Bempegaldesleukin Plus Nivolumab in Untreated Advanced Melanoma: The Open-Label, Phase III PIVOT IO 001 Trial Results.

PURPOSE: Despite marked advances in the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma, the need for novel therapies remains. Bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG), a pegylated interleukin-2 (IL-2) cytokine prodrug, demonstrated efficacy in the phase II PIVOT-02 trial. PIVOT IO 001 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03635983) is a phase III, randomized, open-label study that builds on the PIVOT-02 results in first-line melanoma. METHODS: Patients with previously untreated, unresectable, or metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive BEMPEG plus nivolumab (NIVO) or NIVO monotherapy. Primary end points were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review and overall survival (OS). Secondary and exploratory end points included additional efficacy measures, safety, and pharmacokinetics (PKs) and pharmacodynamics analyses. RESULTS: In 783 patients (n = 391, BEMPEG plus NIVO; n = 392, NIVO monotherapy), the median follow-up was 11.6 months in the intent-to-treat population. The ORR with BEMPEG plus NIVO was 27.7% versus 36.0% with NIVO (two-sided P = .0311). The median PFS with BEMPEG plus NIVO was 4.17 months (95% CI, 3.52 to 5.55) versus 4.99 months (95% CI, 4.14 to 7.82) with NIVO (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 97% CI, 0.88 to 1.35; P = .3988). The median OS was 29.67 months (95% CI, 22.14 to not reached [NR]) with BEMPEG plus NIVO versus 28.88 months (95% CI, 21.32 to NR) with NIVO (HR, 0.94; 99.929% CI, 0.59 to 1.48; P = .6361). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) and serious AE rates were higher with the combination (21.7% and 10.1%, respectively) versus NIVO (11.5% and 5.5%, respectively). BEMPEG PK exposure and absolute lymphocyte count changes after BEMPEG plus NIVO were comparable between PIVOT IO 001 and PIVOT-02. CONCLUSION: The PIVOT IO 001 study did not meet its primary end points of ORR, PFS, and OS. Increased toxicity was observed with BEMPEG plus NIVO versus NIVO.

Real-World Testing Practices, Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes in Patients from Central Eastern Europe with EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Chart Review Study (REFLECT).

The targeted therapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) against the epidermal growth factor receptor mutation (EGFRm) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) changed the treatment paradigm. REFLECT study (NCT04031898) explored EGFR/T790M testing and treatment patterns in EGFRm NSCLC patients receiving first- or second-generation (1G/2G) EGFR TKIs as front-line (1L) in eight countries. Pooled data from Central Eastern Europe (CEE) countries from this study (Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Slovenia) are presented here. This physician-led chart review study was conducted in patients with confirmed-EGFRm NSCLC initiating 1L 1G/2G EGFR TKIs between 2015-2018. The CEE cohort included 389 patients receiving 1L erlotinib (37%), afatinib (34%), and gefitinib (29%). Overall, 320 (82%) patients discontinued 1L, and 298 (77%) progression events were registered. Median progression free survival on 1L TKIs was 14.0 (95% CI: 12.6-15.6) months. Median overall survival from 1L start was 26.6 (95% CI: 24.1-29.0) months. Attrition rate between 1L and next line was 30%. Among patients with 1L progression, 200 (67%) were tested for T790M and 58% were positive. This first CEE analysis of treatments and outcomes in EGFRm NSCLC patients highlights the importance of using the most efficacious therapies currently available in 1L to reduce attrition and improve patient outcomes.

