Claire Watkins

Gefitinib or Carboplatin–Paclitaxel in Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND Previous, uncontrolled studies have suggested that first-line treatment with gefitinib would be efficacious in selected patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS In this phase 3, open-label study, we randomly assigned previously untreated patients in East Asia who had advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma and who were nonsmokers or former light smokers to receive gefitinib (250 mg per day) (609 patients) or carboplatin (at a dose calculated to produce an area under the curve of 5 or 6 mg per milliliter per minute) plus paclitaxel (200 mg per square meter of body-surface area) (608 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS The 12-month rates of progression-free survival were 24.9% with gefitinib and 6.7% with carboplatin-paclitaxel. The study met its primary objective of showing the noninferiority of gefitinib and also showed its superiority, as compared with carboplatin-paclitaxel, with respect to progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.85; P<0.001). In the subgroup of 261 patients who were positive for the epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) mutation, progression-free survival was significantly longer among those who received gefitinib than among those who received carboplatin-paclitaxel (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.64; P<0.001), whereas in the subgroup of 176 patients who were negative for the mutation, progression-free survival was significantly longer among those who received carboplatin-paclitaxel (hazard ratio for progression or death with gefitinib, 2.85; 95% CI, 2.05 to 3.98; P<0.001). The most common adverse events were rash or acne (in 66.2% of patients) and diarrhea (46.6%) in the gefitinib group and neurotoxic effects (69.9%), neutropenia (67.1%), and alopecia (58.4%) in the carboplatin-paclitaxel group. CONCLUSIONS Gefitinib is superior to carboplatin-paclitaxel as an initial treatment for pulmonary adenocarcinoma among nonsmokers or former light smokers in East Asia. The presence in the tumor of a mutation of the EGFR gene is a strong predictor of a better outcome with gefitinib. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00322452.)

Gefitinib versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (INTEREST): a randomised phase III trial

BACKGROUND Two phase II trials in patients with previously-treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer suggested that gefitinib was efficacious and less toxic than was chemotherapy. We compared gefitinib with docetaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer who had been pretreated with platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS We undertook an open-label phase III study with recruitment between March 1, 2004, and Feb 17, 2006, at 149 centres in 24 countries. 1466 patients with pretreated (>/=one platinum-based regimen) advanced non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned with dynamic balancing to receive gefitinib (250 mg per day orally; n=733) or docetaxel (75 mg/m(2) intravenously in 1-h infusion every 3 weeks; n=733). The primary objective was to compare overall survival between the groups with co-primary analyses to assess non-inferiority in the overall per-protocol population and superiority in patients with high epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-gene-copy number in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00076388. FINDINGS 1433 patients were analysed per protocol (723 in gefitinib group and 710 in docetaxel group). Non-inferiority of gefitinib compared with docetaxel was confirmed for overall survival (593 vs 576 events; hazard ratio [HR] 1.020, 96% CI 0.905-1.150, meeting the predefined non-inferiority criterion; median survival 7.6 vs 8.0 months). Superiority of gefitinib in patients with high EGFR-gene-copy number (85 vs 89 patients) was not proven (72 vs 71 events; HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.78-1.51; p=0.62; median survival 8.4 vs 7.5 months). In the gefitinib group, the most common adverse events were rash or acne (360 [49%] vs 73 [10%]) and diarrhoea (255 [35%] vs 177 [25%]); whereas in the docetaxel group, neutropenia (35 [5%] vs 514 [74%]), asthenic disorders (182 [25%] vs 334 [47%]), and alopecia (23 [3%] vs 254 [36%]) were most common. INTERPRETATION INTEREST established non-inferior survival of gefitinib compared with docetaxel, suggesting that gefitinib is a valid treatment for pretreated patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Olaparib Maintenance Therapy in Platinum-Sensitive Relapsed Ovarian Cancer

