Consideration of stratification in confirmatory trials with time-to-event endpoint.

Stratification in randomization and analysis are widely employed to balance treatment groups in clinical trials. However, the potential power loss due to under-stratification or over-stratification has not been thoroughly evaluated in the typical setting of confirmatory clinical trials. In cases where there are too many strata and some have small sample sizes or a small number of events, it is common practice to combine these small strata during analysis. However, there is a lack of guidance on how those small strata should be combined. This paper presents extensive simulation studies to evaluate the impact of under-stratification or over-stratification on the power of survival analysis and the estimate of hazard ratio using stratified log-rank test and Cox PH model, respectively. The difference in power between stratified and unstratified log-rank tests is also investigated under different scenarios. Our results suggest that failing to consider prognostic stratification factors with strong effects, and/or accounting for non-prognostic factors such as noise and predictive factors, may reduce the power of the stratified log-rank test. Additionally, methods of combining small strata are explored and compared.

Pembrolizumab with or Without Lenvatinib as First-line Therapy for Patients with Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma (LEAP-011): A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib has shown antitumor activity and acceptable safety in patients with platinum-refractory urothelial carcinoma (UC). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate pembrolizumab plus either lenvatinib or placebo as first-line therapy for advanced UC in the phase 3 LEAP-011 study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with advanced UC who were ineligible for cisplatin-based therapy or any platinum-based chemotherapy were enrolled. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 wk plus either lenvatinib 20 mg or placebo orally once daily. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). An external data monitoring committee (DMC) regularly reviewed safety and efficacy data every 3 mo. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Between June 25, 2019 and July 21, 2021, 487 patients were allocated to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (n = 245) or placebo plus pembrolizumab (n = 242). The median time from randomization to the data cutoff date (July 26, 2021) was 12.8 mo (interquartile range, 6.9-19.3). The median PFS was 4.5 mo in the combination arm and 4.0 mo in the pembrolizumab arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.90 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.72-1.14]). The median OS was 11.8 mo for the combination arm and 12.9 mo for the pembrolizumab arm (HR 1.14 [95% CI 0.87-1.48]). Grade 3-5 adverse events attributed to trial treatment occurred in 123 of 241 patients (51%) treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and in 66 of 242 patients (27%) treated with placebo plus pembrolizumab. This trial was terminated earlier than initially planned based on recommendation from the DMC. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit-to-risk ratio for first-line lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was not considered favorable versus pembrolizumab plus placebo as first-line therapy in patients with advanced UC. PATIENT SUMMARY: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was not more effective than pembrolizumab plus placebo in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma.

Olaparib in patients with mCRPC with homologous recombination repair gene alterations: PROfound Asian subset analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Phase III PROfound study (NCT02987543) evaluated olaparib versus abiraterone or enzalutamide (control; randomized 2:1 to olaparib or control) in men with homologous recombination repair gene alterations and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer whose disease progressed on prior next-generation hormonal agent. METHODS: We present efficacy and safety data from an exploratory post hoc analysis of olaparib in the PROfound Asian subset. Analyses were not planned, alpha controlled or powered. Of 101 Asian patients enrolled in Japan (n=57), South Korea (n=29) and Taiwan (n=15), 66 and 35 patients received olaparib and control, respectively. RESULTS: Radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) and overall survival (OS) favored olaparib versus control in Cohort A [rPFS 7.2 vs. 4.5 months, HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.29-1.21, P = 0.14 (nominal); OS 23.4 vs. 17.8 months, HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.40-1.74, P = 0.57 (nominal)] and Cohorts A+B [rPFS 5.8 vs. 3.5 months, HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.42-1.16, P = 0.13 (nominal); OS 18.6 vs. 16.2 months, HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.56-1.70, P = 0.9 (nominal)]. Olaparib showed greatest improvement in patients harboring BRCA alterations [rPFS 9.3 vs. 3.5 months, HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06-0.49, P = 0.0003 (nominal); OS 26.8 vs. 14.3 months, HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.24-1.79, P = 0.34 (nominal)]. Safety data were consistent with the known profile of olaparib, with no new safety signals identified. CONCLUSION: In PROfound, there was a statistically significant improvement in outcomes reported in the global population of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and alterations in homologous recombination repair genes whose disease progressed on prior next-generation hormonal agent compared with control. For the subset of Asian patients reported here, exploratory analysis suggested that there was also an improvement in outcomes versus control. The safety and tolerability of olaparib in Asian patients were similar to that of the PROfound global population. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02987543.