Final Analysis of the Ipilimumab Versus Placebo Following Radiotherapy Phase III Trial in Postdocetaxel Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Identifies an Excess of Long-term Survivors.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 trial CA184-043 evaluated radiotherapy to bone metastases followed by Ipilimumab or placebo in men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had received docetaxel previously. In a prior analysis, the trial's primary endpoint (overall survival [OS]) was not improved significantly. OBJECTIVE: To report the final analysis of OS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 799 patients were randomized to receive a single dose of radiotherapy to one or more bone metastases followed by either Ipilimumab (n = 399) or placebo (n = 400). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: OS was analyzed in the intention-to-treat population. Prespecified and exploratory subset analyses based on Kaplan-Meier/Cox methodology were performed. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: During an additional follow-up of approximately 2.4 yr since the primary analysis, 721/799 patients have died. Survival analysis showed crossing of the curves at 7-8 mo, followed by persistent separation of the curves beyond that point, favoring the ipilimumab arm. Given the lack of proportional hazards, a piecewise hazard model showed that the hazard ratio (HR) changed over time: the HR was 1.49 (95% confidence interval 1.12, 1.99) for 0-5 mo, 0.66 (0.51, 0.86) for 5-12 mo, and 0.66 (0.52, 0.84) beyond 12 mo. OS rates were higher in the ipilimumab versus placebo arms at 2 yr (25.2% vs 16.6%), 3 yr (15.3% vs 7.9%), 4 yr (10.1% vs 3.3%), and 5 yr (7.9% vs. 2.7%). Disease progression was the most frequent cause of death in both arms. In seven patients (1.8%) in the ipilimumab arm and one (0.3%) in the placebo arm, the primary cause of death was reported as study drug toxicity. No long-term safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In this preplanned long-term analysis, OS favored ipilimumab plus radiotherapy versus placebo plus radiotherapy for patients with postdocetaxel mCRPC. OS rates at 3, 4, and 5 yr were approximately two to three times higher in the ipilimumab arm. PATIENT SUMMARY: After longer follow-up, survival favored the group of men who received ipilimumab, with overall survival rates being two to three times higher at 3 yr and beyond.

Access to Novel Drugs for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Central and Southeastern Europe: A Central European Cooperative Oncology Group Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) improved substantially in the last decades. Novel targeted and immune-oncologic drugs were introduced into routine treatment. Despite accelerated development and subsequent drug registrations by the European Medicinal Agency (EMA), novel drugs for NSCLC are poorly accessible in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The Central European Cooperative Oncology Group conducted a survey among experts from 10 CEE countries to provide an overview on the availability of novel drugs for NSCLC and time from registration to reimbursement decision in their countries. RESULTS: Although first-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors were reimbursed and available in all countries, for other registered therapies-even for ALK inhibitors and checkpoint inhibitors in first-line-there were apparent gaps in availability and/or reimbursement. There was a trend for better availability of drugs with longer time from EMA marketing authorization. Substantial differences in access to novel drugs among CEE countries were observed. In general, the availability of drugs is not in accordance with the Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS), as defined by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO). Time spans between drug registrations and national decisions on reimbursement vary greatly, from less than 3 months in one country to more than 1 year in the majority of countries. CONCLUSION: The access to novel drugs for NSCLC in CEE countries is suboptimal. To enable access to the most effective compounds within the shortest possible time, reimbursement decisions should be faster and ESMO MCBS should be incorporated into decision making.

Is there a correlation between peripheral blood expression of angiogenic transcriptional factors/receptors and colorectal cancer?

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether there is a correlation between peripheral blood expression of angiogenic transcriptional factors/receptors and colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: Eighty six blood samples collected from patients with CRC (N=42), adenomas and/or hyperplastic polyps(AP, N=30) and individuals without colon pathology (control group/CTR, N=14) were used for this study. Twelve transcription factors and receptors were assessed by qRT-PCR in a case-control study. The molecules with a minimum of 30% differences in gene expression for CRC and AP compared to CTR were then analyzed separately for each sample. Gene expression was evaluated relatively to the CTR after normalization to the large ribosomal protein PO (RPLPO) housekeeping gene, and the differential expression between studied groups was assessed by ANOVA. RESULTS: Seven out of 12 genes presented differences in expression between 10-29% in CRC and/or AP compared to CTR. Considering the selection criteria, we further individually evaluated the levels of expression of 5 genes that had a minimum of 30% expression in the case-control study. Our data showed a significant up-regulation of platelet derived growth factor (PDGF) C in the blood of the patients with CRC compared to CTR (p=0.007). Likewise, clusterin (CLU) was significantly up-regulated both in CRC and AP groups compared to healthy subjects (p=0.01). For VEGFR1, PDGFRA and TGFB1 we didn't find significantly differential expression between any of the studied groups, even if increased levels were observed in both CRC and AP vs CTR. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study indicated that increased blood level of PDGFC mRNA was associated with the presence of CRC (p=0.007). Additionally, high levels of circulating CLU mRNA were observed in both malignant and benign colorectal pathologies.

