James Reeves

Pazopanib versus Sunitinib in Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND Pazopanib and sunitinib provided a progression-free survival benefit, as compared with placebo or interferon, in previous phase 3 studies involving patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. This phase 3, randomized trial compared the efficacy and safety of pazopanib and sunitinib as first-line therapy. METHODS We randomly assigned 1110 patients with clear-cell, metastatic renal-cell carcinoma, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive a continuous dose of pazopanib (800 mg once daily; 557 patients) or sunitinib in 6-week cycles (50 mg once daily for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks without treatment; 553 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by independent review, and the study was powered to show the noninferiority of pazopanib versus sunitinib. Secondary end points included overall survival, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS Pazopanib was noninferior to sunitinib with respect to progression-free survival (hazard ratio for progression of disease or death from any cause, 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.22), meeting the predefined noninferiority margin (upper bound of the 95% confidence interval, <1.25). Overall survival was similar (hazard ratio for death with pazopanib, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.08). Patients treated with sunitinib, as compared with those treated with pazopanib, had a higher incidence of fatigue (63% vs. 55%), the hand-foot syndrome (50% vs. 29%), and thrombocytopenia (78% vs. 41%); patients treated with pazopanib had a higher incidence of increased levels of alanine aminotransferase (60%, vs. 43% with sunitinib). The mean change from baseline in 11 of 14 health-related quality-of-life domains, particularly those related to fatigue or soreness in the mouth, throat, hands, or feet, during the first 6 months of treatment favored pazopanib (P<0.05 for all 11 comparisons). CONCLUSIONS Pazopanib and sunitinib have similar efficacy, but the safety and quality-of-life profiles favor pazopanib. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals; COMPARZ ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00720941.).

Phase 2, randomized, double-blind study of pracinostat in combination with azacitidine in patients with untreated, higher risk myelodysplastic syndromes

The prognosis of patients with higher‐risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) remains poor despite available therapies. Histone deacetylase inhibitors have demonstrated activity in patients with MDS and in vitro synergy with azacitidine.

Clinical activity and molecular correlates of response to atezolizumab alone or in combination with bevacizumab versus sunitinib in renal cell carcinoma

We describe results from IMmotion150, a randomized phase 2 study of atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) alone or combined with bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) versus sunitinib in 305 patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in intent-to-treat and PD-L1+ populations. Intent-to-treat PFS hazard ratios for atezolizumab + bevacizumab or atezolizumab monotherapy versus sunitinib were 1.0 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.69–1.45) and 1.19 (95% CI, 0.82–1.71), respectively; PD-L1+ PFS hazard ratios were 0.64 (95% CI, 0.38–1.08) and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.63–1.67), respectively. Exploratory biomarker analyses indicated that tumor mutation and neoantigen burden were not associated with PFS. Angiogenesis, T-effector/IFN-γ response, and myeloid inflammatory gene expression signatures were strongly and differentially associated with PFS within and across the treatments. These molecular profiles suggest that prediction of outcomes with anti-VEGF and immunotherapy may be possible and offer mechanistic insights into how blocking VEGF may overcome resistance to immune checkpoint blockade.An exploratory randomized controlled clinical trial of renal cell carcinoma identifies molecular patterns distinguishing responders to immune checkpoint blockade alone or combined with angiogenesis inhibitor versus angiogenesis inhibitor alone.

Randomized Phase II Study of R-CHOP With or Without Bortezomib in Previously Untreated Patients With Non–Germinal Center B-Cell–Like Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

