Summary Background Palbociclib (PD-0332991) is an oral, small-molecule inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs) 4 and 6 with preclinical evidence of growth-inhibitory activity in oestrogen ...receptor-positive breast cancer cells and synergy with anti-oestrogens. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of palbociclib in combination with letrozole as first-line treatment of patients with advanced, oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer. Methods In this open-label, randomised phase 2 study, postmenopausal women with advanced oestrogen receptor-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer who had not received any systemic treatment for their advanced disease were eligible to participate. Patients were enrolled in two separate cohorts that accrued sequentially: in cohort 1, patients were enrolled on the basis of their oestrogen receptor-positive and HER2-negative biomarker status alone, whereas in cohort 2 they were also required to have cancers with amplification of cyclin D1 ( CCND1 ), loss of p16 (INK4A or CDKN2A), or both. In both cohorts, patients were randomly assigned 1:1 via an interactive web-based randomisation system, stratified by disease site and disease-free interval, to receive continuous oral letrozole 2·5 mg daily or continuous oral letrozole 2·5 mg daily plus oral palbociclib 125 mg, given once daily for 3 weeks followed by 1 week off over 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Accrual to cohort 2 was stopped after an unplanned interim analysis of cohort 1 and the statistical analysis plan for the primary endpoint was amended to a combined analysis of cohorts 1 and 2 (instead of cohort 2 alone). The study is ongoing but closed to accrual; these are the results of the final analysis of progression-free survival. The study is registered with the ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00721409. Findings Between Dec 22, 2009, and May 12, 2012, we randomly assigned 165 patients, 84 to palbociclib plus letrozole and 81 to letrozole alone. At the time of the final analysis for progression-free survival (median follow-up 29·6 months 95% CI 27·9–36·0 for the palbociclib plus letrozole group and 27·9 months 25·5–31·1 for the letrozole group), 41 progression-free survival events had occurred in the palbociclib plus letrozole group and 59 in the letrozole group. Median progression-free survival was 10·2 months (95% CI 5·7–12·6) for the letrozole group and 20·2 months (13·8–27·5) for the palbociclib plus letrozole group (HR 0·488, 95% CI 0·319–0·748; one-sided p=0·0004). In cohort 1 (n=66), median progression-free survival was 5·7 months (2·6–10·5) for the letrozole group and 26·1 months (11·2–not estimable) for the palbociclib plus letrozole group (HR 0·299, 0·156–0·572; one-sided p<0·0001); in cohort 2 (n=99), median progression-free survival was 11·1 months (7·1–16·4) for the letrozole group and 18·1 months (13·1–27·5) for the palbociclib plus letrozole group (HR 0·508, 0·303–0·853; one-sided p=0·0046). Grade 3–4 neutropenia was reported in 45 (54%) of 83 patients in the palbociclib plus letrozole group versus one (1%) of 77 patients in the letrozole group, leucopenia in 16 (19%) versus none, and fatigue in four (4%) versus one (1%). Serious adverse events that occurred in more than one patient in the palbociclib plus letrozole group were pulmonary embolism (three 4% patients), back pain (two 2%), and diarrhoea (two 2%). No cases of febrile neutropenia or neutropenia-related infections were reported during the study. 11 (13%) patients in the palbociclib plus letrozole group and two (2%) in the letrozole group discontinued the study because of adverse events. Interpretation The addition of palbociclib to letrozole in this phase 2 study significantly improved progression-free survival in women with advanced oestrogen receptor-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer. A phase 3 trial is currently underway. Funding Pfizer.
