Final Results from RIBBIT: A Randomized Phase III Study to Evaluate Efficacy and Quality of Life in Patients with Metastatic Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Breast Cancer Receiving Ribociclib in Combination with Endocrine Therapy or Chemotherapy with or without Bevacizumab in the First-Line Setting.

Background: We investigated the efficacy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients receiving either ribociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) or chemotherapy with/without bevacizumab as first-line treatment of metastatic hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (BC). Patients and Methods: In this randomized, phase III study (RIBBIT), 38 patients diagnosed with metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative BC with presence of visceral metastases recruited between May 2018 and December 2020 were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either arm A (ribociclib + ET) or arm B (chemotherapy with/without bevacizumab) at 12 sites in Germany. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), patient-reported HRQoL, and frequency and type of adverse events. During study conduction, the recruitment rate was persistently and considerably lower than originally expected. Therefore, the recruitment was ended prematurely. The study was initially designed to enroll and randomize 158 patients. Results: Median [95% CI] PFS was 27.3 months [19.1 - NA, parameter not estimable] in arm A and 15.8 months [8.2 - NA] in arm B. Complete responses were achieved only in arm A (n = 2, 10.5%). The ORR [95% CI] between arm A (57.9% [33.5-79.7]) and arm B (52.6% [28.9-75.6]) was comparable. Median OS [95% CI] was not reached in arm A, while in arm B median OS was 28.4 months [25.0 - NA]. Patients in arm A reported less burden by side-effects. No new safety signals emerged. Conclusion: Treatment of patients with visceral metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative BC with ribociclib in combination with ET showed a tendency toward a more favorable clinical outcome. Despite small numbers of patients and sites, this head-to-head comparison with chemotherapy supports the use of ribociclib with ET in patients with visceral metastasis at risk of fast disease progression.

Final results from IMPROVE: a randomized, controlled, open-label, two-arm, cross-over phase IV study to determine patients' preference for everolimus in combination with exemestane or capecitabine in combination with bevacizumab in advanced HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the IMPROVE study was patients' preference for either endocrine-based therapy or combined chemo- and anti-angiogenic therapy in advanced HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer. METHODS: In this randomized, cross-over phase IV study, 77 patients were recruited in 26 sites in Germany. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either capecitabine plus bevacizumab (Cap+Bev) as first-line therapy followed by cross-over to everolimus plus exemestane (Eve+Exe) as second-line therapy (Arm A) or the reverse sequence (Arm B). The primary endpoint was patients' preference for either regimen, assessed by the Patient Preference Questionnaire 12 weeks after cross-over. Key secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: 61.5% of patients preferred Cap+Bev (p = 0.1653), whereas 15.4% preferred Eve+Exe and 23.1% were indecisive. Physicians showed a similar tendency towards Cap+Bev (58.1%) as the preferred regimen versus Eve+Exe (32.3%). Median first-line PFS was longer for Cap+Bev than for Eve+Exe (11.1 months versus 3.5 months). Median second-line PFS was similar between Cap+Bev and Eve+Exe (3.6 months versus 3.7 months). Median OS was comparable between Arm A (28.8 months) and Arm B (24.7 months). 73.0% and 52.6% (first-/second-line, Cap+Bev) and 54.1% and 52.9% (first-/second-line, Eve+Exe) of patients experienced grade 3/4 TEAEs. No treatment-related deaths occurred. QoL and treatment satisfaction were not significantly different between arms or treatment lines. CONCLUSIONS: Patients tended to favor Cap+Bev over Eve+Exe, which was in line with physicians' preference. Cap+Bev showed superior first-line PFS, while QoL was similar in both arms. No new safety signals were reported. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT No: 2013-005329-22. Registered on 19 August 20.

SWITCH II: Phase III randomized, sequential, open-label study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sorafenib-pazopanib versus pazopanib-sorafenib in the treatment of advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (AUO AN 33/11).

