Phase II study of carboplatin, pemetrexed, and bevacizumab in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death throughout the world. Despite new chemotherapeutic, immunomodulating and molecularly targeted agents, patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease still have a poor prognosis. This trial looked to combine antiangiogenic therapy with a first-line cytotoxic chemotherapy doublet, hoping to extend median progression-free survival (PFS) while minimizing toxicity in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this single institution, single-arm study, 51 patients (age >18 yo) were followed from 2007 to 2012. Patients with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC and patients with recurrent unresectable disease (nonradiation candidates) were eligible. Treatment consisted of carboplatin AUC 5 IV 30-60 minutes, pemetrexed 500/mg2 IV 10 minutes, bevacizumab 15 mg/kg IV (90 minutes 1st dose, 60 minutes 2nd dose, 30 minutes subsequent doses). Treatment was administered every 21 days and planned for 6 cycles, in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicities. Growth factor support was not permitted prophylactically but allowed for toxicities, as were dose reductions. Maintenance treatment for those with stable disease or better consisted of Bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks for up to 1 year. Between November 2007 and March 2012, 51 patients were followed in the phase II trial of carboplatin, pemetrexed, and bevacizumab. Patients were enrolled over a 24-month period. After the end of treatment visits, subjects were followed at least every 3 months for survival data. The median follow-up period was 49 weeks (6 weeks to 178), and the median number of treatment cycles was 6 (range, 1-6). Among the 50 patients assessable for response, median overall survival was 49 weeks (95% CI, 0-62.7) with median PFS of 28 weeks (95% CI, 0-132.4). A complete or partial response was seen in 28 (59.5%) patients. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 9 (17.6%) of 51 patients; the most common were thrombocytopenia (4 [7.8%]) and neutropenia (3 [5.9%]). Three (5.8%) of 51 patients were discontinued because of treatment-related adverse events (grade 3 diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, dehydration, fatigue, and grade 4 respiratory distress), and 1 patient (1.9%) was found to be ineligible due to anticoagulation use. A novel 3-drug combination for advanced nonsquamous NSCLC shows promising efficacy with modest toxicity.

Anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy (NSABP B-35): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Ductal carcinoma in situ is currently managed with excision, radiotherapy, and adjuvant hormone therapy, usually tamoxifen. We postulated that an aromatase inhibitor would be safer and more effective. We therefore undertook this trial to compare anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy. METHODS: The double-blind, randomised, phase 3 National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-35 trial was done in 333 participating NSABP centres in the USA and Canada. Postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy with clear resection margins and whole-breast irradiation were enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral tamoxifen 20 mg per day (with matching placebo in place of anastrozole) or oral anastrozole 1 mg per day (with matching placebo in place of tamoxifen) for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by age (<60 vs ≥60 years) and patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was breast cancer-free interval, defined as time from randomisation to any breast cancer event (local, regional, or distant recurrence, or contralateral breast cancer, invasive disease, or ductal carcinoma in situ), analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00053898, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2003, and June 15, 2006, 3104 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (1552 to tamoxifen and 1552 to anastrozole). As of Feb 28, 2015, follow-up information was available for 3083 patients for overall survival and 3077 for all other disease-free endpoints, with median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 8·2-10·0). In total, 212 breast cancer-free interval events occurred: 122 in the tamoxifen group and 90 in the anastrozole group (HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·56-0·96], p=0·0234). A significant time-by-treatment interaction (p=0·0410) became evident later in the study. There was also a significant interaction between treatment and age group (p=0·0379), showing that anastrozole is superior only in women younger than 60 years of age. Adverse events did not differ between the groups, except for thrombosis or embolism--a known side-effect of tamoxifen-for which there were 17 grade 4 or worse events in the tamoxifen group versus four in the anastrozole group. INTERPRETATION: Compared with tamoxifen, anastrozole treatment provided a significant improvement in breast cancer-free interval, mainly in women younger than 60 years of age. This finding means that women will benefit from having a choice of effective agents for ductal carcinoma in situ. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP.

Patient-reported outcomes with anastrozole versus tamoxifen for postmenopausal patients with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with lumpectomy plus radiotherapy (NSABP B-35): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The NSABP B-35 trial compared 5 years of treatment with anastrozole versus tamoxifen for reducing subsequent occurrence of breast cancer in postmenopausal patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. This report assesses the effect of these drugs on quality of life and symptoms. METHODS: The study was done at 333 hospitals in North America. Postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy with clear resection margins and whole breast irradiation were randomly assigned to receive either tamoxifen (20 mg/day) or anastrazole (1 mg/day) for 5 years, stratified by age (<60 years vs ≥60 years). Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline and every 6 months thereafter for 6 years. The primary outcomes were SF-12 physical and mental health component scale scores, and vasomotor symptoms (as per the BCPT symptom scale). Secondary outcomes were vaginal symptoms and sexual functioning. Exploratory outcomes were musculoskeletal pain, bladder symptoms, gynaecological symptoms, cognitive symptoms, weight problems, vitality, and depression. We did the analyses by intention to treat, including patients who completed questionnaires at baseline and at least once during follow-up. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00053898. FINDINGS: Between Jan 6, 2003, and June 15, 2006, 3104 patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 1193 were included in the quality-of-life substudy: 601 assigned to tamoxifen and 592 assigned to anastrozole. We detected no significant difference between treatment groups for: physical health scores (mean severity score 46·72 for tamoxifen vs 45·85 for anastrozole; p=0·20), mental health scores (52·38 vs 51·48; p=0·38), energy and fatigue (58·34 vs 57·54; p=0·86), or symptoms of depression (6·19 vs 6·39; p=0·46) over 5 years. Vasomotor symptoms (1·33 vs 1·17; p=0·011), difficulty with bladder control (0·96 vs 0·80; p=0·0002), and gynaecological symptoms (0·29 vs 0·18; p<0·0001) were significantly more severe in the tamoxifen group than in the anastrozole group. Musculoskeletal pain (1·50 vs 1·72; p=0·0006) and vaginal symptoms (0·76 vs 0·86; p=0·035) were significantly worse in the anastrozole group than in the tamoxifen group. Sexual functioning did not differ significantly between the two treatments (43·65 vs 45·29; p=0·56). Younger age was significantly associated with more severe vasomotor symptoms (mean severity score 1·45 for age <60 years vs 0·65 for age ≥60 years; p=0·0006), vaginal symptoms (0·98 vs 0·65; p<0·0001), weight problems (1·32 vs 1·02; p<0·0001), and gynaecological symptoms (0·26 vs 0·22; p=0·014). INTERPRETATION: Given the similar efficacy of tamoxifen and anastrozole for women older than age 60 years, decisions about treatment should be informed by the risk for serious adverse health effects and the symptoms associated with each drug. For women younger than 60 years old, treatment decisions might be driven by efficacy (favouring anastrozole); however, if the side-effects of anastrozole are intolerable, then switching to tamoxifen is a good alternative. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals.

Neoadjuvant 5-FU or Capecitabine Plus Radiation With or Without Oxaliplatin in Rectal Cancer Patients: A Phase III Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project R-04 was designed to determine whether the oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine could be substituted for continuous infusion 5-FU in the curative setting of stage II/III rectal cancer during neoadjuvant radiation therapy and whether the addition of oxaliplatin could further enhance the activity of fluoropyrimidine-sensitized radiation. METHODS: Patients with clinical stage II or III rectal cancer undergoing preoperative radiation were randomly assigned to one of four chemotherapy regimens in a 2x2 design: CVI 5-FU or oral capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin. The primary endpoint was local-regional tumor control. Time-to-event endpoint distributions were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Hazard ratios were estimated from Cox proportional hazard models. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Among 1608 randomized patients there were no statistically significant differences between regimens using 5-FU vs capecitabine in three-year local-regional tumor event rates (11.2% vs 11.8%), 5-year DFS (66.4% vs 67.7%), or 5-year OS (79.9% vs 80.8%); or for oxaliplatin vs no oxaliplatin for the three endpoints of local-regional events, DFS, and OS (11.2% vs 12.1%, 69.2% vs 64.2%, and 81.3% vs 79.0%). The addition of oxaliplatin was associated with statistically significantly more overall and grade 3-4 diarrhea (P < .0001). Three-year rates of local-regional recurrence among patients who underwent R0 resection ranged from 3.1 to 5.1% depending on the study arm. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous infusion 5-FU produced outcomes for local-regional control, DFS, and OS similar to those obtained with oral capecitabine combined with radiation. This study establishes capecitabine as a standard of care in the pre-operative rectal setting. Oxaliplatin did not improve the local-regional failure rate, DFS, or OS for any patient risk group but did add considerable toxicity.

Comparative effectiveness of sphincter-sparing surgery versus abdominoperineal resection in rectal cancer: patient-reported outcomes in National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project randomized trial R-04.

OBJECTIVE: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) R-04 was a randomized controlled trial of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with resectable stage II-III rectal cancer. We hypothesized that patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection (APR) would have a poorer quality of life than those who underwent sphincter-sparing surgery (SSS). METHODS: To obtain patient-reported outcomes (PROs) we administered two symptom scales at baseline and 1 year postoperatively: the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C) and the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer module for patients with Colorectal Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-CR38). Scoring was stratified by nonrandomly assigned definitive surgery (APR vs SSS). Analyses controlled for baseline scores and stratification factors: age, sex, stage, intended surgery, and randomly assigned chemoradiotherapy. RESULTS: Of 1,608 randomly assigned patients, 987 had data for planned analyses; 62% underwent SSS; 38% underwent APR. FACT-C total and subscale scores were not statistically different by surgery at 1 year. For the EORTC QLQ-CR38 functional scales, APR patients reported worse body image (70.3 vs 77.0, P = 0.0005) at 1 year than did SSS patients. Males undergoing APR reported worse sexual enjoyment (43.7 vs 54.7, P = 0.02) at 1 year than did those undergoing SSS. For the EORTC QLQ-CR38 symptom scale scores, APR patients reported worse micturition symptoms than the SSS group at 1 year (26.9 vs 21.5, P = 0.03). SSS patients reported worse gastrointestinal tract symptoms than did the APR patients (18.9 vs 15.2, P < 0.0001), as well as weight loss (10.1 vs 6.0, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Symptoms and functional problems were detected at 1 year by EORTC QLQ-CR38, reflecting different symptom profiles in patients who underwent APR than those who underwent SSS. Information from these PROs may be useful in counseling patients anticipating surgery for rectal cancer.

Capecitabine and oxaliplatin in the preoperative multimodality treatment of rectal cancer: surgical end points from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project trial R-04.

PURPOSE: The optimal chemotherapy regimen administered concurrently with preoperative radiation therapy (RT) for patients with rectal cancer is unknown. National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project trial R-04 compared four chemotherapy regimens administered concomitantly with RT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with clinical stage II or III rectal cancer who were undergoing preoperative RT (45 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks plus a boost of 5.4 Gy to 10.8 Gy in three to six daily fractions) were randomly assigned to one of the following chemotherapy regimens: continuous intravenous infusional fluorouracil (CVI FU; 225 mg/m(2), 5 days per week), with or without intravenous oxaliplatin (50 mg/m(2) once per week for 5 weeks) or oral capecitabine (825 mg/m(2) twice per day, 5 days per week), with or without oxaliplatin (50 mg/m(2) once per week for 5 weeks). Before random assignment, the surgeon indicated whether the patient was eligible for sphincter-sparing surgery based on clinical staging. The surgical end points were complete pathologic response (pCR), sphincter-sparing surgery, and surgical downstaging (conversion to sphincter-sparing surgery). RESULTS: From September 2004 to August 2010, 1,608 patients were randomly assigned. No significant differences in the rates of pCR, sphincter-sparing surgery, or surgical downstaging were identified between the CVI FU and capecitabine regimens or between the two regimens with or without oxaliplatin. Patients treated with oxaliplatin experienced significantly more grade 3 or 4 diarrhea (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Administering capecitabine with preoperative RT achieved similar rates of pCR, sphincter-sparing surgery, and surgical downstaging compared with CVI FU. Adding oxaliplatin did not improve surgical outcomes but added significant toxicity. The definitive analysis of local tumor control, disease-free survival, and overall survival will be performed when the protocol-specified number of events has occurred.

