Vera Gorbunova

Bevacizumab plus interferon alfa-2a for treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a randomised, double-blind phase III trial

BACKGROUND Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition is a valid therapeutic approach in renal cell carcinoma. Therefore, an investigation of the combination treatment of the humanised anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody bevacizumab with interferon alfa was warranted. METHODS In a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase III trial, 649 patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma were randomised to receive interferon alfa-2a (9 MIU subcutaneously three times weekly) and bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks; n=327) or placebo and interferon alfa-2a (n=322). The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival and safety. An interim analysis of overall survival was prespecified after 250 deaths. On the basis of new second-line therapies that became available while the trial was in progress, which could have confounded analyses of overall survival data, we agreed with regulatory agencies that the pre-planned final analysis of progression-free survival would be acceptable for regulatory submission. The protocol was amended to allow the study to be unblinded at this point. The final analysis of progression-free survival is reported here. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with centerwatch.com, number BO17705E. FINDINGS 325 patients in the bevacizumab plus interferon alfa group and 316 in the placebo plus interferon alfa group received at least one dose of study treatment. At the time of unblinding, 230 progression events had occurred in the bevacizumab plus interferon alfa group and 275 in the control group; there were 114 deaths in the bevacizumab plus interferon alfa group and 137 in the control group. Median duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer in the bevacizumab plus interferon alfa group than it was in the control group (10.2 months vs 5.4 months; HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.52-0.75; p=0.0001). Increases in progression-free survival were seen with bevacizumab plus interferon alfa irrespective of risk group or whether reduced-dose interferon alfa was received. Deaths due to adverse events were reported in eight (2%) patients who received one or more doses of bevacizumab and seven (2%) of those who did not receive the drug. Only three deaths in the bevacizumab arm were considered by investigators to be possibly related to bevacizumab. The most commonly reported grade 3 or worse adverse events were fatigue (40 [12%] patients in the bevacizumab group vs 25 [8%] in the control group) and asthenia (34 [10%] vs 20 [7%]). INTERPRETATION The combination of bevacizumab with interferon alfa as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma results in a significant improvement in progression-free survival, compared with interferon alfa alone.

Phase III Study of Afatinib or Cisplatin Plus Pemetrexed in Patients With Metastatic Lung Adenocarcinoma With EGFR Mutations

PURPOSE The LUX-Lung 3 study investigated the efficacy of chemotherapy compared with afatinib, a selective, orally bioavailable ErbB family blocker that irreversibly blocks signaling from epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR/ErbB1), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2/ErbB2), and ErbB4 and has wide-spectrum preclinical activity against EGFR mutations. A phase II study of afatinib in EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma demonstrated high response rates and progression-free survival (PFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS In this phase III study, eligible patients with stage IIIB/IV lung adenocarcinoma were screened for EGFR mutations. Mutation-positive patients were stratified by mutation type (exon 19 deletion, L858R, or other) and race (Asian or non-Asian) before two-to-one random assignment to 40 mg afatinib per day or up to six cycles of cisplatin plus pemetrexed chemotherapy at standard doses every 21 days. The primary end point was PFS by independent review. Secondary end points included tumor response, overall survival, adverse events, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS A total of 1,269 patients were screened, and 345 were randomly assigned to treatment. Median PFS was 11.1 months for afatinib and 6.9 months for chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.78; P = .001). Median PFS among those with exon 19 deletions and L858R EGFR mutations (n = 308) was 13.6 months for afatinib and 6.9 months for chemotherapy (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.65; P = .001). The most common treatment-related adverse events were diarrhea, rash/acne, and stomatitis for afatinib and nausea, fatigue, and decreased appetite for chemotherapy. PROs favored afatinib, with better control of cough, dyspnea, and pain. CONCLUSION Afatinib is associated with prolongation of PFS when compared with standard doublet chemotherapy in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma and EGFR mutations.

