Explore the vast range of titles available.

The definition of a best maintenance strategy following combination chemotherapy plus bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer is unclear. We investigated whether no continuation of therapy or bevacizumab alone are non-inferior to fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab, following induction treatment with a fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab. In this open-label, non-inferiority, randomised phase 3 trial, we included patients aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed, previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–2, adequate bone marrow, liver, and renal function, no pre-existing neuropathy greater than grade 1, and measurable disease, from 55 hospitals and 51 private practices in Germany. After 24 weeks of induction therapy with either fluorouracil plus leucovorin plus oxaliplatin or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin, both with bevacizumab, patients without disease progression were randomly assigned centrally by fax (1:1:1) to standard maintenance treatment with a fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab, bevacizumab alone, or no treatment. Both patients and investigators were aware of treatment assignment. Stratification criteria were response status, termination of oxaliplatin, previous adjuvant treatment with oxaliplatin, and ECOG performance status. At first progression, re-induction with all drugs of the induction treatment was a planned part of the protocol. Time to failure of strategy was the primary endpoint, defined as time from randomisation to second progression after maintenance (and if applicable re-induction), death, or initiation of further treatment including a new drug. Time to failure of strategy was equivalent to time to first progression for patients who did not receive re-induction (for any reason). The boundary for assessment of non-inferiority was upper limit of the one-sided 98·8% CI 1·43. Analyses were done by intention to treat. The study has completed recruitment, but follow-up of participants is ongoing. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00973609. Between Sept 17, 2009, and Feb 21, 2013, 837 patients were enrolled and 472 randomised; 158 were randomly assigned to receive fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab, 156 to receive bevacizumab monotherapy, and 158 to receive no treatment. Median follow-up from randomisation is 17·0 months (IQR 9·5–25·4). Median time to failure of strategy was 6·9 months (95% CI 6·1–8·5) for the fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab group, 6·1 months (5·3–7·4) for the bevacizumab alone group, and 6·4 months (4·8–7·6) for the no treatment group. Bevacizumab alone was non-inferior to standard fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab (hazard ratio [HR] 1·08 [95% CI 0·85–1·37]; p=0·53; upper limit of the one-sided 98·8% CI 1·42), whereas no treatment was not (HR 1·26 [0·99–1·60]; p=0·056; upper limit of the one-sided 98·8% CI 1·65). The protocol-defined re-induction after first progression was rarely done (30 [19%] patients in the fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab group, 67 [43%] in the bevacizumab monotherapy group, and 73 [46%] in the no treatment group. The most common grade 3 adverse event was sensory neuropathy (21 [13%] of 158 patients in the fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab group, 22 [14%] of 156 patients in the bevacizumab alone group, and 12 [8%] of 158 patients in the no treatment group). Although non-inferiority for bevacizumab alone was demonstrated for the primary endpoint, maintenance treatment with a fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab may be the preferable option for patients following an induction treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab, as it allows the planned discontinuation of the initial combination without compromising time with controlled disease. Only a few patients were exposed to re-induction treatment, thus deeming the primary endpoint time to failure of strategy non-informative and clinically irrelevant. Progression-free survival and overall survival should be considered primary endpoints in future trials exploring maintenance strategies. RochePharma AG and AIO Studien gGmbH.

Background We conducted an open-label, randomized, two-arm multi-center study to assess the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel versus paclitaxel + sorafenib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer. Methods Patients were randomly assigned to receive either paclitaxel monotherapy (80 mg/m 2 ) weekly (3 weeks on, 1 week off) plus sorafenib 400 mg orally, twice a day taken continuously throughout 28 day cycles. Sorafenib dose was gradually escalated from a starting dose of 200 mg twice a day. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Results A pre-planned efficacy interim analysis was performed on the data of 60 patients, 30 patients in each treatment arm. Median PFS was estimated at 6.6 months (95% CI: 5.1 to 9.0) in patients randomized to single-agent paclitaxel (Arm A) and 5.6 months (95% CI: 3.8 to 6.5) in patients randomized to paclitaxel-sorafenib combination (Arm B) therapy. Contrary to the hypothesis, the treatment effect was statistically significant in favor of paclitaxel monotherapy (hazard ratio 1.80, 95% CI: 1.02 to 3.20; log-rank test P  = 0.0409). It was decided to stop the trial early for futility. Median OS was also in favor of Arm A (20.7 months (95% CI: 16.4 to 26.7) versus 12.1 months (95% CI: 5.8 to 20.4) in Arm B. Clinical control was achieved in 28 patients (93.3%) in Arm A and in 21 patients 70.0% in Arm B. Overall response rate was met in 43.3% of patients in Arm A and in 40.0% in Arm B. Toxicities were increased in Arm B with higher rates of diarrhea, nausea, neutropenia, hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) and anorexia, Grad 3 and 4 toxicities were rare. Conclusions In this pre-planned interim analysis, paclitaxel-sorafenib combination therapy was not found to be superior to paclitaxel monotherapy with regard to the primary end point, progression-free survival. The trial was therefore discontinued early. There was no indication of more favorable outcomes for combination therapy in secondary efficacy end points. As expected, the safety and toxicity profile of the combination therapy was less favorable compared to monotherapy. Overall, this trial did not demonstrate that adding sorafenib to second- or third-line paclitaxel provides any clinical benefit to patients with HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Cautious dosing using a sorafenib ramp up schedule might have contributed to negative results. Trial registration The study was registered at EudraCT (No 2009–018025-73) and retrospectively registered at Clinical trials.gov on March 17, 2011 ( NCT01320111 ).

