Sorafenib fourth-line treatment in imatinib-, sunitinib-, and nilotinib-resistant metastatic GIST : a retrospective analysis : 10564

Background: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are rare mesenchymal tumors usually caused by mutations in the KIT or PDGFRA gene. Advanced disease generally cannot be cured by surgery nor by tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), but TKIs have considerably improved outcome for patients (pts) with advanced GIST. Patients failing TKI treatment with imatinib (IM), sunitinib (SU) or nilotinib (NI) have a poor prognosis. Sorafenib is a multi kinase inhibitor that blocks not only receptor tyrosine kinases such as KIT, VEGFR and PDGFR but also serine/threonine kinases along the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway. Recently, clinical activity of sorafenib in third-line treatment in patients with GIST after IM and SU failure has been shown (Wiebe et al. ASCO 2008, #10502). Methods: We report herein preliminary data of 32 pts treated with sorafenib in nine European centers. Centers were selected based on their previous and known experience in GIST and reported all pts treated. Pts received sorafenib after failure of IM, SU and NI in fourth-line treatment. Baseline characteristics and treatment details have been retrieved via questionary. Results: Median age at sorafenib treatment start was 62 years (range 33-81 y), and the majority of pts were male (63 %). Primary tumor site was gastric or small intestine in 25% and 41% of pts, respectively. All pts had failed IM, SU, NI. 19 % of pts achieved partial remission and 44% disease stabilization. Approximately half of the pts had an improvement of symptoms and/or performance. Half of the pts were on treatment longer than 4 months (actuarial data) and 41% of pts continue to receive sorafenib. Median progression-free survival is 20 weeks and median overall survival 42 weeks (Kaplan-Meier), at a median follow-up of 22 weeks (range 3-54). Conclusions: This is the largest series assessing efficacy of sorafenib fourth-line treatment for IM, SU and NI refractory GIST reported yet. Sorafenib displays significant clinical activity in this heavily pretreated group of patients.

Continuous sunitinib treatment in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): A multicenter phase II trial (SAKK 77/06 and SASL 23)

Background: Sunitinib (SU) is a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor with antitumor and antiangiogenetic activity. Evidence for clinical activity in HCC was reported in 2 phase II trials [Zhu et al and Faivre et al, ASCO 2007] using either a 37.5 or a 50 mg daily dose in a 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off regimen. The objective of this trial was to demonstrate antitumor activity of continuous SU treatment in patients (pts) with HCC. Methods: Key eligibility criteria included unresectable or metastatic HCC, no prior systemic anticancer treatment, measurable disease and Child- Pugh A or B liver dysfunction. Pts received 37.5 mg SU daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression free survival at 12 weeks (PFS12) defined as 'success' if the patient was alive and without tumor progression assessed by 12 weeks (±7 days) after registration. A PFS12 of _20% was considered uninteresting and promising if _40%. Using the Simon-two minimax stage design with 90% power and 5% significance the sample size was 45 pts. Secondary endpoints included safety assessments, measurement of serum cobalamin levels and tumor density. Results: From September 2007 to August 2008 45 pts, mostly male (87%), were enrolled in 10 centers. Median age was 63 years, 89% had Child-Pugh A and 47% had distant metastases. Median largest lesion diameter was 84mm (range: 18-280) and 18% had prior TACE. Reasons for stopping therapy were: PD 60%, symptomatic deterioration 16%, toxicity 11%, death 2% (due to tumor), and other reasons 4%; 7% remain on therapy. PFS12 was rated as success in 15 pts (33%) (95% CI: 20%, 49%) and failure in 27 (60%); 3 were not evaluable (due to refusal). Over the whole trial period 1 CR and 40% SD as best response were achieved. Median PFS, duration of disease stabilization, TTP and OS were 2.8, 3.2, 2.8 and 9.3 months, respectively. Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were infrequent and all deaths due to the tumor. Conclusions: Continuous SU treatment with 37.5 mg/d daily is feasible and demonstrates moderate activity in pts with advanced HCC and mild to moderately impaired liver dysfunction. Under this trial design the therapy is considered promising (>13 PFS12 successes).

Radiation therapy and concurrent plus adjuvant temsirolimus (CCI-779) versus chemoirradiation with temozolomide in newly diagnosed glioblastoma without methylation of the MGMT gene promoter.

