Final Safety and Health-Related Quality of LIfe Results of the Phase 2/3 Act.In.Sarc Study With Preoperative NBTXR3 Plus Radiation Therapy Versus Radiation Therapy in Locally Advanced Soft-Tissue Sarcoma.

PURPOSE: Act.In.Sarc (NCT02379845) demonstrated that the first-in-class radioenhancer NBTXR3, activated by preoperative radiation therapy (RT), doubled the rate of pathologic complete response after resection compared with preoperative RT alone in adult patients with locally advanced soft tissue sarcoma of the extremity or trunk wall (16.1% vs 7.9%, P = .045), and more patients achieved R0 resections (77.0% vs 64.0%, P = .042). These are the toxicity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) results. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Act.In.Sarc randomized eligible patients 1:1 to either NBTXR3 (single intratumoral injection, volume equivalent to 10% of baseline tumor volume, at 53.3 g/L) activated by external-beam RT (arm A) or external-beam RT alone (arm B) (50 Gy in 25 fractions), followed by surgery in both arms. Here, we report the safety analyses in the all-treated population with a long-term follow-up of at least 2 years, and HRQoL in the intention-to-treat full analysis set. RESULTS: During the on-treatment period, serious adverse events (SAEs) of all grades related to NBTXR3 occurred in 10.1% (9/89) of patients (arm A), and SAEs related to RT occurred in 5.6% (5/89) (arm A) versus 5.6% (5/90) (arm B); postsurgery hospitalization owing to SAEs occurred in 15.7% (14/89) (arm A) versus 24.4% (22/90) (arm B). During the follow-up period, posttreatment SAEs (regardless of relationship) occurred in 13.5% (12/89) (arm A) versus 24.4% (22/90) (arm B). NBTXR3 did not negatively affect HRQoL; during the follow-up period, there was an improvement in most mean Toronto extremity salvage, EuroQoL 5-dimension (EQ-5D), EQ5D02-EQ visual analog scale, reintegration to normal living index, and musculoskeletal tumor rating scale scores. CONCLUSIONS: NBTXR3 did not negatively affect safety or HRQoL. Long-term safety results reinforce the favorable benefit-risk ratio of NBTXR3 plus RT.

Prophylactic strategies for hand-foot syndrome/skin reaction associated with systemic cancer treatment: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) and hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) are common toxicities of several systemic cancer treatments. Multikinase inhibitor-induced HFSR is distinguished from chemotherapy-induced HFS in terms of pathogenesis, symptomatology, and treatment. Multiple trials have investigated the efficacy of preventive strategies such as COX-inhibitors, pyridoxine, and urea cream; however, no consensus has been made. This meta-analysis evaluated data from high-quality trials to provide strong evidence in forming recommendations to prevent systemic cancer therapy-induced HFS/HFSR. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, clinical trials databases, and hand searching were utilized to identify randomized trials (RCTs) investigating prophylactic strategies for HFS/HFSR in cancer patients receiving systemic treatment. Trials published until August 2021 were included. Using the random effects model, pooled odds ratios were calculated for rates of all-grade and severe HFS/HFSR. Subgroup analysis based on type of cancer treatment given was done. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs were included (N=2814). For all-grade HFS/HFSR, celecoxib (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32-0.85, p=0.009) and urea cream (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.39-0.60, p<0.00001) both showed statistically significant risk reduction. Celecoxib was effective in preventing HFS in patients who received capecitabine (50.5% vs 65%, p=0.05), while urea cream was effective in both capecitabine HFS (22.3% vs 39.5%, p=0.02) and sorafenib-induced HFSR (54.9% vs 71.4%, p<0.00001). Pyridoxine at higher doses showed a trend towards benefit in preventing all grade HFS (69.6% vs 74.1%, p=0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Urea cream and celecoxib are both effective in preventing HFS/HFSR in patients receiving systemic cancer treatment. Particularly, celecoxib is more effective in preventing all-grade capecitabine-induced HFS, while urea cream shows more benefit in preventing moderate to severe sorafenib-induced HFSR. Studies investigating optimal dosing for celecoxib and urea cream are recommended. There is inadequate evidence to make recommendations regarding pyridoxine.

Long-Term Safety and Effectiveness of PF-05280014 (a Trastuzumab Biosimilar) Treatment in Patients with HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: Updated Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind Study.

