Lorlatinib Versus Crizotinib in Patients With Advanced ALK-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: 5-Year Outcomes From the Phase III CROWN Study.

PURPOSE: Lorlatinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) and intracranial activity versus crizotinib in patients with previously untreated, advanced, ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase III CROWN study. Here, we report long-term outcomes from CROWN after 5 years of follow-up. METHODS: Two hundred ninety-six patients with ALK-positive NSCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive lorlatinib 100 mg once daily (n = 149) or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily (n = 147). This post hoc analysis presents updated investigator-assessed efficacy outcomes, safety, and biomarker analyses. RESULTS: With a median follow-up for PFS of 60.2 and 55.1 months, respectively, median PFS was not reached (NR [95% CI, 64.3 to NR]) with lorlatinib and 9.1 months (95% CI, 7.4 to 10.9) with crizotinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.19 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.27]); 5-year PFS was 60% (95% CI, 51 to 68) and 8% (95% CI, 3 to 14), respectively. Median time to intracranial progression was NR (95% CI, NR to NR) with lorlatinib and 16.4 months (95% CI, 12.7 to 21.9) with crizotinib (HR, 0.06 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.12]). Safety profile was consistent with that in prior analyses. Emerging new ALK resistance mutations were not detected in circulating tumor DNA collected at the end of lorlatinib treatment. CONCLUSION: After 5 years of follow-up, median PFS has yet to be reached in the lorlatinib group, corresponding to the longest PFS ever reported with any single-agent molecular targeted treatment in advanced NSCLC and across all metastatic solid tumors. These results coupled with prolonged intracranial efficacy and absence of new safety signals represent an unprecedented outcome for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC and set a new benchmark for targeted therapies in cancer.

Final Overall Survival, Safety, and Quality of Life Results From a Phase 2 Study of Crizotinib in East Asian Patients With ROS1-Positive Advanced NSCLC.

Introduction: Crizotinib provided meaningful clinical benefit in the initial analysis of a phase 2 study in East Asian patients with advanced ROS1-positive NSCLC (NCT01945021). Nevertheless, overall survival (OS) data were immature. Here, we present the final OS, quality of life (QoL), and safety data after an additional 3 years of follow-up. Methods: In this phase 2, open-label, single-arm trial, East Asian patients with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC who had received less than or equal to three systemic therapies previously were treated with crizotinib 250 mg twice daily on a continuous daily dosing schedule in 28-day cycles. The OS (secondary end point) was analyzed for the total population, by country, and by number of previous chemotherapy regimens. QoL and safety were also evaluated. Results: With a median duration of follow-up of 56.1 months, the median OS was 44.2 months (95% confidence interval: 32.0-not reached) for the total population (N = 127). Differences in median OS were observed among individual countries and with number of previous regimens. The improvement in QoL found in the previous analysis was maintained with the extended follow-up. Treatment-related adverse events led to crizotinib dose reductions or permanent treatment discontinuations in 17.3% and 2.4%, respectively, of the patients. Conclusions: This is the largest trial of an ALK/ROS1 inhibitor to treat patients with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC and provides a new benchmark for OS in East Asian patients. The QoL and safety profile with long-term follow-up were consistent with previous reports and support the continued use of crizotinib in the treatment of patients with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC.

Final Overall Survival Analysis From a Study Comparing First-Line Crizotinib Versus Chemotherapy in ALK-Mutation-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Purpose The phase III PROFILE 1014 trial compared crizotinib with chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) -positive advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Here, we report the final overall survival (OS) results. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral crizotinib 250 mg twice daily (n = 172) or intravenous pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve of 5 to 6 mg·mL/min) every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles (n = 171). Crossover to crizotinib was permitted after disease progression. OS was analyzed using a stratified log-rank test and a prespecified rank-preserving structural failure time model to account for crossover. Results Median follow-up duration for OS was approximately 46 months for both arms. In the chemotherapy arm, 144 patients (84.2%) received crizotinib in subsequent lines. Hazard ratio for OS was 0.760 (95% CI, 0.548 to 1.053; two-sided P = .0978). Median OS was not reached (NR) with crizotinib (95% CI, 45.8 months to NR) and 47.5 months with chemotherapy (95% CI, 32.2 months to NR). Survival probability at 4 years was 56.6% (95% CI, 48.3% to 64.1%) with crizotinib and 49.1% (95% CI, 40.5% to 57.1%) with chemotherapy. After crossover adjustment, there was an improvement in OS that favored crizotinib (hazard ratio, 0.346; 95% bootstrap CI, 0.081 to 0.718). The longest OS was observed in crizotinib-treated patients who received a subsequent ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor. No new safety signals were identified. Conclusion The final analysis of the PROFILE 1014 study provides a new benchmark for OS in patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer and highlights the benefit of crizotinib for prolonging survival in this patient population.

