Explore the vast range of titles available.

Molecularly targeted agents have been reported to have anti-tumour activity for patients whose tumours harbour the matching molecular alteration. These results have led to increased off-label use of molecularly targeted agents on the basis of identified molecular alterations. We assessed the efficacy of several molecularly targeted agents marketed in France, which were chosen on the basis of tumour molecular profiling but used outside their indications, in patients with advanced cancer for whom standard-of-care therapy had failed. The open-label, randomised, controlled phase 2 SHIVA trial was done at eight French academic centres. We included adult patients with any kind of metastatic solid tumour refractory to standard of care, provided they had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, disease that was accessible for a biopsy or resection of a metastatic site, and at least one measurable lesion. The molecular profile of each patient's tumour was established with a mandatory biopsy of a metastatic tumour and large-scale genomic testing. We only included patients for whom a molecular alteration was identified within one of three molecular pathways (hormone receptor, PI3K/AKT/mTOR, RAF/MEK), which could be matched to one of ten regimens including 11 available molecularly targeted agents (erlotinib, lapatinib plus trastuzumab, sorafenib, imatinib, dasatinib, vemurafenib, everolimus, abiraterone, letrozole, tamoxifen). We randomly assigned these patients (1:1) to receive a matched molecularly targeted agent (experimental group) or treatment at physician's choice (control group) by central block randomisation (blocks of size six). Randomisation was done centrally with a web-based response system and was stratified according to the Royal Marsden Hospital prognostic score (0 or 1 vs 2 or 3) and the altered molecular pathway. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. Treatments in both groups were given in accordance with the approved product information and standard practice protocols at each institution and were continued until evidence of disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, which was not assessed by independent central review. We assessed safety in any patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01771458. Between Oct 4, 2012, and July 11, 2014, we screened 741 patients with any tumour type. 293 (40%) patients had at least one molecular alteration matching one of the 10 available regimens. At the time of data cutoff, Jan 20, 2015, 195 (26%) patients had been randomly assigned, with 99 in the experimental group and 96 in the control group. All patients in the experimental group started treatment, as did 92 in the control group. Two patients in the control group received a molecularly targeted agent: both were included in their assigned group for efficacy analyses, the patient who received an agent that was allowed in the experimental group was included in the experimental group for the purposes of safety analyses, while the other patient, who received a molecularly targeted agent and chemotherapy, was kept in the control group for safety analyses. Median follow-up was 11·3 months (IQR 5·8–11·6) in the experimental group and 11·3 months (8·1–11·6) in the control group at the time of the primary analysis of progression-free survival. Median progression-free survival was 2·3 months (95% CI 1·7–3·8) in the experimental group versus 2·0 months (1·8–2·1) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·88, 95% CI 0·65–1·19, p=0·41). In the safety population, 43 (43%) of 100 patients treated with a molecularly targeted agent and 32 (35%) of 91 patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy had grade 3–4 adverse events (p=0·30). The use of molecularly targeted agents outside their indications does not improve progression-free survival compared with treatment at physician's choice in heavily pretreated patients with cancer. Off-label use of molecularly targeted agents should be discouraged, but enrolment in clinical trials should be encouraged to assess predictive biomarkers of efficacy. Institut Curie.

PIK3CA mutations occur in approximately 40% of patients with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer. A PI3K inhibitor, alpelisib, combined with fulvestrant led to a median progression-free survival of 11 months, as compared with 5.7 months with placebo plus fulvestrant. Hyperglycemia, rash, and diarrhea were more common with alpelisib.

Recently many therapeutic classes have emerged in advanced hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, which is the leading cause of cancer death in women. In absence of visceral crisis, treatment relies on endocrine therapy combined with cyclin dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitor. Many mechanisms lead to resistance to endocrine therapy, including the activation of intracellular signaling pathways critical for cell survival. Approximately 70% of breast tumors harbor an alteration in the phosphoinositide 3 kinase (PI3K)/Akt pathway, leading to its hyper activation. This pathway is involved in the regulation of growth, proliferation and cell survival as well as in angiogenesis and is consequently a major target in the oncogenesis. An aberrant PIK3CA mutation is a common phenomenon in breast cancer and found in approximately 40% of patients with advanced hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. For the moment, the only positive trials showing a progression free survival benefit in this population are BOLERO-2 (2012), SOLAR-1 (2019), which tested everolimus, a mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor, and alpelisib, a PI3K inhibitor, and led to their marketing authorization. However, many other inhibitors of this pathway are promising; nevertheless their development is actually limited by toxicity, mainly cutaneous (rash), digestive (diarrhea) and endocrine (diabetes).