BACKGROUND: PF-05280014 was compared with trastuzumab sourced from the European Union (trastuzumab-EU), each plus paclitaxel, as first-line treatment for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer in a phase III study. Equivalence between treatment groups was demonstrated. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to report long-term safety and overall survival (OS) over 6 years after the first patient was screened. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Randomized patients received intravenous PF-05280014 or trastuzumab-EU, each plus paclitaxel, until objective disease progression. OS, long-term safety, subgroup safety (patients ongoing after day 378), and time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) were assessed based on the final statistical analysis plan amended for the ad-hoc analyses. RESULTS: Of 707 randomized patients (n = 352, PF-05280014; n = 355, trastuzumab-EU), 252 (71.6%) in the PF-05280014 and 251 (70.7%) in the trastuzumab-EU group discontinued treatment due to objective progression. Overall, 451 (63.8%) patients completed the study. Between groups (PF-05280014; trastuzumab-EU), estimated median TTDs were 12.25 and 12.06 months (p = 0.692); 61 (17.3%) and 67 (18.9%) patients died; stratified hazard ratio for OS was 0.929 (95% confidence interval 0.656-1.316; p = 0.339); estimated survival rates were 82.3 and 77.4% at 2 years and 77.2 and 75.3% at 3 years. The incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) overall (98.6%; 96.6%) and for grades ≥3 (41.0%; 43.1%) were comparable between groups. In patients (n = 265; n = 264) ongoing after day 378, the incidences of any TEAEs, grade ≥3 TEAEs, and serious TEAEs were comparable between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Long-term safety and OS were consistent with previous results and demonstrated no clinically meaningful differences between treatment groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01989676 (21 November 2013); and EudraCT: 2013-001352-34 (18 December 2013).

Long-term efficacy and safety of CT-P6 versus trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer: final results from a randomized phase III trial.

PURPOSE: Equivalent efficacy was demonstrated for the biosimilar CT-P6 and trastuzumab following neoadjuvant therapy for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)-positive early breast cancer. Following adjuvant treatment, efficacy and safety were comparable between treatments. We report updated safety and efficacy data after up to 3 years' follow-up. METHODS: Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy with CT-P6/trastuzumab, patients underwent surgery and continued receiving adjuvant CT-P6/trastuzumab. The primary endpoint (previously reported) was pathological complete response. Time-to-event analyses (disease-free survival [DFS], progression-free survival [PFS], and overall survival [OS]), study drug-related and cardiac adverse events, and immunogenicity were assessed during post-treatment follow-up. RESULTS: Most patients entered the follow-up period (CT-P6: 259 [95.6%]; trastuzumab: 269 [96.8%]). After a median follow-up of 38.7 (CT-P6) and 39.6 (trastuzumab) months, medians were not reached for time-to-event parameters; estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 3-year survival rates were similar between groups. Estimated HRs (95% confidence intervals) for CT-P6 versus trastuzumab were 1.23 (0.78-1.93) for DFS, 1.31 (0.86-2.01) for PFS, and 1.10 (0.57-2.13) for OS (intention-to-treat population). Safety findings were comparable between groups for the overall study and follow-up period, including study drug-related cardiac disorders (CT-P6: 22 [8.1%] patients; trastuzumab: 24 [8.6%] patients [overall]) and decreases in left ventricular ejection fraction. Immunogenicity was similar between groups. CONCLUSION: The similarity of the time-to-event analyses between CT-P6 and trastuzumab supports the equivalence in terms of efficacy established for the primary endpoint. CT-P6 was well tolerated, with comparable safety and immunogenicity to trastuzumab. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02162667 (registered June 13, 2014).

