-
1.
Talazoparib Versus Chemotherapy in Patients with HER2-negative Advanced Breast Cancer and a Germline BRCA1/2 Mutation Enrolled in Asian Countries: Exploratory Subgroup Analysis of the Phase III EMBRACA Trial.
Lee, KH, Sohn, J, Goodwin, A, Usari, T, Lanzalone, S, Im, SA, Kim, SB
Cancer research and treatment. 2021;(4):1084-1095
Abstract
PURPOSE We evaluated study outcomes in patients enrolled in Asian regions in the phase III EMBRACA trial of talazoparib vs. chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative germline BRCA1/2-mutated advanced breast cancer who received prior chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to talazoparib 1 mg/day or chemotherapy (physician's choice). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) per independent central review in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. This post-hoc analysis evaluated efficacy/safety endpoints in the ITT population of patients enrolled in Asian regions. RESULTS Thirty-three patients were enrolled at Asian sites (talazoparib, n=23; chemotherapy, n=10). Baseline characteristics were generally comparable with the overall EMBRACA population. In Asian patients, median PFS was 9.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0 to 15.2) for talazoparib and 7.1 months (95% CI, 1.2 to not reached) for chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74 [95% CI, 0.22 to 2.44]). Objective response rate was numerically higher for talazoparib vs. chemotherapy (62.5% [95% CI, 35.4 to 84.8] vs. 25.0% [95% CI, 3.2 to 65.1]). Median overall survival was 20.7 months (95% CI, 9.4 to 40.1) versus 21.2 months (95% CI, 2.7 to 35.0) (HR, 1.41 [95% CI, 0.49 to 4.05]). In Asian patients, fewer grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), grade 3/4 SAEs, and AEs resulting in dose reduction/discontinuation occurred with talazoparib than chemotherapy; for talazoparib, the frequency of these events was lower in Asian patients versus overall EMBRACA population. CONCLUSION In this subgroup analysis, talazoparib numerically improved efficacy versus chemotherapy and was generally well tolerated in Asian patients, with fewer grade 3/4 treatment-emergent AE (TEAEs), SAEs, and TEAEs leading to dose modification vs. the overall EMBRACA population.
-
2.
KarMMa-RW: comparison of idecabtagene vicleucel with real-world outcomes in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma.
Jagannath, S, Lin, Y, Goldschmidt, H, Reece, D, Nooka, A, Senin, A, Rodriguez-Otero, P, Powles, R, Matsue, K, Shah, N, et al
Blood cancer journal. 2021;(6):116
Abstract
Patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who are triple-class exposed (to an immunomodulatory agent, proteasome inhibitor, and anti-CD38 antibody) have limited treatment options and there is no standard of care. Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, bb2121), a BCMA-directed CAR T-cell therapy, demonstrated efficacy in triple-class exposed RRMM patients in the KarMMa trial (NCT03361748). In this retrospective study (KarMMa-RW), patient-level data from triple-class exposed RRMM patients were merged into a single data model and compared with KarMMa using trimmed stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting. Endpoints included overall response rate (ORR; primary), rate of very good partial response or better (≥VGPR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Of 1949 real-world triple-class exposed RRMM patients, 190 received subsequent (index) line of therapy and met KarMMa eligibility criteria (Eligible RRMM cohort). With a median follow-up of 13.3 months in KarMMa and 10.2 months in Eligible RRMM, ORR, and ≥VGPR were significantly improved in KarMMa versus Eligible RRMM (ORR, 76.4% vs 32.2%; ≥VGPR, 57.9% vs 13.7%; both P < 0.0001) as were PFS (11.6 vs 3.5 months; P = 0.0004) and OS (20.2 vs 14.7 months; P = 0.0006). This study demonstrated that ide-cel significantly improved responses and survival compared with currently available therapies in triple-class exposed RRMM.
-
3.
Randomized phase II study comparing the efficacy and safety of SOX versus mFOLFOX6 as neoadjuvant chemotherapy without radiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer (KSCC1301).
