Prediction of response to immune checkpoint blockade in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with microsatellite instability.

BACKGROUND: Mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) tumors displaying microsatellite instability (MSI) represent a paradigm for the success of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based immunotherapy, particularly in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, a proportion of patients with dMMR/MSI mCRC exhibit resistance to ICI. Identification of tools predicting MSI mCRC patient response to ICI is required for the design of future strategies further improving this therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We combined high-throughput DNA and RNA sequencing of tumors from 116 patients with MSI mCRC treated with anti-programmed cell death protein 1 ± anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 of the NIPICOL phase II trial (C1, NCT03350126, discovery set) and the ImmunoMSI prospective cohort (C2, validation set). The DNA/RNA predictors whose status was significantly associated with ICI status of response in C1 were subsequently validated in C2. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival by immune RECIST (iRECIST) (iPFS). RESULTS: Analyses showed no impact of previously suggested DNA/RNA indicators of resistance to ICI, e.g. MSIsensor score, tumor mutational burden, or specific cellular and molecular tumoral contingents. By contrast, iPFS under ICI was shown in C1 and C2 to depend both on a multiplex MSI signature involving the mutations of 19 microsatellites hazard ratio cohort C2 (HRC2) = 3.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.65-7.99; P = 1.4 × 10-3] and the expression of a set of 182 RNA markers with a non-epithelial transforming growth factor beta (TGFB)-related desmoplastic orientation (HRC2 = 1.75; 95% CI 1.03-2.98; P = 0.035). Both DNA and RNA signatures were independently predictive of iPFS. CONCLUSIONS: iPFS in patients with MSI mCRC can be predicted by simply analyzing the mutational status of DNA microsatellite-containing genes in epithelial tumor cells together with non-epithelial TGFB-related desmoplastic RNA markers.

Real-world multicentre cohort of first-line pembrolizumab alone or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer PD-L1 ≥ 50.

INTRODUCTION: Pembrolizumab alone (IO-mono) or in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy (CT-IO) is first-line standard of care for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with PD-L1 ≥ 50%. This retrospective multicentre study assessed real-world use and efficacy of both strategies. METHODS: Patients with advanced NSCLC PD-L1 ≥ 50% from eight hospitals who had received at least one cycle of IO-mono or CT-IO were included. Overall survival (OS) and real-word progression-free-survival were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methodology. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs, and a Cox model with inverse propensity treatment weighting was carried out. RESULTS: Among the 243 patients included, 141 (58%) received IO-mono and 102 (42%) CT-IO. Younger patients, those with symptomatic disease and brain metastases were more likely to be proposed CT-IO. With a median follow-up of 11.5 months (95% CI 10.4-13.3), median OS was not reached, but no difference was observed between groups (p = 0.51). Early deaths at 12 weeks were 11% (95% CI 4.6-16.9) and 15.2% (95% CI 9.0-20.9) in CT-IO and IO groups (p = 0.32). After adjustment for age, gender, performance status, histology, brain metastases, liver metastases and tobacco status, no statistically significant difference was found for OS between groups, neither in the multivariate adjusted model [HR 1.07 (95% CI 0.61-1.86), p = 0.8] nor in propensity adjusted analysis [HR 0.99 (95% CI 0.60-1.65), p = 0.99]. Male gender (HR 2.01, p = 0.01) and PS ≥ 2 (HR 3.28, p < 0.001) were found to be negative independent predictive factors for OS. CONCLUSION: Younger patients, those with symptomatic disease and brain metastases were more likely to be proposed CT-IO. However, sparing the chemotherapy in first-line does not appear to impact survival outcomes, even regarding early deaths.

Tumor budding is an independent prognostic factor in stage III colon cancer patients: a post-hoc analysis of the IDEA-France phase III trial (PRODIGE-GERCOR).

