Stratified HR Research Articles

Abstract P3-06-08: Plasma (p) biomarker results from the TANIA trial evaluating continued or reintroduced bevacizumab (BEV) after 1st-line BEV for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC)

Abstract BACKGROUND: A potential predictive and prognostic effect of pretreatment pVEGF-A concentrations was suggested in exploratory analyses of phase III trials in HER2-negative mBC (AVADO), gastric cancer (AVAGAST), and pancreatic cancer (AViTA). This led to initiation of the MERiDiAN trial evaluating pVEGF-A prospectively in patients (pts) receiving 1st-line paclitaxel ± BEV in HER2-negative mBC. Potential predictive value was also noted for pVEGFR-2 in AVADO, AViTA, and in early BC in BEATRICE. We report prespecified pVEGF-A and pVEGFR-2 analyses in TANIA. METHODS: TANIA is an open-label randomized phase III trial evaluating the addition of BEV (15 mg/kg q3w or 10 mg/kg q2w) to the investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (CT) in pts with HER2-negative mBC who experience disease progression (PD) on/after 1st-line BEV-containing therapy. Allocation to BEV or no BEV is continued with 3rd-line therapy after 2nd PD (ie no crossover permitted). The primary endpoint is PFS from randomization to 2nd-line PD/death. Pts consenting to the optional biomarker substudy provided 6 mL plasma samples in EDTA before drug administration at randomization, at wks 7 and 13, every 12 wks thereafter, and at 2nd PD. pVEGF-A and shedded pVEGFR-2 were measured using the IMPACT assay (v2.03). The median concentration for each marker before 2nd-line treatment was prespecified as the cut-off between low (≤ median) and high (> median) biomarker subgroups. 2nd-line PFS was analyzed in each subgroup. RESULTS: The PFS benefit from BEV seen in the ITT population (N=494; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0.75, 95% CI 0.61–0.93) was observed consistently within subgroups of the biomarker population (N=312). However, there was no differential BEV effect according to pVEGF-A or shedded pVEGFR-2 concentrations. The stratified HR for PFS was 0.69 (95% CI 0.46–1.04) in pts with low pVEGF-A (≤1010.6 pg/mL [median]) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.54–1.18) in pts with high pVEGF-A (interaction p=0.47). As all pts had received prior BEV, unlike earlier trials showing a potential predictive effect of pVEGF-A, we explored pVEGF-A concentrations according to BEV-free interval. The BEV-free interval was ≤12 wks in 117/150 pts (78%) in the CT arm and 136/162 pts (84%) in the BEV+CT arm. Median pVEGF-A was much lower in the subgroup of 59 pts with a BEV-free interval >12 wks (45.1 pg/mL) than in pts with a BEV-free interval ≤12 wks (1135.3 pg/mL). Analyses of 2nd-line PFS according to shedded pVEGFR-2 concentration showed stratified PFS HRs of 0.68 (95% CI 0.45–1.02) for low pVEGFR-2 (≤9.6 ng/mL [median]) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.60–1.34) for high pVEGFR-2 (interaction p=0.49). CONCLUSIONS: The potential predictive effect of pVEGF-A in AVADO was not observed in TANIA, although high pVEGF-A concentrations in pts recently treated with BEV complicate interpretation. pVEGF-A is being evaluated prospectively in BEV-naïve pts in the ongoing MERiDiAN trial. Shedded pVEGFR-2 showed no predictive effect in TANIA and the suggested trend was in the opposite direction to the effect seen in AVADO and BEATRICE. Further analyses are planned to evaluate the impact of gene expression, cell-free DNA, protein expression, and DNA mutations on treatment effect in TANIA. Citation Format: Javier Cortes, Eduard Vrdoljak, Fabio Puglisi, Norbert Marschner, Joseph Gligorov, Christoph Zielinski, Cristian Villanueva, Gilles Romieu, István Lang, Eva Ciruelos, Corinne Veyret, Andrea Fontana, Mikkel Oestergaard, Sabine de Ducla, Ulrich Freudensprung, Gunter von Minckwitz. Plasma (p) biomarker results from the TANIA trial evaluating continued or reintroduced bevacizumab (BEV) after 1st-line BEV for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-06-08.

A randomized phase II study of AZ2014 versus everolimus in patients with VEGF refractory metastatic clear cell renal cancer (mRCC).

