First-line trifluridine/tipiracil + bevacizumab in patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer: final survival analysis in the TASCO1 study.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic options are limited in patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. The use of trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab (TT-B) in this setting was evaluated in the TASCO1 trial; here, we present the final overall survival (OS) results. METHODS: TASCO1 was an open-label, non-comparative phase II trial. Patients (n = 153) were randomised 1:1 to TT-B (trifluridine/tipiracil 35 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1-5 and 8-12, and bevacizumab intravenously 5 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) or capecitabine plus bevacizumab (C-B; capecitabine, 1250 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1-14 and bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day cycle). Final OS was analysed when all patients had either died or withdrawn from the study. Adjusted multivariate regression was used to investigate the effects of pre-specified variables on OS. RESULTS: At 1 September 2020, median OS was 22.3 months (95% CI: 18.0-23.7) with TT-B and 17.7 months (95% CI: 12.6-19.8) with C-B (adjusted HR 0.78; 95% CI: 0.55-1.10). No variables negatively affected OS with TT-B. Safety results were consistent with prior findings. CONCLUSIONS: TT-B is a promising therapeutic regimen in mCRC patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: NCT02743221 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Biomarkers of treatment benefit with atezolizumab plus vemurafenib plus cobimetinib in BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The phase III IMspire150 study (NCT02908672) demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (atezolizumab group) versus placebo, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib (control group) in patients with BRAFV600-mutated advanced melanoma. We report exploratory biomarker analyses to optimize targeting of patients who are more likely to benefit from triplet combination therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Five hundred fourteen patients were randomized to atezolizumab (n = 256) or control (n = 258). Outcomes were evaluated in subgroups defined by key biomarkers, including programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and interferon-γ (IFN-γ) gene signature. Exploratory recursive partitioning analysis was then used to model associations between PFS and baseline covariates, including key biomarkers. RESULTS: PFS benefit for atezolizumab versus control was greater in patients with high TMB [≥10 mutations/Mb; hazard ratio (HR) 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-1.02; P = 0.067] versus low TMB (<10 mutations/Mb; HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.65-1.30; P = 0.64) and similar between patients with strong IFN-γ (≥median; HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.54-1.06) versus weak IFN-γ (

Cobimetinib plus atezolizumab in BRAFV600 wild-type melanoma: primary results from the randomized phase III IMspire170 study.

BACKGROUND: Emerging data suggest that the combination of MEK inhibitors and immunotherapeutic agents may result in improved efficacy in melanoma. We evaluated whether combining MEK inhibition and immune checkpoint inhibition was more efficacious than immune checkpoint inhibition alone in patients with previously untreated BRAFV600 wild-type advanced melanoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: IMspire170 was an international, randomized, open-label, phase III study. Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to receive cobimetinib (60 mg, days 1-21) plus anti-programmed death-ligand 1 atezolizumab (840 mg every 2 weeks) in 28-day cycles or anti-programmed death-1 pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) alone until loss of clinical benefit, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), assessed by an independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Between 11 December 2017, and 29 January 2019, 446 patients were randomized to receive cobimetinib plus atezolizumab (n = 222) or pembrolizumab (n = 224). Median follow-up was 7.1 months [interquartile range (IQR) 4.8-9.9] for cobimetinib plus atezolizumab and 7.2 months (IQR 4.9-10.1) for pembrolizumab. Median PFS was 5.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.8-7.2] with cobimetinib plus atezolizumab versus 5.7 months (95% CI 3.7-9.6) with pembrolizumab [stratified hazard ratio 1.15 (95% CI 0.88-1.50); P = 0.30]. Hazard ratios for PFS were consistent across prespecified subgroups. In exploratory biomarker analyses, higher tumor mutational burden was associated with improved clinical outcomes in both treatment arms. The most common grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) were increased blood creatine phosphokinase (10.0% with cobimetinib plus atezolizumab versus 0.9% with pembrolizumab), diarrhea (7.7% versus 1.9%), rash (6.8% versus 0.9%), hypertension (6.4% versus 3.7%), and dermatitis acneiform (5.0% versus 0). Serious AEs occurred in 44.1% of patients with cobimetinib plus atezolizumab and 20.8% with pembrolizumab. CONCLUSION: Cobimetinib plus atezolizumab did not improve PFS compared with pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with BRAFV600 wild-type advanced melanoma.

Trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab in patients with untreated metastatic colorectal cancer ineligible for intensive therapy: the randomized TASCO1 study.

BACKGROUND: We designed an open-label, noncomparative phase II study to assess the safety and efficacy of first-line treatment with trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab (TT-B) and capecitabine plus bevacizumab (C-B) in untreated patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who were not candidates for combination with cytotoxic chemotherapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 29 April 2016 to 29 March 2017, 153 patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either TT-B (N = 77) or C-B (N = 76). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). The primary PFS analysis was performed after 100 events (radiological progression or death) were observed. Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), quality of life (QoL; QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 questionnaires), and safety. RESULTS: Median (range) duration of treatment was 7.8 (6.0-9.7) months and 6.2 (4.1-9.1) months in the TT-B and C-B groups, respectively. Median (range) PFS was 9.2 (7.6-11.6) and 7.8 (5.5-10.1) months, respectively. Median (range) OS was 18 (15.2 to NA) and 16.2 (12.5 to NA) months, respectively. QoL questionnaires showed no relevant changes over time for either treatment. Therapies were well tolerated. Patients receiving TT-B had more grade ≥3 neutropenia (47% versus 5% with C-B). Patients receiving C-B had more grade ≥3 hand-foot syndrome (12% versus 0% with TT-B) and grade ≥3 diarrhea (8% versus 1% with TT-B), consistent with the known safety profiles of these agents. CONCLUSION: TT-B treatment showed promising clinical activity in untreated patients with unresectable mCRC ineligible for intensive therapy, with an acceptable safety profile and no clinically relevant changes in QoL. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: NCT02743221 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Efficacy and safety of CT-P6 versus reference trastuzumab in HER2-positive early breast cancer: updated results of a randomised phase 3 trial.

PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant CT-P6, a trastuzumab biosimilar, demonstrated equivalent efficacy to reference trastuzumab in a phase 3 trial of HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer (EBC) (NCT02162667). We report post hoc analyses evaluating pathological complete response (pCR) and breast pCR alongside additional efficacy and safety measures. METHODS: Following neoadjuvant treatment and surgery, patients received adjuvant CT-P6 or trastuzumab (6 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for ≤ 1 year. RESULTS: In total, 271 and 278 patients received CT-P6 and trastuzumab, respectively. pCR and breast pCR rates were comparable between treatment groups regardless of age, region, or clinical stage. Overall, 47.6% (CT-P6) and 52.2% (trastuzumab) of patients experienced study drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), including 17 patients reporting heart failure (CT-P6: 10; trastuzumab: 7). Two CT-P6 and three trastuzumab patients discontinued adjuvant treatment due to TEAEs. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant CT-P6 demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety to trastuzumab at 1 year in patients with HER2-positive EBC, supporting CT-P6 and trastuzumab comparability.

Dabrafenib plus trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in patients with metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma: long-term survival and safety analysis of a phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Previous analysis of COMBI-d (NCT01584648) demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with combination dabrafenib and trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. This study was continued to assess 3-year landmark efficacy and safety after ≥36-month follow-up for all living patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This double-blind, phase 3 study enrolled previously untreated patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma. Patients were randomized to receive dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) plus trametinib (2 mg once daily) or dabrafenib plus placebo. The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints were OS, overall response, duration of response, safety, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: Between 4 May and 30 November 2012, a total of 423 of 947 screened patients were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (n = 211) or dabrafenib monotherapy (n = 212). At data cut-off (15 February 2016), outcomes remained superior with the combination: 3-year PFS was 22% with dabrafenib plus trametinib versus 12% with monotherapy, and 3-year OS was 44% versus 32%, respectively. Twenty-five patients receiving monotherapy crossed over to combination therapy, with continued follow-up under the monotherapy arm (per intent-to-treat principle). Of combination-arm patients alive at 3 years, 58% remained on dabrafenib plus trametinib. Three-year OS with the combination reached 62% in the most favourable subgroup (normal lactate dehydrogenase and <3 organ sites with metastasis) versus only 25% in the unfavourable subgroup (elevated lactate dehydrogenase). The dabrafenib plus trametinib safety profile was consistent with previous clinical trial observations, and no new safety signals were detected with long-term use. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that durable (≥3 years) survival is achievable with dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma and support long-term first-line use of the combination in this setting.

