Anna Pluzanska

Bevacizumab plus interferon alfa-2a for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a randomised, double-blind phase III trial

BACKGROUNDnVascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition is a valid therapeutic approach in renal cell carcinoma. Therefore, an investigation of the combination treatment of the humanised anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody bevacizumab with interferon alfa was warranted.nnnMETHODSnIn a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase III trial, 649 patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma were randomised to receive interferon alfa-2a (9 MIU subcutaneously three times weekly) and bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks; n=327) or placebo and interferon alfa-2a (n=322). The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival and safety. An interim analysis of overall survival was prespecified after 250 deaths. On the basis of new second-line therapies that became available while the trial was in progress, which could have confounded analyses of overall survival data, we agreed with regulatory agencies that the pre-planned final analysis of progression-free survival would be acceptable for regulatory submission. The protocol was amended to allow the study to be unblinded at this point. The final analysis of progression-free survival is reported here. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with centerwatch.com, number BO17705E.nnnFINDINGSn325 patients in the bevacizumab plus interferon alfa group and 316 in the placebo plus interferon alfa group received at least one dose of study treatment. At the time of unblinding, 230 progression events had occurred in the bevacizumab plus interferon alfa group and 275 in the control group; there were 114 deaths in the bevacizumab plus interferon alfa group and 137 in the control group. Median duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer in the bevacizumab plus interferon alfa group than it was in the control group (10.2 months vs 5.4 months; HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.52-0.75; p=0.0001). Increases in progression-free survival were seen with bevacizumab plus interferon alfa irrespective of risk group or whether reduced-dose interferon alfa was received. Deaths due to adverse events were reported in eight (2%) patients who received one or more doses of bevacizumab and seven (2%) of those who did not receive the drug. Only three deaths in the bevacizumab arm were considered by investigators to be possibly related to bevacizumab. The most commonly reported grade 3 or worse adverse events were fatigue (40 [12%] patients in the bevacizumab group vs 25 [8%] in the control group) and asthenia (34 [10%] vs 20 [7%]).nnnINTERPRETATIONnThe combination of bevacizumab with interferon alfa as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma results in a significant improvement in progression-free survival, compared with interferon alfa alone.

Gefitinib in Combination With Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Phase III Trial—INTACT 1

PURPOSEnThe purpose of this study was to determine whether the addition of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib (Iressa, ZD1839; AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE) to standard first-line gemcitabine and cisplatin provides clinical benefit over gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Gefitinib has demonstrated encouraging efficacy in advanced NSCLC in phase II trials in pretreated patients, and a phase I trial of gefitinib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin showed favorable tolerability.nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnThis was a phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial in chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable stage III or IV NSCLC. All patients received up to six cycles of chemotherapy (cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 of the 3-week cycle) plus either gefitinib 500 mg/d, gefitinib 250 mg/d, or placebo. Daily gefitinib or placebo was continued until disease progression. End points included overall survival (primary), time to progression, response rates, and safety evaluation.nnnRESULTSnA total of 1,093 patients were enrolled. There was no difference in efficacy end points between the treatment groups: for the gefitinib 500 mg/d, gefitinib 250 mg/d, and placebo groups, respectively, median survival times were 9.9, 9.9, and 10.9 months (global ordered log-rank [GOLrank] P =.4560), median times to progression were 5.5, 5.8, and 6.0 months (GOLrank; P =.7633), and response rates were 49.7%, 50.3%, and 44.8%. No significant unexpected adverse events were seen.nnnCONCLUSIONnGefitinib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC did not have improved efficacy over gemcitabine and cisplatin alone. The reasons for this remain obscure and require further preclinical testing.

Superior Efficacy of Letrozole Versus Tamoxifen as First-Line Therapy for Postmenopausal Women With Advanced Breast Cancer: Results of a Phase III Study of the International Letrozole Breast Cancer Group

PURPOSEnTo compare the efficacy and tolerability of tamoxifen with that of letrozole, an oral aromatase inhibitor, with tamoxifen as first-line therapy in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer.nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnNine hundred seven patients were randomly assigned letrozole 2.5 mg once daily (453 patients) or tamoxifen 20 mg once daily (454 patients). Patients had estrogen receptor- and/or progesterone receptor-positive tumors, or both receptors were unknown. Recurrence during adjuvant antiestrogen therapy or within the following 12 months or prior endocrine therapy for advanced disease precluded enrollment. One prior chemotherapy regimen for metastatic disease was allowed. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP). Secondary end points included overall objective response rate (ORR), its duration, rate and duration of clinical benefit, time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival, and tolerability.nnnRESULTSnTTP was significantly longer for letrozole than for tamoxifen (median, 41 v 26 weeks). Treatment with letrozole reduced the risk of progression by 30% (hazards ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.60 to 0.82, P =.0001). TTP was significantly longer for letrozole irrespective of dominant site of disease, receptor status, or prior adjuvant antiestrogen therapy. Similarly, TTF was significantly longer for letrozole (median, 40 v 25 weeks). ORR was higher for letrozole (30% v 20%; P =.0006), as was the rate of clinical benefit (49% v 38%; P =.001). Survival data are currently immature and not reported here. Both treatments were well tolerated.nnnCONCLUSIONnLetrozole was significantly superior to tamoxifen in TTP, TTF, ORR, and clinical benefit rate. Our results support its use as first-line endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer.

Phase III Study of Erlotinib in Combination With Cisplatin and Gemcitabine in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: The Tarceva Lung Cancer Investigation Trial

PURPOSEnErlotinib is a potent inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase, with single-agent antitumor activity. Preclinically, erlotinib enhanced the cytotoxicity of chemotherapy. This phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of erlotinib in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnPatients received erlotinib (150 mg/d) or placebo, combined with up to six 21-day cycles of chemotherapy (gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to disease progression (TTP), response rate (RR), duration of response, and quality of life (QoL).nnnRESULTSnA total of 1,172 patients were enrolled. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were well balanced. There were no differences in OS (hazard ratio, 1.06; median, 43 v 44.1 weeks for erlotinib and placebo groups, respectively), TTP, RR, or QoL between treatment arms. In a small group of patients who had never smoked, OS and progression-free survival were increased in the erlotinib group; no other subgroups were found more likely to benefit. Erlotinib with chemotherapy was generally well tolerated; incidence of adverse events was similar between arms, except for an increase in rash and diarrhea with erlotinib (generally mild).nnnCONCLUSIONnErlotinib with concurrent cisplatin and gemcitabine showed no survival benefit compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced NSCLC.

Phase III Study of Letrozole Versus Tamoxifen As First-Line Therapy of Advanced Breast Cancer in Postmenopausal Women: Analysis of Survival and Update of Efficacy From the International Letrozole Breast Cancer Group

PURPOSEnTo analyze overall survival (OS) and update efficacy data for letrozole versus tamoxifen as first-line therapy in postmenopausal women with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnThis multicenter phase III trial randomly assigned 916 patients with hormone receptor-positive or unknown tumors letrozole 2.5 mg (n = 458) or tamoxifen 20 mg (n = 458) daily until disease progression. Optional cross-over was permitted at the treating physicians discretion. This report updates efficacy at a median follow-up of 32 months.nnnRESULTSnThe superiority of letrozole to tamoxifen was confirmed for time to progression (median, 9.4 v 6.0 months, respectively; P <.0001), time to treatment failure (median, 9 v 5.7 months, respectively; P <.0001), overall objective response rate (32% v 21%, respectively; P =.0002), and overall clinical benefit. Median OS was slightly prolonged for the randomized letrozole arm (34 v 30 months, respectively). Although this difference in OS is not significant, survival was improved in the randomized letrozole arm over the first 2 years of the study. Approximately one half of the patients in each arm crossed over. Total duration of endocrine therapy (time to chemotherapy) was significantly longer (P =.005) for patients initially on letrozole (median, 16 months) than for patients initially on tamoxifen (median, 9 months). Time to worsening of Karnofsky performance score was significantly delayed with letrozole compared with tamoxifen (P =.001).nnnCONCLUSIONnThis study documents the superiority of letrozole over tamoxifen in first-line endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer.

Multipeptide immune response to cancer vaccine IMA901 after single-dose cyclophosphamide associates with longer patient survival

IMA901 is the first therapeutic vaccine for renal cell cancer (RCC) consisting of multiple tumor-associated peptides (TUMAPs) confirmed to be naturally presented in human cancer tissue. We treated a total of 96 human leukocyte antigen A (HLA-A)*02+ subjects with advanced RCC with IMA901 in two consecutive studies. In the phase 1 study, the T cell responses of the patients to multiple TUMAPs were associated with better disease control and lower numbers of prevaccine forkhead box P3 (FOXP3)+ regulatory T (Treg) cells. The randomized phase 2 trial showed that a single dose of cyclophosphamide reduced the number of Treg cells and confirmed that immune responses to multiple TUMAPs were associated with longer overall survival. Furthermore, among six predefined populations of myeloid-derived suppressor cells, two were prognostic for overall survival, and among over 300 serum biomarkers, we identified apolipoprotein A-I (APOA1) and chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 17 (CCL17) as being predictive for both immune response to IMA901 and overall survival. A randomized phase 3 study to determine the clinical benefit of treatment with IMA901 is ongoing.

Doxorubicin and Paclitaxel Versus Fluorouracil, Doxorubicin, and Cyclophosphamide as First-Line Therapy for Women With Metastatic Breast Cancer: Final Results of a Randomized Phase III Multicenter Trial

PURPOSEnThis phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT) to 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FAC) as first-line therapy for women with metastatic breast cancer.nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnA total of 267 women with metastatic breast cancer were randomized to receive either AT (doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2) followed 24 hours later by paclitaxel 220 mg/m(2)) or FAC (5-fluorouracil 500 mg/m(2), doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2), cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m(2)), each administered every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles. Patients had to have measurable disease and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2. Only one prior non-anthracycline, nontaxane-containing adjuvant chemotherapy regimen was allowed.nnnRESULTSnOverall response rates for patients randomized to AT and FAC were 68% and 55%, respectively (P =.032). Median time to progression and overall survival were significantly longer for AT compared with FAC (time to progression 8.3 months v 6.2 months [P =.034]; overall survival 23.3 months v 18.3 months [P =.013]). Therapy was generally well-tolerated (median of eight cycles delivered in each arm). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was more common with AT than with FAC (89% v 65%; P <.001); however, the incidence of fever and infection was low. Grade 3 or 4 arthralgia and myalgia, peripheral neuropathy, and diarrhea were more common with AT, whereas nausea and vomiting were more common with FAC. The incidence of cardiotoxicity was low in both arms.nnnCONCLUSIONnAT conferred a significant advantage in response rate, time to progression, and overall survival compared with FAC. Treatment was well-tolerated with no unexpected toxicities.

