FOLFOXIRI Plus Cetuximab or Bevacizumab as First-Line Treatment of BRAFV600E-Mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The Randomized Phase II FIRE-4.5 (AIO KRK0116) Study.

PURPOSE: BRAFV600E mutation is associated with a poor outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This clinical trial investigated the efficacy of triplet chemotherapy (fluorouracil, folinic acid, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) combined with either cetuximab or bevacizumab in patients with previously untreated BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this controlled, randomized, open-label phase II trial, 109 patients were randomly assigned, 107 of whom were included into the full analysis set (FAS). Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either FOLFOXIRI plus cetuximab in the experimental arm (n = 72) or FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab in the control arm (n = 35). The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) according to RECIST 1.1., evaluated in patients treated according to protocol (ATP population). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), toxicity, and feasibility were analyzed as secondary end points. RESULTS: Eighteen patients discontinued study treatment before the first tumor assessment, thus resulting in the ATP population of 89 patients. In these patients, ORR was 51% (30/59) in the cetuximab-based experimental arm and 67% (20/30) in the bevacizumab-based control arm (odds ratio, 1.93; 80% CI, 1.06 to 3.52; P = .92 [one-sided]). In the full analysis set, median PFS was significantly inferior in the experimental arm (6.7 months v 10.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 1.89; P = .006). Median OS analyzed at an event rate of 64.5% showed a trend toward shorter survival in cetuximab-treated patients (12.9 months v 17.1 months; HR, 1.4; P = .20). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, FIRE-4.5 is the first prospective and randomized study investigating first-line treatment of BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC. FOLFOXIRI plus cetuximab does not induce a higher ORR when compared with FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab in first-line treatment of BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC. Bevacizumab-based chemotherapy remains the preferable first-line treatment of patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC.

Efficacy of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab vs FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in 1st-line treatment of older patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: an analysis of the randomised trial FIRE-3.

BACKGROUND: The evidence on the efficacy of anticancer therapy is limited in older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This retrospective analysis of phase III FIRE-3 trial assesses the efficacy of FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab according to the patients' age and sidedness of primary tumour. METHODS: The study endpoints overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between younger (<65 years) and older (≥65 years) patients, followed by stratification according to primary tumour sidedness. ORR was compared using Fisher´s exact test, OS and PFS were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Univariate Cox regression analyses assessed hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for OS and PFS. RESULTS: Overall, older patients with RAS WT tumours had a significantly shorter OS when compared to younger patients (25.9 months vs 29.3 months, HR 1.29; P = 0.02). Also the proportion of right-sided tumours was significantly greater in older patients (27.1% vs 17.9%; P = 0.029). Secondary resection rates were numerically higher in younger patients (25.4% vs. 17.6%, P = 0.068) than in older patients. This was primarily seen in the Cetuximab arm, where older patients underwent less likely resection (13.1% vs. 26%; P = 0.02). Older patients with left-sided tumours showed only a trend towards greater efficacy of cetuximab (HR 0.86; P = 0.38). In patients with right-sided primary tumours, older patients did not appear to benefit from cetuximab in contrast to younger patients (≥65 years: 16.6 months vs 23.6 months, HR 1.1; P = 0.87; <65 years: 21.9 months vs 16.4 months HR 1.5; P = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: In FIRE-3, OS was generally shorter in older patients in comparison to younger patients. This could be explained by the overrepresentation of right-sided tumours and a lower secondary resection rate in older patients. The efficacy of targeted therapy was dependent on tumour sidedness in older patients with RAS WT mCRC. CLINICAL TRIAL: FIRE-3 (NCT00433927).

The CLL12 trial: ibrutinib vs placebo in treatment-naïve, early-stage chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Observation is the current standard of care for patients with early-stage asymptomatic chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), as chemotherapy-based interventions have failed to prolong survival. We hypothesized that early intervention with ibrutinib would be well tolerated and lead to superior disease control in a subgroup of early-stage patients with CLL. The phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled CLL12 trial randomly assigned asymptomatic, treatment-naïve Binet stage A CLL patients at increased risk of progression in a 1:1 ratio to receive ibrutinib (n = 182) or placebo (n = 181) at a dose of 420 mg daily. At a median follow-up of 31 months, the study met its primary endpoint by significantly improving event-free survival in the ibrutinib group (median, not reached vs 47.8 months; hazard ratio = 0.25; 95% confidence interval = 0.14-0.43, P < .0001). Compared with placebo, ibrutinib did not increase overall toxicity, yielding similar incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs). The most common serious AEs were atrial fibrillation, pneumonia, and rash in the ibrutinib group, and basal cell carcinoma, pneumonia, and myocardial infarction in the placebo group. Ibrutinib-associated risk for bleeding (33.5%) was decreased by prohibiting the use of oral anticoagulants through an amendment of the study protocol and by avoiding CYP3A4 drug-drug interactions. Ibrutinib confirms efficacy in CLL patients at an early stage with an increased risk of progression. However, the results do not justify changing the current standard of "watch and wait." This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02863718.

