Head-to-head comparison of treatment sequences in advanced pancreatic cancer-Real-world data from the prospective German TPK clinical cohort study.

There are no clear guidelines regarding the optimal treatment sequence for advanced pancreatic cancer, as head-to-head phase III randomised trials are missing. We assess real-world effectiveness of three common sequential treatment strategies by emulating a hypothetical randomised trial. This analysis included 1551 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer from the prospective, clinical cohort study Tumour Registry Pancreatic Cancer receiving FOLFIRINOX (n = 613) or gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GEMNAB; n = 938) as palliative first-line treatment. We used marginal structural modelling to compare overall survival (OS) and time to deterioration (TTD) of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) between three common first- to second-line treatment sequences, adjusting for time-varying potential confounding. The sequences were: FOLFIRINOX→GEMNAB, GEMNAB→FOLFOX/OFF and GEMNAB→nanoliposomal irinotecan (NALIRI) + 5-fluorouracil. Outcome was also calculated stratified by patients' prognostic risk according to the Pancreatic Cancer Score. Median OS and TTD of HRQoL independent of risk were 10.7 [8.9, 11.9] and 6.4 [4.8, 7.7] months for FOLFIRINOX→GEMNAB, 8.4 [7.4, 9.7] and 5.8 [4.6, 7.1] months for GEMNAB→FOLFOX/OFF and 8.9 [7.8, 10.4] and 4.6 [4.1, 6.1] months for GEMNAB→NALIRI+5-fluorouracil. Compared to FOLFIRINOX→GEMNAB, OS and TTD were worse for poor-risk patients with GEMNAB→FOLFOX/OFF (OS: HR 2.09 [1.47, 2.98]; TTD: HR 1.97 [1.19, 3.27]) and those with GEMNAB→NALIRI+5-fluorouracil (OS: HR 1.35, [0.76, 2.39]; TTD: HR 2.62 [1.56, 4.42]). Brackets denote 95%-confidence intervals. The estimated real-world effectiveness of the three treatment sequences evaluated were largely comparable. Poor-risk patients might benefit from intensified treatment with FOLFIRINOX→GEMNAB in terms of clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Future randomised trials on sequential treatments in advanced pancreatic cancer are warranted.

Efficacy of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab vs FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in 1st-line treatment of older patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: an analysis of the randomised trial FIRE-3.

BACKGROUND: The evidence on the efficacy of anticancer therapy is limited in older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This retrospective analysis of phase III FIRE-3 trial assesses the efficacy of FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab according to the patients' age and sidedness of primary tumour. METHODS: The study endpoints overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between younger (<65 years) and older (≥65 years) patients, followed by stratification according to primary tumour sidedness. ORR was compared using Fisher´s exact test, OS and PFS were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Univariate Cox regression analyses assessed hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for OS and PFS. RESULTS: Overall, older patients with RAS WT tumours had a significantly shorter OS when compared to younger patients (25.9 months vs 29.3 months, HR 1.29; P = 0.02). Also the proportion of right-sided tumours was significantly greater in older patients (27.1% vs 17.9%; P = 0.029). Secondary resection rates were numerically higher in younger patients (25.4% vs. 17.6%, P = 0.068) than in older patients. This was primarily seen in the Cetuximab arm, where older patients underwent less likely resection (13.1% vs. 26%; P = 0.02). Older patients with left-sided tumours showed only a trend towards greater efficacy of cetuximab (HR 0.86; P = 0.38). In patients with right-sided primary tumours, older patients did not appear to benefit from cetuximab in contrast to younger patients (≥65 years: 16.6 months vs 23.6 months, HR 1.1; P = 0.87; <65 years: 21.9 months vs 16.4 months HR 1.5; P = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: In FIRE-3, OS was generally shorter in older patients in comparison to younger patients. This could be explained by the overrepresentation of right-sided tumours and a lower secondary resection rate in older patients. The efficacy of targeted therapy was dependent on tumour sidedness in older patients with RAS WT mCRC. CLINICAL TRIAL: FIRE-3 (NCT00433927).