Previous studies indicated that signalling via CD95 and DR5 is greatly enhanced by the formation of ceramide-enriched membrane platforms. Here, we employed this concept to convert doses of subtherapeutic TRAIL that were unable to release ceramide and kill leukemic B-cells or ex vivo T lymphocytes, into a very effective apoptotic stimulus. Ceramide production was induced by application of sub-toxic doses of doxorubicin that resulted in an activation of the acid sphingomyelinase (ASM), release of ceramide and formation of ceramide-enriched membrane platforms. The latter served DR5 to cluster after application of very low doses of TRAIL in combination with doxorubicin. Genetic deficiency of the ASM abrogated doxorubicin-induced ceramide release, as well as clustering of DR5 and apoptosis induced by the combined treatment of doxorubicin and TRAIL. These data show that local release of ceramide potentiates very low, otherwise inactive doses of TRAIL that may represent a novel therapeutic concept to treat tumors.

Background This phase I/II-trial assessed the dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (RCT) with docetaxel and oxaliplatin in patients with locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastric junction. Methods Patients received neoadjuvant radiotherapy (50.4 Gy) together with weekly docetaxel (20 mg/m 2 at dose level (DL) 1 and 2, 25 mg/m 2 at DL 3) and oxaliplatin (40 mg/m 2 at DL 1, 50 mg/m 2 at DL 2 and 3) over 5 weeks. The primary endpoint was the DLT and the MTD of the RCT regimen. Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results A total of 24 patients were included. Four patients were treated at DL 1, 13 patients at DL 2 and 7 patients at DL 3. The MTD of the RCT was considered DL 2 with docetaxel 20 mg/m 2 and oxaliplatin 50 mg/m 2 . Objective response (CR/PR) was observed in 32% (7/22) of patients. Eighteen patients (75%) underwent surgery after RCT. The median PFS for all patients (n = 24) was 6.5 months. The median overall survival for all patients (n = 24) was 16.3 months. Patients treated at DL 2 had a median overall survival of 29.5 months. Conclusion Neoadjuvant RCT with docetaxel 20 mg/m 2 and oxaliplatin 50 mg/m 2 was effective and showed a good toxicity profile. Future studies should consider the addition of targeted therapies to current neoadjuvant therapy regimens to further improve the outcome of patients with advanced cancer of the oesophagogastric junction. Trial Registration NCT00374985

Gemcitabine plus a platinum-based agent (eg, cisplatin or oxaliplatin) is the standard of care for advanced biliary cancers. We investigated the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy in patients with advanced biliary cancers. In this non-comparative, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial, we recruited patients with locally advanced (non-resectable) or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder carcinoma, or ampullary carcinoma and a WHO performance status of 0 or 1 from 18 hospitals across France and Germany. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally with a minimisation procedure to first-line treatment with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) and oxaliplatin (100 mg/m2) with or without cetuximab (500 mg/m2), repeated every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified by centre, primary site of disease, disease stage, and previous treatment with curative intent or adjuvant therapy. Investigators who assessed treatment response were not masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who were progression-free at 4 months, analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00552149. Between Oct 10, 2007, and Dec 18, 2009, 76 patients were assigned to chemotherapy plus cetuximab and 74 to chemotherapy alone. 48 (63%; 95% CI 52–74) patients assigned to chemotherapy plus cetuximab and 40 (54%; 43–65) assigned to chemotherapy alone were progression-free at 4 months. Median progression-free survival was 6·1 months (95% CI 5·1–7·6) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group and 5·5 months (3·7–6·6) in the chemotherapy alone group. Median overall survival was 11·0 months (9·1–13·7) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group and 12·4 months (8·6–16·0) in the chemotherapy alone group. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were peripheral neuropathy (in 18 [24%] of 76 patients who received chemotherapy plus cetuximab vs ten [15%] of 68 who received chemotherapy alone), neutropenia (17 [22%] vs 11 [16%]), and increased aminotransferase concentrations (17 [22%] vs ten [15%]). 70 serious adverse events were reported in 39 (51%) of 76 patients who received chemotherapy plus cetuximab (34 events in 19 [25%] patients were treatment-related), whereas 41 serious adverse events were reported in 25 (35%) of 71 patients who received chemotherapy alone (20 events in 12 [17%] patients were treatment-related). One patient died of atypical pneumonia related to treatment in the chemotherapy alone group. The addition of cetuximab to gemcitabine and oxaliplatin did not seem to enhance the activity of chemotherapy in patients with advanced biliary cancer, although it was well tolerated. Gemcitabine and platinum-based combination should remain the standard treatment option. Institut National du Cancer, Merck Serono.

PurposeQuality of life (QoL) plays an important role in recovery—especially after an incisive diagnosis such as breast cancer. Here, we present a comprehensive assessment of QoL for pre- and postmenopausal patients, starting from initial systemic treatment of early breast cancer until 3 years later, in patients from a so-called “real-world” setting.Methods251 premenopausal and 478 postmenopausal patients with early breast cancer have been recruited into the longitudinal MaLife project within the prospective, multicentre, German Tumour Registry Breast Cancer between 2011 and 2015. The questionnaires FACT-G, FACT-Taxane, FACT-ES, EORTC QLQ-BR23, BFI and HADS were filled in at start of treatment (T0), 6, 12, 24 and 36 months later. The proportion of patients with clinically meaningful changes at 36 months was determined.ResultsThis first interim analysis shows that the FACT-G global QoL improved over time regardless of the menopausal status. However, clinically meaningful decrease of social/family well-being (48–51%), arm symptoms (44–49%) and symptoms of neurotoxicity (55–56%) was frequently reported 3 years after start of treatment. Many premenopausal patients also reported a clinically meaningful worsening of endocrine symptoms (64%), emotional well-being (36%) and fatigue intensity (37%). Additionally, 3 years after start of treatment, 15% of the patients were classified as doubtful cases and 18% as definite cases of anxiety.ConclusionsDespite improvements in global QoL, breast cancer survivors report worsened ailments 3 years after start of therapy. Follow-up care should distinguish between premenopausal patients needing special attention for emotional/menopausal issues, and postmenopausal patients needing particular care regarding physical concerns.

Background The FOLFOXIRI regimen (irinotecan, oxaliplatin, fluorouracil [5-FU] and folinic acid [FA]) increased the response rate and overall survival compared to FOLFIRI in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Adding cetuximab to FOLFOX or FOLFIRI increased efficacy in patients with k-ras wild type mCRC. We explored the dose limiting toxicity and feasibility of the combination cetuximab, irinotecan, oxaliplatin, 5-FU and FA in mCRC patients. Methods In a dose-escalation study patients with previously untreated mCRC and a WHO performance status 0–1 received cetuximab (500 mg/m 2 , 2 h), followed by irinotecan (95, 125, and 165 mg/m 2 in the dose levels [DL] 1, 2, and 3 respectively), followed by oxaliplatin (85 mg/m 2 , 2 h) which was given parallel to FA (400 mg/m 2 , 2 h) and followed by 5-FU (3200 mg/m 2 , 46 h) in an outpatient setting every two weeks. The primary endpoints were the maximum tolerable dose and the safety. The trial was approved by the local ethics committee. Results From 2007 to 2008, twenty patients were treated in this trial. In the first dose level (irinotecan 95 mg/m 2 ) one patient developed neutropenia grade 4. One patient experienced diarrhoea grade 3 as DLT in dose level 2 (irinotecan 125 mg/m 2 ). In dose level 3 (irinotecan 165 mg/m 2 ), three patients experienced a DLT (diarrhoea grade 3 and two patients with neutropenia grade 4). Thus, the recommended dose for a phase II trial is 125 mg/m 2 irinotecan in combination with oxaliplatin, 5-FU/FA and cetuximab. Most common grade ≥3 toxicities were neutropenia (40%), diarrhoea (25%) and acne-like rash (15%). No therapy associated death occurred. The confirmed overall response rate in all cohorts was 75% (95%-CI 51-91%). The best response was reached after a median of 3.0 (95%-CI 2.2 to 3.7) months. Median progression free survival (PFS) is 16 (95%-CI 12.6-19.4) months, overall survival (OS) 33 (95%-CI 26.2-39.8) months. Conclusions The combination of cetuximab and FOLFOXIRIis feasible and has an acceptable toxicity profile in patients with a good performance status. The observed clinical activity with a confirmed response rate of 75% is promising and further evaluated in the ongoing CELIM2. Trial registration http://www.clinicaltrials.gov : NCT00422773 .

