Persistent prevention of oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy using calmangafodipir (PledOx®): a placebo-controlled randomised phase II study (PLIANT).

PURPOSE: Oxaliplatin causes disabling acute and chronic peripheral neuropathy. We explored the preventive effects of calmangafodipir, mimicking the mitochondrial enzyme manganese superoxide dismutase, thereby protecting cells from oxidative stress, in a placebo-controlled, double-blinded randomised phase II study (ClinicalTrials.gov.NCT01619423) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENT AND METHODS: mCRC patients treated with modified FOLFOX-6 (folinic acid 200 mg/m2, 5-fluorouracil bolus 400 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 and 5-fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion for 46 h) every fortnight for 8 cycles in first or second line were eligible. Calmangafodipir was given in a phase I dose-finding and in a phase II placebo-controlled study, as a 5-min infusion 10 min prior to oxaliplatin. Neurotoxicity was evaluated by the physician using the Oxaliplatin Sanofi Specific Scale and by the patient using the cold allodynia test and the Leonard scale. RESULTS: Eleven patients were included in phase I without any detectable toxicity to calmangafodipir. In the phase II study, 173 patients were randomised to placebo (n = 60), calmangafodipir 2 µmol/kg (n = 57) and calmangafodipir 5 µmol/kg (n = 45, initially 10 µmol/kg, n = 11). Calmangafodipir-treated patients (all three doses pooled) had less physician graded neurotoxicity (odds ratio (90% confidence interval one-sided upper level) 0.62(1.15), p = .16), significantly less problems with cold allodynia (mean 1.6 versus 2.3, p < .05) and significantly fewer sensory symptoms in the Leonard scale (cycle 1-8 mean 1.9 versus 3.0, p < .05 and during follow-up after 3 and 6 months, mean 3.5 versus 7.3, p < .01). Response rate, progression-free and overall survival did not differ among groups. CONCLUSIONS: Calmangafodipir at a dose of 5 µmol/kg appears to prevent the development of oxaliplatin-induced acute and delayed CIPN without apparent influence on tumour outcomes.

Capecitabine and cisplatin with or without cetuximab for patients with previously untreated advanced gastric cancer (EXPAND): a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced gastric cancer have a poor prognosis and few efficacious treatment options. We aimed to assess the addition of cetuximab to capecitabine-cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer. METHODS: In our open-label, randomised phase 3 trial (EXPAND), we enrolled adults aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed locally advanced unresectable (M0) or metastatic (M1) adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastro-oesophageal junction. We enrolled patients at 164 sites (teaching hospitals and clinics) in 25 countries, and randomly assigned eligible participants (1:1) to receive first-line chemotherapy with or without cetuximab. Randomisation was done with a permuted block randomisation procedure (variable block size), stratified by disease stage (M0 vs M1), previous oesophagectomy or gastrectomy (yes vs no), and previous (neo)adjuvant (radio)chemotherapy (yes vs no). Treatment consisted of 3-week cycles of twice-daily capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) (on days 1-14) and intravenous cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) (on day 1), with or without weekly cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) initial infusion on day 1 followed by 250 mg/m(2) per week thereafter). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), assessed by a masked independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered at EudraCT, number 2007-004219-75. FINDINGS: Between June 30, 2008, and Dec 15, 2010, we enrolled 904 patients. Median PFS for 455 patients allocated capecitabine-cisplatin plus cetuximab was 4.4 months (95% CI 4.2-5.5) compared with 5.6 months (5.1-5.7) for 449 patients who were allocated to receive capecitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.92-1.29; p=0.32). 369 (83%) of 446 patients in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group and 337 (77%) of 436 patients in the chemotherapy group had grade 3-4 adverse events, including grade 3-4 diarrhoea, hypokalaemia, hypomagnesaemia, rash, and hand-foot syndrome. Grade 3-4 neutropenia was more common in controls than in patients who received cetuximab. Incidence of grade 3-4 skin reactions and acne-like rash was substantially higher in the cetuximab-containing regimen than in the control regimen. 239 (54%) of 446 in the cetuximab group and 194 (44%) of 436 in the control group had any grade of serious adverse event. INTERPRETATION: Addition of cetuximab to capecitabine-cisplatin provided no additional benefit to chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer in our trial. FUNDING: Merck KGaA.

Impact of the specific mutation in KRAS codon 12 mutated tumors on treatment efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving cetuximab-based first-line therapy: a pooled analysis of three trials.

