Weekly dose-dense chemotherapy in first-line epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer treatment (ICON8): overall survival results from an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Standard-of-care first-line chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer is carboplatin and paclitaxel administered once every 3 weeks. The JGOG 3016 trial reported significant improvement in progression-free and overall survival with dose-dense weekly paclitaxel and 3-weekly (ie, once every 3 weeks) carboplatin. However, this benefit was not observed in the previously reported progression-free survival results of ICON8. Here, we present the final coprimary outcomes of overall survival and updated progression-free survival analyses of ICON8. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial (ICON8), women aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed stage IC-IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma (here collectively termed ovarian cancer, as defined by International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] 1988 criteria) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were recruited from 117 hospitals with oncology departments in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, Mexico, South Korea, and Ireland. Patients could enter the trial after immediate primary surgery (IPS) or with planned delayed primary surgery (DPS) during chemotherapy, or could have no planned surgery. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London randomisation line with stratification by Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup group, FIGO disease stage, and outcome and timing of surgery, to either 3-weekly carboplatin area under the curve (AUC)5 or AUC6 and 3-weekly paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (control; group 1), 3-weekly carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 and weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (group 2), or weekly carboplatin AUC2 and weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (group 3), all administered via intravenous infusion for a total of six 21-day cycles. Coprimary outcomes were progression-free survival and overall survival, with comparisons done between group 2 and group 1, and group 3 and group 1, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started at least one chemotherapy cycle. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01654146, and ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN10356387, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 patients were randomly assigned to group 1 (n=522), group 2 (n=523), or group 3 (n=521). The median age was 62 years (IQR 54-68), 1073 (69%) of 1566 patients had high-grade serous carcinoma, 1119 (71%) had stage IIIC-IV disease, and 745 (48%) had IPS. As of data cutoff (March 31, 2020), with a median follow-up of 69 months (IQR 61-75), no significant difference in overall survival was observed in either comparison: median overall survival of 47·4 months (95% CI 43·1-54·8) in group 1, 54·8 months (46·6-61·6) in group 2, and 53·4 months (49·2-59·6) in group 3 (group 2 vs group 1: hazard ratio 0·87 [97·5% CI 0·73-1·05]; group 3 vs group 1: 0·91 [0·76-1·09]). No significant difference was observed for progression-free survival in either comparison and evidence of non-proportional hazards was seen (p=0·037), with restricted mean survival time of 23·9 months (97·5% CI 22·1-25·6) in group 1, 25·3 months (23·6-27·1) in group 2, and 24·8 months (23·0-26·5) in group 3. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were reduced neutrophil count (78 [15%] of 511 patients in group 1, 183 [36%] of 514 in group 2, and 154 [30%] of 513 in group 3), reduced white blood cell count (22 [4%] in group 1, 80 [16%] in group 2, and 71 [14%] in group 3), and anaemia (26 [5%] in group 1, 66 [13%] in group 2, and 24 [5%] in group 3). No new serious adverse events were reported. Seven treatment-related deaths were reported (two in group 1, four in group 2, and one in group 3). INTERPRETATION: In our cohort of predominantly European women with epithelial ovarian cancer, we found that first-line weekly dose-dense chemotherapy did not improve overall or progression-free survival compared with standard 3-weekly chemotherapy and should not be used as part of standard multimodality front-line therapy in this patient group. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Health Research Board in Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, and Cancer Australia.

