Adding epoetin alfa to intense dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer : randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND: The AGO-ETC trial compared 5-year relapse-free survival of intense dose-dense (IDD) sequential chemotherapy with epirubicin (E), paclitaxel (T), and cyclophosphamide (C) (IDD-ETC) every 2 weeks vs conventional scheduled epirubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel (EC→T) (every 3 weeks) as adjuvant treatment in high-risk breast cancer patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of epoetin alfa in a second randomization of the intense dose-dense arm. METHODS: One thousand two hundred eighty-four patients were enrolled; 658 patients were randomly assigned to the IDD-ETC treatment group. Within the IDD-ETC group, 324 patients were further randomly assigned to the epoetin alfa group, and 319 were randomly assigned to the non-erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) control group. Primary efficacy endpoints included change in hemoglobin level from baseline to Cycle 9 and the percentage of subjects requiring red blood cell transfusion. Relapse-free survival, overall survival, and intramammary relapse were secondary endpoints estimated with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods. Except for the primary hypothesis, all statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Epoetin alfa avoided the decrease in hemoglobin level (no decrease in the epoetin alfa group vs -2.20g/dL change for the control group; P < .001) and statistically significantly reduced the percentage of subjects requiring red blood cell transfusion (12.8% vs 28.1%; P < .0001). The incidence of thrombotic events was 7% in the epoetin alfa arm vs 3% in the control arm. After a median follow-up of 62 months, epoetin alfa treatment did not affect overall survival, relapse-free survival, or intramammary relapse. CONCLUSIONS: Epoetin alfa resulted in improved hemoglobin levels and decreased transfusions without an impact on relapse-free or overall survival. However, epoetin alfa had an adverse effect, resulting in increased thrombosis

CoCStom trial: study protocol for a randomised trial comparing completeness of adjuvant chemotherapy after early versus late diverting stoma closure in low anterior resection for rectal cancer

Background: Current evidence supports a diverting stoma in patients undergoing low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer as it reduces clinical severity of anastomotic leakage. However, relevant stoma morbidity after rectal cancer surgery exists and has a significant impact on quality of life. Moreover, a diverting stoma has an influence on completeness of chemotherapy but it remains unclear in which way. There is no evidence regarding optimal timing for stoma closure in relation to adjuvant chemotherapy. Two randomised controlled trials have studied early stoma closure after low anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer, one of them showing that early closure around day 8 after resection is possible without increasing morbidity. Methods/Design: CoCStom is a randomised multicentre trial comparing completeness of adjuvant chemotherapy as primary endpoint after early (8–10 days after resection, before starting adjuvant therapy) versus late (~26 weeks after resection and completion of adjuvant therapy) stoma closure in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer undergoing low anterior resection after neoadjuvant therapy. After exclusion of post-operative anastomotic leakage 257 patients from 30 German hospitals are planned to be included in order to assure a power of 80 % for the confirmatory analysis of at least 214 evaluable cases. An absolute increase of 20 % for the rate of completely administered adjuvant chemotherapy is regarded as a clinically meaningful step forward and serves as basis for sample size calculation. Quality of life, stoma-related complications, individual completeness of chemotherapy rate, percentage of patients stopping adjuvant therapy or undergoing dose modifications or delay, oncological outcomes, cumulative days of hospitalisation and number of readmissions, rate of symptomatic anastomotic leaks after stoma closure, mortality, post-operative complications and toxicity of adjuvant chemotherapy are secondary endpoints. Discussion: The CoCStom trial aims to clarify optimal timing of stoma closure in the context of adjuvant chemotherapy. Depending on the results of the trial, patients could benefit either from early or late stoma closure in regard to long term oncological survival due to a higher rate of completeness of adjuvant chemotherapy treatment and thus better effectiveness. Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00005113 . Registered 28 August 201

Bevacizumab as maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of individual patients' data from 3 phase III studies.

The real impact of bevacizumab maintenance as single agent in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains unclear. SAKK-41/06 and PRODIGE-9 failed to demonstrate the non-inferiority and superiority of bevacizumab versus no maintenance, respectively, while AIO-KRK-0207 showed the non-inferiority of maintenance bevacizumab versus bevacizumab and fluoropyrimidines for time to strategy failure.Bibliography electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for English published clinical trials prospectively randomizing mCRC patients to receive bevacizumab maintenance or not after first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Individual patients' data (IPD) were provided by investigators for all included trials. Primary end-points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), both from the start of induction and maintenance. Univariate and multivariate analyses for PFS and OS were performed.Three phase III studies - PRODIGE-9, AIO-KRK-0207 and SAKK-41/06 - were included. Considering the different timing of randomization, IPD of patients not progressed during induction and starting maintenance phase entered the analysis. 909 patients were included, 457 (50%) received bevacizumab maintenance. Median PFS from induction start was 9.6 and 8.9 months in bevacizumab group versus no maintenance group, respectively (HR 0.78; 95%CI: 0.68-0.89; p 0.0001). Subgroups analysis for PFS showed a significant interaction according for RAS status (p = 0.048), with a maintenance benefit limited to RAS wild-type patients. No difference in terms of OS was observed.Despite the statistically significant PFS improvement for bevacizumab maintenance, the absolute benefit appears limited. Subgroup analysis shows a differential effect of bevacizumab maintenance in favor of RAS wild-type patients. Considering these results, maintenance therapy with fluoropyrimidine with or without bevacizumab remains the first option. Single agent bevacizumab maintenance can be considered in selected cases, such as cumulative toxicity or patient's refusal, in particular for RAS wild-type patients

Pazopanib with 5‐FU and oxaliplatin as first line therapy in advanced gastric cancer: A randomized phase‐II study—The PaFLO trial. A study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie AIO‐STO‐0510

VEGF inhibition in gastric cancer has a proven benefit in the second line setting. Pazopanib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor, selectively inhibits VEGFR-1, -2 and -3, c-kit and PDGF-R resulting in inhibition of angiogenesis. This open-label randomized phase II trial (2:1) investigated the efficacy of combining pazopanib with FLO (5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin) vs FLO alone (internal control arm) as first-line treatment in patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). Eighty-seven patients were randomized and 78 patients were eligible and evaluable (PaFLO arm 51 patients, FLO arm 27 patients). The PFS rate at 6 months (primary endpoint) was 34% in the PaFLO arm vs 30% in the FLO arm. Comparing PaFLO with FLO median PFS was 4.66 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.87-6.46) vs 4.47 months (95% CI 1.79-7.14) (95% CI, hazard ratio [HR] 0.96 (0.60-1.55), P = .882 [exploratory]); median OS was 10.19 months (95% CI 5.46-14.92) vs 7.33 months (95% CI 4.93-9.73), (95% CI HR 1.01 [0.62-1.65], P = .953, exploratory), disease control rate was 72% vs 59%. PaFLO was well tolerable, toxicities were slightly higher in the PaFLO arm. Major adverse events were loss of appetite, nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Adding pazopanib to chemotherapy shows signs of efficacy but no major improvement in this randomized phase 2 trial. The PFS at 6 months in both arms was lower than expected from the literature. Biomarkers identifying subgroups who benefit and novel combinations are needed. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01503372

Treatment breaks in first line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: an individual patient data meta-analysis

Background Intermittent systemic anti-cancer therapy in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC) may improve quality of life without compromising overall survival (OS). We aimed to use individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) from multiple randomised controlled trials evaluating intermittent strategies to inform clinical practice. We also aimed to validate whether thrombocytosis as a predictive biomarker identified patients with significantly reduced OS receiving a complete treatment break. Patients and Methods An IPDMA of intermittent strategy impact on survival was undertaken, including all relevant trials in which data were available. Intermittent strategies were classified into two groups: a planned stopping of all therapy (“treatment break strategy”; 6 trials; 2,907 patients) or to the same treatment omitting oxaliplatin (“maintenance strategy”; 3 trials; 1,271 patients). The primary analysis sample was of patients successfully completing induction therapy. Additionally, a pre-planned analysis of the predictive value of thrombocytosis on survival under a continuous versus an intermittent strategy was undertaken. Results All trials had comparable inclusion criteria. The overall IPDMA of intermittent therapy versus continuous therapy demonstrated no detriment in OS (HR=1.03 [95% CI 0.93-1.14]), whether from complete break (HR 1.04 [95% CI 0.87-1.26]) or maintenance strategies (HR 0.99 [95% CI 0.87-1.13]). Thrombocytosis was confirmed as a marker of poor prognosis in aCRC, but did not predict for OS detriment from treatment break strategies (interaction HR=0.97 [95% CI 0.66-1.40] compared to continuous therapy). Conclusion The highest levels of evidence from this IPMDA indicate no detriment in survival for patients receiving an intermittent therapy strategy, either for maintenance or complete break strategies. Although, thrombocytosis is confirmed as a marker of poor prognosis, it is not predictive of poor outcome for patients treated with intermittent therapy. An intermittent chemotherapy strategy can therefore be applied irrespective of baseline platelet count and does not result in inferior OS compared to continuous chemotherapy

Combined treatment of adenoid cystic carcinoma with cetuximab and IMRT plus C12 heavy ion boost: ACCEPT [ACC, Erbitux® and particle therapy]

