Veliparib Plus Carboplatin and Paclitaxel Versus Investigator's Choice of Standard Chemotherapy in Patients With Advanced Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: This open-label Phase III trial (NCT02264990) evaluated the PARP inhibitor, veliparib, combined with carboplatin/paclitaxel versus chemotherapy alone for first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC). A 52-gene expression classifier (LP52) previously shown to identify patients more likely to respond to veliparib was evaluated as a planned correlative analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult current or former smokers with advanced non-squamous NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to veliparib (120 mg daily for 7 days/cycle) with carboplatin and paclitaxel or to investigators' choice of platinum doublet chemotherapy (up to 6, 21-day cycles), with optional pemetrexed maintenance. Prospective analysis of the LP52 signature was conducted using a clinical Qiagen/HTG assay. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) in LP52+ patients. RESULTS: Overall, 595 patients received veliparib + carboplatin/paclitaxel (n = 298) or chemotherapy alone (n = 297); 13% (n = 40) in each arm were LP52+. The primary endpoint was not met; median OS was 11.2 months with veliparib + carboplatin/paclitaxel versus 9.2 months with chemotherapy alone in the LP52+ subgroup (hazard ratio [HR] 0.644, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.396-1.048; P = .113). In the overall population, median OS was 12.1 months in both arms (HR 0.986, 95% CI: 0.827-1.176; P = .846). No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: In patients with non-squamous NSCLC, there was no significant improvement in OS with veliparib + carboplatin/paclitaxel versus chemotherapy alone, although a trend toward improved OS in the LP52+ population suggests this subgroup may benefit from veliparib. Statistical power was limited due to the small sample size.

Safety and efficacy of veliparib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with HER2-negative metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer: subgroup analyses by germline BRCA1/2 mutations and hormone receptor status from the phase-3 BROCADE3 trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate efficacy and safety of veliparib combined with carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, germline BRCA (gBRCA)-associated breast cancer defined by hormone receptor (HR) and gBRCA1/2 mutation status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase-3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients (N = 509) with advanced HER2-negative breast cancer and gBRCA1/2 mutations were randomized 2:1 to receive veliparib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel or placebo plus carboplatin/paclitaxel. Patients who discontinued chemotherapy prior to disease progression continued receiving blinded veliparib/placebo monotherapy. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Subgroup analyses of PFS stratified by HR and gBRCA1/2 mutation status were prespecified. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat population, there were similar proportions of patients with gBRCA1 versus gBRCA2 mutations (51% vs 49%) and HR+ disease versus triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) (52% vs 48%). Median PFS was longer in the veliparib arm compared with the placebo arm for all subgroups (HR+: 13.0 vs 12.5 months, hazard ratio (95% confidence interval (CI)): 0.69 (0.52, 0.93), p = 0.013; TNBC: 16.6 vs 14.1 months, hazard ratio (95% CI): 0.72 (0.52, 1.00), p = 0.052; gBRCA1: 14.2 vs 12.6 months, hazard ratio (95% CI): 0.75 (0.55, 1.03), p = 0.073; gBRCA2: 14.6 vs 12.6 months, hazard ratio (95% CI): 0.69 (0.50, 0.95); p = 0.021). Benefit was durable, with improved PFS rates at 2 years (HR+, 27.5% vs 15.3%; TNBC, 40.4% vs 25.0%) and 3 years (HR+, 17.5% vs 8.6%; TNBC, 35.3% vs 13.0%) in all subgroups. gBRCA status (BRCA1 vs BRCA2) did not substantially affect the carboplatin/paclitaxel ± veliparib toxicity profile. CONCLUSION: Veliparib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel resulted in durable benefit in subgroups defined by HR status or by gBRCA1 versus gBRCA2 mutation. Overall, addition of veliparib to carboplatin/paclitaxel was tolerable, and there were no clinically meaningful differences in adverse events between the gBRCA1 versus gBRCA2 and HR+ versus TNBC subgroups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02163694, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02163694.

