Effect of KRAS codon 12 or 13 mutations on survival with trifluridine/tipiracil in pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: KRAS gene mutations can predict prognosis and treatment response in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: We undertook a meta-analysis of three randomized, placebo-controlled trials (RECOURSE, TERRA and J003) to investigate the impact of KRAS mutations in codons 12 or 13 on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival in patients receiving trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) for refractory mCRC. RESULTS: A total of 1375 patients were included, of whom 478 had a KRAS codon 12 mutation and 130 had a KRAS codon 13 mutation. In univariate analyses, the absence of a KRAS codon 12 mutation was found to significantly increase the OS benefit of FTD/TPI relative to placebo compared with the presence of the mutation {hazard ratio (HR), 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.53-0.72] versus 0.86 (0.70-1.05), respectively; interaction P = 0.0206}. Multivariate analyses showed that taking confounding factors into account reduced the difference in treatment effect between the presence and the absence of KRAS codon 12 mutations, confirming that treatment benefit was maintained in patients with [HR, 0.73 (95% CI: 0.59-0.89)] and without [HR, 0.63 (95% CI: 0.54-0.74)] codon 12 mutations (interaction P = 0.2939). KRAS mutations in codon 13 did not reduce the OS benefit of FTD/TPI relative to placebo, and, furthermore, KRAS mutations at either codon 12 or codon 13 did not affect the progression-free survival benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with FTD/TPI produced a survival benefit, relative to placebo, regardless of KRAS codon 12 or 13 mutation status in patients with previously treated mCRC.

First-line trifluridine/tipiracil + bevacizumab in patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer: final survival analysis in the TASCO1 study.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic options are limited in patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. The use of trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab (TT-B) in this setting was evaluated in the TASCO1 trial; here, we present the final overall survival (OS) results. METHODS: TASCO1 was an open-label, non-comparative phase II trial. Patients (n = 153) were randomised 1:1 to TT-B (trifluridine/tipiracil 35 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1-5 and 8-12, and bevacizumab intravenously 5 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) or capecitabine plus bevacizumab (C-B; capecitabine, 1250 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1-14 and bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day cycle). Final OS was analysed when all patients had either died or withdrawn from the study. Adjusted multivariate regression was used to investigate the effects of pre-specified variables on OS. RESULTS: At 1 September 2020, median OS was 22.3 months (95% CI: 18.0-23.7) with TT-B and 17.7 months (95% CI: 12.6-19.8) with C-B (adjusted HR 0.78; 95% CI: 0.55-1.10). No variables negatively affected OS with TT-B. Safety results were consistent with prior findings. CONCLUSIONS: TT-B is a promising therapeutic regimen in mCRC patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: NCT02743221 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Trifluridine/tipiracil in combination with oxaliplatin and either bevacizumab or nivolumab in metastatic colorectal cancer: a dose-expansion, phase I study.

BACKGROUND: In preclinical studies trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) plus oxaliplatin (Industriestrasse, Holzkirchen, Germany) sensitised microsatellite stable (MSS) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) to anti-programmed cell death protein-1; the addition of oxaliplatin or bevacizumab (F Hoffmann- la ROCHE AG, Kaiseraugst, Switzerland) enhanced the antitumour effects of FTD/TPI. This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of FTD/TPI plus oxaliplatin and either bevacizumab or nivolumab (Uxbridge business Park, Uxbridge, United Kingdom) in patients with mCRC who had progressed after at least one prior line of treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 14-day cycles, patients received FTD/TPI 35 mg/m2 (twice daily, days 1-5) plus oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 (day 1), and, on day 1, either bevacizumab 5 mg/kg (cohort A) or nivolumab 3 mg/kg (cohort B). Patients in Cohort B had confirmed MSS status. RESULTS: In total, 54 patients were enrolled: 37 in cohort A and 17 in cohort B. Recruitment in cohort B was stopped early due to the low response rate (RR) observed at interim analyses of efficacy. The most common adverse events (AEs) in cohort A were neutropenia/decreased neutrophils (75.7%), nausea (59.5%), vomiting (40.5%), diarrhoea (37.8%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (37.8%), fatigue (35.1%) and decreased appetite (35.1%). In cohort B, the most common AEs were neutropenia/decreased neutrophils (70.6%), diarrhoea (58.8%), nausea (47.1%), vomiting (47.1%), fatigue (47.1%), asthenia (41.2%), paraesthesia (41.2%), thrombocytopenia/decreased platelets (35.3%) and decreased appetite (35.3%). Confirmed objective RR was 17.1% in cohort A and 7.1% in cohort B; the corresponding values for median progression-free survival in the two cohorts were 6.3 and 6.0 months. CONCLUSION: FTD/TPI plus oxaliplatin and bevacizumab or nivolumab had an acceptable safety profile and demonstrated antitumour activity in previously treated patients with mCRC.

