Effect of Metformin Versus Placebo on New Primary Cancers in Canadian Cancer Trials Group MA.32: A Secondary Analysis of a Phase III Randomized Double-Blind Trial in Early Breast Cancer.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned coprimary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Metformin has been associated with lower cancer risk in epidemiologic and preclinical research. In the MA.32 randomized adjuvant breast cancer trial, metformin (v placebo) did not affect invasive disease-free or overall survival. Here, we report metformin effects on the risk of new cancer. Between 2010 and 2013, 3,649 patients with breast cancer younger than 75 years without diabetes with high-risk T1-3, N0-3 M0 breast cancer (any estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2) were randomly assigned to metformin 850 mg orally twice a day or placebo twice a day for 5 years. New primary invasive cancers (outside the ipsilateral breast) developing as a first event were identified. Time to events was described by the competing risks method; two-sided likelihood ratio tests adjusting for age, BMI, smoking, and alcohol intake were used to compare metformin versus placebo arms. A total of 184 patients developed new invasive cancers: 102 metformin and 82 placebo, hazard ratio (HR), 1.25; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.68; P = .13. These included 48 contralateral invasive breast cancers (27 metformin v 21 placebo), HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.72 to 2.27; P = .40 and 136 new nonbreast primary cancers (75 metformin v 61 placebo), HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.74; P = .21. Metformin did not reduce the risk of new cancer development in these nondiabetic patients with breast cancer

Safety evaluation of nivolumab added concurrently to radiotherapy in a standard first line chemo-radiotherapy regimen in stage III non-small cell lung cancer—The ETOP NICOLAS trial

Objectives: Chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) and concurrent PD-1 inhibition has shown promising results in pre-clinical models. So far, the feasibility of delivering concurrent CRT and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition has never been assessed in a clinical trial. Material and methods: NICOLAS is a phase-II trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of nivolumab combined with CRT in stage III NSCLC. Patients received 3 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy and concurrent RT (66 Gy/33fractions). Nivolumab started concurrently with RT. The primary endpoint was 6-month post-RT rate of grade-≥3-pneumonitis. A formal interim safety analysis (IA) was scheduled when the first 21 patients reached 3 months follow-up post-RT. An early positive safety conclusion would be reached at IA if there were no grade ≥3-pneumonitis in those patients. Efficacy evaluation was planned provided the safety conclusion was reached. Results and conclusion: As of 13 December 2018, 82 patients were recruited with median follow-up of 13.4 months. The most frequent adverse events (AEs) were anaemia, fatigue and pneumonitis. No unexpected AEs or increased toxicities were observed. For the first 21 patients, no grade-≥3-pneumonitis was observed by the end of the 3-month post-RT follow-up period. The early safety IA provides evidence that the addition of nivolumab to concurrent CRT is safe and tolerable regarding the 6-month rate of pneumonitis grade ≥3 at the one-sided significance level of 5%. Following that, the 1-year progression-free survival will be evaluated in an expanded patient cohort. NICOLAS trial creates the opportunity for assessing the activity of the combination of checkpoint with concurrent CRT in larger prospective trials for locally advanced NSCLC. © 2019 Elsevier B.V

Neoadjuvant Degarelix Versus Triptorelin in Premenopausal Patients Who Receive Letrozole for Locally Advanced Endocrine-Responsive Breast Cancer: A Randomized Phase II Trial

PURPOSE To evaluate endocrine activity in terms of ovarian function suppression (OFS) of degarelix (a gonadotropin-releasing hormone [GnRH] antagonist) versus triptorelin (a GnRH agonist) in premenopausal patients receiving letrozole as neoadjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Premenopausal women with stage cT2 to 4b, any N, M0; estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor greater than 50%; human epidermal growth factor receptor 2\u2013negative breast cancer were randomly assigned to triptorelin 3.75 mg administered intramuscularly on day 1 of every cycle or degarelix 240 mg administered subcutaneously (SC) on day 1 of cycle 1 then 80 mg SC on day 1 of cycles 2 through 6, both with letrozole 2.5 mg/day for six 28-day cycles. Surgery was performed 2 to 3 weeks after the last injection. Serum was collected at baseline, after 24 and 72 hours, at 7 and 14 days, and then before injections on cycles 2 through 6. The primary end point was time to optimal OFS (time from the first injection to first assessment of centrally assessed estradiol level # 2.72 pg/mL [# 10 pmol/L] during neoadjuvant therapy). The trial had 90% power to detect a difference using a log-rank test with a two-sided a of .05. Secondary end points included response, tolerability, and patient-reported endocrine symptoms. RESULTS Between February 2014 and January 2017, 51 patients were enrolled (n = 26 received triptorelin plus letrozole; n = 25 received degarelix plus letrozole). Time to optimal OFS was three times faster for patients assigned to degarelix and letrozole than to triptorelin and letrozole (median, 3 v 14 days; hazard ratio, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.65 to 5.65; P, .001). Furthermore, OFS was maintained during subsequent cycles for all patients assigned to receive degarelix and letrozole, whereas 15.4% of patients assigned to receive triptorelin and letrozole had suboptimal OFS after cycle 1 (six events during 127 measurements). Adverse events as a result of both degarelix plus letrozole and triptorelin plus letrozole were as expected. CONCLUSION In premenopausal women receiving letrozole for neoadjuvant endocrine therapy, OFS was achieved more quickly and maintained more effectively with degarelix than with triptorelin

Safety evaluation of nivolumab added concurrently to radiotherapy in a standard first line chemo-radiotherapy regimen in stage III non-small cell lung cancer-The ETOP NICOLAS trial

OBJECTIVES: Chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) and concurrent PD-1 inhibition has shown promising results in pre-clinical models. So far, the feasibility of delivering concurrent CRT and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibition has never been assessed in a clinical trial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: NICOLAS is a phase-II trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of nivolumab combined with CRT in stage III NSCLC. Patients received 3 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy and concurrent RT (66 Gy/33fractions). Nivolumab started concurrently with RT. The primary endpoint was 6-month post-RT rate of grade-≥3-pneumonitis. A formal interim safety analysis (IA) was scheduled when the first 21 patients reached 3 months follow-up post-RT. An early positive safety conclusion would be reached at IA if there were no grade ≥3-pneumonitis in those patients. Efficacy evaluation was planned provided the safety conclusion was reached. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: As of 13 December 2018, 82 patients were recruited with median follow-up of 13.4 months. The most frequent adverse events (AEs) were anaemia, fatigue and pneumonitis. No unexpected AEs or increased toxicities were observed. For the first 21 patients, no grade-≥3-pneumonitis was observed by the end of the 3-month post-RT follow-up period. The early safety IA provides evidence that the addition of nivolumab to concurrent CRT is safe and tolerable regarding the 6-month rate of pneumonitis grade ≥3 at the one-sided significance level of 5%. Following that, the 1-year progression-free survival will be evaluated in an expanded patient cohort. NICOLAS trial creates the opportunity for assessing the activity of the combination of checkpoint with concurrent CRT in larger prospective trials for locally advanced NSCLC.status: publishe

A randomized phase II study evaluating different maintenance schedules of nab-Paclitaxel in the first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer: final results of the IBCSG 42-12/BIG 2-12 SNAP trial.

peer reviewedBackground: The phase II SNAP trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of alternative chemotherapy schedules for prolonged administration in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC), after a short induction at conventional doses. Methods: Between April 2013 and August 2015, 258 women untreated with chemotherapy for MBC were randomly assigned to receive three different maintenance chemotherapy schedules after three cycles of identical induction chemotherapy: Arm A, nab-Paclitaxel 150 mg/m2 days 1,15 Q28; Arm B, nab-Paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 days 1,8,15 Q28; Arm C, nab-Paclitaxel 75 mg/m2 days 1,8,15,22 Q28. Induction was three cycles nab-Paclitaxel 150/125 mg/m2, days 1,8,15 Q28. The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of each maintenance schedule, in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), as compared to the historical reference of 7-month median PFS reported by previous studies with first-line docetaxel. One-sample, one-sided log-rank tests were utilized. Quality-of-life evaluation was performed, global indicator for physical well-being was defined as the primary endpoint; completion rates of quality-of-life forms were >90%. Results: 255 patients were evaluable for the primary endpoint. After 18.2 months median follow-up, 182 PFS events were observed. Median PFS was 7.9 months (90%CI 6.8-8.4) in Arm A, 9.0 months (90%CI 8.1-10.9) in Arm B and 8.5 months (90%CI 6.7-9.5) in Arm C. PFS in Arm B was significantly longer than the historical reference of first-line docetaxel (P=0.03). Grade>/=2 sensory neuropathy was reported in 37.9%, 36.1% and 31.2% of patients in Arm A, Arm B and Arm C, respectively (Grade>/=3 in 9.1%, 5.6% and 6.6% of patients, respectively). Noteworthy, the quality-of-life scores for sensory neuropathy did not worsen with prolonged nab-Paclitaxel administration in any of the maintenance arms. Conclusion: The SNAP trial demonstrated that alternative nab-Paclitaxel maintenance schedules with reduced dosages after a short induction at conventional doses are feasible and active in the first-line treatment of MBC. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01746225

Pembrolizumab plus trastuzumab in trastuzumab-resistant, advanced, HER2-positive breast cancer (PANACEA): a single-arm, multicentre, phase 1b-2 trial.

BACKGROUND HER2-positive breast cancers usually contain large amounts of T-cell infiltrate. We hypothesised that trastuzumab resistance in HER2-positive breast cancer could be mediated by immune mechanisms. We assessed the safety and anti-tumour activity of pembrolizumab, a programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor, added to trastuzumab in trastuzumab-resistant, advanced HER2-positive breast cancer. METHODS We did this single-arm, multicentre, phase 1b-2 trial in 11 centres based in five countries. Eligible participants were women aged 18 years or older, who had advanced, histologically confirmed, HER2-positive breast cancer; documented progression during previous trastuzumab-based therapy; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1; and a formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded metastatic tumour biopsy for central assessment of programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. In phase 1b, we enrolled patients with PD-L1-positive tumours in a 3 + 3 dose-escalation of intravenous pembrolizumab (2 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg, every 3 weeks) plus 6 mg/kg of intravenous trastuzumab. The primary endpoint of the phase 1b study was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicity and recommended phase 2 dose; however, a protocol amendment on Aug 28, 2015, stipulated a flat dose of pembrolizumab of 200 mg every 3 weeks in all Merck-sponsored trials. In phase 2, patients with PD-L1-positive and PD-L1-negative tumours were enrolled in parallel cohorts and received the flat dose of pembrolizumab plus standard trastuzumab. The primary endpoint of the phase 2 study was the proportion of PD-L1-positive patients achieving an objective response. This trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02129556, and with EudraCT, number 2013-004770-10, and is closed. FINDINGS Between Feb 2, 2015, and April 5, 2017, six patients were enrolled in phase 1b (n=3 received 2 mg/kg pembrolizumab, n=3 received 10 mg/kg pembrolizumab) and 52 patients in phase 2 (n=40 had PD-L1-positive tumours, n=12 had PD-L1-negative tumours). The data cutoff for this analysis was Aug 7, 2017. During phase 1b, there were no dose-limiting toxicities in the dose cohorts tested. Median follow-up for the phase 2 cohort was 13·6 months (IQR 11·6-18·4) for patients with PD-L1-positive tumours, and 12·2 months (7·9-12·2) for patients with PD-L1-negative tumours. Six (15%, 90% CI 7-29) of 40 PD-L1-positive patients achieved an objective response. There were no objective responders among the PD-L1-negative patients. The most common treatment-related adverse event of any grade was fatigue (12 [21%] of 58 patients). Grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 29 (50%) of patients, treatment-related grade 3-5 adverse events occurred in 17 (29%), and serious adverse events occurred in 29 (50%) patients. The most commonly occurring serious adverse events were dyspnoea (n=3 [5%]), pneumonitis (n=3 [5%]), pericardial effusion (n=2 [3%]), and upper respiratory infection (n=2 [3%]). There was one treatment-related death due to Lambert-Eaton syndrome in a PD-L1-negative patient during phase 2. INTERPRETATION Pembrolizumab plus trastuzumab was safe and showed activity and durable clinical benefit in patients with PD-L1-positive, trastuzumab-resistant, advanced, HER2-positive breast cancer. Further studies in this breast cancer subtype should focus on a PD-L1-positive population and be done in less heavily pretreated patients. FUNDING Merck, International Breast Cancer Study Group

