Effect of Celecoxib vs Placebo as Adjuvant Therapy on Disease-Free Survival Among Patients With Breast Cancer: The REACT Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Patients with breast cancer remain at risk of relapse after adjuvant therapy. Celecoxib has shown antitumor effects in preclinical models of human breast cancer, but clinical evidence is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of celecoxib as an addition to conventional therapy for women with ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative primary breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Randomized European Celecoxib Trial (REACT) was a phase 3, randomized, double-blind study conducted in 160 centers across the UK and Germany testing 2 years of adjuvant celecoxib vs placebo among 2639 patients recruited between January 19, 2007, and November 1, 2012, with follow-up 10 years after treatment completion. Eligible patients had completely resected breast cancer with local and systemic therapy according to local practice. Patients with ERBB2-positive or node-negative and T1, grade 1 tumors were not eligible. Randomization was in a 2:1 ratio between celecoxib or placebo. Statistical analysis was performed from May 5, 2019, to March 5, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received celecoxib, 400 mg, or placebo once daily for 2 years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS), analyzed in the intention-to-treat population using Cox proportional hazards regression and log-rank analysis. Follow-up is complete. RESULTS: A total of 2639 patients (median age, 55.2 years [range, 26.8-86.0 years]) were recruited; 1763 received celecoxib, and 876 received placebo. Most patients' tumors (1930 [73%]) were estrogen receptor positive or progesterone receptor positive and ERBB2 negative. A total of 1265 patients (48%) had node-positive disease, and 1111 (42%) had grade 3 tumors. At a median follow-up of 74.3 months (interquartile range, 61.4-93.6 years), DFS events had been reported for 487 patients (19%): 18% for those who received celecoxib (n = 323; 5-year DFS rate = 84%) vs 19% for those who received placebo (n = 164; 5-year DFS rate = 83%); the unadjusted hazard ratio was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.80-1.17; log-rank P = .75). Rates of toxic effects were low across both treatment groups, with no evidence of a difference. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial, patients showed no evidence of a DFS benefit for 2 years' treatment with celecoxib compared with placebo as adjuvant treatment of ERBB2-negative breast cancer. Longer-term treatment or use of a higher dose of celecoxib may lead to a DFS benefit, but further studies would be required to test this possibility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02429427 and isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN48254013.

Impact of modified short-term fasting and its combination with a fasting supportive diet during chemotherapy on the incidence and severity of chemotherapy-induced toxicities in cancer patients - a controlled cross-over pilot study.

BACKGROUND: This pilot trial aimed to investigate whether modified short-term fasting (mSTF) reduces the incidence of chemotherapy-induced toxicities and whether an initial ketogenic diet (KD) as fasting supportive diet reduces fasting-related discomfort and improves the compliance. METHODS: In this controlled cross-over trial, gynaecologic cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy with a minimum of 4 cycles fasted for 96 h during half of their chemotherapy cycles and consumed a normocaloric diet during the other chemotherapy cycles. The caloric intake during mSTF was restricted to 25% of each patient's daily requirement. In addition, half of the patients should eat a 6-day normocaloric KD prior to each mSTF period to investigate a KD's hunger-suppression effect. Chemotherapy-induced toxicities, fasting-related discomfort, body composition, quality of life, laboratory values, and compliance were assessed at each chemotherapy. RESULTS: Thirty patients aged 30-74 years (median 54 years) completed the study. During mSTF the frequency and severity score of stomatitis [- 0.16 ± 0.06; 95% CI -0.28 - (- 0.03); P = 0.013], headaches [- 1.80 ± 0.55; 95% CI -2.89 - (- 0.71); P = 0.002], weakness [- 1.99 ± 0.87; 95% CI -3.72 - (- 0.26); P = 0.024] and the total toxicities' score were significantly reduced [- 10.36 ± 4.44; 95% CI -19.22 - (- 1.50); P = 0.023]. We also observed significantly fewer chemotherapy postponements post-mSTF, reflecting improved tolerance of chemotherapy [- 0.80 ± 0.37; 95% CI -1.53 - (- 0.06); P = 0.034]. A significant reduction in mean body weight by - 0.79 ± 1.47 kg during mSTF was not compensated and remained until study's conclusion (P < 0.005). On average, Insulin [- 169.4 ± 44.1; 95% CI -257.1 - (- 81.8); P < 0.001] and Insulin-like growth factor 1 levels [- 33.3 ± 5.4; 95% CI -44.1 - (- 22.5); P < 0.001] dropped significantly during fasting. The KD as a fasting supportive diet neither reduced fasting-related discomfort nor improved compliance of our fasting regimen. CONCLUSION: MSTF is safe and feasible in gynaecologic cancer patients. Our results indicate that mSTF during chemotherapy can reduce chemotherapy-induced toxicities and enhance the tolerance of chemotherapy. Larger clinical trials are required to recommend mSTF for cancer patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: germanctr.de: DRKS00011610, registered 30 January, 2017.

A multicenter phase 1 study of solitomab (MT110, AMG 110), a bispecific EpCAM/CD3 T-cell engager (BiTE®) antibody construct, in patients with refractory solid tumors.

