Sun Young Rha

Bevacizumab in Combination With Chemotherapy As First-Line Therapy in Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Study

PURPOSE The Avastin in Gastric Cancer (AVAGAST) trial was a multinational, randomized, placebo-controlled trial designed to evaluate the efficacy of adding bevacizumab to capecitabine-cisplatin in the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients received bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg or placebo followed by cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily for 14 days every 3 weeks. Fluorouracil was permitted in patients unable to take oral medications. Cisplatin was given for six cycles; capecitabine and bevacizumab were administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Log-rank test was used to test the OS difference. RESULTS In all, 774 patients were enrolled; 387 were assigned to each treatment group (intention-to-treat population), and 517 deaths were observed. Median OS was 12.1 months with bevacizumab plus fluoropyrimidine-cisplatin and 10.1 months with placebo plus fluoropyrimidine-cisplatin (hazard ratio 0.87; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.03; P = .1002). Both median progression-free survival (6.7 v 5.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.93; P = .0037) and overall response rate (46.0% v 37.4%; P = .0315) were significantly improved with bevacizumab versus placebo. Preplanned subgroup analyses revealed regional differences in efficacy outcomes. The most common grade 3 to 5 adverse events were neutropenia (35%, bevacizumab plus fluoropyrimidine-cisplatin; 37%, placebo plus fluoropyrimidine-cisplatin), anemia (10% v 14%), and decreased appetite (8% v 11%). No new bevacizumab-related safety signals were identified. CONCLUSION Although AVAGAST did not reach its primary objective, adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy was associated with significant increases in progression-free survival and overall response rate in the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer.

A comprehensive survey of genomic alterations in gastric cancer reveals systematic patterns of molecular exclusivity and co-occurrence among distinct therapeutic targets

Objective Gastric cancer is a major gastrointestinal malignancy for which targeted therapies are emerging as treatment options. This study sought to identify the most prevalent molecular targets in gastric cancer and to elucidate systematic patterns of exclusivity and co-occurrence among these targets, through comprehensive genomic analysis of a large panel of gastric cancers. Design Using high-resolution single nucleotide polymorphism arrays, copy number alterations were profiled in a panel of 233 gastric cancers (193 primary tumours, 40 cell lines) and 98 primary matched gastric non-malignant samples. For selected alterations, their impact on gene expression and clinical outcome were evaluated. Results 22 recurrent focal alterations (13 amplifications and nine deletions) were identified. These included both known targets (FGFR2, ERBB2) and also novel genes in gastric cancer (KLF5, GATA6). Receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK)/RAS alterations were found to be frequent in gastric cancer. This study also demonstrates, for the first time, that these alterations occur in a mutually exclusive fashion, with KRAS gene amplifications highlighting a clinically relevant but previously underappreciated gastric cancer subgroup. FGFR2-amplified gastric cancers were also shown to be sensitive to dovitinib, an orally bioavailable FGFR/VEGFR targeting agent, potentially representing a subtype-specific therapy for FGFR2-amplified gastric cancers. Conclusion The study demonstrates the existence of five distinct gastric cancer patient subgroups, defined by the signature genomic alterations FGFR2 (9% of tumours), KRAS (9%), EGFR (8%), ERBB2 (7%) and MET (4%). Collectively, these subgroups suggest that at least 37% of gastric cancer patients may be potentially treatable by RTK/RAS directed therapies.

External validation and comparison with other models of the International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium prognostic model: a population-based study

