Resistance Mechanisms of Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas against Rituximab Treatment

Rituximab, a monoclonal antibody against B-cell specific CD20 antigen, is used for the treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL) and chronic lymphatic leukemia. In combination with chemotherapeutics rituximab has remarkably improved the outcome of NHL patients, but a vast variation in the lengths of remissions remains and the outcome of individual patients is difficult to predict. This thesis has searched for an explanation for this by studying the effector mechanisms of rituximab and by comparing gene expression in lymphoma tissue samples of patients with long- and short-term survival. This work demonstrated that activation of complement (C) system is in vitro more efficient effector mechanism of rituximab than cellular mechanisms or apoptosis. Activation of the C system was also shown in vivo during rituximab treatment. However, intravenously administered rituximab could not enter the cerebrospinal fluid, and neither C activation nor removal of lymphoma cells was observed in central nervous system. In vitro cytotoxicity assays showed that rituximab-induced cell killing could be markedly improved with simultaneous neutralization of the C regulatory proteins CD46 (Membrane cofactor protein), CD55 (Decay-accelerating factor), and CD59 (protectin). In a retrospective study of follicular lymphoma (FL) patients, low lymphoma tissue mRNA expressions of CD59 and CD55 were associated with a good prognosis and in a progressive flow cytometry study high expression of CD20 relative to CD55 was correlated to a longer progression free survival. Gene expression profile analysis revealed that expression of certain often cell cycle, signal transduction or immune response related genes correlate with clinical outcome of FL patients. Emphasizing the role of tumor microenvironment the best differentiating genes Smad1 and EphA1 were demonstrated to be mainly expressed in the non-malignant cells of tumors. In conclusion, this thesis shows that activation of the C system is a clinically important effector mechanism of rituximab and that microenvironment factor in tumors and expression of C regulatory proteins affect markedly the efficacy of immunochemotherapy. This data can be used to identify more accurately the patients for whom immunochemotherapy is given. It may also be beneficial in development of rituximab-containing and other monoclonal antibody therapies against cancer.

Dasatinib, nilotinib and standard-dose imatinib for the first line treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia: Systematic reviews and economic analyses

- Background Nilotinib and dasatinib are now being considered as alternative treatments to imatinib as a first-line treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML). - Objective This technology assessment reviews the available evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dasatinib, nilotinib and standard-dose imatinib for the first-line treatment of Philadelphia chromosome-positive CML. - Data sources Databases [including MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, the US Food and Drug Administration website and the European Medicines Agency website] were searched from search end date of the last technology appraisal report on this topic in October 2002 to September 2011. - Review methods A systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies; a review of surrogate relationships with survival; a review and critique of manufacturer submissions; and a model-based economic analysis. - Results Two clinical trials (dasatinib vs imatinib and nilotinib vs imatinib) were included in the effectiveness review. Survival was not significantly different for dasatinib or nilotinib compared with imatinib with the 24-month follow-up data available. The rates of complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) and major molecular response (MMR) were higher for patients receiving dasatinib than for those with imatinib for 12 months' follow-up (CCyR 83% vs 72%, p < 0.001; MMR 46% vs 28%, p < 0.0001). The rates of CCyR and MMR were higher for patients receiving nilotinib than for those receiving imatinib for 12 months' follow-up (CCyR 80% vs 65%, p < 0.001; MMR 44% vs 22%, p < 0.0001). An indirect comparison analysis showed no difference between dasatinib and nilotinib for CCyR or MMR rates for 12 months' follow-up (CCyR, odds ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.92; MMR, odds ratio 1.28, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.16). There is observational association evidence from imatinib studies supporting the use of CCyR and MMR at 12 months as surrogates for overall all-cause survival and progression-free survival in patients with CML in chronic phase. In the cost-effectiveness modelling scenario, analyses were provided to reflect the extensive structural uncertainty and different approaches to estimating OS. First-line dasatinib is predicted to provide very poor value for money compared with first-line imatinib, with deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of between £256,000 and £450,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Conversely, first-line nilotinib provided favourable ICERs at the willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000-30,000 per QALY. - Limitations Immaturity of empirical trial data relative to life expectancy, forcing either reliance on surrogate relationships or cumulative survival/treatment duration assumptions. - Conclusions From the two trials available, dasatinib and nilotinib have a statistically significant advantage compared with imatinib as measured by MMR or CCyR. Taking into account the treatment pathways for patients with CML, i.e. assuming the use of second-line nilotinib, first-line nilotinib appears to be more cost-effective than first-line imatinib. Dasatinib was not cost-effective if decision thresholds of £20,000 per QALY or £30,000 per QALY were used, compared with imatinib and nilotinib. Uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness analysis would be substantially reduced with better and more UK-specific data on the incidence and cost of stem cell transplantation in patients with chronic CML. - Funding The Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute for Health Research.