Sample size calculation for recurrent event data with additive rates models.

This paper discusses the design of clinical trials where the primary endpoint is a recurrent event with the focus on the sample size calculation. For the problem, a few methods have been proposed but most of them assume a multiplicative treatment effect on the rate or mean number of recurrent events. In practice, sometimes the additive treatment effect may be preferred or more appealing because of its intuitive clinical meaning and straightforward interpretation compared to a multiplicative relationship. In this paper, new methods are presented and investigated for the sample size calculation based on the additive rates model for superiority, non-inferiority, and equivalence trials. They allow for flexible baseline rate function, staggered entry, random dropout, and overdispersion in event numbers, and simulation studies show that the proposed methods perform well in a variety of settings. We also illustrate how to use the proposed methods to design a clinical trial based on real data.

Cabazitaxel Versus Docetaxel As First-Line Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Phase III Trial-FIRSTANA.

Purpose In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), overall survival (OS) is significantly improved with cabazitaxel versus mitoxantrone after prior docetaxel treatment. FIRSTANA ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01308567) assessed whether cabazitaxel 20 mg/m2 (C20) or 25 mg/m2 (C25) is superior to docetaxel 75 mg/m2 (D75) in terms of OS in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Patients and Methods Patients with mCRPC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2 were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive C20, C25, or D75 intravenously every 3 weeks plus daily prednisone. The primary end point was OS. Secondary end points included safety; progression-free survival (PFS); tumor, prostate-specific antigen, and pain response; pharmacokinetics; and health-related quality of life. Results Between May 2011 and April 2013, 1,168 patients were randomly assigned. Baseline characteristics were similar across cohorts. Median OS was 24.5 months with C20, 25.2 months with C25, and 24.3 months with D75. Hazard ratio for C20 versus D75 was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.20; P = .997), and hazard ratio for C25 versus D75 was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.16; P = .757). Median PFS was 4.4 months with C20, 5.1 months with C25, and 5.3 months with D75, with no significant differences between treatment arms. Radiographic tumor responses were numerically higher for C25 (41.6%) versus D75 (30.9%; nominal P = .037, without multiplicity test adjustment). Rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were 41.2%, 60.1%, and 46.0% for C20, C25, and D75, respectively. Febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, and hematuria were more frequent with C25; peripheral neuropathy, peripheral edema, alopecia, and nail disorders were more frequent with D75. Conclusion C20 and C25 did not demonstrate superiority for OS versus D75 in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Tumor response was numerically higher with C25 versus D75; pain PFS was numerically improved with D75 versus C25. Cabazitaxel and docetaxel demonstrated different toxicity profiles, with overall less toxicity with C20.

