A randomized phase III study evaluating dexamethasone-based mouthwash to prevent chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in patients with breast cancer.

Stomatitis, which is a common side effect of chemotherapy, currently lacks a standardized approach for its prevention. Therefore, this multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled phase III trial aims to assess the efficacy and safety of a dexamethasone-based mouthwash for preventing chemotherapy-induced stomatitis in patients with early breast cancer. We will randomly assign 230 patients with early breast cancer scheduled to receive chemotherapy in a 1:1 ratio to either the dexamethasone-based mouthwash group (10 ml, 0.1 mg/ml; swish for 2 min and spit 4 times daily for 8 weeks) or the mouthwash-with-tap-water group. The incidence of stomatitis, measured using electronic patient-reported outcomes, is the primary endpoint.

Effect of extending the period from oral administration of 5-aminolevulinic acid hydrochloride to photodynamic diagnosis during transurethral resection for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer on diagnostic accuracy and safety: a single-arm multicenter phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: In Japan, the authorized period (2-4 h) between oral administration of 5-aminolevulinic acid hydrochloride (5-ALA) and transurethral resection for non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) may restrict photodynamic diagnosis (PDD) usage. Therefore, this prospective, single-arm, phase III study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and safety of PDD at an extended administration period (4-8 h). METHODS: From January 2022 to May 2023, 161 patients with NMIBC were enrolled from eight hospitals. The primary endpoint was the blue light (BL) sensitivity of pathologically positive biopsies. The secondary endpoints were a comparison of the specificity and positive and negative prediction rates under BL and white light (WL) conditions. RESULTS: A total of 1242 specimens comprising 337 histological NMIBC specimens were analyzed. BL-sensitivity was 95.3%. Its lower limit of 95% confidence interval (92.4-97.3%) exceeded the threshold (70%) of non-inferiority to authorized usage. Sensitivity and specificity were significantly higher and lower for BL than those for WL (95.3% vs. 61.1%, P < 0.001; 52.7% vs. 95.2%, P < 0.001), respectively. The positive and negative predictive rates were significantly lower and higher for BL than those for WL (42.9% vs. 82.7%, P < 0.001; 96.8% vs. 86.8%, P < 0.001), respectively. Of the 145 patients receiving 5-ALA, 136 (93.8%) and 75 (51.7%) experienced 377 adverse events and 95 adverse reactions, respectively, most of which were grade 1 or 2. CONCLUSION: For extended period, the efficacy of PDD for NMIBC was similar to that of authorized period, in terms of higher sensitivity and lower specificity compared with WL, and the safety was acceptable.

Using non-inferiority test of proportions in design of randomized non-inferiority trials with time-to-event endpoint with a focus on low-event-rate setting.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: For cancers with low incidence, low event rates, and a time-to-event endpoint, a randomized non-inferiority trial designed based on the logrank test can require a large sample size with significantly prolonged enrollment duration, making such a non-inferiority trial not feasible. This article evaluates a design based on a non-inferiority test of proportions, compares its required sample size to the non-inferiority logrank test, assesses whether there are scenarios for which a non-inferiority test of proportions can be more efficient, and provides guidelines in usage of a non-inferiority test of proportions. METHODS: This article describes the sample size calculation for a randomized non-inferiority trial based on a non-inferiority logrank test or a non-inferiority test of proportions. The sample size required by the two design methods are compared for a wide range of scenarios, varying the underlying Weibull survival functions, the non-inferiority margin, and loss to follow-up rate. RESULTS: Our results showed that there are scenarios for which the non-inferiority test of proportions can have significantly reduced sample size. Specifically, the non-inferiority test of proportions can be considered for cancers with more than 80% long-term survival rate. We provide guidance in choice of this design approach based on parameters of the Weibull survival functions, the non-inferiority margin, and loss to follow-up rate. CONCLUSION: For cancers with low incidence and low event rates, a non-inferiority trial based on the logrank test is not feasible due to its large required sample size and prolonged enrollment duration. The use of a non-inferiority test of proportions can make a randomized non-inferiority Phase III trial feasible.

