Improvement In Median Progression-free Survival Research Articles

Evaluating Elacestrant in the Management of ER-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: Evidence to Date.

Breast cancer remains the second leading cause of cancer mortality in women. Endocrine therapy is the backbone treatment for hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer, the most common subtype. Although several endocrine therapy agents are available, essentially all HR-positive metastatic breast cancers will become resistant to these drugs. ESR1 mutations represent an important mechanism of resistance to aromatase inhibitors. Elacestrant is a novel oral selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) that selectively binds to the estrogen receptor in breast cancer cells, inhibiting tumor growth. Preclinical data suggested greater efficacy of elacestrant in combination with cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) or everolimus. In a Phase III clinical trial, elacestrant demonstrated a significant although modest improvement in median progression-free survival (PFS) compared to standard of care endocrine therapy in patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Importantly, there was also a significant benefit in patients with ESR1 mutations, which led to the FDA approval of elacestrant in this patient group. Elacestrant was generally well tolerated, with main side effects being upper gastrointestinal symptoms. There are several ongoing clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of elacestrant in the early setting as well as in combination with other targeted agents in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Other novel oral SERDs are also currently being evaluated in the treatment of HR-positive breast cancer. Results of ongoing clinical trials with these drugs will help clinicians decide the best sequence and combination of endocrine therapy agents.

Radiofrequency and microwave ablation for treatment of recurrent gynecologic malignancies

ObjectiveRadiofrequency ablation and microwave ablation are used to vaporize tumors not amenable to surgical resection. We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of radiofrequency and microwave ablation for the...

Abstract OT2-27-02: A prospective phase II study on efficacy and safety of anlotinib combined with fulvestrant in patients with HR-positive and HER2-negative, secondary endocrine-resistant, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer

Abstract Background: The management of HR-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer includes endocrine monotherapy or combination regimens, both with benefit diminishing as resistance develops. Nowadays, various studies have demonstrated that estrogen interacts with many angiogenic pathways and is an important mechanism for resistance leading to the question of whether combination with antiangiogenesis and antiestrogen therapies could be an appropriate therapeutic modality. Anlotinib is a novel multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor that effectively inhibit VEGFR, FGFR, PDGFR, c-KIT, c-MET and RET. Previous studies have proven the efficacy of both anlotinib monotherapy and combination regimens in advanced breast cancer. This phase II study aims to preliminarily evaluate the efficacy and safety of anlotinib combined with endocrine therapy. Methods: This study is a prospective, single-arm, open-label, phase II clinical trial. Eligible patients were women aged 18 years or older of any menopausal status (the premenopausals had to receive luteinising-hormone-releasing-hormone agonist at least 4 weeks before randomisation) and with ECOG status 0-1, who had HR-positive (estrogen receptor- and/or progesterone receptor-positive) and HER2-negative, secondary endocrine-resistant (defined as disease relapse within 12 months after at least 24 months endocrine adjuvant therapy, or disease progress after at least 6 months endocrine salvage therapy), locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Mainly exclusive criteria included the previous use of angiogenic inhibitors or fulvestrant, prior more than one line of chemotherapy, visceral crisis, and uncontrolled CNS metastases. Eligible patients were treated with oral anlotinib (12 mg once daily on days 1-14, repeated every 21 days) plus intramuscular fulvestrant (500 mg on days 1 and 15 of cycle one, and then on day one of each subsequent 28 days cycle) till disease progression or intolerant toxicity. The primary endpoints is progression-free survival (PFS) and the secondary endpoints include overall response rate (ORR), Clinical Benefit Rate (CBR), overall survival (OS), and safety. In the part of statistical analysis, 40 patients are required to have a 80% power to detect significant improvement in median progression-free survival from 5.8 (fulvestrant alone) to 10 (fulvestrant combined with anlotinib) months, if tested at a two-sided significance level of α=0.05. This study is currently enrolling patients and planned completion in July, 2023. Registration information: ChiCTR2100047080. Results: The trial is in progress. Conclusion: The trial is in progress. Citation Format: Xiaojia Wang, Jian Huang. A prospective phase II study on efficacy and safety of anlotinib combined with fulvestrant in patients with HR-positive and HER2-negative, secondary endocrine-resistant, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT2-27-02.

Olaparib Tablets as Maintenance Therapy in Patients With Platinum-Sensitive Relapsed Ovarian Cancer and a BRCA1/2 Mutation (SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21): A Final Analysis of a Double-Blind, Randomised, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 3 Trial

(Abstracted from Lancet Oncol 2021;22:620–631) The poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib is approved as maintenance therapy in newly diagnosed ovarian cancer or in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer regardless of BRCA1/2 mutation status. The primary analysis of the SOLO2/ENGOT-Ov21 phase 3 trial found a significant improvement in median progression-free survival associated with olaparib treatment compared with placebo in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation.

Randomised phase 2 study comparing the efficacy and safety of the oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor nintedanib with single agent ifosfamide in patients with advanced, inoperable, metastatic soft tissue sarcoma after failure of first-line chemotherapy: EORTC-1506-STBSG “ANITA”

PurposeEORTC-1506-STBSG was a prospective, multicentric, randomised, open-label phase 2 trial to assess the efficacy and safety of second-line nintedanib versus ifosfamide in patients with advanced, inoperable metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (STS). The primary end-point was progression-free survival. Patients/methodsPatients with a variety of STS subtypes were randomised 1:1 to nintedanib (200 mg b.i.d. p.o. until disease progression) or ifosfamide (3 g/m2 i.v. days 1–3, every 21 days for ≤6 cycles). A Korn design was applied aiming to detect an improvement in median progression-free survival (mPFS) from 3 to 4.5 months (HR = 0.667). An interim look was incorporated to stop the trial for futility if <19 of the first 36 patients treated with nintedanib were progression-free at week 12. ResultsAt the interim analysis, among the first 36 eligible and evaluable patients randomised for nintedanib, only 13 (36%) were progression-free at week 12. The trial was closed for further accrual as per protocol. In total, 80 patients were randomised (40 per treatment group). The mPFS was 2.5 months (95% CI: 1.5–3.4) for nintedanib and 4.4 months (95% CI: 2.9–6.7) on ifosfamide (adjusted HR = 1.56 [80% CI: 1.14–2.13], p = 0.070). The median overall survival was 13.7 months (95% CI: 9.4–23.4) on nintedanib and 24.1 months (95% CI: 10.9–NE) on ifosfamide (adjusted HR = 1.65 [95%CI:0.89–3.06], p = 0.111). The clinical benefit rate for nintedanib and ifosfamide was 50% versus 62.5% (p = 0.368), respectively. Common treatment-related adverse events (all grades) were diarrhoea (35.9% of patients), fatigue (25.6%) and nausea (20.5%) for nintedanib; and fatigue (52.6%), nausea (44.7%) and vomiting, anorexia and alopecia (28.9% each) for ifosfamide. ConclusionThe trial was stopped for futility. The activity of nintedanib did not warrant further exploration in non-selected, advanced STSs.

Final overall survival (OS) results from SOLO2/ENGOT-ov21: A phase III trial assessing maintenance olaparib in patients (pts) with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA mutation.

6002 Background: SOLO2 (ENGOT ov-21; NCT01874353) showed that maintenance therapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib in pts with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) and a BRCA mutation (BRCAm) led to a statistically significant improvement in median progression-free survival (PFS) of 13.6 months vs placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.30). Time to second progression or death significantly improved (Pujade-Lauraine et al Lancet Oncol 2017) and a quality-adjusted PFS benefit was seen (Friedlander et al Lancet Oncol 2018) with maintenance olaparib vs placebo. We report the preplanned final OS analysis for SOLO2. Methods: Pts with PSROC and a BRCAm who had received ≥2 lines of treatment and were in response to their most recent platinum-based chemotherapy received maintenance olaparib (300 mg bid tablets) or placebo. Pts were stratified by response to previous chemotherapy (complete vs partial) and length of platinum-free interval (&gt;6–12 months vs &gt;12 months). OS was a secondary endpoint. The only preplanned OS sensitivity analysis was an OS analysis in the Myriad germline BRCAm subset (Myriad BRAC Analysis test). Results: At final data cut-off (Feb 3, 2020), median follow-up was 65 months in both treatment arms. A long-term treatment benefit was seen with olaparib vs placebo with an OS HR of 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54–1.00) in the full analysis set (FAS; unadjusted for crossover; 38.4% of placebo pts crossed over to a PARP inhibitor) (Table). At 5 years: by Kaplan-Meier estimates, 28.3% of pts in the olaparib arm vs 12.8% of pts in the placebo arm were alive and had still not received subsequent treatment; 42.1% of olaparib pts vs 33.2% of placebo pts were alive. The long-term tolerability profile of olaparib was generally consistent with that reported previously. Conclusions: In the final analysis of SOLO2, maintenance olaparib provided an unprecedented improvement of 12.9 months in median OS vs placebo. This is the first study with olaparib tablets, and the first since Study 19 (NCT00753545), to provide long-term follow-up and final OS data in pts with PSROC and a BRCAm. Clinical trial information: NCT01874353. [Table: see text]