Analysis of KRAS/NRAS Mutations in a Phase III Study of Panitumumab with FOLFIRI Compared with FOLFIRI Alone as Second-line Treatment for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the influence of RAS mutation status on the treatment effect of panitumumab in a prospective-retrospective analysis of a randomized, multicenter phase III study of panitumumab plus fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) versus FOLFIRI alone as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT0039183). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Outcomes were from the study's primary analysis. RAS mutations beyond KRAS exon 2 (KRAS exons 3, 4; NRAS exons 2, 3, 4; BRAF exon 15) were detected by bidirectional Sanger sequencing in wild-type KRAS exon 2 tumor specimens. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were coprimary endpoints. RESULTS: The RAS ascertainment rate was 85%; 18% of wild-type KRAS exon 2 tumors harbored other RAS mutations. For PFS and OS, the hazard ratio (HR) for panitumumab plus FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI alone more strongly favored panitumumab in the wild-type RAS population than in the wild-type KRAS exon 2 population [PFS HR, 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.91); P = 0.007 vs. 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59-0.90); P = 0.004; OS HR, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.63-1.03); P = 0.08 vs. 0.85 (95% CI, 0.70-1.04); P = 0.12]. Patients with RAS mutations were unlikely to benefit from panitumumab. Among RAS wild-type patients, the objective response rate was 41% in the panitumumab-FOLFIRI group versus 10% in the FOLFIRI group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with RAS mutations were unlikely to benefit from panitumumab-FOLFIRI and the benefit-risk of panitumumab-FOLFIRI was improved in the wild-type RAS population compared with the wild-type KRAS exon 2 population. These findings support RAS testing for patients with mCRC. Clin Cancer Res; 21(24); 5469-79. ©2015 AACR.See related commentary by Salazar and Ciardiello, p. 5415.

Necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin alone as first-line therapy in patients with stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (SQUIRE): an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Necitumumab is a second-generation, recombinant, human immunoglobulin G1 EGFR antibody. In this study, we aimed to compare treatment with necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with previously untreated stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: We did this open-label, randomised phase 3 study at 184 investigative sites in 26 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2 and adequate organ function and who had not received previous chemotherapy for their disease were eligible for inclusion. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned centrally 1:1 to a maximum of six 3-week cycles of gemcitabine and cisplastin chemotherapy with or without necitumumab according to a block randomisation scheme (block size of four) by a telephone-based interactive voice response system or interactive web response system. Chemotherapy was gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) administered intravenously over 30 min on days 1 and 8 of a 3-week cycle and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) administered intravenously over 120 min on day 1 of a 3-week cycle. Necitumumab 800 mg, administered intravenously over a minimum of 50 min on days 1 and 8, was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or intolerable toxic side-effects occurred. Randomisation was stratified by ECOG performance status and geographical region. Neither physicians nor patients were masked to group assignment because of the expected occurrence of acne-like rash--a class effect of EGFR antibodies--that would have unmasked most patients and investigators to treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. We report the final clinical analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00981058. FINDINGS: Between Jan 7, 2010, and Feb 22, 2012, we enrolled 1093 patients and randomly assigned them to receive necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (n=545) or gemcitabine and cisplatin (n=548). Overall survival was significantly longer in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin alone group (median 11·5 months [95% CI 10·4-12·6]) vs 9·9 months [8·9-11·1]; stratified hazard ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·74-0·96; p=0·01]). In the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group, the number of patients with at least one grade 3 or worse adverse event was higher (388 [72%] of 538 patients) than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group (333 [62%] of 541), as was the incidence of serious adverse events (257 [48%] of 538 patients vs 203 [38%] of 541). More patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group had grade 3-4 hypomagnesaemia (47 [9%] of 538 patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group vs six [1%] of 541 in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group) and grade 3 rash (20 [4%] vs one [<1%]). Including events related to disease progression, adverse events with an outcome of death were reported for 66 (12%) of 538 patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group and 57 (11%) of 541 patients in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group; these were deemed to be related to study drugs in 15 (3%) and ten (2%) patients, respectively. Overall, we found that the safety profile of necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin was acceptable and in line with expectations. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that the addition of necitumumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy improves overall survival in patients with advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer and represents a new first-line treatment option for this disease. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin as first-line therapy in patients with stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (INSPIRE): an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Necitumumab is a second-generation recombinant human immunoglobulin G1 EGFR monoclonal antibody that competitively inhibits ligand binding. We aimed to compare necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin with pemetrexed and cisplatin alone in patients with previously untreated, stage IV, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We did this randomised, open-label, controlled phase 3 study at 103 sites in 20 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2 and adequate organ function, were randomly assigned 1:1 to treatment with a block randomisation scheme (block size of four) via a telephone-based interactive voice-response system or interactive web-response system. Patients received either cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 of a 3-week cycle for a maximum of six cycles alone, or with necitumumab 800 mg on days 1 and 8. Necitumumab was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Randomisation was stratified by smoking history, ECOG performance status, disease histology, and geographical region. Patients and study investigators were not masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00982111. FINDINGS: Between Nov 11, 2009, and Feb 2, 2011, we randomly assigned 633 patients to receive either necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin (n=315) or pemetrexed and cisplatin alone (n=318). Enrolment was stopped on Feb 2, 2011, after a recommendation from the independent data monitoring committee. There was no significant difference in overall survival between treatment groups, with a median overall survival of 11·3 months (95% CI 9·5-13·4) in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group versus 11·5 months (10·1-13·1) in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group (hazard ratio 1·01 [95% CI 0·84-1·21]; p=0·96). The incidence of grade 3 or worse adverse events, including deaths, was higher in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group than in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group; in particular, deaths regarded as related to study drug were reported in 15 (5%) of 304 patients in the necitumumab group versus nine (3%) of 312 patients in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group. Serious adverse events were likewise more frequent in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group than in the pemetrexed and cisplatin group (155 [51%] of 304 vs 127 [41%] of 312 patients). Patients in the necitumumab plus pemetrexed and cisplatin group had more grade 3-4 rash (45 [15%] of 304 vs one [<1%] of 312 patients in the pemetrexed and cisplatin alone group), hypomagnesaemia (23 [8%] vs seven [2%] patients), and grade 3 or higher venous thromboembolic events (23 [8%] vs 11 [4%] patients) than did those in the pemetrexed and cisplatin alone group. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show no evidence to suggest that the addition of necitumumab to pemetrexed and cisplatin increases survival of previously untreated patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC. Unless future studies identify potentially useful predictive biomarkers, necitumumab is unlikely to provide benefit in this patient population when combined with pemetrexed and cisplatin. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

FOLFOX4 Plus Cetuximab for Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer According to Tumor RAS and BRAF Mutation Status: Updated Analysis of the CECOG/CORE 1.2.002 Study.

