Long-term survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer treated with atezolizumab versus docetaxel: Results from the randomised phase III OAK study.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency for previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer based on OAK-a randomised, phase III trial that showed significantly improved survival with atezolizumab versus docetaxel regardless of PD-L1 expression. With longer follow-up, we summarised the characteristics of long-term survivors (LTSs). METHODS: In OAK (NCT02008227), patients were randomised 1:1 to receive atezolizumab or docetaxel until loss of clinical benefit or disease progression, respectively. Overall survival was evaluated after a 26-month minimum follow-up, including in patient subgroups defined by best overall response (BOR). LTSs were defined as patients who lived ≥24 months since randomisation. Non-LTSs died within 24 months, and patients censored before 24 months were excluded from the analysis. The baseline characteristics, including biomarkers, BOR, subsequent non-protocol therapy (NPT) and safety, are reported. RESULTS: Survival benefit with atezolizumab was observed across all patient subgroups defined by BOR. More atezolizumab-treated patients were LTSs versus those treated with docetaxel (28% versus 18%). Most atezolizumab responders were LTSs (77%) versus only 48% of docetaxel responders. However, 21% of atezolizumab-arm LTSs had progressive disease (PD) as BOR, and more atezolizumab-arm LTSs than non-LTSs continued treatment post-PD. Fifty-two percent of docetaxel-arm LTSs received immunotherapy as subsequent NPT. Despite extended treatment duration in atezolizumab-arm LTSs (median, 18 months), atezolizumab was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: After >2 years of follow-up, atezolizumab continued to provide durable survival benefit versus docetaxel, with tolerable safety. Atezolizumab-arm LTSs were enriched for patients with high PD-L1 expression and included PD-L1-negative patients. Long-term survival was not limited to responders.

Quality of life with talazoparib versus physician's choice of chemotherapy in patients with advanced breast cancer and germline BRCA1/2 mutation: patient-reported outcomes from the EMBRACA phase III trial.

Background: In the EMBRACA phase III trial, talazoparib (1 mg daily, orally) demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus physician's choice of chemotherapy (PCT; capecitabine, eribulin, gemcitabine, or vinorelbine) in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer carrying a germline BRCA1/2 mutation; we evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Patients and methods: Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to receive talazoparib or PCT. PROs were assessed at day 1 (baseline), the start of each treatment cycle (every 3 weeks), and at the end of treatment, using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-30) and its breast cancer module, QLQ-BR23. Prespecified exploratory analyses included a longitudinal mixed-effect model comparing treatment arms and a time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration (TTD) analysis carried out in the global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL), and all functional and symptom scales from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and -BR23 questionnaires. Between-arm TTD comparisons were made using a stratified log-rank test and a Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Baseline scores were similar between arms. Statistically significant estimated overall improvement from baseline in GHS/QoL was seen for talazoparib compared with statistically significant deterioration for PCT {3.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2, 4.8] versus -5.4 [95% CI -8.8, -2.0]; between arms, P < 0.0001}. A statistically significant greater delay was observed in TTD in GHS/QoL, favoring talazoparib over PCT [hazard ratio, 0.38 (95% CI 0.26, 0.55; median, 24.3 versus 6.3 months, respectively; P < 0.0001)]. A statistically significant overall change and a statistically significant delay in TTD, all favoring talazoparib, were also observed in multiple functions and symptoms. Conclusion: Patients who received talazoparib had significant overall improvements and significant delay in TTD in multiple cancer-related and breast cancer-specific symptoms, functions, and GHS/QoL. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01945775.

