Search

Background: This open-label, phase III trial compared chemoradiation followed by surgery with or without neoadjuvant and adjuvant cetuximab in patients with resectable esophageal carcinoma. Patients and methods: Patients were randomly assigned (1: 1) to two cycles of chemotherapy (docetaxel 75 mg/m2, cisplatin 75 mg/m2) followed by chemoradiation (45 Gy, docetaxel 20 mg/m2 and cisplatin 25 mg/m2, weekly for 5 weeks) and surgery, with or without neoadjuvant cetuximab 250 mg/m2 weekly and adjuvant cetuximab 500 mg/m2 fortnightly for 3 months. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results: In total, 300 patients (median age, 61 years; 88% male; 63% adenocarcinoma; 85% cT3/4a, 90% cNþ) were assigned to cetuximab (n=149) or control (n=151). The R0-resection rate was 95% for cetuximab versus 97% for control. Postoperative treatment-related mortality was 6% in both arms. Median PFS was 2.9 years [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.0 to not reached] with cetuximab and 2.0 years (95% CI, 1.5-2.8) with control [hazard ratio (HR), 0.79; 95% CI, 0.58-1.07; P=0.13]. Median overall survival (OS) time was 5.1 years (95% CI, 3.7 to not reached) versus 3.0 years (95% CI, 2.2-4.2) for cetuximab and control, respectively (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52-1.01; P=0.055). Time to loco-regional failure after R0-resection was significantly longer for cetuximab (HR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.90; P=0.017); time to distant failure did not differ between arms (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.64-1.59, P=0.97). Cetuximab did not increase adverse events in neoadjuvant or postoperative settings. Conclusion: Adding cetuximab to multimodal therapy significantly improved loco-regional control, and led to clinically relevant, but not-significant improvements in PFS and OS in resectable esophageal carcinoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) and bevacizumab are active agents in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We carried out a multicenter, single-arm phase II trial to evaluate the toxicity and efficacy of PLD and bevacizumab as first-line treatment in MBC patients.Methods: Bevacizumab (10 mg/kg) and PLD (20 mg/m2) were infused on days 1 and 15 of a 4-week cycle for a maximum of six cycles. Thereafter, bevacizumab monotherapy was continued at the same dose until progression or toxicity. The primary objective was safety and tolerability, and the secondary objective was to evaluate efficacy of the combination.Results: Thirty-nine of 43 patients were assessable for the primary end point. Eighteen of 39 patients (46%, 95% confidence interval 30% to 63%) had a grade 3 toxicity. Sixteen (41%) had grade 3 palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, one had grade 3 mucositis, and one severe cardiotoxicity. Secondary end point of overall response rate among 43 assessable patients was 21%.Conclusions: In this nonrandomized single-arm trial, the combination of bimonthly PLD and bevacizumab in locally recurrent and MBC patients demonstrated higher than anticipated toxicity while exhibiting only modest activity. Based on these results, we would not consider this combination for further investigation in this setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: EUS response assessment in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (CRT) is limited by disintegration of the involved anatomic structures. OBJECTIVE: Predictive and prognostic values of a prospectively defined maximum tumor thickness (MTT). DESIGN: Prospective open-label phase ll study (SAKK 75/02). SETTING: Multicenter, nationwide. PATIENTS: Of 66 patients with primary CRT, 56 underwent en bloc esophagectomy. INTERVENTIONS: EUS-measured MTT before and 2-5 weeks after CRT (yMTT). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Cutoffs: (1) absolute thickness (yMTT) after CRT

Background: This multicenter phase II study investigated the efficacy and feasibility of preoperative induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation and surgery in patients with esophageal carcinoma. Patients and methods: Patients with locally advanced resectable squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the esophagus received induction chemotherapy with cisplatin 75 mg/m2 and docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m2 on days 1 and 22, followed by radiotherapy of 45 Gy (25 x 1.8 Gy) and concurrent chemotherapy comprising cisplatin 25 mg/m2 and docetaxel 20 mg/m2 weekly for 5 weeks, followed by surgery. Results: Sixty-six patients were enrolled at eleven centers and 57 underwent surgery. R0 resection was achieved in 52 patients. Fifteen patients showed complete, 16 patients nearly complete and 26 patients poor pathological remission. Median overall survival was 36.5 months and median event-free survival was 22.8 months. Squamous cell carcinoma and good pathologically documented response were associated with longer survival. Eighty-two percent of all included patients completed neoadjuvant therapy and survived for 30 days after surgery. Dysphagia and mucositis grade 3/4 were infrequent (<9%) during chemoradiation. Five patients (9%) died due to surgical complications. Conclusions: This neoadjuvant, taxane-containing regimen was efficacious and feasible in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer in a multicenter, community-based setting and represents a suitable backbone