Quality of life and outcome of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine: Real-life results from the prospective QOLIXANE trial of the Platform for Outcome, Quality of Life and Translational Research on Pancreatic Cancer registry.

Few data exist on health-related quality of life (QoL) in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) receiving first-line chemotherapy (Awad L ZE, Mesbah M Boston, MA. Applying survival data methodology to analyze quality of life data, in Mesbah M, Cole BF, Ting Lee M-L (eds): Statistical Methods for Quality of Life Studies: Design, Measurements and Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002). The QOLIXANE study is a prospective, noninterventional, multicenter substudy of the Platform for Outcome, Quality of Life and Translational Research on Pancreatic Cancer (PARAGON) registry, which evaluated QoL in patients with mPC receiving first-line gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy in real-life setting. QoL was prospectively measured via EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaires at baseline and every month thereafter. Therapy and efficacy parameters were prospectively collected. Main objectives were the rate of patients without deterioration of Global Health Status/QoL (GHS/QoL) at 3 and 6 months. Six hundred patients were enrolled in 95 German study sites. Median progression-free survival was 5.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.2-6.3). Median overall survival (OS) was 8.9 months (95% CI, 7.9-10.2), while median time to deterioration of GHS/QoL was 4.7 months (95% CI, 4.0-5.6). With a baseline GHS/QoL score of 46 (SD, 22.8), baseline QoL of the patients was severely impaired, in most cases due to loss in role functioning and fatigue. In the Kaplan-Meier analysis, 61% and 41% of patients had maintained GHS/QoL after 3 and 6 months, respectively. However, in the QoL response analysis, 35% and 19% of patients had maintained (improved or stable) GHS/QoL after 3 and 6 months, respectively, while 14% and 9% had deteriorated GHS/QoL with the remaining patients being nonevaluable. In the Cox regression analysis, GHS/QoL scores strongly predicted survival with a hazard ratio of 0.86 (P < .0001). Patients with mPC have poor QoL at baseline that deteriorates within a median of 4.7 months. Treatment with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel is associated with maintained QoL in relevant proportions of patients. However, overall, results remain poor, reflecting the aggressive nature of the disease.

Amphiregulin Expression Is a Predictive Biomarker for EGFR Inhibition in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Combined Analysis of Three Randomized Trials.

PURPOSE: Amphiregulin (AREG) and epiregulin (EREG) are ligands of EGFR. Predictive information for anti-EGFR treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was observed, but data for other agents is limited. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Ligand mRNA expression; RAS, BRAF, PIK3CA mutations; and EGFR expression were assessed by qRT-PCR, pyrosequencing, and IHC, respectively, in mCRC tumor tissue of patients participating in the randomized controlled trials FIRE-1, CIOX, and FIRE-3. Normalized mRNA expression was dichotomized using median and third quartile. Overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method including univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses. Penalized spline regression analysis tested interaction of mRNA expression and outcome. RESULTS: Of 688 patients with available material, high AREG expression was detected in 343 (>median) and 172 (>3rd quartile) patients. High AREG expression was associated with significantly higher OS [26.2 vs. 21.5 months, HR = 0.80; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.68-0.94; P = 0.007], PFS (10.0 vs. 8.1 months, HR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63-0.86; P = 0.001), and objective response rate (63.1% vs. 51.6%, P = 0.004) compared to low expression at both threshold values. This effect remained significant in multivariate Cox regression analysis (OS: P = 0.01, PFS: P = 0.002). High AREG mRNA expression interacted significantly with the efficacy of cetuximab compared with bevacizumab (OS: P = 0.02, PFS: P = 0.04) in RAS WT mCRC. CONCLUSIONS: High AREG mRNA expression is a favorable prognostic biomarker for mCRC which interacted significantly with efficacy of anti-EGFR treatment.

