C. Boni

Leucovorin and Fluorouracil With or Without Oxaliplatin as First-Line Treatment in Advanced Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE In a previous study of treatment for advanced colorectal cancer, the LV5FU2 regimen, comprising leucovorin (LV) plus bolus and infusional fluorouracil (5FU) every 2 weeks, was superior to the standard North Central Cancer Treatment Group/Mayo Clinic 5-day bolus 5FU/LV regimen. This phase III study investigated the effect of combining oxaliplatin with LV5FU2, with progression-free survival as the primary end point. PATIENTS AND METHODS Four hundred twenty previously untreated patients with measurable disease were randomized to receive a 2-hour infusion of LV (200 mg/m(2)/d) followed by a 5FU bolus (400 mg/m(2)/d) and 22-hour infusion (600 mg/m(2)/d) for 2 consecutive days every 2 weeks, either alone or together with oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) as a 2-hour infusion on day 1. RESULTS Patients allocated to oxaliplatin plus LV5FU2 had significantly longer progression-free survival (median, 9.0 v 6.2 months; P =.0003) and better response rate (50.7% v 22.3%; P =.0001) when compared with the control arm. The improvement in overall survival did not reach significance (median, 16.2 v 14.7 months; P =. 12). LV5FU2 plus oxaliplatin gave higher frequencies of National Cancer Institute common toxicity criteria grade 3/4 neutropenia (41. 7% v 5.3% of patients), grade 3/4 diarrhea (11.9% v 5.3%), and grade 3 neurosensory toxicity (18.2% v 0%), but this did not result in impairment of quality of life (QoL). Survival without disease progression or deterioration in global health status was longer in patients allocated to oxaliplatin treatment (P =.004). CONCLUSION The LV5FU2-oxaliplatin combination seems beneficial as first-line therapy in advanced colorectal cancer, demonstrating a prolonged progression-free survival with acceptable tolerability and maintenance of QoL.

Phase III Study of Docetaxel and Cisplatin Plus Fluorouracil Compared With Cisplatin and Fluorouracil As First-Line Therapy for Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Report of the V325 Study Group

PURPOSE In the randomized, multinational phase II/III trial (V325) of untreated advanced gastric cancer patients, the phase II part selected docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (DCF) over docetaxel and cisplatin for comparison against cisplatin and fluorouracil (CF; reference regimen) in the phase III part. PATIENTS AND METHODS Advanced gastric cancer patients were randomly assigned to docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 (day 1) plus fluorouracil 750 mg/m2/d (days 1 to 5) every 3 weeks or cisplatin 100 mg/m2 (day 1) plus fluorouracil 1,000 mg/m2/d (days 1 to 5) every 4 weeks. The primary end point was time-to-progression (TTP). RESULTS In 445 randomly assigned and treated patients (DCF = 221; CF = 224), TTP was longer with DCF versus CF (32% risk reduction; log-rank P < .001). Overall survival was longer with DCF versus CF (23% risk reduction; log-rank P = .02). Two-year survival rate was 18% with DCF and 9% with CF. Overall response rate was higher with DCF (chi2 P = .01). Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 69% (DCF) v 59% (CF) of patients. Frequent grade 3 to 4 toxicities for DCF v CF were: neutropenia (82% v 57%), stomatitis (21% v 27%), diarrhea (19% v 8%), lethargy (19% v 14%). Complicated neutropenia was more frequent with DCF than CF (29% v 12%). CONCLUSION Adding docetaxel to CF significantly improved TTP, survival, and response rate in gastric cancer patients, but resulted in some increase in toxicity. Incorporation of docetaxel, as in DCF or with other active drug(s), is a new therapy option for patients with untreated advanced gastric cancer.