BACKGROUND: This updated analysis of the CECOG/CORE 1.2.002 study investigated the association between clinical outcome and RAS and BRAF mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients treated with FOLFOX4 plus cetuximab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Available DNA samples from CECOG/CORE 1.2.002 study patients with KRAS exon 2 wild type (wt) (at codons 12 and 13) tumors were screened for mutations at other loci in the KRAS and NRAS (RAS) coding regions by Sanger sequencing, and for BRAF codon 600 mutations by Sanger sequencing and pyrosequencing. Clinical outcome was compared among different mutation subgroups. RESULTS: Of 152 KRAS wt mCRC patients, 148 were evaluable for RAS and BRAF mutation status. Eleven RAS mutations were detected in 10 patients' tumors (7%). BRAF mutations were detected in 14 patients' tumors (9%). RAS and BRAF tumor mutations were mutually exclusive. Compared with patients with RAS wt/BRAF wt tumors (n = 124; median overall survival, 28.5 months), those with RAS mutations (n = 10; median, 16.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.89; P = .020) or BRAF mutations (n = 14; median, 11.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.41; P < .0001) had worse overall survival, which remained significant (P < .04) when adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics among the mutation subgroups. CONCLUSION: These findings support those from recent studies that RAS and BRAF mutations are associated with poor outcome in patients receiving an epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted monoclonal antibody in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Furthermore, mutation testing should not only include RAS codons 12 and 13 but should also be extended to the entire coding regions.

Ipilimumab versus placebo after radiotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that had progressed after docetaxel chemotherapy (CA184-043): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ipilimumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 to enhance antitumour immunity. Our aim was to assess the use of ipilimumab after radiotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that progressed after docetaxel chemotherapy. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial in which men with at least one bone metastasis from castration-resistant prostate cancer that had progressed after docetaxel treatment were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive bone-directed radiotherapy (8 Gy in one fraction) followed by either ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to four doses. Non-progressing patients could continue to receive ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg or placebo as maintenance therapy every 3 months until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effect, or death. Patients were randomly assigned to either treatment group via a minimisation algorithm, and stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, alkaline phosphatase concentration, haemoglobin concentration, and investigator site. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00861614. FINDINGS: From May 26, 2009, to Feb 15, 2012, 799 patients were randomly assigned (399 to ipilimumab and 400 to placebo), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Median overall survival was 11·2 months (95% CI 9·5-12·7) with ipilimumab and 10·0 months (8·3-11·0) with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·85, 0·72-1·00; p=0·053). However, the assessment of the proportional hazards assumption showed that it was violated (p=0·0031). A piecewise hazard model showed that the HR changed over time: the HR for 0-5 months was 1·46 (95% CI 1·10-1·95), for 5-12 months was 0·65 (0·50-0·85), and beyond 12 months was 0·60 (0·43-0·86). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were immune-related, occurring in 101 (26%) patients in the ipilimumab group and 11 (3%) of patients in the placebo group. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events included diarrhoea (64 [16%] of 393 patients in the ipilimumab group vs seven [2%] of 396 in the placebo group), fatigue (40 [11%] vs 35 [9%]), anaemia (40 [10%] vs 43 [11%]), and colitis (18 [5%] vs 0). Four (1%) deaths occurred because of toxic effects of the study drug, all in the ipilimumab group. INTERPRETATION: Although there was no significant difference between the ipilimumab group and the placebo group in terms of overall survival in the primary analysis, there were signs of activity with the drug that warrant further investigation. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Quality of life in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer given maintenance treatment with pemetrexed versus placebo (H3E-MC-JMEN): results from a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Pemetrexed maintenance therapy significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival compared with placebo, and had a good safety profile in a phase 3 placebo-controlled study in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Results for quality of life, symptom palliation, and tolerability are presented here. METHODS: After four cycles of platinum-based induction therapy, 663 patients with stage IIIB or stage IV NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) from March 15, 2005, to July 20, 2007, using the Pocock and Simon minimisation method to receive pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2) every 21 days; n=441) or placebo (n=222) plus best supportive care until disease progression. The primary efficacy data have been reported previously. Patients completed the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) at baseline, after each cycle, and post-discontinuation. Worsening of symptoms was defined as an increase of 15 mm or more from baseline on a 100 mm scale for each LCSS item. The primary outcome for these quality-of-life analyses was time to worsening of symptoms, analysed for all randomised patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00102804. FINDINGS: Baseline characteristics, including LCSS scores, were well balanced between groups. Baseline LCSS scores were low, indicating low symptom burden for patients without disease progression after completion of first-line treatment. Longer time to worsening was recorded for pain (hazard ratio [HR] 0·76, 95% CI 0·59-0·99; p=0·041) and haemoptysis (HR 0·58, 95% CI 0·34-0·97; p=0·038) with pemetrexed than with placebo; no other significant differences in analyses of time to worsening were noted. Additional longitudinal analyses showed a greater increase in loss of appetite in the pemetrexed group than in the placebo group (4·3 mm vs 0·2 mm; p=0·028). Rates of resource use were statistically higher for pemetrexed than for placebo: admissions to hospital for drug-related adverse events (19 [4%] vs none; p=0·001), transfusions (42 [10%] vs seven [3%]; p=0·003), and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (26 [6%] vs four [2%]; p=0·017). INTERPRETATION: Quality of life during maintenance therapy with pemetrexed is similar to placebo, except for a small increase in loss of appetite, and significantly delayed worsening of pain and haemoptysis. In view of the improvements in overall and progression-free survival noted with pemetrexed maintenance therapy, such treatment is an option for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC who have not progressed after platinum-based induction therapy. FUNDING: Eli Lilly.

