Oral vinorelbine versus intravenous vinorelbine, in combination with epirubicin as first-line chemotherapy in Chinese patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Oral VRL offers easier administration, better quality of life, and cost saving. This study aimed to evaluate the treatment efficacy in terms of tumor response of the two formulations of vinorelbine (VRL, oral and IV) in combination with epirubicin (EPI); and the effect of EPI co-administration on VRL pharmacokinetics (PK) in Chinese patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) using a phase 2, open label, randomized trial. Patients were aged 18-70 years, had histologically confirmed MBC, Karnofsky Performance Status ≥ 70%, and life expectancy ≥ 12 weeks. The treatment consisted of 6 cycles of 3 weeks each. VRL dose was: (Oral-VRL) 60 mg/m2 for cycle 1, 80 mg/m2 for cycles 2-6, and (IV-VRL) 25 mg/m2 for cycle 1 and 30 mg/m2 for cycles 2-6. EPI dose of 75 mg/m2 was given on day 1 in both arms for all cycles. 133 patients were enrolled: 66 in Oral-VRL and 67 in IV-VRL arms. The median age for Oral-VRL and IV-VRL arms was 48.4 and 50.0 years, respectively. Objective response rates were 50.0% (95% CI 37.4-62.6%) for Oral-VRL and 53.7% (95% CI 41.1-66.0%) for IV-VRL. Both treatment arms met the efficacy objective target of at least 31 responses, demonstrating efficacy as first-line treatment for MBC. Similar blood PK profiles, exposures, and VRL clearance were observed between VRL + EPI vs VRL-only modalities for both arms. Oral VRL is comparable to IV VRL and an effective first-line treatment for Chinese patients with MBC. The activity of VRL + EPI combination is unaltered when VRL is given orally at recommended doses.

Apatinib reverses alectinib resistance by targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 and attenuating the oncogenic signaling pathway in echinoderm microtubule-associated protein-like 4-anaplastic lymphoma kinase fusion gene-positive lung cancer cell lines.

Overexpression of insulin growth factor 1 receptor (IGF-1R) and its ligand, insulin growth factor 1 (IGF-1), is related to treatment resistance and worse prognosis in many types of tumors. We reported recently that IGF-1R activation by IGF induces resistance to alectinib and stimulates the production of vascular endothelial growth factor, which indicates that IGF induces alectinib resistance and angiogenesis. This study aimed to determine the effect of bigeminal inhibition of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) and angiogenesis on human insulin growth factor 1 receptor (hIGF-1)-triggered drug resistance in echinoderm microtubule-associated protein-like 4-anaplastic lymphoma kinase (EML4-ALK)-positive lung cancer. Human lung adenocarcinoma H3122 and H2228 cells were exposed to a combination of insulin growth factor 1 receptor (IGF-1), alectinib, or apatinib. The effects of the combination therapy were examined using cell the Cell Counting Kit-8 assay, the colony-forming assay, the scratch test, and flow cytometry analysis, and the molecular mechanism was assessed by western blot. At nontoxic concentrations, apatinib restored alectinib sensitivity by increasing drug-induced apoptosis and inhibiting viability, migration, and invasion in IGF-triggered drug resistant cells. Moreover, we found that apatinib restored sensitivity to alectinib mainly through suppression of the ALK downstream signaling pathway and antiangiogenesis signaling. Taken together, our results indicate that simultaneous inhibition of ALK and vascular endothelial growth factor R2 by the combination of alectinib with apatinib may be useful for controlling progression of EML4-ALK fusion gene lung cancer by reversing ALK-TKI resistance and inhibiting angiogenesis.

BEYOND: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter, Phase III Study of First-Line Carboplatin/Paclitaxel Plus Bevacizumab or Placebo in Chinese Patients With Advanced or Recurrent Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The phase III BEYOND trial was undertaken to confirm in a Chinese patient population the efficacy seen with first-line bevacizumab plus platinum doublet chemotherapy in globally conducted studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients age ≥ 18 years with locally advanced, metastatic, or recurrent advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned to receive carboplatin (area under the curve, 6) intravenously and paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)) intravenously (CP) on day 1 of each 3-week cycle, for ≤ six cycles, plus placebo (Pl+CP) or bevacizumab (B+CP) 15 mg/kg intravenously, on day 1 of each cycle, until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points were objective response rate, overall survival, exploratory biomarkers, safety. RESULTS: A total of 276 patients were randomly assigned, 138 to each arm. PFS was prolonged with B+CP versus Pl+CP (median, 9.2 v 6.5 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.40; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.54; P < .001). Objective response rate was improved with B+CP compared with Pl+CP (54% v 26%, respectively). Overall survival was also prolonged with B+CP compared with Pl+CP (median, 24.3 v 17.7 months, respectively; HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.93; P = .0154). Median PFS was 12.4 months with B+CP and 7.9 months with Pl+CP (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.63) in EGFR mutation-positive tumors and 8.3 and 5.6 months, respectively (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.53), in wild-type tumors. Safety was similar to previous studies of B+CP in NSCLC; no new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION: The addition to bevacizumab to carboplatin/paclitaxel was well tolerated and resulted in a clinically meaningful treatment benefit in Chinese patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC.

