Nivolumab plus chemotherapy in first-line metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: results of the phase III CheckMate 227 Part 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: In CheckMate 227 Part 1, first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolonged overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥1% versus chemotherapy. We report results from CheckMate 227 Part 2, which evaluated nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seven hundred and fifty-five patients with systemic therapy-naive, stage IV/recurrent NSCLC without EGFR mutations or ALK alterations were randomized 1 : 1 to nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy. Primary endpoint was OS with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC. OS in all randomized patients was a hierarchically tested secondary endpoint. RESULTS: At 19.5 months' minimum follow-up, no significant improvement in OS was seen with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC [median OS 18.8 versus 15.6 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95.62% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-1.08, P = 0.1859]. Descriptive analyses showed OS improvement with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in all randomized patients (median OS 18.3 versus 14.7 months, HR 0.81, 95.62% CI 0.67-0.97) and in an exploratory analysis in squamous NSCLC (median OS 18.3 versus 12.0 months, HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50-0.97). A trend toward improved OS was seen with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy, regardless of the tumor mutation status of STK11 or TP53, regardless of tumor mutational burden, and in patients with intermediate/poor Lung Immune Prognostic Index scores. Safety with nivolumab plus chemotherapy was consistent with previous reports of first-line settings. CONCLUSIONS: CheckMate 227 Part 2 did not meet the primary endpoint of OS with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC. Descriptive analyses showed prolonged OS with nivolumab plus chemotherapy in all-randomized and squamous NSCLC populations, suggesting that this combination may benefit patients with untreated metastatic NSCLC.

Long-term survival with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolongs survival versus chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We further characterized clinical benefit with this regimen in a large pooled patient population and assessed the effect of response on survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were pooled from four studies of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced NSCLC (CheckMate 227 Part 1, 817 cohort A, 568 Part 1, and 012). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, duration of response, and safety were assessed. Landmark analyses of OS by response status at 6 months and by tumor burden reduction in responders to nivolumab plus ipilimumab were also assessed. RESULTS: In the pooled population (N = 1332) with a minimum follow-up of 29.1-58.9 months, median OS was 18.6 months, with a 3-year OS rate of 35%; median PFS was 5.4 months (3-year PFS rate, 17%). Objective response rate was 36%; median duration of response was 23.7 months, with 38% of responders having an ongoing response at 3 years. In patients with tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) <1%, ≥1%, 1%-49%, or ≥50%, 3-year OS rates were 30%, 38%, 30%, and 48%. Three-year OS rates were 30% and 38% in patients with squamous or non-squamous histology. Efficacy outcomes in patients aged ≥75 years were similar to the overall pooled population (median OS, 20.1 months; 3-year OS rate, 34%). In the pooled population, responders to nivolumab plus ipilimumab at 6 months had longer post-landmark OS than those with stable or progressive disease; 3-year OS rates were 66%, 22%, and 14%, respectively. Greater depth of response was associated with prolonged survival; in patients with tumor burden reduction ≥80%, 50% to <80%, or 30% to <50%, 3-year OS rates were 85%, 72%, and 44%, respectively. No new safety signals were identified in the pooled population. CONCLUSION: Long-term survival benefit and durable response with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in this large patient population further support this first-line treatment option for advanced NSCLC.

Outcomes of patients with cancer infected with SARS-CoV-2: results from the Ion Chiricuta Oncology Institute series.

