Search

Background: Angiopoietin 1 and 2 regulate angiogenesis and vascular remodelling by interacting with the tyrosine kinase receptor Tie2, and inhibition of angiogenesis has shown promise in the treatment of ovarian cancer. We aimed to assess whether trebananib, a peptibody that inhibits binding of angiopoietin 1 and 2 to Tie2, improved progression-free survival when added to carboplatin and paclitaxel as first-line therapy in advanced epithelial ovarian, primary fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer in a phase 3 clinical trial. Methods: TRINOVA-3, a multicentre, multinational, phase 3, double-blind study, was done at 206 investigational sites (hospitals and cancer centres)in 14 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with biopsy-confirmed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO)stage III to IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancers, and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1)using a permuted block method (block size of six patients)to receive six cycles of paclitaxel (175 mg/m2)and carboplatin (area under the serum concentration-time curve 5 or 6)every 3 weeks, plus weekly intravenous trebananib 15 mg/kg or placebo. Maintenance therapy with trebananib or placebo continued for up to 18 additional months. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, as assessed by the investigators, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01493505, and is complete. Findings: Between Jan 30, 2012, and Feb 25, 2014, 1164 patients were screened and 1015 eligible patients were randomly allocated to treatment (678 to trebananib and 337 to placebo). After a median follow-up of 27·4 months (IQR 17·7–34·2), 626 patients had progression-free survival events (405 [60%]of 678 in the trebananib group and 221 [66%]of 337 in the placebo group). Median progression-free survival did not differ between the trebananib group (15·9 months [15·0–17·6])and the placebo group (15·0 months [12·6–16·1])groups (hazard ratio 0·93 [95% CI 0·79–1·09]; p=0·36). 512 (76%)of 675 patients in the trebananib group and 237 (71%)of 336 in the placebo group had grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events; of which the most common events were neutropenia (trebananib 238 [35%]vs placebo 126 [38%])anaemia (76 [11%]vs 40 [12%]), and leucopenia (81 [12%]vs 35 [10%]). 269 (40%)patients in the trebananib group and 104 (31%)in the placebo group had serious adverse events. Two fatal adverse events in the trebananib group were considered related to trebananib, paclitaxel, and carboplatin (lung infection and neutropenic colitis); two were considered to be related to paclitaxel and carboplatin (general physical health deterioration and platelet count decreased). No treatment-related fatal adverse events occurred in the placebo group. Interpretation: Trebananib plus carboplatin and paclitaxel did not improve progression-free survival as first-line treatment for advanced ovarian cancer. The combination of trebananib plus carboplatin and paclitaxel did not produce new safety signals. These results show that trebananib in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel is minimally effective in this patient population. Funding: Amgen. © 2019 Elsevier Ltd

International audience

Background The AURELIA trial demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with bevacizumab added to chemotherapy for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). Methods Patients with PROC were randomised to receive investigator-selected single-agent chemotherapy alone or with bevacizumab. Post-hoc exploratory analyses assessed efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes according to age

Background: Carboplatin plus paclitaxel administered every 3 weeks is standard first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. A weekly paclitaxel schedule combined with carboplatin every 3 weeks prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival in a Japanese phase 3 trial. The aim of our study was to assess whether a weekly schedule of carboplatin plus paclitaxel is more effective than the same drugs given every 3 weeks. Methods: We did a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 study at 67 institutions in Italy and France. Women with FIGO stage IC-IV ovarian cancer, an ECOG performance status of 2 or lower, and who had never received chemotherapy were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive either carboplatin (AUC 6 mg/mL per min) plus paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) every 3 weeks for six cycles or carboplatin (AUC 2 mg/mL per min) plus paclitaxel (60 mg/m2) every week for 18 weeks. Randomisation was done by computer-based minimisation, stratified by centre, residual disease after surgery, and ECOG performance status. The study was not blinded. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival and quality of life (assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Ovarian Trial Outcome Index [FACT-O/TOI] score), and analysis was by modified intention to treat. This report presents the final analysis. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00660842. Findings: 822 patients were enrolled into the study between Nov 20, 2008, and March 1, 2012; 12 withdrew their consent immediately after randomisation and were excluded, and 810 were eligible for analysis. 404 women were allocated treatment every 3 weeks and 406 were assigned to the weekly schedule. After median follow-up of 22·3 months (IQR 16·2-30·9), 449 progression-free survival events were recorded. Median progression-free survival was 17·3 months (95% CI 15·2-20·2) in patients assigned to treatment every 3 weeks, versus 18·3 months (16·8-20·9) in women allocated to the weekly schedule (hazard ratio 0·96, 95% CI 0·80-1·16; p=0·66). FACT-O/TOI scores differed significantly between the two schedules (treatment-by-time interaction p