A multicenter, open-label, randomized phase II controlled study of rh-endostatin (Endostar) in combination with chemotherapy in previously untreated extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Based on promising efficacy in a single-arm study, a randomized phase II trial was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of adding rh-endostatin (Endostar) to first-line standard etoposide and carboplatin (EC) chemotherapy for treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: One hundred forty Chinese patients with pathologically confirmed, extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned to EC alone or rh-endostatin + EC for 4-6 cycles, followed by single-agent rh-endostatin until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints included overall survival, Objective response rate (ORR), and quality of life. RESULTS: Median PFS was 6.4 months with rh-endostatin + EC (n = 69) and 5.9 months with EC (n = 69) (hazard ratio 0.8 [95% confidence interval 0.6-1.1]). PFS was significantly higher with rh-endostatin + EC than with EC (hazard ratio 0.4 [0.2-0.9; p = 0.020]) in female. Median overall survival was similar in both groups (12.1 versus 12.4 months, respectively [p = 0.82]). ORR was higher in the rh-endostatin + EC group (75.4%) than in the EC group (66.7%) (p = 0.348). The efficacy of rh-endostatin + EC relative to that of EC was reflected by greater improvements in patient-assessed quality of life scores after 4 and 6 weeks of treatment. There was no difference between each regimen in the incidence of nonhematological or Grade III-IV hematological toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of rh-endostatin to EC for the treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer had an acceptable toxicity profile, but did not improve overall survival, PFS, and ORR.

Erlotinib plus capecitabine as first-line treatment for older Chinese patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the lung (C-TONG0807): an open-label, single arm, multicenter phase II study.

Preclinical studies have shown synergism between epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors and antifolates in solid tumors. This study is to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of erlotinib plus capecitabine as first-line treatment in older Chinese patients (≥ 65 years) with lung adenocarcinoma. This is an open-label, single arm, multicenter phase II clinical trial. Sixty- two patients with previously untreated stage IIIB/IV adenocarcinoma and age 65 years or above were enrolled at four tertiary teaching hospitals and 2 provincial hospitals in China; 58 patients fulfilled the study requirements. Erlotinib (150 mg/day) and capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-14) were administered during every 21-day cycle. The primary endpoint was the non-progression rate at 12 weeks. EGFR and K-ras mutation rates were determined using PCR. Tumor expression of different biomarkers was assessed using immunohistochemistry. In a cohort of 58 patients, 34 patients had no disease progression at 12 weeks following treatment. The objective response rate was 29.3%, and the disease control rate was 75.9%. The objective response rate was significantly higher in patients with EGFR mutations than in those with wild-type EGFR. Patients with thymidine phosphorylase-negative tumors had significantly longer overall survival after one year than patients with thymidine phosphorylase-positive tumors. Forty-four patients had at least one primary adverse events (AEs), including skin rash (n = 30), grade 3 AEs (n = 17), and grade 4 AEs (n = 7). This is the first phase II clinical trial to assess erlotinib plus capecitabine combination therapy as first-line treatment in older patients with lung adenocarcinoma. Erlotinib/capecitabine chemotherapy was significantly better in patients with EGFR mutations and in those with thymidine phosphorylase-negative tumors. The use of fluorouracil derivatives for the treatment of lung adenocarcinoma warrants further study.

Final overall survival results from a phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of gefitinib versus placebo as maintenance therapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (INFORM; C-TONG 0804).

BACKGROUND: The results of the Iressa in NSCLC for maintenance study (NCT00770588; C-TONG 0804), which compared gefitinib and placebo as maintenance therapy in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer without disease progression after first-line chemotherapy, were published previously. The objective of this report is to provide a mature analysis of overall survival (OS) for Iressa in NSCLC for maintenance study in intention to treat (ITT) population and in subgroups according to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 296 patients were randomly assigned. EGFR mutations were detected using an amplification mutation refractory system. Seventy-nine patients were assessable for EGFR mutations. OS was analyzed by a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for the same covariates in ITT population and subgroups according to EGFR mutation status. RESULTS: OS was similar for gefitinib and placebo arm with no significant difference between treatments in ITT population (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-1.14; p = 0.335) and in subgroups with wild type EGFR (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.7-2.3; p = 0.431) or unknown EGFR mutations (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.68, 1.25; p = 0.603). In the EGFR mutation-positive subgroup, the gefitinib arm showed a higher OS than the placebo arm (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.15, 0.97; p = 0.036). CONCLUSION: EGFR mutation was the strongest predictive biomarker for OS benefit of gefitinib as maintenance treatment. The analyses of OS showed that patients achieve a clear and significant survival benefit if they receive EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors as maintenance treatment in EGFR mutation-positive patients.

