Multinational Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Humanized Anti-HER2 Monoclonal Antibody in Women Who Have HER2-Overexpressing Metastatic Breast Cancer That Has Progressed After Chemotherapy for Metastatic Disease.

PURPOSE: Overexpression of the HER2 protein occurs in 25% to 30% of human breast cancers and leads to a particularly aggressive form of the disease. Efficacy and safety of recombinant humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody as a single agent was evaluated in women with HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer that had progressed after chemotherapy for metastatic disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred twenty-two women, with HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer that had progressed after one or two chemotherapy regimens, were enrolled. Patients received a loading dose of 4 mg/kg intravenously, followed by a 2-mg/kg maintenance dose at weekly intervals. RESULTS: Study patients had advanced metastatic disease and had received extensive prior therapy. A blinded, independent response evaluation committee identified eight complete and 26 partial responses, for an objective response rate of 15% in the intent-to-treat population (95% confidence interval, 11% to 21%). The median duration of response was 9.1 months; the median duration of survival was 13 months. The most common adverse events, which occurred in approximately 40% of patients, were infusion-associated fever and/or chills that usually occurred only during the first infusion, and were of mild to moderate severity. These symptoms were treated successfully with acetaminophen and/or diphenhydramine. The most clinically significant adverse event was cardiac dysfunction, which occurred in 4.7% of patients. Only 1% of patients discontinued the study because of treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSION: Recombinant humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody, administered as a single agent, produces durable objective responses and is well tolerated by women with HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer that has progressed after chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Side effects that are commonly observed with chemotherapy, such as alopecia, mucositis, and neutropenia, are rarely seen.

Praluzatamab Ravtansine, a CD166-Targeting Antibody-Drug Conjugate, in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors: An Open-Label Phase I/II Trial.

PURPOSE: Praluzatamab ravtansine (CX-2009) is a conditionally activated Probody drug conjugate (PDC) comprising an anti-CD166 mAb conjugated to DM4, with a protease-cleavable linker and a peptide mask that limits target engagement in normal tissue and circulation. The tumor microenvironment is enriched for proteases capable of cleaving the linker, thereby releasing the mask, allowing for localized binding of CX-2009 to CD166. CX-2009 was evaluated in a phase I/II clinical trial for patients with advanced solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had metastatic cancer receiving ≥2 prior treatments. CX-2009 was administered at escalating doses every 3 weeks (0.25-10 mg/kg) or every 2 weeks (4-6 mg/kg). Primary objective was to determine the safety profile and recommended phase II dose (RP2D). RESULTS: Of 99 patients enrolled, the most prevalent subtype was breast cancer (n = 45). Median number of prior therapies was 5 (range, 1-19). Dose-limiting toxicities were observed at 8 mg/kg every 3 weeks and 6 mg/kg every 2 weeks. On the basis of tolerability, the RP2D was 7 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Tumor regressions were observed at doses ≥4 mg/kg. In the hormone receptor-positive/HER2-nonamplified breast cancer subset (n = 22), 2 patients (9%) had confirmed partial responses, and 10 patients (45%) had stable disease. Imaging with zirconium-labeled CX-2009 confirmed uptake in tumor lesions and shielding of major organs. Activated, unmasked CX-2009 was measurable in 18 of 22 posttreatment biopsies. CONCLUSIONS: CD166 is a novel, ubiquitously expressed target. CX-2009 is the first conditionally activated antibody-drug conjugate to CD166 to demonstrate both translational and clinical activity in a variety of tumor types.