for further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: HER2-targeted therapy plus chemotherapy is standard treatment in advanced HER2+breast cancer. Trastuzumab alone followed by addition of chemotherapy at disease progression versus upfront combination therapy has not been elucidated. Patients and methods: One-hundred seventy-five patients with measurable/evaluable HER2þadvanced disease without previous HER2-directed therapy were randomized to trastuzumab alone followed, at disease progression, by the combination with chemotherapy (Arm A) or upfront trastuzumab plus chemotherapy (Arm B). Chemotherapy could be stopped after ≥6 cycles in responding patients, trastuzumab was continued until progression. The primary endpoint of this superiority trial was time to progression (TTP) on combined trastuzumab-chemotherapy (Combination-TTP) in both arms. Secondary endpoints included response rate, TTP, overall survival, quality of life and toxicity. Results: Combination-TTP was longer than expected in both arms, 12.2 months in Arm A and 10.3 months in Arm B and not significantly different (hazard ratio [HR] 0.7; 95% CI 0.5-1.1; P=0.1). Overall survival was also not significantly different (HR 0.9; 95% CI 0.6-1.5; P=0.55). In Arm A, the median TTP before introduction of chemotherapy was 3.7 months (95% CI 2.3-5.4), yet at 2 years 6% of patients were still on trastuzumab alone. Patients without visceral disease had a Combination-TTP of 21.8 months in arm A, compared with 10.1 months in arm B (unplanned analysis HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-4.2, P=0.03). Patients with visceral disease showed no difference. Toxicity was chemotherapy-related. Conclusion: The outcome of patients receiving sequential trastuzumab-chemotherapy or upfront combination was similar. We failed to demonstrate superiority of the sequential approach. These results nevertheless suggest chemotherapy and its toxicity can be deferred, especially in patients with indolent, non-visceral disease. Despite a larger non-inferiority confirmatory study would be needed, these findings represent an additional proof of concept that de-escalation strategies can be discussed in individual patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The progesterone-receptor (PR) antagonists onapristone (type I) and mifepristone (type II) showed modest activity in hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer; however, onapristone in particular was associated with hepatotoxicity. Lonaprisan is a novel, type III PR antagonist that was well tolerated in phase I studies. Patients and methods This randomized, open-label, phase II study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of lonaprisan as second-line endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with stage IV, PR-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic breast cancer. Results Patients received once-daily lonaprisan 25 mg (n = 34) or 100 mg (n = 34). The primary objective was not met (≥35% clinical benefit rate: complete/partial responses at any time until month 6 or stable disease [SD] for ≥6 months from start of treatment). There were no complete/partial responses. In the 25 mg and 100 mg groups, 6 of 29 patients (21%) and 2 of 29 patients (7%), respectively, had SD ≥6 months. Overall, 61 of 68 patients (90%) had ≥1 adverse event (AE), the most frequent (≥10% overall) being fatigue, hot flush, dyspnoea, nausea, asthenia, headache, constipation, vomiting, and decreased appetite; 33 patients had serious AEs. Conclusion Lonaprisan showed limited efficacy as second-line endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with PR-positive metastatic breast cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Recent breast cancer treatment guidelines recommend that higher-risk premenopausal patients should receive ovarian function suppression (OFS) as part of adjuvant endocrine therapy. If chemotherapy is also given, it is uncertain whether to select concurrent or sequential OFS initiation. Design and methods: We analyzed 1872 patients enrolled in the randomized phase III TEXT and SOFT trials who received adjuvant chemotherapy for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer and upon randomization to an OFScontaining adjuvant endocrine therapy, initiated gonadotropin-releasing-hormone-agonist triptorelin. Breast cancer-free interval (BCFI) was compared between patients who received OFS concurrently with chemotherapy in TEXT (n=1242) versus sequentially post-chemotherapy in SOFT (n=630). Because timing of trial enrollment relative to adjuvant chemotherapy differed, we implemented landmark analysis re-defining BCFI beginning 1 year after final dose of chemotherapy (median, 15.5 and 8.1 months from enrollment to landmark in TEXT and SOFT, respectively). As a non-randomized treatment comparison, we implemented comparative-effectiveness propensity score methodology with weighted Cox modeling. Results: Distributions of several clinico-pathologic characteristics differed between groups. Patients who were premenopausal post-chemotherapy in SOFT were younger on average. The median duration of adjuvant chemotherapy was 18 weeks in both groups. There were 231 (12%) BC events after post-landmark median follow-up of about 5 years. Concurrent use of triptorelin with chemotherapy was not associated with a significant difference in post-landmark BCFI compared with sequential triptorelin post-chemotherapy, either in the overall