Adjuvant abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy previously showed a significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival and distant relapse-free survival in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2; also known as ERBB2)-negative, node-positive, high-risk, early breast cancer. Here, we report updated results from an interim analysis to assess overall survival as well as invasive disease-free survival and distant relapse-free survival with additional follow-up. In monarchE, an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, node-positive, early breast cancer at a high risk of recurrence with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were recruited from 603 sites including hospitals and academic and community centres in 38 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by means of an interactive web-based response system (block size of 4), stratified by previous chemotherapy, menopausal status, and region, to receive standard-of-care endocrine therapy of physician's choice for up to 10 years with or without abemaciclib 150 mg orally twice a day for 2 years (treatment period). All therapies were administered in an open-label manner without masking. High-risk disease was defined as either four or more positive axillary lymph nodes, or between one and three positive axillary lymph nodes and either grade 3 disease or tumour size of 5 cm or larger (cohort 1). A smaller group of patients were enrolled with between one and three positive axillary lymph nodes and Ki-67 of at least 20% as an additional risk feature (cohort 2). This was a prespecified overall survival interim analysis planned to occur 2 years after the primary outcome analysis for invasive disease-free survival. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all treated patients. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03155997, and is ongoing. Between July 17, 2017, and Aug 12, 2019, 5637 patients were randomly assigned (5601 [99·4%] were women and 36 [0·6%] were men). 2808 were assigned to receive abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy and 2829 were assigned to receive endocrine therapy alone. At a median follow-up of 42 months (IQR 37–47), median invasive disease-free survival was not reached in either group and the invasive disease-free survival benefit previously reported was sustained: HR 0·664 (95% CI 0·578–0·762, nominal p<0·0001). At 4 years, the absolute difference in invasive disease-free survival between the groups was 6·4% (85·8% [95% CI 84·2–87·3] in the abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy group vs 79·4% [77·5–81·1] in the endocrine therapy alone group). 157 (5·6%) of 2808 patients in the abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy group died compared with 173 (6·1%) of 2829 patients in the endocrine therapy alone group (HR 0·929, 95% CI 0·748–1·153; p=0·50). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (in 548 [19·6%] of 2791 patients receiving abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy vs 24 [0·9%] of 2800 patients in the endocrine therapy alone group), leukopenia (318 [11·4%] vs 11 [0·4%]), and diarrhoea (218 [7·8%] vs six [0·2%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 433 (15·5%) of 2791 patients receiving abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy versus 256 (9·1%) of 2800 receiving endocrine therapy. There were two treatment-related deaths in the abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy group (diarrhoea and pneumonitis) and none in the endocrine therapy alone group. Adjuvant abemaciclib reduces the risk of recurrence. The benefit is sustained beyond the completion of treatment with an absolute increase at 4 years, further supporting the use of abemaciclib in patients with high-risk hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative early breast cancer. Further follow-up is needed to establish whether overall survival can be improved with abemaciclib plus endocrine therapy in these patients. Eli Lilly.

Resistance to hormone therapy through activation of cellular pathways involving mTOR can develop in postmenopausal hormone-receptor–positive breast cancer. Adding an mTOR inhibitor to an aromatase inhibitor improved outcomes in patients who had disease progression during hormone therapy. Endocrine therapy is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with hormone-receptor (HR)–positive advanced breast cancer. In postmenopausal patients, aromatase inhibitors (e.g., letrozole and anastrozole) have become the treatment of choice in first-line therapy. 1 – 5 Unfortunately, not all patients have a response to first-line endocrine therapy (primary or de novo resistance), and even patients who have a response will eventually relapse (acquired resistance). On disease progression, second-line treatment options include other classes of aromatase inhibitors (steroidal or nonsteroidal) and the estrogen-receptor (ER) antagonists fulvestrant and tamoxifen. 6 , 7 The study of resistance to endocrine therapies in HR-positive breast cancer has aimed at . . .

