To assess the efficacy and safety of dual antiangiogenesis agents, bevacizumab plus trebananib, without chemotherapy, in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).
This open-label ...phase II study enrolled patients with unresectable mCRC with no prior systemic treatment. All patients received bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg 3-weekly and trebananib 15 mg/kg weekly. The primary endpoint was disease control stable disease, partial response (PR), or complete response (CR) at 6 months (DC6m). Secondary endpoints included toxicity, overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Exploratory biomarkers in plasma angiogenesis-related proteins, tumor gene expression, and plasma antibodies to tumor antigens were examined.
Forty-five patients were enrolled from four Australian sites. DC6m was 63% 95% confidence interval (CI), 47-77. ORR was 17% (95% CI, 7-32), comprising of seven PRs. Median duration of response was 20 months (range, 10-48 months). Median PFS was 8.4 months and median OS 31.4 months. Grade 1-2 peripheral edema and joint-related symptoms were common. Overall incidence of grade 3-4 adverse events (AE) of any type was 33% (
= 15). Expected AEs of bevacizumab treatment did not appear to be increased by the addition of trebananib.
In a first-line mCRC population, the dual antiangiogenic combination, bevacizumab plus trebananib, without chemotherapy, was efficacious with durable responses. The toxicity profile of the combination was manageable and did not exceed that expected with bevacizumab +/- chemotherapy. Exploratory biomarker results raise the hypothesis that the antiangiogenic combination may enable the antitumor immune response in immunotolerant colorectal cancer.
Cediranib is a highly potent inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling with activity against all three VEGF receptors. HORIZON II Cediranib (AZD2171, RECENTIN) in Addition to ...Chemotherapy Versus Placebo Plus Chemotherapy in Patients With Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer assessed infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin/capecitabine and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX/CAPOX) with or without cediranib in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).
Eligible patients were initially randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive cediranib (20 or 30 mg per day) or placebo plus FOLFOX/CAPOX. In an early analysis of this and two other cediranib studies (HORIZON I Cediranib Plus FOLFOX6 Versus Bevacizumab Plus FOLFOX6 in Patients With Previously Treated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer and HORIZON III Cediranib Plus FOLFOX6 Versus Bevacizumab Plus FOLFOX6 in Patients With Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer), the 20-mg dose met the predefined criteria for continuation. Subsequent patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to the cediranib 20 mg or placebo arms. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were coprimary end points.
In all, 860 patients received cediranib 20 mg (n = 502) or placebo (n = 358). The addition of cediranib to FOLFOX/CAPOX resulted in PFS prolongation (hazard ratio HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.98; P = .0121; median PFS, 8.6 months for cediranib v 8.3 months for placebo) but had no impact on OS (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.12; P = .5707; median OS, 19.7 months for cediranib v 18.9 months for placebo). There were no significant differences in the secondary end points of objective response rate, duration of response, or liver resection rate. Median chemotherapy dose-intensity was decreased by approximately 10% in patients treated with cediranib. Adverse events (AEs) associated with cediranib were manageable. CONCLUSION Addition of cediranib 20 mg to FOLFOX/CAPOX resulted in a modest PFS prolongation, but no significant difference in OS. The cediranib AE profile was consistent with those from previous studies. Because of the lack of improvement in OS, cediranib plus an oxaliplatin-based regimen cannot be recommended as a treatment for patients with mCRC.
Progression-free survival (PFS) has previously been established as a surrogate for overall survival (OS) for first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Because mCRC treatment has advanced in the ...last decade with extended OS, this surrogacy requires re-examination.
Individual patient data from 16,762 patients were available from 22 first-line mCRC studies conducted from 1997 to 2006; 12 of those studies tested antiangiogenic and/or anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents. The relationship between PFS (first event of progression or death) and OS was evaluated by using R(2) statistics (the closer the value is to 1, the stronger the correlation) from weighted least squares regression of trial-specific hazard ratios estimated by using Cox and Copula models.
Forty-four percent of patients received a regimen that included biologic agents. Median first-line PFS was 8.3 months, and median OS was 18.2 months. The correlation between PFS and OS was modest (R(2), 0.45 to 0.69). Analyses limited to trials that tested treatments with biologic agents, nonstrategy trials, or superiority trials did not improve surrogacy.
In modern mCRC trials, in which survival after the first progression exceeds time to first progression, a positive but modest correlation was observed between OS and PFS at both the patient and trial levels. This finding demonstrates the substantial variability in OS introduced by the number of lines of therapy and types of effective subsequent treatments and the associated challenge to the use of OS as an end point to assess the benefit attributable to a single line of therapy. PFS remains an appropriate primary end point for first-line mCRC trials to detect the direct treatment effect of new agents.
