Limited clinical activity of palbociclib and ribociclib monotherapy in advanced cancers with cyclin D-CDK4/6 pathway alterations in the Dutch DRUP and Australian MoST trials.

The Dutch Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP) and the Australian Cancer Molecular Screening and Therapeutic (MoST) Program are similar nonrandomized, multidrug, pan-cancer trial platforms that aim to identify signals of clinical activity of molecularly matched targeted therapies or immunotherapies outside their approved indications. Here, we report results for advanced or metastatic cancer patients with tumors harboring cyclin D-CDK4/6 pathway alterations treated with CDK4/6 inhibitors palbociclib or ribociclib. We included adult patients that had therapy-refractory solid malignancies with the following alterations: amplifications of CDK4, CDK6, CCND1, CCND2 or CCND3, or complete loss of CDKN2A or SMARCA4. Within MoST, all patients were treated with palbociclib, whereas in DRUP, palbociclib and ribociclib were assigned to different cohorts (defined by tumor type and alteration). The primary endpoint for this combined analysis was clinical benefit, defined as confirmed objective response or stable disease ≥16 weeks. We treated 139 patients with a broad variety of tumor types; 116 with palbociclib and 23 with ribociclib. In 112 evaluable patients, the objective response rate was 0% and clinical benefit rate at 16 weeks was 15%. Median progression-free survival was 4 months (95% CI: 3-5 months), and median overall survival 5 months (95% CI: 4-6 months). In conclusion, only limited clinical activity of palbociclib and ribociclib monotherapy in patients with pretreated cancers harboring cyclin D-CDK4/6 pathway alterations was observed. Our findings indicate that monotherapy use of palbociclib or ribociclib is not recommended and that merging data of two similar precision oncology trials is feasible.

INTEGRATE II: randomised phase III controlled trials of regorafenib containing regimens versus standard of care in refractory Advanced Gastro-Oesophageal Cancer (AGOC): a study by the Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group (AGITG).

BACKGROUND: Advanced gastro-oesophageal cancer (AGOC) carries a poor prognosis. No standard of care treatment options are available after first and second-line therapies. Regorafenib is an oral multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting angiogenic, stromal, and oncogenic receptor tyrosine kinases. Regorafenib 160 mg daily prolonged progression free survival compared to placebo (INTEGRATE, phase 2). Regorafenib 80 mg daily in combination with nivolumab 3 mg/kg showed promising objective response rates (REGONIVO). METHODS/DESIGN: INTEGRATE II (INTEGRATE IIa and IIb) platform comprises two international phase III randomised controlled trials (RCT) with 2:1 randomisation in favor of experimental intervention. INTEGRATE IIa (double-blind) compares regorafenib 160 mg daily on days 1 to 21 of each 28-day cycle to placebo. INTEGRATE IIb (open label) compares REGONIVO, regorafenib 90 mg days 1 to 21 in combination with intravenous nivolumab 240 mg days 1 and 15 each 28-day cycle with investigator's choice of chemotherapy (control). Treatment continues until disease progression or intolerable adverse events as per protocol. Eligible participants include adults with AGOC who have failed two or more lines of treatment. Stratification is by location of tumour (INTEGRATE IIa only), geographic region, prior VEGF inhibitor and prior immunotherapy use (INTEGRATE IIb only). Primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints are progression free survival, objective response rate, quality of life, and safety. Tertiary/correlative objectives include biomarker and pharmacokinetic evaluation. DISCUSSION: INTEGRATE II provides a platform to evaluate the clinical utility of regorafenib alone, as well as regorafenib in combination with nivolumab in treatment of participants with refractory AGOC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: INTEGRATE IIa prospectively registered 1 April 2016 Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12616000420448 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02773524). INTEGRATE IIb prospectively registered 10 May 2021 ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04879368.

MONARCC: a randomised phase II study of panitumumab monotherapy and panitumumab plus 5-fluorouracil as first-line therapy for RAS and BRAF wildtype metastatic colorectal cancer: a study by the Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group (AGITG).

