A phase II study to explore biomarkers for the use of mFOLFOX6/XELOX plus bevacizumab as a first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (WJOG7612GTR).

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this prospective study was to assess the ability of plasma vascular endothelial growth factor-A short isoforms (pVEGF-Asi) to predict bevacizumab (BV) efficacy and to explore other circulating biomarkers in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients treated with modified FOLFOX6/XELOX plus BV (mFOLFOX6/XELOX + BV). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Pre-treatment plasma samples were collected from 100 mCRC patients receiving first-line chemotherapy with mFOLFOX6/XELOX + BV. The plasma levels of 11 angiogenesis-associated molecules, including pVEGF-Asi and 22 cancer-associated gene mutations in circulating tumor DNA, were analyzed. For the primary endpoint, we assumed that the hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) calculated using a Cox proportional hazards model was <1.15, comparing patients with a high versus those with a low pVEGF-Asi level divided according to the median pVEGF-Asi value. RESULTS: The median value of pVEGF-Asi was 37 (range 6.5-262) pg/ml. The HR for PFS between the high and low pVEGF-Asi patient groups was 1.3 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8-2.1; log rank, P = 0.25], which was larger than the predefined threshold of 1.15. The multivariate analysis demonstrated that PFS was significantly associated with plasma intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (pICAM-1) (≥190.0 versus <190.0 ng/ml; HR 2.1; 95% CI 1.3-3.5), RAS (mutant versus wild; HR 2.5; 95% CI 1.5-4.3), and FBXW7 (mutant versus wild; HR 2.8; 95% CI 1.2-6.8), whereas overall survival was significantly associated with pICAM-1 (HR 2.0; 95% CI 1.1-3.7) and RAS (HR 2.6; 95% CI 1.5-4.6). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of BV was unable to compensate for the poor PFS associated with a high pVEGF-Asi level, suggesting that pVEGF-Asi is unlikely to be a good predictive biomarker of the efficacy of mFOLFOX6/XELOX + BV therapy. The clinical significance of circulating ICAM-1, mutant RAS, and mutant FBXW7 levels should be studied further.

S-1 and oxaliplatin versus tegafur-uracil and leucovorin as post-operative adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with high-risk stage III colon cancer: updated 5-year survival of the phase III ACTS-CC 02 trial.

BACKGROUND: The ACTS-CC 02 trial demonstrated that S-1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX) was not superior to tegafur-uracil and leucovorin (UFT/LV) in terms of disease-free survival (DFS) as adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk stage III colon cancer (any T, N2, or positive nodes around the origin of the feeding arteries). We now report the final overall survival (OS) and subgroup analysis according to the pathological stage (TNM 7th edition) for treatment efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent curative resection for pathologically confirmed high-risk stage III colon cancer were randomly assigned to receive either UFT/LV (300 mg/m2 of UFT and 75 mg/day of LV on days 1-28, every 35 days, five cycles) or SOX (100 mg/m2 of oxaliplatin on day 1 and 80 mg/m2/day of S-1 on days 1-14, every 21 days, eight cycles). The primary endpoint was DFS and the patients' data were updated in February 2020. RESULTS: A total of 478 patients in the UFT/LV group and 477 patients in the SOX group were included in the final analysis. With a median follow-up time of 74.3 months, the 5-year DFS rate was 55.2% in the UFT/LV group and 58.1% in the SOX group [stratified hazard ratio (HR) 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-1.11; P = 0.3973], and the 5-year OS rates were 78.3% and 79.1%, respectively (stratified HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.76-1.24; P = 0.8175). In the subgroup analysis, the 5-year OS rates in patients with T4N2b disease were 51.0% and 64.1% in the UFT/LV and SOX groups, respectively (HR 0.72; 95% CI 0.40-1.31). CONCLUSION: Our final analysis reconfirmed that SOX as adjuvant chemotherapy is not superior to UFT/LV in terms of DFS in patients with high-risk stage III colon cancer. The 5-year OS rate was similar in the UFT/LV and SOX groups.

Safety and efficacy of nivolumab in combination with S-1/capecitabine plus oxaliplatin in patients with previously untreated, unresectable, advanced, or recurrent gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer: interim results of a randomized, phase II trial (ATTRACTION-4).

