A randomized phase II trial to examine modified vaccinia Ankara-5T4 vaccine in patients with relapsed asymptomatic ovarian cancer (TRIOC).

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy directed at 5T4 tumor antigen may delay the need for further chemotherapy. An attenuated modified vaccinia Ankara virus containing the gene encoding for 5T4 (MVA-5T4) was studied in asymptomatic relapsed ovarian cancer. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of MVA-5T4 as treatment for asymptomatic relapsed ovarian cancer. METHODS: TRIOC was a phase II randomized (1:1), placebo-controlled, double-blind multicenter study. The primary aim was to assess the effectiveness and safety of MVA-5T4 as a treatment for asymptomatic patients with relapsed ovarian cancer. Eligible patients had International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IC1-III or IVA epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 0-1, with relapse defined by a rise in CA-125 to twice the upper limit of normal or low-volume disease on CT scan. The primary endpoint was disease progression (including deaths from ovarian cancer) at 25 weeks. Following a brief suspension, the trial restarted as a single-arm study. The revised single-arm design required 45 evaluable patients treated with MVA-5T4 to detect a 25-week progression rate of 50%, assuming an expected 70% rate without MVA-5T4; 85% power with one-sided 5% significance. RESULTS: A total of 94 eligible patients were recruited, median age was 65 years (range 42-82), median follow-up 34 months (range 2-46). Overall, 59 patients received MVA-5T4 and 35 patients received placebo. The median number of MVA-5T4 injections received was 7 (range 0-9), compared with a median of 6 (range 1-12) for patients receiving placebo. Median progression-free survival was the same in both arms (3.0 months). The 25-week progression rate was similar in both arms: 80.0% for patients treated with MVA-5T4 and 85.7% for those receiving placebo (risk difference -5.7%, 95% CI -21.4% to 10.0%). Median time to clinical intervention was improved with MVA-5T4: 7.6 months (range 6.7-9.5) vs 5.6 (range 4.9-7.6), CONCLUSION: MVA-5T4 vaccination in patients with asymptomatic relapse was well-tolerated but did not improve the progression rate at 25 weeks. The majority of patients who received MVA-5T4 had clinical intervention later than those assigned to placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01556841.

RECIST 1.1 for Response Evaluation Apply Not Only to Chemotherapy-Treated Patients But Also to Targeted Cancer Agents: A Pooled Database Analysis.

PURPOSE: The mode of action of targeted cancer agents (TCAs) differs from classic chemotherapy, which leads to concerns about the role of RECIST in evaluating tumor response in trials with TCAs. We investigated the performance of RECIST using a pooled database from 50 clinical trials with at least one TCA. METHODS: We examined the impact of the number of target lesions (TLs) on within-patient variability of tumor response. The prognostic effect of TL response (at 12 weeks or on study on the basis of a maximum five TLs) on survival was studied through landmark and time-dependent Cox models adjusted for baseline tumor load, occurrence of new lesions, or unequivocal progression of nontarget disease. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 23,259 patients with cancer (36% lung, 28% colorectal, 11% breast, and 25% other); 15,620 received TCAs, predominantly transduction or angiogenesis inhibitors, as a single agent (37%), combined with other TCAs (7%), or as chemotherapy (56%); 28% received chemotherapy only; and 5% received best supportive care or placebo. A total of 17,222 patients contributed to the analyses. Within-patient variability decreased with increasing number of TLs, similarly for TCAs (with/without chemotherapy) and chemotherapy only. Mixed responses occurred proportionally in all treatment classes. Landmark analyses showed an ordinal relationship between percentage change from baseline to 12 weeks and overall survival, and demonstrated a clear distinction between tumor shrinkage and progressive disease according to RECIST. Time-dependent analysis showed no marked improvement in the ability to predict survival on the basis of TL tumor growth compared with nontarget progression or new lesion occurrence, regardless of treatment. Similar results were seen for major tumor types and different classes of TCAs. CONCLUSION: This work reinforces that RECIST version 1.1 perform well for response assessment of TCAs.

RECIST 1.1-Update and clarification: From the RECIST committee.

