Safety of First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Patients With Metastatic NSCLC: A Pooled Analysis of CheckMate 227, CheckMate 568, and CheckMate 817.

INTRODUCTION: We characterized the safety of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) in a large patient population with metastatic NSCLC and efficacy outcomes after NIVO+IPI discontinuation owing to treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). METHODS: We pooled data from three first-line NIVO+IPI studies (NIVO, 3 mg/kg or 240 mg every 2 wk; IPI, 1 mg/kg every 6 wk) in metastatic NSCLC (CheckMate 227 part 1, CheckMate 817 cohort A, CheckMate 568 part 1). Safety end points included TRAEs and immune-mediated adverse events (IMAEs) in the pooled population and patients aged 75 years or older. RESULTS: In the pooled population (N = 1255), any-grade TRAEs occurred in 78% of the patients, grade 3 or 4 TRAEs in 34%, and discontinuation of any regimen component owing to TRAEs in 21%. The most frequent TRAE and IMAE were diarrhea (20%; grade 3 or 4, 2%) and rash (17%; grade 3 or 4, 3%), respectively. The most common grade 3 or 4 IMAEs were hepatitis (5%) and diarrhea/colitis and pneumonitis (4% each). Pneumonitis was the most common cause of treatment-related death (5 of 16). Safety in patients aged 75 years or older (n = 174) was generally similar to the overall population, but discontinuation of any regimen component owing to TRAEs was more common (29%). In patients discontinuing NIVO+IPI owing to TRAEs (n = 225), 3-year overall survival was 50% (95% confidence interval: 42.6-56.0), and 42% (31.2-52.4) of 130 responders remained in response 2 years after discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: First-line NIVO+IPI was well tolerated in this large population with metastatic NSCLC and in patients aged 75 years or older. Discontinuation owing to TRAEs did not reduce long-term survival.

First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Advanced NSCLC: 4-Year Outcomes From the Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 3 CheckMate 227 Part 1 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: In CheckMate 227, nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolonged overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy in patients with tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) greater than or equal to 1% (primary end point) or less than 1% (prespecified descriptive analysis). We report results with minimum 4 years' follow-up. METHODS: Adults with previously untreated stage IV or recurrent NSCLC were randomized (1:1:1) to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, or chemotherapy (PD-L1 ≥1%); or to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy (PD-L1 <1%). Efficacy included OS and other measures. Safety included timing and management of immune-mediated adverse events (AEs). A post hoc analysis evaluated efficacy in patients who discontinued nivolumab plus ipilimumab due to treatment-related AEs (TRAEs). RESULTS: After 54.8 months' median follow-up, OS remained longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1 greater than or equal to 1% (hazard ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.65-0.90) and PD-L1 less than 1% (0.64; 0.51-0.81); 4-year OS rate with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy was 29% versus 18% (PD-L1 ≥1%); and 24% versus 10% (PD-L1 <1%). Benefits were observed in both squamous and nonsquamous histologies. In a descriptive analysis, efficacy was improved with nivolumab plus ipilimumab relative to nivolumab (PD-L1 ≥1%) and nivolumab plus chemotherapy (PD-L1 <1%). Safety was consistent with previous reports. The most common immune-mediated AE with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, and nivolumab plus chemotherapy was rash; most immune-mediated AEs (except endocrine events) occurred within 6 months from start of treatment and resolved within 3 months after, mainly with systemic corticosteroids. Patients who discontinued nivolumab plus ipilimumab due to TRAEs had long-term OS benefits, as seen in the all randomized population. CONCLUSIONS: At more than 4 years' minimum follow-up, with all patients off immunotherapy treatment for at least 2 years, first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to demonstrate durable long-term efficacy in patients with advanced NSCLC. No new safety signals were identified. Immune-mediated AEs occurred early and resolved quickly with guideline-based management. Discontinuation of nivolumab plus ipilimumab due to TRAEs did not have a negative impact on the long-term benefits seen in all randomized patients.

First-Line Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab Versus Chemotherapy in Advanced NSCLC With 1% or Greater Tumor PD-L1 Expression: Patient-Reported Outcomes From CheckMate 227 Part 1.

