The effects of adding palbociclib to endocrine therapy to treat advanced breast cancer: a plain language summary of a study using the PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 trial results.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of an article that reported results of a study using data from two phase 3 clinical trials called "PALOMA-2" and "PALOMA-3." Both PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 trials included women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer. HR+/HER2- breast cancer means the breast cancer cells of these women have receptors for female sex hormones and little or no HER2 receptors. Both PALOMA trials tested the effect of adding a medication called palbociclib (brand name, Ibrance®) to a hormone therapy. Hormone therapy, also known as endocrine therapy, is a treatment that blocks or removes hormones that cause cancer cells to grow and divide. In both trials, women took endocrine therapy with either palbociclib or a placebo. WHAT WAS THE AIM OF THIS STUDY?: The researchers aimed to see if the results from the PALOMA trials were similar for subgroups of women in the 2 trials. The subgroups in the study included women who shared certain features about their cancer or treatment history, for example, women whose cancer had spread to the liver. For each subgroup, the study compared the results from the 2 treatment groups: (1) women who took palbociclib plus endocrine therapy, and (2) women who took placebo plus endocrine therapy. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS & WHAT DO THEY MEAN?: The same effect was found in all subgroups. Compared with those who took placebo, women who took palbociclib lived longer without their cancer getting worse (growing or spreading). Also, among women who had chemotherapy after stopping the trial treatment, those who took palbociclib started chemotherapy later than those who took placebo. Because palbociclib slows cancer growth and leads to tumor shrinkage, this may have played a part in starting chemotherapy later. These results show that palbociclib plus endocrine therapy is better at slowing the progression of advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer than endocrine therapy alone. This can be said for women with different advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer features and treatment history. Overall, the results support women taking palbociclib with an endocrine therapy if they have advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer.

Rucaparib versus standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with relapsed ovarian cancer and a deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (ARIEL4): an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Few prospective studies have compared poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors to chemotherapy for the treatment of BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated ovarian carcinoma. We aimed to assess rucaparib versus platinum-based and non-platinum-based chemotherapy in this setting. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study (ARIEL4), conducted in 64 hospitals and cancer centres across 12 countries (Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Poland, Russia, Spain, Ukraine, the UK, and the USA), we recruited patients aged 18 years and older with BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated ovarian carcinoma, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and who had received two or more previous chemotherapy regimens. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1), using an interactive response technology and block randomisation (block size of six) and stratified by progression-free interval after the most recent platinum-containing therapy, to oral rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) or chemotherapy (administered per institutional guidelines). Patients assigned to the chemotherapy group with platinum-resistant or partially platinum-sensitive disease were given paclitaxel (starting dose 60-80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15); those with fully platinum-sensitive disease received platinum-based chemotherapy (single-agent cisplatin or carboplatin, or platinum-doublet chemotherapy). Patients were treated in 21-day or 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, assessed in the efficacy population (all randomly assigned patients with deleterious BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations without reversion mutations), and then in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned patients). Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of assigned study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02855944; enrolment is complete, and the study is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2017, and Sept 24, 2020, 930 patients were screened, of whom 349 eligible patients were randomly assigned to rucaparib (n=233) or chemotherapy (n=116). Median age was 58 years (IQR 52-64) and 332 (95%) patients were White. As of data cutoff (Sept 30, 2020), median follow-up was 25·0 months (IQR 13·8-32·5). In the efficacy population (220 patients in the rucaparib group; 105 in the chemotherapy group), median progression-free survival was 7·4 months (95% CI 7·3-9·1) in the rucaparib group versus 5·7 months (5·5-7·3) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·64 [95% CI 0·49-0·84]; p=0·0010). In the intention-to-treat population (233 in the rucaparib group; 116 in the chemotherapy group), median progression-free survival was 7·4 months (95% CI 6·7-7·9) in the rucaparib group versus 5·7 months (5·5-6·7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·67 [95% CI 0·52-0·86]; p=0·0017). Most treatment-emergent adverse events were grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse event was anaemia or decreased haemoglobin (in 52 [22%] of 232 patients in the rucaparib group vs six [5%] of 113 in the chemotherapy group). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 62 (27%) patients in the rucaparib group versus 13 (12%) in the chemotherapy group; serious adverse events considered related to treatment by the investigator occurred in 32 (14%) patients in the rucaparib group and six (5%) in the chemotherapy group. Three deaths were considered to be potentially related to rucaparib (one due to cardiac disorder, one due to myelodysplastic syndrome, and one with an unconfirmed cause). INTERPRETATION: Results from the ARIEL4 study support rucaparib as an alternative treatment option to chemotherapy for patients with relapsed, BRCA1-mutated or BRCA2-mutated ovarian carcinoma. FUNDING: Clovis Oncology.

