Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib as first-line treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (CLEAR): extended follow-up from the phase 3, randomised, open-label study.

BACKGROUND: In the primary analysis of the CLEAR study, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival versus sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (data cutoff Aug 28, 2020). We aimed to assess overall survival based on 7 months of additional follow-up. METHODS: This is a protocol-prespecified updated overall survival analysis (data cutoff March 31, 2021) of the open-label, phase 3, randomised CLEAR trial. Patients with clear-cell advanced renal cell carcinoma who had not received any systemic anticancer therapy for renal cell carcinoma, including anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy, or any systemic investigational anticancer drug, were eligible for inclusion from 200 sites (hospitals and cancer centres) across 20 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive lenvatinib (20 mg per day orally in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 21 days; lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group), lenvatinib (18 mg per day orally) plus everolimus (5 mg per day orally; lenvatinib plus everolimus group [not reported in this updated analysis]) in 21-day cycles, or sunitinib (50 mg per day orally, 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off; sunitinib group). Eligible patients were at least 18 years old with a Karnofsky performance status of 70 or higher. A computer-generated randomisation scheme was used, and stratification factors were geographical region and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic groups. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by independent imaging review according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1). In this Article, extended follow-up analyses for progression-free survival and protocol-specified updated overall survival data are reported for the intention-to-treat population. No safety analyses were done at this follow-up. This study is closed to new participants and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811861. FINDINGS: Between Oct 13, 2016, and July 24, 2019, 1417 patients were screened for inclusion in the CLEAR trial, of whom 1069 (75%; 273 [26%] female, 796 [74%] male; median age 62 years [IQR 55-69]) were randomly assigned: 355 (33%) patients (255 [72%] male and 100 [28%] female) to the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 357 (33%) patients (275 [77%] male and 82 [23%] female) to the sunitinib group, and 357 (33%) patients to the lenvatinib plus everolimus group (not reported in this updated analysis). Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 27·8 months (IQR 20·3-33·8) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 19·4 months (5·5-32·5) in the sunitinib group. Median progression-free survival was 23·3 months (95% CI 20·8-27·7) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 9·2 months (6·0-11·0) in the sunitinib group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·42 [95% CI 0·34-0·52]). Median overall survival follow-up was 33·7 months (IQR 27·4-36·9) in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group and 33·4 months (26·7-36·8) in the sunitinib group. Overall survival was improved with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (median not reached [95% CI 41·5-not estimable]) versus sunitinib (median not reached [38·4-not estimable]; HR 0·72 [95% CI 0·55-0·93]). INTERPRETATION: Efficacy benefits of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab over sunitinib were durable and clinically meaningful with extended follow-up. These results support the use of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

A phase 1b study of the allosteric extracellular FGFR2 inhibitor alofanib in patients with pretreated advanced gastric cancer.

Alofanib is a small-molecule allosteric extracellular FGFR2 inhibitor. We report safety and preliminary efficacy from the first-in-human phase 1b study of alofanib in heavily pretreated patients with advanced gastric cancer. The standard dose-escalation design 3+3 aimed to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). Alofanib was administered daily intravenously 5 days on, 2 days off. There were five dose levels (50-350 mg/m2). All patients received alofanib until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. 21 patients were enrolled. Patients were predominantly male (71%), 67% had 2 and more metastatic sites, including liver metastases (43%), 19% had ECOG PS 2, and were heavily pretreated (86% had previous 2 and more treatment lines). During dose escalation, no dose-limiting toxicities were observed, and MTD was not defined. 15 (71.4%) patients had at least one adverse event associated with the treatment (TRAE). Grade 3 or higher TRAEs were observed in 6 patients (28.6%). The most common TRAEs included reactions immediately after administration, diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, arthralgia, and headache. The median progression-free survival and overall survival was 3.63 (95% CI 1.58-5.68) and 7.0 (95% CI 3.82-10.18) months, respectively. The 6- and 12-month overall survival rates were 57.1% and 33.3%. Disease control rate was 68% with one durable partial response. The MTD has not been reached and dose of 350 mg/m2, 5 days on, 2 days off has been declared as RP2D. Alofanib showed acceptable tolerability and preliminary signs of clinical activity in the late-line treatment of metastatic gastric cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04071184).

