Adjuvant everolimus in high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: final results from the PILLAR-2 randomized phase III trial.

Background: Patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with an International Prognostic Index (IPI) ≥3 are at higher risk for relapse after a complete response (CR) to first-line rituximab-based chemotherapy (R-chemo). Everolimus has single-agent activity in lymphoma. PILLAR-2 aimed to improve disease-free survival (DFS) with 1 year of adjuvant everolimus. Patients and methods: Patients with high-risk (IPI ≥3) DLBCL and a positron emission tomography/computed tomography-confirmed CR to first-line R-chemo were randomized to 1 year of everolimus 10 mg/day or placebo. The primary end point was DFS; secondary end points were overall survival, lymphoma-specific survival, and safety. Results: Between August 2009 and December 2013, 742 patients were randomized to everolimus (n = 372) or placebo (n = 370). Median follow-up was 50.4 months (range 24.0-76.9). Overall, 47% of patients were ≥65 years, 50% were male, and 42% had an IPI of 4 or 5. 48% and 67% completed everolimus and placebo, respectively. Primary reasons for everolimus discontinuation versus placebo were adverse events (AEs; 30% versus 12%) and relapsed disease (6% versus 13%). Everolimus did not significantly improve DFS compared with placebo (hazard ratio 0.92; 95% CI 0.69-1.22; P = 0.276). Two-year DFS rate was 77.8% (95% CI 72.7-82.1) with everolimus and 77.0% (95% CI 72.1-81.1) with placebo. Common grade 3/4 AEs with everolimus were neutropenia, stomatitis, and decreased CD4 lymphocytes. Conclusions: Adjuvant everolimus did not improve DFS in patients already in PET/CT-confirmed CR. Future approaches should incorporate targeted agents such as everolimus with R-CHOP rather than as adjuvant therapy after CR has been obtained. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00790036.

Efficacy of everolimus plus octreotide LAR in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumor and carcinoid syndrome: final overall survival from the randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 RADIANT-2 study.

Background: In the phase 3 RADIANT-2 study, everolimus plus octreotide long-acting repeatable (LAR) showed improvement of 5.1 months in median progression-free survival versus placebo plus octreotide LAR among patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors associated with carcinoid syndrome. The progression-free survival P-value was marginally above the prespecified threshold for statistical significance. Here, we report final overall survival (OS) and key safety update from RADIANT-2. Patients and methods: The RADIANT-2 trial compared everolimus (10 mg/day, orally; n = 216) versus placebo (n = 213), both in conjunction with octreotide LAR (30 mg, intramuscularly, every 28 days). Patients, unblinded at the time of progression or after end of double-blind core phase following primary analysis, were offered open-label everolimus with octreotide LAR (open-label phase). In the open-label phase, patients had similar safety and efficacy assessments as those in the core phase. For OS, hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs using unadjusted Cox model and a Cox model adjusted for prespecified baseline covariates were calculated. Results: A total of 170 patients received open-label everolimus (143 crossed over from the placebo arm; 27 in the everolimus arm continued to receive the same treatment after unblinding). The median OS (95% CI) after 271 events was 29.2 months (23.8-35.9) for the everolimus arm and 35.2 months (30.0-44.7) for the placebo arm (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.92-1.49). HR adjusted for baseline covariates was 1.08 (95% CI, 0.84-1.38). The most frequent drug-related grade 3 or 4 AEs reported during the open-label phase were diarrhea (5.3%), fatigue (4.7%), and stomatitis (4.1%). Deaths related to pulmonary or cardiac failure were observed more frequently in the everolimus arm. Conclusion: No significant difference in OS was observed for the everolimus plus octreotide LAR and placebo plus octreotide LAR arms of the RADIANT-2 study, even after adjusting for imbalances in the baseline covariates. Clinical Trial Number: NCT00412061, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

A randomized, open-label, phase 2 study of everolimus in combination with pasireotide LAR or everolimus alone in advanced, well-differentiated, progressive pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: COOPERATE-2 trial.

