Fernando Hurtado de Mendoza

Ixabepilone Plus Capecitabine for Metastatic Breast Cancer Progressing After Anthracycline and Taxane Treatment

PURPOSE Effective treatment options for patients with metastatic breast cancer resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes are limited. Ixabepilone has single-agent activity in these patients and has demonstrated synergy with capecitabine in this setting. This study was designed to compare ixabepilone plus capecitabine versus capecitabine alone in anthracycline-pretreated or -resistant and taxane-resistant locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Seven hundred fifty-two patients were randomly assigned to ixabepilone 40 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 of a 21-day cycle plus capecitabine 2,000 mg/m(2) orally on days 1 through 14 of a 21-day cycle, or capecitabine alone 2,500 mg/m(2) on the same schedule, in this international phase III study. The primary end point was progression-free survival evaluated by blinded independent review. RESULTS Ixabepilone plus capecitabine prolonged progression-free survival relative to capecitabine (median, 5.8 v 4.2 months), with a 25% reduction in the estimated risk of disease progression (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.88; P = .0003). Objective response rate was also increased (35% v 14%; P < .0001). Grade 3/4 treatment-related sensory neuropathy (21% v 0%), fatigue (9% v 3%), and neutropenia (68% v 11%) were more frequent with combination therapy, as was the rate of death as a result of toxicity (3% v 1%, with patients with liver dysfunction [>/= grade 2 liver function tests] at greater risk). Capecitabine-related toxicities were similar for both treatment groups. CONCLUSION Ixabepilone plus capecitabine demonstrates superior efficacy to capecitabine alone in patients with metastatic breast cancer pretreated or resistant to anthracyclines and resistant to taxanes.

Randomised Phase II study of oral lapatinib combined with chemoradiotherapy in patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: Rationale for future randomised trials in human papilloma virus-negative disease

BACKGROUND This randomised Phase II study assessed the activity and safety of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and lapatinib followed by maintenance treatment in locally advanced, unresected stage III/IVA/IVB head and neck cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomised 1:1 to concurrent CRT and placebo followed by placebo or concurrent CRT and lapatinib followed by lapatinib. Treatment continued until disease progression or study withdrawal. Primary end-point was complete response rate (CRR) by independent review 6 months post-CRT. RESULTS Sixty-seven patients (median age 56 years; 97% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1; 82% stage IV) were recruited. CRT dose intensities were unaffected by lapatinib: median radiation dose 70 Gy (lapatinib, placebo), duration 49 (lapatinib) and 50 days (placebo); median cisplatin dose 260 mg/m(2) (lapatinib) and 280 mg/m(2) (placebo). Lapatinib combined with CRT was well-tolerated. Grade 3/4 toxicities during CRT were balanced between arms, with the exception of an excess of grade 3 diarrhoea (6% versus 0%) and rash (9% versus 3%) and two grade 4 cardiac events in the lapatinib arm. CRR at 6 months post-CRT was 53% with lapatinib versus 36% with placebo in the intent-to-treat population. The progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival rates at 18 months were 55% versus 41% and 68% versus 57% for the lapatinib and placebo arms, respectively. The difference between study arms was greatest in p16-negative disease (median PFS >20.4 months [lapatinib] versus 10.9 [placebo]). CONCLUSION Lapatinib combined with CRT is well-tolerated with numeric increases in CRR at 6 months post-CRT and median PFS in p16-negative disease.