Prevalence and influence on outcome of HER2/neu, HER3 and NRG1 expression in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Our aim was to explore the impact of the HER2/neu, HER3 receptor as well as their ligands' neuregulin (NRG1) expression on the outcome of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). NRG1, HER2/neu and HER3 expression was evaluated in 208 patients with mCRC receiving 5-FU/LV plus irinotecan or irinotecan plus oxaliplatin as the first-line treatment. Biomarker expression was correlated with the outcome of patients. NRG1 (low: 192 vs. high: 16), HER2/neu (low: 201 vs. high: 7) and HER3 (low: 69 vs. high: 139) expressions were assessed in 208 patients. High versus low NRG1 expression significantly affected progression-free survival (PFS) [4.7 vs. 8.2 months, hazard ratio (HR): 2.45; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.45-4.13; P=0.001], but not overall survival (OS) (15.5 vs. 20.7 months, HR: 1.33; 95% CI: 0.76-2.35; P=0.32). High versus low HER3 expression (PFS: 7.1 vs. 8.8 months, HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.82-1.50; P=0.50; OS: 19.8 vs. 21.1 months, HR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.70-1.30; P=0.75) and high compared with low HER2/neu expression (PFS: 7.7 vs. 8.0 months, HR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.71-1.60; P=0.75; OS: 16.6 vs. 21.1 months, HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.75-1.71; P=0.57) did not influence outcome. High NRG1 expression was associated with inferior PFS in the FIRE-1 trial. We did not detect a prognostic impact of HER2/neu and HER3 overexpression in mCRC. The frequency of overexpression was comparable with other studies.

Relation of early tumor shrinkage (ETS) observed in first-line treatment to efficacy parameters of subsequent treatment in FIRE-3 (AIOKRK0306).

We explored the association of early tumor shrinkage (ETS) and non-ETS with efficacy of first-line and consecutive second-line treatment in patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated in FIRE-3. Assessment of tumor shrinkage was based on the sum of longest diameters of target lesions, evaluated after 6 weeks of treatment. Shrinkage was classified as ETS (shrinkage by ≥ 20%), mETS (shrinkage by 0 to <20%), mPD (minor progression >0 to <20%) and PD (progression ≥20%). Overall survival (OS) was 33.2 (95% CI 28.0-38.4) months in ETS patients, while non-ETS was associated with less favorable outcome (mETS 24.0 (95% CI 21.2-26.9) months, mPD 19.0 (95% CI 13.0-25.0) months, PD 12.8 (95% CI 11.1-14.5) months). Differences in PFS of first-line therapy were less pronounced. ETS subgroups defined in first-line therapy also correlated with efficacy of second-line therapy. Progression-free survival in second-line (PFS2nd) was 6.5 months (5.8-7.2) for ETS, and was 5.6 (95% CI 4.7-6.5) months for mETS, 4.9 (95% CI 3.7-6.1) months for mPD and 3.3 (95% CI 2.3-4.3) months for PD. PFS of first-line and PFS2nd showed a linear correlation (Bravais-Pearson coefficient: 0.16, p = 0.006). While ETS is associated with the most favorable outcome, non-ETS represents a heterogeneous subgroup with distinct characteristics of less favorable initial tumor response to treatment. This is the first analysis to demonstrate that early tumor response observed during first-line FOLFIRI-based therapy may also relate to efficacy of second-line treatment. Early response parameters may serve as stratification factors in trials recruiting pretreated patients.

FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a post-hoc analysis of tumour dynamics in the final RAS wild-type subgroup of this randomised open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: FIRE-3 compared first-line 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. The same study also reported an exploratory analysis of a subgroup of patients with tumours that were wild-type at other RAS genes (KRAS and NRAS exons 2-4). We report here efficacy results for the FIRE-3 final RAS (KRAS/NRAS, exons 2-4) wild-type subgroup. Moreover, new metrics of tumour dynamics were explored during a centralised radiological review to investigate how FOLFIRI plus cetuximab conferred overall survival benefit in the absence of differences in investigator-assessed objective responses and progression-free survival. METHODS: FIRE-3 was a randomised phase 3 trial comparing FOLFIRI plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. The primary endpoint of the FIRE-3 study was the proportion of patients achieving an objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.0 in the intention-to-treat population. A centralised radiological review of CT scans was done in a post-hoc analysis to assess objective response according to RECIST 1.1, early tumour shrinkage, depth of response, duration of response, and time to response in the final RAS wild-type subgroup. Comparisons between treatment groups with respect to objective response rate and early tumour shrinkage were made using Fisher's exact test (two-sided), while differences in depth of response were investigated with a two-sided Wilcoxon test. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00433927. FINDINGS: In the final RAS wild-type population (n=400), median overall survival was better in the FOLFIRI plus cetuximab group than the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group (33·1 months [95% CI 24·5-39·4] vs 25·0 months [23·0-28·1]; hazard ratio 0·70 [0·54-0·90]; p=0·0059), although investigator-assessed objective response and progression-free survival were comparable between treatment groups. Centralised radiological review of CT-assessable patients (n=330) showed that the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (113 of 157, 72·0% [95% CI 64·3-78·8] vs 97 of 173, 56·1% [48·3-63·6]; p=0·0029), frequency of early tumour shrinkage (107 of 157, 68·2% [60·3-75·4] vs 85 of 173, 49·1% [41·5-56·8]; p=0·0005), and median depth of response (-48·9% [-54·3 to -42·0] vs -32·3% [-38·2 to -29·2]; p<0·0001) were significantly better in extended RAS wild-type patients receiving FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus those receiving FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. No differences in duration of response and time to response were observed between treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: This analysis provides a new framework that connects alternative metrics of response to overall survival. Superior response-related outcome parameters, such as early tumour shrinkage and depth of response, obtained by centralised radiological review correlated with the overall survival benefit conferred by FOLFIRI plus cetuximab compared with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the extended RAS wild-type subgroup. FUNDING: Merck KGaA and Pfizer.

