Christian Lerchenmüller

FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Cetuximab and bevacizumab have both been shown to improve outcomes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer when added to chemotherapy regimens; however, their comparative effectiveness when partnered with first-line fluorouracil, folinic acid, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) is unknown. We aimed to compare these agents in patients with KRAS (exon 2) codon 12/13 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18-75 years with stage IV, histologically confirmed colorectal cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, an estimated life expectancy of greater than 3 months, and adequate organ function, from centres in Germany and Austria. Patients were centrally randomised by fax (1:1) to FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (using permuted blocks of randomly varying size), stratified according to ECOG performance status, number of metastatic sites, white blood cell count, and alkaline phosphatase concentration. The primary endpoint was objective response analysed by intention to treat. The study has completed recruitment, but follow-up of participants is ongoing. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00433927. FINDINGS Between Jan 23, 2007, and Sept 19, 2012, 592 patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumours were randomly assigned and received treatment (297 in the FOLFIRI plus cetuximab group and 295 in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group). 184 (62·0%, 95% CI 56·2-67·5) patients in the cetuximab group achieved an objective response compared with 171 (58·0%, 52·1-63·7) in the bevacizumab group (odds ratio 1·18, 95% CI 0·85-1·64; p=0·18). Median progression-free survival was 10·0 months (95% CI 8·8-10·8) in the cetuximab group and 10·3 months (9·8-11·3) in the bevacizumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·06, 95% CI 0·88-1·26; p=0·55); however, median overall survival was 28·7 months (95% CI 24·0-36·6) in the cetuximab group compared with 25·0 months (22·7-27·6) in the bevacizumab group (HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·62-0·96; p=0·017). Safety profiles were consistent with the known side-effects of the study drugs. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in both treatment groups were haematotoxicity (73 [25%] of 297 patients in the cetuximab group vs 62 [21%] of 295 patients in the bevacizumab group), skin reactions (77 [26%] vs six [2%]), and diarrhoea (34 [11%] vs 40 [14%]). INTERPRETATION Although the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response did not significantly differ between the FOLFIRI plus cetuximab and FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab groups, the association with longer overall survival suggests that FOLFIRI plus cetuximab could be the preferred first-line regimen for patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. FUNDING Merck KGaA.

Maintenance strategies after first-line oxaliplatin plus fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (AIO 0207): a randomised, non-inferiority, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND The definition of a best maintenance strategy following combination chemotherapy plus bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer is unclear. We investigated whether no continuation of therapy or bevacizumab alone are non-inferior to fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab, following induction treatment with a fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab. METHODS In this open-label, non-inferiority, randomised phase 3 trial, we included patients aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed, previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, adequate bone marrow, liver, and renal function, no pre-existing neuropathy greater than grade 1, and measurable disease, from 55 hospitals and 51 private practices in Germany. After 24 weeks of induction therapy with either fluorouracil plus leucovorin plus oxaliplatin or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin, both with bevacizumab, patients without disease progression were randomly assigned centrally by fax (1:1:1) to standard maintenance treatment with a fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab, bevacizumab alone, or no treatment. Both patients and investigators were aware of treatment assignment. Stratification criteria were response status, termination of oxaliplatin, previous adjuvant treatment with oxaliplatin, and ECOG performance status. At first progression, re-induction with all drugs of the induction treatment was a planned part of the protocol. Time to failure of strategy was the primary endpoint, defined as time from randomisation to second progression after maintenance (and if applicable re-induction), death, or initiation of further treatment including a new drug. Time to failure of strategy was equivalent to time to first progression for patients who did not receive re-induction (for any reason). The boundary for assessment of non-inferiority was upper limit of the one-sided 98·8% CI 1·43. Analyses were done by intention to treat. The study has completed recruitment, but follow-up of participants is ongoing. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00973609. FINDINGS Between Sept 17, 2009, and Feb 21, 2013, 837 patients were enrolled and 472 randomised; 158 were randomly assigned to receive fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab, 156 to receive bevacizumab monotherapy, and 158 to receive no treatment. Median follow-up from randomisation is 17·0 months (IQR 9·5-25·4). Median time to failure of strategy was 6·9 months (95% CI 6·1-8·5) for the fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab group, 6·1 months (5·3-7·4) for the bevacizumab alone group, and 6·4 months (4·8-7·6) for the no treatment group. Bevacizumab alone was non-inferior to standard fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab (hazard ratio [HR] 1·08 [95% CI 0·85-1·37]; p=0·53; upper limit of the one-sided 99·8% CI 1·42), whereas no treatment was not (HR 1·26 [0·99-1·60]; p=0·056; upper limit of the one-sided 99·8% CI 1·65). The protocol-defined re-induction after first progression was rarely done (30 [19%] patients in the fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab group, 67 [43%] in the bevacizumab monotherapy group, and 73 [46%] in the no treatment group. The most common grade 3 adverse event was sensory neuropathy (21 [13%] of 158 patients in the fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab group, 22 [14%] of 156 patients in the bevacizumab alone group, and 12 [8%] of 158 patients in the no treatment group). INTERPRETATION Although non-inferiority for bevacizumab alone was demonstrated for the primary endpoint, maintenance treatment with a fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab may be the preferable option for patients following an induction treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab, as it allows the planned discontinuation of the initial combination without compromising time with controlled disease. Only a few patients were exposed to re-induction treatment, thus deeming the primary endpoint time to failure of strategy non-informative and clinically irrelevant. Progression-free survival and overall survival should be considered primary endpoints in future trials exploring maintenance strategies.

FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a post-hoc analysis of tumour dynamics in the final RAS wild-type subgroup of this randomised open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND FIRE-3 compared first-line 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. The same study also reported an exploratory analysis of a subgroup of patients with tumours that were wild-type at other RAS genes (KRAS and NRAS exons 2-4). We report here efficacy results for the FIRE-3 final RAS (KRAS/NRAS, exons 2-4) wild-type subgroup. Moreover, new metrics of tumour dynamics were explored during a centralised radiological review to investigate how FOLFIRI plus cetuximab conferred overall survival benefit in the absence of differences in investigator-assessed objective responses and progression-free survival. METHODS FIRE-3 was a randomised phase 3 trial comparing FOLFIRI plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. The primary endpoint of the FIRE-3 study was the proportion of patients achieving an objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.0 in the intention-to-treat population. A centralised radiological review of CT scans was done in a post-hoc analysis to assess objective response according to RECIST 1.1, early tumour shrinkage, depth of response, duration of response, and time to response in the final RAS wild-type subgroup. Comparisons between treatment groups with respect to objective response rate and early tumour shrinkage were made using Fishers exact test (two-sided), while differences in depth of response were investigated with a two-sided Wilcoxon test. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00433927. FINDINGS In the final RAS wild-type population (n=400), median overall survival was better in the FOLFIRI plus cetuximab group than the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group (33·1 months [95% CI 24·5-39·4] vs 25·0 months [23·0-28·1]; hazard ratio 0·70 [0·54-0·90]; p=0·0059), although investigator-assessed objective response and progression-free survival were comparable between treatment groups. Centralised radiological review of CT-assessable patients (n=330) showed that the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (113 of 157, 72·0% [95% CI 64·3-78·8] vs 97 of 173, 56·1% [48·3-63·6]; p=0·0029), frequency of early tumour shrinkage (107 of 157, 68·2% [60·3-75·4] vs 85 of 173, 49·1% [41·5-56·8]; p=0·0005), and median depth of response (-48·9% [-54·3 to -42·0] vs -32·3% [-38·2 to -29·2]; p<0·0001) were significantly better in extended RAS wild-type patients receiving FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus those receiving FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. No differences in duration of response and time to response were observed between treatment groups. INTERPRETATION This analysis provides a new framework that connects alternative metrics of response to overall survival. Superior response-related outcome parameters, such as early tumour shrinkage and depth of response, obtained by centralised radiological review correlated with the overall survival benefit conferred by FOLFIRI plus cetuximab compared with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the extended RAS wild-type subgroup. FUNDING Merck KGaA and Pfizer.