BACKGROUND: Histological characteristics at the invasive front may reflect tumor aggressiveness; specifically, tumor budding (Bd) is an emerging prognostic biomarker in colon cancer (CC). We explored further the significance of Bd for risk stratification by evaluating survival of stage III CC patients included in the IDEA-France phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This post-hoc study was conducted on tissue slides from 1048 stage III CC patients. Bd was scored by central review by the Bd criteria of the 2016 International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference (ITBCC 2016) and classified as Bd1 (0-4 buds/0.785 mm2), Bd2 (5-9 buds), and Bd3 (≥10 buds) categories. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed by the log-rank test. Clinicopathological features and Immunoscore® were correlated with Bd. RESULTS: Overall, Bd1, Bd2, and Bd3 were observed in 39%, 28%, and 33% of CC, respectively. Bd2 and Bd3 were associated with vascular (P = 0.002) and perineural invasions (P = 0.0009). The 3-year DFS and the 5-year OS rates for Bd (1 versus 2-3) were 79.4% versus 67.2% (P = 0.001) and 89.2% versus 80.8% (P = 0.001), respectively. This was confirmed after adjustment for relevant clinicopathological features for DFS [hazard ratio (HR) 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-1.77, P = 0.003] and OS (HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.22-2.22, P = 0.001). When combined with pTN stage and Immunoscore® subgroups, Bd significantly improved disease prognostication. CONCLUSIONS: Bd demonstrated its independent prognostic value for DFS and OS. Given these findings, Bd as per the ITBCC 2016 should be mandatory in every pathology report in stage III CC patients. Bd and Immunoscore® could play a complementary role in personalized health care in this setting.

Prognostic and predictive value of the Immunoscore in stage III colon cancer patients treated with oxaliplatin in the prospective IDEA France PRODIGE-GERCOR cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The Immunoscore (IS), which prognostically classifies stage I-III colon cancer (CC) patients, was evaluated in the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Therapy (IDEA) France cohort study investigating 3 versus 6 months of oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III CC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Densities of CD3+ and CD8+ T cells in the tumor and invasive margin were determined by immunohistochemistry, quantified by digital pathology, and converted to IS. Mismatch repair status was determined by immunohistochemistry or by pentaplex PCR. Prediction of disease-free survival (DFS) by IS was analyzed by a multivariable Cox regression model in each study arm. Harrell's C-statistics were used to investigate the IS performance. RESULTS: Samples of 1322 patients were available. IS Low, Intermediate (Int), and High were observed in 43.6%, 47.0%, and 9.4% of patients, respectively. IS Low identified patients at higher risk of relapse or death compared with Int + High [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.54; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24-1.93, P = 0.0001]. The 3-year DFS was 66.80% (95% CI 62.23-70.94) for IS Low and 77.14% (95% CI 73.50-80.35) for IS Int + High. In multivariable analysis, IS remained significantly independently associated with DFS (P = 0.003) when adjusted for sex, histological grade, T/N stage, and microsatellite instability. For mFOLFOX6-treated patients (91.6% of the cohort), a statistical significant interaction was observed for the predictive value of IS for treatment duration (3 versus 6 months) in terms of DFS (P = 0.057). IS Int + High significantly predicted benefit of 6 months of treatment (HR = 0.53; 95% CI 0.37-0.75; P = 0.0004), including clinically low- and high-risk stage III CC (all P < 0.001). Conversely, patients with IS Low (46.4%) did not significantly benefit from the 6-month mFOLFOX6 versus the 3-month mFOLFOX6. CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic value of IS for DFS was confirmed in patients with stage III CC treated with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Its predictive value for DFS benefit of longer duration of mFOLFOX6 adjuvant treatment was found in IS Int + High. These results will be validated in an external independent cohort. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV REGISTRATION: NCT03422601; EudraCT Number: 2009-010384-16.

Safety and antitumor activity of the anti-PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab in patients with recurrent carcinoma of the anal canal.