409 Background: Dual TORC1 and 2 inhibitors such as AZD2014 have theoretical advantages over isolated TORC1 inhibitors such as everolimus in the treatment of mRCC. In this study we compare the activity of these drugs in patients with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEFG) refractory mRCC. Methods: Patients with measurable VEGF refractory mRCC were randomised (1:1) to AZD2014 or everolimus stratified by MSKCC prognostic score and 1st line targeted therapy. Progression free survival (PFS) measured by RECIST v1.1 was the primary endpoint. Adverse events (AE) (CTCAE v4.03), response rates (RR) and overall survival (OS) were reported. This was an investigator led study and had appropriate ethical approval. Results: The study was stopped early (May 2014) with the recommendation of the IDMC. At this point 48 patients were recruited and 40 (AZD2014 23 :everolimus 17) patients were assessable for efficacy. Patient’s demographics were similar in the 2 groups. The median PFS was shorter for AZD2014 than everolimus (2.0 [95% CI 1.6-3.2] months vs. 5.8 [95% CI 2.8-11.2] months: stratified HR [2.4 95% CI:1.0-5.7; p<0.05]). Progression of disease as a best response was higher for AZD2014 than everolimus (65% vs. 18%: p=0.03). Response rates for AZD2014 and everolimus were 0% and 12% respectively. There were 9 deaths in this patient group, 7 in AZD2014 and 2 in everolimus group, all were due to disease progression. Grade III-IV adverse events (AEs) occurred with AZD2014 and everolimus in 30% and 59% of patients respectively. Discontinuation for AEs did not occur with AZD. PK analysis revealed AZD2014 doses within therapeutic window. Results for the 48 patient will be presented along with the survival data. Conclusions: The PFS for AZD2014 is inferior to everolimus in this setting despite excellent tolerability. These results are consistent with previous results with broader spectrum mTOR inhibitors in VEGF refractory mRCC (GDC0890: HR2.04 [Powles et al ASCO 2014]). This approach appears to be flawed. Clinical trial information: NCT01793636.

Interim results of a randomized phase 2 study of docetaxel with ramucirumab versus docetaxel in second-line advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

295 Background: Patients (pts) with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) progressing after first-line chemotherapy have limited treatment options. Ramucirumab (Ram), a human VEGFR2-targeted mAb, has demonstrated clinical activity in several solid tumors. Preclinical testing supports a role for Ram-taxane combinations in UC. Study JCDC is an open-label, multicenter, randomized phase 2 study of docetaxel (Doc) alone or combined with Ram or icrucumab (Icr) in locally advanced or metastatic platinum-resistant UC. We report on a planned interim analysis for Doc + Ram vs Doc; Icr results will be reported later. Methods: Eligible pts with advanced UC and ECOG PS 0-1 who relapsed ≤ 1 year from a platinum-regimen were randomized to receive Doc 75 mg/m2IV alone or with Ram 10mg/kg IV on Day 1 of repeating 21-day cycles. A sample size of 46 pts per arm enabled 71% power to demonstrate statistical significance of 4.5 mo (Doc + Ram) vs 3 mo (Doc) at a 1-sided α= 0.1. Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed PFS with RECIST v1.1, analyzed by K-M methods. A planned interim analysis was performed after 75% of the PFS events. Results: 44 pts received Doc and 46 received Doc + Ram. Study arms were well matched with a mean age of 67 yr (29-84), and a 4:1 male to female ratio. 58.7% (Doc + Ram) vs 61.4% (Doc) had ECOG PS 1. 58.7% (Doc + Ram) vs 52.3% (Doc) had visceral metastases. Doc + Ram reduced the risk of disease progression, stratified HR = 0.388; 95% CI: 0.222, 0.677; log-rank p = 0.0005, improving median PFS (5.1 vs 2.4 mo). The ORR for Doc + Ram was 19.6 vs 4.5% for Doc (p= 0.0502), and the disease control rate was 67.4 vs 43.2%. OS maturity is pending. The most common adverse events in the Doc + Ram arm (all grades) were fatigue (80.4% Doc + Ram v 75.0% Doc), decreased appetite (54.3 v 43.2%), nausea (54.3 v 25.0%), and neuropathy (50.0 v 38.6%). Grade (G) ≥3 febrile neutropenia (19.6 v 11.4%), pneumonia (13 v 9.1%), hypertension (4.3 v 0%) were higher with Doc + Ram. One G3 hematuria was observed in each arm. Conclusions: Results support a statistically significant improvement in PFS for Doc + Ram in second-line UC. Final results are expected in 2015. Clinical trial information: NCT01282463.

