SWOG 1815: A phase III randomized trial of gemcitabine, cisplatin, and nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine and cisplatin in newly diagnosed, advanced biliary tract cancers

Background: Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are a heterogeneous group of malignancies with a dismal prognosis. Gemcitabine-based regimens are the standard of care in advanced disease, but median overall survival (OS) is roughly 12 months. The addition of albumin-bound paclitaxel to gemcitabine and cisplatin (GAP) demonstrated promising efficacy in a 60 patient, single-arm phase II study (Shroff et al, JAMA Oncol 2019), with observed median OS of 19.2 months. Methods: SWOG 1815 is a randomized, open-label, phase III trial comparing GAP to gemcitabine/cisplatin (GC). The study included newly diagnosed advanced BTC patients (pts), randomized 2:1 to GAP vs. GC. GAP included gemcitabine at 800 mg/m2, cisplatin at 25 mg/m2 and albumin-bound paclitaxel at 100 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. GC included standard dosing of gemcitabine at 1000 mg/m2 and cisplatin at 25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. Pts were treated until progression. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) with a target hazard ratio of 0.7 with 90% power and a 1-sided alpha of 0.025; randomization was stratified by disease site (intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma [CCA] vs gallbladder adenocarcinoma [GBC] vs extrahepatic CCA), disease stage (locally advanced vs metastatic), and Zubrod PS 0 vs 1. Results: Of 441 eligible pts randomized, 55% were female. 67% of patients had intrahepatic CCA, 16% had GBC and 17% had extrahepatic CCA. Most pts had metastases (73%). Median OS with GAP vs. GC was 14 vs. 12.7 mo respectively (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74-1.19, p=0.58), ORR (confirmed and unconfirmed) 34% vs25% (p=0.11) and median PFS 8.2 vs 6.4 mo (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.72-1.16, p=0.47), respectively. Grade 3 and 4 treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) in ≥10% of pts for GAP and GC were anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. GAP had more ≥ grade 3 hematologic AEs compared to the GC arm (60% vs. 45%, p=0.003). Discontinuation due to toxicity was at 24% vs 19% (p=0.26) with GAP vs GC. In exploratory subset analyses, GAP vs GC improved OS in pts with locally advanced disease (medians 19.2 vs 13.7 mo; HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.42- 1.06, p=0.09) and in GBC pts (medians 17.0 vs 9.3 mo; HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41-1.35, p=0.33). ORR for GAP vs GC in GBC was 50% vs 24% (p=0.09) and for locally advanced disease 28 vs 21% p=0.74. Conclusions: SWOG 1815 did not result in a statistically significant improvement in median OS with GAP vs. GC. The GAP regimen had higher rates of TRAEs without a statistically significant difference in discontinuation rates. Pts with locally advanced disease and GBC may benefit from the use of GAP. Further analyses are ongoing to understand potential benefit of GAP in subsets of BTC pts. Funding: NIH/National Cancer Institute grants CA180888, CA180819, CA180820, CA180821, and CA180868; and in part by Celgene Corporation, Summit, NJ (subsidiary of Bristol Myer Squibb)

Randomized Phase II Trial of Fulvestrant Plus Everolimus or Placebo in Postmenopausal Women With Hormone Receptor–Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Resistant to Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy: Results of PrE0102

Purpose The mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus targets aberrant signaling through the PI3K/AKT/mammalian target of rapamycin pathway, a mechanism of resistance to anti-estrogen therapy in estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast cancer. We hypothesized that everolimus plus the selective ER downregulator fulvestrant would be more efficacious than fulvestrant alone in ER-positive metastatic breast cancer resistant to aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. Patients and Methods This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II study included 131 postmenopausal women with ER-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative, AI-resistant metastatic breast cancer randomly assigned to fulvestrant (500 mg days 1 and 15 of cycle 1, then day 1 of cycles 2 and beyond) plus everolimus or placebo. The study was designed to have 90% power to detect a 70% improvement in median progression-free survival from 5.4 months to 9.2 months. Secondary end points included objective response and clinical benefit rate (response or stable disease for at least 24 weeks). Prophylactic corticosteroid mouth rinses were not used. Results The addition of everolimus to fulvestrant improved the median progression-free survival from 5.1 to 10.3 months (hazard ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.40 to 0.92]; stratified log-rank P = .02), indicating that the primary trial end point was met. Objective response rates were similar (18.2% v 12.3%; P = .47), but the clinical benefit rate was significantly higher in the everolimus arm (63.6% v 41.5%; P = .01). Adverse events of all grades occurred more often in the everolimus arm, including oral mucositis (53% v 12%), fatigue (42% v 22%), rash (38% v 5%), anemia (31% v. 6%), diarrhea (23% v 8%), hyperglycemia (19% v 5%), hypertriglyceridemia (17% v 3%), and pneumonitis (17% v 0%), although grade 3 to 4 events were uncommon. Conclusion Everolimus enhances the efficacy of fulvestrant in AI-resistant, ER-positive metastatic breast cancer

A Three-Arm Randomized Phase II Study of Bendamustine/Rituximab with Bortezomib Induction or Lenalidomide Continuation in Untreated Follicular Lymphoma: ECOG-ACRIN E2408.

PURPOSE: We sought to improve upon frontline bendamustine/rituximab (BR) induction therapy followed by rituximab maintenance in untreated high-risk follicular lymphoma (FL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to BR induction followed by 2-year rituximab maintenance (BR-R), BR with bortezomib and rituximab maintenance (BVR-R), or BR followed by lenalidomide (1 year) with rituximab maintenance (BR-LR). Dual primary objectives were complete remission (CR) rate and 1-year disease-free survival (DFS); 289 patients enrolled (NCT01216683). RESULTS: For induction, 92%, 87%, and 86% of patients randomized to BR-R, BVR-R, or BR-LR received six cycles, respectively. CR rate with BR versus BVR induction was 62% versus 75%, respectively ( CONCLUSIONS: Altogether, neither bortezomib added to BR induction nor lenalidomide added to rituximab maintenance immediately post-BR induction is recommended in untreated FL