Veliparib and nivolumab in combination with platinum doublet chemotherapy in patients with metastatic or advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A phase 1 dose escalation study.

OBJECTIVES: Both combinations of the PARP inhibitor veliparib plus platinum doublet chemotherapy (CT), and the programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab plus CT have demonstrated encouraging efficacy for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This phase 1 dose-escalation study (NCT02944396) evaluated the quadruple combination of veliparib with nivolumab and doublet CT in patients with unresectable advanced/metastatic NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were enrolled into five dosing cohorts: patients received veliparib 120 mg twice daily (BID) combined with nivolumab 360 mg, carboplatin AUC 6 mg/mL∙min, and paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 (C/PAC) or veliparib 80/120/200/240 mg BID in combination with nivolumab 360 mg, carboplatin AUC 6 mg/mL∙min, and pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 (C/PEM). Primary objective was to identify the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of veliparib + nivolumab + CT. Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of this combination were also assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were enrolled: 6 patients received veliparib 120 mg BID + nivolumab + C/PAC and 19 received veliparib (80-240 mg BID) + nivolumab + C/PEM. No dose-limiting toxicities were reported, and the RP2Ds were veliparib 120 mg BID + nivolumab + C/PAC, and veliparib 240 mg BID + nivolumab + C/PEM. The most common any-grade adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (56%), nausea (52%), and anemia (48%). Grade 3/4 AEs included anemia (32%) and neutropenia (24%), and the most frequent serious AE was malignant neoplasm progression (12%). Veliparib exhibited approximately dose proportional kinetics in the dose range 80-240 mg BID combined with nivolumab and C/PEM, with no effects on pemetrexed pharmacokinetics. Overall, the confirmed objective response rate was 40%, and best overall response was 64%. CONCLUSION: Veliparib combined with nivolumab and platinum doublet CT was tolerated in patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC, and no evidence of drug-drug interaction was observed. Although preliminary, this quadruple therapy may have promising antitumor activity.

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.

Efficacy and safety of first-line veliparib and carboplatin-paclitaxel in patients with HER2- advanced germline BRCA+ breast cancer: Subgroup analysis of a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Addition of veliparib to carboplatin-paclitaxel, with continuation of veliparib monotherapy if carboplatin-paclitaxel was discontinued, improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with germline BRCA-associated locally advanced/metastatic HER2- breast cancer and ≤2 lines of previous cytotoxic therapy for metastatic disease in BROCADE3. A pre-planned subgroup analysis evaluated efficacy and safety in patients without previous cytotoxic therapy for metastatic disease. METHODS: Patients were randomised 2:1 to receive veliparib (120 mg orally BID) or placebo on days -2 to 5. Carboplatin (AUC 6) was administered on day 1, and paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) on days 1, 8 and 15 (21-day cycles). Patients discontinuing carboplatin-paclitaxel for reasons besides progression could continue veliparib/placebo monotherapy (300 mg BID, increasing to 400 mg BID if tolerated) until progression. The primary end-point was PFS assessed by investigator. RESULTS: Of 509 patients in the intention-to-treat population (98.6% female; mean age 47, standard deviation 11), 413 (81%) had no previous cytotoxic therapy for metastatic disease (274, veliparib; 139, placebo). In the first-line subgroup, median PFS was 16.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 13.4-18.7) versus 13.1 months (95% CI 11.4-14.5) for the veliparib versus control groups (hazard ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.54-0.89, P = .004). More patients were alive and progression-free at 2 years (36% versus 23.2%) and 3 years (27.9% versus 13.3%) in the veliparib versus control group. Adverse events unrelated to progression leading to study drug discontinuation occurred in 25 (9.1%) and 8 (5.8%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Veliparib with carboplatin-paclitaxel led to durable disease control among first-line patients, suggesting a benefit of this treatment approach in early lines. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02163694.

