Salomon M. Stemmer

Olaparib Monotherapy in Patients With Advanced Cancer and a Germline BRCA1/2 Mutation

PURPOSE Olaparib is an oral poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor with activity in germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) -associated breast and ovarian cancers. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of olaparib in a spectrum of BRCA1/2-associated cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS This multicenter phase II study enrolled individuals with a germline BRCA1/2 mutation and recurrent cancer. Eligibility included ovarian cancer resistant to prior platinum; breast cancer with ≥ three chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease; pancreatic cancer with prior gemcitabine treatment; or prostate cancer with progression on hormonal and one systemic therapy. Olaparib was administered at 400 mg twice per day. The primary efficacy end point was tumor response rate. RESULTS A total of 298 patients received treatment and were evaluable. The tumor response rate was 26.2% (78 of 298; 95% CI, 21.3 to 31.6) overall and 31.1% (60 of 193; 95% CI, 24.6 to 38.1), 12.9% (eight of 62; 95% CI, 5.7 to 23.9), 21.7% (five of 23; 95% CI, 7.5 to 43.7), and 50.0% (four of eight; 95% CI, 15.7 to 84.3) in ovarian, breast, pancreatic, and prostate cancers, respectively. Stable disease ≥ 8 weeks was observed in 42% of patients (95% CI, 36.0 to 47.4), including 40% (95% CI, 33.4 to 47.7), 47% (95% CI, 34.0 to 59.9), 35% (95% CI, 16.4 to 57.3), and 25% (95% CI, 3.2 to 65.1) of those with ovarian, breast, pancreatic, or prostate cancer, respectively. The most common adverse events (AEs) were fatigue, nausea, and vomiting. Grade ≥ 3 AEs were reported for 54% of patients; anemia was the most common (17%). CONCLUSION Responses to olaparib were observed across different tumor types associated with germline BRCA1/2 mutations. Olaparib warrants further investigation in confirmatory studies.

Gemcitabine Plus Capecitabine Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Randomized, Multicenter, Phase III Trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research and the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group

PURPOSE This phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (GemCap) versus single-agent Gem in advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral capecitabine 650 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1 to 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m2 by 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m2 by 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks). Patients were stratified according to center, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), presence of pain, and disease extent. RESULTS A total of 319 patients were enrolled between June 2001 and June 2004. Median overall survival (OS) time, the primary end point, was 8.4 and 7.2 months in the GemCap and Gem arms, respectively (P = .234). Post hoc analysis in patients with good KPS (score of 90 to 100) showed a significant prolongation of median OS time in the GemCap arm compared with the Gem arm (10.1 v 7.4 months, respectively; P = .014). The overall frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar in each arm. Neutropenia was the most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse event in both arms. CONCLUSION GemCap failed to improve OS at a statistically significant level compared with standard Gem treatment. The safety of GemCap and Gem was similar. In the subgroup of patients with good performance status, median OS was improved significantly. GemCap is a practical regimen that may be considered as an alternative to single-agent Gem for the treatment of advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer patients with a good performance status.

Randomized Phase II Study of the Anti–Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Monoclonal Antibody Cetuximab With Cisplatin Versus Cisplatin Alone in Patients With Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

PURPOSE Epidermal growth factor receptor is overexpressed in metastatic triple-negative breast cancers (mTNBCs), an aggressive subtype of breast cancer. Our randomized phase II study investigated cisplatin with or without cetuximab in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients who had received no more than one previous chemotherapy regimen were randomly assigned on a 2:1 schedule to receive no more than six cycles of cisplatin plus cetuximab or cisplatin alone. Patients receiving cisplatin alone could switch to cisplatin plus cetuximab or cetuximab alone on disease progression. The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary end points studied included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety profiles. Analyses included a significance level of α = .10 with no adjustments for multiplicity. RESULTS The full analysis set comprised 115 patients receiving cisplatin plus cetuximab and 58 receiving cisplatin alone; 31 patients whose disease progressed on cisplatin alone switched to cetuximab-containing therapy. The ORR was 20% (95% CI, 13 to 29) with cisplatin plus cetuximab and 10% (95% CI, 4 to 21) with cisplatin alone (odds ratio, 2.13; 95% CI, 0.81 to 5.59; P = .11). Cisplatin plus cetuximab resulted in longer PFS compared with cisplatin alone (median, 3.7 v 1.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.97; P = .032). Corresponding median OS was 12.9 versus 9.4 months (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.20; P = .31). Common grade 3/4 adverse events included acne-like rash, neutropenia, and fatigue. CONCLUSION While the primary study end point was not met, adding cetuximab to cisplatin doubled the ORR and appeared to prolong PFS and OS, warranting further investigation in mTNBC.

