Efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim in elderly patients with aggressive B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL): results of the randomized, open-label, non-inferiority AVOID neutropenia study.

BACKGROUND: Lipegfilgrastim has been shown to be non-inferior to pegfilgrastim for reduction of the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in breast cancer patients. This open-label, non-inferiority study assessed the efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim in elderly patients with aggressive B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) at high risk for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. PATIENT AND METHODS: One hundred and one patients (median age, 75 years) were randomized to lipegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim (6 mg/cycle) during six cycles of R-CHOP21. RESULTS: Lipegfilgrastim was non-inferior to pegfilgrastim for the primary efficacy endpoint, reduction of DSN in cycle 1. In the per-protocol population, mean (standard deviation) DSN was 0.8 (0.92) and 0.9 (1.11) days in the two groups, respectively; the adjusted mean difference between groups was - 0.3 days (95% confidence interval, - 0.70 to 0.19). Non-inferiority was also demonstrated in the intent-to-treat population. The incidence of severe neutropenia in cycle 1 was 51% (21/41) in the lipegfilgrastim group and 52% (23/44) in the pegfilgrastim group. Very severe neutropenia (ANC < 0.1 × 109/L) in cycle 1 was reported by 5 (12%) patients in the lipegfilgrastim group and 8 (18%) patients in the pegfilgrastim group. However, over all cycles, febrile neutropenia (strict definition) was reported by only 1 (2%) patient in each treatment group (during cycle 1 in the lipegfilgrastim group and cycle 6 in the pegfilgrastim group). The mean time to absolute neutrophil count recovery (defined as ≥ 2.0 × 109/L) was 8.3 and 9.4 days in the two groups, respectively. Serious adverse events occurred in 46% of patients in each group; none were considered treatment-related. Eight patients died during the study (2 in the lipegfilgrastim group, 5 in the pegfilgrastim group, and 1 who died before starting study treatment). No deaths occurred during the treatment period, and all were considered to be related to the underlying disease. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows lipegfilgrastim to be non-inferior to pegfilgrastim for the reduction of DSN in elderly patients with aggressive B cell NHL receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy, with a comparable safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02044276; EudraCT number 2013-001284-23.

Quality of life assessment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving maintenance therapy after first-line induction treatment: a preplanned analysis of the phase III AIO KRK 0207 trial.

BACKGROUND: First-line maintenance strategies are a current matter of debate in the management of mCRC. Their impact on patient's health-related quality of life (HRQOL) has not yet been evaluated. The objective of this study was to assess whether differences in HRQOL during any active maintenance treatment compared with no maintenance treatment exist. PATIENT AND METHODS: Eight hundred and thirty-seven patients were enrolled in the AIO KRK 0207 trial. Four hundred and seventy-two underwent randomization (after 24 weeks of induction treatment) into one of the maintenance arms: FP plus Bev (arm A), Bev alone (arm B), or no active treatment (arm C). HRQOL were assessed every 6 weeks during induction and maintenance treatment independent from treatment stop, delay, or modification, and also continued after progression, using the EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-CR29. The mean value of the global quality of life dimension (GHS/QoL) of the EORTC QLQ-C30, calculated as the average of all available time points after randomization was considered as pre-specified main endpoint. Additionally, EORTC QLQ-C30 response scores were analyzed. RESULTS: For HRQOL analysis, 413 patients were eligible (arm A: 136; arm B: 142, arm C: 135). Compliance rate with the HRQOL questionnaires was 95% at time of randomization and remained high during maintenance (98%, 99%, 97% and 97% at week 6, 12, 18 and 24). No significant differences between treatment arms in the mean GHS/QoL scores were observed at any time point. Also, rates of GHS/QoL score deterioration were similar (20.5%; 17.2% and 20.7% of patients), whereas a score improvement occurred in 36.1%; 43.8% and 42.1% (arms A, B and C). CONCLUSION: Continuation of an active maintenance treatment with FP/Bev after induction treatment was neither associated with a detrimental effect on GHS/QoL scores when compared with both, less active treatment with Bev alone or no active treatment. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: NCT00973609 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Capecitabine and bevacizumab with or without vinorelbine in first-line treatment of HER2/neu-negative metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer: final efficacy and safety data of the randomised, open-label superiority phase 3 CARIN trial.

The study was designed to evaluate efficacy and superiority of capecitabine/bevacizumab + vinorelbine (CAP/BEV/VIN) compared to CAP/BEV alone. Main purpose was to introduce a taxane-/anthracycline-free first-line treatment in advanced breast cancer (ABC), in order to avoid long-term toxicities. In this open-label, superiority, phase 3 trial, patients with HER2-negative ABC were randomized 1:1 to receive either oral CAP at 1000 mg/m(2) [twice daily, days 1-14, q3w] plus intravenous BEV at 15 mg/kg [day 1, q3w] (arm A) or in addition to this protocol intravenous VIN at 25 mg/m(2) [days 1 + 8, q3w] (arm B) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or withdrawal of consent. Between 26 February 2009 and 26 October 2012, we randomised 600 patients (arm A N = 300; arm B N = 300) from 57 German outpatient-centres and 2 university hospitals. Median progression-free survival (PFS) (primary endpoint) was not improved with VIN (CAP/BEV, 8.8 months; CAP/BEV/VIN, 9.6 months; HR 0.84 [95 % CI 0.70-1.01], P = 0.058). Median overall survival (OS) (secondary endpoint) was 25.1 and 27.2 months for CAP/BEV and CAP/BEV/VIN, respectively, average HR 0.85 [95 % CI 0.70-1.03], P = 0.104). The 1- and 2-year OS rates appeared to be similar (78.0 and 77.0 %; 53.0 and 54.0 %). Toxicity profiles were generally mild and manageable. Adverse events occurred more frequently in arm B. Regarding the balance between clinical efficacy (PFS, OS) and toxicity, the CAP/BEV combination provides a favourable treatment option in first-line ABC avoiding taxane- and/or anthracycline-induced long-term toxicity. Superiority of CAP/BEV/VIN was not met, and side effects were even enhanced. Nevertheless, no safety issues occurred.