A DREAM Challenge to Build Prediction Models for Short-Term Discontinuation of Docetaxel in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Docetaxel has a demonstrated survival benefit for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC); however, 10% to 20% of patients discontinue docetaxel prematurely because of toxicity-induced adverse events, and the management of risk factors for toxicity remains a challenge. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The comparator arms of four phase III clinical trials in first-line mCRPC were collected, annotated, and compiled, with a total of 2,070 patients. Early discontinuation was defined as treatment stoppage within 3 months as a result of adverse treatment effects; 10% of patients discontinued treatment. We designed an open-data, crowd-sourced DREAM Challenge for developing models with which to predict early discontinuation of docetaxel treatment. Clinical features for all four trials and outcomes for three of the four trials were made publicly available, with the outcomes of the fourth trial held back for unbiased model evaluation. Challenge participants from around the world trained models and submitted their predictions. Area under the precision-recall curve was the primary metric used for performance assessment. RESULTS: In total, 34 separate teams submitted predictions. Seven models with statistically similar area under precision-recall curves (Bayes factor ≤ 3) outperformed all other models. A postchallenge analysis of risk prediction using these seven models revealed three patient subgroups: high risk, low risk, or discordant risk. Early discontinuation events were two times higher in the high-risk subgroup compared with the low-risk subgroup. Simulation studies demonstrated that use of patient discontinuation prediction models could reduce patient enrollment in clinical trials without the loss of statistical power. CONCLUSION: This work represents a successful collaboration between 34 international teams that leveraged open clinical trial data. Our results demonstrate that routinely collected clinical features can be used to identify patients with mCRPC who are likely to discontinue treatment because of adverse events and establishes a robust benchmark with implications for clinical trial design.

Prediction of overall survival for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: development of a prognostic model through a crowdsourced challenge with open clinical trial data.

BACKGROUND: Improvements to prognostic models in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have the potential to augment clinical trial design and guide treatment strategies. In partnership with Project Data Sphere, a not-for-profit initiative allowing data from cancer clinical trials to be shared broadly with researchers, we designed an open-data, crowdsourced, DREAM (Dialogue for Reverse Engineering Assessments and Methods) challenge to not only identify a better prognostic model for prediction of survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer but also engage a community of international data scientists to study this disease. METHODS: Data from the comparator arms of four phase 3 clinical trials in first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were obtained from Project Data Sphere, comprising 476 patients treated with docetaxel and prednisone from the ASCENT2 trial, 526 patients treated with docetaxel, prednisone, and placebo in the MAINSAIL trial, 598 patients treated with docetaxel, prednisone or prednisolone, and placebo in the VENICE trial, and 470 patients treated with docetaxel and placebo in the ENTHUSE 33 trial. Datasets consisting of more than 150 clinical variables were curated centrally, including demographics, laboratory values, medical history, lesion sites, and previous treatments. Data from ASCENT2, MAINSAIL, and VENICE were released publicly to be used as training data to predict the outcome of interest-namely, overall survival. Clinical data were also released for ENTHUSE 33, but data for outcome variables (overall survival and event status) were hidden from the challenge participants so that ENTHUSE 33 could be used for independent validation. Methods were evaluated using the integrated time-dependent area under the curve (iAUC). The reference model, based on eight clinical variables and a penalised Cox proportional-hazards model, was used to compare method performance. Further validation was done using data from a fifth trial-ENTHUSE M1-in which 266 patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were treated with placebo alone. FINDINGS: 50 independent methods were developed to predict overall survival and were evaluated through the DREAM challenge. The top performer was based on an ensemble of penalised Cox regression models (ePCR), which uniquely identified predictive interaction effects with immune biomarkers and markers of hepatic and renal function. Overall, ePCR outperformed all other methods (iAUC 0·791; Bayes factor >5) and surpassed the reference model (iAUC 0·743; Bayes factor >20). Both the ePCR model and reference models stratified patients in the ENTHUSE 33 trial into high-risk and low-risk groups with significantly different overall survival (ePCR: hazard ratio 3·32, 95% CI 2·39-4·62, p<0·0001; reference model: 2·56, 1·85-3·53, p<0·0001). The new model was validated further on the ENTHUSE M1 cohort with similarly high performance (iAUC 0·768). Meta-analysis across all methods confirmed previously identified predictive clinical variables and revealed aspartate aminotransferase as an important, albeit previously under-reported, prognostic biomarker. INTERPRETATION: Novel prognostic factors were delineated, and the assessment of 50 methods developed by independent international teams establishes a benchmark for development of methods in the future. The results of this effort show that data-sharing, when combined with a crowdsourced challenge, is a robust and powerful framework to develop new prognostic models in advanced prostate cancer. FUNDING: Sanofi US Services, Project Data Sphere.