Efficacy and safety of pemetrexed/cisplatin versus gemcitabine/cisplatin as first-line treatment in Chinese patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Retrospective subgroup analysis in JMDB study indicates that the between-arm differences in overall survival (OS) in the East Asian subgroup were consistent with those observed in the entire JMDB study population. This bridging study (JMIL) further evaluated the efficacy and safety of first-line pemetrexed/cisplatin (PC) versus gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC) in Chinese patients with nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The primary endpoint of this local registration trial was designed to compare OS in the combined dataset, consisting of Chinese patients in JMIL and 1252 nonsquamous patients in JMDB. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Chinese patients with stage IIIB/IV nonsquamous NSCLC were randomly assigned (1:1) to 6 cycles maximum (21 days/cycle) of pemetrexed 500mg/m(2)+cisplatin 75mg/m(2) (day 1), or gemcitabine 1250mg/m(2) (days 1 and 8)+cisplatin 75mg/m(2) (day 1). RESULTS: In JMIL, 256 Chinese patients were randomized (PC, n=126; GC, n=130). Patient baseline characteristics were balanced between treatment arms. In the combined dataset, PC was superior to GC in prolonging OS, with adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.77-0.98, p=0.023) and median OS of 11.76 versus 10.94 months. In the JMIL-only population, no significant OS difference observed between treatment arms (adjusted HR=1.03 [95% CI: 0.77-1.39, p=0.822]; unadjusted HR=0.996 [95% CI: 0.74-1.33, p=0.980]), nor for other secondary efficacy endpoints. Significantly fewer patients in the PC arm experienced drug-related grade 3/4 toxicities, 54 (43.2%) versus 71 (55.9%) for GC (p=0.045), with significantly lower rates of leukocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, and fatigue. CONCLUSION: This study showed that in the combined population, OS of PC was superior to GC, while in the Chinese-only population, no significant difference was observed; a better safety and risk/benefit profile was found in the PC arm. A PC regimen should be considered as a standard of care in Chinese nonsquamous NSCLC patients in a first-line setting.

Aprepitant triple therapy for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following high-dose cisplatin in Chinese patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial.

PURPOSE: Aprepitant, an oral neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, has demonstrated improved control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in previous studies. This is the first phase III study to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of aprepitant in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) in Asian countries. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessed the prevention of CINV during the acute phase (AP), delayed phase (DP), and overall phase (OP). Patients receiving HEC were randomized to either an aprepitant group (day 1, aprepitant 125 mg; days 2-3, aprepitant 80 mg) or a standard therapy group (days 1-3, placebo). Both groups received intravenous granisetron and oral dexamethasone. The primary end point was complete response (CR; no emesis and no use of rescue therapy) during the OP. RESULTS: Of the 421 randomized patients, 411 (98%) were assessable for efficacy; 69.6% (142/204) and 57.0% (118/207) of patients reported CR during the OP in the aprepitant and standard therapy groups, respectively (P = 0.007). CR rates in the aprepitant group were higher during the DP (74.0% vs. 59.4%, P = 0.001) but were similar during the AP (79.4% vs. 79.3%, P = 0.942). Toxicity and adverse events were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of aprepitant to standard antiemetic treatment regimens for Chinese patients undergoing HEC provided superior CINV prevention and was well tolerated.

Sunitinib versus sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular cancer: results of a randomized phase III trial.

PURPOSE: Open-label, phase III trial evaluating whether sunitinib was superior or equivalent to sorafenib in hepatocellular cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were stratified and randomly assigned to receive sunitinib 37.5 mg once per day or sorafenib 400 mg twice per day. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Early trial termination occurred for futility and safety reasons. A total of 1,074 patients were randomly assigned to the study (sunitinib arm, n = 530; sorafenib arm, n = 544). For sunitinib and sorafenib, respectively, median OS was 7.9 versus 10.2 months (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; one-sided P = .9990; two-sided P = .0014); median progression-free survival (PFS; 3.6 v 3.0 months; HR, 1.13; one-sided P = .8785; two-sided P = .2286) and time to progression (TTP; 4.1 v 3.8 months; HR, 1.13; one-sided P = .8312; two-sided P = .3082) were comparable. Median OS was similar among Asian (7.7 v 8.8 months; HR, 1.21; one-sided P = .9829) and hepatitis B-infected patients (7.6 v 8.0 months; HR, 1.10; one-sided P = .8286), but was shorter with sunitinib in hepatitis C-infected patients (9.2 v 17.6 months; HR, 1.52; one-sided P = .9835). Sunitinib was associated with more frequent and severe adverse events (AEs) than sorafenib. Common grade 3/4 AEs were thrombocytopenia (29.7%) and neutropenia (25.7%) for sunitinib; hand-foot syndrome (21.2%) for sorafenib. Discontinuations owing to AEs were similar (sunitinib, 13.3%; sorafenib, 12.7%). CONCLUSION: OS with sunitinib was not superior or equivalent but was significantly inferior to sorafenib. OS was comparable in Asian and hepatitis B-infected patients. OS was superior in hepatitis C-infected patients who received sorafenib. Sunitinib-treated patients reported more frequent and severe toxicity.

