Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Previous, uncontrolled studies have suggested that first-line treatment with gefitinib would be efficacious in selected patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: In this phase 3, open-label study, we randomly assigned previously untreated patients in East Asia who had advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma and who were nonsmokers or former light smokers to receive gefitinib (250 mg per day) (609 patients) or carboplatin (at a dose calculated to produce an area under the curve of 5 or 6 mg per milliliter per minute) plus paclitaxel (200 mg per square meter of body-surface area) (608 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: The 12-month rates of progression-free survival were 24.9% with gefitinib and 6.7% with carboplatin-paclitaxel. The study met its primary objective of showing the noninferiority of gefitinib and also showed its superiority, as compared with carboplatin-paclitaxel, with respect to progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.85; P<0.001). In the subgroup of 261 patients who were positive for the epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) mutation, progression-free survival was significantly longer among those who received gefitinib than among those who received carboplatin-paclitaxel (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.64; P<0.001), whereas in the subgroup of 176 patients who were negative for the mutation, progression-free survival was significantly longer among those who received carboplatin-paclitaxel (hazard ratio for progression or death with gefitinib, 2.85; 95% CI, 2.05 to 3.98; P<0.001). The most common adverse events were rash or acne (in 66.2% of patients) and diarrhea (46.6%) in the gefitinib group and neurotoxic effects (69.9%), neutropenia (67.1%), and alopecia (58.4%) in the carboplatin-paclitaxel group. CONCLUSIONS: Gefitinib is superior to carboplatin-paclitaxel as an initial treatment for pulmonary adenocarcinoma among nonsmokers or former light smokers in East Asia. The presence in the tumor of a mutation of the EGFR gene is a strong predictor of a better outcome with gefitinib. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00322452.)

The impact of delay in cryo-fixation on biomarkers of Src tyrosine kinase activity in human breast and bladder cancers.

Demonstration of pharmacodynamic activity of new, targeted cancer drugs in tumour tissue is potentially important in guiding early drug development. However, delays between tumour sampling and sample fixation may result in variability of pharmacodynamic biomarkers. The aim of this study, was to assess the impact of delays in fixation on biomarkers of Src kinase activity. A total of 20 patients with locally advanced breast cancer and 5 with early bladder cancer had multiple tissue samples taken which were fixed at documented time points up to 60 min after biopsy. These were examined to determine if the amount of Paxillin, phospho-Paxillin, phospho-focal adhesion kinase (FAK) and total phospho-Tyrosine changed over time, using a quantitative lysate immunoassay. In breast cancer, there was an increase in the amount of phospho-Paxillin (60% per h; P = 0.019) up to 60 min after biopsy. The amount of total Paxillin decreased (28% per h; P = 0.034) over the same time course. In early bladder cancer, no changes were noted in any endpoints up to 45 min. Standardisation of the time taken between biopsy and fixation may be critical, particularly in studies using phosphorylated protein biomarkers.

Efficacy and tolerability of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin when force-titrated in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia: results from the ECLIPSE study.

BACKGROUND: Patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease frequently fail to reach recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals, partly because statin doses are not titrated to optimal effect. The ECLIPSE study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of force-titrated treatment with rosuvastatin (10-40 mg) with that of atorvastatin (10-80 mg) in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: In this 24-week, open-label, randomized, multinational, parallel-group study, 1,036 patients were randomized to rosuvastatin (n = 522) or atorvastatin (n = 514). RESULTS: At all time points, a significantly greater percentage of patients on rosuvastatin treatment achieved the NCEP ATP III LDL-C goal of <100 mg/dl (2.5 mmol/l), the 2003 European LDL-C target of <2.5 or 3.0 mmol/l (100 or 115 mg/dl) and the LDL-C goal of <70 mg/dl (1.8 mmol/l), a goal suggested for very high-risk patients (p < 0.001 for all). Rosuvastatin also achieved significantly greater improvements in components of the atherogenic lipid profile versus atorvastatin. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Rosuvastatin titrated across its recommended dose range provides a more favorable effect on lipoprotein variables than atorvastatin, enabling more high-risk patients to achieve recommended LDL-C goals.

Efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 40 mg alone or in combination with ezetimibe in patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease (results from the EXPLORER study).