BACKGROUND: The evolution of COVID-19 is a controversial topic in cancer patients. They have been designated by international organizations as a vulnerable population at greater risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2 and having a more severe clinical outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Active screening at our institution became routine early in the pandemic. We have examined the clinical data of 341 cancer patients, with a positive RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 test between April 2020 and February 2021, in the prevaccination era. RESULTS: During the infection, 40.5% remained asymptomatic, 27.6% developed a mild form, 20.5% had a moderate form, and 11.4% a severe/critical form of COVID-19 that led to death in 7.6% of cases. Treatment was adapted to disease severity according to national guidelines. In our series, the incidence of COVID-19 infection was lower in cancer patients compared with the general population (P < 0.001), however, the mortality rate was higher in cancer patients in comparison with the general population (7.6% versus 2.9%, P < 0.001). The prognostic factors were assessed by three distinct univariate and multivariate analyses: (i) evolution to a moderate or severe/critical clinical manifestation, (ii) clinical worsening (severe/critical form or death), and (iii) overall survival. In the multivariate analysis, the prognostic factors associated with the evolution to a moderate or severe/critical clinical manifestation were: performance status (PS) (P < 0.0001) and no active treatment in the previous 3 months (P = 0.031). Factors associated with clinical worsening were: PS (P < 0.0001), peripheral arterial disease (P = 0.03), and chronic liver disease (P = 0.04). Factors associated with impaired overall survival were PS (P < 0.0001), ischemic cardiac disease (P = 0.0126), chronic liver disease (P = 0.001), and radiotherapy (P = 0.0027). CONCLUSION: Our series confirms a more severe evolution for COVID-19 infection in cancer patients, with PS as the most prominent prognostic factor in all three multivariate analyses. By active screening, efforts should be in place to keep cancer units as coronavirus-free sanctuaries.

First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone (four cycles) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: CheckMate 9LA 2-year update.

BACKGROUND: To further characterize survival benefit with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone, we report updated data from the phase III CheckMate 9LA trial with a 2-year minimum follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients were treatment naïve, with stage IV/recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer, no known sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1. Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks with two cycles of chemotherapy, or four cycles of chemotherapy. Updated efficacy and safety outcomes are reported, along with progression-free survival (PFS) after next line of treatment (PFS2), treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) by treatment cycle, and efficacy outcomes in patients who discontinued all treatment components in the experimental arm due to TRAEs. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 30.7 months, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy continued to prolong overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy. Median OS was 15.8 versus 11.0 months [hazard ratio 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.61-0.86)]; 2-year OS rate was 38% versus 26%. Two-year PFS rate was 20% versus 8%. ORR was 38% versus 25%, respectively; 34% versus 12% of all responses were ongoing at 2 years. Median PFS2 was 13.9 versus 8.7 months. Improved efficacy outcomes in the experimental versus control arm were observed across most subgroups, including by programmed death-ligand 1 and histology. No new safety signals were observed; onset of grade 3/4 TRAEs was mostly observed during the first two treatment cycles in the experimental arm. In patients who discontinued all components of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy treatment due to TRAEs (n = 61) median OS was 27.5 months; 56% of responders had an ongoing response ≥1 year after discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: With a 2-year minimum follow-up, nivolumab plus ipilimumab with two cycles of chemotherapy provided durable efficacy benefits over chemotherapy with a manageable safety profile and remains an efficacious first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Second-line nivolumab in relapsed small-cell lung cancer: CheckMate 331☆.

BACKGROUND: Patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) have few treatment options and dismal survival. Phase I/II data show activity of nivolumab in previously treated SCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CheckMate 331 is a randomized, open-label, phase III trial of nivolumab versus standard chemotherapy in relapsed SCLC. Patients with relapse after first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized 1 : 1 to nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks or chemotherapy (topotecan or amrubicin) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Overall, 284 patients were randomized to nivolumab and 285 to chemotherapy. Minimum follow-up was 15.8 months. No significant improvement in OS was seen with nivolumab versus chemotherapy [median OS, 7.5 versus 8.4 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.72-1.04; P = 0.11]. A survival benefit with nivolumab was suggested in patients with baseline lactate dehydrogenase ≤ upper limit of normal and in those without baseline liver metastases. OS (nivolumab versus chemotherapy) was similar in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score ≥1% versus <1%. Median progression-free survival was 1.4 versus 3.8 months (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.18-1.69). Objective response rate was 13.7% versus 16.5% (odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.50-1.27); median duration of response was 8.3 versus 4.5 months. Rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were 13.8% versus 73.2%. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab did not improve survival versus chemotherapy in relapsed SCLC. No new safety signals were seen. In exploratory analyses, select baseline characteristics were associated with improved OS for nivolumab.