BACKGROUND The International Metastatic Renal-Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium model offers prognostic information for patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. We tested the accuracy of the model in an external population and compared it with other prognostic models. METHODS We included patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were treated with first-line VEGF-targeted treatment at 13 international cancer centres and who were registered in the Consortiums database but had not contributed to the initial development of the Consortium Database model. The primary endpoint was overall survival. We compared the Database Consortium model with the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF) model, the International Kidney Cancer Working Group (IKCWG) model, the French model, and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) model by concordance indices and other measures of model fit. FINDINGS Overall, 1028 patients were included in this study, of whom 849 had complete data to assess the Database Consortium model. Median overall survival was 18·8 months (95% 17·6-21·4). The predefined Database Consortium risk factors (anaemia, thrombocytosis, neutrophilia, hypercalcaemia, Karnofsky performance status <80%, and <1 year from diagnosis to treatment) were independent predictors of poor overall survival in the external validation set (hazard ratios ranged between 1·27 and 2·08, concordance index 0·71, 95% CI 0·68-0·73). When patients were segregated into three risk categories, median overall survival was 43·2 months (95% CI 31·4-50·1) in the favourable risk group (no risk factors; 157 patients), 22·5 months (18·7-25·1) in the intermediate risk group (one to two risk factors; 440 patients), and 7·8 months (6·5-9·7) in the poor risk group (three or more risk factors; 252 patients; p<0·0001; concordance index 0·664, 95% CI 0·639-0·689). 672 patients had complete data to test all five models. The concordance index of the CCF model was 0·662 (95% CI 0·636-0·687), of the French model 0·640 (0·614-0·665), of the IKCWG model 0·668 (0·645-0·692), and of the MSKCC model 0·657 (0·632-0·682). The reported versus predicted number of deaths at 2 years was most similar in the Database Consortium model compared with the other models. INTERPRETATION The Database Consortium model is now externally validated and can be applied to stratify patients by risk in clinical trials and to counsel patients about prognosis. FUNDING None.

Phase II Randomized Trial Comparing Sequential First-Line Everolimus and Second-Line Sunitinib Versus First-Line Sunitinib and Second-Line Everolimus in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

PURPOSE A multicenter, randomized phase II trial, RECORD-3, was conducted to compare first-line everolimus followed by sunitinib at progression with the standard sequence of first-line sunitinib followed by everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS RECORD-3 used a crossover treatment design. The primary objective was to assess progression-free survival (PFS) noninferiority of first-line everolimus compared with first-line sunitinib. Secondary end points included combined PFS for each sequence, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Of 471 enrolled patients, 238 were randomly assigned to first-line everolimus followed by sunitinib, and 233 were randomly assigned to first-line sunitinib followed by everolimus. The primary end point was not met; the median PFS was 7.9 months for first-line everolimus and 10.7 months for first-line sunitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.8). Among patients who discontinued first-line, 108 (45%) crossed over from everolimus to second-line sunitinib, and 99 (43%) crossed over from sunitinib to second-line everolimus. The median combined PFS was 21.1 months for sequential everolimus then sunitinib and was 25.8 months for sequential sunitinib then everolimus (HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.7). The median OS was 22.4 months for sequential everolimus and then sunitinib and 32.0 months for sequential sunitinib and then everolimus (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.6). Common treatment-emergent adverse events during first-line everolimus or sunitinib were stomatitis (53% and 57%, respectively), fatigue (45% and 51%, respectively), and diarrhea (38% and 57%, respectively). CONCLUSION Everolimus did not demonstrate noninferiority compared with sunitinib as a first-line therapy. The trial results support the standard treatment paradigm of first-line sunitinib followed by everolimus at progression.

Intrinsic Subtypes of Gastric Cancer, Based on Gene Expression Pattern, Predict Survival and Respond Differently to Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND & AIMS Gastric cancer (GC) is a heterogeneous disease comprising multiple subtypes that have distinct biological properties and effects in patients. We sought to identify new, intrinsic subtypes of GC by gene expression analysis of a large panel of GC cell lines. We tested if these subtypes might be associated with differences in patient survival times and responses to various standard-of-care cytotoxic drugs. METHODS We analyzed gene expression profiles for 37 GC cell lines to identify intrinsic GC subtypes. These subtypes were validated in primary tumors from 521 patients in 4 independent cohorts, where the subtypes were determined by either expression profiling or subtype-specific immunohistochemical markers (LGALS4, CDH17). In vitro sensitivity to 3 chemotherapy drugs (5-fluorouracil, cisplatin, oxaliplatin) was also assessed. RESULTS Unsupervised cell line analysis identified 2 major intrinsic genomic subtypes (G-INT and G-DIF) that had distinct patterns of gene expression. The intrinsic subtypes, but not subtypes based on Laurens histopathologic classification, were prognostic of survival, based on univariate and multivariate analysis in multiple patient cohorts. The G-INT cell lines were significantly more sensitive to 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin, but more resistant to cisplatin, than the G-DIF cell lines. In patients, intrinsic subtypes were associated with survival time following adjuvant, 5-fluorouracil-based therapy. CONCLUSIONS Intrinsic subtypes of GC, based on distinct patterns of expression, are associated with patient survival and response to chemotherapy. Classification of GC based on intrinsic subtypes might be used to determine prognosis and customize therapy.

