POLARIS: A phase 2 trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib evaluating high-dose and standard-dose regimens in patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma with brain metastasis.

Background: POLARIS (phase 2 [ph2]; NCT03911869) evaluated encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) in combination with binimetinib (MEK1/2 inhibitor) in BRAF/MEK inhibitor-naïve patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma with asymptomatic brain metastases. Methods: The safety lead-in (SLI) assessed tolerability for high-dose encorafenib 300 mg twice daily (BID) plus binimetinib 45 mg BID. If the high dose was tolerable in ph2, patients would be randomized to receive high or standard dose (encorafenib 450 mg once daily [QD] plus binimetinib 45 mg BID). Otherwise, standard dose was evaluated as the recommended ph2 dose (RP2D). Patients who tolerated standard dosing during Cycle 1 could be dose escalated to encorafenib 600 mg QD plus binimetinib 45 mg BID in Cycle 2. Safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics were examined. Results: RP2D was standard encorafenib dosing, as >33% of evaluable SLI patients (3/9) had dose-limiting toxicities. Overall, of 13 safety-evaluable patients (10 SLI, 3 ph2), 9 had prior immunotherapy. There were 9 treatment-related adverse events in the SLI and 3 in ph2. Of the SLI efficacy-evaluable patients (n = 10), 1 achieved complete response and 5 achieved partial responses (PR); the brain metastasis response rate (BMRR) was 60% (95% CI: 26.2, 87.8). In ph2, 2 of 3 patients achieved PR (BMRR, 67% [95% CI: 9.4, 99.2]). Repeated encorafenib 300 mg BID dosing did not increase steady-state exposure compared with historical 450 mg QD data. Conclusions: Despite small patient numbers due to early trial termination, BMRR appeared similar between the SLI and ph2, and the ph2 safety profile appeared consistent with previous reports of standard-dose encorafenib in combination with binimetinib.

Expanded Access Study of Palbociclib Plus Letrozole for Postmenopausal Women with HR+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer in Latin America for Whom Letrozole Therapy is Deemed Appropriate.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Palbociclib is a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor that is approved in the United States for the treatment of hormone receptor‒positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor‒2 negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). The objectives of this expanded access trial were to provide palbociclib in combination with letrozole to patients with HR+/HER2- ABC in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico who were candidates for letrozole therapy before commercial availability of palbociclib, and to evaluate the safety and tolerability of palbociclib plus letrozole. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postmenopausal women aged ≥ 18 years with HR+/HER2- ABC were eligible to participate in this study. Patients received palbociclib 125 mg once daily (3/1 schedule) and letrozole 2.5 mg once daily (continuous schedule). Safety, objective response rate (ORR), and duration of treatment were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 130 patients were treated with palbociclib plus letrozole (Argentina, n = 33; Brazil, n = 35; Colombia, n = 28; Mexico, n = 34). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of any grade were neutropenia (70.0%), leukopenia (34.6%), anemia (33.8%), decreased neutrophil count (27.7%), and thrombocytopenia (24.6%); 22.3% of patients required a palbociclib dose reduction due to adverse events (AEs). Serious AEs were reported in 32 patients (24.6%). The ORR was 24.8% (95% confidence interval 17.6‒33.2), and the median duration of treatment was 10.6 months (range 0.1‒29.3). CONCLUSION: Palbociclib in combination with letrozole was generally well tolerated with a clinically manageable safety profile; the observed ORR supported treatment benefit in Latin American women with HR+/HER2- ABC. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02600923.

This study was done to learn more about the safety of 2 medicines together for women with advanced breast cancer after menopause. All 130 women in the study had the most common kind of breast cancer and were from Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico. Everyone took 2 oral medicines called palbociclib and letrozole during the study. The researchers looked for any side effects experienced by the women while taking these medicines together. Another goal of the study was to see how well the treatment worked. Blood tests showed 70.0% of women had a side effect where they had a lower number of a type of white blood cell called a neutrophil. In total, 34.6% of women had low levels of another white blood cell called a leukocyte. These blood test results can mean a person is more likely to get infections. Serious side effects were experienced by 24.6% of the women, which meant these were life-threatening, caused lasting problems, or they needed hospital care. To cope with their side effects, 22.3% of the women switched to a lower palbociclib dose; 24.8% of the women had an overall response, which meant they either had a decrease in their tumor size or all cancer signs disappeared from their body. The most common length of time in the study was 10.6 months and the longest time was 29.3 months. The results of this study support using palbociclib plus letrozole to treat women who live in Latin America with advanced breast cancer after menopause.

Cabozantinib plus Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of treatment with cabozantinib in combination with nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma are unknown. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind trial, we enrolled patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma who had not previously received treatment and had intermediate or poor prognostic risk according to the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium categories. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg of cabozantinib daily in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (experimental group) or matched placebo in addition to nivolumab and ipilimumab (control group). Nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) and ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) were administered once every 3 weeks for four cycles. Patients then received nivolumab maintenance therapy (480 mg once every 4 weeks) for up to 2 years. The primary end point was progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and was assessed in the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization. The secondary end point was overall survival, assessed in all patients who had undergone randomization. RESULTS: Overall, 855 patients underwent randomization: 428 were assigned to the experimental group and 427 to the control group. Among the first 550 patients who had undergone randomization (276 in the experimental group and 274 in the control group), the probability of progression-free survival at 12 months was 0.57 in the experimental group and 0.49 in the control group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 0.94; P = 0.01); 43% of the patients in the experimental group and 36% in the control group had a response. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 79% of the patients in the experimental group and in 56% in the control group. Follow-up for overall survival is ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously untreated, advanced renal-cell carcinoma who had intermediate or poor prognostic risk, treatment with cabozantinib plus nivolumab and ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab alone. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more common in the experimental group than in the control group. (Funded by Exelixis; COSMIC-313 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03937219.).

Attitudes and beliefs of argentinian medical oncologists regarding palliative care referral / Actitudes y creencias de los médicos oncólogos argentinos sobre la derivación a cuidados paliativos

Abstract Introduction: Local evidence suggests insufficient access to palliative care (PC) for advanced cancer patients. The objective was to investigate the attitudes and beliefs of Argentinian medical oncologists regarding PC referral of their patients. Methods: All medical oncologists listed in the main national Clinical Oncology Associations (N = 831) were invited to participate in a telephone survey. Results: Fifty nine percent (N = 489) completed the survey. Most reported being informed about the scopes of PC (83%) and having accessible PC service/specialists (71%). However, 53% did not work collaboratively, and 55% exceptionally or never referred their patients. Oncologists who usually referred their patients did so mainly due to uncontrolled pain (67%) or absence of curative treatment (48%). Only 19% supported early-referral criteria. Those who exception ally referred their patients argued that PC was not meaningful/beneficial/a priority (78%) or that they preferred to handle the patient's problems by themselves (55%). End-of-life care (33%) and improvement in quality of life (32%) were stated as primary benefits of PC for cancer patients. Addressing psychological aspects was consid ered the least important item (2%). Having an accessible PC service (P = 0.002) and being well informed about PC (P = 0.008) were associated with frequent referral. Having ≤10 years or >30 years from graduation were associated with exceptional or no referral (P = 0.012 and 0.001, respectively). Discussion: Oncologists report awareness of the potential advantages of PC and have accessible PC services, but rarely refer patients. They mainly use late-referral criteria. Younger and older age are negatively associated with referral. More research is needed to improve the referral rate and timing of cancer patients to PC.

Resumen Introducción: La evidencia local sugiere un acceso insuficiente a los cuidados paliativos (CP) para los pacien tes con cáncer avanzado. El objetivo fue investigar las actitudes y creencias de médicos oncólogos argentinos respecto de la derivación de sus pacientes a CP. Métodos: Todos los médicos oncólogos registrados en las principales Asociaciones Nacionales de Oncología Clínica (N = 831) fueron invitados a participar en una encuesta telefónica. Resultados: El 59% (N = 489) completó la encuesta. La mayoría informó estar informado sobre los alcances de CP (83%) y tener especialistas/servicios de CP acce sibles (71%). Sin embargo, el 53% no trabajaba de forma colaborativa y el 55% excepcionalmente o nunca derivaba a sus pacientes. Los oncólogos que habi tualmente derivan a sus pacientes lo hacen principalmente por dolor no controlado (67%) o ausencia de trata miento curativo (48%). Solo el 19% mencionó criterios de derivación temprana. Aquellos que excepcionalmente derivan a sus pacientes argumentaron que los CP no era significativos, beneficiosos o prioritarios (78%) o que preferían manejar los problemas del paciente por sí mismos (55%). La atención al final de la vida (33 %) y la mejora de la calidad de vida (32 %) se señalaron como los principales beneficios de los CP para los pacientes con cáncer. El abordaje de los aspectos psicológicos fue el ítem menos señalado (2%). Tener un servicio de CP accesible (P= 0,002) y estar bien informado sobre CP (P = 0,008) se asociaron con la derivación frecuente. Tener ≤10 años o >30 años desde la graduación se asoció con una derivación excepcional o nula (P = 0,012 y 0,001, respectivamente). Discusión: Los oncólogos refieren conocer las ventajas potenciales de los CP y tienen servicios de CP accesibles, pero rara vez derivan pacientes. Utilizan principalmente criterios de derivación tardía. Las edades más jóvenes y mayores se asocian negativamente con la derivación. Se necesita más investigación para mejorar la tasa y momento de derivación de los pacientes con cáncer a CP.

Attitudes and beliefs of Argentinian medical oncologists regarding palliative care referral.

INTRODUCTION: Local evidence suggests insufficient access to palliative care (PC) for advanced cancer patients. The objective was to investigate the attitudes and beliefs of Argentinian medical oncologists regarding PC referral of their patients. METHODS: All medical oncologists listed in the main national Clinical Oncology Associations (N = 831) were invited to participate in a telephone survey. RESULTS: Fifty nine percent (N = 489) completed the survey. Most reported being informed about the scopes of PC (83%) and having accessible PC service/specialists (71%). However, 53% did not work collaboratively, and 55% exceptionally or never referred their patients. Oncologists who usually referred their patients did so mainly due to uncontrolled pain (67%) or absence of curative treatment (48%). Only 19% supported early-referral criteria. Those who exceptionally referred their patients argued that PC was not meaningful/beneficial/a priority (78%) or that they preferred to handle the patient's problems by themselves (55%). End-of-life care (33%) and improvement in quality of life (32%) were stated as primary benefits of PC for cancer patients. Addressing psychological aspects was considered the least important item (2%). Having an accessible PC service (P = 0.002) and being well informed about PC (P = 0.008) were associated with frequent referral. Having =10 years or >30 years from graduation were associated with exceptional or no referral (P = 0.012 and 0.001, respectively). DISCUSSION: Oncologists report awareness of the potential advantages of PC and have accessible PC services, but rarely refer patients. They mainly use late-referral criteria. Younger and older age are negatively associated with referral. More research is needed to improve the referral rate and timing of cancer patients to PC.

Introducción: La evidencia local sugiere un acceso insuficiente a los cuidados paliativos (CP) para los pacientes con cáncer avanzado. El objetivo fue investigar las actitudes y creencias de médicos oncólogos argentinos respecto de la derivación de sus pacientes a CP. Métodos: Todos los médicos oncólogos registrados en las principales Asociaciones Nacionales de Oncología Clínica (N = 831) fueron invitados a participar en una encuesta telefónica. Resultados: El 59% (N = 489) completó la encuesta. La mayoría informó estar informado sobre los alcances de CP (83%) y tener especialistas/servicios de CP acce sibles (71%). Sin embargo, el 53% no trabajaba de forma colaborativa y el 55% excepcionalmente o nunca derivaba a sus pacientes. Los oncólogos que habitualmente derivan a sus pacientes lo hacen principalmente por dolor no controlado (67%) o ausencia de tratamiento curativo (48%). Solo el 19% mencionó criterios de derivación temprana. Aquellos que excepcionalmente derivan a sus pacientes argumentaron que los CP no era significativos, beneficiosos o prioritarios (78%) o que preferían manejar los problemas del paciente por sí mismos (55%). La atención al final de la vida (33 %) y la mejora de la calidad de vida (32 %) se señalaron como los principales beneficios de los CP para los pacientes con cáncer. El abordaje de los aspectos psicológicos fue el ítem menos señalado (2%). Tener un servicio de CP accesible (P= 0,002) y estar bien informado sobre CP (P = 0,008) se asociaron con la derivación frecuente. Tener =10 años o >30 años desde la graduación se asoció con una derivación excepcional o nula (P = 0,012 y 0,001, respectivamente). Discusión: Los oncólogos refieren conocer las ventajas potenciales de los CP y tienen servicios de CP accesibles, pero rara vez derivan pacientes. Utilizan principalmente criterios de derivación tardía. Las edades más jóvenes y mayores se asocian negativamente con la derivación. Se necesita más investigación para mejorar la tasa y momento de derivación de los pacientes con cáncer a CP.

Open-Label, Randomized, Multicenter, Phase III Study Comparing Oral Paclitaxel Plus Encequidar Versus Intravenous Paclitaxel in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Intravenous paclitaxel (IVpac) is complicated by neuropathy and requires premedication to prevent hypersensitivity-type reactions. Paclitaxel is poorly absorbed orally; encequidar (E), a novel P-glycoprotein pump inhibitor, allows oral absorption. METHODS: A phase III open-label study comparing oral paclitaxel plus E (oPac + E) 205 mg/m2 paclitaxel plus 15 mg E methanesulfonate monohydrate 3 consecutive days per week versus IVpac 175 mg/m2 once every 3 weeks was performed. Women with metastatic breast cancer and adequate organ function, at least 1 year from last taxane, were randomly assigned 2:1 to oPac + E versus IVpac. The primary end point was confirmed radiographic response using RECIST 1.1, assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Four hundred two patients from Latin America were enrolled (265 oPac + E, 137 IVpac); demographics and prior therapies were balanced. The confirmed response (intent-to-treat) was 36% for oPac + E versus 23% for IVpac (P = .01). The PFS was 8.4 versus 7.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.768; 95.5% CI, 0.584 to 1.01; P = .046), and the OS was 22.7 versus 16.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.794; 95.5% CI, 0.607 to 1.037; P = .08). Grade 3-4 adverse reactions were 55% with oPac + E and 53% with IVpac. oPac + E had lower incidence and severity of neuropathy (2% v 15% > grade 2) and alopecia (49% v 62% all grades) than IVpac but more nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and neutropenic complications, particularly in patients with elevated liver enzymes. On-study deaths (8% oPac + E v 9% IVpac) were treatment-related in 3% and 0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: oPac + E increased the confirmed tumor response versus IVpac, with trends in PFS and OS. Neuropathy was less frequent and severe with oPac + E; neutropenic serious infections were increased. Elevated liver enzymes at baseline predispose oPac + E patients to early neutropenia and serious infections (funded by Athenex, Inc; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02594371).

Biosimilar Versus Originator Pegfilgrastim for Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia: A Phase III Randomized, Multicenter, Evaluator-Blinded, Noninferiority Study.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilar pegfilgrastim (PegFilBS) and originator pegfilgrastim (PegFilOR) in patients with stage 2-4 breast cancer. METHODS: This phase III randomized, multicenter, evaluator-blinded, noninferiority study recruited women with stage 2-4 breast cancer in Argentina who were scheduled to receive chemotherapy. Stratification was based on the breast cancer stage. The primary end point was the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN, noninferiority margin: 1 day) in the first chemotherapy cycle. Secondary end points assessed were incidence of severe neutropenia, grade 3 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, infections, postchemotherapy hospitalization and duration, and the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were randomly assigned to receive PegFilBS (58 patients) or PegFilOR (62 patients). Severe neutropenia occurred in 52 of 283 cycles (18.4%) for 27 patients who received PegFilBS and in 48 of 297 cycles (16.2%) for 20 patients who received PegFilOR (P = .48). During the first cycle, severe neutropenia occurred in 16 patients who received PegFilBS (DSN: 0.78 ± 1.53 days) and in 11 patients who received PegFilOR (DSN: 0.53 ± 1.25 days; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.76 days). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean DSN values were 0.90 ± 1.79 days for the PegFilBS group and 0.50 ± 1.21 for the PegFilOR group (95% CI, -0.15 to 0.95 days). No significant differences were observed for the secondary efficacy end points. Three patients experienced seven ADRs in the PegFilBS group while 10 patients experienced 31 ADRs in the PegFilOR group. The most common ADR was myalgia. CONCLUSION: Relative to PegFilOR, PegFilBS provided noninferior efficacy outcomes in Argentinian women with stage 2-4 breast cancer who were treated using myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Correlation of Prostate-specific Antigen Kinetics with Overall Survival and Radiological Progression-free Survival in Metastatic Castration-sensitive Prostate Cancer Treated with Abiraterone Acetate plus Prednisone or Placebos Added to Androgen Deprivation Therapy: Post Hoc Analysis of Phase 3 LATITUDE Study.

BACKGROUND: LATITUDE, a randomized, double-blind trial, compared abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) + androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus placebo (PBO) + ADT in high-risk metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). OBJECTIVE: To assess the correlation of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics with overall survival (OS) and radiological progression-free survival (rPFS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A post hoc analysis of data from 597 men receiving AAP + ADT and 602 receiving PBO + ADT. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The associations of PSA-related outcomes (rates of confirmed 50% [PSA50] and 90% [PSA90] decline from baseline PSA [Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 criteria], rates of PSA < 0.2 ng/ml, median nadir PSA, time to PSA nadir [TPN], and time to PSA progression [TPP] with long-term outcomes [OS and rPFS]) were evaluated. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazard model. Correlations of TPP with coprimary endpoints rPFS and OS were evaluated using Kendall's tau (KT). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: AAP + ADT significantly delayed median TPP versus PBO + ADT (33.2 vs 7.4 mo; HR: 0.3, p <  0.001). TPP correlated with rPFS (KT = 0.921) and OS (KT = 0.666). In the AAP + ADT group, 91% had PSA50 and 79% had PSA90 responses (relative risk [RR]: 1.36 and 2.30, respectively; p <  0.001 for both comparisons vs PBO + ADT). Compared with nonresponders, PSA50 and PSA90 responders had reduced risk of death (RR: 0.44 and 0.12, respectively). At 6 mo, 40% receiving AAP + ADT and 6.5% receiving PBO + ADT achieved PSA ≤0.1 ng/ml, which was significantly associated with longer rPFS and OS. Median nadir PSA was 0.09 ng/ml with AAP + ADT versus 2.36 ng/ml with PBO + ADT. Median TPN (AAP + ADT, 6.4 mo; PBO + ADT, 3.8 mo) positively correlated with rPFS and OS. CONCLUSIONS: Superior PSA response dynamics with AAP + ADT versus ADT + PBO strongly correlated with long-term outcomes of rPFS and OS in high-risk mCSPC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We found that low prostate-specific antigen levels (≤0.1 ng/ml) after 6 mo may indicate a good long-term response to treatment. Our results need confirmation.

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone in patients with newly diagnosed high-risk metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (LATITUDE): final overall survival analysis of a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the interim analyses of the LATITUDE study, the addition of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) led to a significant improvement in overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival compared with placebos plus ADT in men with newly diagnosed high-risk metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Here, we present long-term survival outcomes and safety of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone and ADT from the final analysis of the LATITUDE study. METHODS: This is a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial done at 235 sites in 34 countries. Eligible patients (men aged ≥18 years) had newly diagnosed, histologically or cytologically confirmed prostate cancer with metastases, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, and at least two of the three high-risk prognostic factors (Gleason score of ≥8, presence of three or more lesions on bone scan, or presence of measurable visceral metastasis except lymph node metastasis). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive abiraterone acetate (1000 mg) once daily orally plus prednisone (5 mg) once daily orally and ADT (abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group) or matching placebos plus ADT (placebo group); each treatment cycle was 28 days. Randomisation was done by a centralised interactive web response system in a country-by-country scheme using permuted block randomisation, stratified by presence of visceral disease and ECOG performance status. The coprimary endpoint of overall survival was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01715285 and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Feb 12, 2013, and Dec 11, 2014, 1209 patients were screened, of whom ten were ineligible because of study site violations. 1199 patients were randomly assigned to either the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group (n=597) or placebo group (n=602). After the results of the first interim analysis (cutoff date Oct 31, 2016), the study was unmasked to patients and investigators, and patients in the placebo group were allowed to cross over to receive abiraterone acetate and prednisone plus ADT treatment as per a protocol amendment (Feb 15, 2017) in an open-label extension phase of the study (up to 18 months from the protocol amendment). This final analysis (data cutoff Aug 15, 2018) was done after a median follow-up of 51·8 months (IQR 47·2-57·0) and 618 deaths (275 [46%] of 597 in the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group and 343 [57%] of 602 in the placebo group). Overall survival was significantly longer in the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group (median 53·3 months [95% CI 48·2-not reached]) than in the placebo group (36·5 months [33·5-40·0]), with a hazard ratio of 0·66 (95% CI 0·56-0·78; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (125 [21%] in the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group vs 60 [10%] in the placebo group vs three [4%] in the 72 patients who crossed over from placebo to abiraterone acetate plus prednisone) and hypokalaemia (70 [12%] vs ten [2%] vs two [3%]). Serious adverse events of any grade occurred in 192 (32%) of 597 patients in the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group, 151 (25%) of 602 in the placebo group, and four (6%) of 72 in the crossover group. The most common treatment-related serious adverse event was hypokalaemia (four [1%] patients in the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group and none in the other groups). Treatment-related deaths occurred in three (<1%) patients each in the abiraterone acetate plus prednisone group (gastric ulcer perforation, sudden death, and cerebrovascular accident) and the placebo group (sudden death, cerebrovascular accident, and pneumonia), with none in the crossover group. INTERPRETATION: The combination of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone with ADT was associated with significantly longer overall survival than placebos plus ADT in men with newly diagnosed high-risk mCSPC and had a manageable safety profile. These findings support the use of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone as a standard of care in patients with high-risk mCSPC. FUNDING: Janssen Research & Development.

Abiraterone plus Prednisone in Metastatic, Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate, a drug that blocks endogenous androgen synthesis, plus prednisone is indicated for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We evaluated the clinical benefit of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone with androgen-deprivation therapy in patients with newly diagnosed, metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 1199 patients to receive either androgen-deprivation therapy plus abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily, given once daily as four 250-mg tablets) plus prednisone (5 mg daily) (the abiraterone group) or androgen-deprivation therapy plus dual placebos (the placebo group). The two primary end points were overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 30.4 months at a planned interim analysis (after 406 patients had died), the median overall survival was significantly longer in the abiraterone group than in the placebo group (not reached vs. 34.7 months) (hazard ratio for death, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.76; P<0.001). The median length of radiographic progression-free survival was 33.0 months in the abiraterone group and 14.8 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.55; P<0.001). Significantly better outcomes in all secondary end points were observed in the abiraterone group, including the time until pain progression, next subsequent therapy for prostate cancer, initiation of chemotherapy, and prostate-specific antigen progression (P<0.001 for all comparisons), along with next symptomatic skeletal events (P=0.009). These findings led to the unanimous recommendation by the independent data and safety monitoring committee that the trial be unblinded and crossover be allowed for patients in the placebo group to receive abiraterone. Rates of grade 3 hypertension and hypokalemia were higher in the abiraterone group. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of abiraterone acetate and prednisone to androgen-deprivation therapy significantly increased overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival in men with newly diagnosed, metastatic, castration-sensitive prostate cancer. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development; LATITUDE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01715285 .).

Demoras en el proceso de atención de pacientes con cáncer de mama en dos hospitales públicos de la provincia de Santa Fe / Delays in the process of care of patients with breast cancer in two public hospitals in the province of Santa Fe

INTRODUCCIÓN: el retraso en el inicio de untratamiento efectivo del cáncer de mama reduce la tasa desupervivencia y está asociado a estadios más avanzados aldiagnóstico y a la necesidad de tratamientos más agresivos ycostosos. OBJETIVOS: Describir la trayectoria de la atención médicade mujeres con diagnóstico de cáncer de mama desde la apariciónde un signo o síntoma hasta la finalización del tratamiento.MÉTODOS: Se realizó un estudio descriptivo retrospectivo, quecombinó técnicas cuantitativas y cualitativas. Se estimaron lostiempos utilizados en cada etapa del proceso de atención de cáncerde mama en mujeres diagnosticadas y/o tratadas durante 2012 endos hospitales de la provincia de Santa Fe. RESULTADOS: Se incluyóa 62 pacientes en la muestra. El 20,3% obtuvo su diagnósticodentro del mes posterior a la mamografía y/o ecografía, y sólola mitad fue operada dentro del mes posterior al diagnóstico. El60% de las pacientes con necesidad de quimioterapia adyuvantey el 72,4% con necesidad de radioterapia tras la cirugía tuvierondemoras mayores a 60 días. Ninguna de las pacientes en estadio IVcomenzó el tratamiento antes de los 30 días. CONCLUSIONES: Si secompara con los parámetros establecidos en la guía del ProgramaNacional de Cáncer de Mama, hay demoras en todas las etapas. Esnecesario establecer estrategias que reduzcan los tiempos para laconfirmación diagnóstica en mujeres con sospecha, así como lostiempos de tratamiento en pacientes con cáncer confirmado.

INTRODUCTION: the delay to start an effectivetreatment for breast cancer reduces survival rate and is associatedto advanced stages at diagnosis and to the need for moreaggressive and costly treatments. OBJECTIVES: To describe thehealth care path of women with diagnosis of breast cancersince the first sign or symptom until the end of the treatment.METHODS: A retrospective descriptive study was performed,combining quantitative and qualitative techniques. It estimatedthe time used in each stage of the health care process amongwomen with breast cancer, diagnosed and/or treated during2012 in two hospitals of the province of Santa Fe, Argentina.RESULTS: A total of 62 patients were included in the sample.Of them, 20.3% received her diagnosis within 30 days of themammogram and/or ultrasound and 50% were operatedwithin one month of the diagnosis. There were delays of morethan 60 days in 60% and 72.4% of the patients who had toundergo adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy, respectively.None of the patients with stage IV began the treatment withinthe first 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the guidelinesof the National Program of Breast Cancer, there are delaysat all stages. It is necessary to develop strategies to shortenthe time for diagnosis confirmation in women with suspectedbreast cancer and for the access to treatment in patients withcancer confirmed.

A Phase II Randomized Study of Lapatinib Combined With Capecitabine, Vinorelbine, or Gemcitabine in Patients With HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer With Progression After a Taxane (Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group 0801 Study).

BACKGROUND: Novel targeted agents and combinations have become available in multiple lines of treatment for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2(+)) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). In this context, alternatives to the lapatinib (L) and capecitabine (C) regimen, evaluating L combined with other cytotoxic drugs, are warranted. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the present phase II, multicenter study, patients with HER2(+) MBC with progression after taxane were randomized between L, 1250 mg, combined with C, 2000 mg/m(2) on days 1 to 14 (LC), vinorelbine (V), 25 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (LV), or gemcitabine (G), 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 (LG), every 21 days. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate. RESULTS: A total of 142 patients were included from 2009 to 2012. No differences were found in the patient baseline characteristics. The median age was 51 years, 69% were postmenopausal, 32% had liver metastasis, 57% were hormone receptor negative, and 48% had been previously treated with trastuzumab. The overall response rate was 49% (95% confidence interval [CI], 34.8%-63.4%), 56% (95% CI, 40%-70.4%), and 41% (95% CI, 27%-56.8%) in the LC, LV, and LG groups, respectively. The median progression-free survival was 9 months in the LC arm and 7 months in the other 2 arms (P = .28). The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were hand-foot syndrome (18%), diarrhea (6%), and increased alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase (4%) in the LC arm; neutropenia (36%), diarrhea (9%), and febrile neutropenia (6%) in the LV arm; and neutropenia (47%), alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase (13%), and rash (4%) in the LG arm. CONCLUSION: LV and LG seem to be active combinations in patients with HER2(+) MBC after taxane failure. The overall toxicity was manageable in all regimens.

Study of rolapitant, a novel, long-acting, NK-1 receptor antagonist, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) due to highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC).

PURPOSE: Rolapitant is a novel, long-acting neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of four different doses of rolapitant for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) due to highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, global study was conducted in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy ≥70 mg/m(2). Patients received a 9, 22.5, 90, or 180 mg oral dose of rolapitant or placebo with ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1 of chemotherapy. The primary end point was complete response (CR; no emesis and no use of rescue medication) in the overall (0 to 120 h) phase of cycle 1. Other assessments were CR in delayed (24-120 h) and acute (0-24 h) phases, no emesis, no significant nausea, and no nausea. RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-four patients were randomized. All doses of rolapitant improved CR with the greatest benefit observed with rolapitant 180 mg vs. active control in the overall phase (62.5 and 46.7 %, p = 0.032) and in the acute (87.6 vs. 66.7 %, p = 0.001) and delayed (63.6 vs. 48.9 %, p = 0.045) phases. Rates for no emesis and no significant nausea were significantly (p < 0.05) higher with rolapitant 180 mg vs. active control in the overall, acute, and delayed phases. Treatment-related adverse events were largely considered related to the chemotherapy and included constipation, headache, fatigue, and dizziness which were mostly mild or moderate and were similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSION: All doses of rolapitant were well tolerated and showed greater CR rates than active control. Rolapitant 180 mg demonstrated significant clinical efficacy for preventing CINV in the overall, delayed, and acute phases for patients receiving HEC.

Phase II trial of continuous once-daily dosing of sunitinib as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib at 50 mg/day on the 4-weeks-on-2-weeks-off schedule is the current approved regimen for advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Escudier et al reported that continuous, once-daily dosing with sunitinib 37.5 mg had a manageable safety profile and significant antitumor activity as second-line mRCC therapy. In this prospective, multicenter, phase II study, we evaluated the activity of continuous once-daily dosing with sunitinib 37.5 mg as first-line mRCC treatment. METHODS: One hundred nineteen treatment-naive patients with measurable mRCC received sunitinib. The primary endpoint was objective response; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), safety, pharmacokinetic measurements, exploration of response biomarkers, and patient reported outcomes (PRO). RESULTS: Objective response rate (ORR) was 35.3%; median response duration was 10.4 months; 36% of patients had stable disease ≥12 weeks. Median PFS at 1 year was 9 months, and 1-year survival probability was 67.8%. The most common any-grade treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (50%) and hand-foot syndrome (43%); the most common grade 3-4 treatment-related AEs were hand-foot syndrome (13%), neutropenia (11%), and diarrhea (9%). Steady-state pharmacokinetics were reached within 3 weeks, with no disproportionate accumulation of sunitinib or its active metabolite throughout the study. No significant correlations between trough drug, active metabolite, or soluble protein levels and clinical response were observed. PRO was largely maintained, although fatigue appeared to worsen after treatment started, with improvement over time. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous once-daily dosing with sunitinib 37.5 mg was active with a manageable safety profile as first-line mRCC therapy, making this a feasible alternative dosing regimen.

Ixabepilone plus capecitabine in advanced breast cancer patients with early relapse after adjuvant anthracyclines and taxanes: a pooled subset analysis of two phase III studies.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients with rapid disease relapse after neo/adjuvant chemotherapy including anthracyclines and taxanes have limited treatment options and their efficacy is marginal. Two phase III studies compared ixabepilone plus capecitabine vs. capecitabine alone as first-line treatment in MBC patients pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes in the neo/adjuvant setting. Here we report the efficacy and safety of these treatments in a prespecified subset of patients whose disease relapsed within 12 months. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of 1973 patients across two studies, 293 relapsed within 12 months of neo/adjuvant treatment and received ixabepilone plus capecitabine (n = 149) or capecitabine alone (n = 144) as first-line chemotherapy for MBC. Analysis included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and toxicity. RESULTS: In 293 patients, ixabepilone plus capecitabine, as compared to capecitabine alone, increased PFS (median: 5.6 months vs. 2.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.58; p < 0.0001), ORR (46% vs. 24%) and OS (median: 15.1 months vs. 12.5 months; hazard ratio, 0.84; p = 0.208). Major toxicities of this regimen included neuropathy, neutropenia and hand-foot syndrome, but were manageable. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with breast cancer with early relapse following neo/adjuvant treatment with anthracyclines and taxanes may benefit from ixabepilone plus capecitabine. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00080301 and NCT00082433.).

Analysis of overall survival from a phase III study of ixabepilone plus capecitabine versus capecitabine in patients with MBC resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes.

Limited proven treatment options exist for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) resistant to anthracycline and taxane treatment. Ixabepilone, a novel semisynthetic analog of epothilone B, has demonstrated single-agent activity in MBC resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes. In combination with capecitabine in a phase III trial (CA163-046) in this setting, ixabepilone prolonged progression-free survival and increased objective response rate relative to capecitabine (Thomas et al. J Clin Oncol 25:5210-5217, 2007). Here, we report the results of overall survival (OS), a secondary efficacy endpoint from the CA163-046 trial. Seven hundred fifty-two patients with MBC resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes were randomized to ixabepilone (40 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 of a 21-day cycle) plus capecitabine (2,000 mg/m(2) orally on days 1 through 14 of a 21-day cycle) or capecitabine alone (2,500 mg/m(2) on the same schedule). Patients receiving ixabepilone plus capecitabine treatment had a median survival of 12.9 months compared to 11.1 months for patients receiving capecitabine alone (HR = 0.9; 95%CI: 077-1.05; P = 0.19). This observed increase in median OS favored the combination; however, the difference was not statistically significant. Predefined subset analyses showed a clinically meaningful increase in OS in KPS 70-80 patients receiving ixabepilone plus capecitabine (HR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.58-0.98). Ixabepilone plus capecitabine did not show a significant improvement in survival compared to capecitabine alone in patients with MBC resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes. The observed differences in survival favored the combination arm. A clinical benefit was also seen in patients in the KPS 70-80 subgroup.

Cetuximab Plus irinotecan in pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer progressing on irinotecan: the LABEL study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this multicenter phase II study was to demonstrate the activity of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeting monoclonal antibody cetuximab combined with irinotecan in the treatment of Latin American patients with EGFR-expressing metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in whom previous treatment with an irinotecan-containing regimen had failed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received cetuximab, as a 400 mg/m2 initial infusion followed by 250 mg/m2 weekly, plus the same irinotecan regimen that had previously failed, until the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was response. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients received treatment. One patient had a complete response, 20 had partial responses, and disease was stabilized in 23 patients, giving an overall response rate of 27% and a disease control rate of 56%. The median duration of response was 23.9 weeks. Median PFS was 17.4 weeks, median OS was 9.2 months, and the 12-month OS rate was 38%. The most common adverse events according to System Organ Class were skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (91% of the patients). Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 45 patients (57%), with the most common being diarrhea (20%), neutropenia (11%), and rash (6%). Seven patients (9%) had grade 3/4 acne-like skin rash. No grade 3/4 infusion-related reactions were reported. CONCLUSION: Cetuximab in combination with irinotecan is active and tolerable in Latin American patients with mCRC progressing on irinotecan, with a safety profile similar to that described in European studies.

Activity of ixabepilone in oestrogen receptor-negative and oestrogen receptor-progesterone receptor-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer, including oestrogen receptor-, progesterone receptor- and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (ER/PR/HER2-negative) breast cancer, is more aggressive than ER-positive disease. A major limitation in the treatment of ER-negative disease subtypes is the inherent insensitivity to hormonal agents (tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors) that are widely used in the treatment of breast cancer. Thus, therapeutic options for poor prognosis patients with ER-negative breast cancer are limited to a handful of chemotherapeutic agents, and new agents are needed to improve the treatment of this disease. Ixabepilone, a novel epothilone B analogue with low susceptibility to cellular mechanisms that confer resistance to taxanes and other chemotherapeutic agents, has demonstrated potent preclinical antitumour activity in multiple models, including those with primary or acquired drug resistance. This review summarises the results of a prospective subset analysis from a phase III clinical trial evaluating ixabepilone for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC), in which efficacy and safety were evaluated in patients with ER-negative and ER/PR/HER2-negative disease.

Double-blind, randomized placebo controlled trial of fulvestrant compared with exemestane after prior nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, advanced breast cancer: results from EFECT.

PURPOSE: The third-generation nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are increasingly used as adjuvant and first-line advanced therapy for postmenopausal, hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer. Because many patients subsequently experience progression or relapse, it is important to identify agents with efficacy after AI failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Evaluation of Faslodex versus Exemestane Clinical Trial (EFECT) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, multicenter phase III trial of fulvestrant versus exemestane in postmenopausal women with HR+ advanced breast cancer (ABC) progressing or recurring after nonsteroidal AI. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP). A fulvestrant loading-dose (LD) regimen was used: 500 mg intramuscularly on day 0, 250 mg on days 14, 28, and 250 mg every 28 days thereafter. Exemestane 25 mg orally was administered once daily. RESULTS: A total of 693 women were randomly assigned to fulvestrant (n = 351) or exemestane (n = 342). Approximately 60% of patients had received at least two prior endocrine therapies. Median TTP was 3.7 months in both groups (hazard ratio = 0.963; 95% CI, 0.819 to 1.133; P = .6531). The overall response rate (7.4% v 6.7%; P = .736) and clinical benefit rate (32.2% v 31.5%; P = .853) were similar between fulvestrant and exemestane respectively. Median duration of clinical benefit was 9.3 and 8.3 months, respectively. Both treatments were well tolerated, with no significant differences in the incidence of adverse events or quality of life. Pharmacokinetic data confirm that steady-state was reached within 1 month with the LD schedule of fulvestrant. CONCLUSION: Fulvestrant LD and exemestane are equally active and well-tolerated in a meaningful proportion of postmenopausal women with ABC who have experienced progression or recurrence during treatment with a nonsteroidal AI.