Lurbinectedin as second- or third-line palliative therapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma: an international, multi-centre, single-arm, phase II trial (SAKK 17/16).

BACKGROUND: Systemic second- and third-line therapies for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) result in a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of <2 months and median overall survival (mOS) of 6-9 months. Lurbinectedin binds to the DNA of the regulatory region while inhibiting tumour-associated macrophage transcription. In early trials, encouraging outcomes occurred in patients (pts) with MPM treated with lurbinectedin. We aimed to generate lurbinectedin efficacy and safety data among pts with progressive MPM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Pts with progressing MPM treated with first-line platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy with or without immunotherapy received lurbinectedin monotherapy. Treatment was given intravenously at 3.2 mg/m2 dose every 3 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Using Simon's two-stage design, the primary endpoint, progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 weeks (PFS12wks), was met if achieved by ≥21 pts (p0 ≤35% versus p1 ≥55%). RESULTS: Forty-two pts from nine centres across Switzerland and Italy were recruited. Histology was epithelioid in 33 cases, sarcomatoid in 5, and biphasic in 4. Overall 10/42 (23.8%) underwent prior immunotherapy and 14/42 (33.3%) had progressed ≤6 months after first-line chemotherapy. At data cut-off PFS12wks was met by 22/42 pts (52.4%; 90% confidence interval (CI): 38.7% to 63.5%; P = 0.015) with an mPFS of 4.1 months and mOS of 11.1 months. The best response was complete and partial remission observed in one patient each and stable disease in 20 pts. The duration of disease control was 6.6 months (95% CI: 5.2-7.4). No significant difference in PFS12wks, mPFS, and mOS was recorded in epithelioid versus non-epithelioid cases and pts with prior immunotherapy versus those without. Similar mPFS but shorter mOS were observed among pts who progressed within ≤6 months after first-line chemotherapy. Lurbinectedin-related grade 3-4 toxicity was seen in 21 pts, mostly being neutropenia (23.8%) and fatigue (16.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The primary efficacy endpoint was reached with acceptable toxicity. Lurbinectedin showed promising activity regardless of histology, prior immunotherapy, or outcome on prior treatment. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03213301.

A randomized phase II study evaluating different maintenance schedules of nab-paclitaxel in the first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer: final results of the IBCSG 42-12/BIG 2-12 SNAP trial.

Background: The phase II SNAP trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of alternative chemotherapy schedules for prolonged administration in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC), after a short induction at conventional doses. Patients and methods: Between April 2013 and August 2015, 258 women untreated with chemotherapy for MBC were randomly assigned to receive three different maintenance chemotherapy schedules after three cycles of identical induction chemotherapy: arm A, nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m2 days 1 and 15 Q28; arm B, nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 days 1, 8 and 15 Q28; arm C, nab-paclitaxel 75 mg/m2 days 1, 8, 15 and 22 Q28. Induction was three cycles nab-paclitaxel 150/125 mg/m2, days 1, 8 and 15 Q28. The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of each maintenance schedule, in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), as compared with the historical reference of 7-month median PFS reported by previous studies with first-line docetaxel. One-sample, one-sided log-rank tests were utilized. Quality-of-life (QoL) evaluation was carried out, and the global indicator for physical well-being was defined as the primary QoL end point; completion rates of QoL forms were >90%. Results: In total, 255 patients were assessable for the primary end point. After 18.2-month median follow-up, 182 PFS events were observed. Median PFS was 7.9 months [90% confidence interval CI 6.8-8.4] in arm A, 9.0 months (90% CI 8.1-10.9) in arm B and 8.5 months (90% CI 6.7-9.5) in arm C. PFS in arm B was significantly longer than the historical reference of first-line docetaxel (P = 0.03). Grade ≥2 sensory neuropathy was reported in 37.9%, 36.1% and 31.2% of the patients in arm A, B and C, respectively (Grade ≥3 in 9.1%, 5.6% and 6.6% of the patients, respectively). Noteworthy, the QoL scores for sensory neuropathy did not worsen with prolonged nab-paclitaxel administration in any of the maintenance arms. Conclusion: The SNAP trial demonstrated that alternative nab-paclitaxel maintenance schedules with reduced dosages after a short induction at conventional doses are feasible and active in the first-line treatment of MBC. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01746225.

