Bohuslav Melichar

Ramucirumab monotherapy for previously treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (REGARD): an international, randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and VEGF receptor-2 (VEGFR-2)-mediated signalling and angiogenesis can contribute to the pathogenesis and progression of gastric cancer. We aimed to assess whether ramucirumab, a monoclonal antibody VEGFR-2 antagonist, prolonged survival in patients with advanced gastric cancer. METHODS We did an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial between Oct 6, 2009, and Jan 26, 2012, at 119 centres in 29 countries in North America, Central and South America, Europe, Asia, Australia, and Africa. Patients aged 24-87 years with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma and disease progression after first-line platinum-containing or fluoropyrimidine-containing chemotherapy were randomly assigned (2:1), via a central interactive voice-response system, to receive best supportive care plus either ramucirumab 8 mg/kg or placebo, intravenously once every 2 weeks. The study sponsor, participants, and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00917384. FINDINGS 355 patients were assigned to receive ramucirumab (n=238) or placebo (n=117). Median overall survival was 5·2 months (IQR 2·3-9·9) in patients in the ramucirumab group and 3·8 months (1·7-7·1) in those in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·776, 95% CI 0·603-0·998; p=0·047). The survival benefit with ramucirumab remained unchanged after multivariable adjustment for other prognostic factors (multivariable HR 0·774, 0·605-0·991; p=0·042). Rates of hypertension were higher in the ramucirumab group than in the placebo group (38 [16%] vs nine [8%]), whereas rates of other adverse events were mostly similar between groups (223 [94%] vs 101 [88%]). Five (2%) deaths in the ramucirumab group and two (2%) in the placebo group were considered to be related to study drug. INTERPRETATION Ramucirumab is the first biological treatment given as a single drug that has survival benefits in patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma progressing after first-line chemotherapy. Our findings validate VEGFR-2 signalling as an important therapeutic target in advanced gastric cancer. FUNDING ImClone Systems.

Axitinib with or without dose titration for first-line metastatic renal-cell carcinoma: a randomised double-blind phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND Population pharmacokinetic data suggest axitinib plasma exposure correlates with efficacy in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. Axitinib dose titration might optimise exposure and improve outcomes. We prospectively assessed the efficacy and safety of axitinib dose titration in previously untreated patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS In this randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 2 study, patients were enrolled from 49 hospitals and outpatient clinics in the Czech Republic, Germany, Japan, Russia, Spain, and USA. Patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma received axitinib 5 mg twice daily during a 4 week lead-in period. Those patients with blood pressure 150/90 mm Hg or lower, no grade 3 or 4 treatment-related toxic effects, no dose reductions, and no more than two antihypertensive drugs for 2 consecutive weeks were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0 vs 1), and then randomly assigned (1:1) to either masked titration with axitinib to total twice daily doses of 7 mg, and then 10 mg, if tolerated, or placebo titration. Patients who did not meet these criteria continued without titration. The primary objective was comparison of the proportion of patients achieving an objective response between randomised groups. Safety analyses were based on all patients who received at least one dose of axitinib. FINDINGS Between Sept 2, 2009, and Feb 28, 2011, we enrolled 213 patients, of whom 112 were randomly assigned to either the axitinib titration group (56 patients) or the placebo titration group (56 patients). 91 were not eligible for titration, and ten withdrew during the lead-in period. 30 patients (54%, 95% CI 40-67) in the axitinib titration group had an objective response, as did 19 patients (34%, 22-48]) in the placebo titration group (one-sided p=0·019). 54 (59%, 95% CI 49-70) of non-randomised patients achieved an objective response. Common grade 3 or worse, all-causality adverse events in treated patients were hypertension (ten [18%] of 56 in the axitinib titration group vs five [9%] of 56 in the placebo titration group vs 45 [49%] of 91 in the non-randomised group), diarrhoea (seven [13%] vs two [4%] vs eight [9%]), and decreased weight (four [7%] vs three [5%] vs six [7%]). One or more all-causality serious adverse events were reported in 15 (27%) patients in the axitinib titration group, 13 (23%) patients in the placebo titration group, and 35 (38%) non-randomised patients. The most common serious adverse events in all 213 patients were disease progression and dehydration (eight each [4%]), and diarrhoea, vomiting, pneumonia, and decreased appetite (four each [2%]). INTERPRETATION The greater proportion of patients in the axitinib titration group achieving an objective response supports the concept of individual axitinib dose titration in selected patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. Axitinib shows clinical activity with a manageable safety profile in treatment-naive patients with this disease.

Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab versus Sunitinib in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND Nivolumab plus ipilimumab produced objective responses in patients with advanced renal‐cell carcinoma in a pilot study. This phase 3 trial compared nivolumab plus ipilimumab with sunitinib for previously untreated clear‐cell advanced renal‐cell carcinoma. METHODS We randomly assigned adults in a 1:1 ratio to receive either nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (1 mg per kilogram) intravenously every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 2 weeks, or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6‐week cycle). The coprimary end points were overall survival (alpha level,0.04), objective response rate (alpha level,0.001), and progression‐free survival (alpha level,0.009) among patients with intermediate or poor prognostic risk. RESULTS A total of 1096 patients were assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab (550 patients) or sunitinib (546 patients); 425 and 422, respectively, had intermediate or poor risk. At a median follow‐up of 25.2 months in intermediate‐ and poor‐risk patients, the 18‐month overall survival rate was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70 to 78) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 60% (95% CI, 55 to 65) with sunitinib; the median overall survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 26.0 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 42% versus 27% (P<0.001), and the complete response rate was 9% versus 1%. The median progression‐free survival was 11.6 months and 8.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.82; P=0.03, not significant per the prespecified 0.009 threshold). Treatment‐related adverse events occurred in 509 of 547 patients (93%) in the nivolumab‐plus‐ipilimumab group and 521 of 535 patients (97%) in the sunitinib group; grade 3 or 4 events occurred in 250 patients (46%) and 335 patients (63%), respectively. Treatment‐related adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 22% and 12% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS Overall survival and objective response rates were significantly higher with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with sunitinib among intermediate‐ and poor‐risk patients with previously untreated advanced renal‐cell carcinoma. (Funded by Bristol‐Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 214 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02231749.)

Pictilisib for oestrogen receptor-positive, aromatase inhibitor-resistant, advanced or metastatic breast cancer (FERGI): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND Inhibition of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) is a promising approach to overcome resistance to endocrine therapy in breast cancer. Pictilisib is an oral inhibitor of multiple PI3K isoforms. The aim of this study is to establish if addition of pictilisib to fulvestrant can improve progression-free survival in oestrogen receptor-positive, endocrine-resistant breast cancer. METHODS In this two-part, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study, we recruited postmenopausal women aged 18 years or older with oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer resistant to treatment with an aromatase inhibitor in the adjuvant or metastatic setting, from 123 medical centres across 21 countries. Part 1 included patients with or without PIK3CA mutations, whereas part 2 included only patients with PIK3CA mutations. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1 in part 1 and 2:1 in part 2) via a computer-generated hierarchical randomisation algorithm to daily oral pictilisib (340 mg in part 1 and 260 mg in part 2) or placebo starting on day 15 of cycle 1, plus intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg on day 1 and day 15 of cycle 1 and day 1 of subsequent cycles in both groups. In part 1, we stratified patients by presence or absence of PIK3CA mutation, primary or secondary aromatase inhibitor resistance, and measurable or non-measurable disease. In part 2, we stratified patients by previous aromatase inhibitor treatment for advanced or metastatic disease or relapse during or within 6 months of an aromatase inhibitor treatment in the adjuvant setting and measurable or non-measurable disease. All patients and those administering treatment and assessing outcomes were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population for both parts 1 and 2 and also separately in patients with PIK3CA-mutated tumours in part 1. Tumour assessment (physical examination and imaging scans) was investigator-assessed and done at screening and after 8 weeks, 16 weeks, 24 weeks, and 32 weeks of treatment from day 1 of cycle 1 and every 12 weeks thereafter. We assessed safety in as-treated patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01437566. FINDINGS In part 1, between Sept 27, 2011, and Jan 11, 2013, we randomly allocated 168 patients to the pictilisib (89 [53%]) or placebo (79 [47%]) group. In part 2, between March 18, 2013, and Jan 2, 2014, we randomly allocated 61 patients to the pictilisib (41 [67%]) or placebo (20 [33%]) group. In part 1, we found no difference in median progression-free survival between the pictilisib (6·6 months [95% CI 3·9-9·8]) and placebo (5·1 months [3·6-7·3]) group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·74 [95% CI 0·52-1·06]; p=0·096). We also found no difference when patients were analysed according to presence (pictilisib 6·5 months [95% CI 3·7-9·8] vs placebo 5·1 months [2·6-10·4]; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·42-1·28]; p=0·268) or absence (5·8 months [3·6-11·1] vs 3·6 months [2·8-7·3]; HR 0·72 [0·42-1·23]; p=0·23) of PIK3CA mutation. In part 2, we also found no difference in progression-free survival between groups (5·4 months [95% CI 3·8-8·3] vs 10·0 months [3·6-13·0]; HR 1·07 [95% CI 0·53-2·18]; p=0·84). In part 1, grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 54 (61%) of 89 patients in the pictilisib group and 22 (28%) of 79 in the placebo group. 19 serious adverse events related to pictilisib treatment were reported in 14 (16%) of 89 patients. Only one (1%) of 79 patients reported treatment-related serious adverse events in the placebo group. In part 2, grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 15 (36%) of 42 patients in the pictilisib group and seven (37%) of 19 patients in the placebo group. Four serious adverse events related to pictilisib treatment were reported in two (5%) of 42 patients. One treatment-related serious adverse event occurred in one (5%) of 19 patients in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION Although addition of pictilisib to fulvestrant did not significantly improve progression-free survival, dosing of pictilisib was limited by toxicity, potentially limiting its efficacy. For future assessment of PI3K inhibition as an approach to overcome resistance to hormonal therapy, inhibitors with greater selectivity than that of pictilisib might be needed to improve tolerability and potentially increase efficacy. No further investigation of pictilisib in this setting is ongoing. FUNDING F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Skin toxicity and efficacy of sunitinib and sorafenib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a national registry-based study