Primary polyestradiol phosphate versus orchiectomy for advanced prostate cancer : Studies on the efficacy, cardiovascular complications and prognostic factors

Paikallisesti levinnyttä (T3-4 M0) ja luustoon levinnyttä (T1-4 M1) eturauhassyöpää sairastaneet potilaat satunnaistettiin kirurgiseen kastraatioon (orkiektomia) tai lääkkeelliseen kastraatioon lihaksensisäisellä polyestradiolifosfaatilla (PEP) annoksella 240 mg/kk. Verrattiin hoitojen kliinistä tehoa sekä sydän- ja verisuonikomplikaatioita (SV-komplikaatioita). Verrattiin myös hoitoa edeltäviä plasman testosteroni (T) ja estradioli (E2) pitoisuuksia T3-4 M0 ja T1-4 M1 potilaiden välillä sekä selvitettiin potilaiden yleistilan vaikutusta näihin hormonitasoihin. Lopuksi luotiin T1-4 M1 potilaille eturauhassyövän aiheuttaman kuoleman ennusteellinen riskiluokittelu kolmeen riskiryhmään käyttämällä hoitoa edeltäviä ennustetekijöitä. Kliinisessä tehossa ei orkiektomian ja PEP-hoidon välillä todettu tilastollisesti merkitsevää eroa. Odotetusti T1-4 M1 potilaiden ennuste oli huonompi kuin T3-4 M0 potilaiden. T1-4 M1 potilailla ei ollut SV-kuolemissa hoitoryhmien välillä tilastollista eroa, mutta ei-tappavia SV-komplikaatioita oli PEP ryhmässä (5.9%) enemmän kuin orkiektomia ryhmässä (2.0%). T3-4 M0 potilailla PEP-hoitoon liittyi tilastollisesti merkitsevä SV-kuolleisuus riski orkiektomiaan verrattuna (p = 0.001). PEP ryhmässä 67% kuolemista oli akuutteja sydäninfarkteja. Tämä PEP hoitoon liittyvä sydäninfarktiriski (mukaan lukien myös ei-tappavat sydäninfarktit) oli merkitsevästi pienempi potilailla, joiden hoitoa edeltävä E2 taso oli vähintään 93 pmol/l (p = 0.022). E2 taso oli merkitsevästi matalampi T1-4 M1 potilailla (74.7 pmol/l) kuin T3-4 M0 potilailla (87.9 pmol/l), mutta vastaavaa eroa ei ollut T tasoissa. Sekä T3-4 M0 että T1-4 M1 potilailla yleistilan lasku osittain selitti yksilöllisen T ja E2 tasojen laskun. Eturauhassyövän aiheuttaman kuoleman riskiryhmäluokittelu (Rg) kolmeen ryhmään luotiin käyttämällä alkalista fosfataasia (AFOS), prostata spesifistä antigeenia (PSA), laskoa (La) ja potilaan ikää. Yksi riskipiste annettiin, jos AFOS > 180 U/l (tällä hetkellä käytössä olevalla menetelmällä AFOS > 83 U/l), PSA > 35 µg/l, La > 80 mm/h ja ikä < 60 vuotta. Lopuksi pisteet laskettiin yhteen. Muodostettiin seuraavat ryhmät: Rg-a (0 -1 riskipistettä), Rg-b (2 riskipistettä) ja Rg-c (3 – 4 riskipistettä). Eturauhassyövän aiheuttama kuoleman riski lisääntyi merkitsevästi siirryttäessä riskiryhmästä seuraavaan (p < 0.001). Rg-luokittelu oli kliinisesti käytännöllinen ja hyvä havaitsemaan huonon ennusteen potilaat.

Afatinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (LUX-Lung 7): a phase 2B, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Background The irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib are approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of afatinib and gefitinib in this setting. Methods This multicentre, international, open-label, exploratory, randomised controlled phase 2B trial (LUX-Lung 7) was done at 64 centres in 13 countries. Treatment-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or gefitinib (250 mg per day) until disease progression, or beyond if deemed beneficial by the investigator. Randomisation, stratified by EGFR mutation type and status of brain metastases, was done centrally using a validated number generating system implemented via an interactive voice or web-based response system with a block size of four. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival by independent central review, time-to-treatment failure, and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01466660. Findings Between Dec 13, 2011, and Aug 8, 2013, 319 patients were randomly assigned (160 to afatinib and 159 to gefitinib). Median follow-up was 27·3 months (IQR 15·3–33·9). Progression-free survival (median 11·0 months [95% CI 10·6–12·9] with afatinib vs 10·9 months [9·1–11·5] with gefitinib; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·57–0·95], p=0·017) and time-to-treatment failure (median 13·7 months [95% CI 11·9–15·0] with afatinib vs 11·5 months [10·1–13·1] with gefitinib; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58–0·92], p=0·0073) were significantly longer with afatinib than with gefitinib. Overall survival data are not mature. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20 [13%] of 160 patients given afatinib vs two [1%] of 159 given gefitinib) and rash or acne (15 [9%] patients given afatinib vs five [3%] of those given gefitinib) and liver enzyme elevations (no patients given afatinib vs 14 [9%] of those given gefitinib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (11%) patients in the afatinib group and seven (4%) in the gefitinib group. Ten (6%) patients in each group discontinued treatment due to drug-related adverse events. 15 (9%) fatal adverse events occurred in the afatinib group and ten (6%) in the gefitinib group. All but one of these deaths were considered unrelated to treatment; one patient in the gefitinib group died from drug-related hepatic and renal failure. Interpretation Afatinib significantly improved outcomes in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC compared with gefitinib, with a manageable tolerability profile. These data are potentially important for clinical decision making in this patient population.

First-Line afatinib versus chemotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and common epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutations and brain metastases

Introduction Metastatic spread to the brain is common in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but these patients are generally excluded from prospective clinical trials. The studies, phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin plus pemetrexed in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations (LUX-Lung 3) and a randomized, open-label, phase III study of BIBW 2992 versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with stage IIIB or IV adenocarcinoma of the lung harbouring an EGFR activating mutation (LUX-Lung 6) investigated first-line afatinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy in epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) mutation-positive patients with NSCLC and included patients with brain metastases; prespecified subgroup analyses are assessed in this article. Methods For both LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6, prespecified subgroup analyses of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and objective response rate were undertaken in patients with asymptomatic brain metastases at baseline (n = 35 and n = 46, respectively). Post hoc analyses of clinical outcomes was undertaken in the combined data set (n = 81). Results In both studies, there was a trend toward improved PFS with afatinib versus chemotherapy in patients with brain metastases (LUX-Lung 3: 11.1 versus 5.4 months, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.54, p = 0.1378; LUX-Lung 6: 8.2 versus 4.7 months, HR = 0.47, p = 0.1060). The magnitude of PFS improvement with afatinib was similar to that observed in patients without brain metastases. In combined analysis, PFS was significantly improved with afatinib versus with chemotherapy in patients with brain metastases (8.2 versus 5.4 months; HR, 0.50; p = 0.0297). Afatinib significantly improved the objective response rate versus chemotherapy in patients with brain metastases. Safety findings were consistent with previous reports. Conclusions These findings lend support to the clinical activity of afatinib in EGFR mutation–positive patients with NSCLC and asymptomatic brain metastases.