Metronomic oral vinorelbine in previously untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients unfit for platinum-based chemotherapy: results of the randomized phase II Tempo Lung trial.

BACKGROUND: To assess the efficacy and safety of a metronomic schedule of oral vinorelbine (mVNR) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in patients unfit for platinum-based combination chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label phase II study in treatment-naive patients with TNM stage IIIB/IV NSCLC. Patients received mVNR at a fixed dose of 50 mg × 3 or standard schedule 60-80 mg/m2 weekly until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) without grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS; NCI-CTC v4). Main secondary objectives were safety, disease control rate (DCR) without grade 4 toxicity (G4DCR), DCR, PFS, overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: A total of 167 patients were included, 83 and 84 patients in the mVNR and standard arms, respectively. The median G4PFS was 4.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.6-4.3] and 2.2 months (95% CI: 1.5-2.9), hazard ration (HR) = 0.63 (95% CI: 0.45-0.88), P = 0.0068 in favor of metronomic arm; G4DCR was 45.8% and 26.8% in the mVNR and standard arms, respectively. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were less frequent in the mVNR arm (25.3% versus 54.4%) mainly owing to a reduction in all grades (15.7% versus 51.9%) and grade 3-4 neutropenia (10.8% versus 42%). PFS was 4.3 (95% CI: 3.3-5.1) and 3.9 months (95% CI: 2.8-5.2) in mVNR and standard arms, respectively. No difference in median OS was observed. QoL was comparable between arms. CONCLUSIONS: Metronomic oral vinorelbine significantly prolonged median G4PFS in advanced NSCLC patients unfit for platinum combinations as first-line treatment. It was associated with a clear reduction in toxicity and may be considered as an important option in this challenging population.

Knowledge, attitudes and practices related to the COVID-19 outbreak among Romanian adults with cancer: a cross-sectional national survey.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic outbreak forced cancer care providers to face different challenges in terms of prevention and treatment management due to specific precautions implemented for oncological patients. We aimed to describe the level of knowledge, attitude and practices (KAP) among cancer patients, with the purpose to provide an image of the impact of COVID-19 and evaluate the effectiveness of pandemic response measures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We developed a cross-sectional multicentric study that targeted adults with active cancer during the COVID-19 outbreak, aiming to describe KAP related to COVID-19 among Romanian oncological patients. A questionnaire investigating 64 items on KAP related to the novel coronavirus was designed and applied in seven Romanian hospitals. The group of participants consisted of 1585 oncological patients who completed the questionnaire during the outbreak (April-May 2020). RESULTS: Only 172 patients (10.8%) had very good knowledge about severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection symptoms, treatment options and incubation period. Only 44.3% of patients identified diarrhoea as a sign of COVID-19. About one-third of patients (32.6%) declared that they are 'very worried' about getting infected with the novel coronavirus. More than two-thirds of participants (68%) considered that having cancer represents an additional risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2, but 27.8% would rather not vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2 should a vaccine be available. A small percentage (8.8%) believed that the risk of infection justifies delaying/stopping oncological treatment until after the pandemic. Around half of the participants (55.5%) declared being compliant with all the protective measures against coronavirus infection listed in the questionnaire. CONCLUSION: Romanian oncological patients have a less than expected knowledge about SARS-CoV-2, appropriate prevention behaviours, with limited trust in their efficacy, optimistic attitudes towards COVID-19 and low level of trust in information sources. Good COVID-19 knowledge was associated with appropriate practices towards COVID-19 and optimistic attitudes.

Durvalumab with or without tremelimumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: EAGLE, a randomized, open-label phase III study.

