Search

Background: Anti-PD1/PD-L1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) increase overall survival compared to standard of care (SOC) in different tumors. However, a proportion of patients (pts) will have progressive disease (PD) as best response. We conducted a meta-analysis to study the rates of response comparing these antibodies with SOC., Methods: A search of published trials in MEDLINE and EMBASE analyzing anti-PD1/PD-L1mAbs monotherapy compared to SOC. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) of response rates between groups was estimated. Subgroup analyses for location of primary tumor, number of previous treatment lines, selected population by PD-L1 expression and type of radiological assessment were made., Results: Twelve studies accounting for 6,700 pts were included (anti-PD1/PD-L1 mAbs: 3,451 pts; SOC: 3,249 pts [2,823 pts: chemotherapy, 426 pts: targeted therapy]). Adjusted response rates were (N, %): Complete Response (CR) (69/3153, 2.19%), Partial Response (PR) (596/3153, 18.90%), Stable Disease (SD) (632/2463, 25.66%) and PD (1027/2463, 41.70%); and CR (16/2955, 0.54%), PR (263/2955, 8.90%), SD (835/2269, 36.80%) and PD (834/2269, 36.76%) with anti-PD1/PD-L1 mAbs and SOC, respectively. Anti-PD1/PD-L1 mAbs improved CR rate (RR 3.48) and PR rate (RR 2.27). There were no differences in the PD rate between groups (RR 1.10). Subgroup analyses showed an improvement in clinical benefit with anti-PD1/PD-L1 mAbs for melanoma (RR 1.59; 1.37-1.84 95% CI) and those treated in the first line setting (RR 1.57; 1.27-1.95 95% CI)., Conclusions: Anti-PD1/PD-L1 mAbs increase overall response rate compared to SOC without an increase in PD rate. Melanoma and pts treated in first line setting seem to have greater benefit with anti-PD1/PD-L1 mAbs., Findings: In this systematic meta-analysis, anti-PD1/PD-L1 mAbs were associated with a greater overall response rate. Patients with melanoma and those managed in the first line setting seem to have an additional benefit with anti-PD1/PD-L1 mAbs., Competing Interests: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Background: Treatments for small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy are limited. We assessed safety and activity of nivolumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with SCLC who progressed after one or more previous regimens., Methods: The SCLC cohort of this phase 1/2 multicentre, multi-arm, open-label trial was conducted at 23 sites (academic centres and hospitals) in six countries. Eligible patients were 18 years of age or older, had limited-stage or extensive-stage SCLC, and had disease progression after at least one previous platinum-containing regimen. Patients received nivolumab (3 mg/kg bodyweight intravenously) every 2 weeks (given until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity), or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg plus 1 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg plus 3 mg/kg, or 3 mg/kg plus 1 mg/kg, intravenously) every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Patients were either assigned to nivolumab monotherapy or assessed in a dose-escalating safety phase for the nivolumab/ipilimumab combination beginning at nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg. Depending on tolerability, patients were then assigned to nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg or nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg. The primary endpoint was objective response by investigator assessment. All analyses included patients who were enrolled at least 90 days before database lock. This trial is ongoing; here, we report an interim analysis of the SCLC cohort. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01928394., Findings: Between Nov 18, 2013, and July 28, 2015, 216 patients were enrolled and treated (98 with nivolumab 3 mg/kg, three with nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg, 61 with nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, and 54 with nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg). At database lock on Nov 6, 2015, median follow-up for patients continuing in the study (including those who had died or discontinued treatment) was 198·5 days (IQR 163·0-464·0) for nivolumab 3 mg/kg, 302 days (IQR not calculable) for nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg, 361·0 days (273·0-470·0) for nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, and 260·5 days (248·0-288·0) for nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg. An objective response was achieved in ten (10%) of 98 patients receiving nivolumab 3 mg/kg, one (33%) of three patients receiving nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg, 14 (23%) of 61 receiving nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, and ten (19%) of 54 receiving nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 13 (13%) patients in the nivolumab 3 mg/kg cohort, 