Eribulin as first-line treatment in older patients with advanced breast cancer: A multicenter phase II trial [SAKK 25/14].

INTRODUCTION: Standard-dose eribulin mesylate (1.4 mg/m2 d1 + 8) achieves clinical benefit rates of 26%-52% in patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC). <10% of patients in the registration trial were ≥ 70 years old; dose reductions were common in these older patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-arm phase II trial explored the efficacy of reduced starting dosing of first-line eribulin at 1 mg/m2 d1 + 8 q3 weeks in patients with mBC aged ≥70 years. The primary endpoint was a disease control rate (DCR) ≥55%. The secondary endpoints were objective response (OR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and patient-reported neurotoxicity. RESULTS: Overall, 77 patients were accrued; their median age was 76 years and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 0-1 in 90%. The DCR was 40% (90% confidence interval [CI]: 31-50); therefore, the primary endpoint was not reached. The overall response rate was 22% (95%CI: 13-33), median PFS 5.4 months (95%CI: 4.5-7.7), and median OS 16.1 months (95%CI: 13.5-26.9). Dose modifications were necessary in 35% of patients. In nine patients, more than fifteen cycles were given; 48 patients (62%) experienced at least one grade 3 toxicity. Median patient-reported neurotoxicity scores remained stable for at least fifteen cycles. The main reason for treatment discontinuation was disease progression (57%). DISCUSSION: We report the first prospective data on first-line eribulin in older patients. The reduced starting dose of 1.1 mg/m2 was safe, with prolonged treatment and DC achieved in a considerable proportion of patients (but less than the 55% assumed), without cumulative neurotoxicity. The reduced dose was apparently within the range of the minimal effective dose, as shown by the efficacy lack in patients requiring further dose reductions. Thus, our results do not support the approach of a reduced starting dose for older patients.

Bevacizumab as maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of individual patients' data from 3 phase III studies.

BACKGROUND: The real impact of bevacizumab maintenance as single agent in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains unclear. SAKK-41/06 and PRODIGE-9 failed to demonstrate the non-inferiority and superiority of bevacizumab versus no maintenance, respectively, while AIO-KRK-0207 showed the non-inferiority of maintenance bevacizumab versus bevacizumab and fluoropyrimidines for time to strategy failure. METHODS: Bibliography electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for English published clinical trials prospectively randomizing mCRC patients to receive bevacizumab maintenance or not after first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Individual patients' data (IPD) were provided by investigators for all included trials. Primary end-points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), both from the start of induction and maintenance. Univariate and multivariate analyses for PFS and OS were performed. RESULTS: Three phase III studies - PRODIGE-9, AIO-KRK-0207 and SAKK-41/06 - were included. Considering the different timing of randomization, IPD of patients not progressed during induction and starting maintenance phase entered the analysis. 909 patients were included, 457 (50%) received bevacizumab maintenance. Median PFS from induction start was 9.6 and 8.9 months in bevacizumab group versus no maintenance group, respectively (HR 0.78; 95%CI: 0.68-0.89; p < 0.0001). Subgroups analysis for PFS showed a significant interaction according for RAS status (p = 0.048), with a maintenance benefit limited to RAS wild-type patients. No difference in terms of OS was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the statistically significant PFS improvement for bevacizumab maintenance, the absolute benefit appears limited. Subgroup analysis shows a differential effect of bevacizumab maintenance in favor of RAS wild-type patients. Considering these results, maintenance therapy with fluoropyrimidine with or without bevacizumab remains the first option. Single agent bevacizumab maintenance can be considered in selected cases, such as cumulative toxicity or patient's refusal, in particular for RAS wild-type patients.

Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus capecitabine as first-line treatment in older patients with RAS- and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Results of the multicenter phase II trial SAKK 41/10.

INTRODUCTION: While the anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab was studied repeatedly as part of low-intensity regimens in less fit elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), anti-EGFR antibodies as upfront treatment modality have been scarcely investigated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In SAKK 41/10, the benefit of cetuximab, either alone or in combination with capecitabine, was evaluated in vulnerable elderly patients with RAS/BRAF-wild-type mCRC. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The trial was stopped prematurely due to slow accrual after the inclusion of 24 patients (11 in the monotherapy arm, 13 in the combination arm). Median patient age was 80 years (range 71-89), median CIRS-G score 7 (range 2-13), and median IADL score 7 (range 3-8). At week 12, 6 of 11 patients (55%) were progression-free in the cetuximab monotherapy arm and 9 of 13 patients (69%) in the combination arm. Response rate was 9% in the monotherapy arm and 38% combination arm. The 6 patients with right-sided primary tumors were not responsive to cetuximab. NGS revealed additional mutations affecting the RAS/RAF/MAP kinase pathway in 5 patients; 4 of these patients showed early disease progression. Cetuximab was generally well tolerated and a trend toward an improvement of symptom-related QoL was observed. In the combination arm, a higher incidence of toxicities and treatment stoppings was observed. In conclusion, trial recruitment - requiring both geriatric as well as molecular eligibility criteria - proved more difficult than expected. Bearing in mind the very small sample size, upfront cetuximab treatment appeared tolerable and showed promising activity in left-sided tumors in both treatment arms.

Bevacizumab Continuation Versus Treatment Holidays After First-Line Chemotherapy With Bevacizumab in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Health Economic Analysis of a Randomized Phase 3 Trial (SAKK 41/06).

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab (BEV)-containing therapies are costly. We performed a health economic analysis of a randomized phase 3 study (SAKK 41/06) that compared BEV continuation as a single agent (BEV) with treatment holidays (no BEV) after completing 4 to 6 cycles of first-line chemotherapy plus BEV in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Costs for first-line chemotherapy with BEV, BEV continuation therapy, hospitalizations (length of stay), control visits, diagnostic tests, and second-line and later rounds of chemotherapy were collected. Mean costs per patient per treatment arm and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to account for uncertainty in the input parameters. RESULTS: The total incurred mean costs per patient were 126,631 Swiss francs (CHF) [95% confidence interval (CI), 116,521-136,740] for BEV versus CHF100,146 (95% CI, 92,811-107,481) for no BEV. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio was CHF108,991 per life-year gained (LYG; 95% CI from probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 62,890-248,515). Compared to a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF100,000/LYG, there was 42% probability that BEV continuation was cost effective, which decreased to 20% at a threshold of CHF75,000/LYG. Economic equality was reached in only 0.07% of cases. CONCLUSION: The clinical conclusion that BEV continuation as a single agent after completion of first-line chemotherapy is of low therapeutic value is supported by this health economic analysis. Costs increase without significant clinical benefit in this setting.