Summary Background Aromatase inhibitors are a standard of care for hormone receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. We investigated whether the selective oestrogen receptor ...degrader fulvestrant could improve progression-free survival compared with anastrozole in postmenopausal patients who had not received previous endocrine therapy. Methods In this phase 3, randomised, double-blind trial, we recruited eligible patients with histologically confirmed oestrogen receptor-positive or progesterone receptor-positive, or both, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer from 113 academic hospitals and community centres in 20 countries. Eligible patients were endocrine therapy-naive, with WHO performance status 0–2, and at least one measurable or non-measurable lesion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to fulvestrant (500 mg intramuscular injection; on days 0, 14, 28, then every 28 days thereafter) or anastrozole (1 mg orally daily) using a computer-generated randomisation scheme. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1·1, intervention by surgery or radiotherapy because of disease deterioration, or death from any cause, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety outcomes were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of randomised treatment (including placebo). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01602380. Findings Between Oct 17, 2012, and July 11, 2014, 524 patients were enrolled to this study. Of these, 462 patients were randomised (230 to receive fulvestrant and 232 to receive anastrozole). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the fulvestrant group than in the anastrozole group (hazard ratio HR 0·797, 95% CI 0·637–0·999, p=0·0486). Median progression-free survival was 16·6 months (95% CI 13·83–20·99) in the fulvestrant group versus 13·8 months (11·99–16·59) in the anastrozole group. The most common adverse events were arthralgia (38 17% in the fulvestrant group vs 24 10% in the anastrozole group) and hot flushes (26 11% in the fulvestrant group vs 24 10% in the anastrozole group). 16 (7%) of 228 patients in in the fulvestrant group and 11 (5%) of 232 patients in the anastrozole group discontinued because of adverse events. Interpretation Fulvestrant has superior efficacy and is a preferred treatment option for patients with hormone receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who have not received previous endocrine therapy compared with a third-generation aromatase inhibitor, a standard of care for first-line treatment of these patients. Funding AstraZeneca.
This phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) plus carboplatin with solvent-based paclitaxel (sb-paclitaxel) plus carboplatin in advanced ...non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
In all, 1,052 untreated patients with stage IIIB to IV NSCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive 100 mg/m(2) nab-paclitaxel weekly and carboplatin at area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) 6 once every 3 weeks (nab-PC) or 200 mg/m(2) sb-paclitaxel plus carboplatin AUC 6 once every 3 weeks (sb-PC). The primary end point was objective overall response rate (ORR).
On the basis of independent assessment, nab-PC demonstrated a significantly higher ORR than sb-PC (33% v 25%; response rate ratio, 1.313; 95% CI, 1.082 to 1.593; P = .005) and in patients with squamous histology (41% v 24%; response rate ratio, 1.680; 95% CI, 1.271 to 2.221; P < .001). nab-PC was as effective as sb-PC in patients with nonsquamous histology (ORR, 26% v 25%; P = .808). There was an approximately 10% improvement in progression-free survival (median, 6.3 v 5.8 months; hazard ratio HR, 0.902; 95% CI, 0.767 to 1.060; P = .214) and overall survival (OS; median, 12.1 v 11.2 months; HR, 0.922; 95% CI, 0.797 to 1.066; P = .271) in the nab-PC arm versus the sb-PC arm, respectively. Patients ≥ 70 years old and those enrolled in North America showed a significantly increased OS with nab-PC versus sb-PC. Significantly less grade ≥ 3 neuropathy, neutropenia, arthralgia, and myalgia occurred in the nab-PC arm, and less thrombocytopenia and anemia occurred in the sb-PC arm.
The administration of nab-PC as first-line therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC was efficacious and resulted in a significantly improved ORR versus sb-PC, achieving the primary end point. nab-PC produced less neuropathy than sb-PC.
Ipilimumab, which is an anti-cytotoxic T-cell lymphocyte-4 monoclonal antibody, showed a survival benefit in melanoma with adverse events (AEs) managed by protocol-defined guidelines. A phase II ...study in lung cancer assessed the activity of ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin.
Patients (N = 204) with chemotherapy-naive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2)) and carboplatin (area under the curve, 6) with either placebo (control) or ipilimumab in one of the following two regimens: concurrent ipilimumab (four doses of ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by two doses of placebo plus paclitaxel and carboplatin) or phased ipilimumab (two doses of placebo plus paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by four doses of ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin).Treatment was administered intravenously every 3 weeks for ≤ 18 weeks (induction). Eligible patients continued ipilimumab or placebo every 12 weeks as maintenance therapy. Response was assessed by using immune-related response criteria and modified WHO criteria. The primary end point was immune-related progression-free survival (irPFS). Other end points were progression-free survival (PFS), best overall response rate (BORR), immune-related BORR (irBORR), overall survival (OS), and safety.
