Martina Stauch

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.

Bendamustine plus rituximab versus CHOP plus rituximab as first-line treatment for patients with indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND Rituximab plus chemotherapy, most often CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), is the first-line standard of care for patients with advanced indolent lymphoma, and for elderly patients with mantle-cell lymphoma. Bendamustine plus rituximab is effective for relapsed or refractory disease. We compared bendamustine plus rituximab with CHOP plus rituximab (R-CHOP) as first-line treatment for patients with indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas. METHODS We did a prospective, multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial at 81 centres in Germany between Sept 1, 2003, and Aug 31, 2008. Patients aged 18 years or older with a WHO performance status of 2 or less were eligible if they had newly diagnosed stage III or IV indolent or mantle-cell lymphoma. Patients were stratified by histological lymphoma subtype, then randomly assigned according to a prespecified randomisation list to receive either intravenous bendamustine (90 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2 of a 4-week cycle) or CHOP (cycles every 3 weeks of cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m(2), doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2), and vincristine 1.4 mg/m(2) on day 1, and prednisone 100 mg/day for 5 days) for a maximum of six cycles. Patients in both groups received rituximab 375 mg/m(2) on day 1 of each cycle. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, with a non-inferiority margin of 10%. Analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00991211, and the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices of Germany, BfArM 4021335. FINDINGS 274 patients were assigned to bendamustine plus rituximab (261 assessed) and 275 to R-CHOP (253 assessed). At median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 25-57), median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the bendamustine plus rituximab group than in the R-CHOP group (69.5 months [26.1 to not yet reached] vs 31.2 months [15.2-65.7]; hazard ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.44-0.74; p<0.0001). Bendamustine plus rituximab was better tolerated than R-CHOP, with lower rates of alopecia (0 patients vs 245 (100%) of 245 patients who recieved ≥3 cycles; p<0.0001), haematological toxicity (77 [30%] vs 173 [68%]; p<0.0001), infections (96 [37%] vs 127 [50%]); p=0.0025), peripheral neuropathy (18 [7%] vs 73 [29%]; p<0.0001), and stomatitis (16 [6%] vs 47 [19%]; p<0.0001). Erythematous skin reactions were more common in patients in the bendamustine plus rituximab group than in those in the R-CHOP group (42 [16%] vs 23 [9%]; p=0.024). INTERPRETATION In patients with previously untreated indolent lymphoma, bendamustine plus rituximab can be considered as a preferred first-line treatment approach to R-CHOP because of increased progression-free survival and fewer toxic effects. FUNDING Roche Pharma AG, Ribosepharm/Mundipharma GmbH.

First-line therapy with fludarabine compared with chlorambucil does not result in a major benefit for elderly patients with advanced chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Although chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a disease of elderly patients, subjects older than 65 years are heavily underrepresented in clinical trials. The German CLL study group (GCLLSG) initiated a multicenter phase III trial for CLL patients older than 65 years comparing first-line therapy with fludarabine with chlorambucil. A total of 193 patients with a median age of 70 years were randomized to receive fludarabine (25 mg/m(2) for 5 days intravenously, every 28 days, for 6 courses) or chlorambucil (0.4 mg/kg body weight [BW] with an increase to 0.8 mg/kg, every 15 days, for 12 months). Fludarabine resulted in a significantly higher overall and complete remission rate (72% vs 51%, P = .003; 7% vs 0%, P = .011). Time to treatment failure was significantly shorter in the chlorambucil arm (11 vs 18 months; P = .004), but no difference in progression-free survival time was observed (19 months with fludarabine, 18 months with chlorambucil; P = .7). Moreover, fludarabine did not increase the overall survival time (46 months in the fludarabine vs 64 months in the chlorambucil arm; P = .15). Taken together, the results suggest that in elderly CLL patients the first-line therapy with fludarabine alone does not result in a major clinical benefit compared with chlorambucil. This trial is registered with www.isrctn.org under identifier ISRCTN 36294212.

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.

