A randomized, double-blind, phase III study comparing two doses of erlotinib for second-line treatment of current smokers with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (CurrentS).

OBJECTIVES: Active smokers with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have increased erlotinib metabolism versus non-smoking patients, which reduces exposure. Therefore, an increased erlotinib dose may be beneficial. The CurrentS study (NCT01183858) assessed efficacy and safety of 300mg erlotinib (E300) as second-line therapy in current smokers with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC versus the standard 150mg dose (E150). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC (current smokers who failed first-line platinum-based chemotherapy) were randomized to receive E150 or E300 until progression/death/unacceptable toxicity. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints: overall survival (OS), disease control rate and safety. RESULTS: A total of 342 patients were screened; the intent-to-treat population comprised 159 E300 patients and 154 E150 patients. Median PFS was 7.0 versus 6.9 weeks with E300 versus E150, respectively (unstratified hazard ratio [HR]=1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83-1.33; unstratified log-rank P=0.671). Median OS was 6.8 months in both arms (unstratified HR=1.03, 95% CI: 0.80-1.32; unstratified log-rank P=0.846). Overall, 89.2% (E300 arm) and 84.4% (E150 arm) experienced ≥1 adverse event (AE) of any grade (44.3% and 37%, respectively, experienced grade ≥3 AEs); AEs of special interest were reported in 67.7% and 47.4% of patients, respectively. E300 resulted in higher mean plasma concentrations versus E150, however, this did not improve efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the difference in erlotinib exposure, there was no evidence of an incremental efficacy benefit of a higher erlotinib dose versus the standard dose in this population of highly active smokers.

Vemurafenib in patients with BRAF(V600) mutated metastatic melanoma: an open-label, multicentre, safety study.

BACKGROUND: The orally available BRAF kinase inhibitor vemurafenib, compared with dacarbazine, shows improved response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma that has a BRAF(V600) mutation. We assessed vemurafenib in patients with advanced metastatic melanoma with BRAF(V600) mutations who had few treatment options. METHODS: In an open-label, multicentre study, patients with untreated or previously treated melanoma and a BRAF(V600) mutation received oral vemurafenib 960 mg twice a day. The primary endpoint was safety. All analyses were done on the safety population, which included all patients who received at least one dose of vemurafenib. This report is the third interim analysis of this study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01307397. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2011, and Jan 31, 2013, 3226 patients were enrolled in 44 countries. 3222 patients received at least one dose of vemurafenib (safety population). At data cutoff, 868 (27%) patients were on study treatment and 2354 (73%) had withdrawn, mainly because of disease progression. Common adverse events of all grades included rash (1592 [49%]), arthralgia (1259 [39%]), fatigue (1093 [34%]), photosensitivity reaction (994 [31%]), alopecia (826 [26%]), and nausea (628 [19%]). 1480 (46%) patients reported grade 3 or 4 adverse events, including cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (389 [12%]), rash (155 [5%]), liver function abnormalities (165 [5%]), arthralgia (106 [3%]), and fatigue (93 [3%]). Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were reported more frequently in patients aged 75 years and older (n=257; 152 [59%, 95% CI 53-65] and ten [4%, 2-7], respectively) than in those younger than 75 years (n=2965; 1286 [43%, 42-45] and 82 [3%, 2-3], respectively). INTERPRETATION: Vemurafenib safety in this diverse population of patients with BRAF(V600) mutated metastatic melanoma, who are more representative of routine clinical practice, was consistent with the safety profile shown in the pivotal trials of this drug. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Vemurafenib in patients with BRAF(V600) mutation-positive melanoma with symptomatic brain metastases: final results of an open-label pilot study.

BACKGROUND & AIM: Brain metastases are frequent in patients with metastatic melanoma, indicating poor prognosis. We investigated the BRAF kinase inhibitor vemurafenib in patients with advanced melanoma with symptomatic brain metastases. METHODS: This open-label trial assessed vemurafenib (960mg twice a day) in patients with BRAF(V600) mutation-positive metastatic melanoma with non-resectable, previously treated brain metastases. The primary end-point was safety. Secondary end-points included best overall response rate, and progression-free and overall survival. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients received vemurafenib for a median treatment duration of 3.8 (0.1-11.3) months. The majority of discontinuations were due to disease progression (n=22). Twenty-three of 24 patients reported at least one adverse event (AE). Grade 3 AEs were reported in four (17%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.7-37.4%) patients and included cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in four patients. Median progression-free survival was 3.9 (95% CI, 3.0-5.5) months, and median survival was 5.3 (95% CI, 3.9-6.6) months. An overall partial response (PR) at both intracranial and extracranial sites was achieved in 10 of 24 (42%; 95% CI, 22.1-63.4) evaluable patients, with stable disease in nine (38%; 95% CI, 18.8-59.4) patients. Of 19 patients with measurable intracranial disease, seven (37%) achieved >30% intracranial tumour regression, and three (16%; 95% CI, 3.4-39.6%) achieved a confirmed PR. Other signs of improvement included reduced need for corticosteroids and enhanced performance status. CONCLUSIONS: Vemurafenib can be safely used in patients with advanced symptomatic melanoma that has metastasised to the brain and can result in meaningful tumour regression.

