MODUL cohort 2: an adaptable, randomized, signal-seeking trial of fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab with or without atezolizumab maintenance therapy for BRAFwt metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: MODUL is an adaptable, signal-seeking trial designed to test novel agents in predefined patient subgroups in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with measurable, unresectable, previously untreated mCRC received induction with ≤8 cycles of FOLFOX + bevacizumab followed by randomization to maintenance treatment comprising control [fluoropyrimidine (FP)/bevacizumab: 5-fluorouracil 1600-2400 mg/m2 46-h intravenous (i.v.) infusion day 1 q2 weeks plus leucovorin 400 mg/m2 2-h infusion i.v. day 1 q2 weeks or capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 b.i.d. orally days 1-14 every 21 days; bevacizumab 5 mg/kg 15-30-min i.v. infusion q2 weeks] or experimental treatment in one of four biomarker-driven cohorts. In patients with BRAF wild-type (BRAFwt) tumors (cohort 2), experimental treatment was FP/bevacizumab + atezolizumab (800 mg 60-min i.v. infusion q2 weeks). Primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS; intent-to-treat population). Enrollment is complete; efficacy and safety findings from cohort 2 are presented. RESULTS: Four hundred and forty-five patients with BRAFwt mCRC were randomized (2 : 1) to maintenance in cohort 2. At a median follow-up of 10.5 months, PFS outcome hypothesis was not met [hazard ratio (HR) 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72-1.17; P = 0.48]; overall survival (OS) was immature. At a median follow-up of 20.3 months (2-year survival follow-up), PFS benefit was also not met (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.77-1.18; P = 0.666); OS HR with nearly two-thirds of patients with events was 0.83 (95% CI 0.65-1.05; P = 0.117). No new safety signals were identified. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) for experimental versus control arms were hypertension (6.1% versus 4.2%), diarrhea (3.1% versus 2.1%), and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (1.0% versus 2.5%). Four patients experienced TEAEs with fatal outcome, two were study treatment-related: hepatic failure (experimental arm) and large intestine perforation (control arm; bevacizumab-related). CONCLUSIONS: Adding atezolizumab to FP/bevacizumab as first-line maintenance treatment after FOLFOX + bevacizumab induction for BRAFwt mCRC did not improve efficacy outcomes.

Simulations to Assess Phase II Noninferiority Trials of Different Doses of Capecitabine in Combination With Docetaxel for Metastatic Breast Cancer.

A phase II trial in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) (NO16853) failed to show noninferiority (progression-free survival, PFS) of capecitabine 825 mg/m(2) plus docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) to the registered capecitabine dose of 1,250 mg/m(2) plus docetaxel 75 mg/m(2). We developed a modeling framework based on NO16853 and the pivotal phase III MBC study, SO14999, to characterize the link between capecitabine dose, tumor growth, PFS, and survival to simulate response to a range of capecitabine doses and determine a minimum capecitabine dose noninferior to 1,250 mg/m(2). Simulation showed NO16853 had little power to demonstrate noninferiority (69%). The power reached 80% with a 1,000 mg/m(2) starting dose and an increased number of PFS events. A starting dose of 1,000 mg/m(2) could be established as noninferior in terms of efficacy to the registered dose in the second-line MBC setting, with a potentially improved safety, in line with medical practice.CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology (2012) 1, e19; doi:10.1038/psp.2012.20; advance online publication 26 December 2012.

Capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid as adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer: final results from the X-ACT trial with analysis by age and preliminary evidence of a pharmacodynamic marker of efficacy.

BACKGROUND: This multicenter randomized trial compared oral capecitabine with bolus i.v. 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/folinic acid (FA) as adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were assigned to 24 weeks of capecitabine 1250 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 every 3 weeks or 5-FU/FA (Mayo Clinic regimen). The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population received capecitabine (n = 1004) or 5-FU/FA (n = 983). With a median follow-up of 6.9 years, capecitabine was at least equivalent to 5-FU/FA in terms of DFS [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-1.01] and overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.86; 95% CI 0.74-1.01); the 95% CI upper limits were significantly less than the predefined noninferiority margins of 1.20 (P < 0.0001) and 1.14 (P < 0.001), respectively. This pattern was maintained in all subgroups, including patients aged ≥ 70 years. Preplanned multivariate analyses showed that capecitabine had statistically significant beneficial effects on DFS (P = 0.021) and OS (P = 0.020) versus 5-FU/FA. A post hoc analysis suggested that the occurrence of hand-foot syndrome may be associated with better outcomes in capecitabine recipients. CONCLUSION: Oral capecitabine is an effective alternative to bolus 5-FU/FA as adjuvant treatment of patients with stage III colon cancer with efficacy benefits maintained at 5 years and in older patients.

XELOX vs FOLFOX-4 as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: NO16966 updated results.

BACKGROUND: We report updated overall survival (OS) data from study NO16966, which compared capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) vs 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: NO16966 was a randomised, two-arm, non-inferiority, phase III comparison of XELOX vs FOLFOX4, which was subsequently amended to a 2 × 2 factorial design with further randomisation to bevacizumab or placebo. A planned follow-up exploratory analysis of OS was performed. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat (ITT) population comprised 2034 patients (two-arm portion, n=634; 2 × 2 factorial portion, n=1400). For the whole NO16966 study population, median OS was 19.8 months in the pooled XELOX/XELOX-placebo/XELOX-bevacizumab arms vs 19.5 months in the pooled FOLFOX4/FOLFOX4-placebo/FOLFOX4-bevacizumab arms (hazard ratio 0.95 (97.5% CI 0.85-1.06)). In the pooled XELOX/XELOX-placebo arms, median OS was 19.0 vs 18.9 months in the pooled FOLFOX4/FOLFOX4-placebo arms (hazard ratio 0.95 (97.5% CI 0.83-1.09)). FOLFOX4 was associated with more grade 3/4 neutropenia/granulocytopenia and febrile neutropenia than XELOX, and XELOX with more grade 3 diarrhoea and grade 3 hand-foot syndrome than FOLFOX4. CONCLUSION: Updated survival data from study NO16966 show that XELOX is similar to FOLFOX4, confirming the primary analysis of progression-free survival. XELOX can be considered as a routine first-line treatment option for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Efficacy of capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil in colorectal and gastric cancers: a meta-analysis of individual data from 6171 patients.

