Fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole 1 mg for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (FALCON): an international, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Aromatase inhibitors are a standard of care for hormone receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. We investigated whether the selective oestrogen receptor degrader fulvestrant could improve progression-free survival compared with anastrozole in postmenopausal patients who had not received previous endocrine therapy. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomised, double-blind trial, we recruited eligible patients with histologically confirmed oestrogen receptor-positive or progesterone receptor-positive, or both, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer from 113 academic hospitals and community centres in 20 countries. Eligible patients were endocrine therapy-naive, with WHO performance status 0-2, and at least one measurable or non-measurable lesion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to fulvestrant (500 mg intramuscular injection; on days 0, 14, 28, then every 28 days thereafter) or anastrozole (1 mg orally daily) using a computer-generated randomisation scheme. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1·1, intervention by surgery or radiotherapy because of disease deterioration, or death from any cause, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety outcomes were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of randomised treatment (including placebo). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01602380. FINDINGS: Between Oct 17, 2012, and July 11, 2014, 524 patients were enrolled to this study. Of these, 462 patients were randomised (230 to receive fulvestrant and 232 to receive anastrozole). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the fulvestrant group than in the anastrozole group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·797, 95% CI 0·637-0·999, p=0·0486). Median progression-free survival was 16·6 months (95% CI 13·83-20·99) in the fulvestrant group versus 13·8 months (11·99-16·59) in the anastrozole group. The most common adverse events were arthralgia (38 [17%] in the fulvestrant group vs 24 [10%] in the anastrozole group) and hot flushes (26 [11%] in the fulvestrant group vs 24 [10%] in the anastrozole group). 16 (7%) of 228 patients in in the fulvestrant group and 11 (5%) of 232 patients in the anastrozole group discontinued because of adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Fulvestrant has superior efficacy and is a preferred treatment option for patients with hormone receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who have not received previous endocrine therapy compared with a third-generation aromatase inhibitor, a standard of care for first-line treatment of these patients. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Olaparib combined with chemotherapy for recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer: a randomised phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib has shown antitumour activity in patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent, high-grade serous ovarian cancer with or without BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of olaparib in combination with chemotherapy, followed by olaparib maintenance monotherapy, versus chemotherapy alone in patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent, high-grade serous ovarian cancer. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 2 study, adult patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent, high-grade serous ovarian cancer who had received up to three previous courses of platinum-based chemotherapy and who were progression free for at least 6 months before randomisation received either olaparib (200 mg capsules twice daily, administered orally on days 1-10 of each 21-day cycle) plus paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2), administered intravenously on day 1) and carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC] 4 mg/mL per min, according to the Calvert formula, administered intravenously on day 1), then olaparib monotherapy (400 mg capsules twice daily, given continuously) until progression (the olaparib plus chemotherapy group), or paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) on day 1) and carboplatin (AUC 6 mg/mL per min on day 1) then no further treatment (the chemotherapy alone group). Randomisation was done by an interactive voice response system, stratified by number of previous platinum-containing regimens received and time to disease progression after the previous platinum regimen. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, analysed by intention to treat. Prespecified exploratory analyses included efficacy by BRCA mutation status, assessed retrospectively. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01081951, and has been completed. FINDINGS: Between Feb 12 and July 30, 2010, 173 patients at 43 investigational sites in 12 countries were enrolled into the study, of whom 162 were eligible and were randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (81 to the olaparib plus chemotherapy group and 81 to the chemotherapy alone group). Of these randomised patients, 156 were treated in the combination phase (81 in the olaparib plus chemotherapy group and 75 in the chemotherapy alone group) and 121 continued to the maintenance or no further treatment phase (66 in the olaparib plus chemotherapy group and 55 in the chemotherapy alone group). BRCA mutation status was known for 107 patients (either at baseline or determined retrospectively): 41 (38%) of 107 had a BRCA mutation (20 in the olaparib plus chemotherapy group and 21 in the chemotherapy alone group). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the olaparib plus chemotherapy group (median 12.2 months [95% CI 9.7-15.0]) than in the chemotherapy alone group (median 9.6 months [95% CI 9.1-9.7) (HR 0.51 [95% CI 0.34-0.77]; p=0.0012), especially in patients with BRCA mutations (HR 0.21 [0.08-0.55]; p=0.0015). In the combination phase, adverse events that were reported at least 10% more frequently with olaparib plus chemotherapy than with chemotherapy alone were alopecia (60 [74%] of 81 vs 44 [59%] of 75), nausea (56 [69%] vs 43 [57%]), neutropenia (40 [49%] vs 29 [39%]), diarrhoea (34 [42%] vs 20 [27%]), headache (27 [33%] vs seven [9%]), peripheral neuropathy (25 [31%] vs 14 [19%]), and dyspepsia (21 [26%] vs 9 [12%]); most were of mild-to-moderate intensity. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events during the combination phase were neutropenia (in 35 [43%] of 81 patients in the olaparib plus chemotherapy group vs 26 [35%] of 75 in the chemotherapy alone group) and anaemia (seven [9%] vs five [7%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 12 (15%) of 81 patients in the olaparib plus chemotherapy group and 16 of 75 (21%) patients in the chemotherapy alone group. INTERPRETATION: Olaparib plus paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by maintenance monotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin alone, with the greatest clinical benefit in BRCA-mutated patients, and had an acceptable and manageable tolerability profile. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

