Long-term survival with first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolongs survival versus chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We further characterized clinical benefit with this regimen in a large pooled patient population and assessed the effect of response on survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were pooled from four studies of first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced NSCLC (CheckMate 227 Part 1, 817 cohort A, 568 Part 1, and 012). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, duration of response, and safety were assessed. Landmark analyses of OS by response status at 6 months and by tumor burden reduction in responders to nivolumab plus ipilimumab were also assessed. RESULTS: In the pooled population (N = 1332) with a minimum follow-up of 29.1-58.9 months, median OS was 18.6 months, with a 3-year OS rate of 35%; median PFS was 5.4 months (3-year PFS rate, 17%). Objective response rate was 36%; median duration of response was 23.7 months, with 38% of responders having an ongoing response at 3 years. In patients with tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) <1%, ≥1%, 1%-49%, or ≥50%, 3-year OS rates were 30%, 38%, 30%, and 48%. Three-year OS rates were 30% and 38% in patients with squamous or non-squamous histology. Efficacy outcomes in patients aged ≥75 years were similar to the overall pooled population (median OS, 20.1 months; 3-year OS rate, 34%). In the pooled population, responders to nivolumab plus ipilimumab at 6 months had longer post-landmark OS than those with stable or progressive disease; 3-year OS rates were 66%, 22%, and 14%, respectively. Greater depth of response was associated with prolonged survival; in patients with tumor burden reduction ≥80%, 50% to <80%, or 30% to <50%, 3-year OS rates were 85%, 72%, and 44%, respectively. No new safety signals were identified in the pooled population. CONCLUSION: Long-term survival benefit and durable response with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in this large patient population further support this first-line treatment option for advanced NSCLC.

Second-line nivolumab in relapsed small-cell lung cancer: CheckMate 331☆.

BACKGROUND: Patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) have few treatment options and dismal survival. Phase I/II data show activity of nivolumab in previously treated SCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CheckMate 331 is a randomized, open-label, phase III trial of nivolumab versus standard chemotherapy in relapsed SCLC. Patients with relapse after first-line, platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized 1 : 1 to nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks or chemotherapy (topotecan or amrubicin) until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Overall, 284 patients were randomized to nivolumab and 285 to chemotherapy. Minimum follow-up was 15.8 months. No significant improvement in OS was seen with nivolumab versus chemotherapy [median OS, 7.5 versus 8.4 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.72-1.04; P = 0.11]. A survival benefit with nivolumab was suggested in patients with baseline lactate dehydrogenase ≤ upper limit of normal and in those without baseline liver metastases. OS (nivolumab versus chemotherapy) was similar in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 combined positive score ≥1% versus <1%. Median progression-free survival was 1.4 versus 3.8 months (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.18-1.69). Objective response rate was 13.7% versus 16.5% (odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.50-1.27); median duration of response was 8.3 versus 4.5 months. Rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were 13.8% versus 73.2%. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab did not improve survival versus chemotherapy in relapsed SCLC. No new safety signals were seen. In exploratory analyses, select baseline characteristics were associated with improved OS for nivolumab.

Durvalumab with or without tremelimumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: EAGLE, a randomized, open-label phase III study.

BACKGROUND: Targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) axis has demonstrated clinical benefit in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC). Combining immunotherapies targeting PD-L1 and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) has shown evidence of additive activity in several tumor types. This phase III study evaluated the efficacy of durvalumab (an anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody) or durvalumab plus tremelimumab (an anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody) versus standard of care (SoC) in R/M HNSCC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 : 1 : 1 durvalumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks [q2w]), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (durvalumab 20 mg/kg q4w plus tremelimumab 1 mg/kg q4w × 4, then durvalumab 10 mg/kg q2w), or SoC (cetuximab, a taxane, methotrexate, or a fluoropyrimidine). The primary end points were overall survival (OS) for durvalumab versus SoC, and OS for durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus SoC. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, and duration of response. RESULTS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive durvalumab (n = 240), durvalumab plus tremelimumab (n = 247), or SoC (n = 249). No statistically significant improvements in OS were observed for durvalumab versus SoC [hazard ratio (HR): 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.72-1.08; P = 0.20] or durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus SoC (HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.85-1.26; P = 0.76). The 12-month survival rates (95% CI) were 37.0% (30.9-43.1), 30.4% (24.7-36.3), and 30.5% (24.7-36.4) for durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and SoC, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) were consistent with previous reports. The most common trAEs (any grade) were hypothyroidism for durvalumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab (11.4% and 12.2%, respectively), and anemia (17.5%) for SoC. Grade ≥3 trAE rates were 10.1%, 16.3%, and 24.2% for durvalumab, durvalumab plus tremelimumab, and SoC, respectively. CONCLUSION: There were no statistically significant differences in OS for durvalumab or durvalumab plus tremelimumab versus SoC. However, higher survival rates at 12 to 24 months and response rates demonstrate clinical activity for durvalumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02369874.

