Gabriella Farina

Erlotinib versus docetaxel as second-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and wild-type EGFR tumours (TAILOR): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Erlotinib is registered for treatment of all patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, its efficacy for treatment of patients whose tumours are EGFR wild-type-which includes most patients-is still contentious. We assessed the efficacy of erlotinib compared with a standard second-line chemotherapy in such patients. METHODS We did this randomised controlled trial in 52 Italian hospitals. We enrolled patients who had metastatic NSCLC, had had platinum-based chemotherapy, and had wild-type EGFR as assessed by direct sequencing. Patients were randomly assigned centrally (1:1) to receive either erlotinib orally 150 mg/day or docetaxel intravenously 75 mg/m(2) every 21 days or 35 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15, every 28 days. Randomisation was stratified by centre, stage, type of first-line chemotherapy, and performance status. Patients and investigators who gave treatments or assessed outcomes were not masked to treatment allocation, investigators who analysed results were. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00637910. FINDINGS We screened 702 patients, of whom we genotyped 540. 222 patients were enrolled (110 assigned to docetaxel vs 112 assigned to erlotinib). Median overall survival was 8·2 months (95% CI 5·8-10·9) with docetaxel versus 5·4 months (4·5-6·8) with erlotinib (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·53-1·00; p=0·05). Progression-free survival was significantly better with docetaxel than with erlotinib: median progression-free survival was 2·9 months (95% CI 2·4-3·8) with docetaxel versus 2·4 months (2·1-2·6) with erlotinib (adjusted HR 0·71, 95% CI 0·53-0·95; p=0·02). The most common grade 3-4 toxic effects were: low absolute neutrophil count (21 [20%] of 104 in the docetaxel group vs none of 107 in the erlotinib group), skin toxic effects (none vs 15 [14%]), and asthenia (ten [10%] vs six [6%]). INTERPRETATION Our results show that chemotherapy is more effective than erlotinib for second-line treatment for previously treated patients with NSCLC who have wild-type EGFR tumours.

Efficacy and safety of 12-weekly versus 4-weekly zoledronic acid for prolonged treatment of patients with bone metastases from breast cancer (ZOOM): a phase 3, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND Zoledronic acid reduces skeletal-related events in patients with breast cancer, but concerns have been raised about prolonged monthly administration. We assessed the efficacy and safety of a reduced dosing frequency of zoledronic acid in women treated previously with monthly zoledronic acid. METHODS We did this non-inferiority, phase 3 trial in 62 centres in Italy. We enrolled patients with breast cancer who had one or more bone metastases and had completed 12-15 months of monthly treatment with zoledronic acid. Patients were randomly assigned with a permutated block (size four to eight) random list stratified by centre in a 1:1 ratio to zoledronic acid 4 mg once every 12 weeks or once every 4 weeks, and followed up for at least 1 year. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was skeletal morbidity rate (skeletal-related events per patient per year) in the intention-to-treat population. We used a non-inferiority margin of 0.19. The trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2005-004942-15. FINDINGS We screened 430 patients and enrolled 425, of whom 209 were assigned to the 12-week group and 216 to the 4-week group. The skeletal morbidity rate was 0.26 (95% CI 0.15-0.37) in the 12-week group versus 0.22 (0.14-0.29) in the 4-week group. The between-group difference was 0.04 and the upper limit of one-tailed 97.5% CI was 0.17, which is lower than the non-inferiority margin. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were bone pain (56 [27%] patients in the 12-week group vs 65 [30%] in the 4-week group), nausea (24 [11%] vs 33 [15%]), and asthenia (18 [9%] vs 33 [15%]). Renal adverse events occurred in one patient (<1%) in the 12-week group versus two (1%) in the 4-week group. One patient (<1%) in the 4-week group had grade 1 acute renal failure. Osteonecrosis of the jaw occurred in four patients in the 12-week group versus three in the 4-week group. No treatment-related deaths were reported. Median N-terminal telopeptide concentration changed from baseline more in the 12-week group than in the 4-week group after 12 months (12.2% vs 0.0%; p=0.011). INTERPRETATION Our results raise the possibility of decreasing administration of zoledronic acid to a 12-weekly regimen to reduce exposure during the second year, while maintaining its therapeutic effects. However, the effects on N-terminal telopeptide should be investigated further before changing current practice. FUNDING Novartis Farma.

