A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase III Noninferiority Study of the Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Darbepoetin Alfa for Chemotherapy-Induced Anemia in Patients With Advanced NSCLC.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated noninferiority of darbepoetin alfa versus placebo for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in anemic patients with NSCLC treated to a 12.0-g/dL hemoglobin (Hb) ceiling. METHODS: Adults with stage IV NSCLC expected to receive two or more cycles of myelosuppressive chemotherapy and Hb less than or equal to 11.0 g/dL were randomized 2:1 to blinded 500 µg darbepoetin alfa or placebo every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was OS; a stratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate noninferiority (upper confidence limit for hazard ratio [HR] < 1.15). Secondary endpoints were PFS and incidence of transfusions or Hb less than or equal to 8.0 g/dL from week 5 to end of the efficacy treatment period. RESULTS: The primary analysis set included 2516 patients: 1680 were randomized to darbepoetin alfa; 836 to placebo. The study was stopped early per independent Data Monitoring Committee recommendation after the primary endpoint was met with no new safety concerns. Darbepoetin alfa was noninferior to placebo for OS (stratified HR = 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83‒1.01) and PFS (stratified HR = 0.95; 95% CI: 0.87‒1.04). Darbepoetin alfa was superior to placebo for transfusion or Hb less than or equal to 8.0 g/dL from week 5 to end of the efficacy treatment period (stratified odds ratio = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.57‒0.86; p < 0.001). Objective tumor response was similar between the groups (darbepoetin alfa, 36.4%; placebo, 32.6%). Incidence of serious adverse events was 31.1% in both groups. No unexpected adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Darbepoetin alfa dosed to a 12.0-g/dL Hb ceiling was noninferior to placebo for OS and PFS and significantly reduced odds of transfusion or Hb less than or equal to 8.0 g/dL in anemic patients with NSCLC receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Avelumab monotherapy as first-line or second-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: phase Ib results from the JAVELIN Solid Tumor trial.

BACKGROUND: Antibodies targeting programmed death-1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) have shown clinical activity in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). This phase Ib cohort of the JAVELIN Solid Tumor trial assessed the efficacy and safety of avelumab (anti-PD-L1) monotherapy in patients with mRCC as either first-line (1 L) or second-line (2 L) treatment. METHODS: Patients with mRCC with a clear-cell component who were treatment naive (1 L subgroup) or had disease progression after one prior line of therapy (2 L subgroup) received avelumab 10 mg/kg intravenous infusion every 2 weeks. Endpoints included confirmed best overall response, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), PD-L1 expression, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 62 patients were enrolled in the 1 L subgroup, and 20 patients were enrolled in the 2 L subgroup. In the 1 L and 2 L subgroups, confirmed objective response rates were 16.1 and 10.0%, median DOR was 9.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8-not evaluable) and not evaluable (95% CI, 6.9-not evaluable), median PFS was 8.3 months (95% CI, 5.5-9.5) and 5.6 months (95% CI, 2.3-9.6), and median OS was not evaluable (95% CI, not evaluable) and 16.9 months (95% CI, 8.3-not evaluable), respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade occurred in 51 patients in the 1 L subgroup (82.3%) and 14 patients in the 2 L subgroup (70.0%). Grade ≥ 3 TRAEs occurred in eight patients in the 1 L subgroup (12.9%) and one patient in the 2 L subgroup (5.0%). No treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSION: Avelumab showed clinical activity and a manageable safety profile in both the 1 L and 2 L treatment setting in patients with mRCC. These data support the use of avelumab in combination with other agents in mRCC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01772004 ; registered 21 January, 2013.