The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) were developed and published in 2000, based on the original World Health Organisation guidelines first published in 1981. In 2009, revisions were made (RECIST 1.1) incorporating major changes, including a reduction in the number of lesions to be assessed, a new measurement method to classify lymph nodes as pathologic or normal, the clarification of the requirement to confirm a complete response or partial response and new methodologies for more appropriate measurement of disease progression. The purpose of this paper was to summarise the questions posed and the clarifications provided as an update to the 2009 publication.

RECIST 1.1 - Standardisation and disease-specific adaptations: Perspectives from the RECIST Working Group.

Radiologic imaging of disease sites plays a pivotal role in the management of patients with cancer. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST), introduced in 2000, and modified in 2009, has become the de facto standard for assessment of response in solid tumours in patients on clinical trials. The RECIST Working Group considers the ability of the global oncology community to implement and adopt updates to RECIST in a timely manner to be critical. Updates to RECIST must be tested, validated and implemented in a standardised, methodical manner in response to therapeutic and imaging technology advances as well as experience gained by users. This was the case with the development of RECIST 1.1, where an expanded data warehouse was developed to test and validate modifications. Similar initiatives are ongoing, testing RECIST in the evaluation of response to non-cytotoxic agents, immunotherapies, as well as in specific diseases. The RECIST Working Group has previously outlined the level of evidence considered necessary to formally and fully validate new imaging markers as an appropriate end-point for clinical trials. Achieving the optimal level of evidence desired is a difficult feat for phase III trials; this involves a meta-analysis of multiple prospective, randomised multicentre clinical trials. The rationale for modifications should also be considered; the modifications may be proposed to improve surrogacy, to provide a more mechanistic imaging technique, or be designed to improve reproducibility of the imaging biomarker. Here, we present the commonly described modifications of RECIST, each of which is associated with different levels of evidence and validation.

A randomised phase III trial of the pharmacokinetic biomodulation of irinotecan using oral ciclosporin in advanced colorectal cancer: results of the Panitumumab, Irinotecan & Ciclosporin in COLOrectal cancer therapy trial (PICCOLO).

BACKGROUND: The main toxicity of irinotecan in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) is delayed diarrhoea. Intestinal SN-38, released by deconjugation of the parent glucuronide excreted into the bile or produced in situ by intestinal carboxylesterase, is toxic to the intestinal epithelium. The canalicular transport of irinotecan and SN-38G is mediated by ABCC2 (MRP2) and ABCB1 (MDR1) which are both inhibited by ciclosporin. We tested whether irinotecan and ciclosporin was non-inferior for anti-cancer efficacy and superior for toxicity compared with single-agent irinotecan. METHODS: Six hundred and seventy-two patients with advanced, measurable CRC following prior fluoropyrimidine-containing chemotherapy were randomised to either irinotecan 3-weekly 350 mg/m(2) (or 300 mg/m(2) if age >70 or performance status (PS)=2) or 3-weekly irinotecan at 140 mg/m(2) (120 mg/m(2) if age >70 or PS=2) with ciclosporin 3mg/kg t.d.s. for three days by mouth starting on the morning before irinotecan. The primary end-point was the proportion of patients alive and progression-free at 12 weeks. The key secondary end-point was the incidence of grade ≥3 diarrhoea within 12 weeks of randomisation. RESULTS: The proportion of patients progression-free at 12 weeks with irinotecan was 53.4% compared to 47.2% with irinotecan plus ciclosporin (difference=-6.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-13.8%, 1.3%]). Since the lower limit of the 95% CI crossed the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -10.6%, non-inferiority of irinotecan plus ciclosporin compared to irinotecan alone was not statistically demonstrated. 15.0% patients developed severe diarrhoea on irinotecan compared to 13.8% on irinotecan plus ciclosporin, a non-significant difference. INTERPRETATION: The pharmacokinetic biomodulation of irinotecan using oral ciclosporin does not improve the therapeutic index of irinotecan in advanced CRC. FUNDING: The trial was funded by Cancer Research UK and supported by Amgen Pharma.