Abstract Context Symptom clusters in advanced cancer can influence patient outcomes. There is large heterogeneity in the methods used to identify symptom clusters. Objectives To investigate the ...consistency of symptom cluster composition in advanced cancer patients using different statistical methodologies for all patients across five primary cancer sites, and to examine which clusters predict functional status, a global assessment of health and global quality of life. Methods Principal component analysis and exploratory factor analysis (with different rotation and factor selection methods) and hierarchical cluster analysis (with different linkage and similarity measures) were used on a data set of 1562 advanced cancer patients who completed the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire–Core 30. Results Four clusters consistently formed for many of the methods and cancer sites: tense-worry-irritable-depressed (emotional cluster), fatigue-pain, nausea-vomiting, and concentration-memory (cognitive cluster). The emotional cluster was a stronger predictor of overall quality of life than the other clusters. Fatigue-pain was a stronger predictor of overall health than the other clusters. The cognitive cluster and fatigue-pain predicted physical functioning, role functioning, and social functioning. Conclusions The four identified symptom clusters were consistent across statistical methods and cancer types, although there were some noteworthy differences. Statistical derivation of symptom clusters is in need of greater methodological guidance. A psychosocial pathway in the management of symptom clusters may improve quality of life. Biological mechanisms underpinning symptom clusters need to be delineated by future research. A framework for evidence-based screening, assessment, treatment, and follow-up of symptom clusters in advanced cancer is essential.
The EGFR inhibitors (EGFR-I) cetuximab and panitumumab and the angiogenesis inhibitors (AIs) bevacizumab and aflibercept have demonstrated varying efficacy in mCRC.
To document the overall impact of ...specific chemotherapy regimens on the efficacy of targeted agents in treating patients with mCRC.
MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched to 2014, supplemented by hand-searching ASCO/ESMO conference abstracts.
Published RCTs of patients with histologically confirmed mCRC were included if they investigated either 1) chemotherapy with or without a biological agent or 2) different chemotherapy regimens with the same biological agent. EGFR-I trials were restricted to KRAS exon 2 wild-type (WT) populations.
Data were independently abstracted by two authors and trial quality assessed according to Cochrane criteria. The primary outcome was overall survival with secondary endpoints progression free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and toxicity.
EGFR-I added to irinotecan-based chemotherapy modestly improved OS with HR 0.90 (95% CI 0.81-1.00, p = 0.04), but more so PFS with HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.69-0.86, p<0.00001). No benefit was evident for EGFR-I added to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (OS HR 0.97 (95% CI 0.87-1.09) and PFS HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.83-1.02)). Significant oxaliplatin-irinotecan subgroup interactions were present for PFS with I2 = 82%, p = 0.02. Further analyses of oxaliplatin+EGFR-I trials showed greater efficacy with infusional 5FU regimens (PFS HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.94) compared to capecitabine (HR 1.09; 95% CI 0.91-1.30) and bolus 5FU (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.79-1.45); subgroup interaction was present with I2 = 72%, p = 0.03. The oxaliplatin-irinotecan interaction was not evident for infusional 5FU regimens. For AIs, OS benefit was observed with both oxaliplatin-based (HR 0.83) and irinotecan-based (HR 0.77) regimens without significant subgroup interactions. Oxaliplatin+AI trials showed no subgroup interactions by type of FP, whilst an interaction was present for irinotecan+AI trials although aflibercept was only used with infusional FP (I2 = 89.7%, p = 0.002).
The addition of EGFR-I to irinotecan-based chemotherapy has consistent efficacy, regardless of FP regimen, whereas EGFR-I and oxaliplatin-based regimens were most active with infusional 5FU. No such differential activity was observed with the varying chemotherapy schedules when combined with AIs.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
BRAF V600E mutant metastatic colorectal cancer represents a significant clinical problem, with combination approaches being developed clinically with oral BRAF inhibitors combined with EGFR-targeting ...antibodies. While compelling preclinical data have highlighted the effectiveness of combination therapy with vemurafenib and small-molecule EGFR inhibitors, gefitinib or erlotinib, in colorectal cancer, this therapeutic strategy has not been investigated in clinical studies.
We conducted a phase Ib/II dose-escalation/expansion trial investigating the safety/efficacy of the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and EGFR inhibitor erlotinib.
Thirty-two patients with BRAF V600E positive metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and 7 patients with other cancers were enrolled. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed in escalation, with vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily with erlotinib 150 mg daily selected as the recommended phase II dose. Among 31 evaluable patients with mCRC and 7 with other cancers, overall response rates were 32% 10/31, 16% (5/31) confirmed and 43% (3/7), respectively, with clinical benefit rates of 65% and 100%. Early ctDNA dynamics were predictive of treatment efficacy, and serial ctDNA monitoring revealed distinct patterns of convergent genomic evolution associated with acquired treatment resistance, with frequent emergence of MAPK pathway alterations, including polyclonal KRAS, NRAS, and MAP2K1 mutations, and MET amplification.
The Erlotinib and Vemurafenib In Combination Trial study demonstrated a safe and novel combination of two oral inhibitors targeting BRAF and EGFR. The dynamic assessment of serial ctDNA was a useful measure of underlying genomic changes in response to this combination and in understanding potential mechanisms of resistance.
Purpose Factors contributing to early mortality after initiation of treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer are poorly understood. Materials and Methods Data from 22,654 patients enrolled in 28 ...randomized phase III trials contained in the ARCAD (Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive) database were pooled. Multivariable logistic regression models for 30-, 60-, and 90-day mortality were constructed, including clinically and statistically significant patient and disease factors and interaction terms. A calculator (nomogram) for 90-day mortality was developed and validated internally using bootstrapping methods and externally using a 10% random holdout sample from each trial. The impact of early progression on the likelihood of survival to 90 days was examined with time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models. Results Mortality rates were 1.4% at 30 days, 3.4% at 60 days, and 5.5% at 90 days. Among baseline factors, advanced age, lower body mass index, poorer performance status, increased number of metastatic sites, BRAF mutant status, and several laboratory parameters were associated with increased likelihood of early mortality. A multivariable model for 90-day mortality showed strong internal discrimination (C-index, 0.77) and good calibration across risk groups as well as accurate predictions in the external validation set, both overall and within patient subgroups. Conclusion A validated clinical nomogram has been developed to quantify the risk of early death for individual patients during initial treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. This tool may be used for patient eligibility assessment or risk stratification in future clinical trials and to identify patients requiring more or less aggressive therapy and additional supportive measures during and after treatment.
The phase III MAX clinical trial randomised patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) to receive first-line capecitabine chemotherapy alone or in combination with the anti-VEGF-A antibody ...bevacizumab (± mitomycin C). We utilised this cohort to examine whether single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in VEGF-A, VEGFR1, and VEGFR2 are predictive of efficacy outcomes with bevacizumab or the development of hypertension. Genomic DNA extracted from archival FFPE tissue for 325 patients (69% of the MAX trial population) was used to genotype 16 candidate SNPs in VEGF-A, VEGFR1, and VEGFR2, which were analysed for associations with efficacy outcomes and hypertension. The VEGF-A rs25648 'CC' genotype was prognostic for improved PFS (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.85; P = 0.002) and OS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94; P = 0.019). The VEGF-A rs699947 'AA' genotype was prognostic for shorter PFS (HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.002 to 1.74; P = 0.048). None of the analysed SNPs were predictive of bevacizumab efficacy outcomes. VEGFR2 rs11133360 'TT' was associated with a lower risk of grade ≥ 3 hypertension (P = 0.028). SNPs in VEGF-A, VEGFR1 and VEGFR2 did not predict bevacizumab benefit. However, VEGF-A rs25648 and rs699947 were identified as novel prognostic biomarkers and VEGFR2 rs11133360 was associated with less grade ≥ 3 hypertension.
Abstract
Meta-analysis based on individual participant data (IPD) is a powerful methodology for synthesizing evidence by combining information drawn from multiple trials. Hitherto, its principal ...application has been in questions of clinical management, but an increasingly important use is in clarifying trials methodology, for instance in the selection of endpoints, as discussed in this review. In oncology, the Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive (ARCAD) Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Database is a leader in the use of IPD-based meta-analysis in methodological research. The ARCAD database contains IPD from more than 38 000 patients enrolled in 46 studies and continues to collect phase III trial data. Here, we review the principal findings of the ARCAD project in respect of endpoint selection and examine their implications for cancer trials. Analysis of the database has confirmed that progression-free survival (PFS) is no longer a valid surrogate endpoint predictive of overall survival in the first-line treatment of colorectal cancer. Nonetheless, PFS remains an endpoint of choice for most first-line trials in metastatic colorectal cancer and other solid tumors. Only substantial PFS effects are likely to translate into clinically meaningful benefits, and accordingly, we advocate an oncology research model designed to identify highly effective treatments in carefully defined patient groups. We also review the use of the ARCAD database in assessing clinical response including novel response metrics and prognostic markers. These studies demonstrate the value of IPD as a tool for methodological studies and provide a reference point for the expansion of this approach within clinical cancer research.
PDF
