Photophysical Properties of the poly-N-epoxypropylcarbazole Nanocomposite with a Ni Complex

Photoconductive and photovoltaic properties of film composites based on poly-[Formula: see text]-epoxypropylcarbazole doped with a derivative of nickel dithiolene are investigated. These composites possess a hole-type photoconductivity. The internal photoeffect is attributed to the photogeneration of charge carriers from the metal complex and the hole transport through the donor fragments of the polymer matrix.

Rilotumumab plus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine as first-line therapy in advanced MET-positive gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (RILOMET-1): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Rilotumumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively targets the ligand of the MET receptor, hepatocyte growth factor (HGF). We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of rilotumumab combined with epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine, and to assess potential biomarkers, in patients with advanced MET-positive gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study was done at 152 centres in 27 countries. We recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, MET-positive tumours (≥25% of tumour cells with membrane staining of ≥1+ staining intensity), and evaluable disease, who had not received previous systemic therapy. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computerised voice response system to receive rilotumumab 15 mg/kg intravenously or placebo in combination with open-label chemotherapy (epirubicin 50 mg/m² intravenously; cisplatin 60 mg/m² intravenously; capecitabine 625 mg/m² orally twice daily) in 21-day cycles for up to ten cycles. After completion of chemotherapy, patients continued to receive rilotumumab or placebo monotherapy until disease progression, intolerability, withdrawal of consent, or study termination. Randomisation was stratified by disease extent and ECOG performance status. Both patients and physicians were masked to study treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. We report the final analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01697072.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 7, 2012, and Nov 21, 2014, 609 patients were randomly assigned to rilotumumab plus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (rilotumumab group; n=304) or placebo plus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (placebo group; n=305). Study treatment was stopped early after an independent data monitoring committee found a higher number of deaths in the rilotumumab group than in the placebo group; all patients in the rilotumumab group subsequently discontinued all study treatment. Median follow-up was 7·7 months (IQR 3·6-12·0) for patients in the rilotumumab group and 9·4 months (5·3-13·1) for patients in the placebo group. Median overall survival was 8·8 months (95% CI 7·7-10·2) in the rilotumumab group compared with 10·7 months (9·6-12·4) in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio 1·34, 95% CI 1·10-1·63; p=0·003). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the rilotumumab and placebo groups were neutropenia (86 [29%] of 298 patients vs 97 [32%] of 299 patients), anaemia (37 [12%] vs 43 [14%]), and fatigue (30 [10%] vs 35 [12%]). The frequency of serious adverse events was similar in the rilotumumab and placebo groups (142 [48%] vs 149 [50%]). More deaths due to adverse events occurred in the rilotumumab group than the placebo group (42 [14%] vs 31 [10%]). In the rilotumumab group, 33 (11%) of 298 patients had fatal adverse events due to disease progression, and nine (3%) had fatal events not due to disease progression. In the placebo group, 23 (8%) of 299 patients had fatal adverse events due to disease progression, and eight (3%) had fatal events not due to disease progression.

INTERPRETATION

Ligand-blocking inhibition of the MET pathway with rilotumumab is not effective in improving clinical outcomes in patients with MET-positive gastric or gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

FUNDING

Amgen.

Comparison of EP2006, a filgrastim biosimilar, to the reference: a phase III, randomized, double-blind clinical study in the prevention of severe neutropenia in patients with breast cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy

This randomized, double-blind comparison demonstrates that biosimilar filgrastim (EP2006) and the US-licensed reference filgrastim are similar with no clinically meaningful differences regarding efficacy and safety in prevention of severe neutropenia. Biosimilar filgrastim could represent an important alternative to the reference product, potentially increasing access to filgrastim treatment.

Background

Biosimilars of filgrastim are in widespread clinical use in Europe. This phase III study compares biosimilar filgrastim (EP2006), with the US-licensed reference product, Neupogen^®, in breast cancer patients receiving (neo)adjuvant myelosuppressive chemotherapy (TAC).

Patients and methods

A total of 218 patients receiving 5 µg/kg/day filgrastim over six chemotherapy cycles were randomized 1:1:1:1 into four arms. Two arms received only one product (nonalternating), biosimilar or reference, and two arms (alternating) received alternating treatments during each cycle (biosimilar then reference or vice versa). The primary end point was duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) during cycle 1.