SWITCH: A Randomised, Sequential, Open-label Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Sorafenib-sunitinib Versus Sunitinib-sorafenib in the Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer

BACKGROUND Understanding how to sequence targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is important for maximisation of clinical benefit. OBJECTIVES To prospectively evaluate sequential use of the multikinase inhibitors sorafenib followed by sunitinib (So-Su) versus sunitinib followed by sorafenib (Su-So) in patients with mRCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 SWITCH study assessed So-Su versus Su-So in patients with mRCC without prior systemic therapy, and stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk score (favourable or intermediate). INTERVENTION Patients were randomised to sorafenib 400mg twice daily followed, on progression or intolerable toxicity, by sunitinib 50mg once daily (4 wk on, 2 wk off) (So-Su), or vice versa (Su-So). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The primary endpoint was improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with So-Su versus Su-So, assessed from randomisation to progression or death during second-line therapy. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS In total, 365 patients were randomised (So-Su, n=182; Su-So, n=183). There was no significant difference in total PFS between So-Su and Su-So (median 12.5 vs 14.9 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 90% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-1.27; p=0.5 for superiority). OS was similar for So-Su and Su-So (median 31.5 and 30.2 mo; HR 1.00, 90% CI 0.77-1.30; p=0.5 for superiority). More So-Su patients than Su-So patients reached protocol-defined second-line therapy (57% vs 42%). Overall, adverse event rates were generally similar between the treatment arms. The most frequent any-grade treatment-emergent first-line adverse events were diarrhoea (54%) and hand-foot skin reaction (39%) for sorafenib; and diarrhoea (40%) and fatigue (40%) for sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS Total PFS was not superior with So-Su versus Su-So. These results demonstrate that sorafenib followed by sunitinib and vice versa provide similar clinical benefit in mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY We investigated if total progression-free survival (PFS) is improved in patients with advanced/metastatic kidney cancer who are treated with sorafenib and then with sunitinib (So-Su), compared with sunitinib and then sorafenib (Su-So). We found that total PFS was not improved with So-Su compared with Su-So, but both treatment options were similarly effective in patients with advanced/metastatic kidney cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00732914, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Impact of Subsequent Therapies on Outcome of the FIRE-3/AIO KRK0306 Trial: First-Line Therapy With FOLFIRI Plus Cetuximab or Bevacizumab in Patients With KRAS Wild-Type Tumors in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE We investigated choice and efficacy of subsequent treatment, with special focus on second-line therapy, in the FIRE-3 trial (FOLFIRI plus cetuximab [arm A] or bevacizumab [arm B]) for patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Start of subsequent-line (second or third) therapy was defined as use of an antitumor drug that was not part of the previous regimen. We evaluated choice, duration, and efficacy of subsequent therapy and determined the impact of subsequent-line treatment on outcome of patients in FIRE-3. RESULTS Of 592 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 414 (69.9%) received second-line and 256 (43.2%) received third-line therapy. In subsequent treatment lines, 47.1% of patients originally assigned to arm A received bevacizumab, and 52.2% originally assigned to arm B received either cetuximab or panitumumab. Oxaliplatin was subsequently used in 55.9% (arm A) and 53.2% (arm B) of patients. Second-line therapy was administered for a median duration of 5.0 versus 3.2 months (P < .001) in study arm A versus B. Progression-free (6.5 v 4.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.85; P < .001) and overall survival (16.3 v 13.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.88; P = .0021) from start of second-line therapy were longer in patients in arm A compared with arm B. CONCLUSION Our data suggest that the sequence of drug application might be more important than exposure to single agents. In patients with RAS wild-type tumors, first-line application of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor-directed therapy may represent a favorable condition for promoting effective subsequent therapy including antiangiogenic agents.

Quality of life assessment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving maintenance therapy after first-line induction treatment: a preplanned analysis of the phase III AIO KRK 0207 trial.

