Ludwig Fischer von Weikersthal

FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Cetuximab and bevacizumab have both been shown to improve outcomes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer when added to chemotherapy regimens; however, their comparative effectiveness when partnered with first-line fluorouracil, folinic acid, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) is unknown. We aimed to compare these agents in patients with KRAS (exon 2) codon 12/13 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18-75 years with stage IV, histologically confirmed colorectal cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, an estimated life expectancy of greater than 3 months, and adequate organ function, from centres in Germany and Austria. Patients were centrally randomised by fax (1:1) to FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (using permuted blocks of randomly varying size), stratified according to ECOG performance status, number of metastatic sites, white blood cell count, and alkaline phosphatase concentration. The primary endpoint was objective response analysed by intention to treat. The study has completed recruitment, but follow-up of participants is ongoing. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00433927. FINDINGS Between Jan 23, 2007, and Sept 19, 2012, 592 patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumours were randomly assigned and received treatment (297 in the FOLFIRI plus cetuximab group and 295 in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group). 184 (62·0%, 95% CI 56·2-67·5) patients in the cetuximab group achieved an objective response compared with 171 (58·0%, 52·1-63·7) in the bevacizumab group (odds ratio 1·18, 95% CI 0·85-1·64; p=0·18). Median progression-free survival was 10·0 months (95% CI 8·8-10·8) in the cetuximab group and 10·3 months (9·8-11·3) in the bevacizumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·06, 95% CI 0·88-1·26; p=0·55); however, median overall survival was 28·7 months (95% CI 24·0-36·6) in the cetuximab group compared with 25·0 months (22·7-27·6) in the bevacizumab group (HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·62-0·96; p=0·017). Safety profiles were consistent with the known side-effects of the study drugs. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in both treatment groups were haematotoxicity (73 [25%] of 297 patients in the cetuximab group vs 62 [21%] of 295 patients in the bevacizumab group), skin reactions (77 [26%] vs six [2%]), and diarrhoea (34 [11%] vs 40 [14%]). INTERPRETATION Although the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response did not significantly differ between the FOLFIRI plus cetuximab and FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab groups, the association with longer overall survival suggests that FOLFIRI plus cetuximab could be the preferred first-line regimen for patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. FUNDING Merck KGaA.

Randomized comparison of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment of KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: German AIO study KRK-0306 (FIRE-3).

LBA3506 Background: In patients (pts) with KRAS, wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) a head to head comparison of anti-EGFR- and anti-VEGF-directed first-line therapy has not been reported with regard to the FOLFIRI backbone. The AIO KRK-0306 study was therefore designed as a randomized multicenter trial to compare the efficacy of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab to FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in mCRC pts not pretreated for metastatic disease. METHODS Pts were randomized to FOLFIRI (Tournigand regimen) every two wks plus cetuximab (400 mg/m² day 1, followed by 250 mg/m² wkly = arm A) or bevacizumab (5 mg/kg every two wks = arm B). The intent-to-treat (ITT) population comprised all pts who had at least completed one application of therapy. While recruitment initially was independent of KRAS status, an amendment confined inclusion to KRAS wildtype (WT) tumors. Recruitment was completed in October 2012. The primary study endpoint was objective response rate (ORR, investigators read). RESULTS Among 735 pts of the ITT-population, KRAS-WT was identified in 592. Of these, 297 pts were randomized to arm A and 295 to arm B. Median age was 64 years, 66% of pts were male, and ECOG PS 0-1 was observed in 98% of pts. Median duration of treatment was 4.7 mo vs 5.3 mo, respectively. While in the ITT analysis, ORR was comparable in arms A vs B (62% vs 57%, odds ratio 1.249), a significant superiority was found for assessable pts in arm A. Median PFS of the ITT population was nearly identical (10.3 vs 10.4 mo, HR 1.04, p=0.69), however, overall survival (OS) showed a significantly better outcome in arm A vs arm B (28.8 vs 25.0 mo, HR 0.77, p=0.0164, 95% CI: 0.620-0.953). Sixty-day mortality was low in both arms (1.01% vs 2.71%). CONCLUSIONS ORR was comparable between arms in the ITT analysis, but favored arm A in assessable pts. Significantly superior OS was observed in KRAS-WT patients receiving cetuximab plus FOLFIRI as first-line treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION NCT00433927.

