Wasat Mansoor

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

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preplanned independent data monitoring committee review in October, 2011, trial recruitment was halted and panitumumab withdrawn.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.

Docetaxel versus active symptom control for refractory oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma (COUGAR-02): an open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Second-line chemotherapy for patients with oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma refractory to platinum and fluoropyrimidines has not shown benefits in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We assessed whether the addition of docetaxel to active symptom control alone can improve survival and HRQoL for patients. METHODS For this open-labelled, multicentre trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older from 30 UK centres. Patients were eligible if they had an advanced, histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus, oesophagogastric junction, or stomach that had progressed on or within 6 months of treatment with a platinum-fluoropyrimidine combination. Patients could have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. We randomly assigned patients using a central, computerised minimisation procedure to receive docetaxel plus active symptom control, or active symptom control alone (1:1; stratified by disease status, disease site, duration of response to previous chemotherapy, and performance status). Docetaxel was given at a dose of 75 mg/m(2) by intravenous infusion every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This is the report of the planned final analysis. This study is an International Standardised Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN13366390. FINDINGS Between April 21, 2008, and April 26, 2012, we recruited 168 patients, allocating 84 to each treatment group. After a median follow-up of 12 months [IQR 10-21]) and 161 (96%) deaths (80 in the docetaxel group, 81 in the active symptom control group), median overall survival in the docetaxel group was 5.2 months (95% CI 4.1-5.9) versus 3.6 months (3.3-4.4) in the active symptom control group (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.49-0.92; p=0.01). Docetaxel was associated with higher incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia (12 [15%] patients vs no patients), infection (15 [19%] patients vs two [3%] patients), and febrile neutropenia (six [7%] patients vs no patients). Patients receiving docetaxel reported less pain (p=0.0008) and less nausea and vomiting (p=0.02) and constipation (p=0.02). Global HRQoL was similar between the groups (p=0.53). Disease specific HRQoL measures also showed benefits for docetaxel in reducing dysphagia (p=0.02) and abdominal pain (p=0.01). INTERPRETATION Our findings suggest that docetaxel can be recommended as an appropriate second-line treatment for patients with oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma that is refractory to treatment with platinum and fluoropyrimidine. FUNDING Cancer Research UK.

Gefitinib for oesophageal cancer progressing after chemotherapy (COG): a phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial

BACKGROUND Evidence is scarce for the effectiveness of therapies for oesophageal cancer progressing after chemotherapy, and no randomised trials have been reported. We aimed to compare gefitinib with placebo in previously treated advanced oesophageal cancer. METHODS For this phase 3, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, eligible patients were adults with advanced oesophageal cancer or type I/II Siewert junctional tumours, histologically confirmed squamous-cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma, who had progressed after chemotherapy, with WHO performance status 0-2, and with measurable or evaluable disease on CT scan. Participants were recruited from 48 UK centres and randomly assigned (1:1) to gefitinib (500 mg) or matching placebo by simple randomisation with no stratification factors. Patients, clinicians, and trial office staff were masked to treatment allocation. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient choice. The primary outcome was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN29580179. FINDINGS Between March 30, 2009, and Nov 18, 2011, 450 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (one patient withdrew consent; 224 patients allocated gefitinib and 225 allocated placebo included in analyses). Overall survival did not differ between groups (median 3·73 months, 95% CI 3·23-4·50, for gefitinib vs 3·67 months, 95% CI 2·97-4·37, for placebo; hazard ratio [HR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·74-1·09, p=0·29). Among the prespecified patient-reported outcomes (110 patients on gefitinib and 121 on placebo completed both baseline and 4 week questionnaires and were included in analyses), odynophagia was significantly better in the gefitinib group (adjusted mean difference -8·61, 95% CI -14·49 to -2·73; n=227; p=0·004), whereas the other outcomes were not significantly improved compared with placebo: global quality of life (2·69, 95% CI -2·33 to 7·72, n=231, p=0·293), dysphagia (-3·18, 95% CI -8·36 to 2·00, n=231, p=0·228), and eating (-4·11, 95% CI -9·96 to 1·75, n=229, p=0·168). Median progression-free survival was marginally longer with gefitinib than it was with placebo (1·57 months, 95% CI 1·23-1·90 in the gefitinib group vs 1·17 months, 95% CI 1·07-1·37 in the placebo group; HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·66-0·96, p=0·020). The most common toxicities were diarrhoea (36 [16%] of 224 patients on gefitinib vs six [3%] of 225 on placebo) and skin toxicity (46 [21%] vs two [1%]), both mostly grade 2. The commonest grade 3-4 toxicities were fatigue (24 [11%] vs 13 [6%] patients) and diarrhoea (13 [6%] vs two [1%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 109 (49%) of 224 patients assigned to gefitinib and 101 (45%) of 225 on placebo. 54 (24%) of patients in the gefitinib group achieved disease control at 8 weeks, as did 35 (16%) of patients on placebo (p=0·023). INTERPRETATION The use of gefitinib as a second-line treatment in oesophageal cancer in unselected patients does not improve overall survival, but has palliative benefits in a subgroup of these difficult-to-treat patients with short life expectancy. Future research should focus on identification of predictive biomarkers to identify this subgroup of benefiting patients. FUNDING Cancer Research UK.

