Effectiveness, safety and quality of life of trifluridine/tipiracil in pretreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Real-world data from the noninterventional TACTIC study in Germany.

The prospective, multicenter, noninterventional TACTIC study assessed effectiveness and safety of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in a real-world setting in Germany, thus evaluating the external validity of the findings from the pivotal RECOURSE trial. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and quality of life (QoL). Subgroups comprised patients with good (<3 metastatic sites at inclusion, ≥18 months from diagnosis of first metastasis to inclusion) or poor (remaining patients) prognostic characteristics (GPC/PPC). GPC without liver metastases was considered best prognostic characteristics (BPC). In total, 307 eligible patients (pretreated or not suitable for other available therapies) were treated with FTD/TPI. Overall, median [95%-CI] OS was 7.4 months [6.4-8.6], median PFS was 2.9 months [2.8-3.3]. In BPC (n = 65) and GPC (n = 176) compared to PPC (n = 124) subgroup, median OS (13.3 [9.1-17.6] vs 8.9 [7.6-9.8] vs 5.1 [4.4-7.0] months) and median PFS (4.0 [3.3-5.3] vs 3.4 [3.0-3.7] vs 2.6 [2.4-2.8] months) were longer. Patient-reported QoL, assessed by validated questionnaires (EQ-5D-5L, PRO-CTCAE), was stable throughout FTD/TPI treatment. Predominant FTD/TPI-related adverse events of grades 3 or 4 were neutropenia (13.0%), leukopenia (7.5%), and anemia (5.2%). Altogether, palliative FTD/TPI therapy in patients with pretreated mCRC was associated with prolonged survival, delayed progression, maintained health-related QoL, and manageable toxicity. Low metastatic burden and indolent disease were favorable prognostic factors for survival. TACTIC confirms the effectiveness and safety of FTD/TPI, highlighting its value in routine clinical practice.

The INFINITY study protocol: a retrospective cohort study on decision making and clinical impact of biomarker-driven precision oncology in routine clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Precision oncology, defined as treatment of patients with targeted therapies matched to specific molecular alterations, has entered routine clinical practice. Particularly in patients with advanced cancer or hematologic malignancies, for whom no further standard therapies are available, this approach is increasingly applied as last resort option outside of the approved indication. However, data on patient outcomes are not systematically collected, analyzed, reported, and shared. We have initiated the INFINITY registry to provide evidence from routine clinical practice to fill this knowledge gap. METHODS: INFINITY is a retrospective, non-interventional cohort study conducted at approximately 100 sites in Germany (office-based oncologists/hematologists and hospitals). We aim to include 500 patients with advanced solid tumors or hematologic malignancies who received a non-standard targeted therapy based on potentially actionable molecular alterations or biomarkers. INFINITY aims to provide insights into the use of precision oncology in routine clinical practice within Germany. We systematically collect details on patient and disease characteristics, molecular testing, clinical decision-making, treatment, and outcome. DISCUSSION: INFINITY will provide evidence on the current biomarker landscape driving treatment decisions in routine clinical care. It will also provide insights on effectiveness of precision oncology approaches in general, and of specific drug class/alteration matches used outside their approved indications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04389541.

First-line nab-paclitaxel plus carboplatin for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Final results of the NEPTUN study.

Real-world data on the first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are still limited. The NEPTUN study evaluated effectiveness and safety of first-line nab-paclitaxel (Abraxane) plus carboplatin (nab-P/C) in patients with advanced NSCLC in routine clinical practice in Germany. Patients included in our study were aged ≥18 years, diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and with decision for first-line nab-P/C in routine clinical practice. Primary objective was 6-month progression-free survival rate (PFS6), secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety. From 2016 to 2019, 408 patients from 75 sites were enrolled. PFS6 was 39.5% (95% CI: 34.2-44.8), median PFS was 5.1 months (95% CI: 4.6-5.6), ORR was 42.9% (95% CI: 37.7-48.2). Median OS was 10.5 months (95% CI: 9.2-11.6). In subgroup analyses, median OS for squamous vs non-squamous histology was 11.5 months (95% CI: 9.2-13.8) vs 9.8 months (95% CI: 8.1-11.3) and for patients aged ≥70 vs <70 years median OS was 12.4 months (95% CI: 9.8-15.1) vs 9.6 months (95% CI: 7.7-11.1). Adverse events (AEs) related to nab-paclitaxel were reported in 247 (66.4%) patients, while carboplatin-related AEs were documented in 224 (60.2%) patients. Most frequently related AEs were leukopenia (22.3%) for nab-paclitaxel and anemia (20.2%) for carboplatin. Nab-P/C-related deaths were reported in 2 (0.5%) patients (sepsis and neutropenic sepsis). No new or unexpected safety signals emerged. These results support the effectiveness and safety of first-line nab-P/C in patients with advanced NSCLC reported in the pivotal trial and highlight the clinical value of this regimen in the real-world setting.

Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia with lipegfilgrastim in patients with lung cancer: final results from the non-interventional study NADIR.

OBJECTIVE: Real-world evidence on the application of the granulocyte colony-stimulating factor lipegfilgrastim for the reduction of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) is limited. The NADIR study aimed to evaluate effectiveness and safety of lipegfilgrastim as primary or secondary prophylaxis in patients with lung cancer undergoing chemotherapy in routine clinical practice. METHODS: The non-interventional study NADIR (German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) Number DRKS00005711) enrolled 156 patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and 145 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), who received lipegfilgrastim during chemotherapy. Primary endpoint was the incidence of severe neutropenia (CTCAE grade 3/4) and FN. The analysis was stratified for age groups (≤65 years vs. >65 years). RESULTS: Approximately half of the patients were aged >65 years (SCLC 54.5%; NSCLC 46.9%). Intention of antineoplastic treatment was mostly palliative (SCLC 89.1%; NSCLC 73.1%). Patients with high FN risk (SCLC 44.9%; NSCLC 28.3%) mostly received lipegfilgrastim for primary prophylaxis (SCLC 81.4%; NSCLC 70.7%). FN was reported in 1.9% SCLC and 1.4% NSCLC patients. At least one severe neutropenia was documented in 30.1% SCLC and 17.9% NSCLC patients. For NSCLC patients aged >65 years, less severe neutropenia was reported as compared to younger patients (14.7% vs. 20.8%). Lipegfilgrastim-related adverse events were reported in 10.3% SCLC and 7.7% NSCLC patients. CONCLUSION: Lipegfilgrastim in routine clinical practice of patients with lung cancer showed similar effectiveness and safety as compared to the pivotal trial. Interestingly, in older patients severe neutropenia was reported less frequently. While most patients with high FN risk received lipegfilgrastim for primary prophylaxis as recommended, there are still 20-30% of patients at high FN risk without primary prophylaxis who could benefit from better adherence to guidelines.

Real-world patient-reported outcomes of breast cancer or prostate cancer patients receiving antiresorptive therapy for bone metastases: Final results of the PROBone registry study.

Background: In breast cancer and prostate cancer patients, bone metastases (BM) present the main cause of morbidity and often cause debilitating pain, impaired functioning and subsequent deterioration of quality of life (QoL). The management of BM is still challenging. Maintenance or improvement in QoL is the main goal of treatment. Antiresorptive treatment, such as denosumab and bisphosphonates, can help to reduce the frequency of skeletal complications, to control bone pain and potentially to improve QoL. The optimal time point for initiation of antiresorptive therapy is still discussed controversially. In patients with BM, bone pain can be used as a surrogate measure of QoL. However, limited data exist on health-related QoL in patients with BM under antiresorptive treatment. The PROBone registry study evaluated complaints and limitations caused by BM of breast and prostate cancer patients using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in real-world in Germany. Methods: Between 2014 and 2019, 500 patients with histological confirmation of advanced breast or prostate cancer, diagnosed with BM at start of their first antiresorptive therapy were prospectively enrolled in 65 outpatient-centers specialized in medical oncology across Germany. Changes of QoL were assessed monthly from baseline until a maximum of 12 months using the validated pain score Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Quality of Life Measurement in patients with bone pain (FACT-BP) supplemented by questions on general pain and on the impact of time spent for treatment of illness on patients' daily activities. Statistical analysis was performed descriptively by relative and absolute frequencies. Results: In total, 486 patients were eligible for final analysis, of these 310 were diagnosed with breast cancer and 176 with prostate cancer. Median age was 67 years for breast cancer and 76 years for prostate cancer patients. 79.7% of breast cancer and 59.7% of prostate patients started antiresorptive treatment within 3 months after diagnosis of BM. More than 75% of patients suffered from bone pain at study inclusion. In total 52% of breast cancer patients and 47.9% of prostate cancer patients reported to take pain medication during the observation period. In breast and prostate cancer patients an initial pain reduction after start of BTA was observed: General pain and bone pain levels as well as the median FACT-BP score showed a constant improvement over the first months and maintained stable at a constant level afterwards. Subgroup analysis showed that patients without pain at baseline reported distinctly better FACT-BP scores throughout the whole observation period than patients with pain at baseline. Looking at time-stress (M)-scores, younger breast cancer patients (<65 years) showed highest burden especially during the first months of treatment. Conclusions: Our results indicate overall good adherence to current guideline recommendation, with most breast and prostate cancer patients starting antiresorptive therapy within the first 3 months after diagnosis of BM. This point gains even more importance as our data support current recommendations by ESMO guidelines as well as by German evidence-based S3-guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of breast and prostate cancer to initiate bone-targeted agents (BTA) as soon as BM are diagnosed, to keep pain levels at the lowest level possible, to minimize the debilitating effects of metastatic bone pain and maintain a good QoL. Bone pain management by an early use of BTA following BM diagnosis might improve patient care.