Veliparib in combination with carboplatin/paclitaxel-based chemoradiotherapy in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Veliparib is a potent poly(ADP)-ribose polymerase (PARP) 1 and 2 inhibitor that impedes repair of DNA damage induced by cytotoxic and radiation therapies. This phase 1 study evaluated veliparib in combination with chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients received veliparib orally twice daily (BID) in escalating doses (60-240 mg, Day -3 to 1 day after last dose of radiation) combined with weekly carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC] 2 mg/mL/min), paclitaxel (45 mg/m2), and daily radiation therapy (60 Gy in 30 fractions), followed by two cycles of veliparib (120-240 mg BID, Days -2 through 5 of each 21-day cycle), carboplatin (AUC 6 mg/mL/min, Day 1 of each cycle), and paclitaxel (200 mg/m2, Day 1 of each cycle) consolidation. Endpoints included veliparib maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients were enrolled. The MTD/RP2D of veliparib was 240 mg BID with chemoradiotherapy followed by 120 mg BID with consolidation. The most common any-grade adverse events (AEs) in this cohort for the whole treatment period were nausea (83%), esophagitis (75%), neutropenia (75%), and thrombocytopenia (75%). Dose-proportional pharmacokinetics of veliparib were observed. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 19.6 months (95% CI: 9.7-32.6). Median overall survival was estimated to be 32.6 months (95% CI: 15.0-not reached). In patients treated with the RP2D, mPFS was 19.6 months (95% CI: 3.0-not reached). CONCLUSIONS: When combined with standard concurrent chemoradiotherapy and consolidation chemotherapy in patients with stage III NSCLC, veliparib demonstrated an acceptable safety profile and antitumor activity with an mPFS of 19.6 months.

A Population Pharmacokinetic Meta-Analysis of Veliparib, a PARP Inhibitor, Across Phase 1/2/3 Trials in Cancer Patients.

Veliparib (ABT-888) is a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor in development for the treatment of high-grade ovarian cancer or BRCA-mutated breast cancer in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel. The population pharmacokinetics of veliparib were characterized using combined data from 1470 adult subjects with ovarian cancer, breast cancer, or other solid tumors enrolled in 6 phase 1 studies, 1 phase 2 study, and 2 phase 3 studies of veliparib oral doses of 10 to 400 mg twice daily as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy. A 1-compartment model with linear clearance and first-order absorption best characterized veliparib pharmacokinetics. The predicted apparent oral clearance (CL/F) and volume of distribution (Vc /F) were 479 L/day and 152 L, respectively. The significant covariates in the final model included albumin, creatinine clearance, strong inhibitors of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6, and sex on CL/F and albumin, body weight, and sex on Vc /F. Mild and moderate renal impairment increased veliparib median (95%CI) steady-state AUC (AUCss ) by 27.3% (23.7%-30.9%) and 65.4% (56.0%-75.5%), respectively, compared with normal renal function. Male subjects had 16.5% (7.53%-23.9%) lower AUCss compared with female subjects and coadministration with strong CYP2D6 inhibitors increased AUCss by 13.0% (6.11%-20.8%). Race, age, region, cancer type, or enzyme (CYP3A4, CYP2C19) or transporter (P-glycoprotein, multidrug and toxin extrusion protein 1/2, organic cation transporter 2) inhibiting/inducing comedications were not found to significantly impact veliparib pharmacokinetics. Other than baseline creatinine clearance and hence renal impairment effect on veliparib clearance, no other covariates had a clinically meaningful effect on veliparib exposure warranting dose adjustment.