Gemcitabine Plus Paclitaxel Versus Paclitaxel Monotherapy in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer and Prior Anthracycline Treatment

PURPOSEnThe objective of this phase III global study was to compare the efficacy of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel (GT) versus paclitaxel in patients with advanced breast cancer. It was designed as a pivotal study for the approval of G for a breast cancer treatment indication.nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnPatients who relapsed after adjuvant anthracyclines were randomly assigned to gemcitabine,1,250 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8 plus paclitaxel, 175 mg/m(2) on day 1; or, to paclitaxel at same dose on day 1 (both arms administered every 21 days, unblinded). The primary end point was overall survival (OS) and secondary end points were time to progression (TTP), response rate (RR), progression-free survival, response duration, and toxicity. This final OS analysis was planned at 380 deaths.nnnRESULTSnA total of 266 patients were randomly assigned to GT and 263 to paclitaxel. Median survival on GT was 18.6 months versus 15.8 months on paclitaxel (log-rank P = . 0489), with an adjusted Cox hazard ratio of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.96; P = .0187). The TTP was longer (6.14 v 3.98 months; log-rank P = .0002) and the RR was better (41.4% v 26.2%; P = .0002) on GT. There was more grade 3 to 4 neutropenia on GT and grade 2 to 4 fatigue and neuropathy were slightly more prevalent on GT.nnnCONCLUSIONnThis phase III study documents a role for gemcitabine in advanced breast cancer after anthracycline-based adjuvant therapy. The results establish GT as a reasonable choice for women who require cytoreduction with manageable toxicities and validate ongoing testing of GT in the adjuvant setting.

Docetaxel Compared with Sequential Methotrexate and 5-Fluorouracil in Patients with Advanced Breast Cancer after Anthracycline Failure: a Randomised Phase III Study with Crossover on Progression by the Scandinavian Breast Group

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of docetaxel to methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil in advanced breast cancer after anthracycline failure. A randomised multicentre trial was conducted in 283 patients with advanced breast cancer who had failed previous anthracycline treatment. Docetaxel at a dose of 100 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (n = 143) was compared with sequential methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (MF; n = 139) given at day 1 and 8 every 3 weeks at dosages of 200 mg/ m2 and 600 mg/m2, respectively. After progression, crossover to the alternative treatment group was recommended. There was a significantly higher overall response rate in the docetaxel 42% (CR 8% + PR 34%) than in the MF arm 21% (CR 3% + PR 18%) (P < 0.001). The median time to progression (TTP) was 6.3 months in the docetaxel arm and 3.0 months in the MF arm (P < 0.001). Docetaxel also had a significantly higher response rate of 27% following crossover compared with MF (12%). Significantly more side-effects (leucopenia, infections, neuropathy, oedema, asthenia, skin, nail changes, alopecia) were seen in the docetaxel than in the MF group. However, grade 3 and 4 side-effects were infrequent with both drugs, with the exception of fatigue, alopecia and infections. Median overall survival (OS) including crossover phase was 10.4 months in the docetaxel and 11.1 months in the MF arm (P = 0.79). Based on the response rate and the primary endpoint of TTP, docetaxel is superior to sequential methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil in advanced breast cancer after anthracycline failure.

Prognostic value of quality of life scores for time to progression (TTP) and overall survival time (OS) in advanced breast cancer

The purpose of the study was to investigate whether baseline quality of life (QoL) and changes in QoL scores from baseline are prognostic for time to progression (TTP) and/or overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced breast cancer receiving docetaxel (T) or sequential methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (MF). QoL was assessed at baseline and before each treatment using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). Survival curves and probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier technique. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used for both the univariate and multivariate analyses to explore relationships between baseline QoL variables and TTP, as well as OS. In the univariate analysis, more severe pain and fatigue at baseline were predictive for a shorter OS; global QoL, physical functioning and appetite loss had a borderline significance (P=0.0130 for global QoL; P=0.0256 for physical functioning: P=0.0149 for appetite loss). World Health Organization (WHO) performance status was significantly predictive for OS. In the multivariate analysis, more severe pain at baseline was predictive for a shorter OS. In contrast, baseline QoL had no prognostic value for the duration of TTP. QoL change scores from baseline QoL predicted neither OS nor TTP. Our findings suggest that while QoL measurements are important in evaluating patients QoL, they have no great importance in predicting primary clinical endpoints such as TTP or OS in advanced breast cancer patients.