The CLL12 trial: ibrutinib vs placebo in treatment-naïve, early-stage chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Observation is the current standard of care for patients with early-stage asymptomatic chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), as chemotherapy-based interventions have failed to prolong survival. We hypothesized that early intervention with ibrutinib would be well tolerated and lead to superior disease control in a subgroup of early-stage patients with CLL. The phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled CLL12 trial randomly assigned asymptomatic, treatment-naïve Binet stage A CLL patients at increased risk of progression in a 1:1 ratio to receive ibrutinib (n = 182) or placebo (n = 181) at a dose of 420 mg daily. At a median follow-up of 31 months, the study met its primary endpoint by significantly improving event-free survival in the ibrutinib group (median, not reached vs 47.8 months; hazard ratio = 0.25; 95% confidence interval = 0.14-0.43, P < .0001). Compared with placebo, ibrutinib did not increase overall toxicity, yielding similar incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs). The most common serious AEs were atrial fibrillation, pneumonia, and rash in the ibrutinib group, and basal cell carcinoma, pneumonia, and myocardial infarction in the placebo group. Ibrutinib-associated risk for bleeding (33.5%) was decreased by prohibiting the use of oral anticoagulants through an amendment of the study protocol and by avoiding CYP3A4 drug-drug interactions. Ibrutinib confirms efficacy in CLL patients at an early stage with an increased risk of progression. However, the results do not justify changing the current standard of "watch and wait." This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02863718.

Patient assessment and feasibility of treatment in older patients with cancer: results from the IN-GHO® Registry.

PURPOSE: Predicting feasibility of treatment in older patients with cancer is a major clinical task. The Initiative Geriatrische Hämatologie und Onkologie (IN-GHO®) registry prospectively collected data on the comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), physician's and patient's-self assessment of fitness for treatment, and the course of treatment in patients within a treatment decision aged ≥ 70 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The registry included 3169 patients from 93 centres and evaluated clinical course and treatment outcomes 2-3 and 6 months after initial assessment. Fitness for treatment was classified as fit, compromised and frail according to results of a CGA, and in addition by an experienced physician's and by patient's itself. Feasibility of treatment (termed IN-GHO®-FIT) was defined as a composite endpoint, including willingness to undergo the same treatment again in retrospect, no modification or unplanned termination of treatment, and no early mortality (within 90 days). RESULTS: CGA classified 30.0% as fit, 35.8% as compromised, and 34.2% as frail. Physician's and patient's-self assessment classified 61.8%/52.3% as fit, 34.2%/42.4% as compromised, and 3.9%/5.3%, as frail, respectively. Survival status at day 180 was available in 2072 patients, of which 625 (30.2%) had died. After 2-3 months, feasibility of treatment could be assessed in 1984 patients. 62.8% fulfilled IN-GHO®-FIT criteria. Multivariable analysis identified physician's assessment as the single most important item regarding feasibility of treatment. CONCLUSION: Geriatricians were involved in 2% of patients only. Classification of fitness for treatment by CGA, and physician's or patient's-self assessment showed marked discrepancies. For the prediction of feasibility of treatment no single item was superior to physician's assessment. However CGA was not performed by trained geriatricians.

Prognostic model for newly diagnosed CLL patients in Binet stage A: results of the multicenter, prospective CLL1 trial of the German CLL study group.

The heterogeneity of early stage CLL challenges prognostication, and refinement of prognostic indices for risk-adapted management in this population is essential. The aim of the multicenter, prospective CLL1 trial was to explore a novel prognostic model (CLL1-PM) developed to identify risk groups, separating patients with favorable from others with dismal prognosis. A cohort of 539 clinically, biochemically, and genetically characterized Binet stage A patients were observed until progression, first-line treatment, or death. Multivariate analysis identified six independent factors associated with overall survival (OS) and time-to-first treatment (TTFT): del(17p), unmutated IGHV, del(11q), ß2-microglobulin >3.5 mg/dL, lymphocyte doubling time (LDT) <12 months, and age >60 years. These factors were integrated into the CLL1-PM, which stratified patients into four risk groups. The CLL1-PM was prognostic for OS and TTFT, e.g., the risk of treatment at 5 years was 85.9, 51.8, 27.6, and 11.3% for very low (0-1.5), low (2-4), high (4.5-6.5), and very high-risk (7-14) scores, respectively (P < 0.001). Notably, in addition to factors comprising CLL-IPI, we substantiated del(11q) and LDT as prognostic factors in early CLL. Altogether, our findings would be useful to effectively stratify Binet stage A patients, particularly within the scope of clinical trials evaluating novel agents.

