Sandrine Marreaud

Pazopanib for metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma (PALETTE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND Pazopanib, a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has single-agent activity in patients with advanced non-adipocytic soft-tissue sarcoma. We investigated the effect of pazopanib on progression-free survival in patients with metastatic non-adipocytic soft-tissue sarcoma after failure of standard chemotherapy. METHODS This phase 3 study was done in 72 institutions, across 13 countries. Patients with angiogenesis inhibitor-naive, metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma, progressing despite previous standard chemotherapy, were randomly assigned by an interactive voice randomisation system in a 2:1 ratio in permuted blocks (with block sizes of six) to receive either pazopanib 800 mg once daily or placebo, with no subsequent cross-over. Patients, investigators who gave the treatment, those assessing outcomes, and those who did the analysis were masked to the allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00753688. FINDINGS 372 patients were registered and 369 were randomly assigned to receive pazopanib (n=246) or placebo (n=123). Median progression-free survival was 4·6 months (95% CI 3·7-4·8) for pazopanib compared with 1·6 months (0·9-1·8) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·31, 95% CI 0·24-0·40; p<0·0001). Overall survival was 12·5 months (10·6-14·8) with pazopanib versus 10·7 months (8·7-12·8) with placebo (HR 0·86, 0·67-1·11; p=0·25). The most common adverse events were fatigue (60 in the placebo group [49%] vs 155 in the pazopanib group [65%]), diarrhoea (20 [16%] vs 138 [58%]), nausea (34 [28%] vs 129 [54%]), weight loss (25 [20%] vs 115 [48%]), and hypertension (8 [7%] vs 99 [41%]). The median relative dose intensity was 100% for placebo and 96% for pazopanib. INTERPRETATION Pazopanib is a new treatment option for patients with metastatic non-adipocytic soft-tissue sarcoma after previous chemotherapy. FUNDING GlaxoSmithKline.

Pazopanib, a Multikinase Angiogenesis Inhibitor, in Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma: A Phase II Study From the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer–Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (EORTC Study 62043)

PURPOSE Given the importance of angiogenesis in soft tissue sarcoma (STS), pazopanib, an oral angiogenesis inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and platelet-derived growth factor receptor, was explored in patients with advanced STS. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with intermediate- or high-grade advanced STS who were ineligible for chemotherapy or who had received no more than two prior cytotoxic agents for advanced disease, who had documented progression, who had adequate performance status, and who had good organ function were eligible. Pazopanib 800 mg was given daily. The primary end point was progression-free rate at 12 weeks (PFR(12 weeks)). Secondary end points were response, safety, and overall survival. Four different strata were studied: adipocytic STS, leiomyosarcomas, synovial sarcomas, and other STS types. A Simon two-stage design was applied (P1 = 40%; P0 = 20%; alpha = beta = .1) for each stratum. Results One hundred forty-two patients were enrolled. The adipocytic STS stratum was closed after the first stage, given insufficient activity (PFR(12 weeks), five [26%] of19). PFR(12 weeks) was 18 (44%) of 41 patients in the leiomyosarcoma cohort, 18 (49%) of 37 in the synovial sarcomas, and 16 (39%) of 41 in the other STS types. Compared with historical controls who were treated with second-line chemotherapy, progression-free and overall survivals were prolonged in the three cohorts in which the primary end point was reached. The most frequent drug-related toxicities were hypertension, fatigue, hypopigmentation, and nausea. Other toxicities included liver enzyme elevations, myelosuppression, and proteinuria, all of which were mostly grades 1 to 2. The most frequent grades 3 to 4 toxicities were hyperbilirubinemia (6.3%), hypertension (7.7%), and fatigue (7.7%). CONCLUSION Pazopanib is well tolerated in patients with relapsed, advanced STS and demonstrates interesting activity that warrants additional study in patients with leiomyosarcomas, synovial sarcomas, and other STS types.