A randomized multicenter trial of epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine (EOC) plus panitumumab in advanced esophagogastric cancer (REAL3)

LBA4000 Background: EGFR overexpression occurs in 27-50% of esophagogastric adenocarcinomas (OGA), and correlates with poor prognosis. The REAL3 trial evaluated the addition of the anti-EGFR antibody panitumumab (P) to epirubicin, oxaliplatin and capecitabine (EOC) in advanced OGA. METHODS Patients with untreated, metastatic or locally advanced OGA were randomised to EOC (E 50mg/m2, O 130mg/m2, C 1250mg/m2/day) or mEOC+P (E 50mg/m2, O 100mg/m2, C 1000mg/m2/day, P 9mg/kg). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), toxicity, and biomarker evaluation. Response was evaluated by RECIST after 4 and 8 cycles. Following IDMC review in October 2011 trial recruitment was halted and panitumumab withdrawn. Data for patients on treatment were censored at this timepoint. RESULTS 553 patients were recruited (EOC 275, mEOC+P 278), with median follow-up 5.0 and 5.2 months respectively. Median OS was 11.3 months with EOC compared to 8.8 months with mEOC+P (HR 1.37: 95% CI 1.07-1.76, p=0.013). Median PFS was 7.4 and 6.0 months respectively (HR 1.22: 95% CI 0.98-1.52, p=0.068), with RR being 42% compared to 46% (odds ratio 1.16: 95% CI 0.81-1.57, p=0.467). mEOC+P was associated with ↑ G3/4 diarrhoea (17% vs 11%), skin rash (14% vs 1%) and thrombotic events (12% vs 7%), but ↓ haem toxicity (>G3 neutropenia 14% vs 31%). In the mEOC+P arm, OS was significantly improved in patients with G1-3 rash (77%, n=209) on treatment compared to those without (23%, n=63); median OS 10.2 vs 4.3 months (p<0.001), with similar significant improvements seen in RR and PFS. Biomarker analysis in the first 200 patients has not identified other predictive markers associated with P therapy. Multivariate analysis for OS in these patients demonstrated a negatively prognostic role for KRAS mutation (HR 2.1: 95% CI 1.10-4.05, p=0.025) and PIK3CA mutation (HR 3.2: 95% CI 1.01-10.40, p=0.048). CONCLUSIONS Addition of P to EOC chemotherapy was associated with worsening of OS in an unselected advanced OGA population. This may be in part due to lowered doses of O and C in the mEOC+P regimen. Outcomes in patients treated with P varied by grade of skin toxicity.

