The PARTNER trial of neoadjuvant olaparib with chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer.

PARTNER is a prospective, phase II-III, randomized controlled clinical trial that recruited patients with triple-negative breast cancer1,2, who were germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 wild type3. Here we report the results of the trial. Patients (n = 559) were randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive neoadjuvant carboplatin-paclitaxel with or without 150 mg olaparib twice daily, on days 3 to 14, of each of four cycles (gap schedule olaparib, research arm) followed by three cycles of anthracycline-based chemotherapy before surgery. The primary end point was pathologic complete response (pCR)4, and secondary end points included event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS)5. pCR was achieved in 51% of patients in the research arm and 52% in the control arm (P = 0.753). Estimated EFS at 36 months in the research and control arms was 80% and 79% (log-rank P > 0.9), respectively; OS was 90% and 87.2% (log-rank P = 0.8), respectively. In patients with pCR, estimated EFS at 36 months was 90%, and in those with non-pCR it was 70% (log-rank P < 0.001), and OS was 96% and 83% (log-rank P < 0.001), respectively. Neoadjuvant olaparib did not improve pCR rates, EFS or OS when added to carboplatin-paclitaxel and anthracycline-based chemotherapy in patients with triple-negative breast cancer who were germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 wild type. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03150576 .

A UK prospective multicentre decision impact, decision conflict and economic evaluation of the 21-gene assay in women with node+ve, hormone receptor+ve, HER2-ve breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: For a tumour profiling test to be of value, it needs to demonstrate that it is changing clinical decisions, improving clinical confidence, and of economic benefit. This trial evaluated the use of the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® assay against these criteria in 680 women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative early breast cancer with 1-3 lymph nodes positive (LN+) in the UK National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: Prior to receipt of the Recurrence Score (RS) result, both the physician and the patient were asked to state their preference for or against chemotherapy and their level of confidence on a scale of 1-5. Following receipt of the RS result, the physician and patient were asked to make a final decision regarding chemotherapy and record their post-test level of confidence. RESULTS: Receipt of the RS result led to a 51.5% (95% CI, 47.2-55.8%) reduction in chemotherapy, significantly increased the relative and absolute confidence for both physicians and patients and led to an estimated saving to the NHS of £787 per patient. CONCLUSION: The use of the Oncotype DX assay fulfils the criteria of changing clinical decisions, improving confidence and saving money.

Afatinib alone and in combination with vinorelbine or paclitaxel, in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer who failed or progressed on prior trastuzumab and/or lapatinib (LUX-Breast 2): an open-label, multicenter, phase II trial.

PURPOSE: Resistance to HER2 (ErbB2)-targeted therapy may be mediated by other members of the ErbB family. We investigated the efficacy and safety of the irreversible ErbB family blocker, afatinib, alone as first-line therapy in the advanced setting and in combination with vinorelbine or paclitaxel for those who progressed on afatinib monotherapy, in female patients with metastatic breast cancer who had failed or progressed on prior HER2-targeted therapy in the early disease setting. METHODS: In this phase II, single-arm, two-part study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01271725), patients in part A received afatinib 40 mg/day in 21-day cycles until disease progression or intolerable adverse events (AEs). Patients with progressive disease could then receive afatinib plus weekly vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 or paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 until disease progression or intolerable AEs (part B). The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate (RECIST v1.1). RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were enrolled and 74 were treated in part A (median age: 51 years [range 27-76]; 31 [42%] estrogen receptor-positive, 26 [35%] progesterone receptor-positive). Of these, 39 (53%) patients went on to receive afatinib plus vinorelbine (13 patients) or paclitaxel (26 patients) in part B. Thirteen (18%) and 12 (31%) patients achieved an objective response in parts A and B, respectively. The most common treatment-related AEs with afatinib monotherapy (any/grade ≥ 3) were diarrhea (68%/8%) and rash (49%/4%). Combination therapy was generally well tolerated, with no additive toxicity observed. CONCLUSION: Afatinib treatment, alone or in combination with vinorelbine or paclitaxel, was associated with objective responses in ≥ 18% of patients with metastatic breast cancer for whom prior HER2-targeted therapy has failed. Treatment-related AEs were generally manageable, with few grade ≥ 3 AEs reported. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01271725, registered 1 July 2011.

