Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in untreated advanced pleural mesothelioma in Canada, Italy, and France: a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pleural mesothelioma usually presents at an advanced, incurable stage. Chemotherapy with platinum-pemetrexed is a standard treatment. We hypothesised that the addition of pembrolizumab to platinum-pemetrexed would improve overall survival in patients with pleural mesothelioma. METHODS: We did this open-label, international, randomised phase 3 trial at 51 hospitals in Canada, Italy, and France. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, with previously untreated advanced pleural mesothelioma, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenous chemotherapy (cisplatin [75 mg/m2] or carboplatin [area under the concentration-time curve 5-6 mg/mL per min] with pemetrexed 500 mg/m2, every 3 weeks for up to 6 cycles), with or without intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (up to 2 years). The primary endpoint was overall survival in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study therapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02784171, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Jan 31, 2017, and Sept 4, 2020, 440 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to chemotherapy alone (n=218) or chemotherapy with pembrolizumab (n=222). 333 (76 %) of patients were male, 347 (79%) were White, and median age was 71 years (IQR 66-75). At final analysis (database lock Dec 15, 2022), with a median follow-up of 16·2 months (IQR 8·3-27·8), overall survival was significantly longer with pembrolizumab (median overall survival 17·3 months [95% CI 14·4-21·3] with pembrolizumab vs 16·1 months [13·1-18·2] with chemotherapy alone, hazard ratio for death 0·79; 95% CI 0·64-0·98, two-sided p=0·0324). 3-year overall survival rate was 25% (95% CI 20-33%) with pembrolizumab and 17% (13-24%) with chemotherapy alone. Adverse events related to study treatment of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 60 (27%) of 222 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 32 (15%) of 211 patients in the chemotherapy alone group. Hospital admissions for serious adverse events related to one or more study drugs were reported in 40 (18%) of 222 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 12 (6%) of 211 patients in the chemotherapy alone group. Grade 5 adverse events related to one or more drugs occurred in two patients on the pembrolizumab group and one patient in the chemotherapy alone group. INTERPRETATION: In patients with advanced pleural mesothelioma, the addition of pembrolizumab to standard platinum-pemetrexed chemotherapy was tolerable and resulted in a significant improvement in overall survival. This regimen is a new treatment option for previously untreated advanced pleural mesothelioma. FUNDING: The Canadian Cancer Society and Merck & Co.

