A Phase IIb, single arm, multicenter trial of sacituzumab govitecan in Chinese patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer who received at least two prior treatments.

Refractory or relapsing metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) has a poor prognosis. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is a novel antibody-drug conjugate, targeting human trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 (Trop-2). This is the first report of SG's efficacy and safety in Chinese patients with mTNBC. EVER-132-001 (NCT04454437) was a multicenter, single-arm, Phase IIb study in Chinese patients with mTNBC who failed ≥2 prior chemotherapy regimens. Eligible patients received 10 mg/kg SG on Days 1 and 8 of each 21-day treatment cycle, until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) assessed by the Independent Review Committee. Secondary endpoints included: duration of response (DOR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. Eighty female Chinese patients (median age 47.6 years; range 24-69.9 years) received ≥1 SG dose with a median of 8 treatment cycles by the cutoff date (August 6, 2021). Median number of prior systemic cancer treatments was 4.0 (range 2.0-8.0). ORR and CBR were reported 38.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 28.06-50.30) and 43.8% (95% CI, 32.68-55.30) of patients, respectively. The median PFS was 5.55 months (95% CI, 4.14-N/A). SG-related Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 71.3%, the most common were neutrophil count decreased (62.5%), white blood cell count decreased (48.8%) and anemia (21.3%); 6.3% discontinued SG because of TEAEs. SG demonstrated substantial clinical activity in heavily pretreated Chinese patients with mTNBC. The observed safety profile was generally manageable.

Assessing Importance of Biomarkers: a Bayesian Joint Modeling Approach of Longitudinal and Survival Data with Semicompeting Risks.

Longitudinal biomarkers such as patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and quality of life (QOL) are routinely collected in cancer clinical trials or other studies. Joint modeling of PRO/QOL and survival data can provide a comparative assessment of patient-reported changes in specific symptoms or global measures that correspond to changes in survival. Motivated by a head and neck cancer clinical trial, we develop a class of trajectory-based models for longitudinal and survival data with disease progression. Specifically, we propose a class of mixed effects regression models for longitudinal measures, a cure rate model for the disease progression time (T P ), and a Cox proportional hazards model with time-varying covariates for the overall survival time (T D ) to account for T P and treatment switching. Under the semi-competing risks framework, the disease progression is the nonterminal event, the occurrence of which is subject to a terminal event of death. The properties of the proposed models are examined in detail. Within the Bayesian paradigm, we derive the decompositions of the deviance information criterion (DIC) and the logarithm of the pseudo marginal likelihood (LPML) to assess the fit of the longitudinal component of the model and the fit of each survival component, separately. We further develop ΔDIC as well as ΔLPML to determine the importance and contribution of the longitudinal data to the model fit of the T P and T D data.

Estimation of treatment effects and model diagnostics with two-way time-varying treatment switching: an application to a head and neck study.

Treatment switching frequently occurs in clinical trials due to ethical reasons. Intent-to-treat analysis without adjusting for switching yields biased and inefficient estimates of the treatment effects. In this paper, we propose a class of semiparametric semi-competing risks transition survival models to accommodate two-way time-varying switching. Theoretical properties of the proposed method are examined. An efficient expectation-maximization algorithm is derived to obtain maximum likelihood estimates and model diagnostic tools. Existing software is used to implement the algorithm. Simulation studies are conducted to demonstrate the validity of the model. The proposed method is further applied to data from a clinical trial with patients having recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of head and neck.

Afatinib versus methotrexate as second-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck progressing on or after platinum-based therapy (LUX-Head & Neck 1): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC) progressing after first-line platinum regimens have a poor prognosis and few treatment options. Afatinib, an irreversible ERBB family blocker, has shown efficacy in a phase 2 study in this setting. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of afatinib compared with methotrexate as second-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC progressing on or after platinum-based therapy. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial conducted in 101 centres in 19 countries, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed HNSCC that was recurrent, metastatic, or both who had progressed on or after first-line platinum-based therapy, were not amenable for salvage surgery or radiotherapy, and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1. Previous treatment with more than one systemic regimen in this setting was not allowed; previous treatment with EGFR-targeted antibody therapy (but not EGFR-targeted tyrosine-kinase inhibitors) was allowed. We randomly assigned eligible patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive oral afatinib (40 mg/day) or intravenous methotrexate (40 mg/m(2) per week), stratified by ECOG performance status and previous EGFR-targeted antibody therapy for recurrent or metastatic disease. Randomisation was done centrally with an interactive voice or web-based response system. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival as assessed by an independent, central imaging review committee. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01345682. FINDINGS: Between Jan 10, 2012, and Dec 12, 2013, we enrolled 483 patients and randomly assigned 322 to afatinib and 161 to methotrexate. After a median follow-up of 6·7 months (IQR 3·1-9·0), progression-free survival was longer in the afatinib group than in the methotrexate group (median 2·6 months [95% CI 2·0-2·7] for the afatinib group vs 1·7 months [1·5-2·4] for the methotrexate group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·80 [95% CI 0·65-0·98], p=0·030). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events were rash or acne (31 [10%] of 320 patients in the afatinib group vs none of 160 patients in the methotrexate group), diarrhoea (30 [9%] vs three [2%]), stomatitis (20 [6%] vs 13 [8%]), fatigue (18 [6%] vs five [3%]), and neutropenia (1 [<1%] vs 11 [7%]); serious adverse events occurred in 44 (14%) of afatinib-treated patients and 18 (11%) of methotrexate-treated patients. INTERPRETATION: Afatinib was associated with significant improvements in progression-free survival and had a manageable safety profile. These findings provide important new insights into the treatment of this patient population and support further investigations with irreversible ERBB family blockers in HNSCC. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim.