Objective responses to first-line neoadjuvant carboplatin-paclitaxel regimens for ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma (ICON8): post-hoc exploratory analysis of a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by delayed primary surgery (DPS) is an established strategy for women with newly diagnosed, advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Although this therapeutic approach has been validated in randomised, phase 3 trials, evaluation of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST), and cancer antigen 125 (CA125) has not been reported. We describe RECIST and Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) CA125 responses in patients receiving platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS in the ICON8 trial. METHODS: ICON8 was an international, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial done across 117 hospitals in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, South Korea, and Ireland. The trial included women aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, life expectancy of more than 12 weeks, and newly diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO; 1988) stage IC-IIA high-grade serous, clear cell, or any poorly differentiated or grade 3 histological subtype, or any FIGO (1988) stage IIB-IV epithelial cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneum. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive intravenous carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC]5 or AUC6) and intravenous paclitaxel (175 mg/m2 by body surface area) on day 1 of every 21-day cycle (control group; group 1); intravenous carboplatin (AUC5 or AUC6) on day 1 and intravenous dose-fractionated paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 by body surface area) on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 21-day cycle (group 2); or intravenous dose-fractionated carboplatin (AUC2) and intravenous dose-fractionated paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 by body surface area) on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 21-day cycle (group 3). The maximum number of cycles of chemotherapy permitted was six. Randomisation was done with a minimisation method, and patients were stratified according to GCIG group, disease stage, and timing and outcome of cytoreductive surgery. Patients and clinicians were not masked to group allocation. The scheduling of surgery and use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy were determined by local multidisciplinary case review. In this post-hoc exploratory analysis of ICON8, progression-free survival was analysed using the landmark method and defined as the time interval between the date of pre-surgical planning radiological tumour assessment to the date of investigator-assessed clinical or radiological progression or death, whichever occurred first. This definition is different from the intention-to-treat primary progression-free survival analysis of ICON8, which defined progression-free survival as the time from randomisation to the date of first clinical or radiological progression or death, whichever occurred first. We also compared the extent of surgical cytoreduction with RECIST and GCIG CA125 responses. This post-hoc exploratory analysis includes only women recruited to ICON8 who were planned for neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS and had RECIST and/or GCIG CA125-evaluable disease. ICON8 is closed for enrolment and follow-up, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01654146. FINDINGS: Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 women were enrolled in ICON8, of whom 779 (50%) were planned for neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS. Median follow-up was 29·5 months (IQR 15·6-54·3) for the neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by DPS population. Of 564 women who had RECIST-evaluable disease at trial entry, 348 (62%) had a complete or partial response. Of 727 women who were evaluable by GCIG CA125 criteria at the time of diagnosis, 610 (84%) had a CA125 response. Median progression-free survival was 14·4 months (95% CI 9·2-28·0; 297 events) for patients with a RECIST complete or partial response and 13·3 months (8·1-20·1; 171 events) for those with RECIST stable disease. Median progression-free survival for women with a GCIG CA125 response was 13·8 months (95% CI 8·8-23·4; 544 events) and 9·7 months (5·8-14·5; 111 events) for those without a GCIG CA125 response. Complete cytoreduction (R0) was achieved in 187 (56%) of 335 women with a RECIST complete or partial response and 73 (42%) of 172 women with RECIST stable disease. Complete cytoreduction was achieved in 290 (50%) of 576 women with a GCIG CA125 response and 30 (30%) of 101 women without a GCIG CA125 response. INTERPRETATION: The RECIST-defined radiological response rate was lower than that frequently quoted to patients in the clinic. RECIST and GCIG CA125 responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer should not be used as individual predictive markers to stratify patients who are likely to benefit from DPS, but instead used in conjunction with the patient's clinical capacity to undergo cytoreductive surgery. A patient should not be denied surgery based solely on the lack of a RECIST or GCIG CA125 response. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Health Research Board in Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, and Cancer Australia.