Chemotherapy with or without avelumab followed by avelumab maintenance versus chemotherapy alone in patients with previously untreated epithelial ovarian cancer (JAVELIN Ovarian 100): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Although most patients with epithelial ovarian cancer respond to frontline platinum-based chemotherapy, around 70% will relapse within 3 years. The phase 3 JAVELIN Ovarian 100 trial compared avelumab (anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody) in combination with chemotherapy followed by avelumab maintenance, or chemotherapy followed by avelumab maintenance, versus chemotherapy alone in patients with treatment-naive epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: JAVELIN Ovarian 100 was a global, open-label, three-arm, parallel, randomised, phase 3 trial run at 159 hospitals and cancer treatment centres in 25 countries. Eligible women were aged 18 years and older with stage III-IV epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer (following debulking surgery, or candidates for neoadjuvant chemotherapy), and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via interactive response technology to receive chemotherapy (six cycles; carboplatin dosed at an area under the serum-concentration-time curve of 5 or 6 intravenously every 3 weeks plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 every 3 weeks or 80 mg/m2 once a week [investigators' choice]) followed by avelumab maintenance (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks; avelumab maintenance group); chemotherapy plus avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 3 weeks) followed by avelumab maintenance (avelumab combination group); or chemotherapy followed by observation (control group). Randomisation was in permuted blocks of size six and stratified by paclitaxel regimen and resection status. Patients and investigators were masked to assignment to the two chemotherapy groups without avelumab at the time of randomisation until completion of the chemotherapy phase. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by blinded independent central review in all randomly assigned patients (analysed by intention to treat). Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02718417. The trial was fully enrolled and terminated at interim analysis due to futility, and efficacy is no longer being assessed. FINDINGS: Between May 19, 2016 and Jan 23, 2018, 998 patients were randomly assigned (avelumab maintenance n=332, avelumab combination n=331, and control n=335). At the planned interim analysis (data cutoff Sept 7, 2018), prespecified futility boundaries were crossed for the progression-free survival analysis, and the trial was stopped as recommended by the independent data monitoring committee and endorsed by the protocol steering committee. Median follow-up for progression-free survival for all patients was 10·8 months (IQR 7·1-14·9); 11·1 months (7·0-15·3) for the avelumab maintenance group, 11·0 months (7·4-14·5) for the avelumab combination group, and 10·2 months (6·7-14·0) for the control group. Median progression-free survival was 16·8 months (95% CI 13·5-not estimable [NE]) with avelumab maintenance, 18·1 months (14·8-NE) with avelumab combination treatment, and NE (18·2 months-NE) with control treatment. The stratified hazard ratio for progression-free survival was 1·43 (95% CI 1·05-1·95; one-sided p=0·99) with the avelumab maintenance regimen and 1·14 (0·83-1·56; one-sided p=0·79) with the avelumab combination regimen, versus control treatment. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were anaemia (69 [21%] patients in the avelumab maintenance group, 63 [19%] in the avelumab combination group, and 53 [16%] in the control group), neutropenia (91 [28%], 99 [30%], and 88 [26%]), and neutrophil count decrease (49 [15%], 45 [14%], and 59 [18%]). Serious adverse events of any grade occurred in 92 (28%) patients in the avelumab maintenance group, 118 (36%) in the avelumab combination group, and 64 (19%) in the control group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in one (<1%) patient in the avelumab maintenance group (due to atrial fibrillation) and one (<1%) patient in the avelumab combination group (due to disease progression). INTERPRETATION: Although no new safety signals were observed, results do not support the use of avelumab in the frontline treatment setting. Alternative treatment regimens are needed to improve outcomes in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. FUNDING: Pfizer and Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

Veliparib with carboplatin and paclitaxel in BRCA-mutated advanced breast cancer (BROCADE3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: BRCA1 or BRCA2-mutated breast cancers are sensitive to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and platinum agents owing to deficiency in homologous recombination repair of DNA damage. In this trial, we compared veliparib versus placebo in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel, and continued as monotherapy if carboplatin and paclitaxel were discontinued before progression, in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. METHODS: BROCADE3 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done at 147 hospitals in 36 countries. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) had deleterious germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation-associated, histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced HER2-negative breast cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and had received up to two previous lines of chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) by interactive response technology by means of permuted blocks within strata (block size of 3 or 6) to carboplatin (area under the concentration curve 6 mg/mL per min intravenously) on day 1 and paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 intravenously) on days 1, 8, and 15 of 21-day cycles combined with either veliparib (120 mg orally twice daily, on days -2 to 5) or matching placebo. If patients discontinued carboplatin and paclitaxel before progression, they could continue veliparib or placebo at an intensified dose (300 mg twice daily continuously, escalating to 400 mg twice daily if tolerated) until disease progression. Patients in the control group could receive open-label veliparib monotherapy after disease progression. Randomisation was stratified by previous platinum use, history of CNS metastases, and oestrogen and progesterone receptor status. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat, which included all randomly assigned patients with a centrally confirmed BRCA mutation, and safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of velilparib or placebo. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02163694. FINDINGS: Between July 30, 2014, and Jan 17, 2018, 2202 patients were screened, of whom 513 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. In the intention-to-treat population (n=509), 337 patients were assigned to receive veliparib plus carboplatin-paclitaxel (veliparib group) and 172 were assigned to receive placebo plus carboplatin-paclitaxel (control group). Median follow-up at data cutoff (April 5, 2019) was 35·7 months (IQR 24·9-43·6) in the veliparib group and 35·5 months (23·1-45·9) in the control group. Median progression-free survival was 14·5 months (95% CI 12·5-17·7) in the veliparib group versus 12·6 months (10·6-14·4) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·71 [95% CI 0·57-0·88], p=0·0016). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (272 [81%] of 336 patients in the veliparib group vs 143 [84%] of 171 patients in the control group), anaemia (142 [42%] vs 68 [40%]), and thrombocytopenia (134 [40%] vs 48 [28%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 115 (34%) patients in the veliparib group versus 49 (29%) patients in the control group. There were no study drug-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: The addition of veliparib to a highly active platinum doublet, with continuation as monotherapy if the doublet were discontinued, resulted in significant and durable improvement in progression-free survival in patients with germline BRCA mutation-associated advanced breast cancer. These data indicate the utility of combining platinum and PARP inhibitors in this patient population. FUNDING: AbbVie.

