Effect of an Outreach Programme on Vandetanib Safety in Medullary Thyroid Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Effective management of adverse events (AEs) following vandetanib treatment is important to maximize clinical benefits. We examined whether more frequent contact with vandetanib-treated patients reduced AEs of CTCAE grade 2 or higher. STUDY DESIGN: In this open-label, multicentre, phase III study, patients with locally advanced or metastatic medullary thyroid cancer were randomized to a patient outreach programme (outreach) or a standard AE monitoring schedule (vandetanib control) for 52 weeks. In addition to standard AE monitoring, patients in the outreach arm were contacted every 2 weeks by telephone/during their clinic visit for specific AE questioning related to diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, headache and rash. Patients received vandetanib at 200 or 300 mg/day, depending on the creatinine levels at screening. RESULTS: Altogether, 205 patients were randomized (outreach, n = 103; vandetanib control, n = 102). This study did not meet its primary objective; the mean percentage of time patients experienced at least one AE of grade 2 or higher was higher for the outreach group (51.65%) than for the vandetanib control group (45.19%); the difference was not statistically significant (t statistic: 1.29; 95% CI -3.44 to 16.37%; p = 0.199). The most frequently reported AEs were diarrhoea (56.9% for the outreach group vs. 46.6% for the vandetanib controls), hypertension (36.3 vs. 31.1%), rash (25.5 vs. 24.3%) and nausea (25.5% vs. 18.4%), and the most frequently reported AEs of grade 2 or higher were hypertension (33.3 vs. 23.3%), diarrhoea (26.5 vs. 24.3%) and dermatitis acneiform (11.8 vs. 9.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Additional outreach to patients treated with vandetanib had no impact on the rate or severity of AEs compared to the standard AE monitoring schedule. AEs were consistent with the known safety profile of vandetanib.

KDR Amplification Is Associated with VEGF-Induced Activation of the mTOR and Invasion Pathways but does not Predict Clinical Benefit to the VEGFR TKI Vandetanib.

PURPOSE: VEGF pathway inhibitors have been investigated as therapeutic agents in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) because of its central role in angiogenesis. These agents have improved survival in patients with advanced NSCLC, but the effects have been modest. Although VEGFR2/KDRis typically localized to the vasculature, amplification ofKDRhas reported to occur in 9% to 30% of the DNA from different lung cancers. We investigated the signaling pathways activated downstream ofKDRand whetherKDRamplification is associated with benefit in patients with NSCLC treated with the VEGFR inhibitor vandetanib. METHODS: NSCLC cell lines with or withoutKDRamplification were studied for the effects of VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) on cell viability and migration. Archival tumor samples collected from patients with platinum-refractory NSCLC in the phase III ZODIAC study of vandetanib plus docetaxel or placebo plus docetaxel (N= 294) were screened forKDRamplification by FISH. RESULTS: KDRamplification was associated with VEGF-induced activation of mTOR, p38, and invasiveness in NSCLC cell lines. However, VEGFR TKIs did not inhibit proliferation of NSCLC cell lines withKDRamplification. VEGFR inhibition decreased cell motility as well as expression of HIF1α inKDR-amplified NSCLC cells. In the ZODIAC study,KDRamplification was observed in 15% of patients and was not associated with improved progression-free survival, overall survival, or objective response rate for the vandetanib arm. CONCLUSIONS: Preclinical studies suggestKDRactivates invasion but not survival pathways inKDR-amplified NSCLC models. Patients with NSCLC whose tumor hadKDRamplification were not associated with clinical benefit for vandetanib in combination with docetaxel.

