Clinical Perspectives from Randomized Phase 3 Trials on Prostate Cancer: An Analysis of the ClinicalTrials.gov Database

AbstractBackground It is not easy to overview pending phase 3 trials on prostate cancer (PCa), and awareness of these trials would benefit clinicians. Objective To identify all phase 3 trials on {PCa} registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database with pending results. Design and setting On September 29, 2014, a database was established from the records for 175 538 clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. A search of this database for the substring “prostat” identified 2951 prostate trials. Phase 3 trials accounted for 441 studies, of which 333 concerned only PCa. We selected only ongoing or completed trials with pending results, that is, for which the primary endpoint had not been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Results and limitations We identified 123 phase 3 trials with pending results. Trials were conducted predominantly in North America (n = 63; 51) and Europe (n = 47; 38). The majority were on nonmetastatic disease (n = 82; 67), with 37 (30) on metastatic disease and four trials (3) including both. In terms of intervention, systemic treatment was most commonly tested (n = 71; 58), followed by local treatment 34 (28), and both systemic and local treatment (n = 11; 9), with seven (6) trials not classifiable. The 71 trials on systemic treatment included androgen deprivation therapy (n = 34; 48), chemotherapy (n = 15; 21), immunotherapy (n = 9; 13), other systemic drugs (n = 9; 13), radiopharmaceuticals (n = 2; 3), and combinations (n = 2; 3). Local treatments tested included radiation therapy (n = 27; 79), surgery (n = 5; 15), and both (n = 2; 2). A limitation is that not every clinical trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Conclusion There are many {PCa} phase 3 trials with pending results, most of which address questions regarding systemic treatments for both nonmetastatic and metastatic disease. Radiation therapy and androgen deprivation therapy are the interventions most commonly tested for local and systemic treatment, respectively. Patient summary This report describes all phase 3 trials on prostate cancer registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database with pending results. Most of these trials address questions regarding systemic treatments for both nonmetastatic and metastatic disease. Radiation therapy and androgen deprivation therapy are the interventions most commonly tested for local and systemic treatment, respectively.

Rituximab Maintenance for a Maximum of 5 Years After Single-Agent Rituximab Induction in Follicular Lymphoma: Results of the Randomized Controlled Phase III Trial SAKK 35/03.

PURPOSE Rituximab maintenance therapy has been shown to improve progression-free survival in patients with follicular lymphoma; however, the optimal duration of maintenance treatment remains unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS Two hundred seventy patients with untreated, relapsed, stable, or chemotherapy-resistant follicular lymphoma were treated with four doses of rituximab monotherapy in weekly intervals (375 mg/m(2)). Patients achieving at least a partial response were randomly assigned to receive maintenance therapy with one infusion of rituximab every 2 months, either on a short-term schedule (four administrations) or a long-term schedule (maximum of 5 years or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity). The primary end point was event-free survival (EFS). Progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), and toxicity were secondary end points. Comparisons between the two arms were performed using the log-rank test for survival end points. RESULTS One hundred sixty-five patients were randomly assigned to the short-term (n = 82) or long-term (n = 83) maintenance arms. Because of the low event rate, the final analysis was performed after 95 events had occurred, which was before the targeted event number of 99 had been reached. At a median follow-up period of 6.4 years, the median EFS was 3.4 years (95% CI, 2.1 to 5.3) in the short-term arm and 5.3 years (95% CI, 3.5 to not available) in the long-term arm (P = .14). Patients in the long-term arm experienced more adverse effects than did those in the short-term arm, with 76% v 50% of patients with at least one adverse event (P < .001), five versus one patient with grade 3 and 4 infections, and three versus zero patients discontinuing treatment because of unacceptable toxicity, respectively. There was no difference in OS between the two groups. CONCLUSION Long-term rituximab maintenance therapy does not improve EFS, which was the primary end point of this trial, or OS, and was associated with increased toxicity.