Bevacizumab plus hypofractionated radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in elderly patients with glioblastoma: the randomized, open-label, phase II ARTE trial.

Background: The addition of bevacizumab to temozolomide-based chemoradiotherapy (TMZ/RT â†’ TMZ) did not prolong overall survival (OS) in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma in phase III trials. Elderly and frail patients are underrepresented in clinical trials, but early reports suggested preferential benefit in this population. Patients and methods: ARTE was a 2 : 1 randomized, multi-center, open-label, non-comparative phase II trial of hypofractionated RT (40 Gy in 15 fractions) with bevacizumab (10 mg/kg×14 days) (arm A, N = 50) or without bevacizumab (arm B, N = 25) in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma aged ≥65 years. The primary objective was to obtain evidence for prolongation of median OS by the addition of bevacizumab to RT. Response was assessed by RANO criteria. Quality of life (QoL) was monitored by the EORTC QLQ-C30/BN20 modules. Exploratory studies included molecular subtyping by 450k whole methylome and gene expression analyses. Results: Median PFS was longer in arm A than in arm B (7.6 and 4.8 months, P = 0.003), but OS was similar (12.1 and 12.2 months, P = 0.77). Clinical deterioration was delayed and more patients came off steroids in arm A. Prolonged PFS in arm A was confined to tumors with the receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) I methylation subtype (HR 0.25, P = 0.014) and proneural gene expression (HR 0.29, P = 0.025). In a Cox model of OS controlling for established prognostic factors, associations with more favorable outcome were identified for age <70 years (HR 0.52, P = 0.018) and Karnofsky performance score 90%-100% (HR 0.51, P = 0.026). Including molecular subtypes into that model identified an association of the RTK II gene methylation subtype with inferior OS (HR 1.73, P = 0.076). Conclusion: Efficacy outcomes and exploratory analyses of ARTE do not support the hypothesis that the addition of bevacizumab to RT generally prolongs survival in elderly glioblastoma patients. Molecular biomarkers may identify patients with preferential benefit from bevacizumab. Clinical trial registration number: NCT01443676.

Do all patients with advanced HER2 positive breast cancer need upfront-chemo when receiving trastuzumab? Randomized phase III trial SAKK 22/99.

Background: HER2-targeted therapy plus chemotherapy is standard treatment in advanced HER2+ breast cancer. Trastuzumab alone followed by addition of chemotherapy at disease progression versus upfront combination therapy has not been elucidated. Patients and methods: One-hundred seventy-five patients with measurable/evaluable HER2+ advanced disease without previous HER2-directed therapy were randomized to trastuzumab alone followed, at disease progression, by the combination with chemotherapy (Arm A) or upfront trastuzumab plus chemotherapy (Arm B). Chemotherapy could be stopped after ≥6 cycles in responding patients, trastuzumab was continued until progression. The primary endpoint of this superiority trial was time to progression (TTP) on combined trastuzumab-chemotherapy (Combination-TTP) in both arms. Secondary endpoints included response rate, TTP, overall survival, quality of life and toxicity. Results: Combination-TTP was longer than expected in both arms, 12.2 months in Arm A and 10.3 months in Arm B and not significantly different (hazard ratio [HR] 0.7; 95% CI 0.5-1.1; P =0.1). Overall survival was also not significantly different (HR 0.9; 95% CI 0.6-1.5; P = 0.55). In Arm A, the median TTP before introduction of chemotherapy was 3.7 months (95% CI 2.3-5.4), yet at 2 years 6% of patients were still on trastuzumab alone. Patients without visceral disease had a Combination-TTP of 21.8 months in arm A, compared with 10.1 months in arm B (unplanned analysis HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-4.2, P = 0.03). Patients with visceral disease showed no difference. Toxicity was chemotherapy-related. Conclusion: The outcome of patients receiving sequential trastuzumab-chemotherapy or upfront combination was similar. We failed to demonstrate superiority of the sequential approach. These results nevertheless suggest chemotherapy and its toxicity can be deferred, especially in patients with indolent, non-visceral disease. Despite a larger non-inferiority confirmatory study would be needed, these findings represent an additional proof of concept that de-escalation strategies can be discussed in individual patients.