Background: Safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab, a humanized programmed death 1 monoclonal antibody, was assessed in KEYNOTE-028, a multicohort, phase Ib trial for patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive advanced solid tumors. We report results for the cohort of patients with advanced anal carcinoma. Patients and methods: Patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (≥1%) received intravenous pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg once every 2 weeks for up to 2 years or until confirmed progression or unacceptable toxicity. Response was assessed every 8 weeks for the first 6 months and every 12 weeks thereafter per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Primary endpoints were safety and overall response rate per investigator review. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, overall survival, and response duration. Data cutoff date was 1 July 2015. Results: Of the 43 patients with advanced anal carcinoma evaluable for PD-L1 expression, 32 (74%) had PD-L1-positive tumors as assessed with the 22C3 prototype assay, of whom 25 were enrolled between April and September 2014. Sixteen patients (64%) experienced treatment-related adverse events; the most common ones were diarrhea and fatigue in four patients (16%) each and nausea in three patients (12%). There were no treatment-related deaths or discontinuations as of the data cutoff date. Among the 24 patients with squamous cell carcinoma histology, four had confirmed partial response, for an overall response rate of 17% [95% confidence interval (CI), 5%-37%) and 10 (42%) had confirmed stable disease, for a disease control rate of 58%. One additional patient with non-squamous histology had confirmed stable disease. Conclusion: In this population of patients with PD-L1-positive advanced squamous cell anal carcinoma, pembrolizumab demonstrated a manageable safety profile and encouraging antitumor activity. These data support further study of pembrolizumab for this patient population. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02054806.

Pazopanib or placebo in completely resected stage I NSCLC patients: results of the phase II IFCT-0703 trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant treatment in resected stage I non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is generally not recommended. Pazopanib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGFR-1/2/3 and PDGFR-α/ß. We explored the feasibility and efficacy of adjuvant pazopanib in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this double-blind phase II/III trial, patients with resected stage I NSCLC were randomized to placebo or pazopanib 800 mg/day (P800) for 6 months with a two-step Fleming design. The primary endpoint was compliance (percentage of patients receiving ≥3 months pazopanib). From the interim analysis after 64 patients were included, the IDMC recommended reducing to pazopanib 400 mg/day (P400) due to insufficient compliance, with a one-step Fleming. Although unplanned, survival data were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 71 patients were enrolled in each arm; 61% were male, 91% were smokers, median age was 60 years, 80% had pathological stage IA, and 16% had squamous cell carcinoma. Pazopanib compliance was 38% [95% confidence interval (CI) 23-55] with P800, increasing to 69% (95% CI 50-84; P = 0.027) with P400. Two patients had grade 4 toxicities with P800. The most common grade 3 toxicities were increased transaminases (16%), hypertension (13%), and diarrhea (9%) with P800, and gastrointestinal disorders (16%; 6% diarrhea) and hypertension (6%) with P400. Median follow-up was 47 months. Three-year recurrence-free survival was 76% (95% CI 65%-86%) with pazopanib and 83% (95% CI 74%-92%) with placebo [hazard ratio = 1.3 (95% CI 0.6-2.7), P = 0.53]. Five-year overall survival was 83% (95% CI 72-94) with pazopanib and 94% [95% CI 88-100] with placebo [hazard ratio = 1.8 (95% CI 0.6-5.5), P = 0.26]. CONCLUSIONS: In resected stage I NSCLC patients adjuvant 400 mg/day pazopanib but not 800 mg/day was feasible, although possibly infra-therapeutic and failed to improve relapse-free survival.

Afatinib beyond progression in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer following chemotherapy, erlotinib/gefitinib and afatinib: phase III randomized LUX-Lung 5 trial.