PURPOSE: This trial compared the sequential therapy with the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib (So) followed by pazopanib (Pa) or vice versa in advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized phase 3 study assessed the sequential use of So-Pa versus Pa-So in patients with mRCC without prior systemic therapy. Pts were randomized to So 2 × 400 mg/day followed by Pa 1 × 800 mg/day in case of progression or intolerable toxicity or vice versa. Primary endpoint was total PFS (tPFS), defined as time from randomization to progression, or death during second-line therapy. Key secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), first-line PFS, disease control rate (DCR) and safety. RESULTS: A total of 377 pts were randomized (So-Pa, n = 189; Pa-So, n = 188). Recruitment of a total 544 pts was calculated, but actual accrual rate turned out to be lower than expected. The primary endpoint median tPFS was 8.6 mo (95% CI 7.7-10.2) for So-Pa and 12.9 mo (95% CI 10.8-15.2) for Pa-So with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.36 (upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 1.68), which exceeded a predefined HR <1.225 as a one-sided 95% confidence interval. Non-inferiority of So-Pa regarding tPFS was not met. Secondary endpoints displayed marked statistical differences in favor of Pa-So in first-line PFS and DCR but not for OS and 2nd-line PFS. Side effect profiles were consistent with known toxicities of the respective multikinase-inhibitor including diarrhea, fatigue, hand-foot skin reaction and hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Non-inferiority of the primary endpoint tPFS could not be demonstrated for So-Pa. The results for first-line PFS and DCR favored the Pa-So sequence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01613846, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

A randomized phase II study of paclitaxel alone versus paclitaxel plus sorafenib in second- and third-line treatment of patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (PASO).

BACKGROUND: We conducted an open-label, randomized, two-arm multi-center study to assess the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel versus paclitaxel + sorafenib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either paclitaxel monotherapy (80 mg/m2) weekly (3 weeks on, 1 week off) plus sorafenib 400 mg orally, twice a day taken continuously throughout 28 day cycles. Sorafenib dose was gradually escalated from a starting dose of 200 mg twice a day. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A pre-planned efficacy interim analysis was performed on the data of 60 patients, 30 patients in each treatment arm. Median PFS was estimated at 6.6 months (95% CI: 5.1 to 9.0) in patients randomized to single-agent paclitaxel (Arm A) and 5.6 months (95% CI: 3.8 to 6.5) in patients randomized to paclitaxel-sorafenib combination (Arm B) therapy. Contrary to the hypothesis, the treatment effect was statistically significant in favor of paclitaxel monotherapy (hazard ratio 1.80, 95% CI: 1.02 to 3.20; log-rank test P = 0.0409). It was decided to stop the trial early for futility. Median OS was also in favor of Arm A (20.7 months (95% CI: 16.4 to 26.7) versus 12.1 months (95% CI: 5.8 to 20.4) in Arm B. Clinical control was achieved in 28 patients (93.3%) in Arm A and in 21 patients 70.0% in Arm B. Overall response rate was met in 43.3% of patients in Arm A and in 40.0% in Arm B. Toxicities were increased in Arm B with higher rates of diarrhea, nausea, neutropenia, hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) and anorexia, Grad 3 and 4 toxicities were rare. CONCLUSIONS: In this pre-planned interim analysis, paclitaxel-sorafenib combination therapy was not found to be superior to paclitaxel monotherapy with regard to the primary end point, progression-free survival. The trial was therefore discontinued early. There was no indication of more favorable outcomes for combination therapy in secondary efficacy end points. As expected, the safety and toxicity profile of the combination therapy was less favorable compared to monotherapy. Overall, this trial did not demonstrate that adding sorafenib to second- or third-line paclitaxel provides any clinical benefit to patients with HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Cautious dosing using a sorafenib ramp up schedule might have contributed to negative results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at EudraCT (No 2009-018025-73) and retrospectively registered at Clinical trials.gov on March 17, 2011 ( NCT01320111 ).

Dermatux: phase IV trial of Cetuximab plus FOLFIRI in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer receiving a pre-defined skin care.

