Randomized Phase II Trial of Seribantumab in Combination with Erlotinib in Patients with EGFR Wild-Type Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Seribantumab (MM-121) is a fully human IgG2 monoclonal antibody that binds to human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 (HER3/ErbB3) to block heregulin (HRG/NRG)-mediated ErbB3 signaling and induce receptor downregulation. This open-label, randomized phase 1/2 study evaluated safety and efficacy of seribantumab plus erlotinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we report the activity of seribantumab plus erlotinib, versus erlotinib alone, in patients with EGFR wild-type tumors and describe the potential predictive power of HRG. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with EGFR wild-type NSCLC were assigned randomly to receive seribantumab + erlotinib or erlotinib alone. Patients underwent pretreatment core needle biopsy and archived tumor samples were collected to support prespecified biomarker analyses. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-nine patients received seribantumab + erlotinib (n = 85) or erlotinib alone (n = 44). Median estimated progression-free survival (PFS) in the unselected intent-to-treat (ITT) population was 8.1 and 7.7 weeks in the experimental and control arm, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.822; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-1.828; p = 0.63), and median estimated overall survival was 27.3 and 40.3 weeks in the experimental and control arm, respectively (HR, 1.395; 95% CI, 0.846 to 2.301; p = .1898) In patients whose tumors had detectable HRG mRNA expression, treatment benefit was observed in the seribantumab + erlotinib combination (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.16-0.76; p = .008). In contrast, in patients whose tumors were HRG negative, the HR was 2.15 (95% CI, 0.97-4.76; p = .059, HRG-by-treatment interaction, p value = .0016). CONCLUSION: The addition of seribantumab to erlotinib did not result in improved PFS in unselected patients. However, predefined retrospective exploratory analyses suggest that detectable HRG mRNA levels identified patients who might benefit from seribantumab. An ongoing clinical trial of seribantumab, in combination with docetaxel, is underway in patients with advanced NSCLC and high HRG mRNA expression (NCT02387216). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The poor prognosis of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) underscores the need for more effective treatment options, highlighting the unmet medical need in this patient population. The results of this study show that a novel biomarker, heregulin, may help to identify patients with advanced NSCLC who could benefit from treatment with seribantumab. On the basis of the observed safety profile and promising clinical efficacy, a prospective, randomized, open-label, international, multicenter phase II trial (SHERLOC, NCT02387216) is under way to investigate the efficacy and safety of seribantumab in combination with docetaxel in patients with heregulin-positive advanced adenocarcinoma.

A randomized trial of iron isomaltoside versus iron sucrose in patients with iron deficiency anemia.

Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is common in many chronic diseases, and intravenous (IV) iron offers a rapid and efficient iron correction. This trial compared the efficacy and safety of iron isomaltoside (also known as ferric derisomaltose) and iron sucrose in patients with IDA who were intolerant of, or unresponsive to, oral iron. The trial was an open­label, comparative, multi­center trial. Five hundred and eleven patients with IDA from different causes were randomized 2:1 to iron isomaltoside or iron sucrose and followed for 5 weeks. The cumulative dose of iron isomaltoside was based on body weight and hemoglobin (Hb), administered as either a 1000 mg infusion over more than 15 minutes or 500 mg injection over 2 minutes. The cumulative dose of iron sucrose was calculated according to Ganzoni and administered as repeated 200 mg infusions over 30 minutes. The mean cumulative dose of iron isomaltoside was 1640.2 (standard deviation (SD): 357.6) mg and of iron sucrose 1127.9 (SD: 343.3) mg. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a Hb increase ≥2 g/dL from baseline at any time between weeks 1­5. Both non­inferiority and superiority were confirmed for the primary endpoint, and a shorter time to Hb increase ≥2 g/dL was observed with iron isomaltoside. For all biochemical efficacy parameters, faster and/or greater improvements were found with iron isomaltoside. Both treatments were well tolerated; 0.6% experienced a serious adverse drug reaction. Iron isomaltoside was more effective than iron sucrose in achieving a rapid improvement in Hb. Furthermore, iron isomaltoside has an advantage over iron sucrose in allowing higher cumulative dosing in fewer administrations. Both treatments were well tolerated in a broad population with IDA.