Cilengitide combined with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients: Results of an open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study (CERTO)

Background: This multicentre, open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study evaluated cilengitide in combination with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy, compared with cetuximab and chemotherapy alone, as first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive cetuximab plus platinum-based chemotherapy alone (control), or combined with cilengitide 2000 mg 1×/week i.v. (CIL-once) or 2×/week i.v. (CIL-twice). A protocol amendment limited enrolment to patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) histoscore ≥200 and closed the CIL-twice arm for practical feasibility issues. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; independent read); secondary end points included overall survival (OS), safety, and biomarker analyses. A comparison between the CIL-once and control arms is reported, both for the total cohorts, as well as for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200. Results: There were 85 patients in the CIL-once group and 84 in the control group. The PFS (independent read) was 6.2 versus 5.0 months for CIL-once versus control [hazard ratio (HR) 0.72; P = 0.085]; for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200, PFS was 6.8 versus 5.6 months, respectively (HR 0.57; P = 0.0446). Median OS was 13.6 for CIL-once versus 9.7 months for control (HR 0.81; P = 0.265). In patients with EGFR ≥200, OS was 13.2 versus 11.8 months, respectively (HR 0.95; P = 0.855). No major differences in adverse events between CIL-once and control were reported; nausea (59% versus 56%, respectively) and neutropenia (54% versus 46%, respectively) were the most frequent. There was no increased incidence of thromboembolic events or haemorrhage in cilengitide-treated patients. αvβ3 and αvβ5 expression was neither a predictive nor a prognostic indicator. Conclusions: The addition of cilengitide to cetuximab/chemotherapy indicated potential clinical activity, with a trend for PFS difference in the independent-read analysis. However, the observed inconsistencies across end points suggest additional investigations are required to substantiate a potential role of other integrin inhibitors in NSCLC treatment.

Dacomitinib versus erlotinib in patients with EGFR-mutated advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Pooled subset analyses from two randomized trials

Background: The irreversible epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors have demonstrated efficacy in NSCLC patients with activating EGFR mutations, but it is unknown if they are superior to the reversible inhibitors. Dacomitinib is an oral, small-molecule irreversible inhibitor of all enzymatically active HER family tyrosine kinases. Methods: The ARCHER 1009 (NCT01360554) and A7471028 (NCT00769067) studies randomized patients with locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC following progression with one or two prior chemotherapy regimens to dacomitinib or erlotinib. EGFR mutation testing was performed centrally on archived tumor samples. We pooled patients with exon 19 deletion and L858R EGFR mutations from both studies to compare the efficacy of dacomitinib to erlotinib. Results: One hundred twenty-one patients with any EGFR mutation were enrolled; 101 had activating mutations in exon 19 or 21. For patients with exon19/21 mutations, the median progression-free survival was 14.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.0–18.2] with dacomitinib and 9.6 months (95% CI 7.4–12.7) with erlotinib [unstratified hazard ratio (HR) 0.717 (95% CI 0.458–1.124), two-sided log-rank, P = 0.146]. The median survival was 26.6 months (95% CI 21.6–41.5) with dacomitinib versus 23.2 months (95% CI 16.0–31.8) with erlotinib [unstratified HR 0.737 (95% CI 0.431–1.259), two-sided log-rank, P = 0.265]. Dacomitinib was associated with a higher incidence of diarrhea and mucositis in both studies compared with erlotinib. Conclusions: Dacomitinib is an active agent with comparable efficacy to erlotinib in the EGFR mutated patients. The subgroup with exon 19 deletion had favorable outcomes with dacomitinib. An ongoing phase III study will compare dacomitinib to gefitinib in first-line therapy of patients with NSCLC harboring common activating EGFR mutations (ARCHER 1050; NCT01774721). Clinical trials number: ARCHER 1009 (NCT01360554) and A7471028 (NCT00769067).

Radiotherapy plus nimotuzumab or placebo in the treatment of high grade glioma patients: results from a randomized, double blind trial