Weekly platinum-based chemotherapy versus 3-weekly platinum-based chemotherapy for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer (ICON8): quality-of-life results of a phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The ICON8 study reported no significant improvement in progression-free survival (a primary endpoint) with weekly chemotherapy compared with standard 3-weekly treatment among patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. All ICON8 patients were eligible to take part in the accompanying health-related quality-of-life study, which measured the effect of treatment on self-reported wellbeing, reported here. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3, three-arm, Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) trial done at 117 hospital sites in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, South Korea, and Republic of Ireland, women (aged at least 18 years) with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IC-IV ovarian cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were randomly assigned (1:1:1) centrally using minimisation to group 1 (intravenous carboplatin area under the curve [AUC]5 or AUC6 and 175 mg/m2 intravenous paclitaxel every 3 weeks), group 2 (carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 every 3 weeks and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly), or group 3 (carboplatin AUC2 weekly and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly). Randomisation was stratified by GCIG group, disease stage, and outcome and timing of surgery. Patients and clinicians were not masked to treatment assignment. Patients underwent immediate or delayed primary surgery according to clinicians' choice. Patients were asked to complete European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OV28 questionnaires at enrolment, before each chemotherapy cycle, then 6-weekly up to 9 months, 3-monthly up to 2 years, and 6-monthly up to 5 years. Quality of life was a prespecified secondary outcome of the ICON8 study. Within the quality-of-life study, the co-primary endpoints were QLQ-C30 global health score at 9 months (cross-sectional analysis) and mean QLQ-C30 global health score from randomisation to 9 months (longitudinal analysis). Data analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01654146 and ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN10356387, and is currently in long-term follow up. FINDINGS: Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 patients were recruited into ICON8 (522 were included in group 1, 523 in group 2, and 521 in group 3). Baseline quality-of-life questionnaires were completed by 1438 (92%) of 1566 patients and 9-month questionnaires by 882 (69%) of 1280 patients. We observed no significant difference in global health score at 9 months (cross-sectional analysis) between study groups (group 2 vs group 1, difference in mean score 2·3, 95% CI -0·4 to 4·9, p=0·095; group 3 vs group 1, -0·8, -3·8 to 2·2, p=0·61). Using longitudinal analysis, we found lower global health scores for those receiving weekly paclitaxel than for those receiving 3-weekly chemotherapy (group 2 vs group 1, mean difference -1·8, 95% CI -3·6 to -0·1, p=0·043; group 3 vs group 1, -2·9, -4·7 to -1·1, p=0·0018). INTERPRETATION: We found no evidence of a difference in global quality of life between treatment groups at 9 months; however, patients receiving weekly treatment reported lower mean quality of life across the 9-month period after randomisation. Taken together with the lack of progression-free survival benefit, these findings do not support routine use of weekly paclitaxel-containing regimens in the management of newly diagnosed ovarian cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Health Research Board Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, and Cancer Australia.

Weekly dose-dense chemotherapy in first-line epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma treatment (ICON8): primary progression free survival analysis results from a GCIG phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Carboplatin and paclitaxel administered every 3 weeks is standard-of-care first-line chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer. The Japanese JGOG3016 trial showed a significant improvement in progression-free and overall survival with dose-dense weekly paclitaxel and 3-weekly carboplatin. In this study, we aimed to compare efficacy and safety of two dose-dense weekly regimens to standard 3-weekly chemotherapy in a predominantly European population with epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, women with newly diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IC-IV epithelial ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to group 1 (carboplatin area under the curve [AUC]5 or AUC6 and 175 mg/m2 paclitaxel every 3 weeks), group 2 (carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 every 3 weeks and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly), or group 3 (carboplatin AUC2 and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly). Written informed consent was provided by all women who entered the trial. The protocol had the appropriate national research ethics committee approval for the countries where the study was conducted. Patients entered the trial after immediate primary surgery, or before neoadjuvant chemotherapy with subsequent planned delayed primary surgery. The trial coprimary outcomes were progression-free survival and overall survival. Data analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis, and were powered to detect a hazard ratio of 0·75 in progression-free survival. The main comparisons were between the control group (group 1) and each of the weekly research groups (groups 2 and 3). FINDINGS: Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 women were randomly assigned to treatment. 72% (365), completed six protocol-defined treatment cycles in group 1, 60% (305) in group 2, and 63% (322) in group 3, although 90% (454), 89% (454), and 85% (437) completed six platinum-based chemotherapy cycles, respectively. Paclitaxel dose intensification was achieved with weekly treatment (median total paclitaxel dose 1010 mg/m2 in group 1; 1233 mg/m2 in group 2; 1274 mg/m2 in group 3). By February, 2017, 1018 (65%) patients had experienced disease progression. No significant progression-free survival increase was observed with either weekly regimen (restricted mean survival time 24·4 months [97·5% CI 23·0-26·0] in group 1, 24·9 months [24·0-25·9] in group 2, 25·3 months [23·9-26·9] in group 3; median progression-free survival 17·7 months [IQR 10·6-not reached] in group 1, 20·8 months [11·9-59·0] in group 2, 21·0 months [12·0-54·0] in group 3; log-rank p=0·35 for group 2 vs group 1; group 3 vs 1 p=0·51). Although grade 3 or 4 toxic effects increased with weekly treatment, these effects were predominantly uncomplicated. Febrile neutropenia and sensory neuropathy incidences were similar across groups. INTERPRETATION: Weekly dose-dense chemotherapy can be delivered successfully as first-line treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer but does not significantly improve progression-free survival compared with standard 3-weekly chemotherapy in predominantly European populations. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Health Research Board in Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, Cancer Australia.

