Patient-reported outcomes with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Results of this double-blind, phase 2 trial showed patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer given olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone had significantly improved progression-free survival. Here, we present an exploratory analysis of pain and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial was conducted across 41 urological oncology sites in 11 countries in Europe and North America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and had previously received docetaxel and up to one additional line of previous chemotherapy. Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer was defined as increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration or other signs of disease progression despite androgen-deprivation therapy and serum testosterone concentrations at castrate levels (≤50 ng/dL), and with at least one metastatic lesion on bone scan, CT, or MRI. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral olaparib (300 mg twice per day) plus oral abiraterone (1000 mg once a day) and oral prednisone or prednisolone (5 mg twice a day) or placebo plus abiraterone (1000 mg once a day) and prednisone or prednisolone (5 mg twice a day). Randomisation was done without stratification and by use of an interactive voice or web response system. A randomised treatment kit ID number was assigned sequentially to each patient as they became eligible. The primary endpoint (radiographic progression-free survival) has previously been reported. HRQOL was a prespecified exploratory patient-reported outcome. Patients were asked to complete the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF), single-item worst bone pain, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire, and EuroQol-5 five-dimension five level (EQ-5D-5L) assessment at baseline, at weeks 4, 8, and 12, then every 12 weeks until treatment discontinuation. Prespecified outcomes were change from baseline in BPI-SF worst pain, single-item worst bone pain and FACT-P Total Outcome Index (TOI) scale scores, time to deterioration in BPI-SF worst pain and worst bone pain, and assessment of the EQ-5D-5L pain and discomfort domain. All analyses were exploratory and done in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned patients, including patients who were randomly assigned but did not subsequently go on to receive study treatment), with the exception of mean baseline and total change from baseline analyses, for which we used the population who had a valid baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01972217, and is no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between Nov 25, 2014, and July 14, 2015, 171 patients were assessed for eligibility. 29 patients were excluded, and 142 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive olaparib and abiraterone (n=71) or placebo and abiraterone (n=71). Data cutoff was Sept 22, 2017. Median follow-up was 15·9 months (IQR 8·1-25·5) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and 24·5 months (8·1-27·6) in the placebo plus abiraterone group. Questionnaire compliance was generally high (43-100%). Least-squares mean changes from baseline in BPI-SF worst pain, single-item worst bone pain, and FACT-P TOI remained stable across all visits for patients in both treatment groups. Adjusted mean change in FACT-P TOI from baseline across all visits was -0·10 (95% CI -2·50 to 2·71) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and -1·20 (-4·15 to 1·74) in the placebo plus abiraterone group (difference 1·30, 95% CI -2·70 to 5·30; p=0·52). Time to deterioration in pain was similar in both groups (BPI-SF worst pain HR 0·90 [95% CI 0·62-1·32], p=0·30; worst bone pain HR 0·85 [0·59-1·22], p=0·18). Improvement rates in the pain and discomfort domain of the EQ-5D-5L were similar in both groups from baseline to week 48, beyond which a higher proportion of patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone arm reported an improvement compared to the placebo plus abiraterone group. INTERPRETATION: In these prespecified exploratory analyses, there was no significant difference in pain or HRQOL when olaparib was added to abiraterone. In this phase 2 trial, a statistically significant radiographic progression-free survival benefit was observed with the olaparib plus abiraterone combination. These results suggest that the improved survival benefits observed when combining olaparib with abiraterone does not result in different HRQOL compared with placebo plus abiraterone. Phase 3 studies are required to validate these results. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA.

Sunitinib-Induced Elevation of Mean Corpuscular Volume (MCV)-Exploring Its Possible Clinical Relevance in Cancer Patients.

Sunitinib is a broad-spectrum multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor mainly used as second-line therapy for non-resectable gastrointestinal stromal or first-line treatment option of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), and as an "off-label" option in pediatric oncology. It has been previously reported that sunitinib elevates the mean corpuscular volume of erythrocytes (MCV) in treated subjects. The aim of this study was to assess time-dependent changes of this effect and evaluate its possible clinical relevance. In this study, 179 adult and 21 pediatric patients with solid tumors treated with sunitinib were retrospectively analyzed. The laboratory and treatment-related data were collected for each treatment period. The regression model with a broken-line relationship was used to fit time dependence of the MCV. In the adult group, the MCV was increasing during the first 21.6 weeks (median) of treatment in a median level of 99.8 fL, where it stabilized. MCV increase was faster in the patients who suffered from treatment-related adverse events (21.3 vs. 24.6 weeks, p = 0.010). In the pediatric cohort, the MCV dynamics were similar to adults. In conclusion, MCV changes during sunitinib treatment in pediatric and adult patients may be of clinical utility in monitoring sunitinib treatment course.

