First-line gefitinib in Caucasian EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC patients: a phase-IV, open-label, single-arm study.

BACKGROUND: Phase-IV, open-label, single-arm study (NCT01203917) to assess efficacy and safety/tolerability of first-line gefitinib in Caucasian patients with stage IIIA/B/IV, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: TREATMENT: gefitinib 250 mg day(-1) until progression. Primary endpoint: objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints: disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety/tolerability. Pre-planned exploratory objective: EGFR mutation analysis in matched tumour and plasma samples. RESULTS: Of 1060 screened patients with NSCLC (859 known mutation status; 118 positive, mutation frequency 14%), 106 with EGFR sensitising mutations were enrolled (female 70.8%; adenocarcinoma 97.2%; never-smoker 64.2%). At data cutoff: ORR 69.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 60.5-77.7), DCR 90.6% (95% CI 83.5-94.8), median PFS 9.7 months (95% CI 8.5-11.0), median OS 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-NC; 27% maturity). Most common adverse events (AEs; any grade): rash (44.9%), diarrhoea (30.8%); CTC (Common Toxicity Criteria) grade 3/4 AEs: 15%; SAEs: 19%. Baseline plasma 1 samples were available in 803 patients (784 known mutation status; 82 positive; mutation frequency 10%). Plasma 1 EGFR mutation test sensitivity: 65.7% (95% CI 55.8-74.7). CONCLUSION: First-line gefitinib was effective and well tolerated in Caucasian patients with EGFR mutation-positive NSCLC. Plasma samples could be considered for mutation analysis if tumour tissue is unavailable.

Impact of tamoxifen dose on tamoxifen and its active metabolites exposure in breast cancer patients: preliminary results from a prospective, open-label trial

Background: CYP2D6 is the key enzyme responsible for tamoxifen bioactivation mainly into endoxifen. This gene is highly polymorphic and breast cancer patients classified as CYP2D6 poor metabolizers (PM) or intermediate metabolizers (IM) appear to show low concentrations of endoxifen and to achieve less benefit from tamoxifen treatment. Purpose: This prospective, open-label trial aimed to assess how the increase of tamoxifen dose influences the level of endoxifen in the different genotype groups (poor-, intermediate-, and extensive-metabolizers (EM)). We examined the impact of doubling tamoxifen dose to 20mg twice daily on endoxifen plasma concentrations across these genotype groups. Patients and methods: Patients were assayed for CYP2D6 genotype and phenotype using dextromethorphan test. Tamoxifen, N-desmethyltamoxifen, 4-hydroxytamoxifen and endoxifen plasma levels were determined on 2 occasions at baseline (20mg/day of tamoxifen) and at day 30, 90 and 120 after dose increase (20 mg twice daily) using liquid chromatography-tandem-mass spectrometry. Endoxifen plasma levels were measured 6 to 24 hours after last drug intake to evaluate its accumulation before and after doubling tamoxifen dosage. ANOVA was used to evaluate endoxifen levels increase and difference between genotype groups. Results: 63 patients are available for analysis to date. Tamoxifen, N-desmethyltamoxifen, 4-hydroxytamoxifen and endoxifen plasma reached steady state at 30 day after tamoxifen dose escalation, with a significant increase compared to baseline by 1.6 to 1.8 fold : geometric mean plasma concentrations (CV %) were 140 ng/mL (45%) at baseline vs 255 (47%) at day 30 for tamoxifen (P < 0.0001); 256 (49%) vs 408 (64%) for N-desmethyltamoxifen (P < 0.0001); 2.4 (46%) vs 3.9 (51%) for 4-OH-tamoxifen (P < 0.0001); and 20 (91%) vs 33 (91%) for endoxifen (P < 0.02). On baseline, endoxifen levels tended to be lower in PM: 7 ng/mL (36%), than IM: 16 ng/mL (70%), P=0.08, and EM: 24 ng/mL (71%), P<0.001. After doubling tamoxifen dosage, endoxifen concentrations rose similarly in PM, IM and EM with respectively, 1.5 (18%), 1.5 (28%) and 1.7 (30%) fold increase from baseline, P=0.18. Conclusion: Endoxifen exposure varies widely under standard tamoxifen dosage, with CYP2D6 genotype explaining only a minor part of this variability. It increases consistently on doubling tamoxifen dose, similarly across genotypes. This would enable exposure optimization based on concentration monitoring.

