CHEOPS trial: a GINECO group randomized phase II assessing addition of a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor to oral vinorelbine in pre-treated metastatic breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the CHEOPS trial was to assess the benefit of adding aromatase inhibitor (AI) to metronomic chemotherapy, oral vinorelbine, 50 mg, three times a week for pre-treated, HR + /HER2- metastatic breast cancer patients. METHODS: In this multicentric phase II study, patients had to have progressed on AI and one or two lines of chemotherapy. They were randomized between oral vinorelbine (Arm A) and oral vinorelbine with non-steroidal AI (Arm B). RESULTS: 121 patients were included, 61 patients in Arm A and 60 patients in Arm B. The median age was 68 years. 109 patients had visceral metastases. They all had previously received an AI. The study had been prematurely stopped following the third death due to febrile neutropenia. Median PFS trend was found to be different with 2.3 months and 3.7 months in Arm A and Arm B, respectively (HR 0.73, 95%CI 0.50-1.06, p value = 0.0929). No statistical difference was shown in OS and better tumor response. 56 serious adverse events corresponding to 25 patients (21%) were reported (respectively, 12 (20%) versus 13 (22%) for arms A and B) (NS). CONCLUSION: The addition of AI to oral vinorelbine over oral vinorelbine alone in aromatase inhibitor-resistant metastatic breast cancer was associated with a non-significant improvement of PFS. Several unexpected serious adverse events were reported. Metronomic oral vinorelbine schedule, at 50 mg three times a week, requires close biological monitoring. The question of hormonal treatment and chemotherapy combination remains open.

Regorafenib or Tamoxifen for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer with rising CA125 and no evidence of clinical or RECIST progression: A GINECO randomized phase II trial (REGOVAR).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of regorafenib versus tamoxifen in platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer biological recurrence, defined by CA-125 increase without radiological (RECIST criteria) or symptomatic evidence of progression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 116 patients with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer presenting an isolated increase of CA-125 were planned to be randomized. Regorafenib was administered orally at 160 or 120 mg daily, 3 weeks on/1 week off or tamoxifen at 40 mg daily, until disease progression or development of unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was Progression-Free Survival, assessed by progression according to RECIST 1.1 or death (by any cause). Secondary endpoints included Overall Survival, Best Response and CA-125 response rate. RESULTS: 68 patients were randomized. Median age was 67 years (range: 30-87). Primary site of cancer was ovarian for most patients (92.6%). Tumors were predominantly serous / (89.7%), high grade (83.6%) and initial FIGO staging was III for 69.6% of the patients. Most (79.4%) patients were included after the first line of platinum-based treatment. After a median follow-up of 32 months, there was no difference of progression-free survival (PFS) between regorafenib and tamoxifen groups (p = 0.72), with median PFS of 5.6 months (CI 90%: 3.84-7.52) for the tamoxifen arm and 4.6 months (CI 90%: 3.65-7.33) for the regorafenib arm. There was also no difference in term of overall survival, best response or CA-125 response, delay to next therapy. Regorafenib presented a less favorable safety profile than tamoxifen, with grade 3/4 events occurring for 90.9% of the patients compared to 54.3% for tamoxifen. The most frequent were cutaneous, digestive, and biological events. Notably, hand-foot syndrome occurred in 36.4% of these patients. CONCLUSION: Regorafenib presented an unfavorable toxicity profile compared to tamoxifen, with no superior efficacy in this population of patients.