Background The prognosis of patients bearing high grade glioma remains dismal. Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) is well validated as a primary contributor of glioma initiation and progression. Nimotuzumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that recognizes the EGFR extracellular domain and reaches Central Nervous System tumors, in nonclinical and clinical setting. While it has similar activity when compared to other anti-EGFR antibodies, it does not induce skin toxicity or hypomagnesemia. Methods A randomized, double blind, multicentric clinical trial was conducted in high grade glioma patients (41 anaplastic astrocytoma and 29 glioblastoma multiforme) that received radiotherapy plus nimotuzumab or placebo. Treatment and placebo groups were well-balanced for the most important prognostic variables. Patients received 6 weekly doses of 200 mg nimotuzumab or placebo together with irradiation as induction therapy. Maintenance treatment was given for 1 year with subsequent doses administered every 3 weeks. The objectives of this study were to assess the comparative overall survival, progression free survival, response rate, immunogenicity and safety. Results The median cumulative dose was 3200 mg of nimotuzumab given over a median number of 16 doses. The combination of nimotuzumab and RT was well-tolerated. The most prevalent related adverse reactions included nausea, fever, tremors, anorexia and hepatic test alteration. No anti-idiotypic response was detected, confirming the antibody low immunogenicity. The mean and median survival time for subjects treated with nimotuzumab was 31.06 and 17.76 vs. 21.07 and 12.63 months for the control group. Conclusions In this randomized trial, nimotuzumab showed an excellent safety profile and significant survival benefit in combination with irradiation.

Paclitaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line single-agent chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Randomized Study with cross-over.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of paclitaxel versus doxorubicin given as single agents in first-line therapy of advanced breast cancer (primary end point, progression-free survival ¿PFS) and to explore the degree of cross-resistance between the two agents. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred thirty-one patients were randomized to receive either paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2), 3-hour infusion every 3 weeks, or doxorubicin 75 mg/m(2), intravenous bolus every 3 weeks. Seven courses were planned unless progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred before the seven courses were finished. Patients who progressed within the seven courses underwent early cross-over to the alternative drug, while a delayed cross-over was optional for the remainder of patients at the time of disease progression. RESULTS: Objective response in first-line therapy was significantly better (P =.003) for doxorubicin (response rate ¿RR, 41%) than for paclitaxel (RR, 25%), with doxorubicin achieving a longer median PFS (7.5 months for doxorubicin v 3.9 months for paclitaxel, P <.001). In second-line therapy, cross-over to doxorubicin (91 patients) and to paclitaxel (77 patients) gave response rates of 30% and 16%, respectively. The median survival durations of 18.3 months for doxorubicin and 15.6 months for paclitaxel were not significantly different (P =.38). The doxorubicin arm had greater toxicity, but this was counterbalanced by better symptom control. CONCLUSION: At the dosages and schedules used in the present study, doxorubicin achieves better disease and symptom control than paclitaxel in first-line treatment. Doxorubicin and paclitaxel are not totally cross-resistant, which supports further investigation of these drugs in combination or in sequence, both in advanced disease and in the adjuvant setting.

Doxorubicin and paclitaxel versus doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10961 Multicenter Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT) with a standard doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) regimen as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were anthracycline-naive and had bidimensionally measurable metastatic breast cancer. Two hundred seventy-five patients were randomly assigned to be treated with AT (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) as an intravenous bolus plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) as a 3-hour infusion) or AC (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. A paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and cyclophosphamide (750 mg/m(2)) dose escalation was planned at cycle 2 if no grade >or= 3 neutropenia occurred in cycle 1. The primary efficacy end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were response rate (RR), safety, overall survival (OS), and quality of life. RESULTS: A median number of six cycles were delivered in the two treatment arms. The relative dose-intensity and delivered cumulative dose of doxorubicin were lower in the AT arm. Dose escalation was only possible in 17% and 20% of the AT and AC patients, respectively. Median PFS was 6 months in the two treatments arms. RR was 58% versus 54%, and median OS was 20.6 versus 20.5 months in the AT and AC arms, respectively. The AT regimen was characterized by a higher incidence of febrile neutropenia, 32% versus 9% in the AC arm. CONCLUSION: No differences in the efficacy study end points were observed between the two treatment arms. Treatment-related toxicity compromised doxorubicin-delivered dose-intensity in the paclitaxel-based regimen

