Timothy Iveson

Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin for Advanced Esophagogastric Cancer

BACKGROUND We evaluated capecitabine (an oral fluoropyrimidine) and oxaliplatin (a platinum compound) as alternatives to infused fluorouracil and cisplatin, respectively, for untreated advanced esophagogastric cancer. METHODS In a two-by-two design, we randomly assigned 1002 patients to receive triplet therapy with epirubicin and cisplatin plus either fluorouracil (ECF) or capecitabine (ECX) or triplet therapy with epirubicin and oxaliplatin plus either fluorouracil (EOF) or capecitabine (EOX). The primary end point was noninferiority in overall survival for the triplet therapies containing capecitabine as compared with fluorouracil and for those containing oxaliplatin as compared with cisplatin. RESULTS For the capecitabine-fluorouracil comparison, the hazard ratio for death in the capecitabine group was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.99); for the oxaliplatin-cisplatin comparison, the hazard ratio for the oxaliplatin group was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.80 to 1.10). The upper limit of the confidence intervals for both hazard ratios excluded the predefined noninferiority margin of 1.23. Median survival times in the ECF, ECX, EOF, and EOX groups were 9.9 months, 9.9 months, 9.3 months, and 11.2 months, respectively; survival rates at 1 year were 37.7%, 40.8%, 40.4%, and 46.8%, respectively. In the secondary analysis, overall survival was longer with EOX than with ECF, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.80 in the EOX group (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.97; P=0.02). Progression-free survival and response rates did not differ significantly among the regimens. Toxic effects of capecitabine and fluorouracil were similar. As compared with cisplatin, oxaliplatin was associated with lower incidences of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, alopecia, renal toxicity, and thromboembolism but with slightly higher incidences of grade 3 or 4 diarrhea and neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS Capecitabine and oxaliplatin are as effective as fluorouracil and cisplatin, respectively, in patients with previously untreated esophagogastric cancer. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN51678883 [controlled-trials.com].).

Randomized trial comparing epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil versus fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and methotrexate in advanced esophagogastric cancer.

PURPOSE We report the results of a prospectively randomized study that compared the combination of epirubicin, cisplatin, and protracted venous infusion fluorouracil (5-FU) (ECF regimen) with the standard combination of 5-FU, doxorubicin, and methotrexate (FAMTX) in previously untreated patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Two hundred seventy-four patients with adenocarcinoma or undifferentiated carcinoma were randomized and analyzed for survival, tumor response, toxicity, and quality of life (QL). RESULTS The overall response rate was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36% to 54%) with ECF and 21% (95% CI, 13% to 29%) with FAMTX (P = .0002). Toxicity was tolerable and there were only three toxic deaths. The FAMTX regimen caused more hematologic toxicity and serious infections, but ECF caused more emesis and alopecia. The median survival duration was 8.9 months with ECF and 5.7 months with FAMTX (P = .0009); at 1 year, 36% (95% CI, 27% to 45%) of ECF and 21% (95% CI, 14% to 29%) of FAMTX patients were alive. The median failure-free survival duration was 7.4 months with ECF and 3.4 months with FAMTX (P = .00006). The global QL scores were better for ECF at 24 weeks, but the remaining QL data showed no differences between either arm of the study. Hospital-based cost analysis on a subset of patients was similar for each arm and translated into an increment cost of

Prospective randomized trial comparing mitomycin, cisplatin, and protracted venous-infusion fluorouracil (PVI 5-FU) With epirubicin, cisplatin, and PVI 5-FU in advanced esophagogastric cancer.

975 per life-year gained. CONCLUSION The ECF regimen results in a survival and response advantage, tolerable toxicity, better QL and cost-effectiveness compared with FAMTX chemotherapy. This regimen should now be considered the standard treatment for advanced esophagogastric cancer.

Epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine with or without panitumumab for patients with previously untreated advanced oesophagogastric cancer (REAL3): a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial.