Phase IA/IB study of single-agent tislelizumab, an investigational anti-PD-1 antibody, in solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: The programmed cell death-1/programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) axis plays a central role in suppressing antitumor immunity; axis dysregulation can be used by cancer cells to evade the immune system. Tislelizumab, an investigational monoclonal antibody with high affinity and binding specificity for PD-1, was engineered to minimize binding to FcγR on macrophages to limit antibody-dependent phagocytosis, a potential mechanism of resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy. The aim of this phase IA/IB study was to investigate the safety/tolerability, antitumor effects and optimal dose and schedule of tislelizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Patients (aged ≥18 years) enrolled in phase IA received intravenous tislelizumab 0.5, 2, 5 or 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks; 2 or 5 mg/kg administered every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks; or 200 mg every 3 weeks; patients in phase IB received 5 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Primary objectives were to assess tislelizumab's safety/tolerability profile by adverse event (AE) monitoring and antitumor activity using RECIST V.1.1. PD-L1 expression was assessed retrospectively with the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP263) Assay. RESULTS: Between May 2015 and October 2017, 451 patients (n=116, IA; n=335, IB) were enrolled. Fatigue (28%), nausea (25%) and decreased appetite (20%) were the most commonly reported AEs. Most AEs were grade 1-2 severity; anemia (4.9%) was the most common grade 3-4 AE. Treatment-related AEs led to discontinuation in 5.3% of patients. Grade 5 AEs were reported in 14 patients; 2 were considered related to tislelizumab. Pneumonitis (2%) and colitis (1%) were the most common serious tislelizumab-related AEs. As of May 2019, 18% of patients achieved a confirmed objective response in phase IA and 12% in phase IB; median follow-up duration was 13.6 and 7.6 months, respectively. Pharmacokinetics, safety and antitumor activity obtained from both phase IA and IB determined the tislelizumab recommended dose; ultimately, tislelizumab 200 mg intravenous every 3 weeks was the dose and schedule recommended to be taken into subsequent clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Tislelizumab monotherapy demonstrated an acceptable safety/tolerability profile. Durable responses were observed in heavily pretreated patients with advanced solid tumors, supporting the evaluation of tislelizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks, as monotherapy and in combination therapy, for the treatment of solid tumors and hematological malignancies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02407990.

Pamiparib in combination with tislelizumab in patients with advanced solid tumours: results from the dose-escalation stage of a multicentre, open-label, phase 1a/b trial.

BACKGROUND: Rationale exists for combined treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in a variety of solid tumours. This study aimed to investigate the safety and antitumour effects of pamiparib, an oral PARP 1/2 inhibitor, combined with tislelizumab, a humanised anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody, in patients with advanced solid tumours and to determine the optimum doses for further evaluation. METHODS: We did a multicentre, open-label, phase 1a/b study at five academic sites or community oncology centres in Australia. We recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with advanced solid tumours who had received one or more previous lines of therapy, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of 1 or less, and a life expectancy of 12 weeks or more. Patients were enrolled into one of five dose-escalation cohorts, with dose-escalation done in a 3 + 3 design. Cohorts 1-3 received intravenous tislelizumab 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks plus 20, 40, or 60 mg oral pamiparib twice daily, respectively; cohorts 4 and 5 received 200 mg intravenous tislelizumab every 3 weeks plus 40 or 60 mg oral pamiparib twice daily, respectively. The primary endpoints of the phase 1a dose-escalation part of the study were safety and tolerability, including the occurrence of dose-limiting toxicities and determination of the maximum tolerated dose and recommended phase 2 dose. All primary endpoints were analysed in the safety analysis set, which included all patients who received at least one dose of tislelizumab or pamiparib, with the exception of the occurrence of dose-limiting toxicities, which was analysed in the dose-limiting toxicity analysis set, which included all patients who received at least 90% of the first scheduled tislelizumab dose and at least 75% of scheduled pamiparib doses, or who had a dose-limiting toxicity event during cycle 1. Reported here are results of the phase 1a dose-escalation stage of the trial. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02660034, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Jan 22, 2016, and May 16, 2017, we enrolled 49 patients (median age 63 years [IQR 55-67]), all of whom received at least one dose of pamiparib or tiselzumab. Four patients had dose-limiting toxicities (intractable grade 2 nausea [n=1] and grade 3 rash [n=1] in cohort 4, and grade 2 nausea and vomiting [n=1] and grade 4 immune-mediated hepatitis [n=1] in cohort 5). The recommended phase 2 dose was tislelizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks plus pamiparib 40 mg twice daily (the dose given in cohort 4). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea (in 31 [63%] of 49 patients), fatigue (26 [53%]), diarrhoea (17 [35%]), and vomiting (15 [31%]). 23 (47%) of 49 patients had immune-related adverse events, of whom nine (39%) had asymptomatic grade 3-4 hepatic immune-related adverse events, which were reversible with corticosteroid treatment. The most common adverse event of grade 3 or worse severity was anaemia (in six [12%] patients) and no grade 5 adverse events were reported. Hepatitis or autoimmune hepatitis was the only serious adverse event to occur in two or more patients (in four [8%] patients). At a median follow-up of 8·3 months (IQR 4·8-12·8), ten (20%) of 49 patients achieved an objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1, including two complete responses and eight partial responses. INTERPRETATION: Pamiparib with tislelizumab was generally well tolerated and associated with antitumour responses and clinical benefit in patients with advanced solid tumours supporting further investigation of the combination of pamiparib with tislelizumab. FUNDING: BeiGene.