Results

The baseline characteristics were balanced between the four treatment arms. Noninferiority of biosimilar versus the reference was demonstrated: DSN (days) in cycle 1 was 1.17 ± 1.11 (biosimilar, N = 101) and 1.20 ± 1.02 (reference, N = 103), 97.5% confidence interval lower boundary for the difference was −0.26 days (above the predefined limit of −1 day). No clinically meaningful differences were observed regarding any other efficacy parameter: incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN); hospitalization due to FN; incidence of infections; depth and time of absolute neutrophil count (ANC) nadir and time to ANC recovery during cycle 1 and across all cycles. The pattern and frequency of adverse events were similar across all treatments.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that biosimilar and the reference filgrastim are similar with no clinically meaningful differences regarding efficacy and safety in prevention of severe neutropenia. Biosimilar filgrastim could represent an important alternative to the reference product, potentially benefiting public health by increasing access to filgrastim treatment.

Study number

NCT01519700.

Exploratory RAS analysis of the phase Ib/II 20060447 trial of rilotumumab (R) or ganitumab (G) plus panitumumab (pmab) versus pmab alone in patients (pts) with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)

694

Background: Pmab, R, and G are fully human monoclonal antibodies that target EGFR, HGF, and IGF-1R, respectively. In part 2 of this 3-part study in previously treated pts with wild-type (WT) KRAS mCRC, pmab+R met the pre-specified criterion for improvement in objective response rate (ORR) whereas pmab+G did not. We report an exploratory analysis of the treatment effect of pmab, R, and G in pts with activating RAS mutations beyond KRAS exon 2. Methods: Part 2 was a phase II, randomized, double-blinded trial of pmab+R or pmab+G vs. pmab+placebo, administered Q2W until disease progression or intolerance. The primary endpoint was ORR. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety. Mutations in KRAS exon 3 (codons 59/61) and exon 4 (codons 117/146); NRAS exon 2 (codons 12/13), exon 3 (codons 59/61), and exon 4 (codons 117/146); and BRAF exon 15 (codon 600) were detected by bidirectional Sanger sequencing. Results: Of 142 pts randomized, 92 (65%) were evaluable for RAS. Of 92 evaluable pts, 79 (86%) were WT RAS (WT in KRAS and NRAS exons 2, 3, and 4) and 13 (14%) had RAS mutations beyond KRAS exon 2 (mutant in any KRAS exon 3 or 4 or NRAS exon 2, 3, or 4). None of the pts with RAS mutations had an objective response (Table). Of 93 pts evaluable for BRAF, 7 (8%) had V600E mutations (all 7 were WT RAS). Two pts with BRAF V600E tumors had a partial response and were in the pmab+R arm (n=3). No new safety signals were identified. Conclusions: In this small, retrospective study, ORR, PFS and OS were similar between the arms of R or G plus pmab vs pmab alone in pts with WT RAS mCRC tumors. Our findings indicate that RAS mutations beyond KRAS exon 2 impact ORR, PFS, and OS. Clinical trial information: NCT00788957. [Table: see text]

Phase II, randomized, biomarker identification trial (MARK) for erlotinib in patients with advanced pancreatic carcinoma

BACKGROUND

A prospective, randomized phase II study, with mandatory tumor sampling at current disease stage, aimed to identify biomarkers predictive of improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with pancreatic cancer treated with erlotinib.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with histologically/cytologically confirmed, unresectable, locally advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer, who had failed on or were unsuitable for first-line chemotherapy, underwent a tumor biopsy and were then randomized to receive once-daily erlotinib 150 mg or placebo. The primary end point was identification of biomarkers predicting improved PFS with erlotinib. Secondary end points included PFS, overall survival, response and toxicity.

RESULTS

At data cut-off, 207 patients were enrolled and analyzed. Prespecified biomarker analyses of EGFR protein expression, EGFR gene copy number/mutations/polymorphisms and KRAS mutations did not identify any subgroups with a detrimental effect or a strong benefit for PFS with erlotinib. In the primary analysis, the median PFS was 6.1 versus 5.9 weeks in the erlotinib and placebo arms, respectively [hazard ratio (HR) 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63-1.10; P = 0.1909]. However, observed baseline imbalances indicated worse prognosis in the erlotinib arm. After adjustment for baseline characteristics, a significant PFS benefit for erlotinib was observed (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50-0.91; P = 0.0102). Exploratory biomarker analyses showed patients with high baseline serum amphiregulin levels might benefit from erlotinib.

