Long-term results of a randomised phase III trial of weekly versus three-weekly paclitaxel/platinum induction therapy followed by standard or extended three-weekly paclitaxel/platinum in European patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer

BackgroundWeekly paclitaxel/carboplatin might improve survival in platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). We compared efficacy of first-line weekly to three-weekly paclitaxel/cis- or carboplatin (PCw and PC3w) induction therapy, followed by either three or six PC3w cycles.Patients and methodsIn this multicentre, randomised phase III trial with 2×2 design, patients with FIGO stage IIb–IV EOC were randomised to six cycles PCw (paclitaxel 90 mg/m², cisplatin 70 mg/m² or carboplatin AUC 4) or three cycles PC3w (paclitaxel 175 mg/m², cisplatin 75 mg/m² or carboplatin AUC 6), followed by either three or six cycles PC3w. Primary endpoints were progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were response rate (RR) and toxicity.ResultsOf 267 eligible patients, 133 received PCw and 134 PC3w. The first 105 patients received cisplatin, after protocol amendment the subsequent 162 patients received carboplatin. Weekly cisplatin was less well tolerated than weekly carboplatin. All PC3w cycles were well tolerated. At the end of all treatments, RR was 90.8% with no differences between the treatment arms. After a follow-up of median 10.3 years (range 7.1–14.8), median PFS was 18.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.9–21.0) months for PCw and 16.4 (95% CI 13.5–19.2) months for PC3w (p = 0.78). Median OS was 44.8 (95% CI 33.1–56.5) months for PCw and 41.1 (95% CI 34.4–47.7) months for PC3w (p = 0.98).ConclusionsThere was no benefit in terms of OS, PFS or RR for a weekly regimen nor for extended chemotherapy as first-line treatment for EOC in European patients.     

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with paclitaxel and everolimus in breast cancer patients with non-responsive tumours to epirubicin/cyclophosphamide (EC) ± bevacizumab – Results of the randomised GeparQuinto study (GBG 44)

BackgroundWe tested the oral mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor everolimus in addition to paclitaxel in patients with HER2-negative tumours not responding to initial neoadjuvant cytotoxic and anti-angiogenic treatment.MethodsPatients with primary HER2-negative tumours received four neoadjuvant cycles of epirubicin/cyclophosphamide (EC) with or without bevacizumab. Patients without clinical response were randomised to receive weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m²) with or without everolimus (5 mg p.o. daily, after a step-wise dose–escalation starting from 2.5 mg bid) for 12 weeks before surgery. To detect an increase in pathological complete response (pCR; ypT0 ypN0) from 5% to 12.1% (odds ratio 2.62) 566 patients had to be recruited. The trial was stopped prematurely due to completion of accrual in the main study.FindingsOf 1948 patients initially starting neoadjuvant treatment 403 were randomised. A total of 18 (4.6%) patients, 7 (3.6%) treated with paclitaxel and everolimus and 11 (5.6%) treated with paclitaxel alone had a pCR (odds ratio 0.36 (OR) (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.24–1.6) p = 0.34). Overall response rate in breast and lymph nodes at surgery was 52.2% after paclitaxel plus everolimus and 61.7% after paclitaxel alone (p = 0.063). Breast conserving treatment was performed in 54.4% of patients with the combination treatment and 61.9% with paclitaxel alone (p = 0.20). Mucosal inflammation, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, infection, and skin rash were more frequent when everolimus was added to paclitaxel.InterpretationNeoadjuvant therapy with everolimus and paclitaxel for patients with HER2-negative disease unresponsive to EC with or without bevacizumab did not improve the pCR rate. Long-term outcome is awaited.FundingNovartis, Roche, and Sanofi-Aventis.     

Long-term results of weekly paclitaxel carboplatin induction therapy: An effective and well-tolerated treatment in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer

BackgroundWeekly paclitaxel/cisplatin is effective in platinum-resistant epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). To reduce toxicity, paclitaxel/cisplatin was replaced by paclitaxel/carboplatin.Patients and methodsPatients with progressive EOC after prior 3-weekly paclitaxel/carboplatin were treated with six cycles weekly paclitaxel 90 mg/m² and carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 4 mg/ml/min, followed by six cycles 3-weekly paclitaxel/carboplatin. End-points were progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), response rate (RR) and toxicity.ResultsMedian progression free interval after last platinum was 9 (0–81) months in 108 patients; 43 were platinum-resistant, of whom 13 started weekly paclitaxel/carboplatin <6 months after progression. During 633 weekly cycles grade 3/4 toxicity included; thrombocytopenia 8%, neutropenia 30%, febrile neutropenia 0.5%. Non-haematologic toxicity was low. Treatment was delayed in 16%, and dose reduced in 2% of cycles. RR was 58% for platinum-resistant and 76% for platinum-sensitive patients, median PFS were 8 (range 1–21) and 13 (1–46) months, median OS 15 (1–69) and 26 (4–93) months, respectively. The 13 platinum-resistant patients with a platinum-therapy free interval <6 months had a significant shorter PFS (4 versus 10 months, p = 0.035) and OS (9 versus 15 months, p = 0.002).ConclusionSix cycles weekly paclitaxel/carboplatin followed by six 3-weekly cycles is well-tolerated and highly active in platinum-resistant and platinum-sensitive patients.     

A phase I study of daily afatinib,an irreversible ErbB family blocker,in combination with weekly paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumours

BackgroundThis phase I study evaluated afatinib, an irreversible ErbB family blocker, plus paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumours likely to express human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER1/EGFR) or HER2.MethodsOral afatinib was combined with intravenous paclitaxel (80 mg/m²; days 1, 8 and 15 every four weeks) starting at 20 mg once daily and escalated to 40 and 50 mg in successive cohorts of ⩾3 patients. The primary objective was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of afatinib combined with paclitaxel. Secondary objectives included safety, pharmacokinetics and antitumour activity.ResultsSixteen patients were treated. Dose-limiting toxicities with afatinib 50 mg were fatigue and mucositis. The MTD was determined as afatinib 40 mg with paclitaxel 80 mg/m², which proved tolerable with repeated dosing. Frequent adverse events (AEs) included diarrhoea (94%), fatigue (81%), rash/acne (81%), decreased appetite (69%) and inflammation of mucosal membranes (69%); no grade 4 treatment-related AEs were observed. Five (31%) confirmed partial responses were observed in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (n = 3), oesophageal cancer and cholangiocarcinoma; eight (50%) patients remained on study for ⩾6 months. Pharmacokinetic parameters of afatinib and paclitaxel were similar for single administration or in combination.ConclusionsThe MTD and recommended phase II dose of once-daily afatinib combined with paclitaxel 80 mg/m² (days 1, 8 and 15 every four weeks) was 40 mg. AEs at or below this dose were generally manageable with repeated dosing. No pharmacokinetic interactions were observed. This combination demonstrated promising antitumour activity.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00809133.     

Randomised,double-blind trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel with daily oral cediranib or placebo in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: NCIC Clinical Trials Group study BR29

IntroductionThis randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study evaluated the addition of cediranib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1–3, to standard carboplatin/paclitaxel chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.MethodsEligible patients received paclitaxel (200 mg/m²) and carboplatin (area under the concentration time curve 6) intravenously every 3 weeks. Daily oral cediranib/placebo 20 mg was commenced day 1 of cycle 1 and continued as monotherapy after completion of 4–6 cycles of chemotherapy. The primary end-point of the study was overall survival (OS). The trial would continue to full accrual if an interim analysis (IA) for progression-free survival (PFS), performed after 170 events of progression or death in the first 260 randomised patients, revealed a hazard ratio (HR) for PFS of ⩽0.70.ResultsThe trial was halted for futility at the IA (HR for PFS 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66–1.20, p = 0.45). A final analysis was performed on all 306 enrolled patients. The addition of cediranib increased response rate ([RR] 52% versus 34%, p = 0.001) but did not significantly improve PFS (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.71–1.18, p = 0.49) or OS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69–1.30, p = 0.72). Cediranib patients had more grade 3 hypertension, diarrhoea and anorexia.ConclusionsThe addition of cediranib 20 mg daily to carboplatin/paclitaxel chemotherapy increased RR and toxicity, but not survival.     