Patterns of Care and Barriers to Utilization of Definitive Concurrent Chemoradiation Therapy for Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Russia.

BACKGROUND: Definitive concurrent chemoradiation (cCRT) is offered to only 3% of Russian patients with stage III NSCLC. To determine the patterns of care and barriers to cCRT utilization in Russia, we conducted a survey of practicing radiation oncologists (ROs). METHODS: Electronic IRB-approved survey containing 15 questions was distributed to Russian ROs. Fisher's exact test or Cochran-Armitage test of trend was used to assess the associations between clinical experience, practice type, and patterns of care. RESULTS: We analyzed 58 questionnaires completed by ROs-16 respondents from tertiary referral hospitals, and 42 from community or private centers. A total of 88% of respondents formulate treatment recommendations in multi-disciplinary tumor boards. For unresectable stage III NSCLC, the most common recommendation is sequential CRT (50%), followed by concurrent CRT (40%), with an observed higher utilization of cCRT in tertiary centers (9/16, 56% vs 14/42, 33%). Of the respondents, 31% do not offer cCRT to their pts. Among reasons for avoiding cCRT are (1) poor performance of pts (76%); (2) high toxicity of therapy (55%); (3) lack of consensus among tumor board members (33%); and (4) preference for sequential CRT (31%). Only 3% do not irradiate elective LNs. Eighty-six percent of respondents counsel their NSCLC pts regarding smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite level 1 evidence, cCRT is rarely used in Russia for pts with locally advanced NSCLC, and preference for sequential therapy and concerns over high toxicity are the most common barriers. Education of Russian ROs may increase cCRT utilization, leading to improved survival, notably in the era of maintenance immunotherapy.

Management of Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer with Bladder Preservation in Russia: a Survey-Based Analysis of Current Practice and the Impact of an Educational Workshop on Clinical Expertise.

Trimodality bladder preservation (BP) is an accepted alternative to radical cystectomy for patients with muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). The global utilization of BP is variable, and practice patterns have not been previously studied in Russia. We sought to elucidate the contemporary BP practice patterns in Russia and determine the impact of the BP workshop on attitudes of Russian radiation oncologists (ROs) towards BP. The workshop was focused on patient workup, selection for BP, chemotherapy choices, radiation therapy (RT) contouring and planning, patient counseling. A total of 77 pre- and 32 matched post-workshop IRB-approved surveys, based on the workshop content, were analyzed using descriptive statistics to determine baseline clinical experience and patterns of care. The impact was judged by changes in participants' responses. A total of 56% of respondents had experience with delivering bladder-directed RT, and 60% of those treated both operable and inoperable MIBC patients. Only 10% felt uncomfortable offering an operable patient BP modality. Prior to the workshop, almost half of respondents estimated universal poor bladder (44%) and erectile functions (47%) after BP. The workshop resulted in dramatic change in participants' attitudes towards long-term urinary (Stuart-Maxwell test, p < 0.01) and sexual (exact McNemar test, p < 0.01) side effects. Prior to the workshop, only 47% of respondents routinely discussed smoking cessation (SC) with their patients, whereas after workshop, 88% agreed that SC discussion is mandatory (exact McNemar test, p = 0.04). BP for MIBC is commonly used in Russia. Our workshop resulted in dramatically improved understanding of long-term BP toxicities and inspired Russian ROs to incorporate SC counseling into routine clinical management.

Radiotherapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Russia: a Survey-Based Analysis of Current Practice and the Impact of an Educational Workshop on Clinical Expertise.