Systemic chemotherapy with or without cetuximab in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastasis (New EPOC): long-term results of a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The interim analysis of the multicentre New EPOC trial in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastasis showed a significant reduction in progression-free survival in patients allocated to cetuximab plus chemotherapy compared with those given chemotherapy alone. The focus of the present analysis was to assess the effect on overall survival. METHODS: New EPOC was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with KRAS wild-type (codons 12, 13, and 61) resectable or suboptimally resectable colorectal liver metastases and a WHO performance status of 0-2 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive chemotherapy with or without cetuximab before and after liver resection. Randomisation was done centrally with minimisation factors of surgical centre, poor prognosis cancer, and previous adjuvant treatment with oxaliplatin. Chemotherapy consisted of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 administered intravenously over 2 h, l-folinic acid (175 mg flat dose administered intravenously over 2 h) or d,l-folinic acid (350 mg flat dose administered intravenously over 2 h), and fluorouracil bolus 400 mg/m2 administered intravenously over 5 min, followed by a 46 h infusion of fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 repeated every 2 weeks (regimen one), or oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 administered intravenously over 2 h and oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-14 repeated every 3 weeks (regimen two). Patients who had received adjuvant oxaliplatin could receive irinotecan 180 mg/m2 intravenously over 30 min with fluorouracil instead of oxaliplatin (regimen three). Cetuximab was given intravenously, 500 mg/m2 every 2 weeks with regimen one and three or a loading dose of 400 mg/m2 followed by a weekly infusion of 250 mg/m2 with regimen two. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival was published previously. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, preoperative response, pathological resection status, and safety. Trial recruitment was halted prematurely on the advice of the Trial Steering Committee on Nov 1, 2012. All analyses (except safety) were done on the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all randomly assigned patients. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 22944367. FINDINGS: Between Feb 26, 2007, and Oct 12, 2012, 257 eligible patients were randomly assigned to chemotherapy with cetuximab (n=129) or without cetuximab (n=128). This analysis was carried out 5 years after the last patient was recruited, as defined in the protocol, at a median follow-up of 66·7 months (IQR 58·0-77·5). Median progression-free survival was 22·2 months (95% CI 18·3-26·8) in the chemotherapy alone group and 15·5 months (13·8-19·0) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·17, 95% CI 0·87-1·56; p=0·304). Median overall survival was 81·0 months (59·6 to not reached) in the chemotherapy alone group and 55·4 months (43·5-71·5) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group (HR 1·45, 1·02-2·05; p=0·036). There was no significant difference in the secondary outcomes of preoperative response or pathological resection status between groups. Five deaths might have been treatment-related (one in the chemotherapy alone group and four in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events reported were: neutrophil count decreased (26 [19%] of 134 in the chemotherapy alone group vs 21 [15%] of 137 in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group), diarrhoea (13 [10%] vs 14 [10%]), skin rash (one [1%] vs 22 [16%]), thromboembolic events (ten [7%] vs 11 [8%]), lethargy (ten [7%] vs nine [7%]), oral mucositis (three [2%] vs 14 [10%]), vomiting (seven [5%] vs seven [5%]), peripheral neuropathy (eight [6%] vs five [4%]), and pain (six [4%] vs six [4%]). INTERPRETATION: Although the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy improves the overall survival in some studies in patients with advanced, inoperable metastatic disease, its use in the perioperative setting in patients with operable disease confers a significant disadvantage in terms of overall survival. Cetuximab should not be used in this setting. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Association of post-operative CEA with survival and oxaliplatin benefit in patients with stage II colon cancer: a post hoc analysis of the MOSAIC trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant treatment for stage II colon cancer (CC) can be proposed to patients with high-risk disease. Recently, 2.35 ng/mL carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) was identified as the best cut-off value. This post hoc analysis of the MOSAIC trial assessed post-operative CEA prognostic value for survival outcomes and predictive value for the addition of oxaliplatin to adjuvant treatment. METHODS: Prognostic and predictive values of post-operative CEA in patients with stage II CC were evaluated with Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox model with interaction terms. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated. RESULTS: Among 899 stage II CC patients, post-operative CEA was available in 867 (96.4%); and 434 (48.65%) had a high-risk stage II disease. The 3-year DFS rate was 88.5% and 78.7% in the ≤ 2.35 ng/mL and > 2.35 ng/mL group, respectively (P = 0.006). Use of oxaliplatin showed survival benefit only in patients with high-risk stage II CC and post-operative CEA > 2.35 ng/ml (interaction term P = 0.09 and 0.03 for DFS and OS). CONCLUSION: CEA is a strong prognostic factor for DFS and OS in stage II CC. In the MOSAIC trial, only high-risk stage II CC patients with post-operative CEA > 2.35 ng/mL benefited from the addition of oxaliplatin to LV5FU2. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00275210 (January 11, 2006).

3 versus 6 months of adjuvant oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine combination therapy for colorectal cancer (SCOT): an international, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: 6 months of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is usually given as adjuvant treatment for stage 3 colorectal cancer. We investigated whether 3 months of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy would be non-inferior to the usual 6 months of treatment. METHODS: The SCOT study was an international, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done at 244 centres. Patients aged 18 years or older with high-risk stage II and stage III colorectal cancer underwent central randomisation with minimisation for centre, choice of regimen, sex, disease site, N stage, T stage, and the starting dose of capecitabine. Patients were assigned (1:1) to receive 3 months or 6 months of adjuvant oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy. The chemotherapy regimens could consist of CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) or FOLFOX (bolus and infused fluorouracil with oxaliplatin). The regimen was selected before randomisation in accordance with choices of the patient and treating physician. The primary study endpoint was disease-free survival and the non-inferiority margin was a hazard ratio of 1·13. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in patients who started study treatment. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN59757862, and follow-up is continuing. FINDINGS: 6088 patients underwent randomisation between March 27, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013. The intended treatment was FOLFOX in 1981 patients and CAPOX in 4107 patients. 3044 patients were assigned to 3 month group and 3044 were assigned to 6 month group. Nine patients in the 3 month group and 14 patients in the 6 month group did not consent for their data to be used, leaving 3035 patients in the 3 month group and 3030 patients in the 6 month group for the intention-to-treat analyses. At the cutoff date for analysis, there had been 1482 disease-free survival events, with 740 in the 3 month group and 742 in the 6 month group. 3 year disease-free survival was 76·7% (95% CI 75·1-78·2) for the 3 month group and 77·1% (75·6-78·6) for the 6 month group, giving a hazard ratio of 1·006 (0·909-1·114, test for non-inferiority p=0·012), significantly below the non-inferiority margin. Peripheral neuropathy of grade 2 or worse was more common in the 6 month group (237 [58%] of 409 patients for the subset with safety data) than in the 3 month group (103 [25%] of 420) and was long-lasting and associated with worse quality of life. 1098 serious adverse events were reported (492 reports in the 3 month group and 606 reports in the 6 month group) and 32 treatment-related deaths occurred (16 in each group). INTERPRETATION: In the whole study population, 3 months of oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy was non-inferior to 6 months of the same therapy for patients with high-risk stage II and stage III colorectal cancer and was associated with reduced toxicity and improved quality of life. Despite the fact the study was underpowered, these data suggest that a shorter duration leads to similar survival outcomes with better quality of life and thus might represent a new standard of care. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, NETSCC, and Cancer Research UK.