BACKGROUND Olaparib (AZD2281) is an oral poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that has shown antitumor activity in patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer with or without BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutations. METHODS We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study to evaluate maintenance treatment with olaparib in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed, high-grade serous ovarian cancer who had received two or more platinum-based regimens and had had a partial or complete response to their most recent platinum-based regimen. Patients were randomly assigned to receive olaparib, at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors guidelines. RESULTS Of 265 patients who underwent randomization, 136 were assigned to the olaparib group and 129 to the placebo group. Progression-free survival was significantly longer with olaparib than with placebo (median, 8.4 months vs. 4.8 months from randomization on completion of chemotherapy; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25 to 0.49; P<0.001). Subgroup analyses of progression-free survival showed that, regardless of subgroup, patients in the olaparib group had a lower risk of progression. Adverse events more commonly reported in the olaparib group than in the placebo group (by more than 10% of patients) were nausea (68% vs. 35%), fatigue (49% vs. 38%), vomiting (32% vs. 14%), and anemia (17% vs. 5%); the majority of adverse events were grade 1 or 2. An interim analysis of overall survival (38% maturity, meaning that 38% of the patients had died) showed no significant difference between groups (hazard ratio with olaparib, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.39; P=0.75). CONCLUSIONS Olaparib as maintenance treatment significantly improved progression-free survival among patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed, high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Interim analysis showed no overall survival benefit. The toxicity profile of olaparib in this population was consistent with that in previous studies. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00753545.).

Molecular Predictors of Outcome With Gefitinib in a Phase III Placebo-Controlled Study in Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

PURPOSE The phase III Iressa Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer (ISEL) trial compared gefitinib with placebo in 1,692 patients with refractory advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. We analyzed ISEL tumor biopsy samples to examine relationships between biomarkers and clinical outcome after gefitinib treatment in a placebo-controlled setting. METHODS Biomarkers included epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene copy number by fluorescence in situ hybridization (n = 370); EGFR (n = 379) and phosphorylated Akt (p-Akt) protein expression (n = 382) by immunohistochemistry; and mutations in EGFR (n = 215), KRAS (n = 152), and BRAF (n = 118). RESULTS High EGFR gene copy number was a predictor of a gefitinib-related effect on survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61 for high copy number and HR, 1.16 for low copy number; comparison of high v low copy number HR, P = .045). EGFR protein expression was also related to clinical outcome (HR for positive, 0.77; HR for negative, 1.57; comparison of high v low protein expression HR, P = .049). Patients with EGFR mutations had higher response rates than patients without EGFR mutations (37.5% v 2.6%); there were insufficient data for survival analysis. No relationship was observed between p-Akt protein expression and survival outcome, and the limited amount of data collected for KRAS and BRAF mutations prevented any meaningful evaluation of clinical outcomes in relation to these mutations. CONCLUSION EGFR gene copy number was a predictor of clinical benefit from gefitinib in ISEL. Additional studies are warranted to assess these biomarkers fully for the identification of patients most likely to benefit from gefitinib treatment.

Molecular predictors of outcome with gefitinib and docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer: data from the randomized phase III INTEREST trial.

PURPOSE In the phase III INTEREST trial, 1,466 pretreated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned to receive gefitinib or docetaxel. As a preplanned analysis, we prospectively analyzed available tumor biopsies to investigate the relationship between biomarkers and clinical outcomes. METHODS Biomarkers included epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) copy number by fluorescent in situ hybridization (374 assessable samples), EGFR protein expression by immunohistochemistry (n = 380), and EGFR (n = 297) and KRAS (n = 275) mutations. Results For all biomarker subgroups analyzed, survival was similar for gefitinib and docetaxel, with no statistically significant differences between treatments and no significant treatment by biomarker status interaction tests. EGFR mutation-positive patients had longer progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR], 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.49; P = .001) and higher objective response rate (ORR; 42.1% v 21.1%; P = .04), and patients with high EGFR copy number had higher ORR (13.0% v 7.4%; P = .04) with gefitinib versus docetaxel. CONCLUSION These biomarkers do not appear to be predictive factors for differential survival between gefitinib and docetaxel in this setting of previously treated patients; however, subsequent treatments may have influenced the survival results. For secondary end points of PFS and ORR, some advantages for gefitinib over docetaxel were seen in EGFR mutation-positive and high EGFR copy number patients. There was no statistically significant difference between gefitinib and docetaxel in biomarker-negative patients. This suggests gefitinib can provide similar overall survival to docetaxel in patients across a broad range of clinical subgroups and that EGFR biomarkers such as mutation status may additionally identify which patients are likely to gain greatest PFS and ORR benefit from gefitinib.