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Local control in adjuvant/definitive RT of adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) is largely dose-dependent leading to the establishment of particle therapy in this indication. However, even modern techniques leave space for improvement of local control by intensification of local treatment. Radiation sensitization by exploitation of high EGFR-expression in ACC with the EGFR receptor antibody cetuximab seems promising.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>The ACCEPT trial is a prospective, mono-centric, phase I/II trial evaluating toxicity (primary endpoint: acute and late effects) and efficacy (secondary endpoint: local control, distant control, disease-free survival, overall survival) of the combined treatment with IMRT/carbon ion boost and weekly cetuximab in 49 patients with histologically proven (≥R1-resected, inoperable or Pn+) ACC. Patients receive 18 GyE carbon ions (6 fractions) and 54 Gy IMRT (2.0 Gy/fraction) in combination with weekly cetuximab throughout radiotherapy.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The primary objective of ACCEPT is to evaluate toxicity and feasibility of cetuximab and particle therapy in adenoid cystic carcinoma.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Clinical Trial Identifier: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01192087">NCT 01192087</a></p> <p>EudraCT number: 2010 - 022425 - 15</p

Final results of a phase I/II pilot study of capecitabine with or without vinorelbine after sequential dose-dense epirubicin and paclitaxel in high-risk early breast cancer

Background: The integration of the non-cross-resistant chemotherapeutic agents capecitabine and vinorelbine into an intensified dose-dense sequential anthracycline- and taxane-containing regimen in high-risk early breast cancer (EBC) could improve efficacy, but this combination was not examined in this context so far. Methods: Patients with stage II/IIIA EBC (four or more positive lymph nodes) received post-operative intensified dose-dense sequential epirubicin (150mg/m2 every 2 weeks) and paclitaxel (225mg/m2 every 2 weeks) with filgrastim and darbepoetin alfa, followed by capecitabine alone (dose levels 1 and 3) or with vinorelbine (dose levels 2 and 4). Capecitabine was given on days 1-14 every 21 days at 1000 or 1250 mg/m2 twice daily (dose levels 1/2 and 3/4, respectively). Vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 was given on days 1 and 8 of each 21-day course (dose levels 2 and 4). Results: Fifty-one patients were treated. There was one dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) at dose level 1. At dose level 2 (capecitabine and vinorelbine), five of 10 patients experienced DLTs. Therefore evaluation of vinorelbine was abandoned and dose level 3 (capecitabine monotherapy) was expanded. Hand-foot syndrome and diarrhoea were dose limiting with capecitabine 1250 mg/m2 twice daily. At 35.2 months' median follow-up, the estimated 3-year relapse-free and overall survival rates were 82% and 91%, respectively. Administration of capecitabine monotherapy after sequential dose-dense epirubicin and paclitaxel is feasible in node-positive EBC, while the combination of capecitabine and vinorelbine as used here caused more DLTs. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN38983527

Meta-analysis of randomized trials: evaluation of benefit from gemcitabine-based combination chemotherapy applied in advanced pancreatic cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Single-agent gemcitabine (GEM) is a standard treatment for advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer. This study examines the question whether GEM-based combination chemotherapy can further improve treatment efficacy.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate randomized trials comparing GEM versus GEM+X (X = cytotoxic agent). Fifteen trials including 4465 patients were eligible for an analysis of overall survival, the primary end-point of this investigation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The meta-analysis revealed a significant survival benefit for GEM+X with a pooled hazard ratio (HR) of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85 – 0.97, p = 0.004). The overall test for heterogeneity resulted in p = 0.82 (I²= 0%). The analysis of platinum-based combinations indicated a HR of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.76 – 0.96, p = 0.010), while for fluoropyrimidine-based combinations the HR was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.81 – 0.99, p = 0.030). No risk reduction was observed in the group of trials combining GEM with irinotecan, exatecan or pemetrexed (HR = 0.99). A meta-analysis of the trials with adequate information on baseline performance status (PS) was performed in five trials with 1682 patients. This analysis indicated that patients with a good PS had a marked survival benefit when receiving combination chemotherapy (HR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.67 – 0.87; p < 0.0001). By contrast, application of combination chemotherapy to patients with an initially poor PS appeared to be ineffective (HR = 1.08; 95% CI: 0.90 – 1.29, p = 0.40).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The meta-analysis of randomized trials indicated a significant survival benefit when GEM was either combined with platinum analogs or fluoropyrimidines. Based on a preliminary subgroup analysis (representing 38% of all patients included in this meta-analysis), pancreatic cancer patients with a good PS appear to benefit from GEM-based cytotoxic combinations, whereas patients with a poor PS seem to have no survival benefit from combination chemotherapy.</p

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