Axel Hinke

Phase III Postoperative Adjuvant Radiotherapy After Radical Prostatectomy Compared With Radical Prostatectomy Alone in pT3 Prostate Cancer With Postoperative Undetectable Prostate-Specific Antigen: ARO 96-02/AUO AP 09/95

PURPOSE Local failure after radical prostatectomy (RP) is common in patients with cancer extending beyond the capsule. Two randomized trials demonstrated an advantage for adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) compared with a wait-and-see policy. We conducted a randomized, controlled clinical trial to compare RP followed by immediate RT with RP alone for patients with pT3 prostate cancer and an undetectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level after RP. METHODS After RP, 192 men were randomly assigned to a wait-and-see policy, and 193 men were assigned to immediate postoperative RT. Eligible patients had pT3 pN0 tumors. Patients who did not achieve an undetectable PSA after RP were excluded from treatment according to random assignment (n = 78; 20%). Of the remaining 307 patients, 34 patients on the RT arm did not receive RT and five patients on the wait-and-see arm received RT. Therefore, 114 patients underwent RT and 154 patients were treated with a wait-and-see policy. The primary end point was biochemical progression-free survival. RESULTS Biochemical progression-free survival after 5 years in patients with undetectable PSA after RP was significantly improved in the RT group (72%; 95% CI, 65% to 81%; v 54%, 95% CI, 45% to 63%; hazard ratio = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.79; P = .0015). On univariate analysis, Gleason score more than 6 and less than 7, PSA before RP, tumor stage, and positive surgical margins were predictors of outcome. The rate of grade 3 to 4 late adverse effects was 0.3%. CONCLUSION Adjuvant RT for pT3 prostate cancer with postoperatively undetectable PSA significantly reduces the risk of biochemical progression. Further follow-up is needed to assess the effect on metastases-free and overall survival.

Bendamustine plus rituximab versus CHOP plus rituximab as first-line treatment for patients with indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND Rituximab plus chemotherapy, most often CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), is the first-line standard of care for patients with advanced indolent lymphoma, and for elderly patients with mantle-cell lymphoma. Bendamustine plus rituximab is effective for relapsed or refractory disease. We compared bendamustine plus rituximab with CHOP plus rituximab (R-CHOP) as first-line treatment for patients with indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas. METHODS We did a prospective, multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial at 81 centres in Germany between Sept 1, 2003, and Aug 31, 2008. Patients aged 18 years or older with a WHO performance status of 2 or less were eligible if they had newly diagnosed stage III or IV indolent or mantle-cell lymphoma. Patients were stratified by histological lymphoma subtype, then randomly assigned according to a prespecified randomisation list to receive either intravenous bendamustine (90 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2 of a 4-week cycle) or CHOP (cycles every 3 weeks of cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m(2), doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2), and vincristine 1.4 mg/m(2) on day 1, and prednisone 100 mg/day for 5 days) for a maximum of six cycles. Patients in both groups received rituximab 375 mg/m(2) on day 1 of each cycle. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%. Analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00991211, and the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices of Germany, BfArM 4021335. FINDINGS 274 patients were assigned to bendamustine plus rituximab (261 assessed) and 275 to R-CHOP (253 assessed). At median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 25-57), median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the bendamustine plus rituximab group than in the R-CHOP group (69.5 months [26.1 to not yet reached] vs 31.2 months [15.2-65.7]; hazard ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.44-0.74; p<0.0001). Bendamustine plus rituximab was better tolerated than R-CHOP, with lower rates of alopecia (0 patients vs 245 (100%) of 245 patients who recieved ≥3 cycles; p<0.0001), haematological toxicity (77 [30%] vs 173 [68%]; p<0.0001), infections (96 [37%] vs 127 [50%]); p=0.0025), peripheral neuropathy (18 [7%] vs 73 [29%]; p<0.0001), and stomatitis (16 [6%] vs 47 [19%]; p<0.0001). Erythematous skin reactions were more common in patients in the bendamustine plus rituximab group than in those in the R-CHOP group (42 [16%] vs 23 [9%]; p=0.024). INTERPRETATION In patients with previously untreated indolent lymphoma, bendamustine plus rituximab can be considered as a preferred first-line treatment approach to R-CHOP because of increased progression-free survival and fewer toxic effects. FUNDING Roche Pharma AG, Ribosepharm/Mundipharma GmbH.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