Veliparib with First-Line Chemotherapy and as Maintenance Therapy in Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Data are limited regarding the use of poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, such as veliparib, in combination with chemotherapy followed by maintenance as initial treatment in patients with high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. METHODS: In an international, phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, we assessed the efficacy of veliparib added to first-line induction chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel and continued as maintenance monotherapy in patients with previously untreated stage III or IV high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive chemotherapy plus placebo followed by placebo maintenance (control), chemotherapy plus veliparib followed by placebo maintenance (veliparib combination only), or chemotherapy plus veliparib followed by veliparib maintenance (veliparib throughout). Cytoreductive surgery could be performed before initiation or after 3 cycles of trial treatment. Combination chemotherapy was 6 cycles, and maintenance therapy was 30 additional cycles. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the veliparib-throughout group as compared with the control group, analyzed sequentially in the BRCA-mutation cohort, the cohort with homologous-recombination deficiency (HRD) (which included the BRCA-mutation cohort), and the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: A total of 1140 patients underwent randomization. In the BRCA-mutation cohort, the median progression-free survival was 34.7 months in the veliparib-throughout group and 22.0 months in the control group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28 to 0.68; P<0.001); in the HRD cohort, it was 31.9 months and 20.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95 CI, 0.43 to 0.76; P<0.001); and in the intention-to-treat population, it was 23.5 months and 17.3 months (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.83; P<0.001). Veliparib led to a higher incidence of anemia and thrombocytopenia when combined with chemotherapy as well as of nausea and fatigue overall. CONCLUSIONS: Across all trial populations, a regimen of carboplatin, paclitaxel, and veliparib induction therapy followed by veliparib maintenance therapy led to significantly longer progression-free survival than carboplatin plus paclitaxel induction therapy alone. The independent value of adding veliparib during induction therapy without veliparib maintenance was less clear. (Funded by AbbVie; VELIA/GOG-3005 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02470585.).

Assessment of denosumab treatment effects and imaging response in patients with giant cell tumor of bone.

BACKGROUND: Denosumab has been shown to reduce tumor size and progression, reform mineralized bone, and increase intralesional bone density in patients with giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB); however, radiologic assessment of tumors in bone is challenging. The study objective was to assess tumor response to denosumab using three different imaging parameters in a prespecified analysis in patients with GCTB from two phase 2 studies. METHODS: The studies enrolled adults and adolescents (skeletally mature and at least 12 years of age) with radiographically measurable GCTB that were given denosumab 120 mg every 4 weeks, with additional doses on days 8 and 15 of cycle 1. The proportion of patients with an objective tumor response was assessed using either Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer response criteria (positron emission tomography [PET] scan criteria), or inverse Choi density/size (ICDS) criteria. Target lesions were measured by computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging (both studies), PET (study 2 only), or plain film radiograph (study 2 only). RESULTS: Most patients (71.6%) had an objective tumor response by at least one response criteria. Per RECIST, 25.1% of patients had a response; per PET scan criteria, 96.2% had a response; per ICDS, 76.1% had a response. 68.5% had an objective tumor response ≥ 24 weeks. Using any criteria, crude incidence of response ranged from 56% (vertebrae/skull) to 91% (lung/soft tissue), and 98.2% had tumor control ≥ 24 weeks. Reduced PET avidity appeared to be an early sign of response to denosumab treatment. CONCLUSION: Modified PET scan criteria and ICDS criteria indicate that most patients show responses and higher benefit rates than modified RECIST, and therefore may be useful for early assessment of response to denosumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Clinical Trials Registry NCT00396279 (retrospectively registered November 6, 2006) and NCT00680992 (retrospectively registered May 20, 2008).

Clinical validation of the next-generation sequencing-based Extended RAS Panel assay using metastatic colorectal cancer patient samples from the phase 3 PRIME study.