Dose-Dense Chemotherapy in Nonmetastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background Dose-dense chemotherapy has become a mainstay regimen in the adjuvant setting for women with high-risk breast cancer. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing data from randomized controlled trials regarding the efficacy and toxicity of the dose-dense chemotherapy approach in nonmetastatic breast cancer. Methods Randomized controlled trials that compared a dose-dense chemotherapy protocol with a standard chemotherapy schedule in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting in adult women older than 18 years with breast cancer were identified by searching The Cochrane Cancer Network register of trials, The Cochrane Library, and LILACS and MEDLINE databases (from January 1966 to January 2010). Hazard ratios (HRs) of death and recurrence and relative risks of adverse events were estimated and pooled. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results Ten trials met the inclusion criteria and were classified into two categories based on trial methodology. Three trials enrolling 3337 patients compared dose-dense chemotherapy with a conventional chemotherapy schedule (similar agents). Patients who received dose-dense chemotherapy had better overall survival (HR of death = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72 to 0.98, P = .03) and better disease-free survival (HR of recurrence or death = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.73 to 0.94, P = .005) than those on the conventional schedule. No benefit was observed in patients with hormone receptor–positive tumors. Seven trials enrolling 8652 patients compared dose-dense chemotherapy with regimens that use standard intervals but with different agents and/or dosages in the treatment arms. Similar results were obtained for these trials with respect to overall survival (HR of death = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.96, P = .01) and disease-free survival (HR of recurrence or death = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.73 to 0.88, P < .001). The rate of nonhematological adverse events was higher in the dose-dense chemotherapy arms than in the conventional chemotherapy arms. Conclusion Dose-dense chemotherapy results in better overall and disease-free survival, particularly in women with hormone receptor–negative breast cancer. However, additional data from randomized controlled trials are needed before dose-dense chemotherapy can be considered as the standard of care.

Interventions for Alleviating Cancer-Related Dyspnea: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE Dyspnea is one of the most distressing symptoms experienced by terminally ill cancer patients. This study aimed to evaluate the role of interventions for the palliation of dyspnea. METHODS We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials assessing all pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions for dyspnea palliation in cancer patients, and searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, conference proceedings, and references. Two reviewers independently appraised the quality of trials and extracted data. RESULTS Our search yielded 18 trials. Fourteen evaluated pharmacologic interventions: seven assessing opioids (a total of 256 patients), five assessing oxygen (137 patients), one assessing helium-enriched air, and one assessing furosemide. Four trials evaluated nonpharmacologic interventions (403 patients). The administration of subcutaneous morphine resulted in a significant reduction in dyspnea Visual Analog Scale (VAS) compared with placebo. No difference was observed in dyspnea VAS score when nebulized morphine was compared with subcutaneous morphine, although patients preferred the nebulized route. The addition of benzodiazepines to morphine was significantly more effective than morphine alone, without additional adverse effects. Oxygen was not superior to air for alleviating dyspnea, except for patients with hypoxemia. Nursing-led interventions improved breathlessness. Acupuncture was not beneficial. CONCLUSION Our review supports the use of opioids for dyspnea relief in cancer patients. The use of supplemental oxygen to alleviate dyspnea can be recommended only in patients with hypoxemia. Nursing-led nonpharmacologic interventions seem valuable. Only a few studies addressing this question were performed. Thus, further studies evaluating interventions for alleviating dyspnea are warranted.

Clinical benefit and quality of life in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine versus gemcitabine alone: a randomized multicenter phase III clinical trial--SAKK 44/00-CECOG/PAN.1.3.001.

