Rilotumumab plus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine as first-line therapy in advanced MET-positive gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (RILOMET-1): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Rilotumumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively targets the ligand of the MET receptor, hepatocyte growth factor (HGF). We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of rilotumumab combined with epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine, and to assess potential biomarkers, in patients with advanced MET-positive gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study was done at 152 centres in 27 countries. We recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, MET-positive tumours (≥25% of tumour cells with membrane staining of ≥1+ staining intensity), and evaluable disease, who had not received previous systemic therapy. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computerised voice response system to receive rilotumumab 15 mg/kg intravenously or placebo in combination with open-label chemotherapy (epirubicin 50 mg/m2 intravenously; cisplatin 60 mg/m2 intravenously; capecitabine 625 mg/m2 orally twice daily) in 21-day cycles for up to ten cycles. After completion of chemotherapy, patients continued to receive rilotumumab or placebo monotherapy until disease progression, intolerability, withdrawal of consent, or study termination. Randomisation was stratified by disease extent and ECOG performance status. Both patients and physicians were masked to study treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. We report the final analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01697072. FINDINGS: Between Nov 7, 2012, and Nov 21, 2014, 609 patients were randomly assigned to rilotumumab plus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (rilotumumab group; n=304) or placebo plus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (placebo group; n=305). Study treatment was stopped early after an independent data monitoring committee found a higher number of deaths in the rilotumumab group than in the placebo group; all patients in the rilotumumab group subsequently discontinued all study treatment. Median follow-up was 7·7 months (IQR 3·6-12·0) for patients in the rilotumumab group and 9·4 months (5·3-13·1) for patients in the placebo group. Median overall survival was 8·8 months (95% CI 7·7-10·2) in the rilotumumab group compared with 10·7 months (9·6-12·4) in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio 1·34, 95% CI 1·10-1·63; p=0·003). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the rilotumumab and placebo groups were neutropenia (86 [29%] of 298 patients vs 97 [32%] of 299 patients), anaemia (37 [12%] vs 43 [14%]), and fatigue (30 [10%] vs 35 [12%]). The frequency of serious adverse events was similar in the rilotumumab and placebo groups (142 [48%] vs 149 [50%]). More deaths due to adverse events occurred in the rilotumumab group than the placebo group (42 [14%] vs 31 [10%]). In the rilotumumab group, 33 (11%) of 298 patients had fatal adverse events due to disease progression, and nine (3%) had fatal events not due to disease progression. In the placebo group, 23 (8%) of 299 patients had fatal adverse events due to disease progression, and eight (3%) had fatal events not due to disease progression. INTERPRETATION: Ligand-blocking inhibition of the MET pathway with rilotumumab is not effective in improving clinical outcomes in patients with MET-positive gastric or gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma. FUNDING: Amgen.

A randomised, open-label, phase 2 study of the IDO1 inhibitor epacadostat (INCB024360) versus tamoxifen as therapy for biochemically recurrent (CA-125 relapse)-only epithelial ovarian cancer, primary peritoneal carcinoma, or fallopian tube cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase-1 (IDO1) is a key regulator of immune tolerance in ovarian cancer. This study investigated efficacy and safety of the IDO1 enzyme inhibitor epacadostat versus tamoxifen in patients with biochemical-only recurrence (CA-125 elevation) following complete remission after first-line chemotherapy for advanced epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 2 study (NCT01685255), patients were randomised 1:1 to epacadostat 600mg or tamoxifen 20mg twice daily for successive 28-day cycles and stratified by time since completion of first-line chemotherapy to first CA-125 elevation (3 to <12 or ≥12months). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS; RECIST v1.1). Secondary endpoints included CA-125 response (Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup criteria), overall survival, safety, and tolerability. RESULTS: The study was terminated primarily due to slow accrual and lack of evidence of superiority. Median PFS was 3.75months for epacadostat (n=22) versus 5.56months for tamoxifen (n=20; HR, 1.34 [95% CI, 0.58-3.14]; P=0.54). Of evaluable patients, 1 (5.0%) epacadostat and 3 (15.8%) tamoxifen patients had confirmed CA-125 responses. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was fatigue (epacadostat, 36.4%; tamoxifen, 40.0%). Immune-related adverse events, observed with epacadostat only, were primarily rash (18.2%) and pruritus (9.1%). Epacadostat pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics were consistent with its known mechanism of action. IDO1 expression was observed in 94% of archival tumour samples. CONCLUSIONS: This first report of immunotherapy evaluation in biochemical-only relapse ovarian cancer and of IDO1 inhibitor monotherapy in ovarian cancer found no significant difference in efficacy between epacadostat and tamoxifen. Epacadostat was generally well tolerated.

Efficacy and Safety of Bevacizumab-Containing Therapy in Newly Diagnosed Ovarian Cancer: ROSiA Single-Arm Phase 3B Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of extending bevacizumab therapy beyond 15 months in nonprogressive ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multinational prospective single-arm study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01239732), eligible patients had International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IIB to IV or grade 3 stage I to IIA ovarian cancer without clinical signs or symptoms of gastrointestinal obstruction or history of abdominal fistula, gastrointestinal perforation, or intra-abdominal abscess within the preceding 6 months. Prior neoadjuvant chemotherapy was permitted. After debulking surgery, patients received bevacizumab 15 (or 7.5) mg/kg every 3 weeks (q3w) with 4 to 8 cycles of paclitaxel (investigator's choice of 175 mg/m q3w or 80 mg/m weekly) plus carboplatin AUC 5 to 6 q3w. Single-agent bevacizumab was continued until progression or for up to 24 months. The primary end point was safety. RESULTS: Between December 2010 and May 2012, 1021 patients from 35 countries began study treatment. Bevacizumab was administered at 15 mg/kg in 89% of patients and for more than 15 months in 53%. Median follow-up duration was 32 months (range, 1-50 months). The most common all-grade adverse events were hypertension (55% of patients), neutropenia (49%), and alopecia (43%). The most common grade 3 or higher-grade adverse events were neutropenia (27%) and hypertension (25%). Bevacizumab was discontinued because of proteinuria in 5% of patients and hypertension in 3%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 25.5 months (95% confidence interval, 23.7-27.6 months). CONCLUSION: Extended bevacizumab demonstrated increased incidences of proteinuria and hypertension compared with 12 or 15 months of bevacizumab in previous trials, but these rarely led to bevacizumab discontinuation. Median PFS is the longest reported for frontline bevacizumab-containing therapy. The longer bevacizumab duration beyond 15 months in this study may improve PFS without substantially compromising safety.

Rilotumumab in combination with epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine as first-line treatment for gastric or oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma: an open-label, dose de-escalation phase 1b study and a double-blind, randomised phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Dysregulation of the hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)/MET pathway promotes tumour growth and metastasis. Rilotumumab is a fully human, monoclonal antibody that neutralises HGF. We aimed to assess the safety, efficacy, biomarkers, and pharmacokinetics of rilotumumab combined with epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX) in patients with advanced gastric or oesophagogastric junction cancer. METHODS: We recruited patients (≥18 years old) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic gastric or oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, who had not received previous systemic therapy, from 43 sites worldwide. Phase 1b was an open-label, dose de-escalation study to identify a safe dose of rilotumumab (initial dose 15 mg/kg intravenously on day 1) plus ECX (epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1, cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m(2) twice a day orally on days 1-21, respectively), administered every 3 weeks. The phase 1b primary endpoint was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities in all phase 1b patients who received at least one dose of rilotumumab and completed the dose-limiting toxicity assessment window (first cycle of therapy). Phase 2 was a double-blind study that randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) using an interactive voice response system to receive rilotumumab 15 mg/kg, rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg, or placebo, plus ECX (doses as above), stratified by ECOG performance status and disease extent. The phase 2 primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), analysed by intention to treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00719550. FINDINGS: Seven of the nine patients enrolled in the phase 1b study received at least one dose of rilotumumab 15 mg/kg, only two of whom had three dose-limiting toxicities: palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, cerebral ischaemia, and deep-vein thrombosis. In phase 2, 121 patients were randomly assigned (40 to rilotumumab 15 mg/kg; 42 to rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg; 39 to placebo). Median PFS was 5·1 months (95% CI 2·9-7·0) in the rilotumumab 15 mg/kg group, 6·8 months (4·5-7·5) in the rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg group, 5·7 months (4·5-7·0) in both rilotumumab groups combined, and 4·2 months (2·9-4·9) in the placebo group. The hazard ratio for PFS events compared with placebo was 0·69 (80% CI 0·49-0·97; p=0·164) for rilotumumab 15 mg/kg, 0·53 (80% CI 0·38-0·73; p=0·009) for rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg, and 0·60 (80% CI 0·45-0·79; p=0·016) for combined rilotumumab. Any grade adverse events more common in the combined rilotumumab group than in the placebo group included haematological adverse events (neutropenia in 44 [54%] of 81 patients vs 13 [33%] of 39 patients; anaemia in 32 [40%] vs 11 [28%]; and thrombocytopenia in nine [11%] vs none), peripheral oedema (22 [27%] vs three [8%]), and venous thromboembolism (16 [20%] vs five [13%]). Grade 3-4 adverse events more common with rilotumumab included neutropenia (36 [44%] vs 11 [28%]) and venous thromboembolism (16 [20%] vs four [10%]). Serious adverse events were balanced between groups except for anaemia, which occurred more frequently in the combined rilotumumab group (ten [12%] vs none). INTERPRETATION: Rilotumumab plus ECX had no unexpected safety signals and showed greater activity than placebo plus ECX. A phase 3 study of the combination in MET-positive gastric and oesophagogastric junction cancer is in progress. FUNDING: Amgen Inc.

