Real world study of sacituzumab govitecan in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for pre-treated patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) remain limited. This is the first study to assess the real-world safety and efficacy of sacituzumab govitecan (SG) in the UK. METHODS: Data was retrospectively collected from 16 tertiary UK cancer centres. Pts had a diagnosis of mTNBC, received at least two prior lines of treatment (with at least one being in the metastatic setting) and received at least one dose of SG. RESULTS: 132 pts were included. Median age was 56 years (28-91). All patients were ECOG performance status (PS) 0-3 (PS0; 39, PS1; 76, PS2; 16, PS3;1). 75% (99/132) of pts had visceral metastases including 18% (24/132) of pts with CNS disease. Median PFS (mPFS) was 5.2 months (95% CI 4.5-6.6) with a median OS (mOS) of 8.7 months (95% CI 6.8-NA). The most common adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (all grade; 82%, G3/4; 14%), neutropenia (all grade; 55%, G3/4; 29%), diarrhoea (all grade; 58%, G3/4, 15%), and nausea (all grade; 38%, G3/4; 3%). SG dose reduction was required in 54% of pts. CONCLUSION: This study supports significant anti-tumour activity in heavily pre-treated pts with mTNBC. Toxicity data aligns with clinical trial experience.

Aromatase inhibition plus/minus Src inhibitor saracatinib (AZD0530) in advanced breast cancer therapy (ARISTACAT): a randomised phase II study.

PURPOSE: The development of oestrogen resistance is a major challenge in managing hormone-sensitive metastatic breast cancer. Saracatinib (AZD0530), an oral Src kinase inhibitor, prevents oestrogen resistance in animal models and reduces osteoclast activity. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of saracatinib addition to aromatase inhibitors (AI) in patients with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: This phase II multicentre double-blinded randomised trial allocated post-menopausal women to AI with either saracatinib or placebo (1:1 ratio). Patients were stratified into an "AI-sensitive/naïve" group who received anastrozole and "prior-AI" group who received exemestane. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and toxicity. RESULTS: 140 patients were randomised from 20 UK centres to saracatinib/AI (n = 69) or placebo/AI (n = 71). Saracatinib was not associated with an improved PFS (3.7 months v. 5.6 months placebo/AI) and did not reduce likelihood of bony progression. There was no benefit in OS or ORR. Effects were consistent in "AI-sensitive/naive" and "prior-AI" sub-groups. Saracatinib was well tolerated with dose reductions in 16% and the main side effects were gastrointestinal, hypophosphatemia and rash. CONCLUSION: Saracatinib did not improve outcomes in post-menopausal women with metastatic breast cancer. There was no observed beneficial effect on bone metastases. CRUKE/11/023, ISRCTN23804370.

Do animal models of brain tumors replicate human peritumoral edema? a systematic literature search.

INTRODUCTION: Brain tumors cause morbidity and mortality in part through peritumoral brain edema. The current main treatment for peritumoral brain edema are corticosteroids. Due to the increased recognition of their side-effect profile, there is growing interest in finding alternatives to steroids but there is little formal study of animal models of peritumoral brain edema. This study aims to summarize the available literature. METHODS: A systematic search was undertaken of 5 literature databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PubMed and the Cochrane Library). The generic strategy was to search for various terms associated with "brain tumors", "brain edema" and "animal models". RESULTS: We identified 603 reports, of which 112 were identified as relevant for full text analysis that studied 114 peritumoral brain edema animal models. We found significant heterogeneity in the species and strain of tumor-bearing animals, tumor implantation method and edema assessment. Most models did not produce appreciable brain edema and did not test for observable manifestations thereof. CONCLUSION: No animal model currently exists that enable the investigation of novel candidates for the treatment of peritumoral brain edema. With current interest in alternative treatments for peritumoral brain edema, there is an unmet need for clinically relevant animal models.