BACKGROUND: Targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) axis has demonstrated clinical benefit in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). Combining immunotherapies targeting PD-L1 and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) has shown evidence of additive activity in several tumor types. This phase III study evaluated the efficacy of durvalumab (an anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody) or durvalumab plus tremelimumab (an anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody) versus standard of care (SoC) in R/M HNSCC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 : 1 : 1 durvalumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks [q2w]), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (durvalumab 20 mg/kg q4w plus tremelimumab 1 mg/kg q4w × 4, then durvalumab 10 mg/kg q2w), or SoC (cetuximab, a taxane, methotrexate, or a fluoropyrimidine). The primary end points were overall survival (OS) for durvalumab versus SoC, and OS for durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus SoC. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, and duration of response. RESULTS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive durvalumab (n = 240), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (n = 247), or SoC (n = 249). No statistically significant improvements in OS were observed for durvalumab versus SoC [hazard ratio (HR): 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72-1.08; P = 0.20] or durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus SoC (HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.85-1.26; P = 0.76). The 12-month survival rates (95% CI) were 37.0% (30.9-43.1), 30.4% (24.7-36.3), and 30.5% (24.7-36.4) for durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and SoC, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) were consistent with previous reports. The most common trAEs (any grade) were hypothyroidism for durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab (11.4% and 12.2%, respectively), and anemia (17.5%) for SoC. Grade ≥3 trAE rates were 10.1%, 16.3%, and 24.2% for durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and SoC, respectively. CONCLUSION: There were no statistically significant differences in OS for durvalumab or durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus SoC. However, higher survival rates at 12 to 24 months and response rates demonstrate clinical activity for durvalumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02369874.

Biomarker analysis beyond angiogenesis: RAS/RAF mutation status, tumour sidedness, and second-line ramucirumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma from RAISE-a global phase III study.

Background: : Second-line treatment with ramucirumab+FOLFIRI improved overall survival (OS) versus placebo+FOLFIRI for patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (CRC) [hazard ratio (HR)=0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.98, P = 0.022]. Post hoc analyses of RAISE patient data examined the association of RAS/RAF mutation status and the anatomical location of the primary CRC tumour (left versus right) with efficacy parameters. Patients and methods: Patient tumour tissue was classified as BRAF mutant, KRAS/NRAS (RAS) mutant, or RAS/BRAF wild-type. Left-CRC was defined as the splenic flexure, descending and sigmoid colon, and rectum; right-CRC included transverse, ascending colon, and cecum. Results: RAS/RAF mutation status was available for 85% of patients (912/1072) and primary tumour location was known for 94.4% of patients (1012/1072). A favourable and comparable ramucirumab treatment effect was observed for patients with RAS mutations (OS HR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.71-1.04) and patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type tumours (OS HR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.64-1.14). Among the 41 patients with BRAF-mutated tumours, the ramucirumab benefit was more notable (OS HR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.25-1.13), although, as with the other genetic sub-group analyses, differences were not statistically significant. Progression-free survival (PFS) data followed the same trend. Treatment-by-mutation status interaction tests (OS P = 0.523, PFS P = 0.655) indicated that the ramucirumab benefit was not statistically different among the mutation sub-groups, although the small sample size of the BRAF group limited the analysis. Addition of ramucirumab to FOLFIRI improved left-CRC median OS by 2.5 month over placebo (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.97); median OS for ramucirumab-treated patients with right-CRC was 1.1 month over placebo (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.75-1.26). The treatment-by-sub-group interaction was not statistically significant for tumour sidedness (P = 0.276). Conclusions: In the RAISE study, the addition of ramucirumab to FOLFIRI improved patient outcomes, regardless of RAS/RAF mutation status, and tumour sidedness. Ramucirumab treatment provided a numerically substantial benefit in BRAF-mutated tumours, although the P-values were not statistically significant. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01183780.

Analysis of angiogenesis biomarkers for ramucirumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer from RAISE, a global, randomized, double-blind, phase III study.