Carboplatin and paclitaxel plus avelumab compared with carboplatin and paclitaxel in advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer (MITO END-3): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Adding immunotherapy to first-line chemotherapy might improve outcomes for patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer. We aimed to compare carboplatin and paclitaxel versus avelumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel as first-line treatment with avelumab given concurrent to chemotherapy and as maintenance after the end of chemotherapy. METHODS: MITO END-3 is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial conducted at 31 cancer institutes, hospitals, and universities in Italy. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed advanced (FIGO stage III-IV) or recurrent endometrial cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, and no previous systemic anticancer therapy as primary treatment for advanced or metastatic disease. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computerised minimisation procedure stratified by centre, histology, and stage at study entry, to either receive carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC] 5 mg/mL × min) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m2; standard group) intravenously every 3 weeks for six to eight cycles or avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenously) added to carboplatin and paclitaxel (experimental group) every 3 weeks and then every 2 weeks as a single maintenance treatment after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients, treating clinicians, and those assessing radiological examinations were not masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, measured in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Patients who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analysis. Experimental group superiority was tested with 80% power and one-tailed α 0·20. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03503786) and EudraCT (2016-004403-31). FINDINGS: From April 9, 2018, to May 13, 2021, 166 women were assessed for eligibility and 39 were excluded. 125 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive carboplatin and paclitaxel (n=62) or avelumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel (n=63) and included in the ITT population. The median follow-up was 23·3 months (IQR 13·2-29·6) and was similar between the two groups. 91 progression-free survival events were reported, with 49 events in 62 patients in the standard group and 42 events in 63 patients in the experimental group. The median progression-free survival was 9·9 months (95% CI 6·7-12·1) in the standard group and 9·6 months (7·2-17·7) in the experimental group (HR of progression or death 0·78 [60% CI 0·65-0·93]; one-tailed p=0·085). Serious adverse events were reported more frequently in the experimental group (24 vs seven events in the standard group); neutrophil count decrease was the most frequent grade 3-4 adverse event (19 [31%] of 61 patients in the experimental group vs 26 [43%] of 61 patients in the standard group). Two deaths occurred in the experimental group during treatment (one respiratory failure following severe myositis [possibly related to treatment] and one cardiac arrest [not related to treatment]). INTERPRETATION: Adding avelumab to first-line chemotherapy deserves further testing in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer, although consideration of mismatch repair status is warranted. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and treatment efficacy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis of 6 randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) has been demonstrated to be a prognostic factor in several cancer conditions. We previously found a significant prognostic value of CIN on overall survival (OS), in a pooled dataset of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving first line chemotherapy from 1996 to 2001. However, the prognostic role of CIN in NSCLC is still debated. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis pooling data prospectively collected in six randomized phase 3 trials in NSCLC conducted from 2002 to 2016. Patients who never started chemotherapy and those for whom toxicity data were missing were excluded. Neutropenia was categorized on the basis of worst grade during chemotherapy: absent (grade 0), mild (grade 1-2), or severe (grade 3-4). The primary endpoint was OS. Multivariable Cox model was applied for statistical analyses. In the primary analysis, a minimum time (landmark) at 180 days from randomization was applied in order to minimize the time-dependent bias. RESULTS: Overall, 1529 patients, who received chemotherapy, were eligible; 572 of them (who received 6 cycles of treatment) represented the landmark population. Severe CIN was reported in 143 (25.0%) patients and mild CIN in 135 (23.6%). At multivariable OS analysis, CIN was significantly predictive of prognosis although its prognostic value was entirely driven by severe CIN (hazard ratio [HR] of death 0.71; 95%CI: 0.53-0.95) while it was not evident with mild CIN (HR 1.21; 95%CI: 0.92-1.58). Consistent results were observed in the out-of-landmark group (including 957 patients), where both severe and mild CIN were significantly associated with a reduced risk of death. CONCLUSION: The pooled analysis of six large trials of NSCLC treatment shows that CIN occurrence is significantly associated with a longer overall survival, particularly in patients developing severe CIN, confirming our previous findings.

Thromboembolic events and antithrombotic prophylaxis in advanced ovarian cancer patients treated with bevacizumab: secondary analysis of the phase IV MITO-16A/MaNGO-OV2A trial.

INTRODUCTION: The use of routine antithrombotic prophylaxis is not recommended for advanced cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. The effect of bevacizumab-containing therapy on the risk of thromboembolic events remains controversial in ovarian cancer patients. We report on the incidence of thromboembolic events and the prevalence of antithrombotic therapy in patients enrolled in the single arm, phase IV, MITO-16A/MaNGO-OV2A trial. METHODS: In this trial, potential prognostic factors for patients with previously untreated ovarian cancer receiving a combination of platinum-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab were explored and the final analysis has already been reported. In this secondary analysis, the occurrence of thromboembolic events and the use of antithrombotic therapy were described according to the clinical characteristics of the patients. The prognostic role of thromboembolic events for progression-free and overall survival were also evaluated. RESULTS: From October 2012 to November 2014, 398 eligible patients were enrolled. 76 patients (19.1%) were receiving some type of anticoagulant or anti-aggregant treatment at baseline. Overall, 24 thromboembolic events were reported (cumulative incidence of 6.0%). The occurrence of thromboembolic events was not associated with baseline patient characteristics and was not modified by the use of antithrombotic prophylaxis (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.0). Occurrence of thromboembolic events was not associated with progression-free survival (HR 1.34, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.15) or overall survival (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.61). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, a 6.0% rate of thromboembolic events was reported during treatment with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy. Thromboembolic events were not associated with the clinical characteristics of the patients or with the use of antithrombotic prophylaxis, nor did they significantly affect the long-term prognosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01706120.