Cetuximab Plus Capecitabine and Irinotecan Compared With Cetuximab Plus Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin As First-Line Treatment for Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: AIO KRK-0104—A Randomized Trial of the German AIO CRC Study Group

PURPOSE The AIO KRK-0104 randomized phase II trial investigated the efficacy and safety of cetuximab combined with capecitabine and irinotecan (CAPIRI) or capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 185 patients with mCRC were randomly assigned to cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) day 1, followed by 250 mg/m(2) weekly) plus CAPIRI (irinotecan 200 mg/m(2), day 1; capecitabine 800 mg/m(2) twice daily days 1 through 14, every 3 weeks; or cetuximab plus CAPOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) day 1; capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily day 1 through 14, every 3 weeks). The primary study end point was objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS In the intention-to-treat patient population (n = 177), ORR was 46% (95% CI, 35 to 57) for CAPIRI plus cetuximab versus 48% (95% CI, 37 to 59) for CAPOX plus cetuximab. Analysis of the KRAS gene mutation status was performed in 81.4% of the intention to treat population. Patients with KRAS wild-type in the CAPIRI plus cetuximab arm showed an ORR of 50.0%, a PFS of 6.2 months and an OS of 21.1 months. In the CAPOX plus cetuximab arm, an ORR of 44.9%, a PFS of 7.1 months and an OS of 23.5 months were observed. While ORR and PFS were comparable in KRAS wild-type and mutant subgroups, a trend toward longer survival was associated with KRAS wild-type. Both regimens had manageable toxicity profiles and were safe. CONCLUSION This randomized trial demonstrates that the addition of cetuximab to CAPIRI or CAPOX is effective and safe in first-line treatment of mCRC. In the analyzed regimens, ORR and PFS did not differ according to KRAS gene mutation status.

FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a post-hoc analysis of tumour dynamics in the final RAS wild-type subgroup of this randomised open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND FIRE-3 compared first-line 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. The same study also reported an exploratory analysis of a subgroup of patients with tumours that were wild-type at other RAS genes (KRAS and NRAS exons 2-4). We report here efficacy results for the FIRE-3 final RAS (KRAS/NRAS, exons 2-4) wild-type subgroup. Moreover, new metrics of tumour dynamics were explored during a centralised radiological review to investigate how FOLFIRI plus cetuximab conferred overall survival benefit in the absence of differences in investigator-assessed objective responses and progression-free survival. METHODS FIRE-3 was a randomised phase 3 trial comparing FOLFIRI plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. The primary endpoint of the FIRE-3 study was the proportion of patients achieving an objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.0 in the intention-to-treat population. A centralised radiological review of CT scans was done in a post-hoc analysis to assess objective response according to RECIST 1.1, early tumour shrinkage, depth of response, duration of response, and time to response in the final RAS wild-type subgroup. Comparisons between treatment groups with respect to objective response rate and early tumour shrinkage were made using Fishers exact test (two-sided), while differences in depth of response were investigated with a two-sided Wilcoxon test. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00433927. FINDINGS In the final RAS wild-type population (n=400), median overall survival was better in the FOLFIRI plus cetuximab group than the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group (33·1 months [95% CI 24·5-39·4] vs 25·0 months [23·0-28·1]; hazard ratio 0·70 [0·54-0·90]; p=0·0059), although investigator-assessed objective response and progression-free survival were comparable between treatment groups. Centralised radiological review of CT-assessable patients (n=330) showed that the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (113 of 157, 72·0% [95% CI 64·3-78·8] vs 97 of 173, 56·1% [48·3-63·6]; p=0·0029), frequency of early tumour shrinkage (107 of 157, 68·2% [60·3-75·4] vs 85 of 173, 49·1% [41·5-56·8]; p=0·0005), and median depth of response (-48·9% [-54·3 to -42·0] vs -32·3% [-38·2 to -29·2]; p<0·0001) were significantly better in extended RAS wild-type patients receiving FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus those receiving FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. No differences in duration of response and time to response were observed between treatment groups. INTERPRETATION This analysis provides a new framework that connects alternative metrics of response to overall survival. Superior response-related outcome parameters, such as early tumour shrinkage and depth of response, obtained by centralised radiological review correlated with the overall survival benefit conferred by FOLFIRI plus cetuximab compared with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the extended RAS wild-type subgroup. FUNDING Merck KGaA and Pfizer.