Phase I trial of the oral smoothened inhibitor sonidegib in combination with paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Purpose To establish a recommended phase II dose (RP2D) for the oral smoothened inhibitor sonidegib in combination with paclitaxel; secondary objectives include evaluation of safety, tolerability, markers of Hedgehog (Hh) signaling and preliminary antitumor activity. Methods Patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled in cohorts of escalating sonidegib dose levels (400mg, 600mg and 800mg orally, once daily on days 1-28) in combination with paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 in 4-weekly cycles. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed using CTCAE v4. Once the RP2D was defined, patients with advanced ovarian carcinoma were treated at this dose level in an expansion phase. Biomarkers of Hh signaling were assessed by immunohistochemistry in archival tissue and antitumor activity evaluated using RECIST 1.1. Results 18 patients were treated: 3 at 400 mg, 3 at 600 mg and 12 at 800 mg sonidegib. Only one patient treated at 800 mg presented a DLT (prolonged neutropenia resulting in failure to receive 75% of the planned sonidegib dose). However, 4 of 12 patients treated at 800 mg had their sonidegib dose reduced for toxicity after cycle 1. Hh biomarker (SHH, Patched, SMO and GLI1) staining did not correlate with clinical activity. Best response was partial response in 3 patients (2 ovarian, 1 breast cancer) and stable disease >4 cycles in 3 patients (2 ovarian, 1 anal cancer). Conclusions The combination of sonidegib and paclitaxel is tolerable and evidence of antitumor activity was identified. The RP2D of sonidegib was 800 mg in combination with paclitaxel 80mg/m2.

The effect of real-time electronic monitoring of patient-reported symptoms and clinical syndromes in outpatient workflow of medical oncologists: E-MOSAIC, a multicenter cluster-randomized phase III study (SAKK 95/06).

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced, incurable cancer receiving anticancer treatment often experience multidimensional symptoms. We hypothesize that real-time monitoring of both symptoms and clinical syndromes will improve symptom management by oncologists and patient outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective multicenter cluster-randomized phase-III trial, patients with incurable, symptomatic, solid tumors, who received new outpatient chemotherapy with palliative intention, were eligible. Immediately before the weekly oncologists' visit, patients completed the palm-based E-MOSAIC assessment (Edmonton-Symptom-Assessment-Scale, ≤3 additional symptoms, estimated nutritional intake, body weight change, Karnofsky Performance Status, medications for pain, fatigue, nutrition). A cumulative, longitudinal monitoring sheet (LoMoS) was printed immediately. Eligible experienced oncologists were defined as one cluster each and randomized to receive the immediate print-out LoMoS (intervention) or not (control). Primary analysis limited to patients having uninterrupted (>4/6 visits with same oncologist) patient-oncologist sequences was a mixed model for the difference in patients global quality of life (G-QoL; items 29/30 of EORTC-QlQ-c30) between baseline (BL) and week 6. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis included all eligible patients. RESULTS: In 8 centers, 82 oncologists treated 264 patients (median 66 years; overall survival intervention 6.3, control 5.4 months) with various tumors. The between-arm difference in G-QoL of 102 uninterrupted patients (intervention: 55; control: 47) was 6.8 (P = 0.11) in favor of the intervention; in a sensitivity analysis (oncologists treating ≥2 patients; 50, 39), it was 9.0 (P = 0.07). ITT analysis revealed improvement in symptoms (difference last study visit-BL: intervention -5.4 versus control 2.1, P = 0.003) and favored the intervention for communication and coping. More patients with high symptom load received immediate symptom management (chart review, nurse-patient interview) by oncologists getting the LoMoS. CONCLUSION: Monitoring of patient symptoms, clinical syndromes and their management clearly reduced patients' symptoms, but not QoL. Our results encourage the implementation of real-time monitoring in the routine workflow of oncologist with a computer solution.

Bevacizumab continuation versus no continuation after first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III non-inferiority trial (SAKK 41/06).

