Efbemalenograstim alfa, an Fc fusion protein, long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor for reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia following chemotherapy: results of a phase III trial.

PURPOSE: Evaluate the safety and efficacy of efbemalenograstim alfa for reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy. METHODS: A phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted. A total of 122 subjects received up to 4 cycles of TA chemotherapy (75 mg/m2 docetaxel + 60 mg/m2 doxorubicin). Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to subcutaneously inject a single 20 mg of efbemalenograstim alfa or placebo on day 2 of cycle 1, and all subjects received efbemalenograstim alfa on day 2 of cycles 2, 3, and 4. Duration of severe (grade 4) neutropenia (DSN), depth of neutrophil nadir, incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), time to neutrophil recovery, and safety information were recorded. RESULTS: For the primary endpoint, the mean DSN in cycle 1 was 1.3 days and 3.9 days for efbemalenograstim alfa and placebo respectively (95% CI, 2.3, 3.4). As the lower bound of the 95% CI was > 0, superiority of efbemalenograstim alfa over placebo can be declared. In addition, the incidence of FN in Cycle 1 was lower in efbemalenograstim alfa group than in placebo group (4.8% vs. 25.6%; p = 0.0016). Patients in the efbemalenograstim alfa group required less intravenous antibiotics (3.6% vs. 17.9%; p = 0.0119). Most adverse events were consistent with those expected for breast cancer patient receiving TA chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Efbemalenograstim alfa is effective and safe for significantly decreasing the duration of severe neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients who are receiving TA chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02872103, August 19, 2016.

Randomized double-blind clinical trial comparing safety and efficacy of the biosimilar BCD-022 with reference trastuzumab.

BACKGROUND: BCD-022 is a trastuzumab biosimilar which was shown to be equivalent to reference trastuzumab in a wide panel of physicochemical studies as well as preclinical studies in vitro and in vivo. International multicenter phase III clinical trial was conducted to comparatively assess efficacy and safety of BCD-022 and reference trastuzumab in combination with paclitaxel used as the therapy of metastatic HER2(+) breast cancer. Pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity were also studied. METHODS: Patients with no previous treatment for metastatic HER2(+) breast cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to BCD-022 or reference trastuzumab and were treated with trastuzumab + paclitaxel. Therapy continued for 6 cycles of therapy (every 3 weeks), until progression of the disease or unbearable toxicity. Primary study endpoint was overall response rate. Study goal was to prove equivalent efficacy of BCD-022 and reference trastuzumab. Equivalence margins for 95% CI for difference in overall response rates were set at [- 20%; 20%]. RESULTS: In total 225 patients were enrolled into the study, 115 in BCD-022 arm and 110 in reference trastuzumab arm. Overall response rate was 49.6% in BCD-022 arm and 43.6% in reference trastuzumab arm. Limits of 95% CI for difference of overall response rates between arms were [(- 8.05)-19.89%], thus, they lied within predetermined equivalence margins [- 20%; 20%]. Profile of adverse events was similar between groups (any AEs were reported in 93.81% of patients in BCD-022 arm and 94.55% of patients in reference arm). No unexpected adverse reactions were reported throughout the study. No statistically significant differences regarding antibody occurrence rate (either BAb or NAb) was found between BCD-022 (n = 3; 2.65%) and comparator (n = 4; 3.64%). Both drug products are characterized with low occurrence rate and short life of anti-trastuzumab antibodies. Pharmacokinetics assessment after 1st and 6th study drug injection also demonstrated equivalent PK parameters by all outcome measures: AUC0-504, Сmах, Тmax, T1/2. Analysis of Ctrough did not reveal any significant inter-group differences as well. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, results of this study have demonstrated therapeutic equivalence of trastuzumab biosimilar BCD-022 and referent trastuzumab drug. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Study Number NCT01764022 ). The date of registration was January 9, 2013.