Efficacy of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist rolapitant in preventing nausea and vomiting in patients receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Rolapitant, a novel neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, provided effective protection against chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in a randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial of patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimen. The current analysis explored the efficacy and safety of rolapitant in preventing CINV in a subgroup of patients receiving carboplatin. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive oral rolapitant (180 mg) or a placebo 1 to 2 hours before chemotherapy administration; all patients received oral granisetron (2 mg) on days 1 to 3 and oral dexamethasone (20 mg) on day 1. A post hoc analysis examined the subgroup of patients receiving carboplatin in cycle 1. The efficacy endpoints were as follows: complete response (CR), no emesis, no nausea, no significant nausea, complete protection, time to first emesis or use of rescue medication, and no impact on daily life. RESULTS: In the subgroup administered carboplatin-based chemotherapy (n = 401), a significantly higher proportion of patients in the rolapitant group versus the control group achieved a CR in the overall phase (0-120 hours; 80.2% vs 64.6%; P < .001) and in the delayed phase (>24-120 hours; 82.3% vs 65.6%; P < .001) after chemotherapy administration. Superior responses were also observed by the measures of no emesis, no nausea, and complete protection in the overall and delayed phases and by the time to first emesis or use of rescue medication. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar for the rolapitant and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Rolapitant provided superior CINV protection to patients receiving carboplatin-based chemotherapy in comparison with the control. These results support rolapitant use as part of the antiemetic regimen in carboplatin-treated patients. Cancer 2016;122:2418-2425. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Safety and efficacy of rolapitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or anthracycline and cyclophosphamide regimens in patients with cancer: a randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting is a common side-effect of many antineoplastic regimens and can occur for several days after treatment. We aimed to assess the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist rolapitant, in combination with a serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonist and dexamethasone, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer after administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or regimens containing an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. METHODS: We conducted a global, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 study at 170 cancer centres in 23 countries. We included patients with cancer aged 18 years or older, who had not received moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy before, with a Karnofsky performance score of 60 or higher, and a predicted life expectancy of 4 months or longer. We used an interactive web-based randomisation system to randomly allocate patients to receive either oral rolapitant (one 180 mg dose; rolapitant group) or a placebo that was identical in appearance (active control group) 1-2 h before administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were stratified by sex. All patients also received granisetron (2 mg orally) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally) on day 1 (except for patients receiving taxanes as part of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, who received dexamethasone according to the package insert) and granisetron (2 mg orally) on days 2-3. Every cycle was a minimum of 14 days. In up to five subsequent cycles, patients received the same study drug they were assigned in cycle 1, unless they chose to leave the study or were removed at the treating clinician's discretion. Efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population (comprising all patients who received at least one dose of study drug at a study site compliant with Good Clinical Practice [GCP]). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response (defined as no emesis or use of rescue medication) in the delayed phase (>24-120 h after initiation of chemotherapy) in cycle 1. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01500226. The study has been completed. FINDINGS: Between March 5, 2012, and Sept 6, 2013, 1369 patients were randomised to receive either rolapitant (n=684) or active control (n=685). 666 patients in each group received at least one dose of study drug at a GCP-compliant site and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving rolapitant had complete responses in the delayed phase than did those receiving active control (475 [71%] vs 410 [62%]; odds ratio 1·6, 95% CI 1·2-2·0; p=0·0002). The incidence of adverse events was similar in the rolapitant and control groups, with the most frequently reported treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events being fatigue, constipation, and headache. For cycle 1, the most common grade 3-4 adverse event in the rolapitant versus active control groups was neutropenia (32 [5%] vs 23 [3%] patients). No serious adverse event was treatment-related, and no treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse event resulted in death. INTERPRETATION: Rolapitant in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is well tolerated and shows superiority over active control for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during the 5-day (0-120 h) at-risk period after administration of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy or regimens containing an anthracycline and cyclophosphamide. FUNDING: TESARO, Inc.

