Phase II randomized study of figitumumab plus docetaxel and docetaxel alone with crossover for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

[Abstract] PURPOSE: Figitumumab is a human IgG2 monoclonal antibody targeting insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF-1R), with antitumor activity in prostate cancer. This phase II trial randomized chemotherapy-naïve men with progressing castration-resistant prostate cancer to receive figitumumab every 3 weeks with docetaxel/prednisone (Arm A) or docetaxel/prednisone alone (Arm B1). At progression on Arm B1, patients could cross over to the combination (Arm B2). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response was the primary endpoint; response assessment on the two arms was noncomparative and tested separately; H0 = 0.45 versus HA = 0.60 (α = 0.05; β = 0.09) for Arm A; H0 = 0.05 versus HA = 0.20 (α = 0.05, β = 0.10) for Arm B2. A comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) on Arms A and B1 was planned. RESULTS: A total of 204 patients were randomized and 199 treated (Arm A: 97; Arm B1: 102); 37 patients crossed over to Arm B2 (median number of cycles started: Arm A = 8; B1 = 8; B2 = 4). PSA responses occurred in 52% and 60% of Arms A and B1, respectively; the primary PSA response objective in Arm A was not met. Median PFS was 4.9 and 7.9 months, respectively (HR = 1.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.96). PSA response rate was 28% in Arm B2. The figitumumab combination appeared more toxic, with more treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events (75% vs. 56%), particularly hyperglycemia, diarrhea, and asthenia, as well as treatment-related serious adverse events (41% vs. 15%), and all-causality grade 5 adverse events (18% vs. 8%). CONCLUSION: IGF-1R targeting may merit further evaluation in this disease in selected populations, but combination with docetaxel is not recommended

Protest on the Fly

This article reexamines spontaneity as an important, albeit neglected, mechanism in collective action dynamics, and elaborates on its operation and effects in protest events and social movements. We do not presume that spontaneity is routinely at play in all collective actions. Rather, based on our grounded analysis of historical and ethnographic data, we contend that spontaneity is triggered by certain conditions: nonhierarchical organization; uncertain/ambiguous moments and events; behavioral/emotional priming; and certain ecological/spatial factors. We conclude by elaborating why the activation of spontaneous actions matters in shaping the course and character of protest events and movements, and we suggest that spontaneity be resuscitated in the study of collective action and everyday life more generally