PURPOSE We report the results of a prospectively randomized study that compared the combination of epirubicin, cisplatin, and protracted venous-infusion fluorouracil (PVI 5-FU) (ECF) with the combination of mitomycin, cisplatin, and PVI 5-FU (MCF) in previously untreated patients with advanced esophagogastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Five hundred eighty patients with adenocarcinoma, squamous carcinoma, or undifferentiated carcinoma were randomized to receive either ECF (epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks, cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks and PVI 5-FU 200 mg/m(2)/d) or MCF (mitomycin 7 mg/m(2) every 6 weeks, cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks, and PVI 5-FU 300 mg/m(2)/d) and analyzed for survival, response, toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS The overall response rate was 42.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37% to 48%) with ECF and 44.1% (95% CI, 38% to 50%) with MCF (P =.692). Toxicity was tolerable, and there were only two toxic deaths. ECF resulted in more grade 3/4 neutropenia and grade 2 alopecia, but MCF caused more thrombocytopenia and plantar-palmar erythema. Median survival was 9.4 months with ECF and 8.7 months with MCF (P =.315); at 1 year, 40.2% (95% CI, 34% to 46%) of ECF and 32.7% (95% CI, 27% to 38%) of MCF patients were alive. Median failure-free survival was 7 months with both regimens. Global QOL scores were better with ECF at 3 and 6 months. CONCLUSION This study confirms response, survival, and QOL benefits of ECF observed in a previous randomized study. The equivalent efficacy of MCF was demonstrated, but QOL was superior with ECF. ECF remains one of the reference treatments for advanced esophagogastric cancer.

Phase III Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Study of Farnesyl Transferase Inhibitor R115777 in Patients With Refractory Advanced Colorectal Cancer

Summary Background EGFR overexpression occurs in 27–55% of oesophagogastric adenocarcinomas, and correlates with poor prognosis. We aimed to assess addition of the anti-EGFR antibody panitumumab to epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine (EOC) in patients with advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Methods In this randomised, open-label phase 3 trial (REAL3), we enrolled patients with untreated, metastatic, or locally advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma at 63 centres (tertiary referral centres, teaching hospitals, and district general hospitals) in the UK. Eligible patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive up to eight 21-day cycles of open-label EOC (epirubicin 50 mg/m2 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1 and capecitabine 1250 mg/m2 per day on days 1–21) or modified-dose EOC plus panitumumab (mEOC+P; epirubicin 50 mg/m2 and oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1, capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 per day on days 1–21, and panitumumab 9 mg/kg on day 1). Randomisation was blocked and stratified for centre region, extent of disease, and performance status. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. After a preplanned independent data monitoring committee review in October, 2011, trial recruitment was halted and panitumumab withdrawn. Data for patients on treatment were censored at this timepoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00824785. Findings Between June 2, 2008, and Oct 17, 2011, we enrolled 553 eligible patients. Median overall survival in 275 patients allocated EOC was 11·3 months (95% CI 9·6–13·0) compared with 8·8 months (7·7–9·8) in 278 patients allocated mEOC+P (hazard ratio [HR] 1·37, 95% CI 1·07–1·76; p=0·013). mEOC+P was associated with increased incidence of grade 3–4 diarrhoea (48 [17%] of 276 patients allocated mEOC+P vs 29 [11%] of 266 patients allocated EOC), rash (29 [11%] vs two [1%]), mucositis (14 [5%] vs none), and hypomagnesaemia (13 [5%] vs none) but reduced incidence of haematological toxicity (grade ≥3 neutropenia 35 [13%] vs 74 [28%]). Interpretation Addition of panitumumab to EOC chemotherapy does not increase overall survival and cannot be recommended for use in an unselected population with advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Funding Amgen, UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre.

Rilotumumab in combination with epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine as first-line treatment for gastric or oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma: an open-label, dose de-escalation phase 1b study and a double-blind, randomised phase 2 study

PURPOSE To determine whether R115777 improves survival in patients with refractory advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) in a multicenter, double-blind, prospective randomized study. PATIENTS AND METHODS Three hundred sixty-eight patients were randomly assigned to R115777 (300 mg twice daily) orally for 21 days every 28 days or placebo in a 2:1 ratio. All patients received best supportive care. The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were progression free survival, tumor response, toxicity, and quality of life. RESULTS The two treatment groups were well balanced for baseline demographics, including previous chemotherapy for advanced CRC. The median overall survival for R115777 was 174 days (95% CI, 157 to 198 days), and 185 days (95% CI, 158 to 238 days) for those patients receiving placebo (P =.376). One patient achieved a partial response in the R115777 arm. Stable disease (> 3 months) was observed in 24.3% patients in the R115777 group compared to 12.8% in the placebo arm. This did not translate into a statistically significant increase in progression-free survival. Overall, treatment was well tolerated. There was an increased incidence of reversible myelosuppression (neutropenia, thrombocytopenia), rash, and grade 1 to 2 diarrhea in the R115777 arm. There was no statistically significant difference in quality of life between arms. CONCLUSION Single agent R115777, given at this dose and schedule, has an acceptable toxicity profile, but does not improve overall survival compared to best supportive care alone in refractory advanced CRC.

Gemcitabine alone or in combination with cisplatin in patients with advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinomas or other biliary tract tumours: a multicentre randomised phase II study - The UK ABC-01 Study.

