Stuart Osborne

Bevacizumab plus capecitabine versus capecitabine alone in elderly patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (AVEX): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND Elderly patients are often under-represented in clinical trials of metastatic colorectal cancer. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab plus capecitabine compared with capecitabine alone in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS For this open-label, randomised phase 3 trial, patients aged 70 years and older with previously untreated, unresectable, metastatic colorectal cancer, who were not deemed to be candidates for oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based chemotherapy regimens, were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio via an interactive voice-response system, stratified by performance status and geographical region. Treatment consisted of capecitabine (1000 mg/m(2) orally twice a day on days 1-14) alone or with bevacizumab (7·5 mg/kg intravenously on day 1), given every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Efficacy analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00484939. FINDINGS From July 9, 2007, to Dec 14, 2010, 280 patients with a median age of 76 years (range 70-87) were recruited from 40 sites across ten countries. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either bevacizumab plus capecitabine (n=140) or capecitabine only (n=140). Progression-free survival was significantly longer with bevacizumab and capecitabine than with capecitabine alone (median 9·1 months [95% CI 7·3-11·4] vs 5·1 months [4·2-6·3]; hazard ratio 0·53 [0·41-0·69]; p<0·0001). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse occurred in 53 (40%) patients in the combination group and 30 (22%) in the capecitabine group, and treatment-related serious adverse events in 19 (14%) and 11 (8%) patients. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events of special interest for bevacizumab or chemotherapy were hand-foot syndrome (21 [16%] vs nine [7%]), diarrhoea (nine [7%] vs nine [7%]), and venous thromboembolic events (11 [8%] vs six [4%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in five patients in the combination group and four in the capecitabine group. The most common any-grade adverse event of special interest for bevacizumab was haemorrhage (34 [25%] vs nine [7%]). INTERPRETATION The combination of bevacizumab and capecitabine is an effective and well-tolerated regimen for elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. FUNDING F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Preference for subcutaneous or intravenous administration of trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (PrefHer): an open-label randomised study

BACKGROUND Subcutaneous trastuzumab has shown non-inferior efficacy and a similar pharmacokinetic and safety profile when compared with intravenous trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. We assessed patient preference for either subcutaneous or intravenous trastuzumab in the international, randomised PrefHer study. METHODS Eligible patients were women aged 18 years or older with HER2-positive, histologically confirmed primary invasive breast adenocarcinoma, no evidence of residual, locally recurrent, or metastatic disease after completion of surgery and chemotherapy (neoadjuvant or adjuvant), an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and a baseline left-ventricular ejection fraction of 55% or more before the first dose of trastuzumab. Radiotherapy or hormone therapy was allowed. Patients were randomised (randomly permuted blocks of four) to receive four cycles of 600 mg fixed-dose subcutaneous adjuvant trastuzumab via a single-use injection device or hand-held syringe followed by four cycles of standard intravenous trastuzumab, or the reverse sequence. Randomisation was stratified by de-novo versus non-de-novo use of intravenous trastuzumab. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients indicating an overall preference for subcutaneous or intravenous trastuzumab, assessed by patient interview in the evaluable intention-to-treat (ITT) population (patients who completed both interviews and had at least one administration of both subcutaneous and intravenous trastuzumab). Data collection for PrefHer is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01401166. FINDINGS 124 patients were randomly allocated to receive subcutaneous followed by intravenous trastuzumab, and 124 to receive the reverse sequence. 117 patients in the subcutaneous first group and 119 in the intravenous first group were included in the evaluable ITT population. Subcutaneous trastuzumab via the single-use injection device was preferred by 216 patients (91·5%, 95% CI 87·2-94·7; p<0·0001). Only 16 patients preferred intravenous trastuzumab (6·8%, 3·9-10·8), and four had no preference (1·7%, 0·5-4·3). Clinician-reported adverse events occurred in 141 of 242 (58%) patients during the pooled subcutaneous periods and 105 of 241 (44%) patients during the pooled intravenous periods; seven (3%) and five (2%) were grade 3, no patients had a grade 4 or 5 event. The most common grade 3 adverse event was influenza (two [0·8%] patients). INTERPRETATION Patient preference and safety results from PrefHer, combined with the known non-inferior efficacy and pharmacokinetic and safety profile data, suggest that a fixed dose of 600 mg trastuzumab administered subcutaneously every 3 weeks is a validated, well tolerated treatment option for HER2-positive breast cancer, and is the preferred treatment of patients.