Comparative effectiveness of axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (AXIS): a randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND The treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma has been revolutionised by targeted therapy with drugs that block angiogenesis. So far, no phase 3 randomised trials comparing the effectiveness of one targeted agent against another have been reported. We did a randomised phase 3 study comparing axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors, with sorafenib, an approved VEGF receptor inhibitor, as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer. METHODS We included patients coming from 175 sites (hospitals and outpatient clinics) in 22 countries aged 18 years or older with confirmed renal clear-cell carcinoma who progressed despite first-line therapy containing sunitinib, bevacizumab plus interferon-alfa, temsirolimus, or cytokines. Patients were stratified according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and type of previous treatment and then randomly assigned (1:1) to either axitinib (5 mg twice daily) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). Axitinib dose increases to 7 mg and then to 10 mg, twice daily, were allowed for those patients without hypertension or adverse reactions above grade 2. Participants were not masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and was assessed by a masked, independent radiology review and analysed by intention to treat. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00678392. FINDINGS A total of 723 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive axitinib (n=361) or sorafenib (n=362). The median PFS was 6·7 months with axitinib compared to 4·7 months with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0·665; 95% CI 0·544-0·812; one-sided p<0·0001). Treatment was discontinued because of toxic effects in 14 (4%) of 359 patients treated with axitinib and 29 (8%) of 355 patients treated with sorafenib. The most common adverse events were diarrhoea, hypertension, and fatigue in the axitinib arm, and diarrhoea, palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia, and alopecia in the sorafenib arm. INTERPRETATION Axitinib resulted in significantly longer PFS compared with sorafenib. Axitinib is a treatment option for second-line therapy of advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING Pfizer Inc.

Afatinib versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma (LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6): analysis of overall survival data from two randomised, phase 3 trials

BACKGROUND We aimed to assess the effect of afatinib on overall survival of patients with EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma through an analysis of data from two open-label, randomised, phase 3 trials. METHODS Previously untreated patients with EGFR mutation-positive stage IIIB or IV lung adenocarcinoma were enrolled in LUX-Lung 3 (n=345) and LUX-Lung 6 (n=364). These patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive afatinib or chemotherapy (pemetrexed-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 3] or gemcitabine-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 6]), stratified by EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion [del19], Leu858Arg, or other) and ethnic origin (LUX-Lung 3 only). We planned analyses of mature overall survival data in the intention-to-treat population after 209 (LUX-Lung 3) and 237 (LUX-Lung 6) deaths. These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00949650 and NCT01121393. FINDINGS Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 3 was 41 months (IQR 35-44); 213 (62%) of 345 patients had died. Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 6 was 33 months (IQR 31-37); 246 (68%) of 364 patients had died. In LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 28.2 months (95% CI 24.6-33.6) in the afatinib group and 28.2 months (20.7-33.2) in the pemetrexed-cisplatin group (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66-1.17, p=0.39). In LUX-Lung 6, median overall survival was 23.1 months (95% CI 20.4-27.3) in the afatinib group and 23.5 months (18.0-25.6) in the gemcitabine-cisplatin group (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.72-1.22, p=0.61). However, in preplanned analyses, overall survival was significantly longer for patients with del19-positive tumours in the afatinib group than in the chemotherapy group in both trials: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 33.3 months (95% CI 26.8-41.5) in the afatinib group versus 21.1 months (16.3-30.7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36-0.79, p=0.0015); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 31.4 months (95% CI 24.2-35.3) versus 18.4 months (14.6-25.6), respectively (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.44-0.94, p=0.023). By contrast, there were no significant differences by treatment group for patients with EGFR Leu858Arg-positive tumours in either trial: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 27.6 months (19.8-41.7) in the afatinib group versus 40.3 months (24.3-not estimable) in the chemotherapy group (HR 1.30, 95% CI 0.80-2.11, p=0.29); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 19.6 months (95% CI 17.0-22.1) versus 24.3 months (19.0-27.0), respectively (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.81-1.83, p=0.34). In both trials, the most common afatinib-related grade 3-4 adverse events were rash or acne (37 [16%] of 229 patients in LUX-Lung 3 and 35 [15%] of 239 patients in LUX-Lung 6), diarrhoea (33 [14%] and 13 [5%]), paronychia (26 [11%] in LUX-Lung 3 only), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 [5%] in LUX-Lung 6 only). In LUX-Lung 3, neutropenia (20 [18%] of 111 patients), fatigue (14 [13%]) and leucopenia (nine [8%]) were the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3-4 adverse events, while in LUX-Lung 6, the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (30 [27%] of 113 patients), vomiting (22 [19%]), and leucopenia (17 [15%]). INTERPRETATION Although afatinib did not improve overall survival in the whole population of either trial, overall survival was improved with the drug for patients with del19 EGFR mutations. The absence of an effect in patients with Leu858Arg EGFR mutations suggests that EGFR del19-positive disease might be distinct from Leu858Arg-positive disease and that these subgroups should be analysed separately in future trials. FUNDING Boehringer Ingelheim.

