The PARTNER trial of neoadjuvant olaparib with chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer.

PARTNER is a prospective, phase II-III, randomized controlled clinical trial that recruited patients with triple-negative breast cancer1,2, who were germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 wild type3. Here we report the results of the trial. Patients (n = 559) were randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive neoadjuvant carboplatin-paclitaxel with or without 150 mg olaparib twice daily, on days 3 to 14, of each of four cycles (gap schedule olaparib, research arm) followed by three cycles of anthracycline-based chemotherapy before surgery. The primary end point was pathologic complete response (pCR)4, and secondary end points included event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS)5. pCR was achieved in 51% of patients in the research arm and 52% in the control arm (P = 0.753). Estimated EFS at 36 months in the research and control arms was 80% and 79% (log-rank P > 0.9), respectively; OS was 90% and 87.2% (log-rank P = 0.8), respectively. In patients with pCR, estimated EFS at 36 months was 90%, and in those with non-pCR it was 70% (log-rank P < 0.001), and OS was 96% and 83% (log-rank P < 0.001), respectively. Neoadjuvant olaparib did not improve pCR rates, EFS or OS when added to carboplatin-paclitaxel and anthracycline-based chemotherapy in patients with triple-negative breast cancer who were germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 wild type. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03150576 .

Aromatase inhibition plus/minus Src inhibitor saracatinib (AZD0530) in advanced breast cancer therapy (ARISTACAT): a randomised phase II study.

PURPOSE: The development of oestrogen resistance is a major challenge in managing hormone-sensitive metastatic breast cancer. Saracatinib (AZD0530), an oral Src kinase inhibitor, prevents oestrogen resistance in animal models and reduces osteoclast activity. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of saracatinib addition to aromatase inhibitors (AI) in patients with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: This phase II multicentre double-blinded randomised trial allocated post-menopausal women to AI with either saracatinib or placebo (1:1 ratio). Patients were stratified into an "AI-sensitive/naïve" group who received anastrozole and "prior-AI" group who received exemestane. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and toxicity. RESULTS: 140 patients were randomised from 20 UK centres to saracatinib/AI (n = 69) or placebo/AI (n = 71). Saracatinib was not associated with an improved PFS (3.7 months v. 5.6 months placebo/AI) and did not reduce likelihood of bony progression. There was no benefit in OS or ORR. Effects were consistent in "AI-sensitive/naive" and "prior-AI" sub-groups. Saracatinib was well tolerated with dose reductions in 16% and the main side effects were gastrointestinal, hypophosphatemia and rash. CONCLUSION: Saracatinib did not improve outcomes in post-menopausal women with metastatic breast cancer. There was no observed beneficial effect on bone metastases. CRUKE/11/023, ISRCTN23804370.