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab is a standard option for first-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. We assessed whether no continuation is non-inferior to continuation of bevacizumab after completing first-line chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In an open-label, phase III multicentre trial, patients with mCRC without disease progression after 4-6 months of standard first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab were randomly assigned to continuing bevacizumab at a standard dose or no treatment. CT scans were done every 6 weeks until disease progression. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP). A non-inferiority limit for hazard ratio (HR) of 0.727 was chosen to detect a difference in TTP of 6 weeks or less, with a one-sided significance level of 10% and a statistical power of 85%. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population comprised 262 patients: median follow-up was 36.7 months. The median TTP was 4.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.1-5.4] months for bevacizumab continuation versus 2.9 (95% CI 2.8-3.8) months for no continuation; HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.58-0.96). Non-inferiority could not be demonstrated. The median overall survival was 25.4 months for bevacizumab continuation versus 23.8 months (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.63-1.1; P = 0.2) for no continuation. Severe adverse events were uncommon in the bevacizumab continuation arm. Costs for bevacizumab continuation were estimated to be ∼30,000 USD per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Non-inferiority could not be demonstrated for treatment holidays versus continuing bevacizumab monotheray, after 4-6 months of standard first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Based on no impact on overall survival and increased treatment costs, bevacizumab as a single agent is of no meaningful therapeutic value. More efficient treatment approaches are needed to maintain control of stabilized disease following induction therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00544700.

Phase I study of olaparib in combination with liposomal doxorubicin in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Olaparib, an oral PARP inhibitor, has shown antitumour activity as monotherapy in patients with germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA)-mutated breast and ovarian cancer. This study evaluated olaparib capsules in combination with liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in patients with advanced solid tumours (NCT00819221). METHODS: Patients received 28-day cycles of olaparib, continuously (days 1-28) or intermittently (days 1-7), plus PLD (40 mg m(-2), day 1); seven olaparib dose cohorts (50-400 mg bid) were explored to determine the recommended dose. Assessments included safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and preliminary efficacy (objective response rate (ORR)). RESULTS: Of 44 patients treated (ovarian, n=28; breast, n=13; other/unknown, n=3), two experienced dose-limiting toxicities (grade 3 stomatitis and fatal pneumonia/pneumonitis (200 mg per 28-day cycle); grade 4 thrombocytopenia (400 mg per 7-day cycle)). The maximum tolerated dose was not reached using continuous olaparib 400 mg bid plus PLD. Grade ≥3 and serious AEs were reported for 27 (61%) and 12 (27%) patients, respectively. No major pharmacokinetic interference was observed between olaparib and PLD. The ORR was 33% (n=14 out of 42; complete response, n=3). A total of 13 responders had ovarian cancer: 10 were platinum-sensitive, 11 had a gBRCA mutation. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous/intermittent olaparib (up to 400 mg bid) combined with PLD (40 mg m(-2)) was generally tolerated and showed evidence of antitumour activity in ovarian cancer.

Relevant risk of carboplatin underdosing in cancer patients with normal renal function using estimated GFR: lessons from a stage I seminoma cohort.

BACKGROUND: Seminoma stage I is the most frequent testis cancer and single-dose carboplatin (AUC7) is an effective and widely used adjuvant treatment. Underdosing of carboplatin by 10% has been shown to almost double the rate of relapse and hence correct dosing based on accurate GFR measurement is crucial. The gold standard of GFR measurement with a radiolabelled isotope is expensive and not readily available. In many institutions, it is replaced by GFR estimation with the Cockcroft-Gault formula, which might lead to significant carboplatin underdosing and potentially inferior clinical outcome. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all patients with stage I seminoma treated with adjuvant carboplatin between 1999 and 2012. All patients had serum creatinine measured and underwent GFR measurement with a radioisotope ((51)Cr EDTA or (99m)Tc DTPA), which was compared with seven standard GFR estimation formulae (Cockcroft-Gault, CKD-EPI, Jelliffe, Martin, Mayo, MDRD, Wright) and a flat dosing strategy. Bias, precision, rates of under- and overdosing of GFR estimates were compared with measured GFR. Bland-Altman plots were done. RESULTS: A total of 426 consecutive Caucasian male patients were included: median age 39 years (range 19-60 years), median measured GFR 118 ml/min (51-209), median administered carboplatin dose 1000 mg (532-1638). In comparison to isotopic GFR measurement, a relevant proportion of patients would have received ≤ 90% of carboplatin dose through the use of GFR estimation formulae: 4% using Mayo, 9% Martin, 18% Cockcroft-Gault, 24% Wright, 63% Jelliffe, 49% MDRD and 41% using CKD-EPI. The flat dosing strategy, Wright and Cockcroft-Gault formulae, showed the smallest bias with mean percentage error of +1.9, +0.4 and +2.1, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using Cockcroft-Gault or any other formula for GFR estimation leads to underdosing of adjuvant carboplatin in a relevant number of patients with Seminoma stage I and should not be regarded as standard of care.