A multicenter phase II trial of ZD6474, a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 and epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with previously treated metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy and safety of ZD6474, an orally available inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 (VEGFR-2) tyrosine kinase with additional activity against the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase, in patients with previously treated metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had histologically confirmed metastatic breast cancer and had received prior treatment with an anthracycline and taxane; measurable disease was required. Patients were enrolled sequentially into one of two dose cohorts, 100 or 300 mg orally once daily; 28 days defined one cycle. The primary end point was objective response rate; pharmacokinetics and serial pharmacodynamic studies were obtained. RESULTS: Forty-six patients were enrolled between May 2002 and April 2003, and 44 were evaluable for response. Diarrhea was the most commonly reported toxicity and seemed dose related (grade >/=2: 4.5% and 37.5% in the 100 and 300 mg cohorts, respectively). Rash was reported by 26% of patients but was never worse than grade 2. Seven patients in the 300 mg cohort had asymptomatic grade 1 prolongation of the QTc interval. Hypertension requiring treatment was not reported. There were no objective responses; one patient in the 300 mg cohort had stable disease >/=24 weeks. All patients in the 300 mg cohort and 90% of patients in the 100 mg cohort achieved steady-state concentrations exceeding the IC(50) for VEGF inhibition in preclinical models. CONCLUSION: ZD6474 monotherapy was generally well tolerated but had limited monotherapy activity in patients with refractory metastatic breast cancer.

Randomized, Double-Blind Phase II Trial With Prospective Classification by ATM Protein Level to Evaluate the Efficacy and Tolerability of Olaparib Plus Paclitaxel in Patients With Recurrent or Metastatic Gastric Cancer.

PURPOSE: Gastric cancer cell lines, particularly those with low levels of ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM), a key activator of DNA damage response, are sensitive to the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib. We compared the efficacy of olaparib plus paclitaxel (olaparib/paclitaxel) with paclitaxel alone in patients with recurrent or metastatic gastric cancer and assessed whether low ATM expression is predictive of improved clinical outcome for olaparib/paclitaxel. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase II, double-blind study (Study 39; NCT01063517), patients were randomly assigned to oral olaparib 100 mg twice per day (tablets) plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m(2) per day intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle) or placebo plus paclitaxel (placebo/paclitaxel), followed by maintenance monotherapy with olaparib (200 mg twice per day) or placebo. The study population was enriched to 50% for patients with low or undetectable ATM levels (ATMlow). Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: One hundred twenty-three of 124 randomly assigned patients received treatment (olaparib/paclitaxel, n = 61; placebo/paclitaxel, n = 62). The screening prevalence of ATMlow patients was 14%. Olaparib/paclitaxel did not lead to a significant improvement in PFS versus placebo/paclitaxel (overall population: hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; median PFS, 3.91 v 3.55 months, respectively; ATMlow population: HR, 0.74; median PFS, 5.29 v 3.68 months, respectively). However, olaparib/paclitaxel significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus placebo/paclitaxel in both the overall population (HR, 0.56; 80% CI, 0.41 to 0.75; P = .005; median OS, 13.1 v 8.3 months, respectively) and the ATMlow population (HR, 0.35; 80% CI, 0.22 to 0.56; P = .002; median OS, not reached v 8.2 months, respectively). Olaparib/paclitaxel was generally well tolerated, with no unexpected safety findings. CONCLUSION: Olaparib/paclitaxel is active in the treatment of patients with metastatic gastric cancer, with a greater OS benefit in ATMlow patients. A phase III trial in this setting is under way.

Phase III trial of vandetanib compared with erlotinib in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. This phase III study assessed the efficacy of vandetanib versus erlotinib in unselected patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after treatment failure with one to two prior cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One thousand two hundred forty patients were randomly assigned to receive vandetanib 300 mg/d (n = 623) or erlotinib 150 mg/d (n = 617). The primary objective was to show superiority in progression-free survival (PFS) for vandetanib versus erlotinib. If the difference did not reach statistical significance for superiority, a noninferiority analysis was conducted. RESULTS: There was no significant improvement in PFS for patients treated with vandetanib versus erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95.22% CI, 0.87 to 1.10; P = .721); median PFS was 2.6 months for vandetanib and 2.0 months for erlotinib. There was also no significant difference for the secondary end points of overall survival (HR, 1.01; P = .830), objective response rate (both 12%), and time to deterioration of symptoms for pain (HR, 0.92; P = .289), dyspnea (HR, 1.07; P = .407), and cough (HR, 0.94; P = .455). Both agents showed equivalent PFS and overall survival in a preplanned noninferiority analysis. Adverse events (AEs; any grade) more frequent with vandetanib than erlotinib included diarrhea (50% v 38%, respectively) and hypertension (16% v 2%, respectively); rash was more frequent with erlotinib than vandetanib (38% v 28%, respectively). The overall incidence of grade ≥ 3 AEs was also higher with vandetanib than erlotinib (50% v 40%, respectively). CONCLUSION: In patients with previously treated advanced NSCLC, vandetanib showed antitumor activity but did not demonstrate an efficacy advantage compared with erlotinib. There was a higher incidence of some AEs with vandetanib.