Efficacy and safety of RGB-02, a pegfilgrastim biosimilar to prevent chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: results of a randomized, double-blind phase III clinical study vs. reference pegfilgrastim in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is accepted standard for prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. RGB-02 (Gedeon Richter) is a proposed biosimilar to pegylated G-CSF (Neulasta®, Amgen) with sustained release properties. This is a randomized, comparative, double-blind, multicenter study to evaluate efficacy and safety of RGB-02 in breast cancer patients receiving cytotoxic regimen. METHODS: Two hundred thirty-nine women presenting with breast cancer were randomized to RGB-02 (n = 121) and the reference product (n = 118). All patients received up to 6 cycles of docetaxel/doxorubicin chemotherapy combination and a once-per-cycle injection of a fixed 6 mg dose of pegfilgrastim. Primary endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia (ANC < 0.5 × 109/L) in Cycle 1 (2-sided CI 95%). Secondary endpoints included incidence and duration of severe neutropenia (in cycles 2-4), incidence of febrile neutropenia, time to ANC recovery, depth of ANC nadir, and safety outcomes. RESULTS: The mean duration of severe neutropenia in Cycle 1 was 1.7 (RGB-02) and 1.6 days (reference), with a difference (LS Mean) of 0.1 days (95% CI -0.2, 0.4). Equivalence could be established as the CI for the difference in LS Mean lay entirely within the pre-defined range of ±1 day. This positive result was supported by the analysis of secondary endpoints, which also revealed no clinical meaningful differences. Safety profiles were comparable between groups. No neutralizing antibodies against pegfilgrastim were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment equivalence in reducing the duration of chemotherapy induced neutropenia between RGB-02 and Neulasta® could be demonstrated. Similar efficacy and safety profiles of the once-per-cycle administration of RGB-02 and the pegfilgrastim reference were demonstrated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered prospectively, prior to study initiation. EudraCT number ( 2013-003166-14 ). The date of registration was 12 July, 2013.

Febrile neutropenia (FN) and pegfilgrastim prophylaxis in breast cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients receiving high (> 20%) FN-risk chemotherapy: results from a prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: Prophylaxis for febrile neutropenia (FN) is recommended for the duration of myelosuppressive chemotherapy in high-risk patients; yet, granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) discontinuation occurs frequently in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to investigate the incidence of FN in real-world settings and the extent and impact of early pegfilgrastim discontinuation. METHODS: This prospective, observational study enrolled patients with any-stage non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) or breast cancer initiating a new chemotherapy course with a high (> 20%) FN risk, with pegfilgrastim in cycle 1. During routine clinical visits, data were collected on FN events, discontinuation of pegfilgrastim (defined as administration of G-CSF other than pegfilgrastim for ≥ 1 cycle) and all G-CSF (and reasons), neutropenic complications and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). RESULTS: Overall, 943 patients were enrolled; 844 met the eligibility criteria (full analysis set) and 814 (86%) completed the study. Twenty-eight patients (3%) had 31 FN events (NHL, n = 17; breast cancer, n = 11). Twenty-six patients (3%) discontinued pegfilgrastim. Forty-four patients (5%) discontinued G-CSF. The most common reason for pegfilgrastim discontinuation was physician preference for daily G-CSF (n = 14 [2%]), and for discontinuation of all G-CSFs was reduced FN risk (n = 14 [2%]). Patients who continued G-CSF prophylaxis were less likely to experience neutropenic complications (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.26 [0.09-0.80]). Suspected ADRs to pegfilgrastim occurred in 43 patients (5%) and serious ADRs in 5 (1%). CONCLUSIONS: FN rates were consistent with previous reports with pegfilgrastim in clinical practice. No new ADRs were observed. G-CSF discontinuation was uncommon but appeared to increase the likelihood of neutropenic complications.

Avelumab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a phase 1b JAVELIN Solid Tumor study.

PURPOSE: Agents targeting programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) or its ligand (PD-L1) have shown antitumor activity in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The aim of this study was to assess the activity of avelumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, in patients with MBC. METHODS: In a phase 1 trial (JAVELIN Solid Tumor; NCT01772004), patients with MBC refractory to or progressing after standard-of-care therapy received avelumab intravenously 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Tumors were assessed every 6 weeks by RECIST v1.1. Adverse events (AEs) were graded by NCI-CTCAE v4.0. Membrane PD-L1 expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry (Dako PD-L1 IHC 73-10 pharmDx). RESULTS: A total of 168 patients with MBC, including 58 patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), were treated with avelumab for 2-50 weeks and followed for 6-15 months. Patients were heavily pretreated with a median of three prior therapies for metastatic or locally advanced disease. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related AEs occurred in 13.7% of patients, including two treatment-related deaths. The confirmed objective response rate (ORR) was 3.0% overall (one complete response and four partial responses) and 5.2% in patients with TNBC. A trend toward a higher ORR was seen in patients with PD-L1+ versus PD-L1- tumor-associated immune cells in the overall population (16.7% vs. 1.6%) and in the TNBC subgroup (22.2% vs. 2.6%). CONCLUSION: Avelumab showed an acceptable safety profile and clinical activity in a subset of patients with MBC. PD-L1 expression in tumor-associated immune cells may be associated with a higher probability of clinical response to avelumab in MBC.

