Carlos H. Barrios

Pazopanib in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results of a Randomized Phase III Trial

PURPOSE Pazopanib is an oral angiogenesis inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, platelet-derived growth factor receptor, and c-Kit. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study evaluated efficacy and safety of pazopanib monotherapy in treatment-naive and cytokine-pretreated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Adult patients with measurable, locally advanced, and/or metastatic RCC were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive oral pazopanib or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival, tumor response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors), and safety. Radiographic assessments of tumors were independently reviewed. Results Of 435 patients enrolled, 233 were treatment naive (54%) and 202 were cytokine pretreated (46%). PFS was significantly prolonged with pazopanib compared with placebo in the overall study population (median, PFS 9.2 v 4.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.62; P < .0001), the treatment-naive subpopulation (median PFS 11.1 v 2.8 months; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.60; P < .0001), and the cytokine-pretreated subpopulation (median PFS, 7.4 v 4.2 months; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.84; P < .001). The objective response rate was 30% with pazopanib compared with 3% with placebo (P < .001). The median duration of response was longer than 1 year. The most common adverse events were diarrhea, hypertension, hair color changes, nausea, anorexia, and vomiting. There was no evidence of clinically important differences in quality of life for pazopanib versus placebo. CONCLUSION Pazopanib demonstrated significant improvement in PFS and tumor response compared with placebo in treatment-naive and cytokine-pretreated patients with advanced and/or metastatic RCC.

Micafungin versus liposomal amphotericin B for candidaemia and invasive candidosis: a phase III randomised double-blind trial

BACKGROUND Invasive candidosis is increasingly prevalent in seriously ill patients. Our aim was to compare micafungin with liposomal amphotericin B for the treatment of adult patients with candidaemia or invasive candidosis. METHODS We did a double-blind, randomised, multinational non-inferiority study to compare micafungin (100 mg/day) with liposomal amphotericin B (3 mg/kg per day) as first-line treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidosis. The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as both a clinical and a mycological response at the end of treatment. Primary analyses were done on a per-protocol basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00106288. FINDINGS 264 individuals were randomly assigned to treatment with micafungin; 267 were randomly assigned to receive liposomal amphotericin B. 202 individuals in the micafungin group and 190 in the liposomal amphotericin B group were included in the per-protocol analyses. Treatment success was observed for 181 (89.6%) patients treated with micafungin and 170 (89.5%) patients treated with liposomal amphotericin B. The difference in proportions, after stratification by neutropenic status at baseline, was 0.7% (95% CI -5.3 to 6.7). Efficacy was independent of the Candida spp and primary site of infection, as well as neutropenic status, APACHE II score, and whether a catheter was removed or replaced during the study. There were fewer treatment-related adverse events--including those that were serious or led to treatment discontinuation--with micafungin than there were with liposomal amphotericin B. INTERPRETATION Micafungin was as effective as--and caused fewer adverse events than--liposomal amphotericin B as first-line treatment of candidaemia and invasive candidosis.

Atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (OAK): a phase 3, open-label, multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Atezolizumab is a humanised antiprogrammed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody that inhibits PD-L1 and programmed death-1 (PD-1) and PD-L1 and B7-1 interactions, reinvigorating anticancer immunity. We assessed its efficacy and safety versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial (OAK) in 194 academic or community oncology centres in 31 countries. We enrolled patients who had squamous or non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, were 18 years or older, had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients had received one to two previous cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens (one or more platinum based combination therapies) for stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients with a history of autoimmune disease and those who had received previous treatments with docetaxel, CD137 agonists, anti-CTLA4, or therapies targeting the PD-L1 and PD-1 pathway were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenously receive either atezolizumab 1200 mg or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks by permuted block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive voice or web response system. Coprimary endpoints were overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1-expression population TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 (≥1% PD-L1 on tumour cells or tumour-infiltrating immune cells). The primary efficacy analysis was done in the first 850 of 1225 enrolled patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02008227. FINDINGS Between March 11, 2014, and April 29, 2015, 1225 patients were recruited. In the primary population, 425 patients were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab and 425 patients were assigned to receive docetaxel. Overall survival was significantly longer with atezolizumab in the ITT and PD-L1-expression populations. In the ITT population, overall survival was improved with atezolizumab compared with docetaxel (median overall survival was 13·8 months [95% CI 11·8-15·7] vs 9·6 months [8·6-11·2]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·62-0·87], p=0·0003). Overall survival in the TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 population was improved with atezolizumab (n=241) compared with docetaxel (n=222; median overall survival was 15·7 months [95% CI 12·6-18·0] with atezolizumab vs 10·3 months [8·8-12·0] with docetaxel; HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·58-0·93]; p=0·0102). Patients in the PD-L1 low or undetectable subgroup (TC0 and IC0) also had improved survival with atezolizumab (median overall survival 12·6 months vs 8·9 months; HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·59-0·96]). Overall survival improvement was similar in patients with squamous (HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·54-0·98]; n=112 in the atezolizumab group and n=110 in the docetaxel group) or non-squamous (0·73 [0·60-0·89]; n=313 and n=315) histology. Fewer patients had treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events with atezolizumab (90 [15%] of 609 patients) versus docetaxel (247 [43%] of 578 patients). One treatment-related death from a respiratory tract infection was reported in the docetaxel group. INTERPRETATION To our knowledge, OAK is the first randomised phase 3 study to report results of a PD-L1-targeted therapy, with atezolizumab treatment resulting in a clinically relevant improvement of overall survival versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer, regardless of PD-L1 expression or histology, with a favourable safety profile. FUNDING F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Inc.

Selumetinib plus docetaxel for KRAS-mutant advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study

BACKGROUND No targeted therapies are available for KRAS-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Selumetinib is an inhibitor of MEK1/MEK2, downstream of KRAS, with preclinical evidence of synergistic activity with docetaxel in KRAS-mutant cancers. We did a prospective, randomised, phase 2 trial to assess selumetinib plus docetaxel in previously treated patients with advanced KRAS-mutant NSCLC. METHODS Eligible patients were older than 18 years of age; had histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IIIB-IV KRAS-mutant NSCLC; had failed first-line therapy for advanced NSCLC; had WHO performance status of 0-1; had not received previous therapy with either a MEK inhibitor or docetaxel; and had adequate bone marrow, renal, and liver function. Patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to either oral selumetinib (75 mg twice daily in a 21 day cycle) or placebo; all patients received intravenous docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) on day 1 of a 21 day cycle). Randomisation was done with an interactive voice response system and investigators, patients, data analysts, and the trial sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed for all patients with confirmed KRAS mutations. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00890825. FINDINGS Between April 20, 2009, and June 30, 2010, we randomly assigned 44 patients to receive selumetinib and docetaxel (selumetinib group) and 43 to receive placebo and docetaxel (placebo group). Of these, one patient in the selumetinib group and three in the placebo group were excluded from efficacy analyses because their tumours were not confirmed to be KRAS-mutation positive. Median overall survival was 9·4 months (6·8-13·6) in the selumetinib group and 5·2 months (95% CI 3·8-non-calculable) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] for death 0·80, 80% CI 0·56-1·14; one-sided p=0·21). Median progression-free survival was 5·3 months (4·6-6·4) in the selumetinib group and 2·1 months (95% CI 1·4-3·7) in the placebo group (HR for progression 0·58, 80% CI 0·42-0·79; one-sided p=0·014). 16 (37%) patients in the selumetinib group and none in the placebo group had an objective response (p<0·0001). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 36 (82%) patients in the selumetinib group and 28 (67%) patients in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (29 [67%] of 43 patients in the selumetinib group vs 23 [55%] of 42 patients in the placebo group), febrile neutropenia (eight [18%] of 44 patients in the selumetinib group vs none in the placebo group), dyspnoea (one [2%] of 44 patients in the selumetinib group vs five [12%] of 42 in the placebo group), and asthenia (four [9%] of 44 patients in the selumetinib group vs none in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION Selumetinib plus docetaxel has promising efficacy, albeit with a higher number of adverse events than with docetaxel alone, in previously treated advanced KRAS-mutant NSCLC. These findings warrant further clinical investigation of selumetinib plus docetaxel in KRAS-mutant NSCLC. FUNDING AstraZeneca.