PURPOSE: Cetuximab-induced skin rash Gd3+ occurs in ≥16% patients (pts) (Heinemann et al., Lancet Oncol 15(10):1065-1075, 2014; Van Cutsem et al. J Clin Oncol 27(19):3117-25; 2009b). Survival, response, and toxicity parameters were re-evaluated under a pre-defined skin prophylaxis consistent of vitamin K1 ointment and oral doxycycline. METHODS: This is a national, multicenter, phase 4, first-line mCRC (K-RAS wt) trial. Pts received irinotecan 180 mg/m² (d1), FA 400 mg/m² (d1), 5-FU 400 mg/m² (d1), 5-FU 2400 mg/m² (d1-2), and cetuximab [400 mg/m² (d1), and then 250 mg/m² qw], prophylactic 0.1% vitamin K1 ointment qd, and oral doxycycline 100 mg bid. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: 1-year PFS rate; secondary objectives: skin side-effects (grade, onset), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS) time, and overall survival (OS) time and safety. RESULTS: Twenty centers recruited 55 patients. Recruitment started Q1 2011 and ended Q3 2013 due to slow accrual. Characteristics were in line with CRYSTAL trial except for age and colonic location. 1-year PFS rate was 25.9%, mOS 21.8 months (m), and mPFS 8.5 m. ORR was 63.0%, DCR 77.8%. Rash Gd2+ occurred in 42.6% [median onset was 4.0 weeks (w)]; paronychia Gd2+ occurred in 22.2% (median onset 15.4w.); skin fissures Gd2+ occurred in 31.5% (median onset 19.9 weeks) 7% pts abandoned cetuximab treatment due to toxicity. CONCLUSION: Our data reveal encouraging improvements in skin reactions and their time to occurrence due to a pre-defined skin care.

SWITCH: A Randomised, Sequential, Open-label Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Sorafenib-sunitinib Versus Sunitinib-sorafenib in the Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how to sequence targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is important for maximisation of clinical benefit. OBJECTIVES: To prospectively evaluate sequential use of the multikinase inhibitors sorafenib followed by sunitinib (So-Su) versus sunitinib followed by sorafenib (Su-So) in patients with mRCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 SWITCH study assessed So-Su versus Su-So in patients with mRCC without prior systemic therapy, and stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk score (favourable or intermediate). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised to sorafenib 400mg twice daily followed, on progression or intolerable toxicity, by sunitinib 50mg once daily (4 wk on, 2 wk off) (So-Su), or vice versa (Su-So). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with So-Su versus Su-So, assessed from randomisation to progression or death during second-line therapy. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 365 patients were randomised (So-Su, n=182; Su-So, n=183). There was no significant difference in total PFS between So-Su and Su-So (median 12.5 vs 14.9 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 90% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-1.27; p=0.5 for superiority). OS was similar for So-Su and Su-So (median 31.5 and 30.2 mo; HR 1.00, 90% CI 0.77-1.30; p=0.5 for superiority). More So-Su patients than Su-So patients reached protocol-defined second-line therapy (57% vs 42%). Overall, adverse event rates were generally similar between the treatment arms. The most frequent any-grade treatment-emergent first-line adverse events were diarrhoea (54%) and hand-foot skin reaction (39%) for sorafenib; and diarrhoea (40%) and fatigue (40%) for sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Total PFS was not superior with So-Su versus Su-So. These results demonstrate that sorafenib followed by sunitinib and vice versa provide similar clinical benefit in mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We investigated if total progression-free survival (PFS) is improved in patients with advanced/metastatic kidney cancer who are treated with sorafenib and then with sunitinib (So-Su), compared with sunitinib and then sorafenib (Su-So). We found that total PFS was not improved with So-Su compared with Su-So, but both treatment options were similarly effective in patients with advanced/metastatic kidney cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00732914, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effects of ethyl-2-cyanoacrylate on pain intensity and quality of life in head and neck cancer patients suffering from cetuximab-induced rhagades during radioimmunotherapy: the support trial.