Olaparib combined with abiraterone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and homologous recombination repair (HRR) mutations have a better response to treatment with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib than patients without HRR mutations. Preclinical data suggest synergy between olaparib and androgen pathway inhibitors. We aimed to assess the efficacy of olaparib plus the androgen pathway inhibitor abiraterone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer regardless of HRR mutation status. METHODS: We carried out this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial at 41 urological oncology sites in 11 countries across Europe and North America. Eligible male patients were aged 18 years or older with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had previously received docetaxel and were candidates for abiraterone treatment. Patients were excluded if they had received more than two previous lines of chemotherapy, or had previous exposure to second-generation antihormonal drugs. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive voice or web response system, without stratification, to receive oral olaparib 300 mg twice daily or placebo. All patients received oral abiraterone 1000 mg once daily and prednisone or prednisolone 5 mg twice daily. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS; based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 2 criteria). Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned patients, and safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of olaparib or placebo. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01972217, and is no longer recruiting patients. FINDINGS: Between Nov 25, 2014, and July 14, 2015, 171 patients were assessed for eligibility. Of those, 142 patients were randomly assigned to receive olaparib and abiraterone (n=71) or placebo and abiraterone (n=71). The clinical cutoff date for the final analysis was Sept 22, 2017. Median rPFS was 13·8 months (95% CI 10·8-20·4) with olaparib and abiraterone and 8·2 months (5·5-9·7) with placebo and abiraterone (hazard ratio [HR] 0·65, 95% CI 0·44-0·97, p=0·034). The most common grade 1-2 adverse events were nausea (26 [37%] patients in the olaparib group vs 13 [18%] patients in the placebo group), constipation (18 [25%] vs eight [11%]), and back pain (17 [24%] vs 13 [18%]). 38 (54%) of 71 patients in the olaparib and abiraterone group and 20 (28%) of 71 patients in the placebo and abiraterone group had grade 3 or worse adverse events, including anaemia (in 15 [21%] of 71 patients vs none of 71), pneumonia (four [6%] vs three [4%]), and myocardial infarction (four [6%] vs none). Serious adverse events were reported by 24 (34%) of 71 patients receiving olaparib and abiraterone (seven of which were related to treatment) and 13 (18%) of 71 patients receiving placebo and abiraterone (one of which was related to treatment). One treatment-related death (pneumonitis) occurred in the olaparib and abiraterone group. INTERPRETATION: Olaparib in combination with abiraterone provided clinical efficacy benefit for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer compared with abiraterone alone. More serious adverse events were observed in patients who received olaparib and abiraterone than abiraterone alone. Our data suggest that the combination of olaparib and abiraterone might provide an additional clinical benefit to a broad population of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Bevacizumab with FOLFIRI or XELIRI in the First-line Therapy of Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma: Results from Czech Observational Registry.

AIM: To retrospectively compare the efficacy of two irinotecan-based chemotherapy regimens combined with bevacizumab in first-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The data of 558 patients with mCRC treated with first-line bevacizumab plus irinotecan-containing regimen were obtained from the national CORECT registry that collects data of all patients with mCRC treated with targeted-agents. The treatment outcomes of patients treated with bevacizumab plus irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid (FOLFIRI) were compared to patients treated with bevacizumab plus irinotecan and capecitabine (XELIRI). RESULTS: Among 4,312 patients with CRC treated with bevacizumab, only 13% (558) received irinotecan-based chemotherapy. No significant differences were observed in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival between FOLFIRI and XELIRI groups. Moreover, the toxicity of both regimens was also comparable. CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis confirms the comparable activity of FOLFIRI and XELIRI regimens when combined with bevacizumab.