SCOT: a comparison of cost-effectiveness from a large randomised phase III trial of two durations of adjuvant Oxaliplatin combination chemotherapy for colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Short Course Oncology Therapy (SCOT) study is an international, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial assessing the efficacy, toxicity, and cost-effectiveness of 3 months (3 M) versus the usually given 6 months (6 M) of adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer. METHODS: In total, 6088 patients with fully resected high-risk stage II or stage III colorectal cancer were randomised and followed up for 3-8 years. The within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis from a UK health-care perspective is presented using the resource use data, quality of life (EQ-5D-3L), time on treatment (ToT), disease-free survival after treatment (DFS) and overall survival (OS) data. Quality-adjusted partitioned survival analysis and Kaplan-Meier Sample Average Estimator estimated QALYs and costs. Probabilistic sensitivity and subgroup analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: The 3 M arm is less costly (-£4881; 95% CI: -£6269; -£3492) and entails (non-significant) QALY gains (0.08; 95% CI: -0.086; 0.230) due to a better significant quality of life. The net monetary benefit was significantly higher in 3 M under a wide range of monetary values of a QALY. The subgroup analysis found similar results for patients in the CAPOX regimen. However, for the FOLFOX regimen, 3 M had lower QALYs than 6 M (not statistically significant). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, 3 M dominates 6 M with no significant detrimental impact on QALYs. The results provide the economic case that a 3 M treatment strategy should be considered a new standard of care.

MABp1 as a novel antibody treatment for advanced colorectal cancer: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: MABp1, an antibody that targets interleukin 1α, has been associated with antitumour activity and relief of debilitating symptoms in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. We sought to establish the effect of MABp1 with a new primary endpoint in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. METHODS: Eligible patients for the double-blind phase of this ongoing, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial, had metastatic or unresectable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score 1 or 2, systemic inflammation, weight loss, and other disease-related morbidities associated with poor prognosis, and were refractory to oxaliplatin and irinotecan. Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive either MABp1 or placebo. Randomisation codes were obtained from a centrally held list via an interactive web response system. Patients received an intravenous infusion of 7·5 mg/kg MABp1 or placebo given every 2 weeks for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of MABp1 or placebo (modified intention-to-treat population), and was a composite of stable or increased lean body mass and stability or improvement in two of three symptoms (pain, fatigue, or anorexia) at week 8 compared with baseline measurements. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02138422. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled between May 20, 2014, and Sept 2, 2015. The double-blind phase of the study was completed on Nov 3, 2015. Of 333 patients randomly assigned treatment, 207 received at least one dose of MABp1 and 102 at least one dose of placebo. 68 (33%) and 19 (19%) patients, respectively, achieved the primary endpoint (relative risk 1·76, 95% CI 1·12-2·77, p=0·0045). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the MABp1 group compared with in the placebo group were anaemia (eight [4%] of 207 vs five [5%] of 102 patients), increased concentration of alkaline phosphatase (nine [4%] vs two [2%]), fatigue (six [3%] vs seven [7%]), and increased concentration of aspartate aminotransferase (six [3%] vs two [2%]). After 8 weeks, 17 (8%) patients in the MABp1 group and 11 (11%) in the placebo group had died, but no death was judged to be related to treatment. The incidence of serious adverse events was not significantly different in the MABp1 group and placebo groups (47 [23%] vs 33 [32%], p=0·07). INTERPRETATION: The primary endpoint was a useful means of measuring clinical performance in patients. MABp1 might represent a new standard in the management of advanced colorectal cancer. FUNDING: XBiotech.