BACKGROUND: Doublet chemotherapy in combination with a biologic agent has been a standard of care in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer for over a decade. The evidence for a "lighter" treatment approach is limited to mono-chemotherapy plus bevacizumab in the RAS unselected population. Anti-EGFR antibodies have activity as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy in RAS wildtype metastatic colorectal cancer; however their role in first-line treatment in combination with 5-fluorouracil monotherapy or when given alone has not been well studied. MONARCC aims to investigate this approach in an elderly population. METHODS/DESIGN: MONARCC is a prospective, open-label, multicentre, non-comparative randomised phase II trial. Eligible patients aged ≥70 with unresectable metastatic, untreated, RAS/BRAF wildtype metastatic colorectal cancer will be randomised 1:1 to receive panitumumab alone or panitumumab plus infusional 5-fluorouracil. RAS and BRAF analyses will be performed in local laboratories. Comprehensive Health Assessment and Limited Health Assessments will be performed at baseline and at 16 weeks, respectively, to assess frailty. The Patient Symptom Questionnaire and Overall Treatment Utility are to be undertaken at different timepoints to assess the impact of treatment-related toxicities and quality of life. Treatment will be delivered every 2 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity (as determined by treating clinician or patient), delay of treatment of more than 6 weeks, or withdrawal of consent. The primary end point is 6-month progression-free survival in both arms. Secondary end points include overall survival, time to treatment failure, objective tumour response rate as defined by RECIST v1.1 and safety (adverse events). Tertiary and correlative endpoints include the feasibility and utility of a comprehensive geriatric assessment, quality of life and biological substudies. DISCUSSION: MONARCC investigates the activity and tolerability of first-line panitumumab-based treatments with a view to expand on current treatment options while maximising progression-free and overall survival and quality of life in molecularly selected elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12618000233224 , prospectively registered 14 February 2018.

AGITG MASTERPLAN: a randomised phase II study of modified FOLFIRINOX alone or in combination with stereotactic body radiotherapy for patients with high-risk and locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with non-metastatic pancreatic cancer, 80% have high-risk, borderline resectable or locally advanced cancer, with a 5-year overall survival of 12%. MASTERPLAN evaluates the safety and activity of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in addition to chemotherapy in these patients. METHODS AND DESIGN: MASTERPLAN is a multi-centre randomised phase II trial of 120 patients with histologically confirmed potentially operable pancreatic cancer (POPC) or inoperable pancreatic cancer (IPC). POPC includes patients with borderline resectable or high-risk tumours; IPC is defined as locally advanced or medically inoperable pancreatic cancer. Randomisation is 2:1 to chemotherapy + SBRT (investigational arm) or chemotherapy alone (control arm) by minimisation and stratified by patient cohort (POPC v IPC), planned induction chemotherapy and institution. Chemotherapy can have been commenced ≤28 days prior to randomisation. Both arms receive 6 × 2 weekly cycles of modified FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2 IV), irinotecan (150 mg/m2), 5-fluorouracil (2400 mg/m2 CIV), leucovorin (50 mg IV bolus)) plus SBRT in the investigational arm. Gemcitabine+nab-paclitaxel is permitted for patients unsuitable for mFOLFIRINOX. SBRT is 40Gy in five fractions with planning quality assurance to occur in real time. Following initial chemotherapy ± SBRT, resectability will be evaluated. For resected patients, adjuvant chemotherapy is six cycles of mFOLFIRINOX. Where gemcitabine+nab-paclitaxel was used initially, the adjuvant treatment is 12 weeks of gemcitabine and capecitabine or mFOLFIRINOX. Unresectable or medically inoperable patients with stable/responding disease will continue with a further six cycles of mFOLFIRINOX or three cycles of gemcitabine+nab-paclitaxel, whatever was used initially. The primary endpoint is 12-month locoregional control. Secondary endpoints are safety, surgical morbidity and mortality, radiological response rates, progression-free survival, pathological response rates, surgical resection rates, R0 resection rate, quality of life, deterioration-free survival and overall survival. Tertiary/correlative objectives are radiological measures of nutrition and sarcopenia, and serial tissue, blood and microbiome samples to be assessed for associations between clinical endpoints and potential predictive/prognostic biomarkers. Interim analysis will review rates of locoregional recurrence, distant failure and death after 40 patients complete 12 months follow-up. Fifteen Australian and New Zealand sites will recruit over a 4-year period, with minimum follow-up period of 12 months. DISCUSSION: MASTERPLAN evaluates SBRT in both resectable and unresectable patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12619000409178 , 13/03/2019. Protocol version: 2.0, 19 May 2019.