CONCLUSION

This study in patients with inoperable pancreatic cancer did not identify any prespecified biomarkers predictive of PFS benefit with erlotinib. Exploratory analyses suggested high amphiregulin might predict PFS benefit from erlotinib.

CLINICALTRIALSGOV NUMBER

NCT00674973.

Rilotumumab in combination with epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine as first-line treatment for gastric or oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma: an open-label, dose de-escalation phase 1b study and a double-blind, randomised phase 2 study

BACKGROUND

Dysregulation of the hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)/MET pathway promotes tumour growth and metastasis. Rilotumumab is a fully human, monoclonal antibody that neutralises HGF. We aimed to assess the safety, efficacy, biomarkers, and pharmacokinetics of rilotumumab combined with epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX) in patients with advanced gastric or oesophagogastric junction cancer.

METHODS

We recruited patients (≥18 years old) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic gastric or oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, who had not received previous systemic therapy, from 43 sites worldwide. Phase 1b was an open-label, dose de-escalation study to identify a safe dose of rilotumumab (initial dose 15 mg/kg intravenously on day 1) plus ECX (epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1, cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m(2) twice a day orally on days 1-21, respectively), administered every 3 weeks. The phase 1b primary endpoint was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities in all phase 1b patients who received at least one dose of rilotumumab and completed the dose-limiting toxicity assessment window (first cycle of therapy). Phase 2 was a double-blind study that randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) using an interactive voice response system to receive rilotumumab 15 mg/kg, rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg, or placebo, plus ECX (doses as above), stratified by ECOG performance status and disease extent. The phase 2 primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), analysed by intention to treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00719550.

FINDINGS

Seven of the nine patients enrolled in the phase 1b study received at least one dose of rilotumumab 15 mg/kg, only two of whom had three dose-limiting toxicities: palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, cerebral ischaemia, and deep-vein thrombosis. In phase 2, 121 patients were randomly assigned (40 to rilotumumab 15 mg/kg; 42 to rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg; 39 to placebo). Median PFS was 5·1 months (95% CI 2·9-7·0) in the rilotumumab 15 mg/kg group, 6·8 months (4·5-7·5) in the rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg group, 5·7 months (4·5-7·0) in both rilotumumab groups combined, and 4·2 months (2·9-4·9) in the placebo group. The hazard ratio for PFS events compared with placebo was 0·69 (80% CI 0·49-0·97; p=0·164) for rilotumumab 15 mg/kg, 0·53 (80% CI 0·38-0·73; p=0·009) for rilotumumab 7·5 mg/kg, and 0·60 (80% CI 0·45-0·79; p=0·016) for combined rilotumumab. Any grade adverse events more common in the combined rilotumumab group than in the placebo group included haematological adverse events (neutropenia in 44 [54%] of 81 patients vs 13 [33%] of 39 patients; anaemia in 32 [40%] vs 11 [28%]; and thrombocytopenia in nine [11%] vs none), peripheral oedema (22 [27%] vs three [8%]), and venous thromboembolism (16 [20%] vs five [13%]). Grade 3-4 adverse events more common with rilotumumab included neutropenia (36 [44%] vs 11 [28%]) and venous thromboembolism (16 [20%] vs four [10%]). Serious adverse events were balanced between groups except for anaemia, which occurred more frequently in the combined rilotumumab group (ten [12%] vs none).

INTERPRETATION

Rilotumumab plus ECX had no unexpected safety signals and showed greater activity than placebo plus ECX. A phase 3 study of the combination in MET-positive gastric and oesophagogastric junction cancer is in progress.

FUNDING

Amgen Inc.