Biomarker analysis beyond angiogenesis: RAS/RAF mutation status, tumour sidedness, and second-line ramucirumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma from RAISE-a global phase III study.

Background: : Second-line treatment with ramucirumab+FOLFIRI improved overall survival (OS) versus placebo+FOLFIRI for patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (CRC) [hazard ratio (HR)=0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.98, P = 0.022]. Post hoc analyses of RAISE patient data examined the association of RAS/RAF mutation status and the anatomical location of the primary CRC tumour (left versus right) with efficacy parameters. Patients and methods: Patient tumour tissue was classified as BRAF mutant, KRAS/NRAS (RAS) mutant, or RAS/BRAF wild-type. Left-CRC was defined as the splenic flexure, descending and sigmoid colon, and rectum; right-CRC included transverse, ascending colon, and cecum. Results: RAS/RAF mutation status was available for 85% of patients (912/1072) and primary tumour location was known for 94.4% of patients (1012/1072). A favourable and comparable ramucirumab treatment effect was observed for patients with RAS mutations (OS HR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.71-1.04) and patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type tumours (OS HR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.64-1.14). Among the 41 patients with BRAF-mutated tumours, the ramucirumab benefit was more notable (OS HR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.25-1.13), although, as with the other genetic sub-group analyses, differences were not statistically significant. Progression-free survival (PFS) data followed the same trend. Treatment-by-mutation status interaction tests (OS P = 0.523, PFS P = 0.655) indicated that the ramucirumab benefit was not statistically different among the mutation sub-groups, although the small sample size of the BRAF group limited the analysis. Addition of ramucirumab to FOLFIRI improved left-CRC median OS by 2.5 month over placebo (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.97); median OS for ramucirumab-treated patients with right-CRC was 1.1 month over placebo (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.75-1.26). The treatment-by-sub-group interaction was not statistically significant for tumour sidedness (P = 0.276). Conclusions: In the RAISE study, the addition of ramucirumab to FOLFIRI improved patient outcomes, regardless of RAS/RAF mutation status, and tumour sidedness. Ramucirumab treatment provided a numerically substantial benefit in BRAF-mutated tumours, although the P-values were not statistically significant. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01183780.

Analysis of angiogenesis biomarkers for ramucirumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer from RAISE, a global, randomized, double-blind, phase III study.