VicTORia: a randomised phase II study to compare vinorelbine in combination with the mTOR inhibitor everolimus versus vinorelbine monotherapy for second-line chemotherapy in advanced HER2-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Improving the outcome of patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer experiencing tumour progression following first-line chemotherapy remains an urgent medical need. The purpose of the VicTORia trial was to show superiority of everolimus in combination with vinorelbine versus vinorelbine monotherapy as second-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced HER2 negative breast cancer. METHODS: In this randomised phase II trial, 133 patients were recruited in 32 centres in Germany. Patients were randomised 1:1 to second-line chemotherapy either with vinorelbine plus everolimus (arm1) or vinorelbine alone (arm2). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were PFS rate at 6 months, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety. Baseline PI3 K mutational status was determined in plasma samples. RESULTS: Median progression-free survival was not different between arms (arm1 vs. arm2: 4.01 months, 95% CI 2.40-6.09 vs. 4.08, 95% CI 2.80-5.33). PFS rate at 6 months (arm1 vs. arm2: 39.4%, 95% CI 27.6-50.9% vs. 36.6%, 95% CI 24.6-48.6%), median OS (arm1 vs. arm2: 16.3 months, 95% CI 11.4-19.0 vs. 13.8 months, 95% CI 10.2-19.1) and ORR were not different between arms. Most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (50% vs. 40%), gastrointestinal toxicities (19.1% vs. 6.1%), and infections (19.1% vs. 7.7%). PI3 K mutational status was neither associated with PFS nor with OS. CONCLUSION: Although well tolerated, the efficacy of everolimus and vinorelbine combination therapy was not superior to vinorelbine monotherapy. There was no correlation between PI3 K mutational status and efficacy. EudracCT No 2011-001024-38, ClinicalTrials.gov No NCT01520103.

Relevance of liver-limited disease in metastatic colorectal cancer: Subgroup findings of the FIRE-3/AIO KRK0306 trial.

In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), liver-limited disease (LLD) is associated with a higher chance of metastectomy leading to long-term survival. However, limited data describes the prognostic and predictive relevance of initially unresectable LLD with regard to targeted first-line therapy. The present analysis investigated the relevance of initially unresectable LLD in mCRC patients treated with targeted therapy against either the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or vascular epithelial growth factor (VEGF). The analysis was performed based on FIRE-3, a randomized phase III trial comparing first-line chemotherapy with FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab (anti-EGFR) or bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) in RAS wild-type (WT) mCRC. Of 400 patients, 133 (33.3%) had LLD and 267 (66.8%) had non-LLD. Median overall survival (OS) was significantly longer in LLD compared to non-LLD patients (36.0 vs. 25.4 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51-0.87; p = 0.002). In a multivariate analysis also including secondary hepatic resection as time-dependent variable, LLD status was independently prognostic for OS (HR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.50-0.91; p = 0.01). As assessed by interaction tests, treatment benefit from FOLFIRI plus cetuximab compared to FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab was independent of LLD status with regard to objective response rate (ORR), early tumour shrinkage ≥20% (ETS), depth of response (DpR) and OS (all p > 0.05). In conclusion, LLD could be identified as a prognostic factor in RAS-WT mCRC, which was independent of hepatic resection in patients treated with targeted therapy. LLD had no predictive relevance since benefit from FOLFIRI plus cetuximab over bevacizumab was independent of LLD status.

Relation of early tumor shrinkage (ETS) observed in first-line treatment to efficacy parameters of subsequent treatment in FIRE-3 (AIOKRK0306).

We explored the association of early tumor shrinkage (ETS) and non-ETS with efficacy of first-line and consecutive second-line treatment in patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated in FIRE-3. Assessment of tumor shrinkage was based on the sum of longest diameters of target lesions, evaluated after 6 weeks of treatment. Shrinkage was classified as ETS (shrinkage by ≥ 20%), mETS (shrinkage by 0 to <20%), mPD (minor progression >0 to <20%) and PD (progression ≥20%). Overall survival (OS) was 33.2 (95% CI 28.0-38.4) months in ETS patients, while non-ETS was associated with less favorable outcome (mETS 24.0 (95% CI 21.2-26.9) months, mPD 19.0 (95% CI 13.0-25.0) months, PD 12.8 (95% CI 11.1-14.5) months). Differences in PFS of first-line therapy were less pronounced. ETS subgroups defined in first-line therapy also correlated with efficacy of second-line therapy. Progression-free survival in second-line (PFS2nd) was 6.5 months (5.8-7.2) for ETS, and was 5.6 (95% CI 4.7-6.5) months for mETS, 4.9 (95% CI 3.7-6.1) months for mPD and 3.3 (95% CI 2.3-4.3) months for PD. PFS of first-line and PFS2nd showed a linear correlation (Bravais-Pearson coefficient: 0.16, p = 0.006). While ETS is associated with the most favorable outcome, non-ETS represents a heterogeneous subgroup with distinct characteristics of less favorable initial tumor response to treatment. This is the first analysis to demonstrate that early tumor response observed during first-line FOLFIRI-based therapy may also relate to efficacy of second-line treatment. Early response parameters may serve as stratification factors in trials recruiting pretreated patients.

FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a post-hoc analysis of tumour dynamics in the final RAS wild-type subgroup of this randomised open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: FIRE-3 compared first-line 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. The same study also reported an exploratory analysis of a subgroup of patients with tumours that were wild-type at other RAS genes (KRAS and NRAS exons 2-4). We report here efficacy results for the FIRE-3 final RAS (KRAS/NRAS, exons 2-4) wild-type subgroup. Moreover, new metrics of tumour dynamics were explored during a centralised radiological review to investigate how FOLFIRI plus cetuximab conferred overall survival benefit in the absence of differences in investigator-assessed objective responses and progression-free survival. METHODS: FIRE-3 was a randomised phase 3 trial comparing FOLFIRI plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. The primary endpoint of the FIRE-3 study was the proportion of patients achieving an objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.0 in the intention-to-treat population. A centralised radiological review of CT scans was done in a post-hoc analysis to assess objective response according to RECIST 1.1, early tumour shrinkage, depth of response, duration of response, and time to response in the final RAS wild-type subgroup. Comparisons between treatment groups with respect to objective response rate and early tumour shrinkage were made using Fisher's exact test (two-sided), while differences in depth of response were investigated with a two-sided Wilcoxon test. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00433927. FINDINGS: In the final RAS wild-type population (n=400), median overall survival was better in the FOLFIRI plus cetuximab group than the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group (33·1 months [95% CI 24·5-39·4] vs 25·0 months [23·0-28·1]; hazard ratio 0·70 [0·54-0·90]; p=0·0059), although investigator-assessed objective response and progression-free survival were comparable between treatment groups. Centralised radiological review of CT-assessable patients (n=330) showed that the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (113 of 157, 72·0% [95% CI 64·3-78·8] vs 97 of 173, 56·1% [48·3-63·6]; p=0·0029), frequency of early tumour shrinkage (107 of 157, 68·2% [60·3-75·4] vs 85 of 173, 49·1% [41·5-56·8]; p=0·0005), and median depth of response (-48·9% [-54·3 to -42·0] vs -32·3% [-38·2 to -29·2]; p<0·0001) were significantly better in extended RAS wild-type patients receiving FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus those receiving FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. No differences in duration of response and time to response were observed between treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: This analysis provides a new framework that connects alternative metrics of response to overall survival. Superior response-related outcome parameters, such as early tumour shrinkage and depth of response, obtained by centralised radiological review correlated with the overall survival benefit conferred by FOLFIRI plus cetuximab compared with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the extended RAS wild-type subgroup. FUNDING: Merck KGaA and Pfizer.

Maintenance strategies after first-line oxaliplatin plus fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (AIO 0207): a randomised, non-inferiority, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The definition of a best maintenance strategy following combination chemotherapy plus bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer is unclear. We investigated whether no continuation of therapy or bevacizumab alone are non-inferior to fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab, following induction treatment with a fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab. METHODS: In this open-label, non-inferiority, randomised phase 3 trial, we included patients aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed, previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, adequate bone marrow, liver, and renal function, no pre-existing neuropathy greater than grade 1, and measurable disease, from 55 hospitals and 51 private practices in Germany. After 24 weeks of induction therapy with either fluorouracil plus leucovorin plus oxaliplatin or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin, both with bevacizumab, patients without disease progression were randomly assigned centrally by fax (1:1:1) to standard maintenance treatment with a fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab, bevacizumab alone, or no treatment. Both patients and investigators were aware of treatment assignment. Stratification criteria were response status, termination of oxaliplatin, previous adjuvant treatment with oxaliplatin, and ECOG performance status. At first progression, re-induction with all drugs of the induction treatment was a planned part of the protocol. Time to failure of strategy was the primary endpoint, defined as time from randomisation to second progression after maintenance (and if applicable re-induction), death, or initiation of further treatment including a new drug. Time to failure of strategy was equivalent to time to first progression for patients who did not receive re-induction (for any reason). The boundary for assessment of non-inferiority was upper limit of the one-sided 98·8% CI 1·43. Analyses were done by intention to treat. The study has completed recruitment, but follow-up of participants is ongoing. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00973609. FINDINGS: Between Sept 17, 2009, and Feb 21, 2013, 837 patients were enrolled and 472 randomised; 158 were randomly assigned to receive fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab, 156 to receive bevacizumab monotherapy, and 158 to receive no treatment. Median follow-up from randomisation is 17·0 months (IQR 9·5-25·4). Median time to failure of strategy was 6·9 months (95% CI 6·1-8·5) for the fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab group, 6·1 months (5·3-7·4) for the bevacizumab alone group, and 6·4 months (4·8-7·6) for the no treatment group. Bevacizumab alone was non-inferior to standard fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab (hazard ratio [HR] 1·08 [95% CI 0·85-1·37]; p=0·53; upper limit of the one-sided 99·8% CI 1·42), whereas no treatment was not (HR 1·26 [0·99-1·60]; p=0·056; upper limit of the one-sided 99·8% CI 1·65). The protocol-defined re-induction after first progression was rarely done (30 [19%] patients in the fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab group, 67 [43%] in the bevacizumab monotherapy group, and 73 [46%] in the no treatment group. The most common grade 3 adverse event was sensory neuropathy (21 [13%] of 158 patients in the fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab group, 22 [14%] of 156 patients in the bevacizumab alone group, and 12 [8%] of 158 patients in the no treatment group). INTERPRETATION: Although non-inferiority for bevacizumab alone was demonstrated for the primary endpoint, maintenance treatment with a fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab may be the preferable option for patients following an induction treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab, as it allows the planned discontinuation of the initial combination without compromising time with controlled disease. Only a few patients were exposed to re-induction treatment, thus deeming the primary endpoint time to failure of strategy non-informative and clinically irrelevant. Progression-free survival and overall survival should be considered primary endpoints in future trials exploring maintenance strategies.

FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab and bevacizumab have both been shown to improve outcomes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer when added to chemotherapy regimens; however, their comparative effectiveness when partnered with first-line fluorouracil, folinic acid, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) is unknown. We aimed to compare these agents in patients with KRAS (exon 2) codon 12/13 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18-75 years with stage IV, histologically confirmed colorectal cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, an estimated life expectancy of greater than 3 months, and adequate organ function, from centres in Germany and Austria. Patients were centrally randomised by fax (1:1) to FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (using permuted blocks of randomly varying size), stratified according to ECOG performance status, number of metastatic sites, white blood cell count, and alkaline phosphatase concentration. The primary endpoint was objective response analysed by intention to treat. The study has completed recruitment, but follow-up of participants is ongoing. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00433927. FINDINGS: Between Jan 23, 2007, and Sept 19, 2012, 592 patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumours were randomly assigned and received treatment (297 in the FOLFIRI plus cetuximab group and 295 in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group). 184 (62·0%, 95% CI 56·2-67·5) patients in the cetuximab group achieved an objective response compared with 171 (58·0%, 52·1-63·7) in the bevacizumab group (odds ratio 1·18, 95% CI 0·85-1·64; p=0·18). Median progression-free survival was 10·0 months (95% CI 8·8-10·8) in the cetuximab group and 10·3 months (9·8-11·3) in the bevacizumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·06, 95% CI 0·88-1·26; p=0·55); however, median overall survival was 28·7 months (95% CI 24·0-36·6) in the cetuximab group compared with 25·0 months (22·7-27·6) in the bevacizumab group (HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·62-0·96; p=0·017). Safety profiles were consistent with the known side-effects of the study drugs. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in both treatment groups were haematotoxicity (73 [25%] of 297 patients in the cetuximab group vs 62 [21%] of 295 patients in the bevacizumab group), skin reactions (77 [26%] vs six [2%]), and diarrhoea (34 [11%] vs 40 [14%]). INTERPRETATION: Although the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response did not significantly differ between the FOLFIRI plus cetuximab and FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab groups, the association with longer overall survival suggests that FOLFIRI plus cetuximab could be the preferred first-line regimen for patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. FUNDING: Merck KGaA.

Nanoliposomal irinotecan and fluorouracil plus leucovorin versus fluorouracil plus leucovorin in patients with cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma previously treated with gemcitabine-based therapies (AIO NALIRICC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: There is an unmet need for effective therapies in pretreated advanced biliary tract cancer. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of nanoliposomal irinotecan and fluorouracil plus leucovorin compared with fluorouracil plus leucovorin as second-line treatment for biliary tract cancer. METHODS: NALIRICC was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial done in 17 German centres for patients aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, metastatic biliary tract cancer, and progression on gemcitabine-based therapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous infusions of nanoliposomal irinotecan (70 mg/m2), fluorouracil (2400 mg/m2), and leucovorin (400 mg/m2) every 2 weeks (nanoliposomal irinotecan group) or fluorouracil (2400 mg/m2) plus leucovorin (400 mg/m2) every 2 weeks (control group). Randomisation was by permutated block randomisation in block sizes of four, stratified by primary tumour site. Investigator-assessed progression-free survival was the primary endpoint, which was evaluated in all randomly assigned patients. Secondary efficacy outcomes were overall survival, objective response rate, and quality of life. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of the study treatment. Enrolment for this trial has been completed, and it is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043547. FINDING: Between Dec 4, 2017, and Aug 2, 2021, 49 patients were randomly assigned to the nanoliposomal irinotecan group and 51 patients to the control group. Median age was 65 years (IQR 59-71); 45 (45%) of 100 patients were female. Median progression-free survival was 2·6 months (95% CI 1·7-3·6) in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group and 2·3 months (1·6-3·4) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·87 [0·56-1·35]). Median overall survival was 6·9 months (95% CI 5·3-10·6) in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group and 8·2 months (5·4-11·9) in the control group (HR 1·08 [0·68-1·72]). The objective response rate was 14% (95% CI 6-27; seven patients) in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group and 4% (1-14; two patients) in the control group. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group were neutropenia (eight [17%] of 48 vs none in the control group), diarrhoea (seven [15%] vs one [2%]), and nausea (four [8%] vs none). In the control group, the most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were cholangitis (four [8%] patients vs none in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group) and bile duct stenosis (four [8%] vs three [6%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 16 (33%) patients in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group (grade 2-3 diarrhoea in five patients; one case each of abdominal infection, acute kidney injury, pancytopenia, increased blood bilirubin, colitis, dehydration, dyspnoea, infectious enterocolitis, ileus, oral mucositis, and nausea). One (2%) treatment-related serious adverse event occurred in the control group (worsening of general condition). Median duration until deterioration of global health status, characterised by the time from randomisation to the initial observation of a score decline exceeding 10 points, was 4·0 months (95% CI 2·2-not reached) in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group and 3·7 months (2·7-not reached) in the control group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of nanoliposomal irinotecan to fluorouracil plus leucovorin did not improve progression-free survival or overall survival and was associated with higher toxicity compared with fluorouracil plus leucovorin. Further research is necessary to define the role of irinotecan-based combinations in second-line treatment of biliary tract cancer. FUNDING: Servier and AIO-Studien.