Randomized Phase III Study Comparing Paclitaxel/Cisplatin/ Gemcitabine and Gemcitabine/Cisplatin in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Cancer Without Prior Systemic Therapy: EORTC Intergroup Study 30987

PURPOSE The combination of gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) is a standard regimen in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer. A phase I/II study suggested that a three-drug regimen that included paclitaxel had greater antitumor activity and might improve survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS We conducted a randomized phase III study to compare paclitaxel/cisplatin/gemcitabine (PCG) with GC in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate, and toxicity. RESULTS From 2001 to 2004, 626 patients were randomly assigned; 312 patients were assigned to PCG, and 314 patients were assigned to GC. After a median follow-up of 4.6 years, the median OS was 15.8 months on PCG versus 12.7 months on GC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; P = .075). OS in the subgroup of all eligible patients was significantly longer on PCG (3.2 months; HR, 0.82; P = .03), as was the case in patients with bladder primary tumors. PFS was not significantly longer on PCG (HR, 0.87; P = .11). Overall response rate was 55.5% on PCG and 43.6% on GC (P = .0031). Both treatments were well tolerated, with more thrombocytopenia and bleeding on GC than PCG (11.4% v 6.8%, respectively; P = .05) and more febrile neutropenia on PCG than GC (13.2% v 4.3%, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSION The addition of paclitaxel to GC provides a higher response rate and a 3.1-month survival benefit that did not reach statistical significance. Novel approaches will be required to obtain major improvements in survival of incurable urothelial cancer.

Doxorubicin alone versus intensified doxorubicin plus ifosfamide for first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma: a randomised controlled phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Effective targeted treatment is unavailable for most sarcomas and doxorubicin and ifosfamide-which have been used to treat soft-tissue sarcoma for more than 30 years-still have an important role. Whether doxorubicin alone or the combination of doxorubicin and ifosfamide should be used routinely is still controversial. We assessed whether dose intensification of doxorubicin with ifosfamide improves survival of patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma compared with doxorubicin alone. METHODS We did this phase 3 randomised controlled trial (EORTC 62012) at 38 hospitals in ten countries. We included patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma, age 18-60 years with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. They were randomly assigned (1:1) by the minimisation method to either doxorubicin (75 mg/m(2) by intravenous bolus on day 1 or 72 h continuous intravenous infusion) or intensified doxorubicin (75 mg/m(2); 25 mg/m(2) per day, days 1-3) plus ifosfamide (10 g/m(2) over 4 days with mesna and pegfilgrastim) as first-line treatment. Randomisation was stratified by centre, performance status (0 vs 1), age (<50 vs ≥50 years), presence of liver metastases, and histopathological grade (2 vs 3). Patients were treated every 3 weeks till progression or unacceptable toxic effects for up to six cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00061984. FINDINGS Between April 30, 2003, and May 25, 2010, 228 patients were randomly assigned to receive doxorubicin and 227 to receive doxorubicin and ifosfamide. Median follow-up was 56 months (IQR 31-77) in the doxorubicin only group and 59 months (36-72) in the combination group. There was no significant difference in overall survival between groups (median overall survival 12·8 months [95·5% CI 10·5-14·3] in the doxorubicin group vs 14·3 months [12·5-16·5] in the doxorubicin and ifosfamide group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·83 [95·5% CI 0·67-1·03]; stratified log-rank test p=0·076). Median progression-free survival was significantly higher for the doxorubicin and ifosfamide group (7·4 months [95% CI 6·6-8·3]) than for the doxorubicin group (4·6 months [2·9-5·6]; HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·60-0·90], stratified log-rank test p=0·003). More patients in the doxorubicin and ifosfamide group than in the doxorubicin group had an overall response (60 [26%] of 227 patients vs 31 [14%] of 228; p<0·0006). The most common grade 3 and 4 toxic effects-which were all more common with doxorubicin and ifosfamide than with doxorubicin alone-were leucopenia (97 [43%] of 224 patients vs 40 [18%] of 223 patients), neutropenia (93 [42%] vs 83 [37%]), febrile neutropenia (103 (46%) vs 30 [13%]), anaemia (78 [35%] vs 10 [5%]), and thrombocytopenia (75 [33%]) vs one [<1%]). INTERPRETATION Our results do not support the use of intensified doxorubicin and ifosfamide for palliation of advanced soft-tissue sarcoma unless the specific goal is tumour shrinkage. These findings should help individualise the care of patients with this disease. FUNDING Cancer Research UK, EORTC Charitable Trust, UK NHS, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Amgen.

