Bintrafusp Alfa With CCRT Followed by Bintrafusp Alfa Versus Placebo With CCRT Followed by Durvalumab in Patients With Unresectable Stage III NSCLC: A Phase 2 Randomized Study.

INTRODUCTION: Preclinical evaluation of bintrafusp alfa (BA) combined with radiotherapy revealed greater antitumor effects than BA or radiotherapy alone. In a phase 1 study, BA exhibited encouraging clinical activity in patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC who had received previous treatment. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, controlled phase 2 study (NCT03840902) evaluated the safety and efficacy of BA with concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT) followed by BA (BA group) versus placebo with cCRT followed by durvalumab (durvalumab group) in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC. The primary end point was progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 as assessed by the investigator. On the basis of the recommendation of an independent data monitoring committee, the study was discontinued before the maturity of overall survival data (secondary end point). RESULTS: A total of 153 patients were randomized to either BA (n = 75) or durvalumab groups (n = 78). The median progression-free survival was 12.8 months versus 14.6 months (stratified hazard ratio = 1.48 [95% confidence interval: 0.69-3.17]), in the BA and durvalumab groups, respectively. Trends for overall response rate (29.3% versus 32.1%) and disease control rate (66.7% versus 70.5%) were similar between the two groups. Any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 94.6% versus 96.1% of patients in the BA versus durvalumab groups, respectively. Bleeding events in the BA group were mostly grade 1 (21.6%) or 2 (9.5%). CONCLUSIONS: BA with cCRT followed by BA exhibited no efficacy benefit over placebo with cCRT followed by durvalumab in patients with stage III unresectable NSCLC.

Comparison of tumor assessments using RECIST 1.1 and irRECIST, and association with overall survival.

BACKGROUND: Patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may experience pseudoprogression, which can be classified as progressive disease (PD) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) V.1.1 and could lead to inappropriate treatment discontinuation. Immune-response criteria were developed to better capture novel response patterns seen with ICIs. METHODS: We pooled data from 1765 patients with 12 types of advanced solid tumors treated with avelumab (an anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody) monotherapy in the JAVELIN Solid Tumor and JAVELIN Merkel 200 trials, conducted a comparative analysis of tumor assessments by investigators according to RECIST 1.1 and immune-related RECIST (irRECIST), and evaluated the correlation between progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In total, 147 patients (8.3%) had a best overall response (BOR) of PD by RECIST 1.1 but had immune-related disease control by irRECIST (defined as immune-related BOR (irBOR) of immune-related stable disease or better). This discordance was seen irrespective of PD-L1 status and observed across all tumor types. Overall, PFS and immune-related PFS showed similar imputed rank correlations with OS. CONCLUSIONS: The use of irRECIST identified a subset of patients with a BOR of PD by RECIST 1.1 but an irBOR of immune-related disease control by irRECIST with a distinctive survival curve, thereby providing more clinically relevant information than RECIST 1.1 alone. However, as a surrogate endpoint for OS in the whole population, immune-related PFS by irRECIST did not show improved predictive value compared with PFS by RECIST 1.1.

Efficacy and Tolerability of First-Line Cetuximab Plus Leucovorin, Fluorouracil, and Oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) Versus FOLFOX-4 in Patients With RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The Open-Label, Randomized, Phase III TAILOR Trial.

PURPOSE: Cetuximab in combination with chemotherapy is a standard-of-care first-line treatment regimen for patients with RAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC); however, the efficacy of cetuximab plus leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) has never before been proven in a controlled and randomized phase III trial. To our knowledge, the TAILOR trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01228734) is the first randomized, multicenter, phase III study of the addition of cetuximab to first-line FOLFOX prospectively choosing a RAS wt population and thus providing confirmative data for the efficacy and safety of cetuximab plus FOLFOX versus FOLFOX alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: TAILOR is an open-label, randomized (1:1), multicenter, phase III trial in patients from China comparing FOLFOX-4 with or without cetuximab in RAS wt (KRAS/NRAS, exons 2 to 4) mCRC. The primary end point of TAILOR was progression-free survival time; secondary end points included overall survival time, overall response rate, and safety and tolerability. RESULTS: In the modified intent-to-treat population of 393 patients with RAS wt mCRC, adding cetuximab to FOLFOX-4 significantly improved the primary end point of progression-free survival time compared with FOLFOX-4 alone (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.89; P = .004; median, 9.2 v 7.4 months, respectively), as well as the secondary end points of overall survival time (current assessment after 300 events: hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.96; P = .02; median, 20.7 v 17.8 months, respectively) and overall response rate (odds ratio, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.61 to 3.61; P < .001; 61.1% v 39.5%, respectively). Treatment was well tolerated, and there were no new or unexpected safety findings. CONCLUSION: The TAILOR study met all of its objectives and relevant clinical end points, confirming cetuximab in combination with FOLFOX as an effective standard-of-care first-line treatment regimen for patients with RAS wt mCRC.

FOLFOX4 with cetuximab vs. UFOX with cetuximab as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: The randomized phase II FUTURE study.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of FOLFOX4, comprising infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin (LV) and oxaliplatin, with cetuximab compared with UFOX, comprising UFT, an oral prodrug of 5-FU, LV, and oxaliplatin, with cetuximab as first-line treatment for mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients, unselected by tumor KRAS status, were randomized 1:1 to FOLFOX4 with cetuximab or UFOX with cetuximab. Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point, assessed in the intention-to-treat population, was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included tumor response, overall survival, and safety. Outcome according to KRAS mutation status was investigated. RESULTS: Recruitment was curtailed at 302 patients after reporting of the importance of tumor KRAS mutation status for cetuximab activity. Baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment groups. PFS was significantly longer in the FOLFOX4 with cetuximab group compared with UFOX with cetuximab group (median 8.2 vs. 6.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.89; P = .0048). The response rate was also significantly greater in the FOLFOX4 with cetuximab group (51.3% vs. 37.5%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.11-2.78; P = .0160), although overall survival was comparable. In the KRAS wild type subgroup, efficacy outcomes were similar to those in the intention-to-treat population. Side effect profiles were manageable and consistent with expectations. CONCLUSION: In the first-line treatment of mCRC, UFOX with cetuximab had an acceptable safety profile but inferior activity compared with FOLFOX4 with cetuximab in relation to PFS and response. The regimens were comparable with regard to overall survival.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: significantly enhanced response with docetaxel.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of neoadjuvant (NA) docetaxel (DOC) with anthracycline-based therapy and determine the efficacy of NA DOC in patients with breast cancer initially failing to respond to anthracycline-based NA chemotherapy (CT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with large or locally advanced breast cancer received four pulses of cyclophosphamide 1,000 mg/m(2), doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2), vincristine 1.5 mg/m(2), and prednisolone 40 mg (4 x CVAP) for 5 days. Clinical tumor response was assessed. Those who responded (complete response [CR] or partial response [PR]) were randomized to receive further 4 x CVAP or 4 x DOC (100 mg/m(2)). All nonresponders received 4 x DOC. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-two patients were enrolled; 145 patients completed eight cycles of NA CT. One hundred two patients (66%) achieved a clinical response (PR or CR) after 4 x CVAP. After randomization, 50 patients received 4 x CVAP and 47 patients received 4 x DOC. In patients who received eight cycles of CT, the clinical CR (cCR) and clinical PR (cPR) (94% v 66%) and pathologic CR (pCR) (34% v 16%) response rates were higher (P =.001 and P =.04) in those who received further DOC. Intention-to-treat analysis demonstrated cCR and cPR (85% v 64%; P =.03) and pCR (31% v 15%; P =.06). Axillary lymph node examination revealed residual tumor in 33% of patients who received 8 x CVAP and 38% of patients who received further DOC. In patients who failed to respond to the initial CVAP, 4 x DOC resulted in a cCR and cPR rate of 55% and a pCR rate of 2%. Forty-four percent of these patients had residual tumor within axillary lymph nodes. CONCLUSION: NA DOC resulted in substantial improvement in responses to DOC.