Background: The phase III RAISE trial (NCT01183780) demonstrated that the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor (VEGFR)-2 binding monoclonal antibody ramucirumab plus 5-fluororuracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo + FOLFIRI as second-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treatment. To identify patients who benefit the most from VEGFR-2 blockade, the RAISE trial design included a prospective and comprehensive biomarker program that assessed the association of biomarkers with ramucirumab efficacy outcomes. Patients and methods: Plasma and tumor tissue collection was mandatory. Overall, 1072 patients were randomized 1 : 1 to the addition of ramucirumab or placebo to FOLFIRI chemotherapy. Patients were then randomized 1 : 2, for the biomarker program, to marker exploratory (ME) and marker confirmatory (MC) groups. Analyses were carried out using exploratory assays to assess the correlations of baseline marker levels [VEGF-C, VEGF-D, sVEGFR-1, sVEGFR-2, sVEGFR-3 (plasma), and VEGFR-2 (tumor tissue)] with clinical outcomes. Cox regression analyses were carried out for each candidate biomarker with stratification factor adjustment. Results: Biomarker results were available from >80% (n = 894) of patients. Analysis of the ME subset determined a VEGF-D level of 115 pg/ml was appropriate for high/low subgroup analyses. Evaluation of the combined ME + MC populations found that the median OS in the ramucirumab + FOLFIRI arm compared with placebo + FOLFIRI showed an improvement of 2.4 months in the high VEGF-D subgroup [13.9 months (95% CI 12.5-15.6) versus 11.5 months (95% CI 10.1-12.4), respectively], and a decrease of 0.5 month in the low VEGF-D subgroup [12.6 months (95% CI 10.7-14.0) versus 13.1 months (95% CI 11.8-17.0), respectively]. PFS results were consistent with OS. No trends were evident with the other antiangiogenic candidate biomarkers. Conclusions: The RAISE biomarker program identified VEGF-D as a potential predictive biomarker for ramucirumab efficacy in second-line mCRC. Development of an assay appropriate for testing in clinical practice is currently ongoing. Clinical trials registration: NCT01183780.

BODY MASS INDEX AS A PROGNOSTIC FACTOR FOR DISEASE PROGRESSION IN PATIENTS WITH METASTATIC COLORECTAL CANCER TREATED WITH BEVACIZUMAB BASED SYSTEMIC THERAPY.

CONTEXT: Epidemiological data have shown that obesity increases the risk of developing colorectal cancer and also an increased body mass index (BMI) is associated with a worse prognosis. Bevacizumab based systemic therapy, an antiVEGF targeted therapy, is an important treatment option for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. Obesity is associated with high level of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), that might provoke resistance to antiVEGF monoclonal antibody. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy in terms of progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of bevacizumab systemic therapy in patients with mCRC. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort, single center study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Between January 2007 and December 2012, 112 patients with mCRC, who followed bevacizumab based systemic therapy in the "Ion Chiricuta" Oncology Institute in Cluj-Napoca, were included in our analysis. RESULTS: Values of BMI ≥ or <27 kg/sqm was found that PFS is statistically significant superior in patients with BMI<27 kg/sqm (n=77) than in those with BMI ≥ 27 kg/sqm (n=35), 24 months versus 17.9 months (p = 0.04). Five years OS was not influenced by the BMI, 35% vs 30% (p=0.29). In patients with liver metastases with values of BMI ≥ 27 kg/sqm have PFS lower than patients with a BMI <27 kg/sqm, 17.5 months versus 24.5 months (p = 0.02). Five years OS was not influenced by the BMI, 39% (BMI <27 kg/sqm) vs. 22% (BMI ≥ 27 kg/sqm) (p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the negative influence of BMI on both PFS on the entire sample of patients and in patients with liver metastases only, BMI cut-off value proved to be 27 kg/square meter and shows that the BMI may be an important prognostic factor with a high clinical relevance in patients with mCRC.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study to assess the efficacy and safety of mapatumumab with sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of mapatumumab (a human agonistic monoclonal antibody against tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand receptor 1) in combination with sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced HCC (stratified by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status) were randomized 1:1 to receive sorafenib (400 mg, twice daily per 21-day cycle) and either placebo (placebo-sorafenib arm) or mapatumumab (30 mg/kg on day 1 per 21-day cycle; mapatumumab-sorafenib arm). The primary end point was time to (radiologic) progression (TTP), assessed by blinded independent central review. Key secondary end points included progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response. RESULTS: In total, 101 patients were randomized (placebo-sorafenib arm: N = 51; mapatumumab-sorafenib arm: N = 50). There was no significant difference in median TTP between both arms [5.6 versus 4.1 months, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio (one-sided 90% confidence interval) 1.192 (0-1.737)]. No mapatumumab-related benefit was identified when TTP was evaluated in the stratified subgroups. The addition of mapatumumab to sorafenib did not demonstrate improvement in the secondary efficacy end points. The reported frequency of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs was comparable in both treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of mapatumumab to sorafenib did not improve TTP or other efficacy end points, nor did it substantially change the toxicity profile of sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC. Based on these results, further development of the combination of mapatumumab and sorafenib in HCC is not planned.

