Christine Baudelet

Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Squamous-Cell Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND Patients with advanced squamous-cell non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have disease progression during or after first-line chemotherapy have limited treatment options. This randomized, open-label, international, phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune-checkpoint-inhibitor antibody, as compared with docetaxel in this patient population. METHODS We randomly assigned 272 patients to receive nivolumab, at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks, or docetaxel, at a dose of 75 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS The median overall survival was 9.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.3 to 13.3) with nivolumab versus 6.0 months (95% CI, 5.1 to 7.3) with docetaxel. The risk of death was 41% lower with nivolumab than with docetaxel (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.79; P<0.001). At 1 year, the overall survival rate was 42% (95% CI, 34 to 50) with nivolumab versus 24% (95% CI, 17 to 31) with docetaxel. The response rate was 20% with nivolumab versus 9% with docetaxel (P=0.008). The median progression-free survival was 3.5 months with nivolumab versus 2.8 months with docetaxel (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.81; P<0.001). The expression of the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) was neither prognostic nor predictive of benefit. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported in 7% of the patients in the nivolumab group as compared with 55% of those in the docetaxel group. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with advanced, previously treated squamous-cell NSCLC, overall survival, response rate, and progression-free survival were significantly better with nivolumab than with docetaxel, regardless of PD-L1 expression level. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 017 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01642004.).

Phase II, Open-label Study of Brivanib as Second-line Therapy in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Purpose: Brivanib, a selective dual inhibitor of fibroblast growth factor and VEGF signaling, has recently been shown to have activity as first-line treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This phase II open-label study assessed brivanib as second-line therapy in patients with advanced HCC who had failed prior antiangiogenic treatment. Experimental Design: Brivanib was administered orally at a dose of 800 mg once daily. The primary objectives were tumor response rate, time to response, duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), disease control rate, time to progression (TTP), and safety and tolerability. Results: Forty-six patients were treated. Best responses to treatment with brivanib (N = 46 patients) using modified World Health Organization criteria were partial responses for two patients (4.3%), stable disease for 19 patients (41.3%), and progressive disease for 19 patients (41.3%). The tumor response rate was 4.3%; the disease control rate was 45.7%. Median OS was 9.79 months. Median TTP as assessed by study investigators following second-line treatment with brivanib was 2.7 months. The most common adverse events were fatigue, decreased appetite, nausea, diarrhea, and hypertension. Conclusion: Brivanib had a manageable safety profile and is one of the first agents to show promising antitumor activity in advanced HCC patients treated with prior sorafenib. Clin Cancer Res; 18(7); 2090–8. ©2012 AACR.

Assessment of safety, tolerability and effectiveness of adjunctive aripiprazole to lithium/valproate in bipolar mania: a 46-week, open-label extension following a 6-week double-blind study.

Abstract Objective: This study evaluated the long-term tolerability and effectiveness of aripiprazole adjunctive to lithium or valproate in partial responders with bipolar mania. Methods: Completers of a 6-week double-blind comparison of adjunctive aripiprazole versus placebo in bipolar mania partially responsive to lithium or valproate monotherapy could enter a 46-week extension treatment with open-label adjunctive aripiprazole plus lithium (ARI + LI) or valproate (ARI + VAL). Safety, efficacy and functioning were assessed. Clinical trial registration: CN138-134LT: Study of Aripiprazole in Patients With Bipolar I Disorder; ID number: NCT00257972; registry: www.clinicaltrials.gov Results: In total, 283 (ARI + LI n = 108; ARI + VAL n = 175) patients entered and 146 (ARI + LI n = 55; ARI + VAL n = 91) completed the 46-week, open-label extension. Frequently reported adverse events (AEs) that occurred with ARI + LI vs. ARI + VAL were: tremor (17.0% vs. 12.1%), akathisia (6.6% vs. 8.6%), headache (6.6% vs. 4.0%), insomnia (9.4% vs. 10.3%), depression (7.5% vs. 9.2%) and weight increase (11.3% vs. 8.6%). Extrapyramidal symptom-related AEs occurred in 24 (22.6%) ARI + LI- and 38 (21.8%) ARI + VAL-treated patients, with eight discontinuations. The majority of new-onset events of akathisia and insomnia occurred early. Mean (SE) weight change from double-blind endpoint to Week 46 (LOCF) was 2.3 (0.6) kg with ARI + LI and 2.0 (0.4) kg with ARI + VAL. Significant improvements from baseline over the 52 weeks (LOCF) occurred with ARI + LI and ARI + VAL on mean (95%CI) YMRS total score (−16.5 [−18.1; −14.8] and −17.6 [−18.9; −16.3], both p < 0.001 vs. baseline) and MADRS total score (−1.7 [−3.3; −0.1], p < 0.05 vs. baseline vs. −2.7 [−4.0; −1.4], p < 0.001 vs. baseline). Over the 46-week extension, continued aripiprazole provided continued YMRS improvement with ARI + LI (−2.9) and ARI + VAL (−3.3), while mean MADRS total changes were +1.1 and +1.0, respectively, and LIFE-RIFT changes were 0.2 and −0.5, respectively. Conclusions: Long-term aripiprazole adjunctive to lithium/valproate in bipolar mania was safe and well tolerated. Improvements in manic symptoms and functioning were maintained. Aripiprazole, adjunctive to either lithium or valproate, appeared to be equally safe and effective combinations for the treatment of bipolar disorder. Limitations: As an open-label extension study with a low completion rate, a conservative interpretation of the findings is warranted. Additionally, the study population was not randomly selected but chosen at the discretion of the investigator, and patients did not maintain therapeutic levels of their mood stabiliser consistently.