Background: Several studies have demonstrated the antitumor activity of first-generation somatostatin analogs (SSAs), primarily targeting somatostatin receptor (sstr) subtypes 2 and 5, in neuroendocrine tumors (NET). Pasireotide, a second-generation SSA, targets multiple sstr subtypes. We compared the efficacy and safety of pasireotide plus everolimus to everolimus alone in patients with advanced, well-differentiated, progressive pancreatic NET. Patients and methods: Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to receive a combination of everolimus (10 mg/day, orally) and pasireotide long-acting release (60 mg/28 days, intramuscularly) or everolimus alone (10 mg/day, orally); stratified by prior SSA use, and baseline serum chromogranin A and neuron-specific enolase. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate, disease control rate, and safety. Biomarker response was evaluated in an exploratory analysis. Results: Of 160 patients enrolled, 79 were randomized to the combination arm and 81 to the everolimus arm. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were similar between the treatment arms. No significant difference was observed in PFS: 16.8 months in combination arm versus 16.6 months in everolimus arm (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.54). Partial responses were observed in 20.3% versus 6.2% of patients in combination arm versus everolimus arm; however, overall disease control rate was similar (77.2% versus 82.7%, respectively). No significant improvement was observed in median overall survival. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of both the drugs; grade 3 or 4 fasting hyperglycemia was seen in 37% versus 11% of patients, respectively. Conclusions: The addition of pasireotide to everolimus was not associated with the improvement in PFS compared with everolimus alone in this study. Further studies to delineate mechanisms by which SSAs slow tumor growth in NET are warranted.

Phase I clinical study of the novel epothilone B analogue BMS-310705 given on a weekly schedule.

BACKGROUND: BMS-310705, a water-soluble semi-synthetic analogue of epothilone B, was selected for clinical development because of its in vivo anti-tumour activity and toxicity profile similar to that of ixabepilone, currently the most extensively evaluated and promising epothilone B analogue. The improved solubility of BMS-310705 allowed a cremophore-free formulation that avoided the need for pre-medication. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two schedules were tested, one with drug administrations on days (D) 1, 8 and 15 followed by 1-week's rest, the other with administrations on D1 and 8 (D1&8 schedule) followed by 1-week's rest. Treatment was given as a 15-min infusion without pre-medication against hypersensitivity. The plasma pharmacokinetics of BMS-310705 was studied in 30 patients. An accelerated titration design 2B was applied for dose escalations. Twenty-seven patients were accrued in the D1, 8, 15 and 32 in the D1&8 schedule. RESULTS: The dose was escalated from 5-30 mg/m(2)/week with diarrhoea as dose-limiting toxicity; 15 and 20 mg/m(2) were the recommended doses in the D1, 8, 15 and D1&8 schedule, respectively. Other frequent non-haematological toxicities were neurotoxicity, mainly paraesthesia, asthenia and myalgia. Preliminary results showed linear pharmacokinetics along the range of doses tested with a short half-life. Five objective responses were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Further clinical development of BMS-310705 might be worthwhile in solid tumours where ixabepilone or other epothilones are not indicated.

Phase II trial of the novel taxane BMS-184476 as second-line in non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the tolerability and efficacy of BMS-184476, an analog of paclitaxel, in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) progressing or relapsing following at least one prior chemotherapy regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-six previously treated advanced NSCLC patients received BMS-184476 at a dose of 60 mg/m(2) administered intravenously over 1 h every 21 days. RESULTS: The median number of cycles delivered per patient was five (range one to 17). Dose reduction was required in only 3.8% of cycles. Grade 4 neutropenia occurred in 19.6% of patients, but no grade 4 thrombocytopenia or anemia was reported. Febrile neutropenia was observed in only two (3.6%) patients and there were no life-threatening events. Grade 3/4 peripheral sensory-motor neuropathy was reported in 9% of patients. Other non-hematological toxicities, such as nausea and vomiting, myalgia and arthralgia, diarrhea, and mucositis, were uncommon. Partial responses were observed in eight (14.3%) patients and stable disease in 33 (58.9%). Median progression-free survival was 3.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7-5.4] and median overall survival was 10 months (95% CI 6-13.4). CONCLUSIONS: BMS-184476 was well tolerated at the dose of 60 mg/m(2) and showed evidence of antitumor activity in previously treated NSCLC.

Phase IB and pharmacological study of the novel taxane BMS-184476 in combination with doxorubicin.

The aim of this study was to define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the pharmacological profile of the paclitaxel analogue BMS-184476 given once every 3 weeks, or on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks (d1&8), in combination with a fixed dose of 50 mg/m(2) of Doxorubicin (Doxo) administered on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Adult patients with advanced solid malignancies received escalating doses of BMS-184476 infused over 1 h after bolus Doxo. Pharmacokinetics (PK) of BMS-184476, Doxo and metabolites were investigated. The effect of BMS-184476 on doxorubicinol formation was studied in the cytosol from human myocardium. The MTD of 3-weekly BMS-184476 was 30 mg/m(2). The MTD/recommended Phase II dose was 35 mg/m(2)/week (70 mg/m(2) per cycle) in the d1&8 schedule. The dose-limiting toxicity was neutropenia for both schedules. Other toxicities were loss of appetite, asthenia, and mild, cumulative peripheral neuropathy. The objective response rate in 17 previously untreated or minimally pretreated patients with breast cancer treated at 35 mg/m(2)/week of BMS-184476 was 59% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 33-82%). Two of the 7 patients not responding to the study regimen later responded to Doxo and paclitaxel. Plasma disposition of BMS-184476 at 30, 35 and 40 mg/m(2) was linear without evidence of a PK interaction with Doxo. In studies with cytosol from human myocardium, the formation of cardiotoxic doxorubicinol was not enhanced by BMS-184476. Dosing of BMS-184476 for 2 consecutive weeks allowed the administration of larger doses of the taxane with a promising antitumour activity in patients with untreated or minimally pretreated breast cancer. The higher than expected myelotoxicity of the 3-weekly schedule is unexplained by the investigated interactions. Lack of enhanced doxorubicinol formation in human myocardium is consistent with the cardiac safety of the regimen.

An investigational new drug treatment program for patients with gemcitabine: results for over 3000 patients with pancreatic carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: An Investigational New Drug (IND) treatment program allows patients access to a drug that has shown activity against a serious or life-threatening disease prior to full Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review and approval. This treatment IND program, in which patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic carcinoma were treated with gemcitabine, began in 1995. METHODS: Eligibility criteria were < or =1 prior chemotherapy regimen; a Karnofsky performance status (KPS) of > or =50; and adequate bone marrow, liver, and renal function. Gemcitabine was given at a dose of 1000 mg/m2 weekly x 7 followed by a week of rest, then weekly x 3 every 4 weeks thereafter. In this program, disease-related symptom improvement (DRSI) was defined retrospectively as 1) improvement in pain (on a 7-point scale) and/or analgesic class (e.g., morphine improving to codeine) and/or KPS (> or =20 points), or 2) stability of these three parameters with a 7% increase in weight from baseline. RESULTS: A total of 3023 patients enrolled. At baseline, 80% of them had Stage IV disease, and 84% had a baseline KPS > or = 70. The median age was 65 years, and 56% of the patients were male. The cumulative DRSI response rate after the fourth cycle was 18.4%. Of 982 patients with tumor response data, there were 14 with complete response and 104 with partial response, for an overall response rate of 12.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 10.0-14.0%). For 2380 patients with survival data, the median survival was 4.8 months (95% CI, 4.5-5.1 months) and the 12-month survival was 15%. Gemcitabine was well tolerated; only 4.6% of discontinuations were due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Notable disease-related symptom improvement and survival were seen with gemcitabine in this large, compassionate-use setting, and these findings were in agreement with those of earlier registration trials.

[A phase II multicenter study of gemcitabine in non small cell lung cancers]. / Etude multicentrique de phase II de la gemcitabine dans les cancers bronchiques non à petites cellules (CBNPC).

Gemcitabine is a novel pyrimidine nucleoside whose activity has been demonstrated on solid tumors. We report here the results of a multicentre phase II trial of gemcitabine in chemonaive patients with inoperable non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Gemcitabine was given weekly at a dose of 1,250 mg/m2 administered as a 30 min intravenous infusion, for 3 weeks followed by 1 week of rest (1 cycle). All the 161 patients included were evaluable for toxicity and 151 of them were evaluable for efficacy. The majority of patients had a stage IIIb (31.1%) or stage IV (64.6%) disease; 10.6%, 83.2% and 6.2% of patients had a WHO performance status (PS) 0, 1, and 2, respectively. Adenocarcinoma accounted for 52.2% of cases and squamous cell carcinoma for 43.5% of cases. Three complete responses and 30 partial responses gave an objective response (OR) rate of 21.8% (95% confidence interval; 15.5-29.3%). All responses were validated by an independent Oncology Review Board. Median duration of response was 7.6 months. Median time to progression was 4.6 months (3.3 months in non responders and 7.6 months in responders). Median survival was 7.3 months in non responders and 13.4 months in responders (p < 0.001), which gave an overall median survival of 8.9 months (95% CI: 0.1-21.9 months) in the entire study population. An improvement of symptoms and personal state was also observed. Treatment was well tolerated. Neutropenia was the only dose limiting toxicity. WHO grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in 19.6% and 5.7% of patients, respectively. With a 21.8% OR rate, this multicentre study confirms the activity of gemcitabine as a single agent in patients with inoperable NSCLC. Its good tolerance and original mode of action make gemcitabine a drug of choice in the therapeutic strategy of these tumors.

Activity of gemcitabine in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a multicentre, extended phase II study.

Gemcitabine is a novel nucleoside analogue with activity in solid tumours. This study assessed the objective response rate to gemcitabine given weekly intravenously at a dose of 1250 mg/m2 for 3 weeks followed by 1 week of rest (one cycle) in chemonaive patients with inoperable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). 161 patients with NSCLC were recruited from 10 sites in nine countries. Most patients had stage IIIb (31.3%) or IV (64.6%) disease, and 93.8% had a performance status of 0 or 1 according to the WHO scale. Of 151 evaluable patients, there were 3 complete responses and 30 partial responses lasting at least 4 weeks for an objective response rate of 21.8% (95% CI 15.5-29.3%). All responses were validated by an extramural Oncology Review Board. The mean duration of response was 8.8 months. The mean survival for all patients (16.1% of patients still alive 26 months after last patient started treatment) was 11.5 months. Improvements were also observed in secondary efficacy parameters such as performance status, weight, analgesic requirement, pain, and other disease-related symptoms including cough, dyspnoea, haemoptysis, anorexia, somnolence and hoarseness. Haematological and non-haematological toxicity was mild given the biological activity of gemcitabine. This study confirms gemcitabine as one of the most active agents in NSCLC with the added benefit of a modest toxicity profile and ease of administration on an out-patient basis. Gemcitabine is a suitable candidate for combination chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC.

Economic value of gemcitabine compared to cisplatin and etoposide in non-small cell lung cancer.

Although chemotherapy costs have not been highlighted traditionally, there is increasing pressure to demonstrate the value of new treatments within the health care budget. Pharmaceutical companies are assessing the economic value of their products before launch. Gemcitabine is a nucleoside analogue developed for use in solid tumours. The purpose of this model was to investigate the clinical outcomes and potential cost savings for gemcitabine used as monotherapy compared to cisplatin and etoposide combination therapy in late stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), in a palliative (as opposed to aggressive) chemotherapy setting. Gemcitabine treatment data were taken from a large NSCLC study and data from retrospective chart reviews identified through the National Oncology Data Base. The model population and effectiveness of the two regimens were judged to be similar, except for baseline performance status. If drug costs were not included, the probability distribution resulting from the simulation showed median cost savings per cycle ranging from $US 1504 to $US 7425, with a medium value of $US 2154. The model suggested that gemcitabine would result in cost savings per cycle more than 90% of the time. Outpatient versus inpatient drug administrations accounted for the majority of potential cost savings. Most of the remaining cost savings were attributable to the difference in febrile neutropenia and antiemetic use. This economic model showed susbstantial savings if gemcitabine was used instead of cisplatin and etoposide combination therapy in the United States' community care setting. Some savings would be realized even if the location of treatment for both regimens was mostly outpatient. Assessment of the product's economic value before launch has assisted in our understanding of the potential areas of cost savings for gemcitabine and has guided us in the design of prospective randomized studies which included pharmacoeconomic endpoints.

Cefaclor advanced formulation versus cefaclor in the treatment of pneumonia.

The use of cefaclor advanced formulation (cefaclor AF) in the treatment of pneumonia caused by susceptible organisms was investigated in a multi-center trial conducted in the United Kingdom and the United States. A total of 266 patients were enrolled in this double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, parallel study; 132 patients were treated with cefaclor AF and 134 patients received the reference drug cefaclor. Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of lobar pneumonia or bronchopneumonia, with a positive sputum culture and an infiltrate on chest roentgenogram. Patients received either cefaclor AF (750 mg twice daily) or cefaclor (500 mg three times daily) for 10 to 14 days. Forty patients in the cefaclor AF group and 45 in the cefaclor group were evaluable for efficacy, with 37 (92.5%) and 43 (95.6%), respectively, showing a favorable posttherapy clinical response. Proven or presumed pathogen elimination was achieved in 87.5% and 86.7% of cases, respectively. Both study drugs demonstrated high levels of activity against Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae (including beta-lactamase-producing strains), and Moraxella catarrhalis (including beta-lactamase-producing strains). There were no statistically significant differences between drugs in efficacy results. One or more side effects were reported by 42.4% of the patients treated with cefaclor AF and by 44.0% of those treated with cefaclor; diarrhea, nausea, headache, and respiratory disorders were the most common adverse events. No drug-related side effects were seen with a frequency or severity that would be unexpected with the use of oral cephalosporins. Cefaclor AF and cefaclor performed equally well with respect to clinical and bacteriologic response rates in the treatment of pneumonia.

Cefaclor AF in the treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis/tonsillitis.

Two double-blind, double-dummy, randomized multicentre studies compared the safety and efficacy of 10-day regimens of cefaclor advanced formulation (cefaclor AF) (375 mg twice daily) with cefaclor (250 mg three times daily) in the treatment of proven group A beta-haemolytic streptococcal pharyngitis/tonsillitis. Of the 1,138 patients enrolled, 764 (cefaclor AF:392; cefaclor: 372) were evaluated for efficacy. All patients enrolled in the studies (570 treated with cefaclor AF and 568 treated with cefaclor) were evaluated for safety. Clinical and bacteriological evaluations were performed on treatment days 4-6, and after completion of treatment within 3-5 days and 2-3 weeks. In evaluable patients, the post-therapy clinical success and bacteriological cure rates for cefaclor AF were 96.7% and 93.6%, respectively; the rates were 98.1% and 94.1% for cefaclor. Sixteen cefaclor AF-treated patients and 14 cefaclor-treated patients withdrew early from the trial because of adverse events. There were no significant differences between treatment groups in the overall number of adverse events reported. Diarrhoea was the most frequently reported adverse event (5.6%) in cefaclor AF-treated patients, and headache/migraine was the most frequently reported adverse event (5.6%) in the cefaclor-treated patients. Cefaclor AF (375 mg twice daily) is as effective and safe as cefaclor capsules (250 mg three times daily) in the treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis/tonsillitis.