Fulvestrant plus capivasertib versus placebo after relapse or progression on an aromatase inhibitor in metastatic, oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (FAKTION): overall survival, updated progression-free survival, and expanded biomarker analysis from a randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Capivasertib, an AKT inhibitor, added to fulvestrant, was previously reported to improve progression-free survival in women with aromatase inhibitor-resistant oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. The benefit appeared to be independent of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/AKT/phosphatase and tensin homologue (PTEN) pathway alteration status of tumours, as ascertained using assays available at the time. Here, we report updated progression-free survival and overall survival results, and a prespecified examination of the effect of PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway alterations identified by an expanded genetic testing panel on treatment outcomes. METHODS: This randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial recruited postmenopausal adult women aged at least 18 years with ER-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic or locally advanced inoperable breast cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, who had relapsed or progressed on an aromatase inhibitor, from across 19 hospitals in the UK. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (day 1) every 28 days (plus a 500 mg loading dose on day 15 of cycle 1) with either capivasertib 400 mg or matching placebo, orally twice daily on an intermittent weekly schedule of 4 days on and 3 days off, starting on cycle 1 day 15. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, loss to follow-up, or withdrawal of consent. Treatment was allocated by an interactive web-response system using a minimisation method (with a 20% random element) and the following minimisation factors: measurable or non-measurable disease, primary or secondary aromatase inhibitor resistance, PIK3CA status, and PTEN status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints shown in this Article were overall survival and safety in the intention-to-treat population, and the effect of tumour PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway status identified by an expanded testing panel that included next-generation sequencing assays. Recruitment is complete. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01992952. FINDINGS: Between March 16, 2015, and March 6, 2018, 183 participants were screened for eligibility and 140 (77%) were randomly assigned to receive fulvestrant plus capivasertib (n=69) or fulvestrant plus placebo (n=71). Median follow-up at the data cut-off of Nov 25, 2021, was 58·5 months (IQR 45·9-64·1) for participants treated with fulvestrant plus capivasertib and 62·3 months (IQR 62·1-70·3) for fulvestrant plus placebo. Updated median progression-free survival was 10·3 months (95% CI 5·0-13·4) in the group receiving fulvestrant plus capivasertib compared with 4·8 months (3·1-7·9) for fulvestrant plus placebo (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·56 [95% CI 0·38-0·81]; two-sided p=0·0023). Median overall survival in the capivasertib versus placebo groups was 29·3 months (95% CI 23·7-39·0) versus 23·4 months (18·7-32·7; adjusted HR 0·66 [95% CI 0·45-0·97]; two-sided p=0·035). The expanded biomarker panel identified an expanded pathway-altered subgroup that contained 76 participants (54% of the intention-to-treat population). Median progression-free survival in the expanded pathway-altered subgroup for participants receiving capivasertib (n=39) was 12·8 months (95% CI 6·6-18·8) compared with 4·6 months (2·8-7·9) in the placebo group (n=37; adjusted HR 0·44 [95% CI 0·26-0·72]; two-sided p=0·0014). Median overall survival for the expanded pathway-altered subgroup receiving capivasertib was 38·9 months (95% CI 23·3-50·7) compared with 20·0 months (14·8-31·4) for those receiving placebo (adjusted HR 0·46 [95% CI 0·27-0·79]; two-sided p=0·0047). By contrast, there were no statistically significant differences in progression-free or overall survival in the expanded pathway non-altered subgroup treated with capivasertib (n=30) versus placebo (n=34). One additional serious adverse event (pneumonia) in the capivasertib group had occurred subsequent to the primary analysis. One death, due to atypical pulmonary infection, was assessed as possibly related to capivasertib treatment. INTERPRETATION: Updated FAKTION data showed that capivasertib addition to fulvestrant extends the survival of participants with aromatase inhibitor-resistant ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. The expanded biomarker testing suggested that capivasertib predominantly benefits patients with PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway-altered tumours. Phase 3 data are needed to substantiate the results, including in patients with previous CDK4/6 inhibitor exposure who were not included in the FAKTION trial. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Cancer Research UK.