Three-arm randomised controlled phase 2 study comparing pemetrexed and erlotinib to either pemetrexed or erlotinib alone as second-line treatment for never-smokers with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: This randomised controlled phase 2 study compared pemetrexed and erlotinib in combination with either agent alone in terms of efficacy and safety as second-line treatment in a clinically selected population of never-smokers with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients who had failed only one prior chemotherapy regimen and had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) ≤2 were randomised to either: pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus erlotinib 150 mg daily on days 2-14; erlotinib 150 mg daily; or pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle until discontinuation criteria were met. The primary endpoint, progression-free survival (PFS), was analysed using a multivariate Cox model. Firstly, a global comparison across the three arms was performed. If the global null hypothesis was rejected at a two-sided 0.2 significance level, pairwise comparisons of pemetrexed-erlotinib versus erlotinib or pemetrexed were then conducted using the same model. Statistical significance was claimed only if both global and pairwise null hypotheses were rejected at a two-sided 0.05 significance level. FINDINGS: A total of 240 patients (male, 35%; East Asian, 55%; ECOG PS 0-1, 93%) were included. A statistically significant difference in PFS was found across the three arms (global p=0.003), with pemetrexed-erlotinib significantly better than either single agent: HR=0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.40-0.81, p=0.002 versus erlotinib; HR=0.58, 95% CI: 0.39-0.85, p=0.005 versus pemetrexed. Median PFS (95% CI) was 7.4 (4.4, 12.9) months in pemetrexed-erlotinib, 3.8 (2.7, 6.3) months in erlotinib and 4.4 (3.0, 6.0) months in pemetrexed. Safety analyses showed a higher incidence of drug-related grade 3/4 toxicity in pemetrexed-erlotinib (60.0%) than in pemetrexed (28.9%) or erlotinib (12.0%); the majority being neutropenia, anaemia, rash and diarrhoea. INTERPRETATION: Pemetrexed-erlotinib significantly improved PFS compared to either drug alone in this clinically selected population. The combination had more toxicity, but was clinically manageable.

Gefitinib versus placebo as maintenance therapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (INFORM; C-TONG 0804): a multicentre, double-blind randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without disease progression after first-line chemotherapy is a subject of ongoing research. The aim of the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, INFORM study was to investigate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the EGFR-tyrosine-kinase inhibitor gefitinib in the maintenance setting. METHODS: Patients were aged 18 years or older, were of east Asian ethnic origin, had a life expectancy of more than 12 weeks, histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IIIb or IV NSCLC, a WHO performance status of 0-2, and had completed four cycles of first-line platinum-based doublet chemotherapy without disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Between Sept 28, 2008 and Aug 11, 2009, 296 patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either gefitinib (250 mg per day orally) or placebo (orally) within 3-6 weeks after chemotherapy until progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Randomisation was done via an interactive web response system with computer-generated randomisation codes. Our primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This completed study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00770588. FINDINGS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with gefitinib (n=148) than with placebo (148) (median progression-free survival 4·8 months [95% CI 3·2-8·5] vs 2·6 months [1·6-2·8]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·42, 95% CI 0·33-0·55; p<0·0001). Adverse events occurred more frequently with gefitinib than with placebo; the most common adverse events of any grade were rash (73 [50%] of 147 in the gefitinib group vs 14 [9%] of 148 in the placebo group), diarrhoea (37 [25%] vs 13 [9%]), and alanine aminotransferase increase (31 [21%] vs 12 [8%]). The most commonly reported grade 3 or 4 adverse event was alanine aminotransferase increase (3 [2%] of 147 in the gefitinib group, none of 148 in the placebo group). Ten of 147 (7%) patients given gefitinib and five of 148 (3%) patients given placebo had serious adverse events. Three deaths were thought to be related to treatment with gefitinib: one from interstitial lung disease; one from lung infection; and one from pneumonia. INTERPRETATION: Maintenance treatment with gefitinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with placebo in patients from east Asia with advanced NSCLC who achieved disease control after first-line chemotherapy. Clinicians should consider these data when making decisions about maintenance treatment in such patients. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.