Gefitinib plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy in EGFR-mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer after progression on first-line gefitinib (IMPRESS): a phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimum management strategies for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with acquired resistance to EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors are undefined. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of continuing gefitinib combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with EGFR-mutation-positive advanced NSCLC with acquired resistance to first-line gefitinib. METHODS: The randomised, phase 3, multicentre IMPRESS study was done in 71 centres in 11 countries in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years with histologically confirmed, chemotherapy-naive, stage IIIB-IV EGFR-mutation-positive advanced NSCLC with previous disease control with first-line gefitinib and recent disease progression (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by central block randomisation to oral gefitinib 250 mg or placebo once daily in tablet form; randomisation did not include stratification factors. All patients also received the platinum-based doublet chemotherapy cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on the first day of each cycle. After completion of a maximum of six chemotherapy cycles, patients continued their randomly assigned treatment until disease progression or another discontinuation criterion was met. All study investigators and participants were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. The study has completed enrolment, but patients are still in follow-up for overall survival. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01544179. FINDINGS: Between March 29, 2012, and Dec 20, 2013, 265 patients were randomly assigned: 133 to the gefitinib group and 132 to the placebo group. At the time of data cutoff (May 5, 2014), 98 (74%) patients had disease progression in the gefitinib group compared with 107 (81%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·65-1·13; p=0·27; median progression-free survival 5·4 months in both groups [95% CI 4·5-5·7 in the gefitinib group and 4·6-5·5 in the placebo group]). The most common adverse events of any grade were nausea (85 [64%] of 132 patients in the gefitinib group and 81 [61%] of 132 patients in the placebo group) and decreased appetite (65 [49%] and 45 [34%]). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or worse were anaemia (11 [8%] of 132 patients in the gefitinib group and five [4%] of 132 patients in the placebo group) and neutropenia (nine [7%] and seven [5%]). 37 (28%) of 132 patients in the gefitinib group and 28 (21%) of 132 patients in the placebo group reported serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Continuation of gefitinib after radiological disease progression on first-line gefitinib did not prolong progression-free survival in patients who received platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as subsequent line of treatment. Platinum-based doublet chemotherapy remains the standard of care in this setting. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Gefitinib treatment in EGFR mutated caucasian NSCLC: circulating-free tumor DNA as a surrogate for determination of EGFR status.

INTRODUCTION: In the phase IV, open-label, single-arm study NCT01203917, first-line gefitinib 250 mg/d was effective and well tolerated in Caucasian patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (previously published). Here, we report EGFR mutation analyses of plasma-derived, circulating-free tumor DNA. METHODS: Mandatory tumor and duplicate plasma (1 and 2) baseline samples were collected (all screened patients; n = 1060). Preplanned, exploratory analyses included EGFR mutation (and subtype) status of tumor versus plasma and between plasma samples. Post hoc, exploratory analyses included efficacy by tumor and plasma EGFR mutation (and subtype) status. RESULTS: Available baseline tumor samples were 1033 of 1060 (118 positive of 859 mutation status known; mutation frequency, 13.7%). Available plasma 1 samples were 803 of 1060 (82 positive of 784 mutation status known; mutation frequency, 10.5%). Mutation status concordance between 652 matched tumor and plasma 1 samples was 94.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.3-96.0) (comparable for mutation subtypes); test sensitivity was 65.7% (95% CI, 55.8-74.7); and test specificity was 99.8% (95% CI, 99.0-100.0). Twelve patients of unknown tumor mutation status were subsequently identified as plasma mutation-positive. Available plasma 2 samples were 803 of 1060 (65 positive of 224 mutation status-evaluable and -known). Mutation status concordance between 224 matched duplicate plasma 1 and 2 samples was 96.9% (95% CI, 93.7-98.7). Objective response rates are as follows: mutation-positive tumor, 70% (95% CI, 60.5-77.7); mutation-positive tumor and plasma 1, 76.9% (95% CI, 65.4-85.5); and mutation-positive tumor and mutation-negative plasma 1, 59.5% (95% CI, 43.5-73.7). Median progression-free survival (months) was 9.7 (95% CI, 8.5-11.0; 61 events) for mutation-positive tumor and 10.2 (95% CI, 8.5-12.5; 36 events) for mutation-positive tumor and plasma 1. CONCLUSION: The high concordance, specificity, and sensitivity demonstrate that EGFR mutation status can be accurately assessed using circulating-free tumor DNA. Although encouraging and suggesting that plasma is a suitable substitute for mutation analysis, tumor tissue should remain the preferred sample type when available.