Safety and efficacy of rolapitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after administration of cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy in patients with cancer: two randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: Highly emetogenic chemotherapy induces emesis in almost all patients in the absence of prophylaxis. Guidelines recommend use of a neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist in conjunction with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and corticosteroid in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. We aimed to assess rolapitant, an NK-1 receptor antagonist, for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer after administration of cisplatin-based highly emetogenic chemotherapy. METHODS: We conducted two global, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 trials (HEC-1 and HEC-2) at 155 cancer centres (76 in HEC-1 and 79 in HEC-2) in 26 countries (17 in HEC-1 and 14 in HEC-2). We enrolled patients with cancer aged 18 years or older, who had not previously been treated with cisplatin, with a Karnofsky performance score of 60 or higher, and a predicted life expectancy of 4 months or longer. We used an interactive web-based randomisation system to randomly assign patients to treatment. Patients were stratified by sex and randomly allocated to either oral rolapitant (180 mg dose; rolapitant group) or a placebo that was identical in appearance (active control group) about 1-2 h before administration of highly emetogenic chemotherapy. All patients received granisetron (10 µg/kg intravenously) and dexamethasone (20 mg orally) on day 1, and dexamethasone (8 mg orally) twice daily on days 2-4. Every cycle was a minimum of 14 days. In up to five subsequent cycles, patients were allowed to receive the same study drug they were assigned in cycle 1, unless removed at the clinician's discretion. Patients could also choose to leave the study at any point. Efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population (comprising all patients who received at least one dose of study drug at a cancer centre compliant with Good Clinical Practice [GCP]). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a complete response (no emesis or use of rescue medication) in the delayed phase (>24-120 h after initiation of chemotherapy) in cycle 1. These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01499849 and NCT01500213. Both studies have been completed. FINDINGS: Between Feb 21, 2012, and March 12, 2014, 532 patients in HEC-1 and 555 patients in HEC-2 were randomly assigned to treatment. 526 patients in HEC-1 (264 rolapitant and 262 active control) and 544 in HEC-2 (271 rolapitant and 273 active control) received at least one dose of study drug at a GCP-compliant site and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the rolapitant group had complete responses in the delayed phase than did patients in the active control group (HEC-1: 192 [73%] vs 153 [58%]; odds ratio 1·9, 95% CI 1·3-2·7; p=0·0006; HEC-2: 190 [70%] vs 169 [62%]; 1·4, 1·0-2·1; p=0·0426; pooled studies: 382 [71%] vs 322 [60%]; 1·6, 1·3-2·1; p=0·0001). The incidence of adverse events was similar across treatment groups. The most commonly reported treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events in the rolapitant versus active control groups were headache (three [<1%] vs two [<1%]), hiccups (three [<1%] vs four [<1%]), constipation (two [<1%] vs three [<1%]), and dyspepsia (two [<1%] vs three [<1%]). For cycle 1, the most common grade 3-5 adverse events in patients allocated rolapitant versus active control were neutropenia (HEC-1: nine [3%] vs 14 [5%]; HEC-2: 16 [6%] vs 14 [5%]), anaemia (HEC-1: one [<1%] vs one [<1%]; HEC-2: seven [3%] vs two [<1%]), and leucopenia (HEC-1: six [2%] vs two [<1%]; HEC-2: two [<1%] vs two [<1%]). No serious treatment-emergent adverse events were treatment related, and no treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events resulted in death. INTERPRETATION: Rolapitant in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone is well-tolerated and shows superiority over active control for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting during the at-risk period (120 h) after administration of highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy. FUNDING: TESARO, Inc.

Phase 1/2 study of KRN330, a fully human anti-A33 monoclonal antibody, plus irinotecan as second-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