Interstitial lung disease in Japanese patients with lung cancer: a cohort and nested case-control study.

RATIONALE Interstitial lung disease (ILD) occurs in Japanese patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving gefitinib. OBJECTIVES To elucidate risk factors for ILD in Japanese patients with NSCLC during treatment with gefitinib or chemotherapy. METHODS In a prospective epidemiologic cohort, 3,166 Japanese patients with advanced/recurrent NSCLC were followed for 12 weeks on 250 mg gefitinib (n = 1,872 treatment periods) or chemotherapy (n = 2,551). Patients who developed acute ILD (n = 122) and randomly selected control subjects (n = 574) entered a case-control study. Adjusted incidence rate ratios were estimated from case-control data by odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using logistic regression. Crude (observed) incidence rates and risks were calculated from cohort data. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS The observed (unadjusted) incidence rate over 12 weeks was 2.8 (95% CI, 2.3-3.3) per 1,000 person-weeks, 4.5 (3.5-5.4) for gefitinib versus 1.7 (1.2-2.2) for chemotherapy; the corresponding observed naive cumulative incidence rates at the end of 12-week follow-up were 4.0% (3.0-5.1%) and 2.1% (1.5-2.9%), respectively. Adjusted for imbalances in risk factors between treatments, the overall OR for gefitinib versus chemotherapy was 3.2 (1.9-5.4), elevated chiefly during the first 4 weeks (3.8 [1.9-7.7]). Other ILD risk factors in both groups included the following: older age, poor World Health Organization performance status, smoking, recent NSCLC diagnosis, reduced normal lung on computed tomography scan, preexisting chronic ILD, concurrent cardiac disease. ILD-related deaths in patients with ILD were 31.6% (gefitinib) versus 27.9% (chemotherapy); adjusted OR, 1.05 (95% CI, 0.3-3.2). CONCLUSIONS ILD was relatively common in these Japanese patients with NSCLC during therapy with gefitinib or chemotherapy, being higher in the older, smoking patient with preexisting ILD or poor performance status. The risk of developing ILD was higher with gefitinib than chemotherapy, mainly in the first 4 weeks.

Gefitinib (IRESSA) in Patients of Asian Origin with Refractory Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: Subset Analysis from the ISEL Study

Introduction: The IRESSA Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer (ISEL) phase III study compared the efficacy of gefitinib (IRESSA) versus placebo in patients with refractory advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although a statistically significant difference in survival was not seen between gefitinib and placebo in the overall ISEL population, preplanned subset analyses demonstrated a significant survival benefit in patients who had never smoked and in patients of Asian origin. Methods: In ISEL, 1692 patients who were refractory to or intolerant of their latest chemotherapy were randomized to receive either gefitinib (250 mg/day) or placebo, plus best supportive care. Preplanned subgroup analyses included an assessment of patients who were of Asian origin (n = 342). Results: Two hundred thirty-five patients of Asian origin received gefitinib, and 107 received placebo. In these patients, treatment with gefitinib significantly improved survival compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48, 0.91; p = 0.010; median survival, 9.5 versus 5.5 months). Patients of Asian origin also experienced statistically significant improvements in time to treatment failure with gefitinib compared with placebo (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52, 0.91; p = 0.0084; 4.4 versus 2.2 months), and objective response rates were higher with gefitinib than with placebo (12 versus 2%). Gefitinib was generally well tolerated in patients of Asian origin, with rash and diarrhea being the most common adverse events. No unexpected adverse events were observed. Conclusions: Treatment with gefitinib was associated with a significant improvement in survival in a subgroup of patients of Asian origin with previously treated refractory advanced NSCLC.

