PARC: a phase I/II study evaluating the safety and activity of pegylated recombinant human arginase BCT-100 in relapsed/refractory cancers of children and young adults.

Background: The survival for many children with relapsed/refractory cancers remains poor despite advances in therapies. Arginine metabolism plays a key role in the pathophysiology of a number of pediatric cancers. We report the first in child study of a recombinant human arginase, BCT-100, in children with relapsed/refractory hematological, solid or CNS cancers. Procedure: PARC was a single arm, Phase I/II, international, open label study. BCT-100 was given intravenously over one hour at weekly intervals. The Phase I section utilized a modified 3 + 3 design where escalation/de-escalation was based on both the safety profile and the complete depletion of arginine (defined as adequate arginine depletion; AAD <8µM arginine in the blood after 4 doses of BCT-100). The Phase II section was designed to further evaluate the clinical activity of BCT-100 at the pediatric RP2D determined in the Phase I section, by recruitment of patients with pediatric cancers into 4 individual groups. A primary evaluation of response was conducted at eight weeks with patients continuing to receive treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results: 49 children were recruited globally. The Phase I cohort of the trial established the Recommended Phase II Dose of 1600U/kg iv weekly in children, matching that of adults. BCT-100 was very well tolerated. No responses defined as a CR, CRi or PR were seen in any cohort within the defined 8 week primary evaluation period. However a number of these relapsed/refractory patients experienced prolonged radiological SD. Conclusion: Arginine depletion is a clinically safe and achievable strategy in children with cancer. The RP2D of BCT-100 in children with relapsed/refractory cancers is established at 1600U/kg intravenously weekly and can lead to sustained disease stability in this hard to treat population. Clinical trial registration: EudraCT, 2017-002762-44; ISRCTN, 21727048; and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03455140.

Bevacizumab, Irinotecan, or Topotecan Added to Temozolomide for Children With Relapsed and Refractory Neuroblastoma: Results of the ITCC-SIOPEN BEACON-Neuroblastoma Trial.

PURPOSE: Outcomes for children with relapsed and refractory high-risk neuroblastoma (RR-HRNB) remain dismal. The BEACON Neuroblastoma trial (EudraCT 2012-000072-42) evaluated three backbone chemotherapy regimens and the addition of the antiangiogenic agent bevacizumab (B). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients age 1-21 years with RR-HRNB with adequate organ function and performance status were randomly assigned in a 3 × 2 factorial design to temozolomide (T), irinotecan-temozolomide (IT), or topotecan-temozolomide (TTo) with or without B. The primary end point was best overall response (complete or partial) rate (ORR) during the first six courses, by RECIST or International Neuroblastoma Response Criteria for patients with measurable or evaluable disease, respectively. Safety, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) time were secondary end points. RESULTS: One hundred sixty patients with RR-HRNB were included. For B random assignment (n = 160), the ORR was 26% (95% CI, 17 to 37) with B and 18% (95% CI, 10 to 28) without B (risk ratio [RR], 1.52 [95% CI, 0.83 to 2.77]; P = .17). Adjusted hazard ratio for PFS and OS were 0.89 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.27) and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.70 to 1.45), respectively. For irinotecan ([I]; n = 121) and topotecan (n = 60) random assignments, RRs for ORR were 0.94 and 1.22, respectively. A potential interaction between I and B was identified. For patients in the bevacizumab-irinotecan-temozolomide (BIT) arm, the ORR was 23% (95% CI, 10 to 42), and the 1-year PFS estimate was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.47 to 0.80). CONCLUSION: The addition of B met protocol-defined success criteria for ORR and appeared to improve PFS. Within this phase II trial, BIT showed signals of antitumor activity with acceptable tolerability. Future trials will confirm these results in the chemoimmunotherapy era.