Purpose To evaluate the impact of the addition of bortezomib to rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) on outcomes in previously untreated patients with non-germinal center B-cell-like (non-GCB) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Patients and Methods After real-time determination of non-GCB DLBCL using the Hans immunohistochemistry algorithm, 206 patients were randomly assigned (1:1; stratified by International Prognostic Index [IPI] score) to six 21-day cycles of standard R-CHOP alone or R-CHOP plus bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 4 (VR-CHOP). The primary end point, progression-free survival (PFS), was evaluated in 183 patients with centrally confirmed non-GCB DLBCL who received one or more doses of study drug (91 R-CHOP, 92 VR-CHOP). Results After a median follow-up of 34 months, with 25% (R-CHOP) and 18% (VR-CHOP) of patients having had PFS events, the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was 0.73 (90% CI, 0.43 to 1.24) with VR-CHOP ( P = .611). Two-year PFS rates were 77.6% with R-CHOP and 82.0% with VR-CHOP; they were 65.1% versus 72.4% in patients with high-intermediate/high IPI (HR, 0.67; 90% CI, 0.34 to 1.29), and 90.0% versus 88.9% (HR, 0.85; 90% CI, 0.35 to 2.10) in patients with low/low-intermediate IPI. Overall response rate with R-CHOP and VR-CHOP was 98% and 96%, respectively. The overall survival HR was 0.75 (90% CI, 0.38 to 1.45); 2-year survival rates were 88.4% and 93.0%, respectively. In the safety population (100 R-CHOP and 101 VR-CHOP patients), grade ≥ 3 adverse events included neutropenia (53% v 49%), thrombocytopenia (13% v 29%), anemia (7% v 15%), leukopenia (26% v 25%), and neuropathy (1% v 5%). Conclusion Outcomes for newly diagnosed, prospectively enrolled patients with non-GCB DLBCL were more favorable than expected with R-CHOP and were not significantly improved by adding bortezomib.

Phase II Study of Cetuximab, Docetaxel, and Gemcitabine in Patients With Previously Untreated Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND Targeting epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFRs) has been a novel strategy in treating non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This multicenter, community-based trial was designed to examine the role of cetuximab in combination with a nonplatinum regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligibility criteria were newly diagnosed unresectable stage III/IV NSCLC, all histologies, measurable disease, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0-2. Treatment premedication included dexamethasone 20 mg orally 12 and 6 hours before treatment, and 4 mg 12 hours following treatment; diphenhydramine 50 mg intravenously (I.V.) and cimetidine 300 mg I.V. before cetuximab. Treatment medication included docetaxel 30 mg/m2 I.V. days 1 and 8; gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 I.V. days 1 and 8; and cetuximab 400 mg/m2 I.V. day 1, then 250 mg/m2 I.V. weekly. Patients received up to 6 cycles with restaging every 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was an overall response rate (ORR) > or = 25%. RESULTS Sixty-nine patients enrolled from July 2005 to October 2007. Patients had a median age of 69 years; 70% were male and 30% were female; ECOG PS was 0 in 42%, 1 in 51%, and 2 in 7%; patients had adenocarcinoma (42%), squamous cell (30%), large cell (6%), mixed (1%), and not otherwise specified (20%) disease. The ORR was 17% (95% CI, 9%-29%). Thirty-five patients (54%) had stable disease; 14 patients (22%) had progressive disease. With a median follow-up of 17.8 months, the median progression-free and overall survivals were 4 months and 9.4 months, respectively. The most common (> 10%) grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia (25%), rash (22%), and fatigue (12%). Accrual in our middle Tennessee offices was temporarily suspended and ultimately stopped because of a higher-than-anticipated rate of cetuximab-related severe hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) in 4 patients among the first 12 enrolled, including 1 fatal event. CONCLUSION Cetuximab/docetaxel/gemcitabine was relatively well-tolerated and associated with efficacy similar to chemotherapy alone. Additional study with cetuximab/chemotherapy in NSCLC should focus on new potentially predictive biomarkers. Also, additional study is needed to better understand and prevent the severe HSRs that appear to be endemic to specific regions of the United States.