REZOLVE (ANZGOG-1101): A phase 2 trial of intraperitoneal bevacizumab to treat symptomatic ascites in patients with chemotherapy-resistant, epithelial ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the activity of intraperitoneal bevacizumab (IP-bev) in delaying re-accumulation of malignant ascites in women with chemotherapy-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (CR-EOC) who have ceased chemotherapy. Secondary outcomes were safety and quality of life. METHODS: Women with CR-EOC and malignant ascites that reaccumulated within 28 days of their last paracentesis (P-1) were administered IP-bev 5 mg/kg following their first therapeutic paracentesis on study (P0). Additional doses of IP-bev were allowed at each subsequent paracentesis (P1, P2, etc) provided the interval from the last dose was 42 days or greater (median time from first to second therapeutic ascitic drainage). RESULTS: 24 participants (median age 67 years [range 38-86]; median 4.5 lines prior systemic treatment [range 1-12]; ECOG performance status of 0 in 1, 1 in 8, and 2-3 in 15) were recruited. The doses of IP-bev administered were 1 in 13 participants, 2 in 5, 3 in 2, 4 in 1, and 5 in 1. The proportion with a TTP of >42 days using competing risk analysis was 77% (95% CI 58-92). Median time from P0 to P1 or death was 48 days (range 8-248). Median paracentesis-free interval (P0-P1 or death) was 4.29-fold (95% CI 2.4-5.8) higher following a first dose of IP-bev compared with the time between paracenteses prior to study entry (P-1-P0). CONCLUSION: IP-bev was safe, active, and warrants further study as a palliative intervention for recurrent ascites in CR-EOC patients receiving best supportive care.

A phase 2 study of anastrozole in patients with oestrogen receptor and/progesterone receptor positive recurrent/metastatic granulosa cell tumours/sex-cord stromal tumours of the ovary: The PARAGON/ANZGOG 0903 trial.

BACKGROUND: Hormonal therapies are commonly prescribed to patients with metastatic granulosa cell tumours (GCT), based on high response rates in small retrospective studies. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are reported to have high response rates and an accepted treatment option. We report the results of a phase 2 trial of an AI in recurrent/metastatic GCTs. METHODS: 41 patients with recurrent ER/PR + ve GCT received anastrozole 1 mg daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 12 weeks, evaluated by RECIST1.1 criteria. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), CBR duration, quality of life and toxicity. RESULTS: The CBR at 12 weeks in 38 evaluable patients was 78.9%, which included one (2.6%; 95% CI: 0.5-13.5%) partial response and 76.3% stable disease. Two additional patients without measurable disease were stable, based on inhibin. Median PFS was 8.6 m (95% CI 5.5-13.5 m). There were delayed responses observed after 12 weeks with a total of 4 pts. (10.5%; 95% CI 4.2%-24.1%) with a RECIST partial response; 23 (59%) patients were progression-free at 6 months. The adverse effects were predominantly low grade. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first prospective trial of hormonal therapy in GCTs. Although there was a high CBR, the objective response rate to anastrozole was much lower than the pooled response rates of >70% to AIs reported in most retrospective series and case reports. PARAGON demonstrates the importance of prospective trials in rare cancers and the need to reconsider the role of AIs as single agents in GCTs.

NUC-1031/cisplatin versus gemcitabine/cisplatin in untreated locally advanced/metastatic biliary tract cancer (NuTide:121).

Gemcitabine/cisplatin is standard of care for first-line treatment of patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (aBTC); new treatments are needed. NUC-1031 is designed to overcome key cancer resistance mechanisms associated with gemcitabine. The tolerability/efficacy signal of NUC-1031/cisplatin in the Phase Ib ABC-08 study suggested that this combination may represent a more efficacious therapy than gemcitabine/cisplatin for patients with aBTC, leading to initiation of the global NuTide:121 study which will include 828 patients ≥18 years with untreated histologically/cytologically-confirmed aBTC (including cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder or ampullary cancer); randomized (1:1) to NUC-1031 (725 mg/m2)/cisplatin (25 mg/m2) or gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2)/cisplatin (25 mg/m2), on days 1/8, Q21-days. Primary objectives are overall survival and objective response rate. Secondary objectives: progression-free survival, safety, pharmacokinetics, patient-reported quality of life and correlative studies. (Investigational new drug (IND) number: 139058, European Clinical Trials database: EudraCT Number 2019-001025-28, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04163900).