NBTXR3, a first-in-class radioenhancer hafnium oxide nanoparticle, plus radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in patients with locally advanced soft-tissue sarcoma (Act.In.Sarc): a multicentre, phase 2-3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pathological complete response to preoperative treatment in adults with soft-tissue sarcoma can be achieved in only a few patients receiving radiotherapy. This phase 2-3 trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of the hafnium oxide (HfO2) nanoparticle NBTXR3 activated by radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone as a pre-operative treatment in patients with locally advanced soft-tissue sarcoma. METHODS: Act.In.Sarc is a phase 2-3 randomised, multicentre, international trial. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with locally advanced soft-tissue sarcoma of the extremity or trunk wall, of any histological grade, and requiring preoperative radiotherapy were included. Patients had to have a WHO performance status of 0-2 and a life expectancy of at least 6 months. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive web response system to receive either NBTXR3 (volume corresponding to 10% of baseline tumour volume at a fixed concentration of 53·3 g/L) as a single intratumoural administration before preoperative external-beam radiotherapy (50 Gy in 25 fractions) or radiotherapy alone, followed by surgery. Randomisation was stratified by histological subtype (myxoid liposarcoma vs others). This was an open-label study. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a pathological complete response, assessed by a central pathology review board following European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines in the intention-to-treat population full analysis set. Safety analyses were done in all patients who received at least one puncture and injection of NBTXR3 or at least one dose of radiotherapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02379845, and is ongoing for long-term follow-up, but recruitment is complete. FINDINGS: Between March 3, 2015, and Nov 21, 2017, 180 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned and 179 started treatment: 89 in the NBTXR3 plus radiotherapy group and 90 in the radiotherapy alone group. Two patients in the NBTXR3 group and one patient in the radiotherapy group were excluded from the efficacy analysis because they were subsequently discovered to be ineligible; thus, a total of 176 patients were analysed for the primary endpoint in the intention-to-treat full analysis set (87 in the NBTXR3 group and 89 in the radiotherapy alone group). A pathological complete response was noted in 14 (16%) of 87 patients in the NBTXR3 group and seven (8%) of 89 in the radiotherapy alone group (p=0·044). In both treatment groups, the most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse event was postoperative wound complication (eight [9%] of 89 patients in the NBTXR3 group and eight [9%] of 90 in the radiotherapy alone group). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events related to NBTXR3 administration were injection site pain (four [4%] of 89) and hypotension (four [4%]) and the most common grade 3-4 radiotherapy-related adverse event was radiation skin injury in both groups (five [6%] of 89 in the NBTXR3 group and four [4%] of 90 in the radiotherapy alone group). The most common treatment-emergent grade 3-4 adverse event related to NBTXR3 was hypotension (six [7%] of 89 patients). Serious adverse events were observed in 35 (39%) of 89 patients in the NBTXR3 group and 27 (30%) of 90 patients in the radiotherapy alone group. No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: This trial validates the mode of action of this new class of radioenhancer, which potentially opens a large field of clinical applications in soft-tissue sarcoma and possibly other cancers. FUNDING: Nanobiotix SA.

PF-05280014 (a trastuzumab biosimilar) plus paclitaxel compared with reference trastuzumab plus paclitaxel for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: a randomised, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: This randomised, double-blind study compared PF-05280014 (a trastuzumab biosimilar) with reference trastuzumab (Herceptin®) sourced from the European Union (trastuzumab-EU), when each was given with paclitaxel as first-line treatment for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: Between 4 April 2014 and 22 January 2016, 707 participants were randomised 1:1 to receive intravenous PF-05280014 plus paclitaxel (PF-05280014 group; n = 352) or trastuzumab-EU plus paclitaxel (trastuzumab-EU group; n = 355). PF-05280014 or trastuzumab-EU was administered weekly (first dose 4 mg/kg, subsequent doses 2 mg/kg), with the option to change to a 3-weekly regimen (6 mg/kg) from Week 33. Treatment with PF-05280014 or trastuzumab-EU could continue until disease progression. Paclitaxel (starting dose 80 mg/m2) was administered on Days 1, 8 and 15 of 28-day cycles for at least six cycles or until maximal benefit of response. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), evaluating responses achieved by Week 25 and confirmed by Week 33, based on blinded central radiology review. RESULTS: The risk ratio for ORR was 0.940 (95% CI: 0.842-1.049). The 95% CI fell within the pre-specified equivalence margin of 0.80-1.25. ORR was 62.5% (95% CI: 57.2-67.6%) in the PF-05280014 group and 66.5% (95% CI: 61.3-71.4%) in the trastuzumab-EU group. As of data cut-off on 11 January 2017 (using data up to 378 days post-randomisation), there were no notable differences between groups in progression-free survival (median: 12.16 months in the PF-05280014 group vs. 12.06 months in the trastuzumab-EU group; 1-year rate: 54% vs. 51%) or overall survival (median: not reached in either group; 1-year rate: 89.31% vs. 87.36%). Safety outcomes and immunogenicity were similar between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: When given as first-line treatment for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, PF-05280014 plus paclitaxel demonstrated equivalence to trastuzumab-EU plus paclitaxel in terms of ORR. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01989676.