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

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

Reversible holographic recording media based on polymeric composites and their use in energy-saving technologies.

The principle of the photothermoplastic method of hologram recording and the general requirements for photothermoplastic holographic recording media based on photoconductive polymer films are considered. The holographic recording media obtained by the authors based on carbazolyl- and ferrocenyl-containing oligomers doped with respective squarillium or merocyanine dyes are discussed. Some examples of practical application of such media in holographic interferometry are demonstrated.

Doxorubicin plus sorafenib vs doxorubicin alone in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized trial.

CONTEXT: In a randomized phase 3 trial, 400 mg of sorafenib twice daily prolonged overall survival of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and Child-Pugh A disease. In a phase 1 study, sorafenib combined with doxorubicin, 60 mg/m(2), was well tolerated by patients with refractory solid tumors. The combination of sorafenib and doxorubicin in patients with advanced HCC has not been evaluated in a phase 2 or 3 trial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of doxorubicin plus sorafenib compared with doxorubicin alone in patients with advanced HCC and Child-Pugh A disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: In a double-blind phase 2 multinational study, conducted from April 2005 to October 2006, 96 patients (76% male; median age, 65 years [range, 38-82 years]) with advanced HCC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 2, Child-Pugh A status, and no prior systemic therapy were randomly assigned to receive 60 mg/m(2) of doxorubicin intravenously every 21 days plus either 400 mg of sorafenib or placebo orally twice a day. The date of the last patient's follow-up was April 2008. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Time to progression as determined by independent review. RESULTS: Following complete accrual, an unplanned early analysis for efficacy was performed by the independent data monitoring committee, so the trial was halted. The 2 patients remaining in the placebo group at that time were offered sorafenib. Based on 51 progressions, 63 deaths, and 70 events for progression-free survival, median time to progression was 6.4 months in the sorafenib-doxorubicin group (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.8-9.2), and 2.8 months (95% CI, 1.6-5) in the doxorubicin-placebo monotherapy group (P = .02). Median overall survival was 13.7 months (95% CI, 8.9--not reached) and 6.5 months (95% CI, 4.5-9.9; P = .006), and progression-free survival was 6.0 months (95% CI, 4.6-8.6) and 2.7 months (95% CI, 1.4-2.8) in these groups, respectively (P = .006). Toxicity profiles were similar to those for the single agents. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced HCC, treatment with sorafenib plus doxorubicin compared with doxorubicin monotherapy resulted in greater median time to progression, overall survival, and progression-free survival. The degree to which this improvement may represent synergism between sorafenib and doxorubicin remains to be defined. The combination of sorafenib and doxorubicin is not yet indicated for routine clinical use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00108953.

Randomized phase Ib/II trial of rilotumumab or ganitumab with panitumumab versus panitumumab alone in patients with wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Panitumumab, a fully human anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody (mAb), has demonstrated efficacy in patients with wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Rilotumumab and ganitumab are investigational, fully human mAbs against hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)/scatter factor and IGF1R, respectively. Here we evaluate combining rilotumumab or ganitumab with panitumumab in previously treated patients with wild-type KRAS mCRC. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Part 1 was a phase Ib dose-finding study of panitumumab plus rilotumumab. The primary endpoint was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLT). Part 2 was a randomized phase II trial of panitumumab in combination with rilotumumab, ganitumab, or placebo. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR); safety, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were secondary endpoints. Archival tissue specimens were collected for exploratory correlative work. RESULTS: In part 1, no DLTs were reported. A recommended phase II dose of 10 mg/kg rilotumumab was selected. In part 2, for the panitumumab plus rilotumumab (n = 48), panitumumab plus ganitumab (n = 46), and panitumumab plus placebo arms (n = 48), the ORRs were 31%, 22%, and 21%, respectively. The median PFS was 5.2, 5.3, and 3.7 months and median OS 13.8, 10.6, and 11.6 months, respectively. Adverse events were tolerable. Exploratory biomarker analyses, including MET and IGF-related protein expression, failed to indicate conclusive predictive evidence on efficacy endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: Panitumumab plus rilotumumab met the prespecified criterion for improvement in ORR whereas ganitumab did not. This is the first study to suggest a benefit for combining an HGF inhibitor (rilotumumab) with panitumumab in previously treated patients with wild-type KRAS mCRC.

Randomized, multicenter, phase II study of CO-101 versus gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: including a prospective evaluation of the role of hENT1 in gemcitabine or CO-101 sensitivity.