A multinational phase II trial of bevacizumab with low-dose interferon-α2a as first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: BEVLiN

BACKGROUND Avastin and Roferon in Renal Cell Carcinoma (AVOREN) demonstrated efficacy for bevacizumab plus interferon-α2a (IFN; 9 MIU tiw) in first-line metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). We evaluated bevacizumab with low-dose IFN in mRCC to determine whether clinical benefit could be maintained with reduced toxicity. METHODS BEVLiN was an open-label, single-arm, multinational, phase II trial. Nephrectomized patients with treatment-naive, clear cell mRCC and favourable/intermediate Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center scores received bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks) and IFN (3 MIU thrice weekly) until disease progression. Descriptive comparisons with AVOREN patients having favourable/intermediate MSKCC scores treated with bevacizumab plus IFN (9 MIU) were made. Primary end points were grade ≥3 IFN-associated adverse events (AEs) and progression-free survival (PFS). All grade ≥3 AEs and bevacizumab/IFN-related grade 1-2 AEs occurring from first administration until 28 days after last treatment were reported. RESULTS A total of 146 patients were treated; the median follow-up was 29.4 months. Any-grade and grade ≥3 IFN-associated AEs occurred in 53.4% and 10.3% of patients, respectively. The median PFS and overall survival were 15.3 [95% confidence interval (CI): 11.7-18.0] and 30.7 months (95% CI: 25.7-not reached), respectively. The ORR was 28.8%. CONCLUSIONS Compared with a historical control AVOREN subgroup, low-dose IFN with bevacizumab resulted in a reduction in incidence rates of IFN-related AEs, without compromising efficacy [NCT00796757].

Preference for subcutaneous or intravenous administration of rituximab among patients with untreated CD20+ diffuse large B-cell lymphoma or follicular lymphoma: results from a prospective, randomized, open-label, crossover study (PrefMab)

Background The aim of this study was to evaluate patient preference and satisfaction for the subcutaneous (s.c.) versus intravenous (i.v.) formulation of rituximab given with chemotherapy in previously untreated patients with CD20+ diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or follicular lymphoma (FL). Patients and methods Patients received eight cycles of rituximab according to 2 schedules: Arm A received 1 cycle rituximab i.v. (375 mg/m2) and 3 cycles rituximab s.c. (1400 mg) then 4 cycles rituximab i.v.; Arm B received 4 cycles rituximab i.v. (375 mg/m2) then 4 cycles rituximab s.c. (1400 mg). Alongside rituximab, both arms received 6–8 cycles of chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (CHOP), cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone (CVP), or bendamustine as per standard local practice). Preference for s.c. or i.v. administration was evaluated using the Patient Preference Questionnaire (PPQ) at cycles 6 and 8. Patient satisfaction and convenience were assessed using the Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire (CTSQ), and Rituximab Administration Satisfaction Questionnaire (RASQ) at cycles 4 and 8. Results At the primary data cut-off (19 January 2015), the intent-to-treat population comprised 743 patients. The majority had DLBCL (63%) and baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. At cycle 8, 81% of patients completing the PPQ preferred rituximab s.c. Preference was not impacted by treatment sequence or disease type. Patient satisfaction as measured by RASQ was higher for s.c. versus i.v. CTSQ scores were similar between arms. Adverse events were generally balanced between administration routes and no new safety signals were detected. Conclusion Most previously untreated patients with CD20+ DLBCL or FL preferred s.c. to i.v. rituximab administration. Patient satisfaction with rituximab treatment was generally greater with s.c. administration. Registered clinical trial number NCT01724021 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Rituximab plus bendamustine or chlorambucil for chronic lymphocytic leukemia: primary analysis of the randomized, open-label MABLE study