Bevacizumab is approved for the treatment of patients with progressive glioblastoma on the basis of uncontrolled data. Data from a phase 2 trial suggested that the addition of bevacizumab to lomustine might improve overall survival as compared with monotherapies. We sought to determine whether the combination would result in longer overall survival than lomustine alone among patients at first progression of glioblastoma. We randomly assigned patients with progression after chemoradiation in a 2:1 ratio to receive lomustine plus bevacizumab (combination group, 288 patients) or lomustine alone (monotherapy group, 149 patients). The methylation status of the promoter of O -methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) was assessed. Health-related quality of life and neurocognitive function were evaluated at baseline and every 12 weeks. The primary end point of the trial was overall survival. A total of 437 patients underwent randomization. The median number of 6-week treatment cycles was three in the combination group and one in the monotherapy group. With 329 overall survival events (75.3%), the combination therapy did not provide a survival advantage; the median overall survival was 9.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1 to 10.1) in the combination group and 8.6 months (95% CI, 7.6 to 10.4) in the monotherapy group (hazard ratio for death, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.21; P=0.65). Locally assessed progression-free survival was 2.7 months longer in the combination group than in the monotherapy group: 4.2 months versus 1.5 months (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.61; P<0.001). Grade 3 to 5 adverse events occurred in 63.6% of the patients in the combination group and 38.1% of the patients in the monotherapy group. The addition of bevacizumab to lomustine affected neither health-related quality of life nor neurocognitive function. The MGMT status was prognostic. Despite somewhat prolonged progression-free survival, treatment with lomustine plus bevacizumab did not confer a survival advantage over treatment with lomustine alone in patients with progressive glioblastoma. (Funded by an unrestricted educational grant from F. Hoffmann-La Roche and by the EORTC Cancer Research Fund; EORTC 26101 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01290939 ; Eudra-CT number, 2010-023218-30 .).

In a randomized trial comparing pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel with placebo, trastuzumab, and docetaxel, the pertuzumab combination resulted in a median overall survival of 56 months in women with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. The overexpression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) in breast cancer results in more aggressive disease with a poor prognosis. 1 The humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibodies pertuzumab and trastuzumab are more active in combination than alone because of more comprehensive signaling blockade. 2 , 3 We investigated combination therapy with docetaxel for first-line treatment of HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in the Clinical Evaluation of Pertuzumab and Trastuzumab (CLEOPATRA) trial. Analysis of the primary end point showed that patients who received pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel (pertuzumab group) had a significantly longer median progression-free survival, as assessed by independent reviewers, than did those . . .

Effective treatments are needed to improve outcomes for high-grade glioma and low-grade glioma. The activity and safety of dabrafenib plus trametinib were evaluated in adult patients with recurrent or progressive BRAFV600E mutation-positive high-grade glioma and low-grade glioma. This study is part of an ongoing open-label, single-arm, phase 2 Rare Oncology Agnostic Research (ROAR) basket trial at 27 community and academic cancer centres in 13 countries (Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, and the USA). The study enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0, 1, or 2. Patients with BRAFV600E mutation-positive high-grade glioma and low-grade glioma received dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily plus trametinib 2 mg once daily orally until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or death. In the high-grade glioma cohort, patients were required to have measurable disease at baseline using the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology high-grade glioma response criteria and have been treated previously with radiotherapy and first-line chemotherapy or concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Patients with low-grade glioma were required to have measurable non-enhancing disease (except pilocytic astrocytoma) at baseline using the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology low-grade glioma criteria. The primary endpoint, in the evaluable intention-to-treat population, was investigator-assessed objective response rate (complete response plus partial response for high-grade glioma and complete response plus partial response plus minor response for low-grade glioma). This trial is ongoing, but is closed for enrolment, NCT02034110. Between April 17, 2014, and July 25, 2018, 45 patients (31 with glioblastoma) were enrolled into the high-grade glioma cohort and 13 patients were enrolled into the low-grade glioma cohort. The results presented here are based on interim analysis 16 (data cutoff Sept 14, 2020). In the high-grade glioma cohort, median follow-up was 12·7 months (IQR 5·4–32·3) and 15 (33%; 95% CI 20–49) of 45 patients had an objective response by investigator assessment, including three complete responses and 12 partial responses. In the low-grade glioma cohort, median follow-up was 32·2 months (IQR 25·1–47·8). Nine (69%; 95% CI 39–91) of 13 patients had an objective response by investigator assessment, including one complete response, six partial responses, and two minor responses. Grade 3 or worse adverse events were reported in 31 (53%) patients, the most common being fatigue (five [9%]), decreased neutrophil count (five [9%]), headache (three [5%]), and neutropenia (three [5%]). Dabrafenib plus trametinib showed clinically meaningful activity in patients with BRAFV600E mutation-positive recurrent or refractory high-grade glioma and low-grade glioma, with a safety profile consistent with that in other indications. BRAFV600E testing could potentially be adopted in clinical practice for patients with glioma. Novartis.