KRN330 is a recombinant, fully-human monoclonal antibody directed against A33, a surface differentiation antigen that is uniformly expressed in 95 % of colorectal cancers. A previous Phase 1 study of single-agent KRN330 identified a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of 3 mg/kg q2w and preliminary evidence of clinical activity among patients with advanced and metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This Phase 1/2 trial sought to assess the safety and activity of second-line KRN330 plus irinotecan in patients with mCRC. Patients with mCRC who showed disease progression after FOLFOX/CapOx received intravenous doses of KRN330 (0.5 or 1.0 mg/kg qw or q2w) plus irinotecan (180 mg/m(2)) in a standard 3 + 3 dose escalation. The MTD of KRN330 with irinotecan in 19 patients was 0.5 mg/kg qw in the Phase 1 study with gastrointestinal effects and neutropenia being the predominant dose-limiting toxicities. In the Phase 2 study, the most frequent treatment-related Grade ≥3 toxicities in 44 patients were fatigue (15.9 %), neutropenia (13.6 %), leukopenia (6.8 %), diarrhea (4.5 %), and dehydration (4.5 %). Objective response rate (ORR) was 4.5 % and disease control rate was 45.5 % for the intent-to-treat population. Median progression-free survival was 87 days (95 % CI, 43-136 days). The prespecified ORR of KRN330 plus irinotecan was not met. Further investigation of KRN330 plus other agents may be warranted.

Adjuvant docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide in node-positive breast cancer: 10-year follow-up of the phase 3 randomised BCIRG 001 trial.

BACKGROUND: We compared standard adjuvant anthracycline chemotherapy with anthracycline-taxane combination chemotherapy in women with operable node-positive breast cancer. Here we report the final, 10-year follow-up analysis of disease-free survival, overall survival, and long-term safety. METHODS: BCIRG 001 was an open label, phase 3, multicentre trial in which 1491 patients aged 18-70 years with node-positive, early breast cancer and a Karnofsky score of 80% or more were randomly assigned to adjuvant treatment with docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) or fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FAC) every 3 weeks for six cycles. Randomisation was stratified according to institution and number of involved axillary lymph nodes per patient (one to three vs four or more). Disease-free survival was the primary endpoint and was defined as the interval between randomisation and breast cancer relapse, second primary cancer, or death, whichever occurred first. Efficacy analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. BCIRG 001 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00688740. FINDINGS: Enrolement took place between June 11, 1997 and June 3, 1999; 745 patients were assigned to receive TAC and 746 patients were assigned to receive FAC. After a median follow-up of 124 months (IQR 90-126), disease-free survival was 62% (95% CI 58-65) for patients in the TAC group and 55% (51-59) for patients in the FAC group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·80, 95% CI 0·68-0·93; log-rank p=0·0043). 10-year overall survival was 76% (95% CI 72-79) for patients in the TAC group and 69% (65-72) for patients in the FAC group (HR 0·74, 0·61-0·90; log-rank p=0·0020). TAC improved disease-free survival relative to FAC irrespective of nodal, hormone receptor, and HER2 status, although not all differences were significant in these subgroup analyses. Grade 3-4 heart failure occurred in 26 (3%) patients in the TAC group and 17 (2%) patients in the FAC group, and caused death in two patients in the TAC group and four patients in the FAC group. A substantial decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (defined as a relative decrease from baseline of 20% or more) was seen in 58 (17%) patients who received TAC and 41 (15%) patients who received FAC. Six patients who received TAC developed leukaemia or myelodysplasia, as did three patients who received FAC. INTERPRETATION: Our results provide evidence that the initial therapeutic outcomes seen at the 5-year follow-up with a docetaxel-containing adjuvant regimen are maintained at 10 years. However, a substantial percentage of patients had a decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction, probably caused by anthracycline therapy, which warrants further investigation. FUNDING: Sanofi.

Filanesib plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory t(11;14) and 1q21 gain multiple myeloma.

Filanesib is a first-in-class kinesin spindle protein inhibitor which demonstrated safety and encouraging activity in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in a preliminary analysis of dose-escalation phase results. This multicenter study included first a dose-escalation phase to determine maximum tolerated dose of two schedules of filanesib, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and a subsequent dose-expansion phase using the maximum tolerated doses. In the dose-expansion phase, 28 patients were evaluable for safety and efficacy. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events were neutropenia (21%) and anemia (18%), which were noncumulative and reversible, and hypertension (18%). The overall response rate was 43% with median duration of response not yet reached (range, 2.8-23.7+ months) with median follow-up of 6.3 months. A post hoc analysis incorporated 29 dose-escalation phase patients who received therapeutic filanesib doses, with an overall response rate of 39% and median duration of response of 18.0 months among the 57 total patients with median progression-free survival of 8.5 months. Notably, the PFS of high risk patients was comparable at 8.5 months, driven by the patients with 1q21 gain, characterized by increased MCL-1 expression, with a PFS of 9.1 months versus 3.5 months for the remainder of high risk patients. Patients with t(11;14) also had an encouraging PFS of 15.0 months. The combination of filanesib, bortezomib, and dexamethasone continues to show safety and encouraging activity in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, particularly in those patients with 1q21 gain and t(11;14).