Bevacizumab continuation versus no continuation after first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III non-inferiority trial (SAKK 41/06)

BACKGROUND Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab is a standard option for first-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. We assessed whether no continuation is non-inferior to continuation of bevacizumab after completing first-line chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS In an open-label, phase III multicentre trial, patients with mCRC without disease progression after 4-6 months of standard first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab were randomly assigned to continuing bevacizumab at a standard dose or no treatment. CT scans were done every 6 weeks until disease progression. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP). A non-inferiority limit for hazard ratio (HR) of 0.727 was chosen to detect a difference in TTP of 6 weeks or less, with a one-sided significance level of 10% and a statistical power of 85%. RESULTS The intention-to-treat population comprised 262 patients: median follow-up was 36.7 months. The median TTP was 4.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.1-5.4] months for bevacizumab continuation versus 2.9 (95% CI 2.8-3.8) months for no continuation; HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.58-0.96). Non-inferiority could not be demonstrated. The median overall survival was 25.4 months for bevacizumab continuation versus 23.8 months (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.63-1.1; P = 0.2) for no continuation. Severe adverse events were uncommon in the bevacizumab continuation arm. Costs for bevacizumab continuation were estimated to be ∼30,000 USD per patient. CONCLUSIONS Non-inferiority could not be demonstrated for treatment holidays versus continuing bevacizumab monotheray, after 4-6 months of standard first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Based on no impact on overall survival and increased treatment costs, bevacizumab as a single agent is of no meaningful therapeutic value. More efficient treatment approaches are needed to maintain control of stabilized disease following induction therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00544700.

Induction chemoradiation in stage IIIA/N2 non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase 3 randomised trial

BACKGROUND One of the standard options in the treatment of stage IIIA/N2 non-small-cell lung cancer is neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery. We did a randomised trial to investigate whether the addition of neoadjuvant radiotherapy improves outcomes. METHODS We enrolled patients in 23 centres in Switzerland, Germany and Serbia. Eligible patients had pathologically proven, stage IIIA/N2 non-small-cell lung cancer and were randomly assigned to treatment groups in a 1:1 ratio. Those in the chemoradiotherapy group received three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (100 mg/m(2) cisplatin and 85 mg/m(2) docetaxel) followed by radiotherapy with 44 Gy in 22 fractions over 3 weeks, and those in the control group received neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone. All patients were scheduled to undergo surgery. Randomisation was stratified by centre, mediastinal bulk (less than 5 cm vs 5 cm or more), and weight loss (5% or more vs less than 5% in the previous 6 months). The primary endpoint was event-free survival. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00030771. FINDINGS From 2001 to 2012, 232 patients were enrolled, of whom 117 were allocated to the chemoradiotherapy group and 115 to the chemotherapy group. Median event-free survival was similar in the two groups at 12·8 months (95% CI 9·7-22·9) in the chemoradiotherapy group and 11·6 months (8·4-15·2) in the chemotherapy group (p=0·67). Median overall survival was 37·1 months (95% CI 22·6-50·0) with radiotherapy, compared with 26·2 months (19·9-52·1) in the control group. Chemotherapy-related toxic effects were reported in most patients, but 91% of patients completed three cycles of chemotherapy. Radiotherapy-induced grade 3 dysphagia was seen in seven (7%) patients. Three patients died in the control group within 30 days after surgery. INTERPRETATION Radiotherapy did not add any benefit to induction chemotherapy followed by surgery. We suggest that one definitive local treatment modality combined with neoadjuvant chemotherapy is adequate to treat resectable stage IIIA/N2 non-small-cell lung cancer. FUNDING Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI), Swiss Cancer League, and Sanofi.