18 (30%) in the nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg cohort, and ten (19%) in the nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg cohort; the most commonly reported grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were increased lipase (none vs 5 [8%] vs none) and diarrhoea (none vs 3 [5%] vs 1 [2%]). No patients in the nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg cohort had a grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event. Six (6%) patients in the nivolumab 3 mg/kg group, seven (11%) in the nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg group, and four (7%) in the nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg group discontinued treatment due to treatment-related adverse events. Two patients who received nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg died from treatment-related adverse events (myasthenia gravis and worsening of renal failure), and one patient who received nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg died from treatment-related pneumonitis., Interpretation: Nivolumab monotherapy and nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed antitumour activity with durable responses and manageable safety profiles in previously treated patients with SCLC. These data suggest a potential new treatment approach for a population of patients with limited treatment options and support the evaluation of nivolumab and nivolumab plus ipilimumab in phase 3 randomised controlled trials in SCLC., Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Doxorubicin and trabectedin are considered active drugs in soft tissue sarcoma (STS). The combination of both drugs was hypothesized to be advantageous and safe on the basis of preclinical evidence and a previous phase I trial, respectively. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of trabectedin plus doxorubicin with doxorubicin as first-line treatment of advanced STS patients., Patients and Methods: In this open-label randomized phase II trial, the main end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Trabectedin 1.1 mg/m(2) in a 3-hour infusion plus doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) as the experimental arm and doxorubicin 75 mg/m(2) as the control arm were administered for up to six cycles. Translational research was planned to correlate the expression of apoptotic and DNA repair genes with clinical outcome., Results: In 115 randomly assigned patients, the median PFS was 5.5 months in the control arm and 5.7 months in the experimental arm (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.71; P = .45) in the intent-to-treat analysis. The trial was stopped for futility after the interim analysis, because the results in the experimental arm showed the risk reduction for the main end point to be < 9.64%. The proportion of patients with grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia, asthenia, and liver toxicity was significantly higher in the experimental arm. FAS and p53 were shown to be prognostic factors for PFS (7.0 months if FAS+ and p53-; 3.4 months if FAS+/p53+ or FAS-/p53-; and 0.7 months if FAS- and p53+; P < .001) and for overall survival., Conclusion: Trabectedin plus doxorubicin did not show superiority over doxorubicin alone as first-line treatment of advanced STS. The prognostic role of apoptotic key genes, FAS and p53, was shown to be robust enough to continue this research line., (© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Background: PM00104 binds guanines at DNA minor grooves, impacting DNA replication and transcription. A phase I study was undertaken to investigate safety, dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), recommended phase II dose (RP2D), pharmacokinetics (PKs) and preliminary antitumour activity of PM00104 as a 1- or 3-h infusion three-weekly., Methods: Patients with advanced solid tumours received PM00104 in a dose escalation trial, as guided by toxicity and PK data., Results: A total of 47 patients were treated; 27 patients on the 1-h schedule (0.23-3.6 mg m(-2)) and 20 patients on the 3-h schedule (1.8-3.5 mg m(-2)). Dose-limiting toxicities comprised reversible nausea, vomiting, fatigue, elevated transaminases and thrombocytopenia, establishing the 1-h schedule RP2D at 3.0 mg m(-2). With the 3-h schedule, DLTs of reversible hypotension and neutropenia established the RP2D at 2.8 mg m(-2). Common PM00104-related adverse events at the RP2D comprised grade 1-2 nausea, fatigue and myelosuppression. In both schedules, PKs increased linearly, but doses over the 1-h schedule RP2D resulted in higher than proportional increases in exposure. A patient with advanced urothelial carcinoma had RECIST shrinkage by 49%, and three patients had RECIST stable disease ≥6 months., Conclusion: PM00104 is well tolerated, with preliminary evidence of antitumour activity observed. The 1-h 3-weekly schedule is being assessed in phase II clinical trials.