Safety and immunogenicity of seven COVID-19 vaccines as a third dose (booster) following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 in the UK (COV-BOOST): a blinded, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Few data exist on the comparative safety and immunogenicity of different COVID-19 vaccines given as a third (booster) dose. To generate data to optimise selection of booster vaccines, we investigated the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of seven different COVID-19 vaccines as a third dose after two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNtech, hearafter referred to as BNT). METHODS: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of third dose booster vaccination against COVID-19. Participants were aged older than 30 years, and were at least 70 days post two doses of ChAd or at least 84 days post two doses of BNT primary COVID-19 immunisation course, with no history of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. 18 sites were split into three groups (A, B, and C). Within each site group (A, B, or C), participants were randomly assigned to an experimental vaccine or control. Group A received NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax; hereafter referred to as NVX), a half dose of NVX, ChAd, or quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY)control (1:1:1:1). Group B received BNT, VLA2001 (Valneva; hereafter referred to as VLA), a half dose of VLA, Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) or MenACWY (1:1:1:1:1). Group C received mRNA1273 (Moderna; hereafter referred to as m1273), CVnCov (CureVac; hereafter referred to as CVn), a half dose of BNT, or MenACWY (1:1:1:1). Participants and all investigatory staff were blinded to treatment allocation. Coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity and immunogenicity of anti-spike IgG measured by ELISA. The primary analysis for immunogenicity was on a modified intention-to-treat basis; safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes included assessment of viral neutralisation and cellular responses. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 73765130. FINDINGS: Between June 1 and June 30, 2021, 3498 people were screened. 2878 participants met eligibility criteria and received COVID-19 vaccine or control. The median ages of ChAd/ChAd-primed participants were 53 years (IQR 44-61) in the younger age group and 76 years (73-78) in the older age group. In the BNT/BNT-primed participants, the median ages were 51 years (41-59) in the younger age group and 78 years (75-82) in the older age group. In the ChAd/ChAD-primed group, 676 (46·7%) participants were female and 1380 (95·4%) were White, and in the BNT/BNT-primed group 770 (53·6%) participants were female and 1321 (91·9%) were White. Three vaccines showed overall increased reactogenicity: m1273 after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT; and ChAd and Ad26 after BNT/BNT. For ChAd/ChAd-primed individuals, spike IgG geometric mean ratios (GMRs) between study vaccines and controls ranged from 1·8 (99% CI 1·5-2·3) in the half VLA group to 32·3 (24·8-42·0) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wild-type cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1·1 (95% CI 0·7-1·6) for ChAd to 3·6 (2·4-5·5) for m1273. For BNT/BNT-primed individuals, spike IgG GMRs ranged from 1·3 (99% CI 1·0-1·5) in the half VLA group to 11·5 (9·4-14·1) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wild-type cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1·0 (95% CI 0·7-1·6) for half VLA to 4·7 (3·1-7·1) for m1273. The results were similar between those aged 30-69 years and those aged 70 years and older. Fatigue and pain were the most common solicited local and systemic adverse events, experienced more in people aged 30-69 years than those aged 70 years or older. Serious adverse events were uncommon, similar in active vaccine and control groups. In total, there were 24 serious adverse events: five in the control group (two in control group A, three in control group B, and zero in control group C), two in Ad26, five in VLA, one in VLA-half, one in BNT, two in BNT-half, two in ChAd, one in CVn, two in NVX, two in NVX-half, and one in m1273. INTERPRETATION: All study vaccines boosted antibody and neutralising responses after ChAd/ChAd initial course and all except one after BNT/BNT, with no safety concerns. Substantial differences in humoral and cellular responses, and vaccine availability will influence policy choices for booster vaccination. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Taskforce and National Institute for Health Research.

Determining lines of therapy in patients with solid cancers: a proposed new systematic and comprehensive framework.

The complexity of neoplasia and its treatment are a challenge to the formulation of general criteria that are applicable across solid cancers. Determining the number of prior lines of therapy (LoT) is critically important for optimising future treatment, conducting medication audits, and assessing eligibility for clinical trial enrolment. Currently, however, no accepted set of criteria or definitions exists to enumerate LoT. In this article, we seek to open a dialogue to address this challenge by proposing a systematic and comprehensive framework to determine LoT uniformly across solid malignancies. First, key terms, including LoT and 'clinical progression of disease' are defined. Next, we clarify which therapies should be assigned a LoT, and why. Finally, we propose reporting LoT in a novel and standardised format as LoT N (CLoT + PLoT), where CLoT is the number of systemic anti-cancer therapies (SACT) administered with curative intent and/or in the early setting, PLoT is the number of SACT given with palliative intent and/or in the advanced setting, and N is the sum of CLoT and PLoT. As a next step, the cancer research community should develop and adopt standardised guidelines for enumerating LoT in a uniform manner.

A phase 1b randomised, placebo-controlled trial of nabiximols cannabinoid oromucosal spray with temozolomide in patients with recurrent glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical data suggest some cannabinoids may exert antitumour effects against glioblastoma (GBM). Safety and preliminary efficacy of nabiximols oromucosal cannabinoid spray plus dose-intense temozolomide (DIT) was evaluated in patients with first recurrence of GBM. METHODS: Part 1 was open-label and Part 2 was randomised, double-blind, and placebo-controlled. Both required individualised dose escalation. Patients received nabiximols (Part 1, n = 6; Part 2, n = 12) or placebo (Part 2 only, n = 9); maximum of 12 sprays/day with DIT for up to 12 months. Safety, efficacy, and temozolomide (TMZ) pharmacokinetics (PK) were monitored. RESULTS: The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; both parts) were vomiting, dizziness, fatigue, nausea and headache. Most patients experienced TEAEs that were grade 2 or 3 (CTCAE). In Part 2, 33% of both nabiximols- and placebo-treated patients were progression-free at 6 months. Survival at 1 year was 83% for nabiximols- and 44% for placebo-treated patients (p = 0.042), although two patients died within the first 40 days of enrolment in the placebo arm. There were no apparent effects of nabiximols on TMZ PK. CONCLUSIONS: With personalised dosing, nabiximols had acceptable safety and tolerability with no drug-drug interaction identified. The observed survival differences support further exploration in an adequately powered randomised controlled trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: Part 1- NCT01812603; Part 2- NCT01812616.