PURPOSE To compare the effectiveness and tolerability of gemcitabine plus cisplatin with single-agent gemcitabine as first-line chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were randomly assigned to receive either gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 and cisplatin 50 mg/m2 given on days 1 and 15 of a 4-week cycle (GemCis arm) or gemcitabine alone at a dose of 1,000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 4-week regimen (Gem arm). The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were progression-free survival, response rate, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS One hundred ninety-five patients were enrolled and showed baseline characteristics well balanced between treatment arms. Combination treatment in the GemCis arm was associated with a prolonged median progression-free survival (5.3 months v 3.1 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75; P = .053). Also, median overall survival was superior for patients treated in the GemCis arm as compared with the Gem arm (7.5 v 6.0 months), an advantage which did not, however, reach statistical significance (HR = 0.80; P = .15). Tumor response rates were comparable between treatment arms (10.2% v 8.2%). The rate of stable disease was, however, greater in the combination arm (60.2% v 40.2%; P < .001). Grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicity did not exceed 15% in both treatment arms. CONCLUSION These results support the efficacy and safety of an every-2-weeks treatment with gemcitabine plus cisplatin. Median overall survival and progression-free survival were more favorable in the combination arm as compared with gemcitabine alone, although the difference did not attain statistical significance.

Meta-analysis of randomized trials: evaluation of benefit from gemcitabine-based combination chemotherapy applied in advanced pancreatic cancer.

BackgroundSingle-agent gemcitabine (GEM) is a standard treatment for advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer. This study examines the question whether GEM-based combination chemotherapy can further improve treatment efficacy.MethodsA meta-analysis was performed to evaluate randomized trials comparing GEM versus GEM+X (X = cytotoxic agent). Fifteen trials including 4465 patients were eligible for an analysis of overall survival, the primary end-point of this investigation.ResultsThe meta-analysis revealed a significant survival benefit for GEM+X with a pooled hazard ratio (HR) of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85 – 0.97, p = 0.004). The overall test for heterogeneity resulted in p = 0.82 (I2 = 0%). The analysis of platinum-based combinations indicated a HR of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.76 – 0.96, p = 0.010), while for fluoropyrimidine-based combinations the HR was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.81 – 0.99, p = 0.030). No risk reduction was observed in the group of trials combining GEM with irinotecan, exatecan or pemetrexed (HR = 0.99). A meta-analysis of the trials with adequate information on baseline performance status (PS) was performed in five trials with 1682 patients. This analysis indicated that patients with a good PS had a marked survival benefit when receiving combination chemotherapy (HR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.67 – 0.87; p < 0.0001). By contrast, application of combination chemotherapy to patients with an initially poor PS appeared to be ineffective (HR = 1.08; 95% CI: 0.90 – 1.29, p = 0.40).ConclusionThe meta-analysis of randomized trials indicated a significant survival benefit when GEM was either combined with platinum analogs or fluoropyrimidines. Based on a preliminary subgroup analysis (representing 38% of all patients included in this meta-analysis), pancreatic cancer patients with a good PS appear to benefit from GEM-based cytotoxic combinations, whereas patients with a poor PS seem to have no survival benefit from combination chemotherapy.

Survival advantage for irinotecan versus best supportive care as second-line chemotherapy in gastric cancer – A randomised phase III study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie (AIO)