Gemcitabine, carboplatin, and Epstein-Barr virus-specific autologous cytotoxic T lymphocytes for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma: VANCE, an international randomized phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Epstein-Barr virus-specific cytotoxic T lymphocyte (EBV-CTL) is an autologous adoptive T-cell immunotherapy generated from the blood of individuals and manufactured without genetic modification. In a previous phase II trial of locally recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (R/M NPC) patients, first-line gemcitabine and carboplatin (GC) and EBV-CTL combination demonstrated objective antitumor EBV-CTL activity and a favorable safety profile. The present study explored whether this combined first-line chemo-immunotherapy strategy would produce superior clinical efficacy and better quality of life compared with conventional chemotherapy treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of GC followed by EBV-CTL versus GC alone as first-line treatment of R/M NPC patients. Thirty clinical sites in Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and the USA were included. Subjects were randomized to first-line GC (four cycles) and EBV-CTL (six cycles) or GC (six cycles) in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) and secondary outcomes included progression-free survival, objective response rate, clinical benefit rate, quality of life, and safety. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT02578641. RESULTS: A total of 330 subjects with NPC were enrolled. Most subjects in both treatment arms received four or more cycles of chemotherapy and most subjects in the GC + EBV-CTL group received two or more infusions of EBV-CTL. The central Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) facility produced sufficient EBV-CTL for 94% of GC + EBV-CTL subjects. The median OS was 25.0 months in the GC + EBV-CTL group and 24.9 months in the GC group (hazard ratio = 1.19; 95% confidence interval 0.91-1.56; P = 0.194). Only one subject experienced a grade 2 serious adverse event related to EBV-CTL. CONCLUSIONS: GC + EBV-CTL in subjects with R/M NPC demonstrated a favorable safety profile but no overall improvement in OS versus chemotherapy. This is the largest adoptive T-cell therapy trial reported in solid tumors to date.

ENGOT-en11/GOG-3053/KEYNOTE-B21: a randomised, double-blind, phase III study of pembrolizumab or placebo plus adjuvant chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed, high-risk endometrial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy provides clinically meaningful benefit as first-line therapy for advanced (locoregional extension and residual disease after surgery)/metastatic/recurrent mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) and mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) endometrial cancer, with greater magnitude of benefit in the dMMR phenotype. We evaluated the addition of pembrolizumab to adjuvant chemotherapy (with/without radiation therapy) among patients with newly diagnosed, high-risk endometrial cancer without any residual macroscopic disease following curative-intent surgery. METHODS: We included patients with histologically confirmed high-risk [International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I/II of non-endometrioid histology or endometrioid histology with p53/TP53 abnormality, or stage III/IVA of any histology] endometrial cancer following surgery with curative intent and no evidence of disease postoperatively, with no prior radiotherapy or systemic therapy. Patients were randomised to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks (Q3W) for six cycles added to carboplatin-paclitaxel followed by pembrolizumab 400 mg or placebo every 6 weeks (Q6W) for six cycles per treatment assignment. Radiotherapy was at the investigator's discretion. The primary endpoints were investigator-assessed disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: A total of 1095 patients were randomised (pembrolizumab, n = 545; placebo, n = 550). At this interim analysis (data cut-off, 4 March 2024), 119 (22%) DFS events occurred in the pembrolizumab group and 121 (22%) occurred in the placebo group [hazard ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-1.32; P = 0.570]. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 2-year DFS rates were 75% and 76% in the pembrolizumab and placebo groups, respectively. The hazard ratio for DFS was 0.31 (95% CI 0.14-0.69) in the dMMR population (n = 281) and 1.20 (95% CI 0.91-1.57) in the pMMR population (n = 814). Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 386 of 543 (71%) and 348 of 549 (63%) patients in the pembrolizumab and placebo groups, respectively. No treatment-related grade 5 AEs occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy did not improve DFS in patients with newly diagnosed, high-risk, all-comer endometrial cancer. Preplanned subgroup analyses for stratification factors suggest that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy improved DFS in patients with dMMR tumours. Safety was manageable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04634877; EudraCT, 2020-003424-17. RESEARCH SUPPORT: Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA.

The INSIGHT study: a randomized, Phase III study of ripretinib versus sunitinib for advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor with KIT exon 11 + 17/18 mutations.

