Avelumab alone or in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer (JAVELIN Ovarian 200): an open-label, three-arm, randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with ovarian cancer will relapse after receiving frontline platinum-based chemotherapy and eventually develop platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory disease. We report results of avelumab alone or avelumab plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) compared with PLD alone in patients with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. METHODS: JAVELIN Ovarian 200 was an open-label, parallel-group, three-arm, randomised, phase 3 trial, done at 149 hospitals and cancer treatment centres in 24 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer (maximum of three previous lines for platinum-sensitive disease, none for platinum-resistant disease) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks), avelumab plus PLD (40 mg/m2 intravenously every 4 weeks), or PLD and stratified by disease platinum status, number of previous anticancer regimens, and bulky disease. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival by blinded independent central review and overall survival in all randomly assigned patients, with the objective to show whether avelumab alone or avelumab plus PLD is superior to PLD. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02580058. The trial is no longer enrolling patients and this is the final analysis of both primary endpoints. FINDINGS: Between Jan 5, 2016, and May 16, 2017, 566 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (combination n=188; PLD n=190, avelumab n=188). At data cutoff (Sept 19, 2018), median duration of follow-up for overall survival was 18·4 months (IQR 15·6-21·9) for the combination group, 17·4 months (15·2-21·3) for the PLD group, and 18·2 months (15·8-21·2) for the avelumab group. Median progression-free survival by blinded independent central review was 3·7 months (95% CI 3·3-5·1) in the combination group, 3·5 months (2·1-4·0) in the PLD group, and 1·9 months (1·8-1·9) in the avelumab group (combination vs PLD: stratified HR 0·78 [repeated 93·1% CI 0·59-1·24], one-sided p=0·030; avelumab vs PLD: 1·68 [1·32-2·60], one-sided p>0·99). Median overall survival was 15·7 months (95% CI 12·7-18·7) in the combination group, 13·1 months (11·8-15·5) in the PLD group, and 11·8 months (8·9-14·1) in the avelumab group (combination vs PLD: stratified HR 0·89 [repeated 88·85% CI 0·74-1·24], one-sided p=0·21; avelumab vs PLD: 1·14 [0·95-1·58], one-sided p=0·83]). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (18 [10%] in the combination group vs nine [5%] in the PLD group vs none in the avelumab group), rash (11 [6%] vs three [2%] vs none), fatigue (ten [5%] vs three [2%] vs none), stomatitis (ten [5%] vs five [3%] vs none), anaemia (six [3%] vs nine [5%] vs three [2%]), neutropenia (nine [5%] vs nine [5%] vs none), and neutrophil count decreased (eight [5%] vs seven [4%] vs none). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 32 (18%) patients in the combination group, 19 (11%) in the PLD group, and 14 (7%) in the avelumab group. Treatment-related adverse events resulted in death in one patient each in the PLD group (sepsis) and avelumab group (intestinal obstruction). INTERPRETATION: Neither avelumab plus PLD nor avelumab alone significantly improved progression-free survival or overall survival versus PLD. These results provide insights for patient selection in future studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors in platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer. FUNDING: Pfizer and Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

Lung cancer in Victoria: are we making progress?

OBJECTIVES: To identify areas to improve patient management in lung cancer, which remains the greatest cause of death from cancer in Australia. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective survey of all cases of lung cancer reported to the Victorian Cancer Registry from 1 January to 30 June 2003 and followed up for 5 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient and disease characteristics, investigations, staging, treatment, cause of death, survival. RESULTS: 841 patients were included. Smoking data were available for 799, of whom 63 (7.9%) had never smoked. Of 655 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases, 198 (30.2%) were treated with curative intent, 125 (19.1%) by surgery and 73 (11.1%) by radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy. Only 7 (6.9%) of surgical patients with complete R0 resection had adjuvant chemotherapy. Of 101 small cell lung cancer (SCLC) cases, a third had limited stage disease which was mostly treated with curative intent by chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy. Patients whose cases were discussed at a multidisciplinary meeting (MDM) were significantly more likely to receive anticancer treatment and had longer survival; on multivariate analysis, MDM discussion was an independent prognostic factor. Compared with a similar survey 10 years earlier, the median age of patients diagnosed with lung cancer had increased by almost 3 years, the proportion of affected men decreased and adenocarcinoma was more frequent, while 10% of patients continued to have no pathologically confirmed diagnosis and 26% continued to receive no anticancer treatment. The number of patients with NSCLC who went on to a definitive surgical procedure fell with no detriment to survival, which likely reflected better staging with the introduction of positron emission tomography scanning. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities to improve patient management included increasing the proportion with a pathologically confirmed diagnosis and greater use of postsurgical adjuvant chemotherapy. A high proportion of patients received no treatment, with underuse of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Critically, the low rate of case discussions at MDMs needs to increase. However, effective strategies are required to identify cases early, as over two-thirds currently present with incurable disease.

Surgical resection and long-term survival outcome for non-small cell lung cancer: a comparison of Victorian population-based studies spanning a decade.