Background: Preclinical data indicate activity of mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors and synergistic activity together with radiotherapy in glioblastoma. The aim of this trial is to assess the therapeutic activity of temsirolimus (CCI-779), an intravenous mTOR inhibitor, in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with unmethylated O6 methlyguanine-DNA-methlytransferase (MGMT)promoter. Methods: Patients (n=257) with newly diagnosed glioblastoma after open surgical biopsy or resection fulfilling basic eligibility criteria underwent a central MGMT promoter analysis using quantitative methylation specific PCR. Patients with glioblastoma harboring an unmethylated MGMT promoter (n=111) were randomized 1:1 between radiotherapy (60 Gy; 5 times 2 Gy per week) plus concomitant and six cycles of maintenance temozolomide or radiotherapy plus weekly temsirolimus at 25 mg flat dose to be continued until progression or undue toxicity. Primary endpoint was overall survival at 12 months (OS12). Sample size of the investigational treatment arm required 54 patients to assess adequacy of temsirolimus activity set at 80%. More than 38 patients alive at 12 months in the per protocol population was considered a positive signal. A control arm of 54 patients treated with the standard of care was implemented to evaluate the assumptions on OS12. Results: Between December 2009 and October 2012, 111 pts in 14 centers were randomized and treated. Median age was 55 and 58 years in the temsirolimus and standard arm, respectively. Most patients (95.5%) had a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Both therapies were properly administered with a median of 13 cycles of maintenance temsirolimus. In the per protocolpopulation, exactly 38 patients treated with temsirolimus (out of 54 eligible) reached OS12. In the intention to treat population OS12 was 72.2% [95% CI (58.2, 82.2)] in the temozolomide arm and 69.6% [95% CI (55.8, 79.9) in the temsirolimus arm [HR=1.16 95% CI (0.77, 1.76), p=0.47]. Conclusions: The therapeutic activity of temsirolimus in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with an unmethylated MGMT promoter is too low.

Novel Chemotherapy Combinations in Advanced Gastric Cancer: an Updated Meta-Analysis

Combination chemotherapy is widely accepted for patients with advanced gastric cancer, but uncertainty remains regarding the choice of the regimen. Objectives: To assess the effect of: Comparison 1) irinotecan versus non-irinotecancontaining regimens, comparison 2) docetaxel versus non-docetaxel-containing regimens, comparison 3) regimens including oral 5-FU prodrugs versus intravenous fluoropyrimidines, comparison 4) oxaliplatin versus cisplatin-containing regimens on overall survival. Search Strategy: We searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, proceedings from ECCO, ESMO, ASCO until December 2009. Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials on the above mentioned chemotherapy regimens in advanced or metastatic denocarcinoma of the stomach or GE-junction. Results: The meta-analysis of overall survival for comparison 1) included 4 trials, 640 patients, and results in a HR of 0.86 (95% CI 0.73-1.02) in favour of the irinotecancontaining regimens. For comparison 2) 4 trials with a total of 924 patients have been included in the analysis of overall survival. The resulting HR is 0.93 (95% CI 0.79-1.09) in favour of the docetaxel-containing regimens, with moderate heterogeneity (I2 =7%). For comparison 3 and 4, one major relevant study (Cunningham 2008) could not be included in this meta-analysis after discussion because it included patients with squamous cell cancer of the esophagus as well. Thus, for comparison 3) one relevant study (Kang 2009; 316 patients) comparing capecitabine versus 5-FU in combination with cisplatin is eligible. The resulting HR is 0.85 (95%CI 0.65-1.11) in favour of the oral regimen. For comparison 4) two eligible trials were identified (Al Batran 2008, Popov 2008; 292 patients) with a resulting HR of 0.82 (95% CI 0.47-1.45) in favour of the oxaliplatin-based regimens. For three further trials data is incomplete at present. Conclusions: Chemotherapy combinations including irinotecan, oxaliplatin, docetaxel or oral 5-FU prodrugs are alternative treatment options to cisplatin/5-FU or cisplatin/ 5-FU/anthracycline-combinations, but do not provide significant advantages in overall survival. Supported by: KKS Halle, grant number [BMBF/FKZ 01GH01GH0105]. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.