CT-P6 compared with reference trastuzumab for HER2-positive breast cancer: a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 equivalence trial.

BACKGROUND: CT-P6 is a proposed biosimilar to reference trastuzumab. In this study, we aimed to establish equivalence of CT-P6 to reference trastuzumab in neoadjuvant treatment of HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 equivalence trial, we recruited women aged 18 years or older with stage I-IIIa operable HER2-positive breast cancer from 112 centres in 23 countries. Inclusion criteria were an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1; a normal left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 55%; adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function; at least one measureable lesion; and known oestrogen and progesterone receptor status. Exclusion criteria included bilateral breast cancer, previous breast cancer treatment, previous anthracycline treatment, and pregnancy or lactation. We randomly allocated patients 1:1 to receive neoadjuvant CT-P6 or reference trastuzumab intravenously (eight cycles, each lasting 3 weeks, for 24 weeks; 8 mg/kg on day 1 of cycle 1 and 6 mg/kg on day 1 of cycles 2-8) in conjunction with neoadjuvant docetaxel (75 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycles 1-4) and FEC (fluorouracil [500 mg/m2], epirubicin [75 mg/m2], and cyclophosphamide [500 mg/m2]; day 1 of cycles 5-8) therapy. We stratified randomisation by clinical stage, receptor status, and country and used permuted blocks. We did surgery within 3-6 weeks of the final neoadjuvant study drug dose, followed by an adjuvant treatment period of up to 1 year. We monitored long-term safety and efficacy for 3 years after the last patient was enrolled. Participants and investigators were masked to treatment until study completion. The primary efficacy endpoint, analysed in the per-protocol population, was pathological complete response, assessed via specimens obtained during surgery, analysed by masked central review of local histopathology reports. The equivalence margin was -0·15 to 0·15. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02162667, and is ongoing, but no longer recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Aug 7, 2014, and May 6, 2016, we randomly allocated 549 patients (271 [49%] to CT-P6 vs 278 [51%] to reference trastuzumab). A similar proportion of patients achieved pathological complete response with CT-P6 (116 [46·8%; 95% CI 40·4-53·2] of 248 patients) and reference trastuzumab (129 [50·4%; 44·1-56·7] of 256 patients). The 95% CI of the estimated treatment outcome difference (-0·04% [95% CI -0·12 to 0·05]) was within the equivalence margin. 19 (7%) of 271 patients in the CT-P6 group reported serious treatment-emergent adverse events versus 22 (8%) of 278 in the reference trastuzumab group; frequent (occurring in more than one patient) serious adverse events were febrile neutropenia (four [1%] vs one [<1%]) and neutropenia (one [<1%] vs two [1%]). Grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (6%) of 271 patients in the CT-P6 group versus 23 (8%) of 278 in the reference trastuzumab group; the most frequently reported adverse event was neutropenia in ten (4%) versus 14 (5%). INTERPRETATION: CT-P6 showed equivalent efficacy to reference trastuzumab and adverse events were similar. Availability of trastuzumab biosimilars could increase access to this targeted therapy for HER2-positive early-stage cancer. FUNDING: Celltrion Inc.

Sunitinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: an ethnic Asian subpopulation analysis for safety and efficacy.

AIMS: We evaluated and compared the safety and efficacy of sunitinib in Asian and non-Asian patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma enrolled in a previously reported global expanded access program. METHODS: Previously treated and treatment-naïve patients received open-label sunitinib at a starting dose of 50 mg/day for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks off treatment, in repeated 6-week cycles. Safety was assessed regularly, tumor measurements were performed per local practice, and survival data collected where possible. RESULTS: Data were available for 212 Asian patients from Asian sites (Asian-A), 113 Asian patients from non-Asian sites (Asian-O) and 4046 non-Asian patients. The most common grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea, asthenia and fatigue. The incidence of many adverse events was greater in Asian-A than in Asian-O or non-Asian patients. Sunitinib efficacy was comparable between Asian and non-Asian patients, with an objective response rate of 18% versus 14%; median progression-free survival of 8.7 versus 10.9 months; and overall survival of 18.9 versus 18.4 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Sunitinib demonstrated tolerable safety and similar efficacy in Asian and non-Asian patients. Geographic differences in the reported frequency of specific adverse events were noted across Asian patients.