PURPOSE: This study investigated the impact of specific mutations in codon 12 of the Kirsten-ras (KRAS) gene on treatment efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS: Overall, 119 patients bearing a KRAS mutation in codon 12 were evaluated. All patients received cetuximab-based first-line chemotherapy within the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group (CECOG), AIO KRK-0104 or AIO KRK-0306 trials. RESULTS: Patients with KRAS codon 12 mutant mCRC showed a broad range of outcome when treated with cetuximab-based first-line regimens. Patients with tumors bearing a KRAS p.G12D mutation showed a strong trend to a more favorable outcome compared to other mutations (overall survival 23.3 vs. 14-18 months; hazard ratio 0.66, range 0.43-1.03). An interaction model illustrated that KRAS p.G12C was associated with unfavorable outcome when treated with oxaliplatin plus cetuximab. CONCLUSION: The present analysis suggests that KRAS codon 12 mutation may not represent a homogeneous entity in mCRC when treated with cetuximab-based first-line therapy.

Phase III, Randomized Study of Dual Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) Blockade With Lapatinib Plus Trastuzumab in Combination With an Aromatase Inhibitor in Postmenopausal Women With HER2-Positive, Hormone Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: Updated Results of ALTERNATIVE.

PURPOSE: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) targeting plus endocrine therapy (ET) improved clinical benefit in HER2-positive, hormone receptor (HR)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) versus ET alone. Dual HER2 blockade enhances clinical benefit versus single HER2 blockade. The ALTERNATIVE study evaluated the efficacy and safety of dual HER2 blockade plus aromatase inhibitor (AI) in postmenopausal women with HER2-positive/HR-positive MBC who received prior ET and prior neo(adjuvant)/first-line trastuzumab (TRAS) plus chemotherapy. This updated article reflects minor numerical corrections in some secondary efficacy analyses that resulted from programming errors and that do not change the major conclusions of the study. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive lapatinib (LAP) plus TRAS plus AI, TRAS plus AI, or LAP plus AI. Patients for whom chemotherapy was intended were excluded. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; investigator assessed) with LAP plus TRAS plus AI versus TRAS plus AI. Secondary end points were PFS (comparison of other arms), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), and safety. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-five patients were included in this analysis: LAP plus TRAS plus AI (n = 120), TRAS plus AI (n = 117), and LAP plus AI (n = 118). Baseline characteristics were balanced. The study met its primary end point; superior PFS was observed with LAP plus TRAS plus AI versus TRAS plus AI (median PFS, 11 v 5.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.88]; P = .0063). A consistent PFS benefit was observed in predefined subgroups. ORR, CBR, and OS also favored LAP plus TRAS plus AI. The median PFS with LAP plus AI versus TRAS plus AI was 8.3 versus 5.6 months (hazard ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.17]; P = .3159). Common adverse events (AEs; ≥ 15%) with LAP plus TRAS plus AI, TRAS plus AI, and LAP plus AI were diarrhea (69%, 9%, and 51%, respectively), rash (36%, 2%, and 28%, respectively), nausea (22%, 9%, and 22%, respectively), and paronychia (30%, 0%, and 15%, respectively), mostly grade 1 or 2. Serious AEs were reported similarly across the 3 groups, and AEs leading to discontinuation were lower with LAP plus TRAS plus AI. CONCLUSION: Dual HER2 blockade with LAP plus TRAS plus AI showed superior PFS benefit versus TRAS plus AI in patients with HER2-positive/HR-positive MBC. This combination offers an effective and safe chemotherapy-sparing alternative treatment regimen for this patient population.

Pharmacokinetic profile and safety of intravenous NEPA, a fixed combination of fosnetupitant and palonosetron, in cancer patients: Prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting associated with highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