Comparison of fulvestrant versus tamoxifen for the treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women previously untreated with endocrine therapy: a multinational, double-blind, randomized trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of fulvestrant (Faslodex; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Wilmington, DE), a new estrogen receptor (ER) antagonist that downregulates ER and has no agonist effects, versus tamoxifen, an antiestrogen with agonist and antagonist effects, for the treatment of advanced breast cancer in postmenopausal women. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial, patients with metastatic/locally advanced breast cancer previously untreated for advanced disease were randomly assigned to receive either fulvestrant (250 mg, via intramuscular injection, once monthly; n = 313) or tamoxifen (20 mg, orally, once daily; n = 274). Patients' tumors were positive for ER (ER+) and/or progesterone receptor (PgR+), or had an unknown receptor status. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 14.5 months, there was no significant difference between fulvestrant and tamoxifen for the primary end point of time to progression (TTP; median TTP, 6.8 months and 8.3 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.44; P =.088). In a prospectively planned subset analysis of patients with known ER+ and/or PgR+ tumors ( approximately 78%), median TTP was 8.2 months for fulvestrant and 8.3 months for tamoxifen (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.36; P =.39). The objective response rate for the overall population was 31.6% with fulvestrant and 33.9% with tamoxifen, and 33.2% and 31.1%, respectively, in the known hormone receptor-positive subgroup. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In the overall population, between-group differences in efficacy end points favored tamoxifen, and statistical noninferiority of fulvestrant could not be demonstrated. However, in patients with hormone receptor-positive tumors, fulvestrant had similar efficacy to tamoxifen and was well tolerated.

Fulvestrant versus anastrozole for the treatment of advanced breast carcinoma in postmenopausal women: a prospective combined analysis of two multicenter trials.

BACKGROUND: Fulvestrant (ICI 182,780) is a new type of estrogen receptor (ER) antagonist that down-regulates the ER and has no known agonist effects. The authors report the prospectively planned combined analysis of data from 2 Phase III trials comparing fulvestrant 250 mg monthly (n=428) and anastrozole 1 mg daily (n=423) in postmenopausal women with advanced breast carcinoma (ABC) who previously had progressed after receiving endocrine treatment. METHODS: The primary endpoint was time to progression (TTP). Secondary endpoints included objective response (OR), duration of response (DOR), and tolerability. The trials were designed to demonstrate superiority of fulvestrant over anastrozole. Noninferiority of fulvestrant versus anastrozole was determined using a retrospectively applied statistical test. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 15.1 months, approximately 83% of patients in each treatment arm had progressed. The median TTP was 5.5 months in the fulvestrant group and 4.1 months in the anastrozole group, and the OR rates were 19.2% and 16.5% for fulvestrant and anastrozole, respectively (although the difference between treatments was not statistically significant). In patients who responded, further follow-up (median, 22.1 months) was performed to obtain more complete information on DOR; the median DOR (from randomization to disease progression) in patients who responded to treatment was 16.7 months in the fulvestrant group and 13.7 months in the anastrozole group. In a statistical analysis of DOR (using all randomized patients; from the start of response to disease progression), DOR was significantly longer for patients in the fulvestrant group compared with patients in the anastrozole group. Both drugs were tolerated well; withdrawals due to drug-related adverse events were 0.9% and 1.2% in the fulvestrant group and the anastrozole group, respectively. The incidence of joint disorders was significantly lower in the fulvestrant group (P=0.0036). CONCLUSIONS: Fulvestrant was tolerated well and was at least as effective as anastrozole in the second-line treatment of patients with ABC. This new hormonaltherapy may provide a valuable treatment option for ABC in postmenopausal women.