Challenges of international oncology trial collaboration-a call to action.

International collaboration in oncology trials has the potential to enhance clinical trial activity by expediting the recruitment of large patient populations, testing treatments in diverse populations and facilitating the study of rare tumours or specific molecular subtypes. However, a number of challenges continue to hinder the efficient and productive conduct of both commercial and non-commercial international clinical trials. These challenges include complex and burdensome regulatory requirements, the high cost of conducting trials, and logistical challenges associated with ethics review, drug supply and biospecimen collection and management. We propose solutions to promote oncology trial collaboration, such as regulatory reform, harmonisation of trial initiation and management processes and greater recognition and funding of academic (non-commercial) clinical trials. It is only through coordinated effort and leadership from researchers, regulators and those responsible for health systems that the full potential of international trial collaboration can be realised.

Accuracy and Prognostic Significance of Oncologists' Estimates and Scenarios for Survival Time in Advanced Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Worst-case, typical, and best-case scenarios for survival, based on simple multiples of an individual's expected survival time (EST), estimated by their oncologist, are a useful way of formulating and explaining prognosis. We aimed to determine the accuracy and prognostic significance of oncologists' estimates of EST, and the accuracy of the resulting scenarios for survival time, in advanced gastric cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-six oncologists estimated the EST at baseline for each of the 152 participants they enrolled in the INTEGRATE trial. We hypothesized that oncologists' estimates of EST would be unbiased (∼50% would be longer or shorter than the observed survival time [OST]); imprecise (<33% within 0.67-1.33 times the OST); independently predictive of overall survival (OS); and accurate at deriving scenarios for survival time with approximately 10% of patients dying within a quarter of their EST (worst-case scenario), 50% living within half to double their EST (typical scenario), and 10% living three or more times their EST (best-case scenario). RESULTS: Oncologists' estimates of EST were unbiased (45% were shorter than the OST, 55% were longer); imprecise (29% were within 0.67-1.33 times observed); moderately discriminative (Harrell's C-statistic 0.62, p = .001); and an independently significant predictor of OS (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.95; p = .001) in a Cox model including performance status, number of metastatic sites, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio ≥3, treatment group, age, and health-related quality of life (EORTC-QLQC30 physical function score). Scenarios for survival time derived from oncologists' estimates were remarkably accurate: 9% of patients died within a quarter of their EST, 57% lived within half to double their EST, and 12% lived three times their EST or longer. CONCLUSION: Oncologists' estimates of EST were unbiased, imprecise, moderately discriminative, and independently significant predictors of OS. Simple multiples of the EST accurately estimated worst-case, typical, and best-case scenarios for survival time in advanced gastric cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Results of this study demonstrate that oncologists' estimates of expected survival time for their patients with advanced gastric cancer were unbiased, imprecise, moderately discriminative, and independently significant predictors of overall survival. Simple multiples of the expected survival time accurately estimated worst-case, typical, and best-case scenarios for survival time in advanced gastric cancer.

Phase 2 study of anastrozole in recurrent estrogen (ER)/progesterone (PR) positive endometrial cancer: The PARAGON trial - ANZGOG 0903.

BACKGROUND: The clinical benefit rate with aromatase inhibitors and the impact of treatment on quality of life (QOL) in endometrial cancer is unclear. We report the results of a phase 2 trial of anastrozole in endometrial cancer. METHODS: Investigator initiated single-arm, open label trial of anastrozole, 1 mg/d in patients with ER and/or PR positive hormonal therapy naive metastatic endometrial cancer. Patients were treated until progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end-point was clinical benefit (response + stable disease) at 3 months. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival (PFS), quality of life (QOL) and toxicity. RESULTS: Clinical benefit rate in 82 evaluable patients at 3 months was 44% (95% CI: 34-55%) with a best response by RECIST of partial response in 6 pts. (7%; 95% CI: 3-15%). The median PFS was 3.2 months (95% CI: 2.8-5.4). Median duration of clinical benefit was 5.6 months (95% CI: 3.0-13.7). Treatment was well tolerated. Patients who had clinical benefit at 3 months reported clinically significant improvements in several QOL domains compared to those with PD; this was evident by 2 months including improvements in: emotional functioning (39 vs 6%: p = 0.002), cognitive functioning (45 vs 19%: p = 0.021), fatigue (47 vs 19%: p = 0.015) and global health status (42 vs 9%: p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Although the objective response rate to anastrozole was relatively low, clinical benefit was observed in 44% of patients with ER/PR positive metastatic endometrial cancer and associated with an improvement in QOL.