FOLFOX plus panitumumab or FOLFOX alone as additive therapy following R0/1 resection of RAS wild-type colorectal cancer liver metastases - The PARLIM trial (AIO KRK 0314).

PURPOSE: This trial investigates the addition of panitumumab to chemotherapy with fluorouracil/folinic acid and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) in a 2:1 randomised, controlled, open-label, phase II trial in RAS wild-type colorectal cancer patients with R0/1-resected liver metastases. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) two years after randomisation. The experimental arm (12 weeks of biweekly mFOLFOX6 plus panitumumab followed by 12 weeks of panitumumab alone) was considered active if the two-year PFS rate was ≥65%. Based on historical data, a two-year PFS rate of 50% was estimated in the control arm (12 weeks of biweekly FOLFOX). The trial was performed with a power of 80% and an alpha of 0.05. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and toxicity. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01384994. RESULTS: The full analysis set consists of 70 patients (pts) in the experimental arm and 36 pts in the control arm. The primary endpoint was missed with a two-year PFS of 35.7% with FOLFOX plus panitumumab and 30.6% in the control arm. In comparative analyses, trends towards improved PFS (HR 0.83; 95%CI, 0.52-1.33; P = 0.44) and OS (HR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.34-1.46; P = 0.34) were observed in favour of the panitumumab-based study arm. No new or unexpected safety signals were observed with FOLFOX plus panitumumab following liver resection. CONCLUSION: The PARLIM trial failed to demonstrate a two-year PFS rate of 65% after resection of colorectal liver metastases. The positive trends in survival endpoints may support future trials evaluating treatment with anti-EGFR agents after resection of liver metastases.

Rituximab Maintenance Versus Observation After Immunochemotherapy (R-CHOP, R-MCP, and R-FCM) in Untreated Follicular Lymphoma Patients: A Randomized Trial of the Ostdeutsche Studiengruppe Hämatologie und Onkologie and the German Low-Grade Lymphoma Study Group.

The German study groups, the German Low-Grade Lymphoma Study Group (GLSG) and Ostdeutsche Studiengruppe Hämatologie und Onkologie (OSHO), initiated in 2007 a double randomized trial to investigate efficacy and safety of rituximab maintenance versus observation in remission after randomly assigned induction treatment in the first-line follicular lymphoma. Previously untreated patients with stage II-IV follicular lymphoma in need of therapy were randomized to receive 6 cycles of R-CHOP, R-MCP, or R-FCM. Responding patients were subsequently randomized to 2 years rituximab maintenance or observation, stratified by type of immunochemotherapy, quality of remission, and Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI). Recruitment was stopped in 2011 after the PRIMA results had been published. Median age of the 206 recruited patients was 66 years (range, 24-86), and (FLIPI) was low in 13%, intermediate in 28%, and high in 60%. High and comparable overall response rates were observed after R-CHOP (88%), R-MCP (89%), and R-FCM (91%). Rituximab maintenance substantially prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in comparison to observation in remission (hazard ratio 0.39, P = 0.0064). In the rituximab maintenance group, the 3-year PFS was 89% compared with 69% in the observation group. No differences in overall survival were observed for maintenance vs. observation (hazard ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.32-3.43, P = 0.95). In this randomized trial, 2 years of rituximab maintenance was associated with significantly prolonged PFS in comparison to observation after response to first-line immunochemotherapy in follicular lymphoma. Our data represent an independent confirmation of the PRIMA trial results. (Clinical Trial EudraCT Number: 2005-005473-29, 2006-09-26).

Impact of primary tumour location and RAS/BRAF mutational status in metastatic colorectal cancer treated with first-line regimens containing oxaliplatin and bevacizumab: Prognostic factors from the AIO KRK0207 first-line and maintenance therapy trial.

BACKGROUND: The major prognostic relevance of primary tumour location (LPT) in advanced colorectal cancer was shown in large retrospective studies, but quantitative estimates are highly heterogeneous, and there is still limited information about its impact within the framework of biomarker-guided treatment strategies. Therefore, we analysed LPT in relation to other clinical and molecular parameters, based on mature survival data from the recent randomised AIO KRK0207 trial. METHODS: Patients uniformly received first-line induction treatment with a combination of bevacizumab, oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine. LPT was retrospectively determined using surgical reports, pathology reports and endoscopy reports. The prognostic analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier estimations and log-rank tests, while hazard ratios (HRs) and multivariable results were derived from Cox models. RESULTS: Among 754 patients with unequivocal information on LPT, patients with left-sided tumours showed a median overall survival of 24.8 months compared with the right-sided cohort with 18.4 months (HR: 1.54, 95% confidence interval: 1.30-1.81, P < 0.0001). In a multivariable model, LPT proved to be the strongest prognosticator (HR 1.60), with performance status, number of metastatic sites, baseline carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and platelets independently retaining prognostic significance. In the subgroup of patients with known RAS/BRAF status (n = 567, 75%), a BRAF mutation showed the greatest unfavourable impact (HR 3.16). Although BRAF is strongly correlated to LPT, the latter remained a significant prognosticator in the BRAF wild-type subgroup. In contrast, no major impact of LPT was seen on tumours carrying RAS mutations. CONCLUSIONS: Within the framework of a uniform treatment strategy according to the current standards, LPT proved to have an important, although not solely dominating, relevance for survival prognosis. Its impact seems to be low in tumours with a RAS mutation. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT00973609.

Trastuzumab in the treatment of elderly patients with early breast cancer: Results from an observational study in Germany.

BACKGROUND: In elderly patients with HER2-positive breast cancer, few data on efficacy and toxicity of adjuvant trastuzumab treatment exists since older patients were in general excluded from large randomized studies. This prospective observational study aimed to confirm the beneficial findings from pivotal trials in age cohorts ≥65 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: There were no restrictions for recruitment with respect to age or concomitant/sequential adjuvant medication. Long-term relapse/survival status of the patients was assessed once a year. RESULTS: Among the 3940 evaluable patients enrolled between 2006 and 2012 at 339 institutions, 507 were aged between 65 and 69 years, with another 507 patients ≥70 years. Elderly patients suffered from significantly more advanced primary tumors. Preceding or concomitant chemotherapy showed decreasing aggressiveness with patient's age. Trastuzumab treatment was stopped prematurely in only 11% of the elderly, but more often than in younger patients (p=0.0008). With 453 events hitherto reported, elderly patients did not exhibit an inferior relapse-free survival when adjusted for other relevant prognostic factors (hazard ratio: 1.01 per year; p=0.24). Three-year overall survival was significantly lower in the population older than 64 years than in younger patients (94.2% vs. 96.8%, p=0.0011). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, our population of elderly patients treated with adjuvant trastuzumab is the largest analyzed so far. The beneficial long-term results were comparable to those in the younger cohorts. Although the risk of cardiotoxicity increased significantly with age, it also remained manageable in older patients. Thus, chronological age alone should not preclude HER2 antibody treatment.

Impact of Subsequent Therapies on Outcome of the FIRE-3/AIO KRK0306 Trial: First-Line Therapy With FOLFIRI Plus Cetuximab or Bevacizumab in Patients With KRAS Wild-Type Tumors in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: We investigated choice and efficacy of subsequent treatment, with special focus on second-line therapy, in the FIRE-3 trial (FOLFIRI plus cetuximab [arm A] or bevacizumab [arm B]) for patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Start of subsequent-line (second or third) therapy was defined as use of an antitumor drug that was not part of the previous regimen. We evaluated choice, duration, and efficacy of subsequent therapy and determined the impact of subsequent-line treatment on outcome of patients in FIRE-3. RESULTS: Of 592 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 414 (69.9%) received second-line and 256 (43.2%) received third-line therapy. In subsequent treatment lines, 47.1% of patients originally assigned to arm A received bevacizumab, and 52.2% originally assigned to arm B received either cetuximab or panitumumab. Oxaliplatin was subsequently used in 55.9% (arm A) and 53.2% (arm B) of patients. Second-line therapy was administered for a median duration of 5.0 versus 3.2 months (P < .001) in study arm A versus B. Progression-free (6.5 v 4.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.85; P < .001) and overall survival (16.3 v 13.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.88; P = .0021) from start of second-line therapy were longer in patients in arm A compared with arm B. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that the sequence of drug application might be more important than exposure to single agents. In patients with RAS wild-type tumors, first-line application of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor-directed therapy may represent a favorable condition for promoting effective subsequent therapy including antiangiogenic agents.