Testosterone levels and quality of life in diverse male patients with cancers unrelated to androgens.

PURPOSE: Symptoms secondary to hormonal changes significantly impact quality of life (QoL) in patients with cancer. This cross-sectional study examines prevalence of hypogonadism and its correlation with QoL and sexual dysfunction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We collected blood and medical histories from 428 male patients with non-testosterone-related cancer at three cancer centers. Serum was analyzed for total testosterone (TT), free testosterone (FT), bioavailable testosterone (BAT), and sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) QoL questionnaire measured physical, social, emotional, and functional domains as well as sexual function. Exclusion criteria were prostate, testicular, or male breast cancer; known hypogonadism; and HIV. RESULTS: Mean and median TTs were 337.46 and 310 ng/dL, respectively. The mean age of patients was 62.05 years. The crude prevalence of hypogonadism (ie, TT < 300 ng/dL) was 48%, and mean TT in hypogonadal patients was 176 ng/dL. The prevalences that were based on FT (ie, hypogonadal < 52 pg/dL) and BAT (ie, hypogonadal < 95 ng/dL) were 78% and 66%, respectively. The mean FT and BAT values in hypogonadal patients were 25 pg/dL and 45 ng/dL, respectively. Hypogonadal patients had decreased total QoL scores on FACT-P (P = .01) and decreased three-item sexual function subset (P = .003). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of hypogonadism was unexpectedly high. Measurement of FT or BAT detected a higher prevalence than TT alone, which confirmed previous studies. Correlation of T with FACT-P showed significant reduction of both overall QoL and sexual function for hypogonadal men. BAT and FT levels showed a stronger correlation than TT with overall FACT-P and subscales. The prevalence of symptomatic hypogonadism in male patients with cancer exceeds that found in comparable studies in noncancer populations.

Gemcitabine plus bevacizumab compared with gemcitabine plus placebo in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: phase III trial of the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB 80303).

PURPOSE: The combination of gemcitabine plus bevacizumab produced a 21% response rate and a median survival of 8.8 months in a multicenter phase II trial in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. These encouraging data led Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) to conduct a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III trial of gemcitabine/bevacizumab versus gemcitabine/placebo in advanced pancreatic cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had no prior therapy for advanced disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 to 2, no tumor invasion of adjacent organs, and no increased bleeding risk. The primary end point was overall survival. Patients were stratified by performance status, extent of disease, and prior radiotherapy. Patients received gemcitabine at 1,000 mg/m(2) over 30 minutes on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days and bevacizumab at 10 mg/kg or placebo on days 1 and 15 every 28 days. RESULTS: Between June 2004 and April 2006, 602 patients were enrolled onto the study and 535 were treated. Median overall survival was 5.8 months for gemcitabine/bevacizumab and 5.9 months for gemcitabine/placebo (P = .95). Median progression-free survival was 3.8 and 2.9 months, respectively (P = .07). Overall response rates were 13% and 10%, respectively. Patients with a performance status of 0, 1, and 2 survived a median of 7.9, 4.8, and 2.4 months, respectively. The only statistically significant differences in grades 3 and 4 toxicity occurred for hypertension (10% v 3%; P < .001) and proteinuria (5% v 1%; P = .002); venous thrombosis grade > or = 3 was equivalent in both arms (14% and 15%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The addition of bevacizumab to gemcitabine does not improve survival in advanced pancreatic cancer patients.