A phase I pharmacokinetic and safety study of cabazitaxel in adult cancer patients with normal and impaired renal function.

PURPOSE: Limited data are available on cabazitaxel pharmacokinetics in patients with renal impairment. This open-label, multicenter study assessed cabazitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors and normal or impaired renal function. METHODS: Cohorts A (normal renal function: creatinine clearance [CrCL] >80 mL/min/1.73 m2), B (moderate renal impairment: CrCL 30 to <50 mL/min/1.73 m2) and C (severe impairment: CrCL <30 mL/min/1.73 m2) received cabazitaxel 25 mg/m2 (A, B) or 20 mg/m2 (C, could be escalated to 25 mg/m2), once every 3 weeks. Pharmacokinetic parameters and cabazitaxel unbound fraction (F U) were assessed using linear regression and mixed models. Geometric mean (GM) and GM ratios (GMRs) were determined using mean CrCL intervals (moderate and severe renal impairment: 40 and 15 mL/min/1.73 m2) versus a control (90 mL/min/1.73 m2). RESULTS: Overall, 25 patients received cabazitaxel (median cycles: 3 [range 1-20]; Cohort A: 5 [2-13]; Cohort B: 3 [1-15]; and Cohort C: 5 [1-20]), of which 24 were eligible for pharmacokinetic analysis (eight in each cohort). For moderate and severe renal impairment versus normal renal function, GMR estimates were: clearance normalized to body surface area (CL/BSA) 0.95 (90% CI 0.80-1.13) and 0.89 (0.61-1.32); area under the curve normalized to dose (AUC/dose) 1.06 (0.88-1.27) and 1.14 (0.76-1.71); and F U 0.99 (0.94-1.04) and 0.97 (0.87-1.09), respectively. Estimated slopes of linear regression of log parameters versus log CrCL (renal impairment) were: CL/BSA 0.06 (-0.15 to 0.28); AUC/dose -0.07 (-0.30 to 0.16); and F U 0.02 (-0.05 to 0.08). Cabazitaxel safety profile was consistent with previous reports. CONCLUSIONS: Renal impairment had no clinically meaningful effect on cabazitaxel pharmacokinetics.

International randomized phase 2 study on the addition of docetaxel to the combination of cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil in the induction treatment for nasopharyngeal carcinoma in children and adolescents.

PURPOSE: Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is a rare but aggressive malignancy in children and adolescents. An international, randomized phase 2 trial was conducted to compare induction chemotherapy with docetaxel plus cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (TPF) with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (PF) in NPC patients under the age of 21. METHODS: Patients with stage IIB-IV NPC were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive TPF or PF 3-weekly for three cycles, followed by chemoradiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the complete response rate achieved with TPF or PF. Docetaxel pharmacokinetics was also evaluated. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients (median 16 years old) were randomized, with 50 assigned to the TPF group and 25 to the PF group. Overall response was assessed after induction treatment: one patient in the TPF group and none in the PF group had a complete response. Partial response was achieved in 76.0 and 80.0 % in the TPF and PF groups, respectively. The overall safety profile was consistent with findings in adults. The estimated 3-year overall survival rate was 78.0 % for the PF group and 85.7 % for the TPF group (median follow-up 3.3 years). Mean docetaxel area under the curve was 3.41 µg h/mL, compared with 3.51 µg h/mL seen in adult patients. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the feasibility of prospective randomized protocols, even for such rare tumors as pediatric NPC. Overall, there were no differences between the two treatment arms in terms of efficacy and toxicity. The pharmacokinetics of docetaxel in pediatric patients at 75 mg/m(2) was similar to those observed in adults.

Cabazitaxel Versus Topotecan in Patients with Small-Cell Lung Cancer with Progressive Disease During or After First-Line Platinum-Based Chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) typically respond well to initial chemotherapy. However, relapse invariably occurs, and topotecan, the only approved second-line treatment option, has limited efficacy. Taxanes have activity in SCLC, and cabazitaxel is a second-generation taxane with potential for enhanced activity in chemorefractory malignancies. METHODS: Patients with SCLC who relapsed after initial platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive cabazitaxel 25 mg/m every 21 days or topotecan 1.5 mg/m on days 1-5 every 21 days. Two patient subgroups, defined by chemosensitive and chemo-resistant/refractory disease, were assessed in combination and separately. RESULTS: The safety profile of cabazitaxel and topotecan was consistent with previous studies, and despite considerable toxicity in both arms, no new safety concerns were identified. Patients receiving cabazitaxel had inferior progression-free survival compared with topotecan (1.4 versus 3.0 months, respectively; two-sided p < 0.0001; hazard ratio = 2.17, 95% confidence interval = 1.563-3.010), and results were similar in both the chemosensitive and chemorefractory subgroups. No complete responses were observed in either arm, and no partial responses were observed in the cabazitaxel group. The partial response rate in the topotecan arm was 10%. Median overall survival was 5.2 months in the cabazitaxel arm and 6.8 months in the topotecan arm (two-sided p = 0.0125; hazard ratio = 1.57, 95% confidence interval = 1.10-2.25). CONCLUSION: Cabazitaxel, a next-generation taxane, had inferior efficacy when compared with standard-dose topotecan in the treatment of relapsed SCLC. Topotecan remains a suboptimal therapy, and continued efforts to develop improved second-line treatments are warranted.

Phase I dose-escalation study of cabazitaxel administered in combination with gemcitabine in patients with metastatic or unresectable advanced solid malignancies.

Taxane-gemcitabine combinations have demonstrated antitumor activity. This phase I study (NCT01001221) aimed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of cabazitaxel plus gemcitabine and to assess the preliminary efficacy of this combination. The patients included had metastatic or unresectable solid tumors and had exhausted standard treatment. Cohorts of three to six patients received cabazitaxel (15-20 mg/m) before (part 1a) or after (part 1b) gemcitabine (700-1000 mg/m) on Day 1 and gemcitabine alone on Day 8. Prophylactic growth factors were not allowed in cycle 1. In part 1a (n=12), five patients received 20 mg/m cabazitaxel plus 1000 mg/m gemcitabine (20/1000), five received 15/900, two received 15/700. In part 1b, all six patients received the lowest dose (700/15). At all doses, two or more patients experienced a DLT, regardless of administration sequence, including febrile neutropenia (n=4), grade 4 neutropenia (n=2), grade 4 thrombocytopenia (n=2), and grade 3 aspartate transaminase increase (n=1). The MTD was not established as all cohorts exceeded the MTD by definition. All patients experienced an adverse event; the most frequent all-grade nonhematologic events were fatigue (66.7%), decreased appetite (50.0%), and diarrhea (44.4%). The most frequent grade 3-4 hematologic abnormalities were neutropenia (83.3%), leukopenia (77.8%), and lymphopenia (72.2%). Toxicity was sequence-independent but appeared worse with gemcitabine followed by cabazitaxel. Durable partial responses were observed in three patients (prostate cancer, appendiceal cancer, and melanoma). The unacceptable DLTs with cabazitaxel plus gemcitabine, at doses reduced more than 25% from single-agent doses, preclude further investigation.

Analysis of Side Effect Profile of Alopecia, Nail Changes, Peripheral Neuropathy, and Dysgeusia in Prostate Cancer Patients Treated With Docetaxel and Cabazitaxel.