Randomized phase Ib/II trial of rilotumumab or ganitumab with panitumumab versus panitumumab alone in patients with wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

Panitumumab, a fully human anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody (mAb), has demonstrated efficacy in patients with wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Rilotumumab and ganitumab are investigational, fully human mAbs against hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)/scatter factor and IGF1R, respectively. Here we evaluate combining rilotumumab or ganitumab with panitumumab in previously treated patients with wild-type KRAS mCRC.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Part 1 was a phase Ib dose-finding study of panitumumab plus rilotumumab. The primary endpoint was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLT). Part 2 was a randomized phase II trial of panitumumab in combination with rilotumumab, ganitumab, or placebo. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR); safety, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were secondary endpoints. Archival tissue specimens were collected for exploratory correlative work.

RESULTS

In part 1, no DLTs were reported. A recommended phase II dose of 10 mg/kg rilotumumab was selected. In part 2, for the panitumumab plus rilotumumab (n = 48), panitumumab plus ganitumab (n = 46), and panitumumab plus placebo arms (n = 48), the ORRs were 31%, 22%, and 21%, respectively. The median PFS was 5.2, 5.3, and 3.7 months and median OS 13.8, 10.6, and 11.6 months, respectively. Adverse events were tolerable. Exploratory biomarker analyses, including MET and IGF-related protein expression, failed to indicate conclusive predictive evidence on efficacy endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

Panitumumab plus rilotumumab met the prespecified criterion for improvement in ORR whereas ganitumab did not. This is the first study to suggest a benefit for combining an HGF inhibitor (rilotumumab) with panitumumab in previously treated patients with wild-type KRAS mCRC.

Randomized, Multicenter, Phase II Study of CO-101 Versus Gemcitabine in Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Including a Prospective Evaluation of the Role of hENT1 in Gemcitabine or CO-101 Sensitivity

Purpose

Gemcitabine requires transporter proteins to cross cell membranes. Low expression of human equilibrative nucleoside transporter-1 (hENT1) may result in gemcitabine resistance in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). CO-101, a lipid-drug conjugate of gemcitabine, was rationally designed to enter cells independently of hENT1. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine whether CO-101 improved survival versus gemcitabine in patients with metastatic PDAC (mPDAC) with low hENT1. The study also tested the hypothesis that gemcitabine is more active in patients with mPDAC tumors with high versus low hENT1 expression.

Patients and Methods

Patients were randomly assigned to CO-101 or gemcitabine, after providing a metastasis sample for blinded hENT1 assessment. An immunohistochemistry test measuring tumor hENT1 was developed. To dichotomize the population, an hENT1 cutoff value was defined using primary PDAC samples from an adjuvant trial, and a high/low cutoff was applied. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) in the low hENT1 subgroup.

Results

Of 367 patients enrolled, hENT1 status was measured in 358 patients (97.5%). Two hundred thirty-two (64.8%) of 358 patients were hENT1 low. There was no difference in OS between treatments in the low hENT1 subgroup or overall, with hazard ratios (HRs) of 0.994 (95% CI, 0.746 to 1.326) and 1.072 (95% CI, 0.856 to 1.344), respectively. The toxicity profiles in both arms were similar. Within the gemcitabine arm, there was no difference in survival between the high and low hENT1 subgroups (HR, 1.147; 95% CI, 0.809 to 1.626).

Conclusion

CO-101 is not superior to gemcitabine in patients with mPDAC and low tumor hENT1. Metastasis hENT1 expression did not predict gemcitabine outcome.

Feasibility and safety of front-line bevacizumab (BEV)-containing therapy after neoadjuvant (NA) chemotherapy (CT) for ovarian cancer (OC): The ROSiA experience