Trifluridine/tipiracil versus placebo for third or later lines of treatment in metastatic gastric cancer: an exploratory subgroup analysis from the TAGS study.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic gastric cancer and cancer of the esophagogastric junction (GC/EGJ) is an aggressive disease with poor prognosis. In the TAGS study, trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) improved overall survival (OS) compared with placebo in heavily pre-treated patients. This unplanned, exploratory subgroup analysis of the TAGS study aimed to clarify outcomes when FTD/TPI was used as third-line (3L) treatment and fourth- or later-line (4L+) treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were divided into a 3L group (126 and 64 in FTD/TPI and placebo arms, respectively) and 4L+ group (211 and 106 in FTD/TPI and placebo arms, respectively). Endpoints included OS, progression-free survival (PFS), time to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) deterioration to ≥2, and safety. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were generally well balanced between FTD/TPI and placebo for 3L and 4L+ treatment. Median OS (mOS) for FTD/TPI versus placebo was: 6.8 versus 3.2 months {hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.68 (0.47-0.97), P = 0.0318} in the 3L group; and 5.2 versus 3.7 months [0.73 (0.55-0.95), P = 0.0192] in the 4L+ group. Median PFS for FTD/TPI versus placebo was 3.1 versus 1.9 months [0.54 (0.38-0.77), P = 0.0004] in the 3L group; and 1.9 versus 1.8 months [0.57 (0.44-0.74), P < 0.0001] in the 4L+ group. Time to deterioration of ECOG PS to ≥2 for FTD/TPI versus placebo was 4.8 versus 2.0 months [HR (95% CI) = 0.60 (0.42-0.86), P = 0.0049] in the 3L group; and 4.0 versus 2.5 months [0.75 (0.57-0.98), P = 0.0329] in the 4L+ group. The safety of FTD/TPI was consistent in all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis confirms the efficacy and safety of FTD/TPI in patients with GC/EGJ in third and later lines with a survival benefit that seems slightly superior in 3L treatment. When FTD/TPI is taken in 3L as recommended in the international guidelines, physicians can expect to provide patients with an mOS of 6.8 months.

Impact of the number of prior lines of therapy and prior perioperative chemotherapy in patients receiving salvage therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma: implications for trial design.

BACKGROUND: The differential impact of the number of prior lines of therapy and the setting of prior therapy (perioperative or metastatic) is unclear in advanced urothelial carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten phase II trials of salvage chemotherapy, biologic agent therapy, or both, enrolling 731 patients, were available. Data on the number of prior lines of therapy and the setting of prior therapy were required in addition to known previously recognized prognostic factors: time from prior chemotherapy, hemoglobin level, performance status, and liver metastasis status. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the association of the number of prior lines and prior perioperative therapy with overall survival (OS) as the primary clinical endpoint. Trial was a stratification factor. RESULTS: A total of 711 patients were evaluable. The overall median progression-free survival and OS were 2.7 and 6.8 months, respectively. The number of prior lines was 1 in 559 patients (78.6%), 2 in 111 (15.6%), 3 in 29 (4.1%), 4 in 10 (1.4%), and 5 in 2 (0.3%). Prior perioperative chemotherapy was given to 277 (39.1%) and chemotherapy for metastatic disease to 454 (64.1%). The number of prior lines was not independently associated with OS (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86-1.14). Prior perioperative chemotherapy was a favorable factor for OS on univariate but not multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: The number of prior lines of therapy and prior perioperative chemotherapy were not independently prognostic in patients with urothelial carcinoma receiving salvage therapy. Adoption of these data in salvage therapy trials should enhance accrual, the interpretability of results, and drug development.

The impact of prior platinum therapy on survival in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer receiving vinflunine.