Tocilizumab for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. The single-arm TOCIVID-19 prospective trial.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab blocks pro-inflammatory activity of interleukin-6 (IL-6), involved in pathogenesis of pneumonia the most frequent cause of death in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: A multicenter, single-arm, hypothesis-driven trial was planned, according to a phase 2 design, to study the effect of tocilizumab on lethality rates at 14 and 30 days (co-primary endpoints, a priori expected rates being 20 and 35%, respectively). A further prospective cohort of patients, consecutively enrolled after the first cohort was accomplished, was used as a secondary validation dataset. The two cohorts were evaluated jointly in an exploratory multivariable logistic regression model to assess prognostic variables on survival. RESULTS: In the primary intention-to-treat (ITT) phase 2 population, 180/301 (59.8%) subjects received tocilizumab, and 67 deaths were observed overall. Lethality rates were equal to 18.4% (97.5% CI: 13.6-24.0, P = 0.52) and 22.4% (97.5% CI: 17.2-28.3, P < 0.001) at 14 and 30 days, respectively. Lethality rates were lower in the validation dataset, that included 920 patients. No signal of specific drug toxicity was reported. In the exploratory multivariable logistic regression analysis, older age and lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio negatively affected survival, while the concurrent use of steroids was associated with greater survival. A statistically significant interaction was found between tocilizumab and respiratory support, suggesting that tocilizumab might be more effective in patients not requiring mechanical respiratory support at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Tocilizumab reduced lethality rate at 30 days compared with null hypothesis, without significant toxicity. Possibly, this effect could be limited to patients not requiring mechanical respiratory support at baseline. Registration EudraCT (2020-001110-38); clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04317092).

Preoperative chemotherapy and radiotherapy concomitant to cetuximab in resectable stage IIIB NSCLC: a multicentre phase 2 trial (SAKK 16/08).

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CT) followed by radiotherapy (RT) and surgery showed a median survival of 28.7 months in resectable stage IIIB non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients (pts). Here, we evaluate the impact of concomitant cetuximab to the same neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) in selected patients (pts) with NSCLC, stage IIIB. METHODS: Resectable stage IIIB NSCLC received three cycles of CT (cisplatin 100 mg/m2 and docetaxel 85 mg/m2 d1, q3w) followed by RT (44 Gy in 22 fractions) with concomitant cetuximab (250 mg/m2, q1w) and subsequent surgery. The primary endpoint was 1-year progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Sixty-nine pts were included in the trial. Fifty-seven (83%) pts underwent surgery, with complete resection (R0) in 42 (74%) and postoperative 30 day mortality of 3.5%. Responses were: 57% after CT-cetuximab and 64% after CRT-cetuximab. One-year PFS was 50%. Median PFS was 12.0 months (95% CI: 9.0-15.6), median OS was 21.3 months, with a 2- and 3-yr survival of 41% and 30%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the largest prospective phase 2 trial to investigate the role of induction CRT and surgery in resectable stage IIIB disease, and the first adding cetuximab to the neoadjuvant strategy. This trial treatment is feasible with promising response and OS rates, supporting an aggressive approach in selected pts.