An international, phase III randomized trial in patients with mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer (mEOC/GOG 0241) with long-term follow-up: and experience of conducting a clinical trial in a rare gynecological tumor.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated four different treatment regimens for advanced-stage mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter randomized factorial trial (UK and US). Patients were diagnosed with primary mEOC: FIGO stage II-IV or recurrence after stage I disease. Treatment arms were paclitaxel-carboplatin, oxaliplatin-capecitabine, paclitaxel-carboplatin-bevacizumab, or oxaliplatin-capecitabine-bevacizumab. Chemotherapy was given 3-weekly for 6 cycles, and bevacizumab (3-weekly) was continued as maintenance (for 12 cycles). Endpoints included overall-survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: The trial stopped after 50 patients were recruited due to slow accrual. Median follow-up was 59 months. OS hazard ratios (HR) for the two main comparisons were: 0.78 (p = 0.48) for Oxal-Cape vs. Pac-Carbo (each with/without bevacizumab), and 1.04 (p = 0.92) for bevacizumab vs. no bevacizumab. Corresponding PFS HRs were: 0.84 and 0.80. Retrospective central pathology review revealed only 45% (18/40) cases with available material had confirmed primary mEOC. Among these, OS HR for Oxal-Cape vs. Pac-Carbo was 0.36 (p = 0.14); PFS HR = 0.62 (p = 0.40). Grade 3-4 toxicity was seen in 61% Pac-Carbo, 61% Oxal-Cape, 54% Pac-Carbo-Bev, and 85% Oxal-Cape-Bev. QoL was similar between the four arms. CONCLUSION: mEOC/GOG0241 represents an example of a randomized rare tumor trial. Logistical challenges led to early termination, including difficulties in local histopathological diagnosis and accessing drugs outside their labelled indication. There was misalignment between central funders who support clinical trials in rare cancers and the deprioritisation of such work by those managing and funding research at a local level. Rare cancer trials should include centralised pathology review before treatment. Clinical trial registry number: ISRCTN83438782.

Impact of a 2-Week Oncology Placement on Medical Students' Perception of Cancer.

Statistics show that more than one in two people born after 1960 in the UK will develop cancer during their lifetime. However, a 2013 study found that only 36 % of UK medical schools offer dedicated clinical teaching in oncology. The aim of this study was to assess the views of medical students on five domains of oncology before and after their first clinical placement, to assess the impact, and to obtain students' views on the oncology curriculum. A 28-item questionnaire was developed to compare responses before and after the students' first 2-week clinical placement, and impact was measured as a positive or negative deviation from a baseline response. Students were asked about their career intentions and to evaluate their received teaching. Thirty-six (80 %) students responded to the questionnaire. The largest areas of change were identified in students' confidence in breaking bad news, recognising red flag symptoms, and awareness of the complications of cancer management. Following their placement, 19 students said they would consider a career in oncology, 14 said they would not, and 2 were undecided. Students stated that Maggie's Centre, a patient support facility, was the most useful learning experience. The evidence demonstrates that all students should experience oncology in a variety of settings to aid their learning. Student feedback and perception can help to guide and shape medical teaching.

Randomized trial of two intravenous schedules of the topoisomerase I inhibitor liposomal lurtotecan in women with relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer: a trial of the national cancer institute of Canada clinical trials group.

PURPOSE: Liposomal lurtotecan (OSI-211) is a liposomal formulation of the water-soluble topoisomerase I inhibitor lurtotecan (GI147211), which demonstrated superior levels of activity compared with topotecan in preclinical models. We studied two schedules of OSI-211 in a randomized design in relapsed ovarian cancer to identify the more promising of the two schedules for further study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had measurable epithelial ovarian, fallopian, or primary peritoneal cancer that was recurrent after one or two prior regimens of chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either arm A (OSI-211 1.8 mg/m(2)/d administered by 30-minute intravenous infusion on days 1, 2, and 3 every 3 weeks) or arm B (OSI-211 2.4 mg/m(2)/d administered by 30-minute intravenous infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks). The primary outcome measure was objective response, which was confirmed by independent radiologic review, and a pick the winner statistical design was used to identify the schedule most likely to be superior. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients were randomized between October 2000 and September 2001. The hematologic toxic effects were greater on arm A than on arm B (grade 4 neutropenia, 51% v 22%, respectively), as was febrile neutropenia (26% v 2.4%, respectively). Of the 80 eligible patients, eight patients (10%) had objective responses; six responders (15.4%; 95% CI, 6% to 30%) were in arm A and two responders (4.9%; 95% CI, 1% to 17%) were in arm B. CONCLUSION: The OSI-211 daily for 3 days intravenous schedule met the statistical criteria to be declared the winner in terms of objective response. This schedule was also associated with more myelosuppression than the schedule of OSI-211 administered in arm B.