Subcutaneous versus intravenous formulation of trastuzumab for HER2-positive early breast cancer: updated results from the phase III HannaH study.

BACKGROUND: HannaH (NCT00950300) was a phase III, randomized, international, open-label study that compared pharmacokinetics (PK), efficacy, and safety of two different trastuzumab formulations [subcutaneous (s.c.) and intravenous (i.v.)] in HER2-positive, operable, locally advanced, or inflammatory breast cancer in the neoadjuvant/adjuvant setting. The co-primary end points, to show noninferiority of s.c. versus i.v. trastuzumab in terms of serum concentration (Ctrough) and pathologic complete response (pCR) were met; safety profiles were comparable at 12 months' median follow-up. Secondary end points included safety and tolerability, PK profile, immunogenicity, and event-free survival (EFS). We now report updated safety and efficacy data after a median follow-up of 20 months. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (N = 596) were treated with eight cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, administered concurrently with 3-weekly s.c. trastuzumab (fixed dose of 600 mg) or the standard weight-based i.v. method. Following surgery, patients continued trastuzumab treatment to complete 1 year of therapy. Updated analyses of PK, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity data were carried out. RESULTS: s.c. trastuzumab was generally well tolerated and the incidence of adverse events (AEs), including grade 3 or 4 AEs, between treatment groups was comparable. A slightly higher incidence of serious AEs (SAEs), mainly due to infections, was reported with s.c. treatment {64 [21.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 17.0%-26.7%] versus 42 (14.1%; 95% CI 10.4%-18.6%) in the i.v. group}; however, the differences were small and often based on rare events, with no observable pattern across reported events. An early analysis of EFS showed rates of 95% in both groups 1 year postrandomization. Exploratory analyses did not reveal an association between toxicity and body weight or exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the safety profile of s.c. trastuzumab was consistent with the previously published data from HannaH and the known safety profile of i.v. trastuzumab. EFS rates were comparable between the i.v. and s.c. groups. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT00950300.

First-line bevacizumab plus taxane-based chemotherapy for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer: safety and efficacy in an open-label study in 2,251 patients.

BACKGROUND: First-line bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy significantly improves efficacy versus chemotherapy alone in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (LR/mBC). This large, open-label study further assesses first-line bevacizumab with taxane-based chemotherapy in routine oncology practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with HER2-negative LR/mBC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of zero to two and no prior chemotherapy for LR/mBC received bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks plus taxane-based chemotherapy (or other non-anthracycline chemotherapy) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or patient withdrawal. The primary end point was safety; time to progression (TtP) was a secondary end point. RESULTS: Median follow-up in 2251 treated patients was 12.7 months. Median age was 53 years and 94% of patients had ECOG PS of zero or one. Bevacizumab was most commonly administered with single-agent paclitaxel (35%), single-agent docetaxel (33%) or taxane-based combination therapy (10%). The most frequent grade ≥3 adverse event (AE) was neutropenia (5.4%). Grade ≥3 AEs previously associated with bevacizumab included hypertension (4.4%), arterial/venous thromboembolism (3.2%), proteinuria (1.7%) and bleeding (1.4%). No new bevacizumab safety signals were observed. Median TtP was 9.5 months (95% confidence interval 9.1-9.9). CONCLUSIONS: The study population in ATHENA was more representative of general oncology practice than populations enrolled into randomised trials, although there may have been some bias towards younger, fitter patients. The safety and efficacy of bevacizumab-taxane therapy in this large study were consistent with results from randomised first-line trials.