Long-Term Toxicity and Quality of Life in Patients Treated for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term toxicity and quality of life (QOL) in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) treated with chemoradiation [chemotherapy/radiotherapy (CT/RT)] or neoadjuvant CT (NACT) followed by radical surgery (RS). METHODS: Fifty-nine patients with LACC in remission after treatment with NACT + RS (n = 34) or CT/RT (n = 25) were interviewed with an Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ-7), a Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), and a Quality of Life Questionnaire for Cervical Cancer (EORTC QLQ-CX24) to compare long-term toxicity and QOL. RESULTS: The mean age was 53 ± 9.8 and 59 ± 11.5 years in the NACT + RS and CT/RT groups, respectively. Overall, diarrhea and constipation were reported in 15 and 68%, respectively, while bladder complaints and a low level of sexual enjoyment were reported in 36 and 47%, respectively. The NACT + RS patients showed a worse sexual activity (74.71 ± 33.57 vs. 92.06 ± 17.96; p = 0.019) and sexual enjoyment (71.21 ± 23.67 vs. 88.88 ± 21.71; p = 0.040) and more frequently complained of constipation (49.01 ± 34.06 vs. 26.66 ± 31.66; p = 0.013), while CT/RT patients more frequently suffered from diarrhea (1.96 ± 7.96 vs. 14.66 ± 28.40; p = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: Many patients treated for LACC have long-term complaints regarding sexual activity and bladder and bowel function. The majority of QOL aspects were similar in the two groups at long-term follow-up. However, diarrhea was more frequent and severe in CT/RT patients, while constipation was more frequent and severe in NACT + RS patients, and they showed a worse sexual life perception. Larger randomized trials addressing these issues are needed.

Long-term survival and BRCA status in male breast cancer: a retrospective single-center analysis.

BACKGROUND: Male breast cancer (MBC) is rare. Given the paucity of randomized trials, treatment is generally extrapolated from female breast cancer guidelines. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of all male patients presenting with MBC at the Department of Oncology at University Federico II of Naples between January 1989 and January 2014. We recorded the following data: baseline characteristics (age, height, weight, body mass index, risk factors, family history), tumor characteristics (side affected, stage, histotype, hormonal and HER2 status, and Ki-67 expression), treatment (type of surgery, chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and/or radiotherapy), BRCA1/2 mutation status (if available), other tumors, and long-term survival. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were analyzed. Median age was 62.0 [55.0-72.0]. Among risk factors, obesity and family history of breast cancer were associated with 21 % and 30 % of MBC cases, respectively. The majority of tumors were diagnosed at an early stage: stage I (34.0 %) and stage II (44.7 %). Infiltrating ductal carcinoma was the most frequent histologic subtype (95.8 %). Hormone receptors were generally positive (88.4 % of cases were Estrogen receptor [ER] positive and 81.4 % Progesteron receptor [PgR] positive). Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) was positive in 26.8 % of cases; 7.0 % of MBCs were triple negative. The tumor had high proliferation index (Ki67 ≥ 20 %) in 64.7 %. Surgery was predominantly mastectomy (85.1 %), whereas quadrantectomy was performed in 14.9 % of patients. Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 70.7 % of patients, endocrine therapy to 90.2 %, trastuzumab to 16.7 % and radiotherapy to 32.6 %. BRCA status was available for 17 patients: 10 wild-type, 1 BRCA1 carrier, 5 BRCA2 carriers, 1 unknown variant sequence. The overall estimated long-term survival was about 90 % at 5 years, 80 % at 10 years and 70 % at 20 years. Patients carrying a BRCA mutation had a significantly lower survival than patients with wild-type BRCA (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term survival was high in MBC patients referred to our clinical unit. Survival was poorer in BRCA-mutated patients than in patients with wild-type BRCA.

Analysis of the adequacy of control arms in oncology randomised clinical trials published between 2017 and 2021: a meta-research study.

INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are usually considered the highest level of evidence for clinical practice. Patients assigned to control arm in RCTs should always receive the best available treatments to protect participants while also allowing for proper interpretation and applicability of study results. Here we analysed RCTs published in oncology between 2017 and 2021 to describe the frequency of suboptimal control arms. METHODS: We identified phase III studies testing active treatments in patients with solid tumours among 11 major oncology journals. Each control arm was analysed, and the standard of care was determined according to international guidelines and scientific evidence at accrual beginning and until accrual completion. We identified studies with suboptimal control arm from the beginning (type 1) and studies with an initially optimal control arm which became outdated during the accrual period (type 2). RESULTS: This analysis included 387 studies. Forty-three (11.1%) control arms were judged as suboptimal: 24 (6.2%) type 1 and 19 (4.9%) type 2. These rates were higher in industry-sponsored compared to academic trials: 9.3% versus 1.9% for type 1 (p = 0.003); 7.9% versus 0.6% for type 2 (p = 0.001). Rates of suboptimal control arms were higher in studies with positive results: 8.1% versus 4.0% for type 1 (p = 0.09); 7.6% versus 1.7% for type 2 (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Many trials have suboptimal control arms, even in journals with high-impact factors, leading to suboptimal treatment of control patients and biased evaluation of trial results.

Validation of the Clinical Use of GIScar, an Academic-developed Genomic Instability Score Predicting Sensitivity to Maintenance Olaparib for Ovarian Cancer.

PURPOSE: The optimal application of maintenance PARP inhibitor therapy for ovarian cancer requires accessible, robust, and rapid testing of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). However, in many countries, access to HRD testing is problematic and the failure rate is high. We developed an academic HRD test to support treatment decision-making. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Genomic Instability Scar (GIScar) was developed through targeted sequencing of a 127-gene panel to determine HRD status. GIScar was trained from a noninterventional study with 250 prospectively collected ovarian tumor samples. GIScar was validated on 469 DNA tumor samples from the PAOLA-1 trial evaluating maintenance olaparib for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, and its predictive value was compared with Myriad Genetics MyChoice (MGMC). RESULTS: GIScar showed significant correlation with MGMC HRD classification (kappa statistics: 0.780). From PAOLA-1 samples, more HRD-positive tumors were identified by GIScar (258) than MGMC (242), with a lower proportion of inconclusive results (1% vs. 9%, respectively). The HRs for progression-free survival (PFS) with olaparib versus placebo were 0.45 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33-0.62] in GIScar-identified HRD-positive BRCA-mutated tumors, 0.50 (95% CI, 0.31-0.80) in HRD-positive BRCA-wild-type tumors, and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.74-1.40) in HRD-negative tumors. Tumors identified as HRD positive by GIScar but HRD negative by MGMC had better PFS with olaparib (HR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.07-0.72). CONCLUSIONS: GIScar is a valuable diagnostic tool, reliably detecting HRD and predicting sensitivity to olaparib for ovarian cancer. GIScar showed high analytic concordance with MGMC test and fewer inconclusive results. GIScar is easily implemented into diagnostic laboratories with a rapid turnaround.

Brief Report: Canadian Cancer Trials Group IND.227: A Phase 2 Randomized Study of Pembrolizumab in Patients With Advanced Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma (NCT02784171).

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have activity in mesothelioma. IND.227 was a phase 2 trial (120 patients planned) comparing progression-free survival of standard platinum and pemetrexed (CP) versus CP + pembrolizumab (pembro) versus pembro. Accrual to the pembro arm was discontinued on the basis of interim analysis (IA-16 wk disease control rate). CP + pembro was tolerable, with progression-free survival similar between arms and median survival and overall response rate higher than those of CP alone (19.8 mo [95% confidence interval or CI: 8.4-41.36] versus 8.9 mo [95% CI: 5.3-12.8] and 47% [95% CI: 24%-71%] versus 19% [95% CI: 5%-42%], respectively). The subsequent phase 3 trial has completed accrual; results are expected in 2023.

Biological Role of Tumor/Stromal CXCR4-CXCL12-CXCR7 in MITO16A/MaNGO-OV2 Advanced Ovarian Cancer Patients.

