-
1.
Nintedanib plus mFOLFOX6 as second-line treatment of metastatic, chemorefractory colorectal cancer: The randomised, placebo-controlled, phase II TRICC-C study (AIO-KRK-0111).
Ettrich, TJ, Perkhofer, L, Decker, T, Hofheinz, RD, Heinemann, V, Hoffmann, T, Hebart, HF, Herrmann, T, Hannig, CV, Büchner-Steudel, P, et al
International journal of cancer. 2021;(6):1428-1437
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Nintedanib is a triple angiokinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1-3, fibroblast growth factor receptor 1-3 and platelet-derived growth factor receptor-a/-b. Thereby, it targets angiogenic escape mechanisms. The trial TyRosine kinase Inhibitor for the treatment of Chemorefractory Colorectal Cancer (TRICC-C) trial evaluates the addition of nintedanib to mFOLFOX6 (fluorouracil, folinic acid and oxaliplatin) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). TRICC-C is a randomised controlled, double-blinded, phase II trial in mCRC patients that received a first-line non-oxaliplatin containing chemotherapy. Patients received mFOLFOX6 + nintedanib (F + N) (2 × 200 mg p.o./d, d1-d14) or mFOLFOX6 + placebo (F + P), in a 1:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was median progression free survival (mPFS) and secondary overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and safety. Fifty-three patients (27 F + N; 26 F + P) were randomised between 12/2012 and 5/2016 (scheduled n = 180). The trial was terminated prematurely due to slow accrual. The trial did not reach its primary endpoint but mPFS, median overall survival (mOS) and disease control rate (DCR) were numerically higher in the F + N arm compared to the F + P arm; however, the difference was not significant (mPFS: F + P: 4.6 months vs F + N: 8.1 months; HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.32-1.30; P = .2156; mOS: F + P: 9.9 months vs F + N: 17.1 months; HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.48-2.23; P = .9387; DCR: F + P: 50% vs F + N: 66,7%; P = .2709). Toxicity was moderate and only different for neutropenia (F + P: 11.5%, F + N: 19.2%) and gastrointestinal disorders (F + P: 65.4%, F + N: 84.6%). Final results show safety and a nonsignificant trend towards improved PFS and DCR for the combination of mFOLFOX6 + nintedanib in the second-line therapy of mCRC.
-
2.
A Prospective Noninterventional, Observational Study to Describe the Effectiveness and Safety of Trandolapril and Verapamil Single-Pill Combination in the Management of Patients with Hypertension and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Harvest TR Study.
Atalar, E, Eskin, F, Tugtekin, HB, Karabulut, A, Kanyilmaz, S, Kirbiyik, H, Ozyildiz, AG
BioMed research international. 2020;:2123601
Abstract
Maintaining regular blood pressure control usually requires multidrug regimens rather than monotherapy. The objective of this study was to describe the effectiveness and safety of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and a nondihydropyridine calcium channel blocker in a single-tablet combination in patients with hypertension, a heart rate higher than 70 beats/min, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This study was conducted in Turkey as a prospective, noninterventional, observational study. At 22 clinical sites, the data of 200 patients with hypertension were used for efficacy analysis; however, 262 patients received at least one dose of trandolapril/verapamil fixed-dose combination at two dose strengths. Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate, PR interval, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), and albumin/creatinine ratios were recorded during 8 weeks of treatment. With treatment, the mean (±SD) SBP that was recorded as 162.8 (±14.642) mm Hg at baseline was reduced to 131.7 ± 11.1 mm Hg at week 8 (p < 0.05). Similarly, the mean DBP was reduced from 93.76 ± 9.16 mm Hg to 77.6 ± 7.6 mm Hg (p < 0.001). Following 8 weeks of treatment, SBP and DBP values were reduced below 140 mm Hg and 90 mm Hg in most patients (81.5%), respectively. The mean heart rate as evaluated using electrocardiography measurements was reduced to 78.25 beats/min at week 8 as compared with baseline during trandolapril/verapamil single-pill combination treatment (p < 0.001). Treatment with trandolapril and verapamil was well tolerated over 8 weeks with no unexpected safety signals. In conclusion, the single-pill combination of trandolapril and verapamil was considered effective in reducing and controlling blood pressure in patients with hypertension and T2DM. There was a significant improvement in HbA1c and ACR levels in a smaller subgroup of the patient cohort. The trandolapril/verapamil combination was evaluated as being safe and well-tolerated following a treatment period of 8 weeks. This trial was registered with NCT02298556.
