Search

Summary Background Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition is a valid therapeutic approach in renal cell carcinoma. Therefore, an investigation of the combination treatment of the humanised anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody bevacizumab with interferon alfa was warranted. Methods In a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase III trial, 649 patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma were randomised to receive interferon alfa-2a (9 MIU subcutaneously three times weekly) and bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks; n=327) or placebo and interferon alfa-2a (n=322). The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival and safety. An interim analysis of overall survival was prespecified after 250 deaths. On the basis of new second-line therapies that became available while the trial was in progress, which could have confounded analyses of overall survival data, we agreed with regulatory agencies that the pre-planned final analysis of progression-free survival would be acceptable for regulatory submission. The protocol was amended to allow the study to be unblinded at this point. The final analysis of progression-free survival is reported here. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with centerwatch.com, number BO17705E. Findings 325 patients in the bevacizumab plus interferon alfa group and 316 in the placebo plus interferon alfa group received at least one dose of study treatment. At the time of unblinding, 230 progression events had occurred in the bevacizumab plus interferon alfa group and 275 in the control group; there were 114 deaths in the bevacizumab plus interferon alfa group and 137 in the control group. Median duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer in the bevacizumab plus interferon alfa group than it was in the control group (10·2 months vs 5·4 months; HR 0·63, 95% CI 0·52–0·75; p=0·0001). Increases in progression-free survival were seen with bevacizumab plus interferon alfa irrespective of risk group or whether reduced-dose interferon alfa was received. Deaths due to adverse events were reported in eight (2%) patients who received one or more doses of bevacizumab and seven (2%) of those who did not receive the drug. Only three deaths in the bevacizumab arm were considered by investigators to be possibly related to bevacizumab. The most commonly reported grade 3 or worse adverse events were fatigue (40 [12%] patients in the bevacizumab group vs 25 [8%] in the control group) and asthenia (34 [10%] vs 20 [7%]). Interpretation The combination of bevacizumab with interferon alfa as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma results in a significant improvement in progression-free survival, compared with interferon alfa alone.

Purpose Erlotinib is a potent inhibitor of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase, with single-agent antitumor activity. Preclinically, erlotinib enhanced the cytotoxicity of chemotherapy. This phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of erlotinib in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine as first-line treatment for advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods Patients received erlotinib (150 mg/d) or placebo, combined with up to six 21-day cycles of chemotherapy (gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to disease progression (TTP), response rate (RR), duration of response, and quality of life (QoL). Results A total of 1,172 patients were enrolled. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were well balanced. There were no differences in OS (hazard ratio, 1.06; median, 43 v 44.1 weeks for erlotinib and placebo groups, respectively), TTP, RR, or QoL between treatment arms. In a small group of patients who had never smoked, OS and progression-free survival were increased in the erlotinib group; no other subgroups were found more likely to benefit. Erlotinib with chemotherapy was generally well tolerated; incidence of adverse events was similar between arms, except for an increase in rash and diarrhea with erlotinib (generally mild). Conclusion Erlotinib with concurrent cisplatin and gemcitabine showed no survival benefit compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced NSCLC.

