Efficacy and Safety of Bevacizumab-Containing Therapy in Newly Diagnosed Ovarian Cancer: ROSiA Single-Arm Phase 3B Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of extending bevacizumab therapy beyond 15 months in nonprogressive ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multinational prospective single-arm study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01239732), eligible patients had International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IIB to IV or grade 3 stage I to IIA ovarian cancer without clinical signs or symptoms of gastrointestinal obstruction or history of abdominal fistula, gastrointestinal perforation, or intra-abdominal abscess within the preceding 6 months. Prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy was permitted. After debulking surgery, patients received bevacizumab 15 (or 7.5) mg/kg every 3 weeks (q3w) with 4 to 8 cycles of paclitaxel (investigator's choice of 175 mg/m q3w or 80 mg/m weekly) plus carboplatin AUC 5 to 6 q3w. Single-agent bevacizumab was continued until progression or for up to 24 months. The primary end point was safety. RESULTS: Between December 2010 and May 2012, 1021 patients from 35 countries began study treatment. Bevacizumab was administered at 15 mg/kg in 89% of patients and for more than 15 months in 53%. Median follow-up duration was 32 months (range, 1-50 months). The most common all-grade adverse events were hypertension (55% of patients), neutropenia (49%), and alopecia (43%). The most common grade 3 or higher-grade adverse events were neutropenia (27%) and hypertension (25%). Bevacizumab was discontinued because of proteinuria in 5% of patients and hypertension in 3%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 25.5 months (95% confidence interval, 23.7-27.6 months). CONCLUSION: Extended bevacizumab demonstrated increased incidences of proteinuria and hypertension compared with 12 or 15 months of bevacizumab in previous trials, but these rarely led to bevacizumab discontinuation. Median PFS is the longest reported for frontline bevacizumab-containing therapy. The longer bevacizumab duration beyond 15 months in this study may improve PFS without substantially compromising safety.

A Phase 2, Randomized, Open-Label Study of Irosustat Versus Megestrol Acetate in Advanced Endometrial Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Advanced/metastatic or recurrent endometrial cancer has a poor prognosis. Malignant endometrial tissue has high steroid sulphatase (STS) activity. The aim of this study was to evaluate STS as a therapeutic target in patients with endometrial cancer. METHODS: This was a phase 2, multicenter, international, open-label, randomized (1:1), 2-arm study of the STS inhibitor oral irosustat 40 mg/d versus oral megestrol acetate 160 mg/d in women with advanced/metastatic or recurrent estrogen receptor-positive endometrial cancer. The primary end point was the proportion of patients without progression or death 6 months after start of treatment. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, time to progression, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients were treated (36 with irosustat, 35 with megestrol acetate). The study was prematurely stopped after futility analysis. Overall, 36.1% and 54.1% of patients receiving irosustat or megestrol acetate had not progressed or died at 6 months, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between irosustat and megestrol acetate in response and overall survival rates. Irosustat patients had a median progression-free survival of 16 weeks (90% confidence interval, 9.0-31.4) versus 40 weeks (90% confidence interval, 16.3-64.0) in megestrol acetate patients. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 20 (55.6%) and 13 (37.1%) patients receiving irosustat or megestrol, respectively. Most adverse events in both groups were grade 1 or 2. CONCLUSIONS: Although irosustat monotherapy did not attain a level of activity sufficient for further development in patients with advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer, this study confirms the activity of hormonal treatment (megestrol acetate) for this indication.

Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine as first-line treatment for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (TURANDOT): primary endpoint results of a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The randomised phase 3 TURANDOT trial compared two approved bevacizumab-containing regimens for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in terms of efficacy, safety, and quality of life. The interim analysis did not confirm non-inferior overall survival (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 1·04; 97·5% repeated CI [RCI] -∞ to 1·69). Here we report final results of our study aiming to show non-inferior overall survival with first-line bevacizumab plus capecitabine versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: In this multinational, open-label, randomised phase 3 TURANDOT trial, patients aged 18 years or older who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2 and measurable or non-measurable HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer who had received no previous chemotherapy for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer were stratified and randomly assigned (1:1) using permuted blocks of size six to either bevacizumab plus paclitaxel (bevacizumab 10 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 plus paclitaxel 90 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks) or bevacizumab plus capecitabine (bevacizumab 15 mg/kg on day 1 plus capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 every 3 weeks) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Stratification factors were oestrogen or progesterone receptor status, country, and menopausal status. The primary objective was to show non-inferior overall survival with bevacizumab plus capecitabine versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel in the per-protocol population by rejecting the null hypothesis of inferiority (HR ≥1·33) using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00600340. FINDINGS: Between Sept 10, 2008, and Aug 30, 2010, 564 patients were randomised, representing the intent-to-treat population. The per-protocol population comprised 531 patients (266 in the bevacizumab plus paclitaxel group and 265 in the bevacizumab plus capecitabine group). At the final overall survival analysis after 183 deaths (69%) in 266 patients receiving bevacizumab plus paclitaxel and 201 (76%) in 265 receiving bevacizumab plus capecitabine in the per-protocol population, median overall survival was 30·2 months (95% CI 25·6-32·6 months) versus 26·1 months (22·3-29·0), respectively. The stratified HR was 1·02 (97·5% RCI -∞ to 1·26; repeated p=0·0070), indicating non-inferiority. The unstratified Cox model (HR 1·13 [97·5% RCI -∞ to 1·39]; repeated p=0·061) did not support the primary analysis. Intent-to-treat analyses were consistent with the per-protocol results. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (54 [19%] of 284 patients in the bevacizumab plus paclitaxel group vs 5 [2%] of 277 patients in the bevacizumab plus capecitabine group), hand-foot syndrome (1 [<1%] vs 43 [16%]), peripheral neuropathy (39 [14%] vs 1 [<1%]), leucopenia (20 [7%] vs 1 [<1%]), and hypertension (12 [4%] vs 16 [6%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 65 (23%) of 284 patients receiving bevacizumab plus paclitaxel and 68 (25%) of 277 receiving bevacizumab plus capecitabine. Deaths in two (1%) of 284 patients in the bevacizumab plus paclitaxel group were deemed by the investigator to be treatment-related. No treatment-related deaths occurred in the bevacizumab plus capecitabine group. INTERPRETATION: Bevacizumab plus capecitabine represents a valid first-line treatment option for HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer, offering good tolerability without compromising overall survival compared with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel. Although progression-free survival with the bevacizumab plus capecitabine combination is inferior to that noted with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel, we suggest that physicians should consider possible predictive risk factors for overall survival, individual's treatment priorities, and the differing safety profiles. FUNDING: Roche.

Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine as first-line treatment for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: interim efficacy results of the randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 TURANDOT trial.

BACKGROUND: Randomised phase 3 trials in metastatic breast cancer have shown that combining bevacizumab with either paclitaxel or capecitabine significantly improves progression-free survival and response rate compared with chemotherapy alone but the relative efficacy of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine has not been investigated. We compared the efficacy of the two regimens. METHODS: In this open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial, patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had received no chemotherapy for advanced disease were randomised (by computer-generated sequence; 1:1 ratio; block size six; stratified by hormone receptor status, country, and menopausal status) to receive either intravenous bevacizumab (10 mg/kg on days 1 and 15) plus intravenous paclitaxel (90 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15) repeated every 4 weeks (paclitaxel group) or intravenous bevacizumab (15 mg/kg on day 1) plus oral capecitabine (1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14) repeated every 3 weeks (capecitabine group) until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Treatment allocation was not masked because of the differences in routes of administration and cycle lengths. The primary objective was to show non-inferior overall survival with bevacizumab plus capecitabine versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel. We report results of an interim overall survival analysis, which was planned for after 175 deaths in the per-protocol population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00600340. FINDINGS: Between Sept 10, 2008, and Aug 30, 2010, we randomised 564 patients (paclitaxel group n=285; capecitabine group n=279) from 51 centres in 12 countries. The per-protocol population consisted of 533 patients (paclitaxel group n=268; capecitabine group n=265). After median follow-up of 18·6 months (IQR 14·9-24·7), 181 patients in the per-protocol population had died (89 [33%] in the paclitaxel group; 92 [35%] in the capecitabine group). The hazard ratio [HR] for overall survival was 1·04 (97·5% repeated CI -∞ to 1·69; p=0·059); the non-inferiority criterion of the interim analysis (interim α=0·00105) was not met. More patients who received bevacizumab plus paclitaxel had an objective response than did those who received bevacizumab plus capecitabine (125 [44%] of 285 patients vs 76 [27%] of 279; p<0·0001). Similarly, progression-free survival was significantly longer in the paclitaxel group than in the capecitabine group (median progression-free survival 11·0 months [95% CI 10·4-12·9] vs 8·1 months [7·1-9·2]; HR 1·36 [95% CI 1·09-1·68], p=0·0052). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (51 [18%]), peripheral neuropathy (39 [14%]), and leucopenia (20 [7%]) in the paclitaxel group and hand-foot syndrome (44 [16%]), hypertension (16 [6%]), and diarrhoea (15 [5%]) in the capecitabine group. One treatment-related death occurred in the paclitaxel group; no deaths in the capecitabine group were deemed to be treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: In this planned interim analysis, the non-inferiority criterion was not met and overall survival results are inconclusive. Final results are expected in 2014. Progression-free survival was better, and more patients achieved an objective response, with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel than with bevacizumab plus capecitabine. Efficacy results in both groups were consistent with previous reports. FUNDING: Central European Cooperative Oncology Group; Roche.