PURPOSE: Gemcitabine requires transporter proteins to cross cell membranes. Low expression of human equilibrative nucleoside transporter-1 (hENT1) may result in gemcitabine resistance in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). CO-101, a lipid-drug conjugate of gemcitabine, was rationally designed to enter cells independently of hENT1. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine whether CO-101 improved survival versus gemcitabine in patients with metastatic PDAC (mPDAC) with low hENT1. The study also tested the hypothesis that gemcitabine is more active in patients with mPDAC tumors with high versus low hENT1 expression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to CO-101 or gemcitabine, after providing a metastasis sample for blinded hENT1 assessment. An immunohistochemistry test measuring tumor hENT1 was developed. To dichotomize the population, an hENT1 cutoff value was defined using primary PDAC samples from an adjuvant trial, and a high/low cutoff was applied. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in the low hENT1 subgroup. RESULTS: Of 367 patients enrolled, hENT1 status was measured in 358 patients (97.5%). Two hundred thirty-two (64.8%) of 358 patients were hENT1 low. There was no difference in OS between treatments in the low hENT1 subgroup or overall, with hazard ratios (HRs) of 0.994 (95% CI, 0.746 to 1.326) and 1.072 (95% CI, 0.856 to 1.344), respectively. The toxicity profiles in both arms were similar. Within the gemcitabine arm, there was no difference in survival between the high and low hENT1 subgroups (HR, 1.147; 95% CI, 0.809 to 1.626). CONCLUSION: CO-101 is not superior to gemcitabine in patients with mPDAC and low tumor hENT1. Metastasis hENT1 expression did not predict gemcitabine outcome.

Sorafenib in combination with oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (modified FOLFOX6) as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the RESPECT trial.

PURPOSE: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIb study evaluated adding sorafenib to first-line modified FOLFOX6 (mFOLFOX6) for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were randomized to sorafenib (400 mg b.i.d.) or placebo, combined with mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2); levo-leucovorin 200 mg/m(2); fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus and 2400 mg/m(2) continuous infusion) every 14 days. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Target sample was 120 events in 180 patients for >85% power (two-sided α = 0.20) to detect an HR = 0.65. RESULTS: Of 198 patients randomized, median PFS for sorafenib plus mFOLFOX6 was 9.1 months versus 8.7 months for placebo plus mFOLFOX6 (HR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.23; P = 0.46). There was no difference between treatment arms for overall survival. Subgroup analyses of PFS and overall survival showed no difference between treatment arms by KRAS or BRAF status (mutant and wild type). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events in the sorafenib and placebo arms were neutropenia (48% vs. 22%), peripheral neuropathy (16% vs. 21%), and grade 3 hand-foot skin reaction (20% vs. 0%). Treatment discontinuation because of adverse events was 9% and 6%, respectively. Generally, dose intensity (duration and cumulative doses) was lower in the sorafenib arm than in the placebo arm. CONCLUSION: This study did not detect a PFS benefit with the addition of sorafenib to first-line mFOLFOX6 for mCRC. KRAS and BRAF status did not seem to impact treatment outcomes but the subgroups were small. These results do not support further development of sorafenib in combination with mFOLFOX6 in molecularly unselected patients with mCRC.

Phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of recombinant human intestinal trefoil factor oral spray for prevention of oral mucositis in patients with colorectal cancer who are receiving fluorouracil-based chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of recombinant human intestinal trefoil factor (rhITF) administered as topical oral spray for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis (OM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-nine patients with colorectal cancer who had moderate to severe OM (WHO grade >or= 2) in the first cycle of chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive either placebo, rhITF 10 mg/mL (ie, low dose), or rhITF 80 mg/mL (ie, high dose) by oral spray (300 microL, eight times each day) for 14 consecutive days in the second chemotherapy cycle. Patients were assessed on days 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, and 21 (+/- 2 days for the last assessment) for safety and for OM incidence and severity. RESULTS: Treatment of patients at high risk for developing OM with low- or high-dose rhITF significantly reduced the amount of incidence (75% to 81%; low-dose rhITF P < .001; high-dose rhITF P = .002). Frequencies of WHO grade >or= 2 OM in the placebo, low-dose rhITF, and high-dose rhITF groups were 48.5%, 9.1%, and 12.1%, respectively. Assessment of the area under the curve revealed statistically significant reductions in OM severity in the rhITF-treated groups versus placebo. Only a minority of patients (6.1%) reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), all of which were mild to moderate in intensity and resolved without sequelae. The incidence of TEAEs was not significantly different among treatment groups. CONCLUSION: rhITF oral spray formulation was safe and effective when used for the reduction of chemotherapy-associated OM in patients with colorectal cancer. Patients exhibited high compliance in dosing administration. Future clinical study is planned to develop this drug for use in OM management in patients with cancer.