Oncogenic pathway combinations predict clinical prognosis in gastric cancer.

Many solid cancers are known to exhibit a high degree of heterogeneity in their deregulation of different oncogenic pathways. We sought to identify major oncogenic pathways in gastric cancer (GC) with significant relationships to patient survival. Using gene expression signatures, we devised an in silico strategy to map patterns of oncogenic pathway activation in 301 primary gastric cancers, the second highest cause of global cancer mortality. We identified three oncogenic pathways (proliferation/stem cell, NF-kappaB, and Wnt/beta-catenin) deregulated in the majority (>70%) of gastric cancers. We functionally validated these pathway predictions in a panel of gastric cancer cell lines. Patient stratification by oncogenic pathway combinations showed reproducible and significant survival differences in multiple cohorts, suggesting that pathway interactions may play an important role in influencing disease behavior. Individual GCs can be successfully taxonomized by oncogenic pathway activity into biologically and clinically relevant subgroups. Predicting pathway activity by expression signatures thus permits the study of multiple cancer-related pathways interacting simultaneously in primary cancers, at a scale not currently achievable by other platforms.

Eribulin versus dacarbazine in previously treated patients with advanced liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma: a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND A non-randomised, phase 2 study showed activity and tolerability of eribulin in advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. In this phase 3 study, we aimed to compare overall survival in patients with advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma who received eribulin with that in patients who received dacarbazine (an active control). METHODS We did this randomised, open-label, phase 3 study across 110 study sites in 22 countries. We enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with intermediate-grade or high-grade advanced liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma who had received at least two previous systemic regimens for advanced disease (including an anthracycline). Using an interactive voice and web response system, an independent statistician randomly assigned (1:1) patients to receive eribulin mesilate (1·4 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1 and 8) or dacarbazine (850 mg/m(2), 1000 mg/m(2), or 1200 mg/m(2) [dose dependent on centre and clinician] intravenously on day 1) every 21 days until disease progression. Randomisation was stratified by disease type, geographical region, and number of previous regimens for advanced soft-tissue sarcoma and in blocks of six. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01327885, and is closed to recruitment, but treatment and follow-up continue. FINDINGS Between March 10, 2011 and May 22, 2013, we randomly assigned patients to eribulin (n=228) or dacarbazine (n=224). Overall survival was significantly improved in patients assigned to eribulin compared with those assigned to dacarbazine (median 13·5 months [95% CI 10·9-15·6] vs 11·5 months [9·6-13·0]; hazard ratio 0·77 [95% CI 0·62-0·95]; p=0·0169). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 224 (99%) of 226 patients who received eribulin and 218 (97%) of 224 who received dacarbazine. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common in patients who received eribulin (152 [67%]) than in those who received dacarbazine (126 [56%]), as were deaths (10 [4%] vs 3 [1%]); one death (in the eribulin group) was considered treatment-related by the investigators. INTERPRETATION Overall survival was improved in patients assigned to eribulin compared with those assigned to an active control, suggesting that eribulin could be a treatment option for advanced soft-tissue sarcoma. FUNDING Eisai.

Cytoreductive Nephrectomy in Patients with Synchronous Metastases from Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium

BACKGROUND The benefit of cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) for overall survival (OS) is unclear in patients with synchronous metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in the era of targeted therapy. OBJECTIVE To determine OS benefit of CN compared with no CN in mRCC patients treated with targeted therapies. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective data from patients with synchronous mRCC (n=1658) from the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) were used to compare 982 mRCC patients who had a CN with 676 mRCC patients who did not. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OS was compared and hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for IMDC poor prognostic criteria. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS Patients who had CN had better IMDC prognostic profiles versus those without (favorable, intermediate, or poor in 9%, 63%, and 28% vs 1%, 45%, and 54%, respectively). The median OS of patients with CN versus without CN was 20.6 versus 9.5 mo (p<0.0001). When adjusted for IMDC criteria to correct for imbalances, the HR of death was 0.60 (95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.69; p<0.0001). Patients estimated to survive <12 mo may receive marginal benefit from CN. Patients who have four or more of the IMDC prognostic criteria did not benefit from CN. Data were collected retrospectively. CONCLUSIONS CN is beneficial in synchronous mRCC patients treated with targeted therapy, even after adjusting for prognostic factors. Patients with estimated survival times <12 mo or four or more IMDC prognostic factors may not benefit from CN. This information may aid in patient selection as we await results from randomized controlled trials. PATIENT SUMMARY We looked at the survival outcomes of metastatic renal cell carcinoma patients who did or did not have the primary tumor removed. We found that most patients benefited from tumor removal, except for those with four or more IMDC risk factors.