MABLE investigated the efficacy and safety of rituximab plus bendamustine or rituximab plus chlorambucil in fludarabine-ineligible patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Patients received rituximab plus bendamustine or rituximab plus chlorambucil every four weeks for six cycles. Rituximab plus chlorambucil-treated patients without a complete response after Cycle 6 received chlorambucil monotherapy for at least six additional cycles or until complete response. The primary endpoint was complete response rate (confirmed by bone marrow biopsy) after Cycle 6 in first-line patients. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, overall survival, minimal residual disease, and safety. Overall, 357 patients were randomized (rituximab plus bendamustine, n=178; rituximab plus chlorambucil, n=179; intent-to-treat population), including 241 first-line patients (n=121 and n=120, respectively); 355 patients received treatment (n=177 and n=178, respectively; safety population). In first-line patients, complete response rate after Cycle 6 (rituximab plus bendamustine, 24%; rituximab plus chlorambucil, 9%; P=0.002) and median progression-free survival (rituximab plus bendamustine, 40 months; rituximab plus chlorambucil, 30 months; P=0.003) were higher with rituximab plus bendamustine than rituximab plus chlorambucil. Overall response rate and overall survival were not different. In first-line patients with a complete response, minimal residual disease-negativity was higher with rituximab plus bendamustine than rituximab plus chlorambucil (66% vs. 36%). Overall adverse event incidence was similar (rituximab plus bendamustine, 98%; rituximab plus chlorambucil, 97%). Rituximab plus bendamustine may be a valuable first-line option for fludarabine-ineligible patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Her2 Status in Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer: Results of the Large, Multinational Her-eagle Study

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) dysregulation is associated with tumorigenesis in gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer; however, the number of patients with HER2-positive disease is unclear, possibly due to differing scoring criteria/assays. Data are also lacking for early disease. We aimed to assess the HER2-positivity rate using approved testing criteria in a large, real-life multinational population. HER2-positivity was defined as an immunohistochemistry staining score of 3+, or immunohistochemistry 2+ and HER2 amplification detected by in situ hybridization. A total of 4949 patients were enrolled and results showed that 14.2% of 4920 samples with immunohistochemistry results were HER2-positive. HER2-positivity was significantly higher in males (16.1% vs. 9.6% in females), in gastroesophageal versus stomach tumors (22.1% vs. 12.9%), in biopsy versus surgical samples (18.3% vs. 13.0%), in intestinal tumor subtypes versus diffuse (21.5% vs. 4.8%) and mixed types (21.5% vs. 8.5%) (P<0.001), in mixed versus diffuse types (8.5% vs. 4.8%), and in “other” versus diffuse types (11.7% vs. 4.8%; P=0.002). There were no significant differences between stages. Patients in the youngest age percentile had significantly lower HER2-positivity rates than patients in the remaining percentiles (9.2% vs. 15.9%, 15.7%, and 15.1%; P<0.001). HER2-positivity was highest in France (20.2%) and lowest in Hong Kong (10.4%). In conclusion, HER-EAGLE, the first study of its kind to be conducted in a large, multinational population of almost 5000 patients, gives valuable insights into the real-world HER2-positivity rate in a gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer patient population not selected for disease stage or histology.

Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous and intravenous rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone in first-line diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: The randomized MabEase study

Intravenous rituximab plus chemotherapy is standard treatment for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. A subcutaneous formulation of rituximab is expected to simplify and shorten drug preparation and administration, and to reduce treatment burden. MabEase (clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: 01649856) examined efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction with subcutaneous rituximab plus chemotherapy in treatment-naïve patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Patients were randomized 2:1 to subcutaneous rituximab (intravenous 375 mg/m2 cycle 1; subcutaneous 1,400 mg cycles 2–8) or intravenous rituximab (375 mg/m2 cycles 1–8) plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone every 14 or 21 days. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed complete response/unconfirmed complete response. Secondary endpoints included safety, treatment satisfaction (Cancer Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire and Rituximab Administration Satisfaction Questionnaire), time savings, and survival. Of 576 randomized patients, 572 (378 subcutaneous; 194 intravenous) received treatment. End of induction complete response/unconfirmed complete response rates were 50.6% (subcutaneous) and 42.4% (intravenous). After a median 35 months, median overall, event-free and progression-free survivals were not reached. Grade ≥3 adverse events (subcutaneous 58.3%; intravenous 54.3%) and administration-related adverse events (both groups 21%) were similar between arms. Injection-site reactions were more common with subcutaneous injections (5.7% versus 0%, respectively). Rituximab Administration Satisfaction Questionnaire scores for ‘impact on activities of daily living’, ‘convenience’, and ‘satisfaction’ were improved with subcutaneous versus intravenous injections; Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire scores were similar between arms. Median administration time (6 minutes vs. 2.6 to 3.0 hours), chair/bed and overall hospital times were shorter with subcutaneous versus intravenous rituximab. Overall, subcutaneous and intravenous rituximab had similar efficacy and safety, with improved patient satisfaction and time savings.