Miwa, K, Oki, E, Enomoto, M, Ihara, K, Ando, K, Fujita, F, Tominaga, M, Mori, S, Nakayama, G, Shimokawa, M, et al
BMC cancer. 2021;(1):23
Abstract
BACKGROUND Preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT), the current standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), is associated with many radiotherapy (RT)-related side effects. We aimed to evaluate whether S-1 and oxaliplatin (SOX) or folinic acid, 5-FU, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) can be as effective as neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) regimens for LARC without RT. METHODS Patients with untreated resectable LARC were randomly assigned to receive SOX or mFOLFOX6. The NAC protocol period was 3 months. The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-free survival (DFS), and the secondary endpoints included pathological effects, surgical completion rate, 3-year survival, and safety. RESULTS From September 2013 to October 2015, 56 and 54 patients were enrolled in the SOX and mFOLFOX6 arms, respectively. The 3-year DFS rates were 69.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 54.9-83.6) and 73.4% (95% CI 58.7-83.6) in the SOX and mFOLFOX6 arms, respectively; no significant differences were found between the arms (log-rank test; P = 0.5315, hazard ratio: 0.808, 95% CI 0.414-1.578). The 3-year survival rates were 92.3 and 91.8% in the SOX and mFOLFOX6 arms, respectively. The surgical completion rate was 98.1% overall, 100% in the SOX arm, and 96.0% in the mFOLFOX6 arm. The incidences of pathological response rates ≥grade 1b were 41.5 and 43.8% in the SOX and mFOLFOX6 arms, respectively. Both treatments were manageable and tolerable. CONCLUSION We demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of SOX and mFOLFOX6, both of which may be new neoadjuvant treatment candidates in previously untreated LARC cases. TRIAL REGISTRATION Date of enrolment of the first participant to the trial: 3rd Oct 2013; This study was registered in the UMIN clinical trials registry on 14th Aug, 2013. (Prospectively registered, UMIN-CTR number UMIN000011486). https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr/ctr.cgi?function=brows&recptno=R000013441&language=J.
-
4.
Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine followed by FOLFIRINOX induction chemotherapy in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (NEOLAP-AIO-PAK-0113): a multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial.
Kunzmann, V, Siveke, JT, Algül, H, Goekkurt, E, Siegler, G, Martens, U, Waldschmidt, D, Pelzer, U, Fuchs, M, Kullmann, F, et al
The lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology. 2021;(2):128-138
Abstract
BACKGROUND The optimal preoperative treatment for locally advanced pancreatic cancer is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine followed by fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) as multidrug induction chemotherapy regimens in locally advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS In this open-label, multicentre, randomised phase 2 study, done at 28 centres in Germany, eligible patients were adults (aged 18-75 years) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 and histologically or cytologically confirmed, treatment-naive locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma, as determined by local multidisciplinary team review. After two cycles of nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle), patients without progressive disease or unacceptable adverse events were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either two additional cycles of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group) or four cycles of sequential FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2, fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 by intravenous bolus followed by a continuous intravenous infusion of 2400 mg/m2 for 46 h on day 1 of each 14-day cycle; sequential FOLFIRINOX group). Randomisation was done by the clinical research organisation on request of the trial centre using a permuted block design (block size 2 and 4). Patients, investigators, and study team members were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was surgical conversion rate (complete macroscopic tumour resection) in the randomised population by intention-to-treat analysis, which was assessed by surgical exploration in all patients with at least stable disease after completion of induction chemotherapy. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02125136. FINDINGS Between Nov 18, 2014, and April 27, 2018, 168 patients were registered and 130 were randomly assigned to either the nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group (64 patients) or the sequential FOLFIRINOX group (66 patients). Surgical exploration after completed induction chemotherapy was done in 40 (63%) of 64 patients in the nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group and 42 (64%) of 66 patients in the sequential FOLFIRINOX group. 23 patients in the nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group and 29 in the sequential FOLFIRINOX group had complete macroscopic tumour resection, yielding a surgical conversion rate of 35·9% (95% CI 24·3-48·9) in the nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group and 43·9% (31·7-56·7) in the sequential FOLFIRINOX group (odds ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·35-1·45]; p=0·38). At a median follow-up of 24·9 months (95% CI 21·8-27·6), median overall survival was 18·5 months (95% CI 14·4-21·5) in the nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group and 20·7 months (13·9-28·7) in the sequential FOLFIRINOX group (hazard ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·55-1·36]; p=0·53). All other secondary efficacy endpoints, such as investigator-assessed progression-free survival, radiographic response rate, CA 19-9 response rate, and R0 resection rate, were not significantly different between the two treatment groups except for improved histopathological downstaging in evaluable resection specimens from the sequential FOLFIRINOX group (ypT1/2 stage: 20 [69%] of 29 patients in the sequential FOLFIRINOX group vs four [17%] of 23 patients in the nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group, p=0·0003; ypN0 stage: 15 [52%] of 29 patients in the sequential FOLFIRINOX group vs four [17%] of 23 patients in the nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group, p=0·02). Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events during induction chemotherapy occurred in 35 (55%) of 64 patients in nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group and in 35 (53%) of 66 patients in the sequential FOLFIRINOX group. The most common of which were neutropenia (18 [28%] in nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group, 16 [24%] in the sequential FOLFIRINOX group), nausea and vomiting (two [3%] in nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group, eight [12%] in the sequential FOLFIRINOX group), and bile duct obstruction with cholangitis (six [9%] in nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine group, seven [11%] in the sequential FOLFIRINOX group). No deaths were caused by treatment-related adverse events during the induction chemotherapy phase. INTERPRETATION Our findings suggest that nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine is similarly active and safe as nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine followed by FOLFIRINOX as multidrug induction chemotherapy regimens for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Although conversion to resectability was achieved in about a third of patients, additional evidence is required to determine whether this translates into improved overall survival. FUNDING Celgene.
-
5.
Primary Surgery with Systemic Therapy in Patients with de Novo Stage IV Breast Cancer: 10-year Follow-up; Protocol MF07-01 Randomized Clinical Trial.
Soran, A, Ozmen, V, Ozbas, S, Karanlik, H, Muslumanoglu, M, Igci, A, Canturk, NZ, Utkan, Z, Evrensel, T, Sezgin, E, et al
Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2021;(6):742-751.e5
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the overall survival (OS) data of patients diagnosed with de novo stage IV breast cancer (BC) who received locoregional treatment (LRT) over a 10-year follow-up. STUDY DESIGN The MF07-01 is a 1:1 multicenter, randomized clinical trial comparing the LRT with systemic therapy (ST), where ST was given to all patients either immediately after randomization or after surgical resection of the intact primary tumor. RESULTS A total of 278 patients were randomized and 265 patients were in the final analysis. At 10-year follow-up, survivals were 19% (95% CI 13%-28%) and 5% (95% CI 2%-12%) in the LRT group and ST group, respectively. Median survival was 46 months for the LRT group and 35 months for the ST group, and hazard of death was 29% lower in the LRT group compared with the ST group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71; 95% CI 0.59-0.86; p = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS Patients with a diagnosis of de novo stage IV BC who underwent LRT followed by ST had a 14% higher chance of OS by the end of the 10-year follow-up compared with the patients who received only ST. The longer study follow-up revealed that LRT should be presented to patients when discussing treatment options.
-
6.
Active notch protects MAPK activated melanoma cell lines from MEK inhibitor cobimetinib.
