Yacine Salhi

Phase III Trial of Vinflunine Plus Best Supportive Care Compared With Best Supportive Care Alone After a Platinum-Containing Regimen in Patients With Advanced Transitional Cell Carcinoma of the Urothelial Tract

PURPOSE Vinflunine (VFL) is a new microtubule inhibitor that has activity against transitional cell carcinoma of urothelial tract (TCCU). We conducted a randomized phase III study of VFL and best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone in the treatment of patients with advanced TCCU who had experienced progression after a first-line platinum-containing regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS The study was designed to compare overall survival (OS) between patients receiving VFL + BSC (performance status [PS] = 0: 320 mg/m(2), every 3 weeks; PS = 0 with previous pelvic radiation and PS = 1: 280 mg/m(2) subsequently escalated to 320 mg/m(2)) or BSC. RESULTS Three hundred seventy patients were randomly assigned (VFL + BSC, n =253; BSC, n = 117). Both arms were well balanced except there were more patients with PS more than 1 (10% difference) in the BSC arm. Main grade 3 or 4 toxicities for VFL + BSC were neutropenia (50%), febrile neutropenia (6%), anemia (19%), fatigue (19%), and constipation (16%). In the intent-to-treat population, the objective of a median 2-month survival advantage (6.9 months for VFL + BSC v 4.6 months for BSC) was achieved (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.12) but was not statistically significant (P = .287). Multivariate Cox analysis adjusting for prognostic factors showed statistically significant effect of VFL on OS (P = .036), reducing the death risk by 23% (HR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.98). In the eligible population (n = 357), the median OS was significantly longer for VFL + BSC than BSC (6.9 v 4.3 months, respectively), with the difference being statistically significant (P = .040). Overall response rate, disease control, and progression-free survival were all statistically significant favoring VFL + BSC (P = .006, P = .002, and P = .001, respectively). CONCLUSION VFL demonstrates a survival advantage in second-line treatment for advanced TCCU. Consistency of results exists with significant and meaningful benefit over all efficacy parameters. Safety profile is acceptable, and therefore, VFL seems to be a reasonable option for TCCU progressing after first-line platinum-based therapy.

Prognostic Factors in Patients With Advanced Transitional Cell Carcinoma of the Urothelial Tract Experiencing Treatment Failure With Platinum-Containing Regimens

PURPOSE The present study sought to identify pretreatment prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelial tract (TCCU) who experienced treatment failure with the first-line, platinum-based regimen included in the phase III vinflunine trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS In total, 370 patients with platinum-refractory TCCU were included in this analysis. Potential prognostic factors were recorded prospectively. Univariate analysis was used to identify clinical and laboratory factors that significantly impact survival. Multivariate analysis was used to identify independent prognostic factors, and bootstrap analysis was performed for internal validation, forming a prognostic model. External validation was performed on the phase II vinflunine study CA183001. RESULTS Multivariate analysis and the internal validation identified Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) more than 0, hemoglobin level less than 10 g/dL, and the presence of liver metastasis as the main adverse prognostic factors for OS. External validation confirmed these prognostic factors. Four subgroups were formed based on the presence of zero, one, two, or three prognostic factors; the median OS times for these groups were 14.2, 7.3, 3.8, and 1.7 months (P < .001), respectively. CONCLUSION We identified and both internally and externally validated three adverse risk factors (PS, hemoglobin level, and liver metastasis) that predict for OS and developed a scoring system that classifies patients with platinum-refractory disease on second-line chemotherapy into four risk groups with different outcome. Similar to the first-line setting, the presence of visceral metastases and poor PS predict a worse prognosis. These factors, together with low hemoglobin, can be used for prognostication and future patient stratification in clinical trials.

Long-term survival results of a randomized phase III trial of vinflunine plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone in advanced urothelial carcinoma patients after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy

BACKGROUND To compare long-term, updated overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium (TCCU) treated with vinflunine plus best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone, after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Three hundred and seventy patients were randomly assigned in a phase III trial and allocated (2:1) to vinflunine (320 or 280 mg/m(2)) plus BSC or BSC alone. The first report (Bellmunt J, Theodore C, Demkov T et al. Phase III trial of vinflunine plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone after a platinumcontaining regimen in patients with advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelial tract. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27(27): 4454-4461) had a median follow-up of 22.1 m and the current report has a follow-up of 45.4 m. RESULTS Three hundred and fifty-two patients had died (censoring rate 5%). In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the median OS was 6.9 m and 4.6 m for vinflunine plus BSC versus BSC alone, respectively (n.s.). In multivariate Cox analysis, the addition of vinflunine was independently correlated with improved survival (HR: 0.719; 95% CI:0.570-0.906, P = 0.0052). In the eligible population, the median OS in both the arms was 6.9 and 4.3 m, respectively (HR: 0.78; 95% CI:0.61-0.96; P = 0.0227), indicating an estimated 22% reduction in the risk of death. CONCLUSIONS The updated OS data confirm the positive treatment effect of vinflunine on survival that was previously reported. These results are consistent over time and confirm that vinflunine is a valuable option for second-line treatment in patients with advanced TCCU after failure of platinum-based regimens.

