Effectiveness, safety and quality of life of trifluridine/tipiracil in pretreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Real-world data from the noninterventional TACTIC study in Germany.

The prospective, multicenter, noninterventional TACTIC study assessed effectiveness and safety of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in a real-world setting in Germany, thus evaluating the external validity of the findings from the pivotal RECOURSE trial. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and quality of life (QoL). Subgroups comprised patients with good (<3 metastatic sites at inclusion, ≥18 months from diagnosis of first metastasis to inclusion) or poor (remaining patients) prognostic characteristics (GPC/PPC). GPC without liver metastases was considered best prognostic characteristics (BPC). In total, 307 eligible patients (pretreated or not suitable for other available therapies) were treated with FTD/TPI. Overall, median [95%-CI] OS was 7.4 months [6.4-8.6], median PFS was 2.9 months [2.8-3.3]. In BPC (n = 65) and GPC (n = 176) compared to PPC (n = 124) subgroup, median OS (13.3 [9.1-17.6] vs 8.9 [7.6-9.8] vs 5.1 [4.4-7.0] months) and median PFS (4.0 [3.3-5.3] vs 3.4 [3.0-3.7] vs 2.6 [2.4-2.8] months) were longer. Patient-reported QoL, assessed by validated questionnaires (EQ-5D-5L, PRO-CTCAE), was stable throughout FTD/TPI treatment. Predominant FTD/TPI-related adverse events of grades 3 or 4 were neutropenia (13.0%), leukopenia (7.5%), and anemia (5.2%). Altogether, palliative FTD/TPI therapy in patients with pretreated mCRC was associated with prolonged survival, delayed progression, maintained health-related QoL, and manageable toxicity. Low metastatic burden and indolent disease were favorable prognostic factors for survival. TACTIC confirms the effectiveness and safety of FTD/TPI, highlighting its value in routine clinical practice.

Bortezomib and low-dose dexamethasone with or without continuous low-dose oral cyclophosphamide for primary refractory or relapsed multiple myeloma: a randomized phase III study.

This phase III, open-label, randomized, controlled study aimed to evaluate the benefit of adding continuous low-dose oral cyclophosphamide to bortezomib-dexamethasone in patients with primary relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive up to eight 3-week cycles of bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2) and dexamethasone (20 mg; VD; n = 48) or bortezomib-dexamethasone plus oral cyclophosphamide (50 mg; VCD; n = 48). Median time to progression (primary endpoint) was slightly longer in the VD versus VCD group (12.6 vs 9.9 months, P = 0.192), and the hazard ratio for disease progression was in favor of VD (hazard ratio = 0.71, 95% confidence interval = 0.43-1.19, P = 0.196). The overall response rate was 74% with VD and 70% with VCD. Most adverse events were similar in frequency between arms; however, grade ≥ 3 peripheral neuropathy was more frequent in the VCD versus VD arm (15 vs 4%). Infection rate was higher in the VCD arm (64 vs 52%); however, grade ≥3 infection rates were comparable (19 vs 17%). Further trials are needed to determine whether addition of cyclophosphamide to VD at a different dose/schedule confers clinical benefit. This study was terminated prematurely, with insufficient sample size to adequately compare the arms; the results should, therefore, be considered descriptive. This trial is registered: EudraCT Number 2008-003213-27; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00813150.

Impact of hand-foot skin reaction on treatment outcome in patients receiving capecitabine plus erlotinib for advanced pancreatic cancer: a subgroup analysis from AIO-PK0104.

BACKGROUND: Drug-induced skin toxicity may correlate with treatment efficacy in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy or biological agents. The correlation of the capecitabine-associated hand-foot skin reaction (HFS) on outcome parameters in pancreatic cancer (PC) has not yet been investigated. METHODS: Within the multicentre phase III AIO-PK0104 trial, patients with confirmed advanced PC were randomly assigned to first-line treatment with either capecitabine plus erlotinib (150 mg/day, arm A) or gemcitabine plus erlotinib (150 mg/day, arm B). A cross-over to either gemcitabine (arm A) or capecitabine (arm B) was performed after failure of the first-line regimen. Data on skin toxicity were correlated with efficacy study endpoints using uni- and multivariate analyses. To control for guarantee-time bias (GTB), we focused on subgroup analyses of patients who had completed two and three or more treatment cycles. RESULTS: Of 281 randomised patients, skin toxicity data were available for 255 patients. Median time to capecitabine-attributed HFS was two cycles, 36 of 47 (77%) HFS events had been observed by the end of treatment cycle three. Considering HFS during first-line treatment in 101 patients treated with capecitabine for at least two cycles within the capecitabine plus erlotinib arm, time to treatment failure after first- and second-line therapy (TTF2) and overall survival (OS) both were significantly prolonged for the 44 patients (44%) with HFS compared to 57 patients without HFS (56%) (TTF2: 7.8 vs. 3.8 months, HR 0.50, p = 0.001; OS: 10.4 vs. 5.9 months, HR 0.55, p = 0.005). A subgroup analysis of 70 patients on treatment with capecitabine for at least three cycles showed similar results (TTF2: 8.3 vs. 4.4 months, HR 0.53, p = 0.010; OS: 10.4 vs. 6.7 months, HR 0.62, p = 0.056). CONCLUSION: The present subgroup analysis from AIO-PK0104 suggests that HFS may serve as an independent clinical predictor for treatment outcome in capecitabine-treated patients with advanced PC.