A Pragmatic Study Evaluating NEPA Versus Aprepitant for Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Moderately Emetogenic Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Neurokinin (NK) 1 receptor antagonists (RAs), administered in combination with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3 ) RA and dexamethasone (DEX), have demonstrated clear improvements in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prevention over a 5-HT3 RA plus DEX. However, studies comparing the NK1 RAs in the class are lacking. A fixed combination of a highly selective NK1 RA, netupitant, and the 5-HT3 RA, palonosetron (NEPA), simultaneously targets two critical antiemetic pathways, thereby offering a simple convenient antiemetic with long-lasting protection from CINV. This study is the first head-to-head NK1 RA comparative study in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, single-cycle, open-label, prospective study designed to demonstrate noninferiority of single-dose NEPA to a 3-day aprepitant regimen in preventing CINV in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving AC/non-AC MEC in a real-life setting. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (no emesis/no rescue) during the overall (0-120 hour) phase. Noninferiority was achieved if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the difference between NEPA and the aprepitant group was greater than the noninferiority margin set at -10%. RESULTS: Noninferiority of NEPA versus aprepitant was demonstrated (risk difference 9.2%; 95% CI, -2.3% to 20.7%); the overall complete response rate was numerically higher for NEPA (64.9%) than aprepitant (54.1%). Secondary endpoints also revealed numerically higher rates for NEPA than aprepitant. CONCLUSION: This pragmatic study in patients with cancer receiving AC and non-AC MEC revealed that a single dose of oral NEPA plus DEX was at least as effective as a 3-day aprepitant regimen, with indication of a potential efficacy benefit for NEPA. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: In the absence of comparative neurokinin 1 (NK1 ) receptor antagonist (RA) studies, guideline committees and clinicians consider NK1 RA agents to be interchangeable and equivalent. This is the first head-to-head study comparing one NK1 RA (oral netupitant/palonosetron [NEPA]) versus another (aprepitant) in patients receiving anthracycline cyclophosphamide (AC) and non-AC moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Noninferiority of NEPA versus the aprepitant regimen was demonstrated; the overall complete response (no emesis and no rescue use) rate was numerically higher for NEPA (65%) than aprepitant (54%). As a single-dose combination antiemetic, NEPA not only simplifies dosing but may offer a potential efficacy benefit over the current standard-of-care.

First-line bevacizumab and eribulin combination therapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: Efficacy and safety in the GINECO phase II ESMERALDA study.

PURPOSE: Combining bevacizumab with paclitaxel significantly improves progression-free survival (PFS) versus paclitaxel alone in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Eribulin is active and tolerable in pretreated MBC. To assess whether eribulin may offer a more tolerable yet effective combination partner for bevacizumab, we evaluated a bevacizumab/eribulin combination regimen as first-line therapy for MBC. METHODS: In this single-arm phase II study, patients with histologically confirmed HER2-negative MBC and no prior chemotherapy for MBC received eribulin 1.23 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks for ≥6 cycles plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg on day 1 every 3 weeks until disease progression. The primary endpoint was non-progression rate at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), PFS, and safety. RESULTS: The median age of the 61 treated female patients was 59 years, 16% had triple-negative MBC, 30% had ≥3 metastatic sites, and 71% had received prior (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients received a median of six eribulin and nine bevacizumab cycles. The non-progression rate at 1 year was 32% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20-43%), ORR was 47% (95% CI: 34-60%), and median PFS was 8.3 months (95% CI: 7.0-9.6 months). The only grade ≥3 clinical adverse events in >5% of patients were hypertension (39%), neutropenia (26%), thrombosis (10%), and paresthesia/dysesthesia (7%). CONCLUSION: First-line eribulin/bevacizumab combination therapy showed interesting activity in MBC with an acceptable safety profile, including a particularly low incidence of high-grade neuropathy.