Improved Overall Survival With Oxaliplatin, Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin As Adjuvant Treatment in Stage II or III Colon Cancer in the MOSAIC Trial

PURPOSE Three-year disease-free survival (DFS) was significantly improved in patients who had undergone resection with curative intent for stage II or III colon cancer who received bolus plus continuous-infusion fluorouracil plus leucovorin (LV5FU2) with the addition of oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4). Final results of the study, including 6-year overall survival (OS) and 5-year updated DFS, are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 2,246 patients were randomly assigned to receive LV5FU2 or FOLFOX4 for 6 months. The primary end point was DFS. Secondary end points were OS and safety. Results Five-year DFS rates were 73.3% and 67.4% in the FOLFOX4 and LV5FU2 groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.93; P = .003). Six-year OS rates were 78.5% and 76.0% in the FOLFOX4 and LV5FU2 groups, respectively (HR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.00; P = .046); corresponding 6-year OS rates for patients with stage III disease were 72.9% and 68.7%, respectively (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.97; P = .023). No difference in OS was seen in the stage II population. The incidence of second noncolorectal cancers was 5.5% and 6.1% in the FOLFOX4 and LV5FU2 groups, respectively. Among patients receiving oxaliplatin, the frequency of grade 3 peripheral sensory neuropathy was 1.3% 12 months after treatment and 0.7% at 48 months. CONCLUSION Adding oxaliplatin to LV5FU2 significantly improved 5-year DFS and 6-year OS in the adjuvant treatment of stage II or III colon cancer and should be considered after surgery for patients with stage III disease.

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

PURPOSE To 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. PATIENTS AND METHODS Nine 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. RESULTS TTP 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. CONCLUSION Letrozole 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 Randomized Trial Comparing Three Platinum-Based Doublets in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE To evaluate whether two commonly used newer platinum-based regimens offer any advantage over vinorelbine-cisplatin (reference regimen) in response rate for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Chemotherapy-naive patients were randomized to receive gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) day 2 every 21 days (GC arm), or paclitaxel 225 mg/m(2) (3-hour infusion) then carboplatin (area under the concentration-time curve of 6 mg/mL x min), both on day 1 every 21 days (PCb arm), or vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2)/wk for 12 weeks then every other week plus cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) day 1 every 28 days (VC arm). RESULTS Six hundred twelve patients were randomized to treatment (205 GC, 204 PCb, and 203 VC). Overall response rates for the GC (30%) and PCb (32%) arms were not significantly different from that of the VC arm (30%). There were no differences in overall survival, time to disease progression, or time to treatment failure. Median survival for the GC, PCb, and VC groups was 9.8, 9.9, and 9.5 months, respectively. Neutropenia was significantly higher on the VC arm (GC 17% or PCb 35% v VC 43% of cycles, P <.001), as was thrombocytopenia on the GC arm (GC 16% v VC 0.1% of cycles, P <.001). Alopecia and peripheral neurotoxicity were most common on the PCb arm, as was nausea/vomiting on the VC arm (P <.05). CONCLUSION Efficacy end points were not significantly different between experimental and reference arms, although toxicities showed differences. These findings suggest that chemotherapy in NSCLC has reached a therapeutic plateau.