Results From the Phase III Randomized Trial of Onartuzumab Plus Erlotinib Versus Erlotinib in Previously Treated Stage IIIB or IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: METLung.

Purpose The phase III OAM4971g study (METLung) examined the efficacy and safety of onartuzumab plus erlotinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer selected by MET immunohistochemistry whose disease had progressed after treatment with a platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned at a one-to-one ratio to receive onartuzumab (15 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day cycle) plus daily oral erlotinib 150 mg or intravenous placebo plus daily oral erlotinib 150 mg. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in the intent-to-treat population. Secondary end points included median progression-free survival, overall response rate, biomarker analysis, and safety. Results A total of 499 patients were enrolled (onartuzumab, n = 250; placebo, n = 249). Median OS was 6.8 versus 9.1 months for onartuzumab versus placebo (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 1.27; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.65; P = .067), with a greater number of deaths in the onartuzumab arm (130 [52%] v 114 [46%]). Median progression-free survival was 2.7 versus 2.6 months (stratified HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.20; P = .92), and overall response rate was 8.4% and 9.6% for onartuzumab versus placebo, respectively. Exploratory analyses using MET fluorescence in situ hybridization status and gene expression showed no benefit for onartuzumab; patients with EGFR mutations showed a trend toward shorter OS with onartuzumab treatment (HR, 4.68; 95% CI, 0.97 to 22.63). Grade 3 to 5 adverse events were reported by 56.0% and 51.2% of patients, with serious AEs in 33.9% and 30.7%, for experimental versus control arms, respectively. Conclusion Onartuzumab plus erlotinib did not improve clinical outcomes, with shorter OS in the onartuzumab arm, compared with erlotinib in patients with MET-positive non-small-cell lung cancer.

Safety of Onartuzumab in Patients with Solid Tumors: Experience to Date from the Onartuzumab Clinical Trial Program.

BACKGROUND: Onartuzumab, a recombinant humanized monovalent monoclonal antibody directed against MET, the receptor for the hepatocyte growth factor, has been investigated for the treatment of solid tumors. This publication describes the safety profile of onartuzumab in patients with solid tumors using data from the global onartuzumab clinical development program. METHODS: Adverse event (AE) and laboratory data from onartuzumab phase II/III studies were analyzed and coded into standardized terms according to industry standards. The severity of AEs was assessed using the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria, Version 4. Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) AEs were grouped using the standardized MedDRA queries (SMQs) "gastrointestinal (GI) perforation", "embolic and thrombotic events, venous (VTE)", and "embolic and thrombotic events, arterial (ATE)", and the Adverse Event Group Term (AEGT) "edema." The safety evaluable populations (patients who received at least one dose of study treatment) for each study were included in this analysis. RESULTS: A total of 773 onartuzumab-treated patients from seven studies (phase II, n = 6; phase III, n = 1) were included. Edema and VTEs were reported in onartuzumab-treated patients in all seven studies. Edema events in onartuzumab arms were generally grade 1-2 in severity, observed more frequently than in control arms and at incidences ranging from 25.4-65.7% for all grades and from 1.2-14.1% for grade 3. Hypoalbuminemia was also more frequent in onartuzumab arms and observed at frequencies between 77.8% and 98.3%. The highest frequencies of all grade and grade ≥3 VTE events were 30.3% and 17.2%, respectively in onartuzumab arms. The cumulative incidence of all grade ATE events ranged from 0-5.6% (grade ≥3, 0-5.1%) in onartuzumab arms. The frequency of GI perforation was below 10% in all studies; the highest estimates were observed in studies with onartuzumab plus bevacizumab for all grades (0-6.2%) and grade ≥3 (0-6.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The frequencies of VTE, ATE, GI perforation, hypoalbuminemia, and edema in clinical studies were higher in patients receiving onartuzumab than in control arms; these are considered to be expected events in patients receiving onartuzumab.

Results from AMBER, a randomized phase 2 study of bevacizumab and bortezomib versus bortezomib in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Newer systemic therapies have significantly advanced the treatment of multiple myeloma, but additional agents are needed. Bortezomib is a proteasome inhibitor with efficacy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma that inhibits tumor angiogenesis, a process that has been implicated in multiple myeloma pathogenesis. METHODS: In AMBER("A Randomized, Blinded, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter, Phase II Study of Bevacizumab in Combination With Bortezomib in Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma"), patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma were randomized to receive bortezomib (1.3 mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of each 21-day cycle) and either placebo or bevacizumab (15 mg/kg on day 1 of each cycle) for up to 8 cycles. At completion, patients in the bortezomib-plus-bevacizumab arm could continue bevacizumab until they developed progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: The stratified hazard ratio of PFS for the bevacizumab-containing arm (n = 49) relative to the bortezomib monotherapy arm (n = 53) was 0.743 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-1.28; P = .2804); the median PFS was 6.2 months (95% CI, 4.4-8.5 months) and 5.1 months (95% CI, 4.2-7.2 months), respectively; the overall response rates were 51% and 43.4% (P = .4029), respectively; and the median response duration was 6.9 months (95% CI, 4.73-11.83 months) and 6.0 months (95% CI, 4.86-8.31 months), respectively. Frequent adverse events occurred at similar rates across treatment arms, but hypertension, fatigue, and neuralgia occurred more frequently in the bevacizumab-containing arm. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of bevacizumab to bortezomib in unselected patients with pretreated multiple myeloma did not result in significant improvements in efficacy outcomes. The combination was well tolerated, and no new safety concerns for either agent were identified.

Independent adjudication of symptomatic heart failure with the use of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by trastuzumab adjuvant therapy: a combined review of cardiac data from the National Surgical Adjuvant breast and Bowel Project B-31 and the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N9831 clinical trials.

PURPOSE: An independent Adjuvant Cardiac Review and Evaluation Committee (ACREC) systematically reviewed cases of symptomatic heart failure events to uniformly define the cardiac event rate across two large trials (National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project [NSABP] B-31 and North Central Cancer Treatment Group [NCCTG] N9831) that assessed the addition of trastuzumab to standard adjuvant chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The committee was composed of six independent oncologists and cardiologists. A retrospective review of patients with a cardiac event was performed by the primary investigators of the trials. The ACREC prospectively established criteria for determining a symptomatic heart failure event. Recovery status was determined from documented resolution of signs and symptoms. Potential risk factors were also assessed. RESULTS: Medical records for a total of 173 patients were reviewed: 40 in the chemotherapy-alone arm and 133 in the trastuzumab arm. Trastuzumab-treated patients had a 2.0% incidence of symptomatic heart failure events compared with 0.45% in the chemotherapy-alone arm. Complete or partial recovery was observed in 86.1% of trastuzumab-treated patients with symptomatic heart failure events. Of five patients who died, only one patient had received trastuzumab. Independent predictors for cardiac events were age older than 50 years, a low ejection fraction at the start of paclitaxel treatment, and trastuzumab treatment. CONCLUSION: The incidence of symptomatic heart failure events is 2.0% in patients treated with adjuvant trastuzumab, and the majority of these patients recover with appropriate treatment.

Clinical activity of gemcitabine plus pertuzumab in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, fallopian tube cancer, or primary peritoneal cancer.

