Efficacy of the MAGE-A3 cancer immunotherapeutic as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected MAGE-A3-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (MAGRIT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Fewer than half of the patients with completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are cured. Since the introduction of adjuvant chemotherapy in 2004, no substantial progress has been made in adjuvant treatment. We aimed to assess the efficacy of the MAGE-A3 cancer immunotherapeutic in surgically resected NSCLC. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we recruited patients aged at least 18 years with completely resected stage IB, II, and IIIA MAGE-A3-positive NSCLC who did or did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy from 443 centres in 34 countries (Europe, the Americas, and Asia Pacific). Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive 13 intramuscular injections of recMAGE-A3 with AS15 immunostimulant (MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic) or placebo during 27 months. Randomisation and treatment allocation at the investigator site was done centrally via internet with stratification for chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy. Participants, investigators, and those assessing outcomes were masked to group assignment. A minimisation algorithm accounted for the number of chemotherapy cycles received, disease stage, lymph node sampling procedure, performance status score, and lifetime smoking status. The primary endpoint was broken up into three co-primary objectives: disease-free survival in the overall population, the no-chemotherapy population, and patients with a potentially predictive gene signature. The final analyses included the total treated population (all patients who had received at least one treatment dose). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00480025. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2007, and July 17, 2012, we screened 13 849 patients for MAGE-A3 expression; 12 820 had a valid sample and of these, 4210 (33%) had a MAGE-A3-positive tumour. 2312 of these patients met all eligibility criteria and were randomly assigned to treatment: 1515 received MAGE-A3 and 757 received placebo and 40 were randomly assigned but never started treatment. 784 patients in the MAGE-A3 group also received chemotherapy, as did 392 in the placebo group. Median follow-up was 38·1 months (IQR 27·9-48·4) in the MAGE-A3 group and 39·5 months (27·9-50·4) in the placebo group. In the overall population, median disease-free survival was 60·5 months (95% CI 57·2-not reached) for the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic group and 57·9 months (55·7-not reached) for the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02, 95% CI 0·89-1·18; p=0·74). Of the patients who did not receive chemotherapy, median disease-free survival was 58·0 months (95% CI 56·6-not reached) in those in the MAGE-A3 group and 56·9 months (44·4-not reached) in the placebo group (HR 0·97, 95% CI 0·80-1·18; p=0·76). Because of the absence of treatment effect, we could not identify a gene signature predictive of clinical benefit to MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic. The frequency of grade 3 or worse adverse events was similar between treatment groups (246 [16%] of 1515 patients in the MAGE-A3 group and 122 [16%] of 757 in the placebo group). The most frequently reported grade 3 or higher adverse events were infections and infestations (37 [2%] in the MAGE-A3 group and 19 [3%] in the placebo group), vascular disorders (30 [2%] vs 17 [3%]), and neoplasm (benign, malignant, and unspecified (29 [2%] vs 16 [2%]). INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant treatment with the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic did not increase disease-free survival compared with placebo in patients with MAGE-A3-positive surgically resected NSCLC. Based on our results, further development of the MAGE-A3 immunotherapeutic for use in NSCLC has been stopped. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA.

Chemotherapy-associated treatment burden in breast cancer patients receiving lipegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim: secondary efficacy data from a phase III study.

PURPOSE: Lipegfilgrastim is a once-per-cycle glycoPEGylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). Noninferiority of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim was demonstrated in a phase III trial in chemotherapy (CTx)-naïve breast cancer patients. Secondary outcomes relating to treatment burden are reported here. METHODS: Patients with high-risk stage II, III, or IV breast cancer were randomized to receive lipegfilgrastim 6 mg (n = 101) or pegfilgrastim 6 mg (n = 101) subcutaneously on day 2 of each CTx cycle. Doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) commenced on day 1, for up to four cycles. Secondary end points included days in the hospital or intensive care unit (ICU), use of intravenous antibiotics for febrile neutropenia (FN) or related infections, and measures of CTx delivery (dose delays, reductions, and omissions). RESULTS: One lipegfilgrastim recipient and two pegfilgrastim recipients were hospitalized in cycle 1 because of FN or associated infection. The lipegfilgrastim-treated patient spent 1 day in the ICU for FN, and the two pegfilgrastim-treated patients were hospitalized for FN for 5 and 6 days, respectively. All hospitalized patients received antibiotics. An additional pegfilgrastim-treated patient received antibiotics but was not hospitalized. Most patients received CTx as scheduled; over 98% received their planned doxorubicin and docetaxel doses in all cycles. In the lipegfilgrastim group, no patients had a CTx dose reduced or omitted; eight patients in the pegfilgrastim group had a CTx dose reduced or omitted during cycles 2-4. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of treatment associated with myelosuppressive CTx was similar in breast cancer patients treated with lipegfilgrastim or pegfilgrastim.