Subgroup analysis in RAISE: a randomized, double-blind phase III study of irinotecan, folinic acid, and 5-fluorouracil (FOLFIRI) plus ramucirumab or placebo in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma progression.

BACKGROUND: The RAISE phase III clinical trial demonstrated that ramucirumab + FOLFIRI improved overall survival (OS) [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.844, P = 0.0219] and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.793, P < 0.0005) compared with placebo + FOLFIRI for second-line metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC) patients previously treated with first-line bevacizumab, oxaliplatin, and a fluoropyrimidine. Since some patient or disease characteristics could be associated with differential efficacy or safety, prespecified subgroup analyses were undertaken. This report focuses on three of the most relevant ones: KRAS status (wild-type versus mutant), age (<65 versus ≥65 years), and time to progression (TTP) on first-line therapy (<6 versus ≥6 months). PATIENTS AND METHODS: OS and PFS were evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier analysis, with HR determined by the Cox proportional hazards model. Treatment-by-subgroup interaction was tested to determine whether treatment effect was consistent between subgroup pairs. RESULTS: Patients with both wild-type and mutant KRAS benefited from ramucirumab + FOLFIRI treatment over placebo + FOLFIRI (interaction P = 0.526); although numerically, wild-type KRAS patients benefited more (wild-type KRAS: median OS = 14.4 versus 11.9 months, HR = 0.82, P = 0.049; mutant KRAS: median OS = 12.7 versus 11.3 months, HR = 0.89, P = 0.263). Patients with both longer and shorter first-line TTP benefited from ramucirumab (interaction P = 0.9434), although TTP <6 months was associated with poorer OS (TTP ≥6 months: median OS = 14.3 versus 12.5 months, HR = 0.86, P = 0.061; TTP <6 months: median OS = 10.4 versus 8.0 months, HR = 0.86, P = 0.276). The subgroups of patients ≥65 versus <65 years also derived a similar ramucirumab survival benefit (interaction P = 0.9521) (≥65 years: median OS = 13.8 versus 11.7 months, HR = 0.85, P = 0.156; <65 years: median OS = 13.1 versus 11.9 months, HR = 0.86, P = 0.098). The safety profile of ramucirumab + FOLFIRI was similar across subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses revealed similar efficacy and safety among patient subgroups with differing KRAS mutation status, longer or shorter first-line TTP, and age. Ramucirumab is a beneficial addition to second-line FOLFIRI treatment for a wide range of patients with mCRC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01183780.

A randomized phase II study of ganetespib, a heat shock protein 90 inhibitor, in combination with docetaxel in second-line therapy of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (GALAXY-1).

BACKGROUND: This trial was designed to evaluate the activity and safety of ganetespib in combination with docetaxel in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and to identify patient populations most likely to benefit from the combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with one prior systemic therapy for advanced disease were eligible. Docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) on day 1) was administered alone or with ganetespib (150 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 15) every 3 weeks. The primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) in two subgroups of the adenocarcinoma population: patients with elevated lactate dehydrogenase (eLDH) and mutated KRAS (mKRAS). RESULTS: Of 385 patients enrolled, 381 were treated. Early in the trial, increased hemoptysis and lack of efficacy were observed in nonadenocarcinoma patients (n = 71); therefore, only patients with adenocarcinoma histology were subsequently enrolled. Neutropenia was the most common grade ≥3 adverse event: 41% in the combination arm versus 42% in docetaxel alone. There was no improvement in PFS for the combination arm in the eLDH (N = 114, adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.77, P = 0.1134) or mKRAS (N = 89, adjusted HR = 1.11, P = 0.3384) subgroups. In the intent-to-treat adenocarcinoma population, there was a trend in favor of the combination, with PFS (N = 253, adjusted HR = 0.82, P = 0.0784) and overall survival (OS) (adjusted HR = 0.84, P = 0.1139). Exploratory analyses showed significant benefit of the ganetespib combination in the prespecified subgroup of adenocarcinoma patients diagnosed with advanced disease >6 months before study entry (N = 177): PFS (adjusted HR = 0.74, P = 0.0417); OS (adjusted HR = 0.69, P = 0.0191). CONCLUSION: Advanced lung adenocarcinoma patients treated with ganetespib in combination with docetaxel had an acceptable safety profile. While the study's primary end points were not met, significant prolongation of PFS and OS was observed in patients >6 months from diagnosis of advanced disease, a subgroup chosen as the target population for the phase III study.

