Lessons learnt from scoring adjuvant colon cancer trials and meta-analyses using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale V.1.1.

Click here to listen to the Podcast BACKGROUND: Form 1 of the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) serves to grade therapies with curative intent. Hitherto only few trials with curative intent have been field tested using form 1. We aimed to evaluate the applicability of the scale and to assess the reasonableness of the generated scores in early colon cancer, in order to identify shortcomings that may be rectified in future amendments. METHODS: Adjuvant studies were identified in PubMed, Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency registration sites, as well as ESMO and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Studies meeting inclusion criteria were graded using form 1 of the ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 and field tested by ESMO Colorectal Cancer Faculty. Shortcomings of the scale were identified and evaluated. RESULTS: Eighteen of 57 trials and 7 out of 14 meta-analyses identified met criteria for ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 grading. In stage III colon cancer, randomised clinical trials and meta-analyses of modulated 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) based chemotherapy versus surgery scored ESMO-MCBS grade A and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses comprising oxaliplatin added to this 5-FU backbone showed a more modest additional overall survival benefit (grade A and B). For stage II colon cancer, the findings are less consistent. The fluoropyrimidine trials in stage II were graded 'no evaluable benefit' but the most recent meta-analysis demonstrated a 5.4% survival advantage after 8 years follow-up (grade A). RCTs and a meta-analysis adding oxaliplatin demonstrated no added benefit. Exploratory toxicity evaluation and annotation was problematic given inconsistent toxicity reporting and limited results of late toxicity. Field testers (n=37) reviewed the scores, 25 confirmed their reasonableness, 12 found them mostly reasonable. Moreover, they identified the inability of crediting improved convenience in non-inferiority trials as a shortcoming. CONCLUSION: Form 1 of the ESMO-MCBS V.1.1 provided very reasonable grading for adjuvant colon cancer studies.

Randomized, phase III trial of panitumumab with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) versus FOLFOX4 alone as first-line treatment in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: the PRIME study.

PURPOSE: Panitumumab, a fully human anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody that improves progression-free survival (PFS), is approved as monotherapy for patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The Panitumumab Randomized Trial in Combination With Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer to Determine Efficacy (PRIME) was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of panitumumab plus infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) versus FOLFOX4 alone as initial treatment for mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, phase III trial, patients with no prior chemotherapy for mCRC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2, and available tissue for biomarker testing were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive panitumumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4. The primary end point was PFS; overall survival (OS) was a secondary end point. Results were prospectively analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis by tumor KRAS status. RESULTS: KRAS results were available for 93% of the 1,183 patients randomly assigned. In the wild-type (WT) KRAS stratum, panitumumab-FOLFOX4 significantly improved PFS compared with FOLFOX4 (median PFS, 9.6 v 8.0 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.97; P = .02). A nonsignificant increase in OS was also observed for panitumumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 (median OS, 23.9 v 19.7 months, respectively; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.02; P = .072). In the mutant KRAS stratum, PFS was significantly reduced in the panitumumab-FOLFOX4 arm versus the FOLFOX4 arm (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.62; P = .02), and median OS was 15.5 months versus 19.3 months, respectively (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.57; P = .068). Adverse event rates were generally comparable across arms with the exception of toxicities known to be associated with anti-EGFR therapy. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that panitumumab-FOLFOX4 was well tolerated and significantly improved PFS in patients with WT KRAS tumors and underscores the importance of KRAS testing for patients with mCRC.

Potential regional differences for the tolerability profiles of fluoropyrimidines.

PURPOSE: We conducted a retrospective analysis of safety data from randomized, single-agent fluoropyrimidine clinical trials (bolus fluorouracil/leucovorin [FU/LV] and capecitabine) to test the hypothesis that there are regional differences in fluoropyrimidine tolerability. METHODS: Treatment-related safety data from three phase III clinical studies were analyzed by multivariate analysis: two comparing capecitabine with bolus FU/LV in metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) and one comparing capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) with bolus FU/LV as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer. The United States (US) was compared with non-US countries (all three studies) and with the rest of the world and East Asia (adjuvant study). RESULTS: In the MCRC studies (n = 1,189), more grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs; relative risk [RR], 1.77), dose reductions (RR, 1.72), and discontinuations (RR, 1.83) were reported in US versus non-US patients. Likewise, in the adjuvant colon cancer study (n = 1,864), more grade 3/4 AEs (RR, 1.47) and discontinuations (RR, 2.09) were reported in US versus non-US patients. After further dividing non-US patients into those in East Asia and the rest of the world, differential RRs for related grade 3/4 AEs, grade 4 AEs, and serious AEs were again observed, with East Asian patients having the lowest and US patients the highest RR. CONCLUSION: Regional differences exist in the tolerability profiles of fluoropyrimidines. More treatment-related toxicity was reported in the US compared with the rest of the world for bolus FU/LV and capecitabine in first-line MCRC and adjuvant colon cancer. In the adjuvant setting, a range of fluoropyrimidine tolerability was observed, with East Asian patients having the lowest, and US patients the highest, RR.