ERBB2 expression has been found in 19 to 44% of ovarian carcinomas; however, its predictive value has not been demonstrated, and trastuzumab has not found clinical application in ovarian cancer patients. We evaluated clinical significance of ERBB2 expression in relation to TP53 accumulation in ovarian carcinoma patients treated with platinum-based regimens. Immunohistochemical analysis with CB11 and a novel NCL-CBE356 antibody (against the internal and external domains of ERBB2, respectively) was performed on 233 tumours (FIGO stage IIB-IV); the US Food and Drug Administration-approved grading system with 0 to 3+ scale was used for evaluation, and the results were analysed by the Cox and logistic regression models. In all, 42% of the tumours expressed (category 1+, 2+ or 3+) either CB11 or CBE356 or both (CB11/CBE356 parameter). Associations between ERBB2 expression and clinical factors were observed only if tumours with staining category 1+ were grouped together with tumours showing staining categories 2+ and 3+. CB11/CBE356 parameter had a better predictive value than CB11 alone. CB11/CBE356 expression was negatively associated with platinum sensitivity (PS) in the TP53(-) group (P=0.022) and with disease-free survival (DFS) in the TP53(+) group (P=0.009). Our results may suggest that trastuzumab should be given postoperatively to patients with TP53(-)/ERBB2(+) ovarian carcinomas to enhance PS, and after completion of chemotherapy to patients with complete remission and TP53(+)/ERBB2(+) carcinomas to extend DFS time (in total to 30.4% of all patients analysed). Thus, novel criteria for ovarian cancer patient inclusion for clinical trials with trastuzumab should be considered and tested.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine whether the addition of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib (Iressa, ZD1839; AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE) to standard first-line gemcitabine and cisplatin provides clinical benefit over gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with advanced or metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Gefitinib has demonstrated encouraging efficacy in advanced NSCLC in phase II trials in pretreated patients, and a phase I trial of gefitinib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin showed favorable tolerability. Patients and Methods This was a phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial in chemotherapy-naive patients with unresectable stage III or IV NSCLC. All patients received up to six cycles of chemotherapy (cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of the 3-week cycle) plus either gefitinib 500 mg/d, gefitinib 250 mg/d, or placebo. Daily gefitinib or placebo was continued until disease progression. End points included overall survival (primary), time to progression, response rates, and safety evaluation. Results A total of 1,093 patients were enrolled. There was no difference in efficacy end points between the treatment groups: for the gefitinib 500 mg/d, gefitinib 250 mg/d, and placebo groups, respectively, median survival times were 9.9, 9.9, and 10.9 months (global ordered log-rank [GOLrank] P = .4560), median times to progression were 5.5, 5.8, and 6.0 months (GOLrank; P = .7633), and response rates were 49.7%, 50.3%, and 44.8%. No significant unexpected adverse events were seen. Conclusion Gefitinib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC did not have improved efficacy over gemcitabine and cisplatin alone. The reasons for this remain obscure and require further preclinical testing.

Purpose N,N-diethyl-2-[4-(phenylmethyl)phenoxy]ethanamine (DPPE; tesmilifene) is a novel agent that augments chemotherapy cytotoxicity in vitro and in vivo. A phase II trial combining DPPE and doxorubicin (DOX) in metastatic breast carcinoma showed increased response over that expected with DOX. We report a phase III trial comparing DOX with DPPE plus DOX in metastatic or recurrent breast cancer. Patients and Methods Anthracycline-naive women with measurable metastatic disease were randomly assigned to receive, every 21 days, either DOX 60 mg/m2 intravenously or DOX during the last 20 minutes of an 80-minute infusion of DPPE (5.3 mg/kg), in both cases to cumulative DOX doses of 450 mg/m2. Patients receiving DPPE were aggressively premedicated to ameliorate toxicity. End points included progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and response duration (RD), quality of life (QOL), toxicity, and overall survival (OS). Results A planned interim analysis failed to detect an RR difference more than 5%. The study was closed to additional accrual and all DPPE was discontinued. The final analysis was conducted as planned after 256 progression events (median follow-up, 20.5 months). There was no significant difference in RR, RD, or PFS between arms. DPPE plus DOX was statistically superior to DOX in OS (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.91; P = .021). DPPE plus DOX was associated with more gastrointestinal and CNS toxicity. No consistent influence on QOL was detected. Conclusion This study demonstrated no advantage in RR, RD, or PFS but significantly superior OS for DPPE plus DOX. Additional studies of DPPE are warranted.

It was previously shown that letrozole (Femara) was significantly more potent than anastrozole (Arimidex) in inhibiting aromatase activity in vitro and in inhibiting total body aromatisation in patients with breast cancer. The objective of this study was to compare letrozole (2.5 mg per day) and anastrozole (1 mg per day) as endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer previously treated with an anti-oestrogen. This randomised, multicentre and multinational open-label phase IIIb/IV study enrolled 713 patients. Treatment was for advanced breast cancer that had progressed either during anti-oestrogen therapy or within 12 months of completing that therapy. Patients had tumours that were either positive for oestrogen and/or progesterone receptors (48%) or of unknown receptor status (52%). The primary efficacy endpoint was time to progression (TTP). Secondary endpoints included objective response, duration of response, rate and duration of overall clinical benefit (responses and long-term stable disease), time to treatment failure, and overall survival, as well as general safety. There was no difference between the treatment arms in TTP; median times were the same for both treatments. Letrozole was significantly superior to anastrozole in the overall response rate (ORR) (19.1% versus 12.3%, P=0.013), including in predefined subgroups (receptor status-unknown, and soft-tissue- and viscera-dominant site of disease). There were no significant differences between the treatment arms in the rate of clinical benefit, median duration of response, duration of clinical benefit, time to treatment failure or overall survival. Both agents were well tolerated and there were no significant differences in safety. These results support previous data documenting the greater aromatase-inhibiting activity of letrozole and indicate that advanced breast cancer is more responsive to letrozole than to anastrozole as second-line endocrine therapy.

