Prespecified Final Analysis Research Articles

Gefitinib (an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor) plus anlotinib (an multikinase inhibitor) for untreated, EGFR-mutated, advanced non-small cell lung cancer (FL-ALTER): a multicenter phase III trial

Dual inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling pathways offers the prospect of improving the effectiveness of EFGR-targeted therapy. In this phase 3 study (ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT04028778), 315 patients with treatment-naïve, EGFR-mutated, advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomized (1:1) to receive anlotinib or placebo plus gefitinib once daily on days 1–14 per a 3-week cycle. At the prespecified final analysis of progression-free survival (PFS), a significant improvement in PFS was observed for the anlotinib arm over the placebo arm (hazards ratio [HR] = 0.64, 95% CI, 0.48–0.80, P = 0.003). Particularly, patients with brain metastasis and those harboring EGFR amplification or high tumor mutation load gained significant more benefits in PFS from gefitinib plus anlotinib. The incidence of grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events was 49.7% of the patients receiving gefitinib plus anlotinib versus 31.0% of the patients receiving gefitinib plus placebo. Anlotinib plus gefitinib significantly improves PFS in patients with treatment-naïve, EGFR-mutated, advanced NSCLC, with a manageable safety profile.

Olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (PROpel): final prespecified overall survival results of a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

PROpel met its primary endpoint showing statistically significant improvement in radiographic progression-free survival with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone in patients with first-line metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) unselected by homologous recombination repair mutation (HRRm) status, with benefit observed in all prespecified subgroups. Here we report the final prespecified overall survival analysis. This was a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial done at 126 centres in 17 countries worldwide. Patients with mCRPC aged at least 18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, a life expectancy of at least 6 months, with no previous systemic treatment for mCRPC and unselected by HRRm status were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by means of an interactive voice response system-interactive web response system to abiraterone acetate (orally, 1000 mg once daily) plus prednisone or prednisolone with either olaparib (orally, 300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The patients, the investigator, and study centre staff were masked to drug allocation. Stratification factors were site of metastases and previous docetaxel at metastatic hormone-sensitive cancer stage. Radiographic progression-free survival was the primary endpoint and overall survival was a key secondary endpoint with alpha-control (alpha-threshold at prespecified final analysis: 0·0377 [two-sided]), evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of a study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03732820, and is completed and no longer recruiting. Between Oct 31, 2018 and March 11, 2020, 1103 patients were screened, of whom 399 were randomly assigned to olaparib plus abiraterone and 397 to placebo plus abiraterone. Median follow-up for overall survival in patients with censored data was 36·6 months (IQR 34·1-40·3) for olaparib plus abiraterone and 36·5 months (33·8-40·3) for placebo plus abiraterone. Median overall survival was 42·1 months (95% CI 38·4-not reached) with olaparib plus abiraterone and 34·7 months (31·0-39·3) with placebo plus abiraterone (hazard ratio 0·81, 95% CI 0·67-1·00; p=0·054). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was anaemia reported in 64 (16%) of 398 patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone and 13 (3%) of 396 patients in the placebo plus abiraterone group. Serious adverse events were reported in 161 (40%) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and 126 (32%) in the placebo plus abiraterone group. One death in the placebo plus abiraterone group, from interstitial lung disease, was considered treatment related. Overall survival was not significantly different between treatment groups at this final prespecified analysis. Supported by AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Abstract PD13-11: PD13-11 Final Overall Survival Analysis of Monarch 2 : A Phase 3 trial of Abemaciclib Plus Fulvestrant in Patients with Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer

Abstract Background Abemaciclib is approved for patients (pts) with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) with progression on prior endocrine therapy (ET). The MONARCH 2 trial showed a statistically significantly benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.553; 95% CI: 0.449-0.681; p < 0.001), overall survival (OS) (HR: 0.757; 95% CI: 0.606-0.945; p = 0.01) and a manageable safety profile for abemaciclib plus fulvestrant compared with fulvestrant alone. Here we report the pre-specified final overall survival (OS) analysis from the MONARCH 2 trial (NCT02107703). Methods MONARCH 2 was a global, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial of abemaciclib or placebo, plus fulvestrant for treatment of pre-, peri- or postmenopausal women with CDK 4 & 6 inhibitor naïve HR+, HER2- ABC that progressed during ET. Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive abemaciclib or placebo, 150 mg twice daily, plus fulvestrant. Randomization was stratified based on site of metastasis (visceral, bone only, or other) and resistance to prior ET (primary versus secondary). OS and safety were key secondary endpoints, and chemotherapy-free survival was an exploratory endpoint defined as the time from randomization to initiation of chemotherapy or death, whichever occurs the earliest. Kaplan-Meier (KM) method was used to analyze time-to-event variables. A stratified Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate treatment effect hazard ratio (HR). The prespecified final analysis was planned to occur based on approximately 441 OS events. Data cutoff was March 18, 2022. Results 669 women were randomized 2:1 to receive abemaciclib (n = 446) or placebo (n = 223), plus fulvestrant. Baseline characteristics have been previously reported (Sledge et. al., Jama Oncol 2020). The median follow-up time was approximately 80 months and at the time of the data cutoff, 11% of pts were still receiving study drug in the abemaciclib arm versus 2% in the placebo arm. 440 OS events were observed in the ITT population (abemaciclib arm: 283 events; placebo arm: 157 events). The median OS was 45.8 months in the abemaciclib arm and 37.2 months in the placebo arm (HR: 0.784; 95% CI: 0.644-0.955). The maintained separation of the KM curves beyond the medians is illustrated by the differences in the estimated 5- and 6-year OS rates between arms (5-year: 41.2% versus 29.2%; 6-year: 34.7% versus 23.7%; abemaciclib versus placebo respectively). While OS benefit was generally consistent across subgroups, a more pronounced benefit is noted in subgroups associated with a poorer prognosis such as visceral disease (HR: 0.643; 95% CI: 0.499-0.829), primary resistance to ET (HR: 0.634; 95% CI: 0.436-0.922) or negative progesterone receptor status (HR: 0.623; 95% CI: 0.405-0.959). Moreover, the addition of abemaciclib to fulvestrant deferred the initiation of chemotherapy (HR: 0.674; 95% CI: 0.562-0.809), with substantial difference in yearly chemotherapy-free survival rates (3 year: 42% vs 29.3%; 4 year: 37% vs 18.6%; 5 year: 32.4% vs 14.7%). Notably with longer exposure to abemaciclib, no new additional safety risks or cumulative toxicities were identified. Conclusions At the prespecified final OS analysis of the MONARCH 2 trial, with a median follow-up of 6.5 years, the statistically significant benefit previously demonstrated was confirmed and maintained. OS benefit was generally consistent across subgroups, with numerically greater effect size observed among patients with poorer prognosis. Importantly, the survival benefit came with a substantial extension of the chemotherapy-free survival time, which is an important consideration for pts with ABC. The results also provide assurance of the safety of abemaciclib with longer-term use. Citation Format: Antonio Llombart-Cussac, George Sledge, Masakazu Toi, Patrick Neven, Joo Hyuk Sohn, Kenichi Inoue, Xavier Pivot, Meena Okera, Norikazu Masuda, Peter A. Kaufman, Han Koh, Eva-Maria Grischke, PierFranco Conte, Valerie Andre, Yuanyuan Bian, Ashwin Shahir, Gertjan van Hal. PD13-11 Final Overall Survival Analysis of Monarch 2 : A Phase 3 trial of Abemaciclib Plus Fulvestrant in Patients with Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr PD13-11.