Pixantrone dimaleate in combination with fludarabine, dexamethasone, and rituximab in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma: phase 1 study with a dose-expansion cohort.

BACKGROUND: Pixantrone dimaleate (pixantrone) has been shown to have antitumor activity in leukemia and lymphoma in vitro models and to lack delayed cardiotoxicity associated with mitoxantrone in animal models. FND-R, a combination regimen of fludarabine, mitoxantrone, dexamethasone, and rituximab, has been shown to be an effective regimen for low-grade lymphomas. METHODS: This dose-escalation study, with an expansion cohort, was conducted to evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of FPD-R, in which pixantrone was substituted for mitoxantrone in the FND-R regimen, in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Escalated doses of pixantrone were administered to newly enrolled patients on day 2 of each 28-day cycle of FPD-R. RESULTS: Twenty-eight of 29 enrolled patients received at least 1 cycle of FPD-R (median, 5 cycles). Pixantrone 120 mg/m(2) was identified as the recommended dose in this regimen. Grade 3-4 adverse events were primarily hematologic; grade 3-4 lymphopenia occurred in 89% of patients and leukopenia in 79%. No patients developed congestive heart failure or grade 3-4 cardiac adverse events. Left ventricular ejection fraction decreases occurred in 8 (29%) patients, and most were grade 1 or 2, transient, and asymptomatic. The overall response rate was 89%. Estimated survival was 96% after 1 year and 92% after 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: The FPD-R regimen was well-tolerated and highly active in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent NHL.

Randomized phase I trial of recombinant human keratinocyte growth factor plus chemotherapy: potential role as mucosal protectant.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety of recombinant human keratinocyte growth factor (KGF) when administered with fluorouracil (FU) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (N = 81) received KGF by intravenous (IV) bolus on days 1 to 3, followed by FU 425 mg/m2/d IV bolus plus leucovorin 20 mg/m2/d IV on days 4 to 8. KGF dose levels were 1, 10, 20, 40, 60, and 80 microg/kg/d. A randomized, placebo-controlled design was employed (2:1 randomization of KGF to placebo). Oral mucositis was assessed by examination on days 1, 4, 8, 15, and 28. In addition, patients provided daily assessments of oral symptoms using a self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: Skin and oral events occurred in 13 of 18 patients (eight patients, grade 1; four patients, grade 2; and one patient, grade 3) treated with 60 and 80 microg/kg of KGF and three of 11 patients treated with 40 microg/kg (grade 1). These symptoms were dose limiting in three cases (ie, in two of 10 patients treated with 80 microg/kg and in one of eight patients treated with 60 microg/kg). The frequency of grade 2 to 4 mucositis was 43% in patients treated with KGF, compared with 67% in patients treated with placebo (P =.06). Patient self-assessments of oral pain and clinical assessments of mucositis showed good correlation (Kendall's tau = 0.75). CONCLUSION: KGF is generally well tolerated when administered IV at doses up to 40 microg/kg/d for 3 days before a 5-day course of FU plus leucovorin. A clinically meaningful biologic effect was also suggested in that patients treated with the epithelial growth factor KGF had a lower rate of grade 2 to 4 mucositis than did patients treated with placebo.

An educational program to increase cervical and breast cancer screening in Hispanic women: a Southwest Oncology Group study.