Rituximab treatment in Myasthenia gravis: an open-label trial

Myasthenia gravis (MG), an antibody (AB)-mediated autoimmune disorder, responds to treatments targeting the humoral response such as intravenous immunoglobulines (IVIG) and plasma exchange treatments (PEX). Rituximab (RTX), a monoclonal anti-CD20 AB that depletes the specific B lymphocyte population should be efficient and is being used for resistant MG patients in small cohorts. Objectives: This is an observational prospective study that aims to determine the efficacy of RTX in MG, the duration of the clinical effect after treatment and the possible sparing effect on other immunosuppressive drugs.Methods: Between January 2009 and December 2010, 8 MG (2 with anti-MUSK AB) patients (62.5% female) with mean age of 41 years (range 24-79 yo), were treated by RTX. The patients treated were those who experienced serious side-effects and/or treatment failure. In three cases the criteria for treatment was the need to spare frequent recurrent plasmapheresis or IGIV treatment. We compared the functional tests before and prospectively after the treatment (schema used for one cure: 2 9 1gr within 15 days interval), the duration of the efficiency (follow-up of 4-24 months) and we repeated the cures based on clinical criteria.Results: Two patients (25%) underwent 3 RTX cures, 2 (25%) underwent 2 cures and the others (50%) one cure. No adverse events were observed. Six patients (75%) showed a clinical response with improvement of the functional scores and reduction of the concomitant immunosuppressive treatments (75% for prednisone, 35% for other immunosuppressive drugs) that persists over a period of 4-9 months. Follow-up of clinical state and lymphocyte count showed an inverse correlation between the CD 19 count and the clinical state of the patients.Conclusion: In this small series of patients RTX treatment shows significant improvement of clinical state of MG refractory to conventional treatment patients, without side-effects reported, even in patients that were retreated. Larger studies should be held to determine if RTX could be an alternative to plasmapheresis and IVIG as second-line treatment in MG.

Vemurafenib in patients with BRAF(V600) mutation-positive melanoma with symptomatic brain metastases: final results of an open-label pilot study.

BACKGROUND & AIM: Brain metastases are frequent in patients with metastatic melanoma, indicating poor prognosis. We investigated the BRAF kinase inhibitor vemurafenib in patients with advanced melanoma with symptomatic brain metastases. METHODS: This open-label trial assessed vemurafenib (960mg twice a day) in patients with BRAF(V600) mutation-positive metastatic melanoma with non-resectable, previously treated brain metastases. The primary end-point was safety. Secondary end-points included best overall response rate, and progression-free and overall survival. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients received vemurafenib for a median treatment duration of 3.8 (0.1-11.3) months. The majority of discontinuations were due to disease progression (n=22). Twenty-three of 24 patients reported at least one adverse event (AE). Grade 3 AEs were reported in four (17%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.7-37.4%) patients and included cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in four patients. Median progression-free survival was 3.9 (95% CI, 3.0-5.5) months, and median survival was 5.3 (95% CI, 3.9-6.6) months. An overall partial response (PR) at both intracranial and extracranial sites was achieved in 10 of 24 (42%; 95% CI, 22.1-63.4) evaluable patients, with stable disease in nine (38%; 95% CI, 18.8-59.4) patients. Of 19 patients with measurable intracranial disease, seven (37%) achieved >30% intracranial tumour regression, and three (16%; 95% CI, 3.4-39.6%) achieved a confirmed PR. Other signs of improvement included reduced need for corticosteroids and enhanced performance status. CONCLUSIONS: Vemurafenib can be safely used in patients with advanced symptomatic melanoma that has metastasised to the brain and can result in meaningful tumour regression.

Panitumumab plus radiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresected, locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (CONCERT-2): a randomised, controlled, open-label phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare panitumumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against EGFR, plus radiotherapy with chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresected, locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. METHODS: In this international, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial, we recruited patients with locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck from 22 sites in eight countries worldwide. Patients aged 18 years and older with stage III, IVa, or IVb, previously untreated, measurable (≥10 mm for at least one dimension), locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (non-nasopharygeal) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 were randomly assigned (2:3) by an independent vendor to open-label chemoradiotherapy (two cycles of cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) during radiotherapy) or to radiotherapy plus panitumumab (three cycles of panitumumab 9 mg/kg every 3 weeks administered with radiotherapy) using a stratified randomisation with a block size of five. All patients received 70-72 Gy to gross tumour and 54 Gy to areas of subclinical disease with accelerated fractionation radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was local-regional control at 2 years, analysed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of their assigned protocol-specific treatment (chemotherapy, radiation, or panitumumab). The trial is closed and this is the final analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00547157. FINDINGS: Between Nov 30, 2007, and Nov 16, 2009, 152 patients were enrolled, and 151 received treatment (61 in the chemoradiotherapy group and 90 in the radiotherapy plus panitumumab group). Local-regional control at 2 years was 61% (95% CI 47-72) in the chemoradiotherapy group and 51% (40-62) in the radiotherapy plus panitumumab group. The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were mucosal inflammation (25 [40%] of 62 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group vs 37 [42%] of 89 patients in the radiotherapy plus panitumumab group), dysphagia (20 [32%] vs 36 [40%]), and radiation skin injury (seven [11%] vs 21 [24%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 25 (40%) of 62 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group and in 30 (34%) of 89 patients in the radiotherapy plus panitumumab group. INTERPRETATION: Panitumumab cannot replace cisplatin in the combined treatment with radiotherapy for unresected stage III-IVb squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck, and the role of EGFR inhibition in locally advanced squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck needs to be reassessed. FUNDING: Amgen.

Comparative effects of teriparatide and ibandronate on spine bone mineral density (BMD) and microarchitecture (TBS) in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: a 2-year open-label study.

Treatment effects over 2 years of teriparatide vs. ibandronate in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were compared using lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) and trabecular bone score (TBS). Teriparatide induced larger increases in BMD and TBS compared to ibandronate, suggesting a more pronounced effect on bone microarchitecture of the bone anabolic drug. INTRODUCTION: The trabecular bone score (TBS) is an index of bone microarchitecture, independent of bone mineral density (BMD), calculated from anteroposterior spine dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans. The potential role of TBS for monitoring treatment response with bone-active substances is not established. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of recombinant human 1-34 parathyroid hormone (teriparatide) and the bisphosphonate ibandronate (IBN), on lumbar spine (LS) BMD and TBS in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. METHODS: Two patient groups with matched age, body mass index (BMI), and baseline LS BMD, treated with either daily subcutaneous teriparatide (N = 65) or quarterly intravenous IBN (N = 122) during 2 years and with available LS BMD measurements at baseline and 2 years after treatment initiation were compared. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics (overall mean ± SD) were similar between groups in terms of age 67.9 ± 7.4 years, body mass index 23.8 ± 3.8 kg/m(2), BMD L1-L4 0.741 ± 0.100 g/cm(2), and TBS 1.208 ± 0.100. Over 24 months, teriparatide induced a significantly larger increase in LS BMD and TBS than IBN (+7.6 % ± 6.3 vs. +2.9 % ± 3.3 and +4.3 % ± 6.6 vs. +0.3 % ± 4.1, respectively; P < 0.0001 for both). LS BMD and TBS were only weakly correlated at baseline (r (2) = 0.04) with no correlation between the changes in BMD and TBS over 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, a 2-year treatment with teriparatide led to a significantly larger increase in LS BMD and TBS than IBN, suggesting that teriparatide had more pronounced effects on bone microarchitecture than IBN.