Final overall survival (OS) in PROpel: Abiraterone (abi) and olaparib (ola) versus abiraterone and placebo (pbo) as first-line (1L) therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

LBA16 Background: PROpel (NCT03732820) met its primary endpoint showing significant investigator-assessed radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) benefit for patients with mCRPC treated with abi + ola vs abi + pbo in the 1L setting (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54–0.81, P< 0.001, data cut-off: 7/30/2021). Sensitivity analysis by blinded independent central review was consistent. A trend toward OS benefit with abi + ola was observed at the time of the primary rPFS analysis (28.6% maturity, HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66–1.12) and a subsequent interim analysis (40.1% maturity, HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66–1.03). We report OS and safety from the pre-planned final analysis (data cut-off: 10/12/2022). Methods: PROpel is a randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial of 1L therapy for patients with mCRPC eligible for abiraterone. Patients were prospectively assessed for homologous recombination repair mutation (HRRm) status using tumor tissue (FoundationOne CDx) and/or circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA; FoundationOne Liquid CDx) tests after randomization 1:1 to ola (300 mg twice daily [bid]) or pbo, and abi (1000 mg once daily) plus prednisone/prednisolone (5 mg bid). Treatment continued until radiographic disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or withdrawal of consent. OS was a key secondary endpoint (2-sided boundary for significance 0.0377). Aggregate results from tumor tissue and ctDNA tests were used to assign patients to HRRm/BRCAm subgroups. Results: Patient (n = 796) characteristics (including prior docetaxel, site of metastasis, symptom score and HRRm status) were generally balanced. There was a consistent trend toward OS benefit in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population with abi + ola vs abi + pbo (maturity 47.9%, HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67–1.00, P= 0.0544), with median OS 42.1 months (m) vs 34.7 m, respectively. OS medians and HRs for HRRm, non-HRRm, BRCAm and non-BRCAm subgroups all favored abi + ola vs abi + pbo. In the abi + ola arm the most common Grade ≥3 adverse event was anemia (16.1%). Conclusions: At the prespecified final analysis in PROpel, abi + ola prolonged OS by > 7 m vs standard-of-care abiraterone (abi + pbo) in the ITT population. The median OS of > 42 m is the longest median reported to date in a phase 3 trial in 1L mCRPC. Consistent with rPFS results, a trend toward OS benefit was observed in HRRm, non-HRRm, BRCAm and non-BRCAm subgroups with greatest benefit in the BRCAm subgroup. No new long-term safety issues were identified. These results support the use of abi + ola in 1L mCRPC. Clinical trial information: NCT03732820 . [Table: see text]

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in KEYNOTE-921: Pembrolizumab (pembro) plus docetaxel for patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

129 Background: The double-blind, phase 3, randomized KEYNOTE-921 trial (NCT03834506) showed that pembro + docetaxel did not significantly improve rPFS or OS for pts with mCRPC treated with prior next-generation hormonal agent (NHA) therapy. We present PROs for pembro + docetaxel vs placebo + docetaxel in KEYNOTE-921. Methods: Pts were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive pembro 200 mg or placebo IV Q3W (≤35 cycles) + docetaxel 75 mg/m2 IV Q3W (≤10 cycles) and prednisone 5 mg orally BID. PROs were evaluated in pts who received ≥1 dose of study treatment and had ≥1 PRO assessment. FACT-P and BPI-SF were administered at baseline, Q3W until wk 24, Q6W until wk 72, then Q12W for ≤2 y. A prespecified secondary end point was time to pain progression (TTPP) based on BPI-SF. Prespecified exploratory end points included least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline to wk 27 for FACT-P total and subscale scores (FACT-G total, TOI, FAPSI-6, FWB, PWB, and PCS) and wk 24 for BPI-SF scores (pain interference, pain severity, and worst pain), and time to deterioration (TTD) and overall improvement rate in FACT-P total and subscale scores. Differences were evaluated using 2-sided nominal P values not controlled for multiplicity. Results: Of 1030 pts enrolled, the PRO analysis population included 1028 (n = 514 in each arm). At the prespecified final analysis, median time from randomization to data cutoff of June 20, 2022, was 22.7 mo (range, 12.1-36.7). Completion rates for FACT-P and BPI-SF were >78% at baseline, >65% for FACT-P at wk 27, and >63% for BPI-SF at wk 24. Median TTPP was 21.1 mo (95% CI, 13.7-NR) for pembro + docetaxel vs NR (95% CI, 13.8-NR) for placebo + docetaxel (HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.77-1.43]). No LSM differences were observed in FACT-P total scores with pembro + docetaxel (–5.31 [95% CI, –7.02 to –3.61]) vs placebo + docetaxel (–3.89 [95% CI, –5.59 to –2.19]) or BPI-SF scores. Median TTD in FACT-P total scores was 21.8 mo (95% CI, 20.0-NR) for pembro + docetaxel and NR (95% CI, 11.1-NR) for placebo + docetaxel (HR, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.88-1.35]). No differences were observed for TTD in FACT-G total, TOI, FAPSI-6, FWB, PWB, and PCS scores between groups. A numerically lower proportion of pts receiving pembro + docetaxel (39.9%) had improved + stable FACT-P total scores compared with placebo + docetaxel (45.3%). FACT-P and BPI-SF scores were generally maintained across all evaluated time points up to wk 81. Conclusions: HRQoL and disease-related symptom scores at all analyzed time points, as well as TTD and TTPP, were similar between the 2 trial arms. These data suggest that pembro + docetaxel did not negatively impact QoL in pts with mCRPC treated with prior NHA. Clinical trial information: NCT03834506 . [Table: see text]