First-line gefitinib in Caucasian EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC patients: a phase-IV, open-label, single-arm study.

BACKGROUND: Phase-IV, open-label, single-arm study (NCT01203917) to assess efficacy and safety/tolerability of first-line gefitinib in Caucasian patients with stage IIIA/B/IV, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). TREATMENT: gefitinib 250 mg day(-1) until progression. Primary endpoint: objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints: disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety/tolerability. Pre-planned exploratory objective: EGFR mutation analysis in matched tumour and plasma samples. RESULTS: Of 1060 screened patients with NSCLC (859 known mutation status; 118 positive, mutation frequency 14%), 106 with EGFR sensitising mutations were enrolled (female 70.8%; adenocarcinoma 97.2%; never-smoker 64.2%). At data cutoff: ORR 69.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 60.5-77.7), DCR 90.6% (95% CI 83.5-94.8), median PFS 9.7 months (95% CI 8.5-11.0), median OS 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-NC; 27% maturity). Most common adverse events (AEs; any grade): rash (44.9%), diarrhoea (30.8%); CTC (Common Toxicity Criteria) grade 3/4 AEs: 15%; SAEs: 19%. Baseline plasma 1 samples were available in 803 patients (784 known mutation status; 82 positive; mutation frequency 10%). Plasma 1 EGFR mutation test sensitivity: 65.7% (95% CI 55.8-74.7). CONCLUSION: First-line gefitinib was effective and well tolerated in Caucasian patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. Plasma samples could be considered for mutation analysis if tumour tissue is unavailable.

Dose escalation to rash for erlotinib plus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer: the phase II RACHEL study.

BACKGROUND: This phase II, open-label, randomised study evaluated whether patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving erlotinib/gemcitabine derived survival benefits from increasing the erlotinib dose. METHODS: After a 4-week run-in period (gemcitabine 1000 mg m(-2) once weekly plus erlotinib 100 mg per day), patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who developed grade 0/1 rash were randomised to receive gemcitabine plus erlotinib dose escalation (150 mg, increasing by 50 mg every 2 weeks (maximum 250 mg); n=71) or gemcitabine plus standard-dose erlotinib (100 mg per day; n=75). The primary end point was to determine whether overall survival (OS) was improved by increasing the erlotinib dose. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), incidence of grade ⩾2 rash, and safety. RESULTS: Erlotinib dose escalation induced grade ⩾2 rash in 29 out of 71 (41.4%) patients compared with 7 out of 75 (9.3%) patients on standard dose. Efficacy was not significantly different in the dose-escalation arm compared with the standard-dose arm (OS: median 7.0 vs 8.4 months, respectively, hazard ratio (HR), 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88-1.80; P=0.2026; PFS: median 3.5 vs 4.5 months, respectively, HR, 1.09, 95% CI: 0.77-1.54; P=0.6298). Incidence of adverse events was comparable between randomised arms. CONCLUSION: The erlotinib dose-escalation strategy induced rash in some patients; there was no evidence that the higher dose translated into increased benefit.