Research and standard of care: lung cancer in romania.

In Romania, lung cancer is the most frequent cancer in men and fourth most frequent in women, and its incidence and mortality continue to rise. Recently, firm antitobacco policies were implemented, in agreement with the MPOWER strategies recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). As of January 2012, the recognized "official" standard of care in lung cancer is still represented by the 2009 edition of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines. Cancer treatment is free, as the National Program of Oncology covers the budget for all cytotoxic agents and targeted therapy. However, reimbursement for several expensive drugs such as pemetrexed, erlotinib, and bevacizumab is individually approved by a centralized commission. All new drugs registered in Europe by the European Medicines Agency are concomitantly registered in Romania. However, no new drugs (such as gefitinib) or new indications (such as first-line tyrosine-kinase inhibitors or maintenance treatment) have been accepted for reimbursement since 2008. Clinical research is rapidly growing, and Romanian centers demonstrate a high recruitment rate in pivotal trials, despite initial delays because of a slow approval of the studies by authorities.

A phase II, open-label, randomized study to assess the efficacy and safety of AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) versus pemetrexed in patients with non-small cell lung cancer who have failed one or two prior chemotherapeutic regimens.

INTRODUCTION: AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) is a potent, selective MEK inhibitor. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AZD6244 versus pemetrexed as second- or third-line treatment in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: In this randomized phase II study, patients received either 100 mg oral AZD6244 free-base suspension twice daily or 500 mg/m(2) intravenous pemetrexed once every 3 weeks after pretreatment with a corticosteroid, folic acid, and vitamin B12. The primary end point of the study was the disease progression event count. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were randomized. Disease progression events were experienced by 28 (70%) and 26 (59%) patients in the AZD6244 and pemetrexed groups, respectively. Median progression-free survival was not statistically significantly different between the AZD6244 and pemetrexed groups (67 versus 90 days, respectively; hazard ratio 1.08, two-sided 80% confidence interval = 0.75-1.54; p = 0.79). Two patients in the AZD6244 group had a best response to treatment of partial response. In the pemetrexed group, one patient achieved a complete response and one patient a partial response. Dermatitis acneiform, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting were the most frequently reported adverse events with AZD6244, compared with fatigue, anemia, nausea, anorexia, and dermatitis acneiform with pemetrexed. CONCLUSIONS: Oral AZD6244 showed clinical activity as second- or third-line therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC. In an unselected NSCLC population, there is no suggestion that AZD6244 monotherapy offers any advantage over standard treatment with pemetrexed. Based on preclinical data and recent clinical observations, further development of AZD6244 in NSCLC should focus on BRAF or RAS mutation-positive patients and/or AZD6244-based combination regimens.

Cetuximab plus FOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI in metastatic colorectal cancer: CECOG trial.

