Efficacy and quality of life for FOLFOX/bevacizumab +/- irinotecan in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer-final results of the AIO CHARTA trial

BACKGROUND

FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab has demonstrated benefits for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. However, challenges arise in its clinical implementation due to expected side effects and a lack of stratification criteria.

METHODS

The AIO "CHARTA" trial randomised mCRC patients into clinical Group 1 (potentially resectable), 2 (unresectable/risk of rapid progression), or 3 (asymptomatic). They received FOLFOX/bevacizumab +/- irinotecan. The primary endpoint was the 9-month progression-free survival rate (PFSR@9). Secondary endpoints included efficacy in stratified groups, QoL, PFS, OS, ORR, secondary resection rate, and toxicity.

RESULTS

The addition of irinotecan to FOLFOX/bevacizumab increased PFSR@9 from 56 to 67%, meeting the primary endpoint. The objective response rate was 61% vs. 69% (P = 0.21) and median PFS was 10.3 vs. 12 months (HR 0.83; P = 0.17). The PFS was (11.4 vs. 12.9 months; HR 0.83; P = 0.46) in potentially resectable patients, with a secondary resection rate of 37% vs. 51%. Moreover, Group 3 (asymptomatic) patients had a PFS of 11.1 vs. 16.1 months (HR 0.6; P = 0.14). The addition of irinotecan did not diminish QoL.

CONCLUSION

The CHARTA trial, along with other studies, confirms the efficacy and tolerability of FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab as a first-line treatment for mCRC. Importantly, clinical stratification may lead to its implementation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered as NCT01321957.

Efficacy of Pazopanib With or Without Gemcitabine in Patients With Anthracycline- and/or Ifosfamide-Refractory Soft Tissue Sarcoma: Final Results of the PAPAGEMO Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Pazopanib and gemcitabine have shown good tolerability, albeit modest single-agent activity in pretreated soft tissue sarcoma. A combined regimen to improve outcomes is required.

Objective

To determine the efficacy of gemcitabine and pazopanib compared with pazopanib alone.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter, randomized phase 2 clinical trial was conducted in Germany from September 2011 to July 2014 and included patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 to 2, adequate organ function, measurable lesion, and progression after at least 1 prior treatment with anthracyclines and/or ifosfamide. Data analysis was performed during 2019 and 2020.

Interventions

Patients were randomized to pazopanib with gemcitabine (A) or without gemcitabine (B).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was progression-free survival rate (PFSR) at 12 weeks; secondary end points included toxicity, quality of life, overall survival, and response rates.

Results

A total of 90 patients were randomized, and 86 eligible patients (43 women [50%]) were evaluable, with a median age of 57 (range, 22-84) years and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0/1 in 77 participants (90%). The predominant histological subtypes were leiomyosarcoma (22 [26%]) and liposarcoma (16 [19%]). After a median follow-up of 12.4 (range, 1-48) months, the primary end point was met, with a PFSR at 12 weeks of 74% (A) vs 47% (B) (hazard ratio [HR], 1.60; 90% CI, 1.15-2.23; P = .01). In the combination arm, PFSR was significantly longer, with a median of 5.6 vs 2.0 months (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36-0.92; P = .02) compared with single-agent pazopanib, whereas overall survival was similar, with 13.1 vs 11.2 months (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.60-1.58; P = .83). The objective response rate was overall low, with 11% (A) vs 5% (B) (P = .10). The toxicity of the combination of pazopanib and gemcitabine was increased, but it was manageable and mainly hematological.

Conclusions and Relevance

This phase 2 randomized clinical trial of patients with soft tissue sarcoma found that the addition of gemcitabine to pazopanib was tolerable, and PFSR at 12 weeks was significantly higher compared with pazopanib alone. These results suggest clinical activity of the combination, but they should be confirmed in a phase 3 trial in a more homogeneous population (eg, leiomyosarcoma).

Trial Registration

German Clinical Trials Identifier: DRKS00003139.

