Adjuvant bevacizumab for melanoma patients at high risk of recurrence: survival analysis of the AVAST-M trial.

Background: Bevacizumab is a recombinant humanised monoclonal antibody to vascular endothelial growth factor shown to improve survival in advanced solid cancers. We evaluated the role of adjuvant bevacizumab in melanoma patients at high risk of recurrence. Patients and methods: Patients with resected AJCC stage IIB, IIC and III cutaneous melanoma were randomised to receive either adjuvant bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg i.v. 3 weekly for 1 year) or standard observation. The primary end point was detection of an 8% difference in 5-year overall survival (OS) rate; secondary end points included disease-free interval (DFI) and distant metastasis-free interval (DMFI). Tumour and blood were analysed for prognostic and predictive markers. Results: Patients (n=1343) recruited between 2007 and 2012 were predominantly stage III (73%), with median age 56 years (range 18-88 years). With 6.4-year median follow-up, 515 (38%) patients had died [254 (38%) bevacizumab; 261 (39%) observation]; 707 (53%) patients had disease recurrence [336 (50%) bevacizumab, 371 (55%) observation]. OS at 5 years was 64% for both groups [hazard ratio (HR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-1.16, P = 0.78). At 5 years, 51% were disease free on bevacizumab versus 45% on observation (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74-0.99, P = 0.03), 58% were distant metastasis free on bevacizumab versus 54% on observation (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.78-1.07, P = 0.25). Forty four percent of 682 melanomas assessed had a BRAFV600 mutation. In the observation arm, BRAF mutant patients had a trend towards poorer OS compared with BRAF wild-type patients (P = 0.06). BRAF mutation positivity trended towards better OS with bevacizumab (P = 0.21). Conclusions: Adjuvant bevacizumab after resection of high-risk melanoma improves DFI, but not OS. BRAF mutation status may predict for poorer OS untreated and potential benefit from bevacizumab. Clinical Trial Information: ISRCTN 81261306; EudraCT Number: 2006-005505-64.

Therapeutic aims of drugs offering only progression-free survival are misunderstood by patients, and oncologists may be overly optimistic about likely benefits.

PURPOSE: The use of novel and often expensive drugs offering limited survival benefit in advanced disease is controversial. Treatment recommendations are influenced by patient characteristics and trial data showing overall response rates (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). PFS is frequently the primary outcome in licencing studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: As part of a longitudinal study Assessing the 'VALue' to patients of PROgression Free Survival (AVALPROFS), oncologists completed checklists at baseline following consultations with patients. Questions probed perceived clinical benefits of the drugs to populations in general. Patients completed study-specific interview schedules at baseline, 6 weeks into treatment, and at withdrawal due to toxicity or progression. Patients also completed tumour- and treatment-specific quality of life questionnaires monthly for their time in the study. Only baseline results are reported here. RESULTS: Thirty-two UK oncologists discussed management options with 90 patients with heterogeneous advanced cancers. Oncologists' estimates of medical benefit in general from treatment varied between 10 and 80 %. They expected 46/90 (51 %) of their patients to derive some clinical benefit from the prescribed treatment but were either unsure or expected none for 44/90 (49 %). Predictions of life expectancy were variable but 62 % (56/90) of patients were expected to survive longer with treatment. A majority of patients 51/90 (57 %) had 'no idea' or were 'unclear' what PFS meant and 45/90 (50 %) thought extension of life was the primary therapeutic aim of treatment. CONCLUSION: Discussions between doctors and patients with metastatic disease about future management plans and likely therapeutic gains are challenging. Factors influencing decisions about putative benefits of novel drugs are often applied inconsistently can be overly optimistic and may even contradict published data.

Vascular endothelial growth factor mRNA expression in minimal change, membranous, and diabetic nephropathy demonstrated by non-isotopic in situ hybridisation.

AIM: To investigate vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) mRNA expression in glomerular disease in the context of heavy proteinuria. METHODS: Non-radioisotopic in situ hybridisation was performed using a cocktail of 12 deoxyoligonucleotides complementary to VEGF mRNA labelled during solid phase synthesis with 2,4-dinitrophenyl. Archival renal biopsies were studied from cases of minimal change nephropathy, membranous nephropathy, diabetic nephropathy, and controls, matched for age, sex, race, and storage time. Hybrid detection used NBT/BCIP colorimetric development. RESULTS: More VEGF mRNA positive glomerular cells per unit cross sectional diameter were seen in minimal change nephropathy (mean (SEM), 19.35 (1.5)) compared with controls (12.6 (1.73)), p < 0.01. In contrast, fewer were seen in diabetic nephropathy (5.93 (0.97)) compared with controls (9.97 (1.25)), p < 0.03. Analysis of membranous nephropathy (10 (1.62)) showed no difference from controls (10.98 (1.51)), NS. In addition, in minimal change nephropathy there was a significant correlation between 24 hour protein excretion at the time of biopsy and the number of VEGF mRNA cells per glomerulus (r = 0.08, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Using non-radioisotopic in situ hybridisation, VEGF mRNA is almost exclusively expressed by visceral glomerular epithelial cells. Abnormal numbers of cells are seen in both minimal change and diabetic nephropathy. As VEGF exists in a number of functionally distinct isoforms, further study of qualitative VEGF isoform expression in diagnostic groups is indicated.