BACKGROUND: To compare the effects of oral capecitabine-containing chemotherapy regimens with i.v. 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-containing chemotherapy regimens on overall survival in patients with gastrointestinal cancers. METHODS: A meta-analysis, based on individual patient data from six randomised non-inferiority trials, was carried out at the request of regulatory authorities to compare the effects of single-agent capecitabine or capecitabine-containing chemotherapy versus matched 5-FU-based regimens in terms of overall survival in patients with stage III colon, metastatic colorectal or advanced gastric cancer. RESULTS: Data from a total of 6171 patients with stage III colon cancer (n = 1987), metastatic colorectal cancer (n = 3868) or advanced gastric cancer (n = 316) were included. A total of 3097 patients were treated with capecitabine-containing chemotherapy and 3074 patients with 5-FU-containing chemotherapy. The unadjusted hazard ratio for overall survival for capecitabine-containing chemotherapy versus 5-FU-containing chemotherapy was 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.89-1.00; P = 0.0489). CONCLUSIONS: Oral capecitabine is at least equivalent to i.v. 5-FU in terms of overall survival in patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Capecitabine and 5-FU can be used interchangeably in these patient populations.

Analysis of the inhibition of N-nitroso-dimethylamine activation in the liver by N-nitro-dimethylamine using a new non-linear statistical method.

N-nitro-dimethylamine (NTDMA) is carcinogenic to rats: it induces nasal cavity tumours. It can be demethylated to N-nitromethylamine and formaldehyde and reduced to N-nitroso-dimethylamine (NDMA): a potent liver carcinogen and also of the nasal cavity if activation in the liver is blocked. To explain the mechanism of NTDMA carcinogenicity we compared its demethylation with that of NDMA in liver microsomes from female and male rats, untreated, fasted or treated with ethanol to induce cytochrome P450 2E1 (CYP2E1). Kinetic parameters were analysed by nonlinear statistical methods, which yielded unbiased parameter estimates for the calculated Km and Vmax values. Km for both compounds was very similar in females (24-47 microM) whereas Vmax for NTDMA was consistently higher than for NDMA as substrate: 1.07-4.70 nmol formaldehyde/mg microsomal protein x min and 0.52-2.76 nmol, respectively. In liver microsomes from induced male rats NTDMA was found to be a much more effective inhibitor of NDMA activation (KEI 39.6-73.6 microM) than NDMA of NTDMA demethylation (KEI 224-286 microM). Nasal microsomes can demethylate both NDMA and NTDMA but the kinetics are vastly different. NTDMA is demethylated at a linear rate and approximately 10-fold more effectively than NDMA. The mechanism of carcinogenicity of ingested NTDMA, we propose, is a partial reduction to NDMA in the liver and inhibition of NDMA activation in the liver by residual NTDMA, which enables NDMA to reach the nasal mucosa where it is activated to DNA-alkylating species and the observed tumours are formed.

Various inhibitors of DNA topoisomerases diminish repair-specific DNA incision in UV-irradiated human fibroblasts.

A function for topoisomerases I and II in DNA excision repair can be postulated from the organization of the mammalian chromosome, involving nucleosomal structures and matrix-attached DNA loops. To analyse this function we determined UV-induced DNA incision in confluent human fibroblasts in the presence of 16 inhibitors of topoisomerases I and II which belonged to at least five different drug categories, based on their mechanism of action. Dose-response experiments were performed, analysed by linear regression and the concentrations at which DNA-incising activity was reduced to 50% were calculated (K50 values). The majority of these values represent concentrations for which interfering cell toxicity could be excluded. K50 concentrations, which were determined by extrapolating dose-response data, may hit the toxicity range, nevertheless, we deem our K50 scale useful for making biochemical comparisons. With respect to topoisomerase I, camptothecin and topotecan diminished repair-specific DNA incision to a small extent, whereas distamycin, which binds to the minor groove of DNA, caused a stronger effect. With respect to topoisomerase II the results were as follows. (i) The DNA intercalator ethidium bromide decreased DNA-incising activity at rather low concentrations, which indicates marked inhibitory potency. Quinacrine was less effective. (ii) Inhibitors intercalating and binding to the 'cleavable' DNA-topoisomerase complex (m-AMSA, mitoxantrone, doxorubicin and daunorubicin) strongly suppressed reparative DNA incision. (iii) Only small effects were observed using several drugs which act by trapping the 'cleavable' DNA-enzyme complex, namely nalidixic acid and oxolinic acid. In contrast, etoposide and teniposide inhibited post-UV DNA cleavage sizeably. (iv) Merbarone had to be applied at very high concentrations to reduce UV-induced DNA incision. (v) Novobiocin, an inhibitor of the ATPase subunit of topoisomerase II, markedly diminished repair-specific DNA cleavage. A comparison of the K50 values for DNA incision with those for DNA repair synthesis (1) shows that the majority of the investigated drugs inhibited both repair parameters. There were, however, differences in the concentrations required to achieve the 50% inhibition level. The results are best explained by assuming that in UV-irradiated human fibroblasts the 180 kd form of topoisomerase II is a target enzyme for inhibitors which suppressed repair and that this isozyme is involved in steps preceding repair-specific DNA incision.