Brief Report: Updated Data From IMscin001 Part 2, a Randomized Phase III Study of Subcutaneous Versus Intravenous Atezolizumab in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: Subcutaneous atezolizumab is approved for the treatment of various solid tumors. Previous results from the IMscin001 study (NCT03735121) revealed that the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of subcutaneous and intravenous atezolizumab were consistent (data cutoff: April 26, 2022). We present updated data from this trial (data cutoff: January 16, 2023). METHODS: Eligible patients aged above or equal to 18 years with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC were randomized (2:1) to receive atezolizumab subcutaneously (1875 mg, n = 247) or intravenously (1200 mg, n = 124) every 3 weeks. Here, we present updated efficacy (overall survival [OS]; progression-free survival; objective response rate; duration of response), safety, and immunogenicity end points, alongside patient-reported outcomes and health care practitioner (HCP) perspectives. RESULTS: In this updated analysis, the median survival follow-up was 9.5 months. Median subcutaneous injection time was 7.1 minutes, with an average subcutaneous injection time of 4 to 8 minutes in most patients (75.7%). OS data were mature: median OS was similar between treatment arms, at 10.7 and 10.1 months in the subcutaneous and intravenous arms, respectively (hazard ratio: 0.88; 95% confidence interval: 0.67-1.16). Other efficacy end points, as well as immunogenicity, patient-reported outcomes, and safety, were similar between arms. Most HCPs found subcutaneous administration convenient (79.5%), easy to administer (89.7%), and were satisfied with the treatment (84.6%); 75.0% of HCPs agreed that administering atezolizumab subcutaneously compared with intravenously could save time. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, mature OS data were similar between treatments. The updated efficacy and safety profile of subcutaneous atezolizumab is consistent with previous findings and equivalent to intravenous atezolizumab.

Results of a Dose-Finding Phase 1b Study of Subcutaneous Atezolizumab in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Intravenous (IV) atezolizumab is approved for non-small cell lung and other cancers. Subcutaneous (SC) atezolizumab coformulated with recombinant human hyaluronidase, a permeation enhancer for SC dispersion and absorption, is being developed to improve treatment options, reduce burden, and increase efficiency for patients and practitioners. IMscin001 (NCT03735121), a 2-part, open-label, global, multicenter, phase 1b/3 study, is evaluating the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and efficacy of SC atezolizumab. The part 1 (phase 1b) objective was determination of an SC atezolizumab dose yielding a serum trough concentration (Ctrough ) comparable with IV. Patients enrolled in 3 cohorts received SC atezolizumab 1800 mg (thigh) once (cohort 1), 1200 mg (thigh) every 2 weeks for 3 cycles (cohort 2), or 1800 mg (abdomen) every 3 weeks cycle 1, then cycles 2 and 3 (thigh) every 3 weeks (cohort 3). In subsequent cycles, IV atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks was administered until loss of clinical benefit. SC atezolizumab 1800 mg every 3 weeks and 1200 mg every 2 weeks provided similar Ctrough and area under the curve values in cycle 1 to the corresponding IV atezolizumab reference, was well tolerated, and exhibited a safety profile consistent with the established IV formulation. Exposure following SC injection in the abdomen was lower (20%, 28%, and 27% for Ctrough , maximum concentration, and area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to day 21, respectively) than in the thigh. Part 1 SC and IV PK data were analyzed using a population PK modeling approach, followed by simulations. Part 2 (phase 3) will now be initiated to demonstrate that SC atezolizumab PK exposure is not lower than that of IV.