Objective In recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC), there is a high demand on effective therapies with a mild toxicity profile. Treosulfan is an alkylating agent approved as oral (p.o.) and intravenous (i.v.) formulation for the treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer. Data on safety and efficacy for either formulation are rare. For the first time we conducted a randomized phase III study comparing both formulations in women with ROC. Methods Patients having received at least two previous lines of chemotherapy were randomly assigned to one of two treatment arms: treosulfan i.v. 7000 mg/m 2 d1 q4w or treosulfan p.o. 600 mg/m 2 d1-28 q8w. Primary endpoint was safety regarding hematological and gastrointestinal toxicity grade III/IV, secondary endpoints were other toxicities, clinical benefit rate (CBR), time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS) and quality of life. Results 250 patients were treated with treosulfan i.v. (128) or treosulfan p.o. (122). In general treosulfan therapy was well tolerated in both treatment arms. Leukopenia grade III/IV occurred significantly more frequently in the p.o. arm (3.9% i.v. arm, 14.8% p.o. arm, p  = 0.002). Other toxicities were similar in both arms. CBR was comparable between arms (41.4% i.v. arm, 36.9% p.o. arm). No difference in TTP (3.7 months i.v. arm, 3.5 months p.o. arm) or OS (13.6 months i.v. arm, 10.4 months p.o. arm, p  = 0.087) occurred. Conclusions Given the safety and efficacy results treosulfan is an acceptable option for heavily pretreated OC patients. Regarding the toxicity profile the i.v. application was better tolerated with less grade III and IV toxicities.

Bevacizumab-resistant tumor vessels were characterized by an increased vessel diameter and normalization of vascular structures by the recruitment of mature pericytes and smooth muscle cells. Here, we analyzed human liver metastases which were taken at clinical relapse in patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma treated with anti-angiogenic therapy using the humanized monoclonal anti-VEGF bevacizumab. Tumor vessels which are resistant to anti-VEGF therapy are increased in size and characterized by a normalization of the vascular bed. These results were confirmed using NOD SCID mice as animal model and xenograft transplantation of human PC-3 prostate carcinoma cells in combination with bevacizumab treatment. Our results confirmed that anti-angiogenic therapy results in enhanced vascular remodeling by vascular stabilization. This process is apparently accompanied by enhanced necrosis of tumor tissue. These processes interfere with the efficacy of anti-angiogenic therapy because of reduced susceptibility of stabilized vessels by this therapy. These results demonstrate the importance for the development of second generation anti-angiogenic combination therapy concepts to rule out the balance between vascular stabilization followed by a possible de-stabilization making the remained vessels susceptible to a second wave of anti-angiogenic therapy.

Summary Background To evaluate the safety and tolerability of two different weekly doses of the fully humanized epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeting monoclonal antibody matuzumab combined with high-dose 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and cisplatin (PLF) in the first-line treatment of patients with EGFR-positive advanced gastric and esophagogastric adenocarcinomas. Methods Patients were treated in two matuzumab dose groups with the first cohort of patients receiving 400 mg matuzumab in combination with PLF. Based on the safety observations the next cohort of patients received 800 mg matuzumab. The study was conducted in two parts, with phase A, designed to assess the safety and tolerability of the combination, and phase B designed to be a treatment continuation for those patients benefiting from treatment. Treatment cycles were 7 weeks each. Each patient received the dose of matuzumab they were assigned to at study entry for the duration of the study. Results Fifteen EGFR-positive patients were enrolled into the two matuzumab dose groups; 400 mg dose n = 7; 800 mg dose n = 8. All patients experienced at least one adverse event (AE). No patient experienced any serious AE which was considered to be related to matuzumab. Two grade 3 AEs possibly related to matuzumab occurred in 2 different patients (13.3 %), both in the 800 mg dose group. No dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was observed in the 400 mg group. The maximum tolerated dose of matuzumab was not reached. The best confirmed overall response rate was 26.7 %. Conclusion Matuzumab, in combination with PLF, demonstrated an acceptable safety profile with modest anti-tumor activity.