Survival after secondary liver resection in metastatic colorectal cancer: Comparing data of three prospective randomized European trials (LICC, CELIM, FIRE-3).

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with liver-limited disease (LLD) have a chance of long-term survival and potential cure after hepatic metastasectomy. However, the appropriate postoperative treatment strategy is still controversial. The CELIM and FIRE-3 studies demonstrated that secondary hepatic resection significantly improved overall survival (OS). The objective of this analysis was to compare these favorable outcome data with recent results from the LICC trial investigating the antigen-specific cancer vaccine tecemotide (L-BLP25) as adjuvant therapy in mCRC patients with LLD after R0/R1 resection. Data from mCRC patients with LLD and secondary hepatic resection from each study were analyzed for efficacy outcomes based on patient characteristics, treatment and surveillance after surgery. In LICC, 40/121 (33%) patients, in CELIM 36/111 (32%) and in FIRE-3-LLD 29/133 (22%) patients were secondarily resected, respectively. Of those, 31 (77.5%) patients in LICC and all patients in CELIM were R0 resected. Median disease-free survival after resection was 8.9 months in LICC, 9.9 months in CELIM. Median OS in secondarily resected patients was 66.1 months in LICC, 53.9 months in CELIM and 56.2 months in FIRE-3-LLD. Median age was about 5 years less in LICC compared to CELIM and FIRE-3. Secondarily resected patients of LICC, CELIM and FIRE-3 showed an impressive median survival with a tendency for improved survival for patients in the LICC trial. A younger patient cohort but also more selective surgery, improved resection techniques, deep responses and a close surveillance program after surgery in the LICC trial may have had a positive impact on survival.

Pomalidomide plus dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: Final results of the non-interventional study POSEIDON and comparison with the pivotal phase 3 clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Prognosis of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who have relapsed on or become refractory to immunomodulators and bortezomib is poor, and treatment options are limited. While pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM/DEX) has demonstrated efficacy in clinical trials, real-world evidence is scarce. PATIENTS AND METHODS: POSEIDON was a prospective non-interventional study designed to evaluate effectiveness, safety and quality of life (QoL) of POM/DEX in patients with relapsed or refractory MM (R/RMM) pretreated with at least two prior therapy lines including both lenalidomide and bortezomib in real world in Germany. Patients received POM/DEX according to physicians' choice. Data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2017, 151 patients were enrolled, 144 patients with a median of three prior therapy lines qualified for effectiveness analysis. Median age was 73.2 years. Median progression-free and overall survival were 6.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.2, 8.6] and 12.9 months [95% CI 10.6, 15.1]. Most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events were leukopenia (8.2%), pneumonia (7.5%) and anemia (5.5%). QoL was maintained after start of POM/DEX. CONCLUSION: The results of POSEIDON support the effectiveness and safety of POM/DEX in R/RMM patients pretreated with lenalidomide and bortezomib and highlight the clinical value of the POM/DEX regimen in the real-world setting. Registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02075996).

