Summary Background Patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC) progressing after first-line platinum regimens have a poor prognosis and few treatment ...options. Afatinib, an irreversible ERBB family blocker, has shown efficacy in a phase 2 study in this setting. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of afatinib compared with methotrexate as second-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC progressing on or after platinum-based therapy. Methods In this open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial conducted in 101 centres in 19 countries, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed HNSCC that was recurrent, metastatic, or both who had progressed on or after first-line platinum-based therapy, were not amenable for salvage surgery or radiotherapy, and who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1. Previous treatment with more than one systemic regimen in this setting was not allowed; previous treatment with EGFR-targeted antibody therapy (but not EGFR-targeted tyrosine-kinase inhibitors) was allowed. We randomly assigned eligible patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive oral afatinib (40 mg/day) or intravenous methotrexate (40 mg/m2 per week), stratified by ECOG performance status and previous EGFR-targeted antibody therapy for recurrent or metastatic disease. Randomisation was done centrally with an interactive voice or web-based response system. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival as assessed by an independent, central imaging review committee. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01345682. Findings Between Jan 10, 2012, and Dec 12, 2013, we enrolled 483 patients and randomly assigned 322 to afatinib and 161 to methotrexate. After a median follow-up of 6·7 months (IQR 3·1–9·0), progression-free survival was longer in the afatinib group than in the methotrexate group (median 2·6 months 95% CI 2·0–2·7 for the afatinib group vs 1·7 months 1·5–2·4 for the methotrexate group; hazard ratio HR 0·80 95% CI 0·65–0·98, p=0·030). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events were rash or acne (31 10% of 320 patients in the afatinib group vs none of 160 patients in the methotrexate group), diarrhoea (30 9% vs three 2%), stomatitis (20 6% vs 13 8%), fatigue (18 6% vs five 3%), and neutropenia (1 <1% vs 11 7%); serious adverse events occurred in 44 (14%) of afatinib-treated patients and 18 (11%) of methotrexate-treated patients. Interpretation Afatinib was associated with significant improvements in progression-free survival and had a manageable safety profile. These findings provide important new insights into the treatment of this patient population and support further investigations with irreversible ERBB family blockers in HNSCC. Funding Boehringer Ingelheim.
Summary Background No treatments are presently available to increase survival in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck after failure of platinum-based ...chemotherapy. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of zalutumumab, a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor, for overall survival in such patients. Methods In our open-label, parallel-group, phase 3, randomised trial, we randomly allocated patients with squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck who were regarded as incurable with standard therapy, a WHO performance status of 0–2, and progressive disease within 6 months of platinum-based therapy in a 2:1 ratio to receive zalutumumab plus best supportive care (zalutumumab group) or best supportive care with optional methotrexate (control group) at medical centres in Europe, Brazil, and Canada. Randomisation was done via a centralised interactive voice-response system, stratified by performance status. Data were analysed when the randomisation code was broken, after the completion of the accrual and cleaning of the relevant data. An independent review committee, masked to treatment assignment, assessed tumour response and disease progression according to response evaluation criteria in solid tumours. Zalutumumab was given weekly by individual dose titration on the basis of skin rash. After a prespecified 231 deaths, we included all randomised patients in the survival analyses and all patients receiving at least one session of therapy in the safety analysis. The primary endpoint was overall survival, although progression-free survival was also assessed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00382031. Findings We randomly allocated 191 (67%) of 286 eligible patients to the zalutumumab group and 95 (33%) to the control group. Median overall survival was 6·7 months (95% CI 5·8–7·0) in the zalutumumab group and 5·2 months (4·1–6·4) in the control group (hazard ratio HR for death, stratified by WHO performance status, was 0·77, 97·06% CI 0·57–1·05; unadjusted p=0·0648). Progression-free survival was longer in the zalutumumab group than in the control group (HR for progression or death, stratified by WHO performance status, was 0·63, 95% CI 0·47–0·84; p=0·0012). 189 patients given zalutumumab and 94 controls were included in the safety analysis. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were rash (39 21% patients in the zalutumumab group vs none in the control group), anaemia (11 6% vs five 5%), and pneumonia (nine 5% vs two 2%). 28 (15%) patients in the zalutumumab group had grade 3/4 infections compared with eight (9%) in the control group. The most common serious adverse events were tumour haemorrhage (28 15% patients given zalutumumab vs 13 14% controls), pneumonia (13 7% vs three 3%), and dysphagia (11 6% vs two 2%). Interpretation Although zalutumumab did not increase overall survival, progression-free survival was extended in patients with recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck who had failed platinum-based chemotherapy. Zalutumumab dose titration on the basis of rash is safe. Funding Genmab.
Bevacizumab is approved for the treatment of patients with progressive glioblastoma on the basis of uncontrolled data. Data from a phase 2 trial suggested that the addition of bevacizumab to ...lomustine might improve overall survival as compared with monotherapies. We sought to determine whether the combination would result in longer overall survival than lomustine alone among patients at first progression of glioblastoma.
We randomly assigned patients with progression after chemoradiation in a 2:1 ratio to receive lomustine plus bevacizumab (combination group, 288 patients) or lomustine alone (monotherapy group, 149 patients). The methylation status of the promoter of O
-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) was assessed. Health-related quality of life and neurocognitive function were evaluated at baseline and every 12 weeks. The primary end point of the trial was overall survival.
A total of 437 patients underwent randomization. The median number of 6-week treatment cycles was three in the combination group and one in the monotherapy group. With 329 overall survival events (75.3%), the combination therapy did not provide a survival advantage; the median overall survival was 9.1 months (95% confidence interval CI, 8.1 to 10.1) in the combination group and 8.6 months (95% CI, 7.6 to 10.4) in the monotherapy group (hazard ratio for death, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21; P=0.65). Locally assessed progression-free survival was 2.7 months longer in the combination group than in the monotherapy group: 4.2 months versus 1.5 months (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.61; P<0.001). Grade 3 to 5 adverse events occurred in 63.6% of the patients in the combination group and 38.1% of the patients in the monotherapy group. The addition of bevacizumab to lomustine affected neither health-related quality of life nor neurocognitive function. The MGMT status was prognostic.
Despite somewhat prolonged progression-free survival, treatment with lomustine plus bevacizumab did not confer a survival advantage over treatment with lomustine alone in patients with progressive glioblastoma. (Funded by an unrestricted educational grant from F. Hoffmann-La Roche and by the EORTC Cancer Research Fund; EORTC 26101 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01290939 ; Eudra-CT number, 2010-023218-30 .).
Invasion and migration are key processes of glioblastoma and are tightly linked to tumor recurrence. Integrin inhibition using cilengitide has shown synergy with chemotherapy and radiotherapy in ...vitro and promising activity in recurrent glioblastoma. This multicenter, phase I/IIa study investigated the efficacy and safety of cilengitide in combination with standard chemoradiotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma.
Patients (age > or = 18 to < or = 70 years) were treated with cilengitide (500 mg) administered twice weekly intravenously in addition to standard radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide. Treatment was continued until disease progression or for up to 35 weeks. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months.
Fifty-two patients (median age, 57 years; 62% male) were included. Six- and 12-month PFS rates were 69% (95% CI, 54% to 80%) and 33% (95% CI, 21% to 46%). Median PFS was 8 months (95% CI, 6.0 to 10.7 months). Twelve- and 24-month overall survival (OS) rates were 68% (95% CI, 53% to 79%) and 35% (95% CI, 22% to 48%). Median OS was 16.1 months (95% CI, 13.1 to 23.2 months). PFS and OS were longer in patients with tumors with O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation (13.4 and 23.2 months) versus those without MGMT promoter methylation (3.4 and 13.1 months). The combination of cilengitide with temozolomide and radiotherapy was well tolerated, with no additional toxicity. No pharmacokinetic interactions between temozolomide and cilengitide were identified.
Compared with historical controls, the addition of concomitant and adjuvant cilengitide to standard chemoradiotherapy demonstrated promising activity in patients with glioblastoma with MGMT promoter methylation.
In the EORTC 1410/INTELLANCE 2 randomised, phase II study (NCT02343406), with the antibody–drug conjugate depatuxizumab mafodotin (Depatux-M, ABT-414) in patients with recurrent EGFR-amplified ...glioblastoma, the primary end-point (overall survival) was not met, and the drug had ocular dose-limiting toxicity. This study reports results from the prespecified health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and neurological deterioration-free survival (NDFS) exploratory analysis.
Patients (n = 260) were randomised 1:1:1 to receive either Depatux-M 1.25 mg/kg or 1.0 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks with oral temozolomide (TMZ) 150 mg/m2, Depatux-M alone, or TMZ or oral lomustine (CCNU) 110 mg/m2 (TMZ/CCNU). HRQoL outcomes were recorded using the EORTC core Quality of Life QLQ-C30, and brain cancer-specific QLQ-BN20 questionnaires. Questionnaires were completed at baseline, weeks 8 and 16, and month 6, and changes from baseline to each time point were calculated. NDFS was defined as time to first deterioration in World Health Organisation performance status.
Compliance with HRQoL was 88.1% at baseline and decreased to 37.9% at month 6. Differences from baseline between Depatux-M arms and TMZ/CCNU in global health/QoL status throughout treatment did not reach clinical relevance (≥10 points). Self-reported visual disorders deteriorated to a clinically relevant extent with Depatux-M arms versus TMZ/CCNU at all timepoints (mean differences range: 24.6–35.1 points). Changes from baseline for other HRQoL scales and NDFS were generally similar between treatment arms.
Depatux-M had no impact on HRQoL and NDFS in patients with EGFR-amplified recurrent glioblastoma, except for more visual disorders, an expected side-effect of the study drug.
NCT02343406.
•Clinically relevant increases in self-reported visual disorders with Depatux-M.•Similar health-related quality of life scores between Depatux-M and standard care.•Neurological deterioration-free survival was similar between treatments.
Summary Background Outcome of low-grade glioma (WHO grade II) is highly variable, reflecting molecular heterogeneity of the disease. We compared two different, single-modality treatment strategies of ...standard radiotherapy versus primary temozolomide chemotherapy in patients with low-grade glioma, and assessed progression-free survival outcomes and identified predictive molecular factors. Methods For this randomised, open-label, phase 3 intergroup study (EORTC 22033-26033), undertaken in 78 clinical centres in 19 countries, we included patients aged 18 years or older who had a low-grade (WHO grade II) glioma (astrocytoma, oligoastrocytoma, or oligodendroglioma) with at least one high-risk feature (aged >40 years, progressive disease, tumour size >5 cm, tumour crossing the midline, or neurological symptoms), and without known HIV infection, chronic hepatitis B or C virus infection, or any condition that could interfere with oral drug administration. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either conformal radiotherapy (up to 50·4 Gy; 28 doses of 1·8 Gy once daily, 5 days per week for up to 6·5 weeks) or dose-dense oral temozolomide (75 mg/m2 once daily for 21 days, repeated every 28 days one cycle, for a maximum of 12 cycles). Random treatment allocation was done online by a minimisation technique with prospective stratification by institution, 1p deletion (absent vs present vs undetermined), contrast enhancement (yes vs no), age (<40 vs ≥40 years), and WHO performance status (0 vs ≥1). Patients, treating physicians, and researchers were aware of the assigned intervention. A planned analysis was done after 216 progression events occurred. Our primary clinical endpoint was progression-free survival, analysed by intention-to-treat; secondary outcomes were overall survival, adverse events, neurocognitive function (will be reported separately), health-related quality of life and neurological function (reported separately), and correlative analyses of progression-free survival by molecular markers (1p/19q co-deletion, MGMT promoter methylation status, and IDH1/IDH2 mutations). This trial is closed to accrual but continuing for follow-up, and is registered at the European Trials Registry, EudraCT 2004-002714-11, and at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00182819. Findings Between Sept 23, 2005, and March 26, 2010, 707 patients were registered for the study. Between Dec 6, 2005, and Dec 21, 2012, we randomly assigned 477 patients to receive either radiotherapy (n=240) or temozolomide chemotherapy (n=237). At a median follow-up of 48 months (IQR 31–56), median progression-free survival was 39 months (95% CI 35–44) in the temozolomide group and 46 months (40–56) in the radiotherapy group (unadjusted hazard ratio HR 1·16, 95% CI 0·9–1·5, p=0·22). Median overall survival has not been reached. Exploratory analyses in 318 molecularly-defined patients confirmed the significantly different prognosis for progression-free survival in the three recently defined molecular low-grade glioma subgroups ( IDH mt, with or without 1p/19q co-deletion IDH mt/codel, or IDH wild type IDH wt; p=0·013). Patients with IDH mt/non-codel tumours treated with radiotherapy had a longer progression-free survival than those treated with temozolomide (HR 1·86 95% CI 1·21–2·87, log-rank p=0·0043), whereas there were no significant treatment-dependent differences in progression-free survival for patients with IDH mt/codel and IDH wt tumours. Grade 3–4 haematological adverse events occurred in 32 (14%) of 236 patients treated with temozolomide and in one (<1%) of 228 patients treated with radiotherapy, and grade 3–4 infections occurred in eight (3%) of 236 patients treated with temozolomide and in two (1%) of 228 patients treated with radiotherapy. Moderate to severe fatigue was recorded in eight (3%) patients in the radiotherapy group (grade 2) and 16 (7%) in the temozolomide group. 119 (25%) of all 477 patients had died at database lock. Four patients died due to treatment-related causes: two in the temozolomide group and two in the radiotherapy group. Interpretation Overall, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival in patients with low-grade glioma when treated with either radiotherapy alone or temozolomide chemotherapy alone. Further data maturation is needed for overall survival analyses and evaluation of the full predictive effects of different molecular subtypes for future individualised treatment choices. Funding Merck Sharpe & Dohme-Merck & Co, Canadian Cancer Society, Swiss Cancer League, UK National Institutes of Health, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, US National Cancer Institute, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Cancer Research Fund.
Approximately 50% of glioblastomas (GBMs) are characterized by overexpression of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and EGFR gene amplification. In approximately 25% of instances, ...constitutively activated EGFR mutants are present. These observations make EGFR-inhibiting drugs a logical approach for trials in recurrent GBM.
In a randomized, controlled, phase II trial, 110 patients with progressive GBM after prior radiotherapy were randomly assigned to either erlotinib or a control arm that received treatment with either temozolomide or carmustine (BCNU). The primary end point was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS). Tumor specimens obtained at first surgery were investigated for EGFR expression; EGFRvIII mutants; EGFR amplification; EGFR mutations in exons 18, 19, and 21; and pAkt. These results were correlated with outcome. Pharmacokinetic analysis was part of the study. RESULTS; Treatment was well tolerated in general; skin toxicity was the most frequent adverse effect of erlotinib. The 6-month PFS rate in the erlotinib arm was 11.4% (95% CI, 4.6% to 21.5%), and it was 24% in the control arm. Of all explored biomarkers, only low pAkt expression appeared to be of borderline significance to an improved outcome. None of the eight patients who had tumors with EGFRvIII mutant presence and PTEN expression had 6-month PFS. The use of enzyme-inducing anticonvulsants significantly increased erlotinib clearance, but pharmacokinetic findings were not related to outcome.
Erlotinib has insufficient single-agent activity in unselected GBM. No clear biomarker associated with improved outcome to erlotinib was identified.
To evaluate the safety and the efficacy of imatinib in recurrent malignant gliomas.
This was a single-arm, phase II study. Eligible patients had recurrent glioma after prior radiotherapy with an ...enhancing lesion on magnetic resonance imaging. Three different histologic groups were studied: glioblastomas (GBM), pure/mixed (anaplastic) oligodendrogliomas (OD), and low-grade or anaplastic astrocytomas (A). Imatinib was started at a dose of 600 mg/d with dose escalation to 800 mg in case of no toxicity; during the trial this dose was increased to 800 mg/d with escalation to 1,000 mg/d. Trial design was one-stage Fleming; both an objective response and 6 months of progression-free survival (PFS) were considered a successful outcome to treatment.
A total of 112 patients (51 patients with GBM, 25 patients with A, and 36 patients with OD) were enrolled. Imatinib was in general well tolerated. The median number of cycles was 2.0 (range, 1 to 43 cycles). Five patients had an objective partial response, including three patients with GBM; all had 6 months of PFS. The 6-month PFS rate was 16% (95% CI, 8.0% to 34.0%) in GBM, 4.0% (95% CI, 0.3% to 15.0%) in OD, and 9% (95% CI, 2.0% to 25.0%) in A. The exposure to imatinib was significantly lower in patients using enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs. The presence of ABCG2 point mutations were not correlated with pharmacokinetic findings. No somatic activating mutations of KIT or platelet-derived growth factor receptor-A or -B were found.
In the dose range of 600 to 1,000 mg/d, single-agent imatinib is well tolerated but has limited antitumor activity in patients with recurrent gliomas.
The role of temozolomide chemotherapy in newly diagnosed 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic gliomas, which are associated with lower sensitivity to chemotherapy and worse prognosis than 1p/19q ...co-deleted tumours, is unclear. We assessed the use of radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide in adults with non-co-deleted anaplastic gliomas.
This was a phase 3, randomised, open-label study with a 2 × 2 factorial design. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had newly diagnosed non-co-deleted anaplastic glioma with WHO performance status scores of 0–2. The randomisation schedule was generated with the electronic EORTC web-based ORTA system. Patients were assigned in equal numbers (1:1:1:1), using the minimisation technique, to receive radiotherapy (59·4 Gy in 33 fractions of 1·8 Gy) alone or with adjuvant temozolomide (12 4-week cycles of 150–200 mg/m2 temozolomide given on days 1–5); or to receive radiotherapy with concurrent temozolomide 75 mg/m2 per day, with or without adjuvant temozolomide. The primary endpoint was overall survival adjusted for performance status score, age, 1p loss of heterozygosity, presence of oligodendroglial elements, and MGMT promoter methylation status, analysed by intention to treat. We did a planned interim analysis after 219 (41%) deaths had occurred to test the null hypothesis of no efficacy (threshold for rejection p<0·0084). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00626990.
At the time of the interim analysis, 745 (99%) of the planned 748 patients had been enrolled. The hazard ratio for overall survival with use of adjuvant temozolomide was 0·65 (99·145% CI 0·45–0·93). Overall survival at 5 years was 55·9% (95% CI 47·2–63·8) with and 44·1% (36·3–51·6) without adjuvant temozolomide. Grade 3–4 adverse events were seen in 8–12% of 549 patients assigned temozolomide, and were mainly haematological and reversible.
Adjuvant temozolomide chemotherapy was associated with a significant survival benefit in patients with newly diagnosed non-co-deleted anaplastic glioma. Further analysis of the role of concurrent temozolomide treatment and molecular factors is needed.
Schering Plough and MSD.
The CATNON trial investigated the addition of concurrent, adjuvant, and both current and adjuvant temozolomide to radiotherapy in adults with newly diagnosed 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic gliomas. ...The benefit of concurrent temozolomide chemotherapy and relevance of mutations in the IDH1 and IDH2 genes remain unclear.
This randomised, open-label, phase 3 study done in 137 institutions across Australia, Europe, and North America included patients aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic gliomas and a WHO performance status of 0–2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) centrally using a minimisation technique to radiotherapy alone (59·4 Gy in 33 fractions; three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy or intensity-modulated radiotherapy), radiotherapy with concurrent oral temozolomide (75 mg/m2 per day), radiotherapy with adjuvant oral temozolomide (12 4-week cycles of 150–200 mg/m2 temozolomide given on days 1–5), or radiotherapy with both concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide. Patients were stratified by institution, WHO performance status score, age, 1p loss of heterozygosity, the presence of oligodendroglial elements on microscopy, and MGMT promoter methylation status. The primary endpoint was overall survival adjusted by stratification factors at randomisation in the intention-to-treat population. A second interim analysis requested by the independent data monitoring committee was planned when two-thirds of total required events were observed to test superiority or futility of concurrent temozolomide. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00626990.
Between Dec 4, 2007, and Sept 11, 2015, 751 patients were randomly assigned (189 to radiotherapy alone, 188 to radiotherapy with concurrent temozolomide, 186 to radiotherapy and adjuvant temozolomide, and 188 to radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide). Median follow-up was 55·7 months (IQR 41·0–77·3). The second interim analysis declared futility of concurrent temozolomide (median overall survival was 66·9 months 95% CI 45·7–82·3 with concurrent temozolomide vs 60·4 months 45·7–71·5 without concurrent temozolomide; hazard ratio HR 0·97 99·1% CI 0·73–1·28, p=0·76). By contrast, adjuvant temozolomide improved overall survival compared with no adjuvant temozolomide (median overall survival 82·3 months 95% CI 67·2–116·6 vs 46·9 months 37·9–56·9; HR 0·64 95% CI 0·52–0·79, p<0·0001). The most frequent grade 3 and 4 toxicities were haematological, occurring in no patients in the radiotherapy only group, 16 (9%) of 185 patients in the concurrent temozolomide group, and 55 (15%) of 368 patients in both groups with adjuvant temozolomide. No treatment-related deaths were reported.
Adjuvant temozolomide chemotherapy, but not concurrent temozolomide chemotherapy, was associated with a survival benefit in patients with 1p/19q non-co-deleted anaplastic glioma. Clinical benefit was dependent on IDH1 and IDH2 mutational status.
Merck Sharpe & Dohme.
PDF
