Second-line treatment strategies for RAS wild-type colorectal cancer: A systematic review and Network Meta-analysis (NMA)

BACKGROUND

The optimal strategy for second-line (IIL) treatment in KRAS wt metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is not determined yet.

METHODS

A random-effect NMA of phase II/III RCTs was conducted to evaluate IIL treatment for all-RAS wt mCRC, comparing anti-EGFR or anti-VEGF, and chemotherapy (CT).

RESULTS

Overall, 11 RCTs (3613 patients) were included. In KRAS wt patients, PFS was improved with anti-VEGF (HR 0.43) and anti-EGFR (HR 0.63) vs CT. However, anti-VEGF based therapy had the highest likelihood of being ranked as the best treatment in terms of PFS (SUCRA 99.3%) and OS (SUCRA 99.4%). Bevacizumab-based treatment is most likely to be the best treatment in terms of PFS (SUCRA 89.1%) and OS (SUCRA 86.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Second line treatment with anti-VEGF and anti-EGFR improved PFS in mCRC patients, however, anti-VEGF based therapy, particularly CT plus bevacizumab, is the best treatment according to SUCRA in terms of PFS and OS.

Second-line treatment options in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after progression on first-line androgen-receptor targeting therapies: A systematic review and Bayesian network analysis

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and indirectly compare the efficacy and safety of different second-line systematic therapies after first-line androgen-receptor targeting therapies (ARTs) for biomarker-unselected metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients.

METHODS

Studies published in English up to May 2023 were identified in PubMed, Web of Science and ASCO-GU 2023. Studies accessing the efficacy and safety of second-line systematic therapies after first-line ARTs for biomarker-unselected mCRPC patients were eligible for current systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies with 5388 patients and 10 unique treatment modalities met our inclusion criteria. Current evidence suggested that docetaxel (DOC) combined with the same ART as first-line (ART1) (ART1 + DOC) were associated with significantly improved PSA response, PSA progression-free survival (PFS) and clinical or radiographic PFS (rPFS) compared with other reported second-line systematic therapies, including DOC. An increase in toxicity was observed with ART1 + DOC. Our NMA indicated that DOC monotherapy was only inferior to ART1 + DOC in improvement disease outcomes. The incidence of toxicity between patients received second-line DOC and an alternative ART (ART2) was similar.

CONCLUSION

The available evidence reviewed in our work suggested a clinical benefit of DOC nomotherapy and DOC plus ART1 as the second-line systematic therapy for biomarker-unselected mCRPC patients progressed on a first-line ART. More studies and RCTs are needed to evaluate the optimal second-line treatments for mCRPC patients with one prior first-line ART.

Efficacy and safety of anlotinib plus anti-PD-1 agents in patients with refractory advanced biliary tract cancers

BACKGROUND

Anlotinib has demonstrated promising anti-tumor efficacy in various solid tumors. Additionally, there is evidence suggesting that immune therapy can enhance the systemic responses of anlotinib. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of combining anlotinib with PD-1 inhibitors compared to fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy as a second-line treatment option for advanced biliary tract cancers (BTCs).

METHODS

A total of 242 patients with BTCs were screened at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from October 2015 to October 2022. Among them, 78 patients who received either anlotinib plus PD-1 inhibitors (AP) or fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy (FB) as second-line treatment were included in the study. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), safety, and predictive tumor biomarkers.

RESULTS

Among the 78 patients with BTCs, 39 patients received AP, while 39 patients were administered FB. The ORR in the AP group was 20.5%, compared to 5.1% in the FB group. The DCR was 87.2% in the AP group and 66.7% in the FB group. The AP group demonstrated significantly better ORR and DCR compared to the FB group (p = 0.042, p = 0.032). The median PFS and OS in the AP group were 7.9 months (95% CI: 4.35-11.45) and 13.9 months (95% CI: 5.39-22.41), respectively. In the FB group, the median PFS and OS were 4.1 months (95% CI: 3.17-5.03) and 13.2 months (95% CI: 8.72-17.68), respectively. The AP group exhibited significantly better median PFS than the FB group (p = 0.027). In the subgroup analysis, patients without liver metastasis had a much longer PFS in the AP group compared to the FB group (14.3 vs. 5.5 months, p = 0.016). Similarly, patients with CEA ≤ 5 μg/L also demonstrated a longer PFS in the AP group compared to the FB group (8.7 vs. 3.9 months, p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of anlotinib and PD-1 inhibitors demonstrated a promising clinical effect compared to fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in the second-line treatment of refractory advanced BTCs. Liver metastases and CEA levels may serve as predictive factors for identifying patients who may benefit from AP therapy.

Network meta-analysis of second line and beyond treatment options in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Deciding on the optimal second-line (2L) treatment for metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) remains challenging due to the limited information comparing each of the available options and the influence of the newly expanding first-line (1L) agents.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We identified phase II/III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating 2L treatments in metastatic ccRCC. This Network Meta-analysis (NMA) evaluates the overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and severe adverse events (SAE). We used normal likelihood model to incorporate log hazard ratios (HRs), odds ratios (OR), and 95%-confidence-intervals (CI). Treatment p-scores were used for ranking. Data was analyzed in a fixed-effects model using the netmeta package in R v.1.5-0.

RESULTS

All therapies demonstrated some benefits over placebo. Lenvatinib + everolimus ranked first for OS (HR = 0.44; 95%CI = 0.24-0.82; p-score = 0.92), PFS (HR = 0.13; 95%CI = 0.07-0.24, p-score = 0.98), and ORR (OR = 35.95; 95%CI = 11.55-111.87; p-score = 0.93) compared to placebo, though with a higher SAE (OR = 5.27; p-score = 0.23). Cabozantinib ranked second for OS (HR = 0.57, p-score = 0.80), PFS (HR = 0.19; p-score = 0.86), and ORR (OR = 27.24, p-score = 0.84). Nivolumab was third for ORR (p-score = 0.79), fourth for OS (p-score = 0.69), fifth for PFS (p-score = 0.61), and last for SAE (p-score = 0.83). Lenvatinib monotherapy ranked worst SAE (OR = 5.89, p-score = 0.17) and third for OS and PFS. The latest drug, tivozanib, was sixth for PFS, OS, and ORR. The NMA matrix revealed no differential OS benefit between cabozantinib, lenvatinib + everolimus, and nivolumab. Other regimens had no significant OS benefit when compared to placebo.

CONCLUSION

Based on OS and PFS, the lenvtatinib + everolimus combination yielded superior, followed by cabozantinib and Lenvatinib monotherapies; all were limited by a worse SAE profile. Nivolumab and pazopanib had the lowest odds of SAEs.

Status epilepticus in the ICU

Status epilepticus (SE) is a common medical emergency associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Management that follows published guidelines is best suited to improve outcomes, with the most severe cases frequently being managed in the intensive care unit (ICU). Diagnosis of convulsive SE can be made without electroencephalography (EEG), but EEG is required to reliably diagnose nonconvulsive SE. Rapidly narrowing down underlying causes for SE is crucial, as this may guide additional management steps. Causes may range from underlying epilepsy to acute brain injuries such as trauma, cardiac arrest, stroke, and infections. Initial management consists of rapid administration of benzodiazepines and one of the following non-sedating intravenous antiseizure medications (ASM): (fos-)phenytoin, levetiracetam, or valproate; other ASM are increasingly used, such as lacosamide or brivaracetam. SE that continues despite these medications is called refractory, and most commonly treated with continuous infusions of midazolam or propofol. Alternatives include further non-sedating ASM and non-pharmacologic approaches. SE that reemerges after weaning or continues despite management with propofol or midazolam is labeled super-refractory SE. At this step, management may include non-sedating or sedating compounds including ketamine and barbiturates. Continuous video EEG is necessary for the management of refractory and super-refractory SE, as these are almost always nonconvulsive. If possible, management of the underlying cause of seizures is crucial particularly for patients with autoimmune encephalitis. Short-term mortality ranges from 10 to 15% after SE and is primarily related to increasing age, underlying etiology, and medical comorbidities. Refractoriness of treatment is clearly related to outcome with mortality rising from 10% in responsive cases, to 25% in refractory, and nearly 40% in super-refractory SE.

Efficacy and safety of second-line camrelizumab combined with apatinib and chemotherapy in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma: A prospective, open-label, multicentric study

OBJECTIVES

Camrelizumab (a programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor) and apatinib (an angiogenesis inhibitor) are considered as potential treatments for advanced lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of second-line camrelizumab combined with apatinib and chemotherapy (albumin-bound paclitaxel, docetaxel, or pemetrexed) in patients with advanced LUAD.

METHODS

Twenty-nine patients with advanced LUAD underwent second-line camrelizumab combined with apatinib and chemotherapy were enrolled in this prospective, open-label, multicentric study. Follow-up with a median duration of 18.0 months was conducted.

RESULTS

There were 0 (0.0 %), 11 (37.9 %), 14 (48.4 %), and 3 (10.3 %) patients achieving complete response, partial response, stable disease, and progressive disease, respectively. Meanwhile, treatment response was not evaluated in 1 (3.4 %) patient. The objective response and disease control rates were 37.9 % and 86.3 %, respectively. In terms of survival, the median (95 % confidence interval) progression-free survival (PFS) was 11.1 (5.2-17.0) months, with 1-year and 2-year PFS rates of 40.4 % and 20.5 %, respectively. The median overall survival (OS) was not reached; the 1-year and 2-year OS rates were 72.0 % and 64.8 %, respectively. Current treatment cycles ≥ 8 were associated with better PFS and OS (both P < 0.001). In addition, 21 (72.4 %) patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), which was mostly of grade I and II. The most commonly occurring TEAE was leukopenia (17.2 %), liver dysfunction (17.2 %), hypothyroidism (13.8 %), hand-foot syndrome (13.8 %), and thrombocytopenia (13.8 %).

