Phase I trial of the oral PARP inhibitor olaparib in combination with paclitaxel for first- or second-line treatment of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: This Phase I study evaluated the safety, tolerability and efficacy of olaparib, a potent oral poly(ADPribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, in combination with paclitaxel in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). METHODS: Eligible patients who had received ≤1 prior cytotoxic regimen for mTNBC were treated with olaparib 200 mg bid continuously plus weekly paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 for three weeks per four-week cycle. Dose modifications in a large proportion of patients due to neutropenia resulted in enrollment of a second cohort of patients who, if they experienced grade ≥2 neutropenia in cycle 1, received granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, which was continued prophylactically in subsequent cycles. All patients had measurable disease; tumor responses were evaluated according to RECIST (version 1.0). RESULTS: Nineteen patients (cohort 1, n = 9; cohort 2, n = 10) received treatment; 15 had received prior taxane chemotherapy. The most frequent adverse events were diarrhea (n = 12, 63%), nausea (n = 11, 58%) and neutropenia (n = 11, 58%). Seven neutropenia events were reported in cohort 1 (four grade ≥3) and four in cohort 2 (two grade ≥3, including one event of febrile neutropenia). The median (range) dose intensity of paclitaxel was 57% (26 to 100%) in cohort 1 and 73% (29 to 100%) in cohort 2. Seven patients (37%) had a confirmed partial response; one patient remains on olaparib monotherapy without progression. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of olaparib and weekly paclitaxel was complicated by a significant clinical interaction, with higher-than-expected rates of neutropenia despite secondary prophylaxis. Given the encouraging response rate, alternative scheduling and dosing strategies should be considered (funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00707707).

Molecular predictors of outcome with gefitinib and docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer: data from the randomized phase III INTEREST trial.

PURPOSE In the phase III INTEREST trial, 1,466 pretreated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned to receive gefitinib or docetaxel. As a preplanned analysis, we prospectively analyzed available tumor biopsies to investigate the relationship between biomarkers and clinical outcomes. METHODS Biomarkers included epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) copy number by fluorescent in situ hybridization (374 assessable samples), EGFR protein expression by immunohistochemistry (n = 380), and EGFR (n = 297) and KRAS (n = 275) mutations. Results For all biomarker subgroups analyzed, survival was similar for gefitinib and docetaxel, with no statistically significant differences between treatments and no significant treatment by biomarker status interaction tests. EGFR mutation-positive patients had longer progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR], 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.49; P = .001) and higher objective response rate (ORR; 42.1% v 21.1%; P = .04), and patients with high EGFR copy number had higher ORR (13.0% v 7.4%; P = .04) with gefitinib versus docetaxel. CONCLUSION These biomarkers do not appear to be predictive factors for differential survival between gefitinib and docetaxel in this setting of previously treated patients; however, subsequent treatments may have influenced the survival results. For secondary end points of PFS and ORR, some advantages for gefitinib over docetaxel were seen in EGFR mutation-positive and high EGFR copy number patients. There was no statistically significant difference between gefitinib and docetaxel in biomarker-negative patients. This suggests gefitinib can provide similar overall survival to docetaxel in patients across a broad range of clinical subgroups and that EGFR biomarkers such as mutation status may additionally identify which patients are likely to gain greatest PFS and ORR benefit from gefitinib.

Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Previous, uncontrolled studies have suggested that first-line treatment with gefitinib would be efficacious in selected patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: In this phase 3, open-label study, we randomly assigned previously untreated patients in East Asia who had advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma and who were nonsmokers or former light smokers to receive gefitinib (250 mg per day) (609 patients) or carboplatin (at a dose calculated to produce an area under the curve of 5 or 6 mg per milliliter per minute) plus paclitaxel (200 mg per square meter of body-surface area) (608 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: The 12-month rates of progression-free survival were 24.9% with gefitinib and 6.7% with carboplatin-paclitaxel. The study met its primary objective of showing the noninferiority of gefitinib and also showed its superiority, as compared with carboplatin-paclitaxel, with respect to progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.85; P<0.001). In the subgroup of 261 patients who were positive for the epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) mutation, progression-free survival was significantly longer among those who received gefitinib than among those who received carboplatin-paclitaxel (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.64; P<0.001), whereas in the subgroup of 176 patients who were negative for the mutation, progression-free survival was significantly longer among those who received carboplatin-paclitaxel (hazard ratio for progression or death with gefitinib, 2.85; 95% CI, 2.05 to 3.98; P<0.001). The most common adverse events were rash or acne (in 66.2% of patients) and diarrhea (46.6%) in the gefitinib group and neurotoxic effects (69.9%), neutropenia (67.1%), and alopecia (58.4%) in the carboplatin-paclitaxel group. CONCLUSIONS: Gefitinib is superior to carboplatin-paclitaxel as an initial treatment for pulmonary adenocarcinoma among nonsmokers or former light smokers in East Asia. The presence in the tumor of a mutation of the EGFR gene is a strong predictor of a better outcome with gefitinib. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00322452.)

Gefitinib versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (INTEREST): a randomised phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Two phase II trials in patients with previously-treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer suggested that gefitinib was efficacious and less toxic than was chemotherapy. We compared gefitinib with docetaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer who had been pretreated with platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: We undertook an open-label phase III study with recruitment between March 1, 2004, and Feb 17, 2006, at 149 centres in 24 countries. 1466 patients with pretreated (>/=one platinum-based regimen) advanced non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned with dynamic balancing to receive gefitinib (250 mg per day orally; n=733) or docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) intravenously in 1-h infusion every 3 weeks; n=733). The primary objective was to compare overall survival between the groups with co-primary analyses to assess non-inferiority in the overall per-protocol population and superiority in patients with high epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-gene-copy number in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00076388. FINDINGS: 1433 patients were analysed per protocol (723 in gefitinib group and 710 in docetaxel group). Non-inferiority of gefitinib compared with docetaxel was confirmed for overall survival (593 vs 576 events; hazard ratio [HR] 1.020, 96% CI 0.905-1.150, meeting the predefined non-inferiority criterion; median survival 7.6 vs 8.0 months). Superiority of gefitinib in patients with high EGFR-gene-copy number (85 vs 89 patients) was not proven (72 vs 71 events; HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.78-1.51; p=0.62; median survival 8.4 vs 7.5 months). In the gefitinib group, the most common adverse events were rash or acne (360 [49%] vs 73 [10%]) and diarrhoea (255 [35%] vs 177 [25%]); whereas in the docetaxel group, neutropenia (35 [5%] vs 514 [74%]), asthenic disorders (182 [25%] vs 334 [47%]), and alopecia (23 [3%] vs 254 [36%]) were most common. INTERPRETATION: INTEREST established non-inferior survival of gefitinib compared with docetaxel, suggesting that gefitinib is a valid treatment for pretreated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

A Randomized Study of Electronic Diary versus Paper and Pencil Collection of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Hand-held electronic devices may provide a simple reproducible means by which quality of life (QOL) may be documented in patients with cancer. However, the QOL scales that are routinely used were originally validated when used with paper and pencil data collection. Patient-reported outcomes acquired using hand-held electronic devices (electronic patient-reported outcomes [e-PRO]) may not be the same as those acquired using paper and pencil, so validation of this method of data collection is needed. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the results of e-PRO and paper and pencil collection of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) and EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) QOL data in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and to ascertain patients' preferences for the different modes of collection. METHODS: This randomized, single-cohort, crossover study was performed in a tertiary referral hospital cancer center. Fifty patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC were randomized in a 1 : 1 ratio to complete either paper versions of the questionnaires (FACT-L and EQ-5D) followed by the e-PRO versions, or the e-PRO questionnaire followed by the paper versions. RESULTS: The majority (88%) of the FACT-L and all (100%) of the EQ-5D individual question responses were within ±1 point of each other when data collection via e-PRO and via pencil and paper were compared. There was no significant difference between the mean total FACT-L scores obtained using the two methods; however, 29% of patients had a difference between FACT-L total scores obtained with the two methods that was greater than ±6 points. The mean completion time was shorter for the paper and pencil method than the e-PRO method (p < 0.0001). However, most patients stated that they preferred the e-PRO method over paper and pencil (60% vs 12%). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the mode of administration of the FACT-L and EQ-5D had a relatively small effect on the mean responses given to the questionnaires in patients with advanced NSCLC. However, at the individual patient level, data varied considerably between the different modes of administration. Therefore, the group results obtained using the e-PRO should be similar to the originally validated paper method, with the advantages of improved patient acceptability and ease of reliable interfacing with trial databases.

Tilt and reading speed.

PURPOSE: To measure the effect of head tilt on reading rate and to determine whether a difference existed between the body or the text being tilted. METHODS: The Wilkins Rate of Reading Test was used to measure rate of reading in a population of normal readers. In the first part of the study, rate of reading with a head tilt of 15 degrees and 30 degrees was measured; in the second part of the study, rate of reading with a body tilt of 45 degrees and 90 degrees or a text tilt of 45 degrees and 90 degrees was measured. RESULTS: For the first experiment, 30 participants, with a mean age 20.3 years, showed no effect on reading speed with a head tilt of 15 degrees or 30 degrees. In the second experiment, 20 participants, with mean age of 19.75 years, showed significantly slowed rate of reading when text was tilted to 45 degrees and 90 degrees (by a mean of 19 and 36 words per minute, respectively), and when reading while lying horizontally (90 degrees) with text upright (mean reduction of 34 words per minute). With a body tilt of 45 degrees, the effect on reading rate (mean reduction of 15 words per minute) just failed to reach significance (p = 0.058). CONCLUSIONS: When text is tilted in relation to the body, by tilting either the text or the body, reading speed is affected. The effect of tilt on word recognition is discussed as a cause of the observed test results.

Effect of oral linezolid on the pressor response to intravenous tyramine.

AIMS: To investigate the effect of monoamine oxidase A inhibition from a single oral dose of linezolid on the pressor response to intravenous (i.v.) tyramine, using positive and negative controls to validate the methodology. METHODS: This placebo-controlled, three-period crossover study was conducted in 12 healthy male volunteers. Each volunteer received either one oral dose of moclobemide (300 mg), linezolid (600 mg), or placebo tablet followed by an i.v. tyramine pressor test until an increase in systolic blood pressure of at least 30 mmHg above baseline occurred. Each study day was separated by a 7-day washout period. The dose of tyramine required to raise the blood pressure by 30 mmHg (TYR30) was calculated for each oral treatment by linear interpolation between log-transformed doses of i.v. tyramine. The influence of body mass index (BMI) on TYR30 was also investigated. RESULTS: The tyramine sensitivity factor (ratio of the geometric least square mean TYR30 for placebo and active oral treatment) was 1.8 [90% confidence interval (CI) 1.6, 2.0, P < 0.0001] for linezolid and 2.1 (90% CI 1.8, 2.4, P < 0.0001) for the positive control moclobemide. BMI had a statistically significant effect on TYR30. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant difference in the pressor response to i.v. tyramine between linezolid and placebo. Moclobemide (positive control) and linezolid have a similar pressor response to i.v. tyramine. The statistically significant effect of BMI on TYR30 underlines the advantage of within-individual comparisons of treatments in order to reduce variability and provide more accurate treatment estimates.