Background: The phase III RAISE trial (NCT01183780) demonstrated that the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor (VEGFR)-2 binding monoclonal antibody ramucirumab plus 5-fluororuracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo + FOLFIRI as second-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treatment. To identify patients who benefit the most from VEGFR-2 blockade, the RAISE trial design included a prospective and comprehensive biomarker program that assessed the association of biomarkers with ramucirumab efficacy outcomes. Patients and methods: Plasma and tumor tissue collection was mandatory. Overall, 1072 patients were randomized 1 : 1 to the addition of ramucirumab or placebo to FOLFIRI chemotherapy. Patients were then randomized 1 : 2, for the biomarker program, to marker exploratory (ME) and marker confirmatory (MC) groups. Analyses were carried out using exploratory assays to assess the correlations of baseline marker levels [VEGF-C, VEGF-D, sVEGFR-1, sVEGFR-2, sVEGFR-3 (plasma), and VEGFR-2 (tumor tissue)] with clinical outcomes. Cox regression analyses were carried out for each candidate biomarker with stratification factor adjustment. Results: Biomarker results were available from >80% (n = 894) of patients. Analysis of the ME subset determined a VEGF-D level of 115 pg/ml was appropriate for high/low subgroup analyses. Evaluation of the combined ME + MC populations found that the median OS in the ramucirumab + FOLFIRI arm compared with placebo + FOLFIRI showed an improvement of 2.4 months in the high VEGF-D subgroup [13.9 months (95% CI 12.5-15.6) versus 11.5 months (95% CI 10.1-12.4), respectively], and a decrease of 0.5 month in the low VEGF-D subgroup [12.6 months (95% CI 10.7-14.0) versus 13.1 months (95% CI 11.8-17.0), respectively]. PFS results were consistent with OS. No trends were evident with the other antiangiogenic candidate biomarkers. Conclusions: The RAISE biomarker program identified VEGF-D as a potential predictive biomarker for ramucirumab efficacy in second-line mCRC. Development of an assay appropriate for testing in clinical practice is currently ongoing. Clinical trials registration: NCT01183780.

BODY MASS INDEX AS A PROGNOSTIC FACTOR FOR DISEASE PROGRESSION IN PATIENTS WITH METASTATIC COLORECTAL CANCER TREATED WITH BEVACIZUMAB BASED SYSTEMIC THERAPY.

CONTEXT: Epidemiological data have shown that obesity increases the risk of developing colorectal cancer and also an increased body mass index (BMI) is associated with a worse prognosis. Bevacizumab based systemic therapy, an antiVEGF targeted therapy, is an important treatment option for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. Obesity is associated with high level of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), that might provoke resistance to antiVEGF monoclonal antibody. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy in terms of progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of bevacizumab systemic therapy in patients with mCRC. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort, single center study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Between January 2007 and December 2012, 112 patients with mCRC, who followed bevacizumab based systemic therapy in the "Ion Chiricuta" Oncology Institute in Cluj-Napoca, were included in our analysis. RESULTS: Values of BMI ≥ or <27 kg/sqm was found that PFS is statistically significant superior in patients with BMI<27 kg/sqm (n=77) than in those with BMI ≥ 27 kg/sqm (n=35), 24 months versus 17.9 months (p = 0.04). Five years OS was not influenced by the BMI, 35% vs 30% (p=0.29). In patients with liver metastases with values of BMI ≥ 27 kg/sqm have PFS lower than patients with a BMI <27 kg/sqm, 17.5 months versus 24.5 months (p = 0.02). Five years OS was not influenced by the BMI, 39% (BMI <27 kg/sqm) vs. 22% (BMI ≥ 27 kg/sqm) (p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the negative influence of BMI on both PFS on the entire sample of patients and in patients with liver metastases only, BMI cut-off value proved to be 27 kg/square meter and shows that the BMI may be an important prognostic factor with a high clinical relevance in patients with mCRC.

Subgroup analysis in RAISE: a randomized, double-blind phase III study of irinotecan, folinic acid, and 5-fluorouracil (FOLFIRI) plus ramucirumab or placebo in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma progression.