Adjuvant chemotherapy with doxorubicin, ifosfamide, and lenograstim for resected soft-tissue sarcoma (EORTC 62931): A multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND The effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on survival for resected soft-tissue sarcoma remains unknown. We investigated the effect of intensive adjuvant chemotherapy on survival in patients after resection of high-risk soft-tissue sarcomas. METHODS In this multicentre randomised trial, patients with macroscopically resected, Trojani grade II-III soft-tissue sarcomas at any site, no metastases, performance status lower than 2 and aged between 16 and 70 years were eligible within 4 weeks of definitive surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to receive adjuvant chemotherapy or no chemotherapy (control group). Randomisation was done with a minimisation technique, stratified by hospital, site of primary tumour, tumour size, planned radiotherapy, and isolated limb perfusion therapy. Chemotherapy consisted of five cycles of doxorubicin 75 mg/m(2), ifosfamide 5 g/m(2), and lenograstim every 3 weeks. Patients in both groups received radiotherapy if the resection was marginal or the tumour recurrent. The primary endpoint was overall survival and analyses were done by intention to treat. The final results are presented. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00002641. FINDINGS Between February, 1995, and December, 2003, 351 patients were randomly assigned to the adjuvant chemotherapy group (175 patients) or to the control group (176). 258 (73%) of 351 patients received radiotherapy, 129 in each group. Overall survival did not differ significantly between groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0·94 [95% CI 0·68-1·31], p=0·72) nor did relapse-free survival (HR 0·91 [0·67-1·22], p=0·51). 5-year overall survival rate was 66·5% (58·8-73·0) in the chemotherapy group and 67·8% (60·3-74·2) in the control group. Chemotherapy was well tolerated, with 130 (80%) of 163 patients who started it completing all five cycles. 16 (10%) patients had grade 3 or 4 fever or infection, but no deaths due to toxic effects were recorded. INTERPRETATION Adjuvant chemotherapy with doxorubicin and ifosfamide in resected soft-tissue sarcoma showed no benefit in relapse-free survival or overall survival. Future studies should focus on patients with larger, grade III, and extremity sarcomas.

Final Results of an EORTC-GU Cancers Group Randomized Study of Maintenance Bacillus Calmette-Guérin in Intermediate- and High-risk Ta, T1 Papillary Carcinoma of the Urinary Bladder: One-third Dose Versus Full Dose and 1 Year Versus 3 Years of Maintenance

BACKGROUND The optimal dose and duration of intravesical bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) in the treatment of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) are controversial. OBJECTIVE To determine if a one-third dose (1/3D) is not inferior to the full dose (FD), if 1 yr of maintenance is not inferior to 3 yr of maintenance, and if 1/3D and 1 yr of maintenance are associated with less toxicity. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS After transurethral resection, intermediate- and high-risk NMIBC patients were randomized to one of four BCG groups: 1/3D-1 yr, 1/3D-3 yr, FD-1 yr, and FD-3 yr. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The trial was designed as a noninferiority study with the null hypothesis of a 10% decrease in the disease-free rate at 5 yr. Times to events were estimated using cumulative incidence functions and compared using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS In an intention-to-treat analysis of 1355 patients with a median follow-up of 7.1 yr, there were no significant differences in toxicity between 1/3D and FD. The null hypotheses of inferiority of the disease-free interval for both 1/3D and 1 yr could not be rejected. We found that 1/3D-1 yr is suboptimal compared with FD-3 yr (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.94; p=0.01). Intermediate-risk patients treated with FD do not benefit from an additional 2 yr of BCG. In high-risk patients, 3 yr is associated with a reduction in recurrence (HR: 1.61; 95% CI, 1.13-2.30; p=0.009) but only when given at FD. There were no differences in progression or survival. CONCLUSIONS There were no differences in toxicity between 1/3D and FD. Intermediate-risk patients should be treated with FD-1 yr. In high-risk patients, FD-3 yr reduces recurrences as compared with FD-1 yr but not progressions or deaths. The benefit of the two additional years of maintenance should be weighed against its added costs and inconvenience. TRIAL REGISTRATION This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00002990; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT00002990.

Paclitaxel in patients with advanced angiosarcomas of soft tissue: a retrospective study of the EORTC soft tissue and bone sarcoma group.