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab is approved as an option for third- or later-line treatment of advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer in several countries after ATTRACTION-2. To further improve the therapeutic efficacy of first-line therapy, exploration of a nivolumab-chemotherapy combination is warranted. In part 1 (phase II) of ATTRACTION-4, the safety and efficacy of nivolumab combined with S-1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX) or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CapeOX) as first-line therapy for unresectable advanced or recurrent human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative G/GEJ cancer were evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized (1 : 1) to receive nivolumab (360 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) plus SOX (S-1, 40 mg/m2 orally twice daily for 14 days followed by 7 days off; oxaliplatin, 130 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 every 3 weeks) or CapeOX (capecitabine, 1000 mg/m2 orally twice daily for 14 days followed by 7 days off; oxaliplatin, 130 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 every 3 weeks) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. RESULTS: Of 40 randomized patients, 39 (nivolumab plus SOX, 21; nivolumab plus CapeOX, 18) and 38 (21 and 17, respectively) comprised the safety and efficacy populations, respectively. Most frequent (>10%) grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia (14.3%) in the nivolumab plus SOX group, and neutropenia (16.7%), anemia, peripheral sensory neuropathy, decreased appetite, type 1 diabetes mellitus, and nausea (11.1% each) in the nivolumab plus CapeOX group. No treatment-related death occurred. Objective response rate was 57.1% (95% confidence interval 34.0-78.2) with nivolumab plus SOX and 76.5% (50.1-93.2) with nivolumab plus CapeOX. Median overall survival was not reached (NR) in both groups. Median progression-free survival was 9.7 months (5.8-NR) and 10.6 months (5.6-12.5), respectively. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab combined with SOX/CapeOX was well tolerated and demonstrated encouraging efficacy for unresectable advanced or recurrent HER2-negative G/GEJ cancer. ATTRACTION-4 has proceeded to part 2 (phase III) to compare nivolumab plus SOX/CapeOX versus placebo plus SOX/CapeOX. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV ID: NCT02746796.

Phase III, randomised trial of avelumab versus physician's choice of chemotherapy as third-line treatment of patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer: primary analysis of JAVELIN Gastric 300.

Background: There currently are no internationally recognised treatment guidelines for patients with advanced gastric cancer/gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC) in whom two prior lines of therapy have failed. The randomised, phase III JAVELIN Gastric 300 trial compared avelumab versus physician's choice of chemotherapy as third-line therapy in patients with advanced GC/GEJC. Patients and methods: Patients with unresectable, recurrent, locally advanced, or metastatic GC/GEJC were recruited at 147 sites globally. All patients were randomised to receive either avelumab 10 mg/kg by intravenous infusion every 2 weeks or physician's choice of chemotherapy (paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 or irinotecan 150 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15, each of a 4-week treatment cycle); patients ineligible for chemotherapy received best supportive care. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. Results: A total of 371 patients were randomised. The trial did not meet its primary end point of improving OS {median, 4.6 versus 5.0 months; hazard ratio (HR)=1.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9-1.4]; P = 0.81} or the secondary end points of PFS [median, 1.4 versus 2.7 months; HR=1.73 (95% CI 1.4-2.2); P > 0.99] or ORR (2.2% versus 4.3%) in the avelumab versus chemotherapy arms, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade occurred in 90 patients (48.9%) and 131 patients (74.0%) in the avelumab and chemotherapy arms, respectively. Grade ≥3 TRAEs occurred in 17 patients (9.2%) in the avelumab arm and in 56 patients (31.6%) in the chemotherapy arm. Conclusions: Treatment of patients with GC/GEJC with single-agent avelumab in the third-line setting did not result in an improvement in OS or PFS compared with chemotherapy. Avelumab showed a more manageable safety profile than chemotherapy. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02625623.