Radiation therapy (RT) is an effective treatment modality for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but globally, it is underutilized. In Russia, practice patterns with regard to liver-directed radiation are unknown. Under the auspices of Russian Society of Clinical Oncology (RUSSCO), our team conducted an IRB-approved contouring workshop for Russian radiation oncologists. Pre- and post-workshop surveys were analyzed to determine baseline clinical experience and patterns of care for liver-directed RT among Russian providers. The effect of the contouring workshop on participants' knowledge was tested using mixed effects model. Forty pre-workshop and 24 post-workshop questionnaires were analyzable with a 100% response rate. Sixty percent of respondents had never evaluated a patient with HCC and only 8% (3 out of 40) reported treating an HCC patient with liver-directed RT. Nonetheless, 73% of respondents were comfortable offering liver-directed RT prior to the workshop. After the workshop, 85% of respondents felt comfortable treating a patient with HCC with liver-directed RT and 50% were comfortable recommending stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Measures of knowledge pertaining to evaluation of HCC patients and selection for appropriate liver-directed therapies were dramatically improved after the workshop. Liver-directed RT is not commonly used in Russia in the management of patients with HCC, and few centers are equipped for motion management. Our contouring workshop resulted in dramatically improved understanding of the evaluation and management of HCC patients. We recommend starting with a more protracted fractionated RT and building experience through attendance of additional educational activities, participation in multidisciplinary liver tumor boards, and prospective analysis of treatment toxicity and outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of RGB-02, a pegfilgrastim biosimilar to prevent chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: results of a randomized, double-blind phase III clinical study vs. reference pegfilgrastim in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with recombinant human granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) is accepted standard for prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. RGB-02 (Gedeon Richter) is a proposed biosimilar to pegylated G-CSF (Neulasta®, Amgen) with sustained release properties. This is a randomized, comparative, double-blind, multicenter study to evaluate efficacy and safety of RGB-02 in breast cancer patients receiving cytotoxic regimen. METHODS: Two hundred thirty-nine women presenting with breast cancer were randomized to RGB-02 (n = 121) and the reference product (n = 118). All patients received up to 6 cycles of docetaxel/doxorubicin chemotherapy combination and a once-per-cycle injection of a fixed 6 mg dose of pegfilgrastim. Primary endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia (ANC < 0.5 × 109/L) in Cycle 1 (2-sided CI 95%). Secondary endpoints included incidence and duration of severe neutropenia (in cycles 2-4), incidence of febrile neutropenia, time to ANC recovery, depth of ANC nadir, and safety outcomes. RESULTS: The mean duration of severe neutropenia in Cycle 1 was 1.7 (RGB-02) and 1.6 days (reference), with a difference (LS Mean) of 0.1 days (95% CI -0.2, 0.4). Equivalence could be established as the CI for the difference in LS Mean lay entirely within the pre-defined range of ±1 day. This positive result was supported by the analysis of secondary endpoints, which also revealed no clinical meaningful differences. Safety profiles were comparable between groups. No neutralizing antibodies against pegfilgrastim were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment equivalence in reducing the duration of chemotherapy induced neutropenia between RGB-02 and Neulasta® could be demonstrated. Similar efficacy and safety profiles of the once-per-cycle administration of RGB-02 and the pegfilgrastim reference were demonstrated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered prospectively, prior to study initiation. EudraCT number ( 2013-003166-14 ). The date of registration was 12 July, 2013.

Bridging the Gap in Global Advanced Radiation Oncology Training: Impact of a Web-Based Open-Access Interactive Three-Dimensional Contouring Atlas on Radiation Oncologist Practice in Russia.

Radiation oncologists in Russia face a number of unique professional difficulties including lack of standardized training and continuing medical education. To combat this, under the auspices of the Russian Society of Clinical Oncology (RUSSCO), our group has developed a series of ongoing in-person interactive contouring workshops that are held during the major Russian oncology conferences in Moscow, Russia. Since November 2016 during each workshop, we utilized a web-based open-access interactive three-dimensional contouring atlas as part of our didactics. We sought to determine the impact of this resource on radiation oncology practice in Russia. We distributed an IRB-approved web-based survey to 172 practicing radiation oncologists in Russia. We inquired about practice demographics, RUSSCO contouring workshop attendance, and the clinical use of open-access English language interactive contouring atlas (eContour). The survey remained open for 2 months until November 2017. Eighty radiation oncologists completed the survey with a 46.5% response rate. Mean number of years in practice was 13.7. Sixty respondents (75%) attended at least one RUSSCO contouring workshop. Of those who were aware of eContour, 76% were introduced during a RUSSCO contouring workshop, and 81% continue to use it in their daily practice. The greatest obstacles to using the program were language barrier (51%) and internet access (38%). Nearly 90% reported their contouring practices changed since they started using the program, particularly for delineation of clinical target volumes (57%) and/or organs at risk (46%). More than 97% found the clinical pearls/links to cooperative group protocols in the software helpful in their daily practice. The majority used the contouring program several times per month (43%) or several times per week (41%). Face-to-face contouring instruction in combination with open-access web-based interactive contouring resource had a meaningful impact on perceived quality of radiation oncology contours among Russian practitioners and has the potential to have applications worldwide.