Vandetanib plus gemcitabine versus placebo plus gemcitabine in locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic carcinoma (ViP): a prospective, randomised, double-blind, multicentre phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Erlotinib is an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor that has shown a significant but only marginally improved median overall survival when combined with gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer. Vandetanib is a novel tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGFR2, RET, and EGFR, all of which are in involved in the pathogenesis of pancreatic cancer. We investigated the clinical efficacy of vandetanib when used in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: The Vandetanib in Pancreatic Cancer (ViP) trial was a phase 2 double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial in previously untreated adult patients (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic carcinoma of the pancreas confirmed by cytology or histology. Patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 0-2 and a documented life expectancy of at least 3 months. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive vandetanib plus gemcitabine (vandetanib group) or placebo plus gemcitabine (placebo group) according to pre-generated sequences produced on the principle of randomly permuted blocks with variable block sizes of two and four. Patients were stratified at randomisation by disease stage and ECOG performance status. All patients received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 as a 30-min intravenous infusion, weekly, for 7 weeks followed by a 1-week break, followed by a cycle of 3 weeks of treatment with a 1-week break, until disease progression, and either oral vandetanib 300 mg per day once daily or matching placebo. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome measure was overall survival (defined as the difference in time between randomisation and death from any cause or the censor date) in the intention-to-treat population. This trial has been completed and the final results are reported. The study is registered at EudraCT, number 2007-004299-38, and ISRCTN, number ISRCTN96397434. FINDINGS: Patients were screened and enrolled between Oct 24, 2011, and Oct 7, 2013. Of 381 patients screened, 142 eligible patients were randomly assigned to treatment (72 to the vandetanib group and 70 to the placebo group). At database lock on July 15, 2015, at a median follow-up of 24·9 months (IQR 24·3 to not attainable), 131 patients had died: 70 (97%) of 72 in the vandetanib group and 61 (87%) of 70 in the placebo group. The median overall survival was 8·83 months (95% CI 7·11-11·58) in the vandetanib group and 8·95 months (6·55-11·74) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·21, 80·8% CI 0·95-1·53; log rank χ21df 1·1, p=0·303). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (35 [49%] of 72 patients in the vandetanib group vs 22 [31%] of 70 in the placebo group), thrombocytopenia (20 [28%] vs 16 [23%]), hypertension (nine [13%] vs 11 [16%]), leucopenia (12 [17%] vs 13 [19%]), and fatigue (17 [24%] vs 15 [21%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred during the study. INTERPRETATION: The addition of vandetanib to gemcitabine monotherapy did not improve overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors might still have potential in the treatment of pancreatic cancer but further development requires the identification of biomarkers to specifically identify responsive cancer subtypes. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and AstraZeneca.

Addition of gemcitabine to paclitaxel, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide adjuvant chemotherapy for women with early-stage breast cancer (tAnGo): final 10-year follow-up of an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The tAnGo trial was designed to investigate the potential role of gemcitabine when added to anthracycline and taxane-containing adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer. When this study was developed, gemcitabine had shown significant activity in metastatic breast cancer, and there was evidence of a favourable interaction with paclitaxel. METHODS: tAnGo was an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 superiority trial that enrolled women aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed, early-stage breast cancer who had a definite indication for chemotherapy, any nodal status, any hormone receptor status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function. Women were recruited from 127 clinical centres and hospitals in the UK and Ireland, and randomly assigned (1:1) to one of two treatment regimens: epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel (four cycles of 90 mg/m2 intravenously administered epirubicin and 600 mg/m2 intravenously administered cyclophosphamide on day 1 every 3 weeks, followed by four cycles of 175 mg/m2 paclitaxel as a 3 h infusion on day 1 every 3 weeks) or epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (the same chemotherapy regimen as the other group, with the addition of 1250 mg/m2 gemcitabine to the paclitaxel cycles, administered intravenously as a 0·5 h infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks). Patients were randomly assigned by a central computerised deterministic minimisation procedure, with stratification by country, age, radiotherapy intent, nodal status, and oestrogen receptor and HER-2 status. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival and the trial aimed to detect 5% differences in 5-year disease-free survival between the treatment groups. Recruitment completed in 2004 and this is the final, intention-to-treat analysis. This trial is registered with EudraCT (2004-002927-41), ISRCTN (51146252), and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00039546). FINDINGS: Between Aug 22, 2001, and Nov 26, 2004, 3152 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel, and gemcitabine (gemcitabine group; n=1576) or to epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel (control group; n=1576). 11 patients (six in the gemcitabine group and five in the control group) were ineligible because of pre-existing metastases and were therefore excluded from the analysis. At this protocol-specified final analysis (median follow-up 10 years [IQR 10-10]), 1087 disease-free survival events and 914 deaths had occurred. Disease-free survival did not differ significantly between the treatment groups at 10 years (65% [63-68] in the gemcitabine group vs 65% [62-67] in the control group), and median disease-free survival was not reached (adjusted hazard ratio 0·97 [95% CI 0·86-1·10], p=0·64). Toxicity, dose intensity, and a detailed safety substudy showed both regimens to be safe, deliverable, and tolerable. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were reported at expected levels in both groups. The most common were neutropenia (527 [34%] of 1565 patients in the gemcitabine group vs 412 [26%] of 1567 in the control group), myalgia and arthralgia (207 [13%] vs 186 [12%]), fatigue (207 [13%] vs 152 [10%]), infection (202 [13%] vs 141 [9%]), vomiting (143 [9%] vs 108 [7%]), and nausea (132 [8%] vs 102 [7%]). INTERPRETATION: The addition of gemcitabine to anthracycline and taxane-based adjuvant chemotherapy at this dose and schedule confers no therapeutic advantage in terms of disease-free survival in early breast cancer, although it can cause increased toxicity. Therefore, gemcitabine has not been added to standard adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer for any subgroup. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK core funding for Clinical Trials Unit at the University of Birmingham, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pfizer.