Pictilisib PI3Kinase inhibitor (a phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase [PI3K] inhibitor) plus paclitaxel for the treatment of hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, locally recurrent, or metastatic breast cancer: interim analysis of the multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase II randomised PEGGY study.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 40% of hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancers (BCs) are associated with activating mutations of the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway. Pictilisib, a potent and highly specific class I pan-PI3K inhibitor, demonstrated preclinical activity in BC cell lines and may potentiate the effect of taxanes, benefiting patients with or without aberrant activation of the PI3K pathway. PEGGY (NCT01740336), a randomised, placebo-controlled phase II trial, examined whether pictilisib augments the anti-tumour activity of paclitaxel in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic BC (mBC). We report results from the protocol-specified interim analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred and eighty-three eligible patients were randomised (1:1) to receive paclitaxel (90 mg/m2 weekly for 3 weeks in every 28-day cycle) with either 260 mg pictilisib or placebo (daily on days 1-5 every week). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and patients with PIK3CA-mutated tumours. Secondary end points included overall response rate (ORR), duration of response, and safety. RESULTS: In the ITT population, the median PFS was 8.2 months with pictilisib (n = 91) versus 7.8 months with placebo (n = 92) [hazard ratio (HR) for progression or death, 0.95; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-1.46; P = 0.83]. In patients with PIK3CA-mutated tumours, the median PFS was 7.3 months for pictilisib (n = 32) versus 5.8 months with placebo (n = 30) (HR, 1.06; 95% CI 0.52-2.12; P = 0.88). ORR was similar between treatment arms. The safety profile of pictilisib was consistent with previous reports, with no new safety signals. Proportions of patients with grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and dose reductions/discontinuations due to AEs were higher with pictilisib. CONCLUSIONS: PEGGY did not meet its primary end point, revealing no significant benefit from adding pictilisib to paclitaxel for patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative locally recurrent or mBC. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT01740336.

A phase II/III randomized study to compare the efficacy and safety of rigosertib plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone in patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Rigosertib (ON 01910.Na), a first-in-class Ras mimetic and small-molecule inhibitor of multiple signaling pathways including polo-like kinase 1 (PLK1) and phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K), has shown efficacy in preclinical pancreatic cancer models. In this study, rigosertib was assessed in combination with gemcitabine in patients with treatment-naïve metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were randomized in a 2:1 fashion to gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) weekly for 3 weeks of a 4-week cycle plus rigosertib 1800 mg/m(2) via 2-h continuous IV infusions given twice weekly for 3 weeks of a 4-week cycle (RIG + GEM) versus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) weekly for 3 weeks in a 4-week cycle (GEM). RESULTS: A total of 160 patients were enrolled globally and randomly assigned to RIG + GEM (106 patients) or GEM (54). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (8% in the RIG + GEM group versus 6% in the GEM group), hyponatremia (17% versus 4%), and anemia (8% versus 4%). The median overall survival was 6.1 months for RIG + GEM versus 6.4 months for GEM [hazard ratio (HR), 1.24; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-1.81]. The median progression-free survival was 3.4 months for both groups (HR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.68-1.36). The partial response rate was 19% versus 13% for RIG + GEM versus GEM, respectively. Of 64 tumor samples sent for molecular analysis, 47 were adequate for multiplex genetic testing and 41 were positive for mutations. The majority of cases had KRAS gene mutations (40 cases). Other mutations detected included TP53 (13 cases) and PIK3CA (1 case). No correlation between mutational status and efficacy was detected. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of RIG + GEM failed to demonstrate an improvement in survival or response compared with GEM in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Rigosertib showed a similar safety profile to that seen in previous trials using the IV formulation.

Weekly paclitaxel and concurrent pazopanib following doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as neoadjuvant therapy for HER-negative locally advanced breast cancer: NSABP Foundation FB-6, a phase II study.

This multicenter single-arm phase II study evaluated the addition of pazopanib to concurrent weekly paclitaxel following doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as neoadjuvant therapy in human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2)-negative locally advanced breast cancer (LABC). Patients with HER2-negative stage III breast cancer were treated with doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) for four cycles every 3 weeks followed by weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days for four cycles concurrently with pazopanib 800 mg orally daily prior to surgery. Post-operatively, pazopanib was given daily for 6 months. The primary endpoint was pathologic complete response (pCR) in the breast and lymph nodes. Between July 2009 and March 2011, 101 patients with stage IIIA-C HER2-negative breast cancer were enrolled. The pCR rate in evaluable patients who initiated paclitaxel and pazopanib was 17 % (16/93). The pCR rate was 9 % (6/67) in hormone receptor-positive tumors and 38 % (10/26) in triple-negative tumors. Pre-operative pazopanib was completed in only 39 % of patients. The most frequent grade 3 and 4 adverse events during paclitaxel and pazopanib were neutropenia (27 %), diarrhea (5 %), ALT and AST elevations (each 5 %), and hypertension (5 %). Although the pCR rate of paclitaxel and pazopanib following AC chemotherapy given as neoadjuvant therapy in women with LABC met the pre-specified criteria for activity, there was substantial toxicity, which led to a high discontinuation rate of pazopanib. The combination does not appear to warrant further evaluation in the neoadjuvant setting for breast cancer.