Phase II, randomized trial to compare anastrozole combined with gefitinib or placebo in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer

Purpose: This phase II randomized trial evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of anastrozole combined with gefitinib or anastrozole with placebo in women with hormone receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Experimental Design: Postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive measurable or evaluable MBC who had not received prior endocrine therapy for this disease stage or who developed metastatic disease during/after adjuvant tamoxifen were eligible. The primary response variable was progression-free survival (PFS) and secondary response variables included clinical benefit rate, objective response rate, overall survival, safety and tolerability, and pharmacokinetics. Tumor biomarker evaluation was an exploratory objective. Results: Forty-three patients were randomized to anastrozole plus gefitinib and 50 patients were randomized to anastrozole plus placebo of a planned total of 174 patients (enrollment was prematurely discontinued due to slow recruitment). PFS for patients receiving the combination of anastrozole and gefitinib was longer than for patients receiving anastrozole plus placebo [hazard ratio (gefitinib/placebo), 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.94; median PFS, 14.7 versus 8.4 months]. The clinical benefit rate was 49% versus 34%, and the objective response rate was 2% versus 12% with anastrozole plus gefitinib and anastrozole plus placebo, respectively. No evidence of interaction between baseline biomarker levels and relative treatment effect was found. No unexpected adverse events were observed. Conclusion: This small randomized study showed that anastrozole in combination with gefitinib is associated with a marked advantage in PFS compared with anastrozole plus placebo, and that the combination was tolerated in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive MBC. Further investigation of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition in combination with endocrine therapy may be warranted. Clin Cancer Res; 16(6); 1904–14

Phase I trial of the oral PARP inhibitor olaparib in combination with paclitaxel for first- or second-line treatment of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer

IntroductionThis Phase I study evaluated the safety, tolerability and efficacy of olaparib, a potent oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, in combination with paclitaxel in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC).MethodsEligible patients who had received ≤1 prior cytotoxic regimen for mTNBC were treated with olaparib 200 mg bid continuously plus weekly paclitaxel 90 mg/m2 for three weeks per four-week cycle. Dose modifications in a large proportion of patients due to neutropenia resulted in enrollment of a second cohort of patients who, if they experienced grade ≥2 neutropenia in cycle 1, received granulocyte-colony stimulating factor, which was continued prophylactically in subsequent cycles. All patients had measurable disease; tumor responses were evaluated according to RECIST (version 1.0).ResultsNineteen patients (cohort 1, n = 9; cohort 2, n = 10) received treatment; 15 had received prior taxane chemotherapy. The most frequent adverse events were diarrhea (n = 12, 63%), nausea (n = 11, 58%) and neutropenia (n = 11, 58%). Seven neutropenia events were reported in cohort 1 (four grade ≥3) and four in cohort 2 (two grade ≥3, including one event of febrile neutropenia). The median (range) dose intensity of paclitaxel was 57% (26 to 100%) in cohort 1 and 73% (29 to 100%) in cohort 2. Seven patients (37%) had a confirmed partial response; one patient remains on olaparib monotherapy without progression.ConclusionsThe combination of olaparib and weekly paclitaxel was complicated by a significant clinical interaction, with higher-than-expected rates of neutropenia despite secondary prophylaxis. Given the encouraging response rate, alternative scheduling and dosing strategies should be considered (funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00707707).

Comparison of rosuvastatin with atorvastatin, simvastatin and pravastatin in achieving cholesterol goals and improving plasma lipids in hypercholesterolaemic patients with or without the metabolic syndrome in the MERCURY I trial

Aim:  The metabolic syndrome (MS) increases the risk of coronary heart disease, yet few data are available on the effects of statin treatment in improving lipid measures in patients with the syndrome. This analysis compares the effects of statin therapy on plasma low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) goal achievement and lipid levels in hypercholesterolaemic patients with or without the MS.