Tamoxifen Never Ceases to Amaze: New Findings on Non-Estrogen Receptor Molecular Targets and Mediated Effects.

Tamoxifen is a first targeted drug that continues to be the gold standard in treatment of estrogen receptor positive breast cancer for almost 50 years. The current review is an update of the paper published in 2012. We provide the new data on the tamoxifen targets that are the key points of signaling cascades activating cellular proliferation, which determines aggressiveness of disease and chemotherapy resistance or sensitivity. Some inspiring clinical cases dealing with tamoxifen efficiency in treatment of different tumors are discussed. Additionally, the review includes data on antiviral, antibacterial, antifungal and antiparasitic activity of tamoxifen.

Rilotumumab plus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine as first-line therapy in advanced MET-positive gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (RILOMET-1): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Rilotumumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively targets the ligand of the MET receptor, hepatocyte growth factor (HGF). We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of rilotumumab combined with epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine, and to assess potential biomarkers, in patients with advanced MET-positive gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study was done at 152 centres in 27 countries. We recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, MET-positive tumours (≥25% of tumour cells with membrane staining of ≥1+ staining intensity), and evaluable disease, who had not received previous systemic therapy. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computerised voice response system to receive rilotumumab 15 mg/kg intravenously or placebo in combination with open-label chemotherapy (epirubicin 50 mg/m2 intravenously; cisplatin 60 mg/m2 intravenously; capecitabine 625 mg/m2 orally twice daily) in 21-day cycles for up to ten cycles. After completion of chemotherapy, patients continued to receive rilotumumab or placebo monotherapy until disease progression, intolerability, withdrawal of consent, or study termination. Randomisation was stratified by disease extent and ECOG performance status. Both patients and physicians were masked to study treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. We report the final analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01697072. FINDINGS: Between Nov 7, 2012, and Nov 21, 2014, 609 patients were randomly assigned to rilotumumab plus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (rilotumumab group; n=304) or placebo plus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (placebo group; n=305). Study treatment was stopped early after an independent data monitoring committee found a higher number of deaths in the rilotumumab group than in the placebo group; all patients in the rilotumumab group subsequently discontinued all study treatment. Median follow-up was 7·7 months (IQR 3·6-12·0) for patients in the rilotumumab group and 9·4 months (5·3-13·1) for patients in the placebo group. Median overall survival was 8·8 months (95% CI 7·7-10·2) in the rilotumumab group compared with 10·7 months (9·6-12·4) in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio 1·34, 95% CI 1·10-1·63; p=0·003). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the rilotumumab and placebo groups were neutropenia (86 [29%] of 298 patients vs 97 [32%] of 299 patients), anaemia (37 [12%] vs 43 [14%]), and fatigue (30 [10%] vs 35 [12%]). The frequency of serious adverse events was similar in the rilotumumab and placebo groups (142 [48%] vs 149 [50%]). More deaths due to adverse events occurred in the rilotumumab group than the placebo group (42 [14%] vs 31 [10%]). In the rilotumumab group, 33 (11%) of 298 patients had fatal adverse events due to disease progression, and nine (3%) had fatal events not due to disease progression. In the placebo group, 23 (8%) of 299 patients had fatal adverse events due to disease progression, and eight (3%) had fatal events not due to disease progression. INTERPRETATION: Ligand-blocking inhibition of the MET pathway with rilotumumab is not effective in improving clinical outcomes in patients with MET-positive gastric or gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma. FUNDING: Amgen.