population (HR=1.11, 95% CI 0.72-1.72; P=0.72; 4-year BCFI 89% in both groups), or in the subgroup of 692 women<40 years at diagnosis (HR=1.13, 95% CI 0.69-1.84) who are less likely to develop chemotherapy-induced amenorrhea. Conclusion: Based on comparative-effectiveness modeling of TEXT and SOFT after about 5 years median follow-up, with limited statistical power especially for the subgroup<40 years, neither detrimental nor beneficial effect of concurrent administration of OFS with chemotherapy on the efficacy of adjuvant therapy that includes chemotherapy was detected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical data showed promising antitumour activity with feasible tolerability for matuzumab plus epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine (ECX) chemotherapy in untreated advanced oesophago-gastric (OG) cancer. The aim was to evaluate the efficacy of matuzumab plus ECX versus ECX alone.Patients and methods: In this multicentre, randomised open-label phase II study, 72 patients with metastatic OG cancer were randomly assigned to either 800 mg matuzumab weekly plus epirubicin 50 mg/m2, cisplatin 60 mg/m2 on day 1 and capecitabine 1250 mg/m2 daily in a 21-day cycle (ECX) or the same ECX regimen alone. The primary end point was objective response. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), quality of life, safety and tolerability.Results: Following random assignment, 35 patients (median age 59 years) received ECX/matuzumab and 36 patients (median age 64 years) ECX. The addition of matuzumab to ECX did not improve objective response: 31% for ECX/matuzumab [95% confidence interval (CI) 17–49] compared with 58% for the ECX arm (95% CI 41–74) P = 0.994 (one sided). There was no significant difference in median PFS: 4.8 months (95% CI 2.9–8.1) for ECX/matuzumab versus 7.1 months (95% CI 4.4–8.5) for ECX, or in median OS: 9.4 months (95% CI 7.5–16.2), compared with 12.2 months (95% CI 9.8–13.8 months). Grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicity was observed in 27 and 25 patients in the ECX/matuzumab and ECX groups, respectively.Conclusion: Matuzumab 800 mg weekly combined with ECX chemotherapy does not increase response or survival for patients with advanced OG cancer. Therefore, ECX/matuzumab should not be examined further in phase III trials. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

BACKGROUND: Several studies in patients undergoing chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic carcinoma have linked a decrease in the concentration of the tumour marker carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 to lengthened survival. The aim of this study was to test the hypotheses that an early decrease in baseline serum CA 19-9 concentration (on day 42, after two cycles of chemotherapy) by at least 50% is associated with lengthened survival, and that a decrease in CA 19-9 concentration of at least 50% from the baseline concentration to the lowest value measured at any time during treatment (nadir) is of prognostic significance, enabling its use as a surrogate endpoint for survival. METHODS: CA 19-9 serum concentration was measured at baseline and every 3 weeks thereafter in patients with histologically proven advanced pancreatic carcinoma enrolled in a randomised trial of gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus capecitabine. Patients were excluded if baseline serum CA 19-9 concentration was below the upper limit of normal (ULN) in the laboratory or if this measurement was missing. Comparisons of survival between patients with and without a CA 19-9 response were corrected for the guarantee-time bias by the landmark method. The trial on which this study is based is registered on the clinical trials site of the US National Cancer Institute website http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00030732. FINDINGS: 247 of 319 randomised patients were assessable for analysis of baseline serum CA 19-9 concentration, and, of these, 175 patients were assessable for tumour-marker response to treatment. Median overall survival for patients with a baseline CA 19-9 concentration equal to or above the median value (ie, 59xULN) was 5.8 months (95% CI 5.1-7.0), which was significantly shorter than that for patients with baseline concentrations below the median value (10.3 months [95% CI 8.6-12.8], p<0.0001). An early decrease in CA 19-9 concentration of at least 50% after two cycles of chemotherapy was not associated with a longer overall survival compared with patients who did not have a decrease of at least 50% (median 10.1 months [9.2-12.7] vs 8.6 months [6.9-11.2], p=0.53; hazard ratio for death 1.11 [0.81-1.52]). Furthermore, a decrease in CA 19-9 concentration of at least 50% reached at the CA 19-9 nadir concentration was not associated with a longer overall survival compared with those patients who did not have a decrease of at least 50% (median 7.8 months [6.5.10.1] vs 6.7 months [5.5-9.8], p=0.74; 0.95 [0.69-1.31]) after adjusting for the guarantee-time bias. INTERPRETATION: Pretreatment serum CA 19-9 concentration is an independent prognostic factor for survival, but a decrease in concentration during chemotherapy is not significantly associated with lengthened survival compared with those who did not have a corresponding decrease. Our data suggest that CA 19-9 response during chemotherapy is not a valid surrogate endpoint for survival in clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]