Dacomitinib versus erlotinib in patients with advanced-stage, previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (ARCHER 1009): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

Dacomitinib is an irreversible pan-EGFR family tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Findings from a phase 2 study in non-small cell lung cancer showed favourable efficacy for dacomitinib compared with erlotinib. We aimed to compare dacomitinib with erlotinib in a phase 3 study. In a randomised, multicentre, double-blind phase 3 trial in 134 centres in 23 countries, we enrolled patients who had locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, progression after one or two previous regimens of chemotherapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, and presence of measurable disease. We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to dacomitinib (45 mg/day) or erlotinib (150 mg/day) with matching placebo. Treatment allocation was masked to the investigator, patient, and study funder. Randomisation was stratified by histology (adenocarcinoma vs non-adenocarcinoma), ethnic origin (Asian vs non-Asian and Indian sub-continent), performance status (0-1 vs 2), and smoking status (never-smoker vs ever-smoker). The coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival per independent review for all randomly assigned patients, and for all randomly assigned patients with KRAS wild-type tumours. The study has completed accrual and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01360554. Between June 22, 2011, and March 12, 2013, we enrolled 878 patients and randomly assigned 439 to dacomitinib (256 KRAS wild type) and 439 (263 KRAS wild type) to erlotinib. Median progression-free survival was 2·6 months (95% CI 1·9-2·8) in both the dacomitinib group and the erlotinib group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·941, 95% CI 0·802-1·104, one-sided log-rank p=0·229). For patients with wild-type KRAS, median progression-free survival was 2·6 months for dacomitinib (95% CI 1·9-2·9) and erlotinib (95% CI 1·9-3·0; stratified HR 1·022, 95% CI 0·834-1·253, one-sided p=0·587). In patients who received at least one dose of study drug, the most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were diarrhoea (47 [11%] patients in the dacomitinib group vs ten [2%] patients in the erlotinib group), rash (29 [7%] vs 12 [3%]), and stomatitis (15 [3%] vs two [<1%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 52 (12%) patients receiving dacomitinib and 40 (9%) patients receiving erlotinib. Irreversible EGFR inhibition with dacomitinib was not superior to erlotinib in an unselected patient population with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer or in patients with KRAS wild-type tumours. Further study of irreversible EGFR inhibitors should be restricted to patients with activating EGFR mutations. Pfizer.

Adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin for gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy (CLASSIC): 5-year follow-up of an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial

The CLASSIC trial was done to compare adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin versus observation after D2 gastrectomy for patients with stage II or III gastric cancer. The planned interim analysis of CLASSIC (median follow-up 34 months) showed that adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin significantly improved disease-free survival, the primary endpoint, compared with observation after D2 gastrectomy. We report the 5-year follow-up data from the trial. CLASSIC was a phase 3, randomised, open-label study done at 35 cancer centres, medical centres, and hospitals in China, South Korea, and Taiwan. Patients with stage II-IIIB gastric cancer who underwent curative D2 gastrectomy were randomly assigned (1:1) after surgery to receive adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin (eight 3-week cycles of oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 plus intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1) for 6 months or observation alone. Randomisation was stratified by country and disease stage with a permuted block (size four) design. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was 3-year disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This analysis presents the final preplanned assessment of outcomes after 5 years. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00411229. We enrolled 1035 patients: 520 were randomly assigned to adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin, and 515 to observation. Median follow-up for this analysis in the intention-to-treat population was 62·4 months (IQR 54-70). 139 (27%) patients had disease-free survival events in the adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin group versus 203 (39%) patients in the observation group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·58, 95% CI 0·47-0·72; p<0·0001). Estimated 5-year disease-free survival was 68% (95% CI 63-73) in the adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin group versus 53% (47-58) in the observation alone group. By the clinical cutoff date, 103 patients (20%) had died in the adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin group versus 141 patients (27%) in the observation group (stratified HR 0·66, 95% CI 0·51-0·85; p=0·0015). Estimated 5-year overall survival was 78% (95% CI 74-82) in the adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin group versus 69% (64-73) in the observation group. Adverse event data were not collected after the primary analysis. Adjuvant treatment with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin after D2 gastrectomy should be considered for patients with operable stage II or III gastric cancer. F Hoffmann La-Roche and Sanofi.

Maintenance capecitabine and bevacizumab versus bevacizumab alone after initial first-line bevacizumab and docetaxel for patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (IMELDA): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

