Summary Background Cabozantinib is an oral inhibitor of tyrosine kinases including MET, VEGFR, and AXL. The randomised phase 3 METEOR trial compared the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib versus the ...mTOR inhibitor everolimus in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who progressed after previous VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitor treatment. Here, we report the final overall survival results from this study based on an unplanned second interim analysis. Methods In this open-label, randomised phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (1:1) patients aged 18 years and older with advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, measurable disease, and previous treatment with one or more VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors to receive 60 mg cabozantinib once a day or 10 mg everolimus once a day. Randomisation was done with an interactive voice and web response system. Stratification factors were Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk group and the number of previous treatments with VEGFR tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival as assessed by an independent radiology review committee in the first 375 randomly assigned patients and has been previously reported. Secondary endpoints were overall survival and objective response in all randomly assigned patients assessed by intention-to-treat. Safety was assessed per protocol in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The study is closed for enrolment but treatment and follow-up of patients is ongoing for long-term safety evaluation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01865747. Findings Between Aug 8, 2013, and Nov 24, 2014, 658 patients were randomly assigned to receive cabozantinib (n=330) or everolimus (n=328). The median duration of follow-up for overall survival and safety was 18·7 months (IQR 16·1–21·1) in the cabozantinib group and 18·8 months (16·0–21·2) in the everolimus group. Median overall survival was 21·4 months (95% CI 18·7–not estimable) with cabozantinib and 16·5 months (14·7–18·8) with everolimus (hazard ratio HR 0·66 95% CI 0·53–0·83; p=0·00026). Cabozantinib treatment also resulted in improved progression-free survival (HR 0·51 95% CI 0·41–0·62; p<0·0001) and objective response (17% 13–22 with cabozantinib vs 3% 2–6 with everolimus; p<0·0001) per independent radiology review among all randomised patients. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were hypertension (49 15% in the cabozantinib group vs 12 4% in the everolimus group), diarrhoea (43 13% vs 7 2%), fatigue (36 11% vs 24 7%), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (27 8% vs 3 1%), anaemia (19 6% vs 53 17%), hyperglycaemia (3 1% vs 16 5%), and hypomagnesaemia (16 5% vs none). Serious adverse events grade 3 or worse occurred in 130 (39%) patients in the cabozantinib group and in 129 (40%) in the everolimus group. One treatment-related death occurred in the cabozantinib group (death; not otherwise specified) and two occurred in the everolimus group (one aspergillus infection and one pneumonia aspiration). Interpretation Treatment with cabozantinib increased overall survival, delayed disease progression, and improved the objective response compared with everolimus. Based on these results, cabozantinib should be considered as a new standard-of-care treatment option for previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients should be monitored for adverse events that might require dose modifications. Funding Exelixis Inc.
Purpose This Guideline is intended to provide a rational basis for the management of patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer based on currently available published data. Materials and ...Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature was conducted using controlled vocabulary supplemented with keywords relating to the relevant concepts of prostate cancer and castration resistance. The search strategy was developed and executed by reference librarians and methodologists to create an evidence report limited to English-language, published peer-reviewed literature. This review yielded 303 articles published from 1996 through 2013 that were used to form a majority of the guideline statements. Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions were used for guideline statements lacking sufficient evidence-based data. Results Guideline statements were created to inform clinicians on the appropriate use of observation, androgen-deprivation and antiandrogen therapy, androgen synthesis inhibitors, immunotherapy, radionuclide therapy, systemic chemotherapy, palliative care and bone health. These were based on six index patients developed to represent the most common scenarios encountered in clinical practice. Conclusions As a direct result of the significant increase in FDA-approved therapeutic agents for use in patients with metastatic CRPC, clinicians are challenged with a multitude of treatment options and potential sequencing of these agents that, consequently, make clinical decision-making more complex. Given the rapidly evolving nature of this field, this guideline should be used in conjunction with recent systematic literature reviews and an understanding of the individual patient's treatment goals. In all cases, patients' preferences and personal goals should be considered when choosing management strategies.
Purpose The purpose of this amendment is to incorporate relevant newly-published literature to better provide a rational basis for the management of patients with castration-resistant prostate ...cancer. Materials and Methods The original systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature yielded 303 studies published from 1996 through 2013. This review informed the majority of the guideline statements. Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions were used for guideline statements lacking sufficient evidence. In April 2014, the CRPC guideline underwent amendment based on an additional literature search, which retrieved additional studies published between February 2013 and February 2014. Thirty-seven studies from this search provided data relevant to the specific treatment modalities for CRPC. In March 2015, the CRPC guideline underwent a second amendment, which incorporated 10 additional studies into the evidence base published through February 2015. Results Guideline statements based on six index patients developed to represent the most common scenarios encountered in clinical practice were amended appropriately. The additional literature provided the basis for an update of current supporting text as well as the incorporation of new guideline statements for multiple index patients. Conclusions Given the rapidly evolving nature of this field, this guideline should be used in conjunction with recent systematic literature reviews and an understanding of the individual patient's treatment goals. Patients' preferences and personal goals should be considered when choosing management strategies. This guideline will be continually updated as new literature emerges in the field.
Orteronel (TAK-700) is a nonsteroidal 17,20-lyase inhibitor suppressing androgen synthesis. We evaluated the clinical benefit of orteronel when added to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients ...with newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.
In this open-label randomized phase III study, patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to ADT with orteronel (300 mg oral twice daily; experimental arm) or ADT with bicalutamide (50 mg oral once daily; control arm). The primary objective was the comparison of overall survival (OS), targeting a 33% improvement in median survival. A stratified log-rank test with a one-sided
≤ .022 would indicate statistical significance. Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level at 7 months (≤ 0.2
0.2 to ≤ 4
> 4 ng/mL), and adverse event profile.
Among 1,279 patients included in the analysis, 638 were randomly assigned to the ADT plus orteronel arm and 641 to the control arm. The median age was 68 years; 49% had extensive disease. After a median follow-up of 4.9 years, there was a significant improvement in PFS (median 47.6
23.0 months, hazard ratio 0.58; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.67;
< .0001) and PSA response at 7 months (
< .0001), but not in OS (median 81.1
70.2 months, hazard ratio 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.02;
= .040, one-sided). More grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in the experimental versus the control arms (43%
14%). Postprotocol life-prolonging therapy was received by 77.4% of patients in the control arm and 61.3% of patients in the orteronel arm.
The study did not meet the primary end point of improved OS with orteronel. The lack of correlation of PFS and PSA response with OS raises concerns over assumption of their consistent surrogacy for OS in the context of extensive postprotocol therapy in this setting.
Since its founding in 1964, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has been committed to improving cancer outcomes through research and the delivery of quality care. Research is the bedrock ...of discovering better treatments--providing hope to the millions of individuals who face a cancer diagnosis each year. The studies featured in "Clinical Cancer Advances 2013: Annual Report on Progress Against Cancer From the American Society of Clinical Oncology" represent the invaluable contributions of thousands of patients who participate in clinical trials and the scientists who conduct basic and clinical research. The insights described in this report, such as how cancers hide from the immune system and why cancers may become resistant to targeted drugs, enable us to envision a future in which cancer will be even more controllable and preventable. The scientific process is thoughtful, deliberate, and sometimes slow, but each advance, while helping patients, now also points toward new research questions and unexplored opportunities. Both dramatic and subtle breakthroughs occur so that progress against cancer typically builds over many years. Success requires vision, persistence, and a long-term commitment to supporting cancer research and training. Our nation's longstanding investment in federally funded cancer research has contributed significantly to a growing array of effective new treatments and a much deeper understanding of the drivers of cancer. But despite this progress, our position as a world leader in advancing medical knowledge and our ability to attract the most promising and talented investigators are now threatened by an acute problem: Federal funding for cancer research has steadily eroded over the past decade, and only 15% of the ever-shrinking budget is actually spent on clinical trials. This dismal reality threatens the pace of progress against cancer and undermines our ability to address the continuing needs of our patients. Despite this extremely challenging economic environment, we continue to make progress. Maintaining and accelerating that progress require that we keep our eyes on the future and pursue a path that builds on the stunning successes of the past. We must continue to show our policymakers the successes in cancer survival and quality of life (QOL) they have enabled, emphasizing the need to sustain our national investment in the remarkably productive US cancer research enterprise. We must also look to innovative methods for transforming how we care for-and learn from-patients with cancer. Consider, for example, that fewer than 5% of adult patients with cancer currently participate in clinical trials. What if we were able to draw lessons from the other 95%? This possibility led ASCO this year to launch CancerLinQ, a groundbreaking health information technology initiative that will provide physicians with access to vast quantities of clinical data about real-world patients and help achieve higher quality, higher value cancer care. As you read the following pages, I hope our collective progress against cancer over the past year inspires you. More importantly, I hope the pride you feel motivates you to help us accelerate the pace of scientific advancement. Clifford A. Hudis, MD, FACP President American Society of Clinical Oncology.
It is well recognized that colorectal cancer does not frequently metastasize to bone. The aim of this retrospective study was to establish whether colorectal cancer ever bypasses other organs and ...metastasizes directly to bone and whether the presence of lung lesions is superior to liver as a better predictor of the likelihood and timing of bone metastasis.
We performed a retrospective analysis on patients with a clinical diagnosis of colon cancer referred for staging using whole-body 18F-FDG PET and CT or PET/CT. We combined PET and CT reports from 252 individuals with information concerning patient history, other imaging modalities, and treatments to analyze disease progression.
No patient had isolated osseous metastasis at the time of diagnosis, and none developed isolated bone metastasis without other organ involvement during our survey period. It took significantly longer for colorectal cancer patients to develop metastasis to the lungs (23.3 months) or to bone (21.2 months) than to the liver (9.8 months).
Metastasis only to bone without other organ involvement in colorectal cancer patients is extremely rare, perhaps more rare than we previously thought. Our findings suggest that resistant metastasis to the lungs predicts potential disease progression to bone in the colorectal cancer population better than liver metastasis does.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
To assess the antitumor activity and toxicity of pemetrexed as second-line chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) of the urothelium.
Eligible ...patients had a performance status of 0 or 1, adequate organ function, previous treatment with one prior chemotherapy regimen for locally advanced or metastatic TCC of the urothelium or relapsed within 1 year of adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment. Patients received pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 every 21 days, with vitamin B12, folic acid, and dexamethasone prophylaxis.
Forty-seven patients were enrolled and included in the intent-to-treat efficacy analysis. Responses: 3 (6.4%) complete responses and 10 (21.3%) partial responses produced an overall response rate of 27.7%. Ten patients (21.3%) had stable disease and 22 patients (46.8%) progressed. The median time to progressive disease was 2.9 months (95% CI, 1.7 months to 4.6 months) and median overall survival was 9.6 months (95% CI, 5.1 months to 14.6 months). Median duration of response was 5.0 months (95% CI, 3.9 months to 13.8 months). Of the 47 patients assessable for safety, grade 3 or 4 hematologic events were thrombocytopenia (8.5%; 0.0%), neutropenia (4.3%; 4.3%) and anemia (2.1%; 2.1%), respectively. Nonlaboratory toxicities included grade 4 stomatitis/pharyngitis, sepsis syndrome (one patient each), and grade 3 fatigue (three patients) and diarrhea (two patients).
Single-agent pemetrexed is safe and active as second-line treatment of patients with advanced TCC of the urothelium. Additional evaluation in the first- or second-line setting in TCC of the urothelium is warranted.
Purpose In the phase III METEOR trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01865747), 658 previously treated patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive ...cabozantinib or everolimus. The cabozantinib arm had improved progression-free survival, overall survival, and objective response rate compared with everolimus. Changes in quality of life (QoL), an exploratory end point, are reported here. Patients and Methods Patients completed the 19-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19) and the five-level EuroQol (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires at baseline and throughout the study. The nine-item FKSI-Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS), a subset of FKSI-19, was also investigated. Data were summarized descriptively and by repeated-measures analysis (for which a clinically relevant difference was an effect size ≥ 0.3). Time to deterioration (TTD) was defined as the earlier of date of death, radiographic progressive disease, or ≥ 4-point decrease from baseline in FKSI-DRS. Results The QoL questionnaire completion rates remained ≥ 75% through week 48 in each arm. There was no difference over time for FKSI-19 Total, FKSI-DRS, or EQ-5D data between the cabozantinib and everolimus arms. Among the individual FKSI-19 items, cabozantinib was associated with worse diarrhea and nausea; everolimus was associated with worse shortness of breath. These differences are consistent with the adverse event profile of each drug. Cabozantinib improved TTD overall, with a marked improvement in patients with bone metastases at baseline. Conclusion In patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, relative to everolimus, cabozantinib generally maintained QoL to a similar extent. Compared with everolimus, cabozantinib extended TTD overall and markedly improved TTD in patients with bone metastases.
Enzalutamide and abiraterone both target androgen receptor signaling but via different mechanisms. The mechanism of action of one drug may counteract the resistance pathways of the other. We sought ...to determine whether the addition of abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) to enzalutamide prolongs overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the first-line setting.
Men with untreated mCRPC were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive first-line enzalutamide with or without AAP. The primary end point was OS. Toxicity, prostate-specific antigen declines, pharmacokinetics, and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) were also examined. Data were analyzed using an intent-to-treat approach. The Kaplan-Meier estimate and the stratified log-rank statistic were used to compare OS between treatments.
In total, 1,311 patients were randomly assigned: 657 to enzalutamide and 654 to enzalutamide plus AAP. OS was not statistically different between the two arms (median, 32.7 95% CI, 30.5 to 35.4 months for enzalutamide
34.2 95% CI, 31.4 to 37.3 months for enzalutamide and AAP; hazard ratio HR, 0.89; one-sided
= .03; boundary nominal significance level = .02). rPFS was longer in the combination arm (median rPFS, 21.3 95% CI, 19.4 to 22.9 months for enzalutamide
24.3 95% CI, 22.3 to 26.7 months for enzalutamide and AAP; HR, 0.86; two-sided
= .02). However, pharmacokinetic clearance of abiraterone was 2.2- to 2.9-fold higher when administered with enzalutamide, compared with clearance values for abiraterone alone.
The addition of AAP to enzalutamide for first-line treatment of mCRPC was not associated with a statistically significant benefit in OS. Drug-drug interactions between the two agents resulting in increased abiraterone clearance may partly account for this result, although these interactions did not prevent the combination regimen from having more nonhematologic toxicity.
PDF
