Thomas Brodowicz

Maintenance pemetrexed plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care for non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND Several studies have shown the efficacy, tolerability, and ease of administration of pemetrexed-an antifolate antineoplastic agent-in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. We assessed pemetrexed as maintenance therapy in patients with this disease. METHODS This randomised double-blind study was undertaken in 83 centres in 20 countries. 663 patients with stage IIIB or IV disease who had not progressed on four cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to receive pemetrexed (500 mg/m(2), day 1) plus best supportive care (n=441) or placebo plus best supportive care (n=222) in 21-day cycles until disease progression. Treatment was randomised with the Simon and Pocock minimisation method. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment. All patients received vitamin B(12), folic acid, and dexamethasone. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival and the secondary endpoint of overall survival were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00102804. FINDINGS All randomly assigned participants were analysed. Pemetrexed significantly improved progression-free survival (4.3 months [95% CI 4.1-4.7] vs 2.6 months [1.7-2.8]; hazard ratio [HR] 0.50, 95% CI 0.42-0.61, p<0.0001) and overall survival (13.4 months [11.9-15.9] vs 10.6 months [8.7-12.0]; HR 0.79, 0.65-0.95, p=0.012) compared with placebo. Treatment discontinuations due to drug-related toxic effects were higher in the pemetrexed group than in the placebo group (21 [5%] vs three [1%]). Drug-related grade three or higher toxic effects were higher with pemetrexed than with placebo (70 [16%] vs nine [4%]; p<0.0001), specifically fatigue (22 [5%] vs one [1%], p=0.001) and neutropenia (13 [3%] vs 0, p=0.006). No pemetrexed-related deaths occurred. Relatively fewer patients in the pemetrexed group than in the placebo group received systemic post-discontinuation therapy (227 [51%] vs 149 [67%]; p=0.0001). INTERPRETATION Maintenance therapy with pemetrexed is well tolerated and offers improved progression-free and overall survival compared with placebo in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING Eli Lilly.

Treatment-by-Histology Interaction Analyses in Three Phase III Trials Show Superiority of Pemetrexed in Nonsquamous Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Introduction: Recently, histology has emerged as a predictive factor for pemetrexed efficacy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). These analyses evaluate whether the differential efficacy of pemetrexed by NSCLC histology is reproducible and consistent across three registration studies of different lines of therapy (first-line/second-line and maintenance settings). Methods: The reported studies for patients with advanced NSCLC were pemetrexed versus docetaxel in previously treated patients (N = 571), cisplatin plus pemetrexed versus cisplatin plus gemcitabine in chemotherapy-naive patients (N = 1725), and maintenance pemetrexed plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care (N = 663). Cox models of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were used to test for a significant treatment-by-histology interaction (THI). A significant THI indicates that the efficacy benefit for pemetrexed relative to the control arm is greater in patients with nonsquamous histology than in those with squamous histology. Subsequent Cox models were used to estimate hazard ratios for OS and PFS according to histology. Results: Histology was well balanced between treatment arms in each study. Across all three studies, no clinically relevant differences were observed for the safety profile of pemetrexed among histologic groups. THIs were statistically significant in all three studies for OS (p = 0.001, 0.002, and 0.033, respectively) and PFS (p = 0.004, 0.002, and 0.036, respectively). Conclusions: These analyses demonstrate a statistically significant interaction between treatment effect and NSCLC histology, indicating superior efficacy of pemetrexed in nonsquamous patients compared with other standard treatment options. Thus, histology is consistently predictive of the improved efficacy of pemetrexed in patients with nonsquamous NSCLC.

Monitoring of serum Her-2/neu predicts response and progression-free survival to trastuzumab-based treatment in patients with metastatic breast cancer

Purpose: The present pilot study was performed to elucidate whether early changes in serum Her-2/neu extracellular domain (ECD) levels during trastuzumab-based treatment would predict the clinical course of disease in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Experimental Design: Sera from 55 patients with Her-2/neu-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer obtained immediately before each weekly administration of trastuzumab were analyzed by a serum Her-2/neu ELISA. Results: Whereas response rates were significantly higher in patients with elevated (≥15 ng/ml) ECD levels before initiation of treatment (35% versus 7%, P = 0.045), progression-free and overall survival did not differ significantly between patients with normal and elevated ECD levels. In patients responding to treatment, ECD levels decreased significantly as early as from day 8 of treatment onwards (all P for weekly measurements versus baseline <0.001). In contrast, no significant change in ECD levels was observed in patients with progressive disease. Multiple logistic regression analyses identified kinetics of ECD levels as the only factor that allowed for the accurate prediction of response likelihood as early as from day 8 of trastuzumab-based treatment onwards (P = 0.020). In addition, determination of serial ECD levels allowed for the prediction of the risk for disease progression within the observed period as early as day 15 of treatment (P = 0.010). Conclusions: Serial monitoring of the ECD may represent a valuable tool for early prediction of the probability of response and progression-free survival to trastuzumab-based treatment and is thus likely to contribute to an optimization of treatment and resource allocation.