INTRODUCTION: In CheckMate 227 (NCT02477826), patients with treatment-naive stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and 1% or greater tumor programmed death ligand 1 expression had significantly improved overall survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy. We present the patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: Patients (N = 1189) were randomized to nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab, or chemotherapy. PROs were exploratory. Changes in Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) average symptom burden index, LCSS 3-item global index, EQ-5D visual analog scale (VAS), and EQ-5D utility index were analyzed descriptively. Mixed-effect model repeated measures and time-to-first deterioration and improvement analyses were conducted. RESULTS: PRO completion rates were generally greater than 80%. On-treatment improvements from baseline in LCSS measures of symptom burden and global health status with nivolumab plus ipilimumab generally met or exceeded the minimal important difference (smallest clinically meaningful change) from weeks 24 and 30, respectively; improvements with chemotherapy generally remained below the minimal important difference. Mean on-treatment EQ-5D VAS scores for both treatments approached the U.K. population norm at week 24, remaining so throughout the treatment period. Mixed-effect model repeated measures analyses revealed numerically greater improvements from baseline with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy across LCSS average symptom burden index and 3-item global index, and EQ-5D VAS and utility index. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab had delayed time-to-first deterioration (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] 0.74 [0.56 to 0.98]) and a trend for more rapid time-to-first improvement (1.24 [0.98 to 1.59]) versus chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab revealed delayed deterioration and numerical improvement in symptoms and health-related quality of life versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC and 1% or greater programmed death ligand 1 expression.

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In an early-phase study involving patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the response rate was better with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with nivolumab monotherapy, particularly among patients with tumors that expressed programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Data are needed to assess the long-term benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with NSCLC. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with stage IV or recurrent NSCLC and a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab alone, or chemotherapy. The patients who had a PD-L1 expression level of less than 1% were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone. All the patients had received no previous chemotherapy. The primary end point reported here was overall survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with chemotherapy in patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more. RESULTS: Among the patients with a PD-L1 expression level of 1% or more, the median duration of overall survival was 17.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 15.0 to 20.1) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 14.9 months (95% CI, 12.7 to 16.7) with chemotherapy (P = 0.007), with 2-year overall survival rates of 40.0% and 32.8%, respectively. The median duration of response was 23.2 months with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 6.2 months with chemotherapy. The overall survival benefit was also observed in patients with a PD-L1 expression level of less than 1%, with a median duration of 17.2 months (95% CI, 12.8 to 22.0) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 12.2 months (95% CI, 9.2 to 14.3) with chemotherapy. Among all the patients in the trial, the median duration of overall survival was 17.1 months (95% CI, 15.2 to 19.9) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 13.9 months (95% CI, 12.2 to 15.1) with chemotherapy. The percentage of patients with grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events in the overall population was 32.8% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 36.0% with chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: First-line treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab resulted in a longer duration of overall survival than did chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC, independent of the PD-L1 expression level. No new safety concerns emerged with longer follow-up. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 227 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02477826.).

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with high tumour mutational burden: patient-reported outcomes results from the randomised, open-label, phase III CheckMate 227 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III CheckMate 227 study, first-line nivolumab + ipilimumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival (co-primary end-point) versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and high tumour mutational burden (TMB; ≥10 mutations/megabase). AIM: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in this population. METHODS: Disease-related symptoms and general health status were assessed using the validated PRO questionnaires Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and EQ-5D, respectively. LCSS average symptom burden index (ASBI) and three-item global index (3-IGI) and EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS) and utility index (UI) scores and changes from baseline were analysed descriptively. Longitudinal changes were assessed by mixed-effect model repeated measures (MMRMs) and time to first deterioration/improvement analyses. RESULTS: In the high TMB population, PRO questionnaire completion rates were ∼90% at baseline and >80% for most on-treatment assessments. During treatment, mean changes from baseline with nivolumab + ipilimumab showed early, clinically meaningful improvements in LCSS ASBI/3-IGI and EQ-5D VAS/UI; with chemotherapy, symptoms and health-related quality of life remained stable (LCSS ASBI/3-IGI, EQ-5D UI) or improved following induction (EQ-5D VAS). MMRM-assessed changes in symptom burden were improved with nivolumab + ipilimumab versus chemotherapy. Symptom deterioration by week 12 was lower with nivolumab + ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (22.3% versus 35.0%; absolute risk reduction: 12.7% [95% confidence interval 2.4-22.5]), irrespective of discontinuation. Time to first deterioration was delayed with nivolumab + ipilimumab versus chemotherapy across LCSS and EQ-5D summary measures. CONCLUSION: First-line nivolumab + ipilimumab demonstrated early, sustained improvements in PROs versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC and high TMB. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02477826.