Six versus 12 months' adjuvant trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer: the PERSEPHONE non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: The addition of adjuvant trastuzumab to chemotherapy has significantly improved outcomes for people with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive, early, potentially curable breast cancer. Twelve months' trastuzumab, tested in registration trials, was adopted as standard adjuvant treatment in 2006. Subsequently, similar outcomes were demonstrated using 9 weeks of trastuzumab. Shorter durations were therefore tested for non-inferiority. OBJECTIVES: To establish whether or not 6 months' adjuvant trastuzumab is non-inferior to 12 months' in the treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer using a primary end point of 4-year disease-free survival. DESIGN: This was a Phase III randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. SETTING: The setting was 152 NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 4088 patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer who it was planned would receive both chemotherapy and trastuzumab took part. INTERVENTION: Randomisation (1 : 1) to 6 months' or 12 months' trastuzumab treatment. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary end point was disease-free survival. The secondary end points were overall survival, cost-effectiveness and cardiac function during treatment with trastuzumab. Assuming a 4-year disease-free survival rate of 80% with 12 months' trastuzumab, 4000 patients were required to demonstrate non-inferiority of 6 months' trastuzumab (5% one-sided significance, 85% power), defining the non-inferiority limit as no worse than 3% below the standard arm. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years were estimated using a within-trial analysis and a lifetime decision-analytic model. RESULTS: Between 4 October 2007 and 31 July 2015, 2045 patients were randomised to 12 months' trastuzumab and 2043 were randomised to 6 months' trastuzumab. Sixty-nine per cent of patients had ER-positive disease; 90% received anthracyclines (49% with taxanes; 41% without taxanes); 10% received taxanes without anthracyclines; 54% received trastuzumab sequentially after chemotherapy; and 85% received adjuvant chemotherapy (58% were node negative). At 6.1 years' median follow-up, with 389 (10%) deaths and 566 (14%) disease-free survival events, the 4-year disease-free survival rates for the 4088 patients were 89.5% (95% confidence interval 88.1% to 90.8%) in the 6-month group and 90.3% (95% confidence interval 88.9% to 91.5%) in the 12-month group (hazard ratio 1.10, 90% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.26; non-inferiority p = 0.01), demonstrating non-inferiority of 6 months' trastuzumab. Congruent results were found for overall survival (non-inferiority p = 0.0003) and landmark analyses 6 months from starting trastuzumab [non-inferiority p = 0.03 (disease-free-survival) and p = 0.006 (overall survival)]. Six months' trastuzumab resulted in fewer patients reporting adverse events of severe grade [365/1929 (19%) vs. 460/1935 (24%) for 12-month patients; p = 0.0003] or stopping early because of cardiotoxicity [61/1977 (3%) vs. 146/1941 (8%) for 12-month patients; p < 0.0001]. Health economic analysis showed that 6 months' trastuzumab resulted in significantly lower lifetime costs than and similar lifetime quality-adjusted life-years to 12 months' trastuzumab, and thus there is a high probability that 6 months' trastuzumab is cost-effective compared with 12 months' trastuzumab. Patient-reported experiences in the trial highlighted fatigue and aches and pains most frequently. LIMITATIONS: The type of chemotherapy and timing of trastuzumab changed during the recruitment phase of the study as standard practice altered. CONCLUSIONS: PERSEPHONE demonstrated that, in the treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer, 6 months' adjuvant trastuzumab is non-inferior to 12 months'. Six months' treatment resulted in significantly less cardiac toxicity and fewer severe adverse events. FUTURE WORK: Ongoing translational work investigates patient and tumour genetic determinants of toxicity, and trastuzumab efficacy. An individual patient data meta-analysis with PHARE and other trastuzumab duration trials is planned. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52968807, EudraCT 2006-007018-39 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00712140. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

THE BACKGROUND: There are several different types of breast cancer and some are called 'HER2 positive'. These cancers can often be cured by treatment with chemotherapy and a drug called trastuzumab (also known as Herceptin®; Roche, Basel, Switzerland). Although the first trials of trastuzumab used 12 months treatment, we did not know if less treatment could work as well. A small trial in Finland showed that giving trastuzumab for just 9 weeks was also effective. We know that trastuzumab can have some side effects, including heart problems, so it was important to see if we could reduce the length of treatment time, which is usually 12 months. WHAT DID WE DO?: We wanted to find out if we could treat patients safely with 6 months rather than 12 months of trastuzumab. We carried out a clinical trial called PERSEPHONE, in which over 4000 patients with this type of early breast cancer took part. Half of the patients were given 12 months of trastuzumab and half were given 6 months of trastuzumab. WHAT DID WE FIND?: We found that the two groups of patients had very similar benefit from treatment. At 4 years after diagnosis 90.3% of those who had received 12 months of trastuzumab were alive and free of any breast cancer recurrence, compared with 89.5% of those who had received 6 months. In other words, 125 patients would need to be treated with 12 months' trastuzumab rather than 6 months' trastuzumab for one more person to be alive and cancer-free 4 years from diagnosis. THE SIDE EFFECTS?: Severe side effects of trastuzumab were seen on at least one occasion in 24% of 12-month patients compared with 19% of 6-month patients. More patients receiving 12 months of trastuzumab had to stop trastuzumab early because of heart problems (8% of 12-month patients compared with 3% of 6-month patients). WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?: We have shown that 6 months of trastuzumab has similar outcomes to 12 months in treating patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer but with fewer severe side effects, including heart problems, fewer visits to hospital for patients and significant cost savings for the NHS.