Purpose: Paclitaxel and carboplatin are frequently used in advanced ovarian cancer following cytoreductive surgery. Threshold models have been used to predict paclitaxel pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamics, whereas the time above paclitaxel plasma concentration of 0.05 to 0.2 μmol/L (tC > 0.05−0.2) predicts neutropenia. The objective of this study was to build a population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model of paclitaxel/carboplatin in ovarian cancer patients. Experimental Design: One hundred thirty-nine ovarian cancer patients received paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) over 3 h followed by carboplatin area under the concentration-time curve 5 mg/mL*min over 30 min. Plasma concentration-time data were measured, and data were processed using nonlinear mixed-effect modeling. Semiphysiologic models with linear or sigmoidal maximum response and threshold models were adapted to the data. Results: One hundred five patients had complete pharmacokinetic and toxicity data. In 34 patients with measurable disease, objective response rate was 76%. Neutrophil and thrombocyte counts were adequately described by an inhibitory linear response model. Paclitaxel tC > 0.05 was significantly higher in patients with a complete (91.8 h) or partial (76.3 h) response compared with patients with progressive disease (31.5 h; P = 0.02 and 0.05, respectively). Patients with paclitaxel tC > 0.05 > 61.4 h (mean value) had a longer time to disease progression compared with patients with paclitaxel tC > 0.05 < 61.4 h (89.0 versus 61.9 weeks; P = 0.05). Paclitaxel tC > 0.05 was a good predictor for severe neutropenia (P = 0.01), whereas carboplatin exposure (Cmax and area under the concentration-time curve) was the best predictor for thrombocytopenia (P < 10−4). Conclusions: In this group of patients, paclitaxel tC > 0.05 is a good predictive marker for severe neutropenia and clinical outcome, whereas carboplatin exposure is a good predictive marker for thrombocytopenia.

Purpose: Lonidamine (LND) can enhance the activity of anthracyclines in patients with metastatic breast cancer. A multicenter, prospective, randomized trial was designed to determine whether the association of LND with high-dose epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide (EC) could improve disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with early breast cancer (BC) compared with EC alone. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) was added to maintain the EC dose-intensity. Patients and Methods: From October 1991 to April 1994, 506 patients with stage I/II BC were randomly assigned to four groups: (A) epirubicin 120 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 administered intravenously on day 1 every 21 days for four cycles (124 patients); (B) EC plus LND 450 mg/d administered orally (125 patients); (C) EC plus G-CSF administered subcutaneously (129 patients); (D) EC plus LND plus G-CSF (128 patients). Results: Median follow-up was 55 months. Five-year DFS rate was similar for LND (B+D groups; 69.6%) versus non-LND arms (A+C groups; 70.3%) and G-CSF (C+D groups; 67.2%) versus non–G-CSF arms (A+B groups; 72.9%). Five-year overall survival (OS) was comparable in LND (79.1%) versus non-LND arms (81.3%) and in G-CSF (80.6%) versus non–G-CSF arms (79.6%). DFS and OS distributions in LND and G-CSF arms did not change according to tumor size, node, receptor, and menopausal status. G-CSF dramatically reduced hematologic toxicity without having a significant impact on dose-intensity (98.1% v 95.5% for C+D and A+B groups, respectively). Conclusion: EC is active and well tolerated in patients with early breast cancer. The addition of LND or G-CSF does not improve DFS or OS.

Purpose: In platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (OC), single-agent chemotherapy is standard. Bevacizumab is active alone and in combination. AURELIA is the first randomized phase III trial to our knowledge combining bevacizumab with chemotherapy in platinum-resistant OC. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had measurable/assessable OC that had progressed < 6 months after completing platinum-based therapy. Patients with refractory disease, history of bowel obstruction, or > two prior anticancer regimens were ineligible. After investigators selected chemotherapy (pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, weekly paclitaxel, or topotecan), patients were randomly assigned to single-agent chemotherapy alone or with bevacizumab (10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks) until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. Crossover to single-agent bevacizumab was permitted after progression with chemotherapy alone. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST. Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Results: The PFS hazard ratio (HR) after PFS events in 301 of 361 patients was 0.48 (95% CI, 0.38 to 0.60; unstratified log-rank P < .001). Median PFS was 3.4 months with chemotherapy alone versus 6.7 months with bevacizumab-containing therapy. RECIST ORR was 11.8% versus 27.3%, respectively (P = .001). The OS HR was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.08; P < .174; median OS, 13.3 v 16.6 months, respectively). Grade ≥ 2 hypertension and proteinuria were more common with bevacizumab. GI perforation occurred in 2.2% of bevacizumab-treated patients. Conclusion: Adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy statistically significantly improved PFS and ORR; the OS trend was not significant. No new safety signals were observed. © 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