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody against the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Skin reactions are the most common side effects of cetuximab. Rhagades of the tips of the fingers and toes, the heels and especially the interphalangeal joints are one of the most frightening and painful dermatological side effects that may develop from EGFR-inhibitor therapy. Rhagades are characterized by pain, severe tenderness and poor healing response. They are challenging to treat. Thus, rhagades often poses the most significant threat to the quality of life (QoL) for these patients. Ethyl-2-cyanoacrylate (ECA), an ethyl ester of the 2-cyano-2-propenoic acid, is often used as adhesive in a variety of different work settings in industry, i.e. as a component in nail-care products such as nail glue. In addition, ECA is used for various medical indications, such as for liquid bandages and for suture-less surgery. Wound healing can be accelerated with ECA. The purpose of the SUPPORT trial is to investigate the efficacy of ECA for the treatment of cetuximab-induced rhagades and to assess the clinical usefulness of the SUPO score, a new classification system for rhagades induced by EGFR-inhibitor therapy. METHODS/DESIGN: The SUPPORT trial is an open-label, prospective, randomized, national multicenter intervention study to evaluate the effectiveness of ECA versus the standard treatment of each institution on the pain intensity and QoL in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer suffering from painful cetuximab-induced rhagades during radioimmunotherapy. Primary endpoint is the assessment of the pain intensity 24 hours after application of ECA or the standard treatment quantified by the visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary endpoints are the evaluation of QoL assessed by the EORTC-QoL-C30 questionnaire and the Dermatological Life Quality Index (DLQI). DISCUSSION: During treatment with EGFR inhibitors it is necessary to recognize and manage side effects promptly to assure better patient QoL. The SUPPORT trial is the first randomized clinical trial evaluating a new treatment option for painful cetuximab-induced rhagades. Furthermore, the new SUPO score will be prospectively assessed in terms of clinical usefulness for classification of EGFR inhibitor-induced rhagades. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials NCT01693159.

Nuclear localization and interaction with COP1 are required for STO/BBX24 function during photomorphogenesis.

Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) SALT TOLERANCE/B-BOX ZINC FINGER PROTEIN24 (STO/BBX24) is a negative regulator of the light signal transduction that localizes to the nucleus of plant cells and interacts with CONSTITUTIVE PHOTOMORPHOGENIC1 (COP1) in the yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) two-hybrid system. The protein contains two B-box zinc-finger motives at the N terminus and a conserved motif at the C-terminal part required for the interaction with COP1. BBX24 accumulates during deetiolation of young seedlings in the first hours of exposure to light. However, this accumulation is transient and decreases after prolonged light irradiation. Here, we identified the amino acidic residues necessary for the nuclear import of the protein. In addition, we created mutated forms of the protein, and analyzed them by overexpression in the bbx24-1 mutant background. Our results indicate that the degradation of BBX24 occurs, or at least is initiated in the nucleus, and this nuclear localization is a prerequisite to fulfill its function in light signaling. Moreover, mutations in the region responsible for the interaction with COP1 revealed that a physical interaction of the proteins is also required for degradation of BBX24 in the light and for normal photomorphogenesis.

Salt tolerance (STO), a stress-related protein, has a major role in light signalling.

The salt tolerance protein (STO) of Arabidopsis was identified as a protein conferring salt tolerance to yeast cells. In order to uncover its function, we isolated an STO T-DNA insertion line and generated RNAi and overexpressor Arabidopsis plants. Here we present data on the hypocotyl growth of these lines indicating that STO acts as a negative regulator in phytochrome and blue-light signalling. Transcription analysis of STO uncovered a light and circadian dependent regulation of gene expression, and analysis of light-regulated genes revealed that STO is involved in the regulation of CHS expression during de-etiolation. In addition, we could show that CONSTITUTIVE PHOTOMORPHOGENESIS 1 (COP1) represses the transcription of STO and contributes to the destabilization of the protein in etiolated seedlings. Microscopic analysis revealed that the STO:eGFP fusion protein is located in the nucleus, accumulates in a light-dependent manner, and, in transient transformation assays in onion epidermal cells, co-localizes with COP1 in nuclear and cytoplasmic aggregations. However, the analysis of gain- and loss-of-function STO mutants in the cop1-4 background points towards a COP1-independent role during photomorphogenesis.