Switching between intravenous and subcutaneous trastuzumab: Safety results from the PrefHer trial

AIM To assess the safety and tolerability of switching between subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) trastuzumab in the PrefHer study (NCT01401166). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer completed (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy and were randomised to receive four cycles of SC trastuzumab, via single-use injection device (SID; Cohort 1) or hand-held syringe (Cohort 2), followed by four cycles of IV, or vice versa (the crossover period presented here) as part of their 18 standard cycles of adjuvant trastuzumab treatment. Adverse events (AEs) were reported using standard criteria. RESULTS Overall, fewer AEs were reported during the IV treatment periods, regardless of administration sequence (IV→SC or SC→IV). Differences in AEs between the SC and IV periods were partly due to variances in grade 1 and 2 local injection site reactions (ISRs) and systemic administration-related reactions (ARRs) and these occurred mainly during SC treatment, as expected. When ISRs and ARRs were excluded, rates of AEs were higher during the first treatment period, compared with the second, in both treatment sequences; otherwise there was no clear pattern in the type of AEs reported. Rates of clinically important events, including grade ≥3 AEs, serious AEs, AEs leading to study drug discontinuation and cardiac AEs, were low and similar between treatment arms (<5%). There were no grade 4 or 5 AEs. No new safety signals for trastuzumab were observed. CONCLUSIONS PrefHer revealed that switching from IV to SC trastuzumab (hand-held syringe or SID) or vice versa did not impact the known safety profile of trastuzumab.

323PPATIENT SATISFACTION WITH SELF-ADMINISTRATION OF SUBCUTANEOUS (SC) TRASTUZUMAB VIA SINGLE-USE INJECTION DEVICE (SID) IN THE INTERNATIONAL, RANDOMISED PREFHER STUDY

ABSTRACT Aim: Patients in PrefHer (NCT01401166) preferred SC trastuzumab (Herceptin® SC) via healthcare professional (HCP)-administered SID over the intravenous (IV) formulation. The design of the SID makes it suitable for self-administration by patients; therefore, patient satisfaction with SID self-administration was assessed as a pre-defined exploratory endpoint. We also assessed safety in cycles where patients self-administered. Methods: All patients received four adjuvant cycles of SC trastuzumab via an SID administered by HCPs, followed by four cycles of IV trastuzumab or vice versa as part of their 18 standard cycles, including pre-enrolment IV. Those patients with two or more cycles remaining had the option to self-administer SC trastuzumab via the SID in the clinic. One cycle was used by trial staff to train the patients, who were then given a guide and video. Satisfaction was assessed by a questionnaire after first and last self-administrations. There was no maximum number of self-administrations. Adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) were reported according to NCI-CTCAE V4 and ICH E2A. Results: Two hundred and forty-four patients were randomised and 35 successfully self-administered: 32 patients once and three patients twice. Thirty-seven questionnaires were completed by 34 patients (three patients completed two questionnaires). Twenty-five of 34 patients (74%) strongly agreed that the first self-administration was satisfactory. An additional eight patients (24%) agreed that the experience was satisfactory and one patient (3%) was unsure. Table 1 shows the AE profile. The most frequent AE was injection site pain (two patients). Patients, n (%)a N = 35 AEsb 6 (17) Grade 1 4 (11) 2 4 (11) 3–5 0 Related to study drug 2 (6) Leading to study drug discontinuation 0 SAEs 0 aCould be counted once per grade but more than once overall bSix after one self-administration, two after two Conclusions: In this exploratory analysis of PrefHer, patients were satisfied with self-administration of SC trastuzumab via the SID in the clinic and it was well tolerated, although the number of cycles was limited. Home administration is a possible future option. Disclosure: S. Verma: Membership on an advisory board: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; P.J. Barrett-Lee: Membership on an advisory board: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd for trastuzumab; L. Fallowfield: Membership on an advisory board: F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. Corporate-sponsored research: F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd to conduct the PrefHer study; A. Knoop: Membership on an advisory board: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd (Nov 2013); Corporate-sponsored research: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd (PI in the Danish PrefHer study and co-investigator in APHINITY and VELVET); V. Muller: Membership on an advisory board: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; E. Brewczynska: Corporate-sponsored research: Poland (PI of the Polish PrefHer study and co-investigator of the APHINITY, MARIANNE and EMILIA studies), R. El-Maraghi: Membership on an advisory board: Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; Z. Machackova: Other substantive relationships: Employee of F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; S. Osborne: Other substantive relationships: Employee of F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd; X. Pivot: Membership on an advisory board: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, GlaxoSmithKline, Teva, Pierre Fabre. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.