PARAGON: A Phase II study of anastrozole in patients with estrogen receptor-positive recurrent/metastatic low-grade ovarian cancers and serous borderline ovarian tumors.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment options are limited for patients with recurrent/metastatic low-grade ovarian cancers (LGOCs) and serous borderline ovarian tumors (SBOTs) as response rates to chemotherapy are low. A subset of patients appears to derive clinical benefit from antiestrogens, but most studies have been retrospective and clinical benefit rates (CBR) remain uncertain. The primary aim of PARAGON was to prospectively investigate the CBR of anastrozole, an aromatase inhibitor, in patients with estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PR) positive LGOC and SBOT. METHODS: Post-menopausal women with ER-positive and/or PR-positive recurrent/metastatic LGOCs and SBOTs and evaluable disease by RECIST v1.1 or GCIG CA125 criteria were treated with anastrozole 1 mg daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were enrolled. Clinical benefit at 3 months (primary endpoint) was observed in 23 patients (64%, 95% CI 48%-78%) and was similar at 6 months (61%, 95% CI 43%-75%). The median duration of clinical benefit was 9.5 months (95% CI 8.3-25.8). Best study response was partial response by RECIST in 5 patients (14%), stable disease in 18 patients (50%) with progressive disease in 13 patients (36%). Median PFS was 11.1 months (95% CI 3.2-11.9). Anastrozole was well-tolerated. Patients with evidence of clinical benefit at 3 months reported less pain, fatigue, and improved physical and role functioning as early as 1 month of commencing treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Anastrozole was associated with a CBR of 61% of patients with recurrent ER-positive and/or PR-positive LGOC or SBOT for at least 6 months with acceptable toxicity.

Health-related quality of life associated with regorafenib treatment in refractory advanced gastric adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The INTEGRATE phase II multinational randomized controlled trial demonstrated the activity of regorafenib on progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with refractory advanced gastric adenocarcinoma. We sought to evaluate whether these PFS gains had the potential to be offset by quality of life (QoL) impacts from treatment side effects and to thereby determine the appropriateness of continuing development to phase III. METHODS: QoL was assessed in INTEGRATE at baseline and at each 4 weeks thereafter, until discontinuation of study treatment, using the QLQ-C30, STO22, and EQ-5D questionnaires. The patient disease and treatment assessment (PTDATA) form was also provided to English-speaking participants. Randomized groups were compared on the QLQ-C30, STO22, and EQ-5D scales using a repeated-measures model; the frequency of troublesome symptoms and side effects measured by the PTDATA form; and deterioration-free survival (DFS). The prognostic value of baseline QoL information was also evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 147 eligible randomized patients, 142 consented to participate in the QoL substudy, 136 completed a baseline QoL assessment, and 95 completed at least one post-baseline QoL assessment. The DFS rate was significantly improved with regorafenib, and there was no compelling statistical evidence that regorafenib had a broad negative effect across the spectrum of QoL indices evaluated. Fatigue, anxiety, appetite loss, and pain were among the issues most commonly reported for both randomized groups. Baseline levels of pain, appetite, constipation, and physical functioning were prognostic factors for survival. CONCLUSIONS: Regorafenib improved DFS without an excessively negative effect on QoL. Progressing development to the phase III setting is warranted.

Cancer Molecular Screening and Therapeutics (MoST): a framework for multiple, parallel signal-seeking studies of targeted therapies for rare and neglected cancers.