Somatic KIT activating mutations drive most gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Disease progression eventually develops with first-line imatinib, commonly due to KIT secondary mutations, and different kinase inhibitors have various levels of treatment efficacy dependent on specific acquired resistance mutations. Ripretinib is a broad-spectrum switch-control KIT/PDGFRA tyrosine kinase inhibitor for patients with advanced GIST who received prior treatment with three or more kinase inhibitors, including imatinib. Exploratory baseline circulating tumor DNA analysis from the second-line INTRIGUE trial determined that patients with advanced GIST previously treated with imatinib harboring primary KIT exon 11 mutations and secondary resistance mutations restricted to KIT exons 17/18 had greater clinical benefit with ripretinib versus sunitinib. We describe the rationale and design of INSIGHT (NCT05734105), an ongoing Phase III open-label study of ripretinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced GIST previously treated with imatinib exclusively harboring KIT exon 11 + 17/18 mutations detected by circulating tumor DNA.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05734105 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is rare, but it is the most common mesenchymal tumor (a type of tumor that develops from cells which give rise to soft tissues) of the gastrointestinal tract. The primary treatment for advanced GIST is medication that targets the abnormal mechanisms in cancer cells in order to block tumor growth and spread. Ripretinib is an inhibitor of a protein known as KIT, which is a member of the tyrosine kinase protein family and is involved in the growth of GIST. In a Phase III clinical trial called INTRIGUE, the effects of ripretinib and another receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, sunitinib, were compared in patients with advanced GIST previously treated with the drug imatinib. An exploratory analysis from the INTRIGUE trial that characterized baseline circulating tumor DNA in the blood showed a greater clinical benefit with ripretinib versus sunitinib in patients with gene mutations solely occurring in KIT exon 11 + 17 and/or 18 (exon 11 + 17/18). This article describes the rationale and design for a Phase III clinical trial called INSIGHT that will evaluate the benefit of ripretinib compared with sunitinib in patients with advanced GIST whose tumors have mutations in KIT exon 11 and KIT exon 17 and/or 18. Patients will receive ripretinib or sunitinib in 6-week cycles, and investigators will assess survival without cancer progression as the primary outcome, and overall survival, and response of the tumor to these two drugs as secondary outcomes.

Temazepam or Melatonin Versus Placebo for the Treatment of Insomnia in Advanced Cancer: A Three-Arm, Double-Blind, Phase III, Multicenter, Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: Sleep disturbance has a prevalence of 30-78% in patients with advanced cancer. While pharmacotherapy is common, randomized controlled studies (RCTs) investigating available agents are limited. This study examines the efficacy and safety of temazepam or melatonin versus placebo for sleep in advanced cancer. Methods: This is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of temazepam, melatonin prolonged release (PR) or placebo for insomnia in patients with advanced cancer, and an insomnia severity index (ISI) score of >11. Results: Twenty-one participants were randomized: nine to temazepam, eight to melatonin, and four to placebo. Baseline characteristics between groups were similar. The adjusted mean difference in day 8 ISI score versus placebo was -9.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] -17.5, 0.7, p = 0.04) for temazepam and -9.6 (95% CI -18,-1.2, p = 0.03) for melatonin PR. There was no improvement in global quality of life. Both agents were well tolerated. Conclusion: Temazepam and melatonin PR were associated with a clinically significant improvement in patient-reported insomnia severity compared with placebo. Findings need confirmation with larger patient numbers.

Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab for advanced melanoma: 10-year follow-up of the phase III KEYNOTE-006 study.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus ipilimumab for unresectable advanced melanoma in KEYNOTE-006 (NCT01866319); 10-year follow-up data are presented. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg i.v. every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks for ≤2 years (pooled), or ipilimumab 3 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks for four cycles. After KEYNOTE-006, patients could transition to KEYNOTE-587 (NCT03486873) for long-term follow-up. Eligible patients could receive second-course pembrolizumab. The primary endpoint was OS; modified progression-free survival (PFS; censored at date last known alive), modified PFS on second-course pembrolizumab, and melanoma-specific survival were exploratory. RESULTS: Of 834 patients randomly assigned in KEYNOTE-006 (pembrolizumab, n = 556; ipilimumab, n = 278), 333 (39.9%) were eligible for KEYNOTE-587; 211/333 patients (25.3%) transitioned to KEYNOTE-587 (pembrolizumab, n = 159; ipilimumab, n = 52) and 122 (14.6%) did not. For patients who transitioned to KEYNOTE-587 (n = 211), median time from randomization in KEYNOTE-006 to data cut-off for KEYNOTE-587 (1 May 2024) was 123.7 months (range, 122.0-127.3 months). Median OS was 32.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 24.5-41.6 months] for pembrolizumab and 15.9 months (95% CI 13.3-22.0 months) for ipilimumab [hazard ratio (HR), 0.71 (95% CI 0.60-0.85)]; 10-year OS was 34.0% and 23.6%, respectively. Among patients who completed ≥94 weeks of pembrolizumab, median OS from week 94 was not reached (NR; 95% CI NR-NR); 8-year OS rate was 80.8%. Median modified PFS was 9.4 months (95% CI 6.7-11.6 months) for pembrolizumab and 3.8 months (2.9-4.3 months) for ipilimumab [HR, 0.64 (95% CI 0.54-0.75)]. Among patients who received second-course pembrolizumab, median modified PFS from start of second course was 51.8 months (95% CI 11.0 months-NR); 6-year modified PFS was 49.2%. Median melanoma-specific survival was 51.9 months (95% CI 30.0-114.7 months) for pembrolizumab and 17.2 months (13.9-25.9 months) for ipilimumab [HR, 0.66 (95% CI 0.55-0.81)]. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm that pembrolizumab provides long-term survival benefits in advanced melanoma, supporting it as a standard of care in this setting.

Towards Treatment Effect Interpretability: A Bayesian Re-analysis of 194,129 Patient Outcomes Across 230 Oncology Trials.

Most oncology trials define superiority of an experimental therapy compared to a control therapy according to frequentist significance thresholds, which are widely misinterpreted. Posterior probability distributions computed by Bayesian inference may be more intuitive measures of uncertainty, particularly for measures of clinical benefit such as the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Here, we manually reconstructed 194,129 individual patient-level outcomes across 230 phase III, superiority-design, oncology trials. Posteriors were calculated by Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling using standard priors. All trials interpreted as positive had probabilities > 90% for marginal benefits (HR < 1). However, 38% of positive trials had ≤ 90% probabilities of achieving the MCID (HR < 0.8), even under an enthusiastic prior. A subgroup analysis of 82 trials that led to regulatory approval showed 30% had ≤ 90% probability for meeting the MCID under an enthusiastic prior. Conversely, 24% of negative trials had > 90% probability of achieving marginal benefits, even under a skeptical prior, including 12 trials with a primary endpoint of overall survival. Lastly, a phase III oncology-specific prior from a previous work, which uses published summary statistics rather than reconstructed data to compute posteriors, validated the individual patient-level data findings. Taken together, these results suggest that Bayesian models add considerable unique interpretative value to phase III oncology trials and provide a robust solution for overcoming the discrepancies between refuting the null hypothesis and obtaining a MCID.

Improving the clinical meaning of surrogate endpoints: An empirical assessment of clinical progression in phase III oncology trials.

Disease progression in clinical trials is commonly defined by radiologic measures. However, clinical progression may be more meaningful to patients, may occur even when radiologic criteria for progression are not met, and often requires a change in therapy in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to determine the utilization of clinical progression criteria within progression-based trial endpoints among phase III trials testing systemic therapies for metastatic solid tumors. The primary manuscripts and protocols of phase III trials were reviewed for whether clinical events, such as refractory pain, tumor bleeding, or neurologic compromise, could constitute a progression event. Univariable logistic regression computed odds ratios (OR) and 95% CI for associations between trial-level covariates and clinical progression. A total of 216 trials enrolling 148,190 patients were included, with publication dates from 2006 through 2020. A major change in clinical status was included in the progression criteria of 13% of trials (n = 27), most commonly as a secondary endpoint (n = 22). Only 59% of trials (n = 16) reported distinct clinical progression outcomes that constituted the composite surrogate endpoint. Compared with other disease sites, genitourinary trials were more likely to include clinical progression definitions (16/33 [48%] vs. 11/183 [6%]; OR, 14.72; 95% CI, 5.99 to 37.84; p < .0001). While major tumor-related clinical events were seldom considered as disease progression events, increased attention to clinical progression may improve the meaningfulness and clinical applicability of surrogate endpoints for patients with metastatic solid tumors.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib for first-line treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended 8-year follow-up results of efficacy and safety from the phase III CheckMate 214 trial.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab (NIVO+IPI) has demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) and durable response benefits versus sunitinib (SUN) with long-term follow-up in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report updated analyses with 8 years of median follow-up from CheckMate 214. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with aRCC (N = 1096) were randomized to NIVO 3 mg/kg plus IPI 1 mg/kg Q3W × four doses, followed by NIVO (3 mg/kg or 240 mg Q2W or 480 mg Q4W); or SUN (50 mg) once daily for 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off. The endpoints included OS, independent radiology review committee (IRRC)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS), and IRRC-assessed objective response rate (ORR) in intermediate/poor-risk (I/P; primary), intent-to-treat (ITT; secondary), and favorable-risk (FAV; exploratory) patients. RESULTS: With 8 years (99.1 months) of median follow-up, the hazard ratio [HR; 95% confidence interval (CI)] for OS with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 0.72 (0.62-0.83) in ITT patients, 0.69 (0.59-0.81) in I/P patients, and 0.82 (0.60-1.13) in FAV patients. PFS probabilities at 90 months were 22.8% versus 10.8% (ITT), 25.4% versus 8.5% (I/P), and 12.7% versus 17.0% (FAV), respectively. ORR with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 39.5% versus 33.0% (ITT), 42.4% versus 27.5% (I/P), and 29.6% versus 51.6% (FAV). Rates of complete response were higher with NIVO+IPI versus SUN in all International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk groups (ITT, 12.0% versus 3.5%; I/P, 11.8% versus 2.6%; FAV, 12.8% versus 6.5%). The median duration of response (95% CI) with NIVO+IPI versus SUN was 76.2 versus 25.1 months [59.1 months-not estimable (NE) versus 19.8-33.2 months] in ITT patients, 82.8 versus 19.8 months (54.1 months-NE versus 16.4-26.4 months) in I/P patients, and 61.5 versus 33.2 months (27.8 months-NE versus 24.8-51.4 months) in FAV patients. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was consistent with previous reports. Exploratory post hoc analyses are reported for FAV patients, those receiving subsequent therapy based on their response status, clinical subpopulations, and adverse events over time. CONCLUSIONS: Superior survival, durable response benefits, and a manageable safety profile were maintained with NIVO+IPI versus SUN at 8 years, the longest phase III follow-up for a first-line checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy in aRCC.

Looking beyond LCI: Multiple breath washout phase III slope derived indices and their application in chronic respiratory disease in children.

The multiple breath washout (MBW) test is widely reported in the context of Lung Clearance Index (LCI). LCI reflects global ventilation inhomogeneity but does not provide information regarding the localization of disease along the respiratory tree. The MBW-derived normalized phase III slope (SnIII) indices (Scond and Sacin), instead, can distinguish between convective-dependent and diffusion-convection-dependent ventilation inhomogeneity considered to occur within the conductive and acinar airways, respectively. In cystic fibrosis, Scond tends to become abnormal even earlier than LCI and spirometry. The value of Scond and Sacin in clinical practice has been recently explored in other respiratory conditions, including asthma, primary ciliary dyskinesia, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, bronchiolitis obliterans, and sickle cell disease. In this narrative review we offer an overview on the theoretical background, potentialities, and limitations of SnIII analysis in children, including challenges and feasibility aspects. Moreover, we summarize current evidence on the use of SnIII-derived indices across different groups of pediatric chronic respiratory disease and we highlight the gaps in knowledge that need to be addressed in future studies.

Neoadjuvant radiotherapy combined with fluorouracil-cisplatin plus cetuximab in operable, locally advanced esophageal carcinoma: Results of a phase I-II trial (FFCD-0505/PRODIGE-3).

Background: Radiotherapy combined with fluorouracil (5FU) and cisplatin for locally advanced esophageal cancer is associated with a 20-25% pathologic complete response (pCR) rate. Cetuximab increases the efficacy of radiotherapy in patients with head and neck carcinomas. The aim of this phase I/II trial was to determine the optimal doses and the pCR rate with chemoradiotherapy (C-RT) plus cetuximab. Methods: A 45-Gy radiotherapy regimen was delivered over 5 weeks. The phase I study determined the dose-limiting toxicity and the maximum tolerated dose of 5FU-cisplatin plus cetuximab. The phase II trial aimed to exhibit a pCR rate > 20 % (25 % expected), requiring 33 patients (6 from phase I part plus 27 in phase II part). pCR was defined as ypT0Nx. Results: The phase I study established the following recommended doses: weekly cetuximab (400 mg/m2 one week before, and 250 mg/m2 during radiotherapy); 5FU (500 mg/m2/day, d1-d4) plus cisplatin (40 mg/m2, d1) during week 1 and 5. In the phase II part, 32 patients received C-RT before surgery, 31 patients underwent surgery, and resection was achieved in 27 patients. A pCR was achieved in five patients (18.5 %) out of 27. After a median follow-up of 19 months, the median progression-free survival was 13.7 months, and the median overall survival was not reached. Conclusions: Adding cetuximab to preoperative C-RT was toxic and did not achieve a pCR > 20 % as required. The recommended doses, determined during the phase I part, could explain these disappointing results due to a reduction in chemotherapy dose-intensity. Trial registration: This trial was registered with EudraCT number 2006-004770-27.

STELLAR-303: randomized phase III study of zanzalintinib + atezolizumab in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer.