BACKGROUND A retrospective, registry-based analysis to assess the outcomes of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) patients treated with sunitinib and sorafenib who developed dermatologic adverse events was performed. PATIENTS AND METHODS Data on mRCC patients treated with sunitinib or sorafenib were obtained from the Czech Clinical Registry of Renal Cell Cancer Patients. Outcomes of patients who developed hand-foot syndrome (HFS) of any grade and/or grade 3/4 rash during the treatment were compared with patients without HFS and no, mild, or moderate rash. RESULTS The cohort included 705 patients treated with sunitinib and 365 patients treated with sorafenib. For sunitinib, the median overall survival (OS) was 43.0 months versus 31.0 months (P = 0.027) and median progression-free survival (PFS) 20.8 months versus 11.1 months (P = 0.007) for patients with versus without dermatologic toxicity, respectively. For sorafenib, the median OS and PFS were 27.9 and 24.6 months (P = 0.244), and 12.2 and 8.8 months (P = 0.050), respectively. In multivariable Cox regression, the skin toxicity was significantly associated with longer OS in the sunitinib cohort. CONCLUSION The presence of skin toxicity is associated with improved OS and PFS in patients with mRCC treated with sunitinib.

Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine as first-line treatment for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: interim efficacy results of the randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 TURANDOT trial