Taxanes alone or in combination with anthracyclines as first-line therapy of patients with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Taxanes (paclitaxel or docetaxel) have been sequenced or combined with anthracyclines (doxorubicin or epirubicin) for the first-line treatment of advanced breast cancer. This meta-analysis uses data from all relevant trials to detect any advantages of taxanes in terms of tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS), and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual patient data were collected on eight randomized combination trials comparing anthracyclines + taxanes (+ cyclophosphamide in one trial) with anthracyclines + cyclophosphamide (+ fluorouracil in four trials), and on three single-agent trials comparing taxanes with anthracyclines. Combination trials included 3,034 patients; single-agent trials included 919 patients. RESULTS: Median follow-up of living patients was 43 months, median survival was 19.3 months, and median PFS was 7.1 months. In single-agent trials, response rates were similar in the taxanes (38%) and in the anthracyclines (33%) arms (P = .08). The hazard ratios for taxanes compared with anthracyclines were 1.19 (95% CI, 1.04 to 1.36; P = .011) for PFS and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.16; P = .90) for survival. In combination trials, response rates were 57% (10% complete) in taxane-based combinations and 46% (6% complete) in control arms (P < .001). The hazard ratios for taxane-based combinations compared with control arms were 0.92 (95% CI, 0.85 to 0.99; P = .031) for PFS and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.03; P = .24) for survival. CONCLUSION: Taxanes were significantly worse than single-agent anthracyclines in terms of PFS, but not in terms of response rates or survival. Taxane-based combinations were significantly better than anthracycline-based combinations in terms of response rates and PFS, but not in terms of survival.

Efficacy of Pharmacokinetics-Directed Busulfan, Cyclophosphamide, and Etoposide Conditioning and Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Lymphoma: Comparison of a Multicenter Phase II Study and CIBMTR Outcomes.

Busulfan, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide (BuCyE) is a commonly used conditioning regimen for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). This multicenter, phase II study examined the safety and efficacy of BuCyE with individually adjusted busulfan based on preconditioning pharmacokinetics. The study initially enrolled Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients ages 18 to 80 years but was amended due to high early treatment-related mortality (TRM) in patients > 65 years. BuCyE outcomes were compared with contemporaneous recipients of carmustine, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan (BEAM) from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Two hundred seven subjects with HL (n = 66) or NHL (n = 141) were enrolled from 32 centers in North America, and 203 underwent ASCT. Day 100 TRM for all subjects (n = 203), patients > 65 years (n = 17), and patients ≤ 65 years (n = 186) were 4.5%, 23.5%, and 2.7%, respectively. The estimated rates of 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) were 33% for HL and 58%, 77%, and 43% for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL; n = 63), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL; n = 29), and follicular lymphoma (FL; n = 23), respectively. The estimated rates of 2-year overall survival (OS) were 76% for HL and 65%, 89%, and 89% for DLBCL, MCL, and FL, respectively. In the matched analysis rates of 2-year TRM were 3.3% for BuCyE and 3.9% for BEAM, and there were no differences in outcomes for NHL. Patients with HL had lower rates of 2-year PFS with BuCyE, 33% (95% CI, 21% to 46%), than with BEAM, 59% (95% CI, 52% to 66%), with no differences in TRM or OS. BuCyE provided adequate disease control and safety in B cell NHL patients ≤ 65 years but produced worse PFS in HL patients when compared with BEAM.

The addition of cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based first-line combination chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer: results of the MRC COIN trial.