Most patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) have limited treatment options following standard-of-care therapy. VEGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have demonstrated clinical activity in mCRC in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), particularly in patients without liver metastases. The TKI zanzalintinib (XL092) targets VEGFR, MET and TAM kinases, proteins that are involved in tumor growth, angiogenesis, metastasis and immunosuppression. Zanzalintinib has immunomodulatory properties that may enhance response to ICIs. Presented is the design of STELLAR-303, a global, phase III, open-label, randomized study evaluating zanzalintinib plus atezolizumab versus regorafenib in patients with non-MSI-H mCRC who progressed during/after or are refractory/intolerant to standard-of-care therapy. The primary end point is overall survival in patients without liver metastases.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05425940 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is cancer of the colon or rectum that has spread to other parts of the body, most often to the liver, lungs and abdomen. People with mCRC that has worsened after initial treatment have limited options. Zanzalintinib is a novel oral investigational drug that can slow or stop cancer growth. It works by blocking certain proteins that play important roles in the development, growth and spread of cancer. Zanzalintinib may also help improve the effectiveness of another class of cancer drugs called immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), which work by activating the patient's immune system to fight cancer. Here, we describe the design of STELLAR-303, an ongoing study that is comparing the effects of combining zanzalintinib and an ICI drug called atezolizumab with an approved treatment for mCRC called regorafenib. About 900 participants with mCRC will be enrolled in the study worldwide. To be included in the study, participants must have mCRC that worsened after previous therapies and must not have a high level of microsatellite instability, which is a specific feature of some mCRCs. Participants will be randomly given one of the two treatments. The main goal of the study is to evaluate zanzalintinib plus atezolizumab compared with regorafenib by measuring the length of time participants are alive after starting treatment, specifically in patients with mCRC that has not spread to the liver. Additionally, the study will look at the side effects with each treatment. The study is currently seeking participants.

Using the phase III slope of exhaled methane during a single breath DLCO test to assess ventilation heterogeneity.

BACKGROUND: The Phase III slope from a single breath nitrogen washout test provides information about ventilation heterogeneity (VH) in the lungs. PURPOSE: To determine if the Phase III slope from the exhaled tracer gas concentration during a standard, single breath DLCO test using rapid gas analysis provides similar information about VH. BASIC PROCEDURES: Retrospective analysis of clinical pulmonary function laboratory data including spirometry, lung volumes, and DLCO. The normalized Phase III slope from the exhaled CH4 concentration (SnCH4) was compared among different patterns of physiologic abnormality and with VA/TLC as an indicator of VH. MAIN FINDINGS: SnCH4 was the steepest in the group with "Obstruction and Low DLCO", with significant differences between this group and the "Normal", "Obstruction with Normal DLCO", "Mixed Obstruction and Restriction" and "Isolated Low DLCO" groups. SnCH4 was steeper in current and former smokers compared to non-smokers. Among the entire study sample, SnCH4 correlated with VA/TLC (Spearman rho = -0.56, p < 0.01) and remained a significant determinant of VA/TLC by regression modeling. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS: The SnCH4 derived from a standard, single breath DLCO test using rapid gas analysis varied among distinct patterns of physiologic abnormalities and was associated with VA/TLC as a measure of VH.

Efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide monotherapy vs placebo in a predominantly Chinese population with type 2 diabetes (PIONEER 11): a double-blind, Phase IIIa, randomised trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide monotherapy vs placebo in a predominantly Chinese population with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled with diet and exercise alone. METHODS: The Peptide Innovation for Early Diabetes Treatment (PIONEER) 11 trial was a double-blind, randomised, Phase IIIa trial conducted across 52 sites in the China region (mainland China and Taiwan), Hungary, Serbia and Ukraine. Eligible participants were ≥18 years (≥20 years in Taiwan), had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes with HbA1c 53-86 mmol/mol (7.0-10.0%) and were not receiving any glucose-lowering drugs. After a 4-week run-in period in which participants were treated with diet and exercise alone, those who fulfilled the randomisation criteria were randomised (1:1:1:1) using a web-based randomisation system to receive once-daily oral semaglutide 3 mg, 7 mg or 14 mg or placebo for 26 weeks (using a 4-week dose-escalation regimen for the higher doses). Randomisation was stratified according to whether participants were from the China region or elsewhere. The primary and confirmatory secondary endpoints were change from baseline to week 26 in HbA1c and body weight (kg), respectively. Safety was assessed in all participants exposed to at least one dose of the trial product. RESULTS: Between October 2019 and October 2021, a total of 774 participants were screened and 521 participants were randomised to oral semaglutide 3 mg (n=130), 7 mg (n=130), 14 mg (n=130) or placebo (n=131); most participants (92.5%, n=482) completed the trial, with 39 participants prematurely discontinuing treatment. The number of participants contributing to the trial analyses was based on the total number of participants who were randomised at the beginning of the trial. The majority of participants were male (63.7%), and the mean age of participants was 52 years. At baseline, mean HbA1c and body weight were 63 mmol/mol (8.0%) and 79.6 kg, respectively. Oral semaglutide resulted in significantly greater reductions in HbA1c than placebo at week 26 (p<0.001 for all doses). The estimated treatment differences (ETDs [95% CIs]) for oral semaglutide 3 mg, 7 mg and 14 mg vs placebo were -11 (-13, -9) mmol/mol, -16 (-18, -13) mmol/mol and -17 (-19, -15) mmol/mol, respectively. The corresponding ETDs in percentage points (95% CI) vs placebo were -1.0 (-1.2, -0.8), -1.4 (-1.6, -1.2) and -1.5 (-1.8, -1.3), respectively. Significantly greater reductions in body weight were also observed for oral semaglutide 7 mg and 14 mg than for placebo at week 26 (ETD [95% CI] -1.2 kg [-2.0 kg, -0.4 kg; p<0.01] and -2.0 kg [-2.8 kg, -1.2 kg; p<0.001], respectively), but not for oral semaglutide 3 mg (ETD [95% CI] -0.0 kg [-0.9 kg, 0.8 kg; not significant]). Similar reductions in HbA1c and body weight were observed in the Chinese subpopulation, which represented 74.9% of participants in the overall population. Adverse events (AEs) occurred in between 65.4% and 72.3% of participants receiving oral semaglutide (for all doses) and 57.3% of participants with placebo. Most AEs were mild to moderate in severity, with few serious AEs reported; the most commonly reported AEs were gastrointestinal-related and were more frequent with semaglutide (all doses) than with placebo. The proportion of AEs was slightly higher in the Chinese subpopulation. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Oral semaglutide resulted in significantly greater reductions in HbA1c across all doses and in significant body weight reductions for the 7 mg and 14 mg doses when compared with placebo in predominantly Chinese participants with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled by diet and exercise alone. Oral semaglutide was generally well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with that seen in the global PIONEER trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04109547. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S.

Efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide vs sitagliptin in a predominantly Chinese population with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with metformin: PIONEER 12, a double-blind, Phase IIIa, randomised trial.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide vs sitagliptin in a predominantly Chinese population with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin treatment. METHODS: The Peptide Innovation for Early Diabetes Treatment (PIONEER) 12 trial was a randomised, double-dummy, active-controlled, parallel-group, Phase IIIa trial conducted over 26 weeks at 90 sites across the China region (including mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong) and five other countries. Adults aged ≥18 years (≥20 years in Taiwan) with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, HbA1c between 53 and 91 mmol/mol (inclusive) and treated with a stable daily dose of metformin were eligible for inclusion. Participants were randomised (1:1:1:1) using a web-based randomisation system to either once-daily oral semaglutide (3 mg, 7 mg or 14 mg) or once-daily oral sitagliptin 100 mg. Treatment allocation was masked to both participants and investigators. Randomisation was stratified according to whether participants were from the China region or elsewhere. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26. The confirmatory secondary endpoint was change in body weight (kg) from baseline to week 26. All randomised participants were included in the full analysis set (FAS). All participants exposed to at least one dose of trial product were included in the safety analysis (SAS). RESULTS: Of 1839 participants screened, 1441 were randomly assigned to oral semaglutide 3 mg (n=361), 7 mg (n=360), 14 mg (n=361) or sitagliptin 100 mg (n=359) and included in the FAS. A total of 1438 participants were included in the SAS. In total, 75.2% of participants were from the China region. A total of 1372 (95.2%) participants completed the trial and 130 participants prematurely discontinued treatment (8.3%, 8.6% and 15.0% for oral semaglutide 3 mg, 7 mg and 14 mg, respectively; 4.2% for sitagliptin 100 mg). Significantly greater reductions in HbA1c from baseline to week 26 were reported for all doses of oral semaglutide vs sitagliptin 100 mg. For oral semaglutide 3 mg, 7 mg and 14 mg vs sitagliptin 100 mg, the estimated treatment differences (ETDs [95% CI]) were -2 (-4, -1) mmol/mol, -8 (-9, -6) mmol/mol and -11 (-12, -9) mmol/mol, respectively. The corresponding ETDs (95% CI) in percentage points vs sitagliptin 100 mg were -0.2 (-0.3, -0.1), -0.7 (-0.8, -0.6) and -1.0 (-1.1, -0.8), respectively. Reductions in body weight were significantly greater for all doses of oral semaglutide vs sitagliptin 100 mg (ETD [95% CI] -0.9 [-1.4, -0.4] kg, -2.3 [-2.8, -1.8] kg and -3.3 [-3.8, -2.8] kg for 3 mg, 7 mg and 14 mg, respectively). In the subpopulation of participants from the China region (75.2% of trial participants), reductions in HbA1c and body weight from baseline to week 26 were similar to those seen in the overall population. The most frequent adverse events in the semaglutide treatment arms were gastrointestinal, although these were mostly transient and mild/moderate in severity. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Significantly greater reductions in both HbA1c and body weight over 26 weeks were seen with oral semaglutide 3 mg, 7 mg and 14 mg than with sitagliptin 100 mg in a predominantly Chinese population with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin treatment. Oral semaglutide was generally well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with that seen in the global PIONEER trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04017832. FUNDING: This trial was funded by Novo Nordisk A/S, Søborg, Denmark.