AIM: A survey of management of lung cancer diagnosed in Victoria in 2003 was commissioned by the Victorian Cooperative Oncology Group to identify gaps in the management of this disease. Results from a similar survey in 1993 were available to identify differences in the disease, management and outcomes. This paper details results of the surgically managed subset within the larger study. METHODS: All patients diagnosed with lung cancer in the first 6 months of 2003 were identified from the Victorian Cancer Registry. Registry research staff completed a detailed questionnaire using primary source documents from hospitals and consulting rooms. The survey data were then de-identified with respect to patient and treating clinician prior to statistical analysis by the investigators. RESULTS: From eligible cases identified, non-small cell lung cancer was confirmed in 655 cases with a minimum of 6 years of follow-up. Thoracotomy was performed in 145 cases (22%), but only 130 received the intended resection. Compared with 1993, significant differences were increased use of preoperative positron emission tomography (PET) scanning (79% vs 0%), relatively fewer resections (20% vs 25%), lower pneumonectomy rate (14% vs 25%) and higher sub-lobar resection rate (22% vs 11%). The 30-day mortality remained below 2%. Positive resection margin (21%) and abandoned resection rates (10%) were much higher than expected. Overall 5-year survival was 42%, unchanged from 1993. CONCLUSION: Irrespective of widespread introduction of PET scanning, thoracotomy without resection was common. While operative mortality and overall survival were well within benchmark standards, futile thoracotomy and positive resection margin rates were unacceptably high.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study of AMG 386 combined with weekly paclitaxel in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: To estimate the efficacy and toxicity of AMG 386, an investigational peptide-Fc fusion protein that neutralizes the interaction between the Tie2 receptor and angiopoietin-1/2, plus weekly paclitaxel in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive paclitaxel (80 mg/m(2) once weekly [QW], 3 weeks on/1 week off) plus intravenous AMG 386 10 mg/kg QW (arm A), AMG 386 3 mg/kg QW (arm B), or placebo QW (arm C). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response, CA-125 response, safety, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-one patients were randomly assigned. Median PFS was 7.2 months (95% CI, 5.3 to 8.1 months) in arm A, 5.7 months (95% CI, 4.6 to 8.0 months) in arm B, and 4.6 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 6.7 months) in arm C. The hazard ratio for arms A and B combined versus arm C was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.52 to 1.12; P = .165). Further analyses suggested an exploratory dose-response effect for PFS across arms (Tarone's test, P = .037). Objective response rates for arms A, B, and C were 37%, 19%, and 27%, respectively. The incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) in arms A, B, and C was 65%, 55%, and 64%, respectively. Frequent AEs included hypertension (8%, 6%, and 5% in arms A, B, and C, respectively), peripheral edema (71%, 51%, and 22% in arms A, B, and C, respectively), and hypokalemia (21%, 15%, and 5% in arms A, B, and C, respectively). AMG 386 exhibited linear pharmacokinetic properties at the tested doses. CONCLUSION: AMG 386 combined with weekly paclitaxel was tolerable, with a manageable and distinct toxicity profile. The data suggest evidence of antitumor activity and a dose-response effect, warranting further studies in ovarian cancer.

Superiority of denosumab to zoledronic acid for prevention of skeletal-related events: a combined analysis of 3 pivotal, randomised, phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients with bone metastases from advanced cancer often experience skeletal-related events (SRE), which cause substantial pain and morbidity. Denosumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits RANK Ligand (RANKL), is a novel bone-targeted agent with a distinct mechanism of action relative to the bisphosphonate zoledronic acid, for prevention of SRE. This pre-planned analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of denosumab versus zoledronic acid across three pivotal studies. METHODS: Patient-level data from three identically designed, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 trials of patients with breast cancer, prostate cancer, other solid tumours or multiple myeloma were combined. End-points included time to first SRE, time to first and subsequent (multiple) SRE, adverse events, time to disease progression and overall survival. FINDINGS: Denosumab was superior to zoledronic acid in delaying time to first on-study SRE by a median 8.21months, reducing the risk of a first SRE by 17% (hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.76-0.90]; P<0.001). Efficacy was demonstrated for first and multiple events and across patient subgroups (prior SRE status; age). Disease progression and overall survival were similar between the treatments. In contrast to zoledronic acid, denosumab did not require monitoring or dose modification/withholding based on renal status, and was not associated with acute-phase reactions. Hypocalcaemia was more common for denosumab. Osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred at a similar rate (P=0.13). CONCLUSION: Denosumab was superior to zoledronic acid in preventing SRE with favourable safety and convenience in patients with bone metastases from advanced cancer.

The Australian Cancer Anaemia Survey: a snapshot of anaemia in adult patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency and management of anaemia in Australian adults with solid and haematological malignancies. DESIGN: 6-month observational, prospective, multicentre study. PARTICIPANTS: 694 patients recruited from outpatient oncology clinics in 24 hospitals in five Australian states between 9 April 2001 and 31 July 2001. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of anaemia (haemoglobin [Hb] level < 120 g/L) at enrolment and over ensuing 6 months, by tumour type, disease status and cancer treatment; anaemia treatment and "trigger" Hb level for this treatment. RESULTS: Participants had median age 60 years, and 61% were women. Prevalence of anaemia at enrolment was 35% (199/562), with 78% of these 199 having mild anaemia (Hb, 100-119 g/L). Frequency of anaemia (either present at enrolment or developing during the study) was 57% overall (323/566), and varied with tumour type, from 49% (lymphoma/myeloma) to 85% (urogenital cancer). Patients who received radiotherapy either in combination or concomitant with chemotherapy were more likely to have anaemia (73%) than those receiving chemotherapy alone (58%) (P = 0.004). Of all chemotherapy patients not anaemic at enrolment, 23% developed anaemia by the second monthly follow-up. Independent predictors for anaemia in chemotherapy patients were low baseline Hb level (odds ratio [OR], 5.4; 95% CI, 2.7-10.9) and use of platinum chemotherapeutic agents (OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 2.1-11.4) (P < 0.001). Anaemia was treated in 41% of patients with anaemia at enrolment--by transfusion (36%), iron (5%) and erythropoietic agents (2%). Frequency of anaemia treatment varied between tumour types, from 19% (breast cancer) to 60% (leukaemia). The mean "trigger Hb" for initiating transfusion was 95 g/L. CONCLUSIONS: Anaemia is prevalent among Australian patients with cancer managed in hospital oncology units. Its management varies between tumour types. Many patients do not receive treatment for their anaemia.