Final results from a randomized phase 3 study of FOLFIRI {+/-} panitumumab for second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The study 20050181 demonstrated significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS), objective response, and a nonsignificant trend toward increased overall survival (OS) with panitumumab-FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI alone for second-line wild-type (WT) KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Updated long-term data from a prespecified descriptive analysis are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients receiving one prior mCRC treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) to panitumumab (6.0 mg/kg)-FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI every 2 weeks. Co-primary end points (PFS and OS) were prospectively analyzed by tumor KRAS status. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred and eighty-six patients were randomly assigned. In patients with WT KRAS tumors, panitumumab-FOLFIRI significantly improved PFS versus FOLFIRI [median 6.7 versus 4.9 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69, 0.97]; P = 0.023]. A trend toward longer OS was observed (median 14.5 versus 12.5 months; HR 0.92 [95% CI 0.78, 1.10]; P = 0.37). Response rates improved from 10% to 36% (P < 0.0001). From post hoc analyses in patients receiving prior oxaliplatin-bevacizumab, panitumumab-FOLFIRI improved PFS (median 6.4 versus 3.7 months; HR 0.58 [95% CI 0.37, 0.90]; P = 0.014). PFS and OS appeared longer for worst-grade skin toxicity of 2-4, versus 0-1 or FOLFIRI. Safety results were as previously reported and consistent with the known toxicities with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy. CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm the primary efficacy and safety findings of this trial and support panitumumab-FOLFIRI as a second-line treatment of WT KRAS mCRC.

A randomised double-blind placebo-controlled phase II study of AGI004 for control of chemotherapy-induced diarrhoea.

BACKGROUND: AGI004 is a controlled-release transdermal patch preparation of mecamylamine. We conducted a randomised placebo-controlled phase II study of two dose levels of AGI004 in chemotherapy-induced diarrhoea (CID). METHODS: Adult patients receiving chemotherapy who had experienced diarrhoea (NCI grade 1-2) during previous cycles of chemotherapy were eligible. In all, 64 patients were randomised to receive AGI004 4 mg then 8 mg per 24 h transdermal patch or placebo for two sequential cycles of chemotherapy. Patients' severity of diarrhoea was physician-assessed using NCI grade of diarrhoea and patient-assessed using information recorded in daily diaries of bowel movements. RESULTS: Overall AGI004 doubled the odds of a response to treatment on the first day of chemotherapy based on physician assessment of NCI grade of diarrhoea compared with placebo (odds ratio=2.0, 90% confidence interval: 0.9-4.5) and there was a trend to improved response rates for AGI004 for the full treatment cycle although these results were not statistically significant. There was also evidence of significantly improved response rates based on patient assessment of diarrhoea both overall (P=0.05) and at the 8-mg dose level (P=0.02) compared with placebo. CONCLUSION: AGI004 demonstrated effectiveness in reducing chemotherapy-associated diarrhoea, with results suggesting response across multiple measurements of diarrhoea. Treatment was well tolerated with no drug-related adverse events. Further evaluation of this agent in the management of CID is warranted.

FOLFOX4 plus cetuximab administered weekly or every second week in the first-line treatment of patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase II CECOG study.

BACKGROUND: This randomized phase II study investigated first-line chemotherapy plus cetuximab administered every second week in KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received FOLFOX4 plus either standard weekly cetuximab (arm 1) or cetuximab (500 mg/m(2)) every second week (arm 2), until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary end point was the objective response rate (ORR). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR) and safety were also investigated. The study was not powered to establish non-inferiority, but aimed at the estimation of treatment differences. RESULTS: Of 152 randomized eligible patients, 75 were treated in arm 1 and 77 in arm 2; ORRs [53% versus 62%, odds ratio 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-2.66], PFS [median 9.5 versus 9.2 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% CI 0.63-1.34], OS (median 25.8 versus 23.0 months, HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.56-1.30) and DCR (87%) were comparable. HRs adjusted for baseline factors were 1.01 and 0.99 for PFS and OS, respectively. Frequencies of grade 3/4 adverse events in arms 1 versus 2 were similar: most common were neutropenia (28% versus 34%) and rash (15% versus 17%). CONCLUSIONS: Activity and safety of FOLFOX4 plus either cetuximab administered weekly or every second week were similar.

Can the epirubicin cardiotoxicity in cancer patients be prevented by angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors?