In a phase II trial, the activity of EO9, a new bioreductive alkylating agent, was assessed. EO9 was used as second-line chemotherapy in breast cancer patients and as first-line chemotherapy for patients with gastric, pancreatic and colorectal cancer. EO9 was given as a 5 min i.v. infusion at a weekly dose of 12 mg/m(2). 92 patients were entered; 22 with breast cancer, 26 with colon cancer, 24 with pancreatic cancer and 20 with gastric cancer. In general, the drug was well tolerated with nausea and vomiting occurring in 26.42 and 13.3% of courses, respectively. Reversible proteinuria was the main toxicity occurring in 45% of courses. Antitumour activity was not observed. At this dose and schedule, EO9 is not an active drug in the type of tumour studied. Copyright (C) 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

It has been proposed that extending the platinum-free interval with intervening non-platinum therapy increases the efficacy of a later re-treatment with platinum in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer. This hypothesis is based on data from small series and although it has not been validated prospectively, this strategy has entered general practice in Italy in the last years. The SOCRATES study retrospectively assessed the pattern of care of a cohort of patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer observed in the years 2000-2002 in 37 Italian centres. Data were collected between April and September 2005.Patients with recurrent ovarian cancer with a platinum-free interval6 months were eligible. 493 patient files were collected and 428 were eligible and analyzed.The interval from the end of the 1st line to relapse was 6-12 months in 164 patients (39.5%) and12 months in 251 cases (60.5%). Patients received a 2nd (100%), 3rd (80.1%), 4th (50.2%), 5th (28.3%), and 6th (11.9%) line of chemotherapy. At 2nd line 282 (65.9%) received platinum (group A), while 146 (34.1%) received non-platinum chemotherapy (group B). In the latter group, 67 patients received platinum at later progression (group B1), while 79 never received platinum (group B2). Median time to platinum re-treatment was 20 and 23.1 months in patients of groups A and B1, respectively. The response rate to the first platinum received was 74.4 and 57.4% in groups A and B1, respectively (p = 0.02). Group B2 was characterized by the worst response rate and survival. At multivariate analysis time of first platinum re-treatment (2nd line vs. later; p = 0.0132; OR = 2.34) and age (p = 0.0029; OR = 2.41) was independently associated with a higher possibility of response to platinum.With the limits of a retrospective study, our data question the hypothesis that extending the platinum-free interval with an intervening non-platinum therapy in patients with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer improves the response rate of a further platinum re-treatment.

Aims: To investigate the population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide in breast cancer patients. Patients and methods: Sixty-five female patients with early or advanced breast cancer received doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 over 15 minutes followed by cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 over 15 minutes. The plasma concentration-time data of both drugs were measured, and the relationship between drug pharmacokinetics and neutrophil counts was evaluated using nonlinear mixed-effect modelling. Relationships were explored between drug exposure (the area under the plasma concentration-time curve [AUC]), toxicity and tumour response. Results: Fifty-nine patients had complete pharmacokinetic and toxicity data. In 50 patients with measurable disease, the objective response rate was 60%, with complete responses in 6% of patients. Both doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide pharmacokinetics were associated with neutrophil toxicity. Cyclophosphamide exposure (the AUC) was significantly higher in patients with at least stable disease (n = 44) than in patients with progressive disease (n = 6; 945 μmol·h/L [95% CI 889, 1001] vs 602 μmol·h/L [95% CI 379, 825], p = 0.0002). No such correlation was found for doxorubicin. Body surface area was positively correlated with doxorubicin clearance; AST and patient age were negatively correlated with doxorubicin clearance; creatinine clearance was positively correlated with doxorubicinol clearance; and occasional concurrent use of carbamazepine was positively correlated with cyclophosphamide clearance. Conclusions: The proposed inhibitory population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model adequately described individual neutrophil counts after administration of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide. In this patient population, exposure to cyclophosphamide, as assessed by the AUC, might have been a predictor of the treatment response, whereas exposure to doxorubicin was not. A prospective study should validate cyclophosphamide exposure as a predictive marker for the treatment response and clinical outcome in this patient group. © 2007 Adis Data Information BV. All rights reserved. 46 12 1051 1068