Feasibility and acceptance of electronic monitoring of symptoms and syndromes using a handheld computer in patients with advanced cancer in daily oncology practice.

PURPOSE: We investigated the feasibility and acceptance of electronic monitoring of symptoms and syndromes in oncological outpatient clinics using a PALM (handheld computer). METHODS: The assessment of a combination of symptoms and clinical benefit parameters grouped in four pairs was tested in a pilot phase in advanced cancer patients. Based on these experiences, the software E-MOSAIC was developed, consisting of patient-reported symptoms and nutritional intake and objective assessments (weight, weight loss, performance status and medication for pain, fatigue, and cachexia). E-MOSAIC was then tested in four Swiss oncology centers. In order to compare the methods, patients completed the E-MOSAIC as a paper and a PALM version. Preferences of version and completion times were collected. Assessments were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests , and the test-retest reliability was evaluated. RESULTS: The pilot phase was completed by 22 patients. Most patients and physicians perceived the assessment as useful. Sixty-two patients participated in the feasibility study. Twelve patients reported problems (understanding, optical, tactile), and five patients could not complete the assessment. The median time to complete the PALM-based assessment was 3 min. Forty-nine percent of patients preferred the PALM, 23 % preferred a paper version, and 28 % of patients had no preference. Paper vs. PALM revealed no significant differences in symptoms, but in nutritional intake (p = 0.013). Test-retest (1 h, n = 20) reliability was satisfactory (r = 073-98). CONCLUSION: Electronic symptom and clinical benefit monitoring is feasible in oncology outpatient clinics and perceived as useful by patients, oncology nurses, and oncologists. E-MOSAIC is tested in a prospective randomized trial.

Bevacizumab plus chemotherapy continued beyond first progression in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy: ML18147 study KRAS subgroup findings.

BACKGROUND: ML18147 evaluated continued bevacizumab with second-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) progressing after the standard first-line bevacizumab-containing therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Evaluating outcomes according to tumor Kirsten rat sarcoma virus oncogene (KRAS) status was an exploratory analysis. KRAS data were collected from local laboratories (using their established methods) and/or from a central laboratory (mutation-specific Scorpion amplification-refractory mutation system). No adjustment was made for multiplicity; analyses were not powered to detect statistically significant differences. RESULTS: Of 820 patients, 616 (75%) had unambiguous KRAS data; 316 (51%) had KRAS wild-type tumors and 300 (49%) had mutant KRAS tumors. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.4 months for bevacizumab plus chemotherapy and 4.5 months for chemotherapy [P < 0.0001; HR = 0.61; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49-0.77] for wild-type KRAS and 5.5 and 4.1 months, respectively (P = 0.0027; HR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.56-0.89) for mutant KRAS. The median overall survival (OS) was 15.4 and 11.1 months, respectively (P = 0.0052; HR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.53-0.90) for wild-type KRAS and 10.4 versus 10.0 months, respectively (P = 0.4969; HR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.71-1.18) for mutant KRAS. In both analyses, no treatment interaction by KRAS status was observed (PFS, P = 0.4436; OS, P = 0.1266). CONCLUSIONS: Bevacizumab beyond first progression represents an option for patients with mCRC treated with bevacizumab plus standard first-line chemotherapy, independent of KRAS status.

First-line temozolomide combined with bevacizumab in metastatic melanoma: a multicentre phase II trial (SAKK 50/07).

BACKGROUND: Oral temozolomide has shown similar efficacy to dacarbazine in phase III trials with median progression-free survival (PFS) of 2.1 months. Bevacizumab has an inhibitory effect on the proliferation of melanoma and sprouting endothelial cells. We evaluated the addition of bevacizumab to temozolomide to improve efficacy in stage IV melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Previously untreated metastatic melanoma patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of two or more were treated with temozolomide 150 mg/m(2) days 1-7 orally and bevacizumab 10 mg/kg body weight i.v. day 1 every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was disease stabilisation rate [complete response (CR), partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD)] at week 12 (DSR12); secondary end points were best overall response, PFS, overall survival (OS) and adverse events. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients (median age 59 years) enrolled at nine Swiss centres. DSR12 was 52% (PR: 10 patients and SD: 22 patients). Confirmed overall response rate was 16.1% (CR: 1 patient and PR: 9 patients). Median PFS and OS were 4.2 and 9.6 months. OS (12.0 versus 9.2 months; P = 0.014) was higher in BRAF V600E wild-type patients. CONCLUSIONS: The primary end point was surpassed showing promising activity of this bevacizumab/temozolomide combination with a favourable toxicity profile. Response and OS were significantly higher in BRAF wild-type patients.