The study met its primary end point of improved irPFS for phased ipilimumab versus the control (hazard ratio HR, 0.72; P = .05), but not for concurrent ipilimumab (HR, 0.81; P = .13). Phased ipilimumab also improved PFS according to modified WHO criteria (HR, 0.69; P = .02). Phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab, and control treatments were associated with a median irPFS of 5.7, 5.5, and 4.6 months, respectively, a median PFS of 5.1, 4.1, and 4.2 months, respectively, an irBORR of 32%, 21% and 18%, respectively, a BORR of 32%, 21% and 14%, respectively, and a median OS of 12.2, 9.7, and 8.3 months. Overall rates of grade 3 and 4 immune-related AEs were 15%, 20%, and 6% for phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab, and the control, respectively. Two patients (concurrent, one patient; control, one patient) died from treatment-related toxicity.
Phased ipilimumab plus paclitaxel and carboplatin improved irPFS and PFS, which supports additional investigation of ipilimumab in NSCLC.
We compared fulvestrant 500 mg regimen with the approved dose of fulvestrant 250 mg per month for treatment of postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-positive advanced breast cancer who ...experienced progression after prior endocrine therapy.
Comparison of Faslodex in Recurrent or Metastatic Breast Cancer (CONFIRM) is a double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter, phase III study. Patients were randomly assigned to fulvestrant 500 mg (500 mg intramuscularly IM on day 0, then 500 mg IM on days 14 and 28 and every 28 days thereafter) or 250 mg every 28 days. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included objective response rate, clinical benefit rate (CBR), duration of clinical benefit (DoCB), overall survival (OS), and quality of life (QOL).
PFS was significantly longer for fulvestrant 500 mg (n = 362) than 250 mg (n = 374) (hazard ratio HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.94; P = .006), corresponding to a 20% reduction in risk of progression. Objective response rate was similar for fulvestrant 500 mg and 250 mg (9.1% v 10.2%, respectively). CBR was 45.6% for fulvestrant 500 mg and 39.6% for fulvestrant 250 mg. DoCB and OS were 16.6 and 25.1 months, respectively, for the 500-mg group, whereas DoCB and OS were 13.9 and 22.8 months, respectively, in the 250-mg group. Fulvestrant 500 mg was well tolerated with no dose-dependent adverse events. QOL was similar for both arms.
Fulvestrant 500 mg was associated with a statistically significant increase in PFS and not associated with increased toxicity, corresponding to a clinically meaningful improvement in benefit versus risk compared with fulvestrant 250 mg.
Summary Background In the PALOMA-3 study, the combination of the CDK4 and CDK6 inhibitor palbociclib and fulvestrant was associated with significant improvements in progression-free survival compared ...with fulvestrant plus placebo in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Identification of patients most suitable for the addition of palbociclib to endocrine therapy after tumour recurrence is crucial for treatment optimisation in metastatic breast cancer. We aimed to confirm our earlier findings with this extended follow-up and show our results for subgroup and biomarker analyses. Methods In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised phase 3 study, women aged 18 years or older with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer that had progressed on previous endocrine therapy were stratified by sensitivity to previous hormonal therapy, menopausal status, and presence of visceral metastasis at 144 centres in 17 countries. Eligible patients—ie, any menopausal status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–1, measurable disease or bone disease only, and disease relapse or progression after previous endocrine therapy for advanced disease during treatment or within 12 months of completion of adjuvant therapy—were randomly assigned (2:1) via a centralised interactive web-based and voice-based randomisation system to receive oral palbociclib (125 mg daily for 3 weeks followed by a week off over 28-day cycles) plus 500 mg fulvestrant (intramuscular injection on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1; then on day 1 of subsequent 28-day cycles) or placebo plus fulvestrant. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. We also assessed endocrine therapy resistance by clinical parameters, quantitative hormone-receptor expression, and tumour PIK3CA mutational status in circulating DNA at baseline. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01942135. Findings Between Oct 7, 2013, and Aug 26, 2014, 521 patients were randomly assigned, 347 to fulvestrant plus palbociclib and 174 to fulvestrant plus placebo. Study enrolment is closed and overall survival follow-up is in progress. By March 16, 2015, 259 progression-free-survival events had occurred (145 in the fulvestrant plus palbociclib group and 114 in the fulvestrant plus placebo group); median follow-up was 8·9 months (IQR 8·7–9·2). Median progression-free survival was 9·5 months (95% CI 9·2–11·0) in the fulvestrant plus palbociclib group and 4·6 months (3·5–5·6) in the fulvestrant plus placebo group (hazard ratio 0·46, 95% CI 0·36–0·59, p<0·0001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 251 (73%) of 345 patients in the fulvestrant plus palbociclib group and 38 (22%) of 172 patients in the fulvestrant plus placebo group. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (223 65% in the fulvestrant plus palbociclib group and one 1% in the fulvestrant plus placebo group), anaemia (ten 3% and three 2%), and leucopenia (95 28% and two 1%). Serious adverse events (all causalities) occurred in 44 patients (13%) of 345 in the fulvestrant plus palbociclib group and 30 (17%) of 172 patients in the fulvestrant plus placebo group. PIK3CA mutation was detected in the plasma DNA of 129 (33%) of 395 patients for whom these data were available. Neither PIK3CA status nor hormone-receptor expression level significantly affected treatment response. Interpretation Fulvestrant plus palbociclib was associated with significant and consistent improvement in progression-free survival compared with fulvestrant plus placebo, irrespective of the degree of endocrine resistance, hormone-receptor expression level, and PIK3CA mutational status. The combination could be considered as a therapeutic option for patients with recurrent hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer that has progressed on previous endocrine therapy. Funding Pfizer.