Tivantinib for second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 study

BACKGROUND Tivantinib (ARQ 197), a selective oral inhibitor of MET, has shown promising antitumour activity in hepatocellular carcinoma as monotherapy and in combination with sorafenib. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of tivantinib for second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS In this completed, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 study, we enrolled patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh A cirrhosis who had progressed on or were unable to tolerate first-line systemic therapy. We randomly allocated patients 2:1 to receive tivantinib (360 mg twice-daily) or placebo until disease progression. The tivantinib dose was amended to 240 mg twice-daily because of high incidence of treatment-emergent grade 3 or worse neutropenia. Randomisation was done centrally by an interactive voice-response system, stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and vascular invasion. The primary endpoint was time to progression, according to independent radiological review in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed tumour samples for MET expression with immunohistochemistry (high expression was regarded as ≥2+ in ≥50% of tumour cells). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00988741. FINDINGS 71 patients were randomly assigned to receive tivantinib (38 at 360 mg twice-daily and 33 at 240 mg twice-daily); 36 patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo. At the time of analysis, 46 (65%) patients in the tivantinib group and 26 (72%) of those in the placebo group had progressive disease. Time to progression was longer for patients treated with tivantinib (1·6 months [95% CI 1·4-2·8]) than placebo (1·4 months [1·4-1·5]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·64, 90% CI 0·43-0·94; p=0·04). For patients with MET-high tumours, median time to progression was longer with tivantinib than for those on placebo (2·7 months [95% CI 1·4-8·5] for 22 MET-high patients on tivantinib vs 1·4 months [1·4-1·6] for 15 MET-high patients on placebo; HR 0·43, 95% CI 0·19-0·97; p=0·03). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the tivantinib group were neutropenia (ten patients [14%] vs none in the placebo group) and anaemia (eight [11%] vs none in the placebo group). Eight patients (21%) in the tivantinib 360 mg group had grade 3 or worse neutropenia compared with two (6%) patients in the 240 mg group. Four deaths related to tivantinib occurred from severe neutropenia. 24 (34%) patients in the tivantinib group and 14 (39%) patients in the placebo group had serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION Tivantinib could provide an option for second-line treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and well-compensated liver cirrhosis, particularly for patients with MET-high tumours. Confirmation in a phase 3 trial is needed, with a starting dose of tivantinib 240 mg twice-daily. FUNDING ArQule, Daiichi Sankyo (Daiichi Sankyo Group).

Clinical benefit with docetaxel plus fluorouracil and cisplatin compared with cisplatin and fluorouracil in a phase III trial of advanced gastric or gastroesophageal cancer adenocarcinoma: the V-325 Study Group.

PURPOSE For patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal cancer (AGGEC) providing clinical benefit with improved palliation is highly desirable. However, a prospective evaluation of clinical benefit in AGGEC patients has never before been reported in a phase III setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS In a multinational trial (V325), 445 patients were randomly assigned and treated with either docetaxel plus cisplatin and fluorouracil (DCF) or cisplatin and fluorouracil (CF). Clinical benefit was prospectively evaluated in this trial as a secondary end point. The primary measure for clinical benefit analysis was time to definitive worsening by one or more categories of Karnofsky performance status (KPS). Secondary clinical benefit end points included time to 5% definitive weight loss, time to definitive worsening of appetite by one grade, pain-free survival (defined as time to first appearance of pain), and time to first cancer pain-related opioid intake. Clinical benefit assessments were recorded at each clinic visit. RESULTS Clinical benefit assessments were performed in more than 75% of patients throughout V325. DCF significantly prolonged time to definitive worsening of KPS compared with CF (median, 6.1 v 4.8 months; hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.76; log-rank P = .009). Although time to definitive weight loss and time to definitive worsening of appetite favored DCF, the results were not statistically significant. Pain-free survival and time to first cancer pain-related opioid intake were comparable. CONCLUSION To our knowledge, V325 is the first phase III trial to report clinical benefit in AGGEC patients. Clinical benefit was assessed beyond protocol-specific chemotherapy. The addition of D to CF not only significantly improved clinical benefit but also improved quality of life, time to progression, and overall survival compared with CF.

Quality of Life With Docetaxel Plus Cisplatin and Fluorouracil Compared With Cisplatin and Fluorouracil From a Phase III Trial for Advanced Gastric or Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma: The V-325 Study Group