BACKGROUND: Afatinib has demonstrated clinical benefit in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer progressing after treatment with erlotinib/gefitinib. This phase III trial prospectively assessed whether continued irreversible ErbB-family blockade with afatinib plus paclitaxel has superior outcomes versus switching to chemotherapy alone in patients acquiring resistance to erlotinib/gefitinib and afatinib monotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with relapsed/refractory disease following ≥1 line of chemotherapy, and whose tumors had progressed following initial disease control (≥12 weeks) with erlotinib/gefitinib and thereafter afatinib (50 mg/day), were randomized 2:1 to receive afatinib plus paclitaxel (40 mg/day; 80 mg/m(2)/week) or investigator's choice of single-agent chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Other end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), safety and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Two hundred and two patients with progressive disease following clinical benefit from afatinib were randomized to afatinib plus paclitaxel (n = 134) or single-agent chemotherapy (n = 68). PFS (median 5.6 versus 2.8 months, hazard ratio 0.60, P = 0.003) and ORR (32.1% versus 13.2%, P = 0.005) significantly improved with afatinib plus paclitaxel. There was no difference in OS. Global health status/quality of life was maintained with afatinib plus paclitaxel over the entire treatment period. The median treatment duration was 133 and 51 days with afatinib plus paclitaxel and single-agent chemotherapy, respectively; 48.5% of patients receiving afatinib plus paclitaxel and 30.0% of patients receiving single-agent chemotherapy experienced drug-related grade 3/4 adverse events. Treatment-related adverse events were consistent with those previously reported with each agent. CONCLUSION: Afatinib plus paclitaxel improved PFS and ORR compared with single-agent chemotherapy in patients who acquired resistance to erlotinib/gefitinib and progressed on afatinib after initial benefit. LUX-Lung 5 is the first prospective trial to demonstrate the benefit of continued ErbB targeting post-progression, versus switching to single-agent chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01085136 (clinicaltrials.gov).

A phase I/II, open-label, randomised study of nintedanib plus mFOLFOX6 versus bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: This randomised, open-label, phase I/II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nintedanib, an oral, triple angiokinase inhibitor, combined with chemotherapy, relative to bevacizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed mCRC (adenocarcinoma), an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2 and adequate organ function were included. Patients were randomised 2:1 to receive nintedanib 150 mg or 200 mg b.i.d. plus mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2), l-leucovorin 200 mg/m(2) or d,l-leucovorin 400 mg/m(2), 5-fluoruracil bolus 400 mg/m(2) followed by 2400 mg/m(2), every 2 weeks) or bevacizumab (5 mg/kg every 2 weeks) plus mFOLFOX6. During phase I, patients underwent a 3 + 3 dose-escalation schema to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of nintedanib in combination with mFOLFOX6. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 9 months. Objective response (OR) was a secondary end point. RESULTS: The nintedanib recommended phase II dose was 200 mg b.i.d. plus mFOLFOX6 based on safety data from phase I (n = 12). Of 128 patients randomised in the phase II part, 126 received treatment (nintedanib plus mFOLFOX6, n = 85; bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6, n = 41). PFS at 9 months was 62.1% with nintedanib and 70.2% with bevacizumab [difference: -8.1% (95% confidence interval -27.8 to 11.5)]. Confirmed ORs were recorded in 63.5% and 56.1% of patients in the nintedanib and bevacizumab groups, respectively. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) considered related to treatment was 98.8% with nintedanib and 97.6% with bevacizumab; the incidence of serious AEs was 37.6% with nintedanib and 53.7% with bevacizumab. The pharmacokinetics of nintedanib and the components of mFOLFOX6 were unaffected by their combination. CONCLUSIONS: Nintedanib in combination with mFOLFOX6 showed efficacy as first-line therapy in patients with mCRC with a manageable safety profile and further studies in this population are warranted.

Cilengitide combined with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients: results of an open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study (CERTO).

BACKGROUND: This multicentre, open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study evaluated cilengitide in combination with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy, compared with cetuximab and chemotherapy alone, as first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive cetuximab plus platinum-based chemotherapy alone (control), or combined with cilengitide 2000 mg 1×/week i.v. (CIL-once) or 2×/week i.v. (CIL-twice). A protocol amendment limited enrolment to patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) histoscore ≥200 and closed the CIL-twice arm for practical feasibility issues. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; independent read); secondary end points included overall survival (OS), safety, and biomarker analyses. A comparison between the CIL-once and control arms is reported, both for the total cohorts, as well as for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200. RESULTS: There were 85 patients in the CIL-once group and 84 in the control group. The PFS (independent read) was 6.2 versus 5.0 months for CIL-once versus control [hazard ratio (HR) 0.72; P = 0.085]; for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200, PFS was 6.8 versus 5.6 months, respectively (HR 0.57; P = 0.0446). Median OS was 13.6 for CIL-once versus 9.7 months for control (HR 0.81; P = 0.265). In patients with EGFR ≥200, OS was 13.2 versus 11.8 months, respectively (HR 0.95; P = 0.855). No major differences in adverse events between CIL-once and control were reported; nausea (59% versus 56%, respectively) and neutropenia (54% versus 46%, respectively) were the most frequent. There was no increased incidence of thromboembolic events or haemorrhage in cilengitide-treated patients. αvß3 and αvß5 expression was neither a predictive nor a prognostic indicator. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of cilengitide to cetuximab/chemotherapy indicated potential clinical activity, with a trend for PFS difference in the independent-read analysis. However, the observed inconsistencies across end points suggest additional investigations are required to substantiate a potential role of other integrin inhibitors in NSCLC treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION ID NUMBER: NCT00842712.

