Semir Beslija

Phase III, Open-Label, Randomized Study Comparing Concurrent Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin and Radiation Followed by Adjuvant Gemcitabine and Cisplatin Versus Concurrent Cisplatin and Radiation in Patients With Stage IIB to IVA Carcinoma of the Cervix

PURPOSE To determine whether addition of gemcitabine to concurrent cisplatin chemoradiotherapy and as adjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin improves progression-free survival (PFS) at 3 years compared with current standard of care in locally advanced cervical cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-naive patients with stage IIB to IVA disease and Karnofsky performance score ≥ 70 were randomly assigned to arm A (cisplatin 40 mg/m(2) and gemcitabine 125 mg/m(2) weekly for 6 weeks with concurrent external-beam radiotherapy [XRT] 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions, followed by brachytherapy [BCT] 30 to 35 Gy in 96 hours, and then two adjuvant 21-day cycles of cisplatin, 50 mg/m(2) on day 1, plus gemcitabine, 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8) or to arm B (cisplatin and concurrent XRT followed by BCT only; dosing same as for arm A). RESULTS Between May 2002 and March 2004, 515 patients were enrolled (arm A, n = 259; arm B, n = 256). PFS at 3 years was significantly improved in arm A versus arm B (74.4% v 65.0%, respectively; P = .029), as were overall PFS (log-rank P = .0227; hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.95), overall survival (log-rank P = .0224; HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.95), and time to progressive disease (log-rank P = .0012; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.79). Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were more frequent in arm A than in arm B (86.5% v 46.3%, respectively; P < .001), including two deaths possibly related to treatment toxicity in arm A. CONCLUSION Gemcitabine plus cisplatin chemoradiotherapy followed by BCT and adjuvant gemcitabine/cisplatin chemotherapy improved survival outcomes with increased but clinically manageable toxicity when compared with standard treatment.

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.

Gemcitabine, Epirubicin, and Paclitaxel Versus Fluorouracil, Epirubicin, and Cyclophosphamide As First-Line Chemotherapy in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Central European Cooperative Oncology Group International, Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Phase III Trial

BACKGROUND The objectives of this phase III trial were to compare the time to progressive disease (TtPD), overall response rate (ORR), overall survival, and toxicity of gemcitabine, epirubicin, and paclitaxel (GET) versus fluorouracil (FU), epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC) as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Female patients aged 18 to 75 years with stage IV and measurable MBC were enrolled and randomly assigned to either gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2), days 1 and 4), epirubicin (90 mg/m(2), day 1), and paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2), day 1) or FU (500 mg/m(2), day 1), epirubicin (90 mg/m(2), day 1), and cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m(2), day 1). Both regimens were administered every 21 days for a maximum of eight cycles. RESULTS Between October 1999 and November 2002, 259 patients (GET, n = 124; FEC, n = 135) were enrolled. Baseline characteristics were well balanced across treatment arms. After a median of 20.4 months of follow-up, median TtPD was 9.1 months and 9.0 months in the GET and FEC arms, respectively (P = .557). The ORR was 62.3% in the GET arm (n = 114) and 51.2% in the FEC arm (n = 129; P = .093). Grade 3 and 4 toxicities, including neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, stomatitis, neurosensory toxicity, and allergy, occurred significantly more often in the GET arm. CONCLUSION No significant differences in terms of TtPD and ORR were observed between the two treatment arms. Treatment-related toxicity was higher in the GET arm.

Safety results from a phase III study (TURANDOT trial by CECOG) of first-line bevacizumab in combination with capecitabine or paclitaxel for HER-2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND We report safety data from a randomised, phase III study (CECOG/BC.1.3.005) evaluating first-line bevacizumab plus paclitaxel or capecitabine for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients aged ≥18 years with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative breast adenocarcinoma were randomised to Arm A: bevacizumab 10 mg/kg days 1 and 15; paclitaxel 90 mg/m(2) days 1, 8, and 15, every 4 weeks; or Arm B: bevacizumab 15 mg/kg day 1; capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) b.i.d., days 1-14, every 3 weeks, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or consent withdrawal. RESULTS A post hoc interim safety analysis included 561 patients (Arm A: 284, Arm B: 277). The regimens demonstrated similar frequencies of all-grade and serious adverse events (SAEs), but different safety profiles. Treatment-related events occurred in 85.2% (Arm A) and 78.0% (Arm B) of patients. Fatigue was most common in Arm A (30.6% versus 23.5% Arm B), and hand-foot syndrome (HFS) most common in Arm B (49.5% versus 2.5% Arm A). Diarrhoea (Arm A: 0.4%, Arm B: 1.4%) and pulmonary embolism (Arm A: 0.7%, Arm B: 1.1%) were the most frequently reported SAEs. CONCLUSION These findings are in-line with safety data for bevacizumab plus paclitaxel or capecitabine, reported in previous phase III trials.