CONCLUSION

Second-line camrelizumab combined apatinib and chemotherapy might serve as a potential treatment with acceptable safety in patients with advanced LUAD.

Efficacy of second and third lines of treatment in advanced soft tissue sarcomas: a real-world study

BACKGROUND

Soft tissue sarcomas (STSs) are an uncommon and heterogeneous group of tumours. Several drugs and combinations have been used in clinical practice as second-line (2L) and third-line (3L) treatment. The growth modulation index (GMI) has previously been used as an exploratory efficacy endpoint of drug activity and represents an intra-patient comparison.

METHODS

We performed a real-world retrospective study including all patients with advanced STS who had received at least 2 different lines of treatment for advanced disease between 2010 and 2020 at a single institution. The objective was to study the efficacy of both 2L and 3L treatments, analysing the time to progression (TTP) and the GMI (defined as the ratio of TTP between 2 consecutive lines of therapy).

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients were included. The median TTP after 2L and 3L treatment was 3.16 and 3.06 months, and the median GMI was 0.81 and 0.74, respectively. The regimens most frequently used in both treatments were trabectedin, gemcitabine-dacarbazine, gemcitabine-docetaxel, pazopanib and ifosfamide. The median TTP by each of these regimens was 2.80, 2.23, 2.83, 4.10, and 5.00 months, and the median GMI was 0.78, 0.73, 0.67, 1.08, and 0.94, respectively. In terms of histotype, we highlight the activity (GMI > 1.33) of gemcitabine-dacarbazine in undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS) and in leiomyosarcoma, pazopanib in UPS, and ifosfamide in synovial sarcoma.

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort, regimens commonly used after first-line STS treatment showed only slight differences in efficacy, although we found significant activity of specific regimens by histotype.

Second-line treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: Evolution of options

In the era of immunochemotherapy, approximately 60%-70% of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients achieve remission with first-line rituximab-based chemoimmunotherapy. However, 30%-40% relapse after initial response to first-line therapy and, out of them, 20%-50% are refractory or experience early relapse. The second-line therapy algorithm for DLBCL has recently evolved, thanks to the recent approval of new therapeutic agents or their combinations. The new guidelines suggest a stratification of relapsed/refractory (R/R) DLBCL based on the time to relapse. For transplant-eligible patients, autologous stem cell transplant remains the preferred option when the patient relapses after 12 months from diagnosis, while anti-CD19 CART-cell therapy is the current preferred choice for high-risk DLBCL, defined as primary refractory or relapse ≤12 months. For transplant-ineligible or CAR T-cell therapy-ineligible patients, the therapeutic arsenal historically lacked effective options. However, new therapeutic options, including polatuzumab vedotin combined with bendamustine-rituximab and tafasitamab with lenalidomide, have been recently approved, and novel agents such as loncastuximab tesirine, selinexor, anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, and bispecific antibodies have shown promising efficacy and manageable safety in this setting offering new hope to patients in this challenging scenario.

Scoring model with serum albumin and CA19-9 for metastatic pancreatic cancer in second-line treatment: results from the NAPOLEON study

BACKGROUND

Patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer refractory to first-line chemotherapy (CTx) have few treatment options. It is unclear what kind of patients could be brought about survival benefit by 2nd-line CTx after refractory to gemcitabine + nab-PTX (GnP) or FOLFIRINOX.

METHODS

This analysis was conducted as part of a multicenter retrospective study of GnP or FOLFIRINOX in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Excluding censored cases, 156 and 77 patients, respectively, received second-line chemotherapy (CTx) and best supportive care (BSC). Using prognostic factors for post-discontinuation survivals (PDSs) at the first-line determination in multivariate analysis, we developed a scoring system to demonstrate the benefit of second-line CTx.

RESULTS

The second-line CTx group had a median PDS of 5.2 months, whereas the BSC group had a median PDS of 2.7 months (hazard ratio 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.57; p < 0.01). According to the Cox regression model, serum albumin levels below 3.5 g/dL, and CA19-9 levels above 1000 U/mL were independent prognostic factors (p < 0.01). Serum albumin (≥ and < 3.5 g/dL allotted to scores 0 and 1) and CA19-9 (< and ≥ 1000 U/mL allotted to scores 0 and 1) at first-line determination were used to develop the scoring system. The PDSs of patients with scores of 0 and 1 were significantly better than those of the BSC group; however, there was no significant difference between the PDSs of patients with score 2 and the BSC group.

CONCLUSION

The survival advantage of second-line CTx, was observed in patients with scores of 0 and 1 but not in those with score 2.

Protocol for the 2ND-STEP study, Japan Clinical Oncology Group study JCOG1802: a randomized phase II trial of second-line treatment for advanced soft tissue sarcoma comparing trabectedin, eribulin and pazopanib

BACKGROUND

Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are a rare type of malignancy comprising a variety of histological diagnoses. Chemotherapy constitutes the standard treatment for advanced STS. Doxorubicin-based regimens, which include the administration of doxorubicin alone or in combination with ifosfamide or dacarbazine, are widely accepted as first-line chemotherapy for advanced STS. Trabectedin, eribulin, pazopanib, and gemcitabine plus docetaxel (GD), which is the empirical standard therapy in Japan, are major candidates for second-line chemotherapy for advanced STS, although clear evidence of the superiority of any one regimen is lacking. The Bone and Soft Tissue Tumor Study Group of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) conducts this trial to select the most promising regimen among trabectedin, eribulin, and pazopanib for comparison with GD as the test arm regimen in a future phase III trial of second-line treatment for patients with advanced STS.

METHODS

The JCOG1802 study is a multicenter, selection design, randomized phase II trial comparing trabectedin (1.2 mg/m² intravenously, every 3 weeks), eribulin (1.4 mg/m² intravenously, days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks), and pazopanib (800 mg orally, every day) in patients with unresectable or metastatic STS refractory to doxorubicin-based first-line chemotherapy. The principal eligibility criteria are patients aged 16 years or above; unresectable and/or metastatic STS; exacerbation within 6 months prior to registration; histopathological diagnosis of STS other than Ewing sarcoma, embryonal/alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma, well-differentiated liposarcoma and myxoid liposarcoma; prior doxorubicin-based chemotherapy for STS, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 2. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival, and the secondary endpoints include overall survival, disease-control rate, response rate, and adverse events. The total planned sample size to correctly select the most promising regimen with a probability of > 80% is 120. Thirty-seven institutions in Japan will participate at the start of this trial.

DISCUSSION

This is the first randomized trial to evaluate trabectedin, eribulin, and pazopanib as second-line therapies for advanced STS. We endeavor to perform a subsequent phase III trial comparing the best regimen selected by this study (JCOG1802) with GD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered with the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials ( jRCTs031190152 ) on December 5, 2019.

Pooled analysis of prospective Epitopes-HPV01 and Epitopes-HPV02 studies

BACKGROUND

Squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) is a rare disease often diagnosed at a localised stage. For locally advanced recurrence or metastatic disease, DCF (docetaxel, cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil) demonstrated high efficacy and became one of the standard regimens. However, there is no standard of care in the second line.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In the Epitopes-HPV01 and Epitopes-HPV02 prospective trials, 115 patients with advanced SCCA were treated with a DCF regimen in the first line. In these studies, second-line data were registered per protocol.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of >40 months, at progression, 73 patients received a second-line (L2) treatment. In this L2 population, median overall survival (mOS) was 13.5 months (95%CI 9.4-19.8), and median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 5.7 months (3.4-7.3) in L2. Fourteen patients presented an oligometastatic progression and were treated with an ablative treatment (surgery or radiotherapy); mOS was 48.3 months (NE-NE), and mPFS was 31.3 months (23.2-NE). Fifty-nine patients received a systemic treatment (chemotherapy or immunotherapy); mOS was 11 months (8.4-15.4) and mPFS was 4.9 months (3.3-7). The most frequent chemotherapy regimens were the reintroduction of DCF, paclitaxel, FOLFIRI and mitomycin plus fluoropyrimidine. No significant difference was observed between regimens (p = 0.26). Six patients received anti-PD1/L1-based immunotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Second-line treatments are effective in patients with SCCA. Ablative treatment is feasible and is probably the best option for patients with oligometastatic progression. If this is not possible, systemic therapy by an anti-PD1/L1 immunotherapy or chemotherapy can be recommended. Reintroduction of DCF, paclitaxel, FOLFIRI or mitomycin-C plus fluoropyrimidine are possible options.

PECATI: A Multicentric, Open-Label, Single-Arm Phase II Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Pembrolizumab and Lenvatinib in Pretreated B3-Thymoma and Thymic Carcinoma Patients

Thymic epithelial tumors are rare neoplastic proliferations of thymic epithelial cells. The aggressiveness of these malignancies increases as higher is the histologic subtype, being thymic carcinoma the most aggressive subtype, with a greater tendency to metastatic spread. In metastatic setting, there is no standard treatment after progression on platinum-based chemotherapy. In this scenario, monotherapy treatment either with lenvatinib, a multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitor with antiangiogenic properties, or pembrolizumab, an immune-checkpoint inhibitor, has reported clinical activity. Potential combination of both agents may have synergistic activity as reported in other cancer types. PECATI trial is a single-arm, investigator-initiated phase II study aiming to assess the activity and safety of the combination of lenvatinib and pembrolizumab in 43 patients with advanced B3-thymoma or thymic carcinoma who progressed on or after at least one previous line of platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary endpoint of the trial is 5-month progression-free survival rate and the secondary endpoints include overall response rate, duration of response, and overall survival.

Quality of life among chronic myeloid leukemia patients in the second-line treatment with nilotinib and influential factors

PURPOSE

This study aims to evaluate the quality of life (QoL) of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients prescribed with nilotinib as a second-line therapy and explores the influential factors.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective survey was conducted via face-to-face interviews based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. A total of 121 adult CML patients resistant to imatinib and used nilotinib for at least 3 months were enrolled. The influential features were assessed by multiple linear regression models.