Positive progress: current and evolving role of immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

Background:Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) represents an aggressive breast cancer subtype with historically poor overall outcomes, due primarily to a lack of effective targeted agents. Chemotherapy has been the primary treatment approach, although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are currently being investigated to improve patient outcomes. This review examines the clinical implications of current evidence on the use of ICIs for the treatment of metastatic TNBC.Methods:Our systematic search identified two phase III and five phase I/II trials reporting on the efficacy of ICIs used as monotherapy or combined with chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic TNBC.Results:The phase III IMpassion 130 trial showed a significant improvement in median progression-free survival in the intent-to-treat (net 1.7 months, p = 0.002) and PD-L1-positive populations (net 2.5 months, p < 0.001) for the addition of first-line atezolizumab versus placebo to nab-paclitaxel in metastatic TNBC. Although median overall survival was not significantly improved in patients receiving atezolizumab overall [net 2.3 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72–1.02, p = 0.078], numerical improvements in the PD-L1-positive population were compelling (net 7.0 months, HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.54–0.93). Toxicity profiles were as expected, and no new safety signals were observed. Pembrolizumab monotherapy did not significantly improve overall survival in similar patients that had received prior treatment in KEYNOTE-119.Conclusions:Atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel represents a potential new first-line standard of care for patients with metastatic PD-L1-positive TNBC. Other ICIs used as monotherapy, or combined with chemotherapy for advanced TNBC, as well as their use for earlier stage disease, are areas of ongoing investigation.

Differences of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor, palbociclib and abemaciclib, in breast cancer.

Both palbociclib and abemaciclib are, oral, highly selective inhibitors of cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6, which are proteins involved in cell differentiation and growth. In pivotal phase III trials (PALOMA and MONARCH), they demonstrated a significant improvement in median progression-free survival in combination with a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor in the first-line, and with a fulvestrant in the second-line in hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, respectively. Both palbociclib and abemaciclib were approved, however, ribociclib, the third cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor, has not been approved in Japan. The overall benefits from palbociclib and abemaciclib seem to be equivalent. Subsets analyses suggest that clinical benefits of palbociclib are associated with bone-only disease at baseline, no measurable disease, sensitive to previous endocrine therapy and longer disease-free interval. In contrast, additional benefits from abemaciclib in combination with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant seem to have a relationship with visceral disease, liver metastasis, primary resistant to endocrine therapy, and short treatment-free interval. Abemaciclib induces senescence and apoptosis more than palbociclib does in a time-dependent manner and has potential to produce tumor shrinkage by single use. Neutropenia is more frequent in palbociclib, in contrast, diarrhea, nausea, and liver dysfunction are frequent in abemaciclib. In this review, we provide an overview of the two kinds of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor, which were already approved in Japan. These differences might be useful information for the proper use in daily practice.

BRCA1/BRCA2Pathogenic Variant Breast Cancer: Treatment and Prevention Strategies

Hereditary breast cancer is known for its strong tendency of inheritance. Most hereditary breast cancers are related to BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants. The lifelong risk of breast cancer in pathogenic BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant carriers is approximately 65% and 45%, respectively, whereas that of ovarian cancer is estimated to be 39% and 11%, respectively. Therefore, understanding these variants and clinical knowledge on their occurrence in breast cancers and carriers are important. BRCA1 pathogenic variant breast cancer shows more aggressive clinicopathological features than the BRCA2 pathogenic variant breast cancer. Compared with sporadic breast cancer, their prognosis is still debated. Treatments of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant breast cancer are similar to those for BRCA-negative breast cancer, mainly including surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. Recently, various clinical trials have investigated poly (adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor treatment for advanced-stage BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant breast cancer. Among the various PARP inhibitors, olaparib and talazoparib, which reached phase III clinical trials, showed improvement of median progression-free survival around three months. Preventive and surveillance strategies for BRCA pathogenic variant breast cancer to reduce cancer recurrence and improve treatment outcomes have recently received increasing attention. In this review, we provide an information on the clinical features of BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant breast cancer and clinical recommendations for BRCA pathogenic variant carriers, with a focus on treatment and prevention strategies. With this knowledge, clinicians could manage the BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variant breast cancer patients more effectively.

