Combination lurbinectedin and doxorubicin versus physician's choice of chemotherapy in patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer (ATLANTIS): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Lurbinectedin is a synthetic marine-derived anticancer agent that acts as a selective inhibitor of oncogenic transcription. Lurbinectedin monotherapy (3·2 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration on the basis of efficacy in patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) who relapsed after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. The ATLANTIS trial assessed the efficacy and safety of combination lurbinectedin and the anthracycline doxorubicin as second-line treatment for SCLC. METHODS: In this phase 3, open-label, randomised study, adult patients aged 18 years or older with SCLC who relapsed after platinum-based chemotherapy were recruited from 135 hospitals across North America, South America, Europe, and the Middle East. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by dynamic allocation to intravenous lurbinectedin 2·0 mg/m2 plus doxorubicin 40·0 mg/m2 administered on day 1 of 21-day cycles or physician's choice of control therapy (intravenous topotecan 1·5 mg/m2 on days 1-5 of 21-day cycles; or intravenous cyclophosphamide 1000 mg/m2, doxorubicin 45·0 mg/m2, and vincristine 2·0 mg on day 1 of 21-day cycles [CAV]) administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary granulocyte-colony stimulating factor prophylaxis was mandatory in both treatment groups. Neither patients nor clinicians were masked to treatment allocation, but the independent review committee, which assessed outcomes, was masked to patients' treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02566993, and with EudraCT, 2015-001641-89, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Aug 30, 2016, and Aug 20, 2018, 613 patients were randomly assigned to lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin (n=307) or control (topotecan, n=127; CAV, n=179) and comprised the intention-to-treat population; safety endpoints were assessed in patients who had received any partial or complete study treatment infusions (lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin, n=303; control, n=289). After a median follow-up of 24·1 months (95% CI 21·7-26·3), 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and 289 patients in the control group had discontinued study treatment; progressive disease was the most common reason for discontinuation (213 [70%] patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 152 [53%] in the control group). Median overall survival was 8·6 months (95% CI 7·1-9·4) in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group versus 7·6 months (6·6-8·2) in the control group (stratified log-rank p=0·90; hazard ratio 0·97 [95% CI 0·82-1·15], p=0·70). 12 patients died because of treatment-related adverse events: two (<1%) of 303 in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and ten (3%) of 289 in the control group. 296 (98%) of 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group had treatment-emergent adverse events compared with 284 (98%) of 289 patients in the control group; treatment-related adverse events occurred in 268 (88%) patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group and 266 (92%) patients in the control group. Grade 3 or worse haematological adverse events were less frequent in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group than the control group (anaemia, 57 [19%] of 302 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 110 [38%] of 288 in the control group; neutropenia, 112 [37%] vs 200 [69%]; thrombocytopenia, 42 [14%] vs 90 [31%]). The frequency of treatment-related adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation was lower in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group than in the control group (26 [9%] of 303 patients in the lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin group vs 47 [16%] of 289 in the control group). INTERPRETATION: Combination therapy with lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin did not improve overall survival versus control in patients with relapsed SCLC. However, lurbinectedin plus doxorubicin showed a favourable haematological safety profile compared with control. FUNDING: PharmaMar.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Before Bladder-Sparing Chemoradiotherapy in Patients With Nonmetastatic Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) before cystectomy improves survival in muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer (MIBC). The use of NAC before chemoradiation (CRT) has been limited, as these patients are often elderly, frail, and ineligible for cisplatin. However, the role of NAC in fit, cisplatin-eligible patients who opt for bladder preservation warrants further evaluation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with MIBC treated with NAC followed by CRT at the Princess Margaret and Durham Regional cancer centers from 2008 to 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Gemcitabine-cisplatin NAC was given for 2 to 4 cycles, followed by reassessment for CRT. External-beam radiotherapy (60-66 Gy) over 6 weeks was given with concurrent weekly cisplatin at 40 mg/m2. Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analyses. RESULTS: We identified 57 consecutive patients. Median age was 72 (range 45-87), and all had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 (60%) or 1 (40%). Stage II disease (65%), stage III disease (25%), and regional nodal metastases (11%) were included. Most completed planned NAC (95%). All patients completed external-beam radiotherapy, and 84% completed at least 60% of the planned concurrent weekly cisplatin doses. Median (range) follow-up was 19.3 (4.8-96.1) months. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached. Two-year OS and disease-specific survival rates were 74% (95% confidence interval, 57.7-84.9) and 88% (95% confidence interval, 78.5-98.1), respectively. Two-year bladder-intact disease-free survival was 64%. Salvage cystectomy was performed in 14%. Distant relapse occurred in 11%, and 9% died of metastatic disease. OS was associated with baseline hydronephrosis and with bladder-intact disease-free survival with residual disease on cystoscopy. CONCLUSION: NAC followed by CRT can result in encouraging outcomes and tolerability in cisplatin-eligible patients.

Carboplatin and Etoposide With or Without Palifosfamide in Untreated Extensive-Stage Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Multicenter, Adaptive, Randomized Phase III Study (MATISSE).

Purpose To evaluate the efficacy of the addition of palifosfamide to carboplatin and etoposide in extensive stage (ES) small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). Patients and Methods MATISSE was a randomized, open-label, adaptive phase III study. Previously untreated patients with ES SCLC were randomly assigned in a 1:1 fashion to receive carboplatin at area under the serum concentration-time curve 5 on day 1 plus etoposide 100 mg/m2 per day on days 1 to 3 every 21 days (CE) or carboplatin at area under the serum concentration-time curve 4 on day 1 plus etoposide 100 mg/m2 per day plus palifosfamide 130 mg/m2 per day on days 1 to 3 every 21 days (PaCE). The primary end point was overall survival. Results In all, 188 patients were enrolled; 94 patients received CE and 94 patients received PaCE. The median age on both arms was 61 years. Six cycles of chemotherapy were completed on both arms of the study by approximately 50% of the patients. Serious adverse events were documented and did not differ significantly between patients receiving PaCE and those receiving CE. Median overall survival was similar between both arms with 10.03 months on PaCE and 10.37 months on CE ( P = .096). Conclusion The addition of palifosfamide to CE failed to improve survival in ES SCLC.

Treatment Outcomes and Tumor Loss of Heterozygosity in Germline DNA Repair-deficient Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Germline mutations in DNA repair genes were recently reported in 8-12% of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). It is unknown whether these mutations associate with differential response to androgen receptor (AR)-directed therapy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical response of mCRPC patients with germline DNA repair defects to AR-directed therapies and to establish whether biallelic DNA repair gene loss is detectable in matched circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We recruited 319 mCRPC patients and performed targeted germline sequencing of 22 DNA repair genes. In patients with deleterious germline mutations, plasma cell-free DNA was also sequenced. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Prostate-specific antigen response and progression were assessed in relation to initial androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and subsequent therapy for mCRPC using Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of the 319 patients, 24 (7.5%) had deleterious germline mutations, with BRCA2 (n=16) being the most frequent. Patients (n=22) with mutations in genes linked to homologous recombination were heterogeneous at initial presentation but, after starting ADT, progressed to mCRPC with a median time of 11.8 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.1-18.4). The median time to prostate-specific antigen progression on first-line AR-targeted therapy in the mCRPC setting was 3.3 mo (95% CI 2.7-3.9). Ten out of 11 evaluable patients with germline BRCA2 mutations had somatic deletion of the intact allele in ctDNA. A limitation of this study is absence of a formal control cohort for comparison of clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with mCRPC who have germline DNA repair defects exhibit attenuated responses to AR-targeted therapy. Biallelic gene loss was robustly detected in ctDNA, suggesting that this patient subset could be prioritized for therapies exploiting defective DNA repair using a liquid biopsy. PATIENT SUMMARY: Patients with metastatic prostate cancer and germline DNA repair defects exhibit a poor response to standard hormonal therapies, but may be prioritized for potentially more effective therapies using a blood test.

What is the potential for overdiagnosis of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia?

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is caused by platelet-activating antibodies that recognize platelet factor 4//heparin (PF4/H) complexes. According to the "iceberg model," only a subset of anti-PF4/heparin antibodies of IgG class evincing strong platelet-activating properties cause clinical HIT. Since many centers rely predominantly on an anti-PF4/polyanion enzyme-immunoassay (EIA) to diagnose HIT, we estimated the potential for overdiagnosis when only this single test is available. We examined a database of 100 patients in whom the probability of HIT had been estimated using a clinical scoring system (4Ts), and where patients underwent systematic testing for HIT antibodies using three assays: the platelet serotonin release assay (SRA), an "in-house" EIA that detects IgG anti-PF4/heparin antibodies (EIA-IgG), and a commercial EIA that detects anti-PF4/polyanion antibodies of all three immunoglobulin classes (EIA-GTI). Whereas 16 of 100 patients fulfilled a "classic" definition of HIT (intermediate/high probability plus strong platelet-activating anti-PF4/heparin IgG antibodies), an additional 16 patients fulfilled a "liberal" definition in which any investigated patient (irrespective of the pretest probability) who had a positive EIA-GTI was considered to have HIT. The clinical features of these 16 additional patients--including generally weak antibodies and low risk for thrombosis--suggest underlying non-HIT explanations for thrombocytopenia. Patients with a positive SRA generally corresponded to those with intermediate or high pretest probability of HIT who also had strong EIA-GTI reactivity (>1.20 OD units). We conclude there is the potential to overdiagnose HIT by approximately 100% if any positive EIA is considered to "confirm" the diagnosis of HIT irrespective of the clinical scenario.