6 versus 12 months of adjuvant trastuzumab for HER2-positive early breast cancer (PERSEPHONE): 4-year disease-free survival results of a randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant trastuzumab significantly improves outcomes for patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. The standard treatment duration is 12 months but shorter treatment could provide similar efficacy while reducing toxicities and cost. We aimed to investigate whether 6-month adjuvant trastuzumab treatment is non-inferior to the standard 12-month treatment regarding disease-free survival. METHODS: This study is an open-label, randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Patients were recruited from 152 centres in the UK. We randomly assigned patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer, aged 18 years or older, and with a clear indication for chemotherapy, by a computerised minimisation process (1:1), to receive either 6-month or 12-month trastuzumab delivered every 3 weeks intravenously (loading dose of 8 mg/kg followed by maintenance doses of 6 mg/kg) or subcutaneously (600 mg), given in combination with chemotherapy (concurrently or sequentially). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed by intention to treat, with a non-inferiority margin of 3% for 4-year disease-free survival. Safety was analysed in all patients who received trastuzumab. This trial is registered with EudraCT (number 2006-007018-39), ISRCTN (number 52968807), and ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00712140). FINDINGS: Between Oct 4, 2007, and July 31, 2015, 2045 patients were assigned to 12-month trastuzumab treatment and 2044 to 6-month treatment (one patient was excluded because they were double randomised). Median follow-up was 5·4 years (IQR 3·6-6·7) for both treatment groups, during which a disease-free survival event occurred in 265 (13%) of 2043 patients in the 6-month group and 247 (12%) of 2045 patients in the 12-month group. 4-year disease-free survival was 89·4% (95% CI 87·9-90·7) in the 6-month group and 89·8% (88·3-91·1) in the 12-month group (hazard ratio 1·07 [90% CI 0·93-1·24], non-inferiority p=0·011), showing non-inferiority of the 6-month treatment. 6-month trastuzumab treatment resulted in fewer patients reporting severe adverse events (373 [19%] of 1939 patients vs 459 [24%] of 1894 patients, p=0·0002) or stopping early because of cardiotoxicity (61 [3%] of 1939 patients vs 146 [8%] of 1894 patients, p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: We have shown that 6-month trastuzumab treatment is non-inferior to 12-month treatment in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer, with less cardiotoxicity and fewer severe adverse events. These results support consideration of reduced duration trastuzumab for women at similar risk of recurrence as to those included in the trial. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Central pathology review with two-stage quality assurance for pathological response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the ARTemis Trial.

The ARTemis Trial tested standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy±bevacizumab in the treatment of HER2-negative early breast cancer. We compare data from central pathology review with report review and also the reporting behavior of the two central pathologists. Eight hundred women with HER2-negative early invasive breast cancer were recruited. Response to chemotherapy was assessed from local pathology reports for pathological complete response in breast and axillary lymph nodes. Sections from the original core biopsy and surgical excision were centrally reviewed by one of two trial pathologists blinded to the local pathology reports. Pathologists recorded response to chemotherapy descriptively and also calculated residual cancer burden. 10% of cases were double-reported to compare the central pathologists' reporting behavior. Full sample retrieval was obtained for 681 of the 781 patients (87%) who underwent surgery within the trial and were evaluable for pathological complete response. Four hundred and eighty-three (71%) were assessed by JSJT, and 198 (29%) were assessed by EP. Residual cancer burden calculations were possible in 587/681 (86%) of the centrally reviewed patients, as 94/681 (14%) had positive sentinel nodes removed before neoadjuvant chemotherapy invalidating residual cancer burden scoring. Good concordance was found between the two pathologists for residual cancer burden classes within the 65-patient quality assurance exercise (kappa 0.63 (95% CI: 0.57-0.69)). Similar results were obtained for the between-treatment arm comparison both from the report review and the central pathology review. For pathological complete response, report review was as good as central pathology review but for minimal residual disease, report review overestimated the extent of residual disease. In the ARTemis Trial central pathology review added little in the determination of pathological complete response but had a role in evaluating low levels of residual disease. Calculation of residual cancer burden was a simple and reproducible method of quantifying response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy as demonstrated by performance comparison of the two pathologists.