First-line serplulimab or placebo plus chemotherapy in PD-L1-positive esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a randomized, double-blind phase 3 trial

First-line systemic therapeutic options for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) are limited. In this multicenter, double-blind phase 3 trial, a total of 551 patients with previously untreated, locally advanced or metastatic ESCC and PD-L1 combined positive score of ≥1 were randomized (2:1) to receive serplulimab (an anti-PD-1 antibody; 3 mg/kg) or placebo (on day 1), plus cisplatin (50 mg/m2) (on day 1) and continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil (1,200 mg/m2) (on days 1 and 2), once every 2 weeks. The study met the primary endpoints. At the prespecified final analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by the blinded independent radiological review committee, serplulimab plus chemotherapy significantly improved PFS compared with placebo plus chemotherapy (median PFS of 5.8 months and 5.3 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.48–0.75; P < 0.0001). At the prespecified interim analysis of overall survival (OS), serplulimab plus chemotherapy also significantly prolonged OS compared with placebo plus chemotherapy (median OS of 15.3 months and 11.8 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.53–0.87; P = 0.0020). Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in 201 (53%) and 81 (48%) patients in the serplulimab plus chemotherapy group and the placebo plus chemotherapy group, respectively. Serplulimab plus chemotherapy administered every 2 weeks significantly improved PFS and OS in patients with previously untreated, PD-L1-positive advanced ESCC, with a manageable safety profile. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03958890).

LBA18 Final overall survival (OS) for abemaciclib plus trastuzumab +/- fulvestrant versus trastuzumab plus chemotherapy in patients with HR+, HER2+ advanced breast cancer (monarcHER): A randomized, open-label, phase II trial

Abemaciclib, an oral, selective CDK4 & 6 inhibitor, significantly improved PFS in HR+, HER2+ advanced breast cancer (ABC; locoregionally recurrent or metastatic) when combined with fulvestrant and trastuzumab, compared to trastuzumab plus chemotherapy in monarcHER (Tolaney 2020, Lancet Oncol.) Here, we report the OS results at the prespecified final analysis. monarcHER (NCT02675231) is a randomized, multicenter, open-label phase 2 trial. Randomization was 1:1:1 to arm A (abemaciclib 150mg PO BID, trastuzumab IV, fulvestrant 500mg IM), arm B (abemaciclib, trastuzumab), and arm C (trastuzumab, SOC chemotherapy). Stratification factors were number of prior systemic regimens for ABC and measurable disease. Exploratory biomarker analyses were also conducted, including evaluation of intrinsic subtypes by RNAseq. At the time of data cutoff (31 Mar 2022), of the 237 patients enrolled, 157 deaths had occurred across the treatment arms, 50 deaths (63%) arm A, 54 deaths (68%) arm B, and 53 deaths (67%) arm C. Median follow-up was 52.9 months. mOS was 30.3 months in arm A, 31.43 months in arm B and 22.7 months in arm C (A v C: HR 0.75 [95% CI 0.47, 1.21]; nominal 2-sided p-value 0.243; B v C: HR 0.73 [95% CI 0.46, 1.15]; nominal 2-sided p-value 0.177). In exploratory RNAseq analyses, luminal subtypes were associated with longer PFS (8.6 v 5.4 months [HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38, 0.79]) and OS (31.7 v. 19.7 months [HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46, 1]) compared to non-luminal. Updated PFS and safety findings were consistent with the primary analysis (data cutoff 8 Apr 2019). Abemaciclib plus trastuzumab ± fulvestrant numerically improved OS in women with HR+, HER2+ ABC compared to chemotherapy plus trastuzumab with a manageable safety profile.

Lenvatinib, toripalimab plus hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy in patients with high-risk advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A biomolecular exploratory, phase II trial

IntroductionThe combination of lenvatinib, toripalimab and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) with oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil (FOLFOX) suggested encouraging antitumour activity in our retrospective study. We hereby prospectively establish the efficacy, safety and predictive biomarkers of the combination therapy as a first-line treatment in patients with high-risk advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Materials and methodsThis phase II, single-centre, single-arm trial enrolled advanced HCC participants with high-risk. Of 51 screened participants, 36 received lenvatinib, toripalimab plus FOLFOX-HAIC. Participants received 21-day treatment cycles of lenvatinib, toripalimab, and FOLFOX-HAIC. The primary end-point was the progression-free survival (PFS) rate per RECIST at six months. ResultsThirty-six participants (86.1% with high-risk features) were enrolled in our study. The primary end-point was met with a PFS rate of 80.6% (95% CI, 64.0%–91.8%) at six months. The median PFS was 10.4 months (95% CI, 5.8–15.0), and the median OS was not reached at the prespecified final analysis and was 17.9 months (95% CI, 14.5–21.3) after follow-up was extended. The ORR per RECIST was 63.9%, and per mRECIST was 66.7%. The median duration of response was 14.4 months (95% CI, 8.9–19.9). The most common adverse events were thrombocytopenia, elevated aspartate aminotransferase, and hypertension, and no treatment-related death was reported. Participants with low levels of both CCL28 and BTC had unsatisfactory prognosis. ConclusionsLenvatinib, toripalimab and FOLFOX-HAIC showed safe and encouraging antitumour activity for advanced HCC with high-risk features. The levels of CCL28 and BTC might be the predictive biomarkers for the triple combination therapy.