Veliparib in Combination With Platinum-Based Chemotherapy for First-Line Treatment of Advanced Squamous Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized, Multicenter Phase III Study.

PURPOSE: Squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (sqNSCLC) is genetically complex with evidence of DNA damage. This phase III study investigated the efficacy and safety of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor veliparib in combination with conventional chemotherapy for advanced sqNSCLC (NCT02106546). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients age ≥ 18 years with untreated, advanced sqNSCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to carboplatin and paclitaxel with veliparib 120 mg twice daily (twice a day) or placebo twice a day for up to six cycles. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in the veliparib arm versus the control arm in current smokers, based on phase II findings. Archival tumor samples were provided for biomarker analysis using a 52-gene expression histology classifier (LP52). RESULTS: Overall, 970 patients were randomly assigned to carboplatin and paclitaxel plus either veliparib (n = 486) or placebo (n = 484); 57% were current smokers. There was no significant OS benefit with veliparib in current smokers, with median OS 11.9 versus 11.1 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.905; 95% CI, 0.744 to 1.101; P = .266). In the overall population, OS favored veliparib; median OS was 12.2 versus 11.2 months (HR, 0.853; 95% CI, 0.747 to 0.974), with no difference in progression-free survival (median 5.6 months per arm). In patients with biomarker-evaluable tumor samples (n = 360), OS favored veliparib in the LP52-positive population (median 14.0 v 9.6 months; HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.89), but favored placebo in the LP52-negative population (median 11.0 v 14.4 months; HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.86). No new safety signals were observed in the experimental arm. CONCLUSION: In current smokers with advanced sqNSCLC, there was no therapeutic benefit of adding veliparib to first-line chemotherapy. The LP52 signature may identify a subgroup of patients likely to derive benefit from veliparib with chemotherapy.

Rovalpituzumab Tesirine as a Maintenance Therapy After First-Line Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Patients With Extensive-Stage-SCLC: Results From the Phase 3 MERU Study.

INTRODUCTION: Rovalpituzumab tesirine (Rova-T) is an antibody-drug conjugate targeting DLL3, an atypical Notch ligand expressed in SCLC tumors. We evaluated the efficacy of Rova-T versus placebo as maintenance therapy in patients with extensive-stage-SCLC after platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: MERU was a phase 3 randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. Patients without disease progression after four cycles of platinum-based, front-line chemotherapy were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 0.3 mg/kg Rova-T or placebo (every 6 wk, omitted every third cycle). Primary efficacy end points were progression-free survival (PFS) evaluated by the Central Radiographic Assessment Committee and overall survival (OS) in patients with DLL3-high tumors. RESULTS: Median age of all randomized patients (N = 748) was 64 years; 78% had TNM stage IV disease. At futility analysis of the subset with DLL3-high tumors, the hazard ratio for OS was 1.07 (95% confidence interval: 0.84-1.36) favoring the placebo arm, with median OS of 8.5 and 9.8 months in the Rova-T and placebo arms, respectively; futility criteria were met. Rova-T significantly improved PFS versus placebo by investigator assessment (4.0 versus 1.4 mo, hazard ratio = 0.48, p < 0.001). Any-grade adverse events (≥20%) in the Rova-T arm were pleural effusion (27%), decreased appetite (27%), peripheral edema (26%), photosensitivity reaction (25%), fatigue (25%), nausea (22%), and dyspnea (21%). CONCLUSIONS: Because of the lack of survival benefit in the Rova-T arm, the study did not meet its primary end point and was terminated early. As a result, the Central Radiographic Assessment Committee evaluation of PFS was not performed. The frequency of grade greater than or equal to 3 and drug-related toxicities were higher with Rova-T versus placebo. Rova-T was associated with unique toxicities, such as pleural and pericardial effusions, photosensitivity reaction, and peripheral edema, which should be carefully considered in the population with extensive-stage-SCLC.