Randomized phase III trial of maintenance bevacizumab with or without pemetrexed after first-line induction with bevacizumab, cisplatin, and pemetrexed in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer: AVAPERL (MO22089).

PURPOSE: Maintenance therapy is associated with improved survival in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but few studies have compared active agents in this setting. AVAPERL evaluated the safety and efficacy of bevacizumab with or without pemetrexed as continuation maintenance treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC received first-line bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg, cisplatin 75 mg/m(2), and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) once every 3 weeks for four cycles. Those achieving response or stable disease were randomly assigned at a ratio of 1:1 to maintenance bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg or bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) once every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) after random assignment. RESULTS: In total, 376 patients received induction treatment, 71.9% achieved disease control, and 67.3% were randomly assigned to maintenance therapy, with 125 and 128 receiving single-agent bevacizumab and bevacizumab plus pemetrexed treatment, respectively. At a median follow-up of 8.1 months, PFS from random assignment was significantly improved in the bevacizumab plus pemetrexed arm (median, 3.7 v 7.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.66; P < .001) per a stratified model. The PFS benefit extended across age, performance status, smoking history, and induction response (stable disease v partial response) subgroups. Any grade, grade ≥ 3, and serious adverse events occurred more often with bevacizumab plus pemetrexed maintenance. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: In an unselected population of patients with nonsquamous NSCLC who had achieved disease control with platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, bevacizumab plus pemetrexed maintenance was associated with a significant PFS benefit compared with bevacizumab alone. The combination was well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer: pooled analysis from seven randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: his analysis pooled individual patient data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to more thoroughly examine clinical outcomes when adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patient data were pooled from the first-line AVF2107, NO16966, ARTIST, AVF0780, AVF2192, and AGITG MAX RCTs and the second-line E3200 RCT. All analyses were based on the intent-to-treat population. To assess differences in time-to-event variables by treatment (chemotherapy with or without placebo vs. chemotherapy plus bevacizumab), stratified random-effects (overall) and fixed-effects (subgroup comparisons) models were used to estimate pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: The analysis population comprised 3,763 patients (1,773 chemotherapy with or without placebo; 1,990 chemotherapy plus bevacizumab). The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy was associated with statistically significant increases in overall survival (OS; HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71-0.90) and progression-free survival (PFS; HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.46-0.71). The effects on OS and PFS across subgroups defined by chemotherapy backbone (oxaliplatin-based, irinotecan-based), extent of disease (liver metastases only, extensive disease), age (<65, ≥65 years), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0, ≥1), and KRAS status (wild-type, mutant) were consistent with the overall analysis. Incidence rates of grade ≥3 hypertension, proteinuria, bleeding, wound-healing complications, gastrointestinal perforations, and thromboembolic events were increased with bevacizumab treatment. CONCLUSION: The use of bevacizumab with chemotherapy resulted in statistically significant increases in OS and PFS for patients with mCRC. The PFS benefit extended across the clinically relevant subgroups examined. The observed safety profile of bevacizumab was consistent with that reported in individual trials.

Phase II study of bevacizumab in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine as first-line treatment for HER-2-positive locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.

We report the first results from a phase II, open-label study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine as first-line therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-2-positive locally recurrent (LR) or metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Patients were aged ≥18 years with confirmed breast adenocarcinoma, measurable LR/MBC and documented HER-2-positive disease. Patients received bevacizumab (15 mg/kg on day 1) plus trastuzumab (8 mg/kg on day 1 of cycle 1, 6 mg/kg on day 1 of each subsequent cycle) plus capecitabine (1,000 mg/m2 twice daily, days 1-14) every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. Eighty-eight patients were enrolled; 40 (46%) are still on study treatment. The median follow-up was 8.8 months (range, 0.9-17.1 months). The overall response rate, the primary endpoint, was 73% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62%-82%), comprising 7% complete and 66% partial responses. The median progression-free survival interval was 14.4 months (95% CI, 10.4 months to not reached [NR]), with 35 events. The median time to progression was 14.5 months (95% CI, 10.5 months to NR), with 33 events. Treatment was well tolerated; main side effects were grade 3 hand-foot syndrome (22%), grade ≥3 diarrhea (9%), and grade ≥3 hypertension (7%). Overall, 44% of patients experienced grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events and 13 patients discontinued capecitabine because of toxicity, but continued with bevacizumab and trastuzumab. Heart failure was seen in two patients. The combination of bevacizumab, trastuzumab, and capecitabine was clinically active as first-line therapy for patients with HER-2-positive MBC, with an acceptable safety profile and no unexpected toxicities.