Fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole 1 mg for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (FALCON): an international, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

Background Aromatase inhibitors are a standard of care for hormone receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. We investigated whether the selective oestrogen receptor degrader fulvestrant could improve progression-free survival compared with anastrozole in postmenopausal patients who had not received previous endocrine therapy. Methods In this phase 3, randomised, double-blind trial, we recruited eligible patients with histologically confirmed oestrogen receptor-positive or progesterone receptor-positive, or both, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer from 113 academic hospitals and community centres in 20 countries. Eligible patients were endocrine therapy-naive, with WHO performance status 0–2, and at least one measurable or non-measurable lesion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to fulvestrant (500 mg intramuscular injection; on days 0, 14, 28, then every 28 days thereafter) or anastrozole (1 mg orally daily) using a computer-generated randomisation scheme. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1·1, intervention by surgery or radiotherapy because of disease deterioration, or death from any cause, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety outcomes were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of randomised treatment (including placebo). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01602380. Findings Between Oct 17, 2012, and July 11, 2014, 524 patients were enrolled to this study. Of these, 462 patients were randomised (230 to receive fulvestrant and 232 to receive anastrozole). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the fulvestrant group than in the anastrozole group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·797, 95% CI 0·637–0·999, p=0·0486). Median progression-free survival was 16·6 months (95% CI 13·83–20·99) in the fulvestrant group versus 13·8 months (11·99–16·59) in the anastrozole group. The most common adverse events were arthralgia (38 [17%] in the fulvestrant group vs 24 [10%] in the anastrozole group) and hot flushes (26 [11%] in the fulvestrant group vs 24 [10%] in the anastrozole group). 16 (7%) of 228 patients in in the fulvestrant group and 11 (5%) of 232 patients in the anastrozole group discontinued because of adverse events. Interpretation Fulvestrant has superior efficacy and is a preferred treatment option for patients with hormone receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who have not received previous endocrine therapy compared with a third-generation aromatase inhibitor, a standard of care for first-line treatment of these patients

Patient-reported outcomes with first-line durvalumab plus platinum-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide in extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (CASPIAN): a randomized, controlled, open-label, phase III study

Objectives In the phase III CASPIAN study, first-line durvalumab plus etoposide in combination with either cisplatin or carboplatin (EP) significantly improved overall survival (primary endpoint) versus EP alone in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) at the interim analysis. Here we report patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Materials and methods Treatment-naïve patients with ES-SCLC received 4 cycles of durvalumab plus EP every 3 weeks followed by maintenance durvalumab every 4 weeks until progression, or up to 6 cycles of EP every 3 weeks. PROs, assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) version 3 and its lung cancer module, the Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13), were prespecified secondary endpoints. Changes from baseline to disease progression or 12 months in prespecified key disease-related symptoms (cough, dyspnea, chest pain, fatigue, appetite loss) were analyzed with a mixed model for repeated measures. Time to deterioration (TTD) of symptoms, functioning, and global health status/quality of life (QoL) from randomization was analyzed. Results In the durvalumab plus EP and EP arms, 261 and 260 patients were PRO-evaluable. Patients in both arms experienced numerically reduced symptom burden over 12 months or until progression for key symptoms. For the improvements from baseline in appetite loss, the between-arm difference was statistically significant, favoring durvalumab plus EP (difference, −4.5; 99% CI: −9.04, −0.04; nominal p = 0.009). Patients experienced longer TTD with durvalumab plus EP versus EP for all symptoms (hazard ratio [95% CI] for key symptoms: cough 0.78 [0.600‒1.026]; dyspnea 0.79 [0.625‒1.006]; chest pain 0.76 [0.575‒0.996]; fatigue 0.82 [0.653‒1.027]; appetite loss 0.70 [0.542‒0.899]), functioning, and global health status/QoL. Conclusion Addition of durvalumab to first-line EP maintained QoL and delayed worsening of patient-reported symptoms, functioning, and global health status/QoL compared with EP

Health-related quality of life associated with trifluridine/tipiracil in heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer: results from TAGS

Càncer gàstric; Qualitat de vida relacionada amb la salut; Trifluridina/tipiracilGastric cancer; Health-related quality of life; Trifluridine/tipiracilCáncer gástrico; Calidad de vida relacionada con la salud; Trifluridina/tipiraciloBackground In TAGS, an international, double-blind, phase 3 trial, trifluridine/tipiracil significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival compared with placebo in heavily pretreated metastatic gastric cancer patients. This paper reports pre-specified quality of life (QoL) outcomes for TAGS. Methods Patients were randomized 2:1 to trifluridine/tipiracil (35 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1–5 and 8–12 of each 28-day cycle) plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC. QoL was evaluated at baseline and at each treatment cycle, using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-STO22 questionnaires; results were considered valid for analysis only if ≥ 10% of patients completed the questionnaires. Key QoL outcomes were mean changes from baseline and time to deterioration in QoL. A post hoc analysis assessed the association between QoL and time to deterioration of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score (ECOG PS) to ≥ 2. Results Of 507 randomized patients, 496 had baseline QoL data available. The analysis cut-off was 6 cycles for trifluridine/tipiracil and 3 cycles for placebo. In both treatment groups, there were no clinically significant deteriorations in the mean QLQ-C30 Global Health Status (GHS) score, or in most subscale scores. In a sensitivity analysis including death and disease progression as events, there was a trend towards trifluridine/tipiracil reducing the risk of deterioration of QoL scores compared with placebo. Deterioration in the GHS score was associated with deterioration in ECOG PS