Soluble HER-2/neu neutralizes biologic effects of anti-HER-2/neu antibody on breast cancer cells in vitro.

Amplification and over‐expression of the HER‐2/neu proto‐oncogene are associated with poor prognosis in women with both node‐positive and node‐negative breast cancer. Therefore, the encoded surface glycoprotein represents an attractive target for cancer immunotherapies. Furthermore, the extracellular domain of HER‐2/neu is released from the cell surface by proteolytic cleavage. In the present experiments, we investigated the potential biologic effects of soluble HER‐2/neu with particular emphasis on its interaction with anti‐HER‐2/neu antibodies. A monoclonal antibody specific for the extracellular domain of HER‐2/neu dose dependently inhibited the proliferation of highly HER‐2/neu‐expressing SK‐BR‐3 and BT‐474 breast cancer cells but had no effect on the proliferation of weakly to moderately HER‐2/neu‐expressing MCF‐7, HBL‐100 and ZR‐75‐1 breast cells. Addition of SK‐BR‐3 or BT‐474 cell supernatants with high concentrations of soluble HER‐2/neu led to a neutralization of anti‐HER‐2/neu antibody–mediated inhibition of proliferation due to a binding of soluble HER‐2/neu by the antibody, which could be demonstrated by immunoprecipitation. Furthermore, the ability of anti‐HER‐2/neu antibodies to mediate antibody‐dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) by lymphokine‐activated killer cells was assessed. Cytolysis of SK‐BR‐3 tumor cells was increased significantly in the presence of anti‐HER‐2/neu antibodies. Similar to the proliferation inhibition, ADCC was neutralized by addition of soluble HER‐2/neu‐containing supernatants. Our data suggest that tumors rich in HER‐2/neu might thus escape certain steps of immunologic control by neutralizing biologic activities of anti HER‐2/neu antibodies due to the presence of soluble HER‐2/neu. Int. J. Cancer 73:875–879, 1997.

Intensified Adjuvant IFADIC Chemotherapy for Adult Soft Tissue Sarcoma: A Prospective Randomized Feasibility Trial

Purpose. The present prospective randomized adjuvant trial was carried out to compare the toxicity, feasibility and efficacy of augmented chemotherapy added to hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy after wide or marginal resection of grade 2 and grade 3 soft tissue sarcoma (STS).Patients and methods. Fifty-nine patients underwent primary surgery by wide or marginal excision and were subsequently randomized to receive radiotherapy alone or under the addition of six courses of ifosfamide (1500 mg/m(2) , days 1-4), dacarbazine (DTIC) (200 mg/m(2) , days 1-4) and doxorubicin (25 mg/m(2) , days 1-2) administered in 14-day-intervals supported by granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (30 x 10(6) IU/day, s.c.) on days 5-13. According to the randomization protocol, 28 patients received radiotherapy only, whereas 31 patients were treated with additional chemotherapy.Results. The relative ifosfamide-doxorubicin-DTIC (IFADIC) dose intensity achieved was 93%. After a mean observation period of 41+/-19.7 months (range, 8.1-84 months), 16 patients (57%) in the control group versus 24 patients (77%) in the chemotherapy group were free of disease (p>0.05).Within the control group, tumor relapses occurred in 12 patients (43%;six patients with distant metastases, two with local relapse, four with both) versus seven patients (23%; five patients with distant metastases, one with local recurrence, one with both) from the chemotherapy group. Relapse-free survival (RFS) (p=0.1), time to local failure (TLF) (p=0.09), time to distant failure (TDF) (p=0.17) as well as overall survival (OS) (p=0.4) did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups. Treatment-related toxicity was generally mild in both treatment arms.Conclusion. We conclude that the safety profile of intensified IFADIC added to radiotherapy was manageable and tolerable in the current setting. Inclusion of intensified IFADIC was not translated into a significant benefit concerning OS, RFS, TLF andTDF as compared with radiotherapy only, although a potential benefit of chemotherapy for grade 3 STS patients needs to be validated in prospective randomized trials including larger patient numbers.