A randomized,phase III multicenter trial of gemcitabine in combination with carboplatin or paclitaxel versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer

BackgroundPaclitaxel–carboplatin is used as the standard regimen for patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This trial was designed to compare gemcitabine + carboplatin or gemcitabine + paclitaxel to the standard regimen.Patients and methodsA total of 1135 chemonaive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomly allocated to receive gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² on days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the concentration–time curve (AUC) 5.5 on day 1 (GC), gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² on days 1 and 8 plus paclitaxel 200 mg/m² on day 1 (GP), or paclitaxel 225 mg/m² plus carboplatin AUC 6.0 on day 1 (PC). Stratification was based on disease stage, baseline weight loss, and presence or absence of brain metastases. Cycles were repeated every 21 days for up to six cycles or disease progression.ResultsMedian survival (months) with GC was 7.9 compared with 8.5 for GP and 8.7 for PC. Response rates (RRs) were as follows: GC, 25.3%; GP, 32.1%; and PC, 29.8%. The GC arm was associated with a greater incidence of grade 3 or 4 hematologic events but a lower rate of neurotoxicity and alopecia when compared with GP and PC.ConclusionsNon-platinum and non-paclitaxel gemcitabine-containing doublets demonstrate similar overall survival and RR compared with the standard PC regimen. However, the treatment arms had distinct toxicity profiles.     

Randomized multicenter phase II trial of cisplatin and ifosfamide with or without paclitaxel in recurrent or metastatic carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group (HeCOG) study

BackgroundWe undertook a randomized phase II trial to test whether the addition of paclitaxel (Taxol) to the cisplatin and ifosfamide (IP) combination could improve objective response (OR) rate, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with recurrent or metastatic cancer of the uterine cervix.Patients and methodsOne hundred and fifty-three patients were randomly allocated to receive either the IP regimen (ifosfamide 1.5 g/m², daily, on days 1–3 and cisplatin 70 mg/m² on day 2) or the same combination with the addition of paclitaxel 175 mg/m² on day 1 [ifosfamide, paclitaxel and cisplatinum (ITP) regimen]. Cycles were administered every 4 weeks on an outpatient basis.ResultsA modest increase in neurotoxicity was observed with the triplet combination. OR rate was significantly higher in the ITP group (59% versus 33%, P = 0.002). Median PFS was 7.9 and 6.3 months for patients in the ITP and IP arms, respectively (P = 0.023). Median OS was 15.4 months and 13.2 months in the ITP and IP arms, respectively (P = 0.048). In multivariate analysis, the triplet yielded a hazard ratio of 0.70 for relapse or progression (P = 0.046) and 0.75 for death (P = 0.124) compared with the doublet.ConclusionThe ITP combination merits further investigation in randomized phase III studies.     

BEECH: a dose-finding run-in followed by a randomised phase II study assessing the efficacy of AKT inhibitor capivasertib (AZD5363) combined with paclitaxel in patients with estrogen receptor-positive advanced or metastatic breast cancer,and in a PIK3CA mutant sub-population

BackgroundBEECH investigated the efficacy of capivasertib (AZD5363), an oral inhibitor of AKT isoforms 1–3, in combination with the first-line weekly paclitaxel for advanced or metastatic estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) breast cancer, and in a phosphoinositide 3-kinase, catalytic, alpha polypeptide mutation sub-population (PIK3CA+).Patients and methodsBEECH consisted of an open-label, phase Ib safety run-in (part A) in 38 patients with advanced breast cancer, and a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase II expansion (part B) in 110 women with ER+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer. In part A, patients received paclitaxel 90 mg/m² (days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle) with capivasertib taken twice daily (b.i.d.) at two intermittent ascending dosing schedules. In part B, patients were randomly assigned, stratified by PIK3CA mutation status, to receive paclitaxel with either capivasertib or placebo. The primary end point for part A was safety to recommend a dose and schedule for part B; primary end points for part B were progression-free survival (PFS) in the overall and PIK3CA+ sub-population.ResultsCapivasertib was well tolerated, with a 400 mg b.i.d. 4 days on/3 days off treatment schedule selected in part A. In part B, median PFS in the overall population was 10.9 months with capivasertib versus 8.4 months with placebo [hazard ratio (HR) 0.80; P = 0.308]. In the PIK3CA+ sub-population, median PFS was 10.9 months with capivasertib versus 10.8 months with placebo (HR 1.11; P = 0.760). Based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event v4.0, the most common grade ≥3 adverse events in the capivasertib group were diarrhoea, hyperglycaemia, neutropoenia and maculopapular rash. Dose intensity of paclitaxel was similar in both groups.ConclusionsCapivasertib had no apparent impact on the tolerability and dose intensity of paclitaxel. Adding capivasertib to weekly paclitaxel did not prolong PFS in the overall population or PIK3CA+ sub-population of ER+/HER2− advanced/metastatic breast cancer patients.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01625286.     