Longer duration of first-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer is associated with prolonged overall survival and improved progression-free survival. We investigated capecitabine added to maintenance bevacizumab after initial treatment with bevacizumab and docetaxel in this setting. We did this open-label randomised phase 3 trial at 54 hospitals in Brazil, China, Egypt, France, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Poland, Spain, and Turkey. We enrolled patients with HER2-negative measurable metastatic breast cancer; each received three to six cycles of first-line bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) and docetaxel (75-100 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks. Progression-free patients were randomly assigned with an interactive voice-response system by block (size four) randomisation (1:1) to receive either bevacizumab and capecitabine or bevacizumab only (bevacizumab 15 mg/kg on day 1; capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice per day on days 1-14, every 3 weeks) until progression, stratified by oestrogen receptor status (positive vs negative), visceral metastases (present vs absent), response status (stable disease vs response vs non-measurable), and lactate dehydrogenase concentration (≤1·5 vs >1·5 × upper limit of normal). Neither patients nor investigators were masked to allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (from randomisation) in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00929240. Between July 16, 2009, and March 7, 2011 (when enrolment was prematurely terminated), 284 patients received initial bevacizumab and docetaxel; 185 (65%) were randomly assigned (91 to bevacizumab and capecitabine versus 94 to bevacizumab only). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the bevacizumab and capecitabine group than in the bevacizumab only group (median 11·9 months [95% CI 9·8-15·4] vs 4·3 months [3·9-6·8]; stratified hazard ratio 0·38 [95% CI 0·27-0·55]; two-sided log-rank p<0·0001), as was overall survival (median 39·0 months [95% CI 32·3-not reached] vs 23·7 months [18·5-31·7]; stratified HR 0·43 [95% CI 0·26-0·69]; two-sided log-rank p=0·0003). Results for time to progression were consistent with those for progression-free survival. 78 (86%) patients in the bevacizumab and capecitabine group and 72 (77%) in the bevacizumab only group had an objective response. Clinical benefit was recorded in 92 (98%) patients in the bevacizumab alone group and 90 (99%) in the bevacizumab and capecitabine group. Mean change from baseline in global health score did not differ significantly between groups. Grade 3 or worse adverse events during the maintenance phase were more common with bevacizumab and capecitabine than with bevacizumab only (45 [49%] of 91 patients vs 25 [27%] of 92 patients). The most common grade 3 or worse events were hand-foot syndrome (28 [31%] in the bevacizumab and capecitabine group vs none in the bevacizumab alone group), hypertension (eight [9%] vs three [3%]), and proteinuria (three [3%] vs four [4%]). Serious adverse events were reported by ten (11%) patients in the bevacizumab and capecitabine group and seven (8%) patients in the bevacizumab only group. Despite prematurely terminated accrual and the lack of information about post-progression treatment, both progression-free survival and overall survival were significantly improved with bevacizumab and capecitabine compared with bevacizumab alone as maintenance treatment. These results might inform future maintenance trials and current first-line treatment strategies for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Open, Single Arm Trial of Erlotinib As the 2Nd/3Rd Line Treatment in Advanced or Recurrent Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Wild Type and C-Met Negative Expression (Ml28941, C-Tong 1306)

ABSTRACT Background: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients harboring epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations show excellent clinical benefit to Erlotinib. Since EGFR wild type constitutes approximately 70% NSCLC, it is also important to evaluatethe efficacy of Erlotinib in this group of patients. Preclinical study shows that c-Met over-expression could be the cause of EGFR-TKI primary and secondary resistance, which gives us a hint, that c-Met negative expression maybe feasible to exclude the purely resistant to EGFR TKIs,which could be considered as 2nd biomarker, as so called “bi-biomarker”.This concept is supported by a phase II study (OAM4558g, ASCO2011), which showed in patients withEGFR wild type and c-met negative expression population treated with Erlotinib had a longer duration of PFS versus Erlotinib plus Onartuzumab (2.7 vs. 1.4 months, stratified HR = 1.82; 95% CI: 0.99, 3.32). The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of erlotinib as the 2nd/3rd line treatment in stage IV NSCLC with EGFR wild type and c-met negative expression. Trial design: This is a multicenter, single arm phase II study. Stage IV NSCLC patients (aged ≥18 yand ≤75 y, ECOG PS ≤ 2) with EGFR wild type and c-met negative expression on Ventana benchmark instrument(≥50% of the cells do not stain or stain with weak intensity, clinical score 0 or 1+) were eligible if they have had at least one prior platinum-based chemotherapy regimen.The primary objective of the study was 6-month progression free survival (PFS) rate. Secondary end-point include overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), PFSand health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We estimated 6months PFS rate of experimental arm was 35% (OAM4558g, 2011ASCO), and historical control is estimated to be 20% (BR.21 and TAILOR), considering 10% total dropout rate, adjusting two-sided a = 0.05, power 80%. A total of 54 enrollments will be needed. All patients will receive once-daily oral Erlotinib (150mg) until disease progression or intolerable toxicities.The study has been registered on the ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02006043) and the recruitment has begun in January 2014. Up to now, one patient has been recruited. The trial will be finished at July 2016 (12months recruitment and 18 months follow-up). Disclosure: Z. Li: The research is sponsored by the Roche. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Trastuzumab emtansine versus treatment of physician's choice for pretreated HER2-positive advanced breast cancer (TH3RESA): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