Clinical benefit in patients with metastatic bone disease: results of a phase 3 study of denosumab versus zoledronic acid.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic bone disease are living longer in the metastatic stage due to improvements in cancer therapy, making strategies to prevent the aggravation of bone disease and its complications, such as skeletal-related events (SREs) and pain, increasingly important. PATIENTS AND RESULTS: In this phase 3 trial in patients with advanced cancer (excluding breast and prostate cancer) or multiple myeloma, denosumab reduced the risk of radiation to bone by 22% relative to zoledronic acid (P = 0.026), prevented worsening of pain and pain interference (2-point increase in Brief Pain Inventory score; P < 0.05 versus zoledronic acid), and reduced the frequency of a shift from no/weak opioid analgesic use to strong opioids (P < 0.05 versus zoledronic acid at months 3-5). Denosumab delayed the time to moderate-to-severe pain compared with zoledronic acid in patients with mild or no pain at the baseline (P = 0.04), supporting early treatment. Health-related quality-of-life scores were similar in both groups. The number needed to treat to avoid one SRE for denosumab was 3 patient-years versus placebo and 10 patient-years versus zoledronic acid. CONCLUSION: The use of denosumab was associated with better prevention of the complications of metastatic bone disease secondary to solid tumors or multiple myeloma versus zoledronic acid.

Long-term benefit of lurbinectedin as palliative chemotherapy in progressive malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM): final efficacy and translational data of the SAKK 17/16 study.

BACKGROUND: The SAKK 17/16 study showed promising efficacy data with lurbinectedin as second- or third-line palliative therapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma. Here, we evaluated long-term outcome and analyzed the impact of lurbinectedin monotherapy on the tumor microenvironment at the cellular and molecular level to predict outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-two patients were treated with lurbinectedin in this single-arm study. Twenty-nine samples were available at baseline, and seven additional matched samples at day one of cycle two of treatment. Survival curves and rates between groups were compared using the log-rank test and Kaplan-Meier method. Statistical significance was set at P value <0.05. RESULTS: Updated median overall survival (OS) was slightly increased to 11.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.8-13.8 months]. Thirty-six patients (85%) had died. The OS rate at 12 and 18 months was 47% (95% CI 32.1% to 61.6%) and 31% (95% CI 17.8% to 45.0%), respectively. Median progression-free survival was 4.1 months (95% CI 2.6-5.5 months). No new safety signals were observed. Patients with lower frequencies of regulatory T cells, as well as lower tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) at baseline, had a better OS. Comparing matched biopsies, a decrease of M2 macrophages was observed in five out of seven patients after exposure to lurbinectedin, and two out of four patients showed increased CD8+ T-cell infiltrates in tumor. DISCUSSION: Lurbinectedin continues to be active in patients with progressing malignant pleural mesothelioma. According to our very small sample size, we hypothesize that baseline TAMs and regulatory T cells are associated with survival. Lurbinectedin seems to inhibit conversion of TAMs to M2 phenotype in humans.

Combination of bevacizumab and 2-weekly pegylated liposomal doxorubicin as first-line therapy for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. A multicenter, single-arm phase II trial (SAKK 24/06).

BACKGROUND: pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) and bevacizumab are active agents in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We carried out a multicenter, single-arm phase II trial to evaluate the toxicity and efficacy of PLD and bevacizumab as first-line treatment in MBC patients. METHODS: bevacizumab (10 mg/kg) and PLD (20 mg/m(2)) were infused on days 1 and 15 of a 4-week cycle for a maximum of six cycles. Thereafter, bevacizumab monotherapy was continued at the same dose until progression or toxicity. The primary objective was safety and tolerability, and the secondary objective was to evaluate efficacy of the combination. RESULTS: thirty-nine of 43 patients were assessable for the primary end point. Eighteen of 39 patients (46%, 95% confidence interval 30% to 63%) had a grade 3 toxicity. Sixteen (41%) had grade 3 palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, one had grade 3 mucositis, and one severe cardiotoxicity. Secondary end point of overall response rate among 43 assessable patients was 21%. CONCLUSIONS: in this nonrandomized single-arm trial, the combination of bimonthly PLD and bevacizumab in locally recurrent and MBC patients demonstrated higher than anticipated toxicity while exhibiting only modest activity. Based on these results, we would not consider this combination for further investigation in this setting.

