Rigosertib versus best supportive care for patients with high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes after failure of hypomethylating drugs (ONTIME): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Hypomethylating drugs are the standard treatment for patients with high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes. Survival is poor after failure of these drugs; there is no approved second-line therapy. We compared the overall survival of patients receiving rigosertib and best supportive care with that of patients receiving best supportive care only in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes with excess blasts after failure of azacitidine or decitabine treatment. METHODS: We did this randomised controlled trial at 74 hospitals and university medical centres in the USA and Europe. We enrolled patients with diagnosis of refractory anaemia with excess blasts (RAEB)-1, RAEB-2, RAEB-t, or chronic myelomonocytic leukaemia based on local site assessment, and treatment failure with a hypomethylating drug in the past 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive rigosertib 1800 mg per 24 h via 72-h continuous intravenous infusion administered every other week or best supportive care with or without low-dose cytarabine. Randomisation was stratified by pretreatment bone marrow blast percentage. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01241500. FINDINGS: From Dec 13, 2010, to Aug 15, 2013, we enrolled 299 patients: 199 assigned to rigosertib, 100 assigned to best supportive care. Median follow-up was 19·5 months (IQR 11·9-27·3). As of Feb 1, 2014, median overall survival was 8·2 months (95% CI 6·1-10·1) in the rigosertib group and 5·9 months (4·1-9·3) in the best supportive care group (hazard ratio 0·87, 95% CI 0·67-1·14; p=0·33). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were anaemia (34 [18%] of 184 patients in the rigosertib group vs seven [8%] of 91 patients in the best supportive care group), thrombocytopenia (35 [19%] vs six [7%]), neutropenia (31 [17%] vs seven [8%]), febrile neutropenia (22 [12%] vs ten [11%]), and pneumonia (22 [12%] vs ten [11%]). 41 (22%) of 184 patients in the rigosertib group and 30 (33%) of 91 patients in the best supportive care group died due to adverse events and three deaths were attributed to rigosertib treatment. INTERPRETATION: Rigosertib did not significantly improve overall survival compared with best supportive care. A randomised phase 3 trial of rigosertib (NCT 02562443) is underway in specific subgroups of patients deemed to be at high risk, including patients with very high risk per the Revised International Prognostic Scoring System criteria. FUNDING: Onconova Therapeutics, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.

Multicenter phase II and translational study of cetuximab in metastatic colorectal carcinoma refractory to irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and fluoropyrimidines.

PURPOSE: This multicenter study evaluated the antitumor activity of cetuximab, an immunoglobulin G1 antibody directed at the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), in metastatic colorectal carcinoma (CRC) refractory to irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and a fluoropyrimidine. It also evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, immunokinetics, and biologic determinants of activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic CRC, whose tumors demonstrated EGFR immunostaining and were refractory to irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and fluoropyrimidines, were treated with cetuximab at a loading dose of 400 mg/m2 followed by 250 mg/m2 weekly. An independent review committee (IRC) reviewed responses. Blood was collected for cetuximab pharmacokinetics and to detect antibodies to cetuximab. EGFR gene sequencing of the tyrosine kinase domain and gene copy number assessments were performed. RESULTS: The response rates in 346 patients, as determined by the investigators and IRC, were 12.4% (95% CI, 9.1 to 16.4) and 11.6% (95% CI, 8.4 to 16.4). The median progression-free survival (PFS) and survival times were 1.4 months (95% CI, 1.4 to 2.1) and 6.6 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 7.6), respectively. An acneiform rash occurred in 82.9% of patients; grade 3 rash was observed in 4.9%. Response and survival related strongly to the severity of the rash. In contrast, clinical benefit did not relate to EGFR immunostaining. EGFR tyrosine kinase domain mutations were not identified, and EGFR gene copy number did not relate to response or PFS, but to survival (P = .03). CONCLUSION: Cetuximab is active and well tolerated in metastatic CRC refractory to irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and fluoropyrimidines. The severity of rash was related to efficacy. Neither EGFR kinase domain mutations nor EGFR gene amplification appear to be essential for response to cetuximab in this setting.