Alofanib, an allosteric FGFR2 inhibitor, has potent effects on ovarian cancer growth in preclinical studies.

SUMMAY: Purpose Early data suggest that combining FGFR2 inhibitors with platinum-containing cytotoxic agents for the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer may yield increased antitumor activity. We investigated antitumor activity of alofanib (RPT835), a novel allosteric FGFR2 inhibitor, in ovarian cancer in vitro and in vivo. Methods Equal amounts of ovarian cancer cell (SKOV3) lysates were analyzed for FGFR1-3 protein expression using Wes. To assess the efficacy of alofanib on FGF-mediated cell proliferation, SKOV3 cells were incubated and were treated with serially diluted alofanib. Basic FGF was added at a concentration of 25 ng/ml. Control wells were left untreated. Cell growth inhibition was determined using Promega's Cell Titer-Glo® assay. Immunocompromised mice were used for xenotransplantation of SKOV3 cancer cells. Seventy animals with measurable tumors were selected on day 10 and randomized into control groups (no treatment or chemotherapy alone (paclitaxel + carboplatin) and treatment groups (alofanib orally or intravenously (different dose levels) in combination with chemotherapy). Measurements of tumor volume (mm3) were performed by digital calipers every 3 days during 31 days after tumor inoculation. Number of tumor vessels and Ki-67 index were calculated. Results SKOV3 cells express FGFR1 and FGFR2 but not FGFR3. Basic FGF increased proliferation of the ovarian cancer cells in untreated control group (P = 0.001). Alofanib inhibited growth of FGFR2-expressing SKOV3 cells with GI50 value of 0.37 µmol/L. Treatment with alofanib in combination with paclitaxel/carboplatin resulted in tumor growth delay phenotype in all treatment groups compared to control non-treatment groups. Compound exhibited a dose-dependent effect on tumor growth. Daily intravenous regimen of alofanib (total maximum dose per week was 350 mg/kg) demonstrated significant effect (inhibiting growth by 80 % and by 53 % in comparison with vehicle and chemotherapy group alone, respectively (P < 0.001). Alofanib decreased number of vessels in tumor (-49 %; P < 0.0001) and number of Ki-67-positive SKOV3 cells (-42 %, P < 0.05). There were tumor necrosis and cell degeneration in alofanib group. Conclusions We suggest that FGFR2 inhibition has potent effects on ovarian cancer growth in preclinical studies.

Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 1-2 trial of albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) plus gemcitabine, substantial clinical activity was noted in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. We conducted a phase 3 study of the efficacy and safety of the combination versus gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with a Karnofsky performance-status score of 70 or more (on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better performance status) to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg per square meter of body-surface area) followed by gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or gemcitabine monotherapy (1000 mg per square meter) weekly for 7 of 8 weeks (cycle 1) and then on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (cycle 2 and subsequent cycles). Patients received the study treatment until disease progression. The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were progression-free survival and overall response rate. RESULTS: A total of 861 patients were randomly assigned to nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (431 patients) or gemcitabine (430). The median overall survival was 8.5 months in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group as compared with 6.7 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 0.83; P<0.001). The survival rate was 35% in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group versus 22% in the gemcitabine group at 1 year, and 9% versus 4% at 2 years. The median progression-free survival was 5.5 months in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group, as compared with 3.7 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.82; P<0.001); the response rate according to independent review was 23% versus 7% in the two groups (P<0.001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (38% in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group vs. 27% in the gemcitabine group), fatigue (17% vs. 7%), and neuropathy (17% vs. 1%). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 3% versus 1% of the patients in the two groups. In the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group, neuropathy of grade 3 or higher improved to grade 1 or lower in a median of 29 days. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine significantly improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and response rate, but rates of peripheral neuropathy and myelosuppression were increased. (Funded by Celgene; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00844649.).

Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with resectable esophageal carcinoma: a single center Phase II study.