177Lu-Dotatate plus long-acting octreotide versus high‑dose long-acting octreotide in patients with midgut neuroendocrine tumours (NETTER-1): final overall survival and long-term safety results from an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial

The primary analysis of the phase 3 NETTER-1 trial showed significant improvement in progression-free survival with 177Lu-Dotatate plus long-acting octreotide versus high-dose long-acting octreotide alone in patients with advanced midgut neuroendocrine tumours. Here, we report the prespecified final analysis of overall survival and long-term safety results. This open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial enrolled patients from 41 sites in eight countries across Europe and the USA. Patients were 18 years and older with locally advanced or metastatic, well differentiated, somatostatin receptor-positive midgut neuroendocrine tumours (Karnofsky performance status score ≥60) and disease progression on fixed-dose long-acting octreotide. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive web-based response system to intravenous 177Lu-Dotatate 7·4 GBq (200 mCi) every 8 weeks (four cycles) plus intramuscular long-acting octreotide 30 mg (177Lu-Dotatate group) or high-dose long-acting octreotide 60 mg every 4 weeks (control group). The primary endpoint of progression-free survival has been previously reported; here, we report the key secondary endpoint of overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Final overall survival analysis was prespecified to occur either after 158 deaths or 5 years after the last patient was randomised, whichever occurred first. During long-term follow-up, adverse events of special interest were reported in the 177Lu-Dotatate group only. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01578239. From Sept 6, 2012, to Jan 14, 2016, 231 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned for treatment. The prespecified final analysis occurred 5 years after the last patient was randomly assigned (when 142 deaths had occurred); median follow-up was 76·3 months (range 0·4-95·0) in the 177Lu-Dotatate group and 76·5 months (0·1-92·3) in the control group. The secondary endpoint of overall survival was not met: median overall survival was 48·0 months (95% CI 37·4-55·2) in the 177Lu-Dotatate group and 36·3 months (25·9-51·7) in the control group (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·60-1·17]; two-sided p=0·30). During long-term follow-up, treatment-related serious adverse events of grade 3 or worse were recorded in three (3%) of 111 patients in the 177Lu-Dotatate group, but no new treatment-related serious adverse events were reported after the safety analysis cutoff. Two (2%) of 111 patients given 177Lu-Dotatate developed myelodysplastic syndrome, one of whom died 33 months after randomisation (this person was the only the only reported 177Lu-Dotatate treatment-related death). No new cases of myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukaemia were reported during long-term follow-up. 177Lu-Dotatate treatment did not significantly improve median overall survival versus high-dose long-acting octreotide. Despite final overall survival not reaching statistical significance, the 11·7 month difference in median overall survival with 177Lu-Dotatate treatment versus high-dose long-acting octreotide alone might be considered clinically relevant. No new safety signals were reported during long-term follow-up. Advanced Accelerator Applications, a Novartis company.

1102P The phase III NETTER-1 study of 177Lu-DOTATATE in patients with midgut neuroendocrine tumours: Further survival analyses

In the prespecified final analysis of overall survival (OS) in the NETTER-1 study, with median follow-up of more than 6.3 years, 177Lu-DOTATATE prolonged median OS by 11.7 months versus high-dose octreotide in patients with advanced, progressive, well-differentiated midgut neuroendocrine tumours, although OS difference did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.84 [95% CI: 0.60, 1.17]; p = 0.30). This analysis used the proportional-hazards assumption.

Pembrolizumab (pembro) plus axitinib (axi) versus sunitinib as first-line therapy for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC): Results from 42-month follow-up of KEYNOTE-426.

4500 Background: In the first interim analysis of the randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase 3 KEYNOTE-426 study (NCT02853331), treatment with pembro + axi significantly improved OS, PFS, and ORR vs sunitinib monotherapy in treatment-naive advanced ccRCC. Extended follow-up (median, 30.6 mo) continued to demonstrate the superior efficacy of pembro + axi vs sunitinib monotherapy in this patient population. Here, we present the results of the prespecified final analysis with 42.8-mo median follow-up. Methods: Treatment-naive patients (pts) with advanced ccRCC, KPS ≥70%, and measurable disease (RECIST v1.1) were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive pembro 200 mg IV Q3W for up to 35 doses + axi 5 mg orally BID or sunitinib 50 mg orally QD on a 4-wk on/2-wk off schedule until progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal. Randomization was stratified by IMDC risk (favorable vs intermediate vs poor) and geographic region (North America vs Western Europe vs Rest of World). Dual primary endpoints were OS and PFS. Secondary endpoints were ORR, DOR, and safety. The protocol-specified final analysis was based on a target of 404 OS events. No formal hypothesis testing was performed because all efficacy endpoints were met previously at the first interim analysis; nominal P values are reported. Results: Overall, 861 pts were randomly assigned to receive pembro + axi (n=432) or sunitinib (n=429). Median duration of follow-up, defined as time from randomization to the database cutoff date, was 42.8 mo (range, 35.6-50.6). At data cutoff, 418 pts had died: 193 (44.7%) of 432 pts in the pembro + axi arm vs 225 (52.4%) of 429 pts in the sunitinib arm. Compared with sunitinib, pembro + axi improved OS (median: 45.7 vs 40.1 mo; HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.60-0.88]; P&lt;0.001) and PFS (median: 15.7 vs 11.1 mo; HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.58-0.80]; P&lt;0.0001). The 42-mo OS rate was 57.5% with pembro + axi vs 48.5% with sunitinib; the 42-mo PFS rate was 25.1% with pembro + axi vs 10.6% with sunitinib. For pembro + axi vs sunitinib, ORR was 60.4% vs 39.6% ( P&lt;0.0001); CR rate was 10.0% vs 3.5%; median DOR was 23.6 mo (range 1.4+ to 43.4+) vs 15.3 mo (range, 2.3-42.8+). Subsequent anticancer therapy was administered to 47.2% of pts in pembro + axi arm vs 65.5% of pts in sunitinib arm. Although a similar proportion of pts in each arm received VEGF/VEGFR inhibitors, only 10.2% of pts in the pembro + axi arm received subsequent treatment with a PD-1/L1 inhibitor compared to 48.7% of pts in the sunitinib arm. No new safety signals were observed. Conclusions: With a median follow-up of 42.8 mo, this is the longest follow-up of an anti-PD–1/L1 immunotherapy combined with a VEGF/VEGFR inhibitor for first-line RCC. These results show that pembro + axi continues to demonstrate superior efficacy over sunitinib with respect to OS, PFS, and ORR, with no new safety signals. Clinical trial information: NCT02853331.

