Pazopanib in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results of a Randomized Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: Pazopanib is an oral angiogenesis inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, platelet-derived growth factor receptor, and c-Kit. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study evaluated efficacy and safety of pazopanib monotherapy in treatment-naive and cytokine-pretreated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients with measurable, locally advanced, and/or metastatic RCC were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive oral pazopanib or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, tumor response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors), and safety. Radiographic assessments of tumors were independently reviewed. RESULTS: Of 435 patients enrolled, 233 were treatment naive (54%) and 202 were cytokine pretreated (46%). PFS was significantly prolonged with pazopanib compared with placebo in the overall study population (median, PFS 9.2 v 4.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.62; P < .0001), the treatment-naive subpopulation (median PFS 11.1 v 2.8 months; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.60; P < .0001), and the cytokine-pretreated subpopulation (median PFS, 7.4 v 4.2 months; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.84; P < .001). The objective response rate was 30% with pazopanib compared with 3% with placebo (P < .001). The median duration of response was longer than 1 year. The most common adverse events were diarrhea, hypertension, hair color changes, nausea, anorexia, and vomiting. There was no evidence of clinically important differences in quality of life for pazopanib versus placebo. CONCLUSION: Pazopanib demonstrated significant improvement in PFS and tumor response compared with placebo in treatment-naive and cytokine-pretreated patients with advanced and/or metastatic RCC.

Cemiplimab monotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of at least 50%: a multicentre, open-label, global, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to examine cemiplimab, a programmed cell death 1 inhibitor, in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) of at least 50%. METHODS: In EMPOWER-Lung 1, a multicentre, open-label, global, phase 3 study, eligible patients recruited in 138 clinics from 24 countries (aged ≥18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1; never-smokers were ineligible) were randomly assigned (1:1) to cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Crossover from chemotherapy to cemiplimab was allowed following disease progression. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival per masked independent review committee. Primary endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population and in a prespecified PD-L1 of at least 50% population (per US Food and Drug Administration request to the sponsor), which consisted of patients with PD-L1 of at least 50% per 22C3 assay done according to instructions for use. Adverse events were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088540 and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between June 27, 2017 and Feb 27, 2020, 710 patients were randomly assigned (intention-to-treat population). In the PD-L1 of at least 50% population, which consisted of 563 patients, median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 17·9-not evaluable) with cemiplimab (n=283) versus 14·2 months (11·2-17·5) with chemotherapy (n=280; hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [0·42-0·77]; p=0·0002). Median progression-free survival was 8·2 months (6·1-8·8) with cemiplimab versus 5·7 months (4·5-6·2) with chemotherapy (HR 0·54 [0·43-0·68]; p<0·0001). Significant improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival were also observed with cemiplimab in the intention-to-treat population despite a high crossover rate (74%). Grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 98 (28%) of 355 patients treated with cemiplimab and 135 (39%) of 342 patients treated with chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Cemiplimab monotherapy significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of at least 50%, providing a potential new treatment option for this patient population. FUNDING: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi.

Management of Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer with Bladder Preservation in Russia: a Survey-Based Analysis of Current Practice and the Impact of an Educational Workshop on Clinical Expertise.

Trimodality bladder preservation (BP) is an accepted alternative to radical cystectomy for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). The global utilization of BP is variable, and practice patterns have not been previously studied in Russia. We sought to elucidate the contemporary BP practice patterns in Russia and determine the impact of the BP workshop on attitudes of Russian radiation oncologists (ROs) towards BP. The workshop was focused on patient workup, selection for BP, chemotherapy choices, radiation therapy (RT) contouring and planning, patient counseling. A total of 77 pre- and 32 matched post-workshop IRB-approved surveys, based on the workshop content, were analyzed using descriptive statistics to determine baseline clinical experience and patterns of care. The impact was judged by changes in participants' responses. A total of 56% of respondents had experience with delivering bladder-directed RT, and 60% of those treated both operable and inoperable MIBC patients. Only 10% felt uncomfortable offering an operable patient BP modality. Prior to the workshop, almost half of respondents estimated universal poor bladder (44%) and erectile functions (47%) after BP. The workshop resulted in dramatic change in participants' attitudes towards long-term urinary (Stuart-Maxwell test, p < 0.01) and sexual (exact McNemar test, p < 0.01) side effects. Prior to the workshop, only 47% of respondents routinely discussed smoking cessation (SC) with their patients, whereas after workshop, 88% agreed that SC discussion is mandatory (exact McNemar test, p = 0.04). BP for MIBC is commonly used in Russia. Our workshop resulted in dramatically improved understanding of long-term BP toxicities and inspired Russian ROs to incorporate SC counseling into routine clinical management.

Efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim compared with placebo in patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving chemotherapy: post hoc analysis of elderly versus younger patients.

PURPOSE: Lipegfilgrastim, a glycoPEGylated recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), reduces neutropenia duration and febrile neutropenia (FN) incidence in patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. A phase 3 trial of lipegfilgrastim was conducted in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving cisplatin/etoposide (which produces mild-to-moderate myelosuppression). Because patients aged >65 years are at higher risk for FN versus younger patients, this post hoc analysis compared outcomes in elderly (>65 years) versus younger participants in this trial. METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive a once-per-cycle single subcutaneous injection of lipegfilgrastim 6 mg or placebo, with up to 4 cycles of every-3-week cisplatin (day 1) and etoposide (days 1-3). The primary end point was FN incidence during cycle 1. Outcomes were compared across treatment groups and by age groups (≤65 and >65 years). RESULTS: For patients aged ≤65 years, FN incidence during cycle 1 was similar in the lipegfilgrastim and placebo groups (3.0 vs 3.2 %, respectively), whereas for elderly patients, there was a reduction in FN incidence with lipegfilgrastim (0 vs 13.3 %, respectively). In both age subgroups, lipegfilgrastim showed a propensity to reduce the incidence and duration of severe neutropenia, time to absolute neutrophil count (ANC) recovery, and depth of ANC nadir. Adverse events were generally similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that in patients with a higher FN risk, such as the elderly patients of this study, lipegfilgrastim reduces not only the duration of severe neutropenia but also the incidence of FN.

A Phase II Biomarker-Embedded Study of Lapatinib plus Capecitabine as First-line Therapy in Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Gastric Cancer.

An exploratory phase II biomarker-embedded trial (LPT109747; NCT00526669) designed to determine the association of lapatinib-induced fluoropyrimidine gene changes with efficacy of lapatinib plus capecitabine as first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma independent of tumor HER2 status. Tumor biopsies obtained before and after 7-day lapatinib (1,250 mg) to analyze changes in gene expression, followed by a 14-day course of capecitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily, 14/21 days) plus lapatinib 1,250 mg daily. Blood samples were acquired for pharmacokinetic analysis. Primary clinical objectives were response rate (RR) and 5-month progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary objectives were overall survival (OS), PFS, time to response, duration of response, toxicity, and identification of associations between lapatinib pharmacokinetics and biomarker endpoints. Primary biomarker objectives were modulation of 5-FU-pathway genes by lapatinib, effects of germline SNPs on treatment outcome, and trough steady-state plasma lapatinib concentrations. Sixty-eight patients were enrolled; (75% gastric cancer, 25% gastroesophageal junction). Twelve patients (17.9%) had confirmed partial response, 31 (46.3%) had stable disease, and 16 (23.9%) had progressive disease. Median PFS and OS were 3.3 and 6.3 months, respectively. Frequent adverse events included diarrhea (45%), decreased appetite (39%), nausea (36%), and fatigue (36%). Lapatinib induced no changes in gene expression from baseline and no significant associations were found for SNPs analyzed. Elevated baseline HER3 mRNA expression was associated with a higher RR (33% vs. 0%; P = 0.008). Lapatinib plus capecitabine was well tolerated, demonstrating modest antitumor activity in patients with advanced gastric cancer. The association of elevated HER3 and RR warrants further investigation as an important player for HER-targeted regimens in combination with capecitabine. Mol Cancer Ther; 15(9); 2251-8. ©2016 AACR.