PURPOSE: To validate a next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based companion diagnostic using the MiSeqDx® sequencing instrument to simultaneously detect 56 RAS mutations in DNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) tumor samples from the PRIME study. The test's ability to identify patients with mCRC likely to benefit from panitumumab treatment was assessed. METHODS: Samples from PRIME, which compared first-line panitumumab + FOLFOX4 with FOLFOX4, were processed according to predefined criteria using a multiplex assay that included input DNA qualification, library preparation, sequencing, and the bioinformatics reporting pipeline. NGS mutational analysis of KRAS and NRAS exons 2, 3, and 4 was performed and compared with Sanger sequencing. RESULTS: In 441 samples, positive percent agreement of the Extended RAS Panel with Sanger sequencing was 98.7% and negative percent agreement was 97.6%. For clinical validation (n = 528), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between patients with RAS mutations (RAS Positive) and those without (RAS Negative). Panitumumab + FOLFOX4 improved PFS in RAS Negative patients (P = 0.02). Quantitative interaction testing indicated the treatment effect (measured by the hazard ratio of panitumumab + FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4) differed for RAS Negative versus RAS Positive for PFS (P = 0.0038) and OS (P = 0.0323). CONCLUSIONS: NGS allows for broad, rapid, highly specific analyses of genomic regions. These results support use of the Extended RAS Panel as a companion diagnostic for selecting patients for panitumumab, and utilization is consistent with recent clinical guidelines regarding mCRC RAS testing. Overall, approximately 13% more patients were detected with the Extended RAS Panel versus KRAS exon 2 alone. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY IDENTIFIER: NCT00364013 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

ENGOT-ov-6/TRINOVA-2: Randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin plus trebananib or placebo in women with recurrent partially platinum-sensitive or resistant ovarian cancer.

AIMS: Trebananib, a peptide-Fc fusion protein, inhibits angiogenesis by inhibiting binding of angiopoietin-1/2 to the receptor tyrosine kinase Tie2. This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study evaluated whether trebananib plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: Women with recurrent ovarian cancer (platinum-free interval ≤12 months) were randomised to intravenous PLD 50 mg/m2 once every 4 weeks plus weekly intravenous trebananib 15 mg/kg or placebo. PFS was the primary end-point; key secondary end-points were objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR). Owing to PLD shortages, enrolment was paused for 13 months; the study was subsequently truncated. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-three patients were enrolled. Median PFS was 7.6 months (95% CI, 7.2-9.0) in the trebananib arm and 7.2 months (95% CI, 4.8-8.2) in the placebo arm, with a hazard ratio of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.68-1.24). However, because the proportional hazards assumption was not fulfilled, the standard Cox model did not provide a reliable estimate of the hazard ratio. ORR in the trebananib arm was 46% versus 21% in the placebo arm (odds ratio, 3.43; 95% CI, 1.78-6.64). Median DOR was improved (trebananib, 7.4 months [95% CI, 5.7-7.6]; placebo, 3.9 months [95% CI, 2.3-6.5]). Adverse events with a greater incidence in the trebananib arm included localised oedema (61% versus 32%), ascites (29% versus 9%) and vomiting (45% versus 33%). CONCLUSIONS: Trebananib demonstrated anticancer activity in this phase 3 study, indicated by improved ORR and DOR. Median PFS was not improved. No new safety signals were identified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01281254.

Final results of a phase 3 study of trebananib plus weekly paclitaxel in recurrent ovarian cancer (TRINOVA-1): Long-term survival, impact of ascites, and progression-free survival-2.

PURPOSE: Trebananib, a peptibody that blocks binding of angiopoietin-1 and -2 to Tie2, significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer in the phase 3 TRINOVA-1 study. We report overall survival (OS) in the intent-to-treat population and clinically relevant subgroups and time to second disease progression (PFS-2). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with recurrent disease (platinum-free interval<12months) were randomized to receive intravenous paclitaxel 80mg/m(2) (3weeks on/1week off) plus intravenous trebananib 15mg/kg or placebo, weekly. OS in the intent-to-treat population was a key secondary endpoint. Exploratory analysis of PFS-2 was conducted according to guidance by the European Medicines Agency. RESULTS: Median OS was not significantly improved with trebananib compared with placebo (19.3 versus 18.3months; HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81-1.11; P=0.52) in the intent-to-treat population (n=919). In subgroup analysis, trebananib improved median OS compared with placebo (14.5 versus 12.3months; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93; P=0.011) in patients with ascites at baseline (n=295). In the intent-to-treat population, trebananib significantly improved median PFS-2 compared with placebo (12.5 versus 10.9months; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.98; P=0.024). The incidence and type of adverse events in this updated analysis was consistent with that described in the primary analysis; no new safety signals were detected. CONCLUSIONS: OS was not significantly longer in the intent-to-treat population, although there was an improvement in OS in patients with ascites receiving trebananib. PFS-2 confirmed that the PFS benefit associated with trebananib was maintained through the second disease progression independent of the choice of subsequent therapy.