Patients with progressive disease after two or more HER2-directed regimens for recurrent or metastatic breast cancer have few effective therapeutic options. We aimed to compare trastuzumab emtansine, an antibody-drug conjugate comprising the cytotoxic agent DM1 linked to trastuzumab, with treatment of physician's choice in this population of patients. This randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial took place in medical centres in 22 countries across Europe, North America, South America, and Asia-Pacific. Eligible patients (≥18 years, left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2) with progressive HER2-positive advanced breast cancer who had received two or more HER2-directed regimens in the advanced setting, including trastuzumab and lapatinib, and previous taxane therapy in any setting, were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) to trastuzumab emtansine (3·6 mg/kg intravenously every 21 days) or physician's choice using a permuted block randomisation scheme by an interactive voice and web response system. Patients were stratified according to world region (USA vs western Europe vs other), number of previous regimens (excluding single-agent hormonal therapy) for the treatment of advanced disease (two to three vs more than three), and presence of visceral disease (any vs none). Coprimary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. We report the final PFS analysis and the first interim overall survival analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01419197. From Sept 14, 2011, to Nov 19, 2012, 602 patients were randomly assigned (404 to trastuzumab emtansine and 198 to physician's choice). At data cutoff (Feb 11, 2013), 44 patients assigned to physician's choice had crossed over to trastuzumab emtansine. After a median follow-up of 7·2 months (IQR 5·0-10·1 months) in the trastuzumab emtansine group and 6·5 months (IQR 4·1-9·7) in the physician's choice group, 219 (54%) patients in the trastuzumab emtansine group and 129 (65%) of patients in the physician's choice group had PFS events. PFS was significantly improved with trastuzumab emtansine compared with physician's choice (median 6·2 months [95% CI 5·59-6·87] vs 3·3 months [2·89-4·14]; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·528 [0·422-0·661]; p<0·0001). Interim overall survival analysis showed a trend favouring trastuzumab emtansine (stratified HR 0·552 [95% CI 0·369-0·826]; p=0·0034), but the stopping boundary was not crossed. A lower incidence of grade 3 or worse adverse events was reported with trastuzumab emtansine than with physician's choice (130 events [32%] in 403 patients vs 80 events [43%] in 184 patients). Neutropenia (ten [2%] vs 29 [16%]), diarrhoea (three [<1%] vs eight [4%]), and febrile neutropenia (one [<1%] vs seven [4%]) were grade 3 or worse adverse events that were more common in the physician's choice group than in the trastuzumab emtansine group. Thrombocytopenia (19 [5%] vs three [2%]) was the grade 3 or worse adverse event that was more common in the trastuzumab emtansine group. 74 (18%) patients in the trastuzumab emtansine group and 38 (21%) in the physician's choice group reported a serious adverse event. Trastuzumab emtansine should be considered as a new standard for patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer who have previously received trastuzumab and lapatinib. Genentech.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Temsirolimus Versus Sorafenib As Second-Line Therapy After Sunitinib in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

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. 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. 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. 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.

Plasma VEGF-a, angiopoietin-2 (ANG2) and soluble(s)TIE2 in patients (pts) with HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (LR/MBC) treated with first-line bevacizumab (A) and paclitaxel (T) without or with capecitabine (X).

1072 Background: In the randomized phase II ATX trial, pts with HER2-negative LR/MBC were treated with first-line AT or ATX. We determined the prognostic value for outcome of VEGF-A, ANG2 and sTIE2 measured at baseline on cycle 1 day 1 (C1D1) and after cycle 1 (C2D1). Methods: 312 pts were randomized in 1:1 ratio to AT (T 90 mg/m2 on d1, 8, 15 and A 10 mg/kg on d1, 15 q4w x 6 cycles, followed by A 15 mg/kg on d1 q3w for next cycles) or ATX (T 90 mg/m2 on d1, 8, A 15 mg/kg on d1 and X 825 mg/m2bid on d1–14 q3w x 8 cycles, followed by the same dose of A and X q3w for next cycles). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), response duration (RD), overall survival (OS) and safety. Plasma proteins on C1D1 (N = 173) and on C2D1 (N = 142) were measured by ELISA. The association of protein levels (continuous variable) with PFS and OS was evaluated by Cox proportional hazards model and Martingale residual plot. Results: At a median follow-up of 39 months (mo), there were 292 PFS events and 242 deaths. ATX significantly improved PFS as compared to AT (median 11 vs. 8.4 mo, stratified HR = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.41 – 0.67; P &lt; .001). The confirmed ORR in measurable disease (N = 268) was 67% in ATX vs. 50% in AT. Median RD was 6.4 mo (95% CI, 6.1 – 8.3) in ATX v 5.4 mo (95% CI, 5.1 – 6.0) in AT. Median OS was 24.1 mo in ATX vs. 23.1 mo in AT (P= .44). The aselected ‘biomarker’ cohort (N = 173) and overall trial cohort had similar baseline characteristics. ANG2 on C1D1 moderately correlated with sTIE2 on C1D1 (Pearson’s r = .44, P &lt; .001). High ANG2 on C1D1 was significantly associated with poor OS (HR = 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1 – 2.3; P = .01), but not with poor PFS (HR = 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 – 1.3; P = .07). ANG2 on C2D1 was not significantly associated with OS (HR = 1.55; 95% CI, 0.99 – 2.4; P = .057) or with PFS (P= .6). sTIE2 and VEGF-A were not associated with outcome. All pts had very low levels of free VEGF-A on C2D1 (median 8 pg/ml). Conclusions: In HER2-negative LR/MBC, ATX is more effective (PFS, ORR and RD) than AT. A very high plasma level of ANG2 at baseline indicates a high risk for poor survival. Clinical trial information: NTR1348.