BACKGROUND Randomised phase 3 trials in metastatic breast cancer have shown that combining bevacizumab with either paclitaxel or capecitabine significantly improves progression-free survival and response rate compared with chemotherapy alone but the relative efficacy of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine has not been investigated. We compared the efficacy of the two regimens. METHODS In this open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial, patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had received no chemotherapy for advanced disease were randomised (by computer-generated sequence; 1:1 ratio; block size six; stratified by hormone receptor status, country, and menopausal status) to receive either intravenous bevacizumab (10 mg/kg on days 1 and 15) plus intravenous paclitaxel (90 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15) repeated every 4 weeks (paclitaxel group) or intravenous bevacizumab (15 mg/kg on day 1) plus oral capecitabine (1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14) repeated every 3 weeks (capecitabine group) until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Treatment allocation was not masked because of the differences in routes of administration and cycle lengths. The primary objective was to show non-inferior overall survival with bevacizumab plus capecitabine versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel. We report results of an interim overall survival analysis, which was planned for after 175 deaths in the per-protocol population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00600340. FINDINGS Between Sept 10, 2008, and Aug 30, 2010, we randomised 564 patients (paclitaxel group n=285; capecitabine group n=279) from 51 centres in 12 countries. The per-protocol population consisted of 533 patients (paclitaxel group n=268; capecitabine group n=265). After median follow-up of 18·6 months (IQR 14·9-24·7), 181 patients in the per-protocol population had died (89 [33%] in the paclitaxel group; 92 [35%] in the capecitabine group). The hazard ratio [HR] for overall survival was 1·04 (97·5% repeated CI -∞ to 1·69; p=0·059); the non-inferiority criterion of the interim analysis (interim α=0·00105) was not met. More patients who received bevacizumab plus paclitaxel had an objective response than did those who received bevacizumab plus capecitabine (125 [44%] of 285 patients vs 76 [27%] of 279; p<0·0001). Similarly, progression-free survival was significantly longer in the paclitaxel group than in the capecitabine group (median progression-free survival 11·0 months [95% CI 10·4-12·9] vs 8·1 months [7·1-9·2]; HR 1·36 [95% CI 1·09-1·68], p=0·0052). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (51 [18%]), peripheral neuropathy (39 [14%]), and leucopenia (20 [7%]) in the paclitaxel group and hand-foot syndrome (44 [16%]), hypertension (16 [6%]), and diarrhoea (15 [5%]) in the capecitabine group. One treatment-related death occurred in the paclitaxel group; no deaths in the capecitabine group were deemed to be treatment-related. INTERPRETATION In this planned interim analysis, the non-inferiority criterion was not met and overall survival results are inconclusive. Final results are expected in 2014. Progression-free survival was better, and more patients achieved an objective response, with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel than with bevacizumab plus capecitabine. Efficacy results in both groups were consistent with previous reports. FUNDING Central European Cooperative Oncology Group; Roche.

A phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ganitumab or placebo in combination with gemcitabine as first-line therapy for metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: the GAMMA trial

BACKGROUND This double-blind, phase 3 study assessed the efficacy and safety of ganitumab combined with gemcitabine as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned 2 : 2 : 1 to receive intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) (days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle) plus placebo, ganitumab 12 mg/kg, or ganitumab 20 mg/kg (days 1 and 15 of each cycle). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and efficacy by levels of circulating biomarkers. RESULTS Overall, 322 patients were randomly assigned to placebo, 318 to ganitumab 12 mg/kg, and 160 to ganitumab 20 mg/kg. The study was stopped based on results from a preplanned futility analysis; the final results are reported. Median OS was 7.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 6.3-8.2] in the placebo arm, 7.0 months (95% CI, 6.2-8.5) in the ganitumab 12-mg/kg arm [hazard ratio (HR), 1.00; 95% CI, 0.82-1.21; P = 0.494], and 7.1 months (95% CI, 6.4-8.5) in the ganitumab 20-mg/kg arm (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.76-1.23; P = 0.397). Median PFS was 3.7, 3.6 (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84-1.20; P = 0.520), and 3.7 months (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.77-1.22; P = 0.403), respectively. No unexpected toxicity was observed with ganitumab plus gemcitabine. The circulating biomarkers assessed [insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), IGF-binding protein-2, and -3] were not associated with a treatment effect on OS or PFS by ganitumab. CONCLUSION Ganitumab combined with gemcitabine had manageable toxicity but did not improve OS, compared with gemcitabine alone in unselected patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01231347.