We conducted a community-based pilot study to train Hispanic cancer survivors as promotoras (lay health educators) to encourage their social contacts to obtain breast and cervical cancer screening. Promotoras were recruited from a private oncologist's practice at a Minority-Based Community Clinical Oncology Program (MBCCOP). Five Hispanic women were trained to serve as promotoras by attending a 12-week course. They shared cancer screening information with family and social contacts and encouraged them to obtain Papanicolaou smears and/or mammograms. Study endpoints included the number of women recruited and trained to serve as promotoras, the number of contacts made per promotora, and the number of contacts who were screened; data were based on contact logs maintained for 1 year. Screening examinations were documented by a postcard returned by the contact or by review of community health clinic records. Five promotoras contacted 141 (range = 24-49 per promotora) women to share cancer screening information. Fifty Hispanic women obtained screening after contact with a promotora. Twenty-nine underwent mammography (ages 25-58) and 43 received a Papanicolaou smear (ages 23-62). Hispanic female cancer survivors can be trained as promotoras. Screening information conveyed by a promotora can successfully prompt Hispanic women to obtain mammography and Papanicolaou smears.

PRONOUNCE: randomized, open-label, phase III study of first-line pemetrexed + carboplatin followed by maintenance pemetrexed versus paclitaxel + carboplatin + bevacizumab followed by maintenance bevacizumab in patients ith advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: PRONOUNCE compared the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed+carboplatin followed by pemetrexed (Pem+Cb) with paclitaxel+carboplatin+bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab (Pac+Cb+Bev) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients ≥18 years of age with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC (American Joint Committee on Cancer v7.0), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1 were randomized (1:1) to four cycles of induction Pem+Cb (pemetrexed, 500 mg/m, carboplatin, area under the curve = 6) followed by Pem maintenance or Pac+Cb+Bev (paclitaxel, 200 mg/m, carboplatin, area under the curve = 6, and bevacizumab, 15 mg/kg) followed by Bev maintenance in the absence of progressive disease or discontinuation. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS) without grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS). Secondary end points were PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Resource utilization was also assessed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the patients randomized to Pem+Cb (N = 182) and Pac+Cb+Bev (N = 179) were well balanced between the arms. Median (months) G4PFS was 3.91 for Pem+Cb and 2.86 for Pac+Cb+Bev (hazard ratio = 0.85, 90% confidence interval, 0.7-1.04; p = 0.176); PFS, OS, ORR, or DCR did not differ significantly between the arms. Significantly more drug-related grade 3/4 anemia (18.7% versus 5.4%) and thrombocytopenia (24.0% versus 9.6%) were reported for Pem+Cb. Significantly more grade 3/4 neutropenia (48.8% versus 24.6%), grade 1/2 alopecia (28.3% versus 8.2%), and grade 1/2 sensory neuropathy were reported for Pac+Cb+Bev. Number of hospitalizations and overall length of stay did not differ significantly between the arms. CONCLUSIONS: Pem+Cb did not produce significantly better G4PFS compared with Pac+Cb+Bev. Pem+Cb was not superior in PFS, OS, ORR, or DCR compared with Pac+Cb+Bev. Both regimens were well tolerated, although, toxicity profiles differed.

A phase I study of imexon plus gemcitabine as first-line therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: Imexon is an aziridine-derived iminopyrrolidone which has synergy with gemcitabine in pancreatic cancer cell lines. Gemcitabine is a standard therapy for pancreatic cancer. We performed a phase I trial of imexon and gemcitabine to evaluate safety, dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma received therapy in sequential cohorts on regimen A (n = 19; imexon 200 or 280 mg/m(2) intravenously (IV) over 30 min days 1-5, 15-19 and gemcitabine 800 or 1,000 mg/m(2) IV over 30 min on days 1,8,15 every 28 days) or regimen B (n = 86; imexon 280-1,300 mg/m(2) IV over 30-60 min days 1, 8, and 15 and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) IV over 30 min on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days). RESULTS: One hundred five patients received 340 treatment cycles (median 2, range 1-16). PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS: median age 63, 61% male, ECOG PS 0/1 50%/50%, 93% metastatic. DLT was abdominal cramping and pain, often with transient, acute diarrhea. Best response was confirmed partial response (PR) in 11.4%, 8.9% unconfirmed PR, and 48.1% with stable disease. There was a dose proportional increase in imexon AUC across the doses tested with terminal half life 69 min at the MTD and no alteration of gemcitabine pharmacokinetics. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended phase II dose of imexon is 875 mg/m(2) with gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2). DLT was acute abdominal pain and cramping. Encouraging antitumor responses support further evaluation of this combination in advanced pancreatic cancer.