Analysis of overall survival from a phase III study of ixabepilone plus capecitabine versus capecitabine in patients with MBC resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes.

Limited proven treatment options exist for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) resistant to anthracycline and taxane treatment. Ixabepilone, a novel semisynthetic analog of epothilone B, has demonstrated single-agent activity in MBC resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes. In combination with capecitabine in a phase III trial (CA163-046) in this setting, ixabepilone prolonged progression-free survival and increased objective response rate relative to capecitabine (Thomas et al. J Clin Oncol 25:5210-5217, 2007). Here, we report the results of overall survival (OS), a secondary efficacy endpoint from the CA163-046 trial. Seven hundred fifty-two patients with MBC resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes were randomized to ixabepilone (40 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 of a 21-day cycle) plus capecitabine (2,000 mg/m(2) orally on days 1 through 14 of a 21-day cycle) or capecitabine alone (2,500 mg/m(2) on the same schedule). Patients receiving ixabepilone plus capecitabine treatment had a median survival of 12.9 months compared to 11.1 months for patients receiving capecitabine alone (HR = 0.9; 95%CI: 077-1.05; P = 0.19). This observed increase in median OS favored the combination; however, the difference was not statistically significant. Predefined subset analyses showed a clinically meaningful increase in OS in KPS 70-80 patients receiving ixabepilone plus capecitabine (HR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.58-0.98). Ixabepilone plus capecitabine did not show a significant improvement in survival compared to capecitabine alone in patients with MBC resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes. The observed differences in survival favored the combination arm. A clinical benefit was also seen in patients in the KPS 70-80 subgroup.

Activity of ixabepilone in oestrogen receptor-negative and oestrogen receptor-progesterone receptor-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer, including oestrogen receptor-, progesterone receptor- and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (ER/PR/HER2-negative) breast cancer, is more aggressive than ER-positive disease. A major limitation in the treatment of ER-negative disease subtypes is the inherent insensitivity to hormonal agents (tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors) that are widely used in the treatment of breast cancer. Thus, therapeutic options for poor prognosis patients with ER-negative breast cancer are limited to a handful of chemotherapeutic agents, and new agents are needed to improve the treatment of this disease. Ixabepilone, a novel epothilone B analogue with low susceptibility to cellular mechanisms that confer resistance to taxanes and other chemotherapeutic agents, has demonstrated potent preclinical antitumour activity in multiple models, including those with primary or acquired drug resistance. This review summarises the results of a prospective subset analysis from a phase III clinical trial evaluating ixabepilone for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC), in which efficacy and safety were evaluated in patients with ER-negative and ER/PR/HER2-negative disease.

Ixabepilone plus capecitabine for metastatic breast cancer progressing after anthracycline and taxane treatment.

PURPOSE: Effective treatment options for patients with metastatic breast cancer resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes are limited. Ixabepilone has single-agent activity in these patients and has demonstrated synergy with capecitabine in this setting. This study was designed to compare ixabepilone plus capecitabine versus capecitabine alone in anthracycline-pretreated or -resistant and taxane-resistant locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seven hundred fifty-two patients were randomly assigned to ixabepilone 40 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 of a 21-day cycle plus capecitabine 2,000 mg/m(2) orally on days 1 through 14 of a 21-day cycle, or capecitabine alone 2,500 mg/m(2) on the same schedule, in this international phase III study. The primary end point was progression-free survival evaluated by blinded independent review. RESULTS: Ixabepilone plus capecitabine prolonged progression-free survival relative to capecitabine (median, 5.8 v 4.2 months), with a 25% reduction in the estimated risk of disease progression (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.88; P = .0003). Objective response rate was also increased (35% v 14%; P < .0001). Grade 3/4 treatment-related sensory neuropathy (21% v 0%), fatigue (9% v 3%), and neutropenia (68% v 11%) were more frequent with combination therapy, as was the rate of death as a result of toxicity (3% v 1%, with patients with liver dysfunction [>/= grade 2 liver function tests] at greater risk). Capecitabine-related toxicities were similar for both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Ixabepilone plus capecitabine demonstrates superior efficacy to capecitabine alone in patients with metastatic breast cancer pretreated or resistant to anthracyclines and resistant to taxanes.