Single Dose&amp;nbsp;Administration,&amp;nbsp;And&amp;nbsp;The&amp;nbsp;Influence Of&amp;nbsp;The&amp;nbsp;Timing Of&amp;nbsp;The&amp;nbsp;Booster Dose&amp;nbsp;On Immunogenicity and Efficacy Of&amp;nbsp;ChAdOx1 nCoV-19&amp;nbsp;(AZD1222)&amp;nbsp;Vaccine

Single Dose&amp;nbsp;Administration,&amp;nbsp;And&amp;nbsp;The&amp;nbsp;Influence Of&amp;nbsp;The&amp;nbsp;Timing Of&amp;nbsp;The&amp;nbsp;Booster Dose&amp;nbsp;On Immunogenicity and Efficacy Of&amp;nbsp;ChAdOx1 nCoV-19&amp;nbsp;(AZD1222)&amp;nbsp;Vaccine

Bevacizumab for advanced cervical cancer: final overall survival and adverse event analysis of a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial (Gynecologic Oncology Group 240)

On Aug 14, 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the antiangiogenesis drug bevacizumab for women with advanced cervical cancer on the basis of improved overall survival (OS) after the second interim analysis (in 2012) of 271 deaths in the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) 240 trial. In this study, we report the prespecified final analysis of the primary objectives, OS and adverse events. In this randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients with metastatic, persistent, or recurrent cervical carcinoma from 81 centres in the USA, Canada, and Spain. Inclusion criteria included a GOG performance status score of 0 or 1; adequate renal, hepatic, and bone marrow function; adequately anticoagulated thromboembolism; a urine protein to creatinine ratio of less than 1; and measurable disease. Patients who had received chemotherapy for recurrence and those with non-healing wounds or active bleeding conditions were ineligible. We randomly allocated patients 1:1:1:1 (blocking used; block size of four) to intravenous chemotherapy of either cisplatin (50 mg/m2 on day 1 or 2) plus paclitaxel (135 mg/m2 or 175 mg/m2 on day 1) or topotecan (0·75 mg/m2 on days 1-3) plus paclitaxel (175 mg/m2 on day 1) with or without intravenous bevacizumab (15 mg/kg on day 1) in 21 day cycles until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, voluntary withdrawal by the patient, or complete response. We stratified randomisation by GOG performance status (0 vs 1), previous radiosensitising platinum-based chemotherapy, and disease status (recurrent or persistent vs metastatic). We gave treatment open label. Primary outcomes were OS (analysed in the intention-to-treat population) and adverse events (analysed in all patients who received treatment and submitted adverse event information), assessed at the second interim and final analysis by the masked Data and Safety Monitoring Board. The cutoff for final analysis was 450 patients with 346 deaths. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00803062. Between April 6, 2009, and Jan 3, 2012, we enrolled 452 patients (225 [50%] in the two chemotherapy-alone groups and 227 [50%] in the two chemotherapy plus bevacizumab groups). By March 7, 2014, 348 deaths had occurred, meeting the prespecified cutoff for final analysis. The chemotherapy plus bevacizumab groups continued to show significant improvement in OS compared with the chemotherapy-alone groups: 16·8 months in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab groups versus 13·3 months in the chemotherapy-alone groups (hazard ratio 0·77 [95% CI 0·62-0·95]; p=0·007). Final OS among patients not receiving previous pelvic radiotherapy was 24·5 months versus 16·8 months (0·64 [0·37-1·10]; p=0·11). Postprogression OS was not significantly different between the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab groups (8·4 months) and chemotherapy-alone groups (7·1 months; 0·83 [0·66-1·05]; p=0·06). Fistula (any grade) occurred in 32 (15%) of 220 patients in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab groups (all previously irradiated) versus three (1%) of 220 in the chemotherapy-alone groups (all previously irradiated). Grade 3 fistula developed in 13 (6%) versus one (<1%). No fistulas resulted in surgical emergencies, sepsis, or death. The benefit conferred by incorporation of bevacizumab is sustained with extended follow-up as evidenced by the overall survival curves remaining separated. After progression while receiving bevacizumab, we did not observe a negative rebound effect (ie, shorter survival after bevacizumab is stopped than after chemotherapy alone is stopped). These findings represent proof-of-concept of the efficacy and tolerability of antiangiogenesis therapy in advanced cervical cancer. National Cancer Institute.

Long-term outcomes in patients (pts) with ipilimumab (ipi)-naive advanced melanoma in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-006 study who completed pembrolizumab (pembro) treatment.

9504 Background: Pembro demonstrated superior PFS and OS vs ipi in ipi-naive pts with advanced melanoma in the phase 3 KEYNOTE-006 study (NCT01866319). Here, we present long-term outcomes for all pts and in those pts who completed pembro therapy. Methods: Eligible pts (N = 834) were randomized 1:1:1 to pembro 10 mg/kg Q2W, pembro 10 mg/kg Q3W, or ipi 3 mg/kg Q3W for 4 doses. Treatment was continued for 2 yr (pembro only) or until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or pt/investigator decision to discontinue. Per protocol, pts could interrupt pembro for ≤12 wk before discontinuation was required. Tumor imaging was performed at wk 12, then every 6 wk up to wk 48 and every 12 wk thereafter. After the prespecified final analysis, response assessments were per immune-related response criteria (irRC) by investigator review. Results: As of the data cutoff (Nov 3, 2016), median follow-up in the total population was 33.9 mo (range, 32.1-37.6). 33-mo OS rates were 50% in the pooled pembro arms (n = 556) and 39% in the ipi arm (n = 278); 33-mo PFS rates were 31% and 14%. ORR was 42% and 16%. Median duration of response was not reached for pembro (range 1.0+ to 33.8+ mo) or ipi (1.1+ to 34.8+ mo); 46 (68%) pembro-treated pts and 7 (58%) ipi-treated pts had a response lasting ≥30 mo. Among the 104/556 (19%) pts who completed pembro, median exposure to pembro was 24.0 mo (range 22.1-25.9). After a median follow-up of 9.0 mo after completion of pembro, 102 (98%) pts were alive. Responses were durable in pts who completed pembro; 9.7 mo after completion of pembro, estimated PFS (95% CI) was 91% (80-96) in all 104 pts, 95% (69-99) in pts with complete response (n = 24), 91% (74-97) in pts with partial response (n = 68), and 83% (48-96) in pts with stable disease (n = 12). Conclusions: Pembro provides durable efficacy after stopping the protocol-specified duration of treatment in pts with ipi-naive advanced melanoma in KEYNOTE-006. The estimated risk for progression or death nearly 10 mo after completing pembro is 9% and does not appear to differ by best response to pembro. Clinical trial information: NCT01866319.