Fulvestrant plus capivasertib versus placebo after relapse or progression on an aromatase inhibitor in metastatic, oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer (FAKTION): a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Capivasertib (AZD5363) is a potent selective oral inhibitor of all three isoforms of the serine/threonine kinase AKT. The FAKTION trial investigated whether the addition of capivasertib to fulvestrant improved progression-free survival in patients with aromatase inhibitor-resistant advanced breast cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, postmenopausal women aged at least 18 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 and oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic or locally advanced inoperable breast cancer who had relapsed or progressed on an aromatase inhibitor were recruited from 19 hospitals in the UK. Enrolled participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (day 1) every 28 days (plus a loading dose on day 15 of cycle 1) with either capivasertib 400 mg or matching placebo, orally twice daily on an intermittent weekly schedule of 4 days on and 3 days off (starting on cycle 1 day 15) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, loss to follow-up, or withdrawal of consent. Treatment allocation was done using an interactive web-response system using a minimisation method (with a 20% random element) and the following minimisation factors: measurable or non-measurable disease, primary or secondary aromatase inhibitor resistance, PIK3CA status, and PTEN status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival with a one-sided alpha of 0·20. Analyses were done by intention to treat. Recruitment is complete, and the trial is in follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01992952. FINDINGS: Between March 16, 2015, and March 6, 2018, 183 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 140 (76%) were eligible and were randomly assigned to receive fulvestrant plus capivasertib (n=69) or fulvestrant plus placebo (n=71). Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 4·9 months (IQR 1·6-11·6). At the time of primary analysis for progression-free survival (Jan 30, 2019), 112 progression-free survival events had occurred, 49 (71%) in 69 patients in the capivasertib group compared with 63 (89%) of 71 in the placebo group. Median progression-free survival was 10·3 months (95% CI 5·0-13·2) in the capivasertib group versus 4·8 months (3·1-7·7) in the placebo group, giving an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0·58 (95% CI 0·39-0·84) in favour of the capivasertib group (two-sided p=0·0044; one-sided log rank test p=0·0018). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (22 [32%] of 69 patients in the capivasertib group vs 17 [24%] of 71 in the placebo group), diarrhoea (ten [14%] vs three [4%]), rash (14 [20%] vs 0), infection (four [6%] vs two [3%]), and fatigue (one [1%] vs three [4%]). Serious adverse reactions occurred only in the capivasertib group, and were acute kidney injury (two), diarrhoea (three), rash (two), hyperglycaemia (one), loss of consciousness (one), sepsis (one), and vomiting (one). One death, due to atypical pulmonary infection, was assessed as possibly related to capivasertib treatment. One further death in the capivasertib group had an unknown cause; all remaining deaths in both groups (19 in the capivasertib group and 31 in the placebo group) were disease related. INTERPRETATION: Progression-free survival was significantly longer in participants who received capivasertib than in those who received placebo. The combination of capivasertib and fulvestrant warrants further investigation in phase 3 trials. FUNDING: AstraZeneca and Cancer Research UK.

Repurposing anticancer drugs for COVID-19-induced inflammation, immune dysfunction, and coagulopathy.

Three cardinal manifestations of neoplasia, namely inflammation, immune dysfunction, and coagulopathy are also seen in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, providing a biological rationale for testing selected anticancer drugs for their ability to control the symptoms and/or modify the course of COVID-19.

