The efficacy and safety of cabazitaxel, as compared with an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who ...were previously treated with docetaxel and had progression within 12 months while receiving the alternative inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) are unclear.
We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had previously received docetaxel and an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide) to receive cabazitaxel (at a dose of 25 mg per square meter of body-surface area intravenously every 3 weeks, plus prednisone daily and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) or the other androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (either 1000 mg of abiraterone plus prednisone daily or 160 mg of enzalutamide daily). The primary end point was imaging-based progression-free survival. Secondary end points of survival, response, and safety were assessed.
A total of 255 patients underwent randomization. After a median follow-up of 9.2 months, imaging-based progression or death was reported in 95 of 129 patients (73.6%) in the cabazitaxel group, as compared with 101 of 126 patients (80.2%) in the group that received an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.40 to 0.73; P<0.001). The median imaging-based progression-free survival was 8.0 months with cabazitaxel and 3.7 months with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor. The median overall survival was 13.6 months with cabazitaxel and 11.0 months with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.89; P = 0.008). The median progression-free survival was 4.4 months with cabazitaxel and 2.7 months with an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.68; P<0.001), a prostate-specific antigen response occurred in 35.7% and 13.5% of the patients, respectively (P<0.001), and tumor response was noted in 36.5% and 11.5% (P = 0.004). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 56.3% of patients receiving cabazitaxel and in 52.4% of those receiving an androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor. No new safety signals were observed.
Cabazitaxel significantly improved a number of clinical outcomes, as compared with the androgen-signaling-targeted inhibitor (abiraterone or enzalutamide), in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had been previously treated with docetaxel and the alternative androgen-signaling-targeted agent (abiraterone or enzalutamide). (Funded by Sanofi; CARD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02485691.).
The combination of pembrolizumab and axitinib showed antitumor activity in a phase 1b trial involving patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma. Whether pembrolizumab plus ...axitinib would result in better outcomes than sunitinib in such patients was unclear.
In an open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 861 patients with previously untreated advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma to receive pembrolizumab (200 mg) intravenously once every 3 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily (432 patients) or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for the first 4 weeks of each 6-week cycle (429 patients). The primary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. The key secondary end point was the objective response rate. All reported results are from the protocol-specified first interim analysis.
After a median follow-up of 12.8 months, the estimated percentage of patients who were alive at 12 months was 89.9% in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 78.3% in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio for death, 0.53; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.38 to 0.74; P<0.0001). Median progression-free survival was 15.1 months in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 11.1 months in the sunitinib group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.84; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 59.3% (95% CI, 54.5 to 63.9) in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and 35.7% (95% CI, 31.1 to 40.4) in the sunitinib group (P<0.001). The benefit of pembrolizumab plus axitinib was observed across the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk groups (i.e., favorable, intermediate, and poor risk) and regardless of programmed death ligand 1 expression. Grade 3 or higher adverse events of any cause occurred in 75.8% of patients in the pembrolizumab-axitinib group and in 70.6% in the sunitinib group.
Among patients with previously untreated advanced renal-cell carcinoma, treatment with pembrolizumab plus axitinib resulted in significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival, as well as a higher objective response rate, than treatment with sunitinib. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; KEYNOTE-426 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02853331.).
Pancreatic cancer has the worst prognosis among all cancers. Cancer screening of body fluids may improve the survival time prognosis of patients, who are often diagnosed too late at an incurable ...stage. Several studies report the dysregulation of lipid metabolism in tumor cells, suggesting that changes in the blood lipidome may accompany tumor growth. Here we show that the comprehensive mass spectrometric determination of a wide range of serum lipids reveals statistically significant differences between pancreatic cancer patients and healthy controls, as visualized by multivariate data analysis. Three phases of biomarker discovery research (discovery, qualification, and verification) are applied for 830 samples in total, which shows the dysregulation of some very long chain sphingomyelins, ceramides, and (lyso)phosphatidylcholines. The sensitivity and specificity to diagnose pancreatic cancer are over 90%, which outperforms CA 19-9, especially at an early stage, and is comparable to established diagnostic imaging methods. Furthermore, selected lipid species indicate a potential as prognostic biomarkers.
Lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab or everolimus has activity against advanced renal cell carcinoma. The efficacy of these regimens as compared with that of sunitinib is unclear.
In this ...phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and no previous systemic therapy to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks), lenvatinib (18 mg orally once daily) plus everolimus (5 mg orally once daily), or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily, alternating 4 weeks receiving treatment and 2 weeks without treatment). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as assessed by an independent review committee in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Overall survival and safety were also evaluated.