INTRODUCTION: We hypothesized that the adverse event (AE) profile of cabazitaxel with regard to alopecia, nail changes, neuropathy, and dysgeusia differs from docetaxel. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospectively collected data on treatment-emergent AEs (frequency and grade [G]) from clinical trial databases of docetaxel every 3 weeks (q3w) (in TAX327 and VENICE) and cabazitaxel q3w (in TROPIC) were analyzed. RESULTS: The frequency of new or worsening AEs (all G and G3-4) for 1301 patients was significantly less for alopecia, nail changes, neuropathy, and dysgeusia for cabazitaxel compared with docetaxel. CONCLUSION: Treatment with cabazitaxel might cause less alopecia, nail changes, neuropathy, and dysgeusia compared with docetaxel.

Sequencing of Cabazitaxel and Abiraterone Acetate After Docetaxel in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Treatment Patterns and Clinical Outcomes in Multicenter Community-Based US Oncology Practices.

BACKGROUND: Optimal sequencing of cabazitaxel (C) and abiraterone acetate (A) after docetaxel (D) for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is unclear. We assessed treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with mCRPC receiving different sequences of A or C, or both, after administration of D. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was conducted of US Oncology Network iKnowMed (iKM) electronic health record (EHR) data to assess patients with mCRPC who received treatment with D and were subsequently treated with C or A, or both, between April 2011 and May 2012. Patients received 2 or 3 drugs: DA, DC, DAC, or DCA. Overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method from the start to the end of second-line therapy after administration of D (TTF1) and to the end of combined second- and third-line therapy (TTF2) for 3-drug sequences. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models evaluated the impact of baseline clinical prognostic factors and treatment sequence on OS and TTF. RESULTS: Of 350 patients who were treated with D and subsequent therapies, 183 (52.3%) received DA, 54 (15.4%) received DC, 77 (22.0%) received DCA, and 36 (10.3%) received DAC. In a multivariable analysis, adjusted comparisons suggested that 3-drug sequences were associated with improved OS versus 2-drug sequences (hazard ratio [HR], 0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.092-0.476; P = .0002). There were no statistically significant differences in OS and TTF for DC versus DA, and OS was significantly greater for DCA versus DAC (HR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.022-0.733; P = .0210). More cycles of C were administered in DCA than in DAC (median 6 vs. 4; t test P < .0001), whereas the duration of A treatment was similar. CONCLUSION: Administration of 3 agents in the DCA sequence was more optimal for treating mCRPC in this hypothesis-generating study.

An open-label study to investigate the cardiac safety profile of cabazitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: This study assessed the cardiovascular safety of cabazitaxel, based on thorough evaluation of QT and non-QT variables, and the relationship between pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic electrocardiographic (ECG) profiles and the occurrence of Grade ≥3 cardiovascular adverse events. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors were treated with cabazitaxel 25 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. Digital ECG recordings were obtained during Cycle 1 over 24 h after dosing. The primary end point was effect of cabazitaxel on QT interval corrected by the Fridericia formula (QTcF). Secondary end points were additional ECG parameters (QT, PR and QRS intervals, and heart rate), plasma pharmacokinetics of cabazitaxel and overall clinical safety. RESULTS: The pharmacodynamic (ECG) population included 94 patients. In 63 patients with a full 24-h ECG evaluation, the maximum upper bound of 90 % confidence interval (CI) for mean QTcF change from baseline was 7.46 ms (mean 4.8 ms), occurring at 1 h 30 min post-infusion. The slope of QTcF change from baseline versus cabazitaxel concentration was slightly negative (-0.012 [95 % CI -0.017; -0.008], equivalent to a 1.2 ms decrease per 100 ng/mL increase in cabazitaxel concentration). For non-QT variables, no effect was noted. No Grade ≥3 cardiac adverse events were observed; Grade ≥3 hypotension and lymphocele occurred in two patients and one patient, respectively. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that cabazitaxel has no clinically significant cardiovascular adverse effects in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Initial biopsy Gleason score as a predictive marker for survival benefit in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with docetaxel: data from the TAX327 study.