BACKGROUND The value of second-line therapy for metastatic gastric cancer is unclear. So far there are no randomised phase III data comparing second-line chemotherapy to best supportive care (BSC). In this prospective, multicenter, open label, randomised phase III study we compared irinotecan to BSC to evaluate the impact on survival of second-line chemotherapy. METHODS Eligible patients (pts) had metastatic or locally advanced gastro-oesophageal junction or gastric adenocarcinoma, objective tumour progression during or within 6months after first-line chemotherapy and ECOG performance status 0-2. Stratification for time of progression after first-line therapy, ECOG PS and pretreatment secured even distribution of important prognostic factors. TREATMENT Arm A: Irinotecan 250mg/m(2)q3w (first cycle) to be increased to 350mg/m(2), depending on toxicity. Arm B: BSC. FINDINGS Between 10/2002 and 12/2006 40 pts were randomised. The study was closed prematurely due to poor accrual. Responsefor arm A (19 pts evaluable): No objective responses, SD 53%, PD 47%. Improvement of tumour related symptoms: Arm A 50% of pts, arm B 7%. Overall Survival: (all events in 40 pts have occurred): The hazard ratio for death was reduced to 0.48 (95%CI 0.25-0.92) in the irinotecan-arm (p=0.012). Median survival arm A: 4.0months (95% CI 3.6-7.5), arm B: 2.4months (95% CI 1.7-4.9). INTERPRETATION Irinotecan as second-line chemotherapy significantly prolongs overall survival compared to BSC in the studied pts. Second-line chemotherapy can now be considered as a proven treatment option for metastatic or locally advanced gastric cancer. FUNDING The study was supported by a research grant from Aventis and Pfizer.

Phase I Trial Evaluating the Concurrent Combination of Radiotherapy and Capecitabine in Rectal Cancer

PURPOSE To establish the feasibility of concurrent radiotherapy and capecitabine and define the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) in patients with rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Thirty-six patients with rectal cancer received treatment in the adjuvant, neoadjuvant, or palliative setting with a total irradiation dose of 50.4 Gy with 1.8 Gy/d in approximately 6 weeks. Capecitabine was administered at escalating doses from 250 to 1,250 mg/m(2) bid (including weekends) for the duration of radiotherapy. The MTD was defined when two or more patients in a cohort of three or six patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities. RESULTS Dose-limiting grade 3 hand-foot syndrome was observed in two of six patients treated at a capecitabine dose of 1,000 mg/m(2) bid. Other toxicities were generally rare and/or mild, with only one case of non-dose-limiting grade 3 diarrhea and a single patient with grade 3 skin toxicity. Myelosuppression consisted mainly of leukocytopenia, with a maximum severity of grade 2. Thus, a dosage of 825 mg/m(2) bid is the recommended dose level for further evaluation. One pathologic complete remission of a T3N1 tumor and nine partial remissions were observed in 10 patients treated in the neoadjuvant setting. CONCLUSION The recommended dose for phase II evaluation is capecitabine 825 mg/m(2) bid, administered without break during a conventional radiotherapy period of about 6 weeks. This combined-modality approach proved to be a feasible and well-tolerated treatment option with promising preliminary efficacy results in rectal cancer.

Thalidomide-dexamethasone compared with melphalan-prednisolone in elderly patients with multiple myeloma

We compared thalidomide-dexamethasone (TD) with melphalan-prednisolone (MP) in 289 elderly patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Patients received either thalidomide 200 mg plus dexamethasone 40 mg, days 1 to 4 and 15 to 18 on even cycles and days 1 to 4 on odd cycles, during a 28-day cycle or to melphalan 0.25 mg/kg and prednisolone 2 mg/kg orally on days 1 to 4 during a 28- to 42-day cycle. Patients achieving stable disease or better were randomly assigned to maintenance therapy with either thalidomide 100 mg daily and 3 MU interferon alpha-2b thrice weekly or to 3 MU interferon alpha-2b thrice weekly only. TD resulted in a higher proportion of complete and very good remissions (26% vs 13%; P= .006) and overall responses (68% vs 50%; P= .002) compared with MP. Time to progression (21.2 vs 29.1 months; P= .2), and progression-free survival was similar (16.7 vs 20.7 months; P= .1), but overall survival was significantly shorter in the TD group (41.5 vs 49.4 months; P= .024). Toxicity was higher with TD, particularly in patients older than 75 years with poor performance status. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00205751.