OBJECTIVE: The role of preoperative chemotherapy in squamous cell esophageal carcinoma remains controversial. A prospective trial was initiated to investigate whether preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery results in increased progression-free survival in patients with resectable thoracic esophageal carcinoma. METHODS: Patients with Stage IIb-IIIa/b resectable esophageal carcinoma were eligible for the study. They received two cycles of FLEP regimen chemotherapy (cisplatin, etoposide, leucovorine, 5-fluorouracil) followed by transthoracic extended 2- or 3-field esophagectomy. Two-year progression-free survival was the primary endpoint. To evaluate the potential benefit of the dual-modality approach we compared these results with the outcome of patients who were treated in our center in the same period of time and were non-randomly allocated to surgery alone. RESULTS: From 2001 to 2008, 63 patients were included in the study (bimodality group) and 58 patients into the surgery-alone group. Median follow-up was 68 (range, 4-123) months. Squamous cell carcinoma had 93% patients. Two-year progression-free survival for all patients was 45.3 and 30.7% (hazard ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.46-1.08) and median overall survival was 26.5 months and 18.0 months (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.41-1.01) in bimodality- and surgery-alone groups, respectively. Patients who underwent R0-resection after bimodality treatment had significantly better overall survival (40.9 months) than after surgery alone (19.0 months, hazard ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.30-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Two cycles of preoperative chemotherapy did not improve progression-free survival of patients with resectable thoracic esophageal carcinoma in intent-to-treat population. However, significantly better results of bimodality approach was seen in R0-resected patients which warrants further trials with more effective chemotherapy combinations.

Panitumumab versus cetuximab in patients with chemotherapy-refractory wild-type KRAS exon 2 metastatic colorectal cancer (ASPECCT): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies panitumumab and cetuximab are effective in patients with chemotherapy-refractory wild-type KRAS exon 2 metastatic colorectal cancer. We assessed the efficacy and toxicity of panitumumab versus cetuximab in these patients. METHODS: For this randomised, open-label, phase 3 head-to-head study, we enrolled patients (from centres in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia) aged 18 years or older with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or less, and wild-type KRAS exon 2 status. Using a computer-generated randomisation sequence, we assigned patients (1:1; stratified by geographical region and ECOG performance status, with a permuted block method) to receive panitumumab (6 mg/kg once every 2 weeks) or cetuximab (initial dose 400 mg/m(2); 250 mg/m(2) once a week thereafter). The primary endpoint was overall survival assessed for non-inferiority (retention of ≥ 50% of the cetuximab treatment effect; historical hazard ratio [HR] for cetuximab plus best supportive care vs best supportive care alone of 0.55). The primary analysis included patients who received one or more dose of panitumumab or cetuximab, analysed per allocated treatment. Recruitment for this trial is closed. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01001377. FINDINGS: Between Feb 2, 2010, and July 19, 2012, we enrolled and randomly allocated 1010 patients, 999 of whom began study treatment: 499 received panitumumab and 500 received cetuximab. For the primary analysis of overall survival, panitumumab was non-inferior to cetuximab (Z score -3.19; p=0.0007). Median overall survival was 10.4 months (95% CI 9.4-11.6) with panitumumab and 10.0 months (9.3-11.0) with cetuximab (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.84-1.11). Panitumumab retained 105.7% (81.9-129.5) of the effect of cetuximab on overall survival seen in this study. The incidence of adverse events of any grade and grade 3-4 was similar across treatment groups. Grade 3-4 skin toxicity occurred in 62 (13%) patients given panitumumab and 48 (10%) patients given cetuximab. The occurrence of grade 3-4 infusion reactions was lower with panitumumab than with cetuximab (one [<0.5%] patient vs nine [2%] patients), and the occurrence of grade 3-4 hypomagnesaemia was higher in the panitumumab group (35 [7%] vs 13 [3%]). We recorded one treatment-related fatal adverse event: a lung infection in a patient given cetuximab. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that panitumumab is non-inferior to cetuximab and that these agents provide similar overall survival benefit in this population of patients. Both agents had toxicity profiles that were to be expected. In view of the consistency in efficacy and toxicity seen, small but meaningful differences in the rate of grade 3-4 infusion reactions and differences in dose scheduling can guide physician choice of anti-EGFR treatment.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced breast cancer (NOAH): follow-up of a randomised controlled superiority trial with a parallel HER2-negative cohort.