Efficacy of the MAGE-A3 cancer immunotherapeutic as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected MAGE-A3-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (MAGRIT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Fewer than half of the patients with completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are cured. Since the introduction of adjuvant chemotherapy in 2004, no substantial progress has been made in adjuvant treatment. We aimed to assess the efficacy of the MAGE-A3 cancer immunotherapeutic in surgically resected NSCLC. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we recruited patients aged at least 18 years with completely resected stage IB, II, and IIIA MAGE-A3-positive NSCLC who did or did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy from 443 centres in 34 countries (Europe, the Americas, and Asia Pacific). Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive 13 intramuscular injections of recMAGE-A3 with AS15 immunostimulant (MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic) or placebo during 27 months. Randomisation and treatment allocation at the investigator site was done centrally via internet with stratification for chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy. Participants, investigators, and those assessing outcomes were masked to group assignment. A minimisation algorithm accounted for the number of chemotherapy cycles received, disease stage, lymph node sampling procedure, performance status score, and lifetime smoking status. The primary endpoint was broken up into three co-primary objectives: disease-free survival in the overall population, the no-chemotherapy population, and patients with a potentially predictive gene signature. The final analyses included the total treated population (all patients who had received at least one treatment dose). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00480025. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2007, and July 17, 2012, we screened 13 849 patients for MAGE-A3 expression; 12 820 had a valid sample and of these, 4210 (33%) had a MAGE-A3-positive tumour. 2312 of these patients met all eligibility criteria and were randomly assigned to treatment: 1515 received MAGE-A3 and 757 received placebo and 40 were randomly assigned but never started treatment. 784 patients in the MAGE-A3 group also received chemotherapy, as did 392 in the placebo group. Median follow-up was 38·1 months (IQR 27·9-48·4) in the MAGE-A3 group and 39·5 months (27·9-50·4) in the placebo group. In the overall population, median disease-free survival was 60·5 months (95% CI 57·2-not reached) for the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic group and 57·9 months (55·7-not reached) for the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02, 95% CI 0·89-1·18; p=0·74). Of the patients who did not receive chemotherapy, median disease-free survival was 58·0 months (95% CI 56·6-not reached) in those in the MAGE-A3 group and 56·9 months (44·4-not reached) in the placebo group (HR 0·97, 95% CI 0·80-1·18; p=0·76). Because of the absence of treatment effect, we could not identify a gene signature predictive of clinical benefit to MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic. The frequency of grade 3 or worse adverse events was similar between treatment groups (246 [16%] of 1515 patients in the MAGE-A3 group and 122 [16%] of 757 in the placebo group). The most frequently reported grade 3 or higher adverse events were infections and infestations (37 [2%] in the MAGE-A3 group and 19 [3%] in the placebo group), vascular disorders (30 [2%] vs 17 [3%]), and neoplasm (benign, malignant, and unspecified (29 [2%] vs 16 [2%]). INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant treatment with the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic did not increase disease-free survival compared with placebo in patients with MAGE-A3-positive surgically resected NSCLC. Based on our results, further development of the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic for use in NSCLC has been stopped. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA.

A Randomized Phase II/III Study of Naptumomab Estafenatox + IFNα versus IFNα in Renal Cell Carcinoma: Final Analysis with Baseline Biomarker Subgroup and Trend Analysis.

PURPOSE: To prospectively determine the efficacy of naptumomab estafenatox (Nap) + IFNα versus IFN in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In a randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase II/III study, 513 patients with RCC received Nap (15 µg/kg i. v. in three cycles of four once-daily injections) + IFN (9 MU s.c. three times weekly), or the same regimen of IFN monotherapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: This phase II/III study did not meet its primary endpoint. Median OS/PFS for Nap + IFN patients was 17.1/5.8 months versus 17.5/5.8 months for the patients receiving IFN alone (P = 0.56; HR, 1.08/P = 0.41; HR, 0.92). Post hoc exploratory subgroup and trend analysis revealed that the baseline plasma concentrations of anti-SEA/E-120 (anti-Nap antibodies) for drug exposure and IL6 for immune status could be used as predictive biomarkers. A subgroup of patients (SG; n = 130) having concentrations below median of anti-SEA/E-120 and IL6 benefitted greatly from the addition of Nap. In SG, median OS/PFS for the patients treated with Nap + IFN was 63.3/13.7 months versus 31.1/5.8 months for the patients receiving IFN alone (P = 0.02; HR, 0.59/P = 0.02; HR, 0.62). Addition of Nap to IFN showed predicted and transient immune related AEs and the treatment had an acceptable safety profile. CONCLUSIONS: The study did not meet its primary endpoint. Nap + IFN has an acceptable safety profile, and results from post hoc subgroup analyses showed that the treatment might improve OS/PFS in a baseline biomarker-defined RCC patient subgroup. The results warrant further studies with Nap in this subgroup. Clin Cancer Res; 22(13); 3172-81. ©2016 AACR.

A randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 1/2 study of tivantinib (ARQ 197) in combination with irinotecan and cetuximab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with wild-type KRAS who have received first-line systemic therapy.