Duration of previous treatment as a prognostic factor in metastatic colorectal cancer treated with trifluridine/tipiracil.

We herein describe the findings from the trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) Compassionate Use program in Latvia, set up prior to marketing authorization for the management of pretreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The efficacy and safety of TAS-102 in patients with refractory mCRC were evaluated in the phase III trial RECOURSE. A previous report confirmed neutropenia and duration of previous treatment for mCRC as prognostic factors in TAS-102 users. The aim of the present study was to analyze possible prognostic factors, such as neutropenia, in TAS-102 responders. A retrospective analysis of 14 patients who received TAS-102 chemotherapy in two institutions in Latvia (Clinic of Oncology of Pauls Stradins Clinical University Hospital and Oncology Centre of Riga East University Hospital) was performed. Grade 3-4 neutropenia was observed in 28% of the patients. In patients with grade 3-4 neutropenia the median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 7 months, whereas in those without neutropenia the mPFS was 5 months [hazard ratio (HR)=0.24, P=0.033]. In 64% of the patients, the duration of previous treatment was >18 months. In patients treated for >18 months from the start of first-line mCRC treatment the mPFS was 7 months, whereas in those treated for ≤18 months from the start of first-line mCRC treatment the mPFS was 5 months (HR=0.15, P=0.029). Therefore, a longer time from mCRC diagnosis until disease progression may be used to select chemotherapy-refractory mCRC patients for TAS-102 treatment. Furthermore, severe neutropenia may be considered as a surrogate marker for predicting TAS-102 treatment outcomes.

Efficacy and Safety Results From a Phase II, Placebo-Controlled Study of Onartuzumab Plus First-Line Platinum-Doublet Chemotherapy for Advanced Squamous Cell Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment options for squamous cell non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are limited. We assessed the efficacy and safety of onartuzumab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy in previously untreated advanced squamous cell NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The patients were randomized to receive onartuzumab plus paclitaxel plus carboplatin/cisplatin (n = 55) or placebo plus paclitaxel plus carboplatin/cisplatin (n = 54). Randomization was stratified by MET diagnostic status: MET immunohistochemistry (IHC)-positive (MET IHC 3+/2+) or MET IHC-negative (MET IHC 1+/0). The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intent-to-treat and the MET IHC+ populations. RESULTS: The risk of disease progression or death was similar between the 2 treatment arms in both the intent-to-treat (stratified hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.43) and MET IHC+ populations (unstratified hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-2.32). Comparable results were obtained for overall survival and the objective response rate. In all safety-evaluable patients, the grade 3 to 5 adverse events occurring at a > 5% greater incidence in the onartuzumab-containing versus the placebo-containing arm were neutropenia (14.8% vs. 5.8%) and pulmonary embolism (5.6% vs. 0%). Eight patients died as a result of adverse events: 1 case each of pneumonitis, pneumonia, cardiac failure, and unexplained death in the onartuzumab arm and 1 case each of hemorrhage, cardiac arrest, hemoptysis, and febrile neutropenia in the placebo arm. CONCLUSION: Studies using alternative assays of MET activation might help to clarify the role of onartuzumab. However, with the lack of clinical activity seen in the present study, the development of onartuzumab for squamous cell NSCLC will not be pursued further.