Adjuvant Radiotherapy Versus Wait-and-See After Radical Prostatectomy: 10-year Follow-up of the ARO 96–02/AUO AP 09/95 Trial

BACKGROUND Local failure after radical prostatectomy (RP) is common in patients with cancer extending beyond the capsule. Three prospectively randomized trials demonstrated an advantage for adjuvant radiotherapy (ART) compared with a wait-and-see (WS) policy. OBJECTIVE To determine the efficiency of ART after a 10-yr follow-up in the ARO 96-02 study. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS After RP, 388 patients with pT3 pN0 prostate cancer (PCa) were randomized to WS or three-dimensional conformal ART with 60 Gy. The present analysis focuses on intent-to-treat patients who achieved an undetectable prostate-specific antigen after RP (ITT2 population)--that is, 159 WS plus 148 ART men. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The primary end point of the study was progression-free survival (PFS) (events: biochemical recurrence, clinical recurrence, or death). Outcomes were compared by log-rank test. Cox regression analysis served to identify variables influencing the course of disease. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS The median follow-up was 111 mo for ART and 113 mo for WS. At 10 yr, PFS was 56% for ART and 35% for WS (p<0.0001). In pT3b and R1 patients, the rates for WS even dropped to 28% and 27%, respectively. Of all 307 ITT2 patients, 15 died from PCa, and 28 died for other or unknown reasons. Neither metastasis-free survival nor overall survival was significantly improved by ART. However, the study was underpowered for these end points. The worst late sequelae in the ART cohort were one grade 3 and three grade 2 cases of bladder toxicity and two grade 2 cases of rectum toxicity. No grade 4 events occurred. CONCLUSIONS Compared with WS, ART reduced the risk of (biochemical) progression with a hazard ratio of 0.51 in pT3 PCa. With only one grade 3 case of late toxicity, ART was safe. PATIENT SUMMARY Precautionary radiotherapy counteracts relapse after surgery for prostate cancer with specific risk factors.

IMWG consensus on maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma

Maintaining results of successful induction therapy is an important goal in multiple myeloma. Here, members of the International Myeloma Working Group review the relevant data. Thalidomide maintenance therapy after autologous stem cell transplantation improved the quality of response and increased progression-free survival (PFS) significantly in all 6 studies and overall survival (OS) in 3 of them. In elderly patients, 2 trials showed a significant prolongation of PFS, but no improvement in OS. A meta-analysis revealed a significant risk reduction for PFS/event-free survival and death. The role of thalidomide maintenance after melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide is not well established. Two trials with lenalidomide maintenance treatment after autologous stem cell transplantation and one study after conventional melphalan, prednisone, and lenalidomide induction therapy showed a significant risk reduction for PFS and an increase in OS in one of the transplant trials. Maintenance therapy with single-agent bortezomib or in combination with thalidomide or prednisone has been studied. One trial revealed a significantly increased OS with a bortezomib-based induction and bortezomib maintenance therapy compared with conventional induction and thalidomide maintenance treatment. Maintenance treatment can be associated with significant side effects, and none of the drugs evaluated is approved for maintenance therapy. Treatment decisions for individual patients must balance potential benefits and risks carefully, as a widely agreed-on standard is not established.

Intense Dose-Dense Sequential Chemotherapy With Epirubicin, Paclitaxel, and Cyclophosphamide Compared With Conventionally Scheduled Chemotherapy in High-Risk Primary Breast Cancer: Mature Results of an AGO Phase III Study

PURPOSE Patients with primary breast cancer who have extensive axillary lymph node involvement have a poor prognosis after conventional adjuvant therapy. We compared intense dose-dense (IDD) adjuvant chemotherapy with conventionally scheduled adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with high-risk primary breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this randomized, phase III trial, a total of 1,284 eligible patients with four or more involved axillary lymph nodes were randomly assigned to receive IDD sequential epirubicin, paclitaxel, and cyclophosphamide (IDD-ETC) every 2 weeks or conventionally scheduled epirubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel every three weeks. The primary end point was event-free survival (EFS). RESULTS At a median follow-up of 62 months, 5-year event-free survival rates were 62% in the conventional arm and 70% in the IDD-ETC arm, representing a 28% reduction of the relative risk of relapse (P < .001). This benefit was independent of menopausal, hormone receptor, or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status. The 5-year overall survival rates were 77% versus 82%, representing a 24% reduction of the relative risk of death (P = .0285). IDD therapy was associated with significantly more nonhematologic and hematologic toxicities, but no treatment-related death occurred. Four occurrences of acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) were observed in the IDD-ETC arm. No severe congestive heart failure was reported. CONCLUSION IDD-ETC was less well tolerated compared with conventional chemotherapy but significantly improved event-free and overall survivals in patients with high-risk primary breast cancer who had four or more positive axillary lymph nodes.