Ribociclib as First-Line Therapy for HR-Positive, Advanced Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The inhibition of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) could potentially overcome or delay resistance to endocrine therapy in advanced breast cancer that is positive for hormone receptor (HR) and negative for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). METHODS: In this randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of the selective CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib combined with letrozole for first-line treatment in 668 postmenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative recurrent or metastatic breast cancer who had not received previous systemic therapy for advanced disease. We randomly assigned the patients to receive either ribociclib (600 mg per day on a 3-weeks-on, 1-week-off schedule) plus letrozole (2.5 mg per day) or placebo plus letrozole. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, overall response rate, and safety. A preplanned interim analysis was performed on January 29, 2016, after 243 patients had disease progression or died. Prespecified criteria for superiority required a hazard ratio of 0.56 or less with P<1.29×10-5. RESULTS: The duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ribociclib group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.72; P=3.29×10-6 for superiority). The median duration of follow-up was 15.3 months. After 18 months, the progression-free survival rate was 63.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 54.6 to 70.3) in the ribociclib group and 42.2% (95% CI, 34.8 to 49.5) in the placebo group. In patients with measurable disease at baseline, the overall response rate was 52.7% and 37.1%, respectively (P<0.001). Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events that were reported in more than 10% of the patients in either group were neutropenia (59.3% in the ribociclib group vs. 0.9% in the placebo group) and leukopenia (21.0% vs. 0.6%); the rates of discontinuation because of adverse events were 7.5% and 2.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients receiving initial systemic treatment for HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, the duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer among those receiving ribociclib plus letrozole than among those receiving placebo plus letrozole, with a higher rate of myelosuppression in the ribociclib group. (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01958021 .).

MONARCH 2: Subgroup Analysis of Patients Receiving Abemaciclib Plus Fulvestrant as First-Line and Second-Line Therapy for HR+, HER2--Advanced Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: In MONARCH 2, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+), HER2- advanced breast cancer. This exploratory analysis assessed the efficacy of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant across subgroups of patients receiving study therapy as first- or second-line treatment for metastatic disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Improvements were estimated using Cox models, and a test of interactions of subgroups with treatment was performed. RESULTS: The benefit in PFS [first-line, HR, 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45-0.73; second-line, HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36-0.64] and OS (first-line, HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.64-1.14; second-line, HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46-0.94) was observed across both subgroups, consistent with the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. In first-line patients (abemaciclib arm, n = 265; placebo arm, n = 133), the numerically largest effect on PFS and OS was observed in patients with primary resistance to endocrine therapy (ET; PFS, HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.26-0.63; OS, HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35-0.97) and visceral disease (PFS, HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.39-0.73; OS, HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.58-1.20). In second-line patients (abemaciclib arm, n = 170; placebo arm, n = 86), a numerical benefit in PFS and OS was observed across primary and secondary ET resistance, with numerically more pronounced effects observed in patients with visceral disease (PFS, HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.57; OS, HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.33-0.81). Prolongation of time to second disease progression, time to chemotherapy, and chemotherapy-free survival was observed in both subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the ITT population, a benefit in PFS and OS was observed across the first- and second-line subgroups in MONARCH 2.

Phase III, Randomized Study of Dual Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) Blockade With Lapatinib Plus Trastuzumab in Combination With an Aromatase Inhibitor in Postmenopausal Women With HER2-Positive, Hormone Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: Updated Results of ALTERNATIVE.