NEPA is the fixed combination antiemetic composed of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist netupitant and the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist palonosetron. The intravenous (i.v.) formulation of NEPA (fosnetupitant 235 mg/palonosetron 0.25 mg) was developed to enhance the convenience of NEPA administration. In a phase 3 study, i.v. NEPA showed acceptable safety with low risk for injection-site reactions. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics and safety of i.v. NEPA in cancer patients. This was a single-center, single-dose phase 1 study in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients received a 30-min infusion of i.v. NEPA plus oral dexamethasone (12 mg) prior to chemotherapy, and oral dexamethasone (8 mg/daily) on days 2-4. Twenty-four patients received the complete i.v. NEPA infusion volume. Fosnetupitant maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) was reached at the end of infusion and decreased to <1% of Cmax 30 min later. Netupitant was rapidly released from its prodrug and Cmax of 590 ng/ml was reached at the end of fosnetupitant infusion, with a mean exposure (AUC∞) of 15,588 h∙ng/ml. Palonosetron Cmax was reached at the end of infusion, with a mean AUC∞ of 36.07 h∙ng/ml. The most common adverse events were constipation (29%), nausea (17%), and vasospasm (8%). No i.v. NEPA-related injection site reactions occurred. Fosnetupitant conversion to netupitant occurred rapidly in cancer patients. Netupitant and palonosetron pharmacokinetic profiles in i.v. NEPA were similar to those reported for oral NEPA. i.v. NEPA was well tolerated with a similar safety profile to oral NEPA. i.v. NEPA provides additional administration convenience. Clinical trial registration number: EudraCT 2015-004750-18.

Phase III, Randomized Study of Dual Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) Blockade With Lapatinib Plus Trastuzumab in Combination With an Aromatase Inhibitor in Postmenopausal Women With HER2-Positive, Hormone Receptor-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer: ALTERNATIVE.

Purpose Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) targeting plus endocrine therapy (ET) improved clinical benefit in HER2-positive, hormone receptor (HR)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) versus ET alone. Dual HER2 blockade enhances clinical benefit versus single HER2 blockade. The ALTERNATIVE study evaluated the efficacy and safety of dual HER2 blockade plus aromatase inhibitor (AI) in postmenopausal women with HER2-positive/HR-positive MBC who received prior ET and prior neo(adjuvant)/first-line trastuzumab (TRAS) plus chemotherapy. Methods Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive lapatinib (LAP) + TRAS + AI, TRAS + AI, or LAP + AI. Patients for whom chemotherapy was intended were excluded. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; investigator assessed) with LAP + TRAS + AI versus TRAS + AI. Secondary end points were PFS (comparison of other arms), overall survival, overall response rate, clinical benefit rate, and safety. Results Three hundred fifty-five patients were included in this analysis: LAP + TRAS + AI (n = 120), TRAS + AI (n = 117), and LAP + AI (n = 118). Baseline characteristics were balanced. The study met its primary end point; superior PFS was observed with LAP + TRAS + AI versus TRAS + AI (median PFS, 11 v 5.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.88; P = .0064). Consistent PFS benefit was observed in predefined subgroups. Overall response rate, clinical benefit rate, and overall survival also favored LAP + TRAS + AI. The median PFS with LAP + AI versus TRAS + AI was 8.3 versus 5.7 months (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98; P = .0361). Common adverse events (AEs; ≥ 15%) with LAP + TRAS + AI, TRAS + AI, and LAP + AI were diarrhea (69%, 9%, and 51%, respectively), rash (36%, 2%, and 28%, respectively), nausea (22%, 9%, and 22%, respectively), and paronychia (30%, 0%, and 15%, respectively), mostly grade 1 or 2. Serious AEs were reported similarly across the three groups, and AEs leading to discontinuation were lower with LAP + TRAS + AI. Conclusion Dual HER2 blockade with LAP + TRAS + AI showed superior PFS benefit versus TRAS + AI in patients with HER2-positive/HR-positive MBC. This combination offers an effective and safe chemotherapy-sparing alternative treatment regimen for this patient population.

A Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Pegfilgrastim in Patients Receiving First-Line FOLFOX/Bevacizumab or FOLFIRI/Bevacizumab for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Final Results of the Pegfilgrastim and Anti-VEGF Evaluation Study (PAVES).