Peri-operative chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in operable oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma (UK Medical Research Council ST03): primary analysis results of a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2-3 trial

Summary Background Peri-operative chemotherapy and surgery is a standard of care for patients with resectable oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody against VEGF, improves the proportion of patients responding to treatment in advanced gastric cancer. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of adding bevacizumab to peri-operative chemotherapy in patients with resectable gastric, oesophagogastric junction, or lower oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Methods In this multicentre, randomised, open-label phase 2–3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years and older with histologically proven, resectable oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma from 87 UK hospitals and cancer centres. We randomly assigned patients 1:1 to receive peri-operative epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine chemotherapy or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, in addition to surgery. Patients in the control group (chemotherapy alone) received three pre-operative and three post-operative cycles of epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine chemotherapy: 50 mg/m2 epirubicin and 60 mg/m2 cisplatin on day 1 and 1250 mg/m2 oral capecitabine on days 1–21. Patients in the investigational group received the same treatment as the control group plus 7·5 mg/kg intravenous bevacizumab on day 1 of every cycle of chemotherapy and for six further doses once every 21 days following chemotherapy, as maintenance treatment. Randomisation was done by means of a telephone call to the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, where staff used a computer programme that implemented a minimisation algorithm with a random element to establish the allocation for the patient at the point of randomisation. Patients were stratified by chemotherapy centre, site of tumour, and tumour stage. The primary outcome for the phase 3 stage of the trial was overall survival (defined as the time from randomisation until death from any cause), analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Here, we report the primary analysis results of the trial; all patients have completed treatment and the required number of primary outcome events has been reached. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN 46020948, and with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00450203. Findings Between Oct 31, 2007, and March 25, 2014, 1063 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy alone (n=533) or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (n=530). At the time of analysis, 508 deaths were recorded (248 in the chemotherapy alone group and 260 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group). 3-year overall survival was 50·3% (95% CI 45·5–54·9) in the chemotherapy alone group and 48·1% (43·2–52·7) in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·08, 95% CI 0·91–1·29; p=0·36). Apart from neutropenia no other toxic effects were reported at grade 3 or worse severity in more than 10% of patients in either group. Wound healing complications were more prevalent in the bevacizumab group, occurring in 53 (12%) patients in this group compared with 33 (7%) patients in the chemotherapy alone group. In patients who underwent oesophagogastrectomy, post-operative anastomotic leak rates were higher in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group (23 [10%] of 233 in the chemotherapy alone group vs 52 [24%] of 220 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group); therefore, recruitment of patients with lower oesophageal or junctional tumours planned for an oesophagogastric resection was stopped towards the end of the trial. Serious adverse events for all patients included anastomotic leaks (30 events in chemotherapy alone group vs 69 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group), and infections with normal neutrophil count (42 events vs 53). Interpretation The results of this trial do not provide any evidence for the use of bevacizumab in combination with peri-operative epiribicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine chemotherapy for patients with resectable gastric, oesophagogastric junction, or lower oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Bevacizumab might also be associated with impaired wound healing. Funding Cancer Research UK, MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, and F Hoffmann-La Roche Limited.

Trastuzumab emtansine versus taxane use for previously treated HER2-positive locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GATSBY): an international randomised, open-label, adaptive, phase 2/3 study