First-line Herceptin monotherapy in metastatic breast cancer.

The pivotal phase II and III Herceptin trials proved the efficacy and safety of second- or third-line single-agent Herceptin and first-line Herceptin in combination with chemotherapy, respectively. In the current trial, 114 patients were randomized to one of two dose groups of first-line Herceptin monotherapy: standard dose of 4 mg/ kg initial dose followed by 2 mg/kg intravenous (i.v.) weekly; or high dose of 8 mg/kg initial dose followed by 4 mg/kg i.v. weekly. The regimen was generally well tolerated. A similar incidence of adverse events was demonstrated in the two dose groups with the possible exception of acute infusion-related events such as fever and chills as well as rash and dyspnea, which appear to be more prevalent in the higher dose group. The overall response rate was 26% and response rates were similar between the two dose groups (24% for the standard Herceptin dose group and 28% for the high Herceptin dose group). Subgroup analysis determined a higher response rate in IHC 3+ patients (35%) and FISH-positive patients (41%). When women with stable disease for > or =6 months were included with responders, the clinical benefit rate in IHC 3+ patients was 47%. Median survival was 24.4 months, which is comparable with the survival rate seen in the pivotal phase III combination trial (25 months). Therefore, single-agent Herceptin is an important new option for the first-line treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients.

Pivotal study of iodine I 131 tositumomab for chemotherapy-refractory low-grade or transformed low-grade B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphomas.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tositumomab and iodine I 131 tositumomab (Bexxar; Corixa Corp, Seattle, WA, and GlaxoSmithKline, Philadelphia, PA) in patients with chemotherapy-refractory low-grade or transformed low-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and to compare its efficacy to the patients' last qualifying chemotherapy (LQC) regimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty patients who had been treated with at least two protocol-specified qualifying chemotherapy regimens and had not responded or progressed within 6 months after their LQC were treated with a single course of iodine I 131 tositumomab. RESULTS: Patients had received a median of four prior chemotherapy regimens. A partial or complete response (CR) was observed in 39 patients (65%) after iodine I 131 tositumomab, compared with 17 patients (28%) after their LQC (P <.001). The median duration of response (MDR) was 6.5 months after iodine I 131 tositumomab, compared with 3.4 months after the LQC (P <.001). Two patients (3%) had a CR after their LQC, compared with 12 (20%) after iodine I 131 tositumomab (P <.001). The MDR for CR was 6.1 months after the LQC and had not been reached with follow-up of more than 47 months after iodine I 131 tositumomab. An independent review panel verified that 32 (74%) of the 43 patients with nonequivalent durations of response (> 30 days difference) had a longer duration of response after iodine I 131 tositumomab (P <.001). Only one patient was hospitalized for neutropenic fever. Five patients (8%) developed human antimurine antibodies, and one (2%) developed an elevated TSH level after treatment. Myelodysplasia was diagnosed in four patients in follow-up. CONCLUSION: A single course of iodine I 131 tositumomab was significantly more efficacious than the LQC received by extensively pretreated patients with chemotherapy-refractory, low-grade, or transformed low-grade NHL and had an acceptable safety profile.

First-line, single-agent Herceptin(R) (trastuzumab) in metastatic breast cancer. a preliminary report.

Following confirmation of the appropriate dosage, safety and potential efficacy of Herceptin(R) (trastuzumab) in small-scale phase I and II trials involving patients with refractory disease, a large trial was conducted in 222 patients with breast cancer who had relapsed after one or two chemotherapy regimens for their metastatic disease. The results showed a positive and durable overall response rate (15% according to a response evaluation committee (REC) assessment) using trastuzumab monotherapy (initial dose 4 mg/kg intravenously (i.v.) followed by 2 mg/kg i.v. weekly). In another recently completed phase II trial, 113 patients were randomised to two dose levels (initial dose of 4 mg/kg i.v. dose followed by 2 mg/kg i.v. weekly, or initial dose of 8 mg/kg followed by 4 mg/kg i.v. weekly) of single-agent trastuzumab as first-line therapy for metastatic disease. The preliminary overall response rate was 23% based on investigator assessment, and tolerability was excellent as in previous trials; efficacy was similar in both dose groups, but the side-effects tended to be more frequent in the higher dose group. The preferred dosage is therefore the same as that currently recommended, i.e. an initial dose of 4 mg/kg i.v. followed by 2 mg/kg weekly i.v. until disease progression.