Tumour Treating Fields in combination with pemetrexed and cisplatin or carboplatin as first-line treatment for unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (STELLAR): a multicentre, single-arm phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Tumour Treating Fields (TTFields) are a regional, antimitotic treatment for solid tumours, which is based on the delivery of low-intensity alternating electric fields. The aim of the STELLAR study was to test the activity of TTFields delivered to the thorax in combination with systemic chemotherapy for the front-line treatment of patients with unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma.

METHODS

STELLAR was a prospective, single-arm, phase 2 trial done at 12 European academic and non-academic sites (five in Italy, three in Poland, one in France, one in Belgium, one in Spain, and one in the Netherlands) for treatment-naive patients with histologically confirmed unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma. Patients were aged at least 18 years, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and at least one measurable or evaluable lesion according to modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors for mesothelioma. Patients received continuous TTFields at a frequency of 150 kHz to the thorax and concomitant chemotherapy with intravenous pemetrexed (500 mg/m² on day 1) plus intravenous platinum (either cisplatin 75 mg/m² on day 1 or carboplatin area under the curve 5 on day 1) every 21 days for up to six cycles. Patients not progressing after completion of chemotherapy received TTFields as maintenance treatment until progression, patient or physician decision, or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary endpoint of the trial was overall survival. Survival analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, and safety analyses were done in all patients who received at least 1 day of TTFields treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02397928.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 9, 2015 and March 21, 2017, 80 patients were enrolled in the study. Median follow-up was 12·5 months (IQR 7·4-16·6). Median overall survival was 18·2 months (95% CI 12·1-25·8). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were anaemia (nine [11%] patients), neutropenia (seven [9%]), and thrombocytopenia (four [5%]). Skin reaction was the only adverse event associated with TTFields and was reported as grade 1-2 in 53 (66%) patients, and as grade 3 in four (5%) patients. No treatment-related deaths were observed.

INTERPRETATION

The trial showed encouraging overall survival results, with no increase in systemic toxicity. TTFields (150 kHz) delivered to the thorax concomitant with pemetrexed and platinum was an active and safe combination for front-line treatment of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma. Further investigation in a randomised trial is warranted.

FUNDING

Novocure.

Nivolumab maintenance after salvage autologous stem cell transplantation results in long-term remission in multiple relapsed primary CNS lymphoma

Recurrence of primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) after high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) usually has a poor overall prognosis with limited treatment options. Data on repeated ASCT are sparse. Checkpoint inhibitor maintenance therapy has also not been reported in PCNSL. Here, we report the first documented case of a successful third ASCT in second relapse of PCNSL. Whole-exome sequencing identified a hypermutated tumor genotype. Additionally, immunohistochemistry on pretreatment tumor tissue revealed infiltrates of PD-1⁺ cytolytic T cells. These alterations provided a rationale for subsequent nivolumab maintenance treatment. Therapy led to a long-term, ongoing complete remission. In eligible patients with recurrent MTX-sensitive PCNSL, multiple long-term remissions can be induced by repetition of high-dose MTX-based chemotherapy followed by autologous retransplantation. Subsequent immune checkpoint inhibitor maintenance therapy might be able to prolong or maintain remission.

Impact of FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab (bev) compared to FOLFOX and bev on health related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC): Analysis of the CHARTA-AIO 0209 trial

