Prevalence and influence on outcome of HER2/neu, HER3 and NRG1 expression in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Our aim was to explore the impact of the HER2/neu, HER3 receptor as well as their ligands' neuregulin (NRG1) expression on the outcome of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). NRG1, HER2/neu and HER3 expression was evaluated in 208 patients with mCRC receiving 5-FU/LV plus irinotecan or irinotecan plus oxaliplatin as the first-line treatment. Biomarker expression was correlated with the outcome of patients. NRG1 (low: 192 vs. high: 16), HER2/neu (low: 201 vs. high: 7) and HER3 (low: 69 vs. high: 139) expressions were assessed in 208 patients. High versus low NRG1 expression significantly affected progression-free survival (PFS) 4.7 vs. 8.2 months, hazard ratio (HR): 2.45; 95{\%} confidence interval (CI): 1.45-4.13; P=0.001, but not overall survival (OS) (15.5 vs. 20.7 months, HR: 1.33; 95{\%} CI: 0.76-2.35; P=0.32). High versus low HER3 expression (PFS: 7.1 vs. 8.8 months, HR: 1.11; 95{\%} CI: 0.82-1.50; P=0.50; OS: 19.8 vs. 21.1 months, HR: 0.95; 95{\%} CI: 0.70-1.30; P=0.75) and high compared with low HER2/neu expression (PFS: 7.7 vs. 8.0 months, HR: 1.07; 95{\%} CI: 0.71-1.60; P=0.75; OS: 16.6 vs. 21.1 months, HR: 1.13; 95{\%} CI: 0.75-1.71; P=0.57) did not influence outcome. High NRG1 expression was associated with inferior PFS in the FIRE-1 trial. We did not detect a prognostic impact of HER2/neu and HER3 overexpression in mCRC. The frequency of overexpression was comparable with other studies

pERK, pAKT and p53 as tissue biomarkers in erlotinib-treated patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a translational subgroup analysis from AIO-PK0104

Background: The role of pERK, pAKT and p53 as biomarkers in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer has not yet been defined. Methods: Within the phase III study AIO-PK0104 281 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer received an erlotinib-based 1st-line regimen. Archival tissue from 153 patients was available for central immunohistochemistry staining for pERK, pAKT and p53. Within a subgroup analysis, biomarker data were correlated with efficacy endpoints and skin rash using a Cox regression model. Results: Fifty-five out of 153 patients were classified as pERK(low) and 98 patients as pERK(high); median overall survival (OS) was 6.2 months and 5.7 months, respectively (HR 1.29, p = 0.16). When analysing pERK as continuous variable, the pERK score was significantly associated with OS (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.0-1.12, p = 0.05). Twenty-one of 35 patients were pAKT(low) and 14/35 pAKT(high) with a corresponding median OS of 6.4 months and 6.8 months, respectively (HR 1.03, p = 0.93). Four out of 50 patients had a complete loss of p53 expression, 20 patients a regular expression and 26 patients had tumors with p53 overexpression. The p53 status had no impact on OS (p = 0.91); however, a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) (6.0 vs 1.8 months, HR 0.24, p = 0.02) and a higher rate of skin rash (84% vs 25%, p = 0.02) was observed for patients with a regular p53 expression compared to patients with a complete loss of p53. Conclusion: pERK expression may have an impact on OS in erlotinib-treated patients with advanced pancreatic cancer; p53 should be further investigated for its potential role as a predictive marker for PFS and skin rash

a randomized, placebo-controlled phase II AIO trial with serum biomarker program

Background As a multi-targeted anti-angiogenic receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) inhibitor sunitinib (SUN) has been established for renal cancer and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. In advanced refractory esophagogastric cancer patients, monotherapy with SUN was associated with good tolerability but limited tumor response. Methods This double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase II clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of SUN as an adjunct to second and third-line FOLFIRI (NCT01020630). Patients were randomized to receive 6-week cycles including FOLFIRI plus sodium folinate (Na-FOLFIRI) once every two weeks and SUN or placebo (PL) continuously for four weeks followed by a 2-week rest period. The primary study endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Preplanned serum analyses of VEGF-A, VEGF-D, VEGFR2 and SDF-1α were performed retrospectively. Results Overall, 91 patients were randomized, 45 in each group (one patient withdrew). The main grade ≥3 AEs were neutropenia and leucopenia, observed in 56 %/20 % and 27 %/16 % for FOLFIRI + SUN/FOLFIRI + PL, respectively. Median PFS was similar, 3.5 vs. 3.3 months (hazard ratio (HR) 1.11, 95 % CI 0.70–1.74, P = 0.66) for FOLFIRI + SUN vs. FOLFIRI + PL, respectively. For FOLFIRI + SUN, a trend towards longer median overall survival (OS) compared with placebo was observed (10.4 vs. 8.9 months, HR 0.82, 95 % CI 0.50–1.34, one-sided P = 0.21). In subgroup serum analyses, significant changes in VEGF-A (P = 0.017), VEGFR2 (P = 0.012) and VEGF-D (P < 0.001) serum levels were observed. Conclusions Although sunitinib combined with FOLFIRI did not improve PFS and response in chemotherapy-resistant gastric cancer, a trend towards better OS was observed. Further biomarker-driven studies with other anti- angiogenic RTK inhibitors are warranted. Trial registration This study was registered prospectively in the NCT Clinical Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) under NCT01020630 on November 23, 2009 after approval by the leading ethics committee of the Medical Association of Rhineland- Palatinate, Mainz, in coordination with the participating ethics committees (see Additional file 2) on September 16, 2009