RESULTS

Patients had the mean age of 47.49 (SD = 13.67) years, dominated by middle-aged and male groups. The mean scores of functions ranged from 75 to 83, and those of symptoms were from 5 to 28, with the highest of fatigue (28.28), insomnia (22.87), and pain (21.07). The mean global health status/QoL score was 67.70 (SD = 16.80) with considerable financial difficulties (52.34 (SD = 32.15)). Male patients reported higher functional scores and fewer symptoms compared with female patients. All aspects of QoL became worse with increasing age. Besides age and gender, level of education, duration of nilotinib usage, and comorbidities were also significantly influential factors in many QoL domains. A predicted model for expected mean scores of QoL domains was built based on these factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The CML patients treated with nilotinib had the above-moderate QoL scores, a light decrease of functional scores, great financial difficulties, and still experienced symptoms. Strategies and more therapeutic considerations to enhance QoL for CML patients targeted toward women, the old, low educational level, and long duration of nilotinib usage, and many comorbidities are needed in the setting.

Afatinib versus erlotinib as second-line treatment of patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung: Final analysis of the randomised phase 3 LUX-Lung 8 trial

BACKGROUND

LUX-Lung 8 was a randomised, controlled, phase 3 study comparing afatinib and erlotinib as second-line treatment of patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the lung. We report the final overall survival (OS) and safety analyses of LUX-Lung 8 and investigate the characteristics of patients who achieved long-term benefit (≥12 months' treatment).

METHODS

LUX-Lung 8 (NCT01523587) enroled patients between March 2012 and January 2014 in 183 cancer centres located in 23 countries worldwide and this final analysis had a data cut-off of March 2018. Eligible patients had stage IIIB or IV lung SCC and had progressed after at least four cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or erlotinib (150 mg per day) until disease progression. Endpoints included OS and safety; a post-hoc analysis of patients with long-term benefit (≥12 months on treatment) was also conducted.

FINDINGS

795 eligible patients were randomly assigned (398 to afatinib, 397 to erlotinib). OS was significantly prolonged with afatinib compared with erlotinib (median 7·8 months vs 6·8 months; hazard ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·73-0·97; p = 0·0193). These findings were consistent with those of the primary analysis and were consistent across subgroups. Adverse events (AEs) were manageable with dose interruption and reduction, with similar AEs being experienced between both groups. Twenty-one (5·3%) patients receiving afatinib and 13 (3·3%) patients receiving erlotinib achieved long-term benefit; median OS was 34·6 months and 20·1 months, respectively. Amongst 132 afatinib-treated patients who underwent tumour genetic analysis, ERBB family mutations were more common in patients with long-term benefit than in the overall population (50% vs 21%).

INTERPRETATION

Afatinib is a treatment option for patients with SCC of the lung progressing on chemotherapy who are ineligible for immunotherapy, particularly those with ERBB family genetic aberrations. Afatinib has a predictable and manageable tolerability profile, and long-term treatment may be well tolerated.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Beyond first line, where are we?

Pancreatic cancer is considered one of the most aggressive cancers, with an increasing incidence in recent years. To date, chemotherapy is still the standard of care for advanced metastatic disease, unfortunately providing only a slight advantage in terms of survival. The molecular and cellular characteristics of pancreatic cancer cells, as well as the cells that characterize the pancreatic tumour microenvironment, are the basis of the mechanisms of resistance to treatment. After progression during first-line treatment, few patients are eligible for second-line treatment due to the loss of performance status. To date, a clear survival advantage has not yet been demonstrated for second-line chemotherapy. Precision medicine could be the key to increasing responses to cancer treatment and finally impacting survival in this difficult-to-treat disease. In this review, we analyze current recommendations in the second-line setting and potential future prospects.

Avelumab Versus Docetaxel in Patients With Platinum-Treated Advanced NSCLC: 2-Year Follow-Up From the JAVELIN Lung 200 Phase 3 Trial

INTRODUCTION

In the JAVELIN Lung 200 trial, avelumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1] antibody) did not significantly prolong overall survival (OS) versus docetaxel in patients with platinum-treated PD-L1+ NSCLC. We report greater than 2-year follow-up data.

METHODS

Patients with stage IIIB or IV or recurrent NSCLC with disease progression after platinum-doublet chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or docetaxel 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks. The primary end point was OS in patients with PD-L1+ tumors (greater than or equal to 1% tumor cell expression; IHC 73-10 pharmDx assay).

RESULTS

Of 792 patients, 529 had PD-L1+ tumors (264 versus 265 in the avelumab versus docetaxel arms, respectively). As of March 4, 2019, median duration of follow-up for OS in the PD-L1+ population was 35.4 months in the avelumab arm and 34.7 months in the docetaxel arm; study treatment was ongoing in 25 (9.5%) versus 0 patients, respectively. In the PD-L1+ population, 2-year OS rates (95% confidence interval [CI]) with avelumab versus docetaxel were 29.9% (24.5%-35.5%) versus 20.5% (15.6%-25.8%); in greater than or equal to 50% PD-L1+ subgroups, 2-year OS rates were 36.4% (29.1%-43.7%) versus 17.7% (11.8%-24.7%) and in the greater than or equal to 80% subgroup were 40.2% (31.3%-49.0%) versus 20.3% (12.9%-28.8%), respectively. Median duration of response (investigator assessed) was 19.1 months (95% CI: 10.8-34.8) versus 5.7 months (95% CI: 4.1-8.3). Safety profiles for both arms were consistent with the primary analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the JAVELIN Lung 200 primary analysis (reported previously) revealed that avelumab did not significantly prolong OS versus docetaxel in patients with platinum-treated PD-L1+ NSCLC, posthoc analyses at 2 years of follow-up revealed that 2-year OS rates were doubled with avelumab in subgroups with higher PD-L1 expression (greater than or equal to 50% and greater than or equal to 80%).

Virologic response of treatment experienced HIV-infected Ugandan children and adolescents on NNRTI based first-line regimen, previously monitored without viral load

Background

Many HIV-infected African children gained access to antiretroviral treatment (ART) through expansion of PEPFAR programs since 2004 and introduction of “Test and Treat” WHO guidelines in 2015. As ART access increases and children transition from adolescence to adulthood, treatment failure is inevitable. Viral load (VL) monitoring in Uganda was introduced in 2016 replacing clinical monitoring. However, there’s limited data on the comparative effectiveness of these two strategies among HIV-infected children in resource-limited settings (RLS).

Methods

HIV-infected Ugandan children aged 1–12 years from HIV-care programs with > 1 year of first-line ART using only immunologic and clinical criteria to monitor response to treatment were screened in 2010. Eligible children were stratified by VL ≤ 400 and > 400 copies/ml randomized to clinical and immunological (control) versus clinical, immunological and VL monitoring to determine treatment failure with follow-up at 12, 24, 36, and 48 weeks. Plasma VL was analyzed retrospectively for controls. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to compare the prevalence of viral suppression between study arms and identify factors associated with viral suppression.

Results

At baseline all children (n = 142) were on NNRTI based ART (75% Nevirapine, 25% efavirenz). One third of ART-experienced children had detectable VL at baseline despite high CD4%. Median age was 6 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 5–9) and 43% were female. Overall, the odds of viral suppression were not different between study arms: (arm by week interaction, p = 0.63), adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.07; 95%CI: 0.53, 2.17, p = 0.57) and did not change over time (aOR: 0 vs 24 week: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.46, p = 0.24 and 0 vs 48 weeks: 1.26; 95%CI: 0.92, 1.74, p = 0.15). Longer duration of a child’s ART exposure was associated with lower odds of viral suppression (aOR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.42, 0.87, p < .01). Only 13% (9/71) of children with virologic failure were switched to second-line ART, in spite of access to real-time VL.

Conclusion

With increasing ART exposure, viral load monitoring is critical for early detection of treatment failure in RLS. Clinicians need to make timely informed decisions to switch failing children to second-line ART.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04489953, 28 Jul 2020. Retrospectively registered. (https://register.clinicaltrials.gov).

Regorafenib versus cabozantinb as second-line treatment after sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, three published phase III trials highlighted the superiority of investigational drugs compared to placebo, thus leading to their approval in the second-line setting. We report here a MAIC of second-line MKI options for patients with HCC previously treated with sorafenib using individual real-world data of regorafenib and aggregate data of second-line cabozantinib from the CELESTIAL trial.

METHODS

Data from 278 patients who received regorafenib as second-line therapy after sorafenib failure for unresectable HCC were used as IPD. Data inclusion were adapted to those reported in the CELESTIAL trial in the subset of patients who received sorafenib as the only prior therapy. Survival medians and rates were obtained from Kaplan-Meier curves, and differences between regorafenib and cabozantinib groups were explored through Cox regression adjusted for weights originating from MAIC.

RESULTS

The median OS of the weighted regorafenib group was 11.1 months (IQR: 5.6-16.4) and 11.3 (IQR: 6.7-22.4) for cabozantinib; HR 0.83 (95%CI 0.62-1.09). The median PFS of the weighted regorafenib group was 3.0 months (IQR: 1.9-4.8) and 5.5 (IQR: 2.3-9.3) for cabozantinib; HR 0.50 (95%CI 0.41-0.62). In the subgroup who received prior sorafenib for < 3 months, the median OS of the regorafenib group was 6.5 months (IQR: 4.7-10.9) and 9.5 months (IQR: 5.9-18.2) for cabozantinib; HR 0.68 (95%CI 0.39-1.16). In the subgroup receiving prior sorafenib for 3 to < 6 months, the median OS of the regorafenib group was 8.0 months (IQR: 4.2-15.2) and 11.5 (IQR: 6.5-23.9) for cabozantinib; HR 0.66 (95%CI 0.42-1.02). In the subgroup receiving prior sorafenib for ≥ 6 months, the median OS of the regorafenib group was 13.4 (IQR: 8.1-46.5) and 12.3 (IQR: 6.6-22.9) for cabozantinib; HR 0.89 (95%CI 0.52-1.51).