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in Lung Cancer with a High Tumor Mutational Burden.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed promising efficacy for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in a phase 1 trial, and tumor mutational burden has emerged as a potential biomarker of benefit. In this part of an open-label, multipart, phase 3 trial, we examined progression-free survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy among patients with a high tumor mutational burden (≥10 mutations per megabase). METHODS: We enrolled patients with stage IV or recurrent NSCLC that was not previously treated with chemotherapy. Those with a level of tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of at least 1% were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab monotherapy, or chemotherapy; those with a tumor PD-L1 expression level of less than 1% were randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy. Tumor mutational burden was determined by the FoundationOne CDx assay. RESULTS: Progression-free survival among patients with a high tumor mutational burden was significantly longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy. The 1-year progression-free survival rate was 42.6% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 13.2% with chemotherapy, and the median progression-free survival was 7.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.5 to 13.2) versus 5.5 months (95% CI, 4.4 to 5.8) (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.58; 97.5% CI, 0.41 to 0.81; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 45.3% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 26.9% with chemotherapy. The benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over chemotherapy was broadly consistent within subgroups, including patients with a PD-L1 expression level of at least 1% and those with a level of less than 1%. The rate of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was 31.2% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 36.1% with chemotherapy. ical; CheckMate 227 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02477826 .). CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy among patients with NSCLC and a high tumor mutational burden, irrespective of PD-L1 expression level. The results validate the benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in NSCLC and the role of tumor mutational burden as a biomarker for patient selection. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceut

Nivolumab Monotherapy for First-Line Treatment of Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Nivolumab, a programmed death-1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody, has demonstrated improved survival over docetaxel in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). First-line monotherapy with nivolumab for advanced NSCLC was evaluated in the phase I, multicohort, Checkmate 012 trial. METHODS: Fifty-two patients received nivolumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity; postprogression treatment was permitted per protocol. The primary objective was to assess safety; secondary objectives included objective response rate (ORR) and 24-week progression-free survival (PFS) rate; overall survival (OS) was an exploratory end point. RESULTS: Any-grade treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 71% of patients, most commonly: fatigue (29%), rash (19%), nausea (14%), diarrhea (12%), pruritus (12%), and arthralgia (10%). Ten patients (19%) reported grade 3 to 4 treatment-related AEs; grade 3 rash was the only grade 3 to 4 event occurring in more than one patient (n = 2; 4%). Six patients (12%) discontinued because of a treatment-related AE. The confirmed ORR was 23% (12 of 52), including four ongoing complete responses. Nine of 12 responses (75%) occurred by first tumor assessment (week 11); eight (67%) were ongoing (range, 5.3+ to 25.8+ months) at the time of data lock. ORR was 28% (nine of 32) in patients with any degree of tumor PD-ligand 1 expression and 14% (two of 14) in patients with no PD-ligand 1 expression. Median PFS was 3.6 months, and the 24-week PFS rate was 41% (95% CI, 27 to 54). Median OS was 19.4 months, and the 1-year and 18-month OS rates were 73% (95% CI, 59 to 83) and 57% (95% CI, 42 to 70), respectively. CONCLUSION: First-line nivolumab monotherapy demonstrated a tolerable safety profile and durable responses in first-line advanced NSCLC.