PURPOSE Therapy of patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer should provide symptom relief and improve quality of life (QOL) because most patients are symptomatic at baseline. Using validated instruments, we prospectively assessed QOL (even after completion of protocol treatment) as one of the secondary end points of the V325 phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS Four hundred forty-five patients randomly received either docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) each on day 1 plus fluorouracil 750 mg/m(2)/d continuous infusion on days 1 to 5 every 3 weeks (DCF) or cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus fluorouracil 1,000 mg/m(2)/d continuous infusion on days 1 to 5 every 4 weeks (CF). The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and, where available, the EuroQOL EQ-5D questionnaire were administered every 8 weeks from baseline until progression and then every 3 months. Time to definitive deterioration of QOL parameters was analyzed. RESULTS The proportions of patients having assessable EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D questionnaires at baseline were 86.0% and 78.7% with DCF, respectively, and 89.7% and 92.8% with CF, respectively. Time to 5% deterioration of global health status (primary end point) significantly favored DCF over CF (log-rank test, P = .01). QOL was preserved longer for patients on DCF than those on CF for all time to deterioration analyses, demonstrating the statistical superiority of DCF compared with CF. CONCLUSION V325 represents the largest trial with the longest prospectively controlled evaluations of QOL during protocol chemotherapy and follow-up in patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer. In V325, advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer patients receiving DCF not only had statistically improved overall survival and time to tumor-progression, but they also had better preservation of QOL compared with patients receiving CF.

Pemetrexed Versus Pemetrexed and Carboplatin As Second-Line Chemotherapy in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results of the GOIRC 02-2006 Randomized Phase II Study and Pooled Analysis With the NVALT7 Trial

PURPOSE To compare efficacy of pemetrexed versus pemetrexed plus carboplatin in pretreated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with advanced NSCLC, in progression during or after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed (arm A) or pemetrexed plus carboplatin (arm B). Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). A preplanned pooled analysis of the results of this study with those of the NVALT7 study was carried out to assess the impact of carboplatin added to pemetrexed in terms of overall survival (OS). RESULTS From July 2007 to October 2009, 239 patients (arm A, n = 120; arm B, n = 119) were enrolled. Median PFS was 3.6 months for arm A versus 3.5 months for arm B (hazard ratio [HR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.36; P = .706). No statistically significant differences in response rate, OS, or toxicity were observed. A total of 479 patients were included in the pooled analysis. OS was not improved by the addition of carboplatin to pemetrexed (HR, 90; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.10; P = .316; P heterogeneity = .495). In the subgroup analyses, the addition of carboplatin to pemetrexed in patients with squamous tumors led to a statistically significant improvement in OS from 5.4 to 9 months (adjusted HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.91; P interaction test = .039). CONCLUSION Second-line treatment of advanced NSCLC with pemetrexed plus carboplatin does not improve survival outcomes as compared with single-agent pemetrexed. The benefit observed with carboplatin addition in squamous tumors may warrant further investigation.

Current Issues in Adjuvant Treatment of Stage II Colon Cancer

BackgroundAdjuvant chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil modulated by folinic acid, combined with oxaliplatin, has now become an accepted standard of care for patients with stage III colon cancer. In contrast, the use of adjuvant therapy for stage II patients remains controversial, and the identification of reliable prognostic factors to aid therapeutic decision making is crucial.MethodsThe authors critically review the results of clinical trials and meta-analyses investigating the value of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II patients, emphasizing the heterogeneous nature of this population and the difficulty of performing clinical trials with sufficient power to reliably assess treatment efficacy. They also discuss the evidence concerning potential prognostic factors, particularly molecular markers.ResultsAvailable clinical trial data do not support the routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy for all stage II patients but suggest that it should be considered, particularly for certain high-risk patients. Recent guidelines advocate considering factors such as tumor differentiation, tumor perforation, number of lymph nodes examined, and T stage when assessing the likely benefit:risk ratio. Microsatellite instability and allelic imbalance seem to be strong predictors of good and poor prognosis, respectively, and in the near future, therapeutic decision-making models are likely to be further refined by the inclusion of such molecular markers.ConclusionsThere is growing evidence that the prognosis of certain stage II patients with unfavorable prognostic factors can be improved by adjuvant chemotherapy, and increasingly refined tools are now available to define those most likely to benefit. Referral of stage II patients for individual assessment is strongly recommended.