Phase II Study of Crizotinib in East Asian Patients With ROS1-Positive Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Purpose Approximately 1% to 2% of non-small-cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) harbor a c-ros oncogene 1 ( ROS1) rearrangement. Crizotinib, an inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), ROS1, and MET, has shown marked antitumor activity in a small expansion cohort of patients with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC from an ongoing phase I study. We assessed the efficacy and safety of crizotinib in the largest cohort of patients with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC. Patients and Methods This phase II, open-label, single-arm trial enrolled East Asian patients with ROS1-positive (assessed through validated AmoyDx assay [Amoy Diagnostics, Xiamen, China] at three regional laboratories) advanced NSCLC who had received three or fewer lines of prior systemic therapies. Patients were to receive oral crizotinib at a starting dose of 250 mg twice daily and continued treatment until Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1-defined progression (by independent radiology review [IRR]), unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) by IRR. Results In the efficacy and safety analyses, 127 patients were included, with 49.6% still receiving treatment at data cutoff. ORR by IRR was 71.7% (95% CI, 63.0% to 79.3%), with 17 complete responses and 74 partial responses. ORRs were similar irrespective of the number of prior lines of therapy, and responses were durable (median duration of response, 19.7 months; 95% CI, 14.1 months to not reached). Median progression-free survival by IRR was 15.9 months (95% CI, 12.9 to 24.0 months). No new safety signals associated with crizotinib were reported. Conclusion This study demonstrated clinically meaningful benefit and durable responses with crizotinib in East Asian patients with ROS1-positive advanced NSCLC. Crizotinib was generally well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with previous reports.

Long-term effects of crizotinib in ALK-positive tumors (excluding NSCLC): A phase 1b open-label study.

Crizotinib, an inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), MET, and ROS1, is approved for treatment of patients with ALK-positive or ROS1-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, ALK rearrangements are also implicated in other malignancies, including anaplastic large-cell lymphoma and inflammatory myofibroblastic tumors (IMTs). In this ongoing, multicenter, single-arm, open-label phase 1b study (PROFILE 1013; NCT01121588), patients with ALK-positive advanced malignancies other than NSCLC were to receive a starting dose of crizotinib 250 mg twice daily. Primary endpoints were safety and objective responses based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 or National Cancer Institute International Response Criteria. Forty-four patients were enrolled (lymphoma, n = 18; IMT, n = 9; other tumors, n = 17). The objective response rate was 53% (95% confidence interval [CI], 28-77) for lymphoma, with 8 complete responses (CRs) and 1 partial response (PR); 67% (95% CI, 30-93) for IMTs, with 1 CR and 5 PRs; and 12% (95% CI, 2-36) for other tumors, with 2 PRs in patients affected by colon carcinoma and medullary thyroid cancer, respectively. The median duration of treatment was almost 3 years for patients with lymphoma and IMTs, with 2-year progression-free survival of 63% and 67%, respectively. The most common treatment-related adverse events were diarrhea (45.5%) and vision disorders (45.5%), mostly grade 1. These findings indicate strong and durable activity of crizotinib in ALK-positive lymphomas and IMTs. The safety profile was consistent with the known safety profile of crizotinib even with long-term treatment.

Crizotinib versus Chemotherapy in Asian Patients with ALK-Positive Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Crizotinib has demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rates (ORRs) versus chemotherapy in previously treated and untreated patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We report the safety and efficacy of crizotinib in Asian subpopulations of two global phase III trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This analysis evaluated previously treated and untreated patients in two randomized, openlabel phase III trials of crizotinib versus chemotherapy in ALK-positive advanced NSCLC in second-line (PROFILE 1007) and first-line settings (PROFILE 1014). Efficacy and safety were analyzed by race in the intention-to-treat and "as-treated" populations for efficacy and safety endpoints, respectively. RESULTS: In previously treated (n=157) and untreated (n=157) Asian patients, PFS was statistically significantly longer with crizotinib versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio for PFS, 0.526; 95% confidence interval, 0.363 to 0.762; p < 0.001 and hazard ratio, 0.442; 95% confidence interval, 0.302 to 0.648; p < 0.001, respectively). Similar antitumor activity was seen in the non-Asian and overall populations. ORRs were statistically significantly higher with crizotinib versus chemotherapy in both Asian and non-Asian previously treated and untreated patients (p < 0.05). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (any grade)with crizotinib were vision disorder, diarrhea, and nausea, which were observed at a comparable incidence across Asian and non-Asian populations, irrespective of previous treatment status. Most adverse events were mild to moderate in severity. CONCLUSION: These data, currently the only analysis showing Asian and non-Asian populations in the same study, support the efficacy and safety of crizotinib in Asian patients with previously treated or untreated ALK-positive advanced NSCLC.

Intracranial Efficacy of Crizotinib Versus Chemotherapy in Patients With Advanced ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results From PROFILE 1014.

PURPOSE: Intracranial efficacy of first-line crizotinib versus chemotherapy was compared prospectively in the phase III PROFILE 1014 study in ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive crizotinib (250 mg twice daily; n = 172) or chemotherapy (pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) plus cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) or carboplatin at area under the curve 5 to 6, every 3 weeks for ≤ six cycles; n = 171). Patients with stable treated brain metastases (tBM) were eligible. Intracranial efficacy was assessed at baseline and every 6 or 12 weeks in patients with or without known brain metastases (BM), respectively; intracranial time to tumor progression (IC-TTP; per protocol) and intracranial disease control rate (IC-DCR; post hoc) were measured. The intent-to-treat population was also assessed. RESULTS: Of 343 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 23% had tBM at baseline. A nonsignificant IC-TTP improvement was observed with crizotinib in the intent-to-treat population (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; P = .069), patients with tBM (HR, 0.45; P = .063), and patients without BM (HR, 0.69; P = .323). Among patients with tBM, IC-DCR was significantly higher with crizotinib versus chemotherapy at 12 weeks (85% v 45%, respectively; P < .001) and 24 weeks (56% v 25%, respectively; P = .006). Progression-free survival was significantly longer with crizotinib versus chemotherapy in both subgroups (tBM present: HR, 0.40; P < .001; median, 9.0 v 4.0 months, respectively; BM absent: HR, 0.51; P < .001; median, 11.1 v 7.2 months, respectively) and in the intent-to-treat population (HR, 0.45; P < .001; median, 10.9 v 7.0 months, respectively). CONCLUSION: Compared with chemotherapy, crizotinib demonstrated a significantly higher IC-DCR in patients with tBM. Improvements in IC-TTP were not statistically significant in patients with or without tBM, although sensitivity to detect treatment differences in or between the two subgroups was low.

5-Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) plus sunitinib or bevacizumab as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized Phase IIb study.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib is an oral inhibitor of tyrosine kinase receptors implicated in tumor proliferation, angiogenesis, and metastasis. In this randomized, multicenter, open-label Phase IIb study, sunitinib plus mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin plus leucovorin plus 5-fluorouracil) was compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: Patients were stratified by performance status, baseline lactate dehydrogenase level, and prior adjuvant treatment, and randomized 1:1 to receive sunitinib 37.5 mg/day for 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off plus mFOLFOX6 every 2 weeks or bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus mFOLFOX6 every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate, overall survival, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: Enrollment was closed early following accrual of 191 patients, based on an interim analysis showing an inferior trend in the primary progression-free survival efficacy endpoint for sunitinib. Ninety-six patients were randomized to sunitinib plus mFOLFOX6 and 95 to bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6. Median progression-free survival was 9.3 months and 15.4 months, respectively, but the objective response rate was similar between the study arms. Median overall survival was 23.7 months and 34.1 months, respectively. Dose reductions and interruptions were more common with sunitinib. Hematologic toxicity was more common in the sunitinib arm. CONCLUSION: While the results of the sunitinib arm are comparable with those of previously reported FOLFOX combinations, the sunitinib-based combination was associated with more toxicity than that observed with bevacizumab and mFOLFOX6. The bevacizumab arm had an unexpectedly good outcome, and was much better than that seen in the Phase III trials. Combination therapy with sunitinib plus mFOLFOX6 is not recommended for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

First-line crizotinib versus chemotherapy in ALK-positive lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of the ALK inhibitor crizotinib as compared with standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is unknown. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, phase 3 trial comparing crizotinib with chemotherapy in 343 patients with advanced ALK-positive nonsquamous NSCLC who had received no previous systemic treatment for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral crizotinib at a dose of 250 mg twice daily or to receive intravenous chemotherapy (pemetrexed, 500 mg per square meter of body-surface area, plus either cisplatin, 75 mg per square meter, or carboplatin, target area under the curve of 5 to 6 mg per milliliter per minute) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. Crossover to crizotinib treatment after disease progression was permitted for patients receiving chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by independent radiologic review. RESULTS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with crizotinib than with chemotherapy (median, 10.9 months vs. 7.0 months; hazard ratio for progression or death with crizotinib, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.60; P<0.001). Objective response rates were 74% and 45%, respectively (P<0.001). Median overall survival was not reached in either group (hazard ratio for death with crizotinib, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.26; P=0.36); the probability of 1-year survival was 84% with crizotinib and 79% with chemotherapy. The most common adverse events with crizotinib were vision disorders, diarrhea, nausea, and edema, and the most common events with chemotherapy were nausea, fatigue, vomiting, and decreased appetite. As compared with chemotherapy, crizotinib was associated with greater reduction in lung cancer symptoms and greater improvement in quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Crizotinib was superior to standard first-line pemetrexed-plus-platinum chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated advanced ALK-positive NSCLC. (Funded by Pfizer; PROFILE 1014 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01154140.).

Prognostic impact of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: We retrospectively evaluated the prognostic impact of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) as a marker for inflammatory and immune state in men with progressive metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) following docetaxel. METHODS: The SUN-1120 phase III trial comparing prednisone combined with sunitinib (n = 584) or placebo (n = 289) for mCRPC following docetaxel-based chemotherapy was evaluated. The arms were combined for analysis, since no difference was observed in the primary endpoint of overall survival (OS). A logarithmic transformation was applied to non-normal factors. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for OS estimation. To identify an optimal prognostic model for survival, we used a Cox proportional hazards regression method with forward stepwise selection, stratifying for ECOG PS, progression type (prostate specific antigen [PSA] or radiographic) and treatment group. Patients were categorized into risk groups. RESULTS: Complete data was evaluable for 784 men. The factors used in the model that remained individually significant for OS in multivariable analysis were: log-lactate dehydrogenase level (LDH) level (HR 2.86 [95% CI = 2.29, 3.56], P < .001), hemoglobin (0.80 [0.74, 0.85], P < .001), > 1 organ involved by metastatic disease (1.49 [1.21, 1.84], P < .001), log-alkaline phosphatase (1.13 [0.99, 1.28], P = .074), log-number of prior cycles of docetaxel (0.84 [0.71, 0.98], P = .031), progression on docetaxel (1.35 [1.00, 1.81], P = .049), log-PSA (1.06 [1.00, 1.12], P = .075) and log-NLR (1.55 [1.32, 1.83], P < .001). NLR increased the c-statistic of the prognostic model from 0.703 to 0.715. CONCLUSION: High NLR may be associated with an independent poor prognostic impact in post-docetaxel patients with mCRPC. These data warrant external validation.

Randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of sunitinib plus prednisone versus prednisone alone in progressive, metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: We evaluated angiogenesis-targeted sunitinib therapy in a randomized, double-blind trial of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with progressive mCRPC after docetaxel-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive sunitinib 37.5 mg/d continuously or placebo. Patients also received oral prednisone 5 mg twice daily. The primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS). Two interim analyses were planned. RESULTS: Overall, 873 patients were randomly assigned to receive sunitinib (n = 584) or placebo (n = 289). The independent data monitoring committee stopped the study for futility after the second interim analysis. After a median overall follow-up of 8.7 months, median OS was 13.1 months and 11.8 months for sunitinib and placebo, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.914; 95% CI, 0.762 to 1.097; stratified log-rank test, P = .168). PFS was significantly improved in the sunitinib arm (median 5.6 v 4.1 months; HR, 0.725; 95% CI, 0.591 to 0.890; stratified log-rank test, P < .001). Toxicity and rates of discontinuations because of adverse events (AEs; 27% v 7%) were greater with sunitinib than placebo. The most common treatment-related grade 3/4 AEs were fatigue (9% v 1%), asthenia (8% v 2%), and hand-foot syndrome (7% v 0%). Frequent treatment-emergent grade 3/4 hematologic abnormalities were lymphopenia (20% v 11%), anemia (9% v 8%), and neutropenia (6% v < 1%). CONCLUSION: The addition of sunitinib to prednisone did not improve OS compared with placebo in docetaxel-refractory mCRPC. The role of antiangiogenic therapy in mCRPC remains investigational.

Radiographic progression by Prostate Cancer Working Group (PCWG)-2 criteria as an intermediate endpoint for drug development in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association of radiographic progression defined by Prostate Cancer Working Group (PCWG)-2 guidelines and overall survival (OS) in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two trials that used PCWG-2 guidelines to define progression were analysed: a randomized phase II trial (n = 221) comparing first-line docetaxel-prednisone plus AT-101 or placebo, and a phase III trial (n = 873) comparing prednisone plus sunitinib or placebo after docetaxel-based chemotherapy. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate the association of radiographic progression with OS. Landmark analyses compared progressing patients with those who had not progressed. Sub-analyses compared patients removed from trial for progression vs other reasons. RESULTS: An increased risk of death was seen for radiographic progression at landmark times from 6 to 12 months with docetaxel-based therapy (hazard ratio [HR] >1.7 at all time-points). An increased risk of death was also seen with post-docetaxel prednisone alone or with sunitinib for progression at landmark times from 2 to 8 months (HR >2.7 at all time-points). Kendall's τ was 0.50 (P < 0.001) in the setting of docetaxel-based therapy and 0.34 (P < 0.001) in the post-docetaxel setting for association between radiographic progression and death amongst patients with both events. Removal from study due to radiographic progression was associated with a significantly lower OS compared with removal for other reasons in both trials. Limitations of a retrospective analysis apply and there was no central radiology review. CONCLUSIONS: Radiographic progression by PCWG-2 criteria was significantly associated with OS in patients with mCRPC receiving first-line docetaxel-based chemotherapy or post-docetaxel therapy. With external validation as a surrogate endpoint in trials showing survival benefits, the use of radiographic progression-free survival may expedite drug development in mCRPC, which has been hampered by the lack of intermediate endpoints.

Phase III trial of sunitinib in combination with capecitabine versus capecitabine monotherapy for the treatment of patients with pretreated metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) remains an incurable illness in the majority of cases, despite major therapeutic advances. This may be related to the ability of breast tumors to induce neoangiogenesis, even in the face of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Sunitinib, an inhibitor of key molecules involved in neoangiogenesis, has an established role in the treatment of metastatic renal cell and other cancers and demonstrated activity in a phase II trial in MBC. We performed a randomized phase III trial comparing sunitinib plus capecitabine (2,000 mg/m2) with single-agent capecitabine (2,500 mg/m2) in patients with heavily pretreated MBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligibility criteria included MBC, prior therapy with anthracyclines and taxanes, one or two prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease or early relapse after a taxane plus anthracycline adjuvant regimen, and adequate organ function and performance status. The primary end point was progression-free survival, for which the study had 90% power to detect a 50% improvement (from 4 to 6 months). RESULTS: A total of 442 patients were randomly assigned. Progression-free survival was not significantly different between the treatment arms, with medians of 5.5 months (95% CI, 4.5 to 6.0) for the sunitinib plus capecitabine arm and 5.9 months (95% CI, 5.4 to 7.6) for the capecitabine monotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.58; one-sided P = .941). There were no significant differences in response rate or overall survival. Toxicity, except for hand-foot syndrome, was more severe in the combination arm. CONCLUSION: The addition of sunitinib to capecitabine does not improve the clinical outcome of patients with MBC pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes.

Phase II open-label study of sunitinib in patients with advanced breast cancer.

This multicenter, open-label phase II study was conducted to evaluate sunitinib monotherapy in patients with either metastatic or locoregionally recurrent advanced breast cancer. Patients received sunitinib 37.5 mg on a continuous daily dosing schedule. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR); the predefined target ORR was 25 %. All 83 patients enrolled into the study received study treatment. The majority of patients (90 %) had metastatic disease; 92 % had received prior systemic therapies, and 60 % had received two or more regimens for early and/or advanced disease. The ORR was 8 % (95 % exact CI, 4-17), comprising seven partial responses. In patients with superficial lesions (defined as cutaneous or palpable chest wall lesions), the ORR was 20 % (three of 15 evaluable patients), which was higher than that in patients with non-superficial disease (9 %; six of 64 patients). Median progression-free survival in the overall population was 3.6 months (95 % CI, 2.4-3.9); median overall survival was 15.6 months (95 % CI, 14.0-22.7). No new or unexpected safety findings were reported. The most commonly reported adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (60 %), diarrhea (54 %), and nausea (49 %). The most commonly reported grade 3/4 AEs were fatigue (17 %), neutropenia (16 %), and thrombocytopenia (11 %). Four patients (5 %) had a dose reduction due to an AE, and 39 patients (47 %) had temporary discontinuations of therapy due to AEs. Two on-study deaths were reported, one due to a pulmonary embolism (considered related to treatment) and one attributed to dyspnea and a myocardial infarction (considered unrelated to treatment). Patient-reported outcomes suggested that sunitinib treatment did not have a negative impact overall on patients' functional domains or the majority of symptom scales. The trial did not meet its prespecified primary endpoint, and in view of the negative results obtained in several other trials, sunitinib will not be developed further for this indication.

Effects of exemestane administered for 2 years versus placebo on bone mineral density, bone biomarkers, and plasma lipids in patients with surgically resected early breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate potential detrimental effects of exemestane on bone and lipid metabolism. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postmenopausal women with early breast cancer were randomly assigned to exemestane 25 mg daily or placebo for 2 years in a double-blind setting. Primary objective was to evaluate the effect of exemestane on bone mineral density. Secondary objectives were effects on bone biomarkers, plasma lipids, coagulation factors, and homocysteine. Planned size was 128 patients. RESULTS: One hundred forty-seven patients were enrolled. All patients completed their 24-month visit except for those discontinuing treatment at an earlier stage. The mean annual rate of bone mineral density loss was 2.17% v 1.84% in the lumbar spine (P = .568) and 2.72% v 1.48% in the femoral neck (P = .024) in the exemestane and placebo arm, respectively. The mean change in T-score after 2 years was -0.21 for exemestane and -0.11 on placebo in the hip, and -0.30 and -0.21, respectively, in the lumbar spine. Exemestane significantly increased serum level and urinary excretion of bone resorption, but also bone formation markers. Except for a modest reduction in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (P < .001) and apolipoprotein A1 (P = .004), exemestane had no major effect on lipid profile, homocysteine levels, or coagulation parameters. CONCLUSION: Exemestane modestly enhanced bone loss from the femoral neck without significant influence on lumbar bone loss. Except for a 6% to 9% drop in plasma high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, no major effects on serum lipids, coagulation factors, or homocysteine were recorded. Bone mineral density should be assessed according to the US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines.