Explore the vast range of titles available.

Capivasertib (AZD5363) is a potent selective oral inhibitor of all three isoforms of the serine/threonine kinase AKT. The FAKTION trial investigated whether the addition of capivasertib to fulvestrant improved progression-free survival in patients with aromatase inhibitor-resistant advanced breast cancer. In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, postmenopausal women aged at least 18 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2 and oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic or locally advanced inoperable breast cancer who had relapsed or progressed on an aromatase inhibitor were recruited from 19 hospitals in the UK. Enrolled participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (day 1) every 28 days (plus a loading dose on day 15 of cycle 1) with either capivasertib 400 mg or matching placebo, orally twice daily on an intermittent weekly schedule of 4 days on and 3 days off (starting on cycle 1 day 15) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, loss to follow-up, or withdrawal of consent. Treatment allocation was done using an interactive web-response system using a minimisation method (with a 20% random element) and the following minimisation factors: measurable or non-measurable disease, primary or secondary aromatase inhibitor resistance, PIK3CA status, and PTEN status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival with a one-sided alpha of 0·20. Analyses were done by intention to treat. Recruitment is complete, and the trial is in follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01992952. Between March 16, 2015, and March 6, 2018, 183 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 140 (76%) were eligible and were randomly assigned to receive fulvestrant plus capivasertib (n=69) or fulvestrant plus placebo (n=71). Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 4·9 months (IQR 1·6–11·6). At the time of primary analysis for progression-free survival (Jan 30, 2019), 112 progression-free survival events had occurred, 49 (71%) in 69 patients in the capivasertib group compared with 63 (89%) of 71 in the placebo group. Median progression-free survival was 10·3 months (95% CI 5·0–13·2) in the capivasertib group versus 4·8 months (3·1–7·7) in the placebo group, giving an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0·58 (95% CI 0·39–0·84) in favour of the capivasertib group (two-sided p=0·0044; one-sided log rank test p=0·0018). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were hypertension (22 [32%] of 69 patients in the capivasertib group vs 17 [24%] of 71 in the placebo group), diarrhoea (ten [14%] vs three [4%]), rash (14 [20%] vs 0), infection (four [6%] vs two [3%]), and fatigue (one [1%] vs three [4%]). Serious adverse reactions occurred only in the capivasertib group, and were acute kidney injury (two), diarrhoea (three), rash (two), hyperglycaemia (one), loss of consciousness (one), sepsis (one), and vomiting (one). One death, due to atypical pulmonary infection, was assessed as possibly related to capivasertib treatment. One further death in the capivasertib group had an unknown cause; all remaining deaths in both groups (19 in the capivasertib group and 31 in the placebo group) were disease related. Progression-free survival was significantly longer in participants who received capivasertib than in those who received placebo. The combination of capivasertib and fulvestrant warrants further investigation in phase 3 trials. AstraZeneca and Cancer Research UK.

Capivasertib, an AKT inhibitor, added to fulvestrant, was previously reported to improve progression-free survival in women with aromatase inhibitor-resistant oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. The benefit appeared to be independent of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)/AKT/phosphatase and tensin homologue (PTEN) pathway alteration status of tumours, as ascertained using assays available at the time. Here, we report updated progression-free survival and overall survival results, and a prespecified examination of the effect of PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway alterations identified by an expanded genetic testing panel on treatment outcomes. This randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial recruited postmenopausal adult women aged at least 18 years with ER-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic or locally advanced inoperable breast cancer and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, who had relapsed or progressed on an aromatase inhibitor, from across 19 hospitals in the UK. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (day 1) every 28 days (plus a 500 mg loading dose on day 15 of cycle 1) with either capivasertib 400 mg or matching placebo, orally twice daily on an intermittent weekly schedule of 4 days on and 3 days off, starting on cycle 1 day 15. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, loss to follow-up, or withdrawal of consent. Treatment was allocated by an interactive web-response system using a minimisation method (with a 20% random element) and the following minimisation factors: measurable or non-measurable disease, primary or secondary aromatase inhibitor resistance, PIK3CA status, and PTEN status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints shown in this Article were overall survival and safety in the intention-to-treat population, and the effect of tumour PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway status identified by an expanded testing panel that included next-generation sequencing assays. Recruitment is complete. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01992952. Between March 16, 2015, and March 6, 2018, 183 participants were screened for eligibility and 140 (77%) were randomly assigned to receive fulvestrant plus capivasertib (n=69) or fulvestrant plus placebo (n=71). Median follow-up at the data cut-off of Nov 25, 2021, was 58·5 months (IQR 45·9–64·1) for participants treated with fulvestrant plus capivasertib and 62·3 months (IQR 62·1–70·3) for fulvestrant plus placebo. Updated median progression-free survival was 10·3 months (95% CI 5·0–13·4) in the group receiving fulvestrant plus capivasertib compared with 4·8 months (3·1–7·9) for fulvestrant plus placebo (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·56 [95% CI 0·38–0·81]; two-sided p=0·0023). Median overall survival in the capivasertib versus placebo groups was 29·3 months (95% CI 23·7–39·0) versus 23·4 months (18·7–32·7; adjusted HR 0·66 [95% CI 0·45–0·97]; two-sided p=0·035). The expanded biomarker panel identified an expanded pathway-altered subgroup that contained 76 participants (54% of the intention-to-treat population). Median progression-free survival in the expanded pathway-altered subgroup for participants receiving capivasertib (n=39) was 12·8 months (95% CI 6·6–18·8) compared with 4·6 months (2·8–7·9) in the placebo group (n=37; adjusted HR 0·44 [95% CI 0·26–0·72]; two-sided p=0·0014). Median overall survival for the expanded pathway-altered subgroup receiving capivasertib was 38·9 months (95% CI 23·3–50·7) compared with 20·0 months (14·8–31·4) for those receiving placebo (adjusted HR 0·46 [95% CI 0·27–0·79]; two-sided p=0·0047). By contrast, there were no statistically significant differences in progression-free or overall survival in the expanded pathway non-altered subgroup treated with capivasertib (n=30) versus placebo (n=34). One additional serious adverse event (pneumonia) in the capivasertib group had occurred subsequent to the primary analysis. One death, due to atypical pulmonary infection, was assessed as possibly related to capivasertib treatment. Updated FAKTION data showed that capivasertib addition to fulvestrant extends the survival of participants with aromatase inhibitor-resistant ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. The expanded biomarker testing suggested that capivasertib predominantly benefits patients with PI3K/AKT/PTEN pathway-altered tumours. Phase 3 data are needed to substantiate the results, including in patients with previous CDK4/6 inhibitor exposure who were not included in the FAKTION trial. AstraZeneca and Cancer Research UK.

Oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy is the standard of care for stage III colon cancer. Adjuvant capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin versus leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin has not been directly compared; therefore, we aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety of these treatments using individual patient data pooled from four randomised controlled trials. We also assessed post-relapse survival, which has been postulated to be worse in patients receiving adjuvant oxaliplatin. Patients with resected stage III colon cancer who were 18 years of age or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, from four randomised controlled trials (NSABP C-08, XELOXA, X-ACT, and AVANT; 8734 patients in total) were pooled and analysed. The treatment regimens included in our analyses were: XELOX (oxaliplatin and capecitabine); leucovorin and fluorouracil; capecitabine; FOLFOX-4 (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin); and modified FOLFOX-6 (mFOLFOX-6). Disease-free survival was the primary endpoint for all trials that supplied patients for this analysis. Here, we compared disease-free, relapse-free, and overall survival between the patient groups who received capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin and those who received leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin. Post-relapse survival was compared between the combined XELOX and FOLFOX groups, and the leucovorin and fluorouracil groups. Post-relapse survival was also compared between the capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin and leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin groups. Disease-free survival did not differ significantly between patients who received leucovorin and fluorouracil versus those who received capecitabine in adjusted analyses (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02 [0·93–1·11; p=0·72]) or in unadjusted analyses (HR 1·01 [95% CI 0·92–1·10; p=0·86]). Relapse-free survival was similar (adjusted HR 1·02 [0·93–1·12; p=0·72] and unadjusted HR 1·01 [95% CI 0·92–1·11; p=0·86]), as was overall survival (adjusted HR 1·04 [95% CI 0·93–1·15; p=0·50] and unadjusted HR 1·02 [0·92–1·14]; p=0·65). For overall survival, a significant interaction between oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine was recorded in the multiple