Consensus on Medical Treatment of Metastatic Breast Cancer

Semir Beslija1, Jacques Bonneterre2, Harold J. Burstein18, Michael Gnant3, Pamela Goodwin6, Volker Heinemann7, Jacek Jassem9, Wolfgang Köstler4, Michael Krainer4, Silvie Menard10, David Miles11, Lubos Petruzelka12, Kurt Possinger8, Peter Schmid8, Edward Stadtmauer13, Martin Stockler15, Simon Van Belle17, Charles Vogel14, Nicholas Wilcken16, Christoph Wiltschke4, Christoph C. Zielinski4, and Heinz Zwierzina5 1Institute of Oncology, Sarajevo, Bosnia; 2Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France; 3Department of Surgery, 4Clinical Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine I, University Hospital, Vienna; 5Department of Medicine, University Hospital, Innsbruck, Austria; 6Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada; 7Klinikum Großhadern, München; 8Med. Klinik der Charite, Berlin, Germany; 9Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Gdansk, Poland; 10Istituto Tumori, Milan, Italy; 11Guy’s & Thomas’ Hospital, London, Great Britain; 12Oncology Department, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic; 13University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; 14Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA; 15Sydney Cancer Centre RPAH & CRGH, Department of Medicine, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown NSW; 16Department of Medical Oncology and Palliative Care, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia; 17Oncologisch Centrum, Universitair Ziekenhuis, Gent, Belgium; 18Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, USA

Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine as first-line treatment for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (TURANDOT): primary endpoint results of a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND The randomised phase 3 TURANDOT trial compared two approved bevacizumab-containing regimens for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in terms of efficacy, safety, and quality of life. The interim analysis did not confirm non-inferior overall survival (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 1·04; 97·5% repeated CI [RCI] -∞ to 1·69). Here we report final results of our study aiming to show non-inferior overall survival with first-line bevacizumab plus capecitabine versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. METHODS In this multinational, open-label, randomised phase 3 TURANDOT trial, patients aged 18 years or older who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2 and measurable or non-measurable HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer who had received no previous chemotherapy for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer were stratified and randomly assigned (1:1) using permuted blocks of size six to either bevacizumab plus paclitaxel (bevacizumab 10 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 plus paclitaxel 90 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks) or bevacizumab plus capecitabine (bevacizumab 15 mg/kg on day 1 plus capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 every 3 weeks) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Stratification factors were oestrogen or progesterone receptor status, country, and menopausal status. The primary objective was to show non-inferior overall survival with bevacizumab plus capecitabine versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel in the per-protocol population by rejecting the null hypothesis of inferiority (HR ≥1·33) using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00600340. FINDINGS Between Sept 10, 2008, and Aug 30, 2010, 564 patients were randomised, representing the intent-to-treat population. The per-protocol population comprised 531 patients (266 in the bevacizumab plus paclitaxel group and 265 in the bevacizumab plus capecitabine group). At the final overall survival analysis after 183 deaths (69%) in 266 patients receiving bevacizumab plus paclitaxel and 201 (76%) in 265 receiving bevacizumab plus capecitabine in the per-protocol population, median overall survival was 30·2 months (95% CI 25·6-32·6 months) versus 26·1 months (22·3-29·0), respectively. The stratified HR was 1·02 (97·5% RCI -∞ to 1·26; repeated p=0·0070), indicating non-inferiority. The unstratified Cox model (HR 1·13 [97·5% RCI -∞ to 1·39]; repeated p=0·061) did not support the primary analysis. Intent-to-treat analyses were consistent with the per-protocol results. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (54 [19%] of 284 patients in the bevacizumab plus paclitaxel group vs 5 [2%] of 277 patients in the bevacizumab plus capecitabine group), hand-foot syndrome (1 [<1%] vs 43 [16%]), peripheral neuropathy (39 [14%] vs 1 [<1%]), leucopenia (20 [7%] vs 1 [<1%]), and hypertension (12 [4%] vs 16 [6%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 65 (23%) of 284 patients receiving bevacizumab plus paclitaxel and 68 (25%) of 277 receiving bevacizumab plus capecitabine. Deaths in two (1%) of 284 patients in the bevacizumab plus paclitaxel group were deemed by the investigator to be treatment-related. No treatment-related deaths occurred in the bevacizumab plus capecitabine group. INTERPRETATION Bevacizumab plus capecitabine represents a valid first-line treatment option for HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer, offering good tolerability without compromising overall survival compared with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel. Although progression-free survival with the bevacizumab plus capecitabine combination is inferior to that noted with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel, we suggest that physicians should consider possible predictive risk factors for overall survival, individuals treatment priorities, and the differing safety profiles. FUNDING Roche.