Differentiation and definition of vascular-targeted therapies.

The therapeutic potential of targeting the tumor vascular supply is now widely recognized. Intense research and development activity has resulted in a variety of investigational agents, a number of which are currently in clinical development. As these novel agents are quite distinct from the cytotoxic drugs conventionally used in the treatment of solid tumors, it will be particularly important to ensure early differentiation of these vascular-targeted therapies in order to encourage widespread understanding of their potential benefits and application in the clinic. Two distinct groups of vascular-targeted therapies have evolved: antiangiogenic agents and vascular-disrupting approaches. These differ in three key respects: their physiologic target, the type or extent of disease that is likely to be susceptible, and the treatment scheduling. Inhibitors of angiogenesis interfere with new vessel formation and therefore have a preventative action, require chronic administration, and are likely to be of particular benefit in early-stage or asymptomatic metastatic disease. Vascular-disrupting agents target the established tumor blood vessels, resulting in tumor ischemia and necrosis. These agents are therefore given acutely, show more immediate effects, and may have particular efficacy against advanced disease. It is essential that these agents can be readily distinguished from conventional therapies and that an understanding of key differences between the two types of vascular-targeted therapies is fostered. Here, a simple taxonomy and nomenclature is proposed in anticipation that the therapeutic potential of this novel class can be realized as these approaches advance in clinical settings and a new anticancer strategy becomes available in the clinic.

Pemetrexed combined with oxaliplatin or carboplatin as first-line treatment in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a multicenter, randomized, phase II trial.

PURPOSE: To determine efficacy and toxicity of two pemetrexed-based regimens in chemonaive patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) plus oxaliplatin 120 mg/m(2) (PemOx) or pemetrexed plus carboplatin AUC6 (PemCb). All drugs were given on day 1 of a 21-day cycle for up to six cycles. Folic acid and vitamin B(12) were given to all patients to minimize pemetrexed-related toxicities. RESULTS: Forty-one patients received PemOx and 39 received PemCb. Objective tumor response rates were 26.8% for PemOx patients (95% confidence interval, 14.2-42.9) and 31.6% for PemCb patients (95% confidence interval, 17.5-48.7). Median time to progression was 5.5 and 5.7 months, respectively, for PemOx and PemCb. Median overall survival times were 10.5 months for both treatment groups (range, <1 to >20 months). The 1-year survival rate was 49.9% for PemOx patients and 43.9% for PemCb patients. Common toxicity criteria grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicities among PemOx patients were grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (7.3%), grade 3 thrombocytopenia (2.4%), and grade 3 anemia (2.4%). PemCb patients experienced grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (25.6%), grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia (17.9%), and grade 3 anemia (7.7%). Grade 3 vomiting occurred in three PemOx patients and grade 3 fatigue occurred in three PemCb patients. One grade 3 neurosensory toxicity occurred in the PemOx group. Three patients (PemOx 1 and PemCb 2) experienced febrile neutropenia. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy measures for both regimens seem similar to the most effective chemotherapies for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (platinum combinations) with less hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity. Comparing either of these two regimens to platinum-based therapies in a large randomized trial is warranted.

An Association of Cancer Physicians' strategy for improving services and outcomes for cancer patients.

The Association of Cancer Physicians in the United Kingdom has developed a strategy to improve outcomes for cancer patients and identified the goals and commitments of the Association and its members.

