Elizabeth S. Lowe

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.

Double-Blind, Randomized Placebo Controlled Trial of Fulvestrant Compared With Exemestane After Prior Nonsteroidal Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy in Postmenopausal Women With Hormone Receptor–Positive, Advanced Breast Cancer: Results From EFECT

PURPOSE The third-generation nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are increasingly used as adjuvant and first-line advanced therapy for postmenopausal, hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer. Because many patients subsequently experience progression or relapse, it is important to identify agents with efficacy after AI failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS Evaluation of Faslodex versus Exemestane Clinical Trial (EFECT) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, multicenter phase III trial of fulvestrant versus exemestane in postmenopausal women with HR+ advanced breast cancer (ABC) progressing or recurring after nonsteroidal AI. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP). A fulvestrant loading-dose (LD) regimen was used: 500 mg intramuscularly on day 0, 250 mg on days 14, 28, and 250 mg every 28 days thereafter. Exemestane 25 mg orally was administered once daily. RESULTS A total of 693 women were randomly assigned to fulvestrant (n = 351) or exemestane (n = 342). Approximately 60% of patients had received at least two prior endocrine therapies. Median TTP was 3.7 months in both groups (hazard ratio = 0.963; 95% CI, 0.819 to 1.133; P = .6531). The overall response rate (7.4% v 6.7%; P = .736) and clinical benefit rate (32.2% v 31.5%; P = .853) were similar between fulvestrant and exemestane respectively. Median duration of clinical benefit was 9.3 and 8.3 months, respectively. Both treatments were well tolerated, with no significant differences in the incidence of adverse events or quality of life. Pharmacokinetic data confirm that steady-state was reached within 1 month with the LD schedule of fulvestrant. CONCLUSION Fulvestrant LD and exemestane are equally active and well-tolerated in a meaningful proportion of postmenopausal women with ABC who have experienced progression or recurrence during treatment with a nonsteroidal AI.

Phase II, Open-Label, Randomized, Multicenter Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Olaparib, a Poly (ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitor, and Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin in Patients With BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutations and Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

PURPOSE Olaparib (AZD2281), an orally active poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that induces synthetic lethality in BRCA1- or BRCA2-deficient cells, has shown promising clinical efficacy in nonrandomized phase II trials in patients with ovarian cancer with BRCA1 or BRCA2 deficiency. We assessed the comparative efficacy and safety of olaparib and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in this patient population. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase II study, patients with ovarian cancer that recurred within 12 months of prior platinum therapy and with confirmed germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations were enrolled. Patients were assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to olaparib 200 mg twice per day or 400 mg twice per day continuously or PLD 50 mg/m(2) intravenously every 28 days. The primary efficacy end point was Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) -assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR) and safety. RESULTS Ninety-seven patients were randomly assigned. Median PFS was 6.5 months (95% CI, 5.5 to 10.1 months), 8.8 months (95% CI, 5.4 to 9.2 months), and 7.1 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 10.7 months) for the olaparib 200 mg, olaparib 400 mg, and PLD groups, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in PFS (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.56; P = .66) for combined olaparib doses versus PLD. RECIST-assessed ORRs were 25%, 31%, and 18% for olaparib 200 mg, olaparib 400 mg, and PLD, respectively; differences were not statistically significant. Tolerability of both treatments was as expected based on previous trials. CONCLUSION The efficacy of olaparib was consistent with previous studies. However, the efficacy of PLD was greater than expected. Olaparib 400 mg twice per day is a suitable dose to explore in further studies in this patient population.