Bendamustine plus rituximab versus fludarabine plus rituximab for patients with relapsed indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas: a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Fludarabine-based chemoimmunotherapy with rituximab is frequently used in patients with indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas who relapse after alkylating chemotherapy. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of rituximab with bendamustine or fludarabine in patients with relapsed, indolent, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and mantle-cell lymphoma. METHODS: For this randomised, non-inferiority, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients from 55 centres in Germany, who were subsequently randomised centrally according to prespecified randomisation lists with permuted blocks of randomly variable block size to rituximab (375 mg/m(2), day 1) plus either bendamustine (90 mg/m(2), days 1 and 2) or fludarabine (25 mg/m(2), days 1-3) every 28 days for a maximum of six 28-day cycles. Patients were aged 18 years or older with a WHO performance status of 0-2 and had relapsed or refractory indolent or mantle-cell lymphoma; patients refractory to regimens that included rituximab, bendamustine, or purine analogue drugs were excluded. Patients were stratified by histological subtypes of lymphoma and by their latest previous therapies. Treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival and the final analysis was completed per protocol. Non-inferiority of bendamustine plus rituximab versus fludarabine plus rituximab was defined as a difference of less than 15% in 1-year progression-free survival. The protocol was amended in July, 2006, after approval of rituximab maintenance (375 mg/m(2) every 3 months for up to 2 years), which was then given to patients achieving a response to either trial treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01456351 (closed to enrolment, follow-up is ongoing). FINDINGS: Between Oct 8, 2003, and Aug 5, 2010, we randomly assigned 230 patients to treatment groups (116 bendamustine plus rituximab, 114 fludarabine plus rituximab). 11 patients were excluded for protocol violations and were not followed up further (two in the bendamustine plus rituximab group and nine in the fludarabine plus rituximab group). Thus, 219 patients were included in the per-protocol analysis (114 bendamustine plus rituximab, 105 fludarabine plus rituximab). 1-year progression-free survival with bendamustine plus rituximab was 0·76 (95% CI 0·68-0·84) and 0·48 (0·39-0·58) with fludarabine plus rituximab (non-inferiority p<0·0001). At a median follow-up of 96 months (IQR 73·2-112·9), median progression-free survival with bendamustine plus rituximab was 34·2 months (95% CI 23·5-52·7) and 11·7 months (8·0-16·1) with fludarabine plus rituximab (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54 [95% CI 0·38-0·72], log-rank test p<0·0001). Safety outcomes were similar in both groups, with 46 serious adverse events recorded (23 in the bendamustine plus rituximab group and 23 in the fludarabine plus rituximab group), most commonly myelosuppression and infections. INTERPRETATION: In combination with rituximab, bendamustine was more effective than fludarabine, suggesting that bendamustine plus rituximab may be the preferred treatment option for patients with relapsed indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas. FUNDING: Roche Pharma AG, Ribosepharm GmbH, Mundipharma GmbH, Studiengruppe indolente Lymphome (StiL).

Outcome of advanced chronic lymphocytic leukemia following different first-line and relapse therapies: a meta-analysis of five prospective trials by the German CLL Study Group (GCLLSG).

To evaluate the effect of first-line and subsequent therapies, the outcome of 1,558 patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia from five prospective phase II/III trials conducted between 1999 and 2010 was analyzed. The 3-year overall survival rate was higher after first-line treatment with chemoimmunotherapies such as fludarabine/cyclophosphamide/rituximab (87.9%) or bendamustine/rituximab (90.7%) compared to chemotherapies without an antibody (fludarabine/cyclophosphamide: 84.6%; fludarabine: 77.5%; chlorambucil: 77.4%). Furthermore, the median overall survival was longer in patients receiving at least one antibody-containing regimen in any treatment line (94.4 months) compared to the survival in patients who never received an antibody (84.3 months, P<0.0001). Univariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated that patients who did receive antibody treatment had a 1.42-fold higher risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval: 1.185-1.694). Therapies administered at relapse were very heterogeneous. Only 55 of 368 patients (14.9%) who started second-line treatment >24 months after first-line therapy repeated the first-line regimen. Among 315 patients requiring treatment ≤24 months after first-line therapy, cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine/prednisone with or without rituximab as well as alemtuzumab were the most commonly used therapies. In these early relapsing patients, the median overall survival was shorter following therapies containing an anthracycline and/or three or more cytotoxic agents (e.g. cyclophosphamide/doxorubicin/vincristine/prednisone or fludarabine/cyclophosphamide/mitoxantrone, 30.0 months) compared to single agent chemotherapy (e.g. fludarabine; 39.6 months) and standard chemoimmunotherapy (e.g. fludarabine/cyclophosphamide/rituximab: 61.6 months). In conclusion, the analysis confirms the superior efficacy of chemoimmunotherapies in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Moreover, the use of aggressive chemo(immuno)therapy combinations in patients with an early relapse does not offer any benefit when compared to less intensive therapies. Trial identifier: NCT00281918, ISRCTN75653261, ISRCTN36294212, NCT00274989 and NCT00147901.

Impact of Subsequent Therapies on Outcome of the FIRE-3/AIO KRK0306 Trial: First-Line Therapy With FOLFIRI Plus Cetuximab or Bevacizumab in Patients With KRAS Wild-Type Tumors in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: We investigated choice and efficacy of subsequent treatment, with special focus on second-line therapy, in the FIRE-3 trial (FOLFIRI plus cetuximab [arm A] or bevacizumab [arm B]) for patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Start of subsequent-line (second or third) therapy was defined as use of an antitumor drug that was not part of the previous regimen. We evaluated choice, duration, and efficacy of subsequent therapy and determined the impact of subsequent-line treatment on outcome of patients in FIRE-3. RESULTS: Of 592 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 414 (69.9%) received second-line and 256 (43.2%) received third-line therapy. In subsequent treatment lines, 47.1% of patients originally assigned to arm A received bevacizumab, and 52.2% originally assigned to arm B received either cetuximab or panitumumab. Oxaliplatin was subsequently used in 55.9% (arm A) and 53.2% (arm B) of patients. Second-line therapy was administered for a median duration of 5.0 versus 3.2 months (P < .001) in study arm A versus B. Progression-free (6.5 v 4.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.85; P < .001) and overall survival (16.3 v 13.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.88; P = .0021) from start of second-line therapy were longer in patients in arm A compared with arm B. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that the sequence of drug application might be more important than exposure to single agents. In patients with RAS wild-type tumors, first-line application of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor-directed therapy may represent a favorable condition for promoting effective subsequent therapy including antiangiogenic agents.

Efficacy of Prophylactic Low-Molecular Weight Heparin for Ambulatory Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Outcomes From the CONKO-004 Trial.

PURPOSE: Advanced pancreatic cancer (APC), in addition to its high mortality, accounts for the highest rates of venous thromboembolic events (VTEs). Enoxaparin, a low-molecular weight heparin, is effective in prevention and treatment of VTEs. Some small studies have indicated that this benefit might extend to patients with cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with histologically proven APC were randomly assigned to ambulant first-line chemotherapy and prophylactic use of enoxaparin or chemotherapy alone to investigate the probable reduction in symptomatic VTEs and the impact on survival. RESULTS: A total of 312 patients were recruited as one of the protocol end points was reached. Within the first 3 months, the numbers of symptomatic VTEs were as follows: 15 of 152 patients in the observation group and two of 160 patients in the enoxaparin group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.12; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.52; χ(2) P = .001). The numbers of major bleeding events were as follows: five of 152 patients in the observation arm and seven of 160 patients in the enoxaparin arm (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.35 to 3.72; χ(2) P = 1.0). Overall cumulative incidence rates of symptomatic VTEs were 15.1% (observation) and 6.4% (enoxaparin; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.83; P = .01). Progression-free (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.32; P = .64) and overall survival (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.38; P = .44) did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the high efficacy and feasibility of primary pharmacologic prevention of symptomatic VTEs in outpatients with APC. Treatment efficacy was not affected by simultaneous treatment with enoxaparin in this trial setting.