Purpose: To investigate whether docetaxel plus platinum regimens improve survival and affect quality of life (QoL) in advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) compared with vinorelbine plus cisplatin as first-line chemotherapy. Patients and Methods: Patients (n = 1,218) with stage IIIB to IV NSCLC were randomly assigned to receive docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (DC); docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and carboplatin area under the curve of 6 mg/mL • min every 3 weeks (DCb); or vinorelbine 25 mg/m2/wk and cisplatin 100 mg/m2 every 4 weeks (VC). Results: Patients treated with DC had a median survival of 11.3 v 10.1 months for VC-treated patients (P = .044; hazard ratio, 1.183 [97.2% confidence interval, 0.989 to 1.416]). The 2-year survival rate was 21% for DC-treated patients and 14% for VC-treated patients. Overall response rate was 31.6% for DC-treated patients v 24.5% for VC-treated patients (P = .029). Median survival (9.4 v 9.9 months [for VC]; P = .657; hazard ratio, 1.048 [97.2 confidence interval, 0.877 to 1.253]) and response (23.9%) with DCb were similar to those results for VC. Neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, infection, and febrile neutropenia were similar with all three regimens. Grade 3 to 4 anemia, nausea, and vomiting were more common (P < .01) with VC than with DC or DCb. Patients treated with either docetaxel regimen had consistently improved QoL compared with VC-treated patients, who experienced deterioration in QoL. Conclusion: DC resulted in a more favorable overall response and survival rate than VC. Both DC and DCb were better tolerated and provided patients with consistently improved QoL compared with VC. These findings demonstrate that a docetaxel plus platinum combination is an effective treatment option with a favorable therapeutic index for first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic NSCLC.

The purpose of the study was to investigate whether baseline quality of life (QoL) and changes in QoL scores from baseline are prognostic for time to progression (TTP) and/or overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced breast cancer receiving docetaxel (T) or sequential methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (MF). QoL was assessed at baseline and before each treatment using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). Survival curves and probabilities were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier technique. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used for both the univariate and multivariate analyses to explore relationships between baseline QoL variables and TTP, as well as OS. In the univariate analysis, more severe pain and fatigue at baseline were predictive for a shorter OS; global QoL, physical functioning and appetite loss had a borderline significance (P=0.0130 for global QoL; P=0.0256 for physical functioning: P=0.0149 for appetite loss). World Health Organization (WHO) performance status was significantly predictive for OS. In the multivariate analysis, more severe pain at baseline was predictive for a shorter OS. In contrast, baseline QoL had no prognostic value for the duration of TTP. QoL change scores from baseline QoL predicted neither OS nor TTP. Our findings suggest that while QoL measurements are important in evaluating patients' QoL, they have no great importance in predicting primary clinical endpoints such as TTP or OS in advanced breast cancer patients.

In cell line studies, BCL-2, BAX, as well as novel MEK1 protein levels have strong influence on ovarian cancer response to cisplatin-based chemotherapy. However, such associations have not been demonstrated clinically. We evaluated prognostic/predictive significance of these proteins with regard to TP53 status. Immunohistochemical analysis was performed on 229 ovarian carcinomas FIGO stage IIB-IV treated with platinum-based chemotherapy; the results were analysed by the Cox and logistic regression models. Clinical parameters (residual tumour size, patient age, FIGO stage) were the only indicators of overall survival (OS) and the strongest predictors of complete remission (CR). On the other hand, BAX expression was the strongest (P=0.005) or the only (in FIGO IIIC, P=0.02) prognostic indicator of disease-free survival (DFS) in the TP53(+) group. TP53(+) and TP53(-) ovarian carcinomas differed in clinical and molecular prognostic and predictive factors. Another novel finding is that CR was negatively influenced by high BAX expression in all patients group (P=0.047) and by BCL2 expression in the TP53(-) group (P=0.05). High MEK1 expression was associated with endometrioid and clear cell carcinomas (P=0.049); its loss was found with advancing FIGO stage (P=0.002). Our results suggest that binomial TP53 status divides ovarian carcinomas into two biologically distinct groups. BAX expression is an important factor of DFS in the TP53(+) group. BCL-2 and BAX, but not MEK1 expressions have predictive value in ovarian cancer patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy.