Summary Background The phase 3 LUME-Lung 1 study assessed the efficacy and safety of docetaxel plus nintedanib as second-line therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods Patients from 211 ...centres in 27 countries with stage IIIB/IV recurrent NSCLC progressing after first-line chemotherapy, stratified by ECOG performance status, previous bevacizumab treatment, histology, and presence of brain metastases, were allocated (by computer-generated sequence through an interactive third-party system, in 1:1 ratio), to receive docetaxel 75 mg/m2 by intravenous infusion on day 1 plus either nintedanib 200 mg orally twice daily or matching placebo on days 2–21, every 3 weeks until unacceptable adverse events or disease progression. Investigators and patients were masked to assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent central review, analysed by intention to treat after 714 events in all patients. The key secondary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat after 1121 events had occurred, in a prespecified stepwise order: first in patients with adenocarcinoma who progressed within 9 months after start of first-line therapy, then in all patients with adenocarcinoma, then in all patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00805194. Findings Between Dec 23, 2008, and Feb 9, 2011, 655 patients were randomly assigned to receive docetaxel plus nintedanib and 659 to receive docetaxel plus placebo. The primary analysis was done after a median follow-up of 7·1 months (IQR 3·8–11·0). PFS was significantly improved in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group compared with the docetaxel plus placebo group (median 3·4 months 95% CI 2·9–3·9 vs 2·7 months 2·6–2·8; hazard ratio HR 0·79 95% CI 0·68–0·92, p=0·0019). After a median follow-up of 31·7 months (IQR 27·8–36·1), overall survival was significantly improved for patients with adenocarcinoma histology who progressed within 9 months after start of first-line treatment in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group (206 patients) compared with those in the docetaxel plus placebo group (199 patients; median 10·9 months 95% CI 8·5–12·6 vs 7·9 months 6·7–9·1; HR 0·75 95% CI 0·60–0·92, p=0·0073). Similar results were noted for all patients with adenocarcinoma histology (322 patients in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group and 336 in the docetaxel plus placebo group; median overall survival 12·6 months 95% CI 10·6–15·1 vs 10·3 months 95% CI 8·6–12·2; HR 0·83 95% CI 0·70–0·99, p=0·0359), but not in the total study population (median 10·1 months 95% CI 8·8–11·2 vs 9·1 months 8·4–10·4; HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·83–1·05, p=0·2720). Grade 3 or worse adverse events that were more common in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group than in the docetaxel plus placebo group were diarrhoea (43 6·6% of 652 vs 17 2·6% of 655), reversible increases in alanine aminotransferase (51 7·8% vs six 0·9%), and reversible increases in aspartate aminotransferase (22 3·4% vs three 0·5%). 35 patients in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group and 25 in the docetaxel plus placebo group died of adverse events possibly unrelated to disease progression; the most common of these events were sepsis (five with docetaxel plus nintedanib vs one with docetaxel plus placebo), pneumonia (two vs seven), respiratory failure (four vs none), and pulmonary embolism (none vs three). Interpretation Nintedanib in combination with docetaxel is an effective second-line option for patients with advanced NSCLC previously treated with one line of platinum-based therapy, especially for patients with adenocarcinoma. Funding Boehringer Ingelheim.