A phase 1b,open-label study of trebananib in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with ovarian cancer receiving interval or primary debulking surgery

AimTo evaluate the tolerability, pharmacokinetics and tumour response of first-line trebananib plus paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by trebananib maintenance in high-risk or advanced ovarian cancer.MethodsIn this open-label phase 1b study, patients received intravenous (IV) trebananib 15 mg/kg administered weekly (QW) plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m² once every 3 weeks (Q3W) and carboplatin 6 mg/mL·min Q3W followed by trebananib 15 mg/kg QW monotherapy for 18 months. End-points were dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs; primary); treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), anti-trebananib antibodies, pharmacokinetics and tumour response (secondary).ResultsTwenty seven patients (interval debulking surgery [IDS], n = 13) were enrolled. No DLTs occurred. During the combination therapy phase, AEs (>50%) in patients with IDS were nausea, diarrhoea, fatigue, decreased appetite and thrombocytopenia. In patients with primary debulking surgery (PDS), they were nausea, diarrhoea, fatigue and localised oedema. Grade 4 AEs were neutropenia (IDS, PDS; all n = 3) and thrombocytopenia (IDS, PDS; all n = 1). No deaths occurred. Toxicity results pertaining to trebananib maintenance were immature. The treatment combination did not markedly affect the pharmacokinetics across agents. In patients with IDS (n = 14 after one patient was reassigned from PDS to IDS), 12 patients had a partial response (PR), two patients had stable disease. In patients with PDS (n = 4), three patients had a complete response, one patient had a PR.ConclusionsIn women with ovarian cancer receiving IDS or PDS, IV trebananib 15 mg/kg QW plus paclitaxel and carboplatin appears tolerable. Results suggest that the treatment combination followed by trebananib 15 mg/kg monotherapy is associated with antitumour activity.     

Randomized phase II trial of weekly paclitaxel combined with carboplatin versus standard paclitaxel combined with carboplatin for elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

BackgroundThe optimal platinum doublet regimen in elderly patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still uncertain. We conducted a randomized phase II study to compare the efficacy and safety of weekly paclitaxel combined with carboplatin with those of the standard schedule.Patients and methodsElderly patients (age ≥70 years) with advanced NSCLC were randomly assigned to either the weekly arm {70 mg/m² paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15 and carboplatin [area under the curve (AUC) = 6] on day 1} or the standard arm [200 mg/m² paclitaxel and carboplatin (AUC = 6) on day 1]. The primary end point was the overall response rate (ORR).ResultsEighty-two patients were enrolled. The ORR and median progression-free survival were 55% and 6.0 months for the weekly arm and 53% and 5.6 months for the standard arm. Grade 3/4 neutropenia and peripheral neuropathy were observed in 41% and 0% of the patients in the weekly arm and in 88% and 25% in the standard arm, respectively.ConclusionsThis is the first randomized study that compares the platinum doublet designed specifically for the elderly. Regarding the safety, the weekly regimen was less toxic than the standard regimen and seems to be preferable for elderly patients with advanced NSCLC.     

PACMEL: A phase 1 dose escalation trial of trametinib (GSK1120212) in combination with paclitaxel

BackgroundWe sought to determine the maximal tolerated dose of the MEK inhibitor trametinib with weekly paclitaxel, with a view to exploring the combination’s activity in melanoma lacking a BRAF V600 mutation.MethodsIn this phase 1 study we used a fixed dose of paclitaxel (80 mg/m² intravenous (IV) on days 1, 8 and 15 of each 4 week cycle) and escalated the dose of trametinib (to a maximum 2 mg orally (PO) daily), following a 3 + 3 design. Eligible patients had advanced melanoma and could have received up to two previous lines of treatment for metastatic disease.Findings15 patients were enrolled, all but one of whose melanoma was wild type for BRAF at codon 600. The maximal monotherapy dose of trametinib proved tolerable with weekly paclitaxel. The most frequent adverse events observed were rash and fatigue. Six (40%) partial responses were reported, including four of eight patients with NRAS mutations. Median progression free survival was 5.5 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8–7.8 months) and overall survival, 14.1 months (95% CI 4.6–not reached).InterpretationTrametinib can safely be given with weekly paclitaxel at the full monotherapy dose. In this small group promising progression free and overall survival were observed in patients with melanoma lacking a V600 BRAF mutation.     