5541

Background: BEV significantly improved the efficacy of front-line CT for OC in the GOG-0218 and ICON7 phase III trials. The ongoing single-arm ROSiA study, which has completed recruitment of 1039 patients (pts), is assessing BEV + CT in routine oncology practice. Unlike GOG-0218 and ICON7, prior NACT is permitted. We assessed the surgical safety of BEV + CT in the subgroup of pts with prior NACT. Methods: Inclusion criteria include: FIGO stage IIb–IV or grade 3 stage I–IIa epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma; no prior post-surgical therapy for OC; and ECOG PS 0–2. Pts with uncontrolled hypertension or clinical signs/symptoms of GI obstruction or history of abdominal fistula, GI perforation, or intra-abdominal abscess in the preceding 6 mo are excluded. Pts in the NA subgroup were enrolled into the study after up to 4 cycles of NACT without BEV. After interval debulking, pts received BEV 15 mg/kg q3w (or 7.5 mg/kg at the investigator’s discretion) in combination with CT (paclitaxel [175 mg/m2 d1 q3w or 80 mg/m2 qw] + q3w carboplatin [AUC 5 or 6]), to a maximum total of 8 cycles including the pre-study NA cycles. Single-agent BEV was continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or for up to 36 cycles in total. The primary objective is evaluation of safety (CTCAE v4.03). Additional endpoints include efficacy (including PFS, response rate, OS) and exploratory translational research. Results: Of the 1039 pts enrolled in ROSiA, 150 (14%) had received NACT. Of these, most had stage IIIc (60%) or IV (29%) disease; 65% had residual disease ≤1 cm; and 19% underwent bowel resection. At the data cut-off 22 mo after enrollment began, median follow-up from post-surgery study entry was 12.6 mo; 69 patients (46%) remained on BEV therapy. At cut-off, pts had received a median of 13 cycles of BEV (range 1–31), including 4 cycles (range 1–6) of BEV in combination with CT after surgery. To date, no pts have had grade ≥3 wound-healing complications during study therapy; 1 pt experienced grade 4 GI perforation 10 weeks after surgery (3 weeks after the first BEV dose), which resolved within 4 weeks. Conclusions: NACT followed by BEV + CT was feasible and tolerable. Clinical trial information: NCT01239732.

Randomized multicenter, phase II study of CO-101 versus gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) and a prospective evaluation of the of the association between tumor hENT1 expression and clinical outcome with gemcitabine treatment

4007

Background: Gemcitabine requires membrane transporter proteins to cross the cell membrane. Low expression of the human equilibrative nucleoside transporter-1 (hENT1) may play a role in gemcitabine resistance in PDAC. CO-101 (also known as CP-4126), a lipid-drug conjugate of gemcitabine, was rationally designed to enter cells independently of hENT1 and to circumvent transporter-mediated resistance. We conducted a randomized, controlled trial (LEAP) in patients with mPDAC to determine whether CO-101 improved survival vs gemcitabine in patients with low hENT1 tumors. The study also prospectively tested the hypothesis that gemcitabine is more active in patients with hENT1 high than hENT1 low tumors in metastatic disease. Methods: Patients were randomized to CO-101 or gemcitabine. An immunohistochemistry test measuring tumor hENT1 expression was developed in parallel with the recruitment phase of LEAP. To dichotomize the population, a hENT1 cut-off was defined using primary PDAC tumor samples from an adjuvant trial. LEAP participants provided a metastasis sample during screening for blinded hENT1 assessment, and the cut-off was applied to these samples. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival in the low hENT1 subgroup. Results: 367 patients were enrolled, with metastasis hENT1 status available for 358/367 (97.5%). 232/357 (65%) were hENT1 low. There was no difference in overall survival between CO-101 and gemcitabine in the hENT1 low subgroup, or overall, with hazard ratios of 0.994 [95% CI 0.746, 1.326] and 1.072 [95% CI 0.856, 1.344] respectively. Within the gemcitabine arm, there was no difference in survival between the hENT1 high and low subgroups (HR 1.147 95% CI 0.809, 1.626). The observed side effect profile was typical of gemcitabine and was similar in both treatment arms, in the hENT1 low subgroups and overall. Conclusions: CO-101 is not superior to gemcitabine in patients with mPDAC and low tumor hENT1 expression. Metastasis hENT1 expression did not predict gemcitabine treatment outcome in patients with mPDAC. Clinical trial information: NCT01124786.