Effect of Metformin vs Placebo on Invasive Disease-Free Survival in Patients With Breast Cancer: The MA.32 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Metformin, a biguanide commonly used to treat type 2 diabetes, has been associated with potential beneficial effects across breast cancer subtypes in observational and preclinical studies. Objective: To determine whether the administration of adjuvant metformin (vs placebo) to patients with breast cancer without diabetes improves outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: MA.32, a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial, conducted in Canada, Switzerland, US, and UK, enrolled 3649 patients with high-risk nonmetastatic breast cancer receiving standard therapy between August 2010 and March 2013, with follow-up to October 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized (stratified for hormone receptor [estrogen receptor and/or progesterone receptor {ER/PgR}] status, positive vs negative; body mass index, ≤30 vs >30; human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [ERBB2, formerly HER2 or HER2/neu], positive vs negative; and any vs no chemotherapy) to 850 mg of oral metformin twice a day (n = 1824) or oral placebo twice a day (n = 1825) for 5 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was invasive disease-free survival in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Of the 8 secondary outcomes, overall survival, distant relapse-free survival, and breast cancer-free interval were analyzed. Results: Of the 3649 randomized patients (mean age, 52.4 years; 3643 women [99.8%]), all (100%) were included in analyses. After a second interim analysis, futility was declared for patients who were ER/PgR-, so the primary analysis was conducted for 2533 patients who were ER/PgR+. The median duration of follow-up in the ER/PgR+ group was 96.2 months (range, 0.2-121 months). Invasive disease-free survival events occurred in 465 patients who were ER/PgR+. The incidence rates for invasive disease-free survival events were 2.78 per 100 patient-years in the metformin group vs 2.74 per 100 patient-years in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84-1.21; P = .93), and the incidence rates for death were 1.46 per 100 patient-years in the metformin group vs 1.32 per 100 patient-years in the placebo group (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.86-1.41; P = .47). Among patients who were ER/PgR-, followed up for a median of 94.1 months, incidence of invasive disease-free survival events was 3.58 vs 3.60 per 100 patient-years, respectively (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79-1.30; P = .92). None of the 3 secondary outcomes analyzed in the ER/PgR+ group had statistically significant differences. Grade 3 nonhematological toxic events occurred more frequently in patients taking metformin than in patients taking placebo (21.5% vs 17.5%, respectively, P = .003). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events in the metformin vs placebo groups were hypertension (2.4% vs 1.9%), irregular menses (1.5% vs 1.4%), and diarrhea (1.9% vs 7.0%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with high-risk operable breast cancer without diabetes, the addition of metformin vs placebo to standard breast cancer treatment did not significantly improve invasive disease-free survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01101438

Effect of Metformin Versus Placebo on New Primary Cancers in Canadian Cancer Trials Group MA.32:A Secondary Analysis of a Phase III Randomized Double-Blind Trial in Early Breast Cancer

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned coprimary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Metformin has been associated with lower cancer risk in epidemiologic and preclinical research. In the MA.32 randomized adjuvant breast cancer trial, metformin (v placebo) did not affect invasive disease-free or overall survival. Here, we report metformin effects on the risk of new cancer. Between 2010 and 2013, 3,649 patients with breast cancer younger than 75 years without diabetes with high-risk T1-3, N0-3 M0 breast cancer (any estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2) were randomly assigned to metformin 850 mg orally twice a day or placebo twice a day for 5 years. New primary invasive cancers (outside the ipsilateral breast) developing as a first event were identified. Time to events was described by the competing risks method; two-sided likelihood ratio tests adjusting for age, BMI, smoking, and alcohol intake were used to compare metformin versus placebo arms. A total of 184 patients developed new invasive cancers: 102 metformin and 82 placebo, hazard ratio (HR), 1.25; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.68; P = .13. These included 48 contralateral invasive breast cancers (27 metformin v 21 placebo), HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.72 to 2.27; P = .40 and 136 new nonbreast primary cancers (75 metformin v 61 placebo), HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.74; P = .21. Metformin did not reduce the risk of new cancer development in these nondiabetic patients with breast cancer

Cancer antigen 15-3/mucin 1 Levels in CCTG MA.32:a breast cancer randomized trial of metformin vs placebo

BACKGROUND: Circulating levels of cancer antigen (CA) 15–3, a tumor marker and regulator of cellular metabolism, were reduced by metformin in a nonrandomized neoadjuvant study. We examined the effects of metformin (vs placebo) on CA 15–3 in participants of MA.32, a phase III randomized trial in early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: A total of 3649 patients with T1-3, N0-3, M0 breast cancer were randomly assigned; pretreatment and 6-month on-treatment fasting plasma were centrally assayed for CA 15–3. Genomic DNA was analyzed for the rs11212617 single nucleotide polymorphism. Absolute and relative change of CA 15–3 (metformin vs placebo) were compared using Wilcoxon rank and t tests. Regression models adjusted for baseline differences and assessed key interactions. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Mean (SD) age was 52.4 (10.0) years. The majority of patients had T2/3, node-positive, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer treated with (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy and hormone therapy. Mean (SD) baseline CA 15–3 was 17.7 (7.6) and 18.0 (8.1 U/mL). At 6 months, CA 15–3 was statistically significantly reduced in metformin vs placebo arms (absolute geometric mean reduction in CA 15–3 = 7.7% vs 2.0%, P  .11). CONCLUSIONS: Our observation that metformin reduces CA 15–3 by approximately 6% was corroborated in a large placebo-controlled randomized trial. The clinical implications of this reduction in CA 15–3 will be explored in upcoming efficacy analyses of breast cancer outcomes in MA.32