Improved anti-tumor response rate with decreased cardiotoxicity of non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin compared with conventional doxorubicin in first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer in patients who had received prior adjuvant doxorubicin: results of a retrospective analysis.

Our objectives were to ascertain the safety (cardiotoxicity) and efficacy of non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin [Myocet (M)] compared with conventional doxorubicin (A) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who had received adjuvant anthracycline treatment and were at high risk of developing iatrogenic cardiomyopathy. This retrospective analysis is based on data pooled from two prospective phase III comparative randomized clinical trials comparing Myocet versus conventional doxorubicin in combination with cyclophosphamide and as single agents, respectively, for the treatment of MBC. The outcome measures reviewed in this analysis were overall response, time to treatment failure, time to disease progression, overall survival and cardiotoxicity. The analysis was carried out by strata according to patients' previous exposure to adjuvant anthracyclines. Kaplan-Meier, log-rank chi-test, Cox proportional-hazards and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics were used for the analysis. Sixty-eight patients were included in this analysis: 29 and 39 patients from Studies 1 and 2, respectively, had received adjuvant anthracycline treatment. Study 1, with n=297, compared M 60 mg/m (M60) plus cyclophosphamide (C) 600 mg/m (C600) versus A 60 mg/m (A60) plus C600 as first-line treatment for MBC. Twenty-nine patients had received prior adjuvant doxorubicin, of whom, after randomization, 14 received M60+C600 and 15 received A60+C600 for the treatment of MBC. Study 2, with n=224, compared M 75 mg/m (M75) with A 75 mg/m (A75) as first-line treatment for MBC disease. Thirty-nine patients had received prior adjuvant doxorubicin, of whom, after randomization, 18 received M75 and 21 received A75 for their MBC. Hence, 32 patients received M-containing regimens and 36 received A-containing regimens for the treatment of MBC. Median age in both groups was 54 years. The groups were well balanced in terms of demographic characteristics. Overall response rates were 31% and 11% for M-treated patients and A-treated patients, respectively (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel P=0.04, odds ratio=4.0). Median time to progression was 4.5 versus 3.4 months [log-rank P=0.66, hazard ratio (HR)=1.14], median time to treatment failure was 4.2 versus 2.1 months (log-rank P=0.01, HR=2.06) and median survival time was 16 versus 15 months (log-rank P=0.71, HR=1.12). Cardiac events occurred in 22% of M-treated patients [one congestive heart failure (CHF)] versus 39% of A-treated patients (three CHFs) (log-rank, P=0.001). Median lifetime dose at onset of cardiotoxicity was 780 mg/m for M versus 580 mg/m for A (log-rank P=0.001, HR=4.8). This retrospective analysis shows that treatment based on non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Myocet) significantly reduced the risk of cardiotoxicity in patients with MBC who had received prior adjuvant doxorubicin. Furthermore, anti-tumor activity and time to treatment failure were significantly improved compared with patients who received treatment based on conventional doxorubicin for their MBC. This analysis revisits the therapeutic option of including doxorubicin in the treatment of MBC patients who have had prior adjuvant anthracycline exposure.

Radiotherapy plus cetuximab for squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a multinational, randomized study to compare radiotherapy alone with radiotherapy plus cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody against the epidermal growth factor receptor, in the treatment of locoregionally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. METHODS: Patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer were randomly assigned to treatment with high-dose radiotherapy alone (213 patients) or high-dose radiotherapy plus weekly cetuximab (211 patients) at an initial dose of 400 mg per square meter of body-surface area, followed by 250 mg per square meter weekly for the duration of radiotherapy. The primary end point was the duration of control of locoregional disease; secondary end points were overall survival, progression-free survival, the response rate, and safety. RESULTS: The median duration of locoregional control was 24.4 months among patients treated with cetuximab plus radiotherapy and 14.9 months among those given radiotherapy alone (hazard ratio for locoregional progression or death, 0.68; P=0.005). With a median follow-up of 54.0 months, the median duration of overall survival was 49.0 months among patients treated with combined therapy and 29.3 months among those treated with radiotherapy alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.74; P=0.03). Radiotherapy plus cetuximab significantly prolonged progression-free survival (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.70; P=0.006). With the exception of acneiform rash and infusion reactions, the incidence of grade 3 or greater toxic effects, including mucositis, did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer with concomitant high-dose radiotherapy plus cetuximab improves locoregional control and reduces mortality without increasing the common toxic effects associated with radiotherapy to the head and neck. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00004227.)