Newer-Generation EGFR Inhibitors in Lung Cancer: How Are They Best Used?

The FLAURA trial established osimertinib, a third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), as a viable first-line therapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with sensitizing EGFR mutations, namely exon 19 deletion and L858R. In this phase 3 randomized, controlled, double-blind trial of treatment-naïve patients with EGFR mutant NSCLC, osimertinib was compared to standard-of-care EGFR TKIs (i.e., erlotinib or gefinitib) in the first-line setting. Osimertinib demonstrated improvement in median progression-free survival (18.9 months vs. 10.2 months; hazard ratio 0.46; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.57; p < 0.001) and a more favorable toxicity profile due to its lower affinity for wild-type EGFR. Furthermore, similar to later-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors, osimertinib has improved efficacy against brain metastases. Despite this impressive effect, the optimal sequencing of osimertinib, whether in the first line or as subsequent therapy after the failure of earlier-generation EGFR TKIs, is not clear. Because up-front use of later-generation TKIs may result in the inability to use earlier-generation TKIs, this treatment paradigm must be evaluated carefully. For EGFR mutant NSCLC, considerations include the incidence of T790M resistance mutations, quality of life, whether there is a potential role for earlier-generation TKIs after osimertinib failure, and overall survival. This review explores these issues for EGFR inhibitors and other molecularly targeted therapies.

Activity of durvalumab plus olaparib in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in men with and without DNA damage repair mutations

BackgroundCheckpoint inhibitors have not been effective for prostate cancer as single agents. Durvalumab is a human IgG1-K monoclonal antibody that targets programmed death ligand 1 and is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer and locally advanced, unresectable stage 3 non-small cell lung cancer. Olaparib, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, has demonstrated an improvement in median progression-free survival (PFS) in select patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Data from other trials suggest there may be improved activity in men with DNA damage repair (DDR) mutations treated with checkpoint inhibitors. This trial evaluated durvalumab and olaparib in patients with mCRPC with and without somatic or germline DDR mutations.MethodsEligible patients had received prior enzalutamide and/or abiraterone. Patients received durvalumab 1500 mg i.v. every 28 days and olaparib 300 mg tablets p.o. every 12 h until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. All patients had biopsies of metastatic lesions with an evaluation for both germline and somatic mutations.ResultsSeventeen patients received durvalumab and olaparib. Nausea was the only nonhematologic grade 3 or 4 toxicity occurring in > 1 patient (2/17). No patients were taken off trial for toxicity. Median radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) for all patients is 16.1 months (95% CI: 4.5–16.1 months) with a 12-month rPFS of 51.5% (95% CI: 25.7–72.3%). Activity is seen in patients with alterations in DDR genes, with a median rPFS of 16.1 months (95% CI: 7.8–18.1 months). Nine of 17 (53%) patients had a radiographic and/or PSA response. Patients with fewer peripheral myeloid-derived suppressor cells and with alterations in DDR genes were more likely to respond. Early changes in circulating tumor cell counts and in both innate and adaptive immune characteristics were associated with response.ConclusionsDurvalumab plus olaparib has acceptable toxicity, and the combination demonstrates efficacy, particularly in men with DDR abnormalities.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02484404.

Selecting the optimal position of CDK4/6 inhibitors in hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer \u2013 the SONIA study: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundCombining cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors with endocrine therapy is an effective strategy to improve progression-free survival in hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer. There is a lack of comparative data to help clinicians decide if CDK4/6 inhibitors can best be added to first- or second-line endocrine therapy. Improvement in median progression-free survival in first-line studies is larger than in second-line studies, but CDK4/6 inhibitors have not consistently shown to improve overall survival or quality of life. They do come with added toxicity and costs, and many patients have lasting disease remission on endocrine therapy alone. No subgroup has been identified to select patients who are most likely to benefit from the addition of CDK4/6 inhibition in any line of treatment. Altogether, these factors make that the optimal strategy for using CDK4/6 inhibitors in clinical practice is unknown.MethodsThe SONIA study is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized phase III study in patients with HR+/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Patients are randomly assigned to receive either strategy A (first-line treatment with a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor combined with CDK4/6 inhibition, followed on progression by fulvestrant) or strategy B (first-line treatment with a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor, followed on progression by fulvestrant combined with CDK4/6 inhibition). The primary objective is to test whether strategy A is more effective than strategy B. The primary endpoint is time from randomization to second objective progression (PFS2). Secondary endpoints include overall survival, safety, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Five-hundred seventy-four events yield 89% power to show that strategy A has statistically significant, clinically meaningful superior PFS2 (according to ESMO-MCBS) in a log-rank test at the two-sided 95% confidence level. Given an accrual period of 42 months and an additional 18 months follow-up, inclusion of 1050 evaluable patients is required.DiscussionThis study design represents daily clinical practice, and the results will aid clinicians in deciding when adding CDK4/6 inhibitors to endocrine therapy will benefit their patients most. Additional biomarker analyses may help to optimize patient selection.Trial registrationhttp://clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03425838 (8 February 2018). EudraCT-number: 2017–002334-23 (29 September 2017).

A phase 1 clinical trial of single-agent selinexor in acute myeloid leukemia

AbstractSelinexor is a novel, first-in-class, selective inhibitor of nuclear export compound, which blocks exportin 1 (XPO1) function, leads to nuclear accumulation of tumor suppressor proteins, and induces cancer cell death. A phase 1 dose-escalation study was initiated to examine the safety and efficacy of selinexor in patients with advanced hematological malignancies. Ninety-five patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) were enrolled between January 2013 and June 2014 to receive 4, 8, or 10 doses of selinexor in a 21- or 28-day cycle. The most frequently reported adverse events (AEs) in patients with AML were grade 1 or 2 constitutional and gastrointestinal toxicities, which were generally manageable with supportive care. The only nonhematological grade 3/4 AE, occurring in >5% of the patient population, was fatigue (14%). There were no reported dose-limiting toxicities or evidence of cumulative toxicity. The recommended phase 2 dose was established at 60 mg (∼35 mg/m2) given twice weekly in a 4-week cycle based on the totality of safety and efficacy data. Overall, 14% of the 81 evaluable patients achieved an objective response (OR) and 31% percent showed ≥50% decrease in bone marrow blasts from baseline. Patients achieving an OR had a significant improvement in median progression-free survival (PFS) (5.1 vs 1.3 months; P = .008; hazard ratio [HR], 3.1) and overall survival (9.7 vs 2.7 months; P = .01; HR, 3.1) compared with nonresponders. These findings suggest that selinexor is safe as a monotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory AML and have informed subsequent phase 2 clinical development. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01607892.

Ceritinib versus chemotherapy in patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer previously given chemotherapy and crizotinib (ASCEND-5): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial

Ceritinib is a next-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor, which has shown robust anti-tumour efficacy, along with intracranial activity, in patients with ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer. In phase 1 and 2 studies, ceritinib has been shown to be highly active in both ALK inhibitor-naive and ALK inhibitor-pretreated patients who had progressed after chemotherapy (mostly multiple lines). In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of ceritinib versus single-agent chemotherapy in patients with advanced ALK-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer who had previously progressed following crizotinib and platinum-based doublet chemotherapy. In this randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged at least 18 years with ALK-rearranged stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer (with at least one measurable lesion) who had received previous chemotherapy (one or two lines, including a platinum doublet) and crizotinib and had subsequent disease progression, from 99 centres across 20 countries. Other inclusion criteria were a WHO performance status of 0-2, adequate organ function and laboratory test results, a life expectancy of at least 12 weeks, and having recovered from previous anticancer treatment-related toxicities. We randomly allocated patients (1:1; with blocking [block size of four]; stratified by WHO performance status [0 vs 1-2] and presence or absence of brain metastases) to oral ceritinib 750 mg per day fasted (in 21 day treatment cycles) or chemotherapy (intravenous pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 [investigator choice], every 21 days). Patients who discontinued chemotherapy because of progressive disease could cross over to the ceritinib group. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed by a masked independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population, assessed every 6 weeks until month 18 and every 9 weeks thereafter. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01828112, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting patients. Between June 28, 2013, and Nov 2, 2015, we randomly allocated 231 patients; 115 (50%) to ceritinib and 116 (50%) to chemotherapy (40 [34%] to pemetrexed, 73 [63%] to docetaxel, and three [3%] discontinued before receiving treatment). Median follow-up was 16·5 months (IQR 11·5-21·4). Ceritinib showed a significant improvement in median progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy (5·4 months [95% CI 4·1-6·9] for ceritinib vs 1·6 months [1·4-2·8] for chemotherapy; hazard ratio 0·49 [0·36-0·67]; p<0·0001). Serious adverse events were reported in 49 (43%) of 115 patients in the ceritinib group and 36 (32%) of 113 in the chemotherapy group. Treatment-related serious adverse events were similar between groups (13 [11%] in the ceritinib group vs 12 [11%] in the chemotherapy group). The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events in the ceritinib group were increased alanine aminotransferase concentration (24 [21%] of 115 vs two [2%] of 113 in the chemotherapy group), increased γ glutamyltransferase concentration (24 [21%] vs one [1%]), and increased aspartate aminotransferase concentration (16 [14%] vs one [1%] in the chemotherapy group). Six (5%) of 115 patients in the ceritinib group discontinued because of adverse events compared with eight (7%) of 116 in the chemotherapy group. 15 (13%) of 115 patients in the ceritinib group and five (4%) of 113 in the chemotherapy group died during the treatment period (from the day of the first dose of study treatment to 30 days after the final dose). 13 (87%) of the 15 patients who died in the ceritinib group died because of disease progression and two (13%) died because of an adverse event (one [7%] cerebrovascular accident and one [7%] respiratory failure); neither of these deaths were considered by the investigator to be treatment related. The five (4%) deaths in the chemotherapy group were all due to disease progression. These findings show that patients derive significant clinical benefit from a more potent ALK inhibitor after failure of crizotinib, and establish ceritinib as a more efficacious treatment option compared with chemotherapy in this patient population. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Radical treatment of oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer: Ready for prime time?

Oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), defined as a disease with low metastatic burden and limited organ involvement, is conceived as an intermediate condition between a truly localised disease and a widely metastatic tumour.Traditionally, local ablative therapies (LATs), such as surgery and radiotherapy, have been limited to symptoms' palliation in advanced NSCLC.Several retrospective studies suggest that using local ablative therapy for oligometastatic disease could offer good local control of the disease and improvement in terms of progression-free survival.The first randomised study of local consolidative therapy versus maintenance therapy or observation in oligometastatic NSCLC has been recently published. The results of this phase II trial showed an impressive improvement in median progression-free survival with local therapy and a delay in the appearance of new lesions, suggesting a systemically extended benefit of consolidation therapies.Nevertheless, further confirmation of this evidence with additional future trials is needed to definitively consider the combination of local treatment techniques with novel systemic agents recently approved for NSCLC therapy, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Randomized phase II trial of fulvestrant alone or in combination with bortezomib in hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer resistant to aromatase inhibitors: a New York Cancer Consortium trial.

The proteasome inhibitor bortezomib enhances the effect of the selective estrogen receptor (ER) downregulator (SERD) fulvestrant by causing accumulation of cytoplasmic ER aggregates in preclinical models. The purpose of this trial was to determine whether bortezomib enhanced the effectiveness of fulvestrant. One hundred eighteen postmenopausal women with ER-positive metastatic breast cancer resistant to aromatase inhibitors (AIs) were randomized to fulvestrant alone (Arm A—500 mg intramuscular (i.m.) day −14, 1, 15 in cycle 1, and day 1 of additional cycles) or in combination with bortezomib (Arm B—1.6 mg/m2 intravenous (i.v.) on days 1, 8, 15 of each cycle). The study was powered to show an improvement in median progression-free survival (PFS) from 5.4 to 9.0 months and compare PFS rates at 6 and 12 months (α=0.10, β=0.10). Patients with progression on fulvestrant could cross over to the combination (arm C). Although there was no difference in median PFS (2.7 months in both arms), the hazard ratio for PFS in Arm B versus Arm A (referent) was 0.73 (95% confidence interval (CI)=0.49, 1.09, P=0.06, 1-sided log-rank test, significant at the prespecified 1-sided 0.10 α level). At 12 months, the PFS proportion in Arm A and Arm B was 13.6% and 28.1% (P=0.03, 1-sided χ2-test; 95% CI for difference (14.5%)=−0.06, 29.1%). Of 27 patients on arm A who crossed over to the combination (arm C), 5 (18%) were progression-free for at least 24 weeks. Bortezomib likely enhances the effectiveness of fulvestrant in AI-resistant, ER-positive metastatic breast cancer by reducing acquired resistance, supporting additional evaluation of proteasome inhibitors in combination with SERDs.

1246P - Adjusted indirect comparison using propensity score matching of osimertinib to doublet chemotherapy in patients with EGFRm T790M NSCLC who have progressed after EGFR-TKI

In the absence of randomized data comparing osimertinib to platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (PBDC) in patients (pts) with metastatic epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFRm) T790M non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have progressed after EGFR-TKI, an adjusted indirect comparison can offer a robust estimate of treatment effect. The IMPRESS study placebo arm (PBDC) (data cut-off [DCO] 2014 May) included a subgroup of pts with the T790M mutation and disease progression following response to EGFR-TKI. Pts had similar demographic and disease characteristics as those in AURA extension (NCT01802632) and AURA2 (NCT02094261) trials of osimertinib (DCO May 2015), and therefore represent a valid comparator to demonstrate differences in outcomes. The efficacy of osimertinib relative to PBDC was assessed using an adjusted indirect comparison of two non-randomized data sets comprising pts with a confirmed T790M mutation (by tissue or plasma ctDNA respectively): AURA (N = 405) and IMPRESS placebo arm (N = 60). A propensity score (PS) approach was used to adjust for differences in baseline demographics and disease characteristics. Baseline characteristics of both groups were compared using statistical tests. The PS model included 22 variables with P < 0.2. Only pts within the PS distributions of both treatment groups were included in the final analyses. To adjust for remaining differences between the groups, PS was incorporated as a covariate in the treatment comparison of osimertinib relative to PBDC for each endpoint. Following estimation of PS for each pt and balancing across the groups (osimertinib N = 287, PBDC N = 51) osimertinib demonstrated: A statistically significant improvement in median progression-free survival (PFS) of 9.7 months vs 5.3 months (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.19–0.42, P < 0.0001) An improvement in objective response rate (ORR) of 64.6% vs 34.8% (OR 4.76, 95% CI 2.21–10.26, P < 0.001). In this indirect comparison, a statistically significant improvement in PFS and ORR was demonstrated for osimertinib compared to PBDC. AURA3 will provide a randomized comparison of osimertinib and PBDC.

The Role of Panobinostat Plus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Treating Relapsed or Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A European Perspective.

Panobinostat is an oral pan-histone deacetylase inhibitor developed by Novartis. Panobinostat acts via epigenetic modification and inhibition of the aggresome pathway. In August 2015, the European Commission authorized panobinostat for use in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone for the treatment of relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM) in patients who have received ≥2 prior regimens including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory drug. In January 2016, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended panobinostat for use in the same combination and patient population. The authorization and recommendation were based on results from the pivotal phase 3 PANORAMA 1 (NCT01023308) clinical trial, which demonstrated an improvement in median progression-free survival of 7.8 months for the three-drug combination compared with placebo plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in this patient population. This review will discuss the current treatment landscape for relapsed/refractory MM, the mechanism of action of panobinostat, clinical data supporting the European authorization, concerns about safety and strategies for mitigating toxicity, and how panobinostat fits into the current MM landscape in Europe. Funding: Editorial support, funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) vs lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (RMM) and early progression during prior therapy: Secondary analysis from the phase 3 study ASPIRE (NCT01080391).

8045Background: The randomized phase 3 ASPIRE trial demonstrated an improvement in median progression-free survival (PFS) for KRd compared with Rd in patients with RMM (26.3 months vs 17.6 months, ...

Efficacy and Safety of Carfilzomib and Dexamethasone Vs Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Patients with Relapsed Multiple Myeloma Based on Cytogenetic Risk Status: Subgroup Analysis from the Phase 3 Study Endeavor (NCT01568866)

Efficacy and Safety of Carfilzomib and Dexamethasone Vs Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Patients with Relapsed Multiple Myeloma Based on Cytogenetic Risk Status: Subgroup Analysis from the Phase 3 Study Endeavor (NCT01568866)