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.

Intermittent versus continuous oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine combination chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: results of the randomised phase 3 MRC COIN trial

Background: When cure is impossible, cancer treatment should focus on both length and quality of life. Maximisation of time without toxic effects could be one effective strategy to achieve both of these goals. The COIN trial assessed preplanned treatment holidays in advanced colorectal cancer to achieve this aim. Methods: COIN was a randomised controlled trial in patients with previously untreated advanced colorectal cancer. Patients received either continuous oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine combination (arm A), continuous chemotherapy plus cetuximab (arm B), or intermittent (arm C) chemotherapy. In arms A and B, treatment continued until development of progressive disease, cumulative toxic effects, or the patient chose to stop. In arm C, patients who had not progressed at their 12-week scan started a chemotherapy-free interval until evidence of disease progression, when the same treatment was restarted. 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 B is described in a companion paper. Here, we compare arms A and C, with the primary objective of establishing whether overall survival on intermittent therapy was non-inferior to that on continuous therapy, with a predefined non-inferiority boundary of 1·162. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol analyses were done. This trial is registered, ISRCTN27286448. Findings: 1630 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (815 to continuous and 815 to intermittent therapy). Median survival in the ITT population (n=815 in both groups) was 15·8 months (IQR 9·4—26·1) in arm A and 14·4 months (8·0—24·7) in arm C (hazard ratio [HR] 1·084, 80% CI 1·008—1·165). In the per-protocol population (arm A, n=467; arm C, n=511), median survival was 19·6 months (13·0—28·1) in arm A and 18·0 months (12·1—29·3) in arm C (HR 1·087, 0·986—1·198). The upper limits of CIs for HRs in both analyses were greater than the predefined non-inferiority boundary. Preplanned subgroup analyses in the per-protocol population showed that a raised baseline platelet count, defined as 400 000 per µL or higher (271 [28%] of 978 patients), was associated with poor survival with intermittent chemotherapy: the HR for comparison of arm C and arm A in patients with a normal platelet count was 0·96 (95% CI 0·80—1·15, p=0·66), versus 1·54 (1·17—2·03, p=0·0018) in patients with a raised platelet count (p=0·0027 for interaction). In the per-protocol population, more patients on continuous than on intermittent treatment had grade 3 or worse haematological toxic effects (72 [15%] vs 60 [12%]), whereas nausea and vomiting were more common on intermittent treatment (11 [2%] vs 43 [8%]). Grade 3 or worse peripheral neuropathy (126 [27%] vs 25 [5%]) and hand—foot syndrome (21 [4%] vs 15 [3%]) were more frequent on continuous than on intermittent treatment. Interpretation: Although this trial did not show non-inferiority of intermittent compared with continuous chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer in terms of overall survival, chemotherapy-free intervals remain a treatment option for some patients with advanced colorectal cancer, offering reduced time on chemotherapy, reduced cumulative toxic effects, and improved quality of life. Subgroup analyses suggest that patients with normal baseline platelet counts could gain the benefits of intermittent chemotherapy without detriment in survival, whereas those with raised baseline platelet counts have impaired survival and quality of life with intermittent chemotherapy and should not receive a treatment break.

Assessing the daily consistency of bladder filling using an ultrasonic Bladderscan device in men receiving radical conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer

Consistency in target organ and organ at risk position from planning to treatment is an important basic principle of radiotherapy. This study evaluates the effectiveness of bladder-filling instructions in achieving a consistent and reproducible bladder volume at the time of planning CT and daily during the course of radical radiotherapy for prostate cancer. It also assessed the rate of bladder filling before and at the end of radiotherapy.

A phase I study of combined docetaxel and repeated high activity Re-186-HEDP in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) metastatic to bone (the TAXIUM trial)

Purpose Bone-seeking radiopharmaceuticals have palliative benefit in castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) metastatic to bone. Recent studies have shown improvement of survival and quality of life when radiopharmaceuticals were given repeatedly or in combination with chemotherapy. We designed a phase I study combining docetaxel and Re-186-labelled hydroxyethylidene diphosphonate (HEDP) in men with CRPC and bone metastases to evaluate toxicity.

Evaluation of c-FLIP in castrate-resistant prostate cancer antagonizes therapeutic response to androgen receptor-targeted therapy

Purpose: To characterize the importance of cellular Fas-associated death domain (FADD)–like interleukin 1ß-converting enzyme (FLICE) inhibitory protein (c-FLIP), a key regulator of caspase-8 (FLICE)–promoted apoptosis, in modulating the response of prostate cancer cells to androgen receptor (AR)–targeted therapy.