3544

Background: FOLFOXIRI/bev is a highly efficacious first line regimen in MCRC. Despite higher rates of neutropenia, diarrhea and stomatitis, FOLFOXIRI/bev is tolerable and feasible in MCRC patients. To date nothing is known about the impact of this regimen on HRQOL. Methods: 250 patients were randomized to FOLFOX/bev (arm A) or FOLFOXIRI/bev (arm B). HRQOL were assessed at baseline, every 8 weeks during induction treatment (6 months) and every 12 weeks during maintenance treatment, using the EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-CR29 and QLQ-CIPN20. The mean values of every score were calculated as the average of week 8, 16 and 24 assessment. Test concerning mean values were performed as t-test, with global type I error set at 0.05. HRQOL deterioration and improvement rates were analyzed and compared between treatment groups using chi² tests. Results: For HRQOL analysis, 237 patients were eligible (arm A: 118; arm B: 119). Compliance rate with the HRQOL questionnaires was 95.4% at baseline, 72.6% at week 8, 59.5 % at week 16 and 43.5% at week 24. Whereas mean global quality of life score (GHS/QOL) was similar between arm A and B (59.8 vs. 58.8; p = 0.726), mean scores for nausea/vomiting (9.4 vs. 16.0; p = 0.015) and diarrhea (23.7 vs. 32.1; p = 0.051) significantly or borderline significantly favored arm A during induction period. Furthermore, at week 8 scores of nausea/vomiting (9.2 versus 17.3, p = 0.006) appetite loss (19.5 vs. 29.4; p = 0.035) and financial problems (18.3 vs. 29.5; p = 0.021) and at the end of treatment physical functioning (75.0 vs. 65.8; p = 0.048) were significantly better for arm A compared to arm B. No significant differences were observed in the remaining EORTC scores. The rates of deterioration and improvement between baseline and week 8 of at least 10 points in the EORTC scores were similar (e.g. deterioration-rate GHS/QOL score 21.5% vs. 26.5% for arm A vs. B; p = 0.461). Conclusions: Although no remarkable detriment in HRQOL was noted, the better efficacy of FOLFOXIRI/bev compared to FOLFOX/bev is associated with a decrease in mainly gastrointestinal QOL scores. Further subgroup-analyses will be presented at the meeting. Clinical trial information: NCT01321957.

“CHARTA”: FOLFOX/Bevacizumab vs. FOLFOXIRI/Bevacizumab in advanced colorectal cancer—Final results, prognostic and potentially predictive factors from the randomized Phase II trial of the AIO

3533

Background: FOLFOXIRI/Bevacizumab (Bev) is superior to FOLFIRI/Bev in the TRIBE trial (F Loupakis, NEJM 2014). The CHARTA trial was developed parallel to TRIBE with the same 4-drug-protocol but vs. FOLFOX/B ev as control arm. Methods: From 7/11 to 12/14 250 patients were randomized, including ECOG 0-2, ≥ 1 measurable lesion > 1cm, stratified by ESMO-Group 1,2,3 (HJ Schmoll, Ann Oncol 2012). Induction: 6 months, maintenance Capecitabine+Bev until progression or max.12 months, at P reinduction by investigators decision. 25% dose reduction was allowed in cycle 1 + 2 on the investigator’s discretion. Primary EP: significant improvement of PFS-rate @ 9 months (p<0.1, 2-sided Fisher’s-exact test); secondary EP: RR, PFS, OS, toxicity. Results: 241 pts. (1 not elig., 8 prot. violation) are evaluable after a follow up of 31.4 (0.1-51) months. m/f: 65%/35%, age 61y (21-82), ECOG 0-1/2: 96%/4%. The Primary Endpoint was met: PFS @ 9 months 56% vs. 68%, p= 0.086. PFS was improved: 9.8 vs. 12.0 months, HR 0.7 (ns.), identical to TRIBE with 9.7 vs. 12.1 months. Response rate (A/B): CR: 5%/5%, CR/PR 60%/70%, SD 25%/21%, PD 14%/9%. Final OS will be available at the meeting. Toxicity was low to moderate without major differences except ° ¾ diarrhea (12%/16%) and neutrophils (14%/20%). Clinical/molecular prognostic or predictive factors are equally distributed (stratification by ESMO groups) (see table). There are major, but mostly not significant differences in RR/ PFS in most subgroups, however, not strong enough to safely identify patients with high potential to benefit from the 4-drug combination. Therefore, a multivariate analysis to model a common prognostic and predictive risk score is ongoing and will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion: “CHARTA” supports the superiority of FOLFOXIRI/Bev. A combined prognostic and predictive classification is required to better select those patients with most potential benefit from the 4-drug combination. Clinical trial information: NCT01321957. [Table: see text]

