Antiproliferative Effect of Lapatinib in HER2-Positive and HER2-Negative/HER3-High Breast Cancer: Results of the Presurgical Randomized MAPLE Trial (CRUK E/06/039).

PURPOSE: Not all breast cancers respond to lapatinib. A change in Ki67 after short-term exposure may elucidate a biomarker profile for responsive versus nonresponsive tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Women with primary breast cancer were randomized (3:1) to 10 to 14 days of preoperative lapatinib or placebo in a multicenter phase II trial (ISRCTN68509377). Biopsies pre-/posttreatment were analyzed for Ki67, apoptosis, HER2, EGFR, ER, PgR, pAKT, pERK, and stathmin by IHC. Further markers were measured by RT-PCR. Primary endpoint was change in Ki67. HER2(+) was defined as 2+/3+ by IHC and FISH(+). RESULTS: One hundred twenty-one patients (lapatinib, 94; placebo, 27) were randomized; of these, 21% were HER2(+), 78% were HER2(-) nonamplified, 26% were EGFR(+). Paired samples containing tumor were obtained for 98% (118 of 121). Ki67 fell significantly with lapatinib (-31%; P < 0.001), but not with placebo (-3%). Whereas Ki67 reduction with lapatinib was greatest in HER2(+) breast cancer (-46%; P = 0.003), there was a significant Ki67 decrease in HER2(-) breast cancer (-27%; P = 0.017) with 14% of HER2(-) breast cancer demonstrating ≥50% Ki67 reduction with lapatinib. Among HER2(+) patients, the only biomarker predictive of Ki67 response was the EGFR/HER4 ligand epiregulin (EREG) (rho = -0.7; P = 0.002). Among HER2(-) tumors, only HER3 mRNA levels were significantly associated with Ki67 response on multivariate analysis (P = 0.01). In HER2(-) breast cancer, HER2 and HER3 mRNA levels were highly correlated (rho = 0.67, P < 0.001), with all Ki67 responders having elevated HER3 and HER2 expression. CONCLUSIONS: Lapatinib has antiproliferative effects in a subgroup of HER2(-) nonamplified tumors characterized by high HER3 expression. The possible role of high HER2:HER3 heterodimers in predicting response to lapatinib merits investigation in HER2(-) tumors.

Fulvestrant plus anastrozole or placebo versus exemestane alone after progression on non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors in postmenopausal patients with hormone-receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (SoFEA): a composite, multicentre, phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimum endocrine treatment for postmenopausal women with advanced hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer that has progressed on non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors (NSAIs) is unclear. The aim of the SoFEA trial was to assess a maximum double endocrine targeting approach with the steroidal anti-oestrogen fulvestrant in combination with continued oestrogen deprivation. METHODS: In a composite, multicentre, phase 3 randomised controlled trial done in the UK and South Korea, postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer (oestrogen receptor [ER] positive, progesterone receptor [PR] positive, or both) were eligible if they had relapsed or progressed with locally advanced or metastatic disease on an NSAI (given as adjuvant for at least 12 months or as first-line treatment for at least 6 months). Additionally, patients had to have adequate organ function and a WHO performance status of 0-2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive fulvestrant (500 mg intramuscular injection on day 1, followed by 250 mg doses on days 15 and 29, and then every 28 days) plus daily oral anastrozole (1 mg); fulvestrant plus anastrozole-matched placebo; or daily oral exemestane (25 mg). Randomisation was done with computer-generated permuted blocks, and stratification was by centre and previous use of an NSAI as adjuvant treatment or for locally advanced or metastatic disease. Participants and investigators were aware of assignment to fulvestrant or exemestane, but not of assignment to anastrozole or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00253422 (UK) and NCT00944918 (South Korea). FINDINGS: Between March 26, 2004, and Aug 6, 2010, 723 patients underwent randomisation: 243 were assigned to receive fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 231 to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 249 to exemestane. Median PFS was 4·4 months (95% CI 3·4-5·4) in patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 4·8 months (3·6-5·5) in those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 3·4 months (3·0-4·6) in those assigned to exemestane. No difference was recorded between the patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole and fulvestrant plus placebo (hazard ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·83-1·21; log-rank p=0·98), or between those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo and exemestane (0·95, 0·79-1·14; log-rank p=0·56). 87 serious adverse events were reported: 36 in patients assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole, 22 in those assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo, and 29 in those assigned to exemestane. Grade 3-4 adverse events were rare; the most frequent were arthralgia (three in the group assigned to fulvestrant plus anastrozole; seven in that assigned to fulvestrant plus placebo; eight in that assigned to exemestane), lethargy (three; 11; 11), and nausea or vomiting (five; two; eight). INTERPRETATION: After loss of response to NSAIs in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive advanced breast cancer, maximum double endocrine treatment with 250 mg fulvestrant combined with oestrogen deprivation is no better than either fulvestrant alone or exemestane.