BACKGROUND Although trastuzumab plus chemotherapy is the standard of care for first-line treatment of HER2-positive advanced gastric cancer, there is no established therapy in the second-line setting. In GATSBY, we examined the efficacy and tolerability of trastuzumab emtansine in patients previously treated for HER2-positive advanced gastric cancer (unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic gastric cancer, including adenocarcinoma of the gastro-oesophageal junction). METHODS This is the final analysis from GATSBY, a randomised, open-label, adaptive, phase 2/3 study, done at 107 centres (28 countries worldwide). Eligible patients had HER2-positive advanced gastric cancer and progressed during or after first-line therapy. In stage one of the trial, patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (2:2:1) to receive intravenous trastuzumab emtansine (3·6 mg/kg every 3 weeks or 2·4 mg/kg weekly) or physicians choice of a taxane (intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks or intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 weekly). In stage two, patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (2:1) to receive the independent data monitoring committee (IDMC)-selected dose of trastuzumab emtansine (2·4 mg/kg weekly) or a taxane (same regimen as above). We used permuted block randomisation, stratified by world region, previous HER2-targeted therapy, and previous gastrectomy. The primary endpoint (overall survival) was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01641939. FINDINGS Between Sept 3, 2012, and Oct 14, 2013, 70 patients were assigned to receive trastuzumab emtansine 3·6 mg/kg every 3 weeks, 75 to receive trastuzumab emtansine 2·4 mg/kg weekly, and 37 to receive a taxane in the stage 1 part of the trial. At the pre-planned interim analysis (Oct 14, 2013), the IDMC selected trastuzumab emtansine 2·4 mg/kg weekly as the dose to proceed to stage 2. By Feb 9, 2015, a further 153 patients had been randomly assigned to receive trastuzumab emtansine 2·4 mg/kg weekly and a further 80 to receive a taxane. At data cutoff, median follow-up was 17·5 months (IQR 12·1-23·0) for the trastuzumab emtansine 2·4 mg/kg weekly group and 15·4 months (9·2-18·1) in the taxane group. Median overall survival was 7·9 months (95% CI 6·7-9·5) with trastuzumab emtansine 2·4 mg/kg weekly and 8·6 months (7·1-11·2) with taxane treatment (hazard ratio 1·15, 95% CI 0·87-1·51, one-sided p=0·86). The trastuzumab emtansine 2·4 mg/kg group had lower incidences of grade 3 or more adverse events (134 [60%] of 224 patients treated with trastuzumab emtansine vs 78 [70%] of 111 patients treated with a taxane), and similar incidences of adverse events leading to death (eight [4%] vs four [4%]), serious adverse events (65 [29%] vs 31 [28%]), and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (31 [14%] vs 15 [14%]) than did taxane treatment. The most common grade 3 or more adverse events in the trastuzumab emtansine 2·4 mg/kg weekly group were anaemia (59 [26%]) and thrombocytopenia (25 [11%]) compared with neutropenia (43 [39%]), and anaemia (20 [18%]), in the taxane group. The most common serious adverse events were anaemia (eight [4%]), upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage (eight [4%]), pneumonia (seven [3%]), gastric haemorrhage (six [3%]), and gastrointestinal haemorrhage (five [2%]) in the trastuzumab emtansine 2·4 mg/kg weekly group compared with pneumonia (four [4%]), febrile neutropenia (four [4%]), anaemia (three [3%]), and neutropenia (three [3%]) in the taxane group. INTERPRETATION Trastuzumab emtansine was not superior to taxane in patients with previously treated, HER2-positive advanced gastric cancer. There is still an unmet need in this patient group and therapeutic options remain limited. FUNDING F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Gefitinib and EGFR Gene Copy Number Aberrations in Esophageal Cancer.

Purpose The Cancer Esophagus Gefitinib trial demonstrated improved progression-free survival with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib relative to placebo in patients with advanced esophageal cancer who had disease progression after chemotherapy. Rapid and durable responses were observed in a minority of patients. We hypothesized that genetic aberration of the EGFR pathway would identify patients benefitting from gefitinib. Methods A prespecified, blinded molecular analysis of Cancer Esophagus Gefitinib trial tumors was conducted to compare efficacy of gefitinib with that of placebo according to EGFR copy number gain (CNG) and EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutation status. EGFR CNG was determined by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) using prespecified criteria and EGFR FISH-positive status was defined as high polysomy or amplification. Results Biomarker data were available for 340 patients. In EGFR FISH-positive tumors (20.2%), overall survival was improved with gefitinib compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.00; P = .05). In EGFR FISH-negative tumors, there was no difference in overall survival with gefitinib compared with placebo (HR for death, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.18; P = .46). Patients with EGFR amplification (7.2%) gained greatest benefit from gefitinib (HR for death, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.64; P = .006). There was no difference in overall survival for gefitinib versus placebo for patients with EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations, or for any mutation versus none. Conclusion EGFR CNG assessed by FISH appears to identify a subgroup of patients with esophageal cancer who may benefit from gefitinib as a second-line treatment. Results of this study suggest that anti-EGFR therapies should be investigated in prospective clinical trials in different settings in EGFR FISH-positive and, in particular, EGFR-amplified esophageal cancer.

Efficacy and safety of long-acting pasireotide or everolimus alone or in combination in patients with advanced carcinoids of the lung and thymus (LUNA): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND There are no data from prospective studies focused exclusively on patients with advanced lung and thymic carcinoids. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of long-acting pasireotide and everolimus, administered alone or in combination, in patients with advanced carcinoids of the lung or thymus. METHODS LUNA was a prospective, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial of adult patients (aged >18 years) with advanced (unresectable or metastatic), well differentiated carcinoid tumours of the lung or thymus, with radiological progression within 12 months before randomisation, and a WHO performance status of 0-2. At each centre, the investigator or their designee registered each patient using an interactive voice recognition system into one of the three treatment groups. The randomisation allocation sequence was generated by an external company; patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive treatment with long-acting pasireotide (60 mg intramuscularly every 28 days), everolimus (10 mg orally once daily), or both in combination, for the core 12-month treatment period. Patients were stratified by carcinoid type (typical vs atypical) and line of study treatment (first line vs others). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients progression-free at month 9, defined as the proportion of patients with overall lesion assessment at month 9 showing a complete response, partial response, or stable disease according to local Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one post-baseline safety assessment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01563354. The extension phase of the study is ongoing. FINDINGS Between Aug 16, 2013, and Sept 30, 2014, 124 patients were enrolled from 36 centres in nine countries: 41 were allocated to the long-acting pasireotide group, 42 to the everolimus group, and 41 to the combination group. At month 9, the proportion of patients with an overall lesion assessment of complete response, partial response, or stable disease was 16 of 41 patients (39·0%, 95% CI 24·2-55·5) in the long-acting pasireotide group, 14 of 42 patients (33·3%, 19·6-49·5) in the everolimus group, and 24 of 41 patients (58·5%, 42·1-73·7) in the combination group. The most common grade 1-2 adverse events with a suspected association with long-acting pasireotide monotherapy were diarrhoea (15 [37%] of 41), hyperglycaemia (17 [41%]), and weight loss (8 [20%]); those with a suspected association with everolimus monotherapy were stomatitis (26 [62%] of 42) and diarrhoea (16 [38%]); and those suspected to be associated with combination treatment were hyperglycaemia (27 [66%] of 41]), diarrhoea (19 [46%]), and asthenia (8 [20%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events with a suspected association with long-acting pasireotide monotherapy were γ-glutamyltransferase increased (four [10%] of 41 patients), diarrhoea (three [7%]), and hyperglycaemia (three [7%]); those for everolimus were hyperglycaemia (seven [17%] of 42 patients), stomatitis (four [10%]), and diarrhoea (three [7%]); those for combination treatment were hyperglycaemia (nine [22%] of 41 patients) and diarrhoea (four [10%]). 11 patients died during the core 12-month treatment phase or up to 56 days after the last study treatment exposure date: two (5%) of 41 in the long-acting pasireotide group, six (14%) of 42 in the everolimus group, and three (7%) of 41 in the combination group. No deaths were suspected to be related to long-acting pasireotide treatment. One death in the everolimus group (acute kidney injury associated with diarrhoea), and two deaths in the combination group (diarrhoea and urinary sepsis in one patient, and acute renal failure and respiratory failure in one patient) were suspected to be related to everolimus treatment. In the latter patient, acute renal failure was not suspected to be related to everolimus treatment, but respiratory failure was suspected to be related. INTERPRETATION The study met the primary endpoint in all three treatment groups. Safety profiles were consistent with the known safety profiles of these agents. Further studies are needed to confirm the antitumour efficacy of the combination of a somatostatin analogue with everolimus in lung and thymic carcinoids. FUNDING Novartis Pharma AG.