Panitumumab-FOLFOX4 treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer that harbors KRAS mutations in exon 2 do not benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy. Other activating RAS mutations may also be negative predictive biomarkers for anti-EGFR therapy. METHODS: In this prospective-retrospective analysis, we assessed the efficacy and safety of panitumumab plus oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFOX4) as compared with FOLFOX4 alone, according to RAS (KRAS or NRAS) or BRAF mutation status. A total of 639 patients who had metastatic colorectal cancer without KRAS mutations in exon 2 had results for at least one of the following: KRAS exon 3 or 4; NRAS exon 2, 3, or 4; or BRAF exon 15. The overall rate of ascertainment of RAS status was 90%. RESULTS: Among 512 patients without RAS mutations, progression-free survival was 10.1 months with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 versus 7.9 months with FOLFOX4 alone (hazard ratio for progression or death with combination therapy, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.90; P=0.004). Overall survival was 26.0 months in the panitumumab-FOLFOX4 group versus 20.2 months in the FOLFOX4-alone group (hazard ratio for death, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.99; P=0.04). A total of 108 patients (17%) with nonmutated KRAS exon 2 had other RAS mutations. These mutations were associated with inferior progression-free survival and overall survival with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 treatment, which was consistent with the findings in patients with KRAS mutations in exon 2. BRAF mutations were a negative prognostic factor. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Additional RAS mutations predicted a lack of response in patients who received panitumumab-FOLFOX4. In patients who had metastatic colorectal cancer without RAS mutations, improvements in overall survival were observed with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 therapy. (Funded by Amgen and others; PRIME ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00364013.).

Phase I/II study of pemetrexed with or without ABT-751 in advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: ABT-751 is an antimitotic and vascular disrupting agent with potent preclinical anticancer activity. We conducted a phase I and randomized double-blind phase II study of pemetrexed with ABT-751 or placebo in patients with recurrent advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: One hundred seventy-one patients received intravenous pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) day 1 and oral ABT-751 or placebo days 1 to 14 of 21-day cycles. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end point included overall survival (OS); pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters were also analyzed. RESULTS: The recommended phase II dose of ABT-751 with pemetrexed is 200 mg. Fatigue, constipation, anemia, nausea, and diarrhea were the most common toxicities in both study arms. No pharmacokinetic interactions were observed. Median PFS in the ABT-751 arm was 2.3 months versus 1.9 for placebo (P = .819, log-rank) for the intention-to-treat population. However, differences in PFS (P = .112, log-rank) and OS (P = .034, log-rank; median 3.3 v 8.1 months) favoring ABT-751 were seen in the squamous NSCLC subgroup. Baseline circulating tumor cell concentrations were predictive of improved OS (P = .013). Changes from baseline of greater than 20% in plasma levels of placenta growth factor (P = .056), squamous cell carcinoma antigen (P = .03), and cytokeratin 19 fragment antigen 21-1 (P = .01) were markers best associated with improved OS. CONCLUSION: Addition of ABT-751 to pemetrexed is well-tolerated, but does not improve outcome in unselected patients with recurrent NSCLC. ABT-751 may have therapeutic potential in squamous NSCLC. Exploratory cellular and molecular analyses in this study identified biomarkers that may correlate with survival.

Randomized, phase III trial of panitumumab with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) versus FOLFOX4 alone as first-line treatment in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: the PRIME study.

PURPOSE: Panitumumab, a fully human anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody that improves progression-free survival (PFS), is approved as monotherapy for patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The Panitumumab Randomized Trial in Combination With Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer to Determine Efficacy (PRIME) was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of panitumumab plus infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) versus FOLFOX4 alone as initial treatment for mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, phase III trial, patients with no prior chemotherapy for mCRC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2, and available tissue for biomarker testing were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive panitumumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4. The primary end point was PFS; overall survival (OS) was a secondary end point. Results were prospectively analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis by tumor KRAS status. RESULTS: KRAS results were available for 93% of the 1,183 patients randomly assigned. In the wild-type (WT) KRAS stratum, panitumumab-FOLFOX4 significantly improved PFS compared with FOLFOX4 (median PFS, 9.6 v 8.0 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.97; P = .02). A nonsignificant increase in OS was also observed for panitumumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 (median OS, 23.9 v 19.7 months, respectively; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.02; P = .072). In the mutant KRAS stratum, PFS was significantly reduced in the panitumumab-FOLFOX4 arm versus the FOLFOX4 arm (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.62; P = .02), and median OS was 15.5 months versus 19.3 months, respectively (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.57; P = .068). Adverse event rates were generally comparable across arms with the exception of toxicities known to be associated with anti-EGFR therapy. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that panitumumab-FOLFOX4 was well tolerated and significantly improved PFS in patients with WT KRAS tumors and underscores the importance of KRAS testing for patients with mCRC.

Phase III trial comparing paclitaxel poliglumex (CT-2103, PPX) in combination with carboplatin versus standard paclitaxel and carboplatin in the treatment of PS 2 patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Performance status (PS) 2 patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) experience more toxicity, lower response rates, and shorter survival times than healthier patients treated with standard chemotherapy. Paclitaxel poliglumex (PPX), a macromolecule drug conjugate of paclitaxel and polyglutamic acid, reduces systemic exposure to peak concentrations of free paclitaxel and may lead to increased concentrations in tumors due to enhanced vascular permeability. METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive PS 2 patients with advanced NSCLC were randomized to receive carboplatin (area under the curve = 6) and either PPX (210 mg/m/10 min without routine steroid premedication) or paclitaxel (225 mg/m/3 h with standard premedication) every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 400 patients were enrolled. Alopecia, arthralgias/myalgias, and cardiac events were significantly less frequent with PPX/carboplatin, whereas grade > or =3 neutropenia and grade 3 neuropathy showed a trend of worsening. There was no significant difference in the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions despite the absence of routine premedication in the PPX arm. Overall survival was similar between treatment arms (hazard ratio, 0.97; log rank p = 0.769). Median and 1-year survival rates were 7.9 months and 31%, for PPX versus 8 months and 31% for paclitaxel. Disease control rates were 64% and 69% for PPX and paclitaxel, respectively. Time to progression was similar: 3.9 months for PPX/carboplatin versus 4.6 months for paclitaxel/carboplatin (p = 0.210). CONCLUSION: PPX/carboplatin failed to provide superior survival compared with paclitaxel/carboplatin in the first-line treatment of PS 2 patients with NSCLC, but the results with respect to progression-free survival and overall survival were comparable and the PPX regimen was more convenient.

Darbepoetin alpha for the treatment of anemia in patients with active cancer not receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy: results of a phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

PURPOSE: The efficacy and safety of darbepoetin alpha (DA) for treating patients with active cancer and anemia not receiving or planning to receive cytotoxic chemotherapy or myelosuppressive radiotherapy was evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with active cancer and anemia not receiving or planning to receive chemotherapy or radiotherapy were enrolled onto a phase III, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled study and administered placebo or DA 6.75 microg/kg every 4 weeks (Q4W) for up to 16 weeks with a 2-year follow-up for survival. Patients who completed 16 weeks of treatment could receive the same treatment as randomized Q4W for an additional 16 weeks. The primary end point was all occurrences of transfusions from weeks 5 through 17; safety end points included incidence of adverse events and survival. RESULTS: The incidence of transfusions between weeks 5 and 17 was lower in the DA group but was not statistically significantly different from that of placebo. DA was associated with an increased incidence of cardiovascular and thromboembolic events and more deaths during the initial 16-week treatment period. Long-term survival data demonstrated statistically significantly poorer survival in patients treated with DA versus placebo (P = .022). This effect varied by baseline covariates including, sex, tumor type, and geographic region; statistical significance diminished (P = .12) when the analysis was adjusted for baseline imbalances or known prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: DA was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in transfusions. Shorter survival was observed in the DA arm; thus, this study does not support the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in this subset of patients with anemia of cancer.