Overall survival results from the randomized phase 2 study of palbociclib in combination with letrozole versus letrozole alone for first-line treatment of ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (PALOMA-1, TRIO-18).

PURPOSE: Palbociclib is a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor, approved in combination with endocrine therapy for the treatment of women and men with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer (HR+/HER2- ABC). In the phase 2, open-label, PALOMA-1 trial, palbociclib plus letrozole significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus letrozole alone (hazard ratio, 0.488; 95% CI 0.319‒0.748; P = 0.0004; median PFS, 20.2 vs 10.2 months, respectively) in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/HER2- ABC. Here, we present the final overall survival (OS) and updated safety results. METHODS: Postmenopausal women with ER+/HER2- ABC were randomized 1:1 to receive either palbociclib (125 mg/day, 3/1 schedule) plus letrozole (2.5 mg/day, continuous) or letrozole alone (2.5 mg/day, continuous). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS; secondary endpoints included OS and safety. RESULTS: A total of 165 patients were randomized. At the data cutoff date of December 30, 2016 (median duration of follow-up, 64.7 months), the stratified hazard ratio for OS was 0.897 (95% CI 0.623-1.294; P = 0.281); median OS in the palbociclib plus letrozole and letrozole alone arms was 37.5 and 34.5 months, respectively. The median time from randomization to first subsequent chemotherapy use was longer with palbociclib plus letrozole than letrozole alone (26.7 and 17.7 months, respectively). The most frequently reported adverse event in the palbociclib plus letrozole arm was neutropenia (any grade, 75%; grade 3 or 4, 59%). CONCLUSIONS: Palbociclib plus letrozole treatment led to a numerical but not statistically significant improvement in median OS. Pfizer Inc (NCT00721409).

Randomized phase 3 efficacy and safety trial of proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar MYL-1401H in the prophylactic treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

Pegfilgrastim is indicated for reducing the duration of neutropenia and incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy. Here, safety and efficacy of MYL-1401H, a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar, were investigated as prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. This was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group equivalence trial of MYL-1401H vs European Union-sourced reference pegfilgrastim. Patients with newly diagnosed stage II/III breast cancer eligible to receive (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide every 3 weeks for 6 cycles were enrolled and randomized 2:1 to 6 mg of MYL-1401H or reference pegfilgrastim 24 h (+ 2-h window after the first 24 h) after the end of chemotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia in cycle 1 (i.e., days with absolute neutrophil count (ANC) < 0.5 × 109/L). Mean (standard deviation (SD)) duration of severe neutropenia in MYL-1401H and reference pegfilgrastim groups was 1.2 days (0.93) and 1.2 days (1.10), respectively. The 95% CI for least squares mean difference (- 0.285, 0.298) was within the predefined equivalence range of ± 1 day. Secondary endpoints, including grade ≥ 3 neutropenia (frequency, 91% and 82% for MYL-1401H and reference pegfilgrastim, respectively), time to ANC nadir (mean (SD), 6.2 (0.98) and 6.3 (1.57) days), and duration of post-nadir recovery (mean (SD), 1.9 (0.85) and 1.7 (0.91) days) were comparable. Overall safety profiles of the study drugs were comparable. MYL-1401H demonstrated equivalent efficacy and similar safety to reference pegfilgrastim and may be an equivalent option for reducing incidence of neutropenia. ( ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02467868; EudraCT, 2014-002324-27).

Fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole 1 mg for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (FALCON): an international, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Aromatase inhibitors are a standard of care for hormone receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. We investigated whether the selective oestrogen receptor degrader fulvestrant could improve progression-free survival compared with anastrozole in postmenopausal patients who had not received previous endocrine therapy. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomised, double-blind trial, we recruited eligible patients with histologically confirmed oestrogen receptor-positive or progesterone receptor-positive, or both, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer from 113 academic hospitals and community centres in 20 countries. Eligible patients were endocrine therapy-naive, with WHO performance status 0-2, and at least one measurable or non-measurable lesion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to fulvestrant (500 mg intramuscular injection; on days 0, 14, 28, then every 28 days thereafter) or anastrozole (1 mg orally daily) using a computer-generated randomisation scheme. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1·1, intervention by surgery or radiotherapy because of disease deterioration, or death from any cause, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety outcomes were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of randomised treatment (including placebo). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01602380. FINDINGS: Between Oct 17, 2012, and July 11, 2014, 524 patients were enrolled to this study. Of these, 462 patients were randomised (230 to receive fulvestrant and 232 to receive anastrozole). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the fulvestrant group than in the anastrozole group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·797, 95% CI 0·637-0·999, p=0·0486). Median progression-free survival was 16·6 months (95% CI 13·83-20·99) in the fulvestrant group versus 13·8 months (11·99-16·59) in the anastrozole group. The most common adverse events were arthralgia (38 [17%] in the fulvestrant group vs 24 [10%] in the anastrozole group) and hot flushes (26 [11%] in the fulvestrant group vs 24 [10%] in the anastrozole group). 16 (7%) of 228 patients in in the fulvestrant group and 11 (5%) of 232 patients in the anastrozole group discontinued because of adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Fulvestrant has superior efficacy and is a preferred treatment option for patients with hormone receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who have not received previous endocrine therapy compared with a third-generation aromatase inhibitor, a standard of care for first-line treatment of these patients. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

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.

The cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor palbociclib in combination with letrozole versus letrozole alone as first-line treatment of oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer (PALOMA-1/TRIO-18): a randomised phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Palbociclib (PD-0332991) is an oral, small-molecule inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs) 4 and 6 with preclinical evidence of growth-inhibitory activity in oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer cells and synergy with anti-oestrogens. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of palbociclib in combination with letrozole as first-line treatment of patients with advanced, oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised phase 2 study, postmenopausal women with advanced oestrogen receptor-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer who had not received any systemic treatment for their advanced disease were eligible to participate. Patients were enrolled in two separate cohorts that accrued sequentially: in cohort 1, patients were enrolled on the basis of their oestrogen receptor-positive and HER2-negative biomarker status alone, whereas in cohort 2 they were also required to have cancers with amplification of cyclin D1 (CCND1), loss of p16 (INK4A or CDKN2A), or both. In both cohorts, patients were randomly assigned 1:1 via an interactive web-based randomisation system, stratified by disease site and disease-free interval, to receive continuous oral letrozole 2.5 mg daily or continuous oral letrozole 2.5 mg daily plus oral palbociclib 125 mg, given once daily for 3 weeks followed by 1 week off over 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Accrual to cohort 2 was stopped after an unplanned interim analysis of cohort 1 and the statistical analysis plan for the primary endpoint was amended to a combined analysis of cohorts 1 and 2 (instead of cohort 2 alone). The study is ongoing but closed to accrual; these are the results of the final analysis of progression-free survival. The study is registered with the ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00721409. FINDINGS: Between Dec 22, 2009, and May 12, 2012, we randomly assigned 165 patients, 84 to palbociclib plus letrozole and 81 to letrozole alone. At the time of the final analysis for progression-free survival (median follow-up 29.6 months [95% CI 27.9-36.0] for the palbociclib plus letrozole group and 27.9 months [25.5-31.1] for the letrozole group), 41 progression-free survival events had occurred in the palbociclib plus letrozole group and 59 in the letrozole group. Median progression-free survival was 10.2 months (95% CI 5.7-12.6) for the letrozole group and 20.2 months (13.8-27.5) for the palbociclib plus letrozole group (HR 0.488, 95% CI 0.319-0.748; one-sided p=0.0004). In cohort 1 (n=66), median progression-free survival was 5.7 months (2.6-10.5) for the letrozole group and 26.1 months (11.2-not estimable) for the palbociclib plus letrozole group (HR 0.299, 0.156-0.572; one-sided p<0.0001); in cohort 2 (n=99), median progression-free survival was 11.1 months (7.1-16.4) for the letrozole group and 18.1 months (13.1-27.5) for the palbociclib plus letrozole group (HR 0.508, 0.303-0.853; one-sided p=0.0046). Grade 3-4 neutropenia was reported in 45 (54%) of 83 patients in the palbociclib plus letrozole group versus one (1%) of 77 patients in the letrozole group, leucopenia in 16 (19%) versus none, and fatigue in four (4%) versus one (1%). Serious adverse events that occurred in more than one patient in the palbociclib plus letrozole group were pulmonary embolism (three [4%] patients), back pain (two [2%]), and diarrhoea (two [2%]). No cases of febrile neutropenia or neutropenia-related infections were reported during the study. 11 (13%) patients in the palbociclib plus letrozole group and two (2%) in the letrozole group discontinued the study because of adverse events. INTERPRETATION: The addition of palbociclib to letrozole in this phase 2 study significantly improved progression-free survival in women with advanced oestrogen receptor-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer. A phase 3 trial is currently underway. FUNDING: Pfizer.

Effect of small angiokinase inhibitor nintedanib (BIBF 1120) on QT interval in patients with previously untreated, advanced renal cell cancer in an open-label, phase II study.

PURPOSE: Some targeted anticancer agents are associated with serious ventricular tachyarrhythmias, which may be predicted by electrocardiographic evaluation of drug-related QT prolongation. We studied the effects of nintedanib (BIBF 1120; an oral, triple angiokinase inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor, fibroblast growth factor, and platelet-derived growth factor receptors) on the QT interval in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) participating in an open-label phase II trial. METHODS: Treatment-naïve, adult patients with unresectable/metastatic, clear cell RCC received nintedanib 200 mg twice daily. QT intervals were evaluated at baseline (day -1), on day 1 (after the first dose), and on day 15 (steady state) by 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) performed in triplicate. Pharmacokinetic sampling was also undertaken. RESULTS: Among 64 evaluable patients, the upper limits of the 2-sided 90 % confidence intervals for the adjusted mean time-matched changes in QTcF interval (corrected for heart rate by Fridericia's method) from baseline to day 1 and 15 (primary ECG endpoint) were well below the regulatory threshold of 10 ms at all times. No relationship between nintedanib exposure and change from baseline in QTcF was seen. Nintedanib was generally well tolerated with no drug-related cardiovascular adverse events. CONCLUSION: Nintedanib administered at 200 mg twice daily was not associated with clinically relevant QT prolongation.

Trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab versus capecitabine plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer ineligible for intensive therapy (SOLSTICE): a randomised, open-label phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab has shown efficacy in previous phase 2 studies including patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer. We aimed to investigate first-line trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab versus capecitabine plus bevacizumab in patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer ineligible for intensive treatment. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 study, we enrolled patients aged 18 years and older with histologically confirmed metastatic colorectal cancer, ineligible for full-dose doublet or triplet chemotherapy and curative resection across 25 countries and regions. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab or capecitabine plus bevacizumab until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity using an interactive web response system, stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0 vs 1 vs 2), primary tumour location (right vs left colon), and the main reason for not being a candidate for intensive therapy (clinical condition vs non-clinical condition). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, defined as the time from randomisation to radiological progression or death from any cause, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients having taken at least one dose of the study drug. The trial is ongoing, findings presented here are those of the primary analysis of progression-free survival, conducted after 629 events had occurred. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03869892. FINDINGS: Between March 21, 2019, and Sept 14, 2020, 856 patients (54% male, 46% female) were randomly assigned to trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab (n=426) or capecitabine plus bevacizumab (n=430). After a median follow-up of 16·6 months (95% CI 16·5-17·1), the hazard ratio for progression-free survival for trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab versus capecitabine plus bevacizumab was 0·87 (0·75-1·02; p=0·0464; protocol-defined significance level of p=0·021 not met). Investigator-assessed median progression-free survival was 9·4 months (95% CI 9·1-10·9) with trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab versus 9·3 months (8·9-9·8) with capecitabine plus bevacizumab. The most common grade 3 and higher treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (220 [52%] of 423 patients in the trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab group vs six [1%] of 427 in the capecitabine plus bevacizumab group), decreased neutrophil count (78 [18%] vs four [<1%]), anaemia (60 [14%] vs 16 [4%]), and hand-foot syndrome (none vs 61 [15%]). Nine deaths (five in the trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab group and four in the capecitabine plus bevacizumab group) were treatment related. INTERPRETATION: First-line trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab was not superior to capecitabine plus bevacizumab in this population. As expected, the safety profile differed between the two treatments, but there were no new safety concerns. Trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab represents a feasible alternative to capecitabine plus bevacizumab in this population. FUNDING: Servier International Research Institute, Suresnes, France.

Cardiac Safety and Efficacy of SB3 Trastuzumab Biosimilar for ERBB2-Positive Early Breast Cancer: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Trastuzumab has been the standard of care for the treatment of patients with ERBB2-positive breast cancer; however, cardiac events have been reported. This long-term follow-up study provides clinical evidence supporting the similarity of a trastuzumab biosimilar (SB3) to reference trastuzumab (TRZ). Objective: To compare cardiac safety and efficacy between SB3 and TRZ for patients with ERBB2-positive early or locally advanced breast cancer after up to 6 years of follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, conducted from April 2016 to January 2021, included patients with ERBB2-positive early or locally advanced breast cancer from a multicenter double-blind, parallel-group, equivalence phase 3 randomized clinical trial of SB3 vs TRZ with concomitant neoadjuvant chemotherapy who completed neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment. Interventions: In the original trial, patients were randomized to either SB3 or TRZ with concomitant neoadjuvant chemotherapy for 8 cycles (4 cycles of docetaxel followed by 4 cycles of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide). After surgery, patients continued SB3 or TRZ monotherapy for 10 cycles of adjuvant treatment per previous treatment allocation. Following neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment, patients were monitored for up to 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the incidence of symptomatic congestive heart failure and asymptomatic, significant decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The secondary outcomes were event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 538 female patients were included (median age, 51 years [range, 22-65 years]). Baseline characteristics were comparable between the SB3 and TRZ groups. Cardiac safety was monitored for 367 patients (SB3, n = 186; TRZ, n = 181). Median follow-up was 68 months (range, 8.5-78.1 months). Asymptomatic, clinically significant LVEF decreases were rarely reported (SB3, 1 patient [0.4%]; TRZ, 2 [0.7%]). No patient experienced symptomatic cardiac failure or death due to a cardiovascular event. Survival was evaluated for the 367 patients in the cardiac safety cohort and an additional 171 patients enrolled after a protocol amendment (538 patients [SB3, n = 267; TRZ, n = 271]). No difference was observed in EFS or OS between treatment groups (EFS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.20; P = .34; OS: HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.36-1.05; P = .07). Five-year EFS rates were 79.8% (95% CI, 74.8%-84.9%) in the SB3 group and 75.0% (95% CI, 69.7%-80.3%) in the TRZ group, and OS rates were 92.5% (95% CI, 89.2%-95.7%) in the SB3 group and 85.4% (95% CI, 81.0%-89.7%) in the TRZ group. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, SB3 demonstrated cardiac safety and survival comparable to those of TRZ after up to 6 years of follow-up in patients with ERBB2-positive early or locally advanced breast cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02771795.

Effect of palbociclib plus endocrine therapy on time to chemotherapy across subgroups of patients with hormone receptor‒positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‒negative advanced breast cancer: Post hoc analyses from PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3.

BACKGROUND: Previous analyses from the PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 studies showed that palbociclib (PAL) plus endocrine therapy (ET) prolongs time to first subsequent chemotherapy (TTC) versus placebo (PBO) plus ET in the overall population of patients with hormone receptor‒positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‒negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Here, we evaluated TTC in relevant patient subgroups. METHODS: These post hoc analyses evaluated TTC by subgroup using data from 2 randomized, phase 3 studies of women with HR+/HER2- ABC. In PALOMA-2, postmenopausal patients previously untreated for ABC were randomized 2:1 to receive PAL (125 mg/day, 3/1-week schedule) plus letrozole (LET; 2.5 mg/day; n = 444) or PBO plus LET (n = 222). In PALOMA-3, premenopausal or postmenopausal patients whose disease had progressed after prior ET were randomized 2:1 to receive PAL (125 mg/day, 3/1-week schedule) plus fulvestrant (FUL; 500 mg; n = 347) or PBO plus FUL (n = 174). RESULTS: First subsequent chemotherapy was received by 35.5% and 56.2% in PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 after progression on palbociclib plus ET or placebo plus ET. Across all subgroups analyzed, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was longer in the PAL plus ET arm than the PBO plus ET arm. TTC was longer with PAL plus ET versus PBO plus ET across the same patient subgroups in both studies. CONCLUSIONS: Across all subgroups, PAL plus ET versus PBO plus ET had longer median PFS and resulted in prolonged TTC in both the PALOMA-2 and PALOMA-3 studies. Pfizer Inc (NCT01740427, NCT01942135).

Characterization and Management of Treatment-emergent Hepatic Toxicity in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving First-line Pembrolizumab plus Axitinib. Results from the KEYNOTE-426 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab plus axitinib improved efficacy over sunitinib in treatment-naive advanced renal cell carcinoma in the KEYNOTE-426 (NCT02853331) study. However, a relatively high incidence of grade 3/4 aminotransferase elevations was observed. OBJECTIVE: To further characterize treatment-emergent aminotransferase elevations in patients treated with pembrolizumab-axitinib. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients enrolled in KEYNOTE-426 were included in this study. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Three Standardized MedDRA Queries for potential hepatic disorders were used to identify patients for the hepatic event analysis subpopulation (HEAS). Alanine aminotransferase events were characterized for time to onset, time to recovery, corticosteroid use, and rechallenge with study treatment(s). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The HEAS comprised 189/429 (44%) pembrolizumab-axitinib patients and 128/425 (30%) sunitinib patients. Grade 3/4 hepatic adverse events were more common in the combination arm: 22% (94/429) versus 7% (29/425); 3% (13/429) discontinued the combination due to hepatic adverse events. In the pembrolizumab-axitinib arm, 125/426 patients (29%) had alanine aminotransferase (ALT) ≥3× upper limit of normal (ULN), with median time to onset of 84 d (range, 7-840 d). Among patients with ALT ≥3× ULN, 120/125 (96%) recovered to <3× ULN following study treatment interruption/discontinuation, with a median time to recovery of 15 d (3-176 d): 68/120 (57%) received corticosteroids. One hundred patients were rechallenged with one or both study treatment(s): 45/100 (45%) had ALT ≥3× ULN recurrence, and all 45 recovered to ALT <3× ULN following study treatment interruption/discontinuation. No fatal hepatic events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: A higher incidence of grade 3/4 aminotransferase elevations occurs with pembrolizumab-axitinib. These events should be carefully evaluated and managed with prompt study treatment interruption or discontinuation, with or without corticosteroid treatment. The decision to rechallenge with one or both drugs should be based on severity of event and thorough causality assessment. PATIENT SUMMARY: Renal cell carcinoma patients receiving pembrolizumab-axitinib are at a higher risk of liver enzyme elevations, which could be reversed with appropriate management.

Safety and efficacy of veliparib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with HER2-negative metastatic or locally advanced breast cancer: subgroup analyses by germline BRCA1/2 mutations and hormone receptor status from the phase-3 BROCADE3 trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate efficacy and safety of veliparib combined with carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, germline BRCA (gBRCA)-associated breast cancer defined by hormone receptor (HR) and gBRCA1/2 mutation status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase-3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients (N = 509) with advanced HER2-negative breast cancer and gBRCA1/2 mutations were randomized 2:1 to receive veliparib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel or placebo plus carboplatin/paclitaxel. Patients who discontinued chemotherapy prior to disease progression continued receiving blinded veliparib/placebo monotherapy. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Subgroup analyses of PFS stratified by HR and gBRCA1/2 mutation status were prespecified. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat population, there were similar proportions of patients with gBRCA1 versus gBRCA2 mutations (51% vs 49%) and HR+ disease versus triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) (52% vs 48%). Median PFS was longer in the veliparib arm compared with the placebo arm for all subgroups (HR+: 13.0 vs 12.5 months, hazard ratio (95% confidence interval (CI)): 0.69 (0.52, 0.93), p = 0.013; TNBC: 16.6 vs 14.1 months, hazard ratio (95% CI): 0.72 (0.52, 1.00), p = 0.052; gBRCA1: 14.2 vs 12.6 months, hazard ratio (95% CI): 0.75 (0.55, 1.03), p = 0.073; gBRCA2: 14.6 vs 12.6 months, hazard ratio (95% CI): 0.69 (0.50, 0.95); p = 0.021). Benefit was durable, with improved PFS rates at 2 years (HR+, 27.5% vs 15.3%; TNBC, 40.4% vs 25.0%) and 3 years (HR+, 17.5% vs 8.6%; TNBC, 35.3% vs 13.0%) in all subgroups. gBRCA status (BRCA1 vs BRCA2) did not substantially affect the carboplatin/paclitaxel ± veliparib toxicity profile. CONCLUSION: Veliparib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel resulted in durable benefit in subgroups defined by HR status or by gBRCA1 versus gBRCA2 mutation. Overall, addition of veliparib to carboplatin/paclitaxel was tolerable, and there were no clinically meaningful differences in adverse events between the gBRCA1 versus gBRCA2 and HR+ versus TNBC subgroups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02163694, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02163694.

Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of HLX02 Compared with Reference Trastuzumab in Patients with Recurrent or Metastatic HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: A Randomized Phase III Equivalence Trial.

BACKGROUND: HLX02 is an approved biosimilar of trastuzumab. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluated the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of HLX02 compared with reference trastuzumab in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, phase III study was conducted at 89 centers in China, the Philippines, Poland, and Ukraine. Eligible patients were randomized (1:1) to receive HLX02 or European Union (EU)-sourced trastuzumab (initial dose of 8 mg/kg, followed by 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks for up to 12 months) in combination with docetaxel intravenously. The primary endpoint was overall response rate up to week 24 (ORR24). Equivalence was declared if the 95% confidence interval (CI) of difference was within ± 13.5%. Safety and immunogenicity were evaluated in patients who received at least one dose of study medication. RESULTS: Between 11 November 2016 and 10 July 2019, a total of 649 patients were enrolled. The ORR24 was 71.3 and 71.4% in the HLX02 (n = 324) and EU-trastuzumab (n = 325) groups, with a difference of - 0.1% (95% CI - 7 to 6.9), which fell entirely in the predefined equivalence margins. No statistically significant differences were observed in all secondary efficacy analyses. Safety profiles and immunogenicity were comparable in HLX02 and EU-trastuzumab groups. In total, 98.8% of patients in each group experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), 23.8 and 24.9% experienced serious TEAEs, and 0.6% in each group had antidrug antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HER2-positive recurrent or metastatic breast cancer, HLX02 demonstrated equivalent efficacy and similar safety and immunogenicity to reference trastuzumab. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinadrugtrials.org CTR20160526 (12 September 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03084237 (20 March 2017), EudraCT 2016-000206-10 (27 April 2017).

Trastuzumab is a biologic drug used to treat patients with certain types of breast cancer and stomach cancer. Biosimilars are medications that are almost identical to and indistinguishable from original biologic drugs but usually less expensive and more accessible. The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy (treatment effects) of HLX02 (trastuzumab biosimilar) compared with reference trastuzumab in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. Other objectives were to evaluate the safety of HLX02 by monitoring adverse events and assessing its potential to induce antibody production (which can prevent a drug from being effective). Patients with HER2-positive recurrent or metastatic breast cancer were randomly allocated to receive HLX02 (n = 324) or European Union (EU)-sourced trastuzumab (n = 325). Study drugs (HLX02 or EU-trastuzumab) were given intravenously, with an initial dose of 8 mg/kg, followed by 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks for up to 12 months. Statistical analyses showed that HLX02 was equivalent to trastuzumab in efficacy evaluations. Adverse events observed in the HLX02 treatment group were consistent with those seen with trastuzumab in the current and previous clinical studies. Additionally, no statistically significant differences were seen in the tendency to stimulate antibody production between the two study drugs. To conclude, HLX02 and reference trastuzumab had similar efficacy and safety profiles. These data support the approval of HLX02 as a trastuzumab biosimilar.

Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind Study Comparing the Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of SB3 (Trastuzumab Biosimilar) and Reference Trastuzumab in Patients Treated With Neoadjuvant Therapy for Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Early Breast Cancer.

Purpose This phase III study compared SB3, a trastuzumab (TRZ) biosimilar, with reference TRZ in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive early breast cancer in the neoadjuvant setting ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02149524). Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant SB3 or TRZ for eight cycles concurrently with chemotherapy (four cycles of docetaxel followed by four cycles of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide) followed by surgery, and then 10 cycles of adjuvant SB3 or TRZ. The primary objective was comparison of breast pathologic complete response (bpCR) rate in the per-protocol set; equivalence was declared if the 95% CI of the ratio was within 0.785 to 1.546 or the 95% CI of the difference was within ± 13%. Secondary end points included comparisons of total pathologic complete response rate, overall response rate, event-free survival, overall survival, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity. Results Eight hundred patients were included in the per-protocol set (SB3, n = 402; TRZ, n = 398). The bpCR rates were 51.7% and 42.0% with SB3 and TRZ, respectively. The adjusted ratio of bpCR was 1.259 (95% CI, 1.085 to 1.460), which was within the predefined equivalence margins. The adjusted difference was 10.70% (95% CI, 4.13% to 17.26%), with the lower limit contained within and the upper limit outside the equivalence margin. The total pathologic complete response rates were 45.8% and 35.8% and the overall response rates were 96.3% and 91.2% with SB3 and TRZ, respectively. Overall, 96.6% and 95.2% of patients experienced one or more adverse event, 10.5% and 10.7% had a serious adverse event, and 0.7% and 0.0% had antidrug antibodies (up to cycle 9) with SB3 and TRZ, respectively. Conclusion Equivalence for efficacy was demonstrated between SB3 and TRZ on the basis of the ratio of bpCR rates. Safety and immunogenicity were comparable.

Bevacizumab biosimilar BEVZ92 versus reference bevacizumab in combination with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: BEVZ92 is a proposed biosimilar to bevacizumab. The two molecules have similar physicochemical and functional properties in in-vitro and preclinical studies. In this clinical study, we compared the pharmacokinetic profile, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of BEVZ92 with reference bevacizumab as a first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: We did a randomised, open-label trial at 15 centres in Argentina, Brazil, India, Spain, and Ukraine. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had metastatic colorectal cancer with at least one measurable non-irradiated lesion for which first-line chemotherapy was indicated and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or less, had not received previous treatment for advanced disease, and whose bone marrow, hepatic, renal, and coagulation markers were all within normal ranges. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either BEVZ92 or reference bevacizumab (5 mg/kg on day 1 of each cycle every 2 weeks) in combination with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI). Randomisation was done via a web service based on a stochastic minimisation algorithm and was stratified by chemotherapy regimen (FOLFOX vs FOLFIRI), previous adjuvant therapy (yes vs no), ECOG performance status (0-1 vs 2), and study site. The primary endpoint was the area under the concentration-versus-time curve after a single infusion (AUC0-336h) and at steady state (AUCss)-ie, at cycle 7-in the assessable population, which comprised all treated patients for whom serum concentration measurements were available during the first seven cycles. Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CIs for the ratio of BEVZ92 to reference bevacizumab of the geometric means for AUC0-336h and AUCss were within the acceptance interval of 80-125%. Secondary endpoints included objective response, clinical benefit, and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population and immunogenicity and safety profiles in all treated patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02069704, and is closed to new participants, with follow-up completed. FINDINGS: 142 patients were randomly assigned, 71 to the BEVZ92 group and 71 to the reference bevacizumab group. Two participants assigned to BEVZ92 did not receive treatment (one withdrew consent, the other had a serious intestinal obstruction before starting treatment); therefore, the treated population comprised 69 patients in the BEVZ92 group and 71 in the reference bevacizumab group. The geometric mean ratio of AUC0-336h in the BEVZ92 versus the control group was 99·4% (90% CI 90·5-109·0) and of AUCss was 100·0% (90·2-112·0). Objective response (35 [49%] of 71 vs 40 [56%] of 71), clinical benefit (62 [87%] vs 65 [92%]), and progression-free survival (median 10·8 months [95% CI 7·4-11·5] vs 11·1 months [95% CI 8·0-12·8]) were similar in the BEVZ92 and reference bevacizumab groups. No relevant differences were noted between the safety profiles of the two study treatments. Neutropenia was the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event reported in the BEVZ92 (14 [20%] of 69 patients) and reference bevacizumab (19 [27%] of 71 patients) groups. Serious adverse events occurred in 19 (28%) patients in the BEVZ92 group and 21 (30%) in the reference bevacizumab group. Two patients died because of bevacizumab-related serious adverse events: a sudden death in the BEVZ92 group and a serious large intestinal perforation in the reference bevacizumab group. The occurrence of anti-drug antibodies was low and similar in both treatment groups (two patients in the BEVZ92 group and one in the reference bevacizumab group). INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that BEVZ92 and reference bevacizumab are pharmacokinetically bioequivalent and have no appreciable differences in efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety profiles as first-line treatment in combination with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. FUNDING: mAbxience Research SL.

Axitinib Versus Sorafenib in First-Line Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Overall Survival From a Randomized Phase III Trial.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized phase III trial in treatment-naive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), axitinib versus sorafenib yielded numerically longer progression-free survival (median, 10.1 vs. 6.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 1-sided P = .038) and significantly higher objective response rate (32% vs. 15%; 1-sided P = .0006). In this article, we report overall survival (OS) and updated safety results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Previously untreated patients with metastatic RCC (n = 288), stratified according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS; 0 vs. 1), were randomized 2:1 to receive axitinib 5 mg twice per day (b.i.d.; n = 192) or sorafenib 400 mg b.i.d. (n = 96). RESULTS: Median OS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 21.7 months (18.0-31.7) with axitinib versus 23.3 months (18.1-33.2) with sorafenib (stratified HR, 0.995; 95% CI, 0.731-1.356; 1-sided P = .4883). Among patients with ECOG PS of 0, median OS was numerically longer with axitinib than with sorafenib (41.2 vs. 31.9 months; HR, 0.811, 1-sided P = .1748), whereas among patients with ECOG PS 1, median OS was shorter with axitinib than with sorafenib (14.2 vs. 19.8 months; HR, 1.203; 1-sided; P = .7973). Incidence and severity of common adverse events were consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSION: OS was similar between axitinib and sorafenib in treatment-naive patients with metastatic RCC, and no new safety signals emerged.

Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel as first-line therapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MERiDiAN): A double-blind placebo-controlled randomised phase III trial with prospective biomarker evaluation.

AIM: MERiDiAN evaluated plasma vascular endothelial growth factor-A (pVEGF-A) prospectively as a predictive biomarker for bevacizumab efficacy in metastatic breast cancer (mBC). METHODS: In this double-blind placebo-controlled randomised phase III trial, eligible patients had HER2-negative mBC previously untreated with chemotherapy. pVEGF-A was measured before randomisation to paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 with either placebo or bevacizumab 10 mg/kg on days 1 and 15, repeated every 4 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or consent withdrawal. Stratification factors were baseline pVEGF-A, prior adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status and geographic region. Co-primary end-points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat and pVEGF-Ahigh populations. RESULTS: Of 481 patients randomised (242 placebo-paclitaxel; 239 bevacizumab-paclitaxel), 471 received study treatment. The stratified PFS hazard ratio was 0.68 (99% confidence interval, 0.51-0.91; log-rank p = 0.0007) in the intent-to-treat population (median 8.8 months with placebo-paclitaxel versus 11.0 months with bevacizumab-paclitaxel) and 0.64 (96% confidence interval, 0.47-0.88; log-rank p = 0.0038) in the pVEGF-Ahigh subgroup. The PFS treatment-by-VEGF-A interaction p value (secondary end-point) was 0.4619. Bevacizumab was associated with increased incidences of bleeding (all grades: 45% versus 27% with placebo), neutropenia (all grades: 39% versus 29%; grade ≥3: 25% versus 13%) and hypertension (all grades: 31% versus 13%; grade ≥3: 11% versus 4%). CONCLUSION: The significant PFS improvement with bevacizumab is consistent with previous placebo-controlled first-line trials in mBC. Results do not support using baseline pVEGF-A to identify patients benefitting most from bevacizumab. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01663727.