PURPOSE: Pertuzumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) heterodimerization and has single-agent activity in recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer. The primary objective of this phase II study was to characterize the safety and estimate progression-free survival (PFS) of pertuzumab with gemcitabine in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced, platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who had received a maximum of one prior treatment for recurrent cancer were randomly assigned to gemcitabine plus either pertuzumab or placebo. Collection of archival tissue was mandatory to permit exploration of biomarkers that would predict benefit from pertuzumab in this setting. RESULTS: One hundred thirty patients (65 per arm) were treated. Baseline characteristics were similar between arms. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.43 to 1.03; P = .07) in favor of gemcitabine + pertuzumab. The objective response rate was 13.8% in patients who received gemcitabine + pertuzumab compared with 4.6% in patients who received gemcitabine + placebo. In patients whose tumors had low HER3 mRNA expression (< median, n = 61), an increased treatment benefit was observed in the gemcitabine + pertuzumab arm compared with the gemcitabine alone arm (PFS HR = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.59; P = .0002). Grade 3 to 4 neutropenia, diarrhea, and back pain were increased in patients treated with gemcitabine + pertuzumab. Symptomatic congestive heart failure was reported in one patient in the gemcitabine + pertuzumab arm. CONCLUSION: Pertuzumab may add activity to gemcitabine for the treatment of platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Low HER3 mRNA expression may predict pertuzumab clinical benefit and be a valuable prognostic marker.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of trastuzumab in the adjuvant setting for treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Adding trastuzumab to adjuvant chemotherapy provides significant clinical benefit in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to assess clinical and economic implications of adding trastuzumab to adjuvant chemotherapy, based upon joint analysis of NSABP B-31 and NCCTG N9831 trials. METHODS: A Markov model with 4 health states was used to estimate the cost utility for a 50-year-old woman on the basis of trial results through 4 years and estimates of long-term recurrence and death based on a meta-analysis of trials. From 6 years onward, rates of recurrence and death were assumed to be the same in both trastuzumab and chemotherapy-only arms. Incremental costs were estimated for diagnostic and treatment-related costs. Analyses were from payer and societal perspectives, and these analyses were projected to lifetime and 20-year horizons. RESULTS: Over a lifetime, the projected cost of trastuzumab per quality-adjusted life year (QALY; discount rate 3%) gained was 26,417 dollars (range 9,104 dollars-69,340 dollars under multiway sensitivity analysis). Discounted incremental lifetime cost was 44,923 dollars, and projected life expectancy was 3 years longer for patients who received trastuzumab (19.4 years vs 16.4 years). During a 20-year horizon, the projected cost of adding trastuzumab to chemotherapy was 34,201 dollars per QALY gained. Key cost-effectiveness drivers were discount rate, trastuzumab price, and probability of metastasis. The cost-effectiveness result was robust to sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Trastuzumab for adjuvant treatment of early stage breast cancer was projected to be cost effective over a lifetime horizon, achieving a cost-effectiveness ratio below that of many widely accepted oncology treatments.

Hormone receptor status does not affect the clinical benefit of trastuzumab therapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Hormone receptor (HR) and HER2 signaling pathways are involved in the regulation of breast cancer proliferation. The impact of HR status on the clinical outcome of patients with HER2-overexpressing disease treated with the monoclonal antibody trastuzumab is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To evaluate this, we conducted a retrospective analysis of 805 patients with metastatic breast cancer enrolled in 3 clinical trials comparing trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone or trastuzumab monotherapy as first-, second-, or third-line treatment. Patients whose tumor samples overexpressed HER2 by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were stratified based on HR status, and clinical outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Tumor samples from 596 of 805 patients were HER2overexpressing by FISH; 45% of these were HR-positive and 43% were HR-negative (HR status was unknown in 12%). Overall response rate (ORR) and time to progression (TTP) were significantly higher in patients treated with chemotherapy plus trastuzumab than in those treated with chemotherapy alone, irrespective of HR status. Median survival was longer for patients with HR-positive tumors receiving combination therapy compared with those with HR-negative tumors. In the trastuzumab monotherapy trials, ORR and TTP were similar for patients with HR-positive and HR-negative tumors. Median survival was longer for patients with HR-positive tumors compared with those with HR-negative tumors. CONCLUSION: Hormone receptor status did not affect the clinical benefit of trastuzumab given as a single agent or combined with chemotherapy. The addition of trastuzumab to chemotherapy provides an improved clinical benefit compared with chemotherapy alone, regardless of HR status.

Effect of cardiac dysfunction on treatment outcomes in women receiving trastuzumab for HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer.