Addition of gemcitabine to paclitaxel, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide adjuvant chemotherapy for women with early-stage breast cancer (tAnGo): final 10-year follow-up of an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The tAnGo trial was designed to investigate the potential role of gemcitabine when added to anthracycline and taxane-containing adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer. When this study was developed, gemcitabine had shown significant activity in metastatic breast cancer, and there was evidence of a favourable interaction with paclitaxel. METHODS: tAnGo was an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 superiority trial that enrolled women aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed, early-stage breast cancer who had a definite indication for chemotherapy, any nodal status, any hormone receptor status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function. Women were recruited from 127 clinical centres and hospitals in the UK and Ireland, and randomly assigned (1:1) to one of two treatment regimens: epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel (four cycles of 90 mg/m2 intravenously administered epirubicin and 600 mg/m2 intravenously administered cyclophosphamide on day 1 every 3 weeks, followed by four cycles of 175 mg/m2 paclitaxel as a 3 h infusion on day 1 every 3 weeks) or epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (the same chemotherapy regimen as the other group, with the addition of 1250 mg/m2 gemcitabine to the paclitaxel cycles, administered intravenously as a 0·5 h infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks). Patients were randomly assigned by a central computerised deterministic minimisation procedure, with stratification by country, age, radiotherapy intent, nodal status, and oestrogen receptor and HER-2 status. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival and the trial aimed to detect 5% differences in 5-year disease-free survival between the treatment groups. Recruitment completed in 2004 and this is the final, intention-to-treat analysis. This trial is registered with EudraCT (2004-002927-41), ISRCTN (51146252), and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00039546). FINDINGS: Between Aug 22, 2001, and Nov 26, 2004, 3152 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel, and gemcitabine (gemcitabine group; n=1576) or to epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel (control group; n=1576). 11 patients (six in the gemcitabine group and five in the control group) were ineligible because of pre-existing metastases and were therefore excluded from the analysis. At this protocol-specified final analysis (median follow-up 10 years [IQR 10-10]), 1087 disease-free survival events and 914 deaths had occurred. Disease-free survival did not differ significantly between the treatment groups at 10 years (65% [63-68] in the gemcitabine group vs 65% [62-67] in the control group), and median disease-free survival was not reached (adjusted hazard ratio 0·97 [95% CI 0·86-1·10], p=0·64). Toxicity, dose intensity, and a detailed safety substudy showed both regimens to be safe, deliverable, and tolerable. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were reported at expected levels in both groups. The most common were neutropenia (527 [34%] of 1565 patients in the gemcitabine group vs 412 [26%] of 1567 in the control group), myalgia and arthralgia (207 [13%] vs 186 [12%]), fatigue (207 [13%] vs 152 [10%]), infection (202 [13%] vs 141 [9%]), vomiting (143 [9%] vs 108 [7%]), and nausea (132 [8%] vs 102 [7%]). INTERPRETATION: The addition of gemcitabine to anthracycline and taxane-based adjuvant chemotherapy at this dose and schedule confers no therapeutic advantage in terms of disease-free survival in early breast cancer, although it can cause increased toxicity. Therefore, gemcitabine has not been added to standard adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer for any subgroup. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK core funding for Clinical Trials Unit at the University of Birmingham, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pfizer.

Trastuzumab-associated cardiac events in the Persephone trial.

BACKGROUND: We report cardiac events in the Persephone trial which compares 6-12 months of adjuvant trastuzumab in women with confirmed HER2-positive, early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: Clinical cardiac events were defined as any of the following: symptoms and/or signs of congestive heart failure (CHF) and new or altered CHF medication. In addition, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was measured at baseline and then 3 monthly for 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 2500 patients, aged 22-82, were included: 1251 randomised to 12 months and 1249 to 6 months of trastuzumab treatment. A total of 93% (2335/2500) received anthracyclines, 49% of these (1136/2335) with taxanes. Cardiotoxicity delayed treatment in 6% of 12-month and 4% of 6-month patients (P=0.01), and stopped treatment early in 8% (96/1214) of 12-month and 4% (45/1216) of 6-month patients (P<0.0001). Between 7 and 12 months, more 12-month than 6-month patients had LVEFs<50% (8% vs 5%; P=0.004). LVEFs showed quadratic change over time, and 6-month patients had a more rapid recovery (P=0.02). In a landmark analysis twice as many 12-month patients, free of cardiac events at 6 months, had cardiac problems in months 7-12 (6% (66/1046) vs 3% (29/1035) of 6-month patients (P=0.0002)). Lower baseline LVEF predicted more cardiac dysfunction in both arms (reference ⩾65%: 55 to <65% OR 1.61 (95% CI 1.26-2.04); <55% OR 5.22 (3.42-7.95)) as did increasing age (reference <50: 50-59 OR 1.58 (1.17-2.12), 60-69 OR 1.91 (1.42-2.57)) 70+ OR 2.72 (1.82-4.08)) and prior use of cardiac medication (OR 8.46 (4.69-15.25)). >3 cycles of anthracycline was associated with higher risk of cardiac events only for 12-month patients (OR 1.41 (1.04-1.90)), and not for 6-month patients (OR 1.28 (0.91-1.79)). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate significantly fewer cardiac events from 6 months of adjuvant trastuzumab compared with that from 12 months. This cardiac signal adds importance to the question of the optimum duration of adjuvant trastuzumab treatment. If 6 months is proven to have non-inferior outcomes to 12 months treatment, these data would support 6 months as the standard of care.