SWITCH: A Randomised, Sequential, Open-label Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Sorafenib-sunitinib Versus Sunitinib-sorafenib in the Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how to sequence targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is important for maximisation of clinical benefit. OBJECTIVES: To prospectively evaluate sequential use of the multikinase inhibitors sorafenib followed by sunitinib (So-Su) versus sunitinib followed by sorafenib (Su-So) in patients with mRCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 SWITCH study assessed So-Su versus Su-So in patients with mRCC without prior systemic therapy, and stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk score (favourable or intermediate). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised to sorafenib 400mg twice daily followed, on progression or intolerable toxicity, by sunitinib 50mg once daily (4 wk on, 2 wk off) (So-Su), or vice versa (Su-So). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with So-Su versus Su-So, assessed from randomisation to progression or death during second-line therapy. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In total, 365 patients were randomised (So-Su, n=182; Su-So, n=183). There was no significant difference in total PFS between So-Su and Su-So (median 12.5 vs 14.9 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 90% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-1.27; p=0.5 for superiority). OS was similar for So-Su and Su-So (median 31.5 and 30.2 mo; HR 1.00, 90% CI 0.77-1.30; p=0.5 for superiority). More So-Su patients than Su-So patients reached protocol-defined second-line therapy (57% vs 42%). Overall, adverse event rates were generally similar between the treatment arms. The most frequent any-grade treatment-emergent first-line adverse events were diarrhoea (54%) and hand-foot skin reaction (39%) for sorafenib; and diarrhoea (40%) and fatigue (40%) for sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS: Total PFS was not superior with So-Su versus Su-So. These results demonstrate that sorafenib followed by sunitinib and vice versa provide similar clinical benefit in mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY: We investigated if total progression-free survival (PFS) is improved in patients with advanced/metastatic kidney cancer who are treated with sorafenib and then with sunitinib (So-Su), compared with sunitinib and then sorafenib (Su-So). We found that total PFS was not improved with So-Su compared with Su-So, but both treatment options were similarly effective in patients with advanced/metastatic kidney cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00732914, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Oxaliplatin-based first-line chemotherapy is associated with improved overall survival compared to first-line treatment with irinotecan-based chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer - Results from a prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Several randomized trials investigating the preferable first-line combination chemotherapy regimen for metastatic colorectal cancer have shown inconsistent findings. Because a substantial number of patients are still being treated with "chemo-only" first-line therapies without targeted agents, we compared overall survival (OS) of patients treated in routine practice with oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan-fluoropyrimidine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the database of the Tumor Registry Colorectal Cancer, we identified 605 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who received first-line fluoropyrimidine combination chemotherapy with either oxaliplatin (n=430) or irinotecan (n=175). The Tumor Registry Colorectal Cancer is a cohort study that prospectively documents treatment of colorectal cancer by office-based medical oncologists in Germany and has recruited over 5,000 patients. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model was used to adjust for potentially confounding variables. RESULTS: Median OS was 26.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 22.4-31.9) months with an oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine combination and 18.3 (95% CI 15.1-23.2) months with irinotecan-fluoropyrimidine first-line "chemo-only" therapy. Median progression-free survival was 9.0 (8.1-10.2) and 7.9 (7.2-10.2) months, respectively. The difference in OS was confirmed if analysis was restricted to patients with synchronous metastases (no prior treatment). Among other variables, proportion of patients receiving any second-line therapy did not differ between groups. Oxaliplatin-based first-line therapy was associated with improved OS in multivariate analysis adjusted for potentially confounding variables (hazard ratio 0.678, 95% CI 0.510-0.901, P=0.007). CONCLUSION: In clinical routine practice, first-line treatment with oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine combination chemotherapy compared to irinotecan-fluoropyrimidine combination is associated with improved survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, independent of all examined potentially confounding factors.