Sunitinib followed by sorafenib or vice versa for metastatic renal cell carcinoma-data from the Czech registry

BACKGROUND Sequential therapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), sunitinib and sorafenib, is a common treatment choice for patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) despite lack of randomised trials. The aim of this retrospective registry-based study was to analyse the outcomes of RCC patients treated with sunitinib-sorafenib or sorafenib-sunitinib sequence. PATIENTS AND METHODS The Czech database containing information on patients treated for mRCC using targeted agents was used as a source of data for retrospective analysis. There were 138 patients treated with sunitinib-sorafenib sequence and 122 patients treated with sorafenib-sunitinib sequence. RESULTS Progression-free survival (PFS) was 17.7 months for patients treated with sunitinib-sorafenib sequence and 18.8 months for those receiving sorafenib followed by sunitinib (P = 0.47). Overall survival (OS) at 1 year was 83% [95% confidence interval (CI) 77% to 90%] for patients treated with sunitinib-sorafenib and 84% (95% CI 77% to 91%) for sorafenib-sunitinib patients (P = 0.99). Treatment toxic effects were predictable but a significant proportion of patients (up to 14%-25% for different lines of therapy and used TKI) switched between TKIs or discontinued TKI therapy because of toxicity. CONCLUSIONS In contrast to most of the previously published reports, we have not observed improved PFS or OS for mRCC patients treated with the sorafenib-sunitinib sequence as compared to the sunitinib-sorafenib sequence.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Adjuvant Pazopanib Versus Placebo After Nephrectomy in Patients With Localized or Locally Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma

Purpose This phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of pazopanib versus placebo in patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk for relapse after nephrectomy. Patients and Methods A total of 1,538 patients with resected pT2 (high grade) or ≥ pT3, including N1, clear cell RCC were randomly assigned to pazopanib or placebo for 1 year; 403 patients received a starting dose of 800 mg or placebo. To address toxicity attrition, the 800-mg starting dose was lowered to 600 mg, and the primary end point analysis was changed to disease-free survival (DFS) for pazopanib 600 mg versus placebo (n = 1,135). Primary analysis was performed after 350 DFS events in the intent-to-treat (ITT) pazopanib 600 mg group (ITT600mg), and DFS follow-up analysis was performed 12 months later. Secondary end point analyses included DFS with ITT pazopanib 800 mg (ITT800mg) and safety. Results The primary analysis results of DFS ITT600mg favored pazopanib but did not show a significant improvement over placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.06; P = .165). The secondary analysis of DFS in ITT800mg (n = 403) yielded an HR of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.94). Follow-up analysis in ITT600mg yielded an HR of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.77 to 1.14). Increased ALT and AST were common adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation in the pazopanib 600 mg (ALT, 16%; AST, 5%) and 800 mg (ALT, 18%; AST, 7%) groups. Conclusion The results of the primary DFS analysis of pazopanib 600 mg showed no benefit over placebo in the adjuvant setting.

RECORD-2: phase II randomized study of everolimus and bevacizumab versus interferon α-2a and bevacizumab as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND The open-label, phase II RECORD-2 trial compared efficacy and safety of first-line everolimus plus bevacizumab (EVE/BEV) with interferon plus bevacizumab (IFN/BEV) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Previously untreated patients were randomized 1:1 to bevacizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks with either everolimus 10 mg/day (EVE/BEV) or interferon (9 MIU 3 times/week, if tolerated) (IFN/BEV). Tumor assessments occurred every 12 weeks. The primary objective was the assessment of treatment effect on progression-free survival (PFS), based on an estimate of the chance of a subsequent phase III trial success (50% threshold for phase II success). RESULTS Baseline characteristics were balanced between the EVE/BEV (n = 182) and IFN/BEV (n = 183) arms. The median PFS was 9.3 and 10.0 months in the EVE/BEV and IFN/BEV arms, respectively (P = 0.485). The predicted probability of phase III success was 5.05% (hazard ratio = 0.91; 95% confidence interval 0.69-1.19). The median duration of exposure was 8.5 and 8.3 months for EVE/BEV and IFN/BEV, respectively. The percentage of patients discontinuing because of adverse events (AEs) was 23.4% for EVE/BEV and 26.9% for IFN/BEV. Common grade 3/4 AEs included proteinuria (24.4%), stomatitis (10.6%), and anemia (10.6%) for EVE/BEV and fatigue (17.1%), asthenia (14.4%), and proteinuria (10.5%) for IFN/BEV. The median overall survival was 27.1 months in both arms. CONCLUSIONS The efficacy of EVE/BEV and IFN/BEV appears similar. No new or unexpected safety findings were identified and, with the exception of proteinuria in about one-fourth of the population, EVE/BEV was generally well tolerated. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY AND TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00719264.