CHARTA: FOLFOX+bevacizumab +/- irinotecan in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC)—Final results of the randomized phase II trial of the AIO (KRK 0209)

658

Background: The 4-drug-regimen FOLFOXIRI+Bevacizumab (Bev) was superior to FOLFIRI+Bev (TRIBE F.Loupakis, NEJM 2014). CHARTA investigates the same 4-drug-regimen vs. FOLFOX+Bev. Methods: 250 patients were randomized from 7/11 to 12/14 to standard FOLFOX+Bev (A) vs. FOLFOXIRI+Bev (B), with dose/schedule as in TRIBE, 25% dose reduction in cycle 1 + 2, if necessary. Incl.criteria: ECOG 0-2, ≥ 1 measurable lesion > 1cm; stratified by ESMO-Group 1, 2, 3 (HJ Schmoll et. al., Ann Oncol 2012). Induction: 6 months, maintenance Capecitabine+Bev until progression or max. of 12 months, with reinduction by individual decision. Primary EP: significant improvement of PFS-rate at 9 months (p<0.1, 2-sided Fisher’s-exact test); secondary EP: RR- rate, PFS, OS, sec. resection. Results: Evaluable 241 pts. (1 not elig., 8 prot. violation); m/f: 65%/35%, age 61 yrs. (21-82), left/right: left A: 51, 5%, B: 48, 5%; right A: 45%, B: 55%; ECOG 0-1/2: 96% / 4%, ESMO-group 1/2/3: 29%/ 55%/ 16%. Primary endpoint was met: significantly improved PFS at 9 months 56% vs. 68% (p= 0,086). Preliminary PFS 9,76 vs. 12,0 months (HR 0.77, p=0.61), identical to TRIBE: 9.7 vs. 12.1. Response (A/B): CR: 5/5%, CR/PR 60/70%, SD 25/21%, PD 14/9%; sec. resection: 21/23%. Subgroup - analyses did not show significant differences, except CR / PR left/right (A/B): left 59/68%, right 63/73%; PFS (months) left 10.4/12 (HR 0.69, p=0.03), right: 8.2 /10.7); non-significant improvement in ESMO-group 3 (HR 0.51), RAS-wt (HR 0.67), Koehne-Score High risk HR 0.58; ECOG 1: HR 0.69. QL-Global- Health-Score: slightly worse in A, vs. improved in B. Dose-intensity <70%/ 70-90%/ >90% (A/B): 39/37%/ 18/26%/ 41%/36%; initial dose-reduction 17% of pts. Toxicity: low to moderate without major differences between A &B, except grade ¾ diarrhea 12/16%, neutrophils 14/20%, GI 12/20%. Conclusions: The 4-drug-regimen has superior activity with the same outcome as TRIBE and is well tolerated, without a negative effect of initial dose-reduction, and an improvement of global QoL-Score. Final PFS, OS data and detailed subgroup/multivariate analysis, including Quality of life data, will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT01321957.

Diagnostic work-up for the detection of malnutrition in hospitalized cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Malnutrition is a common complication in patients suffering from cancer. It is associated with a poor prognosis, reduced quality of life, increased chemotherapy-induced toxicity, and a decreased response to therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the use of various diagnostic tests for the detection of malnutrition in patients hospitalized for cancer treatment.

METHODS

In this single-center, non-interventional reliability study, the nutritional status of 50 patients with cancer was assessed using the Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS-2002), a bioimpedance analysis (BIA), and the measurement of laboratory parameters that reflect the serum visceral protein level. For statistical analysis, the comparison of means and the agreement of the methods were calculated.