Experimental Design: c-FLIP expression was characterized by immunohistochemical analysis of prostatectomy tissue. The functional importance of c-FLIP to survival and modulating response to bicalutamide was studied by molecular and pharmacologic interventions.

Results: c-FLIP expression was increased in high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and prostate cancer tissue relative to normal prostate epithelium (P < 0.001). Maximal c-FLIP expression was detected in castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC; P < 0.001). In vitro, silencing of c-FLIP induced spontaneous apoptosis and increased 22Rv1 and LNCaP cell sensitivity to bicalutamide, determined by flow cytometry, PARP cleavage, and caspase activity assays. The histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi), droxinostat and SAHA, also downregulated c-FLIP expression, induced caspase-8- and caspase-3/7–mediated apoptosis, and increased apoptosis in bicalutamide-treated cells. Conversely, the elevated expression of c-FLIP detected in the CRPC cell line VCaP underpinned their insensitivity to bicalutamide and SAHA in vitro. However, knockdown of c-FLIP induced spontaneous apoptosis in VCaP cells, indicating its relevance to cell survival and therapeutic resistance.

Conclusion: c-FLIP reduces the efficacy of AR-targeted therapy and maintains the viability of prostate cancer cells. A combination of HDACi with androgen deprivation therapy may be effective in early-stage disease, using c-FLIP expression as a predictive biomarker of sensitivity. Direct targeting of c-FLIP, however, may be relevant to enhance the response of existing and novel therapeutics in CRPC. Clin Cancer Res; 18(14); 3822–33.

Celecoxib plus hormone therapy versus hormone therapy alone for hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: first results from the STAMPEDE multiarm, multistage, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND:
Long-term hormone therapy alone is standard care for metastatic or high-risk, non-metastatic prostate cancer. STAMPEDE--an international, open-label, randomised controlled trial--uses a novel multiarm, multistage design to assess whether the early additional use of one or two drugs (docetaxel, zoledronic acid, celecoxib, zoledronic acid and docetaxel, or zoledronic acid and celecoxib) improves survival in men starting first-line, long-term hormone therapy. Here, we report the preplanned, second intermediate analysis comparing hormone therapy plus celecoxib (arm D) with hormone therapy alone (control arm A).
METHODS:
Eligible patients were men with newly diagnosed or rapidly relapsing prostate cancer who were starting long-term hormone therapy for the first time. Hormone therapy was given as standard care in all trial arms, with local radiotherapy encouraged for newly diagnosed patients without distant metastasis. Randomisation was done using minimisation with a random element across seven stratification factors. Patients randomly allocated to arm D received celecoxib 400 mg twice daily, given orally, until 1 year or disease progression (including prostate-specific antigen [PSA] failure). The intermediate outcome was failure-free survival (FFS) in three activity stages; the primary outcome was overall survival in a subsequent efficacy stage. Research arms were compared pairwise against the control arm on an intention-to-treat basis. Accrual of further patients was discontinued in any research arm showing safety concerns or insufficient evidence of activity (lack of benefit) compared with the control arm. The minimum targeted activity at the second intermediate activity stage was a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·92. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00268476, and with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN78818544.
FINDINGS:
2043 patients were enrolled in the trial from Oct 17, 2005, to Jan 31, 2011, of whom 584 were randomly allocated to receive hormone therapy alone (control group; arm A) and 291 to receive hormone therapy plus celecoxib (arm D). At the preplanned analysis of the second intermediate activity stage, with 305 FFS events (209 in arm A, 96 in arm D), there was no evidence of an advantage for hormone therapy plus celecoxib over hormone therapy alone: HR 0·94 (95% CI 0·74-1·20). [corrected]. 2-year FFS was 51% (95% CI 46-56) in arm A and 51% (95% CI 43-58) in arm D. There was no evidence of differences in the incidence of adverse events between groups (events of grade 3 or higher were noted at any time in 123 [23%, 95% CI 20-27] patients in arm A and 64 [25%, 19-30] in arm D). The most common grade 3-5 events adverse effects in both groups were endocrine disorders (55 [11%] of patients in arm A vs 19 [7%] in arm D) and musculoskeletal disorders (30 [6%] of patients in arm A vs 15 [6%] in arm D). The independent data monitoring committee recommended stopping accrual to both celecoxib-containing arms on grounds of lack of benefit and discontinuing celecoxib for patients currently on treatment, which was endorsed by the trial steering committee.
INTERPRETATION:
Celecoxib 400 mg twice daily for up to 1 year is insufficiently active in patients starting hormone therapy for high-risk prostate cancer, and we do not recommend its use in this setting. Accrual continues seamlessly to the other research arms and follow-up of all arms will continue to assess effects on overall survival.