BACKGROUND: Since 2004, docetaxel has been the standard first-line systemic therapy for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). With abiraterone recently becoming available in the predocetaxel setting, it is warranted to identify subgroups of patients who may obtain the greatest benefit from docetaxel and particularly qualify for receiving docetaxel as first-line treatment for mCRPC. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify factors that could characterize subgroups of patients who obtain the greatest benefit from the use of docetaxel. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: TAX327 was multinational, randomized, phase 3 study that was conducted from 2000 to 2002 in 1006 men with mCRPC. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to receive docetaxel every 3 wk (D3), weekly docetaxel (D1), or mitoxantrone every 3 wk (M3), each with prednisone. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We investigated whether patients with poorly differentiated tumors (Gleason score ≥7) at diagnosis had greater benefit from D3 compared with M3 than patients with better differentiated tumors (Gleason score ≤6). Using a Cox model, we compared overall survival (OS) between the treatment groups within each subgroup of Gleason score. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The TAX 327 data showed that the OS benefit of D3 versus M3 was greater in patients with high-grade tumors (median OS: 18.9 vs 14.5 mo; p=0.009) than in patients with low-grade tumors (median OS: 21.6 vs 20.7 mo; p=0.674). Limitations of a retrospective analysis apply. CONCLUSIONS: The survival benefit obtained with docetaxel is most pronounced in patients with high-Gleason-score tumors (Gleason ≥7). In a time of shifting paradigms in mCRPC, with abiraterone becoming available prior to docetaxel chemotherapy, Gleason score may help in selecting patients who obtain the greatest benefit from docetaxel as first-line treatment for mCRPC. Prospective validation of these findings is warranted.

Prognostic model predicting metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer survival in men treated with second-line chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Several prognostic models for overall survival (OS) have been developed and validated in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who receive first-line chemotherapy. We sought to develop and validate a prognostic model to predict OS in men who had progressed after first-line chemotherapy and were selected to receive second-line chemotherapy. METHODS: Data from a phase III trial in men with mCRPC who had developed progressive disease after first-line chemotherapy (TROPIC trial) were used. The TROPIC was randomly split into training (n = 507) and testing (n = 248) sets. Another dataset consisting of 488 men previously treated with docetaxel (SPARC trial) was used for external validation. Adaptive least absolute shrinkage and selection operator selected nine prognostic factors of OS. A prognostic score was computed from the regression coefficients. The model was assessed on the testing and validation sets for its predictive accuracy using the time-dependent area under the curve (tAUC). RESULTS: The nine prognostic variables in the final model were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, time since last docetaxel use, measurable disease, presence of visceral disease, pain, duration of hormonal use, hemoglobin, prostate specific antigen, and alkaline phosphatase. The tAUCs for this model were 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72 to 0.74) and 0.70 (95% CI = 0.68 to 0.72) for the testing and validation sets, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A prognostic model of OS in the postdocetaxel, second-line chemotherapy, mCRPC setting was developed and externally validated. This model incorporates novel prognostic factors and can be used to provide predicted probabilities for individual patients and to select patients to participate in clinical trials on the basis of their prognosis. Prospective validation is needed.

[Cabazitaxel for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel treatment: the TROPIC study in France]. / Cabazitaxel dans le cancer de la prostate métastatique résistant à la castration ayant progressé pendant ou après traitement par docétaxel : l'expérience française de l'essai TROPIC.

In 2010, results of the TROPIC study demonstrated that, when compared to mitxantrone, the novel taxane cabazitaxel improved median overall survival of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who progressed on or after docetaxel treatment. We report the data on efficacy and toxicity observed in the subgroup of patients included in the French centers. In this phase III randomized international trial, patients received prednisone and were treated with either 25 mg/m(2) cabazitaxel or 12 mg/m(2) mitoxantrone intravenously every three weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival. The secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. Analyses were performed on the intention-to-treat population. Among the 90 patients enrolled in France, the median overall survival was 18 months for the cabazitaxel arm versus 14.3 months for the mitoxantrone arm. An improvement in PFS was also observed, with a median of 1.4 months for the mitoxatrone arm compared to a median of 2.5 months for the cabazitaxel arm. The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events were hematologic with neutropenia, usually afebrile and digestive with 4 % of patients reporting diarrhea. These results are comparable to those reported for the overall population and the safety profile remains favorable without any toxic death related to cabazitaxel.