BACKGROUND: The RAISE phase III clinical trial demonstrated that ramucirumab + FOLFIRI improved overall survival (OS) [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.844, P = 0.0219] and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.793, P < 0.0005) compared with placebo + FOLFIRI for second-line metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC) patients previously treated with first-line bevacizumab, oxaliplatin, and a fluoropyrimidine. Since some patient or disease characteristics could be associated with differential efficacy or safety, prespecified subgroup analyses were undertaken. This report focuses on three of the most relevant ones: KRAS status (wild-type versus mutant), age (<65 versus ≥65 years), and time to progression (TTP) on first-line therapy (<6 versus ≥6 months). PATIENTS AND METHODS: OS and PFS were evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier analysis, with HR determined by the Cox proportional hazards model. Treatment-by-subgroup interaction was tested to determine whether treatment effect was consistent between subgroup pairs. RESULTS: Patients with both wild-type and mutant KRAS benefited from ramucirumab + FOLFIRI treatment over placebo + FOLFIRI (interaction P = 0.526); although numerically, wild-type KRAS patients benefited more (wild-type KRAS: median OS = 14.4 versus 11.9 months, HR = 0.82, P = 0.049; mutant KRAS: median OS = 12.7 versus 11.3 months, HR = 0.89, P = 0.263). Patients with both longer and shorter first-line TTP benefited from ramucirumab (interaction P = 0.9434), although TTP <6 months was associated with poorer OS (TTP ≥6 months: median OS = 14.3 versus 12.5 months, HR = 0.86, P = 0.061; TTP <6 months: median OS = 10.4 versus 8.0 months, HR = 0.86, P = 0.276). The subgroups of patients ≥65 versus <65 years also derived a similar ramucirumab survival benefit (interaction P = 0.9521) (≥65 years: median OS = 13.8 versus 11.7 months, HR = 0.85, P = 0.156; <65 years: median OS = 13.1 versus 11.9 months, HR = 0.86, P = 0.098). The safety profile of ramucirumab + FOLFIRI was similar across subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses revealed similar efficacy and safety among patient subgroups with differing KRAS mutation status, longer or shorter first-line TTP, and age. Ramucirumab is a beneficial addition to second-line FOLFIRI treatment for a wide range of patients with mCRC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01183780.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study to assess the efficacy and safety of mapatumumab with sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of mapatumumab (a human agonistic monoclonal antibody against tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand receptor 1) in combination with sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced HCC (stratified by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status) were randomized 1:1 to receive sorafenib (400 mg, twice daily per 21-day cycle) and either placebo (placebo-sorafenib arm) or mapatumumab (30 mg/kg on day 1 per 21-day cycle; mapatumumab-sorafenib arm). The primary end point was time to (radiologic) progression (TTP), assessed by blinded independent central review. Key secondary end points included progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response. RESULTS: In total, 101 patients were randomized (placebo-sorafenib arm: N = 51; mapatumumab-sorafenib arm: N = 50). There was no significant difference in median TTP between both arms [5.6 versus 4.1 months, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio (one-sided 90% confidence interval) 1.192 (0-1.737)]. No mapatumumab-related benefit was identified when TTP was evaluated in the stratified subgroups. The addition of mapatumumab to sorafenib did not demonstrate improvement in the secondary efficacy end points. The reported frequency of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs was comparable in both treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of mapatumumab to sorafenib did not improve TTP or other efficacy end points, nor did it substantially change the toxicity profile of sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC. Based on these results, further development of the combination of mapatumumab and sorafenib in HCC is not planned.

A randomized phase II study of ganetespib, a heat shock protein 90 inhibitor, in combination with docetaxel in second-line therapy of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (GALAXY-1).