Randomised, open-label, phase II study of gemcitabine with and without IMM-101 for advanced pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Immune Modulation and Gemcitabine Evaluation-1, a randomised, open-label, phase II, first-line, proof of concept study (NCT01303172), explored safety and tolerability of IMM-101 (heat-killed Mycobacterium obuense; NCTC 13365) with gemcitabine (GEM) in advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Patients were randomised (2 : 1) to IMM-101 (10 mg ml(-l) intradermally)+GEM (1000 mg m(-2) intravenously; n=75), or GEM alone (n=35). Safety was assessed on frequency and incidence of adverse events (AEs). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) were collected. RESULTS: IMM-101 was well tolerated with a similar rate of AE and serious adverse event reporting in both groups after allowance for exposure. Median OS in the intent-to-treat population was 6.7 months for IMM-101+GEM v 5.6 months for GEM; while not significant, the hazard ratio (HR) numerically favoured IMM-101+GEM (HR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.44-1.04, P=0.074). In a pre-defined metastatic subgroup (84%), OS was significantly improved from 4.4 to 7.0 months in favour of IMM-101+GEM (HR, 0.54, 95% CI 0.33-0.87, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: IMM-101 with GEM was as safe and well tolerated as GEM alone, and there was a suggestion of a beneficial effect on survival in patients with metastatic disease. This warrants further evaluation in an adequately powered confirmatory study.

Computational pathology of pre-treatment biopsies identifies lymphocyte density as a predictor of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to improve prediction of response to chemotherapy in breast cancer in order to improve clinical management and this may be achieved by harnessing computational metrics of tissue pathology. We investigated the association between quantitative image metrics derived from computational analysis of digital pathology slides and response to chemotherapy in women with breast cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: We digitised tissue sections of both diagnostic and surgical samples of breast tumours from 768 patients enrolled in the Neo-tAnGo randomized controlled trial. We subjected digital images to systematic analysis optimised for detection of single cells. Machine-learning methods were used to classify cells as cancer, stromal or lymphocyte and we computed estimates of absolute numbers, relative fractions and cell densities using these data. Pathological complete response (pCR), a histological indicator of chemotherapy response, was the primary endpoint. Fifteen image metrics were tested for their association with pCR using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Median lymphocyte density proved most strongly associated with pCR on univariate analysis (OR 4.46, 95 % CI 2.34-8.50, p < 0.0001; observations = 614) and on multivariate analysis (OR 2.42, 95 % CI 1.08-5.40, p = 0.03; observations = 406) after adjustment for clinical factors. Further exploratory analyses revealed that in approximately one quarter of cases there was an increase in lymphocyte density in the tumour removed at surgery compared to diagnostic biopsies. A reduction in lymphocyte density at surgery was strongly associated with pCR (OR 0.28, 95 % CI 0.17-0.47, p < 0.0001; observations = 553). CONCLUSIONS: A data-driven analysis of computational pathology reveals lymphocyte density as an independent predictor of pCR. Paradoxically an increase in lymphocyte density, following exposure to chemotherapy, is associated with a lack of pCR. Computational pathology can provide objective, quantitative and reproducible tissue metrics and represents a viable means of outcome prediction in breast cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00070278 ; 03/10/2003.