First-line, single-agent Herceptin(trastuzumab) in metastatic breast cancer: a preliminary report.

Following confirmation of the appropriate dosage, safety and potential efficacy of Herceptin(trastuzumab) in small-scale phase I and II trials involving patients with refractory disease, a large trial was conducted in 222 patients with breast cancer who had relapsed after one or two chemotherapy regimens for their metastatic disease. The results showed a positive and durable overall response rate (15% according to a response evaluation committee (REC) assessment) using trastuzumab monotherapy (initial dose 4 mg/kg intravenously (i.v.) followed by 2 mg/kg i.v. weekly). In another recently completed phase II trial, 113 patients were randomised to two dose levels (initial dose of 4 mg/kg i.v. dose followed by 2 mg/kg i.v. weekly, or initial dose of 8 mg/kg followed by 4 mg/kg i.v. weekly) of single-agent trastuzumab as first-line therapy for metastatic disease. The preliminary overall response rate was 23% based on investigator assessment, and tolerability was excellent as in previous trials; efficacy was similar in both dose groups, but the side-effects tended to be more frequent in the higher dose group. The preferred dosage is therefore the same as that currently recommended, i.e. an initial dose of 4 mg/kg i.v. followed by 2 mg/kg weekly i.v. until disease progression.

Irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. Irinotecan Study Group.

BACKGROUND: The combination of fluorouracil and leucovorin has until recently been standard therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Irinotecan prolongs survival in patients with colorectal cancer that is refractory to treatment with fluorouracil and leucovorin. In a multicenter trial, we compared a combination of irinotecan, fluorouracil and leucovorin with bolus doses of fluorouracil and leucovorin as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. A third group of patients received irinotecan alone. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive irinotecan (125 mg per square meter of body-surface area intravenously), fluorouracil (500 mg per square meter as an intravenous bolus), and leucovorin (20 mg per square meter as an intravenous bolus) weekly for four weeks every six weeks; fluorouracil (425 mg per square meter as an intravenous bolus) and leucovorin (20 mg per square meter as an intravenous bolus) daily for five consecutive days every four weeks; or irinotecan alone (125 mg per square meter intravenously) weekly for four weeks every six weeks. End points included progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: Of 683 patients, 231 were assigned to receive irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin; 226 to receive fluorouracil and leucovorin; and 226 to receive irinotecan alone. In an intention-to-treat analysis, as compared with treatment with fluorouracil and leucovorin, treatment with irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (median, 7.0 vs. 4.3 months; P=0.004), a higher rate of confirmed response (39 percent vs. 21 percent, P<0.001), and longer overall survival (median, 14.8 vs. 12.6 months; P=0.04). Results for irinotecan alone were similar to those for fluorouracil and leucovorin. Grade 3 (severe) diarrhea was more common during treatment with irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin than during treatment with fluorouracil and leucovorin, but the incidence of grade 4 (life-threatening) diarrhea was similar in the two groups (<8 percent). Grade 3 or 4 mucositis, grade 4 neutropenia, and neutropenic fever were less frequent during treatment with irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin. Adding irinotecan to the regimen of fluorouracil and leucovorin did not compromise the quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Weekly treatment with irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin is superior to a widely used regimen of fluorouracil and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival.

Cost of care for patients in cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Information on the costs of medical care for patients enrolled in clinical trials is needed by policymakers evaluating ways to facilitate clinical research in a managed care environment. We examined the direct costs of medical care for patients enrolled in cancer clinical trials at a large health maintenance organization (HMO). METHODS: Costs for 135 patients who entered 22 cancer clinical trials (including 12 breast cancer trials) at Kaiser Permanente in Northern California, from 1994 through 1996 were compared with costs for 135 matched control subjects who were not enrolled in such trials. Cancer registry data and medical charts were used in matching the control subjects to the trial enrollees with respect to cancer site, stage, date of diagnosis, age, sex, and trial eligibility. The direct costs of medical care were compared between trial enrollees and the control subjects for a 1-year period, with data on costs and utilization of services obtained from Kaiser Permanente databases and medical charts. RESULTS: Mean 1-year costs for the enrollees in trials were 10% higher than those for the control subjects ($17 003 per enrollee compared with $15 516 per control subject; two-sided P =.011). The primary component of this difference was a $1376 difference in chemotherapy costs ($4815 per trial enrollee versus $3439 per control subject; two-sided P<.001). Costs for the 11 enrollees in trials that had a bone marrow transplant (BMT) arm were approximately double the costs for their matched control subjects (borderline significance: two-sided P=.054). The $15 041 mean cost for the enrollees in trials without BMT was similar to the $15 186 mean cost for their matched control subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in cancer clinical trials at a large HMO did not result in substantial increases in the direct costs of medical care.

