Efficacy and Safety of Bevacizumab Biosimilar FKB238 Versus Originator Bevacizumab: Results from AVANA, a Phase III Trial in Patients with Non-Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (non-sq-NSCLC).

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab is an antiangiogenic recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits tumor growth. FKB238, a bevacizumab biosimilar, has analytical pharmacokinetic and safety profiles similar to those of bevacizumab. OBJECTIVE: This phase III trial (NCT02810457) compared the efficacy and safety of FKB238 with that of bevacizumab in patients with advanced/recurrent non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (non-sq-NSCLC). METHODS: This global, multicenter, double-blind, parallel, randomized, comparative clinical trial enrolled and randomized patients with advanced/recurrent non-sq-NSCLC to receive intravenous infusions of either FKB238 15 mg/kg or bevacizumab 15 mg/kg. All patients received intravenous infusions of paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 and carboplatin (area under the curve 6.0) immediately prior to investigational products for 4-6 cycles. FKB238 and bevacizumab were administered on day 1 of each 21-day cycle until objective progressive disease by RECIST version 1.1 or other discontinuation criteria were met. The primary efficacy endpoint was overall response rate (ORR), including complete and partial response and based on blinded independent central review assessment. Other efficacy determinations included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and immunogenicity. Adverse events and severity were reported. RESULTS: The ORR for the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (N = 731) was 51.6% in the FKB238 arm (N = 364) and 53.7% in the bevacizumab arm (N = 367). The FKB238:bevacizumab ORR ratio (ITT population) was 0.96 (90% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1.08), and the difference in ORR (per-protocol set) between FKB238 and bevacizumab was - 0.02 (95% CI - 0.09 to 0.06). Both CIs fell within the prespecified equivalence margins. Estimated median PFS was 7.72 and 7.62 months in the FKB238 and bevacizumab arms, respectively (hazard ratio 0.97; 95% CI 0.82-1.16). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported for 94.2% and 95.1% of patients in the FKB238 and bevacizumab arms, respectively. Grade 3 or higher TEAEs were reported for 53.6% and 55.5% of patients in the FKB238 and bevacizumab arms, respectively. Serious TEAEs were reported for 25.1% and 26.0% of patients treated with FKB238 and bevacizumab, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy equivalence was demonstrated between the two drugs, and safety profiles were similar. There were no meaningful differences in efficacy and safety between FKB238 or bevacizumab in patients with non-sq-NSCLC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02810457.

A Phase III Study of Balugrastim Versus Pegfilgrastim in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy With Doxorubicin and Docetaxel.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-per-cycle balugrastim versus pegfilgrastim for neutrophil support in breast cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. METHODS: Breast cancer patients (n = 256) were randomized to 40 or 50 mg of subcutaneous balugrastim or 6 mg of pegfilgrastim ≈24 hours after chemotherapy (60 mg/m(2) doxorubicin and 75 mg/m(2) docetaxel, every 21 days for up to 4 cycles). The primary efficacy parameter was the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in cycle 1. Secondary parameters included DSN (cycles 2-4), absolute neutrophil count (ANC) nadir, febrile neutropenia rates, and time to ANC recovery (cycles 1-4). Safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity were assessed. RESULTS: Mean cycle 1 DSN was 1.0 day with 40 mg of balugrastim, 1.3 with 50 mg of balugrastim, and 1.2 with pegfilgrastim (upper limit of 95% confidence intervals for between-group DSN differences was <1.0 day for both balugrastim doses versus pegfilgrastim). Between-group efficacy parameters were comparable except for time to ANC recovery in cycle 1 (40 mg of balugrastim, 2.0 days; 50 mg of balugrastim, 2.1; pegfilgrastim, 2.6). Median terminal elimination half-life was ≈37 hours for 40 mg of balugrastim, ≈36 for 50 mg of balugrastim, and ≈45 for pegfilgrastim. Antibody response to balugrastim was low and transient, with no neutralizing effect. CONCLUSION: Once-per-cycle balugrastim is not inferior to pegfilgrastim in reducing cycle 1 DSN in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy; both drugs have comparable safety profiles. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This paper provides efficacy and safety data for a new, once-per-cycle granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, balugrastim, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. In this phase III trial, balugrastim was shown to be not inferior to pegfilgrastim in the duration of severe neutropenia in cycle 1 of doxorubicin/docetaxel chemotherapy, and the safety profiles of the two agents were similar. Once-per-cycle balugrastim is a safe and effective alternative to pegfilgrastim for hematopoietic support in patients with breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy associated with a greater than 20% risk of developing febrile neutropenia.