Nivolumab in Combination With Platinum-Based Doublet Chemotherapy for First-Line Treatment of Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Nivolumab, a fully human immunoglobulin G4 programmed death-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor antibody, has demonstrated improved survival in previously treated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). CheckMate 012, a phase I, multicohort study, was conducted to explore the safety and efficacy of nivolumab as monotherapy or combined with current standard therapies in first-line advanced NSCLC. Here, we report results for nivolumab plus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (PT-DC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (N = 56) received nivolumab (intravenously) plus PT-DC concurrently every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by nivolumab alone until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Regimens were nivolumab 10 mg/kg plus gemcitabine-cisplatin (squamous) or pemetrexed-cisplatin (nonsquamous) or nivolumab 5 or 10 mg/kg plus paclitaxel-carboplatin (all histologies). The primary objective was to assess safety and tolerability. Secondary objectives included objective response rate and 24-week progression-free survival rate (per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1); exploratory objectives included overall survival (OS) and response by tumor programmed death ligand-1 expression. RESULTS: No dose-limiting toxicities occurred during the first 6 weeks of treatment. Forty-five percent of patients (25 of 56 patients) reported grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs); 7% of patients (n = 4) had pneumonitis. Twenty-one percent of patients (n = 12) discontinued all study therapy as a result of treatment-related AEs. Objective response rates for nivolumab 10 mg/kg plus gemcitabine-cisplatin, nivolumab 10 mg/kg plus pemetrexed-cisplatin, nivolumab 10 mg/kg plus paclitaxel-carboplatin, and nivolumab 5 mg/kg plus paclitaxel-carboplatin were 33%, 47%, 47%, and 43%, respectively; 24-week progression-free survival rates were 51%, 71%, 38%, and 51%, respectively; 2-year OS rates were 25%, 33%, 27%, and 62%, respectively. Responses were achieved regardless of tumor programmed death ligand-1 expression. CONCLUSION: The safety profile of nivolumab plus PT-DC was consistent with that expected for individual agents; however, treatment discontinuation related to AEs was greater with the combination. Encouraging activity was observed, especially for the nivolumab 5 mg/kg plus paclitaxel-carboplatin group, with a 2-year OS rate of 62%.

Phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled study of docetaxel in combination with zibotentan in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

PURPOSE As part of the ENTHUSE (Endothelin A Use) program, the efficacy and safety of zibotentan (ZD4054), an oral specific endothelin A receptor antagonist, has been investigated in combination with docetaxel in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study, patients received intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 of 21-day cycles plus oral zibotentan 10 mg or placebo once daily. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to pain and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, pain and PSA response, progression-free survival, health-related quality of life, and safety. Results A total of 1,052 patients received study treatment (docetaxel-zibotentan, n = 524; docetaxel-placebo, n = 528). At the time of data cutoff, there had been 277 and 280 deaths, respectively. There was no difference in OS for patients receiving docetaxel-zibotentan compared with those receiving docetaxel-placebo (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.18; P = .963). No significant differences were observed on secondary end points, including time to pain progression (median 9.3 v 10.0 months, respectively) or pain response (odds ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.16; P = .283). The median time to death was 20.0 and 19.2 months for the zibotentan and placebo groups, respectively. The most commonly reported adverse events in zibotentan-treated patients were peripheral edema (52.7%), diarrhea (35.4%), alopecia (33.9%), and nausea (33.3%). CONCLUSION Docetaxel plus zibotentan 10 mg/d did not result in a significant improvement in OS compared with docetaxel plus placebo in patients with metastatic CRPC.

Detection of previously unidentified metastatic disease as a leading cause of screening failure in a phase III trial of zibotentan versus placebo in patients with nonmetastatic, castration resistant prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Understanding the extent of disease in asymptomatic patients with castration resistant prostate cancer is important when making treatment decisions and designing clinical trials. The ENTHUSE M0 (ENdoTHelin A USE) trial (NCT00626548) was a large phase III study comparing the endothelin A receptor antagonist zibotentan with placebo in patients with nonmetastatic, castration resistant prostate cancer. The study was stopped prematurely after early efficacy review indicated that it was unlikely to meet its co-primary objectives of improved overall and progression-free survival vs placebo. Screening failed in an unexpectedly high number of patients. We investigated this screening failure rate to promote better classification of patients thought to have nonmetastatic castration resistant prostate cancer and inform the design of future clinical trials in this setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The number of patients enrolled in and subsequently excluded from study was analyzed by geographic region and by the specialty of the investigating clinician (oncology or urology) who enrolled the study patients. RESULTS: Of 2,577 patients enrolled in a total of 350 hospital based centers in 39 countries screening failed in 1,155 (45%). The most common reason for screening failure was the detection of metastatic disease in 32% of all screened patients and in 71% of those in whom screening failed. The leading reasons for failed screening did not differ between investigator specialties overall or by geographic region. CONCLUSIONS: The high frequency of asymptomatic metastasis in men thought to have nonmetastatic, castration resistant prostate cancer highlights the importance of periodic staging assessments for the condition. Optimal treatment modalities may differ for metastatic and nonmetastatic disease.

