plus leucovorin in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer.