Patient-Level Meta-analysis of Clofarabine in Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia.

INTRODUCTION: Clofarabine monotherapy at a dose of 52 mg/m2 per day was approved in the USA in 2004 for the treatment of relapsed or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R ALL) in patients aged 1-21 years after at least two prior regimens. To address a post-marketing requirement for additional evidence of the clinical benefit of clofarabine in its approved indication, a meta-analysis of patient-level data was conducted. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted, using the Dr.Evidence software platform, DOC Search, and Embase, to identify clinical trials with patients with R/R ALL who received clofarabine monotherapy at 52 mg/m2. The primary endpoint was complete remission (CR). Secondary endpoints were overall remission (OR, defined by CR or CR with either incomplete platelet recovery or incomplete neutrophil and platelet recovery), duration of response, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: A total of 754 patients in 12 clinical studies were analyzed including 682 patients with R/R ALL treated with clofarabine monotherapy at 52 mg/m2; of them, 374 were aged < 22 years (pediatric population). Rates of CR and OR were 16% (95% confidence interval [CI] 7, 26) and 28% (95% CI 20, 37), respectively, in the pediatric population and 12% (95% CI 5, 21) and 21% (95% CI 13, 31) in the overall population. Median OS (evaluable in three studies in pediatric patients) was 3.7 months (95% CI 0.1, 31.4), reaching 10.1 months (95% CI 0.3, 68.9) for those achieving OR. Sensitivity analyses supported these findings. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were liver abnormalities, anemia, diarrhea, and febrile neutropenia. CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, CR duration and median OS in pediatric patients with R/R ALL appeared to be slightly longer than in the phase II study. No new safety signals were identified. Results support the use of clofarabine monotherapy in its approved indication.

Quality of life, effectiveness, and safety of aflibercept plus FOLFIRI in older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: An analysis of the prospective QoLiTrap study.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) mainly affects older patients. The pivotal VELOUR phase III trial of aflibercept plus FOLFIRI in metastatic CRC (mCRC) included only 5.9% of patients aged ≥75 years. Herein, we report a preplanned analysis from QoLiTrap, a large prospective observational study evaluating the impact of age on quality of life (QoL), effectiveness, and safety of aflibercept plus FOLFIRI in daily clinical practice in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Enrolled patients had progressive mCRC, had failed a prior oxaliplatin-based regimen, and had received aflibercept (4 mg/kg) plus FOLFIRI every two weeks until disease progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, or physician/patient decision. Analyses were performed by age classes (<60, 60-64, 65-69, 70-74, and ≥ 75 years). The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients whose global health status (GHS) of the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) was maintained (i.e., no worsening from baseline by at least 5% over a 12-week treatment). Secondary endpoints included tumor objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 1277 patients (<60 years, n = 327; 60-64 years, n = 231; 65-69 years, n = 227; 70-74 years, n = 259; and ≥ 75 years, n = 233) were treated, of whom 872 were evaluable for QoL. GHS was maintained in 36.5%, 41.6%, 38.9%, 41.8%, and 44.8% of patients aged <60, 60-64, 65-69, 70-74, and ≥ 75 years, respectively. Age did not influence PFS (median 7.8 months), OS (median 14.4 months), or ORR (20.8%). Number of cycles, dose delays for any cause, and dose reductions for adverse events (AEs) were comparable between age classes. Grade ≥ 3 AEs occurred in 47.7%, 51.9%, 51.5%, 55.2%, and 55.8% of patients aged <60, 60-64, 65-69, 70-74, and ≥ 75 years, respectively. The main grade ≥ 3 AEs were hypertension (11.2%) and diarrhea (9%) in patients aged ≥75 years. DISCUSSION: The results suggest that aflibercept plus FOLFIRI maintains QoL and retains its activity, including a high objective tumor response, regardless of age and treatment line. In fit older patients, the safety profile seems manageable, with no new safety signals.

Real-World Evaluation of Quality of Life, Effectiveness, and Safety of Aflibercept Plus FOLFIRI in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The Prospective QoLiTrap Study.

Aflibercept plus FOLFIRI prolongs overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer after the failure of oxaliplatin-containing therapy. QoLiTrap prospectively evaluated the quality of life (QoL) and effectiveness of this regimen in daily clinical practice, according to RAS status, sex, and prior targeted therapy, especially epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFR-I). The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients whose EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS) improved or reduced by <5% from baseline during the first 12 weeks of therapy. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. One thousand two hundred and seventy-seven patients were treated with aflibercept plus FOLFIRI and 872 were evaluable for QoL. GHS improved or decreased by <5% in 40.3% of cases. The ORR was 20.8%, the median PFS was 7.8 months (95% confidence interval (CI), 7.3−8.3), and the median OS was 14.4 months (95% CI, 13.1−18.1). After prior EGFR-I, the ORR was 23.7%, median PFS was 9.4 months (95% CI, 6.5−12.9), and median OS was 17.4 months (95% CI, 10.5−33.7). The safety profile was consistent with previously reported data. Aflibercept plus FOLFIRI given in daily practice maintained QoL in mCRC patients, was associated with a high objective tumor response, and retained its activity regardless of sex, RAS status, and prior EGFR-I therapy.

Efficacy and Safety of Cabazitaxel Versus Abiraterone or Enzalutamide in Older Patients with Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer in the CARD Study.

BACKGROUND: In the CARD study (NCT02485691), cabazitaxel significantly improved median radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) versus abiraterone/enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who had previously received docetaxel and progressed ≤12 mo on the alternative agent (abiraterone/enzalutamide). OBJECTIVE: To assess cabazitaxel versus abiraterone/enzalutamide in older (≥70 yr) and younger (<70 yr) patients in CARD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with mCRPC were randomized 1:1 to cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 plus prednisone and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) versus abiraterone (1000 mg plus prednisone) or enzalutamide (160 mg). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Analyses of rPFS (primary endpoint) and safety by age were prespecified; others were post hoc. Treatment groups were compared using stratified log-rank or Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of the 255 patients randomized, 135 were aged ≥70 yr (median 76 yr). Cabazitaxel, compared with abiraterone/enzalutamide, significantly improved median rPFS in older (8.2 vs 4.5 mo; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.38-0.89; p = 0.012) and younger (7.4 vs 3.2 mo; HR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.30-0.74; p < 0.001) patients. The median OS of cabazitaxel versus abiraterone/enzalutamide was 13.9 versus 9.4 mo in older patients (HR = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.41-1.06; p = 0.084), and it was 13.6 versus 11.8 mo in younger patients (HR = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.41-1.08; p = 0.093). Progression-free survival, prostate-specific antigen, and tumor and pain responses favored cabazitaxel, regardless of age. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 58% versus 49% of older patients receiving cabazitaxel versus abiraterone/enzalutamide and 48% versus 42% of younger patients. In older patients, cardiac adverse events were more frequent with abiraterone/enzalutamide; asthenia and diarrhea were more frequent with cabazitaxel. CONCLUSIONS: Cabazitaxel improved efficacy outcomes versus abiraterone/enzalutamide in patients with mCRPC after prior docetaxel and abiraterone/enzalutamide, regardless of age. TEAEs were more frequent among older patients. The cabazitaxel safety profile was manageable across age groups. PATIENT SUMMARY: Clinical trial data showed that cabazitaxel improved survival versus abiraterone/enzalutamide with manageable side effects in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had previously received docetaxel and the alternative agent (abiraterone/enzalutamide), irrespective of age.

Elucidating Prostate Cancer Behaviour During Treatment via Low-pass Whole-genome Sequencing of Circulating Tumour DNA.

BACKGROUND: Better blood tests to elucidate the behaviour of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are urgently needed to drive therapeutic decisions. Plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) comprises normal and circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA). Low-pass whole-genome sequencing (lpWGS) of ctDNA can provide information on mCRPC behaviour. OBJECTIVE: To validate and clinically qualify plasma lpWGS for mCRPC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Plasma lpWGS data were obtained for mCRPC patients consenting to optional substudies of two prospective phase 3 trials (FIRSTANA and PROSELICA). In FIRSTANA, chemotherapy-naïve patients were randomised to treatment with docetaxel (75 mg/m2) or cabazitaxel (20 or 25 mg/m2). In PROSELICA, patients previously treated with docetaxel were randomised to 20 or 25 mg/m2 cabazitaxel. lpWGS data were generated from 540 samples from 188 mCRPC patients acquired at four different time points (screening, cycle 1, cycle 4, and end of study). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: lpWGS data for ctDNA were evaluated for prognostic, response, and tumour genomic measures. Associations with response and survival data were determined for tumour fraction. Genomic biomarkers including large-scale transition (LST) scores were explored in the context of prior treatments. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Plasma tumour fraction was prognostic for overall survival in univariable and stratified multivariable analyses (hazard ratio 1.75, 95% confidence interval 1.08-2.85; p = 0.024) and offered added value compared to existing biomarkers (C index 0.722 vs 0.709; p = 0.021). Longitudinal changes were associated with drug response. PROSELICA samples were enriched for LSTs (p = 0.029) indicating genomic instability, and this enrichment was associated with prior abiraterone and enzalutamide treatment but not taxane or radiation therapy. Higher LSTs were correlated with losses of RB1/RNASEH2B, independent of BRCA2 loss. CONCLUSIONS: Plasma lpWGS of ctDNA describes CRPC behaviour, providing prognostic and response data of clinical relevance. The added prognostic value of the ctDNA fraction over established biomarkers should be studied further. PATIENT SUMMARY: We studied tumour DNA in blood samples from patients with prostate cancer. We found that levels of tumour DNA in blood were indicative of disease prognosis, and that changes after treatment could be detected. We also observed a "genetic scar" in the results that was associated with certain previous treatments. This test allows an assessment of tumour activity that can complement existing tests, offer insights into drug response, and detect clinically relevant genetic changes.

Pain Progression at Initiation of Cabazitaxel in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC): A Post Hoc Analysis of the PROSELICA Study.

BACKGROUND: In the PROSELICA phase III trial (NCT01308580), cabazitaxel 20 mg/m2 (CABA20) was non-inferior to cabazitaxel 25 mg/m2 (CABA25) in mCRPC patients previously treated with docetaxel (DOC). The present post hoc analysis evaluates how the type of progression at randomization affected outcomes. METHODS: Progression type at randomization was defined as follows: PSA progression only (PSA-p; no radiological progression (RADIO-p), no pain), RADIO-p (±PSA-p, no pain), or pain progression (PAIN-p, ±PSA-p, ±RADIO-p). Relationships between progression type and overall survival (OS), radiological progression-free survival (rPFS), and PSA response (confirmed PSA decrease ≥ 50%) were analyzed. RESULTS: All randomized patients (n = 1200) had received prior DOC, and 25.7% had received prior abiraterone or enzalutamide. Progression type at randomization was evaluable in 1075 patients (PSA-p = 24.4%, RADIO-p = 20.8%, PAIN-p = 54.8%). Pain progression was associated with clinical and biological features of aggressive disease. Median OS from CABA initiation or date of mCRPC diagnosis, all arms combined, was shorter in the PAIN-p group than in the RADIO-p or the PSA-p groups (12.0 versus 16.8 and 18.4 months, respectively, p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, all arms combined, PAIN-p was an independent predictor of poor OS (HR = 1.44, p < 0.001). PSA response, rPFS, and OS were numerically higher with CABA25 versus CABA20 in patients with PAIN-p. CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis of the PROSELICA phase III study shows that pain progression at initiation of CABA in mCRPC patients previously treated with DOC is associated with a poor prognosis. Disease progression should be carefully monitored, even in the absence of PSA rise.

Cabazitaxel versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: post hoc analysis of the CARD study excluding chemohormonal therapy for castrate-naive disease.

BACKGROUND: In the CARD study (NCT02485691), cabazitaxel significantly improved clinical outcomes versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen-signalling-targeted inhibitor. However, some patients received docetaxel or the prior alternative androgen-signalling-targeted inhibitor in the metastatic hormone-sensitive (mHSPC) setting. Therefore, the CARD results cannot be directly translated to a Japanese population. METHODS: Patients (N = 255) received cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 IV Q3W, prednisone, G-CSF) versus abiraterone (1000 mg PO, prednisone) or enzalutamide (160 mg PO) after prior docetaxel and progression ≤12 months on the alternative androgen-signalling-targeted inhibitor. Patients who received combination therapy for mHSPC were excluded (n = 33) as docetaxel is not approved in this setting in Japan. RESULTS: A total of 222 patients (median age 70 years) were included in this subanalysis. Median number of cycles was higher for cabazitaxel versus androgen-signalling-targeted inhibitors (7 versus 4). Clinical outcomes favoured cabazitaxel over abiraterone or enzalutamide including, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS; median 8.2 versus 3.4 months; P < 0.0001), overall survival (OS; 13.9 versus 11.8 months; P = 0.0102), PFS (4.4 versus 2.7 months; P < 0.0001), confirmed prostate-specific antigen response (37.0 versus 14.4%; P = 0.0006) and objective tumour response (38.9 versus 11.4%; P = 0.0036). For cabazitaxel versus androgen-signalling-targeted inhibitor, grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred in 55% versus 44% of patients, with adverse events leading to death on study in 2.7% versus 5.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Cabazitaxel significantly improved outcomes including rPFS and OS versus abiraterone or enzalutamide and are reflective of the Japanese patient population. Cabazitaxel should be considered the preferred treatment option over abiraterone or enzalutamide in this setting.

Quality of life in patients with metastatic prostate cancer following treatment with cabazitaxel versus abiraterone or enzalutamide (CARD): an analysis of a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 study.

BACKGROUND: In the CARD study, cabazitaxel significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival versus abiraterone or enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. Here, we report the quality-of-life outcomes from the CARD study. METHODS: CARD was a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 4 study involving 62 clinical sites across 13 European countries. Patients (aged ≥18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤2) with confirmed metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) by means of an interactive voice-web response system to receive cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks, 10 mg daily prednisone, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) versus abiraterone (1000 mg orally once daily plus 5 mg prednisone twice daily) or enzalutamide (160 mg orally daily). Stratification factors were ECOG performance status, time to disease progression on the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor, and timing of the previous androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. The primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival; here, we present more detailed analyses of pain (assessed using item 3 on the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form [BPI-SF]) and symptomatic skeletal events, alongside preplanned patient-reported outcomes, assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire and the EuroQoL-5 dimensions, 5 level scale (EQ-5D-5L). Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Pain response was analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of BPI-SF item 3, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment of either FACT-P or EQ-5D-5L (PRO population). Analyses of skeletal-related events were also done in the intention-to-treat population. The CARD study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02485691, and is no longer enrolling. FINDINGS: Between Nov 17, 2015, and Nov 28, 2018, of 303 patients screened, 255 were randomly assigned to cabazitaxel (n=129) or abiraterone or enzalutamide (n=126). Median follow-up was 9·2 months (IQR 5·6-13·1). Pain response was observed in 51 (46%) of 111 patients with cabazitaxel and 21 (19%) of 109 patients with abiraterone or enzalutamide (p<0·0001). Median time to pain progression was not estimable (NE; 95% CI NE-NE) with cabazitaxel and 8·5 months (4·9-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (hazard ratio [HR] 0·55, 95% CI 0·32-0·97; log-rank p=0·035). Median time to symptomatic skeletal events was NE (95% CI 20·0-NE) with cabazitaxel and 16·7 months (10·8-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·35-1·01; log-rank p=0·050). Median time to FACT-P total score deterioration was 14·8 months (95% CI 6·3-NE) with cabazitaxel and 8·9 months (6·3-NE) with abiraterone or enzalutamide (HR 0·72, 95% CI 0·44-1·20; log-rank p=0·21). There was a significant treatment effect seen in changes from baseline in EQ-5D-5L utility index score in favour of cabazitaxel over abiraterone or enzalutamide (p=0·030) but no difference between treatment groups for change from baseline in EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale (p=0·060). INTERPRETATION: Since cabazitaxel improved pain response, time to pain progression, time to symptomatic skeletal events, and EQ-5D-5L utility index, clinicians and patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer can be reassured that cabazitaxel will not reduce quality of life when compared with treatment with a second androgen signalling-targeted inhibitor. FUNDING: Sanofi.

Cabazitaxel versus Abiraterone or Enzalutamide in Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel, as compared with an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who were previously treated with docetaxel and had progression within 12 months while receiving the alternative inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) are unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had previously received docetaxel and an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) to receive cabazitaxel (at a dose of 25 mg per square meter of body-surface area intravenously every 3 weeks, plus prednisone daily and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) or the other androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (either 1000 mg of abiraterone plus prednisone daily or 160 mg of enzalutamide daily). The primary end point was imaging-based progression-free survival. Secondary end points of survival, response, and safety were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 255 patients underwent randomization. After a median follow-up of 9.2 months, imaging-based progression or death was reported in 95 of 129 patients (73.6%) in the cabazitaxel group, as compared with 101 of 126 patients (80.2%) in the group that received an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40 to 0.73; P<0.001). The median imaging-based progression-free survival was 8.0 months with cabazitaxel and 3.7 months with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor. The median overall survival was 13.6 months with cabazitaxel and 11.0 months with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.89; P = 0.008). The median progression-free survival was 4.4 months with cabazitaxel and 2.7 months with an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.68; P<0.001), a prostate-specific antigen response occurred in 35.7% and 13.5% of the patients, respectively (P<0.001), and tumor response was noted in 36.5% and 11.5% (P = 0.004). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 56.3% of patients receiving cabazitaxel and in 52.4% of those receiving an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Cabazitaxel significantly improved a number of clinical outcomes, as compared with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had been previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen-signaling-targeted agent (abiraterone or enzalutamide). (Funded by Sanofi; CARD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02485691.).