SWITCH: A Randomised, Sequential, Open-label Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Sorafenib-sunitinib Versus Sunitinib-sorafenib in the Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how to sequence targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is important for maximisation of clinical benefit. OBJECTIVES: To prospectively evaluate sequential use of the multikinase inhibitors sorafenib followed by sunitinib (So-Su) versus sunitinib followed by sorafenib (Su-So) in patients with mRCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 SWITCH study assessed So-Su versus Su-So in patients with mRCC without prior systemic therapy, and stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk score (favourable or intermediate). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised to sorafenib 400mg twice daily followed, on progression or intolerable toxicity, by sunitinib 50mg once daily (4 wk on, 2 wk off) (So-Su), or vice versa (Su-So). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with So-Su versus Su-So, assessed from randomisation to progression or death during second-line therapy. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 365 patients were randomised (So-Su, n=182; Su-So, n=183). There was no significant difference in total PFS between So-Su and Su-So (median 12.5 vs 14.9 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 90% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-1.27; p=0.5 for superiority). OS was similar for So-Su and Su-So (median 31.5 and 30.2 mo; HR 1.00, 90% CI 0.77-1.30; p=0.5 for superiority). More So-Su patients than Su-So patients reached protocol-defined second-line therapy (57% vs 42%). Overall, adverse event rates were generally similar between the treatment arms. The most frequent any-grade treatment-emergent first-line adverse events were diarrhoea (54%) and hand-foot skin reaction (39%) for sorafenib; and diarrhoea (40%) and fatigue (40%) for sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Total PFS was not superior with So-Su versus Su-So. These results demonstrate that sorafenib followed by sunitinib and vice versa provide similar clinical benefit in mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We investigated if total progression-free survival (PFS) is improved in patients with advanced/metastatic kidney cancer who are treated with sorafenib and then with sunitinib (So-Su), compared with sunitinib and then sorafenib (Su-So). We found that total PFS was not improved with So-Su compared with Su-So, but both treatment options were similarly effective in patients with advanced/metastatic kidney cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00732914, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Phase I study of liposomal daunorubicin in relapsed and refractory acute myeloid leukemia.

Daunorubicin (DNR) is one of the most important cytotoxic agents in the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Its use is usually limited by drug-induced cardiotoxicity depending on the cumulative dose administered. Liposomal encapsulation of DNR (DaunoXome, DNX) seems to reduce the risk of this severe side effect. To investigate the toxicity of DNX in heavily pretreated patients, we conducted a phase I trial, including patients (pts) older than 60 years with relapsed or refractory AML. DNX was used at doses of 40, 60, 75 and 90 mg/m(2), biweekly. Fourteen patients with a median age of 69 years (range, 63-77) were enrolled. A total of 49 courses of DNX were administered [3 pts at 40 mg/m(2) (for a total of 13 courses), 5 at 60 mg/m(2) (20 courses), 4 at 75 mg/m(2) (12 courses), and 2 at 90 mg/m(2) (4 courses)]. The mean cumulative dose of DNX administered was 340 mg (range, 120-1200). A 20% decline in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) without clinical signs and symptoms of heart failure was noted in 2 patients after a cumulative DNX dose of 480 mg, both with pre-existing heart disease. Even at the highest cumulative doses of DNX, no further decline in LVEF was noted. Nausea, vomiting, alopecia and mucositis were absent. All patients had significant myelosuppression requiring transfusion support. During treatment, 3 patients showed a 25% reduction of leukemic blasts in the bone marrow, 3 patients had to be excluded due to AML progression after the 2nd DNX course, and 7 patients died during the first 6 weeks of treatment. We conclude from these data that DNX offers a less toxic alternative to DNR and other anthracyclines. Using DNX dosages of 40 to 90 mg/m(2) biweekly seems to have little anti-leukemic activity in a patient population heavily pretreated with anthracyclines.

Quality of life under capecitabine (Xeloda®) in patients with metastatic breast cancer: data from a german non-interventional surveillance study.

AIM: This non-interventional surveillance study (NIS) collected data on the quality of life (QoL) of patients treated with capecitabine as mono- or combination chemotherapy in an outpatient setting. METHODS: Capecitabine was administered orally for 14 days of each 21-day cycle. The main parameters of interest were QoL, compliance, patient and physician satisfaction, handling of hand-foot syndrome (HFS), and efficacy. The statistics were descriptive; some differences were compared using confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: 735 patients from 161 centers received at least 1 dose of capecitabine. The median duration of observation was 5.5 months overall. The QoL global score was 53% (mean from the entire study population at all times), without any correlation to HFS. The overall response rate (ORR) was 35.1%, and the disease control rate (DCR) 64.4%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was overall 6.81 months (95% CI 6.32-7.63 months) and it was significantly higher in patients with HFS (8.4 months, 95% CI 7.5-9.2 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.60; p < 0.0001). The safety and tolerability of capecitabine were considered acceptable. The HFS incidence (all grades) was 27.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Capecitabine had a favorable risk-benefit relation in outpatient therapy. The QoL remained stable over the course of the investigation, indicating good compliance. HFS was a strong predictor of longer PFS and had no negative impact on the global QoL.