BACKGROUND: Pegfilgrastim's role in reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) receiving chemotherapy plus bevacizumab was not previously evaluated in a prospective study. The present phase III, double-blind trial evaluated the efficacy of pegfilgrastim versus placebo in reducing the incidence of grade 3/4 FN in patients with advanced CRC receiving bevacizumab combined with first-line chemotherapy (FOLFOX [leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin] or FOLFIRI [leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan]). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with locally advanced or metastatic CRC were randomized 1:1 to placebo or 6 mg of pegfilgrastim ∼24 hours after receiving chemotherapy plus bevacizumab every 14 days. The study treatment period included 4 cycles, but patients could continue treatment for ≤ 60 months. The primary endpoint was incidence of grade 3/4 FN in the first 4 cycles. The secondary endpoints included the objective response rate (ORR), overall survival, and progression-free survival, analyzed at the end of the long-term follow-up period. RESULTS: A total of 845 patients were randomized from November 2009 to January 2012 (422, pegfilgrastim; 423, placebo). Pegfilgrastim significantly reduced the incidence of grade 3/4 FN in the first 4 treatment cycles (pegfilgrastim, 2.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1%-4.3%; placebo, 5.7%; 95% CI, 3.7%-8.3%; odds ratio [OR], 0.41; P = .014). No significant differences were observed between the 2 arms in ORR (OR, 1.15; P = .330), overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.94; P = .440), and progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.93; P = .300). CONCLUSION: Pegfilgrastim reduced the FN incidence in patients with advanced CRC receiving chemotherapy and bevacizumab. Administration of pegfilgrastim was tolerable and did not negatively affect the tumor response or survival in this patient population.

Cediranib plus FOLFOX/CAPOX versus placebo plus FOLFOX/CAPOX in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized, double-blind, phase III study (HORIZON II).

PURPOSE: Cediranib is a highly potent inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling with activity against all three VEGF receptors. HORIZON II [Cediranib (AZD2171, RECENTIN) in Addition to Chemotherapy Versus Placebo Plus Chemotherapy in Patients With Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer] assessed infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin/capecitabine and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX/CAPOX) with or without cediranib in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were initially randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive cediranib (20 or 30 mg per day) or placebo plus FOLFOX/CAPOX. In an early analysis of this and two other cediranib studies (HORIZON I [Cediranib Plus FOLFOX6 Versus Bevacizumab Plus FOLFOX6 in Patients With Previously Treated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer] and HORIZON III [Cediranib Plus FOLFOX6 Versus Bevacizumab Plus FOLFOX6 in Patients With Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer]), the 20-mg dose met the predefined criteria for continuation. Subsequent patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to the cediranib 20 mg or placebo arms. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were coprimary end points. RESULTS: In all, 860 patients received cediranib 20 mg (n = 502) or placebo (n = 358). The addition of cediranib to FOLFOX/CAPOX resulted in PFS prolongation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.98; P = .0121; median PFS, 8.6 months for cediranib v 8.3 months for placebo) but had no impact on OS (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.12; P = .5707; median OS, 19.7 months for cediranib v 18.9 months for placebo). There were no significant differences in the secondary end points of objective response rate, duration of response, or liver resection rate. Median chemotherapy dose-intensity was decreased by approximately 10% in patients treated with cediranib. Adverse events (AEs) associated with cediranib were manageable. CONCLUSION Addition of cediranib 20 mg to FOLFOX/CAPOX resulted in a modest PFS prolongation, but no significant difference in OS. The cediranib AE profile was consistent with those from previous studies. Because of the lack of improvement in OS, cediranib plus an oxaliplatin-based regimen cannot be recommended as a treatment for patients with mCRC.

Cetuximab plus FOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI in metastatic colorectal cancer: CECOG trial.

AIM: To investigate efficacy and safety of cetuximab combined with two chemotherapy regimens in patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: Randomized patients received cetuximab with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), folinic acid (FA) and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) 6 (arm A, n = 74) or 5-FU, FA and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) (arm B, n = 77). KRAS mutation status was determined retrospectively in a subset of tumors (n = 117). RESULTS: No significant difference was found between treatment arms A and B in the progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 9 mo, 45% vs 34%; median PFS, 8.6 mo vs 8.3 mo [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.06]; overall response rate (ORR) 43% vs 45% [odds ratio (OR) = 0.93] and median overall survival (OS), 17.4 mo vs 18.9 mo (HR = 0.98). Patients with KRAS wild-type tumors demonstrated improved PFS (HR = 0.55, P = 0.0051), OS, (HR = 0.62, P = 0.0296) and ORR (53% vs 36%) and in arm A, improved PFS (HR = 0.49, P = 0.0196), OS (HR = 0.48, P = 0.0201) and ORR (56% vs 30%), compared with patients with KRAS mutated tumors. In arm B no significant differences were found in efficacy by KRAS mutation status. Treatment in arms A and B was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that combinations of cetuximab with FOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI are effective and significantly improve clinical outcome in KRAS wild-type compared with KRAS mutated mCRC.