Pixantrone dimaleate versus other chemotherapeutic agents as a single-agent salvage treatment in patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised trial

BACKGROUND Pixantrone dimaleate (pixantrone)--a novel aza-anthracenedione--was synthesised to reduce anthracycline-related cardiotoxicity without compromising antitumour efficacy. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of pixantrone versus an investigators choice of a single-agent therapy in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma. METHODS In this phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised trial at 66 hospitals in Europe, India, Russia, South America, the UK, and the USA, patients with histologically confirmed aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma who had relapsed after two or more previous chemotherapy regimens were randomly assigned (1:1) by an interactive voice response system to treatment with pixantrone dimaleate (85 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle, for up to six cycles) or to a comparator (vinorelbine, oxaliplatin, ifosfamide, etoposide, mitoxantrone, or gemcitabine) given at prespecified standard doses and schedules. Patients were stratified by region, International Prognostic Index score, and previous stem-cell transplantation. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment; however, an independent assessment panel was masked. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a complete or unconfirmed complete response in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population at the end of treatment. Primary analyses of efficacy were based on the independent assessment panels data review. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00088530. FINDINGS The ITT population comprised 70 patients randomly assigned to the pixantrone group and 70 to the comparator. Five patients (two in the pixantrone group and three in the comparator group) dropped out before receiving their study drug. 14 patients (20·0% [95% CI 11·4-31·3]) who received pixantrone achieved a complete or unconfirmed complete response at end of treatment compared with four patients (5·7% [1·6-14·0]) in the comparator group (p = 0·021). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in patients given pixantrone were uncomplicated, non-cumulative neutropenia (28 [41·2%] of 68 patients vs 13 [19·4%] of 67 patients in the comparator group), leucopenia (16 [23·5%] vs five [7·5%]), and thrombocytopenia (eight [11·8%] vs seven [10·4%]). INTERPRETATION Pixantrone, given as a single-agent salvage therapy in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma, is efficacious and tolerable. It could be a treatment option for patients whose aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma has failed to respond to at least two previous chemotherapy regimens. FUNDING Cell Therapeutics, Inc.

Activity of ixabepilone in oestrogen receptor-negative and oestrogen receptor-progesterone receptor-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer

Oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer, including oestrogen receptor-, progesterone receptor- and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (ER/PR/HER2-negative) breast cancer, is more aggressive than ER-positive disease. A major limitation in the treatment of ER-negative disease subtypes is the inherent insensitivity to hormonal agents (tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors) that are widely used in the treatment of breast cancer. Thus, therapeutic options for poor prognosis patients with ER-negative breast cancer are limited to a handful of chemotherapeutic agents, and new agents are needed to improve the treatment of this disease. Ixabepilone, a novel epothilone B analogue with low susceptibility to cellular mechanisms that confer resistance to taxanes and other chemotherapeutic agents, has demonstrated potent preclinical antitumour activity in multiple models, including those with primary or acquired drug resistance. This review summarises the results of a prospective subset analysis from a phase III clinical trial evaluating ixabepilone for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC), in which efficacy and safety were evaluated in patients with ER-negative and ER/PR/HER2-negative disease.

Neoadjuvant Doxorubicin/Cyclophosphamide Followed by Ixabepilone or Paclitaxel in Early Stage Breast Cancer and Evaluation of βIII-Tubulin Expression as a Predictive Marker

BACKGROUND This randomized phase II trial was designed to compare the rate of pathologic complete response (pCR) induced by neoadjuvant cyclophosphamide plus doxorubicin (AC) followed by ixabepilone or paclitaxel in women with early stage breast cancer (BC). Expression of βIII-tubulin as a predictive marker was also evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS Women with untreated, histologically confirmed primary invasive breast adenocarcinoma received four cycles of AC followed by 1:1 randomization to either ixabepilone 40 mg/m2 (3-hour infusion) every 3 weeks for four cycles (n = 148) or weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (1-hour infusion) for 12 weeks (n = 147). All patients underwent a core needle biopsy of the primary cancer for molecular marker analysis prior to chemotherapy. βIII-Tubulin expression was assessed using immunohistochemistry. RESULTS There was no significant difference in the rate of pCR in the ixabepilone treatment arm (24.3%; 90% confidence interval [CI], 18.6-30.8) and the paclitaxel treatment arm (25.2%; 90% CI, 19.4-31.7). βIII-Tubulin-positive patients obtained higher pCR rates compared with βIII-tubulin-negative patients in both treatment arms; however, βIII-tubulin expression was not significantly associated with a differential response to ixabepilone or paclitaxel. The safety profiles of both regimens were generally similar, although neutropenia occurred more frequently in the ixabepilone arm (grade 3/4: 41.3% vs. 8.4%). The most common nonhematologic toxicity was peripheral neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS Neoadjuvant treatment of early stage BC with AC followed by ixabepilone every 3 weeks or weekly paclitaxel was well tolerated with no significant difference in efficacy. Higher response rates were observed among βIII-tubulin-positive patients.