Efficacy of Prophylactic Low–Molecular Weight Heparin for Ambulatory Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Outcomes From the CONKO-004 Trial

PURPOSE Advanced pancreatic cancer (APC), in addition to its high mortality, accounts for the highest rates of venous thromboembolic events (VTEs). Enoxaparin, a low-molecular weight heparin, is effective in prevention and treatment of VTEs. Some small studies have indicated that this benefit might extend to patients with cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with histologically proven APC were randomly assigned to ambulant first-line chemotherapy and prophylactic use of enoxaparin or chemotherapy alone to investigate the probable reduction in symptomatic VTEs and the impact on survival. RESULTS A total of 312 patients were recruited as one of the protocol end points was reached. Within the first 3 months, the numbers of symptomatic VTEs were as follows: 15 of 152 patients in the observation group and two of 160 patients in the enoxaparin group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.12; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.52; χ(2) P = .001). The numbers of major bleeding events were as follows: five of 152 patients in the observation arm and seven of 160 patients in the enoxaparin arm (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.35 to 3.72; χ(2) P = 1.0). Overall cumulative incidence rates of symptomatic VTEs were 15.1% (observation) and 6.4% (enoxaparin; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.83; P = .01). Progression-free (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.32; P = .64) and overall survival (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.38; P = .44) did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION This study demonstrates the high efficacy and feasibility of primary pharmacologic prevention of symptomatic VTEs in outpatients with APC. Treatment efficacy was not affected by simultaneous treatment with enoxaparin in this trial setting.

Bendamustine plus rituximab (B-R) versus CHOP plus rituximab (CHOP-R) as first-line treatment in patients with indolent and mantle cell lymphomas (MCL): Updated results from the StiL NHL1 study.

3 Background: This multicenter, randomized, phase III study compared B-R and CHOP-R as first-line treatment in indolent lymphoma and MCL and was presented at ASH 2009 including a comprehensive safety analysis. Here we present an updated analysis with a cut-off date for 31 Oct 2011. METHODS 549 patients (pts) with indolent or MCL were randomized to receive B-R or CHOP-R for a max of 6 cycles. The primary endpoint was PFS. RESULTS 514 pts randomized pts were evaluable (261 B-R; 253 CHOP-R). Patient characteristics were well balanced between arms; median age was 64 years. At a median follow-up of 45 months, PFS was significantly prolonged with B-R compared with CHOP-R (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.44-0.74; P<0.001). Median PFS was 69.5 versus 31.2 months, respectively. The PFS benefit with B-R was maintained in all histological subtypes except marginal zone lymphoma. The PFS benefit with B-R was independent of age; HR 0.52 (P=0.002) in pts ≤60 years (n=199), and HR 0.62 (P=0.002) in pts >60 years (n=315). In pts with normal LDH (62%), PFS was significantly prolonged with B-R compared with CHOP-R (P<0.001), while in the elevated LDH group (38%) PFS was numerically, but not significantly increased with B-R compared with CHOP-R (P=0.118). In patients with follicular lymphoma, FLIPI subgroups defined by 0-2 factors (favorable) and 3-5 factors (unfavorable) had a longer PFS with B-R than with CHOP-R (P=0.043 and P=0.068 for the favorable and unfavorable FLIPI subgroups, respectively). Seventy four salvage treatments had been initiated in the B-R group; compared with 116 in the CHOP-R group, of those in the CHOP-R group 52 pts received B-R as salvage regimen. Overall survival did not differ between the treatment arms, with 43 and 45 deaths in the B-R and CHOP-R arms, respectively. Twenty secondary malignancies were observed in the B-R group compared with 23 in the CHOP-R group, with 1 hematological malignancy in each group (1 MDS in B-R, 1 AML in CHOP-R). CONCLUSIONS In patients with previously untreated indolent lymphoma, and elderly patients with MCL, B-R demonstrates a PFS benefit and improved tolerability compared with CHOP-R.

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.

Interactions between comorbidity and treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia: results of German Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Study Group trials.

This study investigated the impact of comorbidity in 555 patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia enrolled in two trials of the German Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Study Group on first-line treatment with fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide, fludarabine, or chlorambucil. Patients with two or more comorbidities and patients with less than two comorbidities differed in overall survival (71.7 versus 90.2 months; P<0.001) and progression-free survival (21.0 versus 31.5 months; P<0.01). After adjustment for other prognostic factors and treatment, comorbidity maintained its independent prognostic value in a multivariate Cox regression analysis. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia was the major cause of death in patients with two or more comorbidities. Disease control in patients with two or more comorbidities was better with fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide than with fludarabine treatment, but not with fludarabine compared to chlorambucil treatment. These results give insight into interactions between comorbidity and therapy of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and suggest that durable control of the hematologic disease is most critical to improve overall outcome of patients with increased comorbidity. The registration numbers of the trials reported are NCT00276848 and NCT00262795.