Extra-pleural pneumonectomy versus no extra-pleural pneumonectomy for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: clinical outcomes of the Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery (MARS) randomised feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: The effects of extra-pleural pneumonectomy (EPP) on survival and quality of life in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma have, to our knowledge, not been assessed in a randomised trial. We aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of patients who were randomly assigned to EPP or no EPP in the context of trimodal therapy in the Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery (MARS) feasibility study. METHODS: MARS was a multicentre randomised controlled trial in 12 UK hospitals. Patients aged 18 years or older who had pathologically confirmed mesothelioma and were deemed fit enough to undergo trimodal therapy were included. In a prerandomisation registration phase, all patients underwent induction platinum-based chemotherapy followed by clinical review. After further consent, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to EPP followed by postoperative hemithorax irradiation or to no EPP. Randomisation was done centrally with computer-generated permuted blocks stratified by surgical centre. The main endpoints were feasibility of randomly assigning 50 patients in 1 year (results detailed in another report), proportion randomised who received treatment, proportion eligible (registered) who proceeded to randomisation, perioperative mortality, and quality of life. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. This is the principal report of the MARS study; all patients have been recruited. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN95583524. FINDINGS: Between Oct 1, 2005, and Nov 3, 2008, 112 patients were registered and 50 were subsequently randomly assigned: 24 to EPP and 26 to no EPP. The main reasons for not proceeding to randomisation were disease progression (33 patients), inoperability (five patients), and patient choice (19 patients). EPP was completed satisfactorily in 16 of 24 patients assigned to EPP; in five patients EPP was not started and in three patients it was abandoned. Two patients in the EPP group died within 30 days and a further patient died without leaving hospital. One patient in the no EPP group died perioperatively after receiving EPP off trial in a non-MARS centre. The hazard ratio [HR] for overall survival between the EPP and no EPP groups was 1·90 (95% CI 0·92-3·93; exact p=0·082), and after adjustment for sex, histological subtype, stage, and age at randomisation the HR was 2·75 (1·21-6·26; p=0·016). Median survival was 14·4 months (5·3-18·7) for the EPP group and 19·5 months (13·4 to time not yet reached) for the no EPP group. Of the 49 randomly assigned patients who consented to quality of life assessment (EPP n=23; no EPP n=26), 12 patients in the EPP group and 19 in the no EPP group completed the quality of life questionnaires. Although median quality of life scores were lower in the EPP group than the no EPP group, no significant differences between groups were reported in the quality of life analyses. There were ten serious adverse events reported in the EPP group and two in the no EPP group. INTERPRETATION: In view of the high morbidity associated with EPP in this trial and in other non-randomised studies a larger study is not feasible. These data, although limited, suggest that radical surgery in the form of EPP within trimodal therapy offers no benefit and possibly harms patients. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK (CRUK/04/003), the June Hancock Mesothelioma Research Fund, and Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust.

A quality-of-life study in high-risk (thickness > = or 2 mm) cutaneous melanoma patients in a randomized trial of 1-cm versus 3-cm surgical excision margins.

A quality-of-life study was carried out to test the hypothesis that melanoma patients treated with a 3-cm margin of excision suffer greater impairment of their quality of life than those treated with a 1-cm margin. The secondary aim was to determine the predictors of a poor patient perception of their excision scar. A postal questionnaire study was carried out using Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD), Psychosocial Adjustment of Illness Scale-Self-Report (PAIS-SR), Medical Outcomes Survey-Short Form 36 (MOS-SF36), and the Cassileth Scar questionnaires. Data were collected from 426 of the 537 patients who were mailed the questionnaires (response rate 79%). Fourteen percent had clinically significant anxiety and 5% had significant depression. A poor attitude toward quality of health care was associated with youth. Patients treated with a 3-cm margin excision had significantly poorer mental and physical function 1 mo after surgery, which disappeared within 6 mo. The greater difficulties experienced by the 3-cm margin group were particularly in their domestic, sexual, and social roles. Women, younger patients, those with poor physical and mental function after surgery, and those treated by a 3-cm margin were more likely to report a poorer perception of their scar. The poorer scar perception of patients in the 3-cm group persisted throughout the study period. Use of a 3-cm margin of excision for melanoma is associated with significantly more morbidity than use of a 1-cm margin, but this effect disappears in 6 mo. Patients treated by 3-cm excision were more likely, however, to have a persistent poor view of their scar. Youth and being female were also predictors of poor perception of the scar.

Excision margins in high-risk malignant melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists concerning the necessary margin of excision for cutaneous melanoma 2 mm or greater in thickness. METHODS: We conducted a randomized clinical trial comparing 1-cm and 3-cm margins. RESULTS: Of the 900 patients who were enrolled, 453 were randomly assigned to undergo surgery with a 1-cm margin of excision and 447 with a 3-cm margin of excision; the median follow-up was 60 months. A 1-cm margin of excision was associated with a significantly increased risk of locoregional recurrence. There were 168 locoregional recurrences (as first events) in the group with 1-cm margins of excision, as compared with 142 in the group with 3-cm margins (hazard ratio, 1.26; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.00 to 1.59; P=0.05). There were 128 deaths attributable to melanoma in the group with 1-cm margins, as compared with 105 in the group with 3-cm margins (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.61; P=0.1); overall survival was similar in the two groups (hazard ratio for death, 1.07; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.85 to 1.36; P=0.6). CONCLUSIONS: A 1-cm margin of excision for melanoma with a poor prognosis (as defined by a tumor thickness of at least 2 mm) is associated with a significantly greater risk of regional recurrence than is a 3-cm margin, but with a similar overall survival rate.