BACKGROUND First-line maintenance strategies are a current matter of debate in the management of mCRC. Their impact on patients health-related quality of life (HRQOL) has not yet been evaluated. The objective of this study was to assess whether differences in HRQOL during any active maintenance treatment compared with no maintenance treatment exist. PATIENT AND METHODS Eight hundred and thirty-seven patients were enrolled in the AIO KRK 0207 trial. Four hundred and seventy-two underwent randomization (after 24 weeks of induction treatment) into one of the maintenance arms: FP plus Bev (arm A), Bev alone (arm B), or no active treatment (arm C). HRQOL were assessed every 6 weeks during induction and maintenance treatment independent from treatment stop, delay, or modification, and also continued after progression, using the EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-CR29. The mean value of the global quality of life dimension (GHS/QoL) of the EORTC QLQ-C30, calculated as the average of all available time points after randomization was considered as pre-specified main endpoint. Additionally, EORTC QLQ-C30 response scores were analyzed. RESULTS For HRQOL analysis, 413 patients were eligible (arm A: 136; arm B: 142, arm C: 135). Compliance rate with the HRQOL questionnaires was 95% at time of randomization and remained high during maintenance (98%, 99%, 97% and 97% at week 6, 12, 18 and 24). No significant differences between treatment arms in the mean GHS/QoL scores were observed at any time point. Also, rates of GHS/QoL score deterioration were similar (20.5%; 17.2% and 20.7% of patients), whereas a score improvement occurred in 36.1%; 43.8% and 42.1% (arms A, B and C). CONCLUSION Continuation of an active maintenance treatment with FP/Bev after induction treatment was neither associated with a detrimental effect on GHS/QoL scores when compared with both, less active treatment with Bev alone or no active treatment. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER NCT00973609 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Trastuzumab in the treatment of elderly patients with early breast cancer: Results from an observational study in Germany.

BACKGROUND In elderly patients with HER2-positive breast cancer, few data on efficacy and toxicity of adjuvant trastuzumab treatment exists since older patients were in general excluded from large randomized studies. This prospective observational study aimed to confirm the beneficial findings from pivotal trials in age cohorts ≥65 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS There were no restrictions for recruitment with respect to age or concomitant/sequential adjuvant medication. Long-term relapse/survival status of the patients was assessed once a year. RESULTS Among the 3940 evaluable patients enrolled between 2006 and 2012 at 339 institutions, 507 were aged between 65 and 69 years, with another 507 patients ≥70 years. Elderly patients suffered from significantly more advanced primary tumors. Preceding or concomitant chemotherapy showed decreasing aggressiveness with patients age. Trastuzumab treatment was stopped prematurely in only 11% of the elderly, but more often than in younger patients (p=0.0008). With 453 events hitherto reported, elderly patients did not exhibit an inferior relapse-free survival when adjusted for other relevant prognostic factors (hazard ratio: 1.01 per year; p=0.24). Three-year overall survival was significantly lower in the population older than 64 years than in younger patients (94.2% vs. 96.8%, p=0.0011). CONCLUSIONS To our knowledge, our population of elderly patients treated with adjuvant trastuzumab is the largest analyzed so far. The beneficial long-term results were comparable to those in the younger cohorts. Although the risk of cardiotoxicity increased significantly with age, it also remained manageable in older patients. Thus, chronological age alone should not preclude HER2 antibody treatment.

Relation of early tumor shrinkage (ETS) observed in first-line treatment to efficacy parameters of subsequent treatment in FIRE-3 (AIOKRK0306)