Background: In the Medical Research Council (MRC) COIN trial, the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted antibody cetuximab was added to standard chemotherapy in first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer with the aim of assessing effect on overall survival.
Methods: In this randomised controlled trial, patients who were fit for but had not received previous chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy (arm A), the same combination plus cetuximab (arm B), or intermittent chemotherapy (arm C). The choice of fluoropyrimidine therapy (capecitabine or infused fluouroracil plus leucovorin) was decided before randomisation. Randomisation was done centrally (via telephone) by the MRC Clinical Trials Unit using minimisation. Treatment allocation was not masked. The comparison of arms A and C is described in a companion paper. Here, we present the comparison of arm A and B, for which the primary outcome was overall survival in patients with KRAS wild-type tumours. Analysis was by intention to treat. Further analyses with respect to NRAS, BRAF, and EGFR status were done. The trial is registered, ISRCTN27286448.
Findings: 1630 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (815 to standard therapy and 815 to addition of cetuximab). Tumour samples from 1316 (81%) patients were used for somatic molecular analyses; 565 (43%) had KRAS mutations. In patients with KRAS wild-type tumours (arm A, n=367; arm B, n=362), overall survival did not differ between treatment groups (median survival 17·9 months [IQR 10·3—29·2] in the control group vs 17·0 months [9·4—30·1] in the cetuximab group; HR 1·04, 95% CI 0·87—1·23, p=0·67). Similarly, there was no effect on progression-free survival (8·6 months [IQR 5·0—12·5] in the control group vs 8·6 months [5·1—13·8] in the cetuximab group; HR 0·96, 0·82—1·12, p=0·60). Overall response rate increased from 57% (n=209) with chemotherapy alone to 64% (n=232) with addition of cetuximab (p=0·049). Grade 3 and higher skin and gastrointestinal toxic effects were increased with cetuximab (14 vs 114 and 67 vs 97 patients in the control group vs the cetuximab group with KRAS wild-type tumours, respectively). Overall survival differs by somatic mutation status irrespective of treatment received: BRAF mutant, 8·8 months (IQR 4·5—27·4); KRAS mutant, 14·4 months (8·5—24·0); all wild-type, 20·1 months (11·5—31·7).
Interpretation: This trial has not confirmed a benefit of addition of cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in first-line treatment of patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Cetuximab increases response rate, with no evidence of benefit in progression-free or overall survival in KRAS wild-type patients or even in patients selected by additional mutational analysis of their tumours. The use of cetuximab in combination with oxaliplatin and capecitabine in first-line chemotherapy in patients with widespread metastases cannot be recommended.

Oxaliplatin/capecitabine versus oxaliplatin/infusional 5-FU in advanced colorectal cancer: The MRC COIN Trial.

Background:

COIN compared first-line continuous chemotherapy with the same chemotherapy given intermittently or with cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC).


Methods:

Choice between oxaliplatin/capecitabine (OxCap) and oxaliplatin/leucovorin (LV)/infusional 5-FU (OxFU) was by physician and patient choice and switching regimen was allowed. We compared OxCap with OxFU and OxCap+cetuximab with OxFU+cetuximab retrospectively in patients and examined efficacy, toxicity profiles and the effect of mild renal impairment.


Results:

In total, 64% of 2397 patients received OxCap(±cetuximab). Overall survival, progression free survival and overall response rate were similar between OxCap and OxFU but rate of radical surgeries was higher for OxFU. Progression free survival was longer for OxFU+cetuximab compared with OxCap+cetuximab but other efficacy measures were similar. Oxaliplatin/LV/infusional 5-FU (±cetuximab) was associated with more mucositis and infection whereas OxCap(±cetuximab) caused more gastrointestinal toxicities and palmar-plantar erythema. In total, 118 patients switched regimen, mainly due to toxicity; only 16% came off their second regimen due to intolerance. Patients with creatinine clearance (CrCl) 50–80?ml?min-1 on OxCap(±cetuximab) or OxFU+cetuximab had more dose modifications than those with better renal function.


Conclusions:

Overall, OxFU and OxCap are equally effective in treating aCRC. However, the toxicity profiles differ and switching from one regimen to the other for poor tolerance is a reasonable option. Patients with CrCl 50–80?ml?min-1 on both regimens require close toxicity monitoring.

BRCA1 Immunohistochemical Staining as a Prognostic Indicator in Uterine Serous Carcinoma

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between BRCA1 protein expression, as determined by immunohistochemistry, and clinical outcome in uterine serous carcinoma (USC). METHODS: A tissue microarray containing duplicate cores of 73 cases of USC was immunohistochemically stained with mouse anti-BRCA1 (Ab-1) mouse monoclonal (MS110) antibody. The cores were scored in a semiquantitative manner evaluating both the distribution and intensity of nuclear staining. BRCA1 protein expression was correlated with progression-free survival. RESULTS: Seventy-two of 73 cases were assessable, and there was a statistically significant decreased progression-free survival for those cases exhibiting tumor cell nuclei staining of 76% or greater (P = 0.0023). CONCLUSIONS: Our study illustrates that a low level of BRCA1 protein expression is a favorable prognostic indicator in USC, similar to what is observed in high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. Further studies should focus on the BRCA1 status of USCs at a molecular level and also investigate whether BRCA1 protein expression is associated with response to chemotherapy in USC.