Patients at risk of coronary heart disease may not achieve recommended low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol goals on statin monotherapy. This study was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 40 mg alone or in combination with ezetimibe 10 mg in patients at high risk of coronary heart disease. Four hundred sixty-nine patients were randomly assigned to rosuvastatin alone or in combination with ezetimibe for 6 weeks. The primary end point was the percentage of patients achieving the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) LDL cholesterol goal (<100 mg/dl) at week 6. Secondary end points included the percentage of patients achieving other ATP III and 2003 European lipid goals, changes from baseline in lipid, lipoprotein, and inflammatory parameters, and safety and tolerability. Significantly more patients receiving rosuvastatin/ezetimibe than rosuvastatin alone achieved their ATP III LDL cholesterol goal (<100 mg/dl, 94.0% vs 79.1%, p <0.001) and the optional LDL cholesterol goal (<70 mg/dl) for very high-risk patients (79.6% vs 35.0%, p <0.001). The combination of rosuvastatin/ezetimibe reduced LDL cholesterol significantly more than rosuvastatin (-69.8% vs -57.1%, p <0.001). Other components of the lipid/lipoprotein profile were also significantly (p <0.001) improved with rosuvastatin/ezetimibe. Both treatments generally were well tolerated. Rosuvastatin 40 mg was effective at improving the atherogenic lipid profile in this high-risk population. Combination rosuvastatin with ezetimibe 10 mg enabled greater decreases in LDL cholesterol and allowed more patients to achieve LDL cholesterol goals. In conclusion, rosuvastatin plus ezetimibe may improve the management of high-risk patients who cannot achieve goal on maximal statin monotherapy.

A phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of 2 dosing regimens of fostamatinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with an inadequate response to a tumor necrosis factor-α antagonist.

OBJECTIVE: Our 24-week study (NCT01197755; OSKIRA-3) compared the efficacy and safety of fostamatinib versus placebo in patients taking background methotrexate treatment with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to a single tumor necrosis factor-α antagonist. METHODS: Adult patients were randomized (1:1:1) to fostamatinib [100 mg bid for 24 weeks (n=105; Group A)], or 100 mg bid for 4 weeks, then 150 mg qd (n=108; Group B), or to placebo (n=110; Group C) for 24 weeks. Nonresponders at Week 12 could enter a longterm extension study. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at Week 24. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were well balanced. Significantly more patients in fostamatinib Group A (36.2%; p=0.004), but not B (27.8%; p=0.168), achieved ACR20 at Week 24 versus placebo (21.1%). Frequently reported adverse events were diarrhea, hypertension, and headache. Elevated blood pressure (≥140/90 mm Hg) at ≥1 visit was observed in 46.7%, 51.9%, and 26.6% of patients, respectively. There were 2 deaths in the study, 1 in Group B and 1 in the placebo group. CONCLUSION: Fostamatinib 100 mg bid, but not fostamatinib 100 mg bid for 4 weeks then 150 mg qd, achieved statistical improvements in ACR20 at 24 weeks versus placebo. Because of efficacy and safety results from the phase III clinical program, the companies developing fostamatinib have decided not to study it further in RA at this time.

Phase III, randomized, open-label, first-line study in Asia of gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel in clinically selected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: evaluation of patients recruited from mainland China.

AIM: In the IRESSA Pan-Asia Study (IPASS), 1217 patients in East Asia with pulmonary adenocarcinoma who were never-smokers or ex/light-smokers received first-line gefitinib (250 mg/day) or carboplatin/paclitaxel (area under the curve 5/6; 200 mg/m(2) ). Efficacy analyses were pre-planned in patients in China. METHODS: In China, 372 patients (30.6% of the overall group) were randomized. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end-points were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), symptom improvement, safety and tolerability. RESULTS: For patients in China, PFS did not significantly differ from the overall IPASS population (interaction test P= 0.427). PFS was numerically longer (hazard ratio [HR] 0.79; 95% CI 0.62-1.01; P= 0.065; median PFS 6.8 months for both treatments) and ORR significantly higher (ORR 44.6 vs 29.8%; odds ratio 1.88; 95% CI 1.22-2.89; P= 0.004) for gefitinib than carboplatin/paclitaxel. OS (mature data) was similar for both treatments (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.73-1.17; P= 0.511; median OS gefitinib 18.1 months vs 18.3 months carboplatin/paclitaxel). HRQoL improvement rates favored gefitinib; symptom improvement rates were similar for both treatments. Gefitinib had a more favorable tolerability profile than carboplatin/paclitaxel. Efficacy by epidermal growth factor receptor biomarker status (exploratory analyses) was difficult to interpret due to low patient numbers with known biomarker status. CONCLUSION: For the Chinese subgroup of IPASS, gefitinib demonstrated improved PFS and ORR, similar OS, higher HRQoL, similar symptom improvement rates and a more favorable tolerability profile than carboplatin/paclitaxel, generally consistent with the overall IPASS population.

