Cabozantinib plus Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of treatment with cabozantinib in combination with nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are unknown. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind trial, we enrolled patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had not previously received treatment and had intermediate or poor prognostic risk according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium categories. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg of cabozantinib daily in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (experimental group) or matched placebo in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (control group). Nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) and ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) were administered once every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients then received nivolumab maintenance therapy (480 mg once every 4 weeks) for up to 2 years. The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and was assessed in the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization. The secondary end point was overall survival, assessed in all patients who had undergone randomization. RESULTS: Overall, 855 patients underwent randomization: 428 were assigned to the experimental group and 427 to the control group. Among the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization (276 in the experimental group and 274 in the control group), the probability of progression-free survival at 12 months was 0.57 in the experimental group and 0.49 in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.94; P = 0.01); 43% of the patients in the experimental group and 36% in the control group had a response. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 79% of the patients in the experimental group and in 56% in the control group. Follow-up for overall survival is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously untreated, advanced renal-cell carcinoma who had intermediate or poor prognostic risk, treatment with cabozantinib plus nivolumab and ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab alone. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more common in the experimental group than in the control group. (Funded by Exelixis; COSMIC-313 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03937219.).

Biosimilar Versus Originator Pegfilgrastim for Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia: A Phase III Randomized, Multicenter, Evaluator-Blinded, Noninferiority Study.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilar pegfilgrastim (PegFilBS) and originator pegfilgrastim (PegFilOR) in patients with stage 2-4 breast cancer. METHODS: This phase III randomized, multicenter, evaluator-blinded, noninferiority study recruited women with stage 2-4 breast cancer in Argentina who were scheduled to receive chemotherapy. Stratification was based on the breast cancer stage. The primary end point was the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN, noninferiority margin: 1 day) in the first chemotherapy cycle. Secondary end points assessed were incidence of severe neutropenia, grade 3 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, infections, postchemotherapy hospitalization and duration, and the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were randomly assigned to receive PegFilBS (58 patients) or PegFilOR (62 patients). Severe neutropenia occurred in 52 of 283 cycles (18.4%) for 27 patients who received PegFilBS and in 48 of 297 cycles (16.2%) for 20 patients who received PegFilOR (P = .48). During the first cycle, severe neutropenia occurred in 16 patients who received PegFilBS (DSN: 0.78 ± 1.53 days) and in 11 patients who received PegFilOR (DSN: 0.53 ± 1.25 days; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.76 days). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean DSN values were 0.90 ± 1.79 days for the PegFilBS group and 0.50 ± 1.21 for the PegFilOR group (95% CI, -0.15 to 0.95 days). No significant differences were observed for the secondary efficacy end points. Three patients experienced seven ADRs in the PegFilBS group while 10 patients experienced 31 ADRs in the PegFilOR group. The most common ADR was myalgia. CONCLUSION: Relative to PegFilOR, PegFilBS provided noninferior efficacy outcomes in Argentinian women with stage 2-4 breast cancer who were treated using myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Analysis of overall survival from a phase III study of ixabepilone plus capecitabine versus capecitabine in patients with MBC resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes.

Limited proven treatment options exist for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) resistant to anthracycline and taxane treatment. Ixabepilone, a novel semisynthetic analog of epothilone B, has demonstrated single-agent activity in MBC resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes. In combination with capecitabine in a phase III trial (CA163-046) in this setting, ixabepilone prolonged progression-free survival and increased objective response rate relative to capecitabine (Thomas et al. J Clin Oncol 25:5210-5217, 2007). Here, we report the results of overall survival (OS), a secondary efficacy endpoint from the CA163-046 trial. Seven hundred fifty-two patients with MBC resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes were randomized to ixabepilone (40 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 of a 21-day cycle) plus capecitabine (2,000 mg/m(2) orally on days 1 through 14 of a 21-day cycle) or capecitabine alone (2,500 mg/m(2) on the same schedule). Patients receiving ixabepilone plus capecitabine treatment had a median survival of 12.9 months compared to 11.1 months for patients receiving capecitabine alone (HR = 0.9; 95%CI: 077-1.05; P = 0.19). This observed increase in median OS favored the combination; however, the difference was not statistically significant. Predefined subset analyses showed a clinically meaningful increase in OS in KPS 70-80 patients receiving ixabepilone plus capecitabine (HR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.58-0.98). Ixabepilone plus capecitabine did not show a significant improvement in survival compared to capecitabine alone in patients with MBC resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes. The observed differences in survival favored the combination arm. A clinical benefit was also seen in patients in the KPS 70-80 subgroup.

Activity of ixabepilone in oestrogen receptor-negative and oestrogen receptor-progesterone receptor-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer, including oestrogen receptor-, progesterone receptor- and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (ER/PR/HER2-negative) breast cancer, is more aggressive than ER-positive disease. A major limitation in the treatment of ER-negative disease subtypes is the inherent insensitivity to hormonal agents (tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors) that are widely used in the treatment of breast cancer. Thus, therapeutic options for poor prognosis patients with ER-negative breast cancer are limited to a handful of chemotherapeutic agents, and new agents are needed to improve the treatment of this disease. Ixabepilone, a novel epothilone B analogue with low susceptibility to cellular mechanisms that confer resistance to taxanes and other chemotherapeutic agents, has demonstrated potent preclinical antitumour activity in multiple models, including those with primary or acquired drug resistance. This review summarises the results of a prospective subset analysis from a phase III clinical trial evaluating ixabepilone for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC), in which efficacy and safety were evaluated in patients with ER-negative and ER/PR/HER2-negative disease.

Ixabepilone plus capecitabine for metastatic breast cancer progressing after anthracycline and taxane treatment.

PURPOSE: Effective treatment options for patients with metastatic breast cancer resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes are limited. Ixabepilone has single-agent activity in these patients and has demonstrated synergy with capecitabine in this setting. This study was designed to compare ixabepilone plus capecitabine versus capecitabine alone in anthracycline-pretreated or -resistant and taxane-resistant locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seven hundred fifty-two patients were randomly assigned to ixabepilone 40 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 of a 21-day cycle plus capecitabine 2,000 mg/m(2) orally on days 1 through 14 of a 21-day cycle, or capecitabine alone 2,500 mg/m(2) on the same schedule, in this international phase III study. The primary end point was progression-free survival evaluated by blinded independent review. RESULTS: Ixabepilone plus capecitabine prolonged progression-free survival relative to capecitabine (median, 5.8 v 4.2 months), with a 25% reduction in the estimated risk of disease progression (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.88; P = .0003). Objective response rate was also increased (35% v 14%; P < .0001). Grade 3/4 treatment-related sensory neuropathy (21% v 0%), fatigue (9% v 3%), and neutropenia (68% v 11%) were more frequent with combination therapy, as was the rate of death as a result of toxicity (3% v 1%, with patients with liver dysfunction [>/= grade 2 liver function tests] at greater risk). Capecitabine-related toxicities were similar for both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Ixabepilone plus capecitabine demonstrates superior efficacy to capecitabine alone in patients with metastatic breast cancer pretreated or resistant to anthracyclines and resistant to taxanes.