PURPOSE To compare clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (Cap) versus single-agent Gem for advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral Cap 650 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks or until progression. CBR criteria and QOL indicators were assessed over this period. CBR was defined as improvement from baseline for >or= 4 consecutive weeks in pain (pain intensity or analgesic consumption) and Karnofsky performance status, stability in one but improvement in the other, or stability in pain and performance status but improvement in weight. RESULTS Of 319 patients, 19% treated with GemCap and 20% treated with Gem experienced a CBR, with a median duration of 9.5 and 6.5 weeks, respectively (P < .02); 54% of patients treated with GemCap and 60% treated with Gem had no CBR (remaining patients were not assessable). There was no treatment difference in QOL (n = 311). QOL indicators were improving under chemotherapy (P < .05). These changes differed by the time to failure, with a worsening 1 to 2 months before treatment failure (all P < .05). CONCLUSION There is no indication of a difference in CBR or QOL between GemCap and Gem. Regardless of their initial condition, some patients experience an improvement in QOL on chemotherapy, followed by a worsening before treatment failure.

Doxorubicin-induced ovarian toxicity

BackgroundYoung cancer patients may occasionally face infertility and premature gonadal failure. Apart from its direct effect on follicles and oocytes, chemotherapy may induce ovarian toxicity via an impact on the entire ovary. The role of doxorubicin in potential ovarian failure remains obscure. Our intention was to elucidate doxorubicin-related toxicity within ovaries.MethodsFemale mice were injected intraperitoneally with 7.5 or 10 mg/kg doxorubicin and their ovaries were visualized in vivo by high resolution MRI, one day and one month following treatment. Ovaries of other treated mice were excised and weighed at the same post-treatment intervals. Ovarian histological sections were stained for TUNEL or active caspase-3 and follicles were counted and categorized. Ovulation rates were evaluated in superovulated female mice treated with doxorubicin.ResultsA single injection of doxorubicin resulted in a major reduction in both ovarian size and weight that lasted even one month post treatment. A dramatic reduction in ovulation rate was observed one week after treatment, followed by a partial recovery at one month. Histological examination revealed positive staining of TUNEL and active caspase-3. We observed a significant reduction in the population of secondary and primordial follicles one month following treatment.ConclusionsOur results may imply a mechanism of chemotherapy-induced ovarian toxicity, manifested by reduced ovulation and accompanied by a reduction in ovarian size, caused probably by an acute insult to the ovary.

Pharmacological interventions for fertility preservation during chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The rate of chemotherapy-induced ovarian failure (CIOF) has been reported as 14–100% and is age- and agent-dependent. The role of GnRH analogs (GnRHa) and oral contraceptives (OC) in the prevention of CIOF is questionable. We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of studies assessing the efficacy of hormonal interventions in reducing CIOF in cancer or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients treated with chemotherapy. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and conference proceedings were searched until October 2009. From 504 potentially relevant references, 21 comparative studies were included for review and analysis. Data were collected to determine the risk ratio (RR) for amenorrhea, FSH levels, pregnancy rate, and biomarkers for ovarian reserve. Sixteen studies (SLE: 4 studies, 85 patients; malignancy: 12 studies, 596 patients) which assessed GnRHa for fertility preservation prior to chemotherapy were included in the meta-analysis. Five studies which evaluated the use of OC were systematically reviewed. Meta-analysis revealed that GnRHa are effective in reducing amenorrhea rates in all patients (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.14–0.49). Pregnancy rate was higher in the GnRHa arm. The advantage of GnRHa was shown only in observational studies, but not in randomized controlled trials. Biomarkers for ovarian reserve were similar in both arms. Studies evaluating the efficacy of oral contraceptives in preserving ovarian function showed inconclusive results. GnRHa appears to improve menstruation resumption. Nevertheless, randomized prospective trials are less conclusive for their real value in conserving ovarian reserve and pregnancy. Large-scale prospective randomized trials are warranted to evaluate the role of GnRHa in preventing CIOF.

Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine as first-line treatment for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: interim efficacy results of the randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 TURANDOT trial

BACKGROUND Randomised phase 3 trials in metastatic breast cancer have shown that combining bevacizumab with either paclitaxel or capecitabine significantly improves progression-free survival and response rate compared with chemotherapy alone but the relative efficacy of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine has not been investigated. We compared the efficacy of the two regimens. METHODS In this open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial, patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had received no chemotherapy for advanced disease were randomised (by computer-generated sequence; 1:1 ratio; block size six; stratified by hormone receptor status, country, and menopausal status) to receive either intravenous bevacizumab (10 mg/kg on days 1 and 15) plus intravenous paclitaxel (90 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15) repeated every 4 weeks (paclitaxel group) or intravenous bevacizumab (15 mg/kg on day 1) plus oral capecitabine (1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14) repeated every 3 weeks (capecitabine group) until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Treatment allocation was not masked because of the differences in routes of administration and cycle lengths. The primary objective was to show non-inferior overall survival with bevacizumab plus capecitabine versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel. We report results of an interim overall survival analysis, which was planned for after 175 deaths in the per-protocol population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00600340. FINDINGS Between Sept 10, 2008, and Aug 30, 2010, we randomised 564 patients (paclitaxel group n=285; capecitabine group n=279) from 51 centres in 12 countries. The per-protocol population consisted of 533 patients (paclitaxel group n=268; capecitabine group n=265). After median follow-up of 18·6 months (IQR 14·9-24·7), 181 patients in the per-protocol population had died (89 [33%] in the paclitaxel group; 92 [35%] in the capecitabine group). The hazard ratio [HR] for overall survival was 1·04 (97·5% repeated CI -∞ to 1·69; p=0·059); the non-inferiority criterion of the interim analysis (interim α=0·00105) was not met. More patients who received bevacizumab plus paclitaxel had an objective response than did those who received bevacizumab plus capecitabine (125 [44%] of 285 patients vs 76 [27%] of 279; p<0·0001). Similarly, progression-free survival was significantly longer in the paclitaxel group than in the capecitabine group (median progression-free survival 11·0 months [95% CI 10·4-12·9] vs 8·1 months [7·1-9·2]; HR 1·36 [95% CI 1·09-1·68], p=0·0052). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (51 [18%]), peripheral neuropathy (39 [14%]), and leucopenia (20 [7%]) in the paclitaxel group and hand-foot syndrome (44 [16%]), hypertension (16 [6%]), and diarrhoea (15 [5%]) in the capecitabine group. One treatment-related death occurred in the paclitaxel group; no deaths in the capecitabine group were deemed to be treatment-related. INTERPRETATION In this planned interim analysis, the non-inferiority criterion was not met and overall survival results are inconclusive. Final results are expected in 2014. Progression-free survival was better, and more patients achieved an objective response, with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel than with bevacizumab plus capecitabine. Efficacy results in both groups were consistent with previous reports. FUNDING Central European Cooperative Oncology Group; Roche.

Efficacy and safety of olaparib monotherapy in germline BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with advanced ovarian cancer and three or more lines of prior therapy

OBJECTIVE The efficacy and safety of olaparib, an oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, was investigated in a subgroup of patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutated (gBRCA1/2m) advanced ovarian cancer who had received ≥3 prior lines of chemotherapy. Primary data from this Phase II study (Study 42, ClinicalTrials.govNCT01078662) have been reported previously. METHODS Eligible patients were treated with oral olaparib 400mg bid capsule monotherapy until disease progression according to RECIST v1.1. Objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR) were assessed for patients with measurable disease at baseline. Safety and tolerability were assessed for all patients by adverse event (AE) incidence and changes in laboratory parameters. Platinum resistance status was obtained retrospectively, and responses to olaparib evaluated. RESULTS In patients with gBRCA1/2m ovarian cancer, 154/193 (80%) had received ≥3 prior lines of chemotherapy, of whom 137/154 (89%) had measurable disease at baseline. ORR was 34% (46/137; 95% confidence interval [CI] 26-42) and median DoR was 7.9 (95% CI 5.6-9.6) months. ORR in platinum-resistant tumors was 30%. Median DoR for platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant disease was similar: 8.2months (95% CI 5.6-13.5) compared with 8.0months (4.8-14.8), respectively. Six of the 193 (3%) patients had an AE with an outcome of death. None of these AEs at time of occurrence was considered causally related to olaparib. CONCLUSION Following ≥3 prior lines of chemotherapy, olaparib 400mg bid (capsule form) monotherapy demonstrated notable antitumor activity in patients with gBRCA1/2m advanced ovarian cancer. No new safety signals were identified.