Randomized phase III and extension studies: efficacy and impacts on quality of life of naldemedine in subjects with opioid-induced constipation and cancer.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of naldemedine (a peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonist) for opioid-induced constipation (OIC) in subjects with cancer was demonstrated in the primary report of a phase III, double-blind study (COMPOSE-4) and its open-label extension (COMPOSE-5). The primary end point, the proportion of spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) responders, was met. Here, we report results from secondary end points, including quality of life (QOL) assessments from these studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In COMPOSE-4, eligible adults with OIC and cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive once-daily oral naldemedine 0.2 mg (n = 97) or placebo (n = 96) for 2 weeks, and those who continued on to COMPOSE-5 received naldemedine for 12 weeks (n = 131). Secondary assessments in COMPOSE-4 included the proportion of complete SBM (CSBM) responders, SBM or CSBM responders by week, and subjects with ≥1 SBM or CSBM within 24 h postinitial dose. Changes from baseline in the frequency of SBMs or CSBMs per week were assessed at weeks 1 and 2. Time to the first SBM or CSBM postinitial dose was also evaluated. In both studies, QOL impact was evaluated by Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms (PAC-SYM) and PAC-QOL questionnaires. RESULTS: Naldemedine improved bowel function for all secondary efficacy assessments versus placebo (all P ≤ 0.0002). The timely onset of naldemedine activity versus placebo was evidenced by median time to the first SBM (4.7 h versus 26.6 h) and CSBM (24.0 h versus 218.5 h) postinitial dose (all P < 0.0001). In COMPOSE-4, significant differences between groups were observed with the PAC-SYM stool domain (P = 0.045) and PAC-QOL dissatisfaction domain (P = 0.015). In COMPOSE-5, significant improvements from baseline were observed for overall and individual domain scores of PAC-SYM and PAC-QOL. CONCLUSIONS: Naldemedine provided effective and timely symptomatic relief from OIC and improved the QOL of subjects with OIC and cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION ID: www.ClinicalTrials.jp: JAPIC-CTI-132340 (COMPOSE-4) and JAPIC-CTI-132342 (COMPOSE-5).

Updated results from GEST study: a randomized, three-arm phase III study for advanced pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: The GEST study showed non-inferiority of S-1 but not superiority of gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) to gemcitabine alone for overall survival with the data by the cut-off date of 31st July in 2010 for chemo-naïve patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. We considered it important to determine whether S-1 maintains non-inferiority after a long-term follow-up in the GEST study and to obtain a firm positive conclusion. In addition, it may be an interesting challenge to explore the efficacious profile of GS in the long-term follow-up study. Using the data from the follow-up period, background and efficacy in patients from Taiwan and Japan, as well as the rates of tumor shrinkage in locally advanced and metastatic patients (Waterfall plot) were also analyzed. METHODS: The results of the primary analysis were reconfirmed, and subset analysis of overall survival and progression-free survival was performed based on the overall survival data updated by the cut-off date of 31st July in 2011. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 29.8 months, and 795 deaths occurred (95.6%). The median overall survival was 8.8 months for gemcitabine, 9.7 months for S-1 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.17), and 9.9 months for GS (HR 0.91; 97.5% CI 0.75-1.11). In patients with performance status (PS) 0, the median overall survival was 9.8 months for gemcitabine, 10.9 months for S-1, and 10.5 months for GS. In patients with PS 1, the median overall survival was 6.2 months for gemcitabine, 6.3 months for S-1, and 9.6 months for GS. CONCLUSION: Our survey reconfirmed the non-inferiority of S-1 to gemcitabine and showed S-1 can be used as one of the standard treatment options for advanced pancreatic cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00498225.

Inter-institutional heterogeneity in outcomes of chemotherapy for metastatic gastric cancer: correlative study in the JCOG9912 phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: The standard chemotherapy regimen for gastric cancer has been established by several phase III trials. However, few studies have evaluated inter-institutional heterogeneity in randomised trials; such research may assure the generalisability of the results and also the reliability of the study group itself. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG)9912 phase III trial compared irinotecan plus cisplatin and S-1 alone with fluorouracil alone for metastatic gastric cancer, and finally demonstrated the non-inferiority of S-1 alone with respect to overall survival (OS). Mixed effects models were used to evaluate outcomes of 658 patients from 22 hospitals. After adjustment for nine background factors, the heterogeneity in OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and incidences of grade 3-4 adverse events among hospitals was estimated. We also estimated the correlation between outcomes and either hospital volume or medical oncology clinical experience. RESULTS: A large degree of heterogeneity in median OS was observed for fluorouracil alone (range, 8.3-13.3 months), while the difference in median PFS between hospitals was small (range, 2.4-3.4 months). Although some heterogeneity in the treatment effect of irinotecan plus cisplatin or S-1 alone was observed in OS and PFS, the HRs did not exceed 1.00 in any hospital for either regimen. There was minimal heterogeneity in the incidences of grade 3-4 adverse events. There was a trend towards correlation between greater medical oncology clinical experience and both better OS after fluorouracil alone and a lower HR for OS after irinotecan plus cisplatin, but it was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Large inter-institutional heterogeneity was observed in OS, but not in PFS, after the standard regimen, but there was little heterogeneity in the treatment effects of irinotecan plus cisplatin or S-1 alone, indicating that the final results of the JCOG9912 trial can be generalised to the target population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00142350.