ESO-ESMO 2nd international consensus guidelines for advanced breast cancer (ABC2)†

Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) is a treatable but still generally incurable disease. The goals of care are to optimize both length and quality of life. Due to continuous research, several advances have been made, particularly for the HER-2-positive and for Luminal-like subtypes. Notwithstanding these advances, median overall survival of patients with ABC is still only 2–3 years, although the range is wide [1–5], and survival may be longer for patients treated in specialized institutions [6]. Implementation of current knowledge is highly variable among countries and within each country.

Phase III Study of Carboplatin and Paclitaxel Alone or With Sorafenib in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE This phase III, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial assessed the efficacy and safety of sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor, in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel in chemotherapy-naïve patients with unresectable stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Nine hundred twenty-six patients were randomly assigned to receive up to six 21-day cycles of carboplatin area under the curve 6 and paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) (CP) on day 1, followed by either sorafenib 400 mg twice a day (n = 464, arm A) or placebo (n = 462, arm B) on days 2 to 19. The maintenance phase after CP consisted of sorafenib 400 mg or placebo twice a day. The primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included progression-free survival and tumor response. RESULTS Overall demographics were balanced between arms; 223 patients (24%) had squamous cell histology. On the basis of a planned interim analysis, median OS was 10.7 months in arm A and 10.6 months in arm B (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.15; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.41; P = .915). The study was terminated after the interim analysis concluded that the study was highly unlikely to meet its primary end point. A prespecified exploratory analysis revealed that patients with squamous cell histology had greater mortality in arm A than in arm B (HR = 1.85; 95% CI, 1.22 to 2.81). Main grade 3 or 4 sorafenib-related toxicities included rash (8.4%), hand-foot skin reaction (7.8%), and diarrhea (3.5%). CONCLUSION No clinical benefit was observed from adding sorafenib to CP chemotherapy as first-line treatment for NSCLC.

A randomised, double-blind phase III study of pazopanib in patients with advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Final overall survival results and safety update

BACKGROUND In this randomised phase III study (VEG105192; NCT00334282), pazopanib previously demonstrated statistically and clinically meaningful improvement of progression-free survival versus placebo in patients with advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Final overall survival (OS) and updated safety results are now reported. METHODS Treatment-naive or cytokine-pretreated mRCC patients (n=435) stratified and randomised (2:1) to pazopanib 800 mg daily or placebo, were treated until disease progression, death or unacceptable toxicity. Upon progression, placebo patients could receive pazopanib through an open-label study. Final OS in the intent-to-treat population was analysed using a stratified log-rank test. Rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) and inverse probability of censoring weighted (IPCW) analyses were performed post-hoc to adjust for crossover. FINDINGS The difference in final OS between pazopanib- and placebo-treated patients was not statistically significant (22.9 versus 20.5 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR]=0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.16; one-sided P=.224). Early and frequent crossover from placebo to pazopanib and prolonged duration of crossover treatment confounded the OS analysis. In IPCW analyses, pazopanib decreased mortality (HR=0.504; 95% CI, 0.315-0.762; two-sided P=.002). Similar, albeit non-significant, results were obtained in RPSFT analyses (HR=0.43; 95% CI, 0.215-1.388; two-sided P=.172). Since the last cutoff, cumulative exposure to pazopanib increased by 30%. The pazopanib safety profile showed no new safety signals or changes in the type, frequency and severity of adverse events. INTERPRETATION Although no significant difference in OS was observed in this study, extensive crossover from placebo to pazopanib confounded final OS analysis. Post-hoc analyses adjusting for crossover suggest OS benefit with pazopanib treatment for mRCC patients.