Multicenter phase II trial of preoperative induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation with docetaxel and cisplatin for locally advanced esophageal carcinoma (SAKK 75/02).

BACKGROUND: This multicenter phase II study investigated the efficacy and feasibility of preoperative induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation and surgery in patients with esophageal carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced resectable squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the esophagus received induction chemotherapy with cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) and docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 22, followed by radiotherapy of 45 Gy (25 x 1.8 Gy) and concurrent chemotherapy comprising cisplatin 25 mg/m(2) and docetaxel 20 mg/m(2) weekly for 5 weeks, followed by surgery. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were enrolled at eleven centers and 57 underwent surgery. R0 resection was achieved in 52 patients. Fifteen patients showed complete, 16 patients nearly complete and 26 patients poor pathological remission. Median overall survival was 36.5 months and median event-free survival was 22.8 months. Squamous cell carcinoma and good pathologically documented response were associated with longer survival. Eighty-two percent of all included patients completed neoadjuvant therapy and survived for 30 days after surgery. Dysphagia and mucositis grade 3/4 were infrequent (<9%) during chemoradiation. Five patients (9%) died due to surgical complications. CONCLUSIONS: This neoadjuvant, taxane-containing regimen was efficacious and feasible in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer in a multicenter, community-based setting and represents a suitable backbone for further investigation.

A multicentre phase II trial of gemcitabine for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed, relapsed or chemotherapy resistant mantle cell lymphoma: SAKK 36/03.

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) has a poor prognosis with often short and incomplete remissions. We aimed to test the efficacy and tolerability of gemcitabine in treating MCL. Gemcitabine was given in doses of 1000 mg/m(2) as a 30 min infusion on days 1 and 8 of each 3 week cycle for a maximum of nine cycles. Eighteen patients with a median age of 70 years were recruited. MCL was newly diagnosed in half of patients and relapsed in the remainder. Fifteen patients had Ann Arbor stage IV. The best-recorded responses were 1 CR (complete remission), 4 PRs (partial responses), 8 SDs (stable diseases) and 4 PDs (diseases progression). The response rate (RR) (CR + PR) was 5 (28%; 95% confidence interval: 7.1, 48.5). The patient achieving a CR had stage IV disease. Most haematological adverse events occurred during the first chemotherapy cycle. Three patients developed non-haematological serious adverse events: dyspnea, glomerular microangiopathy with haemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) and hyperglycaemia. The median time-to-progression and treatment response duration (TRD) was 8.0 (95% confidence interval: 5.5, 9.3) and 10.6 (95% confidence interval: 5.5, 10.9) months, respectively. We conclude that Gemcitabine is well tolerated, moderately active and can induce disease stabilization in patients with MCL.

Renal safety profiles of ibandronate 6 mg infused over 15 and 60 min: a randomized, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical data show that a single, 15-min i.v. infusion of ibandronate 6 mg does not significantly alter renal function. We evaluated the effect on renal function of repeated 15-min infusions of ibandronate 6 mg in women with breast cancer and bone metastases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to i.v. ibandronate 6 mg every 3-4 weeks for < or =6 months, infusion over 15 min (n = 102) or 60 min (n = 28). The primary end point was the percentage of patients with increased serum creatinine of > or =44.2 micromol/l. Blood chemistry was assessed at each visit. RESULTS: Two per cent [2/101; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.2-7.0] of patients in the 15-min infusion arm and no patients (0/26; 95% CI 0.0-13.2) in the 60-min infusion arm had increased serum creatinine that met the primary end point. There were no clinically relevant changes in serum creatinine, creatinine clearance, or N-acetyl-beta-d-glucosaminidase, alpha(1)-microglobulin, or microalbuminuria. Most adverse events were mild or moderate. No clinically relevant changes were observed in vital signs, hematology, blood chemistry, or urine analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Ibandronate 6 mg by 15-min infusion every 3-4 weeks appear to be consistent with those renal safety profiles of 60-min infusion.