Efficacy and safety findings from DREAM: a phase III study of DHP107 (oral paclitaxel) versus i.v. paclitaxel in patients with advanced gastric cancer after failure of first-line chemotherapy

BackgroundPaclitaxel is currently only available as an intravenous (i.v.) formulation. DHP107 is a novel oral formulation of lipid ingredients and paclitaxel. DHP107 demonstrated comparable efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics to i.v. paclitaxel as a second-line therapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC). DREAM is a multicenter, open-label, prospective, randomized phase III study of patients with histologically/cytologically confirmed, unresectable/recurrent AGC after first-line therapy failure.Methods and materialsPatients were randomized 1 : 1 to DHP107 (200 mg/m² orally twice daily days 1, 8, 15 every 4 weeks) or i.v. paclitaxel (175 mg/m² day 1 every 3 weeks). Patients were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, disease status, and prior treatment; response was assessed (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) every 6 weeks. Primary end point: non-inferiority of progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points: overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. For the efficacy analysis, sequential tests for non-inferiority were carried out, first with a non-inferiority margin of 1.48, then with a margin of 1.25.ResultsBaseline characteristics were balanced in the 236 randomized patients (n = 118 per arm). Median PFS (per-protocol) was 3.0 (95% CI 1.7–4.0) months for DHP107 and 2.6 (95% CI 1.8–2.8) months for paclitaxel (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.85; 95% CI 0.64–1.13). A sensitivity analysis on PFS using independent central review showed similar results (HR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.70–1.24). Median OS (full analysis set) was 9.7 (95% CI 7.1 − 11.5) months for DHP107 versus 8.9 (95% CI 7.1–12.2) months for paclitaxel (HR = 1.04; 95% CI 0.76–1.41). ORR was 17.8% for DHP107 (CR 4.2%; PR 13.6%) versus 25.4% for paclitaxel (CR 3.4%; PR 22.0%). Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and mucositis were more common with DHP107; peripheral neuropathy was more common with paclitaxel. There were only few Grade≥3 adverse events, most commonly neutropenia (42% versus 53%); febrile neutropenia was reported infrequently (5.9% versus 2.5%). No hypersensitivity reactions occurred with DHP107 (paclitaxel 2.5%).ConclusionsDHP107 as a second-line treatment of AGC was non-inferior to paclitaxel for PFS; other efficacy and safety parameters were comparable. DHP107 is the first oral paclitaxel with proven efficacy/safety for the treatment of AGC.ClinicalTrials.govNCT01839773.     

Safety results from a phase III study (TURANDOT trial by CECOG) of first-line bevacizumab in combination with capecitabine or paclitaxel for HER-2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer

BackgroundWe report safety data from a randomised, phase III study (CECOG/BC.1.3.005) evaluating first-line bevacizumab plus paclitaxel or capecitabine for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.Patients and methodsPatients aged ⩾18 years with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative breast adenocarcinoma were randomised to Arm A: bevacizumab 10 mg/kg days 1 and 15; paclitaxel 90 mg/m² days 1, 8, and 15, every 4 weeks; or Arm B: bevacizumab 15 mg/kg day 1; capecitabine 1000 mg/m² b.i.d., days 1–14, every 3 weeks, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or consent withdrawal.ResultsA post hoc interim safety analysis included 561 patients (Arm A: 284, Arm B: 277). The regimens demonstrated similar frequencies of all-grade and serious adverse events (SAEs), but different safety profiles. Treatment-related events occurred in 85.2% (Arm A) and 78.0% (Arm B) of patients. Fatigue was most common in Arm A (30.6% versus 23.5% Arm B), and hand–foot syndrome (HFS) most common in Arm B (49.5% versus 2.5% Arm A). Diarrhoea (Arm A: 0.4%, Arm B: 1.4%) and pulmonary embolism (Arm A: 0.7%, Arm B: 1.1%) were the most frequently reported SAEs.ConclusionThese findings are in-line with safety data for bevacizumab plus paclitaxel or capecitabine, reported in previous phase III trials.     

Ipilimumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line therapy in extensive-disease-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomized,double-blind,multicenter phase 2 trial

BackgroundIpilimumab, an anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibody, demonstrated survival benefit in melanoma with immune-related (ir) adverse events (irAEs) managed by the protocol-defined guidelines. This phase 2 study evaluated ipilimumab + paclitaxel (Taxol)/carboplatin in extensive-disease-small-cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC).DesignPatients (n = 130) with chemotherapy-naïve ED-SCLC were randomized 1: 1: 1 to receive paclitaxel (175 mg/m²)/carboplatin (area under the curve = 6) with either placebo (control) or ipilimumab 10 mg/kg in two alternative regimens, concurrent ipilimumab (ipilimumab + paclitaxel/carboplatin followed by placebo + paclitaxel/carboplatin) or phased ipilimumab (placebo + paclitaxel/carboplatin followed by ipilimumab + paclitaxel/carboplatin). Treatment was administered every 3 weeks for a maximum of 18 weeks (induction), followed by maintenance ipilimumab or placebo every 12 weeks. End points included progression-free survival (PFS), irPFS, best overall response rate (BORR); irBORR, overall survival (OS), and safety.ResultsPhased ipilimumab, but not concurrent ipilimumab, improved irPFS versus control [HR (hazard ratio) = 0.64; P = 0.03]. No improvement in PFS (HR = 0.93; P = 0.37) or OS (HR = 0.75; P = 0.13) occurred. Phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab and control, respectively, were associated with median irPFS of 6.4, 5.7 and 5.3 months; median PFS of 5.2, 3.9 and 5.2 months; median OS of 12.9, 9.1 and 9.9 months. Overall rates of grade 3/4 irAEs were 17, 21 and 9% for phased ipilimumab, concurrent ipilimumab and control, respectively.ConclusionThese results suggest further investigation of ipilimumab in ED-SCLC.     

Phase I dose-finding study of paclitaxel with panitumumab,carboplatin and intensity-modulated radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced squamous cell cancer of the head and neck

BackgroundPanitumumab has the potential to improve the therapeutic ratio of concurrent chemoradiotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN).Patients and methodsThis phase I dose-finding study investigated escalating doses of paclitaxel (Taxol) given concurrently with panitumumab, carboplatin and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for stage III–IVB SCCHN. Untreated patients with oral cavity, oropharynx, larynx, hypopharynx or unknown primaries were eligible. Additional eligibility criteria included measurable disease, good performance status and no contraindication to therapy. Patients received weekly fixed doses of panitumumab and carboplatin plus escalating doses of paclitaxel with IMRT.ResultsNineteen patients were enrolled on to two dose levels (DLs): weekly paclitaxel 15 mg/m² (n = 3) and 30 mg/m² (n = 16). One dose-limiting toxicity occurred in DL 2, which was declared the maximum tolerated dose. All patients experienced mucositis, primarily grade 3 or more. Oral pain, xerostomia, dysphagia, weight loss, dermatitis, nausea and acneiform rash were frequent. All patients had partial response according to RECIST, whereas the overall complete clinical response rate was 95%. At median follow-up of 21 months, 18 of 19 patients (95%) remained disease free.ConclusionsPanitumumab, carboplatin, paclitaxel and IMRT are well tolerated and appear highly active in the treatment of SCCHN. Further study of this regimen in SCCHN is warranted.     

Vistusertib (dual m-TORC1/2 inhibitor) in combination with paclitaxel in patients with high-grade serous ovarian and squamous non-small-cell lung cancer

BackgroundWe have previously shown that raised p-S6K levels correlate with resistance to chemotherapy in ovarian cancer. We hypothesised that inhibiting p-S6K signalling with the dual m-TORC1/2 inhibitor in patients receiving weekly paclitaxel could improve outcomes in such patients.Patients and methodsIn dose escalation, weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m²) was given 6/7 weeks in combination with two intermittent schedules of vistusertib (dosing starting on the day of paclitaxel): schedule A, vistusertib dosed bd for 3 consecutive days per week (3/7 days) and schedule B, vistusertib dosed bd for 2 consecutive days per week (2/7 days). After establishing a recommended phase II dose (RP2D), expansion cohorts in high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) and squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (sqNSCLC) were explored in 25 and 40 patients, respectively.ResultsThe dose-escalation arms comprised 22 patients with advanced solid tumours. The dose-limiting toxicities were fatigue and mucositis in schedule A and rash in schedule B. On the basis of toxicity and pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) evaluations, the RP2D was established as 80 mg/m² paclitaxel with 50 mg vistusertib bd 3/7 days for 6/7 weeks. In the HGSOC expansion, RECIST and GCIG CA125 response rates were 13/25 (52%) and 16/25 (64%), respectively, with median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 5.8 months (95% CI: 3.28–18.54). The RP2D was not well tolerated in the SqNSCLC expansion, but toxicities were manageable after the daily vistusertib dose was reduced to 25 mg bd for the following 23 patients. The RECIST response rate in this group was 8/23 (35%), and the mPFS was 5.8 months (95% CI: 2.76–21.25).DiscussionIn this phase I trial, we report a highly active and well-tolerated combination of vistusertib, administered as an intermittent schedule with weekly paclitaxel, in patients with HGSOC and SqNSCLC.Clinical trial registrationClinicialTrials.gov identifier: CNCT02193633     