Cetuximab in combination with an irinotecan-containing regimen is a standard treatment in patients with KRAS wild-type (KRAS WT), metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We investigated the addition of the oral MET inhibitor tivantinib to cetuximab + irinotecan (CETIRI) based on preclinical evidence that activation of the MET pathway may confer resistance to anti-EGFR therapy. Previously treated patients with KRAS WT advanced or mCRC were enrolled. The phase 1, open-label 3 + 3, dose-escalation study evaluated the safety and maximally tolerated dose of tivantinib plus CETIRI. The phase 2, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of biweekly CETIRI plus tivantinib or placebo was restricted to patients who had received only one prior line of chemotherapy. The phase 2 primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The recommended phase 2 dose was tivantinib (360 mg/m(2) twice daily) with biweekly cetuximab (500 mg/m(2)) and irinotecan (180 mg/m(2)). Among 117 patients evaluable for phase 2 analysis, no statistically significant PFS difference was observed: 8.3 months on tivantinib vs. 7.3 months on placebo (HR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-1.33; P = 0.38). Subgroup analyses trended in favor of tivantinib in patients with MET-High tumors by immunohistochemistry, PTEN-Low tumors, or those pretreated with oxaliplatin, but subgroups were too small to draw conclusions. Neutropenia, diarrhea, nausea and rash were the most frequent severe adverse events in tivantinib-treated patients. The combination of tivantinib and CETIRI was well tolerated but did not significantly improve PFS in previously treated KRAS WT mCRC. Tivantinib may be more active in specific subgroups.

Phase Ib Study of PEGylated Recombinant Human Hyaluronidase and Gemcitabine in Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase Ib study evaluated the safety and tolerability of PEGylated human recombinant hyaluronidase (PEGPH20) in combination with gemcitabine (Gem), and established a phase II dose for patients with untreated stage IV metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA). Objective response rate and treatment efficacy using biomarker and imaging measurements were also evaluated. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients received escalating intravenous doses of PEGPH20 in combination with Gem using a standard 3+3 dose-escalation design. In cycle 1 (8 weeks), PEGPH20 was administrated twice weekly for 4 weeks, then once weekly for 3 weeks; Gem was administrated once weekly for 7 weeks, followed by 1 week off treatment. In each subsequent 4-week cycle, PEGPH20 and Gem were administered once weekly for 3 weeks, followed by 1 week off. Dexamethasone (8 mg) was given pre- and post-PEGPH20 administration. Several safety parameters were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were enrolled and received PEGPH20 at 1.0 (n = 4), 1.6 (n = 4), or 3.0 µg/kg (n = 20), respectively. The most common PEGPH20-related adverse events were musculoskeletal and extremity pain, peripheral edema, and fatigue. The incidence of thromboembolic events was 29%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 5.0 and 6.6 months, respectively. In 17 patients evaluated for pretreatment tissue hyaluronan (HA) levels, median PFS and OS rates were 7.2 and 13.0 months for "high"-HA patients (n = 6), and 3.5 and 5.7 months for "low"-HA patients (n = 11), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PEGPH20 in combination with Gem was well tolerated and may have therapeutic benefit in patients with advanced PDA, especially in those with high HA tumors. Clin Cancer Res; 22(12); 2848-54. ©2016 AACR.

A Phase III Study of Balugrastim Versus Pegfilgrastim in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy With Doxorubicin and Docetaxel.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-per-cycle balugrastim versus pegfilgrastim for neutrophil support in breast cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. METHODS: Breast cancer patients (n = 256) were randomized to 40 or 50 mg of subcutaneous balugrastim or 6 mg of pegfilgrastim ≈24 hours after chemotherapy (60 mg/m(2) doxorubicin and 75 mg/m(2) docetaxel, every 21 days for up to 4 cycles). The primary efficacy parameter was the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in cycle 1. Secondary parameters included DSN (cycles 2-4), absolute neutrophil count (ANC) nadir, febrile neutropenia rates, and time to ANC recovery (cycles 1-4). Safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity were assessed. RESULTS: Mean cycle 1 DSN was 1.0 day with 40 mg of balugrastim, 1.3 with 50 mg of balugrastim, and 1.2 with pegfilgrastim (upper limit of 95% confidence intervals for between-group DSN differences was <1.0 day for both balugrastim doses versus pegfilgrastim). Between-group efficacy parameters were comparable except for time to ANC recovery in cycle 1 (40 mg of balugrastim, 2.0 days; 50 mg of balugrastim, 2.1; pegfilgrastim, 2.6). Median terminal elimination half-life was ≈37 hours for 40 mg of balugrastim, ≈36 for 50 mg of balugrastim, and ≈45 for pegfilgrastim. Antibody response to balugrastim was low and transient, with no neutralizing effect. CONCLUSION: Once-per-cycle balugrastim is not inferior to pegfilgrastim in reducing cycle 1 DSN in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy; both drugs have comparable safety profiles. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This paper provides efficacy and safety data for a new, once-per-cycle granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, balugrastim, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. In this phase III trial, balugrastim was shown to be not inferior to pegfilgrastim in the duration of severe neutropenia in cycle 1 of doxorubicin/docetaxel chemotherapy, and the safety profiles of the two agents were similar. Once-per-cycle balugrastim is a safe and effective alternative to pegfilgrastim for hematopoietic support in patients with breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy associated with a greater than 20% risk of developing febrile neutropenia.