The aim of this study was to study the relationship between physician-assessed quality of life parameters, i.e., toxicity and physical performance, and patients' self-reports of their quality of life (QoL). QoL was assessed at baseline and before each treatment, using the EORTC QLQ-C30. The WHO performance score (PS) and toxicity were assessed in physician interviews. The correlations between the WHO PS and the QLQ-C30 functioning scale scores varied from weak to moderate, depending on the scale. Strongest associations were found in physical-, social-, and role functioning, and in the global QoL. The QLQ-C30 nausea/vomiting and diarrhea scales correlated moderately to corresponding WHO scores. A multiple linear regression analysis was used to analyze the contribution of WHO PS and toxicity variables to the global QoL. The best model explained only 16% of the variance of the global QoL score. The present findings highlight the importance of independent QoL assessments focused on those aspects of QoL not captured in clinical interviews with the physician.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of tamoxifen with that of letrozole, an oral aromatase inhibitor, with tamoxifen as first-line therapy in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Nine hundred seven patients were randomly assigned letrozole 2.5 mg once daily (453 patients) or tamoxifen 20 mg once daily (454 patients). Patients had estrogen receptor– and/or progesterone receptor–positive tumors, or both receptors were unknown. Recurrence during adjuvant antiestrogen therapy or within the following 12 months or prior endocrine therapy for advanced disease precluded enrollment. One prior chemotherapy regimen for metastatic disease was allowed. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP). Secondary end points included overall objective response rate (ORR), its duration, rate and duration of clinical benefit, time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival, and tolerability. RESULTS: TTP was significantly longer for letrozole than for tamoxifen (median, 41 v 26 weeks). Treatment with letrozole reduced the risk of progression by 30% (hazards ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.60 to 0.82, P = .0001). TTP was significantly longer for letrozole irrespective of dominant site of disease, receptor status, or prior adjuvant antiestrogen therapy. Similarly, TTF was significantly longer for letrozole (median, 40 v 25 weeks). ORR was higher for letrozole (30% v 20%; P = .0006), as was the rate of clinical benefit (49% v 38%; P = .001). Survival data are currently immature and not reported here. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Letrozole was significantly superior to tamoxifen in TTP, TTF, ORR, and clinical benefit rate. Our results support its use as first-line endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer.

This was an open-label randomized Phase III study of 207 patients with either unresectable or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were treated with docetaxel plus best supportive care (BSC) or best supportive care alone. Patients in the chemotherapy arm of the study received docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) as a 1 h intravenous infusion every 21 days until they showed evidence of progressive disease, or estimated maximum benefit obtained or unacceptable side effects. Patients who received docetaxel were pretreated with oral dexamethasone. Patients in the BSC arm should not receive chemotherapy or anticancer therapy except for palliative radiotherapy. Overall survival obtained in the docetaxel arm was significantly longer than in the BSC arm (P=0.026). Two-year survival in the docetaxel arm was 12%, whereas none of the BSC patients survived after 20 months. The response rate was 13.1% (95% CI, 7.5-18.8%). There was a significantly longer time to progression in the docetaxel versus the BSC arm (P

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of docetaxel to methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil in advanced breast cancer after anthracycline failure. A randomised multicentre trial was conducted in 283 patients with advanced breast cancer who had failed previous anthracycline treatment. Docetaxel at a dose of 100 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (n = 143) was compared with sequential methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil (MF; n = 139) given at day 1 and 8 every 3 weeks at dosages of 200 mg/ m2 and 600 mg/m2, respectively. After progression, crossover to the alternative treatment group was recommended. There was a significantly higher overall response rate in the docetaxel 42% (CR 8% + PR 34%) than in the MF arm 21% (CR 3% + PR 18%) (P < 0.001). The median time to progression (TTP) was 6.3 months in the docetaxel arm and 3.0 months in the MF arm (P < 0.001). Docetaxel also had a significantly higher response rate of 27% following crossover compared with MF (12%). Significantly more side-effects (leucopenia, infections, neuropathy, oedema, asthenia, skin, nail changes, alopecia) were seen in the docetaxel than in the MF group. However, grade 3 and 4 side-effects were infrequent with both drugs, with the exception of fatigue, alopecia and infections. Median overall survival (OS) including crossover phase was 10.4 months in the docetaxel and 11.1 months in the MF arm (P = 0.79). Based on the response rate and the primary endpoint of TTP, docetaxel is superior to sequential methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil in advanced breast cancer after anthracycline failure.