Panitumumab and irinotecan versus irinotecan alone for patients with KRAS wild-type, fluorouracil-resistant advanced colorectal cancer (PICCOLO): a prospectively stratified randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic antibodies targeting EGFR have activity in advanced colorectal cancer, but results from clinical trials are inconsistent and the population in which most benefit is derived is uncertain. Our aim was to assess the addition of panitumumab to irinotecan in pretreated advanced colorectal cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised trial, we enrolled patients who had advanced colorectal cancer progressing after fluoropyrimidine treatment with or without oxaliplatin from 60 centres in the UK. From December, 2006 until June, 2008, molecularly unselected patients were recruited to a three-arm design including irinotecan (control), irinotecan plus ciclosporin, and irinotecan plus panitumumab (IrPan) groups. From June 10, 2008, in response to new data, the trial was amended to a prospectively stratified design, restricting panitumumab randomisation to patients with KRAS wild-type tumours; the results of the comparison between the irinotcan and IrPan groups are reported here. We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence (stratified by previous EGFR targeted therapy and then minimised by centre, WHO performance status, previous oxaliplatin, previous bevacizumab, previous dose modifications, and best previous response) to randomly allocate patients to either irinotecan or IrPan. Patients in both groups received 350 mg/m(2) intravenous irinotecan every 3 weeks (300 mg/m(2) if aged ≥70 years or a performance status of 2); patients in the IrPan group also received intravenous panitumumab 9 mg/kg every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival in KRAS wild-type patients who had not received previous EGFR targeted therapy, analysed by intention to treat. Tumour DNA was pyrosequenced for KRASc.146, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA mutations, and predefined molecular subgroups were analysed for interaction with the effect of panitumumab. This study is registered, number ISRCTN93248876. RESULTS: Between Dec 4, 2006, and Aug 31, 2010, 1198 patients were enrolled, of whom 460 were included in the primary population of patients with KRASc.12-13,61 wild-type tumours and no previous EGFR targeted therapy. 230 patients were randomly allocated to irinotecan and 230 to IrPan. There was no difference in overall survival between groups (HR 1·01, 95% CI 0·83-1·23; p=0·91), but individuals in the IrPan group had longer progression-free survival (0·78, 0·64-0·95; p=0·015) and a greater number of responses (79 [34%] patients vs 27 [12%]; p<0·0001) than did individuals in the irinotecan group. Grade 3 or worse diarrhoea (64 [29%] of 219 patients vs 39 [18%] of 218 patients), skin toxicity (41 [19%] vs none), lethargy (45 [21]% vs 24 [11%]), infection (42 [19%] vs 22 [10%]) and haematological toxicity (48 [22%] vs 27 [12%]) were reported more commonly in the IrPan group than in the irinotecan group. We recorded five treatment-related deaths, two in the IrPan group and three in the irinotecan group. INTERPRETATION: Adding panitumumab to irinotecan did not improve the overall survival of patients with wild-type KRAS tumours. Further refinement of molecular selection is needed for substantial benefits to be derived from EGFR targeting agents. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Amgen Inc.

First-in-human phase I trial of two schedules of OSI-930, a novel multikinase inhibitor, incorporating translational proof-of-mechanism studies.

PURPOSE: OSI-930 is a novel, potent, oral small-molecule receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, predominantly against VEGF receptors (VEGFR), c-Kit, and platelet-derived growth factor receptors. A phase I trial was undertaken to determine safety, maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity of OSI-930 in patients with advanced solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: OSI-930 was administered once or twice a day using a modified accelerated titration design. Pharmacokinetics and plasma soluble VEGFR2 (sVEGFR2) studies were undertaken. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) and 2[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) MTD expansion cohorts were conducted. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients received OSI-930 in 2 schedules; once a day schedule: 12 patients at doses up to 1,600 mg without reaching MTD; twice a day schedule: 46 patients at 400 mg (n = 7), 500 mg (n = 31), and 600 mg (n = 8). Dose-limiting toxicities were observed at 600 mg twice a day (n = 3): G3 rash (n = 2) and G4 γ-glutamyltransferase, establishing the MTD at 500 mg twice a day. Common G1-2 toxicities included fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, and rash. Antitumor responses were seen in 2 patients with advanced ovarian cancer [Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) partial response (PR) (n = 1); GCIG CA125 response (n = 1)]. Eleven of 19 heavily pretreated imatinib-resistant patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors achieved RECIST stable disease (median duration: 126 days), with FDG-PET scans showing PRs in 4 of 9 patients. OSI-930 exposure increased with dose; substantial decreases in sVEGFR levels were observed with OSI-930 twice a day doses ≥400 mg, while DCE-MRI responses were shown in 4 of 6 patients. CONCLUSIONS: OSI-930 is safe and well tolerated, with pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic data supporting proof-of-mechanism with clinically relevant antitumor activity.