RESULTS

NRS-2002, BIA, and lab parameters differed widely among patients classified as well-nourished or malnourished (10%- 80%, depending on the method). Significant results in the comparison of means were observed for body mass index, serum protein, and some BIA parameters. The analysis of agreement identified a compelling agreement for pre-albumin and retinol-binding protein (RBP) (kappa = 0.81).

LIMITATIONS

Small sample size, heterogeneous group of patients, non-interventional reliability study.

CONCLUSION

The tested diagnostic methods for detecting malnutrition did not have an evident agreement among each other with a limited exchangeability. In routine hospital practice several methods should be applied in order to identify cancer patients at risk of malnutrition.

Trabectedin: Supportive care strategies and safety profile

Trabectedin is an approved antineoplastic agent for the treatment of adult patients with advanced soft tissue sarcomas or in combination with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in patients with relapsed platinum sensitive ovarian cancer. The mechanism of action is still not fully understood but many typical side effects seen with other chemotherapy drugs are less common, mild or unreported. Although this apparent favorable safety profile suggests a well-tolerated and manageable therapeutic option in the palliative care setting, trabectedin does have specific adverse side effects which can be hazardous for individual patients. The most commonly observed toxicities with trabectedin include neutropenia, nausea, vomiting, and increases in liver transaminases, anemia, fatigue, thrombocytopenia, anorexia and diarrhea. However, for most patients the appropriate use of supportive care strategies can reduce or overcome these side effects. We present a concise review of the safety data of trabectedin with the corresponding overview of the supportive care strategies.

A prospective randomised phase-II trial with gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus sunitinib in advanced pancreatic cancer: a study of the CESAR Central European Society for Anticancer Drug Research-EWIV

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most common malignant tumours and is still associated with a poor prognosis in advanced disease. To improve the standard therapy with gemcitabine, we initiated a prospective randomised phase-II trial with gemcitabine (GEM) versus gemcitabine plus sunitinib (SUNGEM) based on data of in vitro trials and phase-I data for the combination treatment. The rational of adding sunitinib was its putative antiangiogenic mechanism of action.

METHODS

A total of 106 eligible patients with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic PDAC without previous system therapy were randomised to receive GEM at a dosage of 1.000mg/m(2) d1, 8, 15 q28 versus a combination of SUNGEM at a dosage of GEM 1.000mg/m(2) d1+8 and sunitinib 50mg p.o. d1-14, q21d. The primary end-point was progression free survival (PFS), secondary end-points were overall survival (OS), toxicity and overall response rate (ORR).

RESULTS

The confirmatory analysis of PFS was based on the intend-to-treat (ITT) population (N=106). The median PFS was 13.3 weeks (95% confidence interval (95%-CI): 10.4-18.1 weeks) for GEM and 11.6 weeks for SUNGEM (95%-CI: 7.0-18.0 weeks; p=0.78 one-sided log-rank). The ORR was 6.1% (95%-CI: 0.7-20.2%) for GEM and for 7.1% (95%-CI: 0.9-23.5%) for SUNGEM (p=0.87). The median time to progression (TTP) was 14.0 weeks (95%-CI: 12.4-22.3 weeks) for GEM and 18.0 weeks (95%-CI: 11.3-19.3 weeks) for SUNGEM (p=0.60; two-sided log-rank). The median OS was 36.7 weeks (95%-CI: 20.6-49.0 weeks) for the GEM arm and 30.4 weeks (95%-CI: 18.1-37.6 weeks) for the SUNGEM (p=0.78, one-sided log-rank). In regard to toxicities, suspected SAEs were reported in 53.7% in the GEM arm and 71.2% in the SUNGEM arm. Grade 3 and 4 neutropenia was statistically significantly higher in the SUNGEM arm with 48.1% versus 27.8% in the GEM arm (p=0.045, two sided log-rank).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination SUNGEM was not sufficient superior in locally advanced or metastatic PDAC compared to GEM alone in regard to efficacy but was associated with more toxicity.