Multinational study of the efficacy and safety of humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody in women who have HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer that has progressed after chemotherapy for metastatic disease.

PURPOSE: Overexpression of the HER2 protein occurs in 25% to 30% of human breast cancers and leads to a particularly aggressive form of the disease. Efficacy and safety of recombinant humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody as a single agent was evaluated in women with HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer that had progressed after chemotherapy for metastatic disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred twenty-two women, with HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer that had progressed after one or two chemotherapy regimens, were enrolled. Patients received a loading dose of 4 mg/kg intravenously, followed by a 2-mg/kg maintenance dose at weekly intervals. RESULTS: Study patients had advanced metastatic disease and had received extensive prior therapy. A blinded, independent response evaluation committee identified eight complete and 26 partial responses, for an objective response rate of 15% in the intent-to-treat population (95% confidence interval, 11% to 21%). The median duration of response was 9.1 months; the median duration of survival was 13 months. The most common adverse events, which occurred in approximately 40% of patients, were infusion-associated fever and/or chills that usually occurred only during the first infusion, and were of mild to moderate severity. These symptoms were treated successfully with acetaminophen and/or diphenhydramine. The most clinically significant adverse event was cardiac dysfunction, which occurred in 4.7% of patients. Only 1% of patients discontinued the study because of treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSION: Recombinant humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody, administered as a single agent, produces durable objective responses and is well tolerated by women with HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer that has progressed after chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Side effects that are commonly observed with chemotherapy, such as alopecia, mucositis, and neutropenia, are rarely seen.

Further evaluation of intensified and increased total dose of cyclophosphamide for the treatment of primary breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-25.

PURPOSE: In 1989, the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project initiated the B-22 trial to determine whether intensifying or intensifying and increasing the total dose of cyclophosphamide in a doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide combination would benefit women with primary breast cancer and positive axillary nodes. B-25 was initiated to determine whether further intensifying and increasing the cyclophosphamide dose would yield more favorable results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 2,548) were randomly assigned to three groups. The dose and intensity of doxorubicin were similar in all groups. Group 1 received four courses, ie, double the dose and intensity of cyclophosphamide given in the B-22 standard therapy group; group 2 received the same dose of cyclophosphamide as in group 1, administered in two courses (intensified); group 3 received double the dose of cyclophosphamide (intensified and increased) given in group 1. All patients received recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. Life-table estimates were used to determine disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed in DFS (P =.20), distant DFS (P =.31), or survival (P =.76) among the three groups. At 5 years, the DFS in groups 1 and 2 (61% v 64%, respectively; P =. 29) was similar to but slightly lower than that in group 3 (61% v 66%, respectively; P = 08). Survival in group 1 was concordant with that in groups 2 (78% v 77%, respectively; P =.71) and 3 (78% v 79%, respectively; P =.86). Grade 4 toxicity was 20%, 34%, and 49% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Severe infection and septic episodes increased in group 3. The decrease in the amount and intensity of cyclophosphamide and delays in therapy were greatest in courses 3 and 4 in group 3. The incidence of acute myeloid leukemia increased in all groups. CONCLUSION: Because intensifying and increasing cyclophosphamide two or four times that given in standard clinical practice did not substantively improve outcome, such therapy should be reserved for the clinical trial setting.

Multicenter, phase II trial of exemestane as third-line hormonal therapy of postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer. Aromasin Study Group.

