Phase II Study of BEZ235 versus Everolimus in Patients with Mammalian Target of Rapamycin Inhibitor-Naïve Advanced Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors.

LESSONS LEARNED: Treatment with BEZ235 has not been shown to demonstrate increased efficacy compared with everolimus and may be associated with a poorer tolerability profile.The hypothesis of dual targeting of the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase and mammalian target of rapamycin pathways in patients with advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors may warrant further study using other agents. BACKGROUND: This phase II study investigated whether targeting the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway via PI3K, mTOR complex 1 (mTORC1) and mTOR complex 2 (mTORC2) inhibition using BEZ235 may be more effective than mTORC1 inhibition with everolimus in patients with advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET) who are naïve to mTOR inhibitor therapy. METHODS: Patients with advanced pNET were randomized (1:1) to oral BEZ235 400 mg twice daily or oral everolimus 10 mg once daily on a continuous dosing schedule. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included safety, overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and time to treatment failure. RESULTS: Enrollment in this study was terminated early (62 enrolled of the 140 planned). The median PFS was 8.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.3 to not evaluable [NE]) with BEZ235 versus 10.8 months (95% CI: 8.1-NE) with everolimus (hazard ratio 1.53; 95% CI: 0.72-3.25). The most commonly reported all-grade adverse events (>50% of patients regardless of study treatment relationship) with BEZ235 were diarrhea (90.3%), stomatitis (74.2%), and nausea (54.8%). CONCLUSION: BEZ235 treatment in mTOR inhibitor-naïve patients with advanced pNET did not demonstrate increased efficacy compared with everolimus and may be associated with a poorer tolerability profile.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Adjuvant Letrozole Versus Anastrozole in Postmenopausal Patients With Hormone Receptor-Positive, Node-Positive Early Breast Cancer: Final Results of the Randomized Phase III Femara Versus Anastrozole Clinical Evaluation (FACE) Trial.

Purpose The Letrozole (Femara) Versus Anastrozole Clinical Evaluation (FACE) study compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant letrozole versus anastrozole in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor (HR) -positive and node-positive early breast cancer (eBC). Methods Postmenopausal women with HR-positive and node-positive eBC were randomly assigned to receive adjuvant therapy with either letrozole (2.5 mg) or anastrozole (1 mg) once per day for 5 years or until recurrence of disease. Patients were stratified on the basis of the number of lymph nodes and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status. The primary end point was 5-year disease-free survival (DFS), and the key secondary end points were overall survival and safety. Results A total of 4,136 patients were randomly assigned to receive either letrozole (n = 2,061) or anastrozole (n = 2,075). The final analysis was done at 709 DFS events (letrozole, 341 [16.5%]; anastrozole, 368 [17.7%]). The 5-year estimated DFS rate was 84.9% for letrozole versus 82.9% for anastrozole arm (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.07; P = .3150). Exploratory analysis showed similar DFS with letrozole and anastrozole in all evaluated subgroups. The 5-year estimated overall survival rate was 89.9% for letrozole versus 89.2% for anastrozole arm (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.17; P = .7916). Most common grade 3 to 4 adverse events (> 5% of patients) reported for letrozole versus anastrozole were arthralgia (3.9% v 3.3%, and 48.2% v 47.9% for all adverse events), hypertension (1.2% v 1.0%), hot flushes (0.8% v 0.4%), myalgia (0.8% v 0.7%), dyspnea (0.8% v 0.5%), and depression (0.8% v 0.6%). Conclusion Letrozole did not demonstrate significantly superior efficacy or safety compared with anastrozole in postmenopausal patients with HR-positive, node-positive eBC.

Contribution of apo CIII reduction to the greater effect of 12-week micronized fenofibrate than atorvastatin therapy on triglyceride levels and LDL size in dyslipidemic patients.

BACKGROUND: Apolipoprotein (apo) CIII plays an important role in the catabolism of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins as it is a potent inhibitor of lipoprotein lipase (LPL). A low LPL activity has been simultaneously associated with hypertriglyceridemia, low HDL cholesterol and with small LDL particles. AIM: To compare the effects of a 12-week treatment with micronized fenofibrate (200 mg) versus atorvastatin (10 mg) on apo CIII and lipoprotein-lipid levels including LDL size. METHOD: After a 4-week washout period, dyslipidemic patients were randomized to either micronized fenofibrate (n = 64) or atorvastatin (n = 72). RESULTS: Both fenofibrate and atorvastatin significantly decreased apo CIII levels by -0.03 +/- 0.03 versus -0.01 +/- 0.03 g/l respectively, and increased LDL size by 4.9 +/- 3.3 versus 1.8 +/- 2.9 A. Improvements in these parameters were significantly greater with fenofibrate (P < 0.0001). Significant relationships were found between changes in triglycerides and changes in apo CIII (r = 0.81 and r = 0.59, P < 0.0001) as well as between changes in LDL size and changes in apo CIII (r = -0.41 and r = -0.45, P < 0.001), in both fenofibrate and atorvastatin groups. respectively. CONCLUSION: The substantial reduction in apo CIII induced by micronized fenofibrate plays an important role in the greater effect of micronized fenofibrate than atorvastatin on plasma triglycerides and LDL size.

Comparison of micronized fenofibrate and pravastatin in patients with primary hyperlipidemia.

Micronized fenofibrate lowers total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol to a similar extent as statins but raises high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and lowers triglycerides to a greater extent. The comparative lipid-modifying efficacy of micronized fenofibrate and pravastatin has not been evaluated in dyslipidemic patients. This prospective, multicenter, randomized trial compared the efficacy of 3 months' treatment with micronized fenofibrate (200 mg once daily) or pravastatin (20 mg once daily) in hypercholesterolemic type IIa and mixed dyslipidemic type IIb patients. Two hundred sixty-five male and female patients (18-75 years) were recruited from 28 European centers, and 151 were analyzed. Micronized fenofibrate was at least as effective as pravastatin in reducing levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and total cholesterol in primary dyslipidemia but was significantly more effective than pravastatin in raising high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (respectively, 13.2% vs. 5.6%; p = 0.0084) and lowering triglycerides (-38.7% vs. -11.8%; p = 0.0001). In type IIa dyslipidemia, micronized fenofibrate was as effective as pravastatin in raising high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (+8.6% vs. +8.0%) but was fivefold more effective in lowering triglycerides (-34.3% vs. -7.2%; p = 0.0001). In type IIb dyslipidemic patients with low baseline high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, micronized fenofibrate was 10-fold and nearly 3-fold superior to pravastatin in raising high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and lowering triglycerides, respectively. Micronized fenofibrate may be considered an effective first-line therapy for patients with primary hyperlipidemia, particularly those with type IIb mixed dyslipidemia or type 2 diabetes.