Two first-in-human studies of xentuzumab, a humanised insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-neutralising antibody, in patients with advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: Xentuzumab, an insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-1/IGF-2-neutralising antibody, binds IGF-1 and IGF-2, inhibiting their growth-promoting signalling. Two first-in-human trials assessed the maximum-tolerated/relevant biological dose (MTD/RBD), safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and activity of xentuzumab in advanced/metastatic solid cancers. METHODS: These phase 1, open-label trials comprised dose-finding (part I; 3 + 3 design) and expansion cohorts (part II; selected tumours; RBD [weekly dosing]). Primary endpoints were MTD/RBD. RESULTS: Study 1280.1 involved 61 patients (part I: xentuzumab 10-1800 mg weekly, n = 48; part II: 1000 mg weekly, n = 13); study 1280.2, 64 patients (part I: 10-3600 mg three-weekly, n = 33; part II: 1000 mg weekly, n = 31). One dose-limiting toxicity occurred; the MTD was not reached for either schedule. Adverse events were generally grade 1/2, mostly gastrointestinal. Xentuzumab showed dose-proportional pharmacokinetics. Total plasma IGF-1 increased dose dependently, plateauing at ~1000 mg/week; at ≥450 mg/week, IGF bioactivity was almost undetectable. Two partial responses occurred (poorly differentiated nasopharyngeal carcinoma and peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumour). Integration of biomarker and response data by Bayesian Logistic Regression Modeling (BLRM) confirmed the RBD. CONCLUSIONS: Xentuzumab was well tolerated; MTD was not reached. RBD was 1000 mg weekly, confirmed by BLRM. Xentuzumab showed preliminary anti-tumour activity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01403974; NCT01317420.

Systemic treatment of hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor 2 negative metastatic breast cancer: retrospective analysis from Leeds Cancer Centre.

BACKGROUND: Study aimed to characterise treatment and outcomes for patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor 2 negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) within a large regional cancer centre, as a benchmark for evaluating real-world impact of novel therapies. METHODS: Retrospective longitudinal cohort, using electronic patient records of adult females with a first diagnosis of HR+/HER2- MBC January 2012-March 2018. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-six women were identified with HR+/HER2- MBC. Median age was 67 years, 85.2% were post-menopausal and median time between primary diagnosis and metastasis was 5.4 years. Most (75.1%) patients received endocrine therapy as first line systemic treatment (1st LoT); use of 1st LoT chemotherapy halved between 2012 and 2017. Patients receiving 1st LoT chemotherapy were younger and more likely to have visceral metastasis (p < 0.01). Median OS was 29.5 months and significantly greater for patients with exclusively non-visceral metastasis (p < 0.01). The adjusted hazard ratio for death of patients with visceral (or CNS) metastasis was 1.91 relative to those with exclusively non-visceral metastasis. CONCLUSIONS: Diverse endocrine therapies predominate as 1st LoT for patients with HR+/HER2- MBC, chemotherapy being associated with more aggressive disease in younger patients, emphasising the importance of using effective and tolerable therapies early.

Impact of the number of prior chemotherapy regimens on outcomes for patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with eribulin: A post hoc pooled analysis.

In a pivotal phase 3 study (Study 305), eribulin mesylate improved overall survival (OS) in patients with previously treated metastatic breast cancer (MBC) compared with treatment of physician's choice (TPC). This post hoc, pooled subgroup analysis of two phase 3 studies (Study 305 and Study 301) reports the influence of the number of prior chemotherapy regimens (0-6) on OS in patients with locally advanced/MBC randomized to eribulin versus TPC/capecitabine. Patients with ≤ 3 prior chemotherapies for locally advanced/MBC had longer median OS with eribulin (15.3 months) versus control (13.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.858; P = .01).

A phase 1b/2, open-label, dose-escalation, and dose-confirmation study of eribulin mesilate in combination with capecitabine.

BACKGROUND: Capecitabine and eribulin are widely used as single agents in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and have nonoverlapping toxicities. METHODS: In phase 1b (dose escalation), patients with advanced, treatment-refractory, solid tumours received eribulin mesilate intravenously in 21-day cycles according to schedule 1 (day 1) or schedule 2 (days 1, 8) with twice-daily oral capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 days 1-14). In phase 2 (dose confirmation), women with advanced/MBC and ≤3 prior chemotherapies received eribulin mesilate at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) per the preferred schedule plus capecitabine. Primary objectives were MTD and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs; phase 1b) and objective response rate (ORR; phase 2). Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: DLTs occurred in 4/19 patients (schedule 1) and 2/15 patients (schedule 2). Eribulin pharmacokinetics were dose proportional, irrespective of schedule or capecitabine coadministration. The MTD of eribulin was 1.6 mg/m2 day 1 for schedule 1 and 1.4 mg/m2 days 1 and 8 for schedule 2. ORR in phase 2 (eribulin 1.4 mg/m2 days 1, 8 plus capecitabine) was 43% and median PFS 7.2 months. The most common treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia, leukopenia, alopecia, nausea, and lethargy. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of capecitabine and eribulin showed promising efficacy with manageable tolerability in patients with MBC.