Sorafenib and irinotecan (NEXIRI) as second- or later-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and KRAS-mutated tumours: a multicentre Phase I/II trial.

BACKGROUND: This trial evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of combined sorafenib and irinotecan (NEXIRI) as second- or later-line treatment of patients with KRAS-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), who had progressed after irinotecan-based chemotherapy. METHODS: In Phase I, in a 3+3 dose escalation schedule, patients received irinotecan (125, 150 or 180 mg m(-2) every 2 weeks), in combination with 400 mg sorafenib b.d. The primary end point was the maximum-tolerated dose of irinotecan. In Phase II, the primary end point was disease control rate (DCR). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity. RESULTS: Phase I included 10 patients (median age 63 (49-73)); no dose-limiting toxicity was seen. In Phase II, 54 patients (median age 60 (43-80) years) received irinotecan 180 mg m(-)(2) every 2 weeks with sorafenib 400 mg b.d. Nine patients (17%) remained on full-dose sorafenib. The DCR was 64.9% (95% CI, 51-77). Median PFS and OS were 3.7 (95% CI, 3.2-4.7) and 8.0 (95% CI, 4.8-9.7) months, respectively. Toxicities included Grade 3 diarrhoea (37%), neutropenia (18%), hand-foot syndrome (13%) and Grade 4 neutropenia (17%). CONCLUSION: The NEXIRI regimen showed promising activity as second- or later-line treatment in this heavily pretreated mCRC population (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00989469).

Phase II study of everolimus-erlotinib in previously treated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical data suggest combining a mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor with erlotinib could provide synergistic antitumor effects in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, phase II study, patients with advanced NSCLC that progressed after one to two previous chemotherapy regimens were randomized 1:1 to erlotinib 150 mg/day±everolimus 5 mg/day. Primary end point was the disease control rate (DCR) at 3 months; secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-three patients received everolimus-erlotinib (n=66) or erlotinib alone (n=67). The DCR at 3 months was 39.4% and 28.4%, respectively. The probability for the difference in disease control at 3 months to be ≥15% was estimated to be 29.8%, which was below the prespecified probability threshold of ≥40%. Median PFS was 2.9 and 2.0 months, respectively. Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 72.7% and 32.3% of patients, respectively. Grade 3/4 stomatitis was observed in 31.8% of combination therapy recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Everolimus 5 mg/day plus erlotinib 150 mg/day was not considered sufficiently efficacious per the predefined study criteria. The combination does not warrant further investigation based on increased toxicity and the lack of substantial improvement in disease stabilization.

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

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

Phase I and pharmacokinetic study of IV vinflunine in cancer patients with liver dysfunction.