BACKGROUND: In our randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial NeOAdjuvant Herceptin (NOAH) trial in women with HER2-positive locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer, neoadjuvant trastuzumab significantly improved pathological complete response rate and event-free survival. We report updated results from our primary analysis to establish the long-term benefit of trastuzumab-containing neoadjuvant therapy. METHODS: We did this multicentre, open-label, randomised trial in women with HER2-positive locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), by computer program with a minimisation technique, to receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone or with 1 year of trastuzumab (concurrently with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and continued after surgery). A parallel group with HER2-negative disease was included and received neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone. Our primary endpoint was event-free survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered at www.controlled-trials.com, ISRCTN86043495. FINDINGS: Between June 20, 2002, and Dec 12, 2005, we enrolled 235 patients with HER2-positive disease, of whom 118 received chemotherapy alone and 117 received chemotherapy plus trastuzumab. 99 additional patients with HER2-negative disease were included in the parallel cohort. After a median follow-up of 5.4 years (IQR 3.1-6.8) the event-free-survival benefit from the addition of trastuzumab to chemotherapy was maintained in patients with HER2-positive disease. 5 year event-free survival was 58% (95% CI 48-66) in patients in the trastuzumab group and 43% (34-52) in those in the chemotherapy group; the unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for event-free survival between the two randomised HER2-positive treatment groups was 0.64 (95% CI 0.44-0.93; two-sided log-rank p=0.016). Event-free survival was strongly associated with pathological complete remission in patients given trastuzumab. Of the 68 patients with a pathological complete response (45 with trastuzumab and 23 with chemotherapy alone), the HR for event-free survival between those with and without trastuzumab was 0.29 (95% CI 0.11-0.78). During follow-up only four cardiovascular adverse events were regarded by the investigator to be drug-related (grade 2 lymphostasis and grade 2 lymphoedema, each in one patient in the trastuzumab group, and grade 2 thrombosis and grade 2 deep vein thrombosis, each in one patient in the chemotherapy-alone group). INTERPRETATION: These results show a sustained benefit in event-free survival from trastuzumab-containing neoadjuvant therapy followed by adjuvant trastuzumab in patients with locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer, and provide new insight into the association between pathological complete remission and long-term outcomes in HER2-positive disease.

Mutations in Mismatch Repair Genes and Microsatellite Instability Status in Pancreatic Cancer.

Patients with pancreatic cancer (PC) showing mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency may benefit from immunotherapy. Microsatellite instability (MSI) is a hallmark of MMR deficiency (MMR-D). Here, we estimated the prevalence of MSI in PC, investigated germline and somatic mutations in the three MMR genes (MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6), and assessed the relationship between MMR genes mutations and MSI status in PC. Clinical specimens from PC patients were analyzed using targeted next-generation sequencing, including paired normal and tumor specimens from 155 patients, tumor-only specimens from 86 patients, and normal-only specimens from 379 patients. The MSI status of 235 PCs was assessed via PCR. Pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) germline variants in the MMR genes were identified in 1.1% of patients, while somatic variants were found in 2.6% of patients. No MSI-H tumors were detected. One patient carried two variants (P (VAF = 0.57) and LP (VAF = 0.25)) simultaneously; however, their germline/somatic status remains unknown due to the investigation focusing solely on the tumor and MSI analysis was not performed for this patient. MSI is rare in PC, even in tumors with MMR genes mutations. Our findings underscore the importance of assessing tumor MMR-D status in PC patients with confirmed Lynch syndrome when deciding whether to prescribe immunotherapy.

Prognostic and predictive role of immune microenvironment in colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents a molecularly heterogeneous disease and one of the most frequent causes of cancer-related death worldwide. The traditional classification of CRC is based on pathomorphological and molecular characteristics of tumor cells (mucinous, ring-cell carcinomas, etc.), analysis of mechanisms of carcinogenesis involved (chromosomal instability, microsatellite instability, CpG island methylator phenotype) and mutational statuses of commonly altered genes (KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, APC, etc.), as well as expression signatures (CMS 1-4). It is also suggested that the tumor microenvironment is a key player in tumor progression and metastasis in CRC. According to the latest data, the immune microenvironment can also be predictive of the response to immune checkpoint inhibitors. In this review, we highlight how the immune environment influences CRC prognosis and sensitivity to systemic therapy.