Randomized trials of adjuvant tamoxifen versus tamoxifen and octreotide LAR in early-stage breast cancer: NCIC CTG MA.14 and NSABP B-29.

538 Background: MA.14 and B-29 examined whether the addition of Octreotide (SMS 201-995 pa LAR; OCT) to 5 years adjuvant tamoxifen (TAM) prolonged disease-free survival (DFS). Excessive gallbladder (GB) toxicity in B-29 led to DMC recommended stopping of OCT and MA.14 shortening of OCT to 2 years. Data for the 2 trials were pooled. Methods: Median follow-up of the 667 MA.14 patients was 9.8 years, and of the 893 B-29 patients, 6.8 years for ITT analysis. The primary endpoint was DFS, defined as time from randomization to time of (local, regional or distant) breast cancer recurrence; any second primary cancer other than squamous or basal cell carcinoma of the skin, carcinoma in situ of the cervix, or lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast; or death. The primary test statistic was a pooled stratified log-rank test, with stratification within each trial by applicant stratification factors. Multivariate assessment was with Cox regression. Results: MA.14 patients were all postmenopausal with 97% ≥50 years of age while 62% of B-29 women were ≥50. 53% of MA.14 patients were lymph node negative (LN-), while all of B-29 patients were LN-. 33% of MA.14 patients received adjuvant chemotherapy, 2% concurrently, while 53% of B-29 received concurrent chemotherapy. 90% of MA.14 patients were hormone receptor positive while 100% of B-29 were positive. MA.14 patients experienced a 5 year DFS rate of 80% on TAM and 76% on TAM+OCT, while B-29 patients had a 5 year rate of 88% for both arms. The pooled 5 year rates were 85% and 83%. Pooled univariate stratified Cox HR of TAM+OCT to TAM was 0.99 (95% CI 0.81-1.20; p-value= 0.69). The HR for MA.14 was 0.93 (0.72-1.19; p= 0.50) and for B-29 was 1.09 (0.80-1.50; p=0.59). Multivariate pooled HR of TAM+OCT to TAM was 0.98 (0.81-1.20; p=0.84). Patients who were older (p=0.0006), and had higher T stage (p&lt;0.0001) with LN+ (p=0.0008) had shorter DFS. Conclusions: OCT did not significantly improve DFS for women who were a broad spectrum of patients: pre- or post-menopausal, LN- or LN+, and received sequential, concurrent or no adjuvant chemotherapy. Neither study had the intended duration of OCT due to GB toxicity; thus, the results do not negate targeting the insulin - IGF-I receptor family.

First-line treatment of metastatic or locally advanced unresectable soft tissue sarcomas with conatumumab in combination with doxorubicin or doxorubicin alone: A Phase I/II open-label and double-blind study

BackgroundConatumumab is a fully human monoclonal agonist antibody that binds to death receptor 5 and induces apoptosis in sensitive cells. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of doxorubicin±conatumumab as first-line systemic therapy for metastatic or locally advanced/unresectable soft-tissue sarcoma. MethodsIn Phase I, six patients received doxorubicin (75mg/m2) with conatumumab (15mg/kg) every 3weeks. In Phase II, patients were randomised (2:1) to receive doxorubicin with either double-blind conatumumab 15mg/kg (conatumumab–doxorubicin; n=86) or placebo (placebo–doxorubicin; n=42). Patients who progressed on placebo–doxorubicin could receive open-label conatumumab monotherapy post-chemotherapy (n=21). FindingsThe expected histopathologic subtypes (e.g. leiomyosarcoma, liposarcoma, others) were represented in this trial. No unexpected adverse events were noted in either Phase I or II. Median progression-free survival in Phase II was 5.6 and 6.4months in the conatumumab–doxorubicin and placebo–doxorubicin arms, respectively (stratified HR: 1.00; p=0.973), with more early progressions noted in the first 3.5months in the conatumumab–doxorubicin arm. Median overall survival was not reached after 8.6months median follow-up in either arm. Common adverse events were nausea (conatumumab–doxorubicin: 66%; placebo–doxorubicin: 80%), alopecia (55%; 63%), fatigue (60%; 38%) and neutropenia (32%; 50%). Post-chemotherapy results were not notably improved by conatumumab dosing. InterpretationAddition of conatumumab to doxorubicin appeared to be safe but did not improve disease control in a heterogeneous unselected group of patients with soft tissue sarcomas. The results of this trial are very useful for estimating the outcomes of first-line therapy of sarcoma patients treated with standard doxorubicin. FundingThis study was supported by Amgen Inc.

Phase III Trial of Bevacizumab Plus Interferon Alfa-2a in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (AVOREN): Final Analysis of Overall Survival

A phase III trial of bevacizumab combined with interferon alfa-2a (IFN) showed significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Here, we report overall survival (OS) data. Six hundred forty-nine patients with previously untreated mRCC were randomly assigned to receive bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks) plus IFN (9 MIU subcutaneously three times a week; n = 327) or IFN plus placebo (n = 322) in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial. The primary end point was OS. Final analysis of the secondary end point (PFS) was reported earlier. Median OS was 23.3 months with bevacizumab plus IFN and 21.3 months with IFN plus placebo (unstratified hazard ratio [HR] = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.10; P = .3360; stratified HR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.04; P = .1291). Patients (> 55%) in both arms received at least one postprotocol antineoplastic therapy, possibly confounding the OS analysis. Patients receiving postprotocol therapy including a tyrosine kinase inhibitor had longer median OS (bevacizumab plus IFN arm: 38.6 months; IFN plus placebo arm: 33.6 months; HR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.13). Tolerability was similar to that reported previously. Bevacizumab plus IFN is active as first-line treatment in patients with mRCC. Most patients with mRCC receive multiple lines of therapy, so considering the overall sequence of therapy when selecting first-line therapy may optimize patient benefit.

Early antiretroviral therapy reduces AIDS progression/death in individuals with acute opportunistic infections: a multicenter randomized strategy trial.

BackgroundOptimal timing of ART initiation for individuals presenting with AIDS-related OIs has not been defined.Methods and FindingsA5164 was a randomized strategy trial of “early ART” - given within 14 days of starting acute OI treatment versus “deferred ART” - given after acute OI treatment is completed. Randomization was stratified by presenting OI and entry CD4 count. The primary week 48 endpoint was 3-level ordered categorical variable: 1. Death/AIDS progression; 2. No progression with incomplete viral suppression (ie HIV viral load (VL) ≥50 copies/ml); 3. No progression with optimal viral suppression (ie HIV VL <50 copies/ml). Secondary endpoints included: AIDS progression/death; plasma HIV RNA and CD4 responses and safety parameters including IRIS.282 subjects were evaluable; 141 per arm. Entry OIs included Pneumocytis jirovecii pneumonia 63%, cryptococcal meningitis 12%, and bacterial infections 12%. The early and deferred arms started ART a median of 12 and 45 days after start of OI treatment, respectively.The difference in the primary endpoint did not reach statistical significance: AIDS progression/death was seen in 20 (14%) vs. 34 (24%); whereas no progression but with incomplete viral suppression was seen in 54 (38%) vs. 44 (31%); and no progression with optimal viral suppression in 67 (48%) vs 63 (45%) in the early vs. deferred arm, respectively (p = 0.22). However, the early ART arm had fewer AIDS progression/deaths (OR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.27–0.94) and a longer time to AIDS progression/death (stratified HR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.30–0.92). The early ART had shorter time to achieving a CD4 count above 50 cells/mL (p<0.001) and no increase in adverse events.ConclusionsEarly ART resulted in less AIDS progression/death with no increase in adverse events or loss of virologic response compared to deferred ART. These results support the early initiation of ART in patients presenting with acute AIDS-related OIs, absent major contraindications.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00055120

Prognostic implication of redefining indeterminate microvolt T-wave alternans studies as abnormal or normal