Phase III Trial Comparing Vinflunine With Docetaxel in Second-Line Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Previously Treated With Platinum-Containing Chemotherapy

PURPOSE To compare vinflunine (VFL) to docetaxel in patients with stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have experienced treatment failure with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Randomized, multicenter, phase III study, 551 patients received either vinflunine 320 mg/m(2) or docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) every 21 days until disease progression or serious toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). The noninferiority analysis was based on a 10% difference (types I/II error rates: 5%/20%). Secondary end points included response rate (ORR), response duration, overall survival (OS), clinical benefit, quality of life (QOL), and safety. RESULTS Median PFS was 2.3 months for each arm (HR, 1.004; 95% CI, 0.841 to 1.199). ORR, stable disease, median OS, were 4.4% versus 5.5%, 36.0% versus 39.6%, 6.7 versus 7.2 months (HR, 0.973; 95% CI, 0.805 to 1.176), respectively. No significant difference in patient benefit and QOL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung). No unexpected adverse events were observed. Grade higher than 0 (vinflunine v docetaxel) anemia (82.1% v 79.8%), neutropenia (49.3 v 39.02%), thrombocytopenia (30.6% v 14.3%), febrile neutropenia (3.3% v 4.7%), constipation (39.2% v 11.7%), fatigue (36.6% v 33.9%), injection site reaction (31.9% v 0.7%), nausea (26.7% v 23.7%), vomiting (23.8% v 14.2%), alopecia (19.8% v 35.4%), stomatis (19.4% v 12.4%), abdominal pain (20.1% v 3.6%), myalgia (14.7% v 6.6%), peripheral neuropathy (10.7% v 15.0%), arthralgia (7.0% v 7.7%), diarrhea (6.2% v 12.4%), edema (1.5% v 5.4%), and nail disorders (1.1% v 5;1%) were observed. CONCLUSION This noninferiority phase III study showed similar efficacy end points for vinflunine and docetaxel. Despite higher rates of some adverse effects (anemia, abdominal pain, constipation, fatigue) the overall toxicity profile of vinflunine was manageable. Therefore, VFL may be another option in the second-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC.

A nomogram including baseline prognostic factors to estimate the activity of second-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma

To study the impact of the prognostic factors liver metastasis (LM), anaemia (haemoglobin [Hb] <10 g/dL), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG‐PS) ≥1 and time from previous chemotherapy (TFPC) on the activity of second‐line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC).

Impact of Response to Prior Chemotherapy in Patients With Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma Receiving Second-Line Therapy: Implications for Trial Design

BACKGROUND The prognostic impact of response to prior chemotherapy independent of performance status (PS), hemoglobin (Hb), liver metastasis (LM), and time from prior chemotherapy (TFPC) in the context of second-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC) is unknown. METHODS Six phase II trials evaluating second-line therapy (n = 504) were pooled. Patients who received prior therapy for metastatic disease were eligible for analysis if Hb, LM, PS, and TFPC were available. Response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.0 to first-line therapy was recorded. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the date of registration using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS A total of 275 patients were evaluable for analysis. Patients received gemcitabine-paclitaxel, cyclophosphamide-paclitaxel, pazopanib, docetaxel plus vandetanib/placebo, or vinflunine (2 trials). Those with prior response (n = 111) had a median OS of 8.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.8-9.4), compared with 5.9 months (95% CI, 5.0-6.6) for those without prior response (n = 164). Those with prior response had a median PFS of 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.6-4.0) compared with 2.6 months (95% CI, 2.0-2.8) in patients without response. Multivariable analysis did not reveal a significant independent impact of prior response on PFS and OS. CONCLUSIONS Best prior response in patients receiving prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease did not confer an independent prognostic impact with second-line therapy for advanced UC. Given that the setting of prior chemotherapy (metastatic or perioperative) has not appeared significant in a prior study, patients who received prior chemotherapy in perioperative or metastatic settings may be enrolled in the same second-line trial stratified for PS, Hb, LM, and TFPC.

The impact of prior platinum therapy on survival in patients with metastatic urothelial cancer receiving vinflunine

Background:A phase III trial demonstrated an overall survival advantage with the addition of vinflunine to best supportive care (BSC) in platinum-refractory advanced urothelial cancer. We subsequently examined the impact of an additional 2 years of survival follow-up and evaluated the influence of first-line platinum therapy on survival.Methods:The 357 eligible patients from the phase III study were categorised into two cohorts depending on prior cisplatin treatment: cisplatin or non-cisplatin. Survival was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method.Results:The majority had received prior cisplatin (70.3%). Survival was higher in the cisplatin group (HR: 0.76; CI 95% 0.58–0.99; P=0.04) irrespective of treatment arm. Multivariate analysis including known prognostic factors (liver involvement, haemoglobin, performance status) and prior platinum administration did not show an independent effect of cisplatin. Vinflunine reduced the risk of death by 24% in the cisplatin-group (HR: 0.76; CI 95% 0.58–0.99; P=0.04) and by 35% in non-cisplatin patients (HR: 0.65; CI 95% 0.41–1.04; P=0.07).Interpretation:Differences in prognostic factors between patients who can receive prior cisplatin and those who cannot may explain the survival differences in patients who undergo second line therapy. Prior cisplatin administration did not diminish the subsequent benefit of vinflunine over BSC.