Tissue Expression and Serum Levels of HER-2/neu in Patients with Breast Cancer

We have analyzed serum levels of soluble HER-2/neu in 42 primary breast cancer patients prior to any therapy and studied the relationship between the overexpression and amplification of HER-2/neu in the primary tumor after surgical excision and data obtained by pathohistological staging. In addition, we have investigated the sera of 62 patients with stage IV breast cancer. Using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, we observed elevated serum HER-2/neu levels in 6/42 (14.2%) preoperative patients. In 42.8% of the patients with HER-2/neu tumor expression/amplification serum levels were increased. In contrast, only 8.5% of the patients without HER-2/neu expression/amplification in the primary tumor presented with elevated serum levels. There was a significant correlation between serum concentrations of soluble HER-2/neu and tumor size (p < 0.0001) or axillary lymph node involvement (p < 0.0001). In patients with stage IV disease, 27 of 62 (43.5%) had elevated soluble HER-2/neu serum levels. A highly significant correlation between soluble HER-2/ neu and CA 15-3 (p < 0.002) was observed. The correlation of serum concentrations of HER-2/neu with estrogen and progesterone receptor status of the primary tumor was not significant in both groups. In conclusion, the measurement of serum HER-2/neu levels at diagnosis defines a small subgroup of breast cancer patients with a relatively advanced stage of disease. Its strong correlation with tumor load in patients with stage II disease and the high prevalence in patients with stage IV disease could make it a promising tool for the assessment of disease activity and biologic behavior in breast cancer.

Twelve-Year Experience With Two Courses of Adjuvant Single-Agent Carboplatin Therapy for Clinical Stage I Seminoma

PURPOSE During the past 30 years, radiation therapy with 28 to 30 Gy for para-aortic and ipsilateral iliac node areas was the standard adjuvant treatment for clinical stage I seminoma after orchiectomy. However, late effects of radiotherapy prompted a search for alternative adjuvant treatment approaches, including surveillance and application of carboplatin. In this retrospective analysis, we evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of two adjuvant single-agent carboplatin courses in 107 patients who were diagnosed with clinical stage I seminoma at our study centers between 1988 and 1999. PATIENTS AND METHODS All 107 patients (median age, 39 years; range, 24 to 63 years) received two postoperative adjuvant cycles of carboplatin (400 mg/m(2)). The pathologic tumor stage was pT1 in 84 patients, pT2 in 18 patients, and pT3 in five patients. Whole blood count and serum chemistry were evaluated weekly during treatment to assess hematologic and nonhematologic toxicity. RESULTS Six patients died from tumor-unrelated causes. The remaining 101 patients are currently alive and free of disease after a median follow-up of 74 months (range, 5 to 145 months). A detailed analysis of hematologic toxicity showed only World Health Organization (WHO) grade 1 leukocytopenia in 10.7% of all cycles and WHO grade 2 leukocytopenia in 2.1% of all cycles. CONCLUSION Regarding the absence of tumor recurrences in our retrospective analysis and the favorable toxicity profile with no episodes of long-term toxicity, we suggest that two adjuvant courses of single-agent carboplatin for clinical stage I seminoma patients might be equivalent to radiotherapy.

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.