Vinflunine is a novel tubulin-targeted agent that is currently indicated as a monotherapy in bladder cancer patients. The recommended dose of 320 mg/m(2) is given as an intravenous infusion once every 3 weeks. Vinflunine is metabolized through CYP3A4 and mainly eliminated via the feces. A phase I trial was designed to explore the tolerability and pharmacokinetics of vinflunine in cancer patients with ranging degrees of liver dysfunction (LD). A sequential design was used for patient accrual, with the objective of determining the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the recommended dose (RD) of vinflunine in 3 groups of increasing LD levels. Vinflunine and its only active metabolite 4-O-deacetylvinflunine were quantified in serial whole blood samples. PK parameters were derived and compared between LD groups and with a reference PK database. Vinflunine and 4-O-deacetylvinflunine PK parameters were not affected in any of the explored LD levels. Geometric mean values for vinflunine total clearance were 47.8, 37.5 and 45.4 L/h in the 3 groups of increasing degrees of LD, as compared to 42.5 L/h in reference patients with no LD. No relationship was found between vinflunine clearance and the presence or absence of cirrhosis, nor was it found with the presence or absence of liver metastasis or with liver-related biochemical parameters. Based on the observed tolerability profile, the recommended doses of i.v. vinflunine are 320 mg/m(2), 250 mg/m(2) or 200 mg/m(2) for patients with increasing degrees of liver dysfunction.

Twelve ESMO Congress 2022 breakthroughs: practicing oncologists' perceptions and potential application on presented data.

BACKGROUND: During the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress 2022, outcome data of a great number of clinical trials were presented. For the attending medical oncologist, it is important to structure these data in a way that facilitates a trade-off between treatment burden and benefit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To illustrate this, we carried out a narrative non-systematic review of 12 selected oral presentations with potential impact on future daily practice, focusing on trial methodology, possible study flaws, reported clinical benefit and implementability. RESULTS: The selected presentations encompassed 10 phase III trials, 1 randomized phase II trial and 1 phase II trial. In 7 out of 12 trials, quality of life and/or patient-reported outcomes had been evaluated. None of the trials, which reported progression-free survival (PFS) data, provided information, which could exclude informative censoring bias. In none of the trials reporting overall survival (OS) data, potential flaws due to undesirable crossover and imbalance between study groups regarding post-progression treatments were addressed. For the 11 reviewed randomized trials, the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) grade achieved with the new intervention was calculated based on the presented data. The MCBS grade varied from 1 to 5. CONCLUSIONS: Our review confirms the high-quality standard of current cancer research and the clinical relevance of the research questions answered. However, during presentation of PFS and/or OS data, factors known to affect PFS and OS analysis should be structurally addressed. In order to keep cancer care affordable and sustainable, it could be considered to include an ESMO-MCBS threshold in the drug appraisal process of regulatory authorities.

Phase I trial of gemcitabine combined with capecitabine and erlotinib in advanced pancreatic cancer: a clinical and pharmacological study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this phase I trial was to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and the recommended dose of erlotinib combined with capecitabine and gemcitabine in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). METHODS: Gemcitabine was administered intravenously at 1,000 mg/m(2)/week (days 1, 8 and 15) and oral capecitabine from day 1 to day 21 at 1,660 mg/m(2)/day. Oral erlotinib was administered daily continuously at escalating doses (28-day cycle). Dose levels (DLs) 1, 2, 3 and 4 were 50, 75, 100 and 125 mg/day, respectively. Pharmacokinetic analysis of the three drugs was performed in the first cycle. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were enrolled. At the MTD (DL4; 125 mg/day erlotinib), 100% of patients developed DLT consisting of grade 4 febrile neutropenia and nonhematological grade 3 events (vomiting, diarrhea, stomatitis, rash). The most common toxicities, regardless of grade, were neutropenia, anemia, rash and diarrhea. Erlotinib systemic exposure was significantly related to the administered dose. Of note, toxicity was significantly associated with elevated systemic exposure of capecitabine anabolites. CONCLUSION: When combined concurrently with 1,000 mg/m(2)/week gemcitabine and 1,660 mg/m(2)/day capecitabine, erlotinib can be administered safely at a daily dose of 100 mg in APC patients.