PURPOSE: To assess the antitumor activity, safety, and hormone-suppressive effects of the irreversible aromatase inactivator, exemestane (Aromasin, Pharmacia & Upjohn, Kalamazoo, MI), administered as third-line hormone therapy to postmenopausal women with metastatic breast cancer that is refractory to tamoxifen and megestrol acetate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Exemestane was administered at a dose of 25 mg/d orally until patients experienced disease progression. The efficacy and safety of exemestane were clinically and radiographically evaluated. The impact of exemestane treatment on tumor-related signs and symptoms was assessed. The effect of exemestane on serum levels of estrogens and other steroidal hormones was determined. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were treated. There were four complete responses (CR) and eight partial responses (PR), for an objective response rate of 13% in the entire treated population. The overall success rate (CR, PR, or stable disease [SD] >/= 24 weeks) was 30%. The median duration of response and overall success was 9 months and 8 months, respectively. Most patients with CR/PR (83%; 10 of 12 patients) and SD >/= 24 weeks (80%; 12 of 15 patients) had improved or stable tumor-related signs and symptoms. Mean levels of circulating estrone (E(1)), estradiol (E(2)), and estrone sulfate decreased to 11%, 22%, and 13% of baseline levels, respectively (at week 8 or 16 of treatment). One half of the patients had undetectable E(1) and E(2) levels during treatment, including at the time of disease progression. Mild nausea (20% of patients) and hot flashes (20%) were the most common drug-related adverse events and were generally grade 1. CONCLUSION: Exemestane is an active and well-tolerated third-line hormonal therapy that represents a new treatment option for postmenopausal patients with advanced breast cancer that has become refractory to standard first- and second-line hormonal therapies.

Tamoxifen in treatment of intraductal breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-24 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We have shown previously that lumpectomy with radiation therapy was more effective than lumpectomy alone for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). We did a double-blind randomised controlled trial to find out whether lumpectomy, radiation therapy, and tamoxifen was of more benefit than lumpectomy and radiation therapy alone for DCIS. METHODS: 1804 women with DCIS, including those whose resected sample margins were involved with tumour, were randomly assigned lumpectomy, radiation therapy (50 Gy), and placebo (n=902), or lumpectomy, radiation therapy, and tamoxifen (20 mg daily for 5 years, n=902). Median follow-up was 74 months (range 57-93). We compared annual event rates and cumulative probability of invasive or non-invasive ipsilateral and contralateral tumours over 5 years. FINDINGS: Women in the tamoxifen group had fewer breast-cancer events at 5 years than did those on placebo (8.2 vs 13.4%, p=0.0009). The cumulative incidence of all invasive breast-cancer events in the tamoxifen group was 4.1% at 5 years: 2.1% in the ipsilateral breast, 1.8% in the contralateral breast, and 0.2% at regional or distant sites. The risk of ipsilateral-breast cancer was lower in the tamoxifen group even when sample margins contained tumour and when DCIS was associated with comedonecrosis. INTERPRETATION: The combination of lumpectomy, radiation therapy, and tamoxifen was effective in the prevention of invasive cancer.

Adjuvant 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin with or without interferon alfa-2a in colon carcinoma: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project protocol C-05.

BACKGROUND: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) protocol C-03 showed a benefit from leucovorin (LV)-modulated 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) adjuvant therapy (5-FU + LV) in patients with Dukes' stage B or C carcinoma of the colon. Preclinical and clinical phase I/II data suggested that interferon alfa-2a (IFN) enhanced the efficacy of 5-FU therapy. Accordingly, in NSABP protocol C-05, the addition of recombinant IFN to 5-FU + LV adjuvant therapy was evaluated. METHODS: Data are presented for 2176 patients with Dukes' stage B or C cancer entered onto protocol C-05 during the period from October 1991 through February 1994. Individuals with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 (ranges from fully active to ambulatory and capable of self-care but unable to work), a life expectancy of at least 10 years, and curative resection were stratified by sex, disease stage, and number of involved lymph nodes and were randomly assigned to receive either 5-FU + LV or 5-FU + LV + IFN; the mean time on the study as of June 30, 1997, was 54 months. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in either disease-free survival (5-FU + LV, 69%; 5-FU + LV + IFN, 70%) or overall survival (5-FU + LV, 80%; 5-FU + LV + IFN, 81%) at 4 years of follow-up. Toxic effects of grade 3 or higher were observed in 61.8% of subjects in the group treated with 5-FU + LV and in 72.1% of subjects in the group treated with 5-FU + LV + IFN; fewer patients in the latter group completed protocol-mandated 5-FU + LV therapy than in the former group (77.1% versus 88.5%). CONCLUSION: The addition of IFN to 5-FU + LV adjuvant therapy confers no statistically significant benefit, but it does increase toxicity.