CONCLUSION

Our results confirmed no differences between regorafenib and cabozantinib in terms of OS. However, in earlier progressors on prior sorafenib a larger benefit might be expected from cabozantinib treatment.

AntiRetroviral Therapy In Second-line: investigating Tenofovir-lamivudine-dolutegravir (ARTIST): protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background: Dolutegravir has superior efficacy and tolerability than lopinavir-ritonavir in second-line antiretroviral therapy after failure of a first-line non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors-based regimen, when dolutegravir is accompanied by at least one fully active nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI). Resistance testing to select NRTIs is not feasible in low- and middle-income countries due to cost and limited laboratory capacity. Evidence suggests that recycling tenofovir plus lamivudine or emtricitabine backbone with dolutegravir could provide an effective second-line option. This study aims to determine the virologic efficacy of tenofovir-lamivudine-dolutegravir (TLD) with and without a lead-in supplementary dose of dolutegravir (to counteract the inducing effect of efavirenz) in patients failing a first-line regimen of tenofovir-emtricitabine-efavirenz (TEE). Methods: We will perform a parallel group, randomised (1:1), double blind, placebo-controlled, Phase II trial, comparing TLD fixed dose combination daily with a lead-in supplementary 50 mg dolutegravir dose versus matching placebo taken 12 hours later for the first 14 days, in patients failing a first-line TEE regimen. The trial will be set in two primary care clinics in Khayelitsha; a large, peri-urban informal settlement in Cape Town, South Africa. We will enrol 130 participants, with follow-up to 48 weeks. The primary endpoint is proportion achieving viral load <50 copies/mL at week 24 using a modified intention-to-treat analysis and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm. Secondary endpoints include virologic suppression at weeks 12 and 48, time to suppression, emergence of dolutegravir and new NRTI resistance mutations, safety, and tolerability. Discussion: Impaired viral fitness due to NRTI resistance mutations and dolutegravir's high barrier to resistance provide rationale for switching patients from a failing TEE regimen to TLD; however, clinical evidence regarding virologic efficacy is lacking. This study provides estimates of such a strategy's early virologic efficacy with and without a supplementary dolutegravir dosing. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03991013 (19/06/2019).

Tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil as second-line treatment in autoimmune hepatitis: Is the evidence of sufficient quality to develop recommendations?

BACKGROUND

The standard management of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) is based on corticosteroids, alone or in combination with azathioprine. Second-line treatments are needed for patients who have refractory disease. However, high-quality data on the alternative management of AIH are scarce.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and the quality of evidence by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE).

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the available data were performed. We calculated pooled event rates for three outcome measures: Biochemical remission, adverse events, and mortality, with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

The pooled biochemical remission rate was 68.9% (95%CI: 60.4-76.2) for tacrolimus, and 59.6% (95%CI: 54.8-64.2) for MMF, and rates of adverse events were 25.5% (95%CI: 12.4-45.3) for tacrolimus and 24.1% (95%CI: 15.4-35.7) for MMF. The pooled mortality rate was estimated at 11.5% (95%CI: 7.1-18.1) for tacrolimus and 9.01% (95%CI: 6.2-12.8) for MMF. Pooled biochemical remission rates for tacrolimus and MMF in patients with intolerance to standard therapy were 56.6% (CI: 43.4-56.6) vs 73.5% (CI: 58.1-84.7), and among non-responders were 59.1% (CI: 48.7-68.8) vs 40.8% (CI: 32.3-50.0), respectively. Moreover, the overall quality assessments using GRADE proved to be very low for all our outcomes in both treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Tacrolimus and MMF are in practice considered effective for patients with AIH who are non-responders or intolerant to first-line treatment, but we found no high-quality evidence to support this statement.

Efficacy of second and subsequent lines of chemotherapy for recurrent and metastatic head and neck cancer

OBJECTIVE

The increase in treatment options resulted in successful treatment with multiple lines of chemotherapy for recurrent and metastatic (RM) head and neck cancer (HNC). The present study aimed to elucidate the beneficial effect of successive treatment for RM-HNC.

METHODS

We included 78 patients with RM-HNC who received one or multiple lines of chemotherapy from January 2008 to December 2019. We divided the patients into three groups according to treatment period: January 2008 to November 2012 included those who underwent cancer chemotherapy only with cytotoxic agents (Tox group), December 2012 to March 2017 included those who received cytotoxic agents and cetuximab (Cet group), and March 2017 to December 2019 included those who received cytotoxic agents, cetuximab and immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (Nivo group). Moreover, we compared the overall survival of the three groups.

RESULTS

In total, 18, 33, and 27 patients were included in the Tox, Cet, and Nivo groups, respectively. The median overall survival were 8.5 months in the Tox group, 16 months in the Cet group, and 19 months in the Nivo group, and the difference in the result was significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Successive treatment with second and subsequent lines of chemotherapy in patients with RM-HNC improves prognosis.

Cisplatin, Gemcitabine, and Paclitaxel as a Salvage Second-Line Therapy for Metastatic Germ-Cell Cancer

BACKGROUND

Second-line salvage therapy for patients with metastatic germ-cell cancer (GCC) after the first-line combination of VIP (etoposide, ifosfamide, cisplatin) therapy has not been established. This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of the TGP (paclitaxel, gemcitabine, cisplatin) combination chemotherapy as a second-line salvage therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The medical records of 16 consecutive patients with metastatic GCC who had been treated with first-line VIP therapy followed by second-line TGP therapy between 2005 and 2019 were reviewed and statistically analyzed. Ten patients, excluding the 6 patients treated with TGP without unequivocal progression, were included in the efficacy analysis. All 16 patients were included in the safety analysis.

RESULTS

The median follow-up period from initial TGP administration was 78 months (interquartile range, 46-120 months). The estimated 5-year progression-free and overall survival rates for the 10 patients in the efficacy analysis were 70% and 100%, respectively. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity occurred in all 16 patients, but none developed uncontrollable infections or life-threatening bleeding. One patient died of treatment-related secondary leukemia, however.

CONCLUSION

The present study is to our knowledge the first to examine the therapeutic outcomes and safety profile of second-line TGP chemotherapy. VIP followed by TGP might be an alternative first- and second-line conventional regimen for patients with metastatic GCC in this granulocyte colony-stimulating factor era, especially for patients at a high risk of bleomycin-induced pulmonary toxicity.

Comparative Efficacy of Cabozantinib and Regorafenib for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background

No trials have compared cabozantinib and regorafenib for the second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Objectives

Conduct a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of the efficacy and safety of second-line cabozantinib and regorafenib in patients with advanced HCC and disease progression after prior sorafenib.

Methods

The CELESTIAL and RESORCE trials were used for indirect comparison of second-line cabozantinib and regorafenib in advanced HCC. Population-level data were available for RESORCE, individual patient data (IPD) for CELESTIAL. To align with RESORCE, the CELESTIAL population was limited to patients who received first-line sorafenib only. To minimize potential effect-modifying population differences, the CELESTIAL IPD were weighted to balance the distribution of clinically relevant baseline characteristics with those of RESORCE. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated for the matching-adjusted second-line CELESTIAL population and compared with those for RESORCE using weighted Kaplan-Meier curves and parametric modeling. Rates of grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) affecting > 5% of patients in any study arm were compared.

Results

In the matching-adjusted second-line populations (CELESTIAL, effective sample size = 266; RESORCE, n = 573), median (95% confidence interval) OS was similar for cabozantinib and regorafenib (11.4 [8.9–17.0] versus 10.6 [9.1–12.1] months; p = 0.3474, log-rank test). Median PFS was longer for cabozantinib than regorafenib (5.6 [4.9–7.3] versus 3.1 [2.8–4.2] months; p = 0.0005, log-rank test). There was a trend for lower rates of some grade 3/4 TEAEs with regorafenib than with cabozantinib, which may reflect the exclusion of sorafenib-intolerant patients from RESORCE but not from CELESTIAL, a difference that the MAIC methods could not remove. Only diarrhea rates were statistically significantly lower for regorafenib (p  ≤ 0.001).

Conclusions

Cabozantinib may achieve similar OS and prolonged PFS compared with regorafenib in patients with progressive advanced HCC after prior sorafenib.

Electronic Supplementary Material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-020-01378-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cabozantinib and regorafenib are treatments approved for some patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a type of liver cancer, after disease progression despite prior sorafenib treatment. Cabozantinib, regorafenib and sorafenib are tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), meaning that they slow cancer progression by targeting specific ways that tumors grow. Cabozantinib and regorafenib offer benefits to patients compared with placebo (i.e., no treatment) for those who have progressed despite sorafenib treatment. No clinical studies have compared cabozantinib and regorafenib directly. This study compared the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib and regorafenib using data from trials of each drug versus placebo: CELESTIAL for cabozantinib and RESORCE for regorafenib. These two trials were similar—both involved patients with progressive advanced HCC who had received previous cancer treatment. There were some important differences, but these were minimized using statistical methods (matching and adjustments/“weighting”) allowing outcomes to be meaningfully compared. One difference that could not be removed by the statistical methods was that patients who were intolerant to prior sorafenib were excluded from RESORCE but were eligible for the CELESTIAL trial. In the otherwise matched populations, treatment with cabozantinib was associated with similar overall survival and significantly longer progression-free survival than regorafenib. Rates of diarrhea were significantly lower for regorafenib than cabozantinib, suggesting that regorafenib may be better tolerated, but this may reflect the exclusion of sorafenib-intolerant patients from RESORCE. These findings cannot replace a head-to-head study, but may help in guiding decision-making between cabozantinib and regorafenib in patients with progressive advanced HCC after soraftenib treatment.