Phase II, multicenter, open-label, randomized study of YM155 plus docetaxel as first-line treatment in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of YM155, a survivin suppressor, in combination with docetaxel, compared with docetaxel alone in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. This phase II, multicenter, open-label, 2-arm study randomized patients (≥18 years) with histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and ≥1 measurable lesion, to receive docetaxel alone or docetaxel plus YM155. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), duration of response (DOR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), time to response (TTR), biomarker assessment, and analysis of circulating tumor cells. Patients were women diagnosed with HER2-negative breast cancer; most had received prior drug therapies. The median PFS was 8.4 months with YM155 plus docetaxel (n = 50) and 10.5 months with docetaxel alone (n = 51; HR 1.53; 95 % CI 0.83, 2.83; P = 0.176). No statistically significant differences were observed for secondary endpoints, although slightly greater OS (630 vs 601 days; P = 0.768), CBR (84.3 vs 82.0 %; P = 0.855), DOR, and TTR were observed with docetaxel alone compared with YM155 plus docetaxel, whereas ORR was similar (25.5 vs 26.0). The most common TEAEs observed with YM155 plus docetaxel compared with docetaxel alone were neutropenia (83.3 vs 84.3 %), alopecia (62.5 vs 52.9 %), fatigue (50 vs 41.2 %), and nausea (37.5 vs 41.2 %). Although YM155 is a novel drug that suppresses survivin, YM155 plus docetaxel exhibited no statistically significant differences in endpoints compared with docetaxel alone. The combination regimen was well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim: a randomized, multicenter, active-control phase 3 trial in patients with breast cancer receiving doxorubicin/docetaxel chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Lipegfilgrastim is a novel glyco-pegylated granulocyte-colony stimulating factor in development for neutropenia prophylaxis in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. This phase III, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled, noninferiority trial compared the efficacy and safety of lipegfilgrastim versus pegfilgrastim in chemotherapy-naïve breast cancer patients receiving doxorubicin/docetaxel chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with high-risk stage II, III, or IV breast cancer and an absolute neutrophil count ≥1.5 × 109 cells/L were randomized to a single 6-mg subcutaneous injection of lipegfilgrastim (n = 101) or pegfilgrastim (n = 101) on day 2 of each 21-day chemotherapy cycle (4 cycles maximum). The primary efficacy endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia during cycle 1. RESULTS: Cycle 1: The mean duration of severe neutropenia for the lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim groups was 0.7 and 0.8 days, respectively (λ = -0.218 [95% confidence interval: -0.498%, 0.062%], p = 0.126), and no severe neutropenia was observed in 56% and 49% of patients in the lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim groups, respectively. All cycles: In the efficacy population, febrile neutropenia occurred in three pegfilgrastim-treated patients (all in cycle 1) and zero lipegfilgrastim-treated patients. Drug-related adverse events in the safety population were reported in 28% and 26% of patients in the lipegfilgrastim and pegfilgrastim groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that lipegfilgrastim 6 mg is as effective as pegfilgrastim in reducing neutropenia in patients with breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Eudra EEACTA200901599910.

Pazopanib in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results of a Randomized Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: Pazopanib is an oral angiogenesis inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, platelet-derived growth factor receptor, and c-Kit. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study evaluated efficacy and safety of pazopanib monotherapy in treatment-naive and cytokine-pretreated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients with measurable, locally advanced, and/or metastatic RCC were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive oral pazopanib or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, tumor response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors), and safety. Radiographic assessments of tumors were independently reviewed. RESULTS: Of 435 patients enrolled, 233 were treatment naive (54%) and 202 were cytokine pretreated (46%). PFS was significantly prolonged with pazopanib compared with placebo in the overall study population (median, PFS 9.2 v 4.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.62; P < .0001), the treatment-naive subpopulation (median PFS 11.1 v 2.8 months; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.60; P < .0001), and the cytokine-pretreated subpopulation (median PFS, 7.4 v 4.2 months; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.84; P < .001). The objective response rate was 30% with pazopanib compared with 3% with placebo (P < .001). The median duration of response was longer than 1 year. The most common adverse events were diarrhea, hypertension, hair color changes, nausea, anorexia, and vomiting. There was no evidence of clinically important differences in quality of life for pazopanib versus placebo. CONCLUSION: Pazopanib demonstrated significant improvement in PFS and tumor response compared with placebo in treatment-naive and cytokine-pretreated patients with advanced and/or metastatic RCC.

Phase Ib Study of PEGylated Recombinant Human Hyaluronidase and Gemcitabine in Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase Ib study evaluated the safety and tolerability of PEGylated human recombinant hyaluronidase (PEGPH20) in combination with gemcitabine (Gem), and established a phase II dose for patients with untreated stage IV metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA). Objective response rate and treatment efficacy using biomarker and imaging measurements were also evaluated. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients received escalating intravenous doses of PEGPH20 in combination with Gem using a standard 3+3 dose-escalation design. In cycle 1 (8 weeks), PEGPH20 was administrated twice weekly for 4 weeks, then once weekly for 3 weeks; Gem was administrated once weekly for 7 weeks, followed by 1 week off treatment. In each subsequent 4-week cycle, PEGPH20 and Gem were administered once weekly for 3 weeks, followed by 1 week off. Dexamethasone (8 mg) was given pre- and post-PEGPH20 administration. Several safety parameters were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were enrolled and received PEGPH20 at 1.0 (n = 4), 1.6 (n = 4), or 3.0 µg/kg (n = 20), respectively. The most common PEGPH20-related adverse events were musculoskeletal and extremity pain, peripheral edema, and fatigue. The incidence of thromboembolic events was 29%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 5.0 and 6.6 months, respectively. In 17 patients evaluated for pretreatment tissue hyaluronan (HA) levels, median PFS and OS rates were 7.2 and 13.0 months for "high"-HA patients (n = 6), and 3.5 and 5.7 months for "low"-HA patients (n = 11), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PEGPH20 in combination with Gem was well tolerated and may have therapeutic benefit in patients with advanced PDA, especially in those with high HA tumors. Clin Cancer Res; 22(12); 2848-54. ©2016 AACR.

Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of lipegfilgrastim in patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving myelosuppressive therapy.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to demonstrate lipegfilgrastim superiority versus placebo in adults with non-small cell lung cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. METHODS: This phase III, double-blind study randomized chemotherapy-naive patients to receive cisplatin and etoposide with either lipegfilgrastim 6 mg or placebo. Because of the placebo control, patients at individual high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN; ≥20%) were excluded. Study drug was administered on day 4 (24 h after chemotherapy) of a 21-day cycle for ≤4 cycles. Primary efficacy measure was FN incidence in cycle 1. Secondary assessments included duration of severe neutropenia (DSN), absolute neutrophil count (ANC) profile, and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The study included 375 patients (lipegfilgrastim, n = 250; placebo, n = 125). Lipegfilgrastim superiority for FN incidence in cycle 1 was not achieved but incidence was lower (2.4%) versus placebo (5.6%). Cycle 1 mean DSN was significantly shorter for lipegfilgrastim (0.6 ± 1.1 days) versus placebo (2.3 ± 0.5 days; p < 0.0001). Incidence of severe neutropenia was significantly lower for lipegfilgrastim versus placebo overall and in each cycle (all, p < 0.0001). Mean ANC nadir was lowest in cycle 1 but significantly higher for lipegfilgrastim (1.60 ± 1.64) than placebo (0.67 ± 0.85; p < 0.0001). Mean time to ANC recovery was shorter with lipegfilgrastim in each cycle. Treatment-emergent AEs were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Lipegfilgrastim was not statistically superior to placebo for incidence of FN in cycle 1, but was more effective in reducing incidence of severe neutropenia, DSN, and time to ANC recovery, with an acceptable safety profile. Controlled-trials.com identifier: ISRCTN55761467.