Concomitant chemoradiotherapy versus acceleration of radiotherapy with or without concomitant chemotherapy in locally advanced head and neck carcinoma (GORTEC 99-02): an open-label phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant chemoradiotherapy and accelerated radiotherapy independently improve outcomes for patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC). We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a combination of these approaches. METHODS: In our open-label phase 3 randomised trial, we enrolled patients with locally advanced, stage III and IV (non-metastatic) HNSCC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. We randomly allocated patients centrally with a computer program (with centre, T stage, N stage, and localisation as minimisation factors) in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive conventional chemoradiotherapy (70 Gy in 7 weeks plus three cycles of 4 days' concomitant carboplatin-fluorouracil), accelerated radiotherapy-chemotherapy (70 Gy in 6 weeks plus two cycles of 5 days' concomitant carboplatin-fluorouracil), or very accelerated radiotherapy alone (64·8 Gy [1·8 Gy twice daily] in 3·5 weeks). The primary endpoint, progression-free survival (PFS), was assessed in all enrolled patients. This trial is completed. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00828386. FINDINGS: Between Feb 29, 2000, and May 9, 2007, we randomly allocated 279 patients to receive conventional chemoradiotherapy, 280 to accelerated radiotherapy-chemotherapy, and 281 to very accelerated radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 5·2 years (IQR 4·9-6·2); rates of chemotherapy and radiotherapy compliance were good in all groups. Accelerated radiotherapy-chemotherapy offered no PFS benefit compared with conventional chemoradiotherapy (HR 1·02, 95% CI 0·84-1·23; p=0·88) or very accelerated radiotherapy (0·83, 0·69-1·01; p=0·060); conventional chemoradiotherapy improved PFS compared with very accelerated radiotherapy (0·82, 0·67-0·99; p=0·041). 3-year PFS was 37·6% (95% CI 32·1-43·4) after conventional chemoradiotherapy, 34·1% (28·7-39·8) after accelerated radiotherapy-chemotherapy, and 32·2% (27·0-37·9) after very accelerated radiotherapy. More patients in the very accelerated radiotherapy group had RTOG grade 3-4 acute mucosal toxicity (226 [84%] of 268 patients) compared with accelerated radiotherapy-chemotherapy (205 [76%] of 271 patients) or conventional chemoradiotherapy (180 [69%] of 262; p=0·0001). 158 (60%) of 265 patients in the conventional chemoradiotherapy group, 176 (64%) of 276 patients in the accelerated radiotherapy-chemotherapy group, and 190 (70%) of 272 patients in the very accelerated radiotherapy group were intubated with feeding tubes during treatment (p=0·045). INTERPRETATION: Chemotherapy has a substantial treatment effect given concomitantly with radiotherapy and acceleration of radiotherapy cannot compensate for the absence of chemotherapy. We noted the most favourable outcomes for conventional chemoradiotherapy, suggesting that acceleration of radiotherapy is probably not beneficial in concomitant chemoradiotherapy schedules. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health.

Cognitive efficacy of quetiapine in early-onset first-episode psychosis: a 12-week open label trial.

Twenty-three adolescents with psychotic disorders, aged from 13 to 18 years, participated in a 12-week open label trial (17 adolescents completed the study) in order to examine the impact of quetiapine on clinical status and cognitive functions (encompassing processing speed, attention, short-term memory, long-term memory and executive function). An improvement in Clinical Global Impression and Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (P's ≤ 0.001) was observed. In addition, after controlling for amelioration of symptoms, a significant improvement was observed on one executive function (P = 0.044; Trail Making Part B). The remaining cognitive abilities showed stability. In addition, we observed an interaction between quetiapine doses (>300 mg/day or <300 mg/day) and time, where lower doses showed more improvement in verbal short-term memory (P = 0.048), inhibition abilities (P = 0.038) and positive symptoms (P = 0.020). The neuropsychological functioning of adolescents with psychotic disorders remained mainly stable after 12 weeks of treatment with quetiapine. However, lower doses seemed to have a better impact on two components of cognition (inhibition abilities and verbal short-term memory) and on positive symptoms.

Cilengitide combined with standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with methylated MGMT promoter (CENTRIC EORTC 26071-22072 study): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cilengitide is a selective αvβ3 and αvβ5 integrin inhibitor. Data from phase 2 trials suggest that it has antitumour activity as a single agent in recurrent glioblastoma and in combination with standard temozolomide chemoradiotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma (particularly in tumours with methylated MGMT promoter). We aimed to assess cilengitide combined with temozolomide chemoradiotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with methylated MGMT promoter. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study, we investigated the efficacy of cilengitide in patients from 146 study sites in 25 countries. Eligible patients (newly diagnosed, histologically proven supratentorial glioblastoma, methylated MGMT promoter, and age ≥18 years) were stratified for prognostic Radiation Therapy Oncology Group recursive partitioning analysis class and geographic region and centrally randomised in a 1:1 ratio with interactive voice response system to receive temozolomide chemoradiotherapy with cilengitide 2000 mg intravenously twice weekly (cilengitide group) or temozolomide chemoradiotherapy alone (control group). Patients and investigators were unmasked to treatment allocation. Maintenance temozolomide was given for up to six cycles, and cilengitide was given for up to 18 months or until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary endpoint was overall survival. We analysed survival outcomes by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00689221. FINDINGS: Overall, 3471 patients were screened. Of these patients, 3060 had tumour MGMT status tested; 926 patients had a methylated MGMT promoter, and 545 were randomly assigned to the cilengitide (n=272) or control groups (n=273) between Oct 31, 2008, and May 12, 2011. Median overall survival was 26·3 months (95% CI 23·8-28·8) in the cilengitide group and 26·3 months (23·9-34·7) in the control group (hazard ratio 1·02, 95% CI 0·81-1·29, p=0·86). None of the predefined clinical subgroups showed a benefit from cilengitide. We noted no overall additional toxic effects with cilengitide treatment. The most commonly reported adverse events of grade 3 or worse in the safety population were lymphopenia (31 [12%] in the cilengitide group vs 26 [10%] in the control group), thrombocytopenia (28 [11%] vs 46 [18%]), neutropenia (19 [7%] vs 24 [9%]), leucopenia (18 [7%] vs 20 [8%]), and convulsion (14 [5%] vs 15 [6%]). INTERPRETATION: The addition of cilengitide to temozolomide chemoradiotherapy did not improve outcomes; cilengitide will not be further developed as an anticancer drug. Nevertheless, integrins remain a potential treatment target for glioblastoma. FUNDING: Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

