Lothar Mueller

Topotecan Weekly Versus Conventional 5-Day Schedule in Patients With Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer: A Randomized Multicenter Phase II Trial of the North-Eastern German Society of Gynecological Oncology Ovarian Cancer Study Group

PURPOSE Weekly administration of topotecan (Tw) is less toxic and widely considered a better treatment option than conventional 5-day therapy (Tc) in women with platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer. We conducted a randomized phase II trial (TOWER [Topotecan Weekly Versus Conventional 5-Day Schedule in Patients With Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer]) to better define the ratio between benefits and risks with either treatment approach. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to two independent two-stage protocols of Tw (4 mg/m(2)/wk administered on days 1, 8, and 15) or Tc (1.25 mg/m(2)/d on days 1 to 5). We evaluated risk ratios (RRs) for the primary end point of clinical benefit (complete response, partial response, and stable disease), the duration of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), associated hazard ratios (HRs), and RRs of toxicity with 95% CIs. RESULTS In total, 194 patients were randomly assigned at 54 centers to Tw (n = 97) or Tc (n = 97). Clinical benefit was observed in 36 of 76 (47%; 95% CI, 36% to 59%) Tw and 46 of 80 (58%; 95% CI, 46% to 68%) Tc patients (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.64; P = .205). Patients in the Tw group had a slightly shorter PFS (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.76) but similar OS (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.45) compared with Tc. Tw was associated with significantly lower risks of anemia (RR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.79), neutropenia (RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.65), and thrombocytopenia (RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.57). CONCLUSION With regard to effectiveness in terms of response and PFS, Tc remains the standard of care in patients with platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer. However, comparable OS rates and a favorable toxicity profile make Tw another viable treatment option in this setting.

Bendamustine plus rituximab versus fludarabine plus rituximab for patients with relapsed indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas: a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Fludarabine-based chemoimmunotherapy with rituximab is frequently used in patients with indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas who relapse after alkylating chemotherapy. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of rituximab with bendamustine or fludarabine in patients with relapsed, indolent, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and mantle-cell lymphoma. METHODS For this randomised, non-inferiority, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients from 55 centres in Germany, who were subsequently randomised centrally according to prespecified randomisation lists with permuted blocks of randomly variable block size to rituximab (375 mg/m(2), day 1) plus either bendamustine (90 mg/m(2), days 1 and 2) or fludarabine (25 mg/m(2), days 1-3) every 28 days for a maximum of six 28-day cycles. Patients were aged 18 years or older with a WHO performance status of 0-2 and had relapsed or refractory indolent or mantle-cell lymphoma; patients refractory to regimens that included rituximab, bendamustine, or purine analogue drugs were excluded. Patients were stratified by histological subtypes of lymphoma and by their latest previous therapies. Treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival and the final analysis was completed per protocol. Non-inferiority of bendamustine plus rituximab versus fludarabine plus rituximab was defined as a difference of less than 15% in 1-year progression-free survival. The protocol was amended in July, 2006, after approval of rituximab maintenance (375 mg/m(2) every 3 months for up to 2 years), which was then given to patients achieving a response to either trial treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01456351 (closed to enrolment, follow-up is ongoing). FINDINGS Between Oct 8, 2003, and Aug 5, 2010, we randomly assigned 230 patients to treatment groups (116 bendamustine plus rituximab, 114 fludarabine plus rituximab). 11 patients were excluded for protocol violations and were not followed up further (two in the bendamustine plus rituximab group and nine in the fludarabine plus rituximab group). Thus, 219 patients were included in the per-protocol analysis (114 bendamustine plus rituximab, 105 fludarabine plus rituximab). 1-year progression-free survival with bendamustine plus rituximab was 0·76 (95% CI 0·68-0·84) and 0·48 (0·39-0·58) with fludarabine plus rituximab (non-inferiority p<0·0001). At a median follow-up of 96 months (IQR 73·2-112·9), median progression-free survival with bendamustine plus rituximab was 34·2 months (95% CI 23·5-52·7) and 11·7 months (8·0-16·1) with fludarabine plus rituximab (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54 [95% CI 0·38-0·72], log-rank test p<0·0001). Safety outcomes were similar in both groups, with 46 serious adverse events recorded (23 in the bendamustine plus rituximab group and 23 in the fludarabine plus rituximab group), most commonly myelosuppression and infections. INTERPRETATION In combination with rituximab, bendamustine was more effective than fludarabine, suggesting that bendamustine plus rituximab may be the preferred treatment option for patients with relapsed indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas. FUNDING Roche Pharma AG, Ribosepharm GmbH, Mundipharma GmbH, Studiengruppe indolente Lymphome (StiL).

