Randomized phase-II trial evaluating induction therapy with idarubicin and etoposide plus sequential or concurrent azacitidine and maintenance therapy with azacitidine

The aim of this randomized phase-II study was to evaluate the effect of substituting cytarabine by azacitidine in intensive induction therapy of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Patients were randomized to four induction schedules for two cycles: STANDARD (idarubicin, cytarabine, etoposide); and azacitidine given prior (PRIOR), concurrently (CONCURRENT), or after (AFTER) therapy with idarubicin and etoposide. Consolidation therapy consisted of allogeneic hematopoietic-cell transplantation or three courses of high-dose cytarabine followed by 2-year maintenance therapy with azacitidine in the azacitidine-arms. AML with CBFB-MYH11, RUNX1-RUNX1T1, mutated NPM1, and FLT3-ITD were excluded and accrued to genotype-specific trials. The primary end point was response to induction therapy. The statistical design was based on an optimal two-stage design applied for each arm separately. During the first stage, 104 patients (median age 62.6, range 18-82 years) were randomized; the study arms PRIOR and CONCURRENT were terminated early due to inefficacy. After randomization of 268 patients, all azacitidine-containing arms showed inferior response rates compared to STANDARD. Event-free and overall survival were significantly inferior in the azacitidine-containing arms compared to the standard arm (p < 0.001 and p = 0.03, respectively). The data from this trial do not support the substitution of cytarabine by azacitidine in intensive induction therapy.

Survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab or everolimus for HER2-negative primary breast cancer (GBG 44-GeparQuinto)†

BACKGROUND

The GeparQuinto study showed that adding bevacizumab to 24 weeks of anthracycline-taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy increases pathological complete response (pCR) rates overall and specifically in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). No difference in pCR rate was observed for adding everolimus to paclitaxel in nonearly responding patients. Here, we present disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) analyses.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients (n = 1948) with HER2-negative tumors of a median tumor size of 4 cm were randomly assigned to neoadjuvant treatment with epirubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel (EC-T) with or without eight infusions of bevacizumab every 3 weeks before surgery. Patients without clinical response to EC ± Bevacizumab were randomized to 12 weekly cycles paclitaxel with or without everolimus 5 mg/day. To detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75 (α = 0.05, β = 0.8) 379 events had to be observed in the bevacizumab arms.

RESULTS

With a median follow-up of 3.8 years, 3-year DFS was 80.8% and 3-year OS was 89.7%. Outcome was not different for patients receiving bevacizumab (HR 1.03; P = 0.784 for DFS and HR 0.974; P = 0.842 for OS) compared with patients receiving chemotherapy alone. Patients with TNBC similarly showed no improvement in DFS (HR = 0.99; P = 0.941) and OS (HR = 1.02; P = 0.891) when treated with bevacizumab. No other predefined subgroup (HR+/HER2-; locally advanced (cT4 or cN3) or not; cT1-3 or cT4; pCR or not) showed a significant benefit. No difference in DFS (HR 0.997; P = 0.987) and OS (HR 1.11; P = 0.658) was observed for nonearly responding patients receiving paclitaxel with or without everolimus overall as well as in subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term results, in opposite to the results of pCR, do not support the neoadjuvant use of bevacizumab in addition to an anthracycline-taxane-based chemotherapy or everolimus in addition to paclitaxel for nonearly responding patients.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

NCT 00567554, www.clinicaltrials.gov.