A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Phase II Trial of Carboplatin and Pemetrexed with or without Apatorsen (OGX-427) in Patients with Previously Untreated Stage IV Non-Squamous-Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The SPRUCE Trial.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, double-blinded, phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of carboplatin and pemetrexed plus either apatorsen, an antisense oligonucleotide targeting heat shock protein (Hsp) 27 mRNA, or placebo in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to Arm A (carboplatin/pemetrexed plus apatorsen) or Arm B (carboplatin/pemetrexed plus placebo). Treatment was administered in 21-day cycles, with restaging every two cycles, until progression or intolerable toxicity. Serum Hsp27 levels were analyzed at baseline and during treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, and toxicity. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 155 patients (median age 66 years; 44% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0). Toxicities were similar in the 2 treatment arms; cytopenias, nausea, vomiting, and fatigue were the most frequent treatment-related adverse events. Median PFS and OS were 6.0 and 10.8 months, respectively, for Arm A, and 4.9 and 11.8 months for Arm B (differences not statistically significant). Overall response rates were 27% for Arm A and 32% for Arm B. Sixteen patients (12%) had high serum levels of Hsp27 at baseline. In this small group, patients who received apatorsen had median PFS of 10.8 months, and those who received placebo had median PFS 4.8 months. CONCLUSION: The addition of apatorsen to carboplatin and pemetrexed was well tolerated but did not improve outcomes in patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC cancer in the first-line setting. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This randomized, double-blinded, phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of carboplatin and pemetrexed plus either apatorsen, an antisense oligonucleotide targeting heat shock protein 27 mRNA, or placebo in patients with previously untreated metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The addition of apatorsen to carboplatin and pemetrexed was well tolerated but did not improve outcomes in patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC cancer in the first-line setting.

Second-line therapy after nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine or after gemcitabine for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: This exploratory analysis evaluated second-line (2L) therapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer in a large phase 3 trial (MPACT). METHODS: Patients who received first-line (1L) nab-paclitaxel+gemcitabine (nab-P+Gem) or Gem were assessed for survival based on 2L treatment received. Multivariate analyses tested influence of treatment effect and prognostic factors on survival. RESULTS: The majority of 2L treatments (267 out of 347, 77%) contained a fluoropyrimidine (5-fluorouracil or capecitabine). Median total survival (1L randomisation to death) for patients who received 2L treatment after 1L nab-P+Gem vs Gem alone was 12.8 vs 9.9 months (P=0.015). Median total survival for patients with a fluoropyrimidine-containing 2L therapy after nab-P+Gem vs Gem was 13.5 vs 9.5 months (P=0.012). Median 2L survival (duration from start of 2L therapy to death) was 5.3 vs 4.5 months for nab-P+Gem vs Gem, respectively (P=0.886). Factors significantly associated with longer post-1L survival by multivariate analyses included 1L nab-P+Gem, receiving 2L treatment, longer 1L progression-free survival, and Karnofsky performance status⩾70 and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio⩽5 at the end of 1L treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the use of 2L therapy for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Fluoropyrimidine-containing treatment after 1L nab-P+Gem is an active regimen with significant clinical effect.

Addition of bevacizumab to three docetaxel regimens as adjuvant therapy for early stage breast cancer.

Docetaxel-containing chemotherapy improves disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival in patients with early stage breast cancer. Bevacizumab improves response rate and DFS in metastatic breast cancer. However, adding antivascular endothelial growth factor therapy to anthracycline-containing chemotherapy may increase cardiotoxicity. This trial evaluates the feasibility of adding bevacizumab to three standard adjuvant docetaxel regimens with a primary endpoint of grade ≥3 congestive heart failure (CHF). Phase IIb, randomized, non-comparative study of women with previously untreated node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative patients were randomized to: (arm A) doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel or (arm B) docetaxel + doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide. HER2-positive patients (arm C) received docetaxel + carboplatin + trastuzumab for 52 weeks. All patients received bevacizumab beginning on day 1 for 52 weeks. Safety data in 212 women (mean age = 53.1 years) show that 1 patient each in arm A (1.3 %) and arm C (1.7 %), and 3 patients in arm B (4.0 %) experienced clinical CHF grade ≥3. A decreased ejection fraction was observed in 1 patient each in arms A and C, and cardiac disorder was observed in 12.8, 22.7, and 8.5 % in arms A, B, and C, respectively. A grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event was reported in 82.1, 84.0, and 52.5 % of participants in arms A, B, and C, respectively. Kaplan-Meier estimates of DFS show rates at 24 months of 85.5, 90.4, and 90.4 % in arms A, B, and C, respectively. Adding bevacizumab to three standard docetaxel-based chemotherapy regimens as adjuvant treatment in patients with node-positive and high-risk node-negative breast cancer resulted in a low rate of clinical CHF grade ≥3. Maintenance bevacizumab monotherapy did not identify any new safety signals. Breast cancer recurrence/relapse, secondary malignancies, and death were uncommon, although the follow-up time in this study was relatively short.