Poor efficacy and tolerability of R-CHOP in relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia and Richter transformation.

This phase II trial evaluated efficacy and tolerability of R-CHOP for up to 8 courses in Richter transformation (RT) and up to 6 courses in CLL plus autoimmune cytopenia (AIC) or high-risk (HR) features. HR was defined as fludarabine-refractoriness or early relapse (<36 months) after fludarabine-based treatment; 26 patients were included as HR, 19 patients had AIC, and 15 patients had RT. In the HR cohort, overall response rate was 54%, progression-free and overall survival were 9 and 21 months. In AIC patients overall response rate was 74%, progression-free and overall-survival were 10 and 41 months, respectively, and median increase in hemoglobin was 3.4 g/L. RT patients responded in 67%, progression-free was 10 and overall survival 21 months. The most common adverse events were hematologic toxicities in 92%. Severe infections occurred in 28%. Treatment was discontinued early in 45% of all patients mainly as a result of toxicity. This trial shows that R-CHOP has no role in treating complicated CLL. R-CHOP is associated with significant toxicities and fairly low efficacy compared with almost every other CLL-regimen. In RT, it might still be used as an induction therapy before allogeneic stem cell transplantation.

FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab and bevacizumab have both been shown to improve outcomes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer when added to chemotherapy regimens; however, their comparative effectiveness when partnered with first-line fluorouracil, folinic acid, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) is unknown. We aimed to compare these agents in patients with KRAS (exon 2) codon 12/13 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18-75 years with stage IV, histologically confirmed colorectal cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, an estimated life expectancy of greater than 3 months, and adequate organ function, from centres in Germany and Austria. Patients were centrally randomised by fax (1:1) to FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (using permuted blocks of randomly varying size), stratified according to ECOG performance status, number of metastatic sites, white blood cell count, and alkaline phosphatase concentration. The primary endpoint was objective response analysed by intention to treat. The study has completed recruitment, but follow-up of participants is ongoing. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00433927. FINDINGS: Between Jan 23, 2007, and Sept 19, 2012, 592 patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumours were randomly assigned and received treatment (297 in the FOLFIRI plus cetuximab group and 295 in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group). 184 (62·0%, 95% CI 56·2-67·5) patients in the cetuximab group achieved an objective response compared with 171 (58·0%, 52·1-63·7) in the bevacizumab group (odds ratio 1·18, 95% CI 0·85-1·64; p=0·18). Median progression-free survival was 10·0 months (95% CI 8·8-10·8) in the cetuximab group and 10·3 months (9·8-11·3) in the bevacizumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·06, 95% CI 0·88-1·26; p=0·55); however, median overall survival was 28·7 months (95% CI 24·0-36·6) in the cetuximab group compared with 25·0 months (22·7-27·6) in the bevacizumab group (HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·62-0·96; p=0·017). Safety profiles were consistent with the known side-effects of the study drugs. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in both treatment groups were haematotoxicity (73 [25%] of 297 patients in the cetuximab group vs 62 [21%] of 295 patients in the bevacizumab group), skin reactions (77 [26%] vs six [2%]), and diarrhoea (34 [11%] vs 40 [14%]). INTERPRETATION: Although the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response did not significantly differ between the FOLFIRI plus cetuximab and FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab groups, the association with longer overall survival suggests that FOLFIRI plus cetuximab could be the preferred first-line regimen for patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. FUNDING: Merck KGaA.

Interactions between comorbidity and treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia: results of German Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Study Group trials.

This study investigated the impact of comorbidity in 555 patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia enrolled in two trials of the German Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Study Group on first-line treatment with fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide, fludarabine, or chlorambucil. Patients with two or more comorbidities and patients with less than two comorbidities differed in overall survival (71.7 versus 90.2 months; P<0.001) and progression-free survival (21.0 versus 31.5 months; P<0.01). After adjustment for other prognostic factors and treatment, comorbidity maintained its independent prognostic value in a multivariate Cox regression analysis. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia was the major cause of death in patients with two or more comorbidities. Disease control in patients with two or more comorbidities was better with fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide than with fludarabine treatment, but not with fludarabine compared to chlorambucil treatment. These results give insight into interactions between comorbidity and therapy of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and suggest that durable control of the hematologic disease is most critical to improve overall outcome of patients with increased comorbidity. The registration numbers of the trials reported are NCT00276848 and NCT00262795.

Bendamustine plus rituximab versus CHOP plus rituximab as first-line treatment for patients with indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Rituximab plus chemotherapy, most often CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), is the first-line standard of care for patients with advanced indolent lymphoma, and for elderly patients with mantle-cell lymphoma. Bendamustine plus rituximab is effective for relapsed or refractory disease. We compared bendamustine plus rituximab with CHOP plus rituximab (R-CHOP) as first-line treatment for patients with indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas. METHODS: We did a prospective, multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial at 81 centres in Germany between Sept 1, 2003, and Aug 31, 2008. Patients aged 18 years or older with a WHO performance status of 2 or less were eligible if they had newly diagnosed stage III or IV indolent or mantle-cell lymphoma. Patients were stratified by histological lymphoma subtype, then randomly assigned according to a prespecified randomisation list to receive either intravenous bendamustine (90 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2 of a 4-week cycle) or CHOP (cycles every 3 weeks of cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m(2), doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2), and vincristine 1.4 mg/m(2) on day 1, and prednisone 100 mg/day for 5 days) for a maximum of six cycles. Patients in both groups received rituximab 375 mg/m(2) on day 1 of each cycle. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%. Analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00991211, and the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices of Germany, BfArM 4021335. FINDINGS: 274 patients were assigned to bendamustine plus rituximab (261 assessed) and 275 to R-CHOP (253 assessed). At median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 25-57), median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the bendamustine plus rituximab group than in the R-CHOP group (69.5 months [26.1 to not yet reached] vs 31.2 months [15.2-65.7]; hazard ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.44-0.74; p<0.0001). Bendamustine plus rituximab was better tolerated than R-CHOP, with lower rates of alopecia (0 patients vs 245 (100%) of 245 patients who recieved ≥3 cycles; p<0.0001), haematological toxicity (77 [30%] vs 173 [68%]; p<0.0001), infections (96 [37%] vs 127 [50%]); p=0.0025), peripheral neuropathy (18 [7%] vs 73 [29%]; p<0.0001), and stomatitis (16 [6%] vs 47 [19%]; p<0.0001). Erythematous skin reactions were more common in patients in the bendamustine plus rituximab group than in those in the R-CHOP group (42 [16%] vs 23 [9%]; p=0.024). INTERPRETATION: In patients with previously untreated indolent lymphoma, bendamustine plus rituximab can be considered as a preferred first-line treatment approach to R-CHOP because of increased progression-free survival and fewer toxic effects. FUNDING: Roche Pharma AG, Ribosepharm/Mundipharma GmbH.

Weekly paclitaxel plus trastuzumab in metastatic breast cancer pretreated with anthracyclines--a phase II multipractice study.

BACKGROUND: The 3-weekly combination of trastuzumab and paclitaxel has been approved for the treatment of advanced breast cancer based on a large pivotal study. However, mono and combination chemotherapy trials suggest that weekly paclitaxel has a better therapeutic index, especially in the palliative setting. The present trial examined the efficacy and safety of weekly paclitaxel over a limited duration combined with continued trastuzumab in HER2+ patients. METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed metastatic breast cancer overexpressing HER2 were eligible if pretreated with anthracycline in either the adjuvant or palliative setting. Treatment consisted of weekly trastuzumab (2 mg/kg/week for up to one year after a loading dose of 4 mg/kg in week 1) and paclitaxel (90 mg/m², administered in weeks 1-6 and 8-13). RESULTS: Twenty-seven German centers enrolled 121 patients. The median number of metastatic sites was two (range 1-5); 38% of patients had received chemotherapy for advanced disease. After a median 42 weeks of trastuzumab treatment, limited by disease progression in roughly half the patients, a best objective response rate (complete response + partial response) of 76% was achieved, including complete remissions in 29%. 74% of patients lived without tumor progression at six months. Median progression-free and overall survival were 9.4 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.1-11.3) and 22 months (95% CI: 17-46). After alopecia, Common Toxicity Criteria grade ≥2 toxicity was predominantly hematological (leukopenia [31%] and anemia [41%]); however, thrombocytopenia occurred in only 5%. Neurotoxicity was remarkably low. Two cardiac events (grades 2 and 3) were presumed treatment-related. CONCLUSIONS: Weekly paclitaxel plus trastuzumab allows an increased dose density and offers an attractive and effective alternative to the conventional schedule. Limiting the duration of cytotoxic therapy to 3 months seems to be an option to reduce neurotoxicity without impairing long-term outcome.

Cetuximab plus capecitabine and irinotecan compared with cetuximab plus capecitabine and oxaliplatin as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: AIO KRK-0104--a randomized trial of the German AIO CRC study group.