How to assess anti-tumour efficacy by imaging techniques.

Response evaluation in the assessment of potential new anti-cancer therapies is undergoing intense investigation and change. Current imaging techniques most commonly used in early phase clinical trials are limited to providing reliable and reproducible anatomical data demonstrating a change in size and reduction in tumour volume thereby inferring patient benefit. Current imaging modalities such as computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by their nature require computer programs and software. This is a constantly evolving field and upgraded technology enables faster acquisition times for scans, greater anatomical detail and accurate volumetric data to be acquired. Dynamic studies allow contrast agents to be visualised in any given structure over time, so blood flow, blood volume and permeability can be assessed thereby demonstrating function. The advent of many new anti-cancer agents with novel modes of action such as anti-angiogenesis agents act by preventing the development of a suitable blood supply to sustain tumour growth. Such agents do not actively destroy tumour cells so do not exhibit a 'cytocidal' effect as traditional anti-cancer agents do but prevent tumour growth, so can be regarded as 'cytostatic' agents. Therefore, traditional response evaluation criteria may not be appropriate to assess drug efficacy or 'activity' in achieving patient benefit. New techniques have also been developed so the 'function' or metabolism can be demonstrated and tumour serum markers and other factors also require consideration rather than relying on a single modality alone. This article reviews the current accepted response criteria and highlights some newer techniques which will almost certainly play a major role in the assessment of new anti-cancer therapy, particularly in the development of cytostatic agents which are playing an ever increasing role.

Different strategies of sequential and combination chemotherapy for patients with poor prognosis advanced colorectal cancer (MRC FOCUS): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In the non-curative setting, the sequence in which anticancer agents are used, singly or in combination, may be important if patients are to receive the maximum period of disease control with the minimum of adverse effects. We compared sequential and combination chemotherapy strategies in patients with unpretreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, who were regarded as not potentially curable irrespective of response. METHODS: We studied patients with advanced colorectal cancer, starting treatment with non-curative intent. 2135 unpretreated patients were randomly assigned to three treatment strategies in the ratio 1:1:1. Strategy A (control group) was single-agent fluorouracil (given with levofolinate over 48 h every 2 weeks) until failure, then single-agent irinotecan. Strategy B was fluorouracil until failure, then combination chemotherapy. Strategy C was combination chemotherapy from the outset. Within strategies B and C, patients were randomly assigned to receive, as the combination regimen, fluorouracil plus irinotecan (groups B-ir and C-ir) or fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin (groups B-ox and C-ox). The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN 79877428. RESULTS: Median survival of patients allocated to control strategy A was 13.9 months. Median survival of each of the other groups was longer (B-ir 15.0, B-ox 15.2, C-ir 16.7, and C-ox 15.4 months). However, log-rank comparison of each group against control showed that only C-ir--the first-line combination strategy including irinotecan--satisfied the statistical test for superiority (p=0.01). Overall comparison of strategy B with strategy C was within the predetermined non-inferiority boundary of HR=1.18 or less (HR=1.06, 90% CI 0.97-1.17). INTERPRETATION: Our data challenge the assumption that, in this non-curative setting, maximum tolerable treatment must necessarily be used first-line. The staged approach of initial single-agent treatment upgraded to combination when required is not worse than first-line combination, and is an alternative option for discussion with patients.