Cyclin‑dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors in combination with fulvestrant for previously treated metastatic hormone receptor‑positive breast cancer patients: A systematic review and meta‑analysis of randomized clinical trials

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and safety profile of the combination of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK 4/6) inhibitors and fulvestrant versus fulvestrant alone in previously treated patients with advanced hormone-receptor positive breast cancer.

METHODS

Phase III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were retrieved from a systematic review of electronic databases. A random-effect model was employed to determine the pooled hazard ratio (HR) for Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) using the inverse-variance method. The Mantel Haenszel method was used to calculate the pooled odds ratio (OR) for treatment-related side effects. Heterogeneity was measured using the tau-squared and I2 statistics.

RESULTS

Three phase III RCTs (n = 1916) were included in the systematic review. Use of abemaciclib, palbociclib, or ribociclib in combination with fulvestrant was significantly associated with longer PFS compared to use of fulvestrant alone (HR: 0.53; 95%CI: 0.47-0.60; p<0.00001), with no significant heterogeneity found among trials. Similarly, OS was significantly longer for patients who received combination therapy in comparison with those allocated to receive fulvestrant alone (HR: 0.77; 95%CI: 0.67-0.89; p<0.0004). The overall odds ratio of serious adverse events (AE) was not significantly increased with the use of the combination therapy (OR: 1.51; 95%CI: 0.74-3.08), with significant heterogeneity found among trials (tau2=0.34; I2=86%; p = 0.0006).

CONCLUSION

The addition of CDK 4/6 inhibitors (either abemaciclib, palbociclib, or ribociclib) to fulvestrant significantly improved PFS and OS in comparison with fulvestrant alone in patients previously treated with endocrine therapy for advanced breast cancer. No significant heterogeneity was found among CDK 4/6 inhibitors.

Long-term outcome of intraoperative radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma and its efficacy as a primary treatment

Backgrounds/Aims

We conducted this study to identify long-term outcomes following intraoperative radiofrequency ablation (IO-RFA) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to reveal independent prognostic factors for survival.

Methods

From December 1998 to February 2019, 183 patients underwent IO-RFA for HCC. These patients were divided into two groups according to whether RFA was done as a first-line (1-RFA group, n=106) or secondary-line (2-RFA group, n=77) treatment. Furthermore, we compared the survival outcomes between the 1-RFA and 2-RFA groups.

Results

There were no significant differences in type of surgical approaches between the two groups (p=0.079). The number of tumors and largest tumor size were not significantly different between the two groups. Overall recurrence rate was 53%, and the 2-RFA group showed a higher recurrence rate (46.2% in 1-RFA group versus 62.3% in 2-RFA group; p=0.031). The 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates of all the patients were 75.2% and 27.9%, respectively. The OS and DFS rates were significantly higher in the 1-RFA group. The 5-year OS rates were 83.6% and 64.9% in the 1-RFA and 2-RFA groups, respectively (p=0.010), whereas the 5-year DFS rates were 32.2% and 21.6%, respectively (p=0.012). On multivariate analysis, HBV-LC, 2-RFA, recurrence, and postoperative complications were independent predictive factors for survival.

Conclusions

Therapeutic outcomes of IO-RFA were comparable to those of surgical resection. Additionally, 1-RFA might be an alternative treatment for naïve HCC in patients with uncompensated liver function and severe comorbidities.

Second-line treatment strategy for urothelial cancer patients who progress or are unfit for cisplatin therapy: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Second-line treatment for urothelial carcinoma (UC) patients is used if progression or failure after platinum-based chemotherapy occurs or if patients are cisplatin-unfit. However, there is still no widely accepted treatment strategy. We aimed to analyze the effectiveness and safety of second-line treatment strategies for UC patients.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included UC patients who were cisplatin-ineligible or unfit up to April 19, 2019. The primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR).

RESULTS

Thirteen trials that assessed 3502 UC patients were included. This study divided the network comparisons into three parts. The first part contained studies comparing taxanes and other interventions; the second part assessed investigator's choice chemotherapy (ICC)-related comparisons; and the third part assessed best support care (BSC). In the OS results of the first part, pembrolizumab (87.5%), ramucirumab plus docetaxel (74.6%), and atezolizumab (71.1%) had a relative advantage. Pembrolizumab also had advantages in ORR and severe adverse effect (SAE) results. Vinflunine and ramucirumab plus docetaxel had a relatively high surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) rank by exploratory cluster analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This study concluded that atezolizumab and pembrolizumab are superior to other treatments, mainly in OS results, but no treatment confers a significant advantage in PFS. Pembrolizumab still has relative advantages in ORR and SAE results compared to ICC. Due to limitations, more studies are necessary to confirm the conclusions.

Targeted agents for second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Over the past ten years, sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor, has been the standard of care for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and well-preserved liver function. Recently, lenvatinib, a different multikinase inhibitor, was shown to be non-inferior to sorafenib, in terms of survival, while all other agents previously tested failed to prove non-inferiority (or superiority) when compared to sorafenib. Similarly, in the second-line setting, most investigational drugs failed to provide better survival outcomes than placebo. However, in the last 2 years three positive phase III trials have been published in this setting. The RESORCE trial, a phase III study evaluating regorafenib in HCC patients who experienced disease progression after first-line treatment with sorafenib, showed better outcomes with regorafenib compared to placebo. More recently, the phase III CELESTIAL trial demonstrated the superiority of cabozantinib, a multikinase inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, MET, and AXL, vs placebo in the second- and third-line setting in patients progressing on or intolerant to sorafenib. The survival benefits of a sustained anti-angiogenic inhibition were demonstrated also with ramucirumab in the phase III REACH-2 trial in patients previously treated with sorafenib and who had high baseline alpha-fetoprotein levels. Overall, the adverse events reported in these trials were in line with the known safety profiles of the tested agents. After nearly a decade of a certain degree of stagnation, we are now witnessing a period of novel therapeutic advances with multikinase inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies that will likely change the treatment scenario of HCC.

Survival Outcomes From a Cumulative Analysis of Worldwide Observational Studies on Sequential Use of New Agents in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The sequential use of a number of new agents (NAs) have improved the overall survival (OS) of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer whose disease progresses after docetaxel (DOC) treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the cumulative survival outcomes of different sequencing strategies by evaluating the individual data from published studies of patients treated with a post-DOC treatment sequence of 2 NAs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The patients' individual data were analyzed to investigate whether different sequencing strategies lead to differences in OS.

RESULTS

We analyzed the data of 1099 evaluable patients. Among the patients treated with a second-line new hormone agent (NHA), median OS from the start of third-line treatment was significantly longer in the patients treated with cabazitaxel (CABA) than in those treated with abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide. Median cumulative OS (cumOS) from the start of second-line treatment was 21.1 months in the patients who received NHA then NHA, 22.1 months in those who received NHA then CABA, and 21.0 months in those who received CABA then NHA. Among the patients with a second-line progression-free survival of ≥6 months, median cumOS was significantly longer in patients who received CABA-including sequences than in those treated with NHA then NHA sequences (29.5 vs. 24.8 months; P = .03).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that the sequential use of NAs with different mechanisms of action improves cumOS regardless of the order in which they are administered, thus supporting the hypothesis of cross-resistance between the 2 NHAs.

Second-line antiretroviral therapy regimen change among adults living with HIV in Amhara region: a multi-centered retrospective follow-up study

Objective

This study was conducted to determine the rate of initial second-line ART regimen change and its predictors among adults living with HIV in Amhara region. A retrospective follow-up study was conducted between February, 2008 and April, 2016 at eight governmental hospitals of Amhara region. Person-times and Cox proportional hazard model were fitted to determine the rate and to identify the significant predictors of second-line treatment regimen change.

Results

A total of 897 records of patients were analyzed. The overall rate of initial second-line drug regimen change was 24.2 per 100 person years. The rate of regimen change was decreased for patients with formal education (HR: 0.77, 95% CI 0.61–0.97), under WHO clinical stage-III (HR: 0.57, 95% CI 0.45–0.73), and WHO clinical stage-IV (HR: 0.64, 95% CI 0.43–0.96). Patients who were taking CPT (HR: 2.05, 95% CI 1.45–2.89) had an increased rate of regimen change. Furthermore, the rate of regimen change was decreased for patients who were switched to second-line treatment due to virological failure (HR: 0.36, 95% CI 0.25–0.53), and due to drug toxicity (HR: 0.48, 95% CI 0.28–0.81). Therefore, addressing significant predictors to maximize the durability on the initial regimen among ART clients is essential.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13104-019-4429-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Clinical Outcomes of Second-Line Chemotherapy after Progression on Nab-Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine in Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE

Since the introduction of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nab-P+GEM) as first-line (1L) treatment for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPDAC), optimal second-line (2L) chemotherapy after progression is unclear. We assessed clinical outcomes of 2L chemotherapy for disease that progressed on 1L nab-P+GEM.

Materials and Methods

Among the 203 patients previously treated with 1L nab-P+GEM for mPDAC at Asan Medical Center, between February and December 2016, records of 120 patients receiving 2L chemotherapy after progression on nab-P+GEM were retrospectively reviewed. The response rate and survival were evaluated along with analysis of prognostic factors.

RESULTS

Fluoropyrimidine-oxaliplatin doublets (FOLFOX or XELOX) were used in 78 patients (65.0%), fluoropyrimidine monotherapy in 37 (30.8%), and liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil in two (1.7%). The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.29 months and 7.33 months from the start of 2L therapy. Fluoropyrimidine-oxaliplatin regimens and fluoropyrimidine monotherapy did not yield significantly different median PFS (2.89 months vs. 3.81 months, p=0.40) or OS (7.04 months vs. 7.43 months, p=0.86). A high neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (> 2.2) and a short time to progression with 1L nab-P+GEM (< 6.4 months) were independent prognostic factors of poor OS with 2L therapy.