Epidermal growth factor receptor mutation status in circulating free DNA in serum: from IPASS, a phase III study of gefitinib or carboplatin/paclitaxel in non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: In IPASS (IRESSA Pan-Asia Study), clinically selected patients with pulmonary adenocarcinoma received first-line gefitinib or carboplatin/paclitaxel. This preplanned, exploratory analysis was conducted to increase understanding of the use of surrogate samples, such as serum, versus tumor biopsy samples for determining EGFR mutation status in the Japanese cohort (n = 233). METHODS: EGFR mutations were assessed using tumor tissue-derived DNA (n = 91) and circulating free (cf) DNA from pretreatment serum samples (n = 194). RESULTS: Fewer patients were EGFR mutation positive when assessed using pretreatment cfDNA (23.7%) versus tumor tissue-derived DNA (61.5%). cfDNA results identified no false positives but a high rate of false negatives (56.9%). There was a significant interaction between cfDNA EGFR mutation status and treatment for progression-free survival (PFS) (p = 0.045). PFS was significantly longer and objective response rate (ORR) higher with gefitinib than carboplatin/paclitaxel in the cfDNA EGFR mutation-positive subgroup (PFS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14-0.60; p < 0.001; ORR: odds ratio [OR], 1.71; 95% CI, 0.48-6.09; 75.0% versus 63.6%; p = 0.40). There was a slight numerical advantage in PFS and ORR for gefitinib over carboplatin/paclitaxel in the cfDNA EGFR mutation-negative subgroup, likely due to the high rate of false negatives within this subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: These results merit further investigation to determine whether alternative sources of tumor DNA, such as cfDNA in serum, could be used for determining EGFR mutation status in future; currently, where a sample is available, analysis of tumor material is recommended.

Health-related quality-of-life in a randomized phase III first-line study of gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel in clinically selected patients from Asia with advanced NSCLC (IPASS).

INTRODUCTION: Evaluation of health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) and symptom improvement were preplanned secondary objectives for the overall population and posthoc analyses for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive/negative subgroups in IPASS. METHODS: HRQoL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) and Trial Outcome Index (TOI); symptom improvement by the Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS). Improvements defined as: 6 or more (FACT-L; TOI), 2 or more (LCS) points increase maintained for 21 or more days. RESULTS: Overall (n = 1151/1217 evaluable), HRQoL improvement rates were significantly greater with gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel; symptom improvement rates were similar for both treatments. Significantly more patients recorded improvements in HRQoL and symptoms with gefitinib in the EGFR mutation-positive subgroup (n = 259; FACT-L 70.2% versus 44.5%; odds ratio, 3.01 [95% confidence interval, 1.79-5.07]; p < 0.001; TOI 70.2% versus 38.3%; 3.96 [2.33-6.71]; p < 0.001; LCS 75.6% versus 53.9%; 2.70 [1.58-4.62]; p < 0.001), and with carboplatin/paclitaxel in the EGFR mutation-negative subgroup (n = 169; FACT-L 14.6% versus 36.3%; odds ratio, 0.31 [0.15-0.65]; p = 0.002; TOI 12.4% versus 28.8%; 0.35 [0.16-0.79]; p = 0.011; LCS 20.2% versus 47.5%; 0.28 [0.14-0.55]; p < 0.001). Median time-to-worsening (months) FACT-L score was longer with gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel for the overall population (8.3 versus 2.5) and EGFR mutation-positive subgroup (15.6 versus 3.0), and similar for both treatments in the EGFR mutation-negative subgroup (1.4 versus 1.4). Median time-to-improvement with gefitinib was 8 days in patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumors who improved. CONCLUSIONS: HRQoL and symptom endpoints were consistent with efficacy outcomes in IPASS and favored gefitinib in patients with EGFR mutation-positive tumors and carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with EGFR mutation-negative tumors.

Biomarker analyses and final overall survival results from a phase III, randomized, open-label, first-line study of gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel in clinically selected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer in Asia (IPASS).