Abstract P6-14-01: Final results of the TANIA randomized phase III trial of bevacizumab (BEV) after progression on 1st-line BEV therapy for HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer (LR/mBC)

Abstract BACKGROUND: The open-label randomized phase III TANIA trial (NCT01250379) evaluated 2nd-line BEV-containing therapy in BEV-pretreated LR/mBC. The primary objective was met: 2nd-line PFS was statistically significantly improved in patients (pts) receiving further BEV (hazard ratio [HR] 0.75, 95% CI 0.61–0.93; p=0.0068) [von Minckwitz, Lancet Oncol 2014]. We report final efficacy, safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) results. METHODS: Eligible pts had HER2-negative LR/mBC that had progressed on/after 1st-line BEV plus chemotherapy (CT). Pts were randomized to receive 2nd-line CT (investigator's choice) either alone or combined with BEV (15 mg/kg q3w or 10 mg/kg q2w) until disease progression (PD), unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. At 2nd PD, pts in the CT arm received 3rd-line CT without BEV (no crossover); pts initially randomized to BEV–CT received 3rd-line BEV–CT. Secondary endpoints included 3rd-line PFS, 2nd- and 3rd-line PFS (from randomization to 3rd PD/death), overall survival (OS), HRQoL, and safety. HRQoL was assessed using FACT-B at baseline, every 8/9 weeks (depending on treatment schedule) during 2nd-line therapy, and at the time of 2nd PD. Prespecified HRQoL analyses included differences between treatment arms in mean change from baseline for each FACT-B subscale. RESULTS: At the time of data cut-off for the prespecified final analysis (April 30, 2015, 24 months after the last pt was randomized), median follow-up was 32.1 vs 30.9 months in the CT vs BEV–CT arms, respectively. All pts had stopped study treatment. Of the 494 pts randomized to 2nd-line therapy, 234 began 3rd-line therapy (105 initially randomized to CT; 129 from the BEV–CT arm, of whom 17 received CT without BEV). The most commonly selected 3rd-line CT was vinorelbine (33% of CT pts vs 31% of BEV–CT pts). EndpointNo. of events/pts (%)Median, months (95% CI)Stratified HR (95% CI)p-value CTBEV–CTCTBEV–CT 3rd-line PFS99/105 (94)124/129 (96)2.9 (2.2-3.9)3.8 (2.4-5.1)0.79 (0.59-1.06)0.10802nd- and 3rd-line PFS177/247 (72)206/247 (83)10.7 (9.2-12.5)12.8 (10.7-14.5)0.85 (0.68-1.05)0.1349OS156/247 (63)163/247 (66)18.7 (15.4-21.2)19.7 (17.6-21.0)0.96 (0.76-1.21)0.7253 Subgroup analyses of 3rd-line PFS and OS according to stratification factors were consistent with the overall ITT result. Before study closure, 68% and 61% of pts in the 3rd-line ITT population CT and BEV–CT arms, respectively, received further CT. 3rd-line safety results showed no new safety signals. At week 8/9, mean change from baseline for all FACT-B subscales was &amp;lt;1.5 points in either direction in both treatment arms, representing no significant difference. Similarly, exploratory HRQoL analyses of the physical and functional wellbeing subscales using mixed-model repeated measures and responder analyses revealed no meaningful significant differences between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Although BEV given after PD on 1st-line BEV-containing therapy showed improvement in 2nd-line PFS, no OS benefit was demonstrated. No new safety signals were observed. There were no differences in HRQoL between treatment arms, suggesting that the PFS benefit with BEV is achieved with maintained HRQoL. Citation Format: Vrdoljak E, Marschner N, Zielinski C, Gligorov J, Cortes J, Puglisi F, Aapro M, Fallowfield L, Fontana A, Inbar M, Kahan Z, Welt A, Lévy C, Brain E, Pivot X, Putzu C, Gonzalez-Martin A, Ebel K, Easton V, von Minckwitz G. Final results of the TANIA randomized phase III trial of bevacizumab (BEV) after progression on 1st-line BEV therapy for HER2-negative locally recurrent/metastatic breast cancer (LR/mBC). [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2015 Dec 8-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-14-01.

Final Report of the Intergroup Randomized Study of Combined Androgen-Deprivation Therapy Plus Radiotherapy Versus Androgen-Deprivation Therapy Alone in Locally Advanced Prostate Cancer.