This study investigated the prognostic role of the CXCR4-CXCL12-CXCR7 axis in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients receiving first-line treatment within the MITO16A/MaNGO-OV2 phase-IV trial. CXCR4-CXCL12-CXCR7 expression was evaluated in the epithelial and stromal component of 308 EOC IHC-stained tumor samples. The statistical analysis focused on biomarkers' expression, their association with other variables and prognostic value. Zero-inflated tests, shrinkage, bootstrap procedures, and multivariable models were applied. The majority of EOC (75.0%) expressed CXCR4 and CXCR7, 56.5% expressed the entire CXCR4-CXCL12-CXCR7 axis, while only 4.6% were negative for CXCL12 and its cognate receptors, in regard to the epithelial component. Stromal CXCL12 and CXCR7, expressed in 11.2% and 65.5%, respectively, were associated with the FIGO stage. High CXCL12 in epithelial cancer cells was associated with shorter progression-free and overall survival. However, after adjusting for overfitting due to best cut-off multiplicity testing, the significance was lost. This is a wide-ranging, prospective study in which CXCR4-CXCL12-CXCR7 were systematically evaluated in epithelial and stromal components, in selected stage III-IV EOC. Although CXCL12 was not prognostic, epithelial expression identified high-risk FIGO stage III patients for PFS. These data suggest that it might be worth studying the CXCL12 axis as a therapeutic target to improve treatment efficacy in EOC patients.

Maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab in patients with newly diagnosed advanced high-grade ovarian cancer: Main analysis of second progression-free survival in the phase III PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 trial.

BACKGROUND: PAOLA-1/ENGOT-ov25 (NCT02477644) demonstrated a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit with maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab versus placebo plus bevacizumab in newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer. We report the prespecified main second progression-free survival (PFS2) analysis for PAOLA-1. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, phase III trial was conducted in 11 countries. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed, advanced, high-grade ovarian cancer and were in response after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Patients were randomised 2:1 to olaparib (300 mg twice daily) or placebo for up to 24 months; all patients received bevacizumab (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks) for up to 15 months. Primary PFS end-point was reported previously. Time from randomisation to second disease progression or death was a key secondary end-point included in the hierarchical-testing procedure. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 35.5 months and 36.5 months, respectively, median PFS2 was 36.5 months (olaparib plus bevacizumab) and 32.6 months (placebo plus bevacizumab), hazard ratio 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64-0.95; P = 0.0125. Median time to second subsequent therapy or death was 38.2 months (olaparib plus bevacizumab) and 31.5 months (placebo plus bevacizumab), hazard ratio 0.78; 95% CI 0.64-0.95; P = 0.0115. Seventy-two (27%) patients in the placebo plus bevacizumab group received a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor as first subsequent therapy. No new safety signals were observed for olaparib plus bevacizumab. CONCLUSION: In newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer, maintenance olaparib plus bevacizumab provided continued benefit beyond first progression, with a significant PFS2 improvement and a time to second subsequent therapy or death delay versus placebo plus bevacizumab.

Addition of Bevacizumab to Erlotinib as First-Line Treatment of Patients With EGFR-Mutated Advanced Nonsquamous NSCLC: The BEVERLY Multicenter Randomized Phase 3 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Adding bevacizumab to erlotinib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC in the Japanese JO25567 trial, but limited data were available in non-Asian patients. BEVERLY is an Italian, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 investigating the addition of bevacizumab to erlotinib as first-line treatment of advanced EGFR-mutated NSCLC. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to erlotinib plus bevacizumab or erlotinib alone. Investigator-assessed PFS and blinded independent centrally reviewed PFS were coprimary end points. With 80% power in detecting a 0.60 hazard ratio and two-sided α error of 0.05, 126 events of 160 patients were needed. The trial was registered as NCT02633189 and EudraCT 2015-002235-17. RESULTS: From April 11, 2016, to February 27, 2019, a total of 160 patients were randomized to erlotinib plus bevacizumab (80) or erlotinib alone (80). At a median follow-up of 36.3 months, median investigator-assessed PFS was 15.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.2-18.6) with erlotinib plus bevacizumab and 9.6 months (95% CI: 8.2-10.6) with erlotinib alone (hazard ratio = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.47-0.92). Blinded independent centrally reviewed PFS analysis confirmed this result. A statistically significant interaction with treatment effect was found for smoking habit (p = 0.0323), with PFS prolongation being clinically significant only among current or previous smokers. Hypertension (grade ≥3: 24% versus 5%), skin rash (grade ≥ 3: 31% versus 14%), thromboembolic events (any grade: 11% versus 4%), and proteinuria (any grade: 23% versus 6%) were more frequent with the combination. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of bevacizumab to first-line erlotinib prolonged PFS in Italian patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC; toxicity was increased with the combination but without unexpected safety issues.