ATTAIN: Phase III study of etirinotecan pegol versus treatment of physician's choice in patients with metastatic breast cancer and brain metastases.

The increasing incidence of breast cancer brain metastases is a major clinical problem with its associated poor prognosis and limited treatment options. The long-acting topoisomerase-1 inhibitor, etirinotecan pegol, was designed to preferentially accumulate in tumor tissue including brain metastases, providing sustained cytotoxic SN38 levels. Motivated by improved survival findings from subgroup analyses from the Phase III BEACON trial, this ongoing randomized, Phase III trial compares etirinotecan pegol to drugs commonly used for advanced breast cancer in patients with stable, treated breast cancer brain metastases who have been previously treated with an anthracycline, taxane and capecitabine. The primary end point is overall survival. Secondary end points include objective response rate, progression-free survival and time to CNS disease progression or recurrence in patients with/without CNS lesions present at study entry. Trial registration number: NCT02915744.

Prolonged survival in patients with breast cancer and a history of brain metastases: results of a preplanned subgroup analysis from the randomized phase III BEACON trial.

PURPOSE: Conventional chemotherapy has limited activity in patients with breast cancer and brain metastases (BCBM). Etirinotecan pegol (EP), a novel long-acting topoisomerase-1 inhibitor, was designed using advanced polymer technology to preferentially accumulate in tumor tissue including brain metastases, providing sustained cytotoxic SN38 levels. METHODS: The phase 3 BEACON trial enrolled 852 women with heavily pretreated locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer between 2011 and 2013. BEACON compared EP with treatment of physician's choice (TPC; eribulin, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, ixabepilone, or docetaxel) in patients previously treated with anthracycline, taxane, and capecitabine, including those with treated, stable brain metastases. The primary endpoint, overall survival (OS), was assessed in a pre-defined subgroup of BCBM patients; an exploratory post hoc analysis adjusting for the diagnosis-specific graded prognostic assessment (GPA) index was also conducted. RESULTS: In the trial, 67 BCBM patients were randomized (EP, n = 36; TPC, n = 31). Treatment subgroups were balanced for baseline characteristics and GPA indices. EP was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death (HR 0.51; P < 0.01) versus TPC; median OS was 10.0 and 4.8 months, respectively. Improvement in OS was observed in both poorer and better GPA prognostic groups. Survival rates at 12 months were 44.4% for EP versus 19.4% for TPC. Consistent with the overall BEACON population, fewer patients on EP experienced grade ≥3 toxicity (50 vs. 70%). CONCLUSIONS: The significant improvement in survival in BCBM patients provides encouraging data for EP in this difficult-to-treat subgroup of patients. A phase three trial of EP in BCBM patients is underway (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02915744).

Etirinotecan pegol (NKTR-102) versus treatment of physician's choice in women with advanced breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline, a taxane, and capecitabine (BEACON): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: New options are needed for patients with heavily pretreated breast cancer. Etirinotecan pegol is a long-acting topoisomerase-I inhibitor that prolongs exposure to, but reduces the toxicity of, SN38 (the active metabolite of irinotecan). We assessed whether etirinotecan pegol is superior to currently available treatments for patients with previously treated, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre, randomised phase 3 study (BEACON; BrEAst Cancer Outcomes with NKTR-102), conducted at 135 sites in 11 countries, patients with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline, a taxane, and capecitabine (and two to five previous regimens for advanced disease) were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally via an interactive response system to etirinotecan pegol (145 mg/m(2) as a 90-min intravenous infusion every 3 weeks) or single-drug treatment of physician's choice. Patients with stable brain metastases and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 were eligible. Randomisation was stratified with a permuted block scheme by region, previous eribulin, and receptor status. After randomisation, patients and investigators were aware of treatment assignments. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01492101. FINDINGS: Between Dec 19, 2011, and Aug 20, 2013, 852 patients were randomly assigned; 429 to etirinotecan pegol and 423 to treatment of physician's choice. There was no significant difference in overall survival between groups (median 12·4 months [95% CI 11·0-13·6] for the etirinotecan pegol group vs 10·3 months [9·0-11·3] for the treatment of physician's choice group; hazard ratio 0·87 [95% CI 0·75-1·02]; p=0·084). The safety population includes the 831 patients who received at least one dose of assigned treatment (425 assigned to etirinotecan pegol and 406 to treatment of physician's choice). Serious adverse events were recorded for 128 (30%) patients treated with etirinotecan pegol and 129 (32%) treated with treatment of physician's choice. Fewer patients in the etirinotecan pegol group had grade 3 or worse toxicity than those in the treatment of physician's choice group (204 [48%] vs 256 [63%]; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were diarrhoea (41 [10%] in the experimental group vs five [1%] in the control group), neutropenia (41 [10%] vs 125 [31%]), and peripheral neuropathy (two [<1%] vs 15 [4%]). Three patients in the etirinotecan pegol group died of treatment-related adverse events (pneumonia, myelodysplastic syndrome, and acute renal failure) and two in the treatment of physician's choice group (neutropenic sepsis and septic shock). INTERPRETATION: This trial did not demonstrate an improvement in overall survival for etirinotecan pegol compared to treatment of physician's choice in patients with heavily pre-treated advanced breast cancer. The toxicity profile noted in the etirinotecan pegol group differed from that in the control group. In view of the frequency of cross-resistance and overlapping toxicities noted with many available drugs and the need for effective drugs in highly refractory disease, etirinotecan pegol may warrant further research in some subgroups of patients. FUNDING: Nektar Therapeutics.

