Randomized Phase Iii Study Comparing Paclitaxel-bleomycin, Etoposide, And Cisplatin (bep) To Standard Bep In Intermediate-prognosis Germ-cell Cancer: Intergroup Study Eortc 30983

Purpose: To compare the efficacy of four cycles of paclitaxel-bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (T-BEP) to four cycles of bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) in previously untreated patients with intermediate-prognosis germ-cell cancer (GCC). Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either T-BEP or standard BEP. Patients assigned to the T-BEP group received paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) in a 3-hour infusion. Patients who were administered T-BEP received primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis. The study was designed as a randomized open-label phase II/III study. To show a 10% improvement in 3-year progression-free survival (PFS), the study aimed to recruit 498 patients but closed with 337 patients as a result of slow accrual. Results: Accrual was from November 1998 to April 2009. A total of 169 patients were administered BEP, and 168 patients were administered T-BEP. Thirteen patients in both arms were ineligible, mainly as a result of a good prognosis of GCC (eight patients administered BEP; six patients administered T-BEP) or a poor prognosis of GCC (one patient administered BEP; four patients administered T-BEP). PFS at 3 years (intent to treat) was 79.4% in the T-BEP group versus 71.1% in the BEP group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; CI, 0.47 to 1.13; P [log-rank test] = 0.153). PFS at 3 years in all eligible patients was 82.7% versus 70.1%, respectively (HR, 0.60; CI: 0.37 to 0.97) and was statistically significant (P = 0.03). Overall survival was not statistically different. Conclusion: T-BEP administered with G-CSF seems to be a safe and effective treatment regimen for patients with intermediate-prognosis GCC. However, the study recruited a smaller-than-planned number of patients and included 7.7% ineligible patients. The primary analysis of the trial could not demonstrate statistical superiority of T-BEP for PFS. When ineligible patients were excluded, the analysis of all eligible patients demonstrated a 12% superior 3-year PFS with T-BEP, which was statistically significant. J Clin Oncol 30: 792-799. (C) 2012 by American Society of Clinical Oncolog

Randomized Phase Iii Study Comparing Paclitaxel-bleomycin, Etoposide, And Cisplatin (bep) To Standard Bep In Intermediate-prognosis Germ-cell Cancer: Intergroup Study Eortc 30983

Purpose: To compare the efficacy of four cycles of paclitaxel-bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (T-BEP) to four cycles of bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) in previously untreated patients with intermediate-prognosis germ-cell cancer (GCC). Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either T-BEP or standard BEP. Patients assigned to the T-BEP group received paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) in a 3-hour infusion. Patients who were administered T-BEP received primary granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis. The study was designed as a randomized open-label phase II/III study. To show a 10% improvement in 3-year progression-free survival (PFS), the study aimed to recruit 498 patients but closed with 337 patients as a result of slow accrual. Results: Accrual was from November 1998 to April 2009. A total of 169 patients were administered BEP, and 168 patients were administered T-BEP. Thirteen patients in both arms were ineligible, mainly as a result of a good prognosis of GCC (eight patients administered BEP; six patients administered T-BEP) or a poor prognosis of GCC (one patient administered BEP; four patients administered T-BEP). PFS at 3 years (intent to treat) was 79.4% in the T-BEP group versus 71.1% in the BEP group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; CI, 0.47 to 1.13; P [log-rank test] = 0.153). PFS at 3 years in all eligible patients was 82.7% versus 70.1%, respectively (HR, 0.60; CI: 0.37 to 0.97) and was statistically significant (P = 0.03). Overall survival was not statistically different. Conclusion: T-BEP administered with G-CSF seems to be a safe and effective treatment regimen for patients with intermediate-prognosis GCC. However, the study recruited a smaller-than-planned number of patients and included 7.7% ineligible patients. The primary analysis of the trial could not demonstrate statistical superiority of T-BEP for PFS. When ineligible patients were excluded, the analysis of all eligible patients demonstrated a 12% superior 3-year PFS with T-BEP, which was statistically significant. J Clin Oncol 30: 792-799. (C) 2012 by American Society of Clinical Oncolog

Randomized Phase III Placebo-Controlled Trial of Letrozole Plus Oral Temsirolimus As First-Line Endocrine Therapy in Postmenopausal Women With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer

PurposeRecent data showed improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) when adding everolimus to exemestane in patients with advanced breast cancer experiencing recurrence/progression after nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. Here, we report clinical outcomes of combining the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor temsirolimus with letrozole in AI-naive patients.Patients and methodsThis phase III randomized placebo-controlled study tested efficacy/safety of first-line oral letrozole 2.5 mg daily/temsirolimus 30 mg daily (5 days every 2 weeks) versus letrozole/placebo in 1,112 patients with AI-naive, hormone receptor-positive advanced disease. An independent data monitoring committee recommended study termination for futility at the second preplanned interim analysis (382 PFS events).ResultsPatients were balanced (median age, 63 years; 10% stage III, 40% had received adjuvant endocrine therapy). Those on letrozole/temsirolimus experienced more grade 3 to 4 events (37% v 24%). There was no overall improvement in primary end point PFS (median, 9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.07; P = .25) nor in the 40% patient subset with prior adjuvant endocrine therapy. An exploratory analysis showed improved PFS favoring letrozole/temsirolimus in patients ≤ age 65 years (9.0 v 5.6 months; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.93; P = .009), which was separately examined by an exploratory analysis of 5-month PFS using subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot methodology (P = .003).ConclusionAdding temsirolimus to letrozole did not improve PFS as first-line therapy in patients with AI-naive advanced breast cancer. Exploratory analyses of benefit in younger postmenopausal patients require external confirmation

Randomized, multicenter, phase 2 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

<b>Purpose</b> 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.<p></p> <b>Patients and Methods</b> 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.<p></p> <b>Results</b> 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).<p></p> <b>Conclusion</b> CO-101 is not superior to gemcitabine in patients with mPDAC and low tumor hENT1. Metastasis hENT1 expression did not predict gemcitabine outcome.<p></p&gt