CONCLUSION

2L fluoropyrimidine-oxaliplatin doublets and fluoropyrimidine monotherapy after failure of 1L nab-P+GEM had modest efficacy, with no differences in treatment outcomes between them. Further investigation is warranted for the optimal 2L chemo-regimens and sequencing of systemic chemotherapy for patients with mPDAC.

Incidence and predictors of second-line antiretroviral treatment failure among adults living with HIV in Amhara region: a multi-centered retrospective follow-up study

Background

Second-line Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) regimens are used when patients develop treatment failure for first-line drug regimens. It is costly unaffordable and it is not widely available for patients in resource limiting setting, there is a need to maximizing the duration of stay on second-line regimen. This study was conducted to estimate the incidence rate of second-line treatment failure and to identify its predictors among adults living with HIV in the Amhara region.

Methods

An institution based retrospective follow-up study was conducted from May to June 2017. A total of 1,011 adults on second-line ART who were enrolled between February 2008 and April 2016 were included for final analysis. Kaplan-Meier estimator curves were used to describe the survival function. Semi-parametric proportional hazard model was fitted to identify the predictors of treatment failure.

Results

The overall incidence of second-line treatment failure was 9.86 per 100 person-years. It was high during the first and the last year of follow-up. The rate of second-line treatment failure was higher for patients who didn’t change second-line regimens (HR: 1.55, 95%CI: 1.18–2.04), who had poor ART adherence (HR: 1.40, 95%CI: 1.06–1.85), and not taking INH (HR: 1.68, 95%CI: 1.23–2.30) as compared to their counter group. The rate of treatment failure for patients who were under WHO clinical stage III at switch (HR: 0.68, 95%CI: 0.50–0.91) was also lower as compared to clients who were under WHO clinical stage I. Furthermore, the rate of treatment failure was higher for clients who were under second-line regimen “TDF-3TC-LPV/r” (HR: 1.55, 95%CI: 1.03–2.32) and “AZT-3TC-LPV/r” (HR: 3.00, 95%CI: 1.86–4.85) as compared to patients under “ABC-ddI-LPV/r” regimens.

Conclusions

A high incidence rate of second-line treatment failure was noticed in the study setting. The rate of second-line treatment failure was higher for patients who didn’t change drug regimens, who had poor ART adherence, and who were not taking INH. Therefore, addressing significant predictors to prevent treatment failure among ART patients is essential and sustainable monitoring to reduce the risk of treatment failure is also desirable.

Sequential therapy with sorafenib and regorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective study in Japan

Background Conversion from sorafenib to regorafenib is primarily an evidence-based treatment strategy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of sequential therapy with sorafenib and regorafenib in patients with advanced HCC by analysis of outcomes in clinical practice with the aim to complement phase III findings. Methods The medical records of patients with advanced HCC receiving regorafenib were retrieved to collect data on sorafenib administration at seven Japanese institutions. Radiological responses and adverse events were evaluated using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0, respectively. Results Before March 2018, 44 patients were administered regorafenib for advanced HCC. The median sorafenib treatment duration was 8.4 months. The most common adverse events were similar to those reported by the RESORCE trial. The median overall survival (OS) was 17.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.4-22.9), and 17 of 37 patients (45.9%) discontinued regorafenib and received sequential systemic therapy after regorafenib. These patients had significantly longer OS than those who were treated by the best supportive care or sub-optimal therapy (not reached versus 8.7 months [95% CI 5.8-11.7]; P < 0.001). Conclusion The results based on Japanese clinical practices verified the tolerability of regorafenib in advanced HCC. Major regorafenib-associated adverse events were similar to those related to sorafenib. OS was significantly longer than expected, which might be associated with the sequential systemic therapies after regorafenib, mainly lenvatinib.

Vinflunine in the treatment of relapsed metastatic urothelial cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world series

BACKGROUND

Vinflunine (VFL) is approved in Europe as second-line treatment of metastatic urothelial cancer after failure of platinum-containing therapy. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world data (RWD) to assess utilization, efficacy and safety of VFL.

METHODS

We performed a MEDLINE search for the period of 1/1/2000-31/8/2017. Full-length articles providing post-marketing RWD on VFL in patients failing previous chemotherapy were eligible. Interventional clinical trials were excluded.

RESULTS

Ten studies with 797 patients were identified. According to pooled REs analysis, overall response rate was 19%, most frequent, all-grade toxicities were fatigue (41%), constipation (39%), nausea/vomiting (25%), and most prevalent Grade 3-4 toxicities were neutropenia (13%), anaemia (9%), fatigue (8%). Median OS was comparable to results reported in recent randomized studies.

CONCLUSION

Our findings confirm the efficacy and safety of VFL in an unselected population and support the use of VFL in the changing treatment paradigm of relapsed mUC.

CMAB009 plus irinotecan versus irinotecan-only as second-line treatment after fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin failure in KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients: promising findings from a prospective, open-label, randomized, phase III trial

Background

The 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) regimen is the standard first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), however, the optimal second-line regimen for KRAS wild-type mCRC patients is still investigational. In this study, we aimed to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of CMAB009 plus irinotecan compared to irinotecan-only as a second-line regimen for treating KRAS wild-type mCRC patients.

Methods

Patients with KRAS wild-type mCRC who had previously failed to respond to FOLFOX treatment were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio, to receive CMAB009 plus irinotecan or irinotecan-only. Patients receiving irinotecan-only were permitted to switch to CMAB009 therapy on disease progression and were grouped as the sequential-CMAB009 arm. The primary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) and median progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints were median overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), and duration of response (DOR).

Results

The CMAB009 plus irinotecan arm demonstrated significantly improved ORR (33.2% vs. 12.8%; P < 0.001) and longer median PFS (169 days vs. 95 days; P < 0.001) as compared to the irinotecan-only arm. Patients receiving CMAB009 plus irinotecan also demonstrated improved DCR (80.1% vs. 65.2%, P < 0.001), CBR (30.0% vs. 14.6%, P < 0.001), and DOR (210 days vs. 109 days; P < 0.001) as compared to irinotecan-only. However, patients treated with CMAB009 had an increased risk of skin rash (66.9% vs. 5.5%, P < 0.001) and paronychia (9.8% vs. 0.0%, P < 0.001). Anti-drug antibodies (ADA) were detected in 3.6% of patients, and only 0.9% of patients who received CMAB009 experienced hypersensitivity reactions. In patients receiving sequential-CMAB009 therapy after failure with irinotecan, their median PFS was 84 days (95% CI 65 to 113 days). The median OS was 425 days for patients receiving CMAB009 plus irinotecan and 401 days for those with sequential-CMAB009 (P = 0.940).

Conclusions

Treatment with CMAB009 plus irinotecan was found to be a superior second-line regimen in comparison to irinotecan-only in KRAS wild-type mCRC patients. Further, switching to CMAB009 can be considered as an efficient third-line of treatment after treatment failure with second-line irinotecan-only.

Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01550055, retrospectively registered on March 9, 2012.

Real-World Clinical Impact of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients With Advanced/Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer After Platinum Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

The real-world effect of anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapies is unclear. We compared US patients who received second-line therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) before and shortly after US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of PD-L1 inhibitors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients in the Flatiron Health database (≥18 years; received first-line platinum therapy for advanced/metastatic NSCLC; ≥6 months of follow-up) were assessed before ("historical": January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2013) and after ("current": January 1, 2015 to May 31, 2017) FDA approval of anti-PD-L1 therapies for NSCLC. Index was start of second-line therapy. Baseline variables, treatment patterns, and overall survival (OS) were reported.

RESULTS

A greater proportion of patients in the current cohort received second-line treatment than in the historical cohort (n = 4240 [57.0%] vs. n = 2357 [37.4%]); 48.8% [n = 2071] of the current second-line patients received anti-PD-L1 therapy. Current patients were more likely to receive second-line anti-PD-L1 therapy if they had poorer Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (≥2), had squamous histology, or had no epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), or ROS proto-oncogene 1 mutations. Median OS from index was higher in the current cohort (9.4 [95% confidence interval (CI), 8.9-9.9] months) than the historical cohort (7.3 [95% CI, 6.9-7.8] months). Adjusted for sex, race, ECOG performance status, disease stage, and Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog, EGFR, and ALK status, OS was improved by 15% in the current cohort.

CONCLUSION

Contemporary patients are more likely to receive second-line therapy and have longer OS than patients who received care before approval of anti-PD-L1 therapies.

Retrospective evaluation of FOLFIRI3 alone or in combination with bevacizumab or aflibercept in metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) relies of chemotherapy. The efficacy of the standard FOLFIRI-therapy could be improved by a modification of the regimen by splitting the dose of irinotecan on day 1 and day 3 in the FOLFIRI3 regimen.

AIM

To determine safety and efficacy of FOLFIRI3 regimen.

METHODS

This is a monocentric retrospective study evaluating the efficacy and safety of the FOLFIRI3 regimen given alone or in combination with bevacizumab or aflibercept in patients with previously treated mCRC.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-three consecutive patients were included (18 treated with FOLFIRI3, 99 with FOLFIRI3 plus bevacizumab and 36 with FOLFIRI3 plus aflibercept). The overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate were 51% and 62%, respectively. Similar ORRs were observed in all 3 cohorts. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.9 mo (95%CI: 3.2-4.9) and 9.4 mo (95%CI: 6.6-12), respectively. Median PFS and OS values were improved in the FOLFIRI3 plus aflibercept group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were diarrhoea (21.6%) and neutropenia (11.8%), and these toxicities were more frequent in the FOLFIRI3 plus aflibercept group. According to the multivariate Cox proportional model, previous surgery of metastasis and aflibercept were associated with outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The modification of the FOLFIRI regimen impacted treatment response of mCRC patients. The addition of an antiangiogenic agent, in particular aflibercept, enhanced the clinical benefit and improved survival.