Breast cancer-related lymphoedema and venepuncture: a review and evidence-based recommendations.

Lymphoedema is a recognised complication of axillary surgery in women with early breast cancer. Such women are widely advised to avoid venepuncture on the ipsilateral side lest this cause complications including lymphoedema. This can lead to multiple failed venepuncture attempts causing distress to both patient and healthcare professional. We reviewed current guidelines and critically appraised the evidence relating the development of lymphoedema to venepuncture to educate healthcare professionals and develop evidence-based guidelines. A systematic search of bibliographic databases was performed and an Internet search undertaken to identify patient information leaflets from societies and support groups. Seven published articles were identified together with 15 published patient information leaflets. Only one small prospective study was identified (level of evidence 2), the remainder being case-control studies (level 3) or retrospective reviews (level 4). There is no good evidence that venepuncture can precipitate lymphoedema. New, patient-centred, evidence-based recommendations for venepuncture in women with breast cancer are proposed. Whenever possible, venepuncture should be performed on the contralateral arm. If this is not readily achieved, in the absence of lymphoedema it is preferable to consider venepuncture in the ipsilateral arm or insertion of a central venous device than to make further attempts in the contralateral arm or resort to sites such as veins in the foot. In the absence of lymphoedema, venesection in the ipsilateral arm carries little, if any, risk of additional complications. We offer evidence-based, patient-centred guidelines for venepuncture in patients with breast cancer following an axillary intervention.

Health-related quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer treated with eribulin mesylate or capecitabine in an open-label randomized phase 3 trial.

The clinical benefit of eribulin versus capecitabine was evaluated using health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data from a phase 3 randomized trial in patients with pretreated advanced/metastatic breast cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00337103). The study population has been described previously (Kaufman et al. in J Clin Oncol 33:594-601, 2015). Eligible patients received eribulin (1.4 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1 and 8) or capecitabine (1.25 g/m(2) orally twice daily on days 1-14) per 21-day cycles. HRQoL was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality-of-life Questionnaire-Core 30 questions (QLQ-C30) and breast module-23 questions (QLQ-BR23), administered at baseline through 24 months, until disease progression or other antitumor treatment initiation. Minimally important difference (MID) and time to symptom worsening (TSW) were investigated. 1062 (96.4 %) Patients completed the EORTC questionnaire at baseline; overall, compliance was ≥80 %. Patients receiving capecitabine versus eribulin had significantly worse symptoms (higher scores) for nausea/vomiting (MID 8; P < 0.05) and diarrhea (MID 7; P < 0.05). Treatment with eribulin versus capecitabine, led to worse systemic therapy side-effects (dry mouth, different tastes, irritated eyes, feeling ill, hot flushes, headaches, and hair loss; MID 10; P < 0.01). Clinically meaningful worsening was observed for future perspective (MID 10; P < 0.05) with capecitabine and for systemic therapy side-effects scale (MID 10; P < 0.01) with eribulin. Patients receiving capecitabine experienced more-rapid deterioration in body image (by 2.9 months) and future perspective (by 1.4 months; P < 0.05) compared with those on eribulin; the opposite was observed for systemic side-effects where patients receiving eribulin experienced more-rapid deterioration than those receiving capecitabine (by 2 months; P < 0.05). Eribulin and capecitabine were found to have similar impact on patient functioning with no overall difference in HRQoL. Patients receiving eribulin reported worse systemic side-effects of chemotherapy but reduced gastrointestinal toxicity compared with capecitabine.

