Final Results from RIBBIT: A Randomized Phase III Study to Evaluate Efficacy and Quality of Life in Patients with Metastatic Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Breast Cancer Receiving Ribociclib in Combination with Endocrine Therapy or Chemotherapy with or without Bevacizumab in the First-Line Setting.

Background: We investigated the efficacy and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients receiving either ribociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) or chemotherapy with/without bevacizumab as first-line treatment of metastatic hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (BC). Patients and Methods: In this randomized, phase III study (RIBBIT), 38 patients diagnosed with metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative BC with presence of visceral metastases recruited between May 2018 and December 2020 were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either arm A (ribociclib + ET) or arm B (chemotherapy with/without bevacizumab) at 12 sites in Germany. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), patient-reported HRQoL, and frequency and type of adverse events. During study conduction, the recruitment rate was persistently and considerably lower than originally expected. Therefore, the recruitment was ended prematurely. The study was initially designed to enroll and randomize 158 patients. Results: Median [95% CI] PFS was 27.3 months [19.1 - NA, parameter not estimable] in arm A and 15.8 months [8.2 - NA] in arm B. Complete responses were achieved only in arm A (n = 2, 10.5%). The ORR [95% CI] between arm A (57.9% [33.5-79.7]) and arm B (52.6% [28.9-75.6]) was comparable. Median OS [95% CI] was not reached in arm A, while in arm B median OS was 28.4 months [25.0 - NA]. Patients in arm A reported less burden by side-effects. No new safety signals emerged. Conclusion: Treatment of patients with visceral metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative BC with ribociclib in combination with ET showed a tendency toward a more favorable clinical outcome. Despite small numbers of patients and sites, this head-to-head comparison with chemotherapy supports the use of ribociclib with ET in patients with visceral metastasis at risk of fast disease progression.

Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia with lipegfilgrastim in patients with lung cancer: final results from the non-interventional study NADIR.

OBJECTIVE: Real-world evidence on the application of the granulocyte colony-stimulating factor lipegfilgrastim for the reduction of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) is limited. The NADIR study aimed to evaluate effectiveness and safety of lipegfilgrastim as primary or secondary prophylaxis in patients with lung cancer undergoing chemotherapy in routine clinical practice. METHODS: The non-interventional study NADIR (German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) Number DRKS00005711) enrolled 156 patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and 145 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), who received lipegfilgrastim during chemotherapy. Primary endpoint was the incidence of severe neutropenia (CTCAE grade 3/4) and FN. The analysis was stratified for age groups (≤65 years vs. >65 years). RESULTS: Approximately half of the patients were aged >65 years (SCLC 54.5%; NSCLC 46.9%). Intention of antineoplastic treatment was mostly palliative (SCLC 89.1%; NSCLC 73.1%). Patients with high FN risk (SCLC 44.9%; NSCLC 28.3%) mostly received lipegfilgrastim for primary prophylaxis (SCLC 81.4%; NSCLC 70.7%). FN was reported in 1.9% SCLC and 1.4% NSCLC patients. At least one severe neutropenia was documented in 30.1% SCLC and 17.9% NSCLC patients. For NSCLC patients aged >65 years, less severe neutropenia was reported as compared to younger patients (14.7% vs. 20.8%). Lipegfilgrastim-related adverse events were reported in 10.3% SCLC and 7.7% NSCLC patients. CONCLUSION: Lipegfilgrastim in routine clinical practice of patients with lung cancer showed similar effectiveness and safety as compared to the pivotal trial. Interestingly, in older patients severe neutropenia was reported less frequently. While most patients with high FN risk received lipegfilgrastim for primary prophylaxis as recommended, there are still 20-30% of patients at high FN risk without primary prophylaxis who could benefit from better adherence to guidelines.

Impact of performance status and transfusion dependency on outcome of patients with myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia treated with azacitidine (PIAZA study).

OBJECTIVE: Azacitidine (Vidaza® ) is the standard treatment for patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) not eligible for allogeneic stem cell transplantation. In the noninterventional study PIAZA, we evaluated the effectiveness and safety of azacitidine treatment in 149 patients with higher-risk MDS, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in routine clinical practice. METHOD: Patients were treated according to physician's discretion. Besides evaluation of safety and effectiveness, impact of covariates on progression-free survival (PFS) was assessed. RESULTS: Median age of patients was 75 years. 61.1% of patients were diagnosed with MDS, 31.5% with AML and 7.4% with CMML. Patients were treated with azacitidine for a median of seven cycles. Median PFS was 10.9 months. Median OS was 14.1 months. Two-year survival rate was 28.9%. 45.9% of patients showed CR or PR. Stable and progressive disease were observed in 37.2% and 8% of patients, respectively. Transfusion independence was reported in 64 of 89 patients. Eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) performance status (PS) and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion before azacitidine therapy were identified as predictive factors for PFS. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, we estimated the duration of PFS in a real-world setting and identified ECOG PS and RBC transfusion as predictive factors for PFS. The safety of azacitidine showed a similar profile as demonstrated in the pivotal clinical trials.

Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: Final results of a non-interventional study and comparison with the pivotal phase 3 clinical trials.

Lenalidomide (LEN) is an immunomodulatory drug with significant clinical activity against relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (r/r MM). Based on the pivotal phase 3 trials MM-009 and MM-010, LEN in combination with dexamethasone (DEX) is approved for treatment of patients with MM who have received at least one prior therapy. LEN monotherapy is also approved in first line treatment. Here, we evaluated LEN/DEX combination therapy in a non-interventional study in patients with r/r MM in routine clinical practice. Patients received LEN/DEX as per Summary of Product Characteristics. Ninety-eight patients were treated with at least 1 cycle of LEN/DEX (median age 71 years; range, 42-88), forty-eight patients with at least 6 cycles. The Kaplan-Meier estimate for overall median time to progression was 12.0 months, 13.9 months for patients receiving second-line therapy and 10.3 months for third-line or higher-line therapy. The overall response rate was 60.2%. The median overall survival was 24.3 months. The most common adverse events were anemia (32.7%), thrombocytopenia (27.6%) and leukopenia (24.5%). Seven (7.1%) patients developed thromboembolic events despite prophylaxis. In conclusion, the combination of LEN/DEX administered to patients with r/r MM in routine clinical practice showed similar effectiveness and safety as demonstrated in the registration trials.