BACKGROUND: Precision medicine aims to link molecular targets in tumours with corresponding therapies, particularly for patients with rare cancers. Innovative approaches are needed to translate molecular opportunities into clinical care. The Cancer Molecular Screening and Therapeutics (MoST) program employs a molecular screening platform to identify molecular changes of therapeutic relevance (actionable changes) and a master protocol for multiple, parallel signal-seeking clinical substudies, focused on therapies for patients with rare and neglected cancers. Methods and analysis: Archival pathology laboratory samples from patients with treatment-refractory advanced solid cancer of any histologic type undergo molecular tumour profiling. Following review by a Molecular Tumour Board, eligible patients are offered treatment in therapeutic substudies. This novel master protocol allows expedited addition of individual substudies; at least 12 open label, single arm, signal-seeking substudies during the initial 4 years of MoST are planned. The primary objectives are to identify signals of efficacy for developing biomarker-driven therapies and biomarkers that more accurately predict response to therapy, as well as to evaluate the MoST design. Ethics approval: The program has been approved by the St Vincent's Hospital Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (reference, HREC/16/SVH/23). Dissemination of results: A report summarising and interpreting collected study data will be published. Our findings will be presented at national and international conferences and scientific meetings, and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12616000908437 (8 July 2016).

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a highly lethal disease with few effective treatment options. Over the past few decades, many anti-cancer therapies have been tested in the locally advanced and metastatic setting, with mixed results. This review attempts to synthesise all the randomised data available to help better inform patient and clinician decision-making when dealing with this difficult disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of chemotherapy, radiotherapy or both for first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. Our primary outcome was overall survival, while secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, grade 3/4 adverse events, therapy response and quality of life. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for published and unpublished studies in CENTRAL (searched 14 June 2017), Embase (1980 to 14 June 2017), MEDLINE (1946 to 14 June 2017) and CANCERLIT (1999 to 2002) databases. We also handsearched all relevant conference abstracts published up until 14 June 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised studies assessing overall survival outcomes in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy, alone or in combination, were the eligible treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently analysed studies, and a third settled any disputes. We extracted data on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rates, adverse events (AEs) and quality of life (QoL), and we assessed risk of bias for each study. MAIN RESULTS: We included 42 studies addressing chemotherapy in 9463 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. We did not identify any eligible studies on radiotherapy.We did not find any benefit for chemotherapy over best supportive care. However, two identified studies did not have sufficient data to be included in the analysis, and many of the chemotherapy regimens studied were outdated.Compared to gemcitabine alone, participants receiving 5FU had worse OS (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.27, moderate-quality evidence), PFS (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.92) and QoL. On the other hand, two studies showed FOLFIRINOX was better than gemcitabine for OS (HR 0.51 95% CI 0.43 to 0.60, moderate-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.57) and response rates (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.65), but it increased the rate of side effects. The studies evaluating CO-101, ZD9331 and exatecan did not show benefit or harm when compared with gemcitabine alone.Giving gemcitabine at a fixed dose rate improved OS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94, high-quality evidence) but increased the rate of side effects when compared with bolus dosing.When comparing gemcitabine combinations to gemcitabine alone, gemcitabine plus platinum improved PFS (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95) and response rates (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.98) but not OS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, low-quality evidence). The rate of side effects increased. Gemcitabine plus fluoropyrimidine improved OS (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95), PFS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.87) and response rates (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.47, high-quality evidence), but it also increased side effects. Gemcitabine plus topoisomerase inhibitor did not improve survival outcomes but did increase toxicity. One study demonstrated that gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel improved OS (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.84, high-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.82) and response rates (RR 3.29, 95% CI 2.24 to 4.84) but increased side effects. Gemcitabine-containing multi-drug combinations (GEMOXEL or cisplatin/epirubicin/5FU/gemcitabine) improved OS (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.79, low-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.62) and QOL.We did not find any survival advantages when comparing 5FU combinations to 5FU alone. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Combination chemotherapy has recently overtaken the long-standing gemcitabine as the standard of care. FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel are highly efficacious, but our analysis shows that other combination regimens also offer a benefit. Selection of the most appropriate chemotherapy for individual patients still remains difficult, with clinicopathological stratification remaining elusive. Biomarker development is essential to help rationalise treatment selection for patients.