RILOMET-1: An international phase III multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of rilotumumab plus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX) as first-line therapy in patients with advanced MET-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinoma

TPS4153

Background: Rilotumumab is an investigational, fully human monoclonal antibody to hepatocyte growth factor/scatter factor that inhibits signaling through the MET receptor. In a randomized phase II study in patients with advanced G/GEJ adenocarcinoma, addition of rilotumumab every 3 weeks (Q3W) to ECX showed trends toward improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with ECX alone. In patients with high tumor MET expression and high rilotumumab exposure, the treatment effect of rilotumumab combined with ECX was significantly enhanced. Methods: In this phase III study, patients (planned N=450) are randomized 1:1 to ECX (intravenous [IV] epirubicin 50 mg/m2 on day 1, IV cisplatin 60 mg/m2 on day 1, and oral capecitabine 625 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1−21) plus double-blind rilotumumab 15 mg/kg or placebo IV Q3W. Randomization is stratified by disease extent (locally advanced vs metastatic) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score (0 vs 1). Key eligibility criteria include previously untreated, pathologically confirmed unresectable locally advanced or metastatic G/GEJ adenocarcinoma; ECOG score 0 or 1; ≥18 years old; MET-positive by centralized immunohistochemistry; HER2-negative; adequate organ function; and ≥6 months since neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy. The primary endpoint is OS. Key secondary endpoints include PFS, 12-month survival rate, objective response, OS in MET expression tertiles, safety, and pharmacokinetics. An exploratory objective is to assess associations between outcomes and tumor and circulating biomarkers. Enrollment began in November 2012, and the trial continues to accrue. An independent data monitoring committee will conduct planned interim reviews for safety and efficacy. Status: recruiting participants. Sponsored by Amgen Inc. Clinical trial information: NCT01697072.

Sorafenib in combination with oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (modified FOLFOX6) as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the RESPECT trial

PURPOSE

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIb study evaluated adding sorafenib to first-line modified FOLFOX6 (mFOLFOX6) for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Patients were randomized to sorafenib (400 mg b.i.d.) or placebo, combined with mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2); levo-leucovorin 200 mg/m(2); fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus and 2400 mg/m(2) continuous infusion) every 14 days. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Target sample was 120 events in 180 patients for >85% power (two-sided α = 0.20) to detect an HR = 0.65.

RESULTS

Of 198 patients randomized, median PFS for sorafenib plus mFOLFOX6 was 9.1 months versus 8.7 months for placebo plus mFOLFOX6 (HR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.64-1.23; P = 0.46). There was no difference between treatment arms for overall survival. Subgroup analyses of PFS and overall survival showed no difference between treatment arms by KRAS or BRAF status (mutant and wild type). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events in the sorafenib and placebo arms were neutropenia (48% vs. 22%), peripheral neuropathy (16% vs. 21%), and grade 3 hand-foot skin reaction (20% vs. 0%). Treatment discontinuation because of adverse events was 9% and 6%, respectively. Generally, dose intensity (duration and cumulative doses) was lower in the sorafenib arm than in the placebo arm.

CONCLUSION

This study did not detect a PFS benefit with the addition of sorafenib to first-line mFOLFOX6 for mCRC. KRAS and BRAF status did not seem to impact treatment outcomes but the subgroups were small. These results do not support further development of sorafenib in combination with mFOLFOX6 in molecularly unselected patients with mCRC.

Safety and efficacy of panitumumab (pmab) in HPV-positive (+) and HPV-negative (-) recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN): Analysis of the global phase III SPECTRUM trial

5504^

Background: SPECTRUM evaluated the safety and efficacy of pmab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against the epidermal growth factor receptor, with platinum‑based chemotherapy (CT) vs CT alone in patients (pts) with R/M SCCHN. This predefined analysis presents outcomes by tumor HPV status. Methods: All tumor samples were centrally reviewed. HPV status was determined using a validated immunohistochemistry assay to p16INK4A by an independent lab blinded to treatment assignments. Tumor samples were scored positive or negative according to prespecified criteria. Results: Of 657 enrolled pts (ITT), 443 (67%) had samples evaluable for HPV testing. Ninety‑nine (22%) tumors were HPV+ and 344 (78%) were HPV-. HPV+ rates varied by site (37% oropharynx, 19% larynx, 15% oral cavity, and 13% hypopharynx) and geographic region (44% N America, 22% W Europe, 21% Asia Pacific, 19% S America, and 18% E Europe). Demographics were generally balanced except pts with HPV+ vs HPV- tumors were more often non‑smokers (31% vs 14%), had oropharyngeal tumors (47% vs 23%), and had poorly differentiated tumors (30% vs 13%). Efficacy results are shown (Table). Adverse events were generally balanced between HPV+ and HPV- pts. Conclusions: Pts with HPV- R/M SCCHN administered pmab + CT had improved overall survival (OS) and progression‑free survival (PFS), whereas no improvement in OS or PFS was observed in pts with HPV+ tumors. [Table: see text]