Phase II dose-finding study of balugrastim in breast cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Balugrastim is a once-per-cycle, fixed-dose recombinant protein comprising human serum albumin and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor under development for prevention of severe neutropenia in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. This phase II, multicenter, active-controlled, dose-finding pilot study evaluated balugrastim safety and efficacy versus pegfilgrastim in breast cancer patients scheduled to receive myelosuppressive chemotherapy and investigated two doses with similar efficacy to pegfilgrastim for a subsequent phase III study. Patients received four cycles of doxorubicin/docetaxel chemotherapy and with each successive cycle were randomized sequentially to escalating doses of balugrastim [30 (n = 11), 40 (n = 21), or 50 mg (n = 20)] or a fixed dose of pegfilgrastim [6 mg (n = 26)] post-chemotherapy. Balugrastim doses were escalated as planned. The incidence of adverse events was similar among the balugrastim groups and between all balugrastim doses and pegfilgrastim. The most frequently reported adverse events were neutropenia, alopecia, and nausea. During cycle 1, severe neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count of <0.5 × 10(9)/L) occurred in 40, 67, and 50 % and febrile neutropenia occurred in 20.0, 9.5, and 10.0 % of patients receiving balugrastim 30, 40, and 50 mg, respectively; in patients receiving pegfilgrastim, 48 % experienced severe neutropenia and 8 % experienced febrile neutropenia. Duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) for each treatment group was 0.9, 1.6, 1.1, and 0.9 days, respectively. In the remaining three chemotherapy cycles, DSN was ≤1 day across all treatment groups. Balugrastim 50 mg was comparable to pegfilgrastim in terms of safety and overall efficacy in breast cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Final overall survival: fulvestrant 500 mg vs 250 mg in the randomized CONFIRM trial.

BACKGROUND: At the time of the initial analysis of overall survival (OS) for the Comparison of Faslodex in Recurrent or Metastatic Breast Cancer (CONFIRM) randomized, double-blind, phase III trial, approximately 50% of patients had died. A final analysis of OS was subsequently planned for when 75% of patients had died. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to fulvestrant 500 mg administered as two 5-mL intramuscular injections on days 0, 14, and 28 and every 28 (±3) days thereafter or fulvestrant 250 mg administered as two 5-mL intramuscular injections (one fulvestrant and one placebo [identical in appearance to study drug]) on days 0, 14 (two placebo injections only), and 28 and every 28 (±3) days thereafter. OS was analyzed using an unadjusted log-rank test. No adjustments were made for multiplicity. Serious adverse events (SAEs) and best response to subsequent therapy were also reported. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: In total, 736 women (median age = 61.0 years) were randomly assigned to fulvestrant 500 mg (n = 362) or 250 mg (n = 374). At the final survival analysis, 554 of 736 (75.3%) patients had died. Median OS was 26.4 months for fulvestrant 500 mg and 22.3 months for 250 mg (hazard ratio = 0.81; 95% confidence interval = 0.69-0.96; nominal P = .02). There were no clinically important differences in SAE profiles between the treatment groups; no clustering of SAEs could be detected in either treatment group. Type of first subsequent therapy and objective responses to first subsequent therapy were well balanced between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with locally advanced or metastatic estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, fulvestrant 500 mg is associated with a 19% reduction in risk of death and a 4.1-month difference in median OS compared with fulvestrant 250 mg. Fulvestrant 500 mg was well tolerated, and no new safety concerns were identified.

Comparing duration of response and duration of clinical benefit between fulvestrant treatment groups in the CONFIRM trial: application of new methodology.

Comparisons of duration of response (DoR) and duration of clinical benefit (DoCB) within clinical trials are prone to biases. To address these biases, we used new methodology to prospectively analyze expected DoR and expected DoCB. Objective response rate and clinical benefit rate were calculated for fulvestrant 500 and 250 mg, and used to calculate expected DoR and expected DoCB for each dose group. The ratios for expected DoR and expected DoCB (expected DoR500/expected DoR250 and expected DoCB500/expected DoCB250) were then calculated, thereby allowing statistical comparisons of these endpoints between each arm of the COmparisoN of Faslodex In Recurrent or Metastatic breast cancer (CONFIRM) trial. Expected DoRs for fulvestrant 500 and 250 mg were 3.2 and 3.6 months, respectively. The expected DoR ratio between fulvestrant 500 and 250 mg was not statistically significant (0.89; 95 % CI, 0.48-1.67, P = 0.724). The expected DoCBs for fulvestrant 500 and 250 mg were 9.8 and 7.2 months, respectively. The expected DoCB ratio showed that the expected DoCB for fulvestrant 500 mg was significantly improved compared with the expected DoCB for fulvestrant 250 mg (1.36; 95 % CI, 1.07-1.73, P = 0.013). Analysis of the expected DoR and expected DoCB showed fulvestrant 500 mg significantly increased expected DoCB compared with fulvestrant 250 mg in the CONFIRM trial.

Results of the CONFIRM phase III trial comparing fulvestrant 250 mg with fulvestrant 500 mg in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast cancer.

PURPOSE: We compared fulvestrant 500 mg regimen with the approved dose of fulvestrant 250 mg per month for treatment of postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast cancer who experienced progression after prior endocrine therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Comparison of Faslodex in Recurrent or Metastatic Breast Cancer (CONFIRM) is a double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter, phase III study. Patients were randomly assigned to fulvestrant 500 mg (500 mg intramuscularly [IM] on day 0, then 500 mg IM on days 14 and 28 and every 28 days thereafter) or 250 mg every 28 days. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included objective response rate, clinical benefit rate (CBR), duration of clinical benefit (DoCB), overall survival (OS), and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: PFS was significantly longer for fulvestrant 500 mg (n = 362) than 250 mg (n = 374) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.94; P = .006), corresponding to a 20% reduction in risk of progression. Objective response rate was similar for fulvestrant 500 mg and 250 mg (9.1% v 10.2%, respectively). CBR was 45.6% for fulvestrant 500 mg and 39.6% for fulvestrant 250 mg. DoCB and OS were 16.6 and 25.1 months, respectively, for the 500-mg group, whereas DoCB and OS were 13.9 and 22.8 months, respectively, in the 250-mg group. Fulvestrant 500 mg was well tolerated with no dose-dependent adverse events. QOL was similar for both arms. CONCLUSION: Fulvestrant 500 mg was associated with a statistically significant increase in PFS and not associated with increased toxicity, corresponding to a clinically meaningful improvement in benefit versus risk compared with fulvestrant 250 mg.

Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin plus docetaxel significantly improves time to progression without additive cardiotoxicity compared with docetaxel monotherapy in patients with advanced breast cancer previously treated with neoadjuvant-adjuvant anthracycline therapy: results from a randomized phase III study.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the combination of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) and docetaxel significantly prolongs time to disease progression compared with docetaxel alone without an increase in cardiac toxicity in women with advanced breast cancer who had experienced relapse at least 1 year after prior adjuvant or neoadjuvant anthracycline therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This international, phase III study randomly assigned 751 patients to receive either docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) (n = 373) or PLD 30 mg/m(2) followed by docetaxel 60 mg/m(2) every 21 days (n = 378) and continued until disease progression or prohibitive toxicity. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP). Secondary end points were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), cardiac toxicity, and safety. RESULTS: Treatment with PLD-docetaxel significantly improved median TTP from 7.0 to 9.8 months (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.77; P = .000001) and the ORR from 26% to 35% (P = .0085). OS was similar between the two groups (HR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.22). The incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events were similar (78% v 72%), although a higher incidence of hand-foot syndrome (24% v 0%) and mucositis/stomatitis (12% v 1%) were observed in the PLD-docetaxel combination. Protocol-defined left ventricular ejection fraction decreases and congestive heart failure were reported in 5% and 1% in both treatment arms, respectively. CONCLUSION: The PLD-docetaxel combination was more effective than docetaxel alone in women with metastatic breast cancer who had experienced relapse at least 1 year after prior adjuvant anthracycline therapy without an increase in cardiac toxicity, although mucocutaneous toxicity was more common.

Randomized phase III trial comparing single-agent paclitaxel Poliglumex (CT-2103, PPX) with single-agent gemcitabine or vinorelbine for the treatment of PS 2 patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and impaired performance status (PS >or= 2) have limited life expectancies and decreased tolerance for drug-induced toxicities. Current treatment guidelines indicate that PS 2 patients benefit from systemic therapy. Further refinement of treatment in these patients requires reduction of treatment-associated toxicities while maintaining or improving efficacy. Paclitaxel poliglumex (PPX), a macromolecular polymer-drug conjugate of paclitaxel and poly-l-glutamic acid, may enhance the therapeutic index of paclitaxel. METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive PS 2 patients with advanced NSCLC randomly received single-agent PPX (175 mg/m) or a comparator (single-agent vinorelbine or gemcitabine). The primary end point of this study was overall survival. RESULTS: Overall survival was similar between treatment arms (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.95; log-rank p = 0.686). Median and 1-year survival were 7.3 months and 26%, respectively, for PPX versus 6.6 months and 26% for the control arm. There was a nonsignificant trend toward improved survival in women in the PPX arm compared with standard single agents (HR = 0.65; p = 0.069). The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events in the treatment versus control arm were dyspnea (13% versus 17%, respectively) and fatigue (10% versus 9%). Grade 3/4 neutropenia and anemia were reduced in the PPX arm (2% versus 8% and 3% versus 9%, respectively). Neuropathy, a taxane-specific toxicity, was more common in the PPX arm; grade 3 neuropathy was limited to 3%. CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent PPX, dosed at 175 mg/m, is active and well tolerated in PS 2 patients with advanced NSCLC. Patients on PPX required fewer red blood cell transfusions, hematopoietic growth factors, opioid analgesics, and clinic visits than patients receiving gemcitabine or vinorelbine.

Phase III, double-blind, controlled trial of atamestane plus toremifene compared with letrozole in postmenopausal women with advanced receptor-positive breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare time to progression (TTP) with a steroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) atamestane (ATA) combined with toremifene (TOR; complete estrogen blockade) versus letrozole (LET) in receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (ABC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligibility included postmenopausal receptor-positive ABC and adjuvant hormonal therapy completed more than 12 months prior to study entry. Participants received daily ATA 500 mg with TOR 60 mg (ATA + TOR), or letrozole 2.5 mg (LET). The primary end point was TTP, whereas secondary objectives included objective response (OR), overall survival (OS), and time to treatment failure (TTF). The study had 80% power to detect a 25% increase in TTP assuming a TTP of 9.4 months in the LET population. RESULTS: A total of 865 patients were randomly assigned (434 to ATA + TOR and 431 to LET) in 60 centers in the United States, Canada, Russia, and Ukraine. Baseline characteristics were balanced. Median TTP was identical in the two arms at 11.2 months (P < .92). Median TTF was similar at 9.24 months (ATA + TOR) versus 10.44 months (LET). The hazard ratios (LET/ATA + TOR) were 1.00 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.08) for TTP, 0.99 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.06) for TTF, and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.11) for OS. OR occurred in 30% of patients receiving ATA + TOR and in 36% of patients receiving LET (P < .1). Adverse events (AEs) were similar for patients receiving ATA + TOR versus LET, and serious AEs were 10% v 11%, respectively. CONCLUSION: TTP for patients receiving ATA + TOR was identical to that for patients receiving LET, representing the first endocrine therapy comparable to LET in ABC. Unlike in the Anastrozole, Tamoxifen, and Combined trial, addition of an antiestrogen did not decrease efficacy of the AI. Future studies of AIs in combination with more effective selective estrogen receptor modulators or selective receptor downregulators is warranted.