First-line nab-paclitaxel plus carboplatin for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Results of the NEPTUN study.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based chemotherapy remains a first-line standard of care for approximately 30% of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not harboring a druggable alteration. Favorable efficacy and safety of the nab-paclitaxel/carboplatin (nab-P/C) combination was shown in the pivotal phase 3 trial. However, information on effectiveness of nab-P/C in a real-world setting in Germany is missing. The NEPTUN study prospectively investigated the effectiveness and safety of nab-P/C in patients with advanced NSCLC in a real-world setting. METHODS: Patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC received first-line nab-P/C according to clinical routine. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival rate (PFS6). Other endpoints included further effectiveness parameters, safety and quality of life. Data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: 408 patients were enrolled. PFS6 was 40.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 35.3-46.2); median PFS was 5.2 months (95% CI, 4.5-5.7). overall response rate was 41.5% (95% CI, 36.3-46.8). Median overall survival (OS) was 10.5 months (95% CI, 9.2-11.6). Subgroup analyses revealed median OS for squamous versus non-squamous histology (11.8 months [95% CI, 9.2-13.8] vs. 9.6 months [95% CI, 7.7-11.2]) and age ≥70 versus <70 years (11.7 months [95% CI, 9.4-14.3] vs. 9.6 months [95% CI, 7.5-11.2]). Most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were anemia (26.5%), leukopenia (25.7%), and thrombocytopenia (16.6%). Mostly reported grade 3/4 TEAEs were leukopenia (10.2%), anemia (8.6%), and pneumonia (5.1%). nab-paclitaxel-related deaths as reported by the investigator occurred in 0.8% of patients. CONCLUSION: These real-world data support the effectiveness and safety of nab-P/C as first-line treatment for patients with advanced NSCLC independent of tumor histology. The results are comparable with the pivotal phase 3 trial. No new safety signals emerged.

Patient, nurse, and physician preferences: final results of the CONVENIENCE study evaluating pegfilgrastim prophylaxis via pre-filled syringe or on-body injector in cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The on-body injector (OBI) automatically delivers pegfilgrastim the day after chemotherapy (CTx), thus eliminating the need of return visits to the medical office for guideline-compliant pegfilgrastim administration. The CONVENIENCE study aimed to evaluate patient, nurse, and physician preferences as well as health economics for pegfilgrastim administration either with OBI or manually using a pre-filled syringe (PS). METHODS: Patients with early breast cancer, receiving two or three weekly anthracycline/cyclophosphamide or three weekly taxane-based CTx, and patients with Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving first-line R-CHOP-14 or -21 were randomized 1:1 to receive both pegfilgrastim application forms for four consecutive CTx cycles in an alternating sequence starting either with OBI or PS. Primary endpoint was patient preference, assessed by questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 308 patients were evaluable in the per-protocol analysis. Patients slightly preferred OBI over PS (OBI, n = 133, 43.2%; vs. PS, n = 111, 36.0%; p-value = 0.159), while study nurses slightly preferred PS (n = 19, 46.3%) over OBI (n = 18, 43.9%) and physicians clearly preferred PS (n = 24, 58.8%) over OBI (n = 15, 36.6%). Among patients with preference for OBI, saving of time was their major reason for preference (53.4%). Pegfilgrastim was administered 24-72 h after each CTx cycle in 97.6% of OBI and 63.1% of PS applications. CONCLUSION: The OBI was slightly preferred by patients and saving time was the major reason for their preference. PS was physicians' most preferable choice and slightly preferred by nurses. Using OBI, pegfilgrastim was almost always administered within the time period recommended by current guidelines, while it was often not applied as specified using PS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: No: ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT03619993. Registered on June 25, 2018.

Efficacy and Safety of Lipegfilgrastim in Lung Cancer Patients Receiving Myelosuppressive Chemotherapy in a Real-World Setting: Results of an Analysis of Pooled Data from Two Non-Interventional European Studies.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia is a common and serious complication in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. This analysis was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of prophylaxis with lipegfilgrastim, a glycoPEGylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, in lung cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy in real-world clinical practice. METHODS: Data from two European non-interventional studies (NIS NADIR and NIS LEOS) investigating lipegfilgrastim for primary and secondary prophylaxis were pooled. Outcomes included the incidence of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN), use of anti-infectives and antimycotics, and adverse events and their relationship to lipegfilgrastim. RESULTS: The safety population included 361 patients with lung cancer (median age, 66 years [range, 36-88]), of whom 322 had received 2 or more consecutive cycles of lipegfilgrastim (efficacy population [primary prophylaxis, 75.5%; secondary prophylaxis, 16.5%]). Almost 40% of the patients were considered to have a high risk (>20%) of FN, and around 60% had an intermediate risk (10-20%). For all cycles, FN was reported in 3 patients (0.9%), neutropenia in 14 (4.3%), and grade 4 neutropenia in 9 (2.8%). Anti-infectives were used in 27 patients (8.4%) and antimycotics in 6 (1.9%). The incidence rates were lower for the patients' first cycle (FN, 0.4%; neutropenia, 0.8%; grade 4 neutropenia, 0.8%; anti-infectives, 0.6%; antimycotics, 0.6%). Adverse drug reactions considered lipegfilgrastim related were reported in 35 patients (9.7%), and serious adverse drug reactions in 10 (2.8%). None of the fatal events reported in 28 patients (7.8%) were lipegfilgrastim related. CONCLUSION: Lipegfilgrastim administered to patients with lung cancer undergoing chemotherapy in real-world clinical practice showed similar effectiveness and safety to that reported in published pivotal trials.