Lenvatinib Plus Pembrolizumab Versus Sunitinib in First-Line Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: Final Prespecified Overall Survival Analysis of CLEAR, a Phase III Study.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.We present the final prespecified overall survival (OS) analysis of the open-label, phase III CLEAR study in treatment-naïve patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). With an additional follow-up of 23 months from the primary analysis, we report results from the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus sunitinib comparison of CLEAR. Treatment-naïve patients with aRCC were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily in 21-day cycles) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks) or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily [4 weeks on/2 weeks off]). At this data cutoff date (July 31, 2022), the OS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99). The median OS (95% CI) was 53.7 months (95% CI, 48.7 to not estimable [NE]) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 54.3 months (95% CI, 40.9 to NE) with sunitinib; 36-month OS rates (95% CI) were 66.4% (95% CI, 61.1 to 71.2) and 60.2% (95% CI, 54.6 to 65.2), respectively. The median progression-free survival (95% CI) was 23.9 months (95% CI, 20.8 to 27.7) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and 9.2 months (95% CI, 6.0 to 11.0) with sunitinib (HR, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.57]). Objective response rate also favored the combination over sunitinib (71.3% v 36.7%; relative risk 1.94 [95% CI, 1.67 to 2.26]). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in >90% of patients who received either treatment. In conclusion, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab achieved consistent, durable benefit with a manageable safety profile in treatment-naïve patients with aRCC.

Phase II study of bevacizumab in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine as first-line treatment for HER-2-positive locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.

We report the first results from a phase II, open-label study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine as first-line therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-2-positive locally recurrent (LR) or metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Patients were aged ≥18 years with confirmed breast adenocarcinoma, measurable LR/MBC and documented HER-2-positive disease. Patients received bevacizumab (15 mg/kg on day 1) plus trastuzumab (8 mg/kg on day 1 of cycle 1, 6 mg/kg on day 1 of each subsequent cycle) plus capecitabine (1,000 mg/m2 twice daily, days 1-14) every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. Eighty-eight patients were enrolled; 40 (46%) are still on study treatment. The median follow-up was 8.8 months (range, 0.9-17.1 months). The overall response rate, the primary endpoint, was 73% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62%-82%), comprising 7% complete and 66% partial responses. The median progression-free survival interval was 14.4 months (95% CI, 10.4 months to not reached [NR]), with 35 events. The median time to progression was 14.5 months (95% CI, 10.5 months to NR), with 33 events. Treatment was well tolerated; main side effects were grade 3 hand-foot syndrome (22%), grade ≥3 diarrhea (9%), and grade ≥3 hypertension (7%). Overall, 44% of patients experienced grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events and 13 patients discontinued capecitabine because of toxicity, but continued with bevacizumab and trastuzumab. Heart failure was seen in two patients. The combination of bevacizumab, trastuzumab, and capecitabine was clinically active as first-line therapy for patients with HER-2-positive MBC, with an acceptable safety profile and no unexpected toxicities.

A phase II multicenter study of two different dosages of pemetrexed given in combination with cyclophosphamide as first-line treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Pemetrexed/cyclophosphamide was evaluated as first-line treatment for patients with locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer. In this randomized phase II study (NCT00190671), therapy consisted of either 600 mg/m(2) (P600) or 1,800 mg/m(2) (P1800) pemetrexed, followed by 600 mg/m(2) cyclophosphamide, every 21 days; 103 females (42 P600; 61 P1800) were enrolled. P600 was discontinued, as response rate (19.1%) was lower than targeted. In the P1800 arm, 20 patients had partial response (32.8%; 95% CI: 21.0-44.6) and 26 (42.6%) had stable disease. Median progression-free survival was 6.3 months (range: 0.3-31.1). P1800 plus cyclophosphamide 600 represents a regimen of reasonable efficacy and acceptable tolerability.