Chemotherapy-associated treatment burden in breast cancer patients receiving lipegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim: secondary efficacy data from a phase III study.

PURPOSE: Lipegfilgrastim is a once-per-cycle glycoPEGylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Noninferiority of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim was demonstrated in a phase III trial in chemotherapy (CTx)-naïve breast cancer patients. Secondary outcomes relating to treatment burden are reported here. METHODS: Patients with high-risk stage II, III, or IV breast cancer were randomized to receive lipegfilgrastim 6 mg (n = 101) or pegfilgrastim 6 mg (n = 101) subcutaneously on day 2 of each CTx cycle. Doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) commenced on day 1, for up to four cycles. Secondary end points included days in the hospital or intensive care unit (ICU), use of intravenous antibiotics for febrile neutropenia (FN) or related infections, and measures of CTx delivery (dose delays, reductions, and omissions). RESULTS: One lipegfilgrastim recipient and two pegfilgrastim recipients were hospitalized in cycle 1 because of FN or associated infection. The lipegfilgrastim-treated patient spent 1 day in the ICU for FN, and the two pegfilgrastim-treated patients were hospitalized for FN for 5 and 6 days, respectively. All hospitalized patients received antibiotics. An additional pegfilgrastim-treated patient received antibiotics but was not hospitalized. Most patients received CTx as scheduled; over 98% received their planned doxorubicin and docetaxel doses in all cycles. In the lipegfilgrastim group, no patients had a CTx dose reduced or omitted; eight patients in the pegfilgrastim group had a CTx dose reduced or omitted during cycles 2-4. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of treatment associated with myelosuppressive CTx was similar in breast cancer patients treated with lipegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim.

Cyclophosphamide and tucotuzumab (huKS-IL2) following first-line chemotherapy in responding patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer.

The humanized KS-interleukin-2, tucotuzumab (huKS-IL2; EMD 273066), is an EpCAM-specific immunocytokine with reported immunologic activity in combination with cyclophosphamide. This Phase 2, randomized, open-label study compared tucotuzumab/cyclophosphamide, administered as maintenance, with best supportive care (BSC) in patients with extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) who responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy with/without prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI). Patients received cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m, Day 1 of every 3-week cycle), followed by tucotuzumab (1.5 mg/m, Days 2-4) until disease progression. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS); the secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), treatment response, and safety. The 6-month PFS rate was lower in the tucotuzumab/cyclophosphamide group (n=64) than in the BSC group (n=44): 6.4 versus 12.2% [hazard ratio (HR): 0.98; 80% confidence interval (CI): 0.74-1.31]. HRs for PFS, time to progression, and OS indicated a similar risk of disease progression and death in both groups and best overall responses were generally comparable. For patients with previous PCI (n=26), there was a nonsignificant trend toward prolonged median PFS (1.7 vs. 1.5 months; HR: 0.60; 80% CI: 0.33-1.11) and OS (21.5 vs. 14.3 months; HR: 0.58; 80% CI: 0.31-1.05) in the tucotuzumab/cyclophosphamide group. Adverse events were more frequent with tucotuzumab/cyclophosphamide (92.2%) than with BSC (47.7%). Tucotuzumab/cyclophosphamide was well tolerated in ED-SCLC patients, but did not show PFS or OS benefits compared with BSC. The observed trend toward prolonged PFS and OS in the subgroup of patients receiving previous PCI may support further confirmation in a larger population.

Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of lipegfilgrastim in patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving myelosuppressive therapy.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to demonstrate lipegfilgrastim superiority versus placebo in adults with non-small cell lung cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. METHODS: This phase III, double-blind study randomized chemotherapy-naive patients to receive cisplatin and etoposide with either lipegfilgrastim 6 mg or placebo. Because of the placebo control, patients at individual high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN; ≥20%) were excluded. Study drug was administered on day 4 (24 h after chemotherapy) of a 21-day cycle for ≤4 cycles. Primary efficacy measure was FN incidence in cycle 1. Secondary assessments included duration of severe neutropenia (DSN), absolute neutrophil count (ANC) profile, and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The study included 375 patients (lipegfilgrastim, n = 250; placebo, n = 125). Lipegfilgrastim superiority for FN incidence in cycle 1 was not achieved but incidence was lower (2.4%) versus placebo (5.6%). Cycle 1 mean DSN was significantly shorter for lipegfilgrastim (0.6 ± 1.1 days) versus placebo (2.3 ± 0.5 days; p < 0.0001). Incidence of severe neutropenia was significantly lower for lipegfilgrastim versus placebo overall and in each cycle (all, p < 0.0001). Mean ANC nadir was lowest in cycle 1 but significantly higher for lipegfilgrastim (1.60 ± 1.64) than placebo (0.67 ± 0.85; p < 0.0001). Mean time to ANC recovery was shorter with lipegfilgrastim in each cycle. Treatment-emergent AEs were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Lipegfilgrastim was not statistically superior to placebo for incidence of FN in cycle 1, but was more effective in reducing incidence of severe neutropenia, DSN, and time to ANC recovery, with an acceptable safety profile. Controlled-trials.com identifier: ISRCTN55761467.

Phase II dose-finding study of balugrastim in breast cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Balugrastim is a once-per-cycle, fixed-dose recombinant protein comprising human serum albumin and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor under development for prevention of severe neutropenia in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. This phase II, multicenter, active-controlled, dose-finding pilot study evaluated balugrastim safety and efficacy versus pegfilgrastim in breast cancer patients scheduled to receive myelosuppressive chemotherapy and investigated two doses with similar efficacy to pegfilgrastim for a subsequent phase III study. Patients received four cycles of doxorubicin/docetaxel chemotherapy and with each successive cycle were randomized sequentially to escalating doses of balugrastim [30 (n = 11), 40 (n = 21), or 50 mg (n = 20)] or a fixed dose of pegfilgrastim [6 mg (n = 26)] post-chemotherapy. Balugrastim doses were escalated as planned. The incidence of adverse events was similar among the balugrastim groups and between all balugrastim doses and pegfilgrastim. The most frequently reported adverse events were neutropenia, alopecia, and nausea. During cycle 1, severe neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count of <0.5 × 10(9)/L) occurred in 40, 67, and 50 % and febrile neutropenia occurred in 20.0, 9.5, and 10.0 % of patients receiving balugrastim 30, 40, and 50 mg, respectively; in patients receiving pegfilgrastim, 48 % experienced severe neutropenia and 8 % experienced febrile neutropenia. Duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) for each treatment group was 0.9, 1.6, 1.1, and 0.9 days, respectively. In the remaining three chemotherapy cycles, DSN was ≤1 day across all treatment groups. Balugrastim 50 mg was comparable to pegfilgrastim in terms of safety and overall efficacy in breast cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Phase II, multicenter, open-label, randomized study of YM155 plus docetaxel as first-line treatment in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of YM155, a survivin suppressor, in combination with docetaxel, compared with docetaxel alone in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. This phase II, multicenter, open-label, 2-arm study randomized patients (≥18 years) with histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and ≥1 measurable lesion, to receive docetaxel alone or docetaxel plus YM155. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), duration of response (DOR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), time to response (TTR), biomarker assessment, and analysis of circulating tumor cells. Patients were women diagnosed with HER2-negative breast cancer; most had received prior drug therapies. The median PFS was 8.4 months with YM155 plus docetaxel (n = 50) and 10.5 months with docetaxel alone (n = 51; HR 1.53; 95 % CI 0.83, 2.83; P = 0.176). No statistically significant differences were observed for secondary endpoints, although slightly greater OS (630 vs 601 days; P = 0.768), CBR (84.3 vs 82.0 %; P = 0.855), DOR, and TTR were observed with docetaxel alone compared with YM155 plus docetaxel, whereas ORR was similar (25.5 vs 26.0). The most common TEAEs observed with YM155 plus docetaxel compared with docetaxel alone were neutropenia (83.3 vs 84.3 %), alopecia (62.5 vs 52.9 %), fatigue (50 vs 41.2 %), and nausea (37.5 vs 41.2 %). Although YM155 is a novel drug that suppresses survivin, YM155 plus docetaxel exhibited no statistically significant differences in endpoints compared with docetaxel alone. The combination regimen was well tolerated.

HER2 screening data from ToGA: targeting HER2 in gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the Trastuzumab for GAstric cancer (ToGA) study, trastuzumab plus chemotherapy improved median overall survival by 2.7 months in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive [immunohistochemistry (IHC) 3+/fluorescence in situ hybridization-positive] gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer compared with chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio 0.74). Post hoc exploratory analyses in patients expressing higher HER2 levels (IHC 2+/fluorescence in situ hybridization-positive or IHC 3+) demonstrated a 4.2-month improvement in median overall survival with trastuzumab (hazard ratio 0.65). The ToGA study provides the largest screening dataset available on HER2 overexpression/amplification in this indication. We further analyzed correlation(s) of HER2 overexpression/amplification with clinical and epidemiological factors. METHODS: HER2-positivity was analyzed by histological subtype, tumor location, geographic region, and specimen type. Exploratory efficacy analyses were performed. RESULTS: The HER2-positivity rate was 22.1 % across analyzed tumor samples. Rates were similar between European and Asian patients (23.6 % vs. 23.9 %), but higher in intestinal- vs. diffuse-type (31.8 % vs. 6.1 %), and gastroesophageal junction cancer versus gastric tumors (32.2 % vs. 21.4 %). Across all IHC scores, variability in HER2 staining (≤30 % stained cells) was observed in almost 50 % of cases, with increasing rates in lower IHC categories, and did not affect treatment outcome. The polysomy rate was 4 %. CONCLUSIONS: HER2 expression varies by tumor location and type. All patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer should be tested for HER2 status, preferably using IHC initially. Due to the unique characteristics of gastric cancer, specific testing/scoring guidelines should be adhered to.

Efficacy and safety of balugrastim compared with pegfilgrastim in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) reduce the incidence and duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia when given as adjunct therapy to patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Balugrastim is a long-acting G-CSF composed of a genetic fusion between recombinant human serum albumin and G-CSF. We compared the efficacy and safety of balugrastim and pegfilgrastim, a long-acting pegylated recombinant G-CSF, in patients with breast cancer who were scheduled to receive chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this double-blind randomized phase III trial, patients with ≥ 1.5 × 10(9) neutrophils/L were randomly assigned to subcutaneous injections of balugrastim 40 mg (n = 153) or pegfilgrastim 6 mg (n = 151). The primary efficacy end point was the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) (days with an absolute neutrophil count [ANC] < 0.5 × 10(9) cells/L) during cycle 1. Efficacy analyses were performed in the per-protocol (PP) population. In a separate open-label single-arm study, newly recruited patients (n = 77) received balugrastim 40 mg and were included in the safety analysis. RESULTS: The mean DSN in cycle 1 was 1.1 days in the balugrastim group and 1.0 days in the pegfilgrastim group (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.13-0.37). Two and 4 patients, respectively, had febrile neutropenia during cycle 1. Twenty percent of patients in the balugrastim group and 19% in the pegfilgrastim group had adverse events (AEs) considered to be related to study medication; 3.9% and 4.7% of patients, respectively, experienced serious AEs. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the comparable safety and efficacy profile of balugrastim and pegfilgrastim and the noninferiority of balugrastim for reduction in DSN. There were no unexpected safety events.

Tecemotide (L-BLP25) versus placebo after chemoradiotherapy for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (START): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Effective maintenance therapies after chemoradiotherapy for lung cancer are lacking. Our aim was to investigate whether the MUC1 antigen-specific cancer immunotherapy tecemotide improves survival in patients with stage III unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer when given as maintenance therapy after chemoradiation. METHODS: The phase 3 START trial was an international, randomised, double-blind trial that recruited patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer who had completed chemoradiotherapy within the 4-12 week window before randomisation and received confirmation of stable disease or objective response. Patients were stratified by stage (IIIA vs IIIB), response to chemoradiotherapy (stable disease vs objective response), delivery of chemoradiotherapy (concurrent vs sequential), and region using block randomisation, and were randomly assigned (2:1, double-blind) by a central interactive voice randomisation system to either tecemotide or placebo. Injections of tecemotide (806 µg lipopeptide) or placebo were given every week for 8 weeks, and then every 6 weeks until disease progression or withdrawal. Cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m(2) (before tecemotide) or saline (before placebo) was given once before the first study drug administration. The primary endpoint was overall survival in a modified intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00409188. FINDINGS: From Feb 22, 2007, to Nov 15, 2011, 1513 patients were randomly assigned (1006 to tecemotide and 507 to placebo). 274 patients were excluded from the primary analysis population as a result of a clinical hold, resulting in analysis of 829 patients in the tecemotide group and 410 in the placebo group in the modified intention-to-treat population. Median overall survival was 25.6 months (95% CI 22.5-29.2) with tecemotide versus 22.3 months (19.6-25.5) with placebo (adjusted HR 0.88, 0.75-1.03; p=0.123). In the patients who received previous concurrent chemoradiotherapy, median overall survival for the 538 (65%) of 829 patients assigned to tecemotide was 30.8 months (95% CI 25.6-36.8) compared with 20.6 months (17.4-23.9) for the 268 (65%) of 410 patients assigned to placebo (adjusted HR 0.78, 0.64-0.95; p=0.016). In patients who received previous sequential chemoradiotherapy, overall survival did not differ between the 291 (35%) patients in the tecemotide group and the 142 (35%) patients in the placebo group (19.4 months [95% CI 17.6-23.1] vs 24.6 months [18.8-33.0], respectively; adjusted HR 1.12, 0.87-1.44; p=0.38). Grade 3-4 adverse events seen with a greater than 2% frequency with tecemotide were dyspnoea (49 [5%] of 1024 patients in the tecemotide group vs 21 [4%] of 477 patients in the placebo group), metastases to central nervous system (29 [3%] vs 6 [1%]), and pneumonia (23 [2%] vs 12 [3%]). Serious adverse events with a greater than 2% frequency with tecemotide were pneumonia (30 [3%] in the tecemotide group vs 14 [3%] in the placebo group), dyspnoea (29 [3%] vs 13 [3%]), and metastases to central nervous system (32 [3%] vs 9 [2%]). Serious immune-related adverse events did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: We found no significant difference in overall survival with the administration of tecemotide after chemoradiotherapy compared with placebo for all patients with unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. However, tecemotide might have a role for patients who initially receive concurrent chemoradiotherapy, and further study in this population is warranted. FUNDING: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany).

Efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim: a randomized, multicenter, active-control phase 3 trial in patients with breast cancer receiving doxorubicin/docetaxel chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Lipegfilgrastim is a novel glyco-pegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in development for neutropenia prophylaxis in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. This phase III, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled, noninferiority trial compared the efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim in chemotherapy-naïve breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin/docetaxel chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with high-risk stage II, III, or IV breast cancer and an absolute neutrophil count ≥1.5 × 109 cells/L were randomized to a single 6-mg subcutaneous injection of lipegfilgrastim (n = 101) or pegfilgrastim (n = 101) on day 2 of each 21-day chemotherapy cycle (4 cycles maximum). The primary efficacy endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia during cycle 1. RESULTS: Cycle 1: The mean duration of severe neutropenia for the lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim groups was 0.7 and 0.8 days, respectively (λ = -0.218 [95% confidence interval: -0.498%, 0.062%], p = 0.126), and no severe neutropenia was observed in 56% and 49% of patients in the lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim groups, respectively. All cycles: In the efficacy population, febrile neutropenia occurred in three pegfilgrastim-treated patients (all in cycle 1) and zero lipegfilgrastim-treated patients. Drug-related adverse events in the safety population were reported in 28% and 26% of patients in the lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that lipegfilgrastim 6 mg is as effective as pegfilgrastim in reducing neutropenia in patients with breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Eudra EEACTA200901599910.

Sorafenib in combination with oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (modified FOLFOX6) as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the RESPECT trial.

PURPOSE: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIb study evaluated adding sorafenib to first-line modified FOLFOX6 (mFOLFOX6) for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were randomized to sorafenib (400 mg b.i.d.) or placebo, combined with mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2); levo-leucovorin 200 mg/m(2); fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus and 2400 mg/m(2) continuous infusion) every 14 days. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Target sample was 120 events in 180 patients for >85% power (two-sided α = 0.20) to detect an HR = 0.65. RESULTS: Of 198 patients randomized, median PFS for sorafenib plus mFOLFOX6 was 9.1 months versus 8.7 months for placebo plus mFOLFOX6 (HR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.23; P = 0.46). There was no difference between treatment arms for overall survival. Subgroup analyses of PFS and overall survival showed no difference between treatment arms by KRAS or BRAF status (mutant and wild type). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events in the sorafenib and placebo arms were neutropenia (48% vs. 22%), peripheral neuropathy (16% vs. 21%), and grade 3 hand-foot skin reaction (20% vs. 0%). Treatment discontinuation because of adverse events was 9% and 6%, respectively. Generally, dose intensity (duration and cumulative doses) was lower in the sorafenib arm than in the placebo arm. CONCLUSION: This study did not detect a PFS benefit with the addition of sorafenib to first-line mFOLFOX6 for mCRC. KRAS and BRAF status did not seem to impact treatment outcomes but the subgroups were small. These results do not support further development of sorafenib in combination with mFOLFOX6 in molecularly unselected patients with mCRC.