TAILOR: A phase III trial comparing erlotinib with docetaxel as the second-line treatment of NSCLC patients with wild-type (wt) EGFR.

LBA7501 Background: While the benefit of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the treatment of patients with NSCLC harboring EGFR mutations has been widely established, their value in treating patients with wt EGFR is still debated. To assess the role of erlotinib in these patients, we performed an independent multicenter phase III trial (Tarceva Italian Lung Optimization Trial [TAILOR] NCT00637910), comparing erlotinib to docetaxel in second line treatment, having overall (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) as principal and secondary endpoints, respectively. METHODS EGFR and KRAS mutational status were assessed by direct sequencing in all eligible patients; only patients with wt EGFR NSCLC (exons 19 and 21) at progression, and previously treated with a first line platinum-based regimen, were randomized to receive either erlotinib 150 mg daily or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 (3-weekly) or 35 mg/m2 (weekly) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. To detect an hazard ratio of 0.67 (2-sided 5% significance level for the log-rank test and a power of 80%), 199 events were required for both OS and PFS evaluation. RESULTS On the planned analysis date (March 30, 2012), 221 patients had been randomized and 218 were evaluable (docetaxel 110, erlotinib 108; three major violations excluded). At a median follow-up of 20 months, 199 relapses and 157 deaths were recorded. The Kaplan-Meier PFS curves showed a highly significant increase favoring docetaxel (HR 0.70 with 95% CI 0.53-0.94; p = 0.016) over erlotinib regimen. The HR translated into an estimated absolute difference in 6-months PFS of 12% (16% vs 28%). Data concerning toxicity were consistent with the literature. CONCLUSIONS In terms of PFS, our results indicate a clear superiority of docetaxel over erlotinib as second line treatment for patients without EGFR mutations in exons 19 or 21. Analysis of OS will be conducted as far as the planned number of 199 deaths is reached.

Predictive models in palliative care

It is important to identify prognostic and predictive factors concerning both life expectancy and quality of life in palliative care patients to facilitate ethical, clinical, and organizational decisions, but also to use resources in the best possible way. The authors reviewed the literature to identify the major factors that can predict survival of patients with solid tumors. They found only a few prospective assessments of prognostic factors. Clinical prognostic/predictors of survival based on physicians and/or nurses judgment, performance status, dyspnea at rest, anorexia, dysphagia, or delirium are all considered to be of primary importance. Despite several contrasting findings, it is generally agreed that the type and site of the primary tumor and metastasis, psychosocial factors, and quality of life should be considered secondary to the organic effects in the final stages of life. Leukocytosis, lymphocytopenia, and elevated C‐reactive protein are all reported to have prognostic significance, and low serum albumin and high lactate dehydrogenase levels must also be taken into consideration. Cancer 2009;115(13 suppl):3128–34.

Risk/benefit profile of bevacizumab in metastatic colon cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Bevacizumab, an anti vascular endothelial growth factor antibody is licensed in several tumours and widely used in colorectal cancer. However, bevacizumab has several adverse effects which may appear unexpectedly and differ according to the tumour. AIMS The aim of this work is to quantify the overall risk of bevacizumab-related side effects in patients affected by advanced colorectal cancer and to compare them with its overall benefit. METHODS We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer. Our primary endpoint was safety and secondary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival. The relative risks for side effects were calculated with their 95% confidence interval using the inverse of variance method. For statistically significant relative risks, number needed to harm were calculated. RESULTS We retrieved six out of 17 eligible papers encompassing 3385 patients. Only hypertension (relative risk 2.98 95% confidence interval 2.32-3.84), gastrointestinal perforations (relative risk 5.04 95% confidence interval 1.72-14.79) and bleeding (relative risk 2.07 95% confidence interval 1.19-3.62) were significantly increased. Bevacizumab significantly improved both overall survival (HR 0.80 95% confidence interval 0.71-0.91) and progression-free survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.62 95% confidence interval 0.52-0.74). Number needed to treat for overall survival is 12, whilst number needed to harms ranges from 2 to 14.286. CONCLUSION These results show that the benefits of the treatment with bevacizumab outweigh the toxicity that may occur: enough to justify its use in advanced colorectal cancer.