A systematic review and meta-analysis

There is no second-line standard of care universally accepted for platinum-refractory metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Immunotherapy and anti-VEGF(R) targeted therapies are 2 emerging strategies with promising though inconclusive results. We perform a systematic meta-analysis to assess the available options. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and American society of clinical oncology (ASCO) Meeting abstracts to identify prospective studies. Data extraction was conduced according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. The measured outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). Seven randomized controlled trials were selected for final analysis, with a total of 2,451 evaluable patients. Chemotherapy with vinflunine did not reduce the risk of progression (HR = 1.11; 95%CI 0.78-1.57; P = .56) or death (HR = 0.97; 95%CI 0.70-1.34; P = .87) compared to taxanes. Immunotherapy with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb improved OS over chemotherapy (HR = 0.81; 95% CI 0.71-0.92; P<.0009). The OS benefit of immunotherapy was retained when compared to taxanes, but not compared to vinflunine, although without a significant difference between the 2 subgroups (P = .30). A lack of PFS (HR = 0.73; P = .08) and OS (HR = 1.0; P = .99) benefit was observed with an anti-VEGF(R) plus chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone. No PFS (P = .14) or OS (P = .13) differences were detected when comparing anti-VEGF(R) ± chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Immunotherapy significantly improved OS compared to chemotherapy in metastatic urothelial carcinoma unselected for PD-L1 status. The addition of anti-VEGF(R) to chemotherapy did not provide any statistically significant benefit in terms of PFS or OS. Single agent taxanes or vinflunine can be considered given their similar efficacy but different toxicity profiles.

Cancer du rein métastatique : quels critères de choix en 2e ligne ?

METASTATIC RENAL CELL CARCINOMA

HOW TO CHOOSE THE APPROPRIATE SECOND-LINE TREATMENT?: The treatment of advanced or metastatic renal cell cancer (RCC) has dramatically improved in the past ten years. In the second-line setting, for patients who progressed on prior antiangiogenic therapy (mainly the VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) sunitinib or pazopanib), axitinib and everolimus have been recommended. Since 2015, other drugs have proven their efficacy and are currently considered the standard of care: cabozantinib (TKI that targets VEGFR, MET and AXL) and nivolumab (first anti-PD-1 check point inhibitor). Lenvatinib has also demonstrated promising results in association with everolimus, but this combination is not available in France. The optimal treatment choice for a given patient is challenging for the clinician when facing multiple options. In this article, we review the efficacy, safety and quality of life results of the main pivotal clinical studies involving advanced or metastatic RCC in the second-line setting, to help clinicians in selecting the most appropriate treatment. Beyond that, it is important to define all the sequencing strategy for patients to successively receive all the drugs that have demonstrated an increase in overall survival.

FOLFIRI3-aflibercept in previously treated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the modified FOLFIRI3-aflibercept as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

METHODS

This is a retrospective multicenter cohort, evaluating the efficacy and safety of the association of aflibercept with FOLFIRI3 (day 1: aflibercept 4 mg/kg, folinic acid 400 mg/m², irinotecan 90 mg/m², 5-fluorouracil infusion 2400 mg/m² per 46 h; day 3: irinotecan 90 mg/m²) in patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints were disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety.

RESULTS

Among 74 patients treated in four French centers, nine were excluded due to prior use of aflibercept (n = 3), more than one prior treatment line in irinotecan-naïve patients (n = 3), and inadequate liver function (n = 3). In the “irinotecan-naïve” patients (n = 30), ORR was 43.3% and DCR was 76.7%. Median PFS and OS were 11.3 mo (95%CI: 6.1-29.0) and 17.0 mo (95%CI: 13.0-17.3), respectively. The most common (> 5%) grade 3-4 adverse events were diarrhea (37.9%), neutropenia (14.3%), stomatitis and anemia (10.4%), and hypertension (6.7%). In the “pre-exposed irinotecan” patients (n = 35), 20 (57.1%) received ≥ 2 prior lines of treatment. ORR was 34.3% and DCR was 60.0%. Median PFS and OS were 5.7 mo (95%CI: 3.9-10.4) and 14.3 mo (95%CI: 12.8-19.5), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Minimally modified FOLFIRI has improvement dramatically the FOLFIRI3-aflibercept efficacy, whatever prior use of irinotecan. A prospective randomized trial is warranted to compare FOLFIRI-aflibercept to FOLFIRI3-aflibercept.

Prevalence of Helicobacter pylori resistance after failure of first-line therapy. A systematic review

There are no systematic data on the rates of antibiotic resistance after the failure of a first eradication treatment. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of secondary resistance to antibiotics by conducting a systematic review of studies evaluating the secondary resistance of Helicobacter pylori. We identified 31 studies (2,787 patients). Resistance was determined in 1,764 patients. A percentage of 99.1 of patients received clarithromycin as first-line treatment and 58.7% developed resistance. A percentage of 24.3 received metronidazole and 89.7% developed resistance. Secondary resistance to amoxicillin was extremely rare. Secondary resistance after first-line treatment was very common. These findings support the recommendation not to repeat clarithromycin or metronidazole after the failure of a first eradication treatment.

Attenuated FOLFIRINOX in the salvage treatment of gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase II study

Background

Combination therapy with oxaliplatin, irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRINOX) chemotherapy drastically improves survival of advanced pancreatic cancer patients. However, the efficacy of FOLFIRINOX as a second-line treatment after gemcitabine failure has not been tested prospectively. We investigated the feasibility and safety of attenuated FOLFIRINOX in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer.

Methods

A multicenter phase II prospective open-label, single-arm study was conducted at 14 hospitals. Patients with histologically proven invasive ductal pancreatic adenocarcinoma, a measurable or evaluable lesion, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1, adequate organ function, and aged 19 years or older were eligible. Attenuated FOLFIRINOX consisted of oxaliplatin 65 mg/m², irinotecan 135 mg/m², and leucovorin 400 mg/m² injected intravenously on day 1 and 5-fluorouracil 2000 mg/m² continuously infused intravenously over 46 h on days 1–2, repeated every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival from the initiation of FOLFIRINOX. Secondary endpoints were the objective response rate, disease control rate, overall survival, safety, and tolerability. We estimated overall survival and progression-free survival using the Kaplan–Meier methods.

Results

We enrolled 39 patients from 14 institutions. The objective response rate was 10.3%, while the disease control rate was 64.1%. The 6-month and 1-year overall survival rates were 59.0% and 15.4%, respectively. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 3.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5–6.0 months) and 8.5 months (95% CI 5.6–11.4 months), respectively. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (41.0%), nausea (10.3%), anorexia (10.3%), anemia (7.7%), mucositis (7.7%), pneumonia/pleural effusion (5.1%), and fatigue (5.1%). One treatment-related death attributable to septic shock occurred.

Conclusion

Attenuated FOLFIRINOX may be promising as a second-line therapy for gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer.

Biomarkers defining probability of receiving second-line targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

In order to facilitate long-term treatment decisions, we aimed to define biomarkers defining the probability of receiving second-line (SL) targeted therapy (TT) in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on their characteristics present at first-line TT initiation. We analysed 152 consecutive mRCC patients treated and used multivariable binominal logistic regression to identify factors contributing to the probability of receiving SL TT. Final model was assessed with bias-corrected indices (Nagelkerke’s R² and area under receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]) and two bootstrap procedures were used for internal validation. Factors associated with the probability of SL TT eligibility were the presence of brain metastases (odds ratio [OR] 0.084, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.010–0.707), number of metastatic sites (OR 0.740, 95% CI 0.575–0.953 per each site), platelet count (OR 0.971, 95% CI 0.947–0.997, per 10⁴/ml), lactate dehydrogenase level (OR 0.952, 95% CI 0.910–0.997 per 10 units/l), and albumin concentration (OR 1.924, 95% CI 1.057–3.503 per 1 g/dl). We developed on-line calculator that enables practicing clinicians to estimate SL treatment probability (http://www.r-calc.com).

Tacrolimus and Mycophenolate Mofetil as Second-Line Therapies for Pediatric Patients with Autoimmune Hepatitis

BACKGROUND

We studied the efficacy and safety of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and tacrolimus as second-line therapy in pediatric patients with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) who were intolerant or non-responders to standard therapy (corticosteroid and azathioprine).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of data from 13 centers in Europe, USA, and Canada. Thirty-eight patients (< 18 years old) who received second-line therapy (18 MMF and 20 tacrolimus), for a median of 72 months (range 8-182) were evaluated. Patients were categorized into two groups: Group 1 (n = 17) were intolerant to corticosteroid or azathioprine, and group 2 (n = 21) were non-responders to standard therapy.

RESULTS

Overall complete response rates were similar in patients treated with MMF and tacrolimus (55.6 vs. 65%, p = 0.552). In group 1, MMF and tacrolimus maintained a biochemical remission in 88.9 and 87.5% of patients, respectively (p = 0.929). More patients in group 2 given tacrolimus compared to MMF had a complete response, but the difference was not statistically significant (50.0 vs. 22.2%, p = 0.195). Biochemical remission was achieved in 71.1% (27/38) of patients by tacrolimus and/or MMF. Decompensated cirrhosis was more commonly seen in MMF and/or tacrolimus non-responders than in responders (45.5 vs. 7.4%, p = 0.006). Five patients who received second-line therapy (2 MMF and 3 tacrolimus) developed side effects that led to therapy withdrawal.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term therapy with MMF or tacrolimus was generally well tolerated by pediatric patients with AIH. Both MMF and tacrolimus had excellent efficacy in patients intolerant to corticosteroid or azathioprine. Tacrolimus might be more effective than MMF in patients failing previous therapy.