Intensified chemotherapy with ACVBP plus rituximab versus standard CHOP plus rituximab for the treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (LNH03-2B): an open-label randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The outcome of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma has been substantially improved by the addition of the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody rituximab to chemotherapy regimens. We aimed to assess, in patients aged 18-59 years, the potential survival benefit provided by a dose-intensive immunochemotherapy regimen plus rituximab compared with standard treatment plus rituximab. METHODS: We did an open-label randomised trial comparing dose-intensive rituximab, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vindesine, bleomycin, and prednisone (R-ACVBP) with subsequent consolidation versus standard rituximab, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP). Random assignment was done with a computer-assisted randomisation-allocation sequence with a block size of four. Patients were aged 18-59 years with untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and an age-adjusted international prognostic index equal to 1. Our primary endpoint was event-free survival. Our analyses of efficacy and safety were of the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00140595. FINDINGS: One patient withdrew consent before treatment and 54 did not complete treatment. After a median follow-up of 44 months, our 3-year estimate of event-free survival was 81% (95% CI 75-86) in the R-ACVBP group and 67% (59-73) in the R-CHOP group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·56, 95% CI 0·38-0·83; p=0·0035). 3-year estimates of progression-free survival (87% [95% CI, 81-91] vs 73% [66-79]; HR 0·48 [0·30-0·76]; p=0·0015) and overall survival (92% [87-95] vs 84% [77-89]; HR 0·44 [0·28-0·81]; p=0·0071) were also increased in the R-ACVBP group. 82 (42%) of 196 patients in the R-ACVBP group experienced a serious adverse event compared with 28 (15%) of 183 in the R-CHOP group. Grade 3-4 haematological toxic effects were more common in the R-ACVBP group, with a higher proportion of patients experiencing a febrile neutropenic episode (38% [75 of 196] vs 9% [16 of 183]). INTERPRETATION: Compared with standard R-CHOP, intensified immunochemotherapy with R-ACVBP significantly improves survival of patients aged 18-59 years with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with low-intermediate risk according to the International Prognostic Index. Haematological toxic effects of the intensive regimen were raised but manageable. FUNDING: Groupe d'Etudes des Lymphomes de l'Adulte and Amgen.

Two cilengitide regimens in combination with standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma and unmethylated MGMT gene promoter: results of the open-label, controlled, randomized phase II CORE study.

BACKGROUND: Survival outcomes for patients with glioblastoma remain poor, particularly for patients with unmethylated O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) gene promoter. This phase II, randomized, open-label, multicenter trial investigated the efficacy and safety of 2 dose regimens of the selective integrin inhibitor cilengitide combined with standard chemoradiotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma and an unmethylated MGMT promoter. METHODS: Overall, 265 patients were randomized (1:1:1) to standard cilengitide (2000 mg 2×/wk; n = 88), intensive cilengitide (2000 mg 5×/wk during wk 1-6, thereafter 2×/wk; n = 88), or a control arm (chemoradiotherapy alone; n = 89). Cilengitide was administered intravenously in combination with daily temozolomide (TMZ) and concomitant radiotherapy (RT; wk 1-6), followed by TMZ maintenance therapy (TMZ/RT→TMZ). The primary endpoint was overall survival; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, pharmacokinetics, and safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Median overall survival was 16.3 months in the standard cilengitide arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.686; 95% CI: 0.484, 0.972; P = .032) and 14.5 months in the intensive cilengitide arm (HR, 0.858; 95% CI: 0.612, 1.204; P = .3771) versus 13.4 months in the control arm. Median progression-free survival assessed per independent review committee was 5.6 months (HR, 0.822; 95% CI: 0.595, 1.134) and 5.9 months (HR, 0.794; 95% CI: 0.575, 1.096) in the standard and intensive cilengitide arms, respectively, versus 4.1 months in the control arm. Cilengitide was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Standard and intensive cilengitide dose regimens were well tolerated in combination with TMZ/RT→TMZ. Inconsistent overall survival and progression-free survival outcomes and a limited sample size did not allow firm conclusions regarding clinical efficacy in this exploratory phase II study.