Gemcitabine plus erlotinib followed by capecitabine versus capecitabine plus erlotinib followed by gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer: final results of a randomised phase 3 trial of the ‘Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie’ (AIO-PK0104)

Objective AIO-PK0104 investigated two treatment strategies in advanced pancreatic cancer (PC): a reference sequence of gemcitabine/erlotinib followed by 2nd-line capecitabine was compared with a reverse experimental sequence of capecitabine/erlotinib followed by gemcitabine. Methods 281 patients with PC were randomly assigned to 1st-line treatment with either gemcitabine plus erlotinib or capecitabine plus erlotinib. In case of treatment failure (eg, disease progression or toxicity), patients were allocated to 2nd-line treatment with the comparator cytostatic drug without erlotinib. The primary study endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF) after 1st- and 2nd-line therapy (TTF2; non-inferiority design). KRAS exon 2 mutations were analysed in archival tumour tissue from 173 of the randomised patients. Results Of the 274 eligible patients, 43 had locally advanced and 231 had metastatic disease; 140 (51%) received 2nd-line chemotherapy. Median TTF2 was estimated with 4.2 months in both arms; median overall survival was 6.2 months with gemcitabine/erlotinib followed by capecitabine and 6.9 months with capecitabine/erlotinib followed by gemcitabine, respectively (HR 1.02, p=0.90). TTF for 1st-line therapy (TTF1) was significantly prolonged with gemcitabine/erlotinib compared to capecitabine/erlotinib (3.2 vs 2.2 months; HR 0.69, p=0.0034). Skin rash was associated with both TTF2 (rash grade 0/1/2–4:2.9/4.3/6.7 months, p<0.0001) and survival (3.4/7.0/9.6 months, p<0.0001). Each arm showed a safe and manageable toxicity profile during 1st- and 2nd-line therapy. A KRAS wild-type status (52/173 patients, 30%) was associated with an improved overall survival (HR 1.68, p=0.005). Conclusion Both treatment strategies are feasible and demonstrated comparable efficacy; KRAS may serve as biomarker in patients with advanced PC treated with erlotinib. Trial registration number This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00440167. Significance of this study What is already known on this subject? Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy remains an international standard of care for patients with non-resectable, advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). Anti-EGFR treatment with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib, as well as chemotherapy intensification by application of the FOLFIRINOX regimen, both significantly improved overall survival in randomised phase 3 trials. The optimal (sequential) regimen for the use of gemcitabine, erlotinib and the oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine remains unclear in advanced PC. Molecular predictors for the efficacy of anti-EGFR treatments in PC have not been defined up to now. What are the new findings? The sequential use of gemcitabine, erlotinib and capecitabine is safe and equally effective in PC; gemcitabine appears to be more effective in 1st- and 2nd-line therapy than capecitabine and therefore remains the preferred combination partner for erlotinib. Skin rash is strongly correlated with efficacy outcome measures in PC patients treated with erlotinib. KRAS wild-type status appears to be associated with improved overall survival in patients treated with erlotinib in this AIO study. Significance of this study How might it impact on clinical practice in the foreseeable future? The benefit of adding erlotinib to chemotherapy is restricted to patients that experience skin rash during treatment; non-rash patients are characterised by a very poor outcome and need to be offered novel treatment strategies. Second-line salvage chemotherapy is effective and safe in selected PC patients. KRAS could serve as the first biomarker for improved survival in erlotinib-treated patients; the predictive value of KRAS for erlotinib efficacy remains to be defined prospectively.

SWITCH: A Randomised, Sequential, Open-label Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Sorafenib-sunitinib Versus Sunitinib-sorafenib in the Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer

BACKGROUND Understanding how to sequence targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is important for maximisation of clinical benefit. OBJECTIVES To prospectively evaluate sequential use of the multikinase inhibitors sorafenib followed by sunitinib (So-Su) versus sunitinib followed by sorafenib (Su-So) in patients with mRCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 SWITCH study assessed So-Su versus Su-So in patients with mRCC without prior systemic therapy, and stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk score (favourable or intermediate). INTERVENTION Patients were randomised to sorafenib 400mg twice daily followed, on progression or intolerable toxicity, by sunitinib 50mg once daily (4 wk on, 2 wk off) (So-Su), or vice versa (Su-So). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The primary endpoint was improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with So-Su versus Su-So, assessed from randomisation to progression or death during second-line therapy. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS In total, 365 patients were randomised (So-Su, n=182; Su-So, n=183). There was no significant difference in total PFS between So-Su and Su-So (median 12.5 vs 14.9 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 90% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-1.27; p=0.5 for superiority). OS was similar for So-Su and Su-So (median 31.5 and 30.2 mo; HR 1.00, 90% CI 0.77-1.30; p=0.5 for superiority). More So-Su patients than Su-So patients reached protocol-defined second-line therapy (57% vs 42%). Overall, adverse event rates were generally similar between the treatment arms. The most frequent any-grade treatment-emergent first-line adverse events were diarrhoea (54%) and hand-foot skin reaction (39%) for sorafenib; and diarrhoea (40%) and fatigue (40%) for sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS Total PFS was not superior with So-Su versus Su-So. These results demonstrate that sorafenib followed by sunitinib and vice versa provide similar clinical benefit in mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY We investigated if total progression-free survival (PFS) is improved in patients with advanced/metastatic kidney cancer who are treated with sorafenib and then with sunitinib (So-Su), compared with sunitinib and then sorafenib (Su-So). We found that total PFS was not improved with So-Su compared with Su-So, but both treatment options were similarly effective in patients with advanced/metastatic kidney cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00732914, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Impact of Subsequent Therapies on Outcome of the FIRE-3/AIO KRK0306 Trial: First-Line Therapy With FOLFIRI Plus Cetuximab or Bevacizumab in Patients With KRAS Wild-Type Tumors in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE We investigated choice and efficacy of subsequent treatment, with special focus on second-line therapy, in the FIRE-3 trial (FOLFIRI plus cetuximab [arm A] or bevacizumab [arm B]) for patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Start of subsequent-line (second or third) therapy was defined as use of an antitumor drug that was not part of the previous regimen. We evaluated choice, duration, and efficacy of subsequent therapy and determined the impact of subsequent-line treatment on outcome of patients in FIRE-3. RESULTS Of 592 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 414 (69.9%) received second-line and 256 (43.2%) received third-line therapy. In subsequent treatment lines, 47.1% of patients originally assigned to arm A received bevacizumab, and 52.2% originally assigned to arm B received either cetuximab or panitumumab. Oxaliplatin was subsequently used in 55.9% (arm A) and 53.2% (arm B) of patients. Second-line therapy was administered for a median duration of 5.0 versus 3.2 months (P < .001) in study arm A versus B. Progression-free (6.5 v 4.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.85; P < .001) and overall survival (16.3 v 13.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.88; P = .0021) from start of second-line therapy were longer in patients in arm A compared with arm B. CONCLUSION Our data suggest that the sequence of drug application might be more important than exposure to single agents. In patients with RAS wild-type tumors, first-line application of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor-directed therapy may represent a favorable condition for promoting effective subsequent therapy including antiangiogenic agents.

Early tumor shrinkage in metastatic colorectal cancer: Retrospective analysis from an irinotecan‐based randomized first‐line trial