Comparison of two chemotherapy regimens in patients with newly diagnosed Ewing sarcoma (EE2012): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, a single standard chemotherapy treatment for Ewing sarcoma is not defined. Because different chemotherapy regimens were standard in Europe and the USA for newly diagnosed Ewing sarcoma, and in the absence of novel agents to investigate, we aimed to compare these two strategies. METHODS: EURO EWING 2012 was a European investigator-initiated, open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial done in 10 countries. We included patients aged 2-49 years, with any histologically and genetically confirmed Ewing sarcoma of bone or soft tissue, or Ewing-like sarcomas. The eligibility criteria originally excluded patients with extrapulmonary metastatic disease, but this was amended in the protocol (version 3.0) in September, 2016. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the European regimen of vincristine, ifosfamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide induction, and consolidation using vincristine, actinomycin D, with ifosfamide or cyclophosphamide, or busulfan and melphalan (group 1); or the US regimen of vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, and etoposide induction, plus ifosfamide and etoposide, and consolidation using vincristine and cyclophosphamide, or vincristine, actinomycin D, and ifosfamide, with busulfan and melphalan (group 2). All drugs were administered intravenously. The primary outcome measure was event-free survival. We used a Bayesian approach for the design, analysis, and interpretation of the results. Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were considered in the safety analysis. The trial was registered with EudraCT, 2012-002107-17, and ISRCTN, 54540667. FINDINGS: Between March 21, 2014, and May 1, 2019, 640 patients were entered into EE2012, 320 (50%) randomly allocated to each group. Median follow-up of surviving patients was 47 months (range 0-84). Event-free survival at 3 years was 61% with group 1 and 67% with group 2 (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·71 [95% credible interval 0·55-0·92 in favour of group 1). The probability that the true HR was less than 1·0 was greater than 0·99. Febrile neutropenia as a grade 3-5 treatment toxicity occurred in 234 (74%) patients in group 1 and in 183 (58%) patients in group 2. More patients in group 1 (n=205 [64%]) required at least one platelet transfusion compared with those in group 2 (n=138 [43%]). Conversely, more patients required blood transfusions in group 2 (n=286 [89%]) than in group 1 (n=277 [87%]). INTERPRETATION: Dose-intensive chemotherapy with vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, and etoposide is more effective, less toxic, and shorter in duration for all stages of newly diagnosed Ewing sarcoma than vincristine, ifosfamide, doxorubicin, and etoposide induction and should now be the standard of care for Ewing sarcoma. FUNDING: The European Union's Seventh Framework Programme for Research, Technological Development, and Demonstration; The National Coordinating Centre in France, Centre Léon Bérard; SFCE; Ligue contre le cancer; Cancer Research UK.

International randomised controlled trial for the treatment of newly diagnosed EWING sarcoma family of tumours - EURO EWING 2012 Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Although there have been multiple randomised trials in newly diagnosed Ewing sarcoma family of tumours (ESFT) and these have been conducted over many years and involved many international cooperative groups, the outcomes for all stages of disease have plateaued. Internationally, the standard treatment of ESFT is not defined, and there is a need to add new agents other than conventional chemotherapy to improve outcomes. This trial will compare two different induction/consolidation chemotherapy regimens: (1) vincristine, ifosfamide, doxorubicin and etoposide (VIDE) induction and vincristine, actinomycin D, ifosfamide or cyclophosphamide, or busulfan and mephalan (VAI/VAC/BuMel) consolidation and (2) vincristine, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide and etoposide (VDC/IE) induction and ifosfamide and etoposide, vincristine and cyclophosphamide, vincristine, actinomycin D and ifosfamide, or busulfan and mephalan (IE/VC/VAI/BuMel) consolidation (randomisation 1, or R1). A second randomisation (R2) will determine whether the addition of zoledronic acid to consolidation chemotherapy, as assigned at R1, is associated with improved clinical outcome. METHODS: EURO EWING 2012 is an international, multicentre, phase III, open-label randomised controlled trial. There are two randomisations: R1 and R2. Patients are randomly assigned at two different time points: at entry to the trial (R1) and following local control therapy (R2). The primary outcome measure is event-free survival. The secondary outcome measures include overall survival, adverse events and toxicity, histological response of the primary tumour, response of the primary tumour, regional lymph nodes or metastases (or both), and achievement of local control at the end of treatment. DISCUSSION: This study will establish which is the "standard regimen" of chemotherapy, taking into account both clinical outcomes and toxicity. This will form the chemotherapy backbone for future interventional studies where we may want to add new targeted agents. It will also determine the role of zoledronic acid in conjunction with the separate EE2008 trial. Any trial in ESFT needs to take into account the rarity of the tumour and consider that international cooperation is needed to provide answers in a timely manner. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with EudraCT number 2012-002107-17 on 26 February 2012. Registered with ISRCTN number 54540667 on 4 November 2013.