Afatinib versus placebo for patients with advanced, metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer after failure of erlotinib, gefitinib, or both, and one or two lines of chemotherapy (LUX-Lung 1): a phase 2b/3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Afatinib, an irreversible ErbB-family blocker, has shown preclinical activity when tested in EGFR mutant models with mutations that confer resistance to EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. We aimed to assess its efficacy in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma with previous treatment failure on EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. METHODS: In this phase 2b/3 trial, we enrolled patients with stage IIIB or IV adenocarcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance (ECOG) performance score of 0-2 who had received one or two previous chemotherapy regimens and had disease progression after at least 12 weeks of treatment with erlotinib or gefitinib. We used a computer-generated sequence to randomly allocate patients (2:1) to either afatinib (50 mg per day) or placebo; all patients received best supportive care. Randomisation was done in blocks of three and was stratified by sex and baseline ECOG performance status (0-1 vs 2). Investigators, patients, and the trial sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival (from date of randomisation to death), analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00656136. FINDINGS: Between May 26, 2008, and Sept 21, 2009, we identified 697 patients, 585 of whom were randomly allocated to treatment (390 to afatinib, 195 to placebo). Median overall survival was 10·8 months (95% CI 10·0-12·0) in the afatinib group and 12·0 months (10·2-14·3) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·08, 95% CI 0·86-1·35; p=0·74). Median progression-free survival was longer in the afatinib group (3·3 months, 95% CI 2·79-4·40) than it was in the placebo group (1·1 months, 0·95-1·68; hazard ratio 0·38, 95% CI 0·31-0·48; p<0·0001). No complete responses to treatment were noted; 29 (7%) patients had a partial response in the afatinib group, as did one patient in the placebo group. Subsequent cancer treatment was given to 257 (68%) patients in the afatinib group and 153 (79%) patients in the placebo group. The most common adverse events in the afatinib group were diarrhoea (339 [87%] of 390 patients; 66 [17%] were grade 3) and rash or acne (305 [78%] patients; 56 [14%] were grade 3). These events occurred less often in the placebo group (18 [9%] of 195 patients had diarrhoea; 31 [16%] had rash or acne), all being grade 1 or 2. Drug-related serious adverse events occurred in 39 (10%) patients in the afatinib group and one (<1%) patient in the placebo group. We recorded two possibly treatment-related deaths in the afatinib group. INTERPRETATION: Although we recorded no benefit in terms of overall survival with afatinib (which might have been affected by cancer treatments given after progression in both groups), our findings for progression-free survival and response to treatment suggest that afatinib could be of some benefit to patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma who have failed at least 12 weeks of previous EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor treatment. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim Inc.