Phase III multicenter trial of doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel compared with doxorubicin plus paclitaxel followed by weekly paclitaxel as adjuvant therapy for women with high-risk breast cancer.

PURPOSE: This study compared disease-free survival (DFS) obtained with two different regimens of adjuvant therapy in high-risk breast cancer. METHODS: Women (who had performance status [PS] of 0 to 1) with operable, histologically confirmed, stage I to III adenocarcinoma of the breast were eligible. Patients had undergone primary surgery with no residual tumor. Treatments were as follows: arm 1 was doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for four cycles (ie, AC-P); and arm 2 was doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2) plus paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2) weekly for 12 weeks. RESULTS: Overall, 1,830 patients were enrolled and 1,801 were treated: arm 1 (n = 906; AC-->P) and arm 2 (n = 895; AP-WP). Overall, patients had a PS of 0 (88%), had estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor-positive disease (52%), had one to three positive nodes (46%), and were postmenopausal (57%); the median age was 52 years. Currently, 1,640 patients (90%) are alive. The 6-year DFS was 79% to 80% in both groups. Disease relapse was the cause of death for 83 patients in arm 1 and in 66 patients of arm 2. Overall 6-year survival rates were 82% and 87% in arms 1 and 2, respectively. Reasons for patients being taken off study treatment included toxicity (13% in arm 1 v 20% in arm 2), progressive disease or recurrence (7% v 5%), and consent withdrawn (9% v 8%), respectively. The most frequent toxicities were hematologic, including neutropenia and leukopenia followed by neuropathy, myalgia, nausea, fatigue, headache, arthralgia, and vomiting. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the AP-WP regimen is an equally effective and tolerable option for the adjuvant treatment of patients with high-risk breast cancer. The substitution of paclitaxel for cyclophosphamide results in comparable effectiveness of the regimen.

Efficacy and toxicity of the novel chemotherapeutic agent KW-2170 in recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES: KW-2170 is a novel DNA intercalating agent whose mechanism of action is similar to doxorubicin HCl, yet is associated with less cardiac toxicity. The objective of this study was to evaluate the activity and toxicity of this novel chemotherapeutic agent in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma. METHODS: A prospective phase II trial was performed in patients with persistent or recurrent epithelial ovarian or primary peritoneal carcinoma and measurable disease. Patients could have platinum-sensitive or refractory disease and could have received any number of prior treatments. One treatment cycle consisted of KW-2170 administered at a dose of 18 mg/m(2) weekly for 3 weeks followed by a 21-day rest period. Toxicity was assessed using the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria (Version 2.0), and dose reduction was allowed for significant toxicity. Response to therapy was assessed in patients who completed at least 2 cycles using RECIST criteria. RESULTS: A total of 28 patients were enrolled in this phase II trial at 5 separate centers. Of the 28 patients evaluated, all had stage III/IV disease at initial diagnosis. The median number of prior therapeutic regimens in these patients was 4 (range 1-8). The median number of KW-2170 cycles administered was 2 (range 1-5). Treatment-related toxicity in this heavily pretreated population was acceptable as only 6 patients (21%) had grade 3-4 neutropenia. Dose reductions occurred in 6 patients (21%) for grades 1-4 neutropenia, and no patient had febrile neutropenia. Four patients completed less than 1 cycle; 3 secondary to progressive disease, and one due to Gram-positive sepsis. Of patients receiving at least 2 full cycles, 10 patients (55%) had stable disease with a median of 4.5 months (range 3-10) to disease progression. All other patients were removed from the study after 1-2 cycles of therapy with no significant clinical effect noted. CONCLUSIONS: Although associated with relatively little toxicity, KW-2170 at the dose and schedule evaluated demonstrated little clinical activity in this heavily pretreated population of recurrent ovarian cancer patients. Whether KW-2170 would have greater clinical activity in a more treatment naive group of patients at an increased dose awaits clinical trial evaluation.