Effects of the addition of gemcitabine, and paclitaxel-first sequencing, in neoadjuvant sequential epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel for women with high-risk early breast cancer (Neo-tAnGo): an open-label, 2×2 factorial randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Anthracyclines and taxanes have been the standard neoadjuvant chemotherapies for breast cancer in the past decade. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of the addition of gemcitabine to accelerated paclitaxel with epirubicin and cyclophosphamide, and also the effect of sequencing the blocks of epirubicin and cyclophosphamide and paclitaxel (with or without gemcitabine). METHODS: In our randomised, open-label, 2×2 factorial phase 3 trial (Neo-tAnGo), we enrolled women (aged >18 years) with newly diagnosed breast cancer (tumour size >20 mm) at 57 centres in the UK. Patients were randomly assigned via a central randomisation procedure to epirubicin and cyclophosphamide then paclitaxel (with or without gemcitabine) or paclitaxel (with or without gemcitabine) then epirubicin and cyclophosphamide. Four cycles of each component were given. The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR), defined as absence of invasive cancer in the breast and axillary lymph nodes. This study is registered with EudraCT (2004-002356-34), ISRCTN (78234870), and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00070278). FINDINGS: Between Jan 18, 2005, and Sept 28, 2007, we randomly allocated 831 participants; 207 received epirubicin and cyclophosphamide then paclitaxel; 208 were given paclitaxel then epirubicin and cyclophosphamide; 208 had epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel and gemcitabine; and 208 received paclitaxel and gemcitabine then epirubicin and cyclophosphamide. 828 patients were eligible for analysis. Median follow-up was 47 months (IQR 37-51). 207 (25%) patients had inflammatory or locally advanced disease, 169 (20%) patients had tumours larger than 50 mm, 413 (50%) patients had clinical involvement of axillary nodes, 276 (33%) patients had oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative disease, and 191 (27%) patients had HER2-positive disease. Addition of gemcitabine did not increase pCR: 70 (17%, 95% CI 14-21) of 404 patients in the epirubicin and cyclophosphamide then paclitaxel group achieved pCR compared with 71 (17%, 14-21) of 408 patients who received additional gemcitabine (p=0·98). Receipt of a taxane before anthracycline was associated with improved pCR: 82 (20%, 95% CI 16-24) of 406 patients who received paclitaxel with or without gemcitabine followed by epirubicin and cyclophosphamide achieved pCR compared with 59 (15%, 11-18) of 406 patients who received epirubicin and cyclophosphamide first (p=0·03). Grade 3 toxicities were reported at expected levels: 173 (21%) of 812 patients who received treatment and had full treatment details had grade 3 neutropenia, 66 (8%) had infection, 41 (5%) had fatigue, 41 (5%) had muscle and joint pains, 37 (5%) had nausea, 36 (4%) had vomiting, 34 (4%) had neuropathy, 23 (3%) had transaminitis, 16 (2%) had acute hypersensitivity, and 20 (2%) had a rash. 86 (11%) patients had grade 4 neutropenia and 3 (<1%) had grade 4 infection. INTERPRETATION: Although addition of gemcitabine to paclitaxel and epirubicin and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy does not improve pCR, sequencing chemotherapy so that taxanes are received before anthracyclines could improve pCR in standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb.