Publications by authors named "Yaroslav Shparyk"

19 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

Veliparib with carboplatin and paclitaxel in BRCA-mutated advanced breast cancer (BROCADE3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

Lancet Oncol 2020 10 27;21(10):1269-1282. Epub 2020 Aug 27.

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

Background: BRCA1 or BRCA2-mutated breast cancers are sensitive to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and platinum agents owing to deficiency in homologous recombination repair of DNA damage. In this trial, we compared veliparib versus placebo in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel, and continued as monotherapy if carboplatin and paclitaxel were discontinued before progression, in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

Methods: BROCADE3 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done at 147 hospitals in 36 countries. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) had deleterious germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation-associated, histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced HER2-negative breast cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and had received up to two previous lines of chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) by interactive response technology by means of permuted blocks within strata (block size of 3 or 6) to carboplatin (area under the concentration curve 6 mg/mL per min intravenously) on day 1 and paclitaxel (80 mg/m intravenously) on days 1, 8, and 15 of 21-day cycles combined with either veliparib (120 mg orally twice daily, on days -2 to 5) or matching placebo. If patients discontinued carboplatin and paclitaxel before progression, they could continue veliparib or placebo at an intensified dose (300 mg twice daily continuously, escalating to 400 mg twice daily if tolerated) until disease progression. Patients in the control group could receive open-label veliparib monotherapy after disease progression. Randomisation was stratified by previous platinum use, history of CNS metastases, and oestrogen and progesterone receptor status. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat, which included all randomly assigned patients with a centrally confirmed BRCA mutation, and safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of velilparib or placebo. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02163694.

Findings: Between July 30, 2014, and Jan 17, 2018, 2202 patients were screened, of whom 513 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. In the intention-to-treat population (n=509), 337 patients were assigned to receive veliparib plus carboplatin-paclitaxel (veliparib group) and 172 were assigned to receive placebo plus carboplatin-paclitaxel (control group). Median follow-up at data cutoff (April 5, 2019) was 35·7 months (IQR 24·9-43·6) in the veliparib group and 35·5 months (23·1-45·9) in the control group. Median progression-free survival was 14·5 months (95% CI 12·5-17·7) in the veliparib group versus 12·6 months (10·6-14·4) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·71 [95% CI 0·57-0·88], p=0·0016). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (272 [81%] of 336 patients in the veliparib group vs 143 [84%] of 171 patients in the control group), anaemia (142 [42%] vs 68 [40%]), and thrombocytopenia (134 [40%] vs 48 [28%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 115 (34%) patients in the veliparib group versus 49 (29%) patients in the control group. There were no study drug-related deaths.

Interpretation: The addition of veliparib to a highly active platinum doublet, with continuation as monotherapy if the doublet were discontinued, resulted in significant and durable improvement in progression-free survival in patients with germline BRCA mutation-associated advanced breast cancer. These data indicate the utility of combining platinum and PARP inhibitors in this patient population.

Funding: AbbVie.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30447-2DOI Listing
October 2020

Overall survival results from the randomized phase 2 study of palbociclib in combination with letrozole versus letrozole alone for first-line treatment of ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (PALOMA-1, TRIO-18).

Breast Cancer Res Treat 2020 Sep 18;183(2):419-428. Epub 2020 Jul 18.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Technische Universität München, München, Germany.

Purpose: Palbociclib is a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor, approved in combination with endocrine therapy for the treatment of women and men with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer (HR+/HER2- ABC). In the phase 2, open-label, PALOMA-1 trial, palbociclib plus letrozole significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus letrozole alone (hazard ratio, 0.488; 95% CI 0.319‒0.748; P = 0.0004; median PFS, 20.2 vs 10.2 months, respectively) in postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/HER2- ABC. Here, we present the final overall survival (OS) and updated safety results.

Methods: Postmenopausal women with ER+/HER2- ABC were randomized 1:1 to receive either palbociclib (125 mg/day, 3/1 schedule) plus letrozole (2.5 mg/day, continuous) or letrozole alone (2.5 mg/day, continuous). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS; secondary endpoints included OS and safety.

Results: A total of 165 patients were randomized. At the data cutoff date of December 30, 2016 (median duration of follow-up, 64.7 months), the stratified hazard ratio for OS was 0.897 (95% CI 0.623-1.294; P = 0.281); median OS in the palbociclib plus letrozole and letrozole alone arms was 37.5 and 34.5 months, respectively. The median time from randomization to first subsequent chemotherapy use was longer with palbociclib plus letrozole than letrozole alone (26.7 and 17.7 months, respectively). The most frequently reported adverse event in the palbociclib plus letrozole arm was neutropenia (any grade, 75%; grade 3 or 4, 59%).

Conclusions: Palbociclib plus letrozole treatment led to a numerical but not statistically significant improvement in median OS. Pfizer Inc (NCT00721409).
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05755-7DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7383036PMC
September 2020

Randomized phase 3 efficacy and safety trial of proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar MYL-1401H in the prophylactic treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

Ann Hematol 2019 May 1;98(5):1217-1224. Epub 2019 Mar 1.

Global Clinical Research, Mylan, 1000 Mylan Boulevard, Canonsburg, PA, 15317, USA.

Pegfilgrastim is indicated for reducing the duration of neutropenia and incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy. Here, safety and efficacy of MYL-1401H, a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar, were investigated as prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. This was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group equivalence trial of MYL-1401H vs European Union-sourced reference pegfilgrastim. Patients with newly diagnosed stage II/III breast cancer eligible to receive (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide every 3 weeks for 6 cycles were enrolled and randomized 2:1 to 6 mg of MYL-1401H or reference pegfilgrastim 24 h (+ 2-h window after the first 24 h) after the end of chemotherapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was the duration of severe neutropenia in cycle 1 (i.e., days with absolute neutrophil count (ANC) < 0.5 × 10/L). Mean (standard deviation (SD)) duration of severe neutropenia in MYL-1401H and reference pegfilgrastim groups was 1.2 days (0.93) and 1.2 days (1.10), respectively. The 95% CI for least squares mean difference (- 0.285, 0.298) was within the predefined equivalence range of ± 1 day. Secondary endpoints, including grade ≥ 3 neutropenia (frequency, 91% and 82% for MYL-1401H and reference pegfilgrastim, respectively), time to ANC nadir (mean (SD), 6.2 (0.98) and 6.3 (1.57) days), and duration of post-nadir recovery (mean (SD), 1.9 (0.85) and 1.7 (0.91) days) were comparable. Overall safety profiles of the study drugs were comparable. MYL-1401H demonstrated equivalent efficacy and similar safety to reference pegfilgrastim and may be an equivalent option for reducing incidence of neutropenia. ( ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02467868; EudraCT, 2014-002324-27).
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00277-019-03639-5DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6469669PMC
May 2019

Bevacizumab biosimilar BEVZ92 versus reference bevacizumab in combination with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018 12 24;3(12):845-855. Epub 2018 Sep 24.

mAbxience Research SL, Madrid, Spain.

Background: BEVZ92 is a proposed biosimilar to bevacizumab. The two molecules have similar physicochemical and functional properties in in-vitro and preclinical studies. In this clinical study, we compared the pharmacokinetic profile, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of BEVZ92 with reference bevacizumab as a first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Methods: We did a randomised, open-label trial at 15 centres in Argentina, Brazil, India, Spain, and Ukraine. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had metastatic colorectal cancer with at least one measurable non-irradiated lesion for which first-line chemotherapy was indicated and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or less, had not received previous treatment for advanced disease, and whose bone marrow, hepatic, renal, and coagulation markers were all within normal ranges. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either BEVZ92 or reference bevacizumab (5 mg/kg on day 1 of each cycle every 2 weeks) in combination with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI). Randomisation was done via a web service based on a stochastic minimisation algorithm and was stratified by chemotherapy regimen (FOLFOX vs FOLFIRI), previous adjuvant therapy (yes vs no), ECOG performance status (0-1 vs 2), and study site. The primary endpoint was the area under the concentration-versus-time curve after a single infusion (AUC) and at steady state (AUC)-ie, at cycle 7-in the assessable population, which comprised all treated patients for whom serum concentration measurements were available during the first seven cycles. Bioequivalence was established if the 90% CIs for the ratio of BEVZ92 to reference bevacizumab of the geometric means for AUC and AUC were within the acceptance interval of 80-125%. Secondary endpoints included objective response, clinical benefit, and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population and immunogenicity and safety profiles in all treated patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02069704, and is closed to new participants, with follow-up completed.

Findings: 142 patients were randomly assigned, 71 to the BEVZ92 group and 71 to the reference bevacizumab group. Two participants assigned to BEVZ92 did not receive treatment (one withdrew consent, the other had a serious intestinal obstruction before starting treatment); therefore, the treated population comprised 69 patients in the BEVZ92 group and 71 in the reference bevacizumab group. The geometric mean ratio of AUC in the BEVZ92 versus the control group was 99·4% (90% CI 90·5-109·0) and of AUC was 100·0% (90·2-112·0). Objective response (35 [49%] of 71 vs 40 [56%] of 71), clinical benefit (62 [87%] vs 65 [92%]), and progression-free survival (median 10·8 months [95% CI 7·4-11·5] vs 11·1 months [95% CI 8·0-12·8]) were similar in the BEVZ92 and reference bevacizumab groups. No relevant differences were noted between the safety profiles of the two study treatments. Neutropenia was the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event reported in the BEVZ92 (14 [20%] of 69 patients) and reference bevacizumab (19 [27%] of 71 patients) groups. Serious adverse events occurred in 19 (28%) patients in the BEVZ92 group and 21 (30%) in the reference bevacizumab group. Two patients died because of bevacizumab-related serious adverse events: a sudden death in the BEVZ92 group and a serious large intestinal perforation in the reference bevacizumab group. The occurrence of anti-drug antibodies was low and similar in both treatment groups (two patients in the BEVZ92 group and one in the reference bevacizumab group).

Interpretation: Our results suggest that BEVZ92 and reference bevacizumab are pharmacokinetically bioequivalent and have no appreciable differences in efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety profiles as first-line treatment in combination with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Funding: mAbxience Research SL.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(18)30269-3DOI Listing
December 2018

Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind Study Comparing the Efficacy, Safety, and Immunogenicity of SB3 (Trastuzumab Biosimilar) and Reference Trastuzumab in Patients Treated With Neoadjuvant Therapy for Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Early Breast Cancer.

J Clin Oncol 2018 04 26;36(10):968-974. Epub 2018 Jan 26.

Xavier Pivot, University Hospital Jean Minjoz, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale 1098, Besançon, France; Igor Bondarenko, State Institution Dnipropetrovsk Medical, Academy of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine, Communal Institution Dnipropetrovsk City Multifield Clinical Hospital No. 4 of Dnipropetrovsk Regional Council, Dnipropetrovsk; Yuriy Vinnyk, Communal Healthcare Institution Kharkiv, Regional Clinical Oncological Center, Kharkiv; Yaroslav Shparyk, Lviv State Oncological Regional Treatment and Diagnostic Center, Lviv, Ukraine; Zbigniew Nowecki, Centrum Onkologii-Instytutim. M. Sklodowskiej Curie; Tomasz Sarosiek, Magodent, Warsaw; Marek Z. Wojtukiewicz, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University, Bialystok, Poland; Mikhail Dvorkin, BHI of Omsk Region, Clinical Oncology Dispensary, Omsk; Ekaterina Trishkina, SBHI Leningrad Regional Oncology Dispensary; Vladimir Moiseyenko, SBHI Saint Petersburg Scientific and Practical Center of Specialized Methods of Medical Help; Vladimir Semiglazov, FSI Scientific and Research Institution of Oncology n.a. N.N. Petrov of Ministry of Healthcare and SD of RF, St Petersburg, Russia; Jin-Hee Ahn, Asan Medical Center; Seock-Ah Im, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul; Sujeong Song and Jaeyun Lim, Samsung Bioepis, Incheon, Republic of Korea; Sanjoy Chatterjee, Tata Medical Centre, Kolkata, India; and Maximino Bello III, St Luke's Medical Center, Quezon City, Philippines.

Purpose This phase III study compared SB3, a trastuzumab (TRZ) biosimilar, with reference TRZ in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive early breast cancer in the neoadjuvant setting ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02149524). Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant SB3 or TRZ for eight cycles concurrently with chemotherapy (four cycles of docetaxel followed by four cycles of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide) followed by surgery, and then 10 cycles of adjuvant SB3 or TRZ. The primary objective was comparison of breast pathologic complete response (bpCR) rate in the per-protocol set; equivalence was declared if the 95% CI of the ratio was within 0.785 to 1.546 or the 95% CI of the difference was within ± 13%. Secondary end points included comparisons of total pathologic complete response rate, overall response rate, event-free survival, overall survival, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity. Results Eight hundred patients were included in the per-protocol set (SB3, n = 402; TRZ, n = 398). The bpCR rates were 51.7% and 42.0% with SB3 and TRZ, respectively. The adjusted ratio of bpCR was 1.259 (95% CI, 1.085 to 1.460), which was within the predefined equivalence margins. The adjusted difference was 10.70% (95% CI, 4.13% to 17.26%), with the lower limit contained within and the upper limit outside the equivalence margin. The total pathologic complete response rates were 45.8% and 35.8% and the overall response rates were 96.3% and 91.2% with SB3 and TRZ, respectively. Overall, 96.6% and 95.2% of patients experienced one or more adverse event, 10.5% and 10.7% had a serious adverse event, and 0.7% and 0.0% had antidrug antibodies (up to cycle 9) with SB3 and TRZ, respectively. Conclusion Equivalence for efficacy was demonstrated between SB3 and TRZ on the basis of the ratio of bpCR rates. Safety and immunogenicity were comparable.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2017.74.0126DOI Listing
April 2018

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

Lancet 2016 12 29;388(10063):2997-3005. Epub 2016 Nov 29.

Lester and Sue Smith Breast Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.

Background: Aromatase inhibitors are a standard of care for hormone receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. We investigated whether the selective oestrogen receptor degrader fulvestrant could improve progression-free survival compared with anastrozole in postmenopausal patients who had not received previous endocrine therapy.

Methods: In this phase 3, randomised, double-blind trial, we recruited eligible patients with histologically confirmed oestrogen receptor-positive or progesterone receptor-positive, or both, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer from 113 academic hospitals and community centres in 20 countries. Eligible patients were endocrine therapy-naive, with WHO performance status 0-2, and at least one measurable or non-measurable lesion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to fulvestrant (500 mg intramuscular injection; on days 0, 14, 28, then every 28 days thereafter) or anastrozole (1 mg orally daily) using a computer-generated randomisation scheme. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1·1, intervention by surgery or radiotherapy because of disease deterioration, or death from any cause, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety outcomes were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of randomised treatment (including placebo). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01602380.

Findings: Between Oct 17, 2012, and July 11, 2014, 524 patients were enrolled to this study. Of these, 462 patients were randomised (230 to receive fulvestrant and 232 to receive anastrozole). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the fulvestrant group than in the anastrozole group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·797, 95% CI 0·637-0·999, p=0·0486). Median progression-free survival was 16·6 months (95% CI 13·83-20·99) in the fulvestrant group versus 13·8 months (11·99-16·59) in the anastrozole group. The most common adverse events were arthralgia (38 [17%] in the fulvestrant group vs 24 [10%] in the anastrozole group) and hot flushes (26 [11%] in the fulvestrant group vs 24 [10%] in the anastrozole group). 16 (7%) of 228 patients in in the fulvestrant group and 11 (5%) of 232 patients in the anastrozole group discontinued because of adverse events.

Interpretation: Fulvestrant has superior efficacy and is a preferred treatment option for patients with hormone receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who have not received previous endocrine therapy compared with a third-generation aromatase inhibitor, a standard of care for first-line treatment of these patients.

Funding: AstraZeneca.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32389-3DOI Listing
December 2016

Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel as first-line therapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MERiDiAN): A double-blind placebo-controlled randomised phase III trial with prospective biomarker evaluation.

Eur J Cancer 2017 01 4;70:146-155. Epub 2016 Nov 4.

Baylor Charles A. Sammons Cancer Center, US Oncology and Texas Oncology, 3410 Worth Street, Suite 400, Dallas, TX, 75246, USA.

Aim: MERiDiAN evaluated plasma vascular endothelial growth factor-A (pVEGF-A) prospectively as a predictive biomarker for bevacizumab efficacy in metastatic breast cancer (mBC).

Methods: In this double-blind placebo-controlled randomised phase III trial, eligible patients had HER2-negative mBC previously untreated with chemotherapy. pVEGF-A was measured before randomisation to paclitaxel 90 mg/m on days 1, 8 and 15 with either placebo or bevacizumab 10 mg/kg on days 1 and 15, repeated every 4 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or consent withdrawal. Stratification factors were baseline pVEGF-A, prior adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor status and geographic region. Co-primary end-points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat and pVEGF-A populations.

Results: Of 481 patients randomised (242 placebo-paclitaxel; 239 bevacizumab-paclitaxel), 471 received study treatment. The stratified PFS hazard ratio was 0.68 (99% confidence interval, 0.51-0.91; log-rank p = 0.0007) in the intent-to-treat population (median 8.8 months with placebo-paclitaxel versus 11.0 months with bevacizumab-paclitaxel) and 0.64 (96% confidence interval, 0.47-0.88; log-rank p = 0.0038) in the pVEGF-A subgroup. The PFS treatment-by-VEGF-A interaction p value (secondary end-point) was 0.4619. Bevacizumab was associated with increased incidences of bleeding (all grades: 45% versus 27% with placebo), neutropenia (all grades: 39% versus 29%; grade ≥3: 25% versus 13%) and hypertension (all grades: 31% versus 13%; grade ≥3: 11% versus 4%).

Conclusion: The significant PFS improvement with bevacizumab is consistent with previous placebo-controlled first-line trials in mBC. Results do not support using baseline pVEGF-A to identify patients benefitting most from bevacizumab.

Clinical Trials Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01663727.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2016.09.024DOI Listing
January 2017

Axitinib Versus Sorafenib in First-Line Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Overall Survival From a Randomized Phase III Trial.

Clin Genitourin Cancer 2017 02 27;15(1):72-76. Epub 2016 May 27.

Comprehensive Cancer Centers of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV.

Background: In a randomized phase III trial in treatment-naive patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), axitinib versus sorafenib yielded numerically longer progression-free survival (median, 10.1 vs. 6.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 1-sided P = .038) and significantly higher objective response rate (32% vs. 15%; 1-sided P = .0006). In this article, we report overall survival (OS) and updated safety results.

Patients And Methods: Previously untreated patients with metastatic RCC (n = 288), stratified according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS; 0 vs. 1), were randomized 2:1 to receive axitinib 5 mg twice per day (b.i.d.; n = 192) or sorafenib 400 mg b.i.d. (n = 96).

Results: Median OS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 21.7 months (18.0-31.7) with axitinib versus 23.3 months (18.1-33.2) with sorafenib (stratified HR, 0.995; 95% CI, 0.731-1.356; 1-sided P = .4883). Among patients with ECOG PS of 0, median OS was numerically longer with axitinib than with sorafenib (41.2 vs. 31.9 months; HR, 0.811, 1-sided P = .1748), whereas among patients with ECOG PS 1, median OS was shorter with axitinib than with sorafenib (14.2 vs. 19.8 months; HR, 1.203; 1-sided; P = .7973). Incidence and severity of common adverse events were consistent with previous reports.

Conclusion: OS was similar between axitinib and sorafenib in treatment-naive patients with metastatic RCC, and no new safety signals emerged.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2016.05.008DOI Listing
February 2017

A Randomized Phase II/III Study of Naptumomab Estafenatox + IFNα versus IFNα in Renal Cell Carcinoma: Final Analysis with Baseline Biomarker Subgroup and Trend Analysis.

Clin Cancer Res 2016 07 5;22(13):3172-81. Epub 2016 Feb 5.

Cambridge University Health Partners, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Purpose: To prospectively determine the efficacy of naptumomab estafenatox (Nap) + IFNα versus IFN in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

Experimental Design: In a randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase II/III study, 513 patients with RCC received Nap (15 μg/kg i. v. in three cycles of four once-daily injections) + IFN (9 MU s.c. three times weekly), or the same regimen of IFN monotherapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS).

Results: This phase II/III study did not meet its primary endpoint. Median OS/PFS for Nap + IFN patients was 17.1/5.8 months versus 17.5/5.8 months for the patients receiving IFN alone (P = 0.56; HR, 1.08/P = 0.41; HR, 0.92). Post hoc exploratory subgroup and trend analysis revealed that the baseline plasma concentrations of anti-SEA/E-120 (anti-Nap antibodies) for drug exposure and IL6 for immune status could be used as predictive biomarkers. A subgroup of patients (SG; n = 130) having concentrations below median of anti-SEA/E-120 and IL6 benefitted greatly from the addition of Nap. In SG, median OS/PFS for the patients treated with Nap + IFN was 63.3/13.7 months versus 31.1/5.8 months for the patients receiving IFN alone (P = 0.02; HR, 0.59/P = 0.02; HR, 0.62). Addition of Nap to IFN showed predicted and transient immune related AEs and the treatment had an acceptable safety profile.

Conclusions: The study did not meet its primary endpoint. Nap + IFN has an acceptable safety profile, and results from post hoc subgroup analyses showed that the treatment might improve OS/PFS in a baseline biomarker-defined RCC patient subgroup. The results warrant further studies with Nap in this subgroup. Clin Cancer Res; 22(13); 3172-81. ©2016 AACR.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-0580DOI Listing
July 2016

A Phase III Study of Balugrastim Versus Pegfilgrastim in Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy With Doxorubicin and Docetaxel.

Oncologist 2016 Jan 14;21(1):7-15. Epub 2015 Dec 14.

Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Netanya, Israel

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-per-cycle balugrastim versus pegfilgrastim for neutrophil support in breast cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Methods: Breast cancer patients (n = 256) were randomized to 40 or 50 mg of subcutaneous balugrastim or 6 mg of pegfilgrastim ≈24 hours after chemotherapy (60 mg/m(2) doxorubicin and 75 mg/m(2) docetaxel, every 21 days for up to 4 cycles). The primary efficacy parameter was the duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in cycle 1. Secondary parameters included DSN (cycles 2-4), absolute neutrophil count (ANC) nadir, febrile neutropenia rates, and time to ANC recovery (cycles 1-4). Safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity were assessed.

Results: Mean cycle 1 DSN was 1.0 day with 40 mg of balugrastim, 1.3 with 50 mg of balugrastim, and 1.2 with pegfilgrastim (upper limit of 95% confidence intervals for between-group DSN differences was <1.0 day for both balugrastim doses versus pegfilgrastim). Between-group efficacy parameters were comparable except for time to ANC recovery in cycle 1 (40 mg of balugrastim, 2.0 days; 50 mg of balugrastim, 2.1; pegfilgrastim, 2.6). Median terminal elimination half-life was ≈37 hours for 40 mg of balugrastim, ≈36 for 50 mg of balugrastim, and ≈45 for pegfilgrastim. Antibody response to balugrastim was low and transient, with no neutralizing effect.

Conclusion: Once-per-cycle balugrastim is not inferior to pegfilgrastim in reducing cycle 1 DSN in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy; both drugs have comparable safety profiles.

Implications For Practice: This paper provides efficacy and safety data for a new, once-per-cycle granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, balugrastim, for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in patients with breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. In this phase III trial, balugrastim was shown to be not inferior to pegfilgrastim in the duration of severe neutropenia in cycle 1 of doxorubicin/docetaxel chemotherapy, and the safety profiles of the two agents were similar. Once-per-cycle balugrastim is a safe and effective alternative to pegfilgrastim for hematopoietic support in patients with breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy associated with a greater than 20% risk of developing febrile neutropenia.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0152DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4709202PMC
January 2016

Lapatinib in Combination With Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin in Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Advanced or Metastatic Gastric, Esophageal, or Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma: TRIO-013/LOGiC--A Randomized Phase III Trial.

J Clin Oncol 2016 Feb 30;34(5):443-51. Epub 2015 Nov 30.

J. Randolph Hecht, Zev A. Wainberg, and Dennis Slamon, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Santa Monica; Michael F. Press, University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA; Yung-Jue Bang, Seoul National University College of Medicine; Hyun C. Chung, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei Cancer Research Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine; Joon O. Park, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Shukui K. Qin, People's Liberation Army Cancer Center, Nanjing Bayi Hospital, Jiangsu; Jianming M. Xu, Affiliated Hospital of the Military Medical Science Academy, Beijing; Jin Li, Cancer Hospital of Shanghai Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China; Krzysztof Jeziorski, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland; Yaroslav Shparyk, Lviv State Regional Oncology Medical and Diagnostic Center, Lviv, Ukraine; Paulo M. Hoff, Sociedade Beneficente de Senhoras-Hospital Sirio Libanĕs, Sao Paolo, Brazil; Alberto Sobrero, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico San Martino Istituto Scientifico Tumori, Genova, Italy; Pamela Salman, Fundación Arturo López Pérez, Santiago, Chile; Svetlana A. Protsenko, Petrov Research Institute of Oncology, St Petersburg, Russia; Marc Buyse, International Drug Development Institute, Leuven, Belgium; Karen Afenjar, Vincent Houé, and Agathe Garcia, Translational Research in Oncology, Paris, France; Tomomi Kaneko and Saba Khan-Wasti, GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, United Kingdom; and Yingjie Huang and Sergio Santillana, GlaxoSmithKline, Philadelphia, PA.

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of adding lapatinib to capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CapeOx) in patients with previously untreated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) -amplified advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Patients And Methods: Patients with HER2-positive advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned at a one-to-one ratio to CapeOx plus lapatinib 1,250 mg or placebo daily. Primary end point was overall survival (OS) in patients with centrally confirmed HER2 amplification in the primary efficacy population.

Results: A total of 545 patients were randomly assigned, and 487 patients comprised the primary efficacy population. Median OS in the lapatinib and placebo arms was 12.2 (95% CI, 10.6 to 14.2) and 10.5 months (95% CI, 9.0 to 11.3), respectively, which was not significantly different (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.12). Median progression-free survival in the lapatinib and placebo arms was 6.0 (95% CI, 5.6 to 7.0) and 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.4 to 5.7), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.00; P = .0381). Response rate was significantly higher in the lapatinib arm: 53% (95% CI, 46.4 to 58.8) compared with 39% (95% CI, 32.9 to 45.3) in the placebo arm (P = .0031). Preplanned exploratory subgroup analyses showed OS in the lapatinib arm was prolonged in Asian and younger patients. No correlation was observed between HER2 immunohistochemistry status and survival. There were increased toxicities in the lapatinib arm, particularly diarrhea.

Conclusion: Addition of lapatinib to CapeOx did not increase OS in patients with HER2-amplified gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. There were clear differences in the effect of lapatinib depending on region and age. Future studies could examine this correlation.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.62.6598DOI Listing
February 2016

Phase II dose-finding study of balugrastim in breast cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Med Oncol 2015 Jun 13;32(6):623. Epub 2015 May 13.

Chelyabinsk Regional Clinical Oncology Dispensary, Chelyabinsk, Russia.

Balugrastim is a once-per-cycle, fixed-dose recombinant protein comprising human serum albumin and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor under development for prevention of severe neutropenia in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. This phase II, multicenter, active-controlled, dose-finding pilot study evaluated balugrastim safety and efficacy versus pegfilgrastim in breast cancer patients scheduled to receive myelosuppressive chemotherapy and investigated two doses with similar efficacy to pegfilgrastim for a subsequent phase III study. Patients received four cycles of doxorubicin/docetaxel chemotherapy and with each successive cycle were randomized sequentially to escalating doses of balugrastim [30 (n = 11), 40 (n = 21), or 50 mg (n = 20)] or a fixed dose of pegfilgrastim [6 mg (n = 26)] post-chemotherapy. Balugrastim doses were escalated as planned. The incidence of adverse events was similar among the balugrastim groups and between all balugrastim doses and pegfilgrastim. The most frequently reported adverse events were neutropenia, alopecia, and nausea. During cycle 1, severe neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count of <0.5 × 10(9)/L) occurred in 40, 67, and 50 % and febrile neutropenia occurred in 20.0, 9.5, and 10.0 % of patients receiving balugrastim 30, 40, and 50 mg, respectively; in patients receiving pegfilgrastim, 48 % experienced severe neutropenia and 8 % experienced febrile neutropenia. Duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) for each treatment group was 0.9, 1.6, 1.1, and 0.9 days, respectively. In the remaining three chemotherapy cycles, DSN was ≤1 day across all treatment groups. Balugrastim 50 mg was comparable to pegfilgrastim in terms of safety and overall efficacy in breast cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12032-015-0623-xDOI Listing
June 2015

The cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor palbociclib in combination with letrozole versus letrozole alone as first-line treatment of oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer (PALOMA-1/TRIO-18): a randomised phase 2 study.

Lancet Oncol 2015 Jan 16;16(1):25-35. Epub 2014 Dec 16.

University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address:

Background: Palbociclib (PD-0332991) is an oral, small-molecule inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs) 4 and 6 with preclinical evidence of growth-inhibitory activity in oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer cells and synergy with anti-oestrogens. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of palbociclib in combination with letrozole as first-line treatment of patients with advanced, oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

Methods: In this open-label, randomised phase 2 study, postmenopausal women with advanced oestrogen receptor-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer who had not received any systemic treatment for their advanced disease were eligible to participate. Patients were enrolled in two separate cohorts that accrued sequentially: in cohort 1, patients were enrolled on the basis of their oestrogen receptor-positive and HER2-negative biomarker status alone, whereas in cohort 2 they were also required to have cancers with amplification of cyclin D1 (CCND1), loss of p16 (INK4A or CDKN2A), or both. In both cohorts, patients were randomly assigned 1:1 via an interactive web-based randomisation system, stratified by disease site and disease-free interval, to receive continuous oral letrozole 2.5 mg daily or continuous oral letrozole 2.5 mg daily plus oral palbociclib 125 mg, given once daily for 3 weeks followed by 1 week off over 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Accrual to cohort 2 was stopped after an unplanned interim analysis of cohort 1 and the statistical analysis plan for the primary endpoint was amended to a combined analysis of cohorts 1 and 2 (instead of cohort 2 alone). The study is ongoing but closed to accrual; these are the results of the final analysis of progression-free survival. The study is registered with the ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00721409.

Findings: Between Dec 22, 2009, and May 12, 2012, we randomly assigned 165 patients, 84 to palbociclib plus letrozole and 81 to letrozole alone. At the time of the final analysis for progression-free survival (median follow-up 29.6 months [95% CI 27.9-36.0] for the palbociclib plus letrozole group and 27.9 months [25.5-31.1] for the letrozole group), 41 progression-free survival events had occurred in the palbociclib plus letrozole group and 59 in the letrozole group. Median progression-free survival was 10.2 months (95% CI 5.7-12.6) for the letrozole group and 20.2 months (13.8-27.5) for the palbociclib plus letrozole group (HR 0.488, 95% CI 0.319-0.748; one-sided p=0.0004). In cohort 1 (n=66), median progression-free survival was 5.7 months (2.6-10.5) for the letrozole group and 26.1 months (11.2-not estimable) for the palbociclib plus letrozole group (HR 0.299, 0.156-0.572; one-sided p<0.0001); in cohort 2 (n=99), median progression-free survival was 11.1 months (7.1-16.4) for the letrozole group and 18.1 months (13.1-27.5) for the palbociclib plus letrozole group (HR 0.508, 0.303-0.853; one-sided p=0.0046). Grade 3-4 neutropenia was reported in 45 (54%) of 83 patients in the palbociclib plus letrozole group versus one (1%) of 77 patients in the letrozole group, leucopenia in 16 (19%) versus none, and fatigue in four (4%) versus one (1%). Serious adverse events that occurred in more than one patient in the palbociclib plus letrozole group were pulmonary embolism (three [4%] patients), back pain (two [2%]), and diarrhoea (two [2%]). No cases of febrile neutropenia or neutropenia-related infections were reported during the study. 11 (13%) patients in the palbociclib plus letrozole group and two (2%) in the letrozole group discontinued the study because of adverse events.