AIM: To investigate efficacy and safety of cetuximab combined with two chemotherapy regimens in patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: Randomized patients received cetuximab with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), folinic acid (FA) and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) 6 (arm A, n = 74) or 5-FU, FA and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) (arm B, n = 77). KRAS mutation status was determined retrospectively in a subset of tumors (n = 117). RESULTS: No significant difference was found between treatment arms A and B in the progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 9 mo, 45% vs 34%; median PFS, 8.6 mo vs 8.3 mo [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.06]; overall response rate (ORR) 43% vs 45% [odds ratio (OR) = 0.93] and median overall survival (OS), 17.4 mo vs 18.9 mo (HR = 0.98). Patients with KRAS wild-type tumors demonstrated improved PFS (HR = 0.55, P = 0.0051), OS, (HR = 0.62, P = 0.0296) and ORR (53% vs 36%) and in arm A, improved PFS (HR = 0.49, P = 0.0196), OS (HR = 0.48, P = 0.0201) and ORR (56% vs 30%), compared with patients with KRAS mutated tumors. In arm B no significant differences were found in efficacy by KRAS mutation status. Treatment in arms A and B was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that combinations of cetuximab with FOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI are effective and significantly improve clinical outcome in KRAS wild-type compared with KRAS mutated mCRC.

A randomised Phase III trial of glufosfamide compared with best supportive care in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma previously treated with gemcitabine.

PURPOSE: There are currently no approved therapies for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma previously treated with gemcitabine. This Phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of glufosfamide as compared with best supportive care (BSC) in this patient population. METHODS: Patients were randomised to glufosfamide plus BSC or to BSC alone with baseline performance status as a stratification factor. The primary end-point was overall survival. RESULTS: Three hundred and three patients were randomised: 148 to glufosfamide plus BSC and 155 to BSC alone. There was an 18% increase in overall survival for glufosfamide that was not statistically significant: hazard ratio (HR) 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-1.08, p=0.19). Median survival was 105 (range 5-875) days for glufosfamide and 84 (range 2+ to 761) days for BSC. Grade 3/4 creatinine increase occurred in 6 patients on glufosfamide, including 4 with dosing errors. CONCLUSION: These results suggest low activity of glufosfamide in this very refractory patient population.

Phase III trial comparing paclitaxel poliglumex (CT-2103, PPX) in combination with carboplatin versus standard paclitaxel and carboplatin in the treatment of PS 2 patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Performance status (PS) 2 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) experience more toxicity, lower response rates, and shorter survival times than healthier patients treated with standard chemotherapy. Paclitaxel poliglumex (PPX), a macromolecule drug conjugate of paclitaxel and polyglutamic acid, reduces systemic exposure to peak concentrations of free paclitaxel and may lead to increased concentrations in tumors due to enhanced vascular permeability. METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive PS 2 patients with advanced NSCLC were randomized to receive carboplatin (area under the curve = 6) and either PPX (210 mg/m/10 min without routine steroid premedication) or paclitaxel (225 mg/m/3 h with standard premedication) every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 400 patients were enrolled. Alopecia, arthralgias/myalgias, and cardiac events were significantly less frequent with PPX/carboplatin, whereas grade > or =3 neutropenia and grade 3 neuropathy showed a trend of worsening. There was no significant difference in the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions despite the absence of routine premedication in the PPX arm. Overall survival was similar between treatment arms (hazard ratio, 0.97; log rank p = 0.769). Median and 1-year survival rates were 7.9 months and 31%, for PPX versus 8 months and 31% for paclitaxel. Disease control rates were 64% and 69% for PPX and paclitaxel, respectively. Time to progression was similar: 3.9 months for PPX/carboplatin versus 4.6 months for paclitaxel/carboplatin (p = 0.210). CONCLUSION: PPX/carboplatin failed to provide superior survival compared with paclitaxel/carboplatin in the first-line treatment of PS 2 patients with NSCLC, but the results with respect to progression-free survival and overall survival were comparable and the PPX regimen was more convenient.