Master Protocols for Precision Medicine in Oncology: Overcoming Methodology of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Randomized clinical trials are considered the milestones of clinical research in oncology, and guided the development and approval of new compounds so far. In the last few years, however, molecular and genomic profiling led to a change of paradigm in therapeutic algorithms of many cancer types, with the spread of different biomarker-driven therapies (or targeted therapies). This scenario of "personalized medicine" revolutionized therapeutic strategies and the methodology of the supporting clinical research. New clinical trial designs are emerging to answer to the unmet clinical needs related to the development of these targeted therapies, overcoming the "classical" structure of randomized studies. Innovative trial designs able to evaluate more than one treatment in the same group of patients or many groups of patients with the same treatment (or both) are emerging as a possible future standard in clinical trial methodology. These are identified as "master protocols", and include umbrella, basket and platform trials. In this review, we described the main characteristics of these new trial designs, focusing on the opportunities and limitations of their use in the era of personalized medicine.

The opportunity of patient-journey studies for academic clinical research in oncology.

A wave of new treatments and treatment combinations are becoming available for solid tumours. Trials performed to obtain registration establish a positive benefit-risk but unavoidably leave many questions unanswered on place-in-therapy and the relative efficacy of different treatment sequences. Such limitations create problems in terms of strength of treatment guidelines and reimbursement (in countries where a public payer exists). Data on new drugs arriving during the last 10 years for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma and renal cancer are reported as an example of how the fortunate condition of having new effective treatments may translate into uncertainty regarding the optimal treatment plan. We suggest that academic research should react to such limitations and propose a model of patient-journey study (PJS), where patients are followed from the initial diagnosis across subsequent lines of treatment. A PJS master protocol might include at each node of clinical decision either the possibility of choosing treatment according to guidelines (generating prospective real-world evidence) or the possibility to randomise where uncertainty exists (generating comparative effectiveness data). PJS protocols might be adaptively modified every time a new drug arrives on the market. Overall, methodologically sound analyses of PJS will produce knowledge on the efficacy and the effectiveness of different treatment pathways and might significantly optimise treatment of patients in clinical practice. PJS would represent a jump from a few snapshots (trials performed to get regulatory approval) to a full movie (evidence on the relative value of treatment pathways).

Adoption of multiple primary endpoints in phase III trials of systemic treatments in patients with advanced solid tumours. A systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Trial designs using multiple primary endpoints (MPEs) are increasing in phase III cancer trials. Our objectives were to describe the incidence of MPEs in recently published phase III trials testing systemic treatments in patients with advanced cancer; the main characteristics of trials adopting MPEs; the presence of mature results for all endpoints in the primary publication; consistency between results of each endpoint and authors' conclusions. METHODS: Articles of randomised phase III trials conducted in patients with advanced cancer, published between 2017 and 2020, were retrieved from PubMed. The main outcome was the proportion of trials with MPEs. In principle, according to regulatory agencies, we considered two distinct cases: (i) MPEs correspond to 'multiple chances' for the success of experimental treatment, needing adjustment for multiplicity, and (ii) a positive result depends on the success in all MPEs ('co-primary' endpoints). RESULTS: Out of 235 eligible trials, 27 trials (12%) adopted MPE, mostly overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The proportion of trials with MPEs increased over time, from 6% in 2017 to 20% in 2020 (p = 0.025). MPEs were adopted in 16% of for-profit trials versus 4% of non-profit trials (p = 0.006). The proportion of trials adopting MPEs was particularly high with immunotherapy (53%, p < 0.00001). Out of 27 trials with MPEs, 10 (37%) adopted an explicit definition of 'co-primary' endpoints, but only 1/10 declared the positivity of both endpoints critical for interpretation. Most trials (23, 85%) planned correction for multiplicity. Of 21 publications with positive conclusions, only 12 had a statistically significant positive result in both primary endpoints. In four cases (15%), positive conclusions were based on PFS results alone. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of MPEs in randomised trials in oncology is quite common. Only a minority of trials respect recommendations by regulatory agencies about the adoption of MPEs, definition of 'co-primary' endpoints and correction for multiplicity.