Adjuvant therapy in primary GIST: state-of-the-art

BACKGROUND The management of primary gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) has evolved with the introduction of adjuvant therapy. Recently reported results of the SSG XVIII/AIO trial by the Scandinavian Sarcoma Group (SSG) and the German Working Group on Medical Oncology (AIO) represent a significant change in the evidence for adjuvant therapy duration. The objectives of this European Expert Panel meeting were to describe the optimal management and best practice for the systemic adjuvant treatment of patients with primary GISTs. MATERIALS AND METHODS A panel of medical oncology experts from European sarcoma research groups were invited to a 1-day workshop. Several questions and discussion points were selected by the organising committee prior to the conference. The experts reviewed the current literature of all clinical trials available on adjuvant therapy for primary GISTs, considered the quality evidence and formulated recommendations for each discussion point. RESULTS Clinical issues were identified and provisional clinical opinions were formulated for adjuvant treatment patient selection, imatinib dose, duration and patient recall, mutational analysis and follow-up of primary GIST patients. Adjuvant imatinib 400 mg/day for 3 years duration is a standard treatment in all patients with significant risk of recurrence following resection of primary GISTs. Patient selection for adjuvant therapy should be based on any of the three commonly used patient risk stratification schemes. R1 surgery (versus R0) alone is not an indication for adjuvant imatinib in low-risk GIST. Recall and imatinib restart could be proposed in patients who discontinued 1-year adjuvant imatinib within the previous 3 months and may be considered on a case-by-case basis in patients who discontinued within the previous year. Mutational analysis is recommended in all cases of GISTs using centralised laboratories with good quality control. Treatment is not recommended in an imatinib-insensitive D842V-mutated GIST. During adjuvant treatment, patients are recommended to be clinically assessed at 1- to 3-month intervals. Upon discontinuation, computed tomography scan (CT) scans are recommended every 3 to 4 months for 2 years when the risk of relapse is highest, followed by every 6 months until year 5 and annually until year 10 after treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS Key points in systemic adjuvant treatment and clinical management of primary GISTs as well as open questions were identified during this European Expert Panel meeting on GIST management.BACKGROUND The management of primary gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) has evolved with the introduction of adjuvant therapy. Recently reported results of the SSG XVIII/AIO trial by the Scandinavian Sarcoma Group (SSG) and the German Working Group on Medical Oncology (AIO) represent a significant change in the evidence for adjuvant therapy duration. The objectives of this European Expert Panel meeting were to describe the optimal management and best practice for the systemic adjuvant treatment of patients with primary GISTs. MATERIALS AND METHODS A panel of medical oncology experts from European sarcoma research groups were invited to a 1-day workshop. Several questions and discussion points were selected by the organising committee prior to the conference. The experts reviewed the current literature of all clinical trials available on adjuvant therapy for primary GISTs, considered the quality evidence and formulated recommendations for each discussion point. RESULTS Clinical issues were identified and provisional clinical opinions were formulated for adjuvant treatment patient selection, imatinib dose, duration and patient recall, mutational analysis and follow-up of primary GIST patients. Adjuvant imatinib 400 mg/day for 3 years duration is a standard treatment in all patients with significant risk of recurrence following resection of primary GISTs. Patient selection for adjuvant therapy should be based on any of the three commonly used patient risk stratification schemes. R1 surgery (versus R0) alone is not an indication for adjuvant imatinib in low-risk GIST. Recall and imatinib restart could be proposed in patients who discontinued 1-year adjuvant imatinib within the previous 3 months and may be considered on a case-by-case basis in patients who discontinued within the previous year. Mutational analysis is recommended in all cases of GISTs using centralised laboratories with good quality control. Treatment is not recommended in an imatinib-insensitive D842V-mutated GIST. During adjuvant treatment, patients are recommended to be clinically assessed at 1- to 3-month intervals. Upon discontinuation, computed tomography scan (CT) scans are recommended every 3 to 4 months for 2 years when the risk of relapse is highest, followed by every 6 months until year 5 and annually until year 10 after treatment discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS Key points in systemic adjuvant treatment and clinical management of primary GISTs as well as open questions were identified during this European Expert Panel meeting on GIST management.

Decrease of duration and symptoms in chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis by topical GM-CSF: results of a prospective randomised trial.

We have conducted a prospective controlled randomised clinical study testing for the efficacy of topical GM-CSF (molgramostim), as compared to the combined topical use of an antiseptic agent (povidone-iodine) and amphotericin B (AA) in patients with chemotherapy-induced mucositis World Health Organization (WHO) grades I-III. 31 patients (17 females, 14 males) developing oral mucositis following the administration of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based chemotherapy were entered into the present trial. 15 patients were randomised to receive GM-CSF mouthwashes, whereas 16 patients were randomised into the control arm to receive AA. Reported history (P=0.6109) and grading of oral mucositis (2.1+/-0.7, respectively; P=0.9867) were balanced and equally distributed between the two groups. The mean size of lesions of oral mucositis was 1.5+/-0.6 cm (range: 0.7-2.5 cm) in the GM-CSF group and 1.2+/-0.5 cm (range: 0.5-2.5 cm) in the AA group (P=0.08), respectively. The mean number of oral mucositis lesions was 1.9+/-1.1 (range: 1-4) in the GM-CSF group and 2.1+/-1.2 (range: 1-4) in the AA group (P=0.63), respectively. None of the patients had previously received colony stimulating factors either topically or systemically. Treatment for oral mucositis was initiated on day 2.7+/-1.2 (range: day 1-8) after onset of symptoms in the GM-CSF group and on day 1.8+/-1.4 (range: day 1-3; P=0.11) in the AA group. The topical application of GM-CSF resulted in a significantly shorter duration and quicker resolution of oral mucositis, as compared to AA including both, pretreatment plus treatment periods (5.3+/-2.5 versus 8.1+/-1.5 days; P=0.0008) as well as the necessary duration of treatment needed until complete remission of lesions (2.8+/-0.7 versus 6.3+/-1.1 days; P<0.0001). A systemic effect of topical GM-CSF upon the number of peripheral blood leukocytes or granulocytes was excluded. We conclude that the topical application of GM-CSF by mouthwash significantly abbreviated the duration and relieved patients from symptoms of chemotherapy-induced mucositis and was superior to the topical application of AA.