PURPOSE: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) targeting plus endocrine therapy (ET) improved clinical benefit in HER2-positive, hormone receptor (HR)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) versus ET alone. Dual HER2 blockade enhances clinical benefit versus single HER2 blockade. The ALTERNATIVE study evaluated the efficacy and safety of dual HER2 blockade plus aromatase inhibitor (AI) in postmenopausal women with HER2-positive/HR-positive MBC who received prior ET and prior neo(adjuvant)/first-line trastuzumab (TRAS) plus chemotherapy. This updated article reflects minor numerical corrections in some secondary efficacy analyses that resulted from programming errors and that do not change the major conclusions of the study. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive lapatinib (LAP) plus TRAS plus AI, TRAS plus AI, or LAP plus AI. Patients for whom chemotherapy was intended were excluded. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; investigator assessed) with LAP plus TRAS plus AI versus TRAS plus AI. Secondary end points were PFS (comparison of other arms), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), and safety. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-five patients were included in this analysis: LAP plus TRAS plus AI (n = 120), TRAS plus AI (n = 117), and LAP plus AI (n = 118). Baseline characteristics were balanced. The study met its primary end point; superior PFS was observed with LAP plus TRAS plus AI versus TRAS plus AI (median PFS, 11 v 5.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.88]; P = .0063). A consistent PFS benefit was observed in predefined subgroups. ORR, CBR, and OS also favored LAP plus TRAS plus AI. The median PFS with LAP plus AI versus TRAS plus AI was 8.3 versus 5.6 months (hazard ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.17]; P = .3159). Common adverse events (AEs; ≥ 15%) with LAP plus TRAS plus AI, TRAS plus AI, and LAP plus AI were diarrhea (69%, 9%, and 51%, respectively), rash (36%, 2%, and 28%, respectively), nausea (22%, 9%, and 22%, respectively), and paronychia (30%, 0%, and 15%, respectively), mostly grade 1 or 2. Serious AEs were reported similarly across the 3 groups, and AEs leading to discontinuation were lower with LAP plus TRAS plus AI. CONCLUSION: Dual HER2 blockade with LAP plus TRAS plus AI showed superior PFS benefit versus TRAS plus AI in patients with HER2-positive/HR-positive MBC. This combination offers an effective and safe chemotherapy-sparing alternative treatment regimen for this patient population.

The Effect of Abemaciclib Plus Fulvestrant on Overall Survival in Hormone Receptor-Positive, ERBB2-Negative Breast Cancer That Progressed on Endocrine Therapy-MONARCH 2: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Statistically significant overall survival (OS) benefits of CDK4 and CDK6 inhibitors in combination with fulvestrant for hormone receptor (HR)-positive, ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) in patients regardless of menopausal status after prior endocrine therapy (ET) has not yet been demonstrated. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant on OS at the prespecified interim of MONARCH 2 (338 events) in patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative advanced breast cancer that progressed during prior ET. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: MONARCH 2 was a global, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant vs placebo plus fulvestrant for treatment of premenopausal or perimenopausal women (with ovarian suppression) and postmenopausal women with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative ABC that progressed during ET. Patients were enrolled between August 7, 2014, and December 29, 2015. Analyses for this report were conducted at the time of database lock on June 20, 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive abemaciclib or placebo, 150 mg, every 12 hours on a continuous schedule plus fulvestrant, 500 mg, per label. Randomization was stratified based on site of metastasis (visceral, bone only, or other) and resistance to prior ET (primary vs secondary). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Overall survival was a gated key secondary end point. The boundary P value for the interim analysis was .02. RESULTS: Of 669 women enrolled, 446 (median [range] age, 59 [32-91] years) were randomized to the abemaciclib plus fulvestrant arm and 223 (median [range] age, 62 [32-87] years) were randomized to the placebo plus fulvestrant arm. At the prespecified interim, 338 deaths (77% of the planned 441 at the final analysis) were observed in the intent-to-treat population, with a median OS of 46.7 months for abemaciclib plus fulvestrant and 37.3 months for placebo plus fulvestrant (hazard ratio [HR], 0.757; 95% CI, 0.606-0.945; P = .01). Improvement in OS was consistent across all stratification factors. Among stratification factors, more pronounced effects were observed in patients with visceral disease (HR, 0.675; 95% CI, 0.511-0.891) and primary resistance to prior ET (HR, 0.686; 95% CI, 0.451-1.043). Time to second disease progression (median, 23.1 months vs 20.6 months), time to chemotherapy (median, 50.2 months vs 22.1 months), and chemotherapy-free survival (median, 25.5 months vs 18.2 months) were also statistically significantly improved in the abemaciclib arm vs placebo arm. No new safety signals were observed for abemaciclib. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Treatment with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant resulted in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful median OS improvement of 9.4 months for patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative ABC who progressed after prior ET regardless of menopausal status. Abemaciclib substantially delayed the receipt of subsequent chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02107703.