BACKGROUND Dysregulation of the hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)/MET pathway promotes tumour growth and metastasis. Rilotumumab is a fully human, monoclonal antibody that neutralises HGF. We aimed to assess the safety, efficacy, biomarkers, and pharmacokinetics of rilotumumab combined with epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX) in patients with advanced gastric or oesophagogastric junction cancer. METHODS We recruited patients (≥18 years old) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic gastric or oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, who had not received previous systemic therapy, from 43 sites worldwide. Phase 1b was an open-label, dose de-escalation study to identify a safe dose of rilotumumab (initial dose 15 mg/kg intravenously on day 1) plus ECX (epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1, cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m(2) twice a day orally on days 1-21, respectively), administered every 3 weeks. The phase 1b primary endpoint was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities in all phase 1b patients who received at least one dose of rilotumumab and completed the dose-limiting toxicity assessment window (first cycle of therapy). Phase 2 was a double-blind study that randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) using an interactive voice response system to receive rilotumumab 15 mg/kg, rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg, or placebo, plus ECX (doses as above), stratified by ECOG performance status and disease extent. The phase 2 primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), analysed by intention to treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00719550. FINDINGS Seven of the nine patients enrolled in the phase 1b study received at least one dose of rilotumumab 15 mg/kg, only two of whom had three dose-limiting toxicities: palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, cerebral ischaemia, and deep-vein thrombosis. In phase 2, 121 patients were randomly assigned (40 to rilotumumab 15 mg/kg; 42 to rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg; 39 to placebo). Median PFS was 5·1 months (95% CI 2·9-7·0) in the rilotumumab 15 mg/kg group, 6·8 months (4·5-7·5) in the rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg group, 5·7 months (4·5-7·0) in both rilotumumab groups combined, and 4·2 months (2·9-4·9) in the placebo group. The hazard ratio for PFS events compared with placebo was 0·69 (80% CI 0·49-0·97; p=0·164) for rilotumumab 15 mg/kg, 0·53 (80% CI 0·38-0·73; p=0·009) for rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg, and 0·60 (80% CI 0·45-0·79; p=0·016) for combined rilotumumab. Any grade adverse events more common in the combined rilotumumab group than in the placebo group included haematological adverse events (neutropenia in 44 [54%] of 81 patients vs 13 [33%] of 39 patients; anaemia in 32 [40%] vs 11 [28%]; and thrombocytopenia in nine [11%] vs none), peripheral oedema (22 [27%] vs three [8%]), and venous thromboembolism (16 [20%] vs five [13%]). Grade 3-4 adverse events more common with rilotumumab included neutropenia (36 [44%] vs 11 [28%]) and venous thromboembolism (16 [20%] vs four [10%]). Serious adverse events were balanced between groups except for anaemia, which occurred more frequently in the combined rilotumumab group (ten [12%] vs none). INTERPRETATION Rilotumumab plus ECX had no unexpected safety signals and showed greater activity than placebo plus ECX. A phase 3 study of the combination in MET-positive gastric and oesophagogastric junction cancer is in progress. FUNDING Amgen Inc.

Thromboembolism in Patients With Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancer Treated With Anthracycline, Platinum, and Fluoropyrimidine Combination Chemotherapy: A Report From the UK National Cancer Research Institute Upper Gastrointestinal Clinical Studies Group

Background:We assessed the activity of gemcitabine (G) and cisplatin/gemcitabine (C/G) in patients with locally advanced (LA) or metastatic (M) (advanced) biliary cancers (ABC) for whom there is no standard chemotherapy.Methods:Patients, aged ⩾18 years, with pathologically confirmed ABC, Karnofsky performance (KP) ⩾60, and adequate haematological, hepatic and renal function were randomised to G 1000 mg m−2 on D1, 8, 15 q28d (Arm A) or C 25 mg m−2 followed by G 1000 mg m−2 D1, 8 q21d (Arm B) for up to 6 months or disease progression.Results:In total, 86 patients (A/B, n=44/42) were randomised between February 2002 and May 2004. Median age (64/62.5 years), KP, primary tumour site, earlier surgery, indwelling biliary stent and disease stage (LA: 25/38%) are comparable between treatment arms. Grade 3–4 toxicity included (A/B, % patients) anaemia (4.5/2.4), leukopenia (6.8/4.8), neutropenia (13.6/14.3), thrombocytopenia (9.1/11.9), lethargy (9.1/28.6), nausea/vomiting (0/7.1) and anorexia (2.3/4.8). Responses (WHO criteria, % of evaluable patients: A n=31 vs B n=36): no CRs; PR 22.6 vs 27.8%; SD 35.5 vs 47.1% for a tumour control rate (CR+PR+SD) of 58.0 vs 75.0%. The median TTP and 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) (the primary end point) were greater in the C/G arm (4.0 vs 8.0 months and 45.5 vs 57.1% in arms A and B, respectively).Conclusion:Both regimens seem active in ABC. C/G is associated with an improved tumour control rate, TTP and 6-month PFS. The study has been extended (ABC-02 study) and powered to determine the effect on overall survival and the quality of life.