Central pathology review with two-stage quality assurance for pathological response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the ARTemis Trial.

The ARTemis Trial tested standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy±bevacizumab in the treatment of HER2-negative early breast cancer. We compare data from central pathology review with report review and also the reporting behavior of the two central pathologists. Eight hundred women with HER2-negative early invasive breast cancer were recruited. Response to chemotherapy was assessed from local pathology reports for pathological complete response in breast and axillary lymph nodes. Sections from the original core biopsy and surgical excision were centrally reviewed by one of two trial pathologists blinded to the local pathology reports. Pathologists recorded response to chemotherapy descriptively and also calculated residual cancer burden. 10% of cases were double-reported to compare the central pathologists' reporting behavior. Full sample retrieval was obtained for 681 of the 781 patients (87%) who underwent surgery within the trial and were evaluable for pathological complete response. Four hundred and eighty-three (71%) were assessed by JSJT, and 198 (29%) were assessed by EP. Residual cancer burden calculations were possible in 587/681 (86%) of the centrally reviewed patients, as 94/681 (14%) had positive sentinel nodes removed before neoadjuvant chemotherapy invalidating residual cancer burden scoring. Good concordance was found between the two pathologists for residual cancer burden classes within the 65-patient quality assurance exercise (kappa 0.63 (95% CI: 0.57-0.69)). Similar results were obtained for the between-treatment arm comparison both from the report review and the central pathology review. For pathological complete response, report review was as good as central pathology review but for minimal residual disease, report review overestimated the extent of residual disease. In the ARTemis Trial central pathology review added little in the determination of pathological complete response but had a role in evaluating low levels of residual disease. Calculation of residual cancer burden was a simple and reproducible method of quantifying response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy as demonstrated by performance comparison of the two pathologists.

Increased DNA Methylation of ABCB1, CYP2D6, and OPRM1 Genes in Newborn Infants of Methadone-Maintained Opioid-Dependent Mothers.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether in utero opioid exposure, which has been linked to adverse neurodevelopmental and social outcomes, is associated with altered DNA methylation of opioid-related genes at birth. STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort study of 21 healthy methadone-maintained opioid-dependent mother-infant dyads consecutively delivered at >36 weeks of gestation, and 2 comparator groups: smoking, "deprived" opioid-naïve mother-infant dyads (n = 17) and nonsmoking, "affluent" opioid-naïve mother-infant dyads (n = 15). DNA methylation of ABCB1, CYP2D6, and OPRM1 genes for mothers and babies was determined from buccal swabs. Plasma methadone concentrations were additionally measured for methadone-maintained opioid-dependent mothers. RESULTS: DNA methylation for ABCB1 and CYP2D6 was similar in opioid-naïve infants compared with their mothers, but was less for OPRM1 (3 ± 1.6% vs 8 ± 1%, P < .0005). Opioid-exposed newborns had similar DNA methylation to their mothers for all genes studied and greater methylation of ABCB1 (18 ± 4.8% vs 3 ± 0.5%), CYP2D6 (92 ± 1.2% vs 89 ± 2.4%), and OPRM1 (8 ± 0.3% vs 3 ± 1.6%) compared with opioid-naïve newborns (P < .0005 for all 3 genes). Infant DNA methylation was not related to birth weight, length of hospital stay, maternal smoking, dose or plasma concentration of methadone at delivery, or postcode of residence. CONCLUSIONS: In utero exposure to opioids is associated with increased methylation of opioid-related genes in the newborn infant. It is not clear whether these findings are due to opioid exposure per se or other associated lifestyle factors.

Computational pathology of pre-treatment biopsies identifies lymphocyte density as a predictor of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to improve prediction of response to chemotherapy in breast cancer in order to improve clinical management and this may be achieved by harnessing computational metrics of tissue pathology. We investigated the association between quantitative image metrics derived from computational analysis of digital pathology slides and response to chemotherapy in women with breast cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: We digitised tissue sections of both diagnostic and surgical samples of breast tumours from 768 patients enrolled in the Neo-tAnGo randomized controlled trial. We subjected digital images to systematic analysis optimised for detection of single cells. Machine-learning methods were used to classify cells as cancer, stromal or lymphocyte and we computed estimates of absolute numbers, relative fractions and cell densities using these data. Pathological complete response (pCR), a histological indicator of chemotherapy response, was the primary endpoint. Fifteen image metrics were tested for their association with pCR using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Median lymphocyte density proved most strongly associated with pCR on univariate analysis (OR 4.46, 95 % CI 2.34-8.50, p < 0.0001; observations = 614) and on multivariate analysis (OR 2.42, 95 % CI 1.08-5.40, p = 0.03; observations = 406) after adjustment for clinical factors. Further exploratory analyses revealed that in approximately one quarter of cases there was an increase in lymphocyte density in the tumour removed at surgery compared to diagnostic biopsies. A reduction in lymphocyte density at surgery was strongly associated with pCR (OR 0.28, 95 % CI 0.17-0.47, p < 0.0001; observations = 553). CONCLUSIONS: A data-driven analysis of computational pathology reveals lymphocyte density as an independent predictor of pCR. Paradoxically an increase in lymphocyte density, following exposure to chemotherapy, is associated with a lack of pCR. Computational pathology can provide objective, quantitative and reproducible tissue metrics and represents a viable means of outcome prediction in breast cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00070278 ; 03/10/2003.