BACKGROUND: Aromatase inhibitors are more effective than is tamoxifen in prevention of breast-cancer recurrence, but at the expense of increased musculoskeletal side-effects, such as carpal tunnel syndrome. The aim of this study was to assess risk factors and the prognostic value of musculoskeletal symptoms during treatment with the steroidal aromatase inhibitor exemestane or with tamoxifen after 2-3 years of tamoxifen. METHODS: In the Intergroup Exemestane Study, postmenopausal women treated for early invasive breast cancer who remained disease free and on treatment after 2-3 years of tamoxifen were randomised to switch to exemestane or to continue tamoxifen for the remainder of the 5-year period of endocrine treatment. The primary endpoint for this retrospective analysis was occurrence of carpal tunnel syndrome and any musculoskeletal events, analysed in the safety population, which consisted of all patients who had received any trial treatment. As well as case-report forms, questionnaires were distributed retrospectively to gain more details of cases of carpal tunnel syndrome. The relation between musculoskeletal symptoms reported by 6 months from randomisation and survival from 9 months onwards was assessed by Cox proportional hazards models. The trial is registered, number ISRCTN11883920. It has completed accrual and follow-up is continuing for enrolled participants. FINDINGS: After a median follow-up of 91·0 months (IQR 83·0-99·2), carpal tunnel syndrome had been reported for 66 (2·8%) of 2319 patients in the exemestane group compared with 13 (0·6%) of 2338 in the tamoxifen group (odds ratio [OR] 5·23, 99% CI 2·39-11·49; p

IMA901 is the first therapeutic vaccine for renal cell cancer (RCC) consisting of multiple tumor-associated peptides (TUMAPs) confirmed to be naturally presented in human cancer tissue. We treated a total of 96 human leukocyte antigen A (HLA-A)*02(+) subjects with advanced RCC with IMA901 in two consecutive studies. In the phase 1 study, the T cell responses of the patients to multiple TUMAPs were associated with better disease control and lower numbers of prevaccine forkhead box P3 (FOXP3)(+) regulatory T (T(reg)) cells. The randomized phase 2 trial showed that a single dose of cyclophosphamide reduced the number of T(reg) cells and confirmed that immune responses to multiple TUMAPs were associated with longer overall survival. Furthermore, among six predefined populations of myeloid-derived suppressor cells, two were prognostic for overall survival, and among over 300 serum biomarkers, we identified apolipoprotein A-I (APOA1) and chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 17 (CCL17) as being predictive for both immune response to IMA901 and overall survival. A randomized phase 3 study to determine the clinical benefit of treatment with IMA901 is ongoing.

Treatment with adjuvant trastuzumab for 1 year improves disease-free survival and overall survival in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive early breast cancer. We aimed to assess disease-free survival and overall survival after a median follow-up of 4 years for patients enrolled on the Herceptin Adjuvant (HERA) trial.The HERA trial is an international, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial comparing treatment with trastuzumab for 1 and 2 years with observation after standard neoadjuvant, adjuvant chemotherapy, or both in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival. After a positive first interim analysis at a median follow-up of 1 year for the comparison of treatment with trastuzumab for 1 year with observation, event-free patients in the observation group were allowed to cross over to receive trastuzumab. We report trial outcomes for the 1-year trastuzumab and observation groups at a median follow-up of 48·4 months (IQR 42·0-56·5) and assess the effect of the extensive crossover to trastuzumab. Our analysis was by intention-to-treat. The HERA trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, number 2005-002385-11.The HERA trial population comprised 1698 patients randomly assigned to the observation group and 1703 to the 1-year trastuzumab group. Intention-to-treat analysis of disease-free survival showed a significant benefit in favour of patients in the 1-year trastuzumab group (4-year disease-free survival 78·6%) compared with the observation group (4-year disease-free survival 72·2%; hazard ratio [HR] 0·76; 95% CI 0·66-0·87; p0·0001). Intention-to-treat analysis of overall survival showed no significant difference in the risk of death (4-year overall survival 89·3%vs 87·7%, respectively; HR 0·85; 95% CI 0·70-1·04; p=0·11). Overall, 885 patients (52%) of the 1698 patients in the observation group crossed over to receive trastuzumab, and began treatment at median 22·8 months (range 4·5-52·7) from randomisation. In a non-randomised comparison, patients in the selective-crossover cohort had fewer disease-free survival events than patients remaining in the observation group (adjusted HR 0·68; 95% CI 0·51-0·90; p=0·0077). Higher incidences of grade 3-4 and fatal adverse events were noted on 1-year trastuzumab than in the observation group. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events, each in less than 1% of patients, were congestive cardiac failure, hypertension, arthralgia, back pain, central-line infection, hot flush, headache, and diarrhoea.Treatment with adjuvant trastuzumab for 1 year after chemotherapy is associated with significant clinical benefit at 4-year median follow-up. The substantial selective crossover of patients in the observation group to trastuzumab was associated with improved outcomes for this cohort.F Hoffmann-La Roche, Michelangelo Foundation.