FAIRLANE,a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized phase II trial of neoadjuvant ipatasertib plus paclitaxel for early triple-negative breast cancer

BackgroundThis hypothesis-generating trial evaluated neoadjuvant ipatasertib–paclitaxel for early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).Patients and methodsIn this randomized phase II trial, patients with early TNBC (T ≥ 1.5 cm, N0–2) were randomized 1 : 1 to receive weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m² with ipatasertib 400 mg or placebo (days 1–21 every 28 days) for 12 weeks before surgery. Co-primary end points were pathologic complete response (pCR) rate (ypT0/TisN0) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and immunohistochemistry phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN)-low populations. Secondary end points included pCR rate in patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered tumors and pre-surgery response rates by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).ResultspCR rates with ipatasertib versus placebo were 17% versus 13%, respectively, in the ITT population (N = 151), 16% versus 13% in the immunohistochemistry PTEN-low population (N = 35), and 18% versus 12% in the PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered subgroup (N = 62). Rates of overall and complete response (CR) by MRI favored ipatasertib in all three populations (CR rate 39% versus 9% in the PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered subgroup). Ipatasertib was associated with more grade ≥3 adverse events (32% versus 16% with placebo), especially diarrhea (17% versus 1%). Higher cycle 1 day 8 (C1D8) immune score was significantly associated with better response only in placebo-treated patients. All ipatasertib-treated patients with low immune scores and a CR had PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered tumors.ConclusionsAdding ipatasertib to 12 weeks of paclitaxel for early TNBC did not clinically or statistically significantly increase pCR rate, although overall response rate by MRI was numerically higher with ipatasertib. The antitumor effect of ipatasertib was most pronounced in biomarker-selected patients. Safety was consistent with prior experience of ipatasertib–paclitaxel. A T-cell-rich environment at C1D8 had a stronger association with improved outcomes in paclitaxel-treated patients than seen for baseline tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. This dependency may be overcome with the addition of AKT inhibition, especially in patients with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered tumors.ClinicalTrials.govNCT02301988.     

A randomized,phase 2 study of cetuximab plus cisplatin with or without paclitaxel for the first-line treatment of patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck

BackgroundB490 (EudraCT# 2011-002564-24) is a randomized, phase 2b, noninferiority study investigating the efficacy and safety of first-line cetuximab plus cisplatin with/without paclitaxel (CetCis versus CetCisPac) in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN).Patients and methodsEligible patients had confirmed R/M SCCHN (oral cavity/oropharynx/larynx/hypopharynx/paranasal sinus) and no prior therapy for R/M disease. Cetuximab was administered on day 1 (2-h infusion, 400 mg/m²), then weekly (1-h infusions, 250 mg/m²). Cisplatin was given as a 1-h infusion (CetCis arm: 100 mg/m²; CetCisPac arm: 75 mg/m²) on day 1 of each cycle for a maximum of six cycles. Paclitaxel was administered as a 3-h infusion (175 mg/m²) on day 1 of each cycle. After six cycles, maintenance cetuximab was administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). We assumed a noninferiority margin of 1.40 as compatible with efficacy.ResultsA total of 201 patients were randomized 1 : 1 to each regimen; 191 were assessable. PFS with CetCis (median, 6 months) was noninferior to PFS with CetCisPac (median, 7 months) [HR for CetCis versus CetCisPac 0.99; 95% CI: 0.72–1.36,P = 0.906; margin of noninferiority (90% CI of 1.4) not reached]. Median overall survival was 13 versus 11 months (HR = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.53–1.11,P = 0.117). The overall response rates were 41.8% versus 51.7%, respectively (OR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.38–1.20,P = 0.181). Grade ≥3 adverse event rates were 76% and 73% for CetCis versus CetCisPac, respectively, while grade 4 toxicities were lower in the two-drug versus three-drug arm (14% versus 33%,P = 0.015). No toxic death or sepsis were reported and cardiac events were negligible (1%).ConclusionThe two-drug CetCis regimen proved to be noninferior in PFS to a three-drug combination with CetCisPac. The median OS of both regimens is comparable with that observed in EXTREME, while the life-threatening toxicity rate appeared reduced.Clinical trial numberEudraCT# 2011-002564-24.     

