Concordance Between Tissue ALK Detection by Immunohistochemistry and Plasma ALK Detection by Next-Generation Sequencing in the Randomized Phase 3 ALEX Study in Patients With Treatment-Naive Advanced ALK-Positive NSCLC

INTRODUCTION: The Blood First Assay Screening Trial revealed the clinical applicability of blood-based next-generation sequencing to identify patients with ALK-positive NSCLC for alectinib treatment. To understand the relationship between tissue-based versus blood-based testing, we retrospectively investigated concordance between VENTANA ALK (D5F3) CDx immunohistochemistry and the FoundationACT (FACT; Foundation Medicine, Inc.) plasma assay, and compared clinical efficacy between phase 3 ALEX study subpopulations. METHODS: Patients with advanced ALK-positive (by immunohistochemistry) NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to alectinib 600 mg or crizotinib 250 mg, twice daily. Assessable baseline plasma samples were analyzed for ALK positivity by FACT; positive percent agreement with immunohistochemistry was evaluated. Progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, and objective response rate were compared between intention-to-treat (ITT) and biomarker-evaluable populations, and plasma ALK-positive and plasma ALK-negative subpopulations. RESULTS: In the ITT population (303 patients; alectinib, 152; crizotinib, 151), all patients had ALK-positive tumors by immunohistochemistry. In the biomarker-evaluable population (149 patients; alectinib, 76; crizotinib, 73), 105 had plasma ALK-positive and 44 had plasma ALK-negative tumors. Positive percent agreement between immunohistochemistry and FACT was 70.5% (105 of 149; 95% confidence interval: 62.5-77.7). Baseline characteristics were generally balanced, with some exceptions, notably tumor burden. Median PFS in plasma ALK-positive and ALK-negative patients was 22.4 months and not estimable with alectinib and 7.3 months and 12.9 months with crizotinib, respectively; median duration of response was 25.9 months and not estimable with alectinib and 5.6 months and 11.5 months with crizotinib, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Reasonable concordance between FACT and immunohistochemistry was observed; both methods are valuable in identifying ALK-positive patients, separately or concurrently. Alectinib was found to have superior PFS in the plasma ALK-positive population, as in the ITT population

Who Is In Charge, and Who Should Be? The Disciplinary Role of the Commander in Military Justice Systems

BackgroundStandard therapy for newly diagnosed glioblastoma is radiotherapy plus temozolomide. In this phase 3 study, we evaluated the effect of the addition of bevacizumab to radiotherapy-temozolomide for the treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma. MethodsWe randomly assigned patients with supratentorial glioblastoma to receive intravenous bevacizumab (10 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks) or placebo, plus radiotherapy (2 Gy 5 days a week; maximum, 60 Gy) and oral temozolomide (75 mg per square meter of body-surface area per day) for 6 weeks. After a 28-day treatment break, maintenance bevacizumab (10 mg per kilogram intravenously every 2 weeks) or placebo, plus temozolomide (150 to 200 mg per square meter per day for 5 days), was continued for six 4-week cycles, followed by bevacizumab monotherapy (15 mg per kilogram intravenously every 3 weeks) or placebo until the disease progressed or unacceptable toxic effects developed. The coprimary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival. ResultsA total of 458 patients were assigned to the bevacizumab group, and 463 patients to the placebo group. The median progression-free survival was longer in the bevacizumab group than in the placebo group (10.6 months vs. 6.2 months; stratified hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 0.74; P<0.001). The benefit with respect to progression-free survival was observed across subgroups. Overall survival did not differ significantly between groups (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.02; P=0.10). The respective overall survival rates with bevacizumab and placebo were 72.4% and 66.3% at 1 year (P=0.049) and 33.9% and 30.1% at 2 years (P=0.24). Baseline health-related quality of life and performance status were maintained longer in the bevacizumab group, and the glucocorticoid requirement was lower. More patients in the bevacizumab group than in the placebo group had grade 3 or higher adverse events (66.8% vs. 51.3%) and grade 3 or higher adverse events often associated with bevacizumab (32.5% vs. 15.8%). ConclusionsThe addition of bevacizumab to radiotherapy-temozolomide did not improve survival in patients with glioblastoma. Improved progression-free survival and maintenance of baseline quality of life and performance status were observed with bevacizumab; however, the rate of adverse events was higher with bevacizumab than with placebo.

Bevacizumab plus radiotherapy-temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma

BackgroundStandard therapy for newly diagnosed glioblastoma is radiotherapy plus temozolomide. In this phase 3 study, we evaluated the effect of the addition of bevacizumab to radiotherapy-temozolomide for the treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma. MethodsWe randomly assigned patients with supratentorial glioblastoma to receive intravenous bevacizumab (10 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks) or placebo, plus radiotherapy (2 Gy 5 days a week; maximum, 60 Gy) and oral temozolomide (75 mg per square meter of body-surface area per day) for 6 weeks. After a 28-day treatment break, maintenance bevacizumab (10 mg per kilogram intravenously every 2 weeks) or placebo, plus temozolomide (150 to 200 mg per square meter per day for 5 days), was continued for six 4-week cycles, followed by bevacizumab monotherapy (15 mg per kilogram intravenously every 3 weeks) or placebo until the disease progressed or unacceptable toxic effects developed. The coprimary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival. ResultsA total of 458 patients were assigned to the bevacizumab group, and 463 patients to the placebo group. The median progression-free survival was longer in the bevacizumab group than in the placebo group (10.6 months vs. 6.2 months; stratified hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 0.74; P<0.001). The benefit with respect to progression-free survival was observed across subgroups. Overall survival did not differ significantly between groups (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.02; P=0.10). The respective overall survival rates with bevacizumab and placebo were 72.4% and 66.3% at 1 year (P=0.049) and 33.9% and 30.1% at 2 years (P=0.24). Baseline health-related quality of life and performance status were maintained longer in the bevacizumab group, and the glucocorticoid requirement was lower. More patients in the bevacizumab group than in the placebo group had grade 3 or higher adverse events (66.8% vs. 51.3%) and grade 3 or higher adverse events often associated with bevacizumab (32.5% vs. 15.8%). ConclusionsThe addition of bevacizumab to radiotherapy-temozolomide did not improve survival in patients with glioblastoma. Improved progression-free survival and maintenance of baseline quality of life and performance status were observed with bevacizumab; however, the rate of adverse events was higher with bevacizumab than with placebo.

Real-World Comparative Effectiveness of First-Line Alectinib Versus Crizotinib in Patients With Advanced ALK-Positive NSCLC With or Without Baseline Central Nervous System Metastases

Introduction: Alectinib was found to have superior efficacy to crizotinib in the phase 3 ALEX study and is a preferred initial treatment for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC. To understand the efficacy of alectinib in U.S. clinical practice, we conducted a retrospective real-world comparative effectiveness analysis of first-line alectinib versus crizotinib. Methods: Adults with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who received first-line alectinib (from December 11, 2015) or crizotinib (from January 1, 2014) were included from a real-world database. Propensity scores were applied to balance baseline characteristics. Real-world data (RWD), including real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS), real-world overall survival, real-world time to new central nervous system (CNS) metastases, and outcomes in patients with or without baseline CNS metastases were analyzed. The ALEX-like RWD cohort (filtered by ALEX laboratory eligibility criteria) was used to compare real-world comparative effectiveness with ALEX. Results: The RWD cohort comprised 364 patients (141 alectinib; 223 crizotinib); rwPFS (weighted hazard ratio [wHR] = 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.33–0.65) and real-world overall survival (wHR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.31–0.69) were significantly improved with alectinib versus crizotinib. In patients with baseline brain scans, a substantial rwPFS benefit was found regardless of baseline CNS metastases. Real-world time to new CNS metastases was delayed with alectinib versus crizotinib in patients with (wHR = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.16–0.52) and without (wHR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.24–0.76) baseline CNS metastases. The ALEX-like RWD cohort comprised 325 patients (120 alectinib; 205 crizotinib); alectinib was found to have similar rwPFS benefits with ALEX. Conclusions: Outcomes were significantly improved with first-line alectinib versus crizotinib in patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC in the U.S. real-world setting

Open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase II study of the EpSSG and the ITCC evaluating the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy in childhood and adolescent patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcoma (the BERNIE study)

Purpose We evaluated the role of bevacizumab as part of the multi-modality treatment of children and adolescents with metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) or non-rhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcoma (NRSTS). Patients and methods Eligible patients aged 656 months to <18 years were randomised to receive induction chemotherapy (four cycles of IVADo + five cycles of IVA, \ub1bevacizumab), surgery and/or radiotherapy, followed by maintenance chemotherapy (12 cycles of low-dose cyclophosphamide + vinorelbine, \ub1bevacizumab). The primary objective was event-free survival (EFS) evaluated by an independent radiological review committee. Results One hundred and fifty-four patients were randomised to receive chemotherapy alone (n = 80) or with bevacizumab (n = 74). At the data cut-off for the primary efficacy analysis, median EFS was 14.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.8\u201335.9) with chemotherapy and 20.6 months (95% CI: 15.2\u201324.9) with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (stratified hazard ratio [HR] = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.61\u20131.41; P = 0.72). The HR for EFS in patients with RMS (n = 103) was 1.24 (95% CI: 0.73\u20132.09) versus 0.64 (95% CI: 0.32\u20131.26) for those with NRSTS (n = 49). Objective response rate was 36.0% (95% CI: 25.2\u201347.9) with chemotherapy and 54.0% (95% CI: 40.9\u201366.6) with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (difference of 18.0%; 95% CI: 0.6\u201335.3). There were no treatment-related deaths and no increased incidence of grade 3/4 toxicities with bevacizumab. Conclusion The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy appeared tolerable in children and adolescents with metastatic RMS/NRSTS, but the primary end-point of EFS did not show statistically significant improvement