Randomized phase III study of bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI and bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (WJOG4407G).

BACKGROUND: FOLFIRI and FOLFOX have shown equivalent efficacy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), but their comparative effectiveness is unknown when combined with bevacizumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: WJOG4407G was a randomized, open-label, phase III trial conducted in Japan. Patients with previously untreated mCRC were randomized 1:1 to receive either FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (FOLFIRI + Bev) or mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab (mFOLFOX6 + Bev), stratified by institution, adjuvant chemotherapy, and liver-limited disease. The primary end point was non-inferiority of FOLFIRI + Bev to mFOLFOX6 + Bev in progression-free survival (PFS), with an expected hazard ratio (HR) of 0.9 and non-inferiority margin of 1.25 (power 0.85, one-sided α-error 0.025). The secondary end points were response rate (RR), overall survival (OS), safety, and quality of life (QoL) during 18 months. This trial is registered to the University Hospital Medical Information Network, number UMIN000001396. RESULTS: Among 402 patients enrolled from September 2008 to January 2012, 395 patients were eligible for efficacy analysis. The median PFS for FOLFIRI + Bev (n = 197) and mFOLFOX6 + Bev (n = 198) were 12.1 and 10.7 months, respectively [HR, 0.905; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.723-1.133; P = 0.003 for non-inferiority]. The median OS for FOLFIRI + Bev and mFOLFOX6 + Bev were 31.4 and 30.1 months, respectively (HR, 0.990; 95% CI 0.785-1.249). The best overall RRs were 64% for FOLFIRI + Bev and 62% for mFOLFOX6 + Bev. The common grade 3 or higher adverse events were leukopenia (11% in FOLFIRI + Bev/5% in mFOLFOX6 + Bev), neutropenia (46%/35%), diarrhea (9%/5%), febrile neutropenia (5%/2%), peripheral neuropathy (0%/22%), and venous thromboembolism (6%/2%). The QoL assessed by FACT-C (TOI-PFC) and FACT/GOG-Ntx was favorable for FOLFIRI + Bev during 18 months. CONCLUSION: FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab was non-inferior for PFS, compared with mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab, as the first-line systemic treatment for mCRC. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: UMIN000001396.

A randomized phase II study of S-1 plus oral leucovorin versus S-1 monotherapy in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of adding oral leucovorin (LV) to S-1 when compared with S-1 monotherapy in patients with gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer (PC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Gemcitabine-refractory PC patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive S-1 at 40, 50, or 60 mg according to body surface area plus LV 25 mg, both given orally twice daily for 1 week, repeated every 2 weeks (SL group), or S-1 monotherapy at the same dose as the SL group for 4 weeks, repeated every 6 weeks (S-1 group). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Among 142 patients enrolled, 140 were eligible for efficacy assessment (SL: n = 69 and S-1: n = 71). PFS was significantly longer in the SL group than in the S-1 group [median PFS, 3.8 versus 2.7 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.37-0.85; P = 0.003]). The disease control rate was significantly higher in the SL group than in the S-1 group (91% versus 72%; P = 0.004). Overall survival (OS) was similar in both groups (median OS, 6.3 versus 6.1 months; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.54-1.22; P = 0.463). After adjusting for patient background factors in a multivariate analysis, OS tended to be better in the SL group (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.47-1.07; P = 0.099). Both treatments were well tolerated, although gastrointestinal toxicities were slightly more severe in the SL group. CONCLUSION: The addition of LV to S-1 significantly improved PFS in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced PC, and a phase III trial has been initiated in a similar setting. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center: JapicCTI-111554.