Open-label, randomized study of individualized, pharmacokinetically (PK)-guided dosing of paclitaxel combined with carboplatin or cisplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

BACKGROUND Variable chemotherapy exposure may cause toxicity or lack of efficacy. This study was initiated to validate pharmacokinetically (PK)-guided paclitaxel dosing in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to avoid supra- or subtherapeutic exposure. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with newly diagnosed, advanced NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive up to 6 cycles of 3-weekly carboplatin AUC 6 or cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) either with standard paclitaxel at 200 mg/m(2) (arm A) or PK-guided dosing of paclitaxel (arm B). In arm B, initial paclitaxel dose was adjusted to body surface area, age, sex, and subsequent doses were guided by neutropenia and previous-cycle paclitaxel exposure [time above a plasma concentration of 0.05 µM (Tc>0.05)] determined from a single blood sample on day 2. The primary end point was grade 4 neutropenia; secondary end points included neuropathy, radiological response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS Among 365 patients randomly assigned, grade 4 neutropenia was similar in both arms (19% versus 16%; P = 0.10). Neuropathy grade ≥2 (38% versus 23%, P < 0.001) and grade ≥3 (9% versus 2%, P < 0.001) was significantly lower in arm B, independent of the platinum drug used. The median final paclitaxel dose was significantly lower in arm B (199 versus 150 mg/m(2), P < 0.001). Response rate was similar in arms A and B (31% versus 27%, P = 0.405), as was adjusted median PFS [5.5 versus 4.9 months, hazard ratio (HR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91-1.49, P = 0.228] and OS (10.1 versus 9.5 months, HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.81-1.37, P = 0.682). CONCLUSION PK-guided dosing of paclitaxel does not improve severe neutropenia, but reduces paclitaxel-associated neuropathy and thereby improves the benefit-risk profile in patients with advanced NSCLC. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION NCT01326767 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01326767).

Body mass index and survival of patients with metastastic renal cell carcinoma: Data from the German prospective RCC registry.

454 Background: Being overweight is a known risk factor for developing renal cell carcinoma (RCC). On the other hand, overweight patients may harbor a less aggressive type of disease. A recent meta-analysis was able to demonstrate that a high preoperative BMI was an independent prognostic indicator for better overall survival in patients with RCC. We present data on the prognostic impact of the postoperative BMI, at the start of systemic treatment in patients with advanced or metastatic RCC (mRCC). METHODS The German RCC registry is a prospective, longitudinal, multicenter study conducted by a network of 133 office-based medical oncologists in Germany to document treatment of unselected patients with mRCC. Based on the inclusion criteria for this analyses we identified 475 prospectively documented patients who received 1st-line systemic treatment. Patients were grouped by their BMI and overall survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. A multivariate cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the impact of potentially prognostic variables at the start of systemic treatment (sex, age, BMI, comorbidity, Motzers score, tumor stage [TNMRG], and number of metastatic sites) on overall survival. RESULTS The mean age of patients at the start of systemic treatment was 68 years and the median follow-up was 23.8 months. 118 (25%) presented with a BMI < 24, 195 (41%) with a BMI 24 - 28 and 162 (34%) with a BMI > 28. Patient characteristics did not differ between groups, except more patients in the low BMI group had a higher prognostic risk according to Motzer-score (11% vs. 5 % vs. 6 %). Median overall survival was 10.0 month, 16.7 month and 23.4 month in the low, medium and high BMI group, respectively. In a multivariate analysis, BMI (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.91-0.98, p < .001) and Motzer-Score (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.59-2.12, p < .001) had a significant impact on overall survival. CONCLUSIONS In addition to Motzers prognostic score, the BMI at the start of palliative treatment may be used to discriminate mRCC patients with good and poor prognosis. Patients with a higher BMI tend to live longer than patients with low or normal BMI supporting evidence from previous meta-analyses on preoperative BMI and outcome.

Real-life treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma in German oncology and urology outpatient centers (RCC-Registry).

367 Background: Until 2006, advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) patients were treated with immunomodulators such as interleukins and interferons. Multiple new targeted therapeutics, mainly signal transduction inhibitors, have been developed resulting in fundamental changes of therapeutic standards for patients with mRCC. In 2007, recruitment into the registry started in order to survey the treatment of mRCC patients, the course of disease and treatment as well as the therapeutic decision-making processes. METHODS It is intended to enroll 1,000 mRCC patients and collect data for each case for a maximum of 3 years. Over 100 oncology and urology outpatient centers in Germany are participating. INCLUSION CRITERIA (1) patients with metastatic or locally advanced RCC requiring antineoplastic therapy, (2) start of first palliative therapy within 1 year before enrolment, (3) age at least 18 years, and (4) Informed written consent. RESULTS By May 2010, 509 patients were enrolled. At the start of systemic therapy mean age were 66.2 years for male and 69.0 years for female patients, respectively. Patients have a Charlson Comorbidity Index of 1.0. More than 94% of patients had metastases at inclusion. 62.8% of the patients received sunitinib as first-line treatment, 12.0% received temsirolimus, 9.6% were treated with bevacizumab/interferon alpha, and 9.1% received sorafenib. Median duration determined using Kaplan-Meier analyses of first-line treatment with: sunitinib: 8.5 months (n=319), temsirolimus: 2.6 months (n=60), bevacizumab/interferon alpha: 4.6 months (n=49), and sorafenib: 6.7 months (n=45) whereby the duration of ongoing therapies was censored as the date of last documentation; thus the final duration might exceed the given values. After first-line treatment with sunitinib most of the patients received either sorafenib (12.4%, n=63) or temsirolimus (7.7%, n=39) in the second line. CONCLUSIONS The registry provides an overview of the current treatment of mRCC patients in German outpatient cancer centers and shows how fast the insights of clinical studies concerning treatment of mRCC patients are transferred into current medical practice. [Table: see text].