RATIONALE Angiosarcomas of soft tissue represent a heterogenous group of rare sarcomas with specific clinical behaviour and risk factors. Paclitaxel appears to induce tumour control in a higher proportion of patients with angiosarcoma, as compared to other sarcomas. The objective of this retrospective study was to assess the anti-tumour activity of this compound in a multicentre setting. METHOD Clinical data from patients with angiosarcomas of soft tissue treated with single agent paclitaxel were collected from the centres of the soft tissue and bone sarcoma group of EORTC, using a standardised data collection form. Paclitaxel could be given every three weeks, or weekly. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS software. RESULTS Data from 32 patients were collected from 10 centres. There were 17 males, 15 females, with a median age of 60.4 years (range, 25-91). Primary angiosarcomas were located in scalp and face in 8 patients (25%) and at other primary sites in 24 patients (75%). All patients had intermediate (n=13) or high grade (n=19) primary tumours. Thirteen (40%) patients had been pretreated with doxorubicin-based first-line-chemotherapy and three of them (9%) had also received second-line chemotherapy with ifosfamide. Eleven (34%) patients had been irradiated before as treatment for angiosarcoma. In 8 (25%) patients, the angiosarcoma occurred at sites of prior radiation therapy for other malignancies. The response rate was 62% (21/32) in the whole series, 75% (6/8) in scalp angiosarcomas and 58% (14/24) in other primary sites. The median time to progression was 7.6 months (range, 1-42) for the whole group. For the face/scalp group it was 9.5 months, and for patients with angiosarcomas at other sites it was 7.0 months, respectively. CONCLUSION Paclitaxel was found to be an active agent in angiosarcoma of soft tissue in this retrospective analysis. These results need to be confirmed in a prospective randomised phase II study.

Immediate versus deferred chemotherapy after radical cystectomy in patients with pT3?pT4 or N+ M0 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (EORTC 30994): an intergroup, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder have poor survival after cystectomy. The EORTC 30994 trial aimed to compare immediate versus deferred cisplatin-based combination chemotherapy after radical cystectomy in patients with pT3-pT4 or N+ M0 urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. METHODS This intergroup, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial recruited patients from hospitals across Europe and Canada. Eligible patients had histologically proven urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, pT3-pT4 disease or node positive (pN1-3) M0 disease after radical cystectomy and bilateral lymphadenectomy, with no evidence of any microscopic residual disease. Within 90 days of cystectomy, patients were centrally randomly assigned (1:1) by minimisation to either immediate adjuvant chemotherapy (four cycles of gemcitabine plus cisplatin, high-dose methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin [high-dose MVAC], or MVAC) or six cycles of deferred chemotherapy at relapse, with stratification for institution, pT category, and lymph node status according to the number of nodes dissected. Neither patients nor investigators were masked. Overall survival was the primary endpoint; all analyses were by intention to treat. The trial was closed after recruitment of 284 of the planned 660 patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00028756. FINDINGS From April 29, 2002, to Aug 14, 2008, 284 patients were randomly assigned (141 to immediate treatment and 143 to deferred treatment), and followed up until the data cutoff of Aug 21, 2013. After a median follow-up of 7.0 years (IQR 5.2-8.7), 66 (47%) of 141 patients in the immediate treatment group had died compared with 82 (57%) of 143 in the deferred treatment group. No significant improvement in overall survival was noted with immediate treatment when compared with deferred treatment (adjusted HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.56-1.08; p=0.13). Immediate treatment significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with deferred treatment (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.4-0.73, p<0.0001), with 5-year progression-free survival of 47.6% (95% CI 38.8-55.9) in the immediate treatment group and 31.8% (24.2-39.6) in the deferred treatment group. Grade 3-4 myelosuppression was reported in 33 (26%) of 128 patients who received treatment in the immediate chemotherapy group versus 24 (35%) of 68 patients who received treatment in the deferred chemotherapy group, neutropenia occurred in 49 (38%) versus 36 (53%) patients, respectively, and thrombocytopenia in 36 (28%) versus 26 (38%). Two patients died due to toxicity, one in each group. INTERPRETATION Our data did not show a significant improvement in overall survival with immediate versus deferred chemotherapy after radical cystectomy and bilateral lymphadenectomy for patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. However, the trial is limited in power, and it is possible that some subgroups of patients might still benefit from immediate chemotherapy. An updated individual patient data meta-analysis and biomarker research are needed to further elucidate the potential for survival benefit in subgroups of patients. FUNDING Lilly, Canadian Cancer Society Research.