Standard diametric versus volumetric early tumor shrinkage as a predictor of survival in metastatic colorectal cancer : subgroup findings of the randomized, open-label phase III trial FIRE-3 / AIO KRK-0306

Objectives: Early tumor shrinkage (ETS) quantifies the objective response at the first assessment during systemic treatment. In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), ETS gains relevance as an early available surrogate for patient survival. The aim of this study was to increase the predictive accuracy of ETS by using semi-automated volumetry instead of standard diametric measurements. Methods: Diametric and volumetric ETS were retrospectively calculated in 253 mCRC patients who received 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) combined with either cetuximab or bevacizumab. The association of diametric and volumetric ETS with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was compared. Result:s Continuous diametric and volumetric ETS predicted survival similarly regarding concordance indices (p > .05). In receiver operating characteristics, a volumetric threshold of 45% optimally identified short-term survivors. For patients with volumetric ETS ≥ 45% (vs < 45%), median OS was longer (32.5 vs 19.0 months, p < .001) and the risk of death reduced for the first and second year (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.25, p < .001, and HR = 0.39, p < .001). Patients with ETS ≥ 45%had a reduced risk of progressive disease only for the first 6 months (HR = 0.26, p < .001). These survival times and risks were comparable to those of diametric ETS ≥ 20% (vs < 20%). Conclusions: The accuracy of ETS in predicting survival was not increased by volumetric instead of diametric measurements. Continuous diametric and volumetric ETS similarly predicted survival, regardless of whether patients received cetuximab or bevacizumab. A volumetric ETS threshold of 45%and a diametric ETS threshold of 20%equally identified short-term survivors.peer-reviewe

A randomized, phase III trial of capecitabine plus bevacizumab (Cape-Bev) versus capecitabine plus irinotecan plus bevacizumab (CAPIRI-Bev) in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: The AIO KRK 0110 Trial/ML22011 Trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Several randomized trials have indicated that combination chemotherapy applied in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) does not significantly improve overall survival when compared to the sequential use of cytotoxic agents (CAIRO, MRC Focus, FFCD 2000-05). The present study investigates the question whether this statement holds true also for bevacizumab-based first-line treatment including escalation- and de-escalation strategies.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The AIO KRK 0110/ML22011 trial is a two-arm, multicenter, open-label randomized phase III trial comparing the efficacy and safety of capecitabine plus bevacizumab (Cape-Bev) versus capecitabine plus irinotecan plus bevacizumab (CAPIRI-Bev) in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-1, will be assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either capecitabine 1250 mg/m²bid for 14d (d1-14) plus bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg (d1) q3w (Arm A) or capecitabine 800 mg/m²BID for 14d (d1-14), irinotecan 200 mg/m²(d1) and bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg (d1) q3w (Arm B). Patients included into this trial are required to consent to the analysis of tumour tissue and blood for translational investigations. In Arm A, treatment escalation from Cape-Bev to CAPIRI-Bev is recommended in case of progressive disease (PD). In Arm B, de-escalation from CAPIRI-Bev to Cape-Bev is possible after 6 months of treatment or in case of irinotecan-associated toxicity. Re-escalation to CAPIRI-Bev after PD is possible. The primary endpoint is time to failure of strategy (TFS). Secondary endpoints are overall response rate (ORR), overall survival, progression-free survival, safety and quality of life.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The AIO KRK 0110 trial is designed for patients with disseminated, but asymptomatic mCRC who are not potential candidates for surgical resection of metastasis. Two bevacizumab-based strategies are compared: one starting as single-agent chemotherapy (Cape-Bev) allowing escalation to CAPIRI-Bev and another starting with combination chemotherapy (CAPIRI-Bev) and allowing de-escalation to Cape-Bev and subsequent re-escalation if necessary.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01249638">NCT01249638</a></p> <p>EudraCT-No.: 2009-013099-38</p