Planning cancer control in Latin America and the Caribbean

Non-communicable diseases, including cancer, are overtaking infectious disease as the leading health-care threat in middle-income and low-income countries. Latin American and Caribbean countries are struggling to respond to increasing morbidity and death from advanced disease. Health ministries and health-care systems in these countries face many challenges caring for patients with advanced cancer: inadequate funding; inequitable distribution of resources and services; inadequate numbers, training, and distribution of health-care personnel and equipment; lack of adequate care for many populations based on socioeconomic, geographic, ethnic, and other factors; and current systems geared toward the needs of wealthy, urban minorities at a cost to the entire population. This burgeoning cancer problem threatens to cause widespread suffering and economic peril to the countries of Latin America. Prompt and deliberate actions must be taken to avoid this scenario. Increasing efforts towards prevention of cancer and avoidance of advanced, stage IV disease will reduce suffering and mortality and will make overall cancer care more affordable. We hope the findings of our Commission and our recommendations will inspire Latin American stakeholders to redouble their efforts to address this increasing cancer burden and to prevent it from worsening and threatening their societies.

Phase II Randomized Trial Comparing Sequential First-Line Everolimus and Second-Line Sunitinib Versus First-Line Sunitinib and Second-Line Everolimus in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

PURPOSE A multicenter, randomized phase II trial, RECORD-3, was conducted to compare first-line everolimus followed by sunitinib at progression with the standard sequence of first-line sunitinib followed by everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS RECORD-3 used a crossover treatment design. The primary objective was to assess progression-free survival (PFS) noninferiority of first-line everolimus compared with first-line sunitinib. Secondary end points included combined PFS for each sequence, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Of 471 enrolled patients, 238 were randomly assigned to first-line everolimus followed by sunitinib, and 233 were randomly assigned to first-line sunitinib followed by everolimus. The primary end point was not met; the median PFS was 7.9 months for first-line everolimus and 10.7 months for first-line sunitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.8). Among patients who discontinued first-line, 108 (45%) crossed over from everolimus to second-line sunitinib, and 99 (43%) crossed over from sunitinib to second-line everolimus. The median combined PFS was 21.1 months for sequential everolimus then sunitinib and was 25.8 months for sequential sunitinib then everolimus (HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.7). The median OS was 22.4 months for sequential everolimus and then sunitinib and 32.0 months for sequential sunitinib and then everolimus (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.6). Common treatment-emergent adverse events during first-line everolimus or sunitinib were stomatitis (53% and 57%, respectively), fatigue (45% and 51%, respectively), and diarrhea (38% and 57%, respectively). CONCLUSION Everolimus did not demonstrate noninferiority compared with sunitinib as a first-line therapy. The trial results support the standard treatment paradigm of first-line sunitinib followed by everolimus at progression.

Randomized Phase II Study of Dacomitinib (PF-00299804), an Irreversible Pan–Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitor, Versus Erlotinib in Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE This randomized, open-label trial compared dacomitinib (PF-00299804), an irreversible inhibitor of human epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFR)/HER1, HER2, and HER4, with erlotinib, a reversible EGFR inhibitor, in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with NSCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 2, no prior HER-directed therapy, and one/two prior chemotherapy regimens received dacomitinib 45 mg or erlotinib 150 mg once daily. RESULTS One hundred eighty-eight patients were randomly assigned. Treatment arms were balanced for most clinical and molecular characteristics. Median progression-free survival (PFS; primary end point) was 2.86 months for patients treated with dacomitinib and 1.91 months for patients treated with erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.91; two-sided P = .012); in patients with KRAS wild-type tumors, median PFS was 3.71 months for patients treated with dacomitinib and 1.91 months for patients treated with erlotinib (HR = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.85; two-sided P = .006); and in patients with KRAS wild-type/EGFR wild-type tumors, median PFS was 2.21 months for patients treated with dacomitinib and 1.84 months for patients treated with erlotinib (HR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.99; two-sided P = .043). Median overall survival was 9.53 months for patients treated with dacomitinib and 7.44 months for patients treated with erlotinib (HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.13; two-sided P = .205). Adverse event-related discontinuations were uncommon in both arms. Common treatment-related adverse events were dermatologic and gastrointestinal, predominantly grade 1 to 2, and more frequent with dacomitinib. CONCLUSION Dacomitinib demonstrated significantly improved PFS versus erlotinib, with acceptable toxicity. PFS benefit was observed in most clinical and molecular subsets, notably KRAS wild-type/EGFR any status, KRAS wild-type/EGFR wild-type, and EGFR mutants.