Efficacy of neoadjuvant bevacizumab added to docetaxel followed by fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide, for women with HER2-negative early breast cancer (ARTemis): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The ARTemis trial was developed to assess the efficacy and safety of adding bevacizumab to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-negative early breast cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, we enrolled women (≥18 years) with newly diagnosed HER2-negative early invasive breast cancer (radiological tumour size >20 mm, with or without axillary involvement), at 66 centres in the UK. Patients were randomly assigned via a central computerised minimisation procedure to three cycles of docetaxel (100 mg/m(2) once every 21 days) followed by three cycles of fluorouracil (500 mg/m(2)), epirubicin (100 mg/m(2)), and cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m(2)) once every 21 days (D-FEC), without or with four cycles of bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) (Bev+D-FEC). The primary endpoint was pathological complete response, defined as the absence of invasive disease in the breast and axillary lymph nodes, analysed by intention to treat. The trial has completed and follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with EudraCT (2008-002322-11), ISRCTN (68502941), and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01093235). FINDINGS: Between May 7, 2009, and Jan 9, 2013, we randomly allocated 800 participants to D-FEC (n=401) and Bev+D-FEC (n=399). 781 patients were available for the primary endpoint analysis. Significantly more patients in the bevacizumab group achieved a pathological complete response compared with those treated with chemotherapy alone: 87 (22%, 95% CI 18-27) of 388 patients in the Bev+D-FEC group compared with 66 (17%, 13-21) of 393 patients in the D-FEC group (p=0·03). Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were reported at expected levels in both groups, although more patients had grade 4 neutropenia in the Bev+D-FEC group than in the D-FEC group (85 [22%] vs 68 [17%]). INTERPRETATION: Addition of four cycles of bevacizumab to D-FEC in HER2-negative early breast cancer significantly improved pathological complete response. However, whether the improvement in pathological complete response will lead to improved disease-free and overall survival outcomes is unknown and will be reported after longer follow-up. Meta-analysis of available neoadjuvant trials is likely to be the only way to define subgroups of early breast cancer that would have clinically significant long-term benefit from bevacizumab treatment. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis.

Gemcitabine and capecitabine with or without telomerase peptide vaccine GV1001 in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer (TeloVac): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of sequential or simultaneous telomerase vaccination (GV1001) in combination with chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS: TeloVac was a three-group, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. We recruited patients from 51 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were treatment naive, aged older than 18 years, with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy with sequential GV1001 (sequential chemoimmunotherapy), or chemotherapy with concurrent GV1001 (concurrent chemoimmunotherapy). Treatments were allocated with equal probability by means of computer-generated random permuted blocks of sizes 3 and 6 in equal proportion. Chemotherapy included six cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2), 30 min intravenous infusion, at days 1, 8, and 15) and capecitabine (830 mg/m(2) orally twice daily for 21 days, repeated every 28 days). Sequential chemoimmunotherapy included two cycles of combination chemotherapy, then an intradermal lower abdominal injection of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; 75 µg) and GV1001 (0·56 mg; days 1, 3, and 5, once on weeks 2-4, and six monthly thereafter). Concurrent chemoimmunotherapy included giving GV1001 from the start of chemotherapy with GM-CSF as an adjuvant. The primary endpoint was overall survival; analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN4382138. FINDINGS: The first patient was randomly assigned to treatment on March 29, 2007, and the trial was terminated on March 27, 2011. Of 1572 patients screened, 1062 were randomly assigned to treatment (358 patients were allocated to the chemotherapy group, 350 to the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 354 to the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group). We recorded 772 deaths; the 290 patients still alive were followed up for a median of 6·0 months (IQR 2·4-12·2). Median overall survival was not significantly different in the chemotherapy group than in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group (7·9 months [95% CI 7·1-8·8] vs 6·9 months [6·4-7·6]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·19, 98·25% CI 0·97-1·48, p=0·05), or in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group (8·4 months [95% CI 7·3-9·7], HR 1·05, 98·25% CI 0·85-1·29, p=0·64; overall log-rank of χ(2)2df=4·3; p=0·11). The commonest grade 3-4 toxic effects were neutropenia (68 [19%] patients in the chemotherapy group, 58 [17%] patients in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 79 [22%] patients in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group; fatigue (27 [8%] in the chemotherapy group, 35 [10%] in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 44 [12%] in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group); and pain (34 [9%] patients in the chemotherapy group, 39 [11%] in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 41 [12%] in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group). INTERPRETATION: Adding GV1001 vaccination to chemotherapy did not improve overall survival. New strategies to enhance the immune response effect of telomerase vaccination during chemotherapy are required for clinical efficacy. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and KAEL-GemVax.