Prior studies involving microvolt T-wave alternans (MTWA) have combined positive and indeterminate studies into a high-risk "nonnegative" category. However, studies examining the prognostic utility of specific reasons for an indeterminate study are limited. The objective of this study was to assess if patients have differences in survival prognosis based on the reasons for an indeterminate MTWA result. We enrolled 768 consecutive patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 35%) and no prior history of sustained ventricular arrhythmia. Microvolt T-wave alternans studies were classified as positive, negative, or indeterminate. Prespecified multivariable Cox regression analyses, stratified by implantable cardioverter/defibrillator status, were used to determine whether there was heterogeneity in survival prognosis among the individual reasons for an indeterminate study. We identified 159 (21%) patients with an indeterminate MTWA test. Reasons for indeterminate studies included frequent ectopy (46%), inability to reach adequate heart rate (IHR) (32%), unsustained alternans (9%), and excessive noise (13%). After multivariable adjustment, indeterminate studies due to ectopy/IHR were associated with a significantly higher risk for all-cause (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 4.63, 95% CI 1.32-16.18, P = .02) and arrhythmic mortality (stratified HR 17.57, 95% CI 1.62-190.50, P = .02) but not for nonarrhythmic mortality (stratified HR 1.30, 95% CI 0.27-6.29, P = .75). The prognostic utility of MTWA testing was improved when indeterminate studies were reclassified as abnormal (positive + ectopy/IHR) or normal (negative + unsustained alternans), with only 3% of all studies thereafter remaining inconclusive (noise). Patients with indeterminate MTWA studies exhibit heterogeneity in survival prognosis. Reclassifying indeterminate studies as abnormal or normal improves the predictive power of MTWA.

Prognostic Utility of Microvolt T-Wave Alternans in Risk Stratification of Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy

The purpose of this study was to assess if microvolt T-wave alternans (MTWA) is an independent predictor of mortality in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Microvolt T-wave alternans has been proposed as an effective tool for identifying high-risk patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy who are likely to benefit from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy. However, earlier studies have been limited in their ability to control for baseline differences between MTWA-negative and -non-negative (positive and indeterminate) patients. We enrolled 768 consecutive patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction < or =35%) and no prior history of ventricular arrhythmia. All patients underwent baseline MTWA testing and were classified as MTWA negative or non-negative. Multivariable Cox regression analyses, stratified by ICD status, were used to determine the association between MTWA testing and mortality after adjusting for demographic, clinical, and treatment differences between MTWA-negative and -non-negative patients. We identified 514 (67%) patients with a non-negative MTWA test. After multivariable adjustment, a non-negative MTWA test was associated with a significantly higher risk for all-cause (stratified hazard ratio [HR] = 2.24 [95% confidence interval 1.34 to 3.75]; p = 0.002) and arrhythmic mortality (stratified HR = 2.29 [1.00 to 5.24]; p = 0.049) but not for nonarrhythmic mortality (stratified HR = 1.77 [0.84 to 3.74]; p = 0.13). In subgroup analyses, a non-negative MTWA test was also associated with a higher risk for all-cause mortality in patients with ejection fractions < or =30% (stratified HR = 2.10 [1.18 to 3.73]; p = 0.01) and after excluding those with indeterminate MTWA tests (stratified HR = 2.08 [1.18 to 3.66]; p = 0.01). Microvolt T-wave alternans is a strong and independent predictor of all-cause and arrhythmic mortality in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.

A subgroup analysis of the SCRIPPS coronary radiation to inhibit proliferation poststenting trial

The CLASSIC trial was done to compare adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin versus observation after D2 gastrectomy for patients with stage II or III gastric cancer. The planned interim analysis of CLASSIC (median follow-up 34 months) showed that adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin significantly improved disease-free survival, the primary endpoint, compared with observation after D2 gastrectomy. We report the 5-year follow-up data from the trial.CLASSIC was a phase 3, randomised, open-label study done at 35 cancer centres, medical centres, and hospitals in China, South Korea, and Taiwan. Patients with stage II–IIIB gastric cancer who underwent curative D2 gastrectomy were randomly assigned (1:1) after surgery to receive adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin (eight 3-week cycles of oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1–14 plus intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1) for 6 months or observation alone. Randomisation was stratified by country and disease stage with a permuted block (size four) design. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was 3-year disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This analysis presents the final preplanned assessment of outcomes after 5 years. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00411229.We enrolled 1035 patients: 520 were randomly assigned to adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin, and 515 to observation. Median follow-up for this analysis in the intention-to-treat population was 62·4 months (IQR 54–70). 139 (27%) patients had disease-free survival events in the adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin group versus 203 (39%) patients in the observation group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·58, 95% CI 0·47–0·72; p<0·0001). Estimated 5-year disease-free survival was 68% (95% CI 63–73) in the adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin group versus 53% (47–58) in the observation alone group. By the clinical cutoff date, 103 patients (20%) had died in the adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin group versus 141 patients (27%) in the observation group (stratified HR 0·66, 95% CI 0·51–0·85; p=0·0015). Estimated 5-year overall survival was 78% (95% CI 74–82) in the adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin group versus 69% (64–73) in the observation group. Adverse event data were not collected after the primary analysis.Adjuvant treatment with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin after D2 gastrectomy should be considered for patients with operable stage II or III gastric cancer.F Hoffmann La-Roche and Sanofi.