Multiple Myeloma Treatment in Real-world Clinical Practice : Results of a Prospective, Multinational, Noninterventional Study

Funding Information: The authors would like to thank all patients and their families and all the EMMOS investigators for their valuable contributions to the study. The authors would like to acknowledge Robert Olie for his significant contribution to the EMMOS study. Writing support during the development of our report was provided by Laura Mulcahy and Catherine Crookes of FireKite, an Ashfield company, a part of UDG Healthcare plc, which was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and Janssen Global Services, LLC. The EMMOS study was supported by research funding from Janssen Pharmaceutical NV and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Funding Information: The authors would like to thank all patients and their families and all the EMMOS investigators for their valuable contributions to the study. The authors would like to acknowledge Robert Olie for his significant contribution to the EMMOS study. Writing support during the development of our report was provided by Laura Mulcahy and Catherine Crookes of FireKite, an Ashfield company, a part of UDG Healthcare plc, which was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc, and Janssen Global Services, LLC. The EMMOS study was supported by research funding from Janssen Pharmaceutical NV and Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Funding Information: M.M. has received personal fees from Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Novartis, and Takeda and grants from Janssen and Sanofi during the conduct of the study. E.T. has received grants from Janssen and personal fees from Janssen and Takeda during the conduct of the study, and grants from Amgen, Celgene/Genesis, personal fees from Amgen, Celgene/Genesis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Glaxo-Smith Kline outside the submitted work. M.V.M. has received personal fees from Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, and Takeda outside the submitted work. M.C. reports honoraria from Janssen, outside the submitted work. M. B. reports grants from Janssen Cilag during the conduct of the study. M.D. has received honoraria for participation on advisory boards for Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, and Novartis. H.S. has received honoraria from Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Takeda outside the submitted work. V.P. reports personal fees from Janssen during the conduct of the study and grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Amgen, grants and personal fees from Sanofi, and personal fees from Takeda outside the submitted work. W.W. has received personal fees and grants from Amgen, Celgene, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Gilead, and Janssen and nonfinancial support from Roche outside the submitted work. J.S. reports grants and nonfinancial support from Janssen Pharmaceutical during the conduct of the study. V.L. reports funding from Janssen Global Services LLC during the conduct of the study and study support from Janssen-Cilag and Pharmion outside the submitted work. A.P. reports employment and shareholding of Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) during the conduct of the study. C.C. reports employment at Janssen-Cilag during the conduct of the study. C.F. reports employment at Janssen Research and Development during the conduct of the study. F.T.B. reports employment at Janssen-Cilag during the conduct of the study. The remaining authors have stated that they have no conflicts of interest. Publisher Copyright: © 2018 The AuthorsMultiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease, with little information available on its management in real-world clinical practice. The results of the present prospective, noninterventional observational study revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to treat MM. Our results also provide data to inform health economic, pharmacoepidemiologic, and outcomes research, providing a framework for the design of protocols to improve the outcomes of patients with MM. Background: The present prospective, multinational, noninterventional study aimed to document and describe real-world treatment regimens and disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Patients and Methods: Adult patients initiating any new MM therapy from October 2010 to October 2012 were eligible. A multistage patient/site recruitment model was applied to minimize the selection bias; enrollment was stratified by country, region, and practice type. The patient medical and disease features, treatment history, and remission status were recorded at baseline, and prospective data on treatment, efficacy, and safety were collected electronically every 3 months. Results: A total of 2358 patients were enrolled. Of these patients, 775 and 1583 did and did not undergo stem cell transplantation (SCT) at any time during treatment, respectively. Of the patients in the SCT and non-SCT groups, 49%, 21%, 14%, and 15% and 57%, 20%, 12% and 10% were enrolled at treatment line 1, 2, 3, and ≥ 4, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT groups, 45% and 54% of the patients had received bortezomib-based therapy without thalidomide/lenalidomide, 12% and 18% had received thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy without bortezomib, and 30% and 4% had received bortezomib plus thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy as frontline treatment, respectively. The corresponding proportions of SCT and non-SCT patients in lines 2, 3, and ≥ 4 were 45% and 37%, 30% and 37%, and 12% and 3%, 33% and 27%, 35% and 32%, and 8% and 2%, and 27% and 27%, 27% and 23%, and 6% and 4%, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT patients, the overall response rate was 86% to 97% and 64% to 85% in line 1, 74% to 78% and 59% to 68% in line 2, 55% to 83% and 48% to 60% in line 3, and 49% to 65% and 36% and 45% in line 4, respectively, for regimens that included bortezomib and/or thalidomide/lenalidomide. Conclusion: The results of our prospective study have revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to manage MM in real-life practice. This diversity was linked to factors such as novel agent accessibility and evolving treatment recommendations. Our results provide insight into associated clinical benefits.publishersversionPeer reviewe