Everolimus after failure of one prior VEGF-targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Final results of the MARC-2 trial.

MARC-2, a prospective, multicenter phase IV trial, aimed to investigate clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with everolimus after failure of one initial vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGFR-TKI) therapy and to identify subgroups benefiting most, based on clinical characteristics and biomarkers. Patients with clear cell mRCC failing one initial VEGFR-TKI received everolimus until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival rate (6moPFS). Secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), PFS, overall survival (OS), and safety. Between 2011 and 2015, 63 patients were enrolled. Median age was 65.4 years (range 43.3-81.1). 6moPFS was 39.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 27.0-51.3) overall, 54.4% (95% CI, 35.2-70.1) vs 23.7% (95% CI, 10.5-39.9) for patients aged ≥65 vs <65 years and 51.4% (95% CI, 34.7-65.7) vs 18.2% (95% CI, 5.7-36.3) for patients with body mass index (BMI) >25 vs ≤25 kg/m2 . A Cox proportional hazards model confirmed a longer PFS for patients aged ≥65 years (hazard ratio [HR] 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26-0.80) and a longer OS for patients with BMI >25 kg/m2 (HR 0.36; 95% CI, 0.18-0.71). Median PFS and median OS were 3.8 months (95% CI, 3.2-6.2) and 16.8 months (95% CI, 14.3-24.3). ORR was 7.9% and disease control rate was 60.3%. No new safety signals emerged. Most common adverse events were stomatitis (31.7%), fatigue (31.7%), and anemia (30.2%). One patient died from treatment-related upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Everolimus remains a safe and effective treatment option for mRCC patients after one prior VEGFR-TKI therapy. Patients aged ≥65 years and patients with BMI >25 kg/m2 benefited most.

First-line pazopanib in intermediate- and poor-risk patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Final results of the FLIPPER trial.

Temsirolimus has long been the only approved first-line standard of care (SOC) with overall survival (OS) benefit in poor-risk patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). However, tyrosine kinase inhibitors are also commonly used in clinical practice. Pazopanib is an SOC for first-line mRCC treatment, but for poor-risk patients data are scarce. The FLIPPER (First-Line Pazopanib in Poor-Risk Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma) study aimed to assess efficacy and safety of first-line pazopanib in poor-risk mRCC patients. FLIPPER was a single-arm, multicenter, Phase IV trial. Key inclusion criteria were treatment-naive clear cell, inoperable advanced or mRCC, poor-risk according to MSKCC with slight modification, Karnofsky performance status (KPS) ≥60% and adequate organ function. Oral pazopanib 800 mg was given daily. Primary endpoint was the 6-month progression-free survival rate (PFS6). Secondary endpoints included PFS, OS, overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR) and safety. For analysis, descriptive statistics were used. Between 2012 and 2016, 60 patients had been included. Forty-three patients qualified for safety analyses, 34 for efficacy. Median age was 66 years, 64.7% of patients were poor-risk, 82.4% had a KPS ≤70%. PFS6 was 35.3% (95% CI, 19.7-53.5). Median PFS and OS were 4.5 months (95% CI, 3.6-7.8) and 9.3 months (95% CI, 6.6-22.2), respectively. ORR was 32.4% (95% CI, 17.4-50.5), median DOR 9.7 months (95% CI, 1.8-12.4). The most common treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse event reported in 4.7% of patients was hypertension. No treatment-related death occurred. Since pazopanib is active and well tolerated in poor-risk patients with clear cell mRCC, our results support its use as first-line treatment in this setting.

Buparlisib in combination with tamoxifen in pretreated patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer molecularly stratified for PIK3CA mutations and loss of PTEN expression.