Activity of eribulin mesylate in patients with soft-tissue sarcoma: a phase 2 study in four independent histological subtypes

BACKGROUND Eribulin inhibits microtubule dynamics via a mechanism distinct from that of other tubulin-targeting drugs, inducing cell-cycle arrest and tumour regression in preclinical models. We assessed the activity and safety of eribulin in four strata of patients with different types of soft-tissue sarcoma. METHODS In this non-randomised multicentre phase 2 study, patients were included if they had progressive or high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma and had received no more than one previous combination chemotherapy or up to two single drugs for advanced disease. They were stratified by the type of soft-tissue sarcoma they had. Eribulin was given intravenously at a concentration of 1·4 mg/m(2) over 2-5 min at days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks to primarily assess progression-free survival at 12 weeks (RECIST 1.0), which we evaluated in all patients who started treatment. Safety analyses were done in all patients who started treatment. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00413192. FINDINGS Of 128 patients included, 37 had adipocytic sarcoma, 40 had leiomyosarcoma, 19 had synovial sarcoma, and 32 had other sarcomas. 12 (31·6%) of 38 patients with leiomyosarcoma evaluable for the primary endpoint, 15 (46·9%) of 32 patients with adipocytic sarcoma, four (21·1%) of 19 with synovial sarcoma, and five (19·2%) of 26 in other sarcomas were progression-free at 12 weeks. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (66 [52%] of 127 patients evaluable for safety), leucopenia (44 [35%]), anaemia (nine [7%]), fatigue (nine [7%]), febrile neutropenia (eight [6%]), abnormal alanine aminotransferase concentrations (six [5%]), mucositis (four [3%]), and sensory neuropathy (four [3%]). INTERPRETATION Eribulin deserves further study in this setting, based on progression-free survival at 12 weeks in leiomyosarcoma and adipocytic sarcoma. FUNDING Eisai Limited, Hatfield, UK.

EORTC-GU group expert opinion on metastatic renal cell cancer

There is no consensus on the detailed surveillance of renal cell cancer (RCC) patients after radical resection of the kidney. Where relapse is unlikely, one reasonable option would be to confine investigations to chest X-ray and abdominal ultrasound -- carried out at 3-month intervals during the first year, but less frequently thereafter. These investigations could be supplemented by annual computerised tomography (CT) of the chest and abdomen. Where risk is intermediate or high, more frequent CT should be undertaken, taking into account the risks of repeated radiation exposure. Since the emergence of new and more effective treatments for metastatic disease, follow-up has tended to become more challenging not only with respect to disease assessment but also for evaluation of toxicity [Level 5]. The diagnostic work-up in metastatic RCC should include a history, physical examination and comprehensive blood screen. In addition, patients to be treated with targeted agents should have a thyroid function test. In patients with a relevant clinical history or who are otherwise at risk, cardiac function should be assessed, and this is also advisable in asymptomatic patients [Level 2b]. Nephrectomy is an important component of the multimodality treatment of mRCC. This procedure induces spontaneous regression of metastases in a small number of patients [Level 4]. More generally, it improves the survival of patients who subsequently receive immunotherapy [Level 1]. However, it is not yet known whether this benefit is also seen in patients treated with targeted agents [Level 2b]. Certain patients with metastases (even at multiple sites) have lesions that are resectable. Surgery is potentially curative in these cases and can be undertaken prior to use of cytokines or targeted agents [Level 2b]. Vaccine-based therapies may have potential, particularly when disease burden is low [Level 4]. The outcome of ongoing trials is awaited. Metastatic RCC responds, albeit at a low rate, to cytokines. These agents may be helpful for a subgroup of patients. However, for the great majority, and certainly for those with intermediate- or poor-risk disease, cytokines confer no benefit [Level 1b]. Choice of initial medical management in patients with metastatic clear-cell RCC should be guided by the pivotal, randomised studies. On the evidence available, the first-line therapy in patients with good- or intermediate-risk mRCC should be either sunitinib [Level 1b] or bevacizumab plus interferon [Level 1a]. In patients ineligible for sunitinib or bevacizumab plus interferon, sorafenib is an option, as is high-dose interleukin 2 if performance status is sufficiently good [Level 2b]. In patients with poor prognosis (as defined in the pivotal trial), temsirolimus is recommended [Level 1b]. In this group, sunitinib could be an alternative [Level 2b]. The role of targeted agents in the treatment of patients with RCC of non-clear-cell histologies remains to be established. In cytokine refractory patients, sorafenib is recommended [Level 1b]. Everolimus is the agent of choice when patients have progressed on a tyrosine kinase inhibitor [Level 1b].