Whole genome analysis for liver metastasis gene signatures in colorectal cancer.

Liver metastasis is one of the major causes of death in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. To understand this process, we investigated whether the gene expression profiling of matched colorectal carcinomas and liver metastases could reveal key molecular events involved in tumor progression and metastasis. We performed experiments using a cDNA microarray containing 17,104 genes with the following tissue samples: paired tissues of 25 normal colorectal mucosa, 27 primary colorectal tumors, 13 normal liver and 27 liver metastasis, and 20 primary colorectal tumors without liver metastasis. To remove the effect of normal cell contamination, we selected 4,583 organ‐specific genes with a false discovery rate (FDR) of 0.0067% by comparing normal colon and liver tissues using significant analysis of microarray, and these genes were excluded from further analysis. We then identified and validated 46 liver metastasis‐specific genes with an accuracy of 83.3% by comparing the expression of paired primary colorectal tumors and liver metastases using prediction analysis of microarray. The 46 selected genes contained several known oncogenes and 2 ESTs. To confirm that the results correlated with the microarray expression patterns, we performed RT‐PCR with WNT5A and carbonic anhydrase II. Additionally, we observed that 21 of the 46 genes were differentially expressed (FDR = 2.27%) in primary tumors with synchronous liver metastasis compared with primary tumors without liver metastasis. We scanned the human genome using a cDNA microarray and identified 46 genes that may play an important role in the progression of liver metastasis in CRC.

Dovitinib versus sorafenib for third-line targeted treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND An unmet medical need exists for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed on VEGF-targeted and mTOR-inhibitor therapies. Fibroblast growth factor (FGF) pathway activation has been proposed as a mechanism of escape from VEGF-targeted therapies. Dovitinib is an oral tyrosine-kinase inhibitor that inhibits VEGF and FGF receptors. We therefore compared dovitinib with sorafenib as third-line targeted therapies in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS In this multicentre phase 3 study, patients with clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received one previous VEGF-targeted therapy and one previous mTOR inhibitor were randomly assigned through an interactive voice and web response system to receive open-label dovitinib (500 mg orally according to a 5-days-on and 2-days-off schedule) or sorafenib (400 mg orally twice daily) in a 1:1 ratio. Randomisation was stratified by risk group and region. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by masked central review. Efficacy was assessed in all patients who were randomly assigned and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01223027. FINDINGS 284 patients were randomly assigned to the dovitinib group and 286 to the sorafenib group. Median follow-up was 11·3 months (IQR 7·9-14·6). Median PFS was 3·7 months (95% CI 3·5-3·9) in the dovitinib group and 3·6 months (3·5-3·7) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·72-1·04; one-sided p=0·063). 280 patients in the dovitinib group and 284 in the sorafenib group received at least one dose of study drug. Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events included hypertriglyceridaemia (38 [14%]), fatigue (28 [10%]), hypertension (22 [8%]), and diarrhoea (20 [7%]) in the dovitinib group, and hypertension (47 [17%]), fatigue (24 [8%]), dyspnoea (21 [7%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (18 [6%]) in the sorafenib group. The most common serious adverse event was dyspnoea (16 [6%] and 15 [5%] in the dovitinib and sorafenib groups, respectively). INTERPRETATION Dovitinib showed activity, but this was no better than that of sorafenib in patients with renal cell carcinoma who had progressed on previous VEGF-targeted therapies and mTOR inhibitors. This trial provides reference outcome data for future studies of targeted inhibitors in the third-line setting. FUNDING Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.