Biomarker analyses from a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase IIIb trial comparing bevacizumab with or without erlotinib as maintenance therapy for the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (ATLAS).

INTRODUCTION: ATLAS compared bevacizumab plus erlotinib (B+E) with bevacizumab plus placebo (B+P) as maintenance therapy after first-line bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (B+C) for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Prespecified biomarkers were prospectively evaluated. METHODS: Tumor samples were analyzed for: epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression (immunohistochemistry [IHC]); EGFR gene copy number (fluorescence in-situ hybridization [FISH]); EGFR mutations (exon 19 deletions/L858R mutations); and KRAS mutations (exons 2/3). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated. RESULTS: Of 743 patients randomized to receive maintenance treatment (after four cycles of B+C without progression), 190 (B+E) and 177 (B+P) were evaluable for biomarker status. Median PFS (from randomization) was 4.4 months (B+E) versus 3.7 months (B+P; hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.99), which was numerically similar to the intent-to-treat PFS. PFS benefit of B+E was observed across most biomarker subgroups. EGFR IHC, EGFR FISH, and EGFR/KRAS mutation status were not predictive of outcome. B+E-treated patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC had longer PFS compared with B+P-treated patients (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.86; p = 0.0139). Patients with KRAS wild-type disease had significant PFS improvements with B+E, compared with B+P (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.485-0.914; p = 0.0105). No OS benefit of B+E was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with KRAS wild-type or EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC derived PFS benefits from B+E. However, EGFR IHC, EGFR FISH, and EGFR or KRAS mutation status were not strongly predictive of survival. A larger sample size would be needed to confirm the initial trends observed in this study.

A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of trametinib, an oral MEK inhibitor, in combination with gemcitabine for patients with untreated metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.

BACKGROUND: Trametinib, an oral mitogen/extracellular signal-related kinase (MEK)1/2 inhibitor, holds promise for malignancies with rat sarcoma (RAS) mutations, like pancreas cancer. This phase II study was designed to determine overall survival (OS) in patients with pancreas cancer treated with trametinib and gemcitabine. Secondary end-points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR); safety end-points were also assessed. METHODS: Adults with untreated metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were randomised (1:1) to receive intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) (weekly × 7 for 8 weeks, then days 1, 8 and 15 of 28-day cycles) plus trametinib or placebo 2mg daily. RAS mutations were determined in circulating free DNA (cfDNA) and archival tumour tissue. OS was evaluated in kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) mutant and wild-type subgroups. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics for 160 patients were similar in both treatment arms. There was no significant difference in OS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.67-1.44; P=.453); median OS was 8.4 months with gemcitabine plus trametinib and 6.7 months with gemcitabine plus placebo. Median PFS (16 versus 15 weeks), ORR (22% versus 18%) and median DOR (23.9 versus 16.1 weeks) were also similar for trametinib and placebo arms, respectively. KRAS mutation-positive patients (n=103) showed no difference in OS between arms. Thrombocytopenia, diarrhoea, rash and stomatitis were more frequent with trametinib, as was grade 3 anaemia. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of trametinib to gemcitabine did not improve OS, PFS, ORR or DOR in patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreas cancer. Outcomes were independent of KRAS mutations determined by cfDNA.

ATLAS: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIIB trial comparing bevacizumab therapy with or without erlotinib, after completion of chemotherapy, with bevacizumab for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: This phase III trial was performed to assess the potential benefit of adding maintenance erlotinib to bevacizumab after a first-line chemotherapy regimen with bevacizumab for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: One thousand one hundred forty-five patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed NSCLC (stage IIIB with malignant pleural effusion, stage IV, or recurrent) received four cycles of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Seven hundred forty-three patients without disease progression or significant toxicity were then randomly assigned (1:1) to bevacizumab (15 mg/kg, day 1, 21-day cycle) plus either placebo or erlotinib (150 mg per day). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Median PFS from time of random assignment was 3.7 months with bevacizumab/placebo and 4.8 months with bevacizumab/erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.86; P < .001). Median overall survival (OS) times from random assignment were 13.3 and 14.4 months with bevacizumab/placebo and bevacizumab/erlotinib, respectively (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.21; P = .5341). During the postchemotherapy phase, there were more adverse events (AEs) overall, more grade 3 and 4 AEs (mainly rash and diarrhea), more serious AEs, and more AEs leading to erlotinib/placebo discontinuation in the bevacizumab/erlotinib arm versus the bevacizumab/placebo arm. The incidence of AEs leading to bevacizumab discontinuation was similar in both treatment arms. CONCLUSION: The addition of erlotinib to bevacizumab significantly improved PFS but not OS. Although generally well tolerated, the modest impact on survival and increased toxicity associated with the addition of erlotinib to bevacizumab maintenance mean that this two-drug maintenance regimen will not lead to a new postchemotherapy standard of care.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the effect of repeated oral doses of pazopanib on cardiac conduction in patients with solid tumors.

PURPOSE: As tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been associated with cardiotoxicity, we evaluated the effect of pazopanib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, platelet-derived growth factor receptor, and c-Kit, on electrocardiographic parameters in patients with cancer. METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study randomized patients (N = 96) to moxifloxacin (positive control) or placebo on Day 1 followed by pazopanib or placebo 800 mg/day (fasted) on Days 2-8 and 1,600 mg (with food) on Day 9. Treatment effects were evaluated by baseline-adjusted, time-matched, serial Holter electrocardiograms. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were evaluable for preplanned analyses. On Day 1, the maximum mean difference in baseline-adjusted, time-matched Fridericia-corrected QT (QTcF) interval in moxifloxacin-treated patients versus placebo was 10.6 ms (90% confidence interval [CI]: 4.2, 17.0). The administration scheme increased plasma pazopanib concentrations approximately 1.3- to 1.4-fold versus the recommended 800 mg once-daily dose. Pazopanib caused clinically significant increases from baseline in blood pressure, an anticipated class effect, and an unexpected reduction in heart rate from baseline that correlated with pazopanib exposure. On Day 9, the maximum mean difference in baseline-adjusted, time-matched QTcF interval in pazopanib-treated patients versus placebo was 4.4 ms (90% CI: -2.4, 11.2). Mixed-effects modeling indicated no significant concentration-dependent effect of pazopanib or its metabolites on QTcF interval. CONCLUSIONS: Pazopanib as administered in this study achieved supratherapeutic concentrations, produced a concentration-dependent decrease in heart rate, and caused a small, concentration-independent prolongation of the QTcF interval.