Outcomes of small-cell lung cancer patients treated with second-line chemotherapy: A multi-institutional retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND Patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) that progress after first-line chemotherapy have a poor prognosis and the evidence of a benefit from second-line (SL) chemotherapy is limited. Patients relapsing or progressing more than 90 days after completion of first-line treatment are considered platinum sensitive and may be rechallenged with platinum-based chemotherapy. Topotecan is approved as SL treatment independent of time to progression. This retrospective analysis evaluates the clinical outcomes of SCLC patients who received SL chemotherapy after platinum-etoposide chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS We retrospectively reviewed 161 patients who received SL chemotherapy for SCLC. Patients were divided into four subgroups by type of SL treatment: (1) platinum-based rechallenge; (2) anthracycline-based regimens; (3) topotecan; (4) other single agents. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate (RR). Survival curves were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method. The Cox proportional hazard model was used for multivariate analysis to investigate factors influencing survival. RESULTS The median age was 63. There were 125 males and 36 females. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) was 0, 1 and 2 in 12.5%, 62.5% and 25% of patients, respectively. Platinum sensitive/platinum resistant/platinum refractory/unknown=121/29/3/8 patients. Median time to SL chemotherapy was 6.9 months. The median PFS from starting second-line treatment was 4.3 months and median OS was 5.8 months. The overall RR was 22.9%. There was a trend toward higher RR (34.5% vs 17.5%, p for trend: 0.06) and OS (9.2 months vs 5.8 months, p=0.08) for patients with sensitive disease who were rechallenged with platinum-based chemotherapy. A multivariate analysis that adjusted for the time to SL treatment showed that a platinum-containing regimen achieves better RR, PFS and OS independently of the time to SL chemotherapy and that response to first-line treatment and PS at SL are the only independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS The outcome for second-line therapy for SCLC was poor and benefit appeared to be limited to those patients with good PS and rechallenged with platinum-based chemotherapy. Platinum-based rechallenge should be considered as a standard comparator in future randomized controlled trials of SL chemotherapy.

Osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) in cancer patients treated with Bisphosphonates: how the knowledge of a phenomenon can change its evolution

Goals of the workOsteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) is a severe complication of bisphosphonates treatment. Bisphosphonates reduce skeletal adverse events and give a clinical benefit to cancer patients. Therefore, it is necessary to identify appropriate procedures to reduce ONJ injures by using a successful monitoring program. In a retrospective study we analyzed the impact of a prevention program based on clinical oral cavity examination, dentists, and patients’ education. The aim of the study was to evaluate if this approach might improve ONJ outcome in patients receiving pamidronate or zoledronate.Materials and methodsWe analyzed retrospectively two different groups of patients treated at our Institution: patients treated from October 2003 to June 2005 (group A) and patients treated from June 2005 to April 2007 (group B). In June 2005 the prevention program started for all our patients.Main resultsOne hundred and eighty-six cancer patients with bone involvement, treated with bisphosphonates, were considered. Sixteen of them developed ONJ: eight before and eight after June 2005. We observed a consistent difference in the evolution of the two groups. In the first group, four patients underwent a major surgery (one partial maxillectomy, complicated by septic shock and oronasal communication; two partial mandibulectomies; and one segmental mandibular resection), with an important impairment of their quality of life; while the eight new ONJ cases, diagnosed after June 2005, were successfully treated without aggressive dental interventions, and achieved a good control of symptoms.ConclusionsBisphosphonates-related ONJ is a frequent adverse event (8.6%). The monitoring program proved very efficient to improve the clinical outcome of ONJ, avoiding an aggressive treatment and using a conservative approach and medical therapy.