Ramucirumab plus docetaxel versus placebo plus docetaxel for second-line treatment of stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer after disease progression on platinum-based therapy (REVEL): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND Ramucirumab is a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody that targets the extracellular domain of VEGFR-2. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of treatment with docetaxel plus ramucirumab or placebo as second-line treatment for patients with stage IV non-small-cell-lung cancer (NSCLC) after platinum-based therapy. METHODS In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial (REVEL), we enrolled patients with squamous or non-squamous NSCLC who had progressed during or after a first-line platinum-based chemotherapy regimen. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) with a centralised, interactive voice-response system (stratified by sex, region, performance status, and previous maintenance therapy [yes vs no]) to receive docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) and either ramucirumab (10 mg/kg) or placebo on day 1 of a 21 day cycle until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or death. The primary endpoint was overall survival in all patients allocated to treatment. We assessed adverse events according to treatment received. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01168973. FINDINGS Between Dec 3, 2010, and Jan 24, 2013, we screened 1825 patients, of whom 1253 patients were randomly allocated to treatment. Median overall survival was 10·5 months (IQR 5·1-21·2) for 628 patients allocated ramucirumab plus docetaxel and 9·1 months (4·2-18·0) for 625 patients who received placebo plus docetaxel (hazard ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·75-0·98; p=0·023). Median progression-free survival was 4·5 months (IQR 2·3-8·3) for the ramucirumab group compared with 3·0 months (1·4-6·9) for the control group (0·76, 0·68-0·86; p<0·0001). We noted treatment-emergent adverse events in 613 (98%) of 627 patients in the ramucirumab safety population and 594 (95%) of 618 patients in the control safety population. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (306 patients [49%] in the ramucirumab group vs 246 [40%] in the control group), febrile neutropenia (100 [16%] vs 62 [10%]), fatigue (88 [14%] vs 65 [10%]), leucopenia (86 [14%] vs 77 [12%]), and hypertension (35 [6%] vs 13 [2%]). The numbers of deaths from adverse events (31 [5%] vs 35 [6%]) and grade 3 or worse pulmonary haemorrhage (eight [1%] vs eight [1%]) did not differ between groups. Toxicities were manageable with appropriate dose reductions and supportive care. INTERPRETATION Ramucirumab plus docetaxel improves survival as second-line treatment of patients with stage IV NSCLC. FUNDING Eli Lilly.

Capecitabine and cisplatin with or without cetuximab for patients with previously untreated advanced gastric cancer (EXPAND): a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND Patients with advanced gastric cancer have a poor prognosis and few efficacious treatment options. We aimed to assess the addition of cetuximab to capecitabine-cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer. METHODS In our open-label, randomised phase 3 trial (EXPAND), we enrolled adults aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed locally advanced unresectable (M0) or metastatic (M1) adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastro-oesophageal junction. We enrolled patients at 164 sites (teaching hospitals and clinics) in 25 countries, and randomly assigned eligible participants (1:1) to receive first-line chemotherapy with or without cetuximab. Randomisation was done with a permuted block randomisation procedure (variable block size), stratified by disease stage (M0 vs M1), previous oesophagectomy or gastrectomy (yes vs no), and previous (neo)adjuvant (radio)chemotherapy (yes vs no). Treatment consisted of 3-week cycles of twice-daily capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) (on days 1-14) and intravenous cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) (on day 1), with or without weekly cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) initial infusion on day 1 followed by 250 mg/m(2) per week thereafter). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), assessed by a masked independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered at EudraCT, number 2007-004219-75. FINDINGS Between June 30, 2008, and Dec 15, 2010, we enrolled 904 patients. Median PFS for 455 patients allocated capecitabine-cisplatin plus cetuximab was 4.4 months (95% CI 4.2-5.5) compared with 5.6 months (5.1-5.7) for 449 patients who were allocated to receive capecitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.92-1.29; p=0.32). 369 (83%) of 446 patients in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group and 337 (77%) of 436 patients in the chemotherapy group had grade 3-4 adverse events, including grade 3-4 diarrhoea, hypokalaemia, hypomagnesaemia, rash, and hand-foot syndrome. Grade 3-4 neutropenia was more common in controls than in patients who received cetuximab. Incidence of grade 3-4 skin reactions and acne-like rash was substantially higher in the cetuximab-containing regimen than in the control regimen. 239 (54%) of 446 in the cetuximab group and 194 (44%) of 436 in the control group had any grade of serious adverse event. INTERPRETATION Addition of cetuximab to capecitabine-cisplatin provided no additional benefit to chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer in our trial. FUNDING Merck KGaA.

Multicenter Phase III Comparison of Cisplatin/S-1 With Cisplatin/Infusional Fluorouracil in Advanced Gastric or Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma Study: The FLAGS Trial

PURPOSE Patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma need more efficacious and safer treatments than established today. S-1, a contemporary oral fluoropyrimidine, can provide that advantage. PATIENTS AND METHODS This study was conducted in 24 countries and 146 centers. One thousand fifty-three patients were stratified (center, number of metastatic sites, prior adjuvant therapy, and measurable cancer) and randomly assigned. Patients received either S-1 at 50 mg/m(2) divided in two daily doses for 21 days and cisplatin at 75 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1, repeated every 28 days (527 patients) or infusional fluorouracil at 1,000 mg/m(2)/24 hours for 120 hours and cisplatin at 100 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1, repeated every 28 days (526 patients). The primary end point was superiority in overall survival (OS) from cisplatin/S-1 compared with cisplatin/infusional fluorouracil in patients with advanced, untreated gastric, or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. The secondary end points were response rate, progression-free survival, time to treatment failure, and safety. RESULTS The median OS was 8.6 months in the cisplatin/S-1 arm and 7.9 months in the cisplatin/infusional fluorouracil arm (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.05; P = .20). Significant safety advantages were observed in the cisplatin/S-1 arm compared with the cisplatin/infusional fluorouracil arm for the rates of grade 3/4 neutropenia (32.3% v 63.6%), complicated neutropenia (5.0% v 14.4%), stomatitis (1.3% v 13.6%), hypokalemia (3.6% v 10.8%), and treatment-related deaths (2.5% v 4.9%; P < .05). CONCLUSION Cisplatin/S-1 did not prolong OS of patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma compared with cisplatin/infusional fluorouracil, but it did result in a significantly improved safety profile.

Doxorubicin and Paclitaxel Versus Fluorouracil, Doxorubicin, and Cyclophosphamide as First-Line Therapy for Women With Metastatic Breast Cancer: Final Results of a Randomized Phase III Multicenter Trial