Phase II multicenter study of the epidermal growth factor receptor antibody cetuximab and cisplatin for recurrent and refractory squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

PURPOSE: This multicenter phase II study was undertaken to define the efficacy and safety of cetuximab, an antiepidermal growth factor receptor chimeric human and murine monoclonal antibody, administered with cisplatin to patients with refractory metastatic or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred thirty-two patients were to receive two 3-week cycles with cisplatin/paclitaxel or cisplatin/fluorouracil. Patients (n = 30) with a complete or partial response continued standard therapy. Seventy-six patients with stable disease (SD; n = 51) or progressive disease (PD/1; n = 25) received combination therapy with cetuximab (400 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1, then 250 mg/m2/wk) and cisplatin (75 or 100 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 every 3 weeks). The protocol was subsequently amended to enroll patients who had developed PD within 90 days after platinum-based therapy (PD/2; n = 54). RESULTS: Five patients (20%) in PD/1, three patients (6%) in PD/2, and nine patients (18%) with SD achieved an objective response. Median duration of response was 4.2, 4.1, and 7.4 months for the PD/1, PD/2, and SD groups, respectively, with median overall survival times of 6.1, 4.3, and 11.7 months. The most common toxicities were anemia, acne-like skin rash, leukopenia, fatigue and malaise, and nausea and vomiting. Seven patients (5%) developed a grade 3 or 4 hypersensitivity reaction to cetuximab. CONCLUSION: Cetuximab and cisplatin is an active regimen in refractory SCCHN. The relative contribution of cetuximab is better defined in a single-agent trial. Cetuximab did not exacerbate cisplatin toxicity but was associated with skin rash in a majority of patients and occasional serious allergic reactions. Further study of this compound is warranted.

Liposome-encapsulated doxorubicin compared with conventional doxorubicin in a randomized multicenter trial as first-line therapy of metastatic breast carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and toxicity of the liposome-encapsulated doxorubicin, TLC D-99 (Myocet, Elan Pharmaceuticals, Princeton, NJ), and conventional doxorubicin in first-line treatment of metastatic breast carcinoma (MBC). METHODS: Two hundred twenty-four patients with MBC and no prior therapy for metastatic disease were randomized to receive either TLC D-99 (75 mg/m(2)) or doxorubicin (75 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks, in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary efficacy endpoint was response rate. Responses were assessed using World Health Organization criteria and were required to be of at least 6 weeks' duration. The primary safety endpoint was cardiotoxicity. Cardiac function was monitored by multiple-gated radionuclide cardioangiography scan, and the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was scored at a central laboratory. Patients were removed from study if LVEF declined 20 or more EF units from baseline to a final value of greater than or equal to 50%, or by 10 or more units to a final value of less than 50%, or onset of clinical congestive heart failure (CHF). RESULTS: Median age was 54 years in both treatment groups. All relevant prognostic factors were balanced, with the exception that there were significantly more progesterone receptor positive patients in the doxorubicin-treated group. Protocol-defined cardiotoxicity was observed in 13% of TLC D-99 patients (including 2 cases of CHF) compared to 29% of doxorubicin patients (including 9 cases of CHF). Median cumulative doxorubicin dose at onset of cardiotoxicity was 785 mg/m(2) for TLC D-99 versus 570 mg/m(2) for doxorubicin (P = 0.0001; hazard ratio, 3.56). The overall response rate was 26% in both treatment groups. The median TTP was 2.9 months on TLC D-99 versus 3.1 months on doxorubicin. Median survival was 16 versus 20 months with a nonsignificant trend in favor of doxorubicin (P = 0.09). Clinical toxicities, commonly associated with doxorubicin, appeared less common with TLC D-99, although the difference was not statistically significant. There was only one report of palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (Grade 2) with this liposomal formulation of doxorubicin. CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent TLC D-99 produces less cardiotoxicity than doxorubicin, while providing comparable antitumor activity.