A multicentre randomised trial comparing weekly paclitaxel + S-1 with weekly paclitaxel + 5-fluorouracil for patients with advanced gastric cancer

PurposeThis study aimed to compare the efficacy and toxicity of weekly paclitaxel plus S-1 with weekly paclitaxel plus 5-fluorouracil in treating advanced gastric cancer as first line regimen. The primary end-point was disease control rate (DCR).MethodsPatients with advanced or recurrent gastric cancer were randomly assigned to an experimental arm or a control arm. The experimental arm’s dosage schedule was paclitaxel 60 mg/m² (intravenous infusion) on days 1, 8 and 15 and S-1 80–120 mg/d (oral administration) on days 1–14. Control arm patients were given the same paclitaxel, combined with 5-fluorouracil 500 mg/m² (continuous intravenous infusion) on days 1–5; and leucovorin 20 mg/m² (intravenous infusion) on days 1–5. All schedules were repeated every 28 d.ResultsA total of 240 patients were enrolled and equally randomised into two arms. The overall response rate and DCR of the experimental arm was non-inferior to that of the control arm both in the per-protocol set and the full analysis set. The secondary end-point median progression-free survival (PFS) of the experimental and control arms was 153 and 129 d, with the hazard ratio of 0.641 (95% CI: 0.473–0.868, P = 0.004). The hazard ratio of the time to treatment failure of the two arms was 1.449 (95% CI: 0.705–2.980, P = 0.229). The six-month PFS rates of both arms were similar (31.3% versus 31.8%, P = 0.94). Cox regression analysis indicated that only treatment regimen and age were independent predictive factors for PFS. The most common adverse events were haematological and gastrointestinal. The rates of grade 3–4 adverse events were not significantly different between the two study arms and were mostly lower than 5%.ConclusionWeekly paclitaxel combined with S-1 is an active and well-tolerated regimen, supporting the view that S-1 can be an alternative for infusional 5-fluorouracil for advanced gastric cancer.     

Randomized trial on adjuvant treatment with FOLFIRI followed by docetaxel and cisplatin versus 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid for radically resected gastric cancer

BackgroundSome trial have demonstrated a benefit of adjuvant fluoropirimidine with or without platinum compounds compared with surgery alone. ITACA-S study was designed to evaluate whether a sequential treatment of FOLFIRI [irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (5-FU/LV)] followed by docetaxel plus cisplatin improves disease-free survival in comparison with 5-FU/LV in patients with radically resected gastric cancer.Patients and methodsPatients with resectable adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction were randomly assigned to either FOLFIRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m² day 1, LV 100 mg/m² as 2 h infusion and 5-FU 400 mg/m² as bolus, days 1 and 2 followed by 600 mg/m²/day as 22 h continuous infusion, q14 for four cycles) followed by docetaxel 75 mg/m² day 1, cisplatin 75 mg/m² day 1, q21 for three cycles (sequential arm) or De Gramont regimen (5-FU/LV arm).ResultsFrom February 2005 to August 2009, 1106 patients were enrolled, and 1100 included in the analysis: 562 in the sequential arm and 538 in the 5-FU/LV arm. With a median follow-up of 57.4 months, 581 patients recurred or died (297 sequential arm and 284 5-FU/LV arm), and 483 died (243 and 240, respectively). No statistically significant difference was detected for both disease-free [hazard ratio (HR) 1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85–1.17; P = 0.974] and overall survival (OS) (HR 0.98; 95% CI: 0.82–1.18; P = 0.865). Five-year disease-free and OS rates were 44.6% and 44.6%, 51.0% and 50.6% in the sequential and 5-FU/LV arm, respectively.ConclusionsA more intensive regimen failed to show any benefit in disease-free and OS versus monotherapy.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01640782.