Report of two protocol planned interim analyses in a randomised multicentre phase III study comparing capecitabine with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin with cisplatin in patients with advanced oesophagogastric cancer receiving ECF

PURPOSE Data concerning the prevalence of and outcomes related to thromboembolic events (TEs) in patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer who are undergoing chemotherapy are limited. PATIENTS AND METHODS This was a prospective, exploratory analysis of TEs in a randomized, controlled trial of 964 patients recruited between 2000 and 2005 and treated with epirubicin/platinum/fluoropyrimidine combination chemotherapy for advanced/locally advanced gastroesophageal cancer. Regimens were epirubicin (E), cisplatin (C), fluorouracil (F; ECF); E, C, capecitabine (X; ECX); E, F, oxaliplatin (O; EOF); and EOX. Continuously infused F was administered via a central venous access device (CVAD) with 1 mg of warfarin for thromboprophylaxis. The principal outcome was the incidence of TEs (venous and arterial) in the whole treated patient cohort, according to chemotherapy, associated with CVADs and TE-related prognoses. RESULTS The incidences of any, of venous, and of arterial TEs among 964 treated patients were 12.1% (95% CI, 10.7 to 14.3), 10.1% (95% CI, 8.3 to 12.3), and 2.2% (95% CI, 1.4 to 3.4) respectively. There were fewer TEs in the O compared with the cisplatin groups (EOF/EOX v ECF/ECX: 7.6% v 15.1%; P = .0003). C was identified as a risk factor for TE in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.76; P = .001). There was no difference in the incidence of TEs for the F group compared with the capecitabine groups. The incidence of CVAD-related thrombosis was 7.0% (ECF/EOF arms). Overall survival was worse for patients who experienced TEs versus no TEs (median survival, 7.4 v 10.5 months; HR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.99; P = .043). CONCLUSION This analysis has prospectively quantified the incidence/pattern of TEs among patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer who were treated with four triplet regimens, has demonstrated a differential thrombogenic effect according to platinum use, and has noted a poorer outcome associated with TE during treatment. Chemotherapy-related TE should contribute to the risk/benefit assessment of treatment.

Management of advanced colorectal cancer : state of the art

The purpose of the study was to establish the optimal dose of capecitabine (X) to be used within a multicentre, randomised study evaluating the potential roles of oxaliplatin (O) and X in chemonaive patients (pts) with advanced oesophagogastric cancer. Two by two design was used, and pts were randomised to one of four regimens and stratified for extent of disease, performance status (PS) and centre. The treatment regimens are epirubicin, cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil (ECF), EOF, ECX or EOX. Doses: E 50 mg m−2, C 60 mg m−2 and O 130 mg m−2 i.v. 3 weekly; F 200 mg m−2 day−1 i.v. and X 500 mg m−2 b.i.d.−1 (escalated to 625 mg m−2 b.i.d.−1 after results of first interim analysis) p.o., continuously. First interim analysis was performed when 80 pts had been randomised. Dose-limiting fluoropyrimidine toxicities were stomatitis, palmar plantar erythema (PPE) and diarrhoea; 5.1% of X-treated pts experienced grade 3/4 toxicity. Protocol planned dose escalation of X to 625 mg m−2 b.i.d.−1 was instituted and a second interim analysis has been performed; results are presented in this paper. A total of 204 pts were randomised at the time of the protocol planned 2nd interim analysis. Grade 3/4 fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity was seen in 13.7% pts receiving F, 8.4% pts receiving X 500 mg m−2 b.i.d.−1 and 14.7% pts receiving X 625 mg m−2 b.i.d.−1. Combined complete and partial response rates were ECF 31% (95% CI 18.7–46.3), EOF 39% (95% CI 25.9–53.1), ECX 35% (95% CI 21.4–50.3), EOX 48% (95% CI 33.3–62.8). Grade 3/4 fluoropyrimidine toxicity affected 14.7% of pts treated with X 625 mg m−2 b.i.d.−1, which is similar to that observed with F, confirming this to be the optimal dose. The replacement of C by O and F by X does not appear to impair efficacy. The trial continues to total accrual of 1000 pts.