The PIKTAM study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the PI3K inhibitor buparlisib in combination with tamoxifen in hormone receptor-positive (HR+ ), HER2-negative advanced breast cancer patients after failure of prior endocrine therapy. In this open-label, single-arm phase II trial, 25 patients were enrolled in 11 sites in Germany. Patients were stratified according to PIK3CA mutation status (tissue and cfDNA from serum samples) and/or loss of PTEN expression. Patients received buparlisib (100 mg) and tamoxifen (20 mg) once daily on a continuous schedule (28-day cycle) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was overall 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate. Key secondary endpoints included the 6-month PFS rate in subpopulations, PFS, overall survival, overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Overall, the 6-month PFS rate was 33.3% (n/N = 7/21, one-sided 95% CI 16.8-100) and median PFS was 6.1 (CI 2.6-10.6) months. The ORR and DCR were 12.5% and 44%. The PIK3CA-mutated subgroup consistently showed the highest 6-month PFS rate (62.5%, n/N = 5/8), median PFS (8.7 months), ORR (40%), and DCR (80%). No new safety signals emerged. Most common adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders (56%), psychiatric/mood disorders (48%), skin rash/hypersensitivity (44%), cardiovascular (40%), and hepatic (32%) events. The trial was prematurely terminated due to the substantially altered risk-benefit profile of buparlisib. Nevertheless, PIK3CA mutations emerged as a clinically feasible and useful biomarker for combined PI3K inhibition and endocrine therapy in patients with HR+ breast cancer. Further biomarker-stratified studies with isoform-specific PI3K inhibitors are warranted. EudraCT No: 2014-000599-24.

Effectiveness and Tolerability of Nab-paclitaxel in Younger versus Elderly Patients With Metastatic HR-positive/HER2-negative Breast Cancer: Results From the Noninterventional, Prospective Study NABUCCO.

BACKGROUND: There are only scarce data on treatment of elderly patients with nab-paclitaxel for metastatic breast cancer, especially from the real-world setting. Here we present data from the noninterventional study NABUCCO with special focus on taxane-induced peripheral neuropathy (TIPN) in younger and elderly patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 407 patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer were enrolled between April 2012 and April 2015 into the prospective, multicenter, noninterventional study NABUCCO. Details on effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of nab-paclitaxel were evaluated for younger (<70 years) and elderly (≥70 years) patients. RESULTS: Neither median time to progression (TTP, younger 6.0 months, 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.5-7.1; elderly 6.9 months, 95% CI, 5.5-8.6) nor median overall survival (younger 16.4 months, 95% CI, 14.2-18.1; elderly 14.5 months, 95% CI, 11.9-17.4) differed by age group, also not in view of prior treatments. A multivariate regression model revealed that age did not significantly influence the TTP. TIPN was reported by 49.0% younger (44.3% common terminology criteria for adverse events [CTCAE] grade 1/2, 4.7% grade 3/4) and 45.8% elderly patients (41.1% CTCAE grade 1/2, 4.7% grade 3/4). The cumulative nab-paclitaxel dose did not correlate with the severity/grading of TIPN. CONCLUSION: Treatment with nab-paclitaxel in first- or further-line of metastatic HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer resulted in similar effectiveness and safety, irrespective of age. Therefore, nab-paclitaxel is a valid treatment option for elderly and partially heavily pretreated patients. However, incidence of TIPN is high, influencing the patients' quality of life. A close monitoring and awareness for early TIPN symptoms is warranted.

Final results from IMPROVE: a randomized, controlled, open-label, two-arm, cross-over phase IV study to determine patients' preference for everolimus in combination with exemestane or capecitabine in combination with bevacizumab in advanced HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the IMPROVE study was patients' preference for either endocrine-based therapy or combined chemo- and anti-angiogenic therapy in advanced HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer. METHODS: In this randomized, cross-over phase IV study, 77 patients were recruited in 26 sites in Germany. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either capecitabine plus bevacizumab (Cap+Bev) as first-line therapy followed by cross-over to everolimus plus exemestane (Eve+Exe) as second-line therapy (Arm A) or the reverse sequence (Arm B). The primary endpoint was patients' preference for either regimen, assessed by the Patient Preference Questionnaire 12 weeks after cross-over. Key secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: 61.5% of patients preferred Cap+Bev (p = 0.1653), whereas 15.4% preferred Eve+Exe and 23.1% were indecisive. Physicians showed a similar tendency towards Cap+Bev (58.1%) as the preferred regimen versus Eve+Exe (32.3%). Median first-line PFS was longer for Cap+Bev than for Eve+Exe (11.1 months versus 3.5 months). Median second-line PFS was similar between Cap+Bev and Eve+Exe (3.6 months versus 3.7 months). Median OS was comparable between Arm A (28.8 months) and Arm B (24.7 months). 73.0% and 52.6% (first-/second-line, Cap+Bev) and 54.1% and 52.9% (first-/second-line, Eve+Exe) of patients experienced grade 3/4 TEAEs. No treatment-related deaths occurred. QoL and treatment satisfaction were not significantly different between arms or treatment lines. CONCLUSIONS: Patients tended to favor Cap+Bev over Eve+Exe, which was in line with physicians' preference. Cap+Bev showed superior first-line PFS, while QoL was similar in both arms. No new safety signals were reported. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT No: 2013-005329-22. Registered on 19 August 20.

VicTORia: a randomised phase II study to compare vinorelbine in combination with the mTOR inhibitor everolimus versus vinorelbine monotherapy for second-line chemotherapy in advanced HER2-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Improving the outcome of patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer experiencing tumour progression following first-line chemotherapy remains an urgent medical need. The purpose of the VicTORia trial was to show superiority of everolimus in combination with vinorelbine versus vinorelbine monotherapy as second-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced HER2 negative breast cancer. METHODS: In this randomised phase II trial, 133 patients were recruited in 32 centres in Germany. Patients were randomised 1:1 to second-line chemotherapy either with vinorelbine plus everolimus (arm1) or vinorelbine alone (arm2). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were PFS rate at 6 months, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety. Baseline PI3 K mutational status was determined in plasma samples. RESULTS: Median progression-free survival was not different between arms (arm1 vs. arm2: 4.01 months, 95% CI 2.40-6.09 vs. 4.08, 95% CI 2.80-5.33). PFS rate at 6 months (arm1 vs. arm2: 39.4%, 95% CI 27.6-50.9% vs. 36.6%, 95% CI 24.6-48.6%), median OS (arm1 vs. arm2: 16.3 months, 95% CI 11.4-19.0 vs. 13.8 months, 95% CI 10.2-19.1) and ORR were not different between arms. Most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (50% vs. 40%), gastrointestinal toxicities (19.1% vs. 6.1%), and infections (19.1% vs. 7.7%). PI3 K mutational status was neither associated with PFS nor with OS. CONCLUSION: Although well tolerated, the efficacy of everolimus and vinorelbine combination therapy was not superior to vinorelbine monotherapy. There was no correlation between PI3 K mutational status and efficacy. EudracCT No 2011-001024-38, ClinicalTrials.gov No NCT01520103.

Effects and moderators of exercise on muscle strength, muscle function and aerobic fitness in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis of individual patient data.

OBJECTIVE: To optimally target exercise interventions for patients with cancer, it is important to identify which patients benefit from which interventions. DESIGN: We conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis to investigate demographic, clinical, intervention-related and exercise-related moderators of exercise intervention effects on physical fitness in patients with cancer. DATA SOURCES: We identified relevant studies via systematic searches in electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We analysed data from 28 randomised controlled trials investigating the effects of exercise on upper body muscle strength (UBMS) and lower body muscle strength (LBMS), lower body muscle function (LBMF) and aerobic fitness in adult patients with cancer. RESULTS: Exercise significantly improved UBMS (ß=0.20, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.26), LBMS (ß=0.29, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.35), LBMF (ß=0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.24) and aerobic fitness (ß=0.28, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.34), with larger effects for supervised interventions. Exercise effects on UBMS were larger during treatment, when supervised interventions included ≥3 sessions per week, when resistance exercises were included and when session duration was >60 min. Exercise effects on LBMS were larger for patients who were living alone, for supervised interventions including resistance exercise and when session duration was >60 min. Exercise effects on aerobic fitness were larger for younger patients and when supervised interventions included aerobic exercise. CONCLUSION: Exercise interventions during and following cancer treatment had small effects on UBMS, LBMS, LBMF and aerobic fitness. Demographic, intervention-related and exercise-related characteristics including age, marital status, intervention timing, delivery mode and frequency and type and time of exercise sessions moderated the exercise effect on UBMS, LBMS and aerobic fitness.

Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia with lipegfilgrastim in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NADIR study).