PurposeWe have previously reported that radiotherapy (RT) added to androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival in men with locally advanced prostate cancer. Here, we report the prespecified final analysis of this randomized trial.Patients and MethodsNCIC Clinical Trials Group PR.3/Medical Research Council PR07/Intergroup T94-0110 was a randomized controlled trial of patients with locally advanced prostate cancer. Patients with T3-4, N0/Nx, M0 prostate cancer or T1-2 disease with either prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of more than 40 μg/L or PSA of 20 to 40 μg/L plus Gleason score of 8 to 10 were randomly assigned to lifelong ADT alone or to ADT+RT. The RT dose was 64 to 69 Gy in 35 to 39 fractions to the prostate and pelvis or prostate alone. Overall survival was compared using a log-rank test stratified for prespecified variables.ResultsOne thousand two hundred five patients were randomly assigned between 1995 and 2005, 602 to ADT alone and 603 to ADT+RT. At a median follow-up time of 8 years, 465 patients had died, including 199 patients from prostate cancer. Overall survival was significantly improved in the patients allocated to ADT+RT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.85; P < .001). Deaths from prostate cancer were significantly reduced by the addition of RT to ADT (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.61; P < .001). Patients on ADT+RT reported a higher frequency of adverse events related to bowel toxicity, but only two of 589 patients had grade 3 or greater diarrhea at 24 months after RT.ConclusionThis analysis demonstrates that the previously reported benefit in survival is maintained at a median follow-up of 8 years and firmly establishes the role of RT in the treatment of men with locally advanced prostate cancer.

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone versus placebo plus prednisone in chemotherapy-naive men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (COU-AA-302): final overall survival analysis of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisone significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival compared with placebo plus prednisone in men with chemotherapy-naive castration-resistant prostate cancer at the interim analyses of the COU-AA-302 trial. Here, we present the prespecified final analysis of the trial, assessing the effect of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone on overall survival, time to opiate use, and use of other subsequent therapies. In this placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised phase 3 study, 1088 asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic patients with chemotherapy-naive prostate cancer stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology performance status (0 vs 1) were randomly assigned with a permuted block allocation scheme via a web response system in a 1:1 ratio to receive either abiraterone acetate (1000 mg once daily) plus prednisone (5 mg twice daily; abiraterone acetate group) or placebo plus prednisone (placebo group). Coprimary endpoints were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00887198. At a median follow-up of 49.2 months (IQR 47.0-51.8), 741 (96%) of the prespecified 773 death events for the final analysis had been observed: 354 (65%) of 546 patients in the abiraterone acetate group and 387 (71%) of 542 in the placebo group. 238 (44%) patients initially receiving prednisone alone subsequently received abiraterone acetate plus prednisone as crossover per protocol (93 patients) or as subsequent therapy (145 patients). Overall, 365 (67%) patients in the abiraterone acetate group and 435 (80%) in the placebo group received subsequent treatment with one or more approved agents. Median overall survival was significantly longer in the abiraterone acetate group than in the placebo group (34.7 months [95% CI 32.7-36.8] vs 30.3 months [28.7-33.3]; hazard ratio 0.81 [95% CI 0.70-0.93]; p=0.0033). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events of special interest were cardiac disorders (41 [8%] of 542 patients in the abiraterone acetate group vs 20 [4%] of 540 patients in the placebo group), increased alanine aminotransferase (32 [6%] vs four [<1%]), and hypertension (25 [5%] vs 17 [3%]). In this randomised phase 3 trial with a median follow-up of more than 4 years, treatment with abiraterone acetate prolonged overall survival compared with prednisone alone by a margin that was both clinically and statistically significant. These results further support the favourable safety profile of abiraterone acetate in patients with chemotherapy-naive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Janssen Research & Development.

753O - Final Overall Survival (Os) Analysis of Cou-Aa-302, a Randomized Phase 3 Study of Abiraterone Acetate (Aa) in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (Mcrpc) Patients (Pts) Without Prior Chemotherapy

ABSTRACT Aim: AA is a prodrug of abiraterone, a selective CYP17 inhibitor that blocks androgen biosynthesis and is approved, with prednisone (P), for the treatment of pts with progressive mCRPC. Planned interim analyses of COU-AA-302 (at 13%, 43%, and 56% death events) in mCRPC chemotherapy-naive pts showed that AA + P significantly delayed disease progression and improved OS compared with P alone, and was well tolerated.1,2 Herein, we report the pre-specified final analysis (96% of planned death events) OS and safety outcomes. Methods: Pts (N = 1088) were randomized 1:1 to receive AA (1 g) + P (5 mg po BID) vs P. Co-primary end points were radiographic progression-free survival and OS. Median time to events with 95% CI was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox model was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR). Stratified log-rank test was used to test the difference in treatment effect. The O'Brien-Fleming boundary using the Lan-DeMets a-spending function was implemented to control the overall a at 0.04 for OS. For this final analysis, the nominal significance level for efficacy is 0.0384. Results: With median follow-up of 49.4 mos at final analysis, 741 deaths were observed. 44% of pts in the P arm subsequently received AA + P. AA + P significantly prolonged OS vs P (median OS, 34.7 vs 30.3 mos; HR = 0.80 [95% CI, 0.69-0.93]; p = 0.0027). AEs of special interest were more common with AA + P vs P; grade 3/4 AEs: hypertension, 4.6% vs 3.1%; hypokalemia, 2.6% vs 1.9%; ALT increased, 5.9% vs 0.7%; AST increased, 3.3% vs 0.9%; fluid retention/edema, 1.1% vs 1.7%. Conclusions: With a median follow-up of more than 4 years, the COU-AA-302 pre-specified, final analysis demonstrates a statistically significant OS benefit with AA + P even though a large number of pts in the P arm received AA + P and other subsequent therapy. With nearly an additional 2 years of follow-up since last reported, AA + P maintains a favorable safety profile and is well tolerated. 1. Ryan CJ et al. NEJM. 2013;368:138-148. 2. Rathkopf DE et al. Eur Urol. 2014 March 6 [Epub ahead of print]. Disclosure: C.J. Ryan: has received honoraria from Janssen; M.R. Smith: has served as a consultant/advisor to and received research funding from Janssen; K. Fizazi: has served as a consultant/advisor to and received honoraria from Janssen; K. Miller: has served as an advisor to Janssen, Medivation, Astellas, Novartis, Merck, Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Dendreon, and Pfizer; C.N. Sternberg: has received honoraria from Astellas, Johnson & Johnson, Ipsen, Bayer, and Millennium; F. Saad: has served as a consultant/advisor to and received honoraria and research funding from Astellas and Janssen;T. Griffin, P. De Porre, Y.C. Park, J. Li and T. Kheoh: is an employee of Janssen and owns stock in Johnson & Johnson;V. Naini: is an employee of Janssen;A. Molina: is an employee of Janssen and owns stock in Johnson & Johnson;D.E. Rathkopf: has served as a consultant/advisor to Johnson & Johnson and has received research funding (uncompensated) from Celgene, Janssen/J&J, Medivation/Astellas, Millennium, and Novartis. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

FOLFOX-4 vs. doxorubicin for hepatocellular carcinoma: Could a negative result be accepted as positive?

