Search

BackgroundIn the phase III LUX-Head & Neck 1 (LHN1) trial, afatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus methotrexate in recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients progressing on/after platinum-based therapy. This report evaluates afatinib efficacy and safety in prespecified subgroups of patients aged ≥65 and <65 years.Patients and methodsPatients were randomized (2:1) to 40 mg/day oral afatinib or 40 mg/m(2)/week intravenous methotrexate. PFS was the primary end point; overall survival (OS) was the key secondary end point. Other end points included: objective response rate (ORR), patient-reported outcomes, tumor shrinkage, and safety. Disease control rate (DCR) was also assessed.ResultsOf 483 randomized patients, 27% (83 afatinib; 45 methotrexate) were aged ≥65 years (older) and 73% (239 afatinib; 116 methotrexate) <65 years (younger) at study entry. Similar PFS benefit with afatinib versus methotrexate was observed in older {median 2.8 versus 2.3 months, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-1.03], P = 0.061} and younger patients [2.6 versus 1.6 months, HR = 0.79 (0.62-1.01), P = 0.052]. In older and younger patients, the median OS with afatinib versus methotrexate was 7.3 versus 6.4 months [HR = 0.84 (0.54-1.31)] and 6.7 versus 6.2 months [HR = 0.98 (0.76-1.28)]. ORRs with afatinib versus methotrexate were 10.8% versus 6.7% and 10.0% versus 5.2%; DCRs were 53.0% versus 37.8% and 47.7% versus 38.8% in older and younger patients, respectively. In both subgroups, the most frequent treatment-related adverse events were rash/acne (73%-77%) and diarrhea (70%-80%) with afatinib, and stomatitis (43%) and fatigue (31%-34%) with methotrexate. Fewer treatment-related discontinuations were observed with afatinib (each subgroup 7% versus 16%). A trend toward improved time to deterioration of global health status, pain, and swallowing with afatinib was observed in both subgro

BackgroundIn the phase III LUX-Head & Neck 1 (LHN1) trial, afatinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus methotrexate in recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients progressing on/after platinum-based therapy. This report evaluates afatinib efficacy and safety in prespecified subgroups of patients aged ≥65 and <65 years.Patients and methodsPatients were randomized (2:1) to 40 mg/day oral afatinib or 40 mg/m(2)/week intravenous methotrexate. PFS was the primary end point; overall survival (OS) was the key secondary end point. Other end points included: objective response rate (ORR), patient-reported outcomes, tumor shrinkage, and safety. Disease control rate (DCR) was also assessed.ResultsOf 483 randomized patients, 27% (83 afatinib; 45 methotrexate) were aged ≥65 years (older) and 73% (239 afatinib; 116 methotrexate) <65 years (younger) at study entry. Similar PFS benefit with afatinib versus methotrexate was observed in older {median 2.8 versus 2.3 months, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-1.03], P = 0.061} and younger patients [2.6 versus 1.6 months, HR = 0.79 (0.62-1.01), P = 0.052]. In older and younger patients, the median OS with afatinib versus methotrexate was 7.3 versus 6.4 months [HR = 0.84 (0.54-1.31)] and 6.7 versus 6.2 months [HR = 0.98 (0.76-1.28)]. ORRs with afatinib versus methotrexate were 10.8% versus 6.7% and 10.0% versus 5.2%; DCRs were 53.0% versus 37.8% and 47.7% versus 38.8% in older and younger patients, respectively. In both subgroups, the most frequent treatment-related adverse events were rash/acne (73%-77%) and diarrhea (70%-80%) with afatinib, and stomatitis (43%) and fatigue (31%-34%) with methotrexate. Fewer treatment-related discontinuations were observed with afatinib (each subgroup 7% versus 16%). A trend toward improved time to deterioration of global health status, pain, and swallowing with afatinib was observed in both subgro

Purpose Limited data are available on cabazitaxel pharmacokinetics in patients with renal impairment. This open-label, multicenter study assessed cabazitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors and normal or impaired renal function. Methods Cohorts A (normal renal function: creatinine clearance [CrCL] >80 mL/min/1.73 m(2)), B (moderate renal impairment: CrCL 30 to <50 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) and C (severe impairment: CrCL < 30 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) received cabazitaxel 25 mg/m(2) (A, B) or 20 mg/m(2) (C, could be escalated to 25 mg/m(2)), once every 3 weeks. Pharmacokinetic parameters and cabazitaxel unbound fraction (F-U) were assessed using linear regression and mixed models. Geometric mean (GM) and GM ratios (GMRs) were determined using mean CrCL intervals (moderate and severe renal impairment: 40 and 15 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) versus a control (90 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). Results Overall, 25 patients received cabazitaxel (median cycles: 3 [range 1-20]; Cohort A: 5 [2-13]; Cohort B: 3 [1-15]; and Cohort C: 5 [1-20]), of which 24 were eligible for pharmacokinetic analysis (eight in each cohort). For moderate and severe renal impairment versus normal renal function, GMR estimates were: clearance normalized to body surface area (CL/BSA) 0.95 (90% CI 0.80-1.13) and 0.89 (0.61-1.32); area under the curve normalized to dose (AUC/dose) 1.06 (0.88-1.27) and 1.14 (0.76-1.71); and FU 0.99 (0.94-1.04) and 0.97 (0.87-1.09), respectively. Estimated slopes of linear regression of log parameters versus log CrCL (renal impairment) were: CL/BSA 0.06 (-0.15 to 0.28); AUC/dose -0.07 (-0.30 to 0.16); and FU 0.02 (-0.05 to 0.08). Cabazitaxel safety profile was consistent with previous reports. Conclusions Renal impairment had no clinically meaningful effect on cabazitaxel pharmacokinetics.