Patterns of progression, treatment of progressive disease and post-progression survival in the New EPOC study.

BACKGROUND: The addition of cetuximab (CTX) to perioperative chemotherapy (CT) for operable colorectal liver metastases resulted in a shorter progression-free survival. Details of disease progression are described to further inform the primary study outcome. METHODS: A total of 257 KRAS wild-type patients were randomised to CT alone or CT with CTX. Data regarding sites and treatment of progressive disease were obtained for the 109 (CT n=48, CT and CTX n=61) patients with progressive disease at the cut-off date for analysis of November 2012. RESULTS: The liver was the most frequent site of progression (CT 67% (32/48); CT and CTX 66% (40/61)). A higher proportion of patients in the CT and group had multiple sites of progressive disease (CT 8%, 4/48; CT and CTX 23%, 14/61 P=0.04). Further treatment for progressive disease is known for 84 patients of whom 69 received further CT, most frequently irinotecan based. Twenty-two patients, 11 in each arm, received CTX as a further line agent. CONCLUSIONS: Both the distribution of progressive disease and further treatment are as expected for such a cohort. The pattern of disease progression seen is consistent with failure of systemic micrometastatic disease control rather than failure of local disease control following liver surgery.

Efficacy of neoadjuvant bevacizumab added to docetaxel followed by fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide, for women with HER2-negative early breast cancer (ARTemis): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The ARTemis trial was developed to assess the efficacy and safety of adding bevacizumab to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-negative early breast cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, we enrolled women (≥18 years) with newly diagnosed HER2-negative early invasive breast cancer (radiological tumour size >20 mm, with or without axillary involvement), at 66 centres in the UK. Patients were randomly assigned via a central computerised minimisation procedure to three cycles of docetaxel (100 mg/m(2) once every 21 days) followed by three cycles of fluorouracil (500 mg/m(2)), epirubicin (100 mg/m(2)), and cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m(2)) once every 21 days (D-FEC), without or with four cycles of bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) (Bev+D-FEC). The primary endpoint was pathological complete response, defined as the absence of invasive disease in the breast and axillary lymph nodes, analysed by intention to treat. The trial has completed and follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with EudraCT (2008-002322-11), ISRCTN (68502941), and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01093235). FINDINGS: Between May 7, 2009, and Jan 9, 2013, we randomly allocated 800 participants to D-FEC (n=401) and Bev+D-FEC (n=399). 781 patients were available for the primary endpoint analysis. Significantly more patients in the bevacizumab group achieved a pathological complete response compared with those treated with chemotherapy alone: 87 (22%, 95% CI 18-27) of 388 patients in the Bev+D-FEC group compared with 66 (17%, 13-21) of 393 patients in the D-FEC group (p=0·03). Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were reported at expected levels in both groups, although more patients had grade 4 neutropenia in the Bev+D-FEC group than in the D-FEC group (85 [22%] vs 68 [17%]). INTERPRETATION: Addition of four cycles of bevacizumab to D-FEC in HER2-negative early breast cancer significantly improved pathological complete response. However, whether the improvement in pathological complete response will lead to improved disease-free and overall survival outcomes is unknown and will be reported after longer follow-up. Meta-analysis of available neoadjuvant trials is likely to be the only way to define subgroups of early breast cancer that would have clinically significant long-term benefit from bevacizumab treatment. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis.