Population-based study of giant cell tumor of bone in Sweden (1983-2011).

INTRODUCTION: Giant-cell tumor of bone (GCTB) is a locally aggressive histologically benign neoplasm with a less common malignant counterpart. Longitudinal data sources on GCTB are sparse, limited to single institution case series or surgical outcomes studies. The Swedish Cancer Registry is one of the few national population-based databases recording GCTB, representing a unique source to study GCTB epidemiology. We estimated incidence rate (IR) and overall mortality rates based on registry data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified patients with a GCTB diagnosis in the Swedish Cancer Registry from 1983 to 2011: benign (ICD-7 196.0-196.9; PAD 741) and malignant (PAD 746). Results were stratified by age at diagnosis, gender, and anatomical lesion location. RESULTS: The cohort included 337 GCTB cases (IR of 1.3 per million persons per year). The majority (n=310) had primary benign GCTB (IR of 1.2 per million per year). Median age at diagnosis was 34 years (range 10-88) with 54% (n=183) females. Malignant to benign ratio for women was 0.095 (16/167) and for men 0.077 (11/143). Incidence was highest in the 20-39 years age group (IR of 2.1 per million per year). The most common lesion sites were distal femur and proximal tibia. Mortality at 20 years from diagnosis was 14% (n=48) and was slightly higher for axial (17%; n=6) and pelvic (17%; n=4) lesions. Recurrence occurred in 39% of primary benign cases and 75% of primary malignant cases. CONCLUSIONS: In our modern population-based series primary malignant cases were uncommon (8%), peak incidence 20-39 years with slight predominance in women. Recurrence rates remain significant with overall 39% occurring in benign GCTB, and 75% in malignant form. The linkage between databases allowed the first population based estimates of the proportion of patients who received surgery at initial GCTB diagnosis, and those who also received subsequent surgeries.

Incidence Trends in the Diagnosis of Giant Cell Tumor of Bone in Sweden Since 1958.

BACKGROUND: The Swedish Cancer Registry (founded in 1958) constitutes a unique resource for epidemiological studies of giant cell tumor of bone with potential for use for population-based studies of incidence over time. The aim of this study was to provide what we believe is the first modern population-based assessment of the incidence trends of giant cell tumor, a unique osteoclastogenic lytic stromal tumor with both benign and malignant histological forms, and to compare the findings with data from the same registry on osteosarcoma, a tumor that may display similar histological characteristics. METHODS: Cases were identified with use of codes for pathological bone tumor (International Classification of Diseases [ICD]-7 196). Specific morphological coding distinguishes benign (PAD 741) from malignant giant cell tumor (PAD 746) and osteosarcoma (PAD 766). RESULTS: During the period of 1958 to 2011, 4625 bone tumors were reported, including 505 giant cell tumors (383 benign and 122 malignant) and 1152 osteosarcomas. From 1958 to 1982 the ratio of malignant to benign giant cell tumors was 1.3, whereas from 1983 to 2011 the ratio inverted to 0.09, suggesting a change in the reporting or diagnosis of malignant or benign cases. Cases of giant cell tumor diagnosed from 1983 to 2011 displayed an age and sex distribution (median age at diagnosis, 34.0 years; 54% female) that were consistent with those in large published case series but differed from those in 1958 to 1982 (median age at diagnosis, 31.5 years; 48% female). The most current data (1983 to 2011) showed the giant cell tumor incidence in Sweden to be 1.3 per million per year, while the osteosarcoma incidence was 2.3 per million per year. CONCLUSIONS: Early Swedish Cancer Registry data (1958 to 1982) revealed a higher proportion of malignant giant cell tumors than seen in large sequential case series and a distinct age and sex profile compared with more recent data (1983 to 2011). This likely represents changes in the diagnostic workup and introduction of multidisciplinary review of giant-cell-containing tumors around 1982. Recent data may reflect the impact of expert centralized biopsy and multidisciplinary case review and more comprehensive reporting of benign giant cell tumors.