Porcelli, L, Mazzotta, A, Garofoli, M, Di Fonte, R, Guida, G, Guida, M, Tommasi, S, Azzariti, A
Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & pharmacotherapie. 2021;:111006
Abstract
The crosstalk between Notch and MAPK pathway plays a role in MEK inhibitor resistance in BRAFV600E metastatic melanoma (MM) and promotes migration in GNAQQ209L uveal melanoma (UM) cells. We determined the cytotoxicity of combinatorial inhibition of MEK and Notch by cobimetinib and γ-secretase inhibitor (GSI) nirogacestat, in BRAFV600E and BRAF wt MM and GNAQQ209L UM cells displaying different Erk1/2 and Notch activation status, with the aim to elucidate the impact of Notch signaling in the response to MEK inhibitor. Overall the combination was synergic in BRAFV600E MM and GNAQQ209L UM cells and antagonistic in BRAF wt one. Focusing on UM cells, we found that cobimetinib resulted in G0/G1 phase arrest and apoptosis induction, whereas the combination with GSI increased treatment efficacy by inducing a senescent-like state of cells and by blocking migration towards liver cancer cells. Mechanistically, this was reflected in a strong reduction of cyclin D1, in the inactivation of retinoblastoma protein and in the increase of p27KIP1 expression levels. Of note, each drug alone prevented Notch signaling activation resulting in inhibition of c-jun(Ser63) and Hes-1 expression. The combination achieved the strongest inhibition on Notch signaling and on both c-jun(Ser63) and Erk1/2 activation level. In conclusion we unveiled a coordinate action of MAPK and Notch signaling in promoting proliferation of BRAFV600E MM and GNAQQ209L UM cells. Remarkably, the simultaneous inhibition of MEK and Notch signaling highlighted a role for the second pathway in protecting cells against senescence in GNAQQ209L UM cells treated with the MEK inhibitor.
-
7.
Cost-effectiveness analysis of FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel as adjuvant treatment for resected pancreatic cancer in the United States based on PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials.
Kharat, AA, Nelson, R, Au, T, Biskupiak, J
Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy. 2021;(10):1367-1375
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pancreatic cancer is associated with low median overall survival. Combination chemotherapy regimens FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel (GemNab) are the new adjuvant treatment standards for resectable pancreatic cancer. PRODIGE-24 and APACT trials demonstrated superior clinical outcomes with FOLFIRINOX and GemNab, each vs gemcitabine monotherapy. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab for resectable pancreatic cancer in adults from the U.S. payer perspective, in order to inform decision makers about which of these treatments is optimal. METHODS A Markov model with 3 disease states (relapse free, progressive disease, and death) was developed. Cycle length was 1 month, and time horizon was 10 years. Transition probabilities were derived from PRODIGE-24 and APACT survival data. All cost and utility input parameters were obtained from published literature. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to obtain total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. The effect of uncertainty on model parameters was assessed with 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS Our analysis estimated that the cost for FOLFIRINOX was $40,831 higher than GemNab ($99,669 vs. $58,837). Despite increased toxicity, FOLFIRINOX was associated with additional 0.18 QALYs and 0.25 LYs compared with GemNab (QALY: 1.65 vs. 1.47; LY: 2.09 vs. 1.84). The ICER for FOLFIRINOX vs GemNab was $226,841 per QALY and $163,325 per LY. FOLFIRINOX was not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $200,000 per QALY, and this was confirmed by the PSA. CONCLUSIONS Total monthly cost for FOLFIRINOX was approximately 1.7 times higher than GemNab. If the WTP threshold increases to or above $250,000 per QALY, FOLFIRINOX then becomes a cost-effective treatment option. DISCLOSURES This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
-
8.
The clinical efficacy of computed tomography-guided 125I particle implantation combined with arterial infusion chemotherapy in the treatment of pancreatic cancer.