BACKGROUND: This trial was designed to evaluate the activity and safety of ganetespib in combination with docetaxel in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and to identify patient populations most likely to benefit from the combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with one prior systemic therapy for advanced disease were eligible. Docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) on day 1) was administered alone or with ganetespib (150 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 15) every 3 weeks. The primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) in two subgroups of the adenocarcinoma population: patients with elevated lactate dehydrogenase (eLDH) and mutated KRAS (mKRAS). RESULTS: Of 385 patients enrolled, 381 were treated. Early in the trial, increased hemoptysis and lack of efficacy were observed in nonadenocarcinoma patients (n = 71); therefore, only patients with adenocarcinoma histology were subsequently enrolled. Neutropenia was the most common grade ≥3 adverse event: 41% in the combination arm versus 42% in docetaxel alone. There was no improvement in PFS for the combination arm in the eLDH (N = 114, adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.77, P = 0.1134) or mKRAS (N = 89, adjusted HR = 1.11, P = 0.3384) subgroups. In the intent-to-treat adenocarcinoma population, there was a trend in favor of the combination, with PFS (N = 253, adjusted HR = 0.82, P = 0.0784) and overall survival (OS) (adjusted HR = 0.84, P = 0.1139). Exploratory analyses showed significant benefit of the ganetespib combination in the prespecified subgroup of adenocarcinoma patients diagnosed with advanced disease >6 months before study entry (N = 177): PFS (adjusted HR = 0.74, P = 0.0417); OS (adjusted HR = 0.69, P = 0.0191). CONCLUSION: Advanced lung adenocarcinoma patients treated with ganetespib in combination with docetaxel had an acceptable safety profile. While the study's primary end points were not met, significant prolongation of PFS and OS was observed in patients >6 months from diagnosis of advanced disease, a subgroup chosen as the target population for the phase III study.

Dose escalation to rash for erlotinib plus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer: the phase II RACHEL study.

BACKGROUND: This phase II, open-label, randomised study evaluated whether patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving erlotinib/gemcitabine derived survival benefits from increasing the erlotinib dose. METHODS: After a 4-week run-in period (gemcitabine 1000 mg m(-2) once weekly plus erlotinib 100 mg per day), patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who developed grade 0/1 rash were randomised to receive gemcitabine plus erlotinib dose escalation (150 mg, increasing by 50 mg every 2 weeks (maximum 250 mg); n=71) or gemcitabine plus standard-dose erlotinib (100 mg per day; n=75). The primary end point was to determine whether overall survival (OS) was improved by increasing the erlotinib dose. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), incidence of grade ⩾2 rash, and safety. RESULTS: Erlotinib dose escalation induced grade ⩾2 rash in 29 out of 71 (41.4%) patients compared with 7 out of 75 (9.3%) patients on standard dose. Efficacy was not significantly different in the dose-escalation arm compared with the standard-dose arm (OS: median 7.0 vs 8.4 months, respectively, hazard ratio (HR), 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88-1.80; P=0.2026; PFS: median 3.5 vs 4.5 months, respectively, HR, 1.09, 95% CI: 0.77-1.54; P=0.6298). Incidence of adverse events was comparable between randomised arms. CONCLUSION: The erlotinib dose-escalation strategy induced rash in some patients; there was no evidence that the higher dose translated into increased benefit.

Mutational profiling of the RAS, PI3K, MET and b-catenin pathways in cancer of unknown primary: a retrospective study of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group.

Cancer of unknown primary origin (CUP) had a poor prognosis, determined by clinico-histological characteristics, partly due to the lack of insights on its biology. We screened tumour DNA from 87 patients with CUP for CTNNB1 (coding exons 2,3,4,5), MET (coding exon 18), PIK3CA (coding exons 9,20), KRAS (coding exons 1,2), BRAF (coding exon 15) gene mutations by using dd-sequencing and evaluated their impact on prognosis. Mutated gene incidences in the 87 CUP cases were: KRAS 11 (12.6 %), BRAF 5 (5.7 %), PIK3CA 8 (9 %), MET 6 (6.7 %) and CTNNB1 18 (20.7 %). Several mutations in the KRAS gene were not the commonly encountered mutations in other solid tumours. Activating mutations were observed in 10.2 % in KRAS, 4.5 % in BRAF, 6.6 % in PIK3CA, 4.5 % in MET, and 19.5 % in CTNNB1. Activating mutations in PIK3CA coding exon 9 were inversely correlated with MET coding exon 18 activating mutations (p = 0.036). MET activating mutations were prognostic for poor Progression-Free Survival (median PFS 5 vs 9 months, p = 0.009) and Overall Survival (median OS 7 vs 20 months, p = 0.005). The complex profile of either CTNNB1 or MET mutations also had an adverse prognostic significance (median OS 11 vs 21 months, p = 0.015). No other gene mutation exhibited prognostic significance. In multivariate analysis, poor performance status, male gender, visceral disease and adenocarcinoma histology, but not gene mutations, were independently associated with poor patient outcome. CTNNB1 gene mutations are frequent, and along with MET mutations have an adverse prognostic effect in patients with CUP.