A randomized, open-label study of the efficacy and safety of AZD4547 monotherapy versus paclitaxel for the treatment of advanced gastric adenocarcinoma with FGFR2 polysomy or gene amplification

Background Approximately 5%-10% of gastric cancers have a fibroblast growth factor receptor-2 (FGFR2) gene amplification. AZD4547 is a selective FGFR-1, 2, 3 tyrosine kinase inhibitor with potent preclinical activity in FGFR2 amplified gastric adenocarcinoma SNU16 and SGC083 xenograft models. The randomized phase II SHINE study (NCT01457846) investigated whether AZD4547 improves clinical outcome versus paclitaxel as second-line treatment in patients with advanced gastric adenocarcinoma displaying FGFR2 polysomy or gene amplification detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Patients and methods Patients were randomized 3:2 (FGFR2 gene amplification) or 1:1 (FGFR2 polysomy) to AZD4547 or paclitaxel. Patients received AZD4547 80 mg twice daily, orally, on a 2 weeks on/1 week off schedule of a 21-day cycle or intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 administered weekly on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Safety outcomes were assessed and an exploratory biomarker analysis was undertaken. Results Of 71 patients randomized (AZD4547 n = 41, paclitaxel n = 30), 67 received study treatment (AZD4547 n = 40, paclitaxel n = 27). Among all randomized patients, median PFS was 1.8 months with AZD4547 and 3.5 months with paclitaxel (one-sided P = 0.9581); median follow-up duration for PFS was 1.77 and 2.12 months, respectively. The incidence of adverse events was similar in both treatment arms. Exploratory biomarker analyses revealed marked intratumor heterogeneity of FGFR2 amplification and poor concordance between amplification/polysomy and FGFR2 mRNA expression. Conclusions AZD4547 did not significantly improve PFS versus paclitaxel in gastric cancer FGFR2 amplification/polysomy patients. Considerable intratumor heterogeneity for FGFR2 gene amplification and poor concordance between FGFR2 amplification/polysomy and FGFR2 expression indicates the need for alternative predictive biomarker testing. AZD4547 was generally well tolerated.

Trifluridine/tipiracil versus placebo in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer (TAGS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Trifluridine/tipiracil showed activity and was well tolerated in a phase 2 study of pretreated patients with advanced gastric cancer done in Japan. We investigated whether the treatment was efficacious compared with placebo in a global population. METHODS TAGS was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done in 110 academic hospitals in 17 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed, non-resectable, metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma (including adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction) as defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging classification (7th edition) who had received at least two previous chemotherapy regimens and had experienced radiological disease progression were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) via dynamic randomisation from a centralised interactive voice-response system to receive either oral trifluridine/tipiracil (35 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-5 and days 8-12 every 28 days) plus best supportive care or placebo plus best supportive care. Participants were allocated to groups by study-site personnel. Randomisation was stratified by region (Japan vs rest of world), ECOG performance status (0 vs 1), and previous treatment with ramucirumab (yes vs no). Both patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population and safety in all patients who received at least one dose of treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02500043. The trial, including follow-up of all participants, has been completed. FINDINGS Between Feb 24, 2016, and Jan 5, 2018, 507 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 337 to the trifluridine/tipiracil group and 170 to the placebo group. Median overall survival was 5·7 months (95% CI 4·8-6·2) in the trifluridine/tipiracil group and 3·6 months (3·1-4·1) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·69 [95% CI 0·56-0·85]; one-sided p=0·00029, two-sided p=0·00058). Grade 3 or worse adverse events of any cause occurred in 267 (80%) patients in the trifluridine/tipiracil group and 97 (58%) in the placebo group. The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events of any cause were neutropenia (n=114 [34%]) and anaemia (n=64 [19%]) in the trifluridine/tipiracil group and abdominal pain (n=15 [9%]) and general deterioration of physical health (n=15 [9%]) in the placebo group. Serious adverse events of any cause were reported in 143 (43%) patients in the trifluridine/tipiracil group and 70 (42%) in the placebo group. One treatment-related death was reported in each group (because of cardiopulmonary arrest in the trifluridine/tipiracil group and because of toxic hepatitis in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION Trifluridine/tipiracil significantly improved overall survival compared with placebo and was well tolerated in this heavily pretreated population of patients with advanced gastric cancer. Trifluridine/tipiracil could be a new treatment option in this population who represent a high unmet medical need. FUNDING Taiho Oncology and Taiho Pharmaceutical.