-
3.
Health-related Quality of Life in the Phase III LUME-Colon 1 Study: Comparison and Interpretation of Results From EORTC QLQ-C30 Analyses.
Lenz, HJ, Argiles, G, Yoshino, T, Lonardi, S, Falcone, A, Limón, ML, Sobrero, A, Hastedt, C, Peil, B, Voss, F, et al
Clinical colorectal cancer. 2019;(4):269-279.e5
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
INTRODUCTION We used European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) data from the LUME-Colon 1 study to illustrate different methods of statistical analysis for health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and compared the results. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive nintedanib 200 mg twice daily plus best supportive care (n = 386) or matched placebo plus best supportive care (n = 382). Five methods (mean treatment difference averaged over time, using a mixed-effects growth curve model; mixed-effects models for repeated measurements (MMRM); time-to-deterioration (TTD); status change; and responder analysis) were used to analyze EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/QoL and scores from functional scales. RESULTS Overall, GHS/QoL and physical functioning deteriorated over time. Mean treatment difference slightly favored nintedanib over placebo for physical functioning (adjusted mean, 2.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-4.34) and social functioning (adjusted mean, 2.62; 95% CI, 0.66-4.47). GHS/QoL was numerically better with nintedanib versus placebo (adjusted mean, 1.61; 95% CI, -0.004 to 3.27). MMRM analysis had similar results, with better physical functioning in the nintedanib group at all timepoints. There was no significant delay in GHS/QoL deterioration (10%) and physical functioning (16%) with nintedanib versus placebo (TTD analysis). Status change analysis showed a higher proportion of patients with markedly improved GHS/QoL and physical functioning in the nintedanib versus placebo groups. Responder analysis showed a similar, less pronounced pattern. CONCLUSION Analyses of EORTC QLQ-C30 data showed that HRQoL was not impaired by treatment with nintedanib versus placebo. Analysis and interpretation of HRQoL endpoints should consider symptom type and severity and course of disease.
-
4.
Associations of serum indolepropionic acid, a gut microbiota metabolite, with type 2 diabetes and low-grade inflammation in high-risk individuals.
Tuomainen, M, Lindström, J, Lehtonen, M, Auriola, S, Pihlajamäki, J, Peltonen, M, Tuomilehto, J, Uusitupa, M, de Mello, VD, Hanhineva, K
Nutrition & diabetes. 2018;(1):35
Abstract
We recently reported using non-targeted metabolic profiling that serum indolepropionic acid (IPA), a microbial metabolite of tryptophan, was associated with a lower likelihood of developing type 2 diabetes (T2D). In the present study, we established a targeted quantitative method using liquid chromatography with mass spectrometric detection (HPLC-QQQ-MS/MS) and measured the serum concentrations of IPA in all the participants from the Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study (DPS), who had fasting serum samples available from the 1-year study follow-up (n = 209 lifestyle intervention and n = 206 control group). Higher IPA at 1-year study was inversely associated with the incidence of T2D (OR [CI]: 0.86 [0.73-0.99], P = 0.04) and tended to be directly associated with insulin secretion (β = 0.10, P = 0.06) during the mean 7-year follow-up. Moreover, IPA correlated positively with dietary fiber intake (g/day: r = 0.24, P = 1 × 10-6) and negatively with hsCRP concentrations at both sampling (r = - 0.22, P = 0.0001) and study follow-up (β = - 0.19, P = 0.001). Thus, we suggest that the putative effect of IPA on lowering T2D risk might be mediated by the interplay between dietary fiber intake and inflammation or by direct effect of IPA on β-cell function.
-
5.
Sunitinib added to FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI in patients with chemorefractory advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach or lower esophagus: a randomized, placebo-controlled phase II AIO trial with serum biomarker program.