Gemcitabine plus erlotinib followed by capecitabine versus capecitabine plus erlotinib followed by gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer: final results of a randomised phase 3 trial of the 'Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie' (AIO-PK0104).

OBJECTIVE: AIO-PK0104 investigated two treatment strategies in advanced pancreatic cancer (PC): a reference sequence of gemcitabine/erlotinib followed by 2nd-line capecitabine was compared with a reverse experimental sequence of capecitabine/erlotinib followed by gemcitabine. METHODS: 281 patients with PC were randomly assigned to 1st-line treatment with either gemcitabine plus erlotinib or capecitabine plus erlotinib. In case of treatment failure (eg, disease progression or toxicity), patients were allocated to 2nd-line treatment with the comparator cytostatic drug without erlotinib. The primary study endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF) after 1st- and 2nd-line therapy (TTF2; non-inferiority design). KRAS exon 2 mutations were analysed in archival tumour tissue from 173 of the randomised patients. RESULTS: Of the 274 eligible patients, 43 had locally advanced and 231 had metastatic disease; 140 (51%) received 2nd-line chemotherapy. Median TTF2 was estimated with 4.2 months in both arms; median overall survival was 6.2 months with gemcitabine/erlotinib followed by capecitabine and 6.9 months with capecitabine/erlotinib followed by gemcitabine, respectively (HR 1.02, p=0.90). TTF for 1st-line therapy (TTF1) was significantly prolonged with gemcitabine/erlotinib compared to capecitabine/erlotinib (3.2 vs 2.2 months; HR 0.69, p=0.0034). Skin rash was associated with both TTF2 (rash grade 0/1/2-4:2.9/4.3/6.7 months, p<0.0001) and survival (3.4/7.0/9.6 months, p<0.0001). Each arm showed a safe and manageable toxicity profile during 1st- and 2nd-line therapy. A KRAS wild-type status (52/173 patients, 30%) was associated with an improved overall survival (HR 1.68, p=0.005). CONCLUSION: Both treatment strategies are feasible and demonstrated comparable efficacy; KRAS may serve as biomarker in patients with advanced PC treated with erlotinib.

Erlotinib 150 mg daily plus chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer: an interim safety analysis of a multicenter, randomized, cross-over phase III trial of the 'Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie'.

To date, only limited toxicity data are available for the combination of erlotinib with either capecitabine or gemcitabine as front-line therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer. Within a randomized phase III trial, 281 treatment-naive patients were randomly assigned between capecitabine (2000 mg/m/day, for 14 days, once every 3 weeks) plus erlotinib (150 mg/day, arm A) and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m as a 30-min infusion) plus erlotinib (150 mg/day, arm B). In case of treatment failure, patients were crossed over to a second-line treatment with the comparator cytostatic drug without erlotinib. The primary study endpoint was the time to treatment failure of second-line therapy (TTF2). This interim analysis of toxicity contains safety data from the first 127 randomized patients. During first-line therapy, patients received a median number of three treatment cycles (range 0-13) in both the arms. Regarding chemotherapy, a treatment delay was observed in 12% of the cycles in arm A and in 22% of the cycles in arm B. Dose reductions of the cytostatic drug were performed in 18 and 27% of treatment cycles, respectively. Erlotinib dose reductions were performed in 6 and 11% of all cycles. Grade 3/4 hematological toxicity was <10% in both the arms; major grade 3/4 toxicities in arms A and B were diarrhea (9 vs. 7%), skin rash (4 vs. 12%), and hand-foot syndrome (7 vs. 0%). No treatment-related death was observed. In conclusion, this interim safety analysis suggests that treatment with erlotinib 150 mg/day is feasible in combination with capecitabine or gemcitabine.