PURPOSE: The results of the Iressa Pan-Asia Study (IPASS), which compared gefitinib and carboplatin/paclitaxel in previously untreated never-smokers and light ex-smokers with advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma were published previously. This report presents overall survival (OS) and efficacy according to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) biomarker status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 1,217 patients were randomly assigned. Biomarkers analyzed were EGFR mutation (amplification mutation refractory system; 437 patients evaluable), EGFR gene copy number (fluorescent in situ hybridization; 406 patients evaluable), and EGFR protein expression (immunohistochemistry; 365 patients evaluable). OS analysis was performed at 78% maturity. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess biomarker status by randomly assigned treatment interactions for progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. RESULTS: OS (954 deaths) was similar for gefitinib and carboplatin/paclitaxel with no significant difference between treatments overall (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.02; P = .109) or in EGFR mutation-positive (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.33; P = .990) or EGFR mutation-negative (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.63; P = .309; treatment by EGFR mutation interaction P = .480) subgroups. A high proportion (64.3%) of EGFR mutation-positive patients randomly assigned to carboplatin/paclitaxel received subsequent EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. PFS was significantly longer with gefitinib for patients whose tumors had both high EGFR gene copy number and EGFR mutation (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.67) but significantly shorter when high EGFR gene copy number was not accompanied by EGFR mutation (HR, 3.85; 95% CI, 2.09 to 7.09). CONCLUSION: EGFR mutations are the strongest predictive biomarker for PFS and tumor response to first-line gefitinib versus carboplatin/paclitaxel. The predictive value of EGFR gene copy number was driven by coexisting EGFR mutation (post hoc analysis). Treatment-related differences observed for PFS in the EGFR mutation-positive subgroup were not apparent for OS. OS results were likely confounded by the high proportion of patients crossing over to the alternative treatment.

Randomized phase II study of gefitinib compared with placebo in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and poor performance status.

PURPOSE: To compare gefitinib with placebo in chemotherapy naïve patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and poor performance status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: NSCLC patients (chemotherapy naïve, WHO performance status 2 or 3; unfit for chemotherapy; stage IIIB/IV) were randomly assigned to gefitinib (250 mg/d) plus best supportive care (BSC; n = 100) or placebo plus BSC (n = 101). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life (QOL), pulmonary symptom improvement (PSI), and safety. Correlation of gefitinib efficacy with EGFR gene copy number (fluorescent in situ hybridization [FISH]) was explored. RESULTS: Hazard ratios (HRs; gefitinib:placebo) were 0.82 (95% CI, 0.60 to 1.12; P = .217) for PFS and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.62 to 1.15; P = .272) for OS. As expected for this patient population, OS for both arms was poor, at about 3 months. ORRs were 6.0% (gefitinib) and 1.0% (placebo). QOL and PSI rates were 21.1% and 28.3% (gefitinib) and 20.0% and 28.3% (placebo), respectively. In EGFR FISH-positive patients (n = 32), HRs were 0.29 (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.73) for PFS and 0.44 (95% CI, 0.17 to 1.12) for OS. No unexpected adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant difference in PFS, OS, and ORRs after treatment with gefitinib or placebo, in the overall population; improvements in QOL and symptoms were similar in both groups. Tolerability profile of gefitinib was consistent with previous studies. PFS was statistically significantly improved for gefitinib-treated patients with EGFR FISH-positive tumors.

Gefitinib versus vinorelbine in chemotherapy-naive elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (INVITE): a randomized, phase II study.

PURPOSE: This phase II, open-label, parallel-group study compared gefitinib with vinorelbine in chemotherapy-naïve elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients (age >or= 70 years) were randomly assigned to gefitinib (250 mg/d orally) or vinorelbine (30 mg/m(2) infusion on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life (QOL), pulmonary symptom improvement (PSI), and tolerability. Exploratory end points included epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene copy number by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). RESULTS: Patients were randomly assigned to gefitinib (n = 97) or to vinorelbine (n = 99). Hazard ratios (HR; gefitinib v vinorelbine) were 1.19 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.65) for PFS and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.47) for OS. ORR and disease control rates were 3.1% (95% CI, 0.6 to 8.8) and 43.3% (for gefitinib) and 5.1% (95% CI, 1.7 to 11.4) and 53.5% (for vinorelbine), respectively. Overall QOL improvement and PSI rates were 24.3% and 36.6% (for gefitinib) and 10.9% and 31.0% (for vinorelbine), respectively. In the 54 patients who were EGFR FISH-positive, HRs were 3.13 (95% CI, 1.45 to 6.76) for PFS and 2.88 (95% CI, 1.21 to 6.83) for OS. There were fewer treatment-related grade 3 to 5 adverse events with gefitinib (12.8%) than with vinorelbine (41.7%). CONCLUSION: There was no statistical difference between gefitinib and vinorelbine in efficacy in chemotherapy-naïve, unselected elderly patients with advanced NSCLC, but there was better tolerability with gefitinib. Individuals who were EGFR FISH-positive benefited more from vinorelbine than from gefitinib; this unexpected finding requires further study.