Interpretation: The addition of palbociclib to letrozole in this phase 2 study significantly improved progression-free survival in women with advanced oestrogen receptor-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer. A phase 3 trial is currently underway.

Funding: Pfizer.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(14)71159-3DOI Listing
January 2015

An open-label, multicenter, randomized phase Ib/II study of eribulin mesylate administered in combination with pemetrexed versus pemetrexed alone as second-line therapy in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

Clin Lung Cancer 2015 Mar 15;16(2):92-9. Epub 2014 Oct 15.

Quintiles, Durham, NC.

Introduction: New treatment options are needed for second-line therapy in patients with NSCLC.

Patients And Methods: This was a phase Ib/II study in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC in whom 1 previous platinum-based chemotherapy regimen had failed. Fifteen patients were enrolled in a dose escalation of eribulin mesylate in combination with pemetrexed (E+P). In phase II (n = 80), E+P at the maximum tolerated dose was compared with P.

Results: In phase Ib, the maximum tolerated dose of E+P was defined as eribulin 0.9 mg/m(2) with pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2)) each on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. In phase II, adverse events were comparable between groups. PFS and OS were similar between treatment groups. Median PFS was 21.4 weeks for E+P (n = 26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.7-39.6) and 23.4 weeks for P (n = 29; 95% CI, 17.1-29.9), with a hazard ratio of 1.0 (95% CI, 0.6-1.7).

Conclusion: During phase Ib, E+P was tolerated only at a markedly lower dosing intensity relative to the eribulin monotherapy regimen approved for breast cancer and used in phase II studies of NSCLC. At the selected phase II dosing regimen, E+P was generally safe and well tolerated but provided no therapeutic advantage for the second-line treatment of locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cllc.2014.10.001DOI Listing
March 2015

Effect of small angiokinase inhibitor nintedanib (BIBF 1120) on QT interval in patients with previously untreated, advanced renal cell cancer in an open-label, phase II study.

Invest New Drugs 2013 Oct 27;31(5):1283-93. Epub 2013 Apr 27.

Cambridge University Health Partners, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK,

Purpose: Some targeted anticancer agents are associated with serious ventricular tachyarrhythmias, which may be predicted by electrocardiographic evaluation of drug-related QT prolongation. We studied the effects of nintedanib (BIBF 1120; an oral, triple angiokinase inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor, fibroblast growth factor, and platelet-derived growth factor receptors) on the QT interval in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) participating in an open-label phase II trial.

Methods: Treatment-naïve, adult patients with unresectable/metastatic, clear cell RCC received nintedanib 200 mg twice daily. QT intervals were evaluated at baseline (day -1), on day 1 (after the first dose), and on day 15 (steady state) by 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) performed in triplicate. Pharmacokinetic sampling was also undertaken.

Results: Among 64 evaluable patients, the upper limits of the 2-sided 90 % confidence intervals for the adjusted mean time-matched changes in QTcF interval (corrected for heart rate by Fridericia's method) from baseline to day 1 and 15 (primary ECG endpoint) were well below the regulatory threshold of 10 ms at all times. No relationship between nintedanib exposure and change from baseline in QTcF was seen. Nintedanib was generally well tolerated with no drug-related cardiovascular adverse events.

Conclusion: Nintedanib administered at 200 mg twice daily was not associated with clinically relevant QT prolongation.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10637-013-9962-7DOI Listing
October 2013

Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan plus either sunitinib or placebo in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized, phase III trial.

J Clin Oncol 2013 Apr 28;31(10):1341-7. Epub 2013 Jan 28.

Medical Oncology Department, Ramon y Cajal University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.

Purpose: This double-blind, phase III study aimed to demonstrate that sunitinib plus FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) was superior to placebo plus FOLFIRI in previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Patients And Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive FOLFIRI and either sunitinib (37.5 mg per day) or placebo (4 weeks on treatment, followed by 2 weeks off [schedule 4/2]) until disease progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. The correlation between genotype and clinical outcomes was also analyzed.

Results: In all, 768 patients were randomly assigned to sunitinib plus FOLFIRI (n = 386) or placebo plus FOLFIRI (n = 382). Following a second prespecified interim analysis, the study was stopped because of potential futility of sunitinib plus FOLFIRI. Final results are reported. The PFS hazard ratio was 1.095 (95% CI, 0.892 to 1.344; one-sided stratified log-rank P = .807), indicating a lack of superiority for sunitinib plus FOLFIRI. Median PFS for the sunitinib arm was 7.8 months (95% CI, 7.1 to 8.4 months) versus 8.4 months (95% CI, 7.6 to 9.2 months) for the placebo arm. Sunitinib plus FOLFIRI was associated with more grade ≥ 3 adverse events and laboratory abnormalities than placebo (especially diarrhea, stomatitis/oral syndromes, fatigue, hand-foot syndrome, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, and febrile neutropenia). More deaths as a result of toxicity (12 v four) and significantly more dose delays, dose reductions, and treatment discontinuations occurred in the sunitinib arm.

Conclusion: Sunitinib 37.5 mg per day (schedule 4/2) plus FOLFIRI is not superior to FOLFIRI alone and has a poorer safety profile. This combination regimen is not recommended for previously untreated mCRC.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.45.1930DOI Listing
April 2013

Optimizing treatment for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the Central and Eastern European region.

Expert Opin Pharmacother 2012 Feb 23;13(2):159-74. Epub 2011 Dec 23.

Department of Oncology, University Hospital Split, Split, Spinciceva 1, 21000 Split, Croatia.

Introduction: Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Ukraine represent a collection of Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries in which the epidemiology and treatment of cancer varies greatly between and within countries. Current challenges include non-adherence to current treatment guidelines, restrictions in access and reimbursement for new therapies, and a lack of basic oncology programs. Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is a malignancy with historically poor prognosis. In CEE countries, the incidence and mortality rates of mRCC are among the highest in the world. Fortunately, mRCC represents a cancer for which a number of new targeted therapies have recently demonstrated benefit, resulting in new evidence-based treatment guidelines. Incorporating these mRCC treatment recommendations into the routine care of patients with mRCC in CEE countries would represent a major step forward for cancer care in this region.

Areas Covered: This review discusses the unique challenges faced by the aforementioned Eastern European countries in the treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer, in an attempt to assist health-care providers in providing the best care possible for their European patients.

Expert Opinion: Despite a wealth of clinical trial data supporting the use of targeted therapies for first-line treatment of mRCC, cytokine-based immunotherapy is still used in some of these European countries. With implementation and adherence to existing guidelines, treatment can be clinically and economically optimized in patients with mRCC from this region.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1517/14656566.2012.647406DOI Listing
February 2012

Randomized phase II trial of letrozole plus anti-MUC1 antibody AS1402 in hormone receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Clin Cancer Res 2011 Nov 30;17(21):6822-30. Epub 2011 Aug 30.

Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.

Purpose: AS1402 is a humanized immunoglobulin G1 antibody that targets the aberrantly glycosylated antigen MUC1, which is overexpressed in 90% of breast tumors and contributes to estrogen-mediated growth and survival of breast cancer cells in vitro by modulating estrogen receptor (ER) activity. Aromatase inhibitors have been reported to enhance antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity elicited by antibodies in vitro. We compared the outcomes of patients with breast cancer treated with letrozole with or without AS1402.

Experimental Design: The study population included 110 patients with locally advanced or metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer randomized to receive 2.5 mg letrozole only once daily or with a weekly 9 mg/kg AS1402 infusion. The primary endpoint was overall response rate. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, time to progression, and safety. AS1402 exposure and influence of allotypes of FcγRIIIa, FcγRIIa, and MUC1 were evaluated.

Results: The study was stopped early because of a trend toward worse response rates and a higher rate of early disease progression in the AS1402 + letrozole arm. Final analysis revealed no significant difference in efficacy between the study arms. Evaluated gene polymorphisms did not define patient subgroups with improved outcomes. Addition of AS1402 to letrozole was associated with manageable toxicity.

Conclusions: Because adding AS1402 to letrozole did not improve outcomes compared with letrozole only, blocking ER may be a better strategy for harnessing MUC1 modulation of the ER to a clinical advantage. FcγRIIIa, FcγRIIa, and MUC1 allotype did not predict outcome for patients treated with letrozole with or without AS1402.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1151DOI Listing
November 2011

Phase III trial comparing supportive care alone with supportive care with oral topotecan in patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer.

J Clin Oncol 2006 Dec;24(34):5441-7

Royal Marsden Hospital, National Health System Trust, Sutton, Surrey, England.

Purpose: For patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), further chemotherapy is routinely considered at relapse after first-line therapy. However, proof of clinical benefit has not been documented.

Patients And Methods: This study randomly assigned patients with relapsed SCLC not considered as candidates for standard intravenous therapy to best supportive care (BSC) alone (n = 70) or oral topotecan (2.3 mg/m2/d, days 1 through 5, every 21 days) plus BSC (topotecan; n = 71).

Results: In the intent-to-treat population, survival (primary end point) was prolonged in the topotecan group (log-rank P = .0104). Median survival with BSC was 13.9 weeks (95% CI, 11.1 to 18.6) and with topotecan, 25.9 weeks (95% CI, 18.3 to 31.6). Statistical significance for survival was maintained in a subgroup of patients with a short treatment-free interval (< or = 60 days). Response to topotecan was 7% partial and 44% stable disease. Patients on topotecan had slower quality of life deterioration and greater symptom control. Principal toxicities with topotecan were hematological: grade 4 neutropenia, 33%; grade 4 thrombocytopenia, 7%; and grade 3/4 anemia, 25%. Comparing topotecan with BSC, infection grade 2 was 14% versus 12% and sepsis 4% versus 1%; other grade 3/4 events included vomiting 3% versus 0, diarrhea 6% versus 0, dyspnea 3% versus 9%, and pain 3% versus 6%. Toxic deaths occurred in four patients (6%) in the topotecan arm. All cause mortality within 30 days of random assignment was 13% on BSC and 7% on topotecan.

Conclusion: Chemotherapy with oral topotecan is associated with prolongation of survival and quality of life benefit in patients with relapsed SCLC.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.06.5821DOI Listing
December 2006