First-line gefitinib in Caucasian EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC patients: a phase-IV, open-label, single-arm study.

BACKGROUND: Phase-IV, open-label, single-arm study (NCT01203917) to assess efficacy and safety/tolerability of first-line gefitinib in Caucasian patients with stage IIIA/B/IV, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). TREATMENT: gefitinib 250 mg day(-1) until progression. Primary endpoint: objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints: disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety/tolerability. Pre-planned exploratory objective: EGFR mutation analysis in matched tumour and plasma samples. RESULTS: Of 1060 screened patients with NSCLC (859 known mutation status; 118 positive, mutation frequency 14%), 106 with EGFR sensitising mutations were enrolled (female 70.8%; adenocarcinoma 97.2%; never-smoker 64.2%). At data cutoff: ORR 69.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 60.5-77.7), DCR 90.6% (95% CI 83.5-94.8), median PFS 9.7 months (95% CI 8.5-11.0), median OS 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-NC; 27% maturity). Most common adverse events (AEs; any grade): rash (44.9%), diarrhoea (30.8%); CTC (Common Toxicity Criteria) grade 3/4 AEs: 15%; SAEs: 19%. Baseline plasma 1 samples were available in 803 patients (784 known mutation status; 82 positive; mutation frequency 10%). Plasma 1 EGFR mutation test sensitivity: 65.7% (95% CI 55.8-74.7). CONCLUSION: First-line gefitinib was effective and well tolerated in Caucasian patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. Plasma samples could be considered for mutation analysis if tumour tissue is unavailable.

Report from the OECI Oncology Days 2014.

The 2014 OECI Oncology Days was held at the 'Prof. Dr. Ion Chiricuta' Oncology Institute in Cluj, Romania, from 12 to 13 June. The focus of this year's gathering was on developments in personalised medicine and other treatment advances which have made the cost of cancer care too high for many regions throughout Europe.

Final results from a randomized phase 3 study of FOLFIRI {+/-} panitumumab for second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The study 20050181 demonstrated significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS), objective response, and a nonsignificant trend toward increased overall survival (OS) with panitumumab-FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI alone for second-line wild-type (WT) KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Updated long-term data from a prespecified descriptive analysis are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients receiving one prior mCRC treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) to panitumumab (6.0 mg/kg)-FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI every 2 weeks. Co-primary end points (PFS and OS) were prospectively analyzed by tumor KRAS status. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred and eighty-six patients were randomly assigned. In patients with WT KRAS tumors, panitumumab-FOLFIRI significantly improved PFS versus FOLFIRI [median 6.7 versus 4.9 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69, 0.97]; P = 0.023]. A trend toward longer OS was observed (median 14.5 versus 12.5 months; HR 0.92 [95% CI 0.78, 1.10]; P = 0.37). Response rates improved from 10% to 36% (P < 0.0001). From post hoc analyses in patients receiving prior oxaliplatin-bevacizumab, panitumumab-FOLFIRI improved PFS (median 6.4 versus 3.7 months; HR 0.58 [95% CI 0.37, 0.90]; P = 0.014). PFS and OS appeared longer for worst-grade skin toxicity of 2-4, versus 0-1 or FOLFIRI. Safety results were as previously reported and consistent with the known toxicities with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy. CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm the primary efficacy and safety findings of this trial and support panitumumab-FOLFIRI as a second-line treatment of WT KRAS mCRC.