Surgical downstaging in an open-label phase II trial of denosumab in patients with giant cell tumor of bone.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection with curative intent for giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB) may be associated with severe morbidity. This interim analysis evaluated reduction in surgical invasiveness after denosumab treatment in patients with resectable GCTB. METHODS: Patients with primary or recurrent GCTB, for whom the initially planned surgery was associated with functional compromise or morbidity, received denosumab 120 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks (additional doses on days 8 and 15 of the first cycle). Planned and actual GCTB-related surgical procedures before and after denosumab treatment were reported. Patients were followed for surgical outcome, adverse events, and recurrence following resection. RESULTS: Overall, 222 patients were evaluable for surgical downstaging (54 % were women; median age 34 years). Lesions (67 % primary and 33 % recurrent) were located in the axial (15 %) and appendicular skeleton (85 %). At the data cutoff date, most patients had not yet undergone surgery (n = 106; 48 %) or had a less morbid procedure (n = 84; 38 %) than originally planned. Median (interquartile range) time on denosumab was 19.5 (12.4-28.6) months for the 106 patients who had not undergone surgery and were continuing on monthly denosumab. Native joint preservation was 96 % (n = 24/25) for patients with planned joint/prosthesis replacement and 86 % (n = 30/35) for patients with planned joint resection/fusion. Of the 116 patients who had surgery (median postsurgical follow-up 13.0 [8.5-17.9] months), local recurrence occurred in 17 (15 %) patients. CONCLUSION: For patients with resectable GCTB, neoadjuvant denosumab therapy resulted in beneficial surgical downstaging, including either no surgery or a less morbid surgical procedure.