Effect of adjuvant capecitabine or fluorouracil, with or without oxaliplatin, on survival outcomes in stage III colon cancer and the effect of oxaliplatin on post-relapse survival: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from four randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy is the standard of care for stage III colon cancer. Adjuvant capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin versus leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin has not been directly compared; therefore, we aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety of these treatments using individual patient data pooled from four randomised controlled trials. We also assessed post-relapse survival, which has been postulated to be worse in patients receiving adjuvant oxaliplatin. METHODS: Patients with resected stage III colon cancer who were 18 years of age or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, from four randomised controlled trials (NSABP C-08, XELOXA, X-ACT, and AVANT; 8734 patients in total) were pooled and analysed. The treatment regimens included in our analyses were: XELOX (oxaliplatin and capecitabine); leucovorin and fluorouracil; capecitabine; FOLFOX-4 (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin); and modified FOLFOX-6 (mFOLFOX-6). Disease-free survival was the primary endpoint for all trials that supplied patients for this analysis. Here, we compared disease-free, relapse-free, and overall survival between the patient groups who received capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin and those who received leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin. Post-relapse survival was compared between the combined XELOX and FOLFOX groups, and the leucovorin and fluorouracil groups. Post-relapse survival was also compared between the capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin and leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin groups. FINDINGS: Disease-free survival did not differ significantly between patients who received leucovorin and fluorouracil versus those who received capecitabine in adjusted analyses (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02 [0·93-1·11; p=0·72]) or in unadjusted analyses (HR 1·01 [95% CI 0·92-1·10; p=0·86]). Relapse-free survival was similar (adjusted HR 1·02 [0·93-1·12; p=0·72] and unadjusted HR 1·01 [95% CI 0·92-1·11; p=0·86]), as was overall survival (adjusted HR 1·04 [95% CI 0·93-1·15; p=0·50] and unadjusted HR 1·02 [0·92-1·14]; p=0·65). For overall survival, a significant interaction between oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine was recorded in the multiple Cox regression analysis (p=0·014). Post-relapse survival was similar in adjusted (p=0·23) and unadjusted analyses (p=0·33) for the comparison of XELOX or FOLFOX versus leucovorin and fluorouracil, and was also similar for capecitabine-based regimens versus leucovorin and fluorouracil-based regimens (unadjusted p=0·26). INTERPRETATION: Combination therapy with oxaliplatin provided consistently improved outcomes without adversely affecting post-relapse survival in the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer, irrespective of whether the fluoropyrimidine backbone was capecitabine or leucovorin and fluorouracil. These data add to the existing evidence that oxaliplatin plus capecitabine or leucovorin and fluorouracil is the standard of care for the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer, and offers physicians flexibility to treat patients according to the patients' overall physical performance and preference. FUNDING: Genentech Inc.

Sebelipase alfa over 52 weeks reduces serum transaminases, liver volume and improves serum lipids in patients with lysosomal acid lipase deficiency.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Lysosomal acid lipase deficiency is an autosomal recessive enzyme deficiency resulting in lysosomal accumulation of cholesteryl esters and triglycerides. LAL-CL04, an ongoing extension study, investigates the long-term effects of sebelipase alfa, a recombinant human lysosomal acid lipase. METHODS: Sebelipase alfa (1mg/kg or 3mg/kg) was infused every-other-week to eligible subjects. Safety and tolerability assessments, including liver function, lipid profiles and liver volume assessment, were carried out at regular intervals. RESULTS: 216 infusions were administered to eight adult subjects through week 52 during LAL-CL04. At week 52, mean alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels were normal with mean change from baseline of -58% and -40%. Mean changes for low-density lipoprotein, total cholesterol, triglyceride and high-density lipoprotein were -60%, -39%, -36%, and +29%, respectively. Mean liver volume by magnetic resonance imaging and hepatic proton density fat fraction decreased (12% and 55%, respectively). Adverse events were mainly mild and unrelated to sebelipase alfa. Infusion-related reactions were uncommon: three events of moderate severity were reported in two subjects; one patient's event was suggestive of a hypersensitivity-like reaction, but additional testing did not confirm this, and the subject has successfully re-started sebelipase alfa. Of samples tested to date, no anti-drug antibodies have been detected. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term dosing with sebelipase alfa in lysosomal acid lipase-deficient patients is well tolerated and produces sustained reductions in transaminases, improvements in serum lipid profile and reduction in the hepatic fat fraction. A randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial in children and adults is underway (ARISE: NCT01757184).