At the time of the initial analysis of overall survival (OS) for the Comparison of Faslodex in Recurrent or Metastatic Breast Cancer (CONFIRM) randomized, double-blind, phase III trial, approximately ...50% of patients had died. A final analysis of OS was subsequently planned for when 75% of patients had died.
Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to fulvestrant 500 mg administered as two 5-mL intramuscular injections on days 0, 14, and 28 and every 28 (±3) days thereafter or fulvestrant 250 mg administered as two 5-mL intramuscular injections (one fulvestrant and one placebo identical in appearance to study drug) on days 0, 14 (two placebo injections only), and 28 and every 28 (±3) days thereafter. OS was analyzed using an unadjusted log-rank test. No adjustments were made for multiplicity. Serious adverse events (SAEs) and best response to subsequent therapy were also reported. All statistical tests were two-sided.
In total, 736 women (median age = 61.0 years) were randomly assigned to fulvestrant 500 mg (n = 362) or 250 mg (n = 374). At the final survival analysis, 554 of 736 (75.3%) patients had died. Median OS was 26.4 months for fulvestrant 500 mg and 22.3 months for 250 mg (hazard ratio = 0.81; 95% confidence interval = 0.69-0.96; nominal P = .02). There were no clinically important differences in SAE profiles between the treatment groups; no clustering of SAEs could be detected in either treatment group. Type of first subsequent therapy and objective responses to first subsequent therapy were well balanced between the two treatment groups.
In patients with locally advanced or metastatic estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, fulvestrant 500 mg is associated with a 19% reduction in risk of death and a 4.1-month difference in median OS compared with fulvestrant 250 mg. Fulvestrant 500 mg was well tolerated, and no new safety concerns were identified.
To investigate whether sunitinib plus docetaxel improves clinical outcomes for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)/neu-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) versus docetaxel ...alone.
In this phase III study, patients were randomly assigned to open-label combination therapy (sunitinib 37.5 mg/d, days 2 to 15 every 3 weeks; and docetaxel 75 mg/m(2), day 1 every 3 weeks) or monotherapy (docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point.
Two hundred ninety-six patients were randomly assigned to combination therapy, and 297 patients were assigned to monotherapy. Median PFS times were 8.6 and 8.3 months with combination therapy and monotherapy, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.92; one-sided P = .265). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher with the combination (55%) than with monotherapy (42%; one-sided P = .001). Duration of response was similar in both arms (7.5 months with the combination v 7.2 months with monotherapy). Median overall survival (OS) times were 24.8 and 25.5 months with combination therapy and monotherapy, respectively (one-sided P = .904). There were 107 deaths with the combination and 91 deaths with monotherapy. The frequency of common adverse events (AEs) was higher with the combination, as were treatment discontinuations caused by AEs.
The combination of sunitinib plus docetaxel improved ORR but did not prolong either PFS or OS compared with docetaxel alone when given to an unselected HER2/neu-negative cohort as first-line treatment for ABC. Sunitinib combination therapy may also have resulted in AEs that yield an unfavorable risk-benefit ratio. The sunitinib-docetaxel regimen evaluated in this study is not recommended for further use in ABC.
This randomized study assessed whether the best overall response rate (ORR) of cetuximab combined with oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (FOLFOX-4) was superior to that of FOLFOX-4 alone as ...first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. The influence of KRAS mutation status was investigated.
Patients received cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) initial dose followed by 250 mg/m(2)/wk thereafter) plus FOLFOX-4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) on day 1, plus leucovorin 200 mg/m(2) and fluorouracil as a 400 mg/m(2) bolus followed by a 600 mg/m(2) infusion during 22 hours on days 1 and 2; n = 169) or FOLFOX-4 alone (n = 168). Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. KRAS mutation status was assessed in the subset of patients with assessable tumor samples (n = 233).
The confirmed ORR for cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 was higher than with FOLFOX-4 alone (46% v 36%). A statistically significant increase in the odds for a response with the addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX-4 could not be established (odds ratio = 1.52; P = .064). In patients with KRAS wild-type tumors, the addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX-4 was associated with a clinically significant increased chance of response (ORR = 61% v 37%; odds ratio = 2.54; P = .011) and a lower risk of disease progression (hazard ratio = 0.57; P = .0163) compared with FOLFOX-4 alone. Cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 was generally well tolerated.
KRAS mutational status was shown to be a highly predictive selection criterion in relation to the treatment decision regarding the addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX-4 for previously untreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.
PDF