Yang, L, Li, C, Wang, Z, Wu, J, Zhou, J, Wang, R
Journal of cancer research and therapeutics. 2021;(3):720-725
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
AIMS: This study aimed to investigate the clinical value of 125I radioactive particle implantation combined with regional arterial chemotherapy perfusion in the treatment of pancreatic cancer. SUBJECTS AND METHODS The clinical data of 23 patients with pancreatic cancer were retrospectively analyzed, and the patients were divided into two groups. In the observation group, 11 patients were injected with radioactive particles in combination with regional arterial chemotherapy. In the control group, 12 patients were treated with simple regional arterial perfusion chemotherapy. Curative effect, pain relief, survival period, and adverse reactions were compared between the two groups. RESULTS The proportion of patients was significantly higher in the observation group (complete remission + partial remission) (72.73%) than in the control group (41.67%). The 6-month and 9-month survival rates in the experimental group were 91.7% and 50%, respectively, while those in the control group were 63.6% and 18.2%, respectively, with significantly statistical difference. The 12-month survival rate in the experimental group was 16.7% and was significantly higher than that in the control group (8.3%). The experimental group should greater improvement in pain symptoms than the control group, and there was no statistical difference between the two groups except in complications of 125I radioactive particle implantation. CONCLUSIONS We conclude that 125I radioactive particle implantation combined with regional arterial perfusion chemotherapy is an effective and comprehensive treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer.
-
9.
A randomized controlled trial comparing primary tumour resection plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone in incurable stage IV colorectal cancer: JCOG1007 (iPACS study).
Moritani, K, Kanemitsu, Y, Shida, D, Shitara, K, Mizusawa, J, Katayama, H, Hamaguchi, T, Shimada, Y, ,
Japanese journal of clinical oncology. 2020;(1):89-93
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
It is controversial whether chemotherapy with or without primary tumour resection is effective for the patients with incurable Stage IV colorectal cancer. A randomized controlled trial, initiated in Japan in 2012, is being conducted to evaluate the survival benefit and safety of primary tumour resection plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone in asymptomatic Stage IV colorectal cancer patients with unresectable metastatic disease. Patients are randomly assigned to either chemotherapy alone or primary tumour resection followed by chemotherapy. The primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints are progression-free survival, incidence of adverse events, proportion of patients with R0 resection and proportion of palliative surgery for the chemotherapy-alone group. This trial was registered in June 2012 with the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry as UMIN000008147 [http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index-j.htm]. In December 2017, the study protocol was amended for reducing sample size. A total of 280 patients will be enrolled over the course of 8.5 years.
-
10.
Tivozanib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (TIVO-3): a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label study.
Rini, BI, Pal, SK, Escudier, BJ, Atkins, MB, Hutson, TE, Porta, C, Verzoni, E, Needle, MN, McDermott, DF
The Lancet. Oncology. 2020;(1):95-104
Abstract
BACKGROUND Treatment for renal cell carcinoma has been revolutionised by inhibitors of VEGF receptor. Previous studies have suggested that treatment with a VEGF receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor might be effective in patients who had previous checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Therefore, TIVO-3 was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of tivozanib (a potent and selective VEGFR inhibitor) with those of sorafenib as third-line or fourth-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. METHODS In this open-label, randomised, controlled trial done at 120 academic hospitals in 12 countries, we enrolled eligible patients older than 18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed metastatic renal cell carcinoma and at least two previous systemic treatments (including at least one previous treatment with a VEGFR inhibitor), measurable disease according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were excluded if they had received previous treatment with tivozanib or sorafenib. Patients were stratified by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk category and type of previous therapy and randomised (1:1) with a complete permuted block design (block size of four) to either tivozanib 1·5 mg orally once daily in 4-week cycles or sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily continuously. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by independent review in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02627963. FINDINGS Between May 24, 2016, and Aug 14, 2017, 350 patients were randomly assigned to receive tivozanib (175 patients) or sorafenib (175 patients). Median follow-up was 19·0 months (IQR 15·0-23·4). Median progression-free survival was significantly longer with tivozanib (5·6 months, 95% CI 5·29-7·33) than with sorafenib (3·9 months, 3·71-5·55; hazard ratio 0·73, 95% CI 0·56-0·94; p=0·016). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event was hypertension (35 [20%] of 173 patients treated with tivozanib and 23 [14%] of 170 patients treated with sorafenib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 19 (11%) patients with tivozanib and in 17 (10%) patients with sorafenib. No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION Our study showed that tivozanib as third-line or fourth-line therapy improved progression-free survival and was better tolerated compared with sorafenib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING AVEO Oncology.