We assessed the tolerability and antitumor activity of solitomab, a bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE®) antibody construct targeting epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM). Patients with relapsed/refractory solid tumors not amenable to standard therapy received solitomab as continuous IV infusion in a phase 1 dose-escalation study with six different dosing schedules. The primary endpoint was frequency and severity of adverse events (AEs). Secondary endpoints included pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, and antitumor activity. Sixty-five patients received solitomab at doses between 1 and 96 µg/day for ≥28 days. Fifteen patients had dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs): eight had transient abnormal liver parameters shortly after infusion start or dose escalation (grade 3, n = 4; grade 4, n = 4), and one had supraventricular tachycardia (grade 3); all events resolved with solitomab discontinuation. Six patients had a DLT of diarrhea: four events resolved (grade 3, n = 3; grade 4, n = 1), one (grade 3) was ongoing at the time of treatment-unrelated death, and one (grade 3) progressed to grade 5 after solitomab discontinuation. The maximum tolerated dose was 24 µg/day. Overall, 95% of patients had grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs, primarily diarrhea, elevated liver parameters, and elevated lipase. Solitomab half-life was 4.5 hours; serum levels plateaued within 24 hours. One unconfirmed partial response was observed. In this study of a BiTE® antibody construct targeting solid tumors, treatment of relapsed/refractory EpCAM-positive solid tumors with solitomab was associated with DLTs, including severe diarrhea and increased liver enzymes, which precluded dose escalation to potentially therapeutic levels.

A phase III, open label, randomized multicenter controlled trial of oral versus intravenous treosulfan in heavily pretreated recurrent ovarian cancer: a study of the North-Eastern German Society of Gynecological Oncology (NOGGO).

OBJECTIVE: In recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC), there is a high demand on effective therapies with a mild toxicity profile. Treosulfan is an alkylating agent approved as oral (p.o.) and intravenous (i.v.) formulation for the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer. Data on safety and efficacy for either formulation are rare. For the first time we conducted a randomized phase III study comparing both formulations in women with ROC. METHODS: Patients having received at least two previous lines of chemotherapy were randomly assigned to one of two treatment arms: treosulfan i.v. 7000 mg/m2 d1 q4w or treosulfan p.o. 600 mg/m2 d1-28 q8w. Primary endpoint was safety regarding hematological and gastrointestinal toxicity grade III/IV, secondary endpoints were other toxicities, clinical benefit rate (CBR), time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS) and quality of life. RESULTS: 250 patients were treated with treosulfan i.v. (128) or treosulfan p.o. (122). In general treosulfan therapy was well tolerated in both treatment arms. Leukopenia grade III/IV occurred significantly more frequently in the p.o. arm (3.9% i.v. arm, 14.8% p.o. arm, p = 0.002). Other toxicities were similar in both arms. CBR was comparable between arms (41.4% i.v. arm, 36.9% p.o. arm). No difference in TTP (3.7 months i.v. arm, 3.5 months p.o. arm) or OS (13.6 months i.v. arm, 10.4 months p.o. arm, p = 0.087) occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Given the safety and efficacy results treosulfan is an acceptable option for heavily pretreated OC patients. Regarding the toxicity profile the i.v. application was better tolerated with less grade III and IV toxicities.

Kinetic targeting of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin: a new approach to reduce toxicity during chemotherapy (CARL-trial).

BACKGROUND: The therapeutic success of chemotherapeutic agents is often limited by severe adverse effects. To reduce toxicity of these drugs, nanoscale particle-based drug delivery systems (DDS) are used. DDS accumulate to some extent in tumor tissues, but only a very small portion of a given dose reaches this target. Accumulation of DDS in tumor tissues is supposed to be much faster than in certain other tissues in which side effects occur ("Kinetic Targeting"). Once saturation in tumor tissue is achieved, most of the administered DDS still circulate in the plasma. The extracorporeal elimination of these circulating nanoparticles would probably reduce toxicity. METHODS: For the CARL-trial (Controlled Application and Removal of Liposomal chemotherapeutics), pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) was used as chemotherapeutic agent and double filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP) was performed for extracorporeal elimination of liposomes. PLD was given as 40 mg/m2 every 3 weeks in combination with vinorelbine 2 × 25 mg/m2 (neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer, 12 patients), or as 40 mg/m2 every 4 weeks (recurrent ovarian cancer, 3 patients). Primary endpoints were the efficiency and safety profile of DFPP, and secondary endpoints were side effects and tumor response. RESULTS: DFPP eliminated ~62% of circulating PLD, corresponding to ~45% of the total dose (n = 57 cycles). AUC of doxorubicin was reduced by 50%. No leakage of doxorubicin was detected during elimination, and no relevant DFPP-related side effects occurred. Reduction in tumor size > 30% occurred in 10/12 (neoadjuvant) and in 1/3 patients (recurrent). Only five grade 2 events and one grade 3 event (mucositis, neutropenia or leucopenia) and a single palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia grade 2 were reported. CONCLUSION: Extracorporeal elimination of PLD by DFPP is safe and efficient. CARL can diminish the main dose-limiting side effects of PLD, and probably many different DDS alike. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00000163.