ANCHOR CRC: Results From a Single-Arm, Phase II Study of Encorafenib Plus Binimetinib and Cetuximab in Previously Untreated BRAFV600E-Mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: The positive BEACON colorectal cancer (CRC) safety lead-in, evaluating encorafenib + cetuximab + binimetinib in previously treated patients with BRAFV600E-mutated metastatic CRC (mCRC), prompted the design of the phase II ANCHOR CRC study (ClinicalTrails.gov identifier: NCT03693170). ANCHOR CRC aimed to evaluate efficacy, safety, and quality of life with first-line encorafenib + binimetinib + cetuximab in BRAFV600E-mutated mCRC. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, single-arm study, patients with BRAFV600E-mutated mCRC received oral encorafenib 300 mg once daily and binimetinib 45 mg twice daily in 28-day cycles, plus intravenous cetuximab 400 mg/m2 once on day 1 of cycle 1, then 250 mg/m2 once weekly for the first seven cycles, and 500 mg/m2 once on Days 1 and 15 from cycle 8 onward. The primary end point was locally assessed confirmed objective response rate (cORR), and secondary end points included centrally assessed cORR, progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), quality of life, and safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Among 95 patients, the locally assessed cORR was 47.4% (95% CI, 37.0 to 57.9) with all partial responses. Since the lower limit of the 95% CI exceeded 30%, the primary end point was met. With a median follow-up duration of 20.1 months, the median progression-free survival on the basis of local assessments was 5.8 months and the median OS was 18.3 months. Treatment was well tolerated, with no unexpected toxicities. Using Patient Global Impression of Changes, substantial improvement in symptoms was consistently reported in ≥ 30% of patients from cycle 3 to cycle 10. CONCLUSION: The ANCHOR CRC study showed that the scientifically driven combination of encorafenib + binimetinib + cetuximab was active in the first-line setting of BRAFV600E-mutated mCRC with a manageable safety profile. Further first-line evaluation is ongoing (ClinicalTrails.gov identifier: NCT04607421).

Data-Driven Subgroup Identification in Confirmatory Clinical Trials.

Data-driven subgroup analysis plays an important role in clinical trials. This paper focuses on practical considerations in post-hoc subgroup investigations in the context of confirmatory clinical trials. The analysis is aimed at assessing the heterogeneity of treatment effects across the trial population and identifying patient subgroups with enhanced treatment benefit. The subgroups are defined using baseline patient characteristics, including demographic and clinical factors. Much progress has been made in the development of reliable statistical methods for subgroup investigation, including methods based on global models and recursive partitioning. The paper provides a review of principled approaches to data-driven subgroup identification and illustrates subgroup analysis strategies using a family of recursive partitioning methods known as the SIDES (subgroup identification based on differential effect search) methods. These methods are applied to a Phase III trial in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. The paper discusses key considerations in subgroup exploration, including the role of covariate adjustment, subgroup analysis at early decision points and interpretation of subgroup search results in trials with a positive overall effect.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of F17464, a preferential D3 antagonist, in the treatment of acute exacerbation of schizophrenia.

F17464, a highly potent preferential D3 antagonist, is a novel compound in development for schizophrenia treatment. This phase II, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in five European countries evaluated the efficacy and safety of F17464, 20 mg twice daily, versus placebo over 6 weeks in patients with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. Change from baseline to Day 43 of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score was the primary outcome. The data from 134 randomized patients (67 per group) were analyzed (efficacy/safety). Using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) after last observation carried forward (LOCF) imputation (primary analysis), the PANSS total score reduction was statistically significantly greater for F17464 than placebo treated subjects at endpoint (p = 0.014); using ANCOVA with Multiple Imputation (MI) method, the between-group difference was in favor of F17464 but did not reach statistical significance. Differences in PANSS positive and general psychopathology subscale score, Marder positive factor score, PANSS response, and PANSS resolution criteria were also statistically significant in favor of F17464 (p values < 0.05) using the LOCF method, with similar results as for the primary analysis using the MI method. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were reported in 49.3% and 46.3% of patients on F17464 and placebo, respectively. The most common AEs in F17464 group: insomnia, agitation, and increased triglycerides; worsening of schizophrenia/drug ineffective was less frequent in F17464. Interestingly, no weight gain, no extrapyramidal disorder except rare akathisia were observed under F17464. This 6-week trial demonstrated therapeutic efficacy of 40 mg/day F17464 in improving symptoms of acute exacerbation of schizophrenia with a favorable safety profile.

Randomized phase II study evaluating weekly oral vinorelbine versus weekly paclitaxel in estrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative patients with advanced breast cancer (NorBreast-231 trial).

BACKGROUND: Single-agent paclitaxel and vinorelbine are recommended treatments for advanced breast cancer (ABC) non-responsive to hormone therapy and without visceral crisis. This phase II trial compared first-line oral vinorelbine versus weekly paclitaxel for ABC. METHODS: Eligible female patients had measurable locally recurrent/metastatic estrogen receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancer and had received prior endocrine therapy (any setting) but no chemotherapy for ABC. Patients were stratified by prior taxane and visceral metastases and randomized to either oral vinorelbine 80 mg/m2 (first cycle at 60 mg/m2, escalated to 80 mg/m2 in the absence of grade 3/4 toxicity) or intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR; confirmed complete or partial response, or stable disease for ≥6 weeks). RESULTS: The 131 randomized patients had received a median of 2 prior endocrine therapies; >70% had prior (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy and 79% visceral metastases. DCR was 75.8% (95% confidence interval: 63.6-85.5%) with vinorelbine and 75.4% (63.1-85.2%) with paclitaxel. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (52%), fatigue (11%), and vomiting (5%) with vinorelbine, and neutropenia (17%), dyspnea (6%), hypertension (6%), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (5%) with paclitaxel. Grade 2 alopecia occurred in 2% of vinorelbine-treated and 34% of paclitaxel-treated patients. Neither arm showed relevant global health status changes. CONCLUSION: Oral vinorelbine and paclitaxel demonstrated similar DCRs (∼75%). Safety profiles differed and, together with administration route and convenience, may influence treatment choice (EudraCT number, 2012-003530-16).