A phase II study of bevacizumab and irinotecan plus alternate-day S-1 as a second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: the AIRS study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this single-arm phase II clinical trial was to evaluate whether the alternate-day administration of S-1 plus irinotecan would reduce the incidence of severe diarrhea in comparison to consecutive-day S-1 administration (standard IRIS regimen) in second-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer after failure with first-line treatment of oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine were enrolled. Irinotecan (150 mg/m²) and bevacizumab (5 mg/kg) were given intravenously on day 1. Oral S-1 was administered on alternate days at a dose of 40-60 mg twice a day. Cycles were repeated every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was the incidence of grade ≥ 3 diarrhea. Our hypothesis set 21% as a threshold incidence and 10% as an expected incidence from previous studies with one-sided alpha 0.05. The secondary endpoints included the relative dose intensity, progression-free survival, overall survival and other adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 51 patients were enrolled. The incidence of grade ≥ 3 diarrhea was 15.7% (8/51). Other common grade ≥ 3 adverse events were neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia and fatigue were 13.7% (7/51), 5.9% (3/51), 2.0% (1/51) and 5.9% (3/51), respectively. The relative dose intensities of irinotecan, bevacizumab, and S-1 were 80.0, 86.8, and 77.7%, respectively. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 8.4 months (5.8-9.8) and 17.1 months (11.8-22.3).

CONCLUSIONS

The alternate-day S-1 administration does not have significant effectiveness to reduce diarrhea in patients who received second-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer.

Avelumab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a phase 1b JAVELIN Solid Tumor study

PURPOSE

Agents targeting programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) or its ligand (PD-L1) have shown antitumor activity in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The aim of this study was to assess the activity of avelumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, in patients with MBC.

METHODS

In a phase 1 trial (JAVELIN Solid Tumor; NCT01772004), patients with MBC refractory to or progressing after standard-of-care therapy received avelumab intravenously 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Tumors were assessed every 6 weeks by RECIST v1.1. Adverse events (AEs) were graded by NCI-CTCAE v4.0. Membrane PD-L1 expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry (Dako PD-L1 IHC 73-10 pharmDx).

RESULTS

A total of 168 patients with MBC, including 58 patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), were treated with avelumab for 2-50 weeks and followed for 6-15 months. Patients were heavily pretreated with a median of three prior therapies for metastatic or locally advanced disease. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-related AEs occurred in 13.7% of patients, including two treatment-related deaths. The confirmed objective response rate (ORR) was 3.0% overall (one complete response and four partial responses) and 5.2% in patients with TNBC. A trend toward a higher ORR was seen in patients with PD-L1+ versus PD-L1- tumor-associated immune cells in the overall population (16.7% vs. 1.6%) and in the TNBC subgroup (22.2% vs. 2.6%).

CONCLUSION

Avelumab showed an acceptable safety profile and clinical activity in a subset of patients with MBC. PD-L1 expression in tumor-associated immune cells may be associated with a higher probability of clinical response to avelumab in MBC.

Characteristics of patients with sorafenib-treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma eligible for second-line treatment

Background Regorafenib has been investigated for its efficacy and safety as a second-line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We assessed the characteristics of patients with HCC treated with sorafenib who might be eligible for second-line treatment in general and regorafenib in particular. Methods Patients with HCC treated with sorafenib were retrospectively analyzed. We defined second-line candidate patients as maintaining Child-Pugh A and ECOG-PS ≤1 at the time of sorafenib failure. We also defined regorafenib candidate patients as follows: 1) continuing sorafenib at the time of radiological progression, 2) maintaining Child-Pugh A and ECOG-PS ≤ 1 at the time of sorafenib failure, and 3) continuing sorafenib 400 mg or more without intolerable adverse events at least 20 days of the last 28 days of treatment. Results Of 185 patients, 130 (70%) and 69 (37%) were candidates for second-line treatment and regorafenib. Child-Pugh score 6 and ECOG-PS 1 at the time of starting sorafenib were significantly lower in both second-line treatment and regorafenib candidate patients. Moreover, hand-foot skin reaction and liver failure during sorafenib treatment were associated with significantly low and high probabilities, respectively, of both Child-Pugh score > 6 and ECOG-PS > 1 at the time of sorafenib failure. Conclusion Regorafenib candidate patients after sorafenib failure are limited, and generally fewer than those who are candidates for second-line treatment. A lower Child-Pugh score and a better ECOG-PS were predictors of eligibility for second-line therapy and regorafenib treatment in sorafenib-treated patients with advanced HCC patients.

Decision aids for second-line palliative chemotherapy: a randomised phase II multicentre trial

BACKGROUND

There is increasing recognition of the delicate balance between the modest benefits of palliative chemotherapy and the burden of treatment. Decision aids (DAs) can potentially help patients with advanced cancer with these difficult treatment decisions, but providing detailed information could have an adverse impact on patients' well-being. The objective of this randomised phase II study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DAs for patients with advanced cancer considering second-line chemotherapy.

METHODS

Patients with advanced breast or colorectal cancer considering second-line treatment were randomly assigned to usual care (control group) or usual care plus a DA (intervention group) in a 1:2 ratio. A nurse offered a DA with information on adverse events, tumour response and survival. Outcome measures included patient-reported well-being (primary outcome: anxiety) and quality of the decision-making process and the resulting choice.

RESULTS

Of 128 patients randomised, 45 were assigned to the control group and 83 to the intervention group. Median age was 62 years (range 32-81), 63% were female, and 73% had colorectal cancer. The large majority of patients preferred treatment with chemotherapy (87%) and subsequently commenced treatment with chemotherapy (86%). No adverse impact on patients' well-being was found and nurses reported that consultations in which the DAs were offered went well. Being offered the DA was associated with stronger treatment preferences (3.0 vs. 2.5; p=0.030) and increased subjective knowledge (6.7 vs. 6.3; p=0.022). Objective knowledge, risk perception and perceived involvement were comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

DAs containing detailed risk information on second-line palliative treatment could be delivered to patients with advanced cancer without having an adverse impact on patient well-being. Surprisingly, the DAs only marginally improved the quality of the decision-making process. The effectiveness of DAs for palliative treatment decisions needs further exploration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Registry (NTR): NTR1113 (registered on 2 November 2007).

Observed benefit and safety of aflibercept in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: An age-based analysis from the randomized placebo-controlled phase III VELOUR trial

OBJECTIVES

Aflibercept (ziv-aflibercept) significantly improves progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) when added to 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and irinotecan (FOLFIRI), compared with FOLFIRI alone, in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with oxaliplatin-based therapy. This subset analysis of the VELOUR study investigates aflibercept plus FOLFIRI versus placebo plus FOLFIRI according to age.

METHODS

Efficacy and safety were analyzed by treatment arm and age (≥ or <65years).

RESULTS

Overall, 443 patients were ≥65years old (205 in aflibercept arm; 238 in placebo arm) and 783 were <65years old (407 in aflibercept arm; 376 in placebo arm). Median OS was 12.6 versus 11.3months (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.85; 95.34% CI 0.68-1.07) in patients ≥65years old and 14.5 versus 12.5months (HR: 0.80; 95.34% CI 0.67-0.95) in those patients <65years old, for patients receiving FOLFIRI plus aflibercept or placebo, respectively. There was no interaction between treatment and age. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were comparable for patients <65years and ≥65years old. The incidence of grade 3/4 AEs was higher for patients ≥65years old than for those <65years old in both the aflibercept (89.3% versus 80.5%) and placebo (67.4% versus 59.4%) arms. Interaction tests for grade 3/4 antiangiogenic agent-related AEs suggested no heterogeneity between the older and younger patient populations (p>0.1).

CONCLUSION

A limited but consistent benefit on both OS and PFS was associated with the addition of aflibercept to FOLFIRI compared with placebo in patients <65 and ≥65years old, with a marked but manageable increase in the toxicity profile in older patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.govNCT00561470.

Real-world Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy Versus Androgen Receptor-targeted Therapy After Failure of First-line Androgen Receptor-targeted Therapy in the Community Setting

BACKGROUND

In metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), optimal treatment sequences are unknown. We assessed second-line taxane (TT) versus androgen receptor-targeted therapy (ART), after initial ART failure, in United States oncology community practices.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using electronic medical records, patients with mCRPC receiving first-line ART and second-line therapy (TT, ART) were identified. Response and overall survival (OS) were evaluated from second-line therapy initiation. Multivariate analyses were adjusted for year, age, metastases, opioid use, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), hemoglobin, alkaline phosphatase, and albumin levels.

RESULTS

Of 546 patients receiving first-line ART, 206 and 340 received second-line TT and ART. Compared with patients receiving second-line ART, patients receiving TT were younger (median, 74 vs. 79 years), more had intermediate-high Halabi risk scores (59% vs. 35%), had higher opioid use (42% vs. 22%), median PSA (116 vs. 48 ng/mL), alkaline phosphatase (112 vs. 87 U/L), and lactate dehydrogenase (254 vs. 201 U/L), and had lower hemoglobin (11.2 vs. 12.3 g/dL) and albumin levels (3.8 vs. 4.0 g/dL); all P < .001. Response rates were higher with second-line TT versus ART (clinical response, 44.2% vs. 24.7%; P = .006; PSA response, 44.5% vs. 28.7%; P = .004). OS did not differ between cohorts (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; P = .511). Among patients with a poor prognosis (hemoglobin < 11 g/d; albumin < lower limit of normal), those receiving second-line TT versus ART showed improved OS (HR, 0.52; P = .004 and HR, 0.36; P = .003, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite more severe disease profiles, patients with mCRPC receiving second-line TT versus ART achieved higher response rates after initial ART. Poor prognosis patients had improved OS with second-line TT versus ART.