Prednisone plus cabazitaxel or mitoxantrone for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel treatment: a randomised open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: Cabazitaxel is a novel tubulin-binding taxane drug with antitumour activity in docetaxel-resistant cancers. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel plus prednisone with those of mitoxantrone plus prednisone in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with progressive disease after docetaxel-based treatment. METHODS: We undertook an open-label randomised phase 3 trial in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had received previous hormone therapy, but whose disease had progressed during or after treatment with a docetaxel-containing regimen. Participants were treated with 10 mg oral prednisone daily, and were randomly assigned to receive either 12 mg/m(2) mitoxantrone intravenously over 15-30 min or 25 mg/m(2) cabazitaxel intravenously over 1 h every 3 weeks. The random allocation schedule was computer-generated; patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation, but the study team was masked to the data analysis. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival and safety. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00417079. FINDINGS: 755 men were allocated to treatment groups (377 mitoxantrone, 378 cabazitaxel) and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At the cutoff for the final analysis (Sept 25, 2009), median survival was 15·1 months (95% CI 14·1-16·3) in the cabazitaxel group and 12·7 months (11·6-13·7) in the mitoxantrone group. The hazard ratio for death of men treated with cabazitaxel compared with those taking mitoxantrone was 0·70 (95% CI 0·59-0·83, p<0·0001). Median progression-free survival was 2·8 months (95% CI 2·4-3·0) in the cabazitaxel group and 1·4 months (1·4-1·7) in the mitoxantrone group (HR 0·74, 0·64-0·86, p<0·0001). The most common clinically significant grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (cabazitaxel, 303 [82%] patients vs mitoxantrone, 215 [58%]) and diarrhoea (23 [6%] vs one [<1%]). 28 (8%) patients in the cabazitaxel group and five (1%) in the mitoxantrone group had febrile neutropenia. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with cabazitaxel plus prednisone has important clinical antitumour activity, improving overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer whose disease has progressed during or after docetaxel-based therapy. FUNDING: Sanofi-Aventis.

[Cetuximab and irinotecan for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer--pilot results from Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute]. / Cetuximab a irinotekan v lécbe metastatického kolorektálního karcinomu--pilotní výsledky z Masarykova onkologického ustavu.

BACKGROUND: Combination of cetuximab and irinotecan is an efficacious second- (and further-)-line treatment-alternative in patients with EGFR-positive metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to irinotecan. In this retrospective study we present treatment results of patients treated combination of cetuximab and irinotecan in Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Results were collected on forty-seven patients who started the therapy from July 2005 to February 2008. Primary outcomes were: response rate, time to progression and overall survival. Secondary outcomes were: treatment-related toxicity and identification of any predictive and prognostic markers. P-value was based on Gehan-Wilcoxon test or chi-square test and P-values < or = 0.05 were considered significant. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Forty-two patients were valuable for the treatment response. Objective response rate (complete and partial remission) was 35.7% (15 patients) and disease control (response and disease stabilization) was achieved in 30 patients (71.4%). The median time to progression was 6, 4 months (range 1, 5-25 months). On the date of statistical processing (median follow-up: 9, 2 months, range 2, 5-27 months) there were 26 patients alive and the median overall survival was 17, 1 months. We have confirmed correlation between the grade of the skin rush and the treatment response (p = 0.05) and time to progression ( p = 0.01), on the other hand there was no association between EGFR expression and these parameters. The therapy was also effective in 8 of 14 patients (57%), who had documented resistance to irinotecan. CONCLUSIONS: We have confirmed the efficacy of cetuximab and irinotecan combination for the therapy of patients with pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer. Our results are optimistic, but have to be validated in the course of time. The existence of nonresponding patients and by reason of pharmacoeconomy, we should give attention to the new molecular predictive and prognostic markers such as: K-ras-mutation and EGFR gene copy number.

Detection and long-term in vivo monitoring of individual tumor-specific T cell clones in patients with metastatic melanoma.

We investigated the presence of individual melanoma-specific T cell clones in patients with metastatic melanoma. Ten patients were examined for the presence of melanoma-reactive T cells using dendritic cells loaded with autologous tumor cells. Their specificity was tested using nonradioactive cytotoxicity test. Individual immunodominant T cell clones were identified by the clonotypic assay that combines in vitro cell culture, immunomagnetic sorting of activated IFN-gamma(+) T cells, TCRbeta locus-anchored RT-PCR, and clonotypic quantitative PCR. All patients had detectable melanoma-reactive T cells in vitro. Expanded melanoma-reactive T cells demonstrated specific cytotoxic effect against autologous tumor cells in vitro. Three patients experienced objective responses, and their clinical responses were closely associated with the in vivo expansion and long-term persistence of individual CD8(+) T cell clones with frequencies of 10(-6) to 10(-3) of all circulating CD8(+) T cells. Five patients with progressive disease experienced no or temporary presence of circulating melanoma-reactive T cell clones. Thus, circulating immunodominant CD8(+) T cell clones closely correlate with clinical outcome in patients with metastatic melanoma.