A Phase II Study of Neoadjuvant Gemcitabine Plus Doxorubicin in Stage IIIB Breast Cancer: A Preliminary Report

The purpose of this ongoing study is to determine the response and safety of a combination of gemcitabine (Gemzar; Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN) plus doxorubicin as neoadjuvant therapy for stage IIIB breast cancer. Thirty-nine chemotherapy-naive patients were enrolled in the study. The median age was 54 years (range, 32 to 74 years), and the median Karnofsky performance status was 100. Gemcitabine 1,200 mg/m(2) was given on days 1 and 8, and doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) on day 1, followed by surgery or radiotherapy. Ninety-seven of 117 cycles (83%) were administered at full dose. An overall response rate of 95% was obtained, with a complete response in 18% (seven patients) and a partial response in 77% (30 patients). Twenty-eight patients (72%) underwent breast surgery after a maximum of three cycles of neoadjuvant therapy. World Health Organization grade 3/4 toxicities included leukopenia in nine cycles (8%), neutropenia in 16 cycles (14%), febrile neutropenia in 11 cycles (9%), and anemia in two cycles (2%). The most important nonhematologic toxicity was grade 2/4 mucositis in 16 cycles (14%), and/or grade 2/3 diarrhea in 10 cycles (9%). Neoadjuvant therapy with gemcitabine plus doxorubicin results in a high tumor response rate with moderate oral and hematologic toxicity. Semin Oncol 28 (suppl 10):57-61.

Addition of amifostine to the CHOP regimen in elderly patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a phase II trial showing reduction in toxicity without altering long-term survival.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES We report the 8-year follow-up of 34 patients aged ≥69 years old with NHL included in a phase IIb open-label randomized parallel groups study to evaluate the effectiveness of amifostine in preventing the toxicity of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (CHOP regime) . PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomized to receive classical CHOP (cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m(2), doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2), vincristine 1.4 mg/m(2) [maximum 2 mg] on day 1 and prednisone 100 mg/day for 5 days) or CHOP plus amifostine (6 cycles of amifostine 910 mg/m(2) on day 1). Efficacy (time to progression, TTP; disease-free survival, DFS; overall survival, OS) and toxicity endpoints were evaluated. RESULTS Thirty-four patients were randomized to A-CHOP (n=18) or CHOP (n=16). Patients with A-CHOP vs CHOP had significantly lower toxicity; neutropenia grade 4 ocurred in 13/92 (13%) vs 23/85 (27%, P=0.007) cycles, febrile neutropenia in 3/92 A-CHOP (3%) vs 8/85 (10%, P=.056) CHOP cycles, hospitalization for toxicity in 4/92 (4%) A-CHOP vs 11/85 (13%, P=.05) CHOP cycles. Median hospitalization stay for toxicity was 5 days with A-CHOP vs 8 days with CHOP (P=.05). There were no significant differences at 8 years in TTP (A-CHOP, 48.9% vs CHOP, 36.3%; P=.65), DFS (A-CHOP, 72.9% vs CHOP 55.6%; P=.50) and OS (A-CHOP, 44.3% vs CHOP, 54.4%). There was no long-term toxicity of clinical interest. The only prognostic factor identified to 8 years was the International Prognostic Index (IPI low/low intermediate risk vs high intermediate/high risk; HR=2.98; CI 95%:1.01-8.77; P=.048). CONCLUSION These results show that amifostine can be added to the standard CHOP treatment schedule with less acute toxicity and without influencing the outcome.