Early tumor shrinkage (ETS) has been highlighted as a favorable prognostic factor related to progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in cytotoxic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Data from a randomized phase III study comparing infusional 5‐fluorouracil plus irinotecan (FUFIRI) versus irinotecan plus oxaliplatin (mIROX) were evaluated. Patient groups were analyzed according to the relative change in maximum tumor diameter between baseline and after 7 weeks of treatment. The ETS cohort was defined as a decrease of ≥20%. Additionally, the non‐ETS cohort was subdivided into “minor shrinkage” (0–19%), “tumor progression” (any increase) and development of “new metastatic lesions”. Progression‐free survival and OS were estimated in all patient subgroups. Assessment of ETS was possible in 201 patients. Early tumor shrinkage was observed in 47% (94/201) and non‐ETS in 53% (107/201) of patients. Patients with ETS had a more favorable outcome with regard to PFS (9.9 months vs 6.1 months, P = 0.029) and OS (27.5 months vs 17.8 months, P = 0.002). In the non‐ETS subgroups, patients with “minor shrinkage” (PFS 8.4 months, OS 21.6 months) showed a markedly better outcome than patients with “early tumor progression” (PFS 4.0 months, OS 15.3 months) or with “new metastatic lesions (PFS 2.2 months, OS 7.6 months). In conclusion, ETS assessment offers accelerated response evaluation when compared to RECIST. In patients treated with chemotherapy alone, ETS ≥20% is associated with excellent outcome. Non‐ETS is a heterogeneous subgroup where patients with minor shrinkage clearly benefit from treatment, and patients with early progression or development of new lesions have an unfavorable prognosis.

Phase III trial of irinotecan plus infusional 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid versus irinotecan plus oxaliplatin as first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer

PURPOSE To determine whether irinotecan plus oxaliplatin (mIROX) is superior to irinotecan plus infusional 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin (FUFIRI) as first-line therapy of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS A phase III, randomised, open-label multicentre study compared standard treatment with FUFIRI (irinotecan 80 mg/m(2), 5-fluorouracil 2000 mg/m(2), folinic acid 500 mg/m(2) weekly times 6) to mIROX using an identical schedule of irinotecan plus oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) applied on days 1, 15 and 29 of a 7-week cycle. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS A total of 479 eligible patients were randomly assigned. Progression-free survival was 7.2 months in the mIROX arm and 8.2 months in the FUFIRI arm [hazard ratio=1.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-1.37; P=0.178]. Comparable results were also obtained for overall survival time with 19 months in the mIROX-arm and 22 months in the FUFIRI-arm (hazard ratio=1.08, P=0.276). Both regimens induced an identical objective response rate (ORR) of 41%, but disease control rate (ORR plus stable disease) was significantly greater in the FUFIRI group (81% versus 68%, P=0.001). Most frequent grades 1-4 side-effects of mIROX and FUFIRI treatment were nausea (80% versus 73%) and delayed diarrhoea (79% versus 68%). Grades 3-4 toxicities were generally below 10%, except for diarrhoea which was more frequent in the mIROX-arm compared to the FUFIRI-arm (19% versus 30%, P=0.006) CONCLUSION mIROX failed to show superior activity compared to high-dose 5-FU/folinic acid plus irinotecan. Due to better tolerability the combination of high-dose 5-FU/folinic acid and irinotecan remains a standard of care in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

Erlotinib 150 mg daily plus chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer: an interim safety analysis of a multicenter, randomized, cross-over phase III trial of the 'Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie'.

To date, only limited toxicity data are available for the combination of erlotinib with either capecitabine or gemcitabine as front-line therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer. Within a randomized phase III trial, 281 treatment-naive patients were randomly assigned between capecitabine (2000 mg/m2/day, for 14 days, once every 3 weeks) plus erlotinib (150 mg/day, arm A) and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 as a 30-min infusion) plus erlotinib (150 mg/day, arm B). In case of treatment failure, patients were crossed over to a second-line treatment with the comparator cytostatic drug without erlotinib. The primary study endpoint was the time to treatment failure of second-line therapy (TTF2). This interim analysis of toxicity contains safety data from the first 127 randomized patients. During first-line therapy, patients received a median number of three treatment cycles (range 0–13) in both the arms. Regarding chemotherapy, a treatment delay was observed in 12% of the cycles in arm A and in 22% of the cycles in arm B. Dose reductions of the cytostatic drug were performed in 18 and 27% of treatment cycles, respectively. Erlotinib dose reductions were performed in 6 and 11% of all cycles. Grade 3/4 hematological toxicity was <10% in both the arms; major grade 3/4 toxicities in arms A and B were diarrhea (9 vs. 7%), skin rash (4 vs. 12%), and hand–foot syndrome (7 vs. 0%). No treatment-related death was observed. In conclusion, this interim safety analysis suggests that treatment with erlotinib 150 mg/day is feasible in combination with capecitabine or gemcitabine.