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess whether treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) can prevent the alteration of left ventricular systolic and diastolic performance in cancer patients treated with different chemotherapy regimens containing epirubicin. METHODS: In this prospective study , 68 patients with different malignant tumors treated with epirubicin and perindopril in different chemotherapy protocols (study group), and a gender- and age-matched group of 68 patients with different malignant tumors treated with epirubicin without perindopril in different chemotherapy protocols (control group), were assessed by Doppler echocardiography. Left ventricular systolic function was assessed by measuring left ventricular ejection fraction (EF). Left ventricular diastolic function was assessed by Doppler ultrasound by evaluating the transmitral flow. We also assessed the QTc on the 12 lead electrocardiograms. RESULTS: At the end of chemotherapy the left ventricular systolic function was less altered in the study group compared to the control group and was superior in the study group (epirubicin+ACEI) compared to the control group (epirubicin alone). We documented a significantly deteriorated left ventricular diastolic function in both groups at the completion of chemotherapy. QTc time in both arms was also significantly prolonged. CONCLUSION: In the present echo-Doppler study we documented a preserved left ventricular systolic performance in patients with various malignancies treated with epirubicin plus perindopril. Although co-treatment with ACEI prevented the alteration of systolic performance, it failed to prevent the deterioration of the left ventricular diastolic performance impairment due to poor left ventricular compliance.

Nivolumab plus chemotherapy in first-line metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer: results of the phase III CheckMate 227 Part 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: In CheckMate 227 Part 1, first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab prolonged overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression ≥1% versus chemotherapy. We report results from CheckMate 227 Part 2, which evaluated nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic NSCLC regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seven hundred and fifty-five patients with systemic therapy-naive, stage IV/recurrent NSCLC without EGFR mutations or ALK alterations were randomized 1 : 1 to nivolumab 360 mg every 3 weeks plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy. Primary endpoint was OS with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC. OS in all randomized patients was a hierarchically tested secondary endpoint. RESULTS: At 19.5 months' minimum follow-up, no significant improvement in OS was seen with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC [median OS 18.8 versus 15.6 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95.62% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-1.08, P = 0.1859]. Descriptive analyses showed OS improvement with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in all randomized patients (median OS 18.3 versus 14.7 months, HR 0.81, 95.62% CI 0.67-0.97) and in an exploratory analysis in squamous NSCLC (median OS 18.3 versus 12.0 months, HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50-0.97). A trend toward improved OS was seen with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy, regardless of the tumor mutation status of STK11 or TP53, regardless of tumor mutational burden, and in patients with intermediate/poor Lung Immune Prognostic Index scores. Safety with nivolumab plus chemotherapy was consistent with previous reports of first-line settings. CONCLUSIONS: CheckMate 227 Part 2 did not meet the primary endpoint of OS with nivolumab plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC. Descriptive analyses showed prolonged OS with nivolumab plus chemotherapy in all-randomized and squamous NSCLC populations, suggesting that this combination may benefit patients with untreated metastatic NSCLC.

Survival benefit with erlotinib maintenance therapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) according to response to first-line chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: In the placebo-controlled phase III SATURN study, maintenance erlotinib after first-line chemotherapy demonstrated significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the overall study population of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: After four cycles of platinum-based doublet chemotherapy, patients without progressive disease (PD) were randomised to erlotinib (150 mg/day) or placebo until PD or unacceptable toxicity. In this pre-planned analysis, data are assessed according to response to first-line chemotherapy (complete/partial response [CR/PR] or stable disease [SD]). RESULTS: Following first-line chemotherapy, 889 non-PD patients were included in the intention-to-treat population (55% SD; 44% CR/PR; <1% unknown response). Erlotinib maintenance therapy significantly prolonged PFS in both the SD (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.68; P < 0.0001) and CR/PR (HR = 0.74; P = 0.0059) groups, while OS was significantly prolonged in the SD group only (HR = 0.72; P = 0.0019). The erlotinib-related OS benefit in the SD group remained significant across subgroups, irrespective of tumour histology and/or EGFR mutation status. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the SD group and the overall population, and erlotinib treatment did not negatively impact quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced NSCLC and SD following first-line platinum-based doublet chemotherapy derive a significant OS benefit from maintenance erlotinib therapy.