A 40-week double-blind aripiprazole versus lithium follow-up of a 12-week acute phase study (total 52 weeks) in bipolar I disorder

BACKGROUND This study followed manic or mixed bipolar I subjects for an additional 40 weeks after initial randomization to 12 weeks of lithium versus aripiprazole monotherapy. This is the only long-term, double-blind study comparing lithium and aripiprazole. METHODS Patients continued receiving either aripiprazole 15 or 30 mg/day, or lithium 900, 1200 or 1500 mg/day in a double-blind fashion for 40 weeks after completing a 12-week double-blind study (52 weeks total treatment). Efficacy endpoints included adjusted mean change from baseline to Week 52 in Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores (observed cases). Remission was defined as YMRS total score≤12. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS Of the 66 patients who entered the extension phase, only 20 patients (30.3%) completed the entire phase (aripiprazole n=7; lithium n=13). The significant improvement that occurred over the first 12 weeks was maintained over the 40 weeks of blinded continuation (from Week 12 through Week 52). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the extension phase for aripiprazole were akathisia, headache, somnolence, anxiety and nasopharyngitis (all 8%), and for lithium were insomnia (15.8%), headache (13.2%), diarrhea (13.2%) and vomiting (10.5%). Mean weight change was +2.71 kg for lithium and +5.66 kg for aripiprazole (p=0.46). LIMITATIONS This trial was not powered to statistically compare active treatments, and long-term completion rates were low in both groups. CONCLUSIONS Aripiprazole monotherapy appears to be equivalently useful to lithium for the extended treatment of mixed or manic bipolar disorder patients.

Using Modified RECIST and Alpha-Fetoprotein Levels to Assess Treatment Benefit in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background and Aims: Assessing treatment responses in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is challenging, and alternative radiologic methods of measuring treatment response are required. Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) for HCC and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels were assessed in a post hoc analysis of a phase II study of brivanib, a selective dual inhibitor of fibroblast growth factor and vascular endothelial growth factor signaling. Methods: HCC patients were treated with first-line (cohort A; n = 55) or second-line (cohort B; n = 46) brivanib alaninate 800 mg once daily. Outcomes were compared between World Health Organization (WHO) criteria and (retrospectively by) mRECIST by independent review. The relationship between on-study AFP changes and outcome was analyzed in patients with elevated AFP at baseline. Results: Response rates were higher with mRECIST versus WHO criteria in cohorts A (25.5% vs. 7.3%) and B (10.9% vs. 4.3%). Progressive disease (PD) as assessed by mRECIST was associated with a very short median overall survival (OS; cohort A, 2.8 months; cohort B, 5.3 months); PD as assessed by WHO criteria reflected a mixed population of patients with better outcomes. mRECIST responders tended to have a>50% AFP decrease during therapy. In cohorts A and B pooled, an early AFP response (>20%or >50% decline from baseline within the first 4 weeks) was not associated with longer median OS. Conclusions: Tumor response as assessed by mRECIST differed from that by WHO criteria, with mRECIST possibly identifying true nonresponders with a poor prognosis. Many patients had AFP decreases correlating with tumor shrinkage, yet an association with long-term benefit was unclear. mRECIST and on-treatment AFP levels are being explored further with brivanib in HCC.

PW01-36 - The long-term safety, tolerability and effectiveness of adjunctive aripiprazole to lithium/valproate in bipolar I patients partially non-responsive to mood stabilisers

Objective To evaluate the long-term tolerability and effectiveness of aripiprazole adjunctive to lithium or valproate in bipolar mania. Methods Completers of a 6-week double-blind comparison of adjunctive aripiprazole versus placebo in bipolar mania partially responsive to monotherapy were followed up over 46-weeks on open-label aripiprazole plus lithium (ARI+LI) or valproate (ARI+VAL). Results 283 (ARI+LI n=108; ARI+VAL n=175) patients entered and 146 (ARI+LI n=55; ARI+VAL n=91) completed the 46-week extension. Safety results for both combinations were consistent with the known tolerability profile of aripiprazole, lithium and valproate. No clinically significant changes in lipids or glucose were observed with either ARI+LI or ARI+VAL. Mean (SE) weight change from double-blind endpoint to Week 46 (LOCF) was 2.3 (0.6) kg with ARI+LI and 2.0 (0.4) kg with ARI+VAL. Temporal analysis of the time of first onset of adverse events showed that akathisia and insomnia tended to occur early in treatment, with few new cases in patients previously treated with aripiprazole during the 6-week study. Significant improvements from baseline in YMRS total score and MADRS total score were sustained over the 52 weeks with both ARI+LI and ARI+VAL treatment. Mean reduction from baseline at Week 52 LOCF[95%CI], p value vs baseline ARI+LI ARI+VAL YMRS total score -16.5 [-18.1; -14.8], p -17.6 [-18.9; -16.3] p MADRS total score -1.7 [-3.3; -0.1] p -2.7 [-4.0; -1.4] p Conclusions Long-term aripiprazole adjunctive to lithium/valproate in bipolar mania was safe and well-tolerated. Improvements in manic and depressive symptoms observed during the first 6 weeks of treatment were maintained.