PURPOSE: To determine whether FOLFOX4 (infusional flu- orouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) administered as palliative che- motherapy to patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) provides a survival benefit and efficacy versus doxorubicin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, random- ized, phase III study in mainland China, Taiwan, Korea, and Thailand involved 371 patients age 18 to 75 years who had locally advanced or metastatic HCC and were ineligible for curative resection or local treatment. They were randomly assigned at a ratio of one to one to receive either FOLFOX4 (n = 184) or doxorubicin (n = 187). The pri- mary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR) by RECIST (version 1.0), and safety. RESULTS: At the prespecified final analysis, median OS was 6.40 months with FOLFOX4 (95% CI, 5.30 to 7.03) and 4.97 months with doxorubicin (95% CI, 4.23 to 6.03; P = .07; hazard ratio (HR), 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.02). Median PFS was 2.93 months with FOL- FOX4 (95% CI, 2.43 to 3.53), and 1.77 months with doxorubicin (95% CI, 1.63 to 2.30; P < .001; HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.79). RR was 8.15% with FOLFOX4 and 2.67% with doxorubicin (P = .02). On continued follow-up, the trend toward increased OS with FOLFOX4 was maintained (P = .04; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99). Toxicity was consistent with previous experiences with FOLFOX4; proportions of grade 3 to 4 adverse events were similar between treatments. CONCLUSION: Although the study did not meet its primary end point, the trend toward improved OS with FOLFOX4, along with increased PFS and RR, suggests that this regimen may confer some benefit to Asian patients, but an OS benefit cannot be concluded from these data.

Brivanib and FOLFOX in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Finding the Common Themes Among Negative Trials

This editorial accompanies three articles on three randomized, phase III trials of one disease: advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The studies explored folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) versus doxorubicin in first-line therapy (EACH; Qin et al); brivanib versus sorafenib in first-line therapy (BRISK-FL; Johnson et al); and brivanib versus placebo after failure of sorafenib (BRISK-PS; Llovet et al). Despite a perceived low bar for success, none of these trials met its prespecified target for efficacy, joining ranks with disappointed contemporaries that include sunitinib, linifanib, and the combination of sorafenib plus erlotinib. In stark contrast with the postsorafenib era in renal cell carcinoma, which has seen six new US Food and Drug Administration approvals since 2005, these results underscore the enormous unmet need for active systemic therapies in HCC. Why is the failure rate so high in HCC? Pessimists might take the stance that nothing really works well in HCC owing to indiscriminate chemoresistance, with upregulation of multidrug resistance genes and efflux mechanisms long credited with the failures of conventional cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents in this disease. Beyond a chemoresistant phenotype, however, there are other common themes across chemotherapy and targeted therapy trials alike, including high rates of toxicity when treating patients at the recommended phase II doses in this population with prevalent liver dysfunction, uninformative surrogate imaging end points, and a remarkable degree of prognostic heterogeneity within clinical and biologic subsets. There remains a distinct possibility that these challenges inherent to HCC could make identifying active therapies difficult in some cases or, conversely, suggest activity when none exists. With these considerations in mind, the outcomes of the recent negative trials in HCC merit careful examination so that we might learn from our failings. In the EACH trial, 371 patients were randomly assigned to open-label FOLFOX versus systemic doxorubicin (50 mg/m intravenously every 3 weeks) between 2007 and 2009, across 38 centers in four Asian countries. The majority of patients was positive for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection (approximately 90% in both study arms) and had Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage C disease (approximately 80% in both arms). There were noteworthy trends toward higher numbers of prior transarterial chemoembolization cycles (mean, 3.46 v 2.77 cycles) and a greater proportion of patients with prior systemic therapy in the doxorubicin arm compared with the FOLFOX arm (30% v 21%). More patients from the doxorubicin study arm withdrew from the study after randomization but before treatment (n 13 v n 1) but were included in the intention-totreat efficacy analyses. Toxicity was generally similar between treatment arms, though grade 3 or higher all-cause adverse events were more common on the FOLFOX arm (55.74% v 45.40%; P .05). At the prespecified final analysis, there was a nonsignificant trend toward improved median overall survival in the FOLFOX arm compared with the doxorubicin arm (6.40 v 4.97 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; P .07). A subsequent post hoc analysis of survival 7 months later found an overall survival improvement in the FOLFOX arm (6.47 v 4.90 months; P .04), although this unplanned look does not make this study positive. The median progression-free survival rate, response rate, and disease control rate were significantly higher in the FOLFOX arm compared with the doxorubicin arm at both the prespecified final analysis and the post hoc analysis. The proportion of patients in each arm who received subsequent sorafenib or other therapies was not reported. How should we interpret the significant improvement in response-based end points and the post hoc survival analysis in this study while acknowledging the negative primary survival end point? An unavoidable limitation of EACH was the lack of blinding. The open-label design is likely to have contributed to the imbalance in withdrawal rates observed between treatment arms and had the potential to confound local response assessment. The intention-to-treat efficacy analysis (owing to the imbalance in withdrawals) and the numerically higher rates of prior therapies in the control arm may have favored the treatment arm, as well. Another fundamental limitation was the use of doxorubicin as the control, a consequence of the study’s inception in the presorafenib era. The evidence for doxorubicin’s benefit in HCC is marginal, arising from a 106-patient trial in which doxorubicin was superior to no antitumor therapy but not in a clinically meaningful context, with dismal overall survival rates in both arms (2.7 v 1.9 months, respectively; P .036). Doxorubicin also was superior compared with nolatrexed in a randomized phase III trial of 445 patients. Should we infer from these data and EACH that systemic doxorubicin is incrementally better than best supportive care and presume transitively that FOLFOX would be superior? JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY E D I T O R I A L VOLUME 31 NUMBER 28 OCTOBER 1 2013