Trastuzumab improves time to disease progression (TTP) and survival when added to chemotherapy for HER-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC), but it is associated with infrequent cardiac dysfunction (CD). We analyzed data from a previous pivotal randomized trial of 469 women with HER2-overexpressing MBC. The aim was to determine the benefit of adding trastuzumab to chemotherapy in terms of TTP that was free of CD, including all CD, moderate or severe (New York Heart Association class III/IV) CD only, or moderate or severe CD that did not improve with cardiac therapy. We also assessed moderate or severe CD-free survival. We assessed the impact of trastuzumab for these indices on the entire cohort and on specific chemotherapy subsets. Median TTP or any CD improved when trastuzumab was added to all chemotherapy (4.6 months vs. 6.6 months with trastuzumab, P = 0.0001), an anthracycline (doxorubicin or epirubicin) plus cyclophosphamide (AC; 6.0 months vs. 6.6 months, P = 0.24), and paclitaxel (2.8 months vs. 6.6 months, P = 0.0001). When defined as time to moderate or severe CD, median TTP improved when trastuzumab was added to all chemotherapy (4.6 months vs. 7.0 months, P = 0.0001), AC (6.0 months vs. 7.2 months, P = 0.02), and paclitaxel (2.8 months vs. 6.9 months, P = 0.0001). There was no statistical difference between moderate and severe CD-free survival with trastuzumab added to chemotherapy. Outcomes improved with trastuzumab despite CD. In particular, the benefit from trastuzumab/paclitaxel outweighed the potential risk of CD in patients with MBC. These types of analyses will be critical for trials assessing trastuzumab as adjuvant therapy.

Reporting of adverse event data in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation clinical trials involving investigational new drugs or devices: a report from the William Guy Forbeck Foundation 2001 focus meeting on clinical trials in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

The William Guy Forbeck Foundation was established in 1984 in memory of William Guy Forbeck, an 11-year-old boy who died of neuroblastoma. The objectives of the Forbeck Foundation are to promote advances and shorten the research timetable in the field of oncology, particularly pediatric oncology. The Foundation's centerpiece activity is an annual scientific forum held at Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, where 12 to 15 leading scientists from a variety of disciplines associated with a specific topic are invited to participate in a private "think tank" environment, where they can freely exchange ideas in the hope of building on each other's knowledge and experience. Additionally, the Foundation sponsors grants for Focus Meetings, which are designed to give other researchers an opportunity to conduct their own meetings along the lines of the Foundation's annual forum. The idea for this Focus Meeting was born during the 2000 Annual Forbeck Forum in South Carolina, which considered the current status of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Participants considered various obstacles to conducting clinical trials in this area and decided to bring together experts from academia, industry, and government to discuss ways in which these obstacles might be overcome. Topics included efficient clinical trial designs, issues of monitoring and reporting adverse events, and appropriate definitions and grading systems for transplantation-specific outcomes. This article summarizes the issue of adverse event reporting in HSCT.

Cardiac dysfunction in the trastuzumab clinical trials experience.

PURPOSE: This study sought to estimate cardiac dysfunction (CD) risk for patients receiving trastuzumab; to characterize observed CD by severity, treatment, and clinical outcome; to assess effects of baseline clinical risk factors on CD; and to assess effects of cumulative doses of anthracyclines and trastuzumab on CD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of records for patients enrolled onto any of seven phase II and III trastuzumab clinical trials was performed. Predefined criteria were used for the diagnosis, and the New York Heart Association functional classification system was used to document CD severity. Product-limit estimates were used to summarize the cumulative anthracycline and trastuzumab doses at the time of CD onset. RESULTS: Patients treated with trastuzumab were found to be at an increased risk for CD. The incidence was greatest in patients receiving concomitant trastuzumab and anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide (27%). The risk was substantially lower in patients receiving paclitaxel and trastuzumab (13%) or trastuzumab alone (3% to 7%); however, most of these patients had received prior anthracycline therapy. CD was noted in 8% of patients receiving anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide and 1% receiving paclitaxel alone. Most trastuzumab-treated patients developing CD were symptomatic (75%), and most improved with standard treatment for congestive heart failure (79%). CONCLUSION: Trastuzumab is associated with an increased risk of CD, which is greatest in patients receiving concurrent anthracyclines. In most patients with metastatic breast cancer, the risk of CD can be justified given the improvement in overall survival previously reported with trastuzumab.