A meta-analysis of prevalence rates and moderating factors for cancer-related post-traumatic stress disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews highlight a broad range of cancer-related post-traumatic stress disorder (CR-PTSD) prevalence estimates in cancer survivors. This meta-analysis was conducted to provide a prevalence estimate of significant CR-PTSD symptoms and full diagnoses to facilitate the psychological aftercare of cancer survivors. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted for studies using samples of cancer survivors by using validated clinical interviews and questionnaires to assess the prevalence of CR-PTSD (k = 25, n = 4189). Prevalence estimates were calculated for each assessment method using random-effects meta-analysis. Mixed-effects meta-regression and categorical analyses were used to investigate study-level moderator effects. RESULTS: Studies using the PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version yielded lower event rates using cut-off [7.3%, 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 4.5-11.7, k = 10] than symptom cluster (11.2%, 95% CI = 8.7-14.4, k = 9). Studies using the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition (SCID), yielded low rates for lifetime (15.3%, 95% CI = 9.1-25, k = 5) and current CR-PTSD (5.1%, 95% CI = 2.8-8.9, k = 9). Between-study heterogeneity was substantial (I(2) = 54-87%). Studies with advanced-stage samples yielded significantly higher rates with PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version cluster scoring (p = 0.05), and when assessing current CR-PTSD on the SCID (p = 0.05). The effect of mean age on current PTSD prevalence met significance on the SCID (p = 0.05). SCID lifetime prevalence rates decreased with time post-treatment (R(2) = 0.56, p < 0.05). DISCUSSION: The cancer experience is sufficiently traumatic to induce PTSD in a minority of cancer survivors. Post-hoc analyses suggest that those who are younger, are diagnosed with more advanced disease and recently completed treatment may be at greater risk of PTSD. More research is needed to investigate vulnerability factors for PTSD in cancer survivors. © 2014 The Authors. Psycho-Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Effects of the addition of gemcitabine, and paclitaxel-first sequencing, in neoadjuvant sequential epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel for women with high-risk early breast cancer (Neo-tAnGo): an open-label, 2×2 factorial randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Anthracyclines and taxanes have been the standard neoadjuvant chemotherapies for breast cancer in the past decade. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of the addition of gemcitabine to accelerated paclitaxel with epirubicin and cyclophosphamide, and also the effect of sequencing the blocks of epirubicin and cyclophosphamide and paclitaxel (with or without gemcitabine). METHODS: In our randomised, open-label, 2×2 factorial phase 3 trial (Neo-tAnGo), we enrolled women (aged >18 years) with newly diagnosed breast cancer (tumour size >20 mm) at 57 centres in the UK. Patients were randomly assigned via a central randomisation procedure to epirubicin and cyclophosphamide then paclitaxel (with or without gemcitabine) or paclitaxel (with or without gemcitabine) then epirubicin and cyclophosphamide. Four cycles of each component were given. The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR), defined as absence of invasive cancer in the breast and axillary lymph nodes. This study is registered with EudraCT (2004-002356-34), ISRCTN (78234870), and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00070278). FINDINGS: Between Jan 18, 2005, and Sept 28, 2007, we randomly allocated 831 participants; 207 received epirubicin and cyclophosphamide then paclitaxel; 208 were given paclitaxel then epirubicin and cyclophosphamide; 208 had epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel and gemcitabine; and 208 received paclitaxel and gemcitabine then epirubicin and cyclophosphamide. 828 patients were eligible for analysis. Median follow-up was 47 months (IQR 37-51). 207 (25%) patients had inflammatory or locally advanced disease, 169 (20%) patients had tumours larger than 50 mm, 413 (50%) patients had clinical involvement of axillary nodes, 276 (33%) patients had oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative disease, and 191 (27%) patients had HER2-positive disease. Addition of gemcitabine did not increase pCR: 70 (17%, 95% CI 14-21) of 404 patients in the epirubicin and cyclophosphamide then paclitaxel group achieved pCR compared with 71 (17%, 14-21) of 408 patients who received additional gemcitabine (p=0·98). Receipt of a taxane before anthracycline was associated with improved pCR: 82 (20%, 95% CI 16-24) of 406 patients who received paclitaxel with or without gemcitabine followed by epirubicin and cyclophosphamide achieved pCR compared with 59 (15%, 11-18) of 406 patients who received epirubicin and cyclophosphamide first (p=0·03). Grade 3 toxicities were reported at expected levels: 173 (21%) of 812 patients who received treatment and had full treatment details had grade 3 neutropenia, 66 (8%) had infection, 41 (5%) had fatigue, 41 (5%) had muscle and joint pains, 37 (5%) had nausea, 36 (4%) had vomiting, 34 (4%) had neuropathy, 23 (3%) had transaminitis, 16 (2%) had acute hypersensitivity, and 20 (2%) had a rash. 86 (11%) patients had grade 4 neutropenia and 3 (<1%) had grade 4 infection. INTERPRETATION: Although addition of gemcitabine to paclitaxel and epirubicin and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy does not improve pCR, sequencing chemotherapy so that taxanes are received before anthracyclines could improve pCR in standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Systemic chemotherapy with or without cetuximab in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastasis: the New EPOC randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgery for colorectal liver metastases results in an overall survival of about 40% at 5 years. Progression-free survival is increased with the addition of oxaliplatin and fluorouracil chemotherapy. The addition of cetuximab to these chemotherapy regimens results in an overall survival advantage in patients with advanced disease who have the KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumour genotype. We aimed to assess the benefit of addition of cetuximab to standard chemotherapy in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastasis. METHODS: Patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type resectable or suboptimally resectable colorectal liver metastases were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive chemotherapy with or without cetuximab before and after liver resection. Randomisation was done using minimisation with factors of surgical centre, poor prognostic tumour (one or more of: ≥ 4 metastases, N2 disease, or poor differentiation of primary tumour), and previous adjuvant treatment with oxaliplatin. Chemotherapy consisted of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) intravenously over 2 h and fluorouracil bolus 400 mg/m(2) intravenously over 5 min, followed by a 46 h infusion of fluorouracil 2400 mg/m(2) repeated every 2 weeks (regimen one) or oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) intravenously over 2 h and oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 repeated every 3 weeks (regimen two). Patients who had received adjuvant oxaliplatin could receive irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) intravenously over 30 min with fluorouracil instead of oxaliplatin (regimen three). Cetuximab was given as an intravenous dose of 500 mg/m(2) every 2 weeks with regimen one and three or a loading dose of 400 mg/m(2) followed by a weekly infusion of 250 mg/m(2) with regimen two. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. This is an interim analysis, up to Nov 1, 2012, when the trial was closed, having met protocol-defined futility criteria. This trial is registered, ISRCTN22944367. FINDINGS: 128 KRAS exon 2 wild-type patients were randomised to chemotherapy alone and 129 to chemotherapy with cetuximab between Feb 26, 2007, and Nov 1, 2012. 117 patients in the chemotherapy alone group and 119 in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group were included in the primary analysis. The median follow-up was 21.1 months (95% CI 12.6-33.8) in the chemotherapy alone group and 19.8 months (12.2-28.7) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group. With an overall median follow-up of 20.7 months (95% CI 17.9-25.6) and 123 (58%) of 212 required events observed, progression-free survival was significantly shorter in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group than in the chemotherapy alone group (14.1 months [95% CI 11.8-15.9] vs 20.5 months [95% CI 16.8-26.7], hazard ratio 1.48, 95% CI 1.04-2.12, p=0.030). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were low neutrophil count (15 [11%] preoperatively in the chemotherapy alone group vs six [4%] in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group; four [4%] vs eight [8%] postoperatively), embolic events (six [4%] vs eight [6%] preoperatively; two [2%] vs three [3%] postoperatively), peripheral neuropathy (six [4%] vs one [1%] preoperatively; two [2%] vs four [4%] postoperatively), nausea or vomiting (four [3%] vs six [4%] preoperatively; four [4%] vs two [2%] postoperatively), and skin rash (two [1%] vs 21 [15%] preoperatively; 0 vs eight [8%] postoperatively). There were three deaths in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group (one interstitial lung disease and pulmonary embolism, one bronchopneumonia, and one pulmonary embolism) and one in the chemotherapy alone group (heart failure) that might have been treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy and surgery for operable colorectal liver metastases in KRAS exon 2 wild-type patients results in shorter progression-free survival. Translational investigations to explore the molecular basis for this unexpected interaction are needed but at present the use of cetuximab in this setting cannot be recommended.