Moehler, M, Gepfner-Tuma, I, Maderer, A, Thuss-Patience, PC, Ruessel, J, Hegewisch-Becker, S, Wilke, H, Al-Batran, SE, Rafiyan, MR, Weißinger, F, et al
BMC cancer. 2016;(1):699
Abstract
BACKGROUND As a multi-targeted anti-angiogenic receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) inhibitor sunitinib (SUN) has been established for renal cancer and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. In advanced refractory esophagogastric cancer patients, monotherapy with SUN was associated with good tolerability but limited tumor response. METHODS This double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase II clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of SUN as an adjunct to second and third-line FOLFIRI (NCT01020630). Patients were randomized to receive 6-week cycles including FOLFIRI plus sodium folinate (Na-FOLFIRI) once every two weeks and SUN or placebo (PL) continuously for four weeks followed by a 2-week rest period. The primary study endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Preplanned serum analyses of VEGF-A, VEGF-D, VEGFR2 and SDF-1α were performed retrospectively. RESULTS Overall, 91 patients were randomized, 45 in each group (one patient withdrew). The main grade ≥3 AEs were neutropenia and leucopenia, observed in 56 %/20 % and 27 %/16 % for FOLFIRI + SUN/FOLFIRI + PL, respectively. Median PFS was similar, 3.5 vs. 3.3 months (hazard ratio (HR) 1.11, 95 % CI 0.70-1.74, P = 0.66) for FOLFIRI + SUN vs. FOLFIRI + PL, respectively. For FOLFIRI + SUN, a trend towards longer median overall survival (OS) compared with placebo was observed (10.4 vs. 8.9 months, HR 0.82, 95 % CI 0.50-1.34, one-sided P = 0.21). In subgroup serum analyses, significant changes in VEGF-A (P = 0.017), VEGFR2 (P = 0.012) and VEGF-D (P < 0.001) serum levels were observed. CONCLUSIONS Although sunitinib combined with FOLFIRI did not improve PFS and response in chemotherapy-resistant gastric cancer, a trend towards better OS was observed. Further biomarker-driven studies with other anti-angiogenic RTK inhibitors are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION This study was registered prospectively in the NCT Clinical Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) under NCT01020630 on November 23, 2009 after approval by the leading ethics committee of the Medical Association of Rhineland-Palatinate, Mainz, in coordination with the participating ethics committees (see Additional file 2) on September 16, 2009.
-
6.
Vemurafenib in patients with BRAF(V600E)-positive metastatic or unresectable papillary thyroid cancer refractory to radioactive iodine: a non-randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial.
Brose, MS, Cabanillas, ME, Cohen, EE, Wirth, LJ, Riehl, T, Yue, H, Sherman, SI, Sherman, EJ
The Lancet. Oncology. 2016;(9):1272-82
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND About half of patients with papillary thyroid cancer have tumours with activating BRAF(V600E) mutations. Vemurafenib, an oncogenic BRAF kinase inhibitor approved for BRAF-positive melanoma, showed clinical benefit in three patients with BRAF(V600E)-positive papillary thyroid cancer in a phase 1 trial. We aimed to establish the activity of vemurafenib in patients with BRAF(V600E)-positive papillary thyroid cancer. METHODS We did an open-label, non-randomised, phase 2 trial at ten academic centres and hospitals worldwide in patients aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed recurrent or metastatic papillary thyroid cancer refractory to radioactive iodine and positive for the BRAF(V600E) mutation. Participants either had never received a multikinase inhibitor targeting VEGFR (cohort 1) or had been treated previously with a VEGFR multikinase inhibitor (cohort 2). Patients received vemurafenib 960 mg orally twice daily. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed best overall response in cohort 1 (confirmed on two assessments 4 weeks or longer apart). Analyses were planned to have a minimum median follow-up of 15 months (data cutoff April 18, 2014) and were done in safety, intention-to-treat, and per-protocol populations. This trial is closed and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01286753. FINDINGS Between June 23, 2011, and Jan 15, 2013, 51 patients were enrolled to the study, 26 in cohort 1 and 25 in cohort 2. Median duration of follow-up was 18·8 months (IQR 14·2-26·0) in cohort 1 and 12·0 months (6·7-20·3) in cohort 2. Partial responses were recorded in ten of 26 patients in cohort 1 (best overall response 38·5%, 95% CI 20·2-59·4). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were recorded in 17 (65%) of 26 patients in cohort 1 and 17 (68%) of 25 patients in cohort 2; the most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were squamous cell carcinoma of the skin (seven [27%] in cohort 1, five [20%] in cohort 2), lymphopenia (two [8%] in each cohort), and increased γ-glutamyltransferase (one [4%] in cohort 1, three [12%] in cohort 2). Two individuals in cohort 2 died due to adverse events, one from dyspnoea and one from multiorgan failure, but neither was treatment related. Serious adverse events were reported for 16 (62%) of 26 patients in cohort 1 and 17 (68%) of 25 patients in cohort 2. INTERPRETATION Vemurafenib showed antitumour activity in patients with progressive, BRAF(V600E)-positive papillary thyroid cancer refractory to radioactive iodine who had never been treated with a multikinase inhibitor. As such, this agent represents a potential new treatment option for these patients. FUNDING F Hoffmann-La Roche.