Paclitaxel/carboplatin with or without sorafenib in the first-line treatment of patients with stage III/IV epithelial ovarian cancer: a randomized phase II study of the Sarah Cannon Research Institute.

This trial compared the efficacy and toxicity of standard first-line treatment with paclitaxel/carboplatin versus paclitaxel/carboplatin plus sorafenib in patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma. Patients with stage 3 or 4 epithelial ovarian cancer with residual measurable disease or elevated CA-125 levels after maximal surgical cytoreduction were randomized (1:1) to receive treatment with paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) , 3 h infusion, day 1) and carboplatin (AUC 6.0, IV, day 1) with or without sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily (PO BID). Patients were reevaluated for response after completing 6 weeks of treatment (two cycles); responding or stable patients received six cycles of paclitaxel/carboplatin. Patients receiving the sorafenib-containing regimen continued sorafenib (400 PO BID) for a total of 52 weeks. Eighty-five patients were randomized and received treatment.Efficacy was similar for patients receiving paclitaxel/carboplatin/sorafenib versus paclitaxel/carboplatin: overall response rates 69% versus 74%; median progression-free survival 15.4 versus 16.3 months; 2 year survival 76% versus 81%. The addition of sorafenib added substantially to the toxicity of the regimen; rash, hand-foot syndrome, mucositis, and hypertension were significantly more common in patients treated with sorafenib. The addition of sorafenib to standard paclitaxel/carboplatin did not improve efficacy and substantially increased toxicity in the first-line treatment of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Based on evidence from this study and other completed trials, sorafenib is unlikely to have a role in the treatment of ovarian cancer.

A phase II study of higher dose weekly topotecan in relapsed small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Five-day topotecan is approved by the US Federal Drug Administration (FDA) for sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). We previously found that 4 mg/m(2) intravenous (I.V.) weekly dosing resulted in low-grade 3/4 toxicity but an overall response rate (ORR) < 10%. We hypothesized that higher topotecan dosing could improve ORR without significantly increasing toxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter phase II trial sought a 25% ORR (α = 0.04; ß = 0.20). Eligible patients (sensitive or refractory relapsed SCLC; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance status [PS] 0-1; measurable disease) received weekly topotecan (6 mg/m(2) I.V. for 6 weeks) and were restaged every 8 weeks. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were N = 38, enrolled 5/2006-10/2007; median age 64 years (range, 35-82), 47% female, 74% ECOG PS 1, 50% refractory relapsed SCLC. The median follow-up was 15 months (range, 12-24 months). No patients received all planned therapy; only 1 patient was able to receive all planned treatment in cycle 1 because of hematologic toxicity and progressive disease (PD). Among all patients, ORR was 8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2%-21%), 24% had stable disease, and disease in 47% progressed. Among sensitive relapsed patients ORR was 16% (95% CI, 3%-40%) with no complete responses; median response duration was 3.3 months. Five (26%) patients had stable disease; 8 (42%) patients had PD. Among sensitive relapsed patients, the median time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) was 2.5 months and 8.6 months, respectively. Among refractory relapsed patients there were no ORRs, and median TTP and OS were 1.5 months and 3.7 months, respectively. Grade 3/4 toxicities (> 10%) included neutropenia (53%), leukopenia (42%), thrombocytopenia (37%), anemia (13%), fatigue (13%), and pain (13%). There were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSION: Weekly topotecan (6 mg/m(2) I.V.) is not feasible because of hematologic toxicity and does not improve efficacy in patients with relapsed SCLC.