Purpose: Plitidepsin, given as a 1-hour weekly i.v. infusion for 3 consecutive weeks during a 4-week treatment cycle, was investigated in patients with solid tumors to determine the maximum tolerated dose and the recommended dose (RD) using this administration schedule., Experimental Design: Consecutive cohorts of patients with metastatic solid tumors or non-Hodgkin's lymphomas were to be treated at escalating doses of plitidepsin in a conventional phase I study including pharmacokinetic analyses of plitidepsin in plasma, whole blood, and blood cell pellets., Results: Forty-nine patients with solid tumors were enrolled, and 48 were treated with plitidepsin (doses from 0.133 to 3.6 mg/m2/week). Dose-limiting toxicities (defining 3.6 mg/m2/week as the maximum tolerated dose) included myalgia, increased creatine phosphokinase levels, and sustained grade 3/4 increases of hepatic enzyme levels. The RD was established at 3.2 mg/m2/week. The most common toxicities were fatigue, vomiting/nausea, anorexia, injection site reaction, and pain, mostly of mild or moderate severity. Muscular toxicity manifested by mild-moderate myalgia, weakness, and/or creatine phosphokinase elevations occurred in approximately 25% of patients and seemed to be dose related. Transient transaminase elevations were frequent but achieved grade 3 or 4 in only approximately 10% of patients. Plitidepsin lacked significant hematologic toxicity. No complete or partial tumor responses were observed; however, five patients had disease stabilization (including one patient with medullary thyroid carcinoma with an unconfirmed partial response and one patient with renal carcinoma with major tumor shrinkage in lung metastases). Pharmacokinetic results for the RD indicated a long plasma half-life give value (16.8 +/- 7.7 hour) and a high volume of distribution value (525.2 +/- 219.3 L)., Conclusions: The recommended dose for plitidepsin given as a weekly 1-hour schedule was 3.2 mg/m2/week. Muscular and liver toxicity were dose limiting at 3.6 mg/m2/week. Additional evaluation of this dose dense schedule is warranted.

Twenty-four patients with metastatic breast cancer that had progressed after high-dose chemotherapy with peripheral blood progenitor cell (PBPC) support were given intramuscular methotrexate in combination with oral UFT (tegafur and uracil) and oral leucovorin (the MUL regimen). Of the total treated, 21 patients are currently evaluable for response and toxicity. All patients had received extensive prior chemotherapy, including a high-dose regimen with PBPC support. Of the 21 assessable patients, 8 obtained either a complete response (1) or partial response (7), for an overall objective response rate of 38%. Another 7 patients had stable disease for 3 or more months. Therefore, the MUL regimen was able to stop disease progression for 3 or more months in nearly 75% of patients. The median time to progression and median overall survival from the start of MUL were 6 and 9 months, respectively. The toxicity was mainly gastrointestinal; 6 patients (29%) had World Health Organization grade 2/3 diarrhea, leading to a UFT dose reduction. Emesis was mild and easily manageable with thiethylperazine. In conclusion, MUL chemotherapy is active and well tolerated in patients with metastatic breast cancer in progression after high-dose chemotherapy. Further studies with this regimen, either as salvage chemotherapy or as maintenance chemotherapy after high-dose chemotherapy with PBPC, are warranted.

A group of 90 breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy were assessed prospectively to estimate the prevalence of acute (post-treatment) and anticipatory emesis in the 1990s. For this purpose, two protocols of chemotherapy were analysed separately: cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/5-fluorouracil (CMF) and 5-fluorouracil/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (FAC). All patients were treated with antiemetic therapy, which included one corticoid plus ondansetron (in the FAC regimen), or one corticoid plus thiethylperazine (in the CMF regimen). For at least one cycle of chemotherapy 86.1% and 91.7% patients in the FAC protocol presented vomiting and nausea respectively: 11.1% had anticipatory vomiting and 30.6% had anticipatory nausea. In the CMF protocol, 79.6% had post-chemotherapy vomiting and 71.7% had post-chemotherapy nausea associated with at least one cycle. In this group, 7.4% had anticipatory vomiting and 16.6% had anticipatory nausea. A high proportion of patients suffered anticipatory anxiety in both groups (75% in FAC, 74.1% in CMF). The stimuli most frequently associated with the appearance of anticipatory emesis were olfactory stimuli and cognitive stimuli. In summary, as a result of the advances made in antiemetic control during the last decade, the severity of chemotherapy-induced emesis seems to have significantly decreased, but the prevalence of these symptoms along the course of the treatment still remains high.