Evaluation of antitumor activity using change in tumor size of the survivin antisense oligonucleotide LY2181308 in combination with docetaxel for second-line treatment of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomized open-label phase II study.

Chemoresistance is mediated, in part, by the inhibition of apoptosis in tumor cells. Survivin is an antiapoptotic protein that blocks chemotherapy-induced apoptosis. To investigate whether blocking survivin expression enhances docetaxel-induced apoptosis in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we compared the antitumor activity of the survivin inhibitor LY2181308 plus docetaxel with docetaxel alone. We used change in tumor size (CTS) as a primary endpoint to assess its use in early decision-making for this and future studies of novel agents in NSCLC. Patients (N = 162) eligible for second-line NSCLC treatment (stage IIIB/IV) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1 were randomized 2:1 to receive LY2181308 (750 mg intravenously, weekly) and docetaxel (75 mg/m intravenously, day 1) or docetaxel alone every 21 days. CTS from baseline to the end of cycle 2 was compared between the two treatment arms. The mean (SD) tumor size ratio for LY2181308/docetaxel and docetaxel was 1.05 (0.21) and 1.00 (0.15) (p = 0.200), respectively, suggesting no significant improvement in antitumor activity between the arms. Because there was also no significant difference between the two arms for progression-free survival (PFS) (2.83 months with LY2181308/docetaxel and 3.35 months with docetaxel [p = 0.191]), both arms were combined. Using the combined arms, CTS correlated with PFS (PFS = 4.63 months in patients with decreased CTS compared with 2.66 months in patients with increased CTS), supporting its use in early decision-making in phase II studies.

Everolimus as treatment for breast cancer patients with bone metastases only: results of the phase II RADAR study.

PURPOSE: Everolimus has shown to stop formation and activity of osteoclasts. Breast cancer patients with bone metastases only are candidates for effective but low toxic treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated everolimus in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II, randomized discontinuation study in breast cancer patients with HER2 negative breast cancer patients with bone metastases only. After being stable on 8 weeks of everolimus 10 mg/day, patients were randomized to everolimus-continuation or placebo. Primary outcome was time (from randomization) to progression (TTP). Seventy-six patients would have had to be randomized to show a hazard ration (HR) of 0.5 for everolimus-continuation. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients were enrolled in 4 years. Thirty-nine patients with SD after 8 weeks on everolimus were randomized to everolimus-continuation or placebo. TTP in patients with everolimus-continuation was 37.0 (95 % CI 16.7-40.3) versus 12.6 weeks (95 % CI 7.1-17.9) with placebo [HR 0.554 (95 % CI 0.282-1.09) p = 0.0818], adjusted for endocrine therapy [HR 0.464 (95 % CI 0.226-0.954) p = 0.037]. TTP in everolimus responders (n = 6) was 86 weeks. CONCLUSION: The RADAR study is mainly hypothesis generating. It suggests that everolimus has single-agent activity, and patients with bone metastases only may retrieve long-term benefit from everolimus if they do not progress within 8 weeks of treatment.

Prediction of the responsiveness to treatment with erythropoiesis-stimulating factors: a prospective clinical study in patients with solid tumors.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment with erythropoiesis-stimulating factors (ESFs) can ameliorate anemia associated with cancer and chemotherapy. However, half of anemic cancer patients do not respond even to high doses. To determine factors that are predictive of a treatment response, a multicenter, prospective study was performed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Investigated factors were baseline erythropoietin, reticulocytes and soluble transferrin receptor (sTfR) after 2 weeks, and reticulocytes and hemoglobin after 4 weeks. Anemic patients with solid tumors received 150 microg/week of darbepoetin concomitantly with chemotherapy. The dose was doubled if hemoglobin did not increase by >1 g/dl after 4 weeks. Patients were considered responders if hemoglobin increased by >or=2 g/dl or reached a level >or=12 g/dl within 8-12 weeks. RESULTS: In total, 196 patients were enrolled; 61% of the intention-to-treat (ITT) and 68% of the per-protocol population were responders. In the ITT population, the hemoglobin increase after 4 weeks indicated an 11-fold higher chance of response (odds ratio, 11.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.1-23.6; sensitivity, 88%; specificity, 60%). In a multiple logistic regression model including all factors, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.71-0.84). The combination of sTfR after 2 weeks and hemoglobin after 4 weeks was as predictive as the combination of all five tested factors. CONCLUSION: So far, an early hemoglobin increase remains the single most predictive factor for response to ESF treatment. In contrast to anemic patients with lymphoproliferative malignancies, serum erythropoietin had little predictive value in patients with solid tumors.