-
7.
SWITCH: A Randomised, Sequential, Open-label Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Sorafenib-sunitinib Versus Sunitinib-sorafenib in the Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer.
Eichelberg, C, Vervenne, WL, De Santis, M, Fischer von Weikersthal, L, Goebell, PJ, Lerchenmüller, C, Zimmermann, U, Bos, MM, Freier, W, Schirrmacher-Memmel, S, et al
European urology. 2015;(5):837-47
Abstract
BACKGROUND Understanding how to sequence targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is important for maximisation of clinical benefit. OBJECTIVES To prospectively evaluate sequential use of the multikinase inhibitors sorafenib followed by sunitinib (So-Su) versus sunitinib followed by sorafenib (Su-So) in patients with mRCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 SWITCH study assessed So-Su versus Su-So in patients with mRCC without prior systemic therapy, and stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk score (favourable or intermediate). INTERVENTION Patients were randomised to sorafenib 400mg twice daily followed, on progression or intolerable toxicity, by sunitinib 50mg once daily (4 wk on, 2 wk off) (So-Su), or vice versa (Su-So). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The primary endpoint was improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with So-Su versus Su-So, assessed from randomisation to progression or death during second-line therapy. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS In total, 365 patients were randomised (So-Su, n=182; Su-So, n=183). There was no significant difference in total PFS between So-Su and Su-So (median 12.5 vs 14.9 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 90% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-1.27; p=0.5 for superiority). OS was similar for So-Su and Su-So (median 31.5 and 30.2 mo; HR 1.00, 90% CI 0.77-1.30; p=0.5 for superiority). More So-Su patients than Su-So patients reached protocol-defined second-line therapy (57% vs 42%). Overall, adverse event rates were generally similar between the treatment arms. The most frequent any-grade treatment-emergent first-line adverse events were diarrhoea (54%) and hand-foot skin reaction (39%) for sorafenib; and diarrhoea (40%) and fatigue (40%) for sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS Total PFS was not superior with So-Su versus Su-So. These results demonstrate that sorafenib followed by sunitinib and vice versa provide similar clinical benefit in mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY We investigated if total progression-free survival (PFS) is improved in patients with advanced/metastatic kidney cancer who are treated with sorafenib and then with sunitinib (So-Su), compared with sunitinib and then sorafenib (Su-So). We found that total PFS was not improved with So-Su compared with Su-So, but both treatment options were similarly effective in patients with advanced/metastatic kidney cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00732914, www.clinicaltrials.gov.
-
8.
A randomized phase II study of the telomerase inhibitor imetelstat as maintenance therapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.
Chiappori, AA, Kolevska, T, Spigel, DR, Hager, S, Rarick, M, Gadgeel, S, Blais, N, Von Pawel, J, Hart, L, Reck, M, et al
Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology. 2015;(2):354-62
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Continuation or 'switch' maintenance therapy is commonly used in patients with advancd non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we evaluated the efficacy of the telomerase inhibitor, imetelstat, as switch maintenance therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS The primary end point of this open-label, randomized phase II study was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients with non-progressive, advanced NSCLC after platinum-based doublet (first-line) chemotherapy (with or without bevacizumab), any histology, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1 were eligible. Randomization was 2 : 1 in favor of imetelstat, administered at 9.4 mg/kg on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle, or observation. Telomere length (TL) biomarker exploratory analysis was carried out in tumor tissue by quantitative PCR (qPCR) and telomerase fluorescence in situ hybridization. RESULTS Of 116 patients enrolled, 114 were evaluable. Grade 3/4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were more frequent with imetelstat. Median PFS was 2.8 and 2.6 months for imetelstat-treated versus control [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.844; 95% CI 0.54-1.31; P = 0.446]. Median survival time favored imetelstat (14.3 versus 11.5 months), although not significantly (HR = 0.68; 95% CI 0.41-1.12; P = 0.129). Exploratory analysis demonstrated a trend toward longer median PFS (HR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.14-1.3; P = 0.124) and overall survival (OS; HR = 0.41; 95% CI 0.11-1.46; P = 0.155) in imetelstat-treated patients with short TL, but no improvement in median PFS and OS in patients with long TL (HR = 0.86; 95% CI 0.39-1.88; and HR = 0.51; 95% CI 0.2-1.28; P = 0.145). CONCLUSIONS Maintenance imetelstat failed to improve PFS in advanced NSCLC patients responding to first-line therapy. There was a trend toward a improvement in median PFS and OS in patients with short TL. Short TL as a predictive biomarker will require further investigation for the clinical development of imetelstat.