Cisplatin and fluorouracil with or without panitumumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SPECTRUM): an open-label phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials have shown that anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies can improve clinical outcomes of patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). We assessed the efficacy and safety of panitumumab combined with cisplatin and fluorouracil as first-line treatment for these patients. METHODS: This open-label phase 3 randomised trial was done at 126 sites in 26 countries. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years; had histologically or cytologically confirmed SCCHN; had distant metastatic or locoregionally recurrent disease, or both, that was deemed to be incurable by surgery or radiotherapy; had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less; and had adequate haematological, renal, hepatic, and cardiac function. Patients were randomly assigned according to a computer-generated randomisation sequence (1:1; stratified by previous treatment, primary tumour site, and performance status) to one of two groups. Patients in both groups received up to six 3-week cycles of intravenous cisplatin (100 mg/m(2) on day 1 of each cycle) and fluorouracil (1000 mg/m(2) on days 1-4 of each cycle); those in the experimental group also received intravenous panitumumab (9 mg/kg on day 1 of each cycle). Patients in the experimental group could choose to continue maintenance panitumumab every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival and was analysed by intention to treat. In a prospectively defined retrospective analysis, we assessed tumour human papillomavirus (HPV) status as a potential predictive biomarker of outcomes with a validated p16-INK4A (henceforth, p16) immunohistochemical assay. Patients and investigators were aware of group assignment; study statisticians were masked until primary analysis; and the central laboratory assessing p16 status was masked to identification of patients and treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00460265. FINDINGS: Between May 15, 2007, and March 10, 2009, we randomly assigned 657 patients: 327 to the panitumumab group and 330 to the control group. Median overall survival was 11·1 months (95% CI 9·8-12·2) in the panitumumab group and 9·0 months (8·1-11·2) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·873, 95% CI 0·729-1·046; p=0·1403). Median progression-free survival was 5·8 months (95% CI 5·6-6·6) in the panitumumab group and 4·6 months (4·1-5·4) in the control group (HR 0·780, 95% CI 0·659-0·922; p=0·0036). Several grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more frequent in the panitumumab group than in the control group: skin or eye toxicity (62 [19%] of 325 included in safety analyses vs six [2%] of 325), diarrhoea (15 [5%] vs four [1%]), hypomagnesaemia (40 [12%] vs 12 [4%]), hypokalaemia (33 [10%] vs 23 [7%]), and dehydration (16 [5%] vs seven [2%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in 14 patients (4%) in the panitumumab group and eight (2%) in the control group. Five (2%) of the fatal adverse events in the panitumumab group were attributed to the experimental agent. We had appropriate samples to assess p16 status for 443 (67%) patients, of whom 99 (22%) were p16 positive. Median overall survival in patients with p16-negative tumours was longer in the panitumumab group than in the control group (11·7 months [95% CI 9·7-13·7] vs 8·6 months [6·9-11·1]; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58-0·93]; p=0·0115), but this difference was not shown for p16-positive patients (11·0 months [7·3-12·9] vs 12·6 months [7·7-17·4]; 1·00 [0·62-1·61]; p=0·998). In the control group, p16-positive patients had numerically, but not statistically, longer overall survival than did p16-negative patients (HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·47-1·04]). INTERPRETATION: Although the addition of panitumumab to chemotherapy did not improve overall survival in an unselected population of patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN, it improved progression-free survival and had an acceptable toxicity profile. p16 status could be a prognostic and predictive marker in patients treated with panitumumab and chemotherapy. Prospective assessment will be necessary to validate our biomarker findings. FUNDING: Amgen Inc.

First-line treatment of metastatic or locally advanced unresectable soft tissue sarcomas with conatumumab in combination with doxorubicin or doxorubicin alone: a phase I/II open-label and double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: Conatumumab is a fully human monoclonal agonist antibody that binds to death receptor 5 and induces apoptosis in sensitive cells. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of doxorubicin ± conatumumab as first-line systemic therapy for metastatic or locally advanced/unresectable soft-tissue sarcoma. METHODS: In Phase I, six patients received doxorubicin (75 mg/m2) with conatumumab (15 mg/kg) every 3 weeks. In Phase II, patients were randomised (2:1) to receive doxorubicin with either double-blind conatumumab 15 mg/kg (conatumumab-doxorubicin; n=86) or placebo (placebo-doxorubicin; n=42). Patients who progressed on placebo-doxorubicin could receive open-label conatumumab monotherapy post-chemotherapy (n=21). FINDINGS: The expected histopathologic subtypes (e.g. leiomyosarcoma, liposarcoma, others) were represented in this trial. No unexpected adverse events were noted in either Phase I or II. Median progression-free survival in Phase II was 5.6 and 6.4 months in the conatumumab-doxorubicin and placebo-doxorubicin arms, respectively (stratified HR: 1.00; p=0.973), with more early progressions noted in the first 3.5 months in the conatumumab-doxorubicin arm. Median overall survival was not reached after 8.6 months median follow-up in either arm. Common adverse events were nausea (conatumumab-doxorubicin: 66%; placebo-doxorubicin: 80%), alopecia (55%; 63%), fatigue (60%; 38%) and neutropenia (32%; 50%). Post-chemotherapy results were not notably improved by conatumumab dosing. INTERPRETATION: Addition of conatumumab to doxorubicin appeared to be safe but did not improve disease control in a heterogeneous unselected group of patients with soft tissue sarcomas. The results of this trial are very useful for estimating the outcomes of first-line therapy of sarcoma patients treated with standard doxorubicin.