Rituximab With or Without Bevacizumab for the Treatment of Patients With Relapsed Follicular Lymphoma

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND Inhibition of tumor angiogenesis by the interruption of VEGF pathway signaling is of therapeutic value in several solid tumors. Preclinical evidence supports similar importance of the pathway in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In this randomized phase II trial, we compared the efficacy and toxicity of rituximab with bevacizumab versus single-agent rituximab, in patients with previously-treated follicular lymphoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients (n = 60) were randomized (1:1) to receive rituximab (375 mg/m(2) intravenously [I.V.] weekly for 4 weeks) either as a single agent or with bevacizumab (10 mg/kg I.V. on days 3 and 15). Patients with an objective response or stable disease at week 12 received 4 additional doses of rituximab (at months 3, 5, 7, and 9); patients who received rituximab/bevacizumab also received bevacizumab 10 mg/kg I.V. every 2 weeks for 16 doses. RESULTS After a median follow-up of 34 months, PFS was improved in patients who received rituximab/bevacizumab compared with patients who received rituximab alone (median 20.7 vs. 10.4 months respectively; HR, 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20-0.80); P = .007). Overall survival was also improved numerically (73% vs. 53% at 4 years), but did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.40 (95% CI, 0.15-1.05); P = .055). The addition of bevacizumab increased the toxicity of therapy, but both regimens were well tolerated (no grade 4 toxicity). CONCLUSION The addition of bevacizumab to rituximab significantly improved PFS. The role of angiogenesis inhibition in the treatment of follicular lymphoma requires further definition in larger clinical trials.

755OA RANDOMIZED PHASE 3 STUDY COMPARING FIRST-LINE DOCETAXEL/PREDNISONE (DP) TO DP PLUS CUSTIRSEN IN MEN WITH METASTATIC CASTRATION-RESISTANT PROSTATE CANCER (MCRPC)

ABSTRACT Aim: Clusterin is a pro-survival chaperone protein upregulated in response to apoptotic stressors such as chemotherapy. Custirsen (C) is a second-generation antisense oligonucleotide that inhibits production of human clusterin. This randomized, open-label, multicenter, international phase 3 study (SYNERGY; ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT01188187) sought to determine if addition of C to standard first-line chemotherapy with docetaxel (D) and prednisone (P) prolongs overall survival (OS) versus DP alone. Methods: Patients (pts) with chemotherapy-naive mCRPC were randomized 1:1 to D (75 mg/m2 IV D1 q21d) + P (5 mg PO bid) ± C (640 mg IV weekly after loading dose period) for up to 10 cycles or until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity/withdrawal. Randomization was stratified by opioid use and radiographic evidence of progression. The primary endpoint was OS and the secondary endpoint was proportion of pts alive without disease progression on day 140. Survival data were compared using a stratified log-rank test. Results: 1022 pts were randomized from Dec 2010 to Nov 2012 (DPC, n = 510; DP, n = 512). Median (range) number of cycles received was 8 (1-32) for DPC and 9 (1-20) for DP. Following a target 509 events, median OS was 23.4 months with DPC and 22.2 months with DP (HR for death 0.93, 95% CI 0.78-1.11; log-rank 1-sided P = 0.21). Incidence of any subsequent therapy was 75 and 76% for DPC and DP (53 vs 54% abiraterone, 19 vs 20% enzalutamide; 17 vs 18% cabazitaxel). More pts in the DPC arm discontinued due to an adverse event (AE) (41 vs 29%). Most common grade ≥3 AEs for DPC vs DP included fatigue (11 vs 8%), febrile neutropenia (11 vs 7%), asthenia (7 vs 3%), diarrhea (6 vs 3%), pulmonary embolism (5 vs 4%), and pneumonia (4 vs 2%); grade ≥3 hematology laboratory toxicities were neutropenia (43 vs 29%), lymphopenia (37 vs 24%), and anemia (13 vs 5%). Conclusions: Addition of custirsen to first-line DP did not significantly improve OS in pts with mCRPC and was associated with some increased toxicity. The majority of patients received subsequent life-prolonging therapy. Data on disease progression, response, and serum clusterin will be presented. Sponsors: Teva Pharmaceuticals and OncoGenex Pharmaceuticals Disclosure: K.N. Chi: Grant to conduct clinical trial from OncoGeneX;C. Higano: Grants: Amgen, Dendreon, Bayer, Medivation, Aragon, Algeta, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Oncogenex Consulting fees/travel support: Amgen, BHR, Dendreon, Bayer, Medivation, Pfizer, Janssen, Abbvie, Novartis, Genentech;J. Ferrero: Board membership: Novartis, Roche, Sanofi;C. Jacobs: Travel support: Teva Employee/stockholder: OncoGenex;O. Barnett-Griness: Employee: Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries;A. Pande: Employee/stockholder: Teva Pharmaceuticals. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