We explored the association of early tumor shrinkage (ETS) and non‐ETS with efficacy of first‐line and consecutive second‐line treatment in patients with KRAS wild‐type metastatic colorectal cancer treated in FIRE‐3. Assessment of tumor shrinkage was based on the sum of longest diameters of target lesions, evaluated after 6 weeks of treatment. Shrinkage was classified as ETS (shrinkage by ≥ 20%), mETS (shrinkage by 0 to <20%), mPD (minor progression >0 to <20%) and PD (progression ≥20%). Overall survival (OS) was 33.2 (95% CI 28.0–38.4) months in ETS patients, while non‐ETS was associated with less favorable outcome (mETS 24.0 (95% CI 21.2–26.9) months, mPD 19.0 (95% CI 13.0–25.0) months, PD 12.8 (95% CI 11.1–14.5) months). Differences in PFS of first‐line therapy were less pronounced. ETS subgroups defined in first‐line therapy also correlated with efficacy of second‐line therapy. Progression‐free survival in second‐line (PFS2nd) was 6.5 months (5.8–7.2) for ETS, and was 5.6 (95% CI 4.7–6.5) months for mETS, 4.9 (95% CI 3.7–6.1) months for mPD and 3.3 (95% CI 2.3–4.3) months for PD. PFS of first‐line and PFS2nd showed a linear correlation (Bravais–Pearson coefficient: 0.16, p = 0.006). While ETS is associated with the most favorable outcome, non‐ETS represents a heterogeneous subgroup with distinct characteristics of less favorable initial tumor response to treatment. This is the first analysis to demonstrate that early tumor response observed during first‐line FOLFIRI‐based therapy may also relate to efficacy of second‐line treatment. Early response parameters may serve as stratification factors in trials recruiting pretreated patients.

Quality of life under capecitabine (Xeloda®) in patients with metastatic breast cancer: data from a german non-interventional surveillance study.

Aim: This non-interventional surveillance study (NIS) collected data on the quality of life (QoL) of patients treated with capecitabine as mono- or combination chemotherapy in an outpatient setting. Methods: Capecitabine was administered orally for 14 days of each 21-day cycle. The main parameters of interest were QoL, compliance, patient and physician satisfaction, handling of hand-foot syndrome (HFS), and efficacy. The statistics were descriptive; some differences were compared using confidence intervals (CIs). Results: 735 patients from 161 centers received at least 1 dose of capecitabine. The median duration of observation was 5.5 months overall. The QoL global score was 53% (mean from the entire study population at all times), without any correlation to HFS. The overall response rate (ORR) was 35.1%, and the disease control rate (DCR) 64.4%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was overall 6.81 months (95% CI 6.32-7.63 months) and it was significantly higher in patients with HFS (8.4 months, 95% CI 7.5-9.2 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.60; p < 0.0001). The safety and tolerability of capecitabine were considered acceptable. The HFS incidence (all grades) was 27.1%. Conclusions: Capecitabine had a favorable risk-benefit relation in outpatient therapy. The QoL remained stable over the course of the investigation, indicating good compliance. HFS was a strong predictor of longer PFS and had no negative impact on the global QoL.

Relevance of liver-limited disease in metastatic colorectal cancer: Subgroup findings of the FIRE-3/AIO KRK0306 trial

In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), liver‐limited disease (LLD) is associated with a higher chance of metastectomy leading to long‐term survival. However, limited data describes the prognostic and predictive relevance of initially unresectable LLD with regard to targeted first‐line therapy. The present analysis investigated the relevance of initially unresectable LLD in mCRC patients treated with targeted therapy against either the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or vascular epithelial growth factor (VEGF). The analysis was performed based on FIRE‐3, a randomized phase III trial comparing first‐line chemotherapy with FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab (anti‐EGFR) or bevacizumab (anti‐VEGF) in RAS wild‐type (WT) mCRC. Of 400 patients, 133 (33.3%) had LLD and 267 (66.8%) had non‐LLD. Median overall survival (OS) was significantly longer in LLD compared to non‐LLD patients (36.0 vs. 25.4 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51–0.87; p = 0.002). In a multivariate analysis also including secondary hepatic resection as time‐dependent variable, LLD status was independently prognostic for OS (HR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.50–0.91; p = 0.01). As assessed by interaction tests, treatment benefit from FOLFIRI plus cetuximab compared to FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab was independent of LLD status with regard to objective response rate (ORR), early tumour shrinkage ≥20% (ETS), depth of response (DpR) and OS (all p > 0.05). In conclusion, LLD could be identified as a prognostic factor in RAS‐WT mCRC, which was independent of hepatic resection in patients treated with targeted therapy. LLD had no predictive relevance since benefit from FOLFIRI plus cetuximab over bevacizumab was independent of LLD status.