Phase III trial of vandetanib compared with erlotinib in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. This phase III study assessed the efficacy of vandetanib versus erlotinib in unselected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after treatment failure with one to two prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One thousand two hundred forty patients were randomly assigned to receive vandetanib 300 mg/d (n = 623) or erlotinib 150 mg/d (n = 617). The primary objective was to show superiority in progression-free survival (PFS) for vandetanib versus erlotinib. If the difference did not reach statistical significance for superiority, a noninferiority analysis was conducted. RESULTS: There was no significant improvement in PFS for patients treated with vandetanib versus erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95.22% CI, 0.87 to 1.10; P = .721); median PFS was 2.6 months for vandetanib and 2.0 months for erlotinib. There was also no significant difference for the secondary end points of overall survival (HR, 1.01; P = .830), objective response rate (both 12%), and time to deterioration of symptoms for pain (HR, 0.92; P = .289), dyspnea (HR, 1.07; P = .407), and cough (HR, 0.94; P = .455). Both agents showed equivalent PFS and overall survival in a preplanned noninferiority analysis. Adverse events (AEs; any grade) more frequent with vandetanib than erlotinib included diarrhea (50% v 38%, respectively) and hypertension (16% v 2%, respectively); rash was more frequent with erlotinib than vandetanib (38% v 28%, respectively). The overall incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was also higher with vandetanib than erlotinib (50% v 40%, respectively). CONCLUSION: In patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC, vandetanib showed antitumor activity but did not demonstrate an efficacy advantage compared with erlotinib. There was a higher incidence of some AEs with vandetanib.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II trial of sorafenib and erlotinib or erlotinib alone in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor, has shown preliminary activity in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients with advanced NSCLC were treated with erlotinib with or without sorafenib in this multicenter phase II trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Key eligibility criteria included the following: stage IIIB or IV NSCLC; one to two prior regimens; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2; and measurable disease. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to sorafenib (400 mg orally twice a day) plus erlotinib (150 mg orally daily) or placebo plus erlotinib and stratified by squamous/nonsquamous histology and prior bevacizumab. Treatment efficacy, measured by progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR), was compared. Treatment of 168 patients allowed detection of 40% improvement in the historical PFS of 2.2 months with single-agent erlotinib. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-eight patients enrolled from February 2008 to February 2009. Clinical characteristics of the two groups were similar. ORRs for sorafenib/erlotinib and placebo/erlotinib were 8% and 11%, respectively (P = .56); disease control rates were 54% and 38%, respectively (P = .056). Median PFS was 3.38 months for sorafenib/erlotinib versus 1.94 months for placebo/erlotinib (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.22; P = .196). Seventy-two patients consented to analyses of tumor epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). In 67 patients with EGFR wild-type (WT) tumors, median PFS was 3.38 months for sorafenib/erlotinib versus 1.77 months for placebo/erlotinib (P = .018); median overall survival (OS) was 8 months for sorafenib/erlotinib versus 4.5 months for placebo/erlotinib (P = .019). An OS advantage for sorafenib/erlotinib was suggested among 43 patients with fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) EGFR-negative tumors (P = .064). Both regimens were tolerable, with modest toxicity increase with sorafenib. CONCLUSION: Although there was little difference in ORR or PFS, subset analyses in EGFR WT and EGFR FISH-negative patients suggest a benefit for the combination of erlotinib/sorafenib compared with single-agent erlotinib with respect to PFS and OS.

A randomized phase II study of paclitaxel and bevacizumab with and without gemcitabine as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel improved progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We examined the efficacy and safety of adding gemcitabine to paclitaxel/bevacizumab (PB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, randomized phase II trial, women with locally advanced or MBC were randomly assigned to receive paclitaxel 90 mg/m(2) (days 1, 8, 15) and bevacizumab 10 mg/kg (days 1, 15) with or without gemcitabine 1500 mg/m(2) (days 1, 15) in 28-day cycles. Patients with prior cytotoxic therapy for MBC were ineligible. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints were PFS, overall survival (OS), safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients received PB, and 93 received paclitaxel/bevacizumab/gemcitabine (PB+G). The ORRs were 48.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 38.5%-59.5%) and 58.7% (95% CI, 47.9%-68.9%; P = .117) with PB and PB+G, respectively. The median PFS was 8.8 months (95% CI, 8.1-10.4 months) and 11.3 months (95% CI, 9.7-12.7 months; P = .247; hazard ratio, 0.82); the median OS was 25.0 months (95% CI, 18.8-not assessable [N/A] months) and 24.3 months (95% CI, 20.3-N/A months; P = .475; hazard ratio, 0.84), with PB and PB+G, respectively. There was significantly more grade 3-4 neutropenia (P = .001) and dyspnea (P = .014) with PB+G. Patients treated with PB experienced more improvement in total FACT-B (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast) (P = .021), FACT-B Social/Family Well-being (P = .041), and Breast Cancer-Additional Concerns (P = .008) scores than patients treated with PB+G. CONCLUSION: The addition of gemcitabine to PB was not associated with a statistically significant improvement in ORR. Treatment with PB+G increased the incidence of severe neutropenia and dyspnea, although the regimen generally was well tolerated.

Phase II trial of bevacizumab and everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of the combination of bevacizumab, an angiogenesis inhibitor, and everolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, in the treatment of patients with advanced clear cell renal carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two groups of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma were eligible for this study: those with no previous treatment with targeted agents and those with previous treatment with sunitinib and/or sorafenib. All patients received bevacizumab 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks and everolimus 10 mg orally daily. Patients were evaluated for response after 8 weeks of treatment; patients with objective response or stable disease continued treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. RESULTS: Eighty patients (50 untreated, 30 previously treated) entered this clinical trial. The combination of bevacizumab/everolimus showed activity in both groups. Median progression-free survivals in previously untreated and previously treated patients were 9.1 and 7.1 months, respectively. Overall response rates (30% and 23%) were similar in both groups. The regimen was well tolerated by most patients, with a toxicity profile as expected based on the known toxicities of these two agents. Grade 3 to 4 proteinuria was more frequent than expected (25%) and led to treatment discontinuation in six patients. CONCLUSION: Bevacizumab/everolimus is active and well tolerated in the treatment of advanced clear cell renal cancer, either as first-line treatment or after treatment with sunitinib and/or sorafenib. The benefits of this combination regimen, versus sequential use of these two agents, requires further study.