Adverse Events Associated with Encorafenib Plus Cetuximab in Patients with BRAFV600E-mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: An in-depth Analysis of the BEACON CRC Study.

BACKGROUND: The BRAF inhibitor encorafenib in combination with cetuximab was recently approved for patients with BRAFV600E-mutated (BRAFV600Emut) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Approval was based on positive results from the phase 3 BEACON CRC study in BRAFV600Emut mCRC patients who had progressed after 1-2 previous regimens. This analysis provides a detailed examination of the adverse events (AEs) of interest (AEIs) with encorafenib+cetuximab in the BEACON study to aid gastrointestinal oncologists, given the limited experience with this combination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: AEIs, including dermatological AEs, arthralgia/myalgia, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, fatigue/asthenia and nephrotoxicity, were examined in the doublet therapy group. Clinical characteristics associated with these AEs, AE grade, time to onset and time to resolution were also studied. RESULTS: Safety analysis included 216/220 patients randomized to doublet therapy. The most commonly occurring AEI was dermatological toxicity (75.5%), followed by arthralgia/myalgia (56.0%) and fatigue/asthenia (56.0%). Other than nephrotoxicity (7 patients; 5/7 with Grade 3 or 4), most AEs were Grade 1 or 2. Most AEs were more common in women than men (nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, dermatological AEs, and arthralgia/myalgia). Nausea/vomiting, abdominal pain and fatigue/asthenia were more common in patients aged ≥70 years. Most AEs developed early, within the first 1-2 months of treatment, and resolved within 1-2 weeks. In addition, survival outcomes were better in patients experiencing arthralgia/myalgia or dermatological toxicities. CONCLUSION: This analysis indicated that, except for rare cases of nephrotoxicity, encorafenib+cetuximab is well tolerated in most patients, with most AEIs being mild-to-moderate in severity, occurring early and resolving rapidly. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: the BEACON study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02928224; EudraCT, 2015-005805-35).

Systematic review of randomised clinical trials and observational studies for patients with RAS wild-type or BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic and/or unresectable colorectal cancer.

Approximately 8-10% of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) tumours harbour BRAFV600E mutations. Eleven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 24 non-RCTs were identified. Seven studies evaluated BRAF inhibitors. Single-agent BRAF inhibitors had minimal efficacy, whereas BRAF inhibitor plus anti-EGFR therapy improved outcomes. In BEACON CRC, overall survival (OS) was significantly longer for patients receiving encorafenib plus cetuximab ± binimetinib when compared with irinotecan/FOLFIRI plus cetuximab as second- and third-line therapy. Seven prospective non-RCTs reported worse OS and progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with BRAFV600E-mutant vs BRAF wild-type mCRC. Eight RCTs reported that PFS and OS were generally shorter for patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC vs those with KRAS or RAS wild-type mCRC. Patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC have worse outcomes with conventional therapy vs patients with BRAF wild-type tumours. BRAF inhibitors in conjunction with anti-EGFR therapy improves outcomes for patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC vs conventional therapy or a BRAF inhibitor alone.

Validation of a short questionnaire to measure symptoms and functional limitations associated with hand-foot syndrome and mucositis in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Hand-foot syndrome and mucositis/stomatitis are frequent adverse events (AEs) of treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in cancer therapy. Quality-of-life instruments that measure the functional consequences of these AEs are needed to assess the impact of therapeutic interventions and to guide patient care. The Hand-Foot and Mucositis Symptom and Impact Questionnaire (HAMSIQ [formerly the Supplementary Quality of Life Questionnaire]) was used in the COMPARZ trial (Pazopanib vs Sunitinib in the Treatment of Locally Advanced and/or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma [national clinical trial no. NCT00720941]) and the PISCES study (Patient Preference Study of Pazopanib vs Sunitinib in Advanced or Metastatic Kidney Cancer [clinicaltrials.gov NCT01064310]) to assess mouth/throat and hand/foot soreness symptoms and subsequent limitations in patients receiving pazopanib or sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The objective of the current analysis was to validate the HAMSIQ using data from the PISCES study. METHODS: The HAMSIQ was administered in the PISCES study at baseline and every 2 weeks over two 10-week periods to patients who were receiving pazopanib or sunitinib. Data from the first 10-week period were used to assess the feasibility, validity, and responsiveness of the HAMSIQ. RESULTS: In total, ≥85% of 169 patients completed the HAMSIQ (excluding the item concerning days off work). Correlations among items within the same limitation subscale generally were high (Cronbach α ≥ .80). HAMSIQ limitation scores differentiated patients according to their baseline performance status and severity of soreness. Small-to-moderate correlations were observed for the symptoms/limitation scores and for changes from baseline scores between the HAMSIQ and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy fatigue survey. The HAMSIQ demonstrated responsiveness to changes in clinical status and the development of hand-foot syndrome AEs over time. CONCLUSIONS: The HAMSIQ is a feasible, valid, reliable, and responsive instrument for assessing the impact of hand-foot syndrome and mucositis in patients receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Cancer 2016;122:287-295. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

Randomized, controlled, double-blind, cross-over trial assessing treatment preference for pazopanib versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: PISCES Study.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes may help inform treatment choice in advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC), particularly between approved targeted therapies with similar efficacy. This double-blind cross-over study evaluated patient preference for pazopanib or sunitinib and the influence of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and safety factors on their stated preference. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic RCC were randomly assigned to pazopanib 800 mg per day for 10 weeks, a 2-week washout, and then sunitinib 50 mg per day (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off, 4 weeks on) for 10 weeks, or the reverse sequence. The primary end point, patient preference for a specific treatment, was assessed by questionnaire at the end of the two treatment periods. Other end points and analyses included reasons for preference, physician preference, safety, and HRQoL. RESULTS: Of 169 randomly assigned patients, 114 met the following prespecified modified intent-to-treat criteria for the primary analysis: exposure to both treatments, no disease progression before cross over, and completion of the preference questionnaire. Significantly more patients preferred pazopanib (70%) over sunitinib (22%); 8% expressed no preference (P < .001). All preplanned sensitivity analyses, including the intent-to-treat population, statistically favored pazopanib. Less fatigue and better overall quality of life were the main reasons for preferring pazopanib, with less diarrhea being the most cited reason for preferring sunitinib. Physicians also preferred pazopanib (61%) over sunitinib (22%); 17% expressed no preference. Adverse events were consistent with each drug's known profile. Pazopanib was superior to sunitinib in HRQoL measures evaluating fatigue, hand/foot soreness, and mouth/throat soreness. CONCLUSION: This innovative cross-over trial demonstrated a significant patient preference for pazopanib over sunitinib, with HRQoL and safety as key influencing factors.