PURPOSE: The AIO KRK-0104 randomized phase II trial investigated the efficacy and safety of cetuximab combined with capecitabine and irinotecan (CAPIRI) or capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 185 patients with mCRC were randomly assigned to cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) day 1, followed by 250 mg/m(2) weekly) plus CAPIRI (irinotecan 200 mg/m(2), day 1; capecitabine 800 mg/m(2) twice daily days 1 through 14, every 3 weeks; or cetuximab plus CAPOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) day 1; capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily day 1 through 14, every 3 weeks). The primary study end point was objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat patient population (n = 177), ORR was 46% (95% CI, 35 to 57) for CAPIRI plus cetuximab versus 48% (95% CI, 37 to 59) for CAPOX plus cetuximab. Analysis of the KRAS gene mutation status was performed in 81.4% of the intention to treat population. Patients with KRAS wild-type in the CAPIRI plus cetuximab arm showed an ORR of 50.0%, a PFS of 6.2 months and an OS of 21.1 months. In the CAPOX plus cetuximab arm, an ORR of 44.9%, a PFS of 7.1 months and an OS of 23.5 months were observed. While ORR and PFS were comparable in KRAS wild-type and mutant subgroups, a trend toward longer survival was associated with KRAS wild-type. Both regimens had manageable toxicity profiles and were safe. CONCLUSION: This randomized trial demonstrates that the addition of cetuximab to CAPIRI or CAPOX is effective and safe in first-line treatment of mCRC. In the analyzed regimens, ORR and PFS did not differ according to KRAS gene mutation status.

Phase III trial of irinotecan plus infusional 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid versus irinotecan plus oxaliplatin as first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine whether irinotecan plus oxaliplatin (mIROX) is superior to irinotecan plus infusional 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin (FUFIRI) as first-line therapy of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A phase III, randomised, open-label multicentre study compared standard treatment with FUFIRI (irinotecan 80 mg/m(2), 5-fluorouracil 2000 mg/m(2), folinic acid 500 mg/m(2) weekly times 6) to mIROX using an identical schedule of irinotecan plus oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) applied on days 1, 15 and 29 of a 7-week cycle. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 479 eligible patients were randomly assigned. Progression-free survival was 7.2 months in the mIROX arm and 8.2 months in the FUFIRI arm [hazard ratio=1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.37; P=0.178]. Comparable results were also obtained for overall survival time with 19 months in the mIROX-arm and 22 months in the FUFIRI-arm (hazard ratio=1.08, P=0.276). Both regimens induced an identical objective response rate (ORR) of 41%, but disease control rate (ORR plus stable disease) was significantly greater in the FUFIRI group (81% versus 68%, P=0.001). Most frequent grades 1-4 side-effects of mIROX and FUFIRI treatment were nausea (80% versus 73%) and delayed diarrhoea (79% versus 68%). Grades 3-4 toxicities were generally below 10%, except for diarrhoea which was more frequent in the mIROX-arm compared to the FUFIRI-arm (19% versus 30%, P=0.006) CONCLUSION: mIROX failed to show superior activity compared to high-dose 5-FU/folinic acid plus irinotecan. Due to better tolerability the combination of high-dose 5-FU/folinic acid and irinotecan remains a standard of care in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

Anagrelide for the treatment of thrombocythaemia in daily clinical practice: a post-marketing observational survey on efficacy and safety performed in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Myeloproliferative diseases - in particular essential thrombocythaemia (ET) - may be associated with increases in platelet count which put patients at risk of life-threatening complications such as thromboses and severe bleedings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicentre post-marketing observational survey was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of anagrelide under daily practice conditions in at-risk patients with ET who received anagrelide for the first time. RESULTS: 198 patients (median age of 64 years, range 19-88 years) were included, 61.1% of the patients were women. The mean observation time was 6.2 +/- 1.7 months. Treatment with anagrelide lowered the platelet counts by a median of 316 x 10(9)/l from a median of 797 x 10(9)/l at the beginning of the observation to 470 x 10(9)/l at the last observation (log rank test, p < 0.001). Disease-related complications were reduced during treatment compared to 6 months prior to treatment (transient ischaemic attacks from 1.5 to 0.5%; thromboses from 7.6 to 0%). The number of bleedings remained the same at 1.5%. Adverse events were documented in 46 patients (23.2%). All observed adverse events were similar to those previously reported in clinical studies. CONCLUSION: Anagrelide was effective in lowering the platelet count and was also well tolerated when used in daily clinical practice.