BRCA1 or BRCA2-mutated breast cancers are sensitive to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and platinum agents owing to deficiency in homologous recombination repair of DNA damage. In this trial, we compared veliparib versus placebo in combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel, and continued as monotherapy if carboplatin and paclitaxel were discontinued before progression, in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer and a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. BROCADE3 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done at 147 hospitals in 36 countries. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) had deleterious germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation-associated, histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced HER2-negative breast cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, and had received up to two previous lines of chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) by interactive response technology by means of permuted blocks within strata (block size of 3 or 6) to carboplatin (area under the concentration curve 6 mg/mL per min intravenously) on day 1 and paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 intravenously) on days 1, 8, and 15 of 21-day cycles combined with either veliparib (120 mg orally twice daily, on days −2 to 5) or matching placebo. If patients discontinued carboplatin and paclitaxel before progression, they could continue veliparib or placebo at an intensified dose (300 mg twice daily continuously, escalating to 400 mg twice daily if tolerated) until disease progression. Patients in the control group could receive open-label veliparib monotherapy after disease progression. Randomisation was stratified by previous platinum use, history of CNS metastases, and oestrogen and progesterone receptor status. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat, which included all randomly assigned patients with a centrally confirmed BRCA mutation, and safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of velilparib or placebo. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02163694. Between July 30, 2014, and Jan 17, 2018, 2202 patients were screened, of whom 513 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. In the intention-to-treat population (n=509), 337 patients were assigned to receive veliparib plus carboplatin–paclitaxel (veliparib group) and 172 were assigned to receive placebo plus carboplatin–paclitaxel (control group). Median follow-up at data cutoff (April 5, 2019) was 35·7 months (IQR 24·9–43·6) in the veliparib group and 35·5 months (23·1–45·9) in the control group. Median progression-free survival was 14·5 months (95% CI 12·5–17·7) in the veliparib group versus 12·6 months (10·6–14·4) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·71 [95% CI 0·57–0·88], p=0·0016). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (272 [81%] of 336 patients in the veliparib group vs 143 [84%] of 171 patients in the control group), anaemia (142 [42%] vs 68 [40%]), and thrombocytopenia (134 [40%] vs 48 [28%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 115 (34%) patients in the veliparib group versus 49 (29%) patients in the control group. There were no study drug-related deaths. The addition of veliparib to a highly active platinum doublet, with continuation as monotherapy if the doublet were discontinued, resulted in significant and durable improvement in progression-free survival in patients with germline BRCA mutation-associated advanced breast cancer. These data indicate the utility of combining platinum and PARP inhibitors in this patient population. AbbVie.

In patients with advanced HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, the addition of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor ribociclib to letrozole was associated with a significantly higher rate of progression-free survival than placebo. Up to 75% of breast cancers express the estrogen receptor or progesterone receptor (hormone-receptor [HR]–positive). 1 , 2 Endocrine therapy is the standard of care for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer that is HR-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative, with aromatase inhibitors being the preferred first-line treatment option. 3 , 4 However, in the majority of patients, resistance to currently available options eventually develops, which requires the administration of sequential therapy with alternative endocrine regimens. 4 – 8 Thus, the identification of effective treatment options that prolong or restore sensitivity to endocrine therapies is important. Cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) in . . .