Prospective randomized phase II trial with gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus sunitinib in advanced pancreatic cancer: A study of the CESAR Central European Society for Anticancer Drug Research-EWIV

4035

Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most common malignant tumours, but PDAC is still associated with a poor prognosis in advanced disease with an overall 5-year survival of only about 15%. Therefore there is a need for new treatment strategies. To improve the standard therapy with gemcitabine we initiated a prospective randomized phase-II trial with gemcitabine (GEM) vs. gemcitabine plus sunitinib (SUNGEM) based on data of in vitro trials and phase-I data for the combination treatment. Methods: Patients (N=113) with locally advanced or metastatic PDAC were prospectively randomized to receive gemcitabine alone (GEM) at a dosage of 1000 mg/m² day 1, 8, 15 q28 or to a combination of gemcitabine and sunitinib (SUNGEM) at a dosage of GEM 1000 mg/m² d1+8 and sunitinib 50mg p.o. d1-14, qd21 (based on a phase-I trial). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP), overall response rate (ORR) and toxicity. Results: The confirmatory analysis of PFS was based on the ITT population (N=106). The median PFS was 13.3 weeks (95 %-Cl: 10.4-18.1 weeks) in the GEM group and 11.6 weeks in the SUNGEM arm (95 %-Cl: 7.0-18.0 weeks) (one-sided logrank: p=0.74). The 6-month PFS rate was 26.8 % (95 %-Cl: 15.4-39.5 %) in GEM arm and 25.0 % in SUNGEM arm (95 %-Cl: 14.0-37.8 %). The overall response rate was 6.1 % (95 %-Cl: 0.7-20.2 %) in the GEM arm and was a slightly but not significantly higher for the SUNGEM arm with 7.1% (95%-Cl: 0.9 – 23.5%).The median time to progression (TTP) was 14.0 weeks (95 %-Cl: 12.4-22.3 weeks) for the GEM arm and 18.0 weeks (95 %-Cl: 11.3-19.3 weeks) for the SUNGEM arm (two-sided logrank: p=0.60). The median OS was 30.4 weeks (95 %-Cl: 18.1-37.6 weeks) for the SUNGEM and 36.7 weeks (95 %-Cl: 20.6-49.0 weeks) for the GEM arm (two-sided logrank: p=0.44). With regard to toxicities, at least one AE of grade 3 or 4 was reported in 78.8% in the SUNGEM arm and 72.2% in the GEM arm. Conclusions: The combination of gemcitabine plus sunitinib (SUNGEM) did not improve the PFS in locally advanced or metastatic PDAC compared to gemcitabine alone. Clinical trial information: NCT00673504.

The 9p24.3 breakpoint of a constitutional t(6;9)(p12;p24) in a patient with chronic lymphocytic leukemia maps close to the putative promoter region of the DMRT2 gene

B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (B-CLL) is a very common hematological malignancy. Although several alterations in different loci have been identified and established as prognostic factors the pathogenetic cascade remains obscure. Here we give an account on a 71-year-old man with B-CLL and a translocation t(6;9) in his diagnostic bone marrow. Subsequent chromosome analysis of his blood lymphocytes revealed a constitutional karyotype 46,XY,t(6;9) (p12;p24) that has not been previously reported. Seeking for gene disruption correlated with the B-CLL we precisely mapped both breakpoints by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis with chromosome-specific bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) clones and their long-range polymerase chain reaction (LRPCR) subfragments. An 11-kb LRPCR subfragment derived from RP11-399A15 was found to span the breakpoint at 6p12.1. FISH analysis with a 12-kb LRPCR fragment derived from RP11-147I11 which overlaps with RP11-110M16 as well as with a cDNA for DMRT2 (doublesex and mab-3 related transcription factor 2) maps the 9p24.3 breakpoint maximum 10 kb upstream from DMRT2. In silico analysis of the transcripts within the vicinity of the breakpoints revealed that the translocation does not disrupt any known genes but could affect the putative DMRT2 promoter. Long range effects on gene expression cannot be excluded so far.