PURPOSE This phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT) to 5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FAC) as first-line therapy for women with metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 267 women with metastatic breast cancer were randomized to receive either AT (doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2) followed 24 hours later by paclitaxel 220 mg/m(2)) or FAC (5-fluorouracil 500 mg/m(2), doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2), cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m(2)), each administered every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles. Patients had to have measurable disease and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2. Only one prior non-anthracycline, nontaxane-containing adjuvant chemotherapy regimen was allowed. RESULTS Overall response rates for patients randomized to AT and FAC were 68% and 55%, respectively (P =.032). Median time to progression and overall survival were significantly longer for AT compared with FAC (time to progression 8.3 months v 6.2 months [P =.034]; overall survival 23.3 months v 18.3 months [P =.013]). Therapy was generally well-tolerated (median of eight cycles delivered in each arm). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was more common with AT than with FAC (89% v 65%; P <.001); however, the incidence of fever and infection was low. Grade 3 or 4 arthralgia and myalgia, peripheral neuropathy, and diarrhea were more common with AT, whereas nausea and vomiting were more common with FAC. The incidence of cardiotoxicity was low in both arms. CONCLUSION AT conferred a significant advantage in response rate, time to progression, and overall survival compared with FAC. Treatment was well-tolerated with no unexpected toxicities.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Maintenance Bevacizumab With or Without Pemetrexed After First-Line Induction With Bevacizumab, Cisplatin, and Pemetrexed in Advanced Nonsquamous Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: AVAPERL (MO22089)

PURPOSE Maintenance therapy is associated with improved survival in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but few studies have compared active agents in this setting. AVAPERL evaluated the safety and efficacy of bevacizumab with or without pemetrexed as continuation maintenance treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC received first-line bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg, cisplatin 75 mg/m(2), and pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) once every 3 weeks for four cycles. Those achieving response or stable disease were randomly assigned at a ratio of 1:1 to maintenance bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg or bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg plus pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) once every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) after random assignment. RESULTS In total, 376 patients received induction treatment, 71.9% achieved disease control, and 67.3% were randomly assigned to maintenance therapy, with 125 and 128 receiving single-agent bevacizumab and bevacizumab plus pemetrexed treatment, respectively. At a median follow-up of 8.1 months, PFS from random assignment was significantly improved in the bevacizumab plus pemetrexed arm (median, 3.7 v 7.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.66; P < .001) per a stratified model. The PFS benefit extended across age, performance status, smoking history, and induction response (stable disease v partial response) subgroups. Any grade, grade ≥ 3, and serious adverse events occurred more often with bevacizumab plus pemetrexed maintenance. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION In an unselected population of patients with nonsquamous NSCLC who had achieved disease control with platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, bevacizumab plus pemetrexed maintenance was associated with a significant PFS benefit compared with bevacizumab alone. The combination was well tolerated.

Linifanib Versus Sorafenib in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Results of a Randomized Phase III Trial

PURPOSE This open-label phase III trial evaluated efficacy and tolerability of linifanib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) without prior systemic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to linifanib 17.5 mg once daily or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. Patients were stratified by region (Outside Asia, Japan, and rest of Asia), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score (ECOG PS; 0 or 1), vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread (yes or no), and hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection (yes or no). The primary end point of the study was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were time to progression (TTP) and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. RESULTS We randomly assigned 1,035 patients (median age, 60 years; Asian, 66.6%; ECOG PS 0, 65.2%; HBV, 49.1%; vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread, 70.1%). Median OS was 9.1 months on the linifanib arm (95% CI, 8.1 to 10.2) and 9.8 months on the sorafenib arm (95% CI, 8.3 to 11.0; hazard ratio [HR], 1.046; 95% CI, 0.896 to 1.221). For prespecified stratification subgroups, OS HRs ranged from 0.793 to 1.119 and the 95% CI contained 1.0. Median TTP was 5.4 months on the linifanib arm (95% CI, 4.2 to 5.6) and 4.0 months on the sorafenib arm (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.2; HR, 0.759; 95% CI, 0.643 to 0.895; P = .001). Best response rate was 13.0% on the linifanib arm versus 6.9% on the sorafenib arm. Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs); serious AEs; and AEs leading to discontinuation, dose interruption, and reduction were more frequent with linifanib (all P < .001). CONCLUSION Linifanib and sorafenib had similar OS in advanced HCC. Predefined superiority and noninferiority OS boundaries were not met for linifanib and the study failed to meet the primary end point. TTP and ORR favored linifanib; safety results favored sorafenib.