Reversible holographic recording media based on polymeric composites and their use in energy-saving technologies

The principle of the photothermoplastic method of hologram recording and the general requirements for photothermoplastic holographic recording media based on photoconductive polymer films are considered. The holographic recording media obtained by the authors based on carbazolyl- and ferrocenyl-containing oligomers doped with respective squarillium or merocyanine dyes are discussed. Some examples of practical application of such media in holographic interferometry are demonstrated.

A randomized, phase I/II trial of AMG 102 or AMG 479 in combination with panitumumab (pmab) compared with pmab alone in patients (pts) with wild-type (WT) KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Safety and efficacy results

366

Background: Pmab is a fully human anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody (mAb) approved as monotherapy for pts with mCRC. AMG 102 and AMG 479 are investigational, fully human mAbs against hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) and insulin-like growth factor receptor 1 (IGF1R), respectively. This 3-part study evaluated the safety and efficacy of AMG 102 or AMG 479 in combination with pmab.

Methods: Part 1 was a phase 1b, open-label, dose-finding study to determine a tolerable dose of AMG 102 in combination with pmab. Part 2 was a phase II, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial that explored pmab + the dose of AMG 102 selected in Part 1 vs pmab + AMG 479 vs pmab + placebo. Part 3 is a 2-arm randomized extension study for pts who developed disease progression (PD) or intolerability to pmab + placebo in part 2. Eligible pts were ≥ 18 years old with WT KRAS mCRC and ECOG PS 0/1. In part 1, all pts received 6 mg/kg pmab + 10 mg/kg AMG 102 Q2W IV until PD or intolerability. The primary endpoint of part 1 was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). The primary endpoint for part 2 is objective response rate (ORR).

Results: In part 1, no DLTs were reported for the first 6 DLT-evaluable pts. A total of 11 pts were enrolled in part 1 prior to the decision to use the 10 mg/kg Q2W AMG 102 dose in part 2; 5 pts were men; mean (range) age was 56 (37-75) yrs; ECOG 0/1 was 55%/45%. Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were acneiform dermatitis or rash (55%), paronychia (18%), infection (9%), capillary leak syndrome (9%), erythema (9%), nail disorder (9%), and pruritus (9%). There were no grade 4 or 5 treatment-related AEs. Serious AEs included acneiform dermatitis (n = 1), intestinal obstruction (n = 1), cerebrovascular accident (n = 1), capillary leak syndrome (n = 1), and anemia/general health deterioration (n = 1). One pt died on study from PD. In part 2, 142 pts received at least one dose of study drug; enrollment is complete, and data analyses are ongoing.

Conclusions: In part 1, 6 mg/kg pmab + 10 mg/kg AMG 102 Q2W was well tolerated. Primary efficacy results from part 2, including ORR and progression-free survival, will be presented.

[Table: see text]

Doxorubicin plus sorafenib vs doxorubicin alone in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized trial

CONTEXT

In a randomized phase 3 trial, 400 mg of sorafenib twice daily prolonged overall survival of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and Child-Pugh A disease. In a phase 1 study, sorafenib combined with doxorubicin, 60 mg/m(2), was well tolerated by patients with refractory solid tumors. The combination of sorafenib and doxorubicin in patients with advanced HCC has not been evaluated in a phase 2 or 3 trial.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of doxorubicin plus sorafenib compared with doxorubicin alone in patients with advanced HCC and Child-Pugh A disease.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS

In a double-blind phase 2 multinational study, conducted from April 2005 to October 2006, 96 patients (76% male; median age, 65 years [range, 38-82 years]) with advanced HCC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 2, Child-Pugh A status, and no prior systemic therapy were randomly assigned to receive 60 mg/m(2) of doxorubicin intravenously every 21 days plus either 400 mg of sorafenib or placebo orally twice a day. The date of the last patient's follow-up was April 2008.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Time to progression as determined by independent review.