An open-label phase IB study to evaluate GSK3052230 in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin, or docetaxel, in FGFR1-amplified non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: GSK3052230 (FP-1039) is a soluble fusion protein that acts as ligand trap sequestering fibroblast growth factors (FGFs) involved in tumor growth and angiogenesis, while sparing the hormonal FGFs. Because of this selectivity, the molecule is predicted to avoid toxicities associated with small molecule inhibitors of FGFR, including hyperphosphatemia and retinal, nail, and skin toxicities. Herein we report the results of a phase 1b study where GSK3052330 was administered with standard of care chemotherapy in FGFR1-amplified squamous non-small cell lung cancer (sqNSCLC) patients. METHODS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with stage IV or recurrent metastatic sqNSCLC harboring FGFR1 gene amplification received escalating doses of GSK3052230 in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin at the starting doses 200 mg/m2 and AUC of 6, respectively, in the first line setting (Arm A) or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 in second line (Arm B). The primary endpoints of the study were safety and tolerability, to identify a maximum tolerated dose (MTD), and to assess overall response rate (ORR) based on investigator assessment. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients were enrolled into the study, including 20 patients on Arm A and 9 patients on Arm B. There were no dose limiting toxicities in either Arm and the MTD was not reached. The most common adverse events (AEs) were compatible with the chemotherapy backbone used in each Arm, including neutropenia, alopecia, nausea, arthralgia, asthenia, diarrhea and peripheral neuropathy. The overall response rate and median progression-free survival were 47% and 5.5 months, respectively, for Arm A and 0% and 4.6 months, respectively, for Arm B. CONCLUSION: GSK3052230 is a novel FGFR pathway inhibitor, which is well tolerated in combination with chemotherapy. Importantly, AEs associated with small molecule inhibitors of FGFR were not observed, as predicted by the unique mechanism of action of this drug.

Phase III, Randomized Study of Dual Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) Blockade With Lapatinib Plus Trastuzumab in Combination With an Aromatase Inhibitor in Postmenopausal Women With HER2-Positive, Hormone Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: ALTERNATIVE.

Purpose Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) targeting plus endocrine therapy (ET) improved clinical benefit in HER2-positive, hormone receptor (HR)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) versus ET alone. Dual HER2 blockade enhances clinical benefit versus single HER2 blockade. The ALTERNATIVE study evaluated the efficacy and safety of dual HER2 blockade plus aromatase inhibitor (AI) in postmenopausal women with HER2-positive/HR-positive MBC who received prior ET and prior neo(adjuvant)/first-line trastuzumab (TRAS) plus chemotherapy. Methods Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive lapatinib (LAP) + TRAS + AI, TRAS + AI, or LAP + AI. Patients for whom chemotherapy was intended were excluded. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; investigator assessed) with LAP + TRAS + AI versus TRAS + AI. Secondary end points were PFS (comparison of other arms), overall survival, overall response rate, clinical benefit rate, and safety. Results Three hundred fifty-five patients were included in this analysis: LAP + TRAS + AI (n = 120), TRAS + AI (n = 117), and LAP + AI (n = 118). Baseline characteristics were balanced. The study met its primary end point; superior PFS was observed with LAP + TRAS + AI versus TRAS + AI (median PFS, 11 v 5.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.88; P = .0064). Consistent PFS benefit was observed in predefined subgroups. Overall response rate, clinical benefit rate, and overall survival also favored LAP + TRAS + AI. The median PFS with LAP + AI versus TRAS + AI was 8.3 versus 5.7 months (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98; P = .0361). Common adverse events (AEs; ≥ 15%) with LAP + TRAS + AI, TRAS + AI, and LAP + AI were diarrhea (69%, 9%, and 51%, respectively), rash (36%, 2%, and 28%, respectively), nausea (22%, 9%, and 22%, respectively), and paronychia (30%, 0%, and 15%, respectively), mostly grade 1 or 2. Serious AEs were reported similarly across the three groups, and AEs leading to discontinuation were lower with LAP + TRAS + AI. Conclusion Dual HER2 blockade with LAP + TRAS + AI showed superior PFS benefit versus TRAS + AI in patients with HER2-positive/HR-positive MBC. This combination offers an effective and safe chemotherapy-sparing alternative treatment regimen for this patient population.

MONARCH 2: Abemaciclib in Combination With Fulvestrant in Women With HR+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer Who Had Progressed While Receiving Endocrine Therapy.