STRATEGIC-1: A multiple-lines, randomized, open-label GERCOR phase III study in patients with unresectable wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The management of unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a comprehensive treatment strategy involving several lines of therapy, maintenance, salvage surgery, and treatment-free intervals. Besides chemotherapy (fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan), molecular-targeted agents such as anti-angiogenic agents (bevacizumab, aflibercept, regorafenib) and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents (cetuximab, panitumumab) have become available. Ultimately, given the increasing cost of new active compounds, new strategy trials are needed to define the optimal use and the best sequencing of these agents. Such new clinical trials require alternative endpoints that can capture the effect of several treatment lines and be measured earlier than overall survival to help shorten the duration and reduce the size and cost of trials. METHODS/DESIGN: STRATEGIC-1 is an international, open-label, randomized, multicenter phase III trial designed to determine an optimally personalized treatment sequence of the available treatment modalities in patients with unresectable RAS wild-type mCRC. Two standard treatment strategies are compared: first-line FOLFIRI-cetuximab, followed by oxaliplatin-based second-line chemotherapy with bevacizumab (Arm A) vs. first-line OPTIMOX-bevacizumab, followed by irinotecan-based second-line chemotherapy with bevacizumab, and by an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody with or without irinotecan as third-line treatment (Arm B). The primary endpoint is duration of disease control. A total of 500 patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to one of the two treatment strategies. DISCUSSION: The STRATEGIC-1 trial is designed to give global information on the therapeutic sequences in patients with unresectable RAS wild-type mCRC that in turn is likely to have a significant impact on the management of this patient population. The trial is open for inclusion since August 2013. TRIAL REGISTRATION: STRATEGIC-1 is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01910610, 23 July, 2013. STRATEGIC-1 is registered at EudraCT-No.: 2013-001928-19, 25 April, 2013.

Once-daily dolutegravir versus darunavir plus ritonavir for treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection (FLAMINGO): 96 week results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3b study.

BACKGROUND: The primary analysis of the FLAMINGO study at 48 weeks showed that patients taking dolutegravir once daily had a significantly higher virological response rate than did those taking ritonavir-boosted darunavir once daily, with similar tolerability. We present secondary efficacy and safety results analysed at 96 weeks. METHODS: FLAMINGO was a multicentre, open-label, phase 3b, non-inferiority study of HIV-1-infected treatment-naive adults. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to dolutegravir 50 mg or darunavir 800 mg plus ritonavir 100 mg, with investigator-selected combination tenofovir and emtricitabine or combination abacavir and lamivudine background treatment. The main endpoints were plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL and safety. The non-inferiority margin was -12%. If the lower end of the 95% CI was greater than 0%, then we concluded that dolutegravir was superior to ritonavir-boosted darunavir. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01449929. FINDINGS: Of 595 patients screened, 488 were randomly assigned and 484 included in the analysis (242 assigned to receive dolutegravir and 242 assigned to receive ritonavir-boosted darunavir). At 96 weeks, 194 (80%) of 242 patients in the dolutegravir group and 164 (68%) of 242 in the ritonavir-boosted darunavir group had HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL (adjusted difference 12·4, 95% CI 4·7-20·2; p=0·002), with the greatest difference in patients with high viral load at baseline (50/61 [82%] vs 32/61 [52%], homogeneity test p=0·014). Six participants (three since 48 weeks) in the dolutegravir group and 13 (four) in the darunavir plus ritonavir group discontinued because of adverse events. The most common drug-related adverse events were diarrhoea (23/242 [10%] in the dolutegravir group vs 57/242 [24%] in the darunavir plus ritonavir group), nausea (31/242 [13%] vs 34/242 [14%]), and headache (17/242 [7%] vs 12/242 [5%]). INTERPRETATION: Once-daily dolutegravir is associated with a higher virological response rate than is once-daily ritonavir-boosted darunavir. Dolutegravir compares favourably in efficacy and safety to a boosted darunavir regimen with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor background treatment for HIV-1-infected treatment-naive patients. FUNDING: ViiV Healthcare and Shionogi & Co.