Prednisone plus cabazitaxel or mitoxantrone for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer progressing after docetaxel treatment: a randomised open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: Cabazitaxel is a novel tubulin-binding taxane drug with antitumour activity in docetaxel-resistant cancers. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel plus prednisone with those of mitoxantrone plus prednisone in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with progressive disease after docetaxel-based treatment. METHODS: We undertook an open-label randomised phase 3 trial in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had received previous hormone therapy, but whose disease had progressed during or after treatment with a docetaxel-containing regimen. Participants were treated with 10 mg oral prednisone daily, and were randomly assigned to receive either 12 mg/m(2) mitoxantrone intravenously over 15-30 min or 25 mg/m(2) cabazitaxel intravenously over 1 h every 3 weeks. The random allocation schedule was computer-generated; patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation, but the study team was masked to the data analysis. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival and safety. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00417079. FINDINGS: 755 men were allocated to treatment groups (377 mitoxantrone, 378 cabazitaxel) and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At the cutoff for the final analysis (Sept 25, 2009), median survival was 15·1 months (95% CI 14·1-16·3) in the cabazitaxel group and 12·7 months (11·6-13·7) in the mitoxantrone group. The hazard ratio for death of men treated with cabazitaxel compared with those taking mitoxantrone was 0·70 (95% CI 0·59-0·83, p<0·0001). Median progression-free survival was 2·8 months (95% CI 2·4-3·0) in the cabazitaxel group and 1·4 months (1·4-1·7) in the mitoxantrone group (HR 0·74, 0·64-0·86, p<0·0001). The most common clinically significant grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (cabazitaxel, 303 [82%] patients vs mitoxantrone, 215 [58%]) and diarrhoea (23 [6%] vs one [<1%]). 28 (8%) patients in the cabazitaxel group and five (1%) in the mitoxantrone group had febrile neutropenia. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with cabazitaxel plus prednisone has important clinical antitumour activity, improving overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer whose disease has progressed during or after docetaxel-based therapy. FUNDING: Sanofi-Aventis.

Phase I trial of tirapazamine, cisplatin, and concurrent accelerated boost reirradiation in patients with recurrent head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE: Reirradiation (re-RT) with concurrent chemotherapy offers a therapeutic option in patients who have locoregional recurrence of head and neck cancer (HNC). The hypoxic cell sensitizer, tirapazamine (TPZ), has demonstrated promising results in first-line therapy for HNC. This phase I trial was designed to test the feasibility of giving TPZ in the re-RT setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with recurrent HNC who received prior radiotherapy (RT) were enrolled and received TPZ (260 mg/m2) and cisplatin (50 mg/m2) Weeks 1, 3, and 5 concurrently with RT (72 Gy, 42 fractions over 6 weeks). TPZ (160 mg/m2) alone was added on Days 1, 3, and 5 of Week 2 (cohort 1) or Weeks 2 and 4 (cohort 2). RESULTS: Twenty-five subjects were enrolled, 7 and 18 on cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. Significant toxicities included Grade 3 dermatitis (20%) and Grade 3 mucositis (40%). Dose-limiting toxicity was observed on cohort 2 (1 patient with aspiration pneumonia). Four deaths occurred during treatment. Two fatalities occurred after completing therapy as a result of carotid artery rupture. With a minimum and median follow-up of 14 and 24 months, respectively, median overall survival was 14 months with actuarial 1-year and 2-year survival of 56% and 27%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Reirradiation with concomitant chemotherapy including TPZ in patients with unresectable recurrent HNC is feasible and results in long-term survival in a significant proportion of patients.