Induction chemotherapy followed by concomitant radiotherapy and weekly cisplatin versus the same concomitant chemoradiotherapy in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a randomized phase II study conducted by the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group (HeCOG) with biomarker evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant administration of radiation therapy (RT) and chemotherapy with cisplatin (CCRT) is considered standard treatment in patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer (LA-NPC). The role of induction chemotherapy (IC) when followed by CCRT in improving locoregional control remains controversial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Totally, 141 eligible patients with LA-NPC were randomized to either three cycles of IC with cisplatin 75 mg/m(2), epirubicin 75 mg/m(2) and paclitaxel (Taxol) 175 mg/m(2) (CEP) every 3 weeks followed by definitive RT (70 Gy) and concomitant weekly infusion of cisplatin 40 mg/m(2) (investigational arm, 72 patients) or to the same CCRT regimen alone (control arm, 69 patients). RESULTS: Sixty-two patients (86%) received three cycles of IC. No difference between the arms was observed in the number of patients who completed RT (61 versus 64, P = 018). Overall and complete response rates were very similar in the two arms and so were 3-year progression-free and overall survival rates. Grade III or IV toxic effects from IC were infrequent, apart of alopecia. Mucositis, weight loss and leukopenia were the most prominent side-effects from CCRT. CONCLUSION: IC with three cycles of CEP when followed by CCRT did not significantly improve response rates and/or survival compared with that of CCRT alone.

Intracellular signalling via the AKT axis and downstream effectors is active and prognostically significant in cancer of unknown primary (CUP): a study of 100 CUP cases.

BACKGROUND: Hypothesising that cancer of unknown primary (CUP) may harbour unique characteristics, we present a translational study of the immunohistochemical expression and clinical correlation of key PTEN/AKT pathway molecules. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We collected 100 paraffin-embedded CUP tissue blocks. We studied using tissue microarrays the expression of PTEN, phospho-AKT, Cyclin D1, p21, phospho-RPS6. From the percentage of staining tumour cells and the literature, we selected cut-offs to classify the expression of each biomolecule. We correlated IHC expression with clinical data. RESULTS: PTEN, pAKT, and pRPS6 showed frequent expression. At univariate analysis, high IHC expression of pAKT and pRPS6 displayed statistically significant association with worse survival. Prognosis was worse upon concurrent high IHC expression of pMAPK and pAKT {median overall survival = 8 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.3-10.7] versus 17 months [95% CI 13.1-20.9]}. In multivariate analysis, high p21 was associated with better survival (risk ratio [RR] = 0.34 [95% CI 0.16-0.73], P = 0.005). High expression of pAKT (RR = 2.39 [95% CI 1.23-4.66], P = 0.01) or pRPS6 (RR = 2.76 [95% CI 1.31-5.84], P = 0.008) was associated with worse survival. CONCLUSIONS: p21 expression conferred favourable prognosis, while high pAKT or pRPS6 expression predicted worse prognosis. Concurrent MAPK and pAKT expression had a marked adverse impact on survival.

Biomarker analysis in a phase III study of pemetrexed-carboplatin versus etoposide-carboplatin in chemonaive patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Clinical results of a randomized phase III trial comparing pemetrexed-carboplatin (PC) with etoposide-carboplatin (EC) in chemonaive patients with extensive-stage disease small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) resulted in trial closure for futility; biomarker analyses using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are described herein. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thymidylate synthase (TS), excision repair cross complementing-1 (ERCC1), glycinamide ribonucleotide formyltransferase (GARFT), and folylpolyglutamate synthetase (FPGS) were investigated using IHC (n=395). SNPs were genotyped for TS, FPGS, γ-glutamyl hydrolase (GGH), methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR), folate receptor-α FR-α, and solute carrier 19A1 (SLC19A1; n=611). RESULTS: None of the IHC biomarkers (folate pathway or ERCC1) were found to be predictive or prognostic in this setting. rs2838952 (adjacent to SLC19A1) had significant treatment-independent association with overall survival (OS; hazard ratio 0.590, P=0.01). Nine GGH-associated SNPs interacted with rs3788205 (SLC19A1) for OS on the PC arm. rs12379987 (FPGS) interacted with treatment for OS (interaction P=0.036). CONCLUSION: Potential ERCC1 and folate pathway IHC biomarkers failed to predict outcome in either study arm in ED-SCLC. SNPs in regions including FPGS and SLC19A1 and interacting SNPs in GGH and SLC19A1 were associated with differences in OS; however, none of these SNPs predicted for greater survival with PC over EC.