Phase II study of sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

PURPOSE: This phase II study of sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor that targets Raf kinase and receptor tyrosine kinases, assessed efficacy, toxicity, pharmacokinetics, and biomarkers in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. METHODS: Patients with inoperable HCC, no prior systemic treatment, and Child-Pugh (CP) A or B, received continuous, oral sorafenib 400 mg bid in 4-week cycles. Tumor response was assessed every two cycles using modified WHO criteria. Sorafenib pharmacokinetics were measured in plasma samples. Biomarker analysis included phosphorylated extracellular signal regulated kinase (pERK) in pretreatment biopsies (immunohistochemistry) and blood-cell RNA expression patterns in selected patients. RESULTS: Of 137 patients treated (male, 71%; median age, 69 years), 72% had CP A, and 28% had CP B. On the basis of independent assessment, three (2.2%) patients achieved a partial response, eight (5.8%) had a minor response, and 46 (33.6%) had stable disease for at least 16 weeks. Investigator-assessed median time to progression (TTP) was 4.2 months, and median overall survival was 9.2 months. Grade 3/4 drug-related toxicities included fatigue (9.5%), diarrhea (8.0%), and hand-foot skin reaction (5.1%). There were no significant pharmacokinetic differences between CP A and B patients. Pretreatment tumor pERK levels correlated with TTP. A panel of 18 expressed genes was identified that distinguished "nonprogressors" from "progressors" with an estimated 100% accuracy. CONCLUSION: Although single-agent sorafenib has modest efficacy in HCC, the manageable toxicity and mechanisms of action support a role for combination regimens with other anticancer agents.

Irinotecan-based regimens in the adjuvant therapy of colorectal cancer.

Irinotecan is a cornerstone drug in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer, as demonstrated by several randomized studies proving a survival benefit for the first time. In the adjuvant setting, FOLFOX (infusional 5-fluorouracil [5-FU]/leucovorin [LV] in combination with oxaliplatin) has improved 3-year disease-free survival in stage II/III colorectal cancer in the MOSAIC trial. Because 5-FU/LV-based combination therapy with oxaliplatin or irinotecan has similar efficacy in metastatic disease in the first-line setting, the impact of irinotecan in the adjuvant setting deserves further randomized clinical trials. Six such trials are ongoing or have already been closed to accrual, the results of which will be reported shortly. Five of these trials presently accruing patients or already closed combine irinotecan with an infusional regimen of 5-FU, based on a better tolerance and efficacy profile established in the metastatic setting according to clinical trials conducted principally in Europe. The results of 2 main randomized trials in the adjuvant therapy of stage III colon cancer will be presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2005 and are eagerly awaited. These results should provide important new insights as to how to manage stage II/III colon cancer.

Edrecolomab alone or in combination with fluorouracil and folinic acid in the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer: a randomised study.

BACKGROUND: Edrecolomab is a murine monoclonal antibody to the cell-surface glycoprotein 17-1A, which is expressed on epithelial tissues and on various carcinomas. Preliminary data suggested that it might be of use in the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected stage III colon cancer. We did a randomised trial in 27 countries to determine the effect of adding edrecolomab to the combination of fluorouracil and folinic acid in these patients. METHODS: After surgery, 2761 patients were randomly assigned edrecolomab plus fluorouracil-folinic acid (combination therapy [n=912]); fluorouracil-folinic acid alone (chemotherapy [n=927]); or edrecolomab alone (edrecolomab monotherapy [n=922]). Patients were assessed for survival and disease recurrence after surgery. The primary endpoint tested the hypothesis that combination therapy improved overall survival relative to chemotherapy. The key secondary endpoint was to test whether edrecolomab monotherapy was non-inferior to chemotherapy in terms of disease-free survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Median follow-up time was 26 months (IQR 20-36). 3-year overall survival on combination therapy was no different from that on chemotherapy (74.7% vs 76.1%, hazard ratio 0.94 [95% CI 0.76-1.15], p=0.53). Disease-free survival was significantly lower on edrecolomab monotherapy than on chemotherapy (53.0% vs 65.5%, 0.62 [0.53-0.73], p<0.0001). Hypersensitivity reactions occurred in 452 (25%) patients receiving edrecolomab, causing treatment discontinuation in 71 (4%). The addition of edrecolomab to chemotherapy did not increase neutropenia, diarrhoea, or mucositis. INTERPRETATION: The addition of edrecolomab to fluorouracil and folinic acid in the adjuvant treatment of resected stage III colon cancer does not improve overall or disease-free survival, and edrecolomab monotherapy is associated with significantly shorter overall and disease-free survival than fluorouracil and folinic acid and is therefore an inferior treatment option. Edrecolomab is well tolerated and its addition to fluorouracil and folinic acid does not increase the toxicity of chemotherapy.

Challenging the platinum combinations: Docetaxel (Taxotere) combined with gemcitabine or vinorelbine in non-small cell lung cancer.

The limited single-agent activity of cisplatin, its toxicity profile, and the inconvenience involved in hydrating patients has compelled researchers to investigate other treatments as possible alternative therapies in non-small cell lung cancer. More recently, interest has focused on the potential of nonplatinum combinations. Phase II studies show that the combination of docetaxel (Taxotere; Aventis, Antony, France) and gemcitabine is active in stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer not previously treated by chemotherapy. Response rates of up to 54% and a median survival time of 13 months have been reported. These data are comparable with the achievements of cisplatin-based combinations. A randomized phase II trial of docetaxel plus gemcitabine versus docetaxel plus cisplatin found that the two regimens were equally active in terms of response rate, median, and 1-year survival. However, the combination of docetaxel with gemcitabine produced significantly less neutropenia and nonhematologic toxicities. In combination, from 80% to 100% of the full single-agent gemcitabine and docetaxel doses can safely be administered once every 3 weeks. The combination of docetaxel plus vinorelbine is also active in non-small cell lung cancer and preliminary data suggest that this schedule with prophylactic filgrastim may optimize tolerability and dose intensity. In a phase II study using this approach, a confirmed response rate of 51% was obtained in 35 patients. At 12 months, the predicted median survival is 14 months and the predicted 1-year survival rate is 60%. Excessive lacrimation, fatigue, and onycholysis were cumulative toxicities. However, the incidence of mucositis and neuropathy was low with the combination of docetaxel and vinorelbine. Docetaxel combined with other new agents, particularly gemcitabine, may offer another useful alternative to cisplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with good performance status.