Olaparib combined with chemotherapy for recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer: a randomised phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND The poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib has shown antitumour activity in patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent, high-grade serous ovarian cancer with or without BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of olaparib in combination with chemotherapy, followed by olaparib maintenance monotherapy, versus chemotherapy alone in patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent, high-grade serous ovarian cancer. METHODS In this randomised, open-label, phase 2 study, adult patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent, high-grade serous ovarian cancer who had received up to three previous courses of platinum-based chemotherapy and who were progression free for at least 6 months before randomisation received either olaparib (200 mg capsules twice daily, administered orally on days 1-10 of each 21-day cycle) plus paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2), administered intravenously on day 1) and carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC] 4 mg/mL per min, according to the Calvert formula, administered intravenously on day 1), then olaparib monotherapy (400 mg capsules twice daily, given continuously) until progression (the olaparib plus chemotherapy group), or paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) on day 1) and carboplatin (AUC 6 mg/mL per min on day 1) then no further treatment (the chemotherapy alone group). Randomisation was done by an interactive voice response system, stratified by number of previous platinum-containing regimens received and time to disease progression after the previous platinum regimen. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, analysed by intention to treat. Prespecified exploratory analyses included efficacy by BRCA mutation status, assessed retrospectively. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01081951, and has been completed. FINDINGS Between Feb 12 and July 30, 2010, 173 patients at 43 investigational sites in 12 countries were enrolled into the study, of whom 162 were eligible and were randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (81 to the olaparib plus chemotherapy group and 81 to the chemotherapy alone group). Of these randomised patients, 156 were treated in the combination phase (81 in the olaparib plus chemotherapy group and 75 in the chemotherapy alone group) and 121 continued to the maintenance or no further treatment phase (66 in the olaparib plus chemotherapy group and 55 in the chemotherapy alone group). BRCA mutation status was known for 107 patients (either at baseline or determined retrospectively): 41 (38%) of 107 had a BRCA mutation (20 in the olaparib plus chemotherapy group and 21 in the chemotherapy alone group). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the olaparib plus chemotherapy group (median 12.2 months [95% CI 9.7-15.0]) than in the chemotherapy alone group (median 9.6 months [95% CI 9.1-9.7) (HR 0.51 [95% CI 0.34-0.77]; p=0.0012), especially in patients with BRCA mutations (HR 0.21 [0.08-0.55]; p=0.0015). In the combination phase, adverse events that were reported at least 10% more frequently with olaparib plus chemotherapy than with chemotherapy alone were alopecia (60 [74%] of 81 vs 44 [59%] of 75), nausea (56 [69%] vs 43 [57%]), neutropenia (40 [49%] vs 29 [39%]), diarrhoea (34 [42%] vs 20 [27%]), headache (27 [33%] vs seven [9%]), peripheral neuropathy (25 [31%] vs 14 [19%]), and dyspepsia (21 [26%] vs 9 [12%]); most were of mild-to-moderate intensity. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events during the combination phase were neutropenia (in 35 [43%] of 81 patients in the olaparib plus chemotherapy group vs 26 [35%] of 75 in the chemotherapy alone group) and anaemia (seven [9%] vs five [7%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 12 (15%) of 81 patients in the olaparib plus chemotherapy group and 16 of 75 (21%) patients in the chemotherapy alone group. INTERPRETATION Olaparib plus paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by maintenance monotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin alone, with the greatest clinical benefit in BRCA-mutated patients, and had an acceptable and manageable tolerability profile. FUNDING AstraZeneca.

PRS-02: Gefitinib (IRESSA) versus docetaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer pre-treated with platinum-based chemotherapy: a randomized, open-label Phase III study (INTEREST)

Clinical trials and biostatistics workshop: introduction and overview Crowley, John Cancer Research And Biostatistics, Seattle, WA, USA This unique workshop was designed to bring together clinicians and statisticians to discuss current problems and potential solutions to issues in the design and analysis of lung cancer clinical trials and translational science. Each of the afternoon sessions pairs an oncologist with a biostatistician (some also have a formal discussant) to present a particular issue and approach. Two evening panels explore opportunities for lung cancer trials in Asia, and different models for clinical trial conduct. Many of the current issues arise because of the development of newer, targeted therapies. The traditional phase II endpoint of tumor shrinkage may no longer be appropriate in such settings, and there may not be good historical data on newer endpoints such as disease control rate, so new phase II and phase II/III designs are needed. In addition, the degree to which therapies are targeted (and targets can be measured) has implications for the design of phase III trials. The ability to measure thousands of gene expression levels, gene variants or gene products brings with it the challenge of sorting through these high dimensional data sets to identify which patients will benefit from particular therapies. The goal is to use genetic characteristics of the tumor and/or the host to tailor therapy. Finally, the hope persists that the patient’s immune system can be enhanced and used to fight cancer. This field of immunotherapy also raises particular issues of clinical trial design.

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).

The aromatase inhibitor anastrozole is ineffective in the treatment of precocious puberty in girls with McCune-Albright syndrome.