Open-label, dose-escalation FIGHT-101 study of pemigatinib combined with targeted therapy, chemotherapy, or immunotherapy in patients with advanced malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Pemigatinib is an oral, potent, selective fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) 1-3 inhibitor. FIGHT-101, a three-part, open-label, first-in-human, phase I/II study (NCT02393248), evaluated pemigatinib in patients with advanced solid tumors. In parts 1 and 2, pemigatinib monotherapy had a manageable safety profile and antitumor activity in FGFR-altered tumors. Part 3 (pemigatinib combination therapies) results are presented here. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received 9, 13.5, or 20 mg oral once-daily pemigatinib on continuous or intermittent schedules with gemcitabine and cisplatin (pemi/gem/cis), docetaxel (pemi/doc), trastuzumab (pemi/tras), pembrolizumab (pemi/pembro), or retifanlimab (pemi/reti) irrespective of whether the tumor was confirmed as FGFR altered. Primary endpoints were safety and pharmacodynamics. Secondary endpoints were investigator-assessed tumor objective response rates (ORRs) and pharmacokinetics (PK). RESULTS: Of 65 enrolled patients (pemi/gem/cis, n = 8; pemi/doc, n = 7; pemi/tras, n = 6; pemi/pembro, n = 26; pemi/reti, n = 18), all discontinued. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were generally consistent with individual drug AEs. Serious and grade ≥3 TEAEs occurred in 0%-85.7% and 33.3%-100.0% of patients across treatment groups, respectively. All pemigatinib combinations demonstrated steady-state PK comparable to monotherapy. Pharmacodynamic effects in all pemigatinib combinations, except pemi/gem/cis, were consistent with monotherapy. Less inhibition of FGFR2α phosphorylation was observed with this combination. ORRs (95% confidence interval) were 37.5% [8.5% to 75.5% (pemi/gem/cis)], 14.3% [0.4% to 57.9% (pemi/doc)], 0% (pemi/tras), 26.9% [11.6% to 47.8% (pemi/pembro)], and 11.1% [1.4% to 34.7% (pemi/reti)]. All groups had instances of tumor shrinkage. ORRs in assessable patients with FGFR rearrangements and mutations were 50% and 33%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pemigatinib combination therapy showed no unexpected toxicities. PK and pharmacodynamics were mostly consistent with pemigatinib monotherapy. Pemi/gem/cis (37.5%) and pemi/pembro (26.9%) had the highest ORR; most responders had FGFR alterations.

Precision cancer medicine platform trials: Concepts and design of AcSé-ESMART.

Precision cancer medicine brought the promise of improving outcomes for patients with cancer. High-throughput molecular profiling of tumors at treatment failure aims to direct a patient to a treatment matched to the tumor profile. In this way, improved outcome has been achieved in a small number of patients whose tumors exhibit unique targetable oncogenic drivers. Most cancers, however, contain multiple genetic alterations belonging to and of various hallmarks of cancer; for most of these alterations, there is limited knowledge on the level of evidence, their hierarchical roles in oncogenicity, and utility as biomarkers for response to targeted treatment(s). We developed a proof-of-concept trial that explores new treatment strategies in a molecularly-enriched tumor-agnostic, pediatric population. The evaluation of novel agents, including first-in-child molecules, alone or in combination, is guided by the available understanding of or hypotheses for the mechanisms of action of the diverse cancer events. Main objectives are: to determine 1) recommended phase 2 doses, 2) activity signals to provide the basis for disease specific development, and 3) to define new predictive biomarkers. Here we outline concepts, rationales and designs applied in the European AcSé-ESMART trial and highlight the feasibility but also complexity and challenges of such innovative platform trials.

A crisis in clinical research.

The clinical research pipeline is critical to ensuring continued development of novel treatments that can offer patients with cancer safe and effective options. Unfortunately, progress has slowed since the COVID-19 pandemic due to uncovered, systemic inefficiencies across critical processes. Towards initiating discussion on how to reinvigorate clinical research, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) hosted a virtual summit that characterized issues and formed potential solutions. This commentary serves to highlight the crisis facing clinical research as well as stimulate field-wide discussion on how to better serve patients into the future.