Darbepoetin alpha for the treatment of anemia in patients with active cancer not receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy: results of a phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

PURPOSE: The efficacy and safety of darbepoetin alpha (DA) for treating patients with active cancer and anemia not receiving or planning to receive cytotoxic chemotherapy or myelosuppressive radiotherapy was evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with active cancer and anemia not receiving or planning to receive chemotherapy or radiotherapy were enrolled onto a phase III, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled study and administered placebo or DA 6.75 microg/kg every 4 weeks (Q4W) for up to 16 weeks with a 2-year follow-up for survival. Patients who completed 16 weeks of treatment could receive the same treatment as randomized Q4W for an additional 16 weeks. The primary end point was all occurrences of transfusions from weeks 5 through 17; safety end points included incidence of adverse events and survival. RESULTS: The incidence of transfusions between weeks 5 and 17 was lower in the DA group but was not statistically significantly different from that of placebo. DA was associated with an increased incidence of cardiovascular and thromboembolic events and more deaths during the initial 16-week treatment period. Long-term survival data demonstrated statistically significantly poorer survival in patients treated with DA versus placebo (P = .022). This effect varied by baseline covariates including, sex, tumor type, and geographic region; statistical significance diminished (P = .12) when the analysis was adjusted for baseline imbalances or known prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: DA was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in transfusions. Shorter survival was observed in the DA arm; thus, this study does not support the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in this subset of patients with anemia of cancer.

Malignant primary pulmonary tumor with hemangiopericytoma-like features: conventional hemangiopericytoma versus solitary fibrous tumor.

Although extremely rare, the primitive lung hemangiopericytoma in adults is similar to hemangiopericytomas with other soft tissue localizations. Although generally benign and curable after radical surgery, it might also have a malignant clinical course with dissemination in both lungs, infiltration of vital organs (heart, pulmonary artery), extension to the adjacent tissues, and even pulmonary metastases. The treatment of choice is the complete tumor resection with negative surgical margins after excision. Certain histologic features might indicate a malignant potential. The clinical outcome of patients is variable: some are cured after radical surgery and others might present relapse and recurrences that necessitate a second intervention, radiation therapy, and/or chemotherapy. Over the years, the conventionally-defined hemangiopericytoma concept has evolved because of the nonspecific histologic growth pattern (characteristic monotonous appearance, moderate or high cellularity, and a well-developed branching vascular pattern) shared by numerous, unrelated benign or malignant lesions. Hemangiopericytoma is no longer considered a specific entity but rather as a characteristic growth pattern; in the heterogeneous group of hemangiopericytoma-like neoplasms, many lesion categories have been individualized and defined. We report an uncommon case of primitive lung tumor exhibiting hemangiopericytoma-like features, with an aggressive, fatal clinical course. Because of the major histologic overlap between solitary fibrous tumor and hemangiopericytoma and lack of clear classification criteria, we encountered difficulty in including this case in a known clinical entity; primitive solitary fibrous tumor of the lung, which mimics lung hemangiopericytoma, seemed to be the most plausible diagnosis. We discuss the case particularities and the radiologic and pathologic correlations.

Altered left ventricular diastolic performance in oncologic patients treated with epirubicin.

Anthracyclines confer an increased risk of cardiotoxicity. The authors evaluated left ventricular (LV) performance in patients treated with epirubicin. Sixty-eight patients with malignancies (study group), treated with epirubicin < or = 450 mg/m2, and a matched control group of 68 cancer patients who had not started chemotherapy were evaluated by Doppler echocardiography. The authors assessed LV diastolic function by measuring the transmitral flow: the maximal velocity of the E and A waves, the Emax/Amax ratio, the pressure half time of E wave (PHT), and the isovolumic relaxation time (IVRT). Global LV ejection fraction (LVEF) was estimated to determine the systolic performance. The authors documented alterations of the LV diastolic performance in the study group by finding a significant decrease in Emax, whereas Amax was significantly increased. Prolonged PHT and IVRT were also certified in the epirubicin-treated group compared with controls. No significant variation in LVEF between the 2 groups was detected.