Gemcitabine and capecitabine with or without telomerase peptide vaccine GV1001 in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer (TeloVac): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of sequential or simultaneous telomerase vaccination (GV1001) in combination with chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS: TeloVac was a three-group, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. We recruited patients from 51 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were treatment naive, aged older than 18 years, with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy with sequential GV1001 (sequential chemoimmunotherapy), or chemotherapy with concurrent GV1001 (concurrent chemoimmunotherapy). Treatments were allocated with equal probability by means of computer-generated random permuted blocks of sizes 3 and 6 in equal proportion. Chemotherapy included six cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2), 30 min intravenous infusion, at days 1, 8, and 15) and capecitabine (830 mg/m(2) orally twice daily for 21 days, repeated every 28 days). Sequential chemoimmunotherapy included two cycles of combination chemotherapy, then an intradermal lower abdominal injection of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; 75 µg) and GV1001 (0·56 mg; days 1, 3, and 5, once on weeks 2-4, and six monthly thereafter). Concurrent chemoimmunotherapy included giving GV1001 from the start of chemotherapy with GM-CSF as an adjuvant. The primary endpoint was overall survival; analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN4382138. FINDINGS: The first patient was randomly assigned to treatment on March 29, 2007, and the trial was terminated on March 27, 2011. Of 1572 patients screened, 1062 were randomly assigned to treatment (358 patients were allocated to the chemotherapy group, 350 to the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 354 to the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group). We recorded 772 deaths; the 290 patients still alive were followed up for a median of 6·0 months (IQR 2·4-12·2). Median overall survival was not significantly different in the chemotherapy group than in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group (7·9 months [95% CI 7·1-8·8] vs 6·9 months [6·4-7·6]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·19, 98·25% CI 0·97-1·48, p=0·05), or in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group (8·4 months [95% CI 7·3-9·7], HR 1·05, 98·25% CI 0·85-1·29, p=0·64; overall log-rank of χ(2)2df=4·3; p=0·11). The commonest grade 3-4 toxic effects were neutropenia (68 [19%] patients in the chemotherapy group, 58 [17%] patients in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 79 [22%] patients in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group; fatigue (27 [8%] in the chemotherapy group, 35 [10%] in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 44 [12%] in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group); and pain (34 [9%] patients in the chemotherapy group, 39 [11%] in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 41 [12%] in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group). INTERPRETATION: Adding GV1001 vaccination to chemotherapy did not improve overall survival. New strategies to enhance the immune response effect of telomerase vaccination during chemotherapy are required for clinical efficacy. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and KAEL-GemVax.

Randomized Phase II trial of nintedanib, afatinib and sequential combination in castration-resistant prostate cancer.

AIMS: The aim of this article was to evaluate afatinib (BIBW 2992), an ErbB family blocker, and nintedanib (BIBF 1120), a triple angiokinase inhibitor, in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. PATIENTS & METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive nintedanib (250 mg twice daily), afatinib (40 mg once daily [q.d.]), or alternating sequential 7-day nintedanib (250 mg twice daily) and afatinib (70 mg q.d. [Combi70]), which was reduced to 40 mg q.d. (Combi40) due to adverse events. The primary end point was progression-free rate at 12 weeks. RESULTS: Of the 85 patients treated 46, 20, 16 and three received nintedanib, afatinib, Combi40 and Combi70, respectively. At 12 weeks, the progression-free rate was 26% (seven out of 27 patients) for nintedanib, and 0% for afatinib and Combi40 groups. Two patients had a ≥50% decline in PSA (nintedanib and the Combi40 groups). The most common drug-related adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and lethargy. CONCLUSION: Nintedanib and/or afatinib demonstrated limited anti-tumor activity in unselected advanced castration-resistant prostate cancer patients.