High-Dose Bevacizumab in the Treatment of Patients With Advanced Clear Cell Renal Carcinoma: A Phase II Trial of the Sarah Cannon Oncology Research Consortium

BACKGROUND The dose of bevacizumab necessary to optimally inhibit tumor angiogenesis in advanced renal cell carcinoma is unknown. In this phase II trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of 2 escalated doses of bevacizumab in patients with advanced clear cell renal carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients had metastatic or locally advanced unresectable clear cell renal carcinoma. Patients who were previously untreated or who had previously received vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-targeted therapy were eligible and were considered separately in the efficacy evaluation. Two doses of bevacizumab were evaluated in sequential cohorts: 15 mg/kg every 2 weeks and 15 mg/kg weekly. The initial reevaluation was at 8 weeks; responding and stable patients continued treatment, with reevaluations every 8 weeks until tumor progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. RESULTS One hundred nineteen eligible patients were enrolled and received bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 2 weeks (n = 61) or bevacizumab 15 mg/kg weekly (n = 58). Seventy patients were previously untreated with VEGFR-targeted therapy. In previously untreated patients, the overall response rate was 19%, with a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 7.8 months. Less activity was seen in patients previously treated with VEGFR-targeted agents (overall response rate, 4%; median PFS, 3.7 months). There was no suggestion of any difference in efficacy between the 2 dose levels tested. Both dose levels were tolerated well by most patients, with a spectrum of toxicity typical for bevacizumab. Grade 3/4 proteinuria was more frequent with both of these escalated doses, particularly with 15 mg/kg weekly. CONCLUSION Although administration of escalated doses of bevacizumab was feasible in patients with advanced clear cell renal carcinoma, there was no suggestion that these doses were more efficacious than bevacizumab administered at the standard dose of 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks.

A phase 2 study of the sphingosine‐1‐phosphate antibody sonepcizumab in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Upregulation of sphingosine‐1‐phosphate (S1P) may mediate resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)‐directed therapies and inhibit antitumor immunity. Antagonism of S1P in preclinical models appears to overcome this resistance. In this phase 2 study, the authors assessed the activity of sonepcizumab, a first‐in‐class inhibitor of S1P, in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) with a history of prior VEGF‐directed therapy.

Phase II study of bendamustine, bortezomib and dexamethasone (BBD) in the first-line treatment of patients with multiple myeloma who are not candidates for high dose chemotherapy

The combination of bendamustine, bortezomib and dexamethasone (BBD) was evaluated as a first‐line therapy for multiple myeloma. The original treatment regimen of bendamustine 80 mg/m2, days 1, 4; bortezomib 1·3 mg/m2, days 1, 4, 8, 11; dexamethasone 40 mg, days 1, 2, 3, 4 on a 28‐day cycle (up to 8 cycles) was efficacious but determined relatively toxic in an interim analysis. The regimen was amended to bendamustine 80 mg/m2, days 1, 2; bortezomib 1·3 mg/m2, days 1, 8, 15; dexamethasone 20 mg, days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16 every 28 days (up to 8 cycles), then maintenance 1·3 mg/m2 IV bortezomib every 2 weeks. Fifty‐nine patients were enrolled. Primary endpoint was complete response (CR) rate. The original schema was given for a median of 7 cycles (range 1–8); modified schema was given for a median of 8 cycles (range 1‐8) plus maintenance. Overall response was 91%, CR was 9%. Median follow‐up was 19·1 months; median progression‐free survival was 11·1 months and 18·9 months on the original and modified regimens, respectively. The most common Grade 3/4 adverse events were fatigue and neuropathy. The combination of BBD is tolerable and efficacious in this patient population. Modifications to decrease intensity but increase duration translated to better outcomes.