Selecting first-line bevacizumab-containing therapy for advanced breast cancer: TURANDOT risk factor analyses

Background:The randomised phase III TURANDOT trial compared first-line bevacizumab–paclitaxel (BEV–PAC) vs bevacizumab–capecitabine (BEV–CAP) in HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer (LR/mBC). The interim analysis revealed no difference in overall survival (OS; primary end point) between treatment arms; however, progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate were significantly superior with BEV–PAC. We sought to identify patient populations that may be most appropriately treated with one or other regimen.Methods:Patients with HER2-negative LR/mBC who had received no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease were randomised to either BEV–PAC (bevacizumab 10 mg kg−1 days 1 and 15 plus paclitaxel 90 mg m−2 days 1, 8 and 15 q4w) or BEV–CAP (bevacizumab 15 mg kg−1 day 1 plus capecitabine 1000 mg m−2 bid days 1–14 q3w). The study population was categorised into three cohorts: triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), high-risk hormone receptor-positive (HR+) and low-risk HR+. High- and low-risk HR+ were defined, respectively, as having ⩾2 vs ⩽1 of the following four risk factors: disease-free interval ⩽24 months; visceral metastases; prior (neo)adjuvant anthracycline and/or taxane; and metastases in ⩾3 organs.Results:The treatment effect on OS differed between cohorts. Non-significant OS trends favoured BEV–PAC in the TNBC cohort and BEV–CAP in the low-risk HR+ cohort. In all three cohorts, there was a non-significant PFS trend favouring BEV–PAC. Grade ⩾3 adverse events were consistently less common with BEV–CAP.Conclusions:A simple risk factor index may help in selecting bevacizumab-containing regimens, balancing outcome, safety profile and patient preference. Final OS results are expected in 2015 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00600340).

The Role of Anthracyclines/Anthraquinones in Metastatic Breast Cancer

Anthracyclines are considered to be one of the most active agents in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). At the eqiumolar doses of epirubicin and doxorubicin in MBC there is no difference in either response rates or time to progression but there is a statistically significant reduction in cardiac toxicity and myelosupression. The results received in studies evaluating the role of dose intensity, showed that the increase of dose intensity above the standard dose level (60 mg/m2 for doxorubicin and 90 mg/m2 for epidoxorubicin) in MBC, does not significantly improve outcome and should not be used outside clinical trials. There is no strong evidence that patients with MBC could benefit from aggressive polychemotherapy compared with single-agent treatment with anthracyclines or mitoxantrone. There is statistically significant data that longer treatment improves the duration of responses and the TTP but not an overall survival except in one study. Generally, the toxicities increased with the duration of treatment. The overall efficacy of mitoxantrone appears to be slightly lower than for either doxorubicin or epirubicin whether compared as single agents or in combination with other drugs. This observation has not been made consistently in all trials. The risk of hematologic and cardiotoxic side effects appears to be less common for mitoxantrone than for doxorubicin and epirubicin. The choice of chemotherapy for MBC should be based on tolerability, quality of life, prior treatments, and the patients own opinion. The possibility of participating to the clinical studies has to be given to the very well-informed patients.