Bendamustine compared to fludarabine as second-line treatment in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Bendamustine demonstrated clinical activity in pre-treated hematological malignancies due to its unique mechanism of action distinct from standard alkylating agents. This study assessed its efficacy in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia pre-treated with an alkylator, in comparison to fludarabine. Patients with relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia requiring treatment after one previous systemic regimen (usually chlorambucil-based) were randomized to either receive bendamustine 100 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2 of a 4-week cycle or standard fludarabine treatment consisting of 25 mg/m(2) on days 1 to 5 every 4 weeks. The primary objective was to achieve non-inferior progression-free survival (PFS) with bendamustine. Out of a total of 96 patients randomized, 92 were eligible, 49 allocated to bendamustine and 43 to fludarabine. About half of the patients received six or more cycles. Overall response rates were 76 % on bendamustine and 62 % on fludarabine, with clinical complete response rates of 27 and 9 %, respectively. Median PFS was 20.1 and 14.8 months (hazard ratio, 0.87; 90 % confidence interval, 0.60-1.27), median overall survival 43.8 and 41.0 months (hazard ratio, 0.82). Thrombocytopenia and gastrointestinal toxicities were marginally more frequent on bendamustine, albeit CTC grade 3/4 event incidence was similar. These data suggest at least comparable efficacy of bendamustine vs. fludarabine, pointing to an alternative treatment option in relapsing CLL patients after chlorambucil containing initial chemotherapy.

Oxaliplatin in combination with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin or capecitabine in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the outcome of 140 patients aged > or = 70 years of age who received first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer within the German phase III trial of FUFOX (5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin) versus CAPOX (capecitabine/oxaliplatin). PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred forty (30%) elderly patients of 476 total patients were identified, and 138 patients received the CAPOX or FUFOX treatment. RESULTS: Overall, treatment was well tolerated, and grade 3/4 toxicities were similar in both groups, with more gastrointestinal side effects in the elderly group but less neurosensory side effects. The response rate (RR) was comparable between both cohorts (49% in elderly patients vs. 52% in patients aged < 70 years). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.7 months for patients aged > or = 70 years and 7.5 months for patients aged < 70 years (hazard ratio [HR], 1.07; 95% CI, 0.86-1.34). With regard to the chemotherapy regimen, there was no inferiority between FUFOX and CAPOX in patients aged > or = 70 years (7.9 months vs. 7.6 months). The median overall survival (OS) between FUFOX and CAPOX was comparable in patients aged > or = 70 years (14.4 months vs. 14.2 months). However, when compared with patients aged < 70 years, the median OS was significantly shorter (18.8 months vs. 14.4 months; P = 0.013; HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07-1.76). This was consistent with our multivariate analysis, which revealed that age > or = 70 years was a negative factor for OS. CONCLUSION: Oxaliplatin combined with 5-FU/leucovorin or capecitabine was generally well tolerated in elderly patients. Elderly patients had similar PFS and overall RRs compared with the population aged < 70 years, but the OS was shorter.

Phase III study of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin compared with fluorouracil and leucovorin plus oxaliplatin in metastatic colorectal cancer: a final report of the AIO Colorectal Study Group.

PURPOSE: To compare the use of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) with infusional fluorouracil (FU)/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin (FUFOX) as first-line therapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 474 patients with MCRC received either CAPOX (capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2 bid, days 1 to 14 plus oxaliplatin 70 mg/m2 days 1 and 8, repeated every 22 days) ) or FUFOX (oxaliplatin 50 mg/m2 followed by leucovorin 500 mg/m2 plus FU 2,000 mg/m2 as a 22-hour infusion days 1, 8, 15, and 22, repeated every 36 days). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were response rate (RR), overall survival (OS), time to treatment failure, and toxicity. The study was designed to determine noninferiority for the CAPOX regimen. RESULTS: Median PFS was 7.1 months in the CAPOX arm and 8.0 months in the FUFOX arm (hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.43; P = .117). Median OS was 16.8 months (CAPOX) and 18.8 months (FUFOX; HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.38; P = .26). Overall RRs were 48% for CAPOX (95% CI, 41% to 54%) and 54% for FUFOX (95% CI, 47% to 60%). Both regimens were generally well tolerated, although there was a significantly higher incidence of grade 2/3 hand-foot syndrome (HFS) in the CAPOX arm (P = .028). CONCLUSION: CAPOX resulted in a slightly inferior efficacy than FUFOX. With respect to PFS, the best estimate of the HR of 1.17 was within the prespecified equivalence range. However, a relevant inferiority cannot be excluded. Both regimens were generally well tolerated but there was a significantly higher rate of grade 2/3 HFS in the CAPOX arm.