-
9.
Randomized phase III trial of temsirolimus versus sorafenib as second-line therapy after sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
Hutson, TE, Escudier, B, Esteban, E, Bjarnason, GA, Lim, HY, Pittman, KB, Senico, P, Niethammer, A, Lu, DR, Hariharan, S, et al
Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2014;(8):760-7
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE This international phase III trial (Investigating Torisel As Second-Line Therapy [INTORSECT]) compared the efficacy of temsirolimus (mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor) and sorafenib (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor [VEGFR] tyrosine kinase inhibitor) as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) after disease progression on sunitinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS In total, 512 patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive intravenous temsirolimus 25 mg once weekly (n = 259) or oral sorafenib 400 mg twice per day (n = 253), with stratification according to duration of prior sunitinib therapy (≤ or > 180 days), prognostic risk, histology (clear cell or non-clear cell), and nephrectomy status. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent review committee assessment. Safety, objective response rate (ORR), and overall survival (OS) were secondary end points. RESULTS Primary analysis revealed no significant difference between treatment arms for PFS (stratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.07; two-sided P = .19) or ORR. Median PFS in the temsirolimus and sorafenib arms were 4.3 and 3.9 months, respectively. There was a significant OS difference in favor of sorafenib (stratified HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.63; two-sided P = .01). Median OS in the temsirolimus and sorafenib arms was 12.3 and 16.6 months, respectively. Safety profiles of both agents were consistent with previous studies. CONCLUSION In patients with mRCC and progression on sunitinib, second-line temsirolimus did not demonstrate a PFS advantage compared with sorafenib. The longer OS observed with sorafenib suggests sequenced VEGFR inhibition may benefit patients with mRCC.
-
10.
Pharmacogenomic association of nonsynonymous SNPs in SIGLEC12, A1BG, and the selectin region and cardiovascular outcomes.
McDonough, CW, Gong, Y, Padmanabhan, S, Burkley, B, Langaee, TY, Melander, O, Pepine, CJ, Dominiczak, AF, Cooper-Dehoff, RM, Johnson, JA
Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979). 2013;(1):48-54
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
We sought to identify novel pharmacogenetic markers associated with cardiovascular outcomes in patients with hypertension on antihypertensive therapy. We genotyped a 1:4 case:control cohort (n=1345) on the Illumina HumanCVD Beadchip from the INternational VErapamil SR-Trandolapril STudy (INVEST), where participants were randomized to a β-blocker strategy or a calcium channel blocker strategy. Genome-spanning single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)×treatment interaction analyses of nonsynonymous SNPs were conducted in white and Hispanic race/ethnic groups. Top hits from whites were tested in Hispanics for consistency. A genetic risk score was constructed from the top 3 signals and tested in the Nordic Diltiazem study. SIGLEC12 rs16982743 and A1BG rs893184 had a significant interaction with treatment strategy for adverse cardiovascular outcomes (INVEST whites and Hispanics combined interaction P=0.0038 and 0.0036, respectively). A genetic risk score, including rs16982743, rs893184, and rs4525 in F5, was significantly associated with treatment-related adverse cardiovascular outcomes in whites and Hispanics from the INVEST study and in the Nordic Diltiazem study (meta-analysis interaction P=2.39×10(-5)). In patients with a genetic risk score of 0 or 1, calcium channel blocker treatment was associated with lower risk (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]=0.60 [0.42-0.86]), and in those with a genetic risk score of 2 to 3, calcium channel blocker treatment was associated with higher risk (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]=1.31 [1.08-1.59]). These results suggest that cardiovascular outcomes may differ based on SIGLEC12, A1BG, F5 genotypes, and antihypertensive treatment strategy. These specific genetic associations and our risk score provide insight into a potential approach to personalized antihypertensive treatment selection.