A total of 1069 patients were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (355 patients), lenvatinib plus everolimus (357), or sunitinib (357). Progression-free survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (median, 23.9 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.32 to 0.49; P<0.001) and was longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (median, 14.7 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.80; P<0.001). Overall survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.88; P = 0.005) but was not longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.50; P = 0.30). Grade 3 or higher adverse events emerged or worsened during treatment in 82.4% of the patients who received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, 83.1% of those who received lenvatinib plus everolimus, and 71.8% of those who received sunitinib. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in at least 10% of the patients in any group included hypertension, diarrhea, and elevated lipase levels.
Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival than sunitinib. (Funded by Eisai and Merck Sharp and Dohme; CLEAR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02811861.).
Summary Background Currently, metastatic renal cell carcinoma is treated with sequential single agents targeting VEGF or mTOR. Here, we aimed to assess lenvatinib, everolimus, or their combination as ...second-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Methods We did a randomised, phase 2, open-label, multicentre trial at 37 centres in five countries and enrolled patients with advanced or metastatic, clear-cell, renal cell carcinoma. We included patients who had received treatment with a VEGF-targeted therapy and progressed on or within 9 months of stopping that agent. Patients were randomised via an interactive voice response system in a 1:1:1 ratio to either lenvatinib (24 mg/day), everolimus (10 mg/day), or lenvatinib plus everolimus (18 mg/day and 5 mg/day, respectively) administered orally in continuous 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The randomisation procedure dynamically minimised imbalances between treatment groups for the stratification factors haemoglobin and corrected serum calcium. The primary objective was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is closed to enrolment but patients' treatment and follow-up is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01136733. Findings Between March 16, 2012, and June 19, 2013, 153 patients were randomly allocated to receive either the combination of lenvatinib plus everolimus (n=51), single-agent lenvatinib (n=52), or single-agent everolimus (n=50). Lenvatinib plus everolimus significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with everolimus alone (median 14·6 months 95% CI 5·9–20·1 vs 5·5 months 3·5–7·1; hazard ratio HR 0·40, 95% CI 0·24–0·68; p=0·0005), but not compared with lenvatinib alone (7·4 months 95% CI 5·6–10·2; HR 0·66, 95% CI 0·30–1·10; p=0·12). Single-agent lenvatinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with everolimus alone (HR 0·61, 95% CI 0·38–0·98; p=0·048). Grade 3 and 4 events occurred in fewer patients allocated single-agent everolimus (25 50%) compared with those assigned lenvatinib alone (41 79%) or lenvatinib plus everolimus (36 71%). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse event in patients allocated lenvatinib plus everolimus was diarrhoea (ten 20%), in those assigned single-agent lenvatinib it was proteinuria (ten 19%), and in those assigned single-agent everolimus it was anaemia (six 12%). Two deaths were deemed related to study drug, one cerebral haemorrhage in the lenvatinib plus everolimus group and one myocardial infarction with single-agent lenvatinib. Interpretation Lenvatinib plus everolimus and lenvatinib alone resulted in a progression-free survival benefit for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who have progressed after one previous VEGF-targeted therapy. Further study of lenvatinib is warranted in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Funding Eisai Inc.
This review summarizes and critically evaluates the published approaches and recent trends in sample pre-treatment, as well as both separation and non-separation techniques used for the determination ...of uric acid (UA) in saliva. UA is the final product of purine nucleotide catabolism in humans. UA concentrations in biological fluids such as serum, plasma, and urine represent an important biomarker of diseases including gout, hyperuricemia, or disorders associated with oxidative stress. Previous studies reported correlation between UA concentrations detected in saliva and in the blood. The interest in UA has been increasing during the past 20 years from a single publication in 2000 to 34 papers in 2019 according to MEDLINE search using term "uric acid in saliva". The evaluation of salivary UA levels can contribute to non-invasive diagnosis of many serious diseases. Increased salivary UA concentration is associated with cancer, HIV, gout, and hypertension. In contrast, low UA levels are associated with Alzheimer disease, progression of multiple sclerosis, and mild cognitive impairment.