OBJECTIVE: The prospective non-interventional study (NIS) NADIR was designed to evaluate both effectiveness and safety of prophylactic use of lipegfilgrastim (Lonquex® ), a glycopegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, in cancer patients with different tumor entities undergoing chemotherapy in routine clinical practice. The primary objective was incidence of severe neutropenia, febrile neutropenia (FN), and neutropenia-associated complications. METHOD: NADIR was a national, multicenter, prospective NIS. RESULTS: Here, we present the data on patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Final analysis comprised 337 NHL patients having received ≥1 administration of lipegfilgrastim. Primary prophylaxis with lipegfilgrastim was documented in 78.7% of patients with high risk to develop FN. In total, ≥1 severe neutropenia (grade 3/4) was reported in 115 (34.1%) patients and ≥1 event of FN documented in 15 (4.5%) patients. Grade 3/4 infections were reported in 22 (6.5%) patients overall. Most frequently reported adverse events (AEs) related to lipegfilgrastim in total were bone pain (5.4%), leukocytosis (2.1%), back pain (1.8%), platelet count decreased (1.2%), and myalgia (1.2%). Fatal serious AEs were documented in 9 (2.7%) patients; none were attributable to lipegfilgrastim. CONCLUSION: Prophylaxis or therapeutic intention with lipegfilgrastim in NHL patients in routine clinical practice showed similar effectiveness and safety as demonstrated in the pivotal trials.

Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia with lipegfilgrastim in 2489 cancer patients: final results from the non-interventional study NADIR.

Objectives: The non-interventional study (NIS) NADIR (DRKS00005711) evaluated the effectiveness and safety of prophylaxis with lipegfilgrastim, a glycopegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, in 2500 patients undergoing chemotherapy in routine clinical practice. Primary objective was the incidence of chemotherapy-induced severe neutropenia, febrile neutropenia (FN), and neutropenia-associated complications. Methods: NADIR was a prospective NIS conducted in 201 study centers in Germany. Results: The analysis included 2489 patients. Main tumor types were breast cancer (n = 1198, 48.1%), lung cancer (n = 303, 12.2%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL; n = 337, 13.5%), and prostate cancer (n = 111, 4.5%). Nine hundred and ten (36.6%) patients were aged ≥65 years (regarded as "elderly" patients). Severe neutropenia (CTCAE grade 3/4) was reported in 26.8% (n = 666) and 25.2% (n = 229) of the total population and elderly patients, respectively. FN was documented in 2.7% (n = 68) of the total population vs 3.0% (n = 27) of elderly patients. Primary prophylaxis with lipegfilgrastim among patients with high risk of FN (>20%) was documented in 83.5% of the total population and 75.1% of elderly patients. Infections (CTCAE grade 3/4) were documented in 99 patients (4.0%) in the total population vs 47 (5.1%) elderly patients. Fatal infections were reported in 14 (0.6%) patients in the total population vs 11 (1.2%) elderly patients. Overall, most frequent lipegfilgrastim-related adverse events (AEs) included bone pain (8.0%), anemia (3.2%), leucocytosis (2.7%), and thrombocytopenia (2.5%). Of the patients, 18.0% had ≥1 documented serious AE; none of the fatal events (2.7%) was lipegfilgrastim-related. Conclusions: Lipegfilgrastim administered to patients with solid tumor/NHL undergoing chemotherapy in routine clinical practice showed similar effectiveness and safety compared to the pivotal trials.

Targeting Exercise Interventions to Patients With Cancer in Need: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.

Background: Exercise effects in cancer patients often appear modest, possibly because interventions rarely target patients most in need. This study investigated the moderator effects of baseline values on the exercise outcomes of fatigue, aerobic fitness, muscle strength, quality of life (QoL), and self-reported physical function (PF) in cancer patients during and post-treatment. Methods: Individual patient data from 34 randomized exercise trials (n = 4519) were pooled. Linear mixed-effect models were used to study moderator effects of baseline values on exercise intervention outcomes and to determine whether these moderator effects differed by intervention timing (during vs post-treatment). All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Moderator effects of baseline fatigue and PF were consistent across intervention timing, with greater effects in patients with worse fatigue (Pinteraction = .05) and worse PF (Pinteraction = .003). Moderator effects of baseline aerobic fitness, muscle strength, and QoL differed by intervention timing. During treatment, effects on aerobic fitness were greater for patients with better baseline aerobic fitness (Pinteraction = .002). Post-treatment, effects on upper (Pinteraction < .001) and lower (Pinteraction = .01) body muscle strength and QoL (Pinteraction < .001) were greater in patients with worse baseline values. Conclusion: Although exercise should be encouraged for most cancer patients during and post-treatments, targeting specific subgroups may be especially beneficial and cost effective. For fatigue and PF, interventions during and post-treatment should target patients with high fatigue and low PF. During treatment, patients experience benefit for muscle strength and QoL regardless of baseline values; however, only patients with low baseline values benefit post-treatment. For aerobic fitness, patients with low baseline values do not appear to benefit from exercise during treatment.