Paragon (ANZGOG-0903): Phase 2 Study of Anastrozole in Women With Estrogen or Progesterone Receptor-Positive Platinum-Resistant or -Refractory Recurrent Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is some evidence that a subset of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer may benefit from antiestrogen therapy. The Paragon study is a basket protocol that includes a series of phase 2 trials investigating the activity of anastrozole in patients with estrogen or progesterone receptor-positive recurrent gynecological cancers. We report the results of treatment in patients with platinum-resistant or -refractory recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: Postmenopausal women who had estrogen and/or progesterone receptor-positive platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory recurrent ovarian cancer and disease measurable by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 or GCIG (Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup) CA-125 criteria were eligible. Patients received anastrozole 1 mg daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The study was prospectively registered (ACTRN12610000796088). RESULTS: There were 49 evaluable patients, and clinical benefit was observed in 13 (27%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 16%-40%). There were no complete or partial RECIST version 1.1 responses. Clinical benefit was associated with higher global quality-of-life scores. Median progression-free survival was 2.7 months (95% CI, 2.0-2.8 months). The median duration of clinical benefit was 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.6-5.7 months). Most patients (83%) progressed within 6 months. Seven patients continued on treatment for longer than 6 months. Anastrozole was well tolerated in most patients. Subgroup analysis suggested greater clinical benefit in patients with tumors with estrogen-receptor histoscore of more than 200, but this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: A subset of patients with estrogen- or progesterone-positive platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory recurrent epithelial ovarian cancers derives clinical benefit from anastrozole, with acceptable toxicity. The challenge remains how to identify them.

Panitumumab added to docetaxel, cisplatin and fluoropyrimidine in oesophagogastric cancer: ATTAX3 phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: This randomised phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of panitumumab added to docetaxel-based chemotherapy in advanced oesophagogastric cancer. METHODS: Patients with metastatic or locally recurrent cancer of the oesophagus, oesophagogastric junction or stomach received docetaxel and a fluoropyrimidine with or without panitumumab for 8 cycles or until progression. The primary end point was response rate (RECIST1.1). We planned to enrol 100 patients, with 50% expected response rate for combination therapy. RESULTS: A total of 77 patients were enrolled. A safety alert from the REAL3 trial prompted a review of data that found no evidence of adverse outcomes associated with panitumumab but questionable efficacy, and new enrolment was ceased. Enrolled patients were treated according to protocol. Response rates were 49% (95% CI 34-64%) in the chemotherapy arm and 58% (95% CI 42-72%) in the combination arm. Common grade 3 and 4 toxicities included infection, anorexia, vomiting, diarrhoea and fatigue. At 23.7 months of median follow-up, median progression-free survival was 6.9 months vs 6.0 months and median overall survival was 11.7 months vs 10.0 months in the chemotherapy arm and the combination arm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Adding panitumumab to docetaxel-based chemotherapy for advanced oesophagogastric cancer did not improve efficacy and increased toxicities.

Symptom burden and outcomes of patients with platinum resistant/refractory recurrent ovarian cancer: a reality check: results of stage 1 of the gynecologic cancer intergroup symptom benefit study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of chemotherapy in patients with platinum resistant ovarian cancer is palliation. Patients' experience of symptoms is not well documented, and the impact of treatment on symptoms has not been evaluated in clinical trials. We report symptom burden and treatment outcomes from stage 1 of the Gynecological Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) Symptom Benefit Study. METHODS: One hundred twenty-six patients receiving palliative chemotherapy completed 5 validated health-related quality-of-life questionnaires before starting treatment and before each cycle. They also reported their expected and perceived benefits from treatment. Physicians documented the reasons for treatment and adverse events including symptoms at baseline and estimated the number of cycles of treatment that patients would receive. RESULTS: Palliation was the major reason for chemotherapy. At baseline, all patients were symptomatic (almost 70% had ≥9 symptoms). Patients had high expectation of benefit from treatment. Only 41% of patients received the predicted number of cycles with most stopping early (≤2 cycles) due to progression, death, or adverse effects. Treatment was associated with significant toxicity, with discordance between patient report and physician grading. Although RECIST response rates were low (8.5%), 40% of the patients were reported to have had a clinical benefit and almost 50% of symptomatic patients also reported symptom improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Patients had a complex array of symptoms and significant symptom burden, which was commonly the reason for treatment. Although chemotherapy improved symptoms in about half of the patients, many did not benefit and progressed rapidly. Our findings support research into the use of patient reported outcome measures to document symptoms, adverse events, and subjective benefit, both in clinical trials and in clinical practice, in this patient population. Our findings highlight the need to develop prognostic models to better select patients for treatment, and this is an aim of stage 2 of the GCIG Symptom Benefit Study.