Summary Background Nanoliposomal irinotecan showed activity in a phase 2 study in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma previously treated with gemcitabine-based therapies. We ...assessed the effect of nanoliposomal irinotecan alone or combined with fluorouracil and folinic acid in a phase 3 trial in this population. Methods We did a global, phase 3, randomised, open-label trial at 76 sites in 14 countries. Eligible patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma previously treated with gemcitabine-based therapy were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive web response system at a central location to receive either nanoliposomal irinotecan monotherapy (120 mg/m2 every 3 weeks, equivalent to 100 mg/m2 of irinotecan base) or fluorouracil and folinic acid. A third arm consisting of nanoliposomal irinotecan (80 mg/m2 , equivalent to 70 mg/m2 of irinotecan base) with fluorouracil and folinic acid every 2 weeks was added later (1:1:1), in a protocol amendment. Randomisation was stratified by baseline albumin, Karnofsky performance status, and ethnic origin. Treatment was continued until disease progression or intolerable toxic effects. The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The primary analysis was planned after 305 events. Safety was assessed in all patients who had received study drug. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01494506. Findings Between Jan 11, 2012, and Sept 11, 2013, 417 patients were randomly assigned either nanoliposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and folinic acid (n=117), nanoliposomal irinotecan monotherapy (n=151), or fluorouracil and folinic acid (n=149). After 313 events, median overall survival in patients assigned nanoliposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and folinic acid was 6·1 months (95% CI 4·8–8·9) vs 4·2 months (3·3–5·3) with fluorouracil and folinic acid (hazard ratio 0·67, 95% CI 0·49–0·92; p=0·012). Median overall survival did not differ between patients assigned nanoliposomal irinotecan monotherapy and those allocated fluorouracil and folinic acid (4·9 months 4·2–5·6 vs 4·2 months 3·6–4·9; 0·99, 0·77–1·28; p=0·94). The grade 3 or 4 adverse events that occurred most frequently in the 117 patients assigned nanoliposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and folinic acid were neutropenia (32 27%), diarrhoea (15 13%), vomiting (13 11%), and fatigue (16 14%). Interpretation Nanoliposomal irinotecan in combination with fluorouracil and folinic acid extends survival with a manageable safety profile in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who previously received gemcitabine-based therapy. This agent represents a new treatment option for this population. Funding Merrimack Pharmaceuticals.
A phase III trial of bevacizumab combined with interferon alfa-2a (IFN) showed significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Here, we report ...overall survival (OS) data.
Six hundred forty-nine patients with previously untreated mRCC were randomly assigned to receive bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks) plus IFN (9 MIU subcutaneously three times a week; n = 327) or IFN plus placebo (n = 322) in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial. The primary end point was OS. Final analysis of the secondary end point (PFS) was reported earlier.
Median OS was 23.3 months with bevacizumab plus IFN and 21.3 months with IFN plus placebo (unstratified hazard ratio HR = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.10; P = .3360; stratified HR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.04; P = .1291). Patients (> 55%) in both arms received at least one postprotocol antineoplastic therapy, possibly confounding the OS analysis. Patients receiving postprotocol therapy including a tyrosine kinase inhibitor had longer median OS (bevacizumab plus IFN arm: 38.6 months; IFN plus placebo arm: 33.6 months; HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.13). Tolerability was similar to that reported previously.
Bevacizumab plus IFN is active as first-line treatment in patients with mRCC. Most patients with mRCC receive multiple lines of therapy, so considering the overall sequence of therapy when selecting first-line therapy may optimize patient benefit.
Entinostat is an oral isoform selective histone deacetylase inhibitor that targets resistance to hormonal therapies in estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer. This randomized, ...placebo-controlled, phase II study evaluated entinostat combined with the aromatase inhibitor exemestane versus exemestane alone.
Postmenopausal women with ER+ advanced breast cancer progressing on a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor were randomly assigned to exemestane 25 mg daily plus entinostat 5 mg once per week (EE) or exemestane plus placebo (EP). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Blood was collected in a subset of patients for evaluation of protein lysine acetylation as a biomarker of entinostat activity.
One hundred thirty patients were randomly assigned (EE group, n = 64; EP group, n = 66). Based on intent-to-treat analysis, treatment with EE improved median PFS to 4.3 months versus 2.3 months with EP (hazard ratio HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.07; one-sided P = .055; two-sided P = .11 predefined significance level of .10, one-sided). Median overall survival was an exploratory end point and improved to 28.1 months with EE versus 19.8 months with EP (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.97; P = .036). Fatigue and neutropenia were the most frequent grade 3/4 toxicities. Treatment discontinuation because of adverse events was higher in the EE group versus the EP group (11% v 2%). Protein lysine hyperacetylation in the EE biomarker subset was associated with prolonged PFS.
Entinostat added to exemestane is generally well tolerated and demonstrated activity in patients with ER+ advanced breast cancer in this signal-finding phase II study. Acetylation changes may provide an opportunity to maximize clinical benefit with entinostat. Plans for a confirmatory study are underway.
PDF
