Prospective Multicenter Randomized Phase III Study of Weekly versus Standard Docetaxel (D2) for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Breast Cancer

Purpose: Previous phase II studies have indicated a greatly reduced hematotoxicity of docetaxel-based regimens administered on weekly schedules. The present trial was initiated to randomly compare the toxicity and efficacy of weekly docetaxel versus its standard 3-weekly application. Methods: Patients previously untreated with chemotherapy for metastatic disease were recruited. Patients aged >60 years or with a Karnofsky Perfomance Status (KPS) of 60-80% were eligible for the D2 study. Patients were randomized to receive docetaxel either on a 3-weekly {[}75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks (q3w)] or on a weekly (30 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15; q4w) schedule. Treatment was continued until a maximum of 8 cycles, unacceptable toxicity, or disease progression. All patients received standard corticosteroid prophylaxis. Results: Since statistical significance for the primary endpoint (toxicity) was achieved in the interim analysis, the study was closed according to the study protocol (102 of 162 patients). Compared to the standard arm, leukopenia >= grade 3 was a rare event in the weekly arm of the D2 study (per-patient analysis: 4.2% q1w vs. 51.9% q3w; p < 0.0001). No difference was observed between the 2 schedules regarding the occurrence of anemia or thrombocytopenia. With regard to non-hematological toxicity, there was a higher incidence of skin/nail and hepatological toxicity with the weekly schedule, whereas neurotoxicity was observed more often in the standard arm. The rate of omitted doses was significantly increased in the weekly arm (8.6% q1w vs. 0% q3w). The overall response rate was 22.9% in the weekly arm compared to 42.6% in the standard arm (p = 0.039). Time to progression was 5.4 (q1w) versus 6.3 (q3w) months (p = 0.91), and overall survival was 22.7 (q1w) versus 15.8 (q3w) months (p = 0.24). Conclusion: The present data support the feasibility of both weekly and 3-weekly application of docetaxel. As expected, severe leukopenia seems avoidable in weekly scheduled single-agent docetaxel and may serve as an important treatment option, particularly in elderly patients and patients with a reduced performance status. Copyright (C) 2011 S. Karger AG, Base

Prospective Multicenter Randomized Phase III Study of Weekly versus Standard Docetaxel plus Doxorubicin (D4) for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Breast Cancer

Purpose: Previous phase II studies have indicated a greatly reduced hematotoxicity of docetaxel-based regimens administered on weekly schedules. The present trial was initiated to compare the toxicity and efficacy of weekly docetaxel versus its standard 3-weekly application in combination with doxorubicin. Methods: Patients previously untreated with chemotherapy for metastatic disease were recruited. Inclusion criteria were age = grade 3 was observed in the standard arm of the D4 study compared to the weekly schedule (per-patient analysis: 61.9% q3w vs. 65.1% q1w; p > 0.05). Grade 3 and grade 4 fever, diarrhea, and infections occurred more frequently in the standard arm, whereas neurotoxicity and skin/nail disorders were observed more frequently in the weekly arm. Except for fever, none of these differences reached a level of significance. Dose delays, dose reductions, and the rate of omitted doses were increased in the weekly arm. The overall response rate was 44.2% in the weekly arm compared to 52.4% in the standard arm (p = 0.52). Time to progression was 6.2 (q1w) versus 10.3 (q3w) months (p = 0.36), and overall survival was 20.5 (q1w) versus 28.7 (q3w) months (p = 0.98). Conclusion: The present data support the feasibility of both weekly and 3-weekly application of docetaxel in combination with doxorubicin. Nevertheless, given that leukopenia was similar in both arms and the efficacy parameters were at least numerically inferior with the weekly schedule, standard 3-weekly application seems to be preferable for patients requiring combination chemotherapy. Copyright (C) 2011 S. Karger AG, Base

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, 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

The tumor patient in the COVID-19 pandemic–an interview-based study of 30 patients undergoing systemic antiproliferative therapy

Introduction Five months after COVID-19 first occurred and protective regulations were introduced, patients at three outpatient hematological/oncological centers in Bavaria who had received antiproliferative tumor therapy (n = 30) were questioned about the pandemic's impact. Patients, materials and methods In recorded semi-structured telephone interviews, the patients answered questions about their quality of life, treatment procedures, their relationship with medical care staff and modern communication technologies. Each interview consisted of 28 questions. The average length of an interview was 30 minutes. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed by means of a qualitative content analysis according to Mayring. Results The COVID-19 pandemic adds to the burden of patients by decreasing their social contacts. They perceived the new isolation and protective measures in outpatient clinics as mostly positive and said its impact had been only slightly adverse. With the implemented safety measures, they feel adequately protected and looked after and want their antiproliferative therapy to be performed as scheduled. Talking to medical staff provides additional reassurance. Conclusion Although the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the social isolation of tumor patients, it has had only a minor effect on tumor therapy in the surveyed patient population. The benefits of modern communication options to tumor patients remains uncertain and should be investigated further in future studies