Efficacy of biological agents in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

Metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) represents 15% of invasive breast cancers. Prognosis is poor, and there is no specific target therapy but biological agents combined with chemotherapy may be effective. To assess the role of biological agents in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer we performed a systematic review of phase III randomized controlled trials published from January 2006 to February 2013 and presentations at ESMO, ASCO, and SABCS congresses in 2010-2012. We consulted PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov. Only studies comparing biological agents and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone were considered. Relevant statistical variables were log of the hazard ratio and relative variance for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Of 353 PubMed publications and 229 studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, 10 trials were selected and 5293 patients were analyzed: 1546 had mTNBC. Biological agents considered were bevacizumab, sunitinib, sorafenib, lapatinib, iniparib and cetuximab. In addition, a meta analysis of the four studies containing bevacizumab was performed and it showed a PFS improvement with a relative risk reduction of 35% (95% CI: 25-43%). No effect on OS was observed. No PFS and OS benefit was detected with the other agents. No improvement of OS was detected in patients treated with biological agents plus chemotherapy, while a significant PFS improvement was observed only for bevacizumab and cetuximab. The overall impact of these agents on patient survival was not as great as expected, probably because the molecular basis of this illness needs to be better understood so that treatment can be more appropriately tailored.

Value of KRAS as prognostic or predictive marker in NSCLC: results from the TAILOR trial

BACKGROUND The prognostic and predictive role of KRAS mutations in advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still unclear. TAILOR prospectively assessed the prognostic and predictive value of KRAS mutations in NSCLC patients treated with erlotinib or docetaxel in second line. PATIENTS AND METHODS NSCLC patients from 52 Italian hospitals were genotyped for KRAS and EGFR mutational status in two independent laboratories. Wild-type EGFR patients (N = 218) received first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and were randomly allocated at progression to erlotinib or docetaxel. Overall survival (OS) according to KRAS mutational status was the primary end point. RESULTS KRAS mutations were present in 23% of TAILOR randomized cases. The presence of a KRAS mutation did not adversely affect progression-free (PFS) or overall (OS) survival [hazard ratio (HR) PFS = 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-1.41, P = 0.977; OS = 1.24, 95% CI 0.87-1.77, P = 0.233], nor influenced treatment outcome (test for interaction: OS P = 0.965; PFS P = 0.417). Patients randomized to docetaxel treatment experienced longer survival independently from the KRAS mutational status of their tumors (HR: mutated KRAS 0.81, 95% CI 0.45-1.47; wild-type KRAS 0.79, 95% CI 0.57-1.10). CONCLUSION In TAILOR, KRAS was neither prognostic nor predictive of benefit for either docetaxel or erlotinib. Docetaxel remains superior independently from KRAS status for second-line treatment in EGFR wild-type advanced NSCLC patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT00637910.

KRAS mutations affect prognosis of non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with first-line platinum containing chemotherapy.

KRAS mutations seem to indicate a poor outcome in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) but such evidence is still debated. The aim of this planned ancillary study within the TAILOR trial was to assess the prognostic value of KRAS mutations in advanced NSCLC patients treated with platinum-based first-line chemotherapy. Patients (N = 540), enrolled in the study in 52 Italian hospitals, were centrally genotyped twice in two independent laboratories for EGFR and KRAS mutational status. Of these, 247 patients were eligible and included in the present study. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) according to KRAS mutational status in patients harboring EGFR wild-type. Sixty (24.3%) out of 247 patients harbored KRAS mutations. Median OS was 14.3 months and 10.6 months in wild-type and mutated KRAS patients, respectively (unadjusted Hazard Ratio [HR]=1.41, 95%Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.03-1.94 P = 0.032; adjusted HR=1.39, 95%CI: 1.00-1.94 P = 0.050). This study, with all consecutive patients genotyped, indicates that the presence of KRAS mutations has a mild negative impact on OS in advanced NSCLC patient treated with a first-line platinum-containing regimen. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00637910