Concept: A randomised multicentre trial of first line chemotherapy comparing three weekly cabazitaxel versus weekly paclitaxel in HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel is commonly used as first-line chemotherapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients. However, with response rates of 21.5-53.7% and significant risk of peripheral neuropathy, there is need for better chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This open-label phase II/III trial randomised HER2-negative MBC patients 1:1 to either 6 cycles of three-weekly cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2), or, weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) over 18 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), time to response (TTR), overall survival (OS), safety and tolerability and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: 158 patients were recruited. Comparing cabazitaxel to paclitaxel, median PFS was 6.7 vs 5.8 months (HR 0.87; 80%CI 0.70-1.08, P = 0.4). There was no difference in median OS (20.6 vs 18.2 months, HR 1.00; 95%CI 0.69-1.45, P = 0.99), ORR (41.8% vs 36.7%) or TTR (HR 1.09; 95%CI 0.68-1.75, P = 0.7). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 41.8% on cabazitaxel and 46.8% on paclitaxel; the most common being neutropenia (16.5%) and febrile neutropenia (12.7%) cabazitaxel and neutropenia (8.9%) and lung infection (7.6%) paclitaxel. Peripheral neuropathy of any grade occurred in 54.5% paclitaxel vs 16.5% cabazitaxel. Mean EQ-5D-5L single index utility score (+0.05; 95%CI 0.004-0.09, P = 0.03) and visual analogue scale score (+7.7; 95%CI 3.1-12.3, P = 0.001) were higher in cabazitaxel vs paclitaxel. CONCLUSIONS: Three-weekly cabazitaxel in HER2-negative MBC does not significantly improve PFS compared to weekly paclitaxel, although it has a lower risk of peripheral neuropathy with better patient reported QoL outcomes. It is well tolerated and requires fewer hospital visits.

Fulvestrant Plus Vistusertib vs Fulvestrant Plus Everolimus vs Fulvestrant Alone for Women With Hormone Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: The MANTA Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated a substantial benefit of adding everolimus to endocrine therapy. Everolimus inhibits the mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) complex but not mTORC2, which can set off an activating feedback loop via mTORC2. Vistusertib, a dual inhibitor of mTORC1 and mTORC2, has demonstrated broad activity in preclinical breast cancer models, showing superior activity to everolimus. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of vistusertib in combination with fulvestrant compared with fulvestrant alone or fulvestrant plus everolimus in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive advanced or metastatic breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The MANTA trial is an open-label, phase 2 randomized clinical trial in which 333 patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer progressing after prior aromatase inhibitor treatment underwent randomization (2:3:3:2) between April 1, 2014, and October 24, 2016, at 88 sites in 9 countries: 67 patients were assigned to receive fulvestrant, 103 fulvestrant plus vistusertib daily, 98 fulvestrant plus vistusertib intermittently, and 65 fulvestrant plus everolimus. Treatment was continued until disease progression, development of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. INTERVENTIONS: Fulvestrant alone or in combination with vistusertib (continuous or intermittent dosing schedules) or everolimus. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Among the 333 women in the study (median age, 63 years [range, 56-70 years]), median PFS was 5.4 months (95% CI, 3.5-9.2 months) with fulvestrant, 7.6 months (95% CI, 5.9-9.4 months) with fulvestrant plus daily vistusertib, 8.0 months (95% CI, 5.6-9.9 months) with fulvestrant plus intermittent vistusertib, and 12.3 months (95% CI, 7.7-15.7 months) with fulvestrant plus everolimus. There was no significant difference in PFS between those receiving fulvestrant plus daily or intermittent vistusertib and fulvestrant alone (hazard ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.63-1.24]; P = .46; and hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.55-1.12]; P = .16). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The combination of fulvestrant plus everolimus demonstrated significantly longer PFS compared with fulvestrant plus vistusertib or fulvestrant alone. The trial failed to demonstrate a benefit of adding the dual mTORC1 and mTORC2 inhibitor vistusertib to fulvestrant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02216786 and EudraCT number: 2013-002403-34.

Modeling correlation indices between bladder and Foley's catheter balloon dose with CT-based planning using limited CT slices in intracavitary brachytherapy for carcinoma of cervix.

PURPOSE: To derive and validate an index to correlate the bladder dose with the catheter balloon dose using limited computed tomography (CT) slices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Applicator geometry reconstructed from orthogonal radiographs were back-projected on CT images of the same patients for anatomy-based dosimetric evaluation. The correlation indices derived using power function of the catheter balloon dose and the bladder volume dose were validated in 31 patients with cervical cancer. RESULTS: There was significant correlation between International Commission on Radiation Units (ICRU)-38 balloon reference dose (Dr) and the dose received by 25% bladder volume (D(25)) (P< 0.0001). Significant correlation was also found between the reference dose of mid-balloon point (D(rm)) and the dose to D(25) (P < 0.0001). Average percentage difference [100 x (observed index - expected index)/ expected index] of observed value of I'25 (index for the dose to D25 bladder with respect to mid-balloon reference point) from that of expected value was 0.52%, when the index was modeled with reference dose alone. Similarly the average percentage difference for I'10cc (index for the dose to 10 cc volume of bladder with respect to mid balloon point) was 0.84%. When this index was modeled with absolute bladder volume and reference dose, standard deviation of the percentage difference between observed and expected index for D(rm) reduced by approximately 2% when compared to D(r). CONCLUSION: For clinical applications, correlation index modeled with reference dose and volume predicts dose to absolute volume of bladder. Correlation index modeled with reference dose gives a good estimate of dose to relative bladder volume. From our study, we found D(rm) to be a better indicator of bladder dose than D(r).