Results From the Phase III Randomized Trial of Onartuzumab Plus Erlotinib Versus Erlotinib in Previously Treated Stage IIIB or IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: METLung.

Purpose The phase III OAM4971g study (METLung) examined the efficacy and safety of onartuzumab plus erlotinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer selected by MET immunohistochemistry whose disease had progressed after treatment with a platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned at a one-to-one ratio to receive onartuzumab (15 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day cycle) plus daily oral erlotinib 150 mg or intravenous placebo plus daily oral erlotinib 150 mg. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in the intent-to-treat population. Secondary end points included median progression-free survival, overall response rate, biomarker analysis, and safety. Results A total of 499 patients were enrolled (onartuzumab, n = 250; placebo, n = 249). Median OS was 6.8 versus 9.1 months for onartuzumab versus placebo (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 1.27; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.65; P = .067), with a greater number of deaths in the onartuzumab arm (130 [52%] v 114 [46%]). Median progression-free survival was 2.7 versus 2.6 months (stratified HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.20; P = .92), and overall response rate was 8.4% and 9.6% for onartuzumab versus placebo, respectively. Exploratory analyses using MET fluorescence in situ hybridization status and gene expression showed no benefit for onartuzumab; patients with EGFR mutations showed a trend toward shorter OS with onartuzumab treatment (HR, 4.68; 95% CI, 0.97 to 22.63). Grade 3 to 5 adverse events were reported by 56.0% and 51.2% of patients, with serious AEs in 33.9% and 30.7%, for experimental versus control arms, respectively. Conclusion Onartuzumab plus erlotinib did not improve clinical outcomes, with shorter OS in the onartuzumab arm, compared with erlotinib in patients with MET-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

Results from AMBER, a randomized phase 2 study of bevacizumab and bortezomib versus bortezomib in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Newer systemic therapies have significantly advanced the treatment of multiple myeloma, but additional agents are needed. Bortezomib is a proteasome inhibitor with efficacy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma that inhibits tumor angiogenesis, a process that has been implicated in multiple myeloma pathogenesis. METHODS: In AMBER("A Randomized, Blinded, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter, Phase II Study of Bevacizumab in Combination With Bortezomib in Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma"), patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma were randomized to receive bortezomib (1.3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of each 21-day cycle) and either placebo or bevacizumab (15 mg/kg on day 1 of each cycle) for up to 8 cycles. At completion, patients in the bortezomib-plus-bevacizumab arm could continue bevacizumab until they developed progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: The stratified hazard ratio of PFS for the bevacizumab-containing arm (n = 49) relative to the bortezomib monotherapy arm (n = 53) was 0.743 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-1.28; P = .2804); the median PFS was 6.2 months (95% CI, 4.4-8.5 months) and 5.1 months (95% CI, 4.2-7.2 months), respectively; the overall response rates were 51% and 43.4% (P = .4029), respectively; and the median response duration was 6.9 months (95% CI, 4.73-11.83 months) and 6.0 months (95% CI, 4.86-8.31 months), respectively. Frequent adverse events occurred at similar rates across treatment arms, but hypertension, fatigue, and neuralgia occurred more frequently in the bevacizumab-containing arm. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of bevacizumab to bortezomib in unselected patients with pretreated multiple myeloma did not result in significant improvements in efficacy outcomes. The combination was well tolerated, and no new safety concerns for either agent were identified.

Hormone receptor status does not affect the clinical benefit of trastuzumab therapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Hormone receptor (HR) and HER2 signaling pathways are involved in the regulation of breast cancer proliferation. The impact of HR status on the clinical outcome of patients with HER2-overexpressing disease treated with the monoclonal antibody trastuzumab is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To evaluate this, we conducted a retrospective analysis of 805 patients with metastatic breast cancer enrolled in 3 clinical trials comparing trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone or trastuzumab monotherapy as first-, second-, or third-line treatment. Patients whose tumor samples overexpressed HER2 by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were stratified based on HR status, and clinical outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Tumor samples from 596 of 805 patients were HER2overexpressing by FISH; 45% of these were HR-positive and 43% were HR-negative (HR status was unknown in 12%). Overall response rate (ORR) and time to progression (TTP) were significantly higher in patients treated with chemotherapy plus trastuzumab than in those treated with chemotherapy alone, irrespective of HR status. Median survival was longer for patients with HR-positive tumors receiving combination therapy compared with those with HR-negative tumors. In the trastuzumab monotherapy trials, ORR and TTP were similar for patients with HR-positive and HR-negative tumors. Median survival was longer for patients with HR-positive tumors compared with those with HR-negative tumors. CONCLUSION: Hormone receptor status did not affect the clinical benefit of trastuzumab given as a single agent or combined with chemotherapy. The addition of trastuzumab to chemotherapy provides an improved clinical benefit compared with chemotherapy alone, regardless of HR status.