11 ESMO 2021 breakthroughs: practicing oncologist's perceptions on data presentation.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2021 conference provided a high number of randomized phase III trial reports, many of which were claimed to be practice changing. Given the short time available for conference presentations, results and conclusions tend to have greatest priority with less time remaining for study background and study methodology. PURPOSE: On behalf of the ESMO Practicing Oncologists Working Group, 11 potentially practice-changing reports were selected and screened for three main questions: (i) Did the investigators provide sufficient details with regard to Patients and Methods to make the results comprehensible? (ii) Were there any reasons to consider bias? (iii) To which extent did the results presented translate to clinical benefit? RESULTS: In 2 out of 11 trials, the study design presented differed considerably from the study design described at ClinicalTrials.gov. Allocation concealment was not carried out in 6 out of 11 trials. In none of the trials reporting progression-free survival was informative censoring considered an issue. In none of the trials reporting overall survival was desirable crossover considered an issue. Defined trial outcome measures depicted at ClinicalTrials.gov, which could boost or weaken the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale score, were often lacking in the presentation. Study success was claimed in a heterogeneous manner, which was often not clearly linked to overall clinical benefit. CONCLUSION: ESMO conference presentations can inform the scientific community and catalyze further research but cannot replace the full papers in peer-reviewed journals, which are needed to estimate the thoroughness of the results, the overall impact on clinical benefit and the consequences for future treatment guidelines.

Lorlatinib for advanced ROS1+ non-small-cell lung cancer: results of the IFCT-1803 LORLATU study.

INTRODUCTION: ROS1-rearranged (ROS1+) non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a rare lung cancer with limited treatment options. Phase I-II studies with ROS1-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) included small numbers of patients and real-world data are lacking. We investigate the efficacy and safety of lorlatinib, a third-generation TKI targeting ALK and ROS1, in patients with ROS1+ NSCLC treated through an expanded access program. METHODS: Consecutive patients with advanced ROS1+ NSCLC treated with lorlatinib between October 2015 and June 2019 were included. Data were collected from medical records. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. RESULTS: Out of the 80 patients included, 47(59%) were female, 49(62%) never smokers (less than 100 cigarettes over the lifetime), and 68(85%) had stage IV NSCLC at diagnosis. Most frequent histology was adenocarcinoma (95%) and median age was 58.2 years. At the time of lorlatinib initiation, 51(64%) patients had brain metastases and 55(81%) were PS 0-1. Lorlatinib was administered as second/third/fourth/fifth+ line in 29%/28%/18%/26% of patients. All patients previously received at least one ROS1 TKI, and 55(69%) previously received chemotherapy. Median follow-up from lorlatinib initiation was 22.2 months. Median progression-free survival and overall survival from lorlatinib initiation were 7.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.0-9.9 months] and 19.6 months (95% CI 12.3-27.5 months). Median duration of treatment with lorlatinib was 7.4 months (95% CI 6.5-13.1 months). Overall response and disease control rates were 45% and 82%, respectively. The central nervous system response rate was 72%. Treatment was stopped due to toxicity in 10 patients (13%). The safety profile was consistent with previously published data. CONCLUSIONS: Lorlatinib is a major treatment option for advanced refractory ROS1+ NSCLC in treatment strategy.

Bleeding events in bevacizumab-treated cancer patients who received full-dose anticoagulation and remained on study.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab provides clinical benefit in multiple solid tumours, but is associated with some increase in bleeding risk. Thrombotic events necessitating therapeutic anticoagulation (TA) are common in cancer. This report describes the safety of concurrent bevacizumab and TA in three large placebo-controlled clinical studies. METHODS: Study 1 (metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)), study 2 (mCRC), and study 3 (advanced non-small cell lung cancer) were blinded phase III studies. Eligibility criteria excluded patients on TA. Patients on protocol treatment who developed thrombotic events requiring TA were permitted to continue bevacizumab or placebo under specified conditions. Adverse events in patients who received bevacizumab and TA concurrently were assessed using the NCI-CTCAE scale. RESULTS: While experience is limited, venous thrombotic events were the most common reason for TA initiation in the three studies. Severe bleeding event rates for patients receiving TA in the bevacizumab-treated groups were similar in frequency to the placebo groups, ranging from 0 to 8% or 0 to 67 events per 100 patient-years. No severe pulmonary bleeding was reported in any of the TA-treated populations. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that bevacizumab did not increase the risk of severe bleeding in cancer patients who received TA.