Effects of the addition of gemcitabine, and paclitaxel-first sequencing, in neoadjuvant sequential epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel for women with high-risk early breast cancer (Neo-tAnGo): an open-label, 2×2 factorial randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Anthracyclines and taxanes have been the standard neoadjuvant chemotherapies for breast cancer in the past decade. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of the addition of gemcitabine to accelerated paclitaxel with epirubicin and cyclophosphamide, and also the effect of sequencing the blocks of epirubicin and cyclophosphamide and paclitaxel (with or without gemcitabine). METHODS: In our randomised, open-label, 2×2 factorial phase 3 trial (Neo-tAnGo), we enrolled women (aged >18 years) with newly diagnosed breast cancer (tumour size >20 mm) at 57 centres in the UK. Patients were randomly assigned via a central randomisation procedure to epirubicin and cyclophosphamide then paclitaxel (with or without gemcitabine) or paclitaxel (with or without gemcitabine) then epirubicin and cyclophosphamide. Four cycles of each component were given. The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR), defined as absence of invasive cancer in the breast and axillary lymph nodes. This study is registered with EudraCT (2004-002356-34), ISRCTN (78234870), and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00070278). FINDINGS: Between Jan 18, 2005, and Sept 28, 2007, we randomly allocated 831 participants; 207 received epirubicin and cyclophosphamide then paclitaxel; 208 were given paclitaxel then epirubicin and cyclophosphamide; 208 had epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel and gemcitabine; and 208 received paclitaxel and gemcitabine then epirubicin and cyclophosphamide. 828 patients were eligible for analysis. Median follow-up was 47 months (IQR 37-51). 207 (25%) patients had inflammatory or locally advanced disease, 169 (20%) patients had tumours larger than 50 mm, 413 (50%) patients had clinical involvement of axillary nodes, 276 (33%) patients had oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative disease, and 191 (27%) patients had HER2-positive disease. Addition of gemcitabine did not increase pCR: 70 (17%, 95% CI 14-21) of 404 patients in the epirubicin and cyclophosphamide then paclitaxel group achieved pCR compared with 71 (17%, 14-21) of 408 patients who received additional gemcitabine (p=0·98). Receipt of a taxane before anthracycline was associated with improved pCR: 82 (20%, 95% CI 16-24) of 406 patients who received paclitaxel with or without gemcitabine followed by epirubicin and cyclophosphamide achieved pCR compared with 59 (15%, 11-18) of 406 patients who received epirubicin and cyclophosphamide first (p=0·03). Grade 3 toxicities were reported at expected levels: 173 (21%) of 812 patients who received treatment and had full treatment details had grade 3 neutropenia, 66 (8%) had infection, 41 (5%) had fatigue, 41 (5%) had muscle and joint pains, 37 (5%) had nausea, 36 (4%) had vomiting, 34 (4%) had neuropathy, 23 (3%) had transaminitis, 16 (2%) had acute hypersensitivity, and 20 (2%) had a rash. 86 (11%) patients had grade 4 neutropenia and 3 (<1%) had grade 4 infection. INTERPRETATION: Although addition of gemcitabine to paclitaxel and epirubicin and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy does not improve pCR, sequencing chemotherapy so that taxanes are received before anthracyclines could improve pCR in standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Epirubicin and cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as adjuvant therapy for early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The National Epirubicin Adjuvant Trial (NEAT) and the BR9601 trial examined the efficacy of anthracyclines in the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer. METHODS: In NEAT, we compared four cycles of epirubicin followed by four cycles of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) with six cycles of CMF alone. In the BR9601 trial, we compared four cycles of epirubicin followed by four cycles of CMF, with eight cycles of CMF alone every 3 weeks. The primary end points were relapse-free and overall survival. The secondary end points were adverse effects, dose intensity, and quality of life. RESULTS: The two trials included 2391 women with early breast cancer; the median follow-up was 48 months. Relapse-free and overall survival rates were significantly higher in the epirubicin-CMF groups than in the CMF-alone groups (2-year relapse-free survival, 91% vs. 85%; 5-year relapse-free survival, 76% vs. 69%; 2-year overall survival, 95% vs. 92%; 5-year overall survival, 82% vs. 75%; P<0.001 by the log-rank test for all comparisons). Hazard ratios for relapse (or death without relapse) (0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.82; P<0.001) and death from any cause (0.67; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.82; P<0.001) favored epirubicin plus CMF over CMF alone. Independent prognostic factors were nodal status, tumor grade, tumor size, and estrogen-receptor status (P<0.001 for all four factors) and the presence or absence of vascular or lymphatic invasion (P=0.01). These factors did not significantly interact with the effect of epirubicin plus CMF. The overall incidence of adverse effects was significantly higher with epirubicin plus CMF than with CMF alone but did not significantly affect the delivered-dose intensity or the quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Epirubicin plus CMF is superior to CMF alone as adjuvant treatment for early breast cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00003577 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).