Randomized multicenter phase II trial comparing two schedules of etirinotecan pegol (NKTR-102) in women with recurrent platinum-resistant/refractory epithelial ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: Etirinotecan pegol (NKTR-102) is a unique, long-acting topoisomerase-I inhibitor with prolonged systemic exposure to SN38 (7-ethyl-10-hydroxycamptothecin), the active metabolite of irinotecan. This randomized phase II trial investigated two dosing schedules of etirinotecan pegol in patients with platinum-resistant/refractory ovarian carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 71 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive etirinotecan pegol 145 mg/m(2) every 14 or 21 days until progression or unacceptable adverse events (AEs). The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST (version 1.0). Secondary end points included response by Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup criteria, duration of ORR, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The overall confirmed ORR was 20% (95% CI, 10% to 30%): 20% for once every 14 days, and 19% for once every 21 days. Median response duration was 4.1 months for once every 14 days and 4.0 months for once every 21 days. Median PFS for every 14 and every 21 days was 4.1 and 5.3 months, respectively, and median OS was 10.0 and 11.7 months, respectively. Etirinotecan pegol was well tolerated, with the most common grade 3 to 4 AEs being dehydration (24%) and diarrhea (23%). Diarrhea, dehydration, nausea, and neutropenia were less frequent with the schedule of once every 21 days than with that of once every 14 days. CONCLUSION: Both schedules of etirinotecan pegol showed activity in patients with heavily pretreated ovarian cancer, with encouraging ORR and PFS rates. The schedule of once every 21 days was better tolerated and had slightly longer PFS and OS rates. The treatment schedule of etirinotecan pegol 145 mg/m(2) once every 21 days was selected for the expanded phase II study and is preferred for future phase III studies. These findings provide support to directly compare etirinotecan pegol versus one of the approved drugs (eg, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin or topotecan) in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

Single-agent pemetrexed for chemonaïve and pretreated patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: results of an International Expanded Access Program.

INTRODUCTION: Pemetrexed has established efficacy, and is the backbone for chemotherapy in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). An International Expanded Access Program provided >3000 mesothelioma patients with access to single-agent pemetrexed or pemetrexed plus platinum analogs (cisplatin or carboplatin) in 13 countries. In this article, we report the safety and efficacy data of MPM patients who were treated with single-agent pemetrexed (n = 812). METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed MPM, not amenable to curative surgery, received pemetrexed (500 mg/m) once (day 1) every 21 days with standard premedication and vitamin supplementation. Investigator-determined response and survival data were recorded at the end of study participation. Myelosuppression data were also collected. RESULTS: All 812 MPM patients (319 chemonaïve; 493 pretreated) received single-agent pemetrexed (>or=1 dose) and were evaluated for safety. A total of 643 patients (247 chemonaïve, 396 pretreated) were evaluated for efficacy. Of the chemonaïve patients evaluated for efficacy (n = 247), the overall response rate was 10.5%, median time to progressive disease (TTPD) was 6.0 months, and median survival was 14.1 month. Of the pretreated patients evaluated for efficacy (n = 396), the overall response rate was 12.1%, median TTPD was 4.9 months, and the median survival was not estimable due to high censoring. Common terminology criteria grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity was mild in both groups, with neutropenia (<18%) as the main toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: In the present expanded access program, single-agent pemetrexed demonstrated promising activity in MPM in both chemonaïve and pretreated patients, with TTPD of 6.0 and 4.9 months, respectively, 1-year survival >or=54.7%, and mild hematologic toxicity.

Phase II study of vinflunine in malignant pleural mesothelioma.

PURPOSE: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is a disease of increasing incidence for which treatment options are limited. This study reports the clinical efficacy data for vinflunine, a novel microtubule inhibitor, in MPM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of MPM were eligible for enrollment onto this multicenter phase II trial if they had not received prior chemotherapy or radiotherapy and had measurable lesions by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria. Vinflunine 320 mg/m2 by 10-minute intravenous infusion was administered on day 1 of 21-day cycles. Modifications of dose and schedule were made according to National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria version 2.0. Efficacy was assessed by an external, independent radiologist. The one-sample multiple testing procedure of Fleming was applied at the predetermined recruitment stages of 20 and 40 assessable patients. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients were enrolled. Five patients were not assessable for tumor response. The response rate was 13.8% (95% CI, 6.5% to 24.7%). The median survival was 10.8 months (95% CI, 7.8 to 12.0 months). The most common adverse events were anemia, neutropenia, fatigue, constipation, and nausea. Of grade 3 and 4 toxicities, neutropenia and constipation were the most common (45% and 9% of patients, respectively). CONCLUSION: Vinflunine can be delivered with high-dose intensity in patients with MPM. The response rate and median survival are encouraging for a single agent. These data suggest that vinflunine should be further evaluated in the management of MPM.