Efficacy and Safety of Onartuzumab in Combination With First-Line Bevacizumab- or Pemetrexed-Based Chemotherapy Regimens in Advanced Non-Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Onartuzumab is a monovalent monoclonal antibody that binds with the extracellular domain of the MET receptor. Given the role of MET in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we investigated whether onartuzumab added to first-line chemotherapy efficacy in non-squamous NSCLC. METHODS: Patients with untreated stage IIIB/IV non-squamous NSCLC, stratified by MET diagnostic status, were randomized to receive onartuzumab (15 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks) or placebo in combination with either paclitaxel/platinum/bevacizumab (bevacizumab cohort), or in combination with platinum/pemetrexed (pemetrexed cohort) with maintenance bevacizumab or pemetrexed and onartuzumab/placebo as appropriate. Co-primary endpoints of this phase II study were progression-free survival (PFS) in all patients and in MET+ patients (2+/3+), defined by the Ventana immunohistochemistry assay; secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), safety, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: Efficacy data were available for 139 and 120 patients in the bevacizumab and pemetrexed cohorts, respectively. No benefit was seen in the PFS endpoint in the intent-to treat population of either cohort, but was numerically worse in the onartuzumab arm of the MET+ subgroup of the bevacizumab cohort. The onartuzumab and placebo arms had similar ORR and OS results in both cohorts. A higher incidence of some adverse events was observed with onartuzumab versus placebo, including peripheral edema (30% vs. 3%, bevacizumab cohort; 48% vs. 14%, pemetrexed cohort) and venous thromboembolic events (bevacizumab cohort only, 15% vs. 6%). CONCLUSION: Onartuzumab does not appear to provide any additional clinical benefit when given in combination with current first-line standard-of-care chemotherapy for non-squamous NSCLC.

Quality-of-life and quality-adjusted survival (Q-TWiST) in patients receiving lapatinib in combination with paclitaxel as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 3 randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, first-line therapy with lapatinib plus paclitaxel significantly improved clinical outcomes based on a pre-planned analysis of ErbB2+ metastatic breast cancer patients (GSK Study #EGF30001; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00075270). Patients with ErbB2- or untested did not significantly benefit. This article focuses on the quality of life (QOL) and quality-adjusted survival outcomes (Q-TWiST) in the study. METHODS: QOL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B). Changes from baseline were analyzed using ANCOVAs, repeated measures and pattern mixture modeling. The Q-TWiST method was used to examine the trade-off between toxicities and delayed progression. RESULTS: The study included 579 subjects, of whom 86 were ErbB2+. In the ITT population, no significant differences in QOL or Q-TWiST scores were observed. In the ErbB2+ subgroup, the lapatinib plus paclitaxel (L + P) arm demonstrated stable FACT-B scores over the first year, while average scores for patients on P + placebo (P + pla) monotherapy decreased (change from baseline: L + P, p = 0.99; P + pla, p = 0.01). Clinically meaningful differences were observed between treatment arms on the FACT-B, Trial Outcome Index and breast cancer subscale scores. Pattern mixture models suggested more QOL differentiation between treatments among patients who progressed or withdrew early. Q-TWiST differences between the arms in the ErbB2+ subgroup ranged from 2 to 15 weeks with an L + P advantage across all utility weight combinations. CONCLUSIONS: In the ITT population, results provide no evidence of QOL differences between treatment groups. In a small, prospectively-defined subgroup of ErbB2+ patients, L + P resulted in more stable QOL and more quality-adjusted survival than paclitaxel monotherapy, representing clinically important differences between treatments.

Phase III, double-blind, randomized study comparing lapatinib plus paclitaxel with placebo plus paclitaxel as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Lapatinib, a dual tyrosine kinase inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR/ErbB1) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2/ErbB2), is effective against HER-2-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC). This phase III trial evaluated the efficacy of lapatinib in HER-2-negative and HER-2-uncharacterized MBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with MBC were randomly assigned to first-line therapy with paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks plus lapatinib 1,500 mg/d or placebo. A preplanned retrospective evaluation of HER-2 status was performed using fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP); secondary end points were objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat population (n = 579), there were no significant differences in TTP, EFS, or OS between treatment arms, although differences in ORR and CBR were noted. In 86 HER-2-positive patients (15%), treatment with paclitaxel-lapatinib resulted in statistically significant improvements in TTP, EFS, ORR, and CBR compared with paclitaxel-placebo. No differences between treatment groups were observed for any end point in HER-2-negative patients. The most common adverse events were alopecia, rash, and diarrhea. The incidence of diarrhea and rash was significantly higher in the paclitaxel-lapatinib arm. The rate of cardiac events was low, and no difference was observed between treatment arms. CONCLUSION: Patients with HER-2-negative or HER-2-untested MBC did not benefit from the addition of lapatinib to paclitaxel. However, first-line therapy with paclitaxel-lapatinib significantly improved clinical outcomes in HER-2-positive patients. Prospective evaluation of the efficacy and safety of this combination is ongoing in early and metastatic HER-2-positive breast cancer patients.