Afatinib for patients with lung adenocarcinoma and epidermal growth factor receptor mutations (LUX-Lung 2): a phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Afatinib is an irreversible ErbB-family blocker with preclinical activity in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR mutations. We aimed to assess the efficacy of afatinib in patients with lung adenocarcinoma and EGFR mutations. METHODS: In this phase 2 study, we enrolled patients from 30 centres in Taiwan and the USA with lung adenocarcinoma (stage IIIb with pleural effusion or stage IV) with EGFR mutations, who had no more than one previous chemotherapy regimen for advanced disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and no previous treatment with EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. We tested two afatinib starting doses: 50 mg daily and subsequently 40 mg daily, introduced to establish whether tolerability could be improved with retention of anti-tumour activity. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a confirmed objective response (complete response or partial response), on the basis of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.0 (independent review). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00525148. FINDINGS: 129 patients were treated with afatinib, 99 with a starting dose of 50 mg and 30 with a starting dose of 40 mg. 79 (61%) of 129 patients had an objective response (two complete responses, 77 partial responses). 70 (66%) of the 106 patients with the two common activating EGFR mutations (deletion 19 or L858R) had an objective response, as did nine (39%) of 23 patients with less common mutations. Similar proportions of patients had an objective response when analysed by starting dose (18 [60%] of 30 patients at 40 mg vs 61 [62%] of 99 patients at 50 mg). Of the two most common adverse events (diarrhoea and rash or acne), grade 3 events were more common in patients receiving a 50 mg starting dose (22 [22%] of 99 patients for diarrhoea and 28 [28%] of 99 patients for rash or acne) than they were in those receiving a 40 mg starting dose (two [7%] of 30 patients for both diarrhoea and rash or acne); possibly treatment-related serious adverse events were also less common in patients receiving a 40 mg starting dose (two of 30 patients vs 14 of 99 patients). We recorded one possibly drug-related death (interstitial lung disease). INTERPRETATION: Afatinib shows activity in the treatment of patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations, especially in patients with deletion 19 or L858R mutations. The efficacy of afatinib 40 mg should be compared with chemotherapy or other EGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors in EGFR-mutation-positive NSCLC. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim Inc.

Lack of a pharmacokinetic interaction between steady-state tipranavir/ritonavir and single-dose valacyclovir in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the single-dose pharmacokinetics of the herpes antiviral acyclovir (administered as the pro-drug valacyclovir) alone and in combination with twice-daily 200 mg ritonavir-boosted tipranavir (500 mg) at steady state. METHODS: The study was an open label, one-sequence cross-over pharmacokinetic study in HIV-negative adults. Plasma drug concentrations were measured by validated LC/MS/MS assays; pharmacokinetics (AUC, C(max)) were determined using noncompartmental methods. The geometric mean ratio and 90% confidence interval [GMR, 90% CI] were used to evaluate the drug interaction. RESULTS: Twenty-six of 29 subjects completed the trial. With steady-state tipranavir/ritonavir, acyclovir C(max) decreased 4.9% [0.95, 0.88-1.02] and AUC increased 6.6% [1.07, 1.04-1.09]. The majority of subjects experienced at least one adverse event, most of which were mild gastrointestinal disorders. Three subjects discontinued tipranavir/ritonavir treatment as a result of drug-related increases in ALT/AST, including one subject who experienced mild upper abdominal pain. All subjects recovered without sequelae. CONCLUSIONS: When administered as a single dose of valacyclovir with steady-state tipranavir/ritonavir, there were no clinically important changes in acyclovir pharmacokinetics. This result indicates that valacyclovir can be co-administered safely with no dose adjustments.

Symptom and quality of life benefit of afatinib in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients previously treated with erlotinib or gefitinib: results of a randomized phase IIb/III trial (LUX-Lung 1).

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported symptom and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) benefit of afatinib, a novel, irreversible, ErbB Family Blocker, was investigated in a double-blind, randomized, phase IIb/III trial (LUX-Lung 1). METHODS: Five hundred and eighty-five patients with lung adenocarcinoma (stage IIIb/IV), who had progressed after chemotherapy (1-2 lines) and at least 12 weeks of erlotinib or gefitinib, were randomized (2:1) to receive either afatinib plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC. Symptom and HRQoL benefit were measured using the lung cancer-specific European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (QLQ-C30/LC13) and EuroQol (EQ-5D) questionnaires. Non-small-cell lung cancer-related symptoms (cough, dyspnea, and pain) were prespecified using three preplanned analyses (percentage of patients improved/worsened/stable, change in scores over time, and time to deterioration of scores). RESULTS: Compared with patients on placebo, a significantly higher proportion of afatinib-treated patients showed an improvement in cough (p < 0.0001), dyspnea (p = 0.006), and pain (p < 0.0001). Afatinib also significantly improved the mean scores over time for cough (p < 0.0001), dyspnea (p = 0.0161), and pain (p = 0.0056); significantly delayed the time to deterioration for cough (p < 0.001); and showed a trend in delaying dyspnea (p = 0.170) and pain (p = 0.287). Consistent with the adverse-event profile of afatinib, a significantly (p < 0.05) higher proportion of afatinib-treated patients showed worsening of diarrhea, sore mouth, dysphagia, and appetite scores. However, compared with placebo, afatinib significantly (p < 0.05) improved QoL assessed with the EQ-5D questionnaire and global health status/QoL, physical functioning, and fatigue, which were assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer questionnaires. CONCLUSION: In the LUX-Lung 1 trial, the addition of afatinib to BSC significantly improved non-small-cell lung cancer-related symptoms (cough, dyspnea, and pain), fatigue, physical functioning, and HRQoL and significantly delayed time to deterioration of cough.