Radiographic Progression-Free Survival and Clinical Progression-Free Survival as Potential Surrogates for Overall Survival in Men With Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Despite major increases in the longevity of men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), most men still die of prostate cancer. Phase III trials assessing new therapies in mHSPC with overall survival (OS) as the primary end point will take approximately a decade to complete. We investigated whether radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and clinical PFS (cPFS) are valid surrogates for OS in men with mHSPC and could potentially be used to expedite future phase III clinical trials. METHODS: We obtained individual patient data (IPD) from 9 eligible randomized trials comparing treatment regimens (different androgen deprivation therapy [ADT] strategies or ADT plus docetaxel in the control or research arms) in mHSPC. rPFS was defined as the time from random assignment to radiographic progression or death from any cause whichever occurred first; cPFS was defined as the time from random assignment to the date of radiographic progression, symptoms, initiation of new treatment, or death, whichever occurred first. We implemented a two-stage meta-analytic validation model where conditions of patient-level and trial-level surrogacy had to be met. We then computed the surrogate threshold effect (STE). RESULTS: IPD from 6,390 patients randomly assigned from 1994 to 2012 from 13 units were pooled for a stratified analysis. The median OS, rPFS, and cPFS were 4.3 (95% CI, 4.2 to 4.5), 2.4 (95% CI, 2.3 to 2.5), and 2.3 years (95% CI, 2.2 to 2.4), respectively. The STEs were 0.80 and 0.81 for rPFS and cPFS end points, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both rPFS and cPFS appear to be promising surrogate end points for OS. The STE of 0.80 or higher makes it viable for either rPFS or cPFS to be used as the primary end point that is surrogate for OS in phase III mHSPC trials with testosterone suppression alone as the backbone therapy and would expedite trial conduct.

Results of a randomized phase 3 study of oral sapacitabine in elderly patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (SEAMLESS).

BACKGROUND: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is fatal in elderly patients who are unfit for standard induction chemotherapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the survival benefit of administering sapacitabine, an oral nucleoside analogue, in alternating cycles with decitabine, a low-intensity therapy, to elderly patients with newly diagnosed AML. METHODS: This randomized, open-label, phase 3 study (SEAMLESS) was conducted at 87 sites in 11 countries. Patients aged ≥70 years who were not candidates for or chose not to receive standard induction chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to arm A (decitabine in alternating cycles with sapacitabine) received 1-hour intravenous infusions of decitabine 20 mg/m2 once daily for 5 consecutive days every 8 weeks (first cycle and subsequent odd cycles) and sapacitabine 300 mg twice daily on 3 consecutive days per week for 2 weeks every 8 weeks (second cycle and subsequent even cycles) or to control arm C who received 1-hour infusions of decitabine 20 mg/m2 once daily for 5 consecutive days every 4 weeks. Prior hypomethylating agent therapy for preexisting myelodysplastic syndromes or myeloproliferative neoplasms was an exclusion criterion. Randomization was stratified by antecedent myelodysplastic syndromes or myeloproliferative neoplasms, white blood cell count (<10 × 109 /L and ≥10 × 109 /L), and bone marrow blast percentage (≥50% vs <50%). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were the rates of complete remission (CR), CR with incomplete platelet count recovery, partial remission, hematologic improvement, and stable disease along with the corresponding durations, transfusion requirements, number of hospitalized days, and 1-year survival. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01303796). RESULTS: Between October 2011 and December 2014, 482 patients were enrolled and randomized to receive decitabine administered in alternating cycles with sapacitabine (study arm, n = 241) or decitabine monotherapy (control arm, n = 241). The median OS was 5.9 months on the study arm versus 5.7 months on the control arm (P = .8902). The CR rate was 16.6% on the study arm and 10.8% on the control arm (P = .1468). In patients with white blood cell counts <10 × 109 /L (n = 321), the median OS was higher on the study arm versus the control arm (8.0 vs 5.8 months; P = .145), as was the CR rate (21.5% vs 8.6%; P = .0017). CONCLUSIONS: The regimen of decitabine administered in alternating cycles with sapacitabine was active but did not significantly improve OS compared with decitabine monotherapy. Subgroup analyses suggest that patients with baseline white blood cell counts <10 × 109 /L might benefit from decitabine alternating with sapacitabine, with an improved CR rate and the convenience of an oral drug. These findings should be prospectively confirmed.