RESULTS

Following complete accrual, an unplanned early analysis for efficacy was performed by the independent data monitoring committee, so the trial was halted. The 2 patients remaining in the placebo group at that time were offered sorafenib. Based on 51 progressions, 63 deaths, and 70 events for progression-free survival, median time to progression was 6.4 months in the sorafenib-doxorubicin group (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.8-9.2), and 2.8 months (95% CI, 1.6-5) in the doxorubicin-placebo monotherapy group (P = .02). Median overall survival was 13.7 months (95% CI, 8.9--not reached) and 6.5 months (95% CI, 4.5-9.9; P = .006), and progression-free survival was 6.0 months (95% CI, 4.6-8.6) and 2.7 months (95% CI, 1.4-2.8) in these groups, respectively (P = .006). Toxicity profiles were similar to those for the single agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with advanced HCC, treatment with sorafenib plus doxorubicin compared with doxorubicin monotherapy resulted in greater median time to progression, overall survival, and progression-free survival. The degree to which this improvement may represent synergism between sorafenib and doxorubicin remains to be defined. The combination of sorafenib and doxorubicin is not yet indicated for routine clinical use.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00108953.

An analysis of safety in patients (pts) with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN) receiving chemotherapy (CT) with or without panitumumab (pmab) in a phase III clinical trial (SPECTRUM)

6050^

Background: The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is an important target for treatment of patients with SCCHN. Pmab is a fully human monoclonal antibody against EGFR. This study is planned to assess the safety and efficacy of pmab in combination with a standard platinum-based CT regimen for patients with R/M disease. Methods: This ongoing, global, phase III, open-label, randomized (1:1) study is enrolling pts with R/M SCCHN. Pts receive cisplatin 100 mg/m2 IV on day 1 plus 5-FU (1,000 mg/m2) continuous IV daily on days 1–4 ± pmab (9 mg/kg on day 1) every 21 days for up to 6 cycles. Changes to carboplatin (AUC 5) are allowed for specific cisplatin-related toxicities. Pts in the pmab arm without disease progression after 6 cycles may remain on pmab monotherapy until disease progression or intolerability. The primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, response rate, duration of response, and safety. This study includes multiple planned safety interim analyses conducted by an independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC). The latest analysis included the first 300 of approximately 650 planned patients. Results: Of 300 pts enrolled, 88% are male; median age is 59 years (range 31–82); ECOG PS 0: 32%, PS 1: 68%. Of the 300 patients, 99% received any study treatment and 76% had ended all CT. Median follow-up time is 13.9 weeks. The rate of any grade 5 treatment-related AE was 3.4%. Adverse events of interest are shown in the Table. Conclusions: After the interim safety analysis of the first 300 pts conducted by the independent DMC, SPECTRUM continues per protocol. Enrollment is estimated to be completed in Feb 2009.

[Table: see text]

[Table: see text]

ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy and Exceptions

In compliance with the guidelines established by the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:519–521) and the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), ASCO strives to promote balance, independence, objectivity, and scientific rigor through disclosure of financial and other interests, and identification and management of potential conflicts. According to the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy, the following financial and other relationships must be disclosed: employment or leadership position, consultant or advisory role, stock ownership, honoraria, research funding, expert testimony, and other remuneration (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:520). The ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy disclosure requirements apply to all authors who submit abstracts to the Annual Meeting.

For clinical trials that began accrual on or after April 29, 2004, ASCO's Policy places some restrictions on the financial relationships of principal investigators (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:521). If a principal investigator holds any restricted relationships, his or her abstract will be ineligible for placement in the 2009 Annual Meeting unless the ASCO Ethics Committee grants an exception. Among the circumstances that might justify an exception are that the principal investigator (1) is a widely acknowledged expert in a particular therapeutic area; (2) is the inventor of a unique technology or treatment being evaluated in the clinical trial; or (3) is involved in international clinical oncology research and has acted consistently with recognized international standards of ethics in the conduct of clinical research. NIH-sponsored trials are exempt from the Policy restrictions. Abstracts for which authors requested and have been granted an exception in accordance with ASCO's Policy are designated with a caret symbol (^) in the Annual Meeting Proceedings.

For more information about the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy and the exceptions process, please visit www.asco.org/conflictofinterest .