Evaluation of Angiogenesis-Related Genes as Prognostic Biomarkers of Bevacizumab Treated Ovarian Cancer Patients: Results from the Phase IV MITO16A/ManGO OV-2 Translational Study.

BACKGROUND: Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is a rare, highly lethal disease. In a subset of high grade EOC patients, maintenance therapy with the antiangiogenic drug Bevacizumab (BEV) is a valuable option. To date, no validated predictive or prognostic biomarkers exist for selecting EOC patients that might benefit from BEV treatment. METHODS: Immunohistochemistry and RT-qPCR evaluated the expression of seven angiogenesis-related proteins and of a twelve microRNAs angio-signature in EOC patients, treated in first line with chemotherapy plus BEV (MITO16A/ManGO OV-2 phase IV trial). Centralized statistical analyses assessed the associations between each biomarker, clinical prognostic factors and survival outcomes. RESULTS: High miR-484 expression was associated with longer progression-free and overall survival. Notably, the combined expression of miR-484 and its target VEGFB identified a subset of patients that might mostly benefit from BEV treatment. No other significant correlations were found between the other analyzed biomarkers and patients' survival. The application of a shrinkage procedure to adjust for over-fitting hazard ratio estimates reduced the association significance. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of angiogenesis related biomarkers in EOC patients homogenously treated with BEV in first line provides novel insight in their prognostic value and suggests that some of them might merit to be tested as predictive markers of drug activity in dedicated randomized trials.

Ovarian Cancer Translational Activity of the Multicenter Italian Trial in Ovarian Cancer (MITO) Group: Lessons Learned in 10 Years of Experience.

Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecological cancer, and despite years of research, with the exception of a BRCA mutation driving the use of PARP inhibitors, no new prognostic/predictive biomarkers are clinically available. Improvement in biomarker selection and validation may derive from the systematic inclusion of translational analyses into the design of clinical trials. In the era of personalized medicine, the prospective centralized collection of high-quality biological material, expert pathological revision, and association to well-controlled clinical data are important or even essential added values to clinical trials. Here, we present the academic experience of the MITO (Multicenter Italian Trial in Ovarian Cancer) group, including gynecologists, pathologists, oncologists, biostatisticians, and translational researchers, whose effort is dedicated to the care and basic/translational research of gynecologic cancer. In our ten years of experience, we have been able to collect and process, for translational analyses, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded blocks from more than one thousand ovarian cancer patients. Standard operating procedures for collection, shipping, and processing were developed and made available to MITO researchers through the coordinating center's web-based platform. Clinical data were collected through dedicated electronic case report forms hosted in a web-based electronic platform and stored in a central database at the trial's coordinating center, which performed all the analyses related to the proposed translational researches. During this time, we improved our strategies of block management from retrospective to prospective collection, up to the design of a prospective collection with a quality check for sample eligibility before patients' accrual. The final aim of our work is to share our experience by suggesting a guideline for the process of centralized collection, revision processing, and storing of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded blocks for translational purposes.