A Phase III open-label trial to evaluate efficacy and safety of CPI-613 plus modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) versus FOLFIRINOX (FFX) in patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.

Devimistat (CPI-613®) is a novel lipoate analog that inhibits the tricarboxcylic acid cycle at two key carbon entry points. Through its inhibition of pyruvate dehydrogenase and a-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase complexes, devimistat inhibits the entry of glucose and glutamine derived carbons, respectively. Pancreatic cancer is dependent on mitochondrial function for enhanced survival and aggressiveness. In a Phase I study of modified FOLFIRINOX, in combination with devimistat for metastatic pancreatic cancer patients, there was a 61% objective response rate including a 17% complete response rate. This report outlines the rationale and design of the AVENGER 500 study, a Phase III clinical trial of devimistat in combination with modified FOLFIRINOX compared with FOLFIRINOX alone for patients with previously untreated metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Clinical trial registration: NCT03504423.

Epirubicin With Cyclophosphamide Followed by Docetaxel With Trastuzumab and Bevacizumab as Neoadjuvant Therapy for HER2-Positive Locally Advanced Breast Cancer or as Adjuvant Therapy for HER2-Positive Pathologic Stage III Breast Cancer: A Phase II Trial of the NSABP Foundation Research Group, FB-5.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the cardiac safety and clinical activity of trastuzumab and bevacizumab with docetaxel after epirubicin with cyclophosphamide (EC) in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) or pathologic stage 3 breast cancer (PS3BC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received every 3 week treatment with 4 cycles of EC (90/600 mg/m2) followed by 4 cycles of docetaxel (100 mg/m2). Targeted therapy with standard-dose trastuzumab with bevacizumab 15 mg/kg was given for a total of 1 year. Coprimary end points were (1) rate of cardiac events (CEs) in all patients defined as clinical congestive heart failure with a significant decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction or cardiac deaths; and (2) pathologic complete response (pCR) in breast and nodes in the neoadjuvant cohort. An independent cardiac review panel determined whether criteria for a CE were met. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients were accrued, 76 with LABC treated with neoadjuvant therapy and 29 with PS3BC treated with adjuvant therapy. Median follow-up was 59.2 months. Among 99 evaluable patients for cardiac safety, 4 (4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1%-10.0%) met CE criteria. The pCR percentage in LABC patients was 46% (95% CI, 34%-59%). Five-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) for all patients was 79.9% and 90.8%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The regimen met predefined criteria for activity of interest with an acceptable rate of CEs. Although the pCR percentage was comparable with chemotherapy regimens with trastuzumab alone the high RFS and OS are of interest in these high-risk populations.

Study protocol of the Asian XELIRI ProjecT (AXEPT): a multinational, randomized, non-inferiority, phase III trial of second-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, comparing the efficacy and safety of XELIRI with or without bevacizumab versus FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab.

BACKGROUND: Capecitabine and irinotecan combination therapy (XELIRI) has been examined at various dose levels to treat metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Recently, in the Association of Medical Oncology of the German Cancer Society (AIO) 0604 trial, tri-weekly XELIRI plus bevacizumab, with reduced doses of irinotecan (200 mg/m2 on day 1) and capecitabine (1600 mg/m2 on days 1-14), repeated every 3 weeks, has shown favorable tolerability and efficacy which were comparable to those of capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) plus bevacizumab. The doses of capecitabine and irinotecan in the AIO trial are considered optimal. In a phase I/II study, XELIRI plus bevacizumab (BIX) as second-line chemotherapy was well tolerated and had promising efficacy in Japanese patients. METHODS: The Asian XELIRI ProjecT (AXEPT) is an East Asian collaborative, open-labelled, randomized, phase III clinical trial which was designed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of XELIRI with or without bevacizumab versus standard FOLFIRI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan combination) with or without bevacizumab as second-line chemotherapy for patients with mCRC. Patients with 20 years of age or older, histologically confirmed mCRC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, adequate organ function, and disease progression or intolerance of the first-line regimen will be eligible. Patients will be randomized (1:1) to receive standard FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab (5 mg/kg on day 1), repeated every 2 weeks (FOLIRI arm) or XELIRI with or without bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg on day 1), repeated every 3 weeks (XELIRI arm). A total of 464 events were estimated as necessary to show non-inferiority with a power of 80% at a one-sided α of 0.025, requiring a target sample size of 600 patients. The 95% confidence interval (CI) upper limit of the hazard ratio was pre-specified as less than 1.3. CONCLUSION: The Asian XELIRI ProjecT is a multinational phase III trial being conducted to provide evidence for XELIRI with or without bevacizumab as a second-line treatment option of mCRC. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01996306. UMIN000012263.

Cilengitide with metronomic temozolomide, procarbazine, and standard radiotherapy in patients with glioblastoma and unmethylated MGMT gene promoter in ExCentric, an open-label phase II trial.

Newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme with unmethylated MGMT promoter has a poor prognosis, with a median survival of 12 months. This phase II study investigated the efficacy and safety of combining the selective integrin inhibitor cilengitide with a combination of metronomic temozolomide and procarbazine for these patients. Eligible patients (newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed supratentorial glioblastoma with unmethylated MGMT promoter) were entered into this multicentre study. Cilengitide (2000 mg IV twice weekly) was commenced 1 week prior to radiotherapy combined with daily temozolomide (60 mg/m(2)) and procarbazine (50 or 100 mg) and, after 4 weeks' break, followed by six adjuvant cycles of temozolomide (50-60 mg/m(2)) and procarbazine (50 or 100 mg) on days 1-20, every 28 days. Cilengitide was continued for up to 12 months or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint for efficacy was a 12-month overall survival rate of 65 %. Twenty-nine patients completed study treatment. Sixteen patients survived for 12 months or more, an overall survival rate of 55 %. The median overall survival was 14.5 months (95 % CI 11.1-19.6) and the median progression-free survival was 7.4 months (95 % CI 6.1-8). Cilengitide combined with metronomic temozolomide and procarbazine in MGMT-promoter unmethylated glioblastoma did not improve survival compared with historical data and does not warrant further investigation.

Phase II randomized clinical trial evaluating neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens with weekly paclitaxel or eribulin followed by doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide in women with locally advanced HER2-negative breast cancer: NSABP Foundation Study FB-9.

Locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) is a good setting in which to monitor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, to downsize the tumor (which facilitates breast-conserving surgery), and to test newer agents in untreated patients. Eribulin (E) has shown activity in patients who have undergone previous taxane, anthracycline, and capecitabine treatment. We aimed to evaluate the neoadjuvant use of E followed by doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) in patients with HER2-negative LABC, using as a control a randomized group of women who received weekly paclitaxel (WP). Fifty women with LABC were accrued January-August 2013. Patients were randomized (1:2) to receive either WP (N = 19) for 12 treatments or E (N = 31) every 3 weeks for 4 cycles followed by AC every 3 weeks for 4 cycles before surgery. 17/19 patients who took WP and 25/30 who took E completed all cycles. Patients were evaluated by clinical examination and breast MRI at baseline and after completion of E or WP. Surgical pCR in breast and lymph nodes was determined by a local pathologist following chemotherapy. Forty-nine patients received ≥1 dose of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and are included in this analysis. Forty-eight underwent surgery; one had disease that was inoperable (on E) and is included as no-pCR patient. 17/19 of these patients who took WP completed 12 doses; 28/30 on E completed 4 cycles. Six discontinued treatment on WP, E, or AC. Both treatments were well tolerated. pCR on WP = 5/19(26 %) and on E = 5/30(17 %). Both regimens were equally well tolerated with no unexpected toxicities. pCR did not suggest higher activity with E than with other standard regimens in these LABC patients.

Combination of everolimus with trastuzumab plus paclitaxel as first-line treatment for patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer (BOLERO-1): a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: mTOR inhibition reverses trastuzumab resistance via the hyperactivated PIK/AKT/mTOR pathway due to PTEN loss, by sensitising PTEN-deficient tumours to trastuzumab. The BOLERO-1 study assessed the efficacy and safety of adding everolimus to trastuzumab and paclitaxel as first-line treatment for patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomised, double-blind trial, patients were enrolled across 141 sites in 28 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with locally assessed HER2-positive advanced breast cancer, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, who had not received previous trastuzumab or chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer within 12 months of randomisation, had measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) or bone lesions in the absence of measurable disease, without previous systemic treatment for advanced disease except endocrine therapy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) with an interactive voice and web response system to receive either 10 mg everolimus once a day orally or placebo plus weekly trastuzumab intravenously at 4 mg/kg loading dose on day 1 with subsequent weekly doses of 2 mg/kg of each 4 week cycle plus paclitaxel intravenously at a dose of 80 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 4 week cycle. Randomisation was stratified according to previous use of trastuzumab and visceral metastasis. Patients and investigators were masked to the assigned treatments. Identity of experimental treatments was concealed by use of everolimus and placebo that were identical in packaging, labelling, appearance, and administration schedule. The two primary objectives were investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the full study population and in the subset of patients with hormone receptor-negative breast cancer at baseline; the latter was added during the course of the study, before unmasking based on new clinical and biological findings from other studies. All efficacy analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population. Enrolment for this trial is closed and results of the final progression-free survival analyses are presented here. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00876395. FINDINGS: Between Sept 10, 2009, and Dec 16, 2012, 719 patients were randomly assigned to receive everolimus (n=480) or placebo (n=239). Median follow-up was 41·3 months (IQR 35·4-46·6). In the full population, median progression-free survival was 14·95 months (95% CI 14·55-17·91) with everolimus versus 14·49 months (12·29-17·08) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·73-1·08; p=0·1166). In the HR-negative subpopulation (n=311), median progression-free survival with everolimus was 20·27 months (95% CI 14·95-24·08) versus 13·08 months (10·05-16·56) with placebo (hazard ratio 0·66, 95% CI 0·48-0·91; p=0·0049); however, the protocol-specified significance threshold (p=0·0044) was not crossed. The most common adverse events with everolimus were stomatitis (314 [67%] of 472 patients in the everolimus group vs 77 [32%] of 238 patients in the placebo group), diarrhoea (267 [57%] vs 111 [47%] patients), and alopecia (221 [47%] vs 125 [53%]). The most frequently reported grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the everolimus group versus the placebo group were neutropenia (117 [25%] vs 35 [15%]), stomatitis (59 [13%] vs three [1%]), anaemia (46 [10%] vs six [3%]) and diarrhoea (43 [9%] vs 10 [4%]) On-treatment adverse event-related deaths were reported in 17 (4%) patients in the everolimus group and none in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Although progression-free survival was not significantly different between groups in the full analysis population, the 7·2 months prolongation we noted with the addition of everolimus in the HR-negative, HER2-positive population warrants further investigation, even if it did not meet prespecified criteria for significance. The safety profile was generally consistent with what was previously reported in BOLERO-3. Proactive monitoring and early management of adverse events in patients given everolimus and chemotherapy is crucial. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

Concurrent bevacizumab with a sequential regimen of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel and capecitabine as neoadjuvant therapy for HER2- locally advanced breast cancer: a phase II trial of the NSABP Foundation Research Group.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab with chemotherapy improves outcomes in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The purpose of this trial was to determine the activity and safety profile of neoadjuvant bevacizumab with chemotherapy in women with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC). METHODS: Between November 2006 and August 2007, 45 women with HER2(-) LABC began preoperative standard AC (doxorubicin [Adriamycin], cyclophosphamide) × 4 cycles followed by docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) intravenously (I.V.) on day 1 and capecitabine 825 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 (TX, docetaxel [Taxotere] and capecitabine [Xeloda]) every 21 days for 4 cycles. Bevacizumab 15 mg/kg I.V. was given concurrently with chemotherapy every 21 days for a total of 6 preoperative doses. Postoperatively bevacizumab was resumed for a total of 10 doses. The primary endpoint was pathologic complete response (pCR) in the breast. RESULTS: Thirty patients (66.7%) had stage IIIA disease, 12 (26.7%) patients had stage IIIB, and 3 patients (6.7%) had stage IIIC. Of these, 10 (22%) had inflammatory breast cancer (IBC), and 27 (60%) had estrogen receptor (ER)(+) disease. A pCR in the breast with negative axillary nodes was documented in 4 (9%) of 45 patients. Toxicities that were seen with AC and bevacizumab included fatigue (grade 2/3; 31% and 9%, respectively), mucositis (grade 2/3; 29% and 2%, respectively), and headache (grade 2/3; 16% and 7%, respectively). Toxicities seen with TX and bevacizumab included mucositis (grade 2/3; 48% and 25%, respectively), fatigue (grade 2/3; 43% and 18%, respectively), and hand-foot syndrome (grade 2/3; 34% and 23%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This regimen demonstrated only modest activity with substantial toxicity and does not appear to warrant further evaluation.