Purpose MONARCH 2 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02107703) compared the efficacy and safety of abemaciclib, a selective cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor, plus fulvestrant with fulvestrant alone in patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC). Patients and Methods MONARCH 2 was a global, double-blind, phase III study of women with hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative ABC who had progressed while receiving neoadjuvant or adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET), ≤ 12 months from the end of adjuvant ET, or while receiving first-line ET for metastatic disease. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive abemaciclib or placebo (150 mg twice daily) on a continuous schedule and fulvestrant (500 mg, per label). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), and key secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate (ORR), duration of response, clinical benefit rate, quality of life, and safety. Results Between August 2014 and December 2015, 669 patients were randomly assigned to receive abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (n = 446) or placebo plus fulvestrant (n = 223). Abemaciclib plus fulvestrant significantly extended PFS versus fulvestrant alone (median, 16.4 v 9.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.553; 95% CI, 0.449 to 0.681; P < .001). In patients with measurable disease, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant achieved an ORR of 48.1% (95% CI, 42.6% to 53.6%) compared with 21.3% (95% CI, 15.1% to 27.6%) in the control arm. The most common adverse events in the abemaciclib versus placebo arms were diarrhea (86.4% v 24.7%), neutropenia (46.0% v 4.0%), nausea (45.1% v 22.9%), and fatigue (39.9% v 26.9%). Conclusions Abemaciclib at 150 mg twice daily plus fulvestrant was effective, significantly improving PFS and ORR and demonstrating a tolerable safety profile in women with hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative ABC who progressed while receiving ET.

Eniluracil plus 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin: treatment for metastatic breast cancer patients in whom capecitabine treatment rapidly failed.

BACKGROUND: As part of a comparative phase II study of eniluracil/5-FU/Lv vs. capecitabine (Xeloda), an oral 5-FU prodrug for MBC, patients with rapid PD during capecitabine therapy crossed over to take eniluracil/5-FU/Lv. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ten evaluable patients with radiologically documented PD within 70 days of capecitabine treatment were treated with a modified oral weekly eniluracil/5-FU/Lv regimen. RESULTS: After switching to eniluracil/5-FU/Lv, 3 (30%) patients had PR. Six (60%) had SD, producing a total of 90% with PR or SD. The median PFS was 140 days (vs. 42.5 days for capecitabine). Four (40%) patients had > 7 months PFS. Eniluracil/5-FU/Lv was well tolerated with mild to moderate diarrhea and nausea as the most common side effects. CONCLUSION: These positive efficacy and safety results encourage a larger study in patients with rapid PD during capecitabine treatment. Eniluracil/5-FU/Lv might enable these patients to continue with oral 5-FU rather than switching to the generally less well tolerated intravenous microtubule-interfering agents. In addition, the eniluracil/5-FU/Lv regimen might also provide any overall survival contribution of 5-FU that, for pharmacokinetic reasons, was not provided by capecitabine and would not be provided if these patients progressed directly to the other approved treatments.

Clinical genotyping and efficacy outcomes: exploratory biomarker data from the phase II ABIGAIL study of first-line bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: ABIGAIL, a phase II, randomized, open-label, multicenter study evaluated the correlation between biomarkers and best overall response (BOR) to bevacizumab with chemotherapy in patients with advanced or recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Exploratory analyses of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) clinical genotyping data are presented. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 303 patients with NSCLC were randomized to receive bevacizumab 7.5mg/kg or 15mg/kg until progression or unacceptable toxicity (plus six cycles of chemotherapy). Patients provided blood samples for biomarker analysis. Exploratory analyses were conducted to assess whether genetic variants in VEGF-A or VEGFR-1/-2 act as efficacy or safety biomarkers. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were determined using individual genotyping assays. DNA analysis for 12 SNPs across three genes is reported: VEGF-A (five SNPs), VEGFR-1 (three SNPs), and VEGFR-2 (four SNPs). RESULTS VEGF-A: c.+405/c.-634 (CG), VEGF-A: c.-460 >C; c-1498 >C (CT), and VEGF-A: c.-2578 C>A were associated with >50% higher odds of responding to treatment. VEGFR-1: rs9554316 (GT) was associated with >30% higher risk of progression and >40% higher risk of death. VEGF-A: c.+936 C>T was associated with higher incidence of hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Four genetic variants of VEGF-A and VEGFR-1 were associated with bevacizumab treatment outcome. Three variants in VEGF-A were associated with increased BOR, one variant in VEGFR-1 was associated with worse progression-free survival/overall survival. These associations were not statistically significant after correction for multiple testing. No genetic variant was associated with significantly higher risk of hypertension. Replication in additional studies may provide insight into the use of these variants to predict response to bevacizumab.