Development of the measure of ovarian symptoms and treatment concerns: aiming for optimal measurement of patient-reported symptom benefit with chemotherapy for symptomatic ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the optimal patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for assessing symptom benefit in trials of palliative chemotherapy for women with symptomatic ovarian cancer. METHODS: Candidate PROMs were EORTC QLQ-C30 plus ovarian-specific QLQ-OV28, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian (FACT-O), FACT Ovarian Symptom Index (FOSI), and gynecologic cancer-specific Symptom Representation Questionnaire. Predefined optimality criteria were inclusion of all symptoms necessary for the specified purpose, recall period covering typical length of palliative chemotherapy, numerical item rating scales, and all necessary symptoms included in a single symptom index. Qualitative and quantitative methods were applied to data from stage 1 of the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup Symptom Benefit Study to determine the set of necessary symptoms and to objectively assess candidate PROMs against the optimality criteria. RESULTS: Ten necessary symptoms were identified: pain, fatigue, abdominal bloating/discomfort, sleep disturbance, bowel disturbance, nausea and vomiting, shortness of breath, poor appetite, urinary symptoms, and weight changes. Although QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OV28 together cover all these symptoms, they split them into numerous scales, dissipating potential symptom-benefit signal. Conversely, FACT-O does not cover all necessary symptoms and contains many other HRQoL-related items and treatment side effects, diluting potential symptom-benefit signal when summed into scales. Item response scales and composite scoring of all candidate PROMs were suboptimal to our specific purpose. We therefore developed a new PROM, the Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment (MOST) concerns, to provide optimal measurement for the specified purpose. CONCLUSIONS: This article documents the development of the MOST, a new PROM designed to assess patient-reported benefits and burden as end points in clinical trials of palliative chemotherapy for women with symptomatic ovarian cancer. The validity, reliability, and statistical efficiency of the MOST, relative to the best candidate scales of existing PROMs, will be assessed in the stage 2 of Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup Symptom Benefit Study.

Cell-free DNA in plasma and ascites as a biomarker of bevacizumab response- a translational research sub-study of the REZOLVE (ANZGOG-1101) clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in plasma and ascites and its association with clinical outcomes (paracentesis-free interval, overall survival) and CA125 level in participants with advanced ovarian cancer, treated with palliative intraperitoneal bevacizumab to delay re-accumulation of ascites. METHODS: cfDNA was extracted from 0.3 to 1 mL samples from 20/24 participants of the REZOLVE trial. Standard and methylation-specific PCRs were performed to measure 3 biomarkers: total cfDNA (Alu), tumour-derived cfDNA (ctDNA, methylated IFFO1 promoter) and endothelium-derived cfDNA (ec-cfDNA, unmethylated CDH5 promoter). Values were correlated to clinical outcomes. RESULTS: cfDNA was detected in all samples, with higher yield in ascites (mean 669 ng/mL) than plasma (mean 75 ng/mL, p < 0.0001). Ascites had a higher ctDNA proportion than plasma (74 % vs. 20 %, p < 0.0001) and plasma had a higher ec-cfDNA proportion than ascites (24 % vs. 16 %, p < 0.002). High ctDNA proportion (>75 %) in ascites was associated with a significantly shorter paracentesis-free interval (median interval 47.5 versus 84 days, hazard ratio (HR) 2.21, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 5.73, p = 0.039) and ctDNA presence in plasma was unfavourable for survival (median survival 56 versus 242 days, HR 3.21, 95 % CI 1.15 to 9.00, p = 0.008). A significant positive correlation was observed between ctDNA proportion in plasma and CA125 level (p = 0.012). No significant difference in total cfDNA, ctDNA nor ec-cfDNA was observed between participants who were responders versus non-responders. CONCLUSION: Sufficient cfDNA was detected in both plasma and ascites to study three biomarkers. These samples can provide useful information and should be considered in the design of future ovarian cancer trials.