Efficacy and safety of balugrastim compared with pegfilgrastim in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) reduce the incidence and duration of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia when given as adjunct therapy to patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Balugrastim is a long-acting G-CSF composed of a genetic fusion between recombinant human serum albumin and G-CSF. We compared the efficacy and safety of balugrastim and pegfilgrastim, a long-acting pegylated recombinant G-CSF, in patients with breast cancer who were scheduled to receive chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this double-blind randomized phase III trial, patients with ≥ 1.5 × 10(9) neutrophils/L were randomly assigned to subcutaneous injections of balugrastim 40 mg (n = 153) or pegfilgrastim 6 mg (n = 151). The primary efficacy end point was the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) (days with an absolute neutrophil count [ANC] < 0.5 × 10(9) cells/L) during cycle 1. Efficacy analyses were performed in the per-protocol (PP) population. In a separate open-label single-arm study, newly recruited patients (n = 77) received balugrastim 40 mg and were included in the safety analysis. RESULTS: The mean DSN in cycle 1 was 1.1 days in the balugrastim group and 1.0 days in the pegfilgrastim group (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.13-0.37). Two and 4 patients, respectively, had febrile neutropenia during cycle 1. Twenty percent of patients in the balugrastim group and 19% in the pegfilgrastim group had adverse events (AEs) considered to be related to study medication; 3.9% and 4.7% of patients, respectively, experienced serious AEs. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the comparable safety and efficacy profile of balugrastim and pegfilgrastim and the noninferiority of balugrastim for reduction in DSN. There were no unexpected safety events.

A randomised, double-blind phase III study of pazopanib in patients with advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: final overall survival results and safety update.

BACKGROUND: In this randomised phase III study (VEG105192; NCT00334282), pazopanib previously demonstrated statistically and clinically meaningful improvement of progression-free survival versus placebo in patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Final overall survival (OS) and updated safety results are now reported. METHODS: Treatment-naive or cytokine-pretreated mRCC patients (n=435) stratified and randomised (2:1) to pazopanib 800 mg daily or placebo, were treated until disease progression, death or unacceptable toxicity. Upon progression, placebo patients could receive pazopanib through an open-label study. Final OS in the intent-to-treat population was analysed using a stratified log-rank test. Rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) and inverse probability of censoring weighted (IPCW) analyses were performed post-hoc to adjust for crossover. FINDINGS: The difference in final OS between pazopanib- and placebo-treated patients was not statistically significant (22.9 versus 20.5 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR]=0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.16; one-sided P=.224). Early and frequent crossover from placebo to pazopanib and prolonged duration of crossover treatment confounded the OS analysis. In IPCW analyses, pazopanib decreased mortality (HR=0.504; 95% CI, 0.315-0.762; two-sided P=.002). Similar, albeit non-significant, results were obtained in RPSFT analyses (HR=0.43; 95% CI, 0.215-1.388; two-sided P=.172). Since the last cutoff, cumulative exposure to pazopanib increased by 30%. The pazopanib safety profile showed no new safety signals or changes in the type, frequency and severity of adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Although no significant difference in OS was observed in this study, extensive crossover from placebo to pazopanib confounded final OS analysis. Post-hoc analyses adjusting for crossover suggest OS benefit with pazopanib treatment for mRCC patients.

Pazopanib in locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: results of a randomized phase III trial.

PURPOSE Pazopanib is an oral angiogenesis inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, platelet-derived growth factor receptor, and c-Kit. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study evaluated efficacy and safety of pazopanib monotherapy in treatment-naive and cytokine-pretreated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Adult patients with measurable, locally advanced, and/or metastatic RCC were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive oral pazopanib or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, tumor response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors), and safety. Radiographic assessments of tumors were independently reviewed. Results Of 435 patients enrolled, 233 were treatment naive (54%) and 202 were cytokine pretreated (46%). PFS was significantly prolonged with pazopanib compared with placebo in the overall study population (median, PFS 9.2 v 4.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.62; P < .0001), the treatment-naive subpopulation (median PFS 11.1 v 2.8 months; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.60; P < .0001), and the cytokine-pretreated subpopulation (median PFS, 7.4 v 4.2 months; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.84; P < .001). The objective response rate was 30% with pazopanib compared with 3% with placebo (P < .001). The median duration of response was longer than 1 year. The most common adverse events were diarrhea, hypertension, hair color changes, nausea, anorexia, and vomiting. There was no evidence of clinically important differences in quality of life for pazopanib versus placebo. CONCLUSION Pazopanib demonstrated significant improvement in PFS and tumor response compared with placebo in treatment-naive and cytokine-pretreated patients with advanced and/or metastatic RCC.