Phase III, randomized, double-blind study comparing the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of SB3 (trastuzumab biosimilar) and reference trastuzumab in patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive early breast cancer

PurposeThis phase III study compared SB3, a trastuzumab (TRZ) biosimilar, with reference TRZ in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive early breast cancer in the neoadjuvant setting (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02149524).Patients and MethodsPatients were randomly assigned to receive neoadjuvant SB3 or TRZ for eight cycles concurrently with chemotherapy (four cycles of docetaxel followed by four cycles of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide) followed by surgery, and then 10 cycles of adjuvant SB3 or TRZ. The primary objective was comparison of breast pathologic complete response (bpCR) rate in the per-protocol set; equivalence was declared if the 95% CI of the ratio was within 0.785 to 1.546 or the 95% CI of the difference was within 13%. Secondary end points included comparisons of total pathologic complete response rate, overall response rate, event-free survival, overall survival, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity.ResultsEight hundred patients were included in the per-protocol set (SB3, n = 402; TRZ, n = 398). The bpCR rates were 51.7% and 42.0% with SB3 and TRZ, respectively. The adjusted ratio of bpCR was 1.259 (95% CI, 1.085 to 1.460), which was within the predefined equivalence margins. The adjusted difference was 10.70% (95% CI, 4.13% to 17.26%), with the lower limit contained within and the upper limit outside the equivalence margin. The total pathologic complete response rates were 45.8% and 35.8% and the overall response rates were 96.3% and 91.2% with SB3 and TRZ, respectively. Overall, 96.6% and 95.2% of patients experienced one or more adverse event, 10.5% and 10.7% had a serious adverse event, and 0.7% and 0.0% had antidrug antibodies (up to cycle 9) with SB3 and TRZ, respectively.ConclusionEquivalence for efficacy was demonstrated between SB3 and TRZ on the basis of the ratio of bpCR rates. Safety and immunogenicity were comparable. (C) 2018 by American Society of Clinical Oncolog

A randomized, double-blind, phase III study comparing SB3 (trastuzumab biosimilar) with originator trastuzumab in patients treated by neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive early breast cancer

Background: SB3, a proposed biosimilar to the originator trastuzumab (TRZ), demonstrated similarity to its originator in terms of biological activities and pharmacokinetic (PK) equivalence. This study compared SB3 to TRZ in terms of efficacy, safety, PK, and immunogenicity in patients treated by neoadjuvant therapy for HER2 positive early breast cancer (NCT02149524). Methods: Phase III, randomized, double blind, multicenter study compared neoadjuvant SB3 or TRZ for 8 cycles concurrently given with chemotherapy ( ..

Efficacy and safety of maintenance therapy with pamiparib versus placebo for advanced gastric cancer responding to first‐line platinum‐based chemotherapy: Phase 2 study results

Abstract Background Poly (ADP‐ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi) are approved for the treatment of various solid tumors. In gastric cancer, genes commonly harbor mutations in the homologous recombination DNA repair pathway, potentially increasing sensitivity to PARPi. Pamiparib (BGB‐290) is a small molecule inhibitor of PARP1 and PARP2. Methods The PARALLEL‐303 study (NCT03427814) investigated the efficacy and safety of pamiparib 60 mg orally (PO) twice daily (BID) versus placebo PO BID as maintenance therapy in patients with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic gastric cancer that responded to platinum‐based first‐line chemotherapy. The primary endpoint of this double‐blind, randomized, global phase 2 study was progression‐free survival (PFS) (RECIST version 1.1; per investigator assessment). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. Results In total, 136 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive pamiparib (n = 71) or placebo (n = 65). Median PFS was numerically longer with pamiparib versus placebo but did not reach statistical significance (3.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.9, 5.3] vs. 2.1 months [95% CI: 1.9, 3.8]; hazard ratio 0.8 [95% CI: 0.5, 1.2]; p = 0.1428). Median OS was 10.2 months (95% CI: 8.7, 16.3) in the pamiparib arm versus 12.0 months (95% CI: 8.2, not estimable) in the placebo arm. Overall, 8 patients (11.3%) in the pamiparib arm and 2 patients (3.1%) in the placebo arm experienced ≥1 TEAE leading to treatment discontinuation. Conclusions Maintenance pamiparib did not meet statistical significance for superiority versus placebo for PFS, but was well tolerated with few treatment discontinuations; no unexpected safety signals were identified