Ramucirumab versus placebo as second-line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma following first-line therapy with sorafenib (REACH): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND VEGF and VEGF receptor-2-mediated angiogenesis contribute to hepatocellular carcinoma pathogenesis. Ramucirumab is a recombinant IgG1 monoclonal antibody and VEGF receptor-2 antagonist. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of ramucirumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma following first-line therapy with sorafenib. METHODS In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial (REACH), patients were enrolled from 154 centres in 27 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had hepatocellular carcinoma with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C disease or stage B disease that was refractory or not amenable to locoregional therapy, had Child-Pugh A liver disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had previously received sorafenib (stopped because of progression or intolerance), and had adequate haematological and biochemical parameters. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous ramucirumab (8 mg/kg) or placebo every 2 weeks, plus best supportive care, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. Randomisation was stratified by geographic region and cause of liver disease with a stratified permuted block method. Patients, medical staff, investigators, and the funder were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01140347. FINDINGS Between Nov 4, 2010, and April 18, 2013, 565 patients were enrolled, of whom 283 were assigned to ramucirumab and 282 were assigned to placebo. Median overall survival for the ramucirumab group was 9·2 months (95% CI 8·0-10·6) versus 7·6 months (6·0-9·3) for the placebo group (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·72-1·05]; p=0·14). Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurring in 5% or more of patients in either treatment group were ascites (13 [5%] of 277 patients treated with ramucirumab vs 11 [4%] of 276 patients treated with placebo), hypertension (34 [12%] vs ten [4%]), asthenia (14 [5%] vs five [2%]), malignant neoplasm progression (18 [6%] vs 11 [4%]), increased aspartate aminotransferase concentration (15 [5%] vs 23 [8%]), thrombocytopenia (13 [5%] vs one [<1%]), hyperbilirubinaemia (three [1%] vs 13 [5%]), and increased blood bilirubin (five [2%] vs 14 [5%]). The most frequently reported (≥1%) treatment-emergent serious adverse event of any grade or grade 3 or more was malignant neoplasm progression. INTERPRETATION Second-line treatment with ramucirumab did not significantly improve survival over placebo in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. No new safety signals were noted in eligible patients and the safety profile is manageable. FUNDING Eli Lilly and Co.

Tocilizumab for induction and maintenance of remission in giant cell arteritis: a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Giant cell arteritis is an immune-mediated disease of medium and large-sized arteries that affects mostly people older than 50 years of age. Treatment with glucocorticoids is the gold-standard and prevents severe vascular complications but is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Tocilizumab, a humanised monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-6 receptor, has been associated with rapid induction and maintenance of remission in patients with giant cell arteritis. We therefore aimed to study the efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in the first randomised clinical trial in patients with newly diagnosed or recurrent giant cell arteritis. METHODS In this single centre, phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we recruited patients aged 50 years and older from University Hospital Bern, Switzerland, who met the 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria for giant cell arteritis. Patients with new-onset or relapsing disease were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) or placebo intravenously. 13 infusions were given in 4 week intervals until week 52. Both groups received oral prednisolone, starting at 1 mg/kg per day and tapered down to 0 mg according to a standard reduction scheme defined in the study protocol. Allocation to treatment groups was done using a central computerised randomisation procedure with a permuted block design and a block size of three, and concealed using central randomisation generated by the clinical trials unit. Patients, investigators, and study personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved complete remission of disease at a prednisolone dose of 0·1 mg/kg per day at week 12. All analyses were intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01450137. RESULTS Between March 3, 2012, and Sept 9, 2014, 20 patients were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab and prednisolone, and ten patients to receive placebo and glucocorticoid; 16 (80%) and seven (70%) patients, respectively, had new-onset giant cell arteritis. 17 (85%) of 20 patients given tocilizumab and four (40%) of ten patients given placebo reached complete remission by week 12 (risk difference 45%, 95% CI 11-79; p=0·0301). Relapse-free survival was achieved in 17 (85%) patients in the tocilizumab group and two (20%) in the placebo group by week 52 (risk difference 65%, 95% CI 36-94; p=0·0010). The mean survival-time difference to stop glucocorticoids was 12 weeks in favour of tocilizumab (95% CI 7-17; p<0·0001), leading to a cumulative prednisolone dose of 43 mg/kg in the tocilizumab group versus 110 mg/kg in the placebo group (p=0·0005) after 52 weeks. Seven (35%) patients in the tocilizumab group and five (50%) in the placebo group had serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION Our findings show, for the first time in a trial setting, the efficacy of tocilizumab in the induction and maintenance of remission in patients with giant cell arteritis. FUNDING Roche and the University of Bern.