A correlative biomarker analysis of the combination of bevacizumab and carboplatin-based chemotherapy for advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer: results of the phase II randomized ABIGAIL study (BO21015).

INTRODUCTION: Avastin Biomarkers In lunG And 3D Innovative anaLysis (ABIGAIL), which is a phase II, open-label, randomized study, investigated correlations between biomarkers and best overall response to bevacizumab plus platinum-doublet chemotherapy for patients with advanced/recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: Patients received bevacizumab (7.5 or 15 mg/kg, 3-weekly until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity) plus carboplatin/gemcitabine or carboplatin/paclitaxel (maximum six cycles). Plasma samples (baseline/throughout treatment) were analyzed for vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A (baseline only), VEGF receptors (VEGFR-1/VEGFR-2), basic fibroblast growth factor, E-selectin, intercellular adhesion molecule-1, and placental growth factor (baseline only). Tumor samples (primary specimen) were analyzed for VEGF-A, VEGFR-1/VEGFR-2, neuropilin (NRP), and CD31. Response was evaluated at baseline and every 6 weeks (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors). RESULTS: Patients were randomized to receive chemotherapy plus 7.5 mg/kg (n =154) or 15 mg/kg (n =149) bevacizumab. For the primary analysis, none of the baseline plasma biomarkers correlated with best overall response. Exploratory analyses showed that low VEGF-A levels were associated with longer progression-free survival (7.4 versus 6.1 months; hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence intervals, 1.17 to 2.09; p = 0.002) and overall survival (19.8 versus 11.1 months; hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-2.13; p = 0.004) compared with these in high baseline plasma VEGF-A levels. No plasma biomarkers changed significantly over time. No significant correlations were observed between tumor biomarkers and clinical outcomes. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: Baseline and/or dynamic changes in plasma basic fibroblast growth factor, E-selectin, intercellular adhesion molecule-1, placental growth factor, VEGFR-1 and VEGFR-2, and tumor biomarkers did not correlate statistically with treatment outcomes for bevacizumab plus chemotherapy. Only baseline plasma VEGF-A was significantly correlated with progression-free survival/overall survival.

Sorafenib in combination with oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (modified FOLFOX6) as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the RESPECT trial.

PURPOSE: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIb study evaluated adding sorafenib to first-line modified FOLFOX6 (mFOLFOX6) for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were randomized to sorafenib (400 mg b.i.d.) or placebo, combined with mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2); levo-leucovorin 200 mg/m(2); fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus and 2400 mg/m(2) continuous infusion) every 14 days. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Target sample was 120 events in 180 patients for >85% power (two-sided α = 0.20) to detect an HR = 0.65. RESULTS: Of 198 patients randomized, median PFS for sorafenib plus mFOLFOX6 was 9.1 months versus 8.7 months for placebo plus mFOLFOX6 (HR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.23; P = 0.46). There was no difference between treatment arms for overall survival. Subgroup analyses of PFS and overall survival showed no difference between treatment arms by KRAS or BRAF status (mutant and wild type). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events in the sorafenib and placebo arms were neutropenia (48% vs. 22%), peripheral neuropathy (16% vs. 21%), and grade 3 hand-foot skin reaction (20% vs. 0%). Treatment discontinuation because of adverse events was 9% and 6%, respectively. Generally, dose intensity (duration and cumulative doses) was lower in the sorafenib arm than in the placebo arm. CONCLUSION: This study did not detect a PFS benefit with the addition of sorafenib to first-line mFOLFOX6 for mCRC. KRAS and BRAF status did not seem to impact treatment outcomes but the subgroups were small. These results do not support further development of sorafenib in combination with mFOLFOX6 in molecularly unselected patients with mCRC.