Effect of Weekly Paclitaxel With or Without Bevacizumab on Progression-Free Rate Among Patients With Relapsed Ovarian Sex Cord-Stromal Tumors: The ALIENOR/ENGOT-ov7 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: To our knowledge, this is the first randomized trial in sex cord-stromal tumors, and it establishes weekly paclitaxel as standard-of-care therapy after platinum-based therapy in this setting. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of weekly paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab as treatment for relapsed sex cord-stromal tumors and evaluate whether the addition of bevacizumab to weekly paclitaxel improves 6-month progression-free rate. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This open-label, academic, international, randomized phase 2 trial (ALIENOR) was conducted at 28 referral centers in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Belgium in collaboration with the Rare Tumor committee of the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup and used an adaptive bayesian design. It included 60 women with sex cord-stromal tumors that had relapsed after at least 1 platinum-based chemotherapy. Enrollment occurred from 2013 to 2016, and the final analysis database lock was on March 27, 2020 (median follow-up, 38.9 months). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to receive either paclitaxel (80 mg/m2, days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks) alone or paclitaxel with bevacizumab (10 mg/kg, every 2 weeks) for 6 cycles followed by maintenance bevacizumab (15 mg/kg, every 3 weeks) for up to 1 year or until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Crossover to bevacizumab was permitted after progression during or following paclitaxel alone. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Six-month progression-free rate. RESULTS: Sixty patients (predominantly with granulosa cell tumors) were randomized, 32 to receive single-agent paclitaxel (median [interquartile range] age at inclusion, 60 [53-64] years) and 28 to receive paclitaxel-bevacizumab (median [interquartile range] age at inclusion, 55 [47-61] years; 1 did not receive treatment). The estimated 6-month progression-free rate was 71% (95% credible interval, 55%-84%) with paclitaxel alone and 72% (95% credible interval, 55%-87%) with paclitaxel-bevacizumab. The bayesian estimate for the probability that the 6-month progression-free rate distribution was higher with the combination than with paclitaxel alone was 57%, less than the predefined superiority threshold. The objective response rate increased from 25% (95% CI, 12%-43%) to 44% (95% CI, 26%-65%) with the addition of bevacizumab. One patient discontinued combination therapy within 6 months because of toxicity. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Weekly paclitaxel is a new option for relapsed sex cord-stromal tumors. In this international randomized clinical trial of patients with relapsed sex cord-stromal tumors unsuitable for surgery, adding bevacizumab to weekly paclitaxel does not improve clinical benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01770301.

A retrospective cohort study to assess adjuvant concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT) compared to adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) in the treatment of grade 2 and 3 extremity soft tissue sarcomas.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of adjuvant concurrent chemoradiation (CCRT) as treatment of grade 2 and 3 (G2-3) localized extremity soft tissue sarcomas (STS) by comparing CCRT with standard adjuvant radiation therapy (RT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This monocentric retrospective study included non-pediatric patients (>16years) treated by adjuvant RT with or without chemotherapy (CT) after conservative resection of non-recurrent G2-3 extremity STS. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients were treated between 1990 and 2012: 51 by RT and 29 by CCRT. Of the 29 CCRT patients, 25 received doxorubicin monotherapy (75mg/m2/3weeks). The CCRT group contained a greater proportion of grade 3 extremity STS (p<0.001). Median follow up was 68months (9-284). Multivariate analysis revealed greater local control in the CCRT group (1 local recurrence vs 8 in the RT group; HR=0.082, 95% CI 0.011-0.321) and incomplete resection as the major risk factor of local recurrence (HR=25.2, 95% CI 4.767-133.226). The two groups exhibited no differences in distant failure-free survival (HR=1.469, 95% CI 0.668-3.228), disease-free survival (HR=1.096, 95% CI 0.519-2.315) or overall survival (HR=1.378, 95% CI 0.498-3.814). Grade 3 was an adverse prognostic factor for overall survival (HR=3.11, 95% CI 1.04-9.32). Our analyses also revealed that CCRT tended to increase the risk of both grade ≥3 acute dermatitis (14 events vs 6 in the RT group; OR=6.99, 95% CI 2.28-21.47) and grade ≥2 late toxicity (6 events vs 3 in the RT group; p=0.0572). CONCLUSION: CCRT could improve local control as part of a limb-preservation strategy. However, with a limited number of patients, CCRT showed no improvement in either distant control or survival and increased toxicity.

[Anticancer drugs management in renal insufficiency patients]. / Gestion des agents anticancéreux chez les insuffisants rénaux.

Anticancer drug management is complicated especially in renal insufficiency patients, a frequent situation in oncology. Several aspects need to be taken into account: first, the dosage. In this population, the kidney fails to eliminate drugs. Consequently, dosage adjustment can be necessary for drugs with pharmacokinetic profile altered by renal insufficiency in order to avoid dose-related side effects due to accumulation of the drug. Secondly, renal tolerance is an important aspect of anticancer drug management as renal insufficiency is a risk factor for developing renal side effects. Prevention of renal side effects is essential and means to limit this toxicity should be used, especially with hydration. Finally, it is essential to consider all the treatments prescribed in renal insufficiency patients in order to avoid accumulation of nephrotoxic drugs.