CONTEXT Precocious puberty (PP) in girls with McCune-Albright syndrome (MAS) is characterized by episodic development of large unilateral ovarian cysts followed by sudden onset of vaginal bleeding. Some patients experience frequent bleeding as well as accelerated linear growth and advanced skeletal maturation. The use of anastrozole for the treatment of PP in this condition has not been well studied. OBJECTIVE The objective of the study was to determine the safety and efficacy of the aromatase inhibitor anastrozole for the treatment of PP in girls with MAS. DESIGN AND SETTINGS This was a prospective international multicenter study in which subjects received anastrozole 1 mg daily for 1 yr. PATIENTS Twenty-eight girls 10 years of age or younger with MAS and progressive PP were enrolled. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Vaginal bleeding, rate of skeletal maturation (change in bone age over change in chronological age), growth velocity, and uterine/ovarian volumes were measured. These indices were compared with a 6-month pretreatment interval. RESULTS No difference in vaginal bleeding (mean number of days per year) was noted. Mean change in DeltaBA/DeltaCA, which was 1.25 +/- 0.77 at baseline, was -0.25 +/- 1.02 at study end (P = 0.22). Average growth velocity z score was 1.40 +/- 3.15 at study entry and 0.26 +/- 2.71 at 12 months (P = 0.10). Mean ovarian/uterine volumes were unaffected by anastrozole, and no significant adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS Although it appears safe, anastrozole for 1 yr was ineffective in halting vaginal bleeding, attenuating rates of skeletal maturation, and linear growth in girls with MAS. Pharmacological strategies other than anastrozole should be pursued for the treatment of PP in this population.

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Anastrozole in Pubertal Boys with Recent-Onset Gynecomastia

CONTEXT Use of aromatase inhibitors to suppress estrogen production is being actively investigated in a variety of experimental conditions in both females and males. Anastrozole (Arimidex) is a potent and selective reversible inhibitor of the aromatase enzyme in females. OBJECTIVE Our objective was to characterize the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of anastrozole in adolescent males with gynecomastia of less than 1 yr duration. The effect of anastrozole on breast size was also assessed as an exploratory aim. DESIGN We conducted a PK/PD open-label study. SETTING This clinical research center study was undertaken at pediatric academic centers. PATIENTS Forty-two boys with gynecomastia (mean age 13 +/- 1.8 yr; duration of gynecomastia 7.0 +/- 2.5 months; body mass index 28.3 +/- 5.9 kg/m(2)) were recruited. INTERVENTIONS Anastrozole, 1 mg, was given daily for 6 months. MAIN OUTCOMES We assessed PK/PD of anastrozole after 14 d daily dosing and changes in breast size (exploratory aim) by manual tape measurements (area) and ultrasound (volume) after 6 months. RESULTS Anastrozole was rapidly absorbed orally (time to reach maximum concentration, 1 h) with a slow apparent clearance of 1.54 liters/h and a terminal half-life of 46.8 h. Testosterone/estradiol ratios increased significantly with concomitant increase in LH/FSH concentrations indicating aromatase blockade. There was a reduction in breast area (approximately 63%) and breast volume (approximately 57%) in the study group as compared with baseline (P = 0.004). The drug was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS Anastrozole is a potent aromatase inhibitor in adolescent males, with rapid absorption and slow elimination kinetics after oral dosing. Exploratory analysis of changes in breast size showed breast reduction in the cohort; this deserves further study.

Phase I study of vandetanib with radiation therapy with or without cisplatin in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

Vandetanib, added to cisplatin and radiation therapy (RT) overcomes chemoradiation therapy (CRT) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor resistance in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) lines and models.

CHAPTER 18 – Dose-Effect and Concentration-Effect Analysis

Publisher Summary This chapter focuses on dose- and concentration-effect analyses. The intensity and duration of a drugs pharmacological effect are proportional to the dose of the drug administered and the concentration of the drug at its site of action. When the drug-effect endpoint, such as change in blood pressure, is measured on a continuous scale, the dose–effect relationship is termed “graded,” whereas an all-or-none endpoint, such as alive or dead, results in a dose–effect relationship that is termed “quantal.” A graded dose–effect relationship for recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO) in patients with end-stage renal disease is illustrated in the chapter. The pharmacological effects of rhEPO and most drugs result from their noncovalent interaction with receptors. The receptor occupation theory of drug action equates drug effect to receptor occupancy. The intensity of drug effect is proportional to the number of receptors that are occupied by the drug and the maximum effect occurs when all receptors are occupied by the drug. Dose–effect curves are also useful for studying pharmacodynamic (PD) drug interactions. Comparing the dose–effect curves of drugs that produce the same pharmacological effect can also provide information about the site of action of the drugs.