Predictive role of hand–foot syndrome in patients receiving first-line capecitabine plus bevacizumab for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer

Background:Correlations between development of hand–foot syndrome (HFS) and efficacy in patients receiving capecitabine (CAP)-containing therapy are reported in the literature. We explored the relationship between HFS and efficacy in patients receiving CAP plus bevacizumab (BEV) in the TURANDOT randomised phase III trial.Methods:Patients with HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer (LR/mBC) who had received no prior chemotherapy for LR/mBC were randomised to BEV plus paclitaxel or BEV–CAP until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. This analysis included patients randomised to BEV–CAP who received ⩾1 CAP dose. Potential associations between HFS and both overall survival (OS; primary end point) and progression-free survival (PFS; secondary end point) were explored using Cox proportional hazards analyses with HFS as a time-dependent covariate (to avoid overestimating the effect of HFS on efficacy). Landmark analyses were also performed.Results:Among 277 patients treated with BEV–CAP, 154 (56%) developed HFS. In multivariate analyses, risk of progression or death was reduced by 44% after the occurrence of HFS; risk of death was reduced by 56%. The magnitude of effect on OS increased with increasing HFS grade. In patients developing HFS within the first 3 months, median PFS from the 3-month landmark was 10.0 months vs 6.2 months in patients without HFS. Two-year OS rates were 63% and 44%, respectively.Conclusions:This exploratory analysis indicates that HFS occurrence is a strong predictor of prolonged PFS and OS in patients receiving BEV–CAP for LR/mBC. Early appearance of HFS may help motivate patients to continue therapy.

G3 A phase III study comparing concurrent gemcitabine (Gem) plus cisplatin (Cis) and radiation followed by adjuvant Gem plus Cis versus concurrent Cis and radiation in patients with stage IIB to IVA carcinoma of the cervix

CRA5507 Background: Cervical cancer is the second-most common cancer among women worldwide, in both incidence and mortality. Current standard therapy for locally advanced disease consists of concurrent Cis and external-beam radiation (XRT). This multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase III trial aimed to improve outcomes, capitalizing on the synergistic activity of Gem, Cis, XRT, and the potential value of adjuvant therapy. METHODS Eligible patients (pts) with bulky stage IIB to IVA, 18-70 years of age, chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-naive, with a Karnofsky Performance Status score ≥70, were randomized to Arm A: Cis 40 mg/m2 followed by Gem 125 mg/m2 weekly × 6 doses with concurrent XRT (50.4 Gy: in 28 fractions: 1.8 Gy/day, 5 days/week), followed by brachytherapy (brachy) (30-35 Gy) and then 2 adjuvant 21-day cycles of Gem (1,000 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8) plus Cis (50 mg/m2 on Day 1); or Arm B: Cis 40 mg/m2 weekly × 6 doses with concurrent XRT followed by brachy, given as in Arm A. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) at 3 years, compared between arms using Kaplan-Meier methods and a Z-statistic. RESULTS 515 pts were enrolled between 5/02 and 3/04 (259 pts Arm A, 256 pts Arm B). Median age was 46 years; stage IIB/IIIB/IVA in 61/37/2% of pts. Compliance in the concurrent and brachy phase was >90% for both arms; adjuvant cycles were completed by >75% of pts in Arm A. PFS at 3 years was 74% in Arm A compared to 65% in Arm B, resulting in a statistically significant improvement (p = 0.029). Overall survival (log-rank p = 0.0224) and time to progressive disease (log-rank p = 0.0008) were also significantly improved. Significantly more pts in Arm A experienced grade 3/4 toxicities (86.5%), compared to pts in Arm B (46.3%; Fishers p < 0.001). In Arm A, 2 pts died due to causes probably related to treatment compared to 0 pts in Arm B. CONCLUSIONS This novel regimen of concurrent Gem plus Cis and XRT followed by brachy and adjuvant Gem plus Cis significantly improved outcomes in pts with locally advanced carcinoma of the cervix, at the expense of increased but acceptable toxicity, compared to the current standard of care. [Table: see text].