Pain in castration-resistant prostate cancer with bone metastases: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Bone metastases are a common painful and debilitating consequence of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CPRC). Bone pain may predict patients' prognosis and there is a need to further explore CRPC patients' experiences of bone pain in the overall context of disease pathology. Due to the subjective nature of pain, assessments of pain severity, onset and progression are reliant on patient assessment. Patient reported outcome (PRO) measures, therefore, are commonly used as key endpoints for evaluating the efficacy of CRPC treatments. Evidence of the content validity of leading PRO measures of pain severity used in CRPC clinical trials is, however, limited. METHODS: To document patients' experience of CRPC symptoms including pain, and their impact on health-related quality of life (HRQL), semi-structured in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with 17 patients with CRPC and bone metastases. The content validity of the Present Pain Intensity (PPI) scale from the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), and the 'Average Pain' and 'Worst Pain' items of the Brief Pain Inventory Short-Form (BPI-SF) was also assessed. RESULTS: Patients with CRPC and bone metastases present with a constellation of symptoms that can have a profound effect on HRQL. For patients in this study, bone pain was the most prominent and debilitating symptom associated with their condition. Bone pain was chronic and, despite being generally well-managed by analgesic medication, instances of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) were common. Cognitive debriefing of the selected PRO measures of pain severity highlighted difficulties among patients in understanding the verbal response scale (VRS) of the MPQ PPI scale. There were also some inconsistencies in the way in which the BPI-SF 'Average Pain' item was interpreted by patients. In contrast, the BPI-SF 'Worst Pain' item was well understood and interpreted consistently among patients. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings support the importance of PRO measures of pain severity as key endpoints for evaluating the efficacy of treatments for CRPC, particularly for patients with bone metastases where episodes of BTcP are common. Qualitative evidence from CRPC patients supports the content validity of the BPI-SF ''Worst Pain' item and promotes use of this item for measuring pain severity in this population.

Differences in treatment patterns among patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer treated by oncologists versus urologists in a US managed care population.

OBJECTIVE: Differences in treatment patterns, health care resource utilization, and costs between patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) treated by oncologists and those treated by urologists were examined. METHODS: Patients aged ≥40 with CRPC were identified using claims from a large US managed health care plan between July 2001 and December 2007. A 6-month baseline period was used to assess patient characteristics. Patients with visits to an urologist, without visits to an oncologist, were assigned to the urology cohort, and patients with visits to an oncologist, with or without visits to an urologist, were assigned to the oncology cohort. Treatment patterns, health care resource utilization, and costs during a variable follow-up period were compared between cohorts using descriptive statistics and Lin's regression. RESULTS: The urology cohort had fewer comorbid illnesses (P < 0.001) and patients were less likely to have other cancers during baseline (P < 0.001) or to die during follow-up (P = 0.004) compared with the oncology cohort. The oncology cohort patients were significantly more likely to have a claim for hormones (74.5% vs 61.1%; P < 0.001), chemotherapy (46.9% vs 10.2%, P < 0.001), and radiation (22.3% vs 3.7%, P < 0.0001) over follow-up. Mean unadjusted health care costs were higher in the oncology vs the urology cohort (US$31,896 vs US$15,318, respectively; P < 0.001). At 6 years follow-up, cumulative adjusted CRPC-specific costs were significantly higher among patients treated by oncologists with chemotherapy than among patients treated by urologists. CONCLUSION: CRPC patients treated by oncologists had greater use of hormones, chemotherapy, and radiation; higher percentages of patients with inpatient stays, emergency room, and ambulatory visits; and higher health care costs, than patients treated by urologists.

Preliminary study of the specific endothelin a receptor antagonist zibotentan in combination with docetaxel in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: This two-part study assessed the safety and tolerability of combined treatment with zibotentan (ZD4054), a specific endothelin A receptor antagonist, plus docetaxel in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: Part A was an open-label, dose-finding phase to determine the safety and toxicity profile of zibotentan in combination with docetaxel. Patients received once-daily oral zibotentan 10 mg (initial cohort) or 15 mg in combination with docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) (administered on day 1 of each 21-day cycle) for up to 10 cycles. Part B was a double-blind phase which evaluated the safety and preliminary activity of zibotentan plus docetaxel. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive zibotentan (at the highest tolerated dose identified in part A) plus docetaxel or placebo plus docetaxel. RESULTS: Six patients were enrolled in part A (n = 3, zibotentan 10 mg; n = 3, zibotentan 15 mg). No dose-limiting toxicity was observed, thus zibotentan 15 mg in combination with docetaxel was evaluated in part B (n = 20, zibotentan plus docetaxel; n = 11, placebo plus docetaxel). CTCAE grade ≥3, most commonly neutropenia or leucopenia, were reported in 10 (50%) and nine (82%) patients in the zibotentan and placebo groups, respectively. One (17%) patient receiving placebo achieved complete response, two (22%) patients receiving zibotentan achieved partial response and stable disease occurred in six (67%) and three (50%) patients receiving zibotentan and placebo, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The tolerability of zibotentan plus docetaxel was consistent with the known profiles of each drug. Sufficient preliminary activity was seen with this combination to merit continued development.

A phase II, randomized, multicenter study to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of zibotentan (ZD4054) in combination with pemetrexed in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC following treatment with the specific endothelin A receptor antagonist, zibotentan in combination with pemetrexed compared with pemetrexed monotherapy. METHODS: In this double-blinded, placebo-controlled study, patients with advanced NSCLC with non-squamous histology who had failed first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized to receive either once-daily zibotentan 10 mg in combination with 3-weekly pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) or placebo plus 3-weekly pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2). OS was calculated as the interval from date of randomization to date of death from any cause. Safety and tolerability were evaluated by recording the incidence of adverse events (AE) according to Common Toxicity Criteria for AE (CTCAE). RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were randomized and completed the study (zibotentan plus pemetrexed, n = 30; placebo plus pemetrexed, n = 36). At the data cutoff, a total of 44 deaths had occurred, 20 and 24 in the zibotentan and placebo groups, respectively. No significant difference in OS was observed between the zibotentan and placebo treatment groups (HR, 1.13; 80% CI 0.77, 1.67; P = 0.69). The majority of AE were of CTCAE grade 1 or 2, and the most commonly reported AE in both treatment groups was anemia (23 and 25% of patients in the zibotentan and placebo groups, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There was no survival signal in patients with NSCLC following treatment with zibotentan in combination with pemetrexed. No new issues related to safety for either zibotentan or pemetrexed were identified.

Satraplatin, an oral platinum, administered on a five-day every-five-week schedule: a pharmacokinetic and food effect study.

PURPOSE: The study aimed to assess the pharmacokinetic behavior of satraplatin under fasted and fed conditions, and its safety and preliminary antitumor activity in adults with advanced solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Satraplatin was administered orally at 80 mg/m(2) once daily with prophylactic antiemetics for 5 consecutive days every 5 weeks. Patients were randomized to receive day 1 and day 5 doses of satraplatin in either the fed or fasted state, the order being reversed for cycle 2. Pharmacokinetic sampling was done during the first two cycles. For all subsequent cycles, patients received satraplatin in the fasted state. RESULTS: Seventeen patients were treated with 60 total cycles of satraplatin. There was no dose-limiting toxicity during cycle 1. Severe hematologic toxicity was rare and the hematologic nadir occurred during week 4. Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea were grade 1/2. No significant cardiac, renal, hepatic, or neurologic toxicity was observed. The hypothesis that food decreased ultrafiltrate platinum bioavailability could not be rejected, as the lower limit of the 90% confidence intervals for peak plasma concentration and area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to 24 hours were 56.14% and 73.53%, respectively, both below the 80% bioequivalence acceptance criterion. One partial response (hormone refractory prostate cancer) and four durable stable diseases (breast, ovarian, parotid, and hormone refractory prostate cancer) were confirmed. CONCLUSIONS: There is an effect of food on the pharmacokinetics of satraplatin, the clinical significance of which is unclear. It is recommended that satraplatin be administered in the fasting state. This 5-week interval schedule of satraplatin was well tolerated in heavily pretreated patients.