BACKGROUND: A phase III trial demonstrated an overall survival advantage with the addition of vinflunine to best supportive care (BSC) in platinum-refractory advanced urothelial cancer. We subsequently examined the impact of an additional 2 years of survival follow-up and evaluated the influence of first-line platinum therapy on survival. METHODS: The 357 eligible patients from the phase III study were categorised into two cohorts depending on prior cisplatin treatment: cisplatin or non-cisplatin. Survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: The majority had received prior cisplatin (70.3%). Survival was higher in the cisplatin group (HR: 0.76; CI 95% 0.58-0.99; P=0.04) irrespective of treatment arm. Multivariate analysis including known prognostic factors (liver involvement, haemoglobin, performance status) and prior platinum administration did not show an independent effect of cisplatin. Vinflunine reduced the risk of death by 24% in the cisplatin-group (HR: 0.76; CI 95% 0.58-0.99; P=0.04) and by 35% in non-cisplatin patients (HR: 0.65; CI 95% 0.41-1.04; P=0.07). INTERPRETATION: Differences in prognostic factors between patients who can receive prior cisplatin and those who cannot may explain the survival differences in patients who undergo second line therapy. Prior cisplatin administration did not diminish the subsequent benefit of vinflunine over BSC.

Long-term survival results of a randomized phase III trial of vinflunine plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone in advanced urothelial carcinoma patients after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: To compare long-term, updated overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium (TCCU) treated with vinflunine plus best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone, after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred and seventy patients were randomly assigned in a phase III trial and allocated (2:1) to vinflunine (320 or 280 mg/m(2)) plus BSC or BSC alone. The first report (Bellmunt J, Theodore C, Demkov T et al. Phase III trial of vinflunine plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone after a platinumcontaining regimen in patients with advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelial tract. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27(27): 4454-4461) had a median follow-up of 22.1 m and the current report has a follow-up of 45.4 m. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-two patients had died (censoring rate 5%). In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the median OS was 6.9 m and 4.6 m for vinflunine plus BSC versus BSC alone, respectively (n.s.). In multivariate Cox analysis, the addition of vinflunine was independently correlated with improved survival (HR: 0.719; 95% CI:0.570-0.906, P = 0.0052). In the eligible population, the median OS in both the arms was 6.9 and 4.3 m, respectively (HR: 0.78; 95% CI:0.61-0.96; P = 0.0227), indicating an estimated 22% reduction in the risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: The updated OS data confirm the positive treatment effect of vinflunine on survival that was previously reported. These results are consistent over time and confirm that vinflunine is a valuable option for second-line treatment in patients with advanced TCCU after failure of platinum-based regimens.

Phase II study of an all-oral combination of vinorelbine with capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Combination of intravenous (i.v.) vinorelbine and capecitabine was shown to be feasible and effective in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). In an effort to improve patient convenience and to prolong infusion-free survival, we investigated in first-line treatment a regimen combining oral vinorelbine and capecitabine in a phase II study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-two patients (median age, 60 years) with MBC received the combination consisting of oral vinorelbine 60 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 and 15 plus capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) bid given from day 1 to day 14 in an open-label, multicentre phase II study [the recommended doses were established in a phase I study (Nolé et al. in Ann Oncol 17:332-339, 2006)]. Cycles were repeated every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Seventy-nine percent of the patients had received prior adjuvant chemotherapy and 81% presented with visceral involvement. The median number of administered cycles per patient was 7 (range 1-18). Twenty-three responses were documented and validated by an independent panel review, yielding response rates of 44.2% (95% CI, 30.5-58.7) in the 52 enrolled patients and 54.8% (95% CI, 38.7-70.2) in the 42 evaluable patients. Median progression-free survival and median overall survival were 8.4 and 25.8 months, respectively. Neutropenia was the main dose-limiting toxicity but complications were uncommon, only one patient having experienced febrile neutropenia. Other frequently reported adverse events included, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and constipation, stomatitis and hand-foot syndrome, which were rarely severe. CONCLUSIONS: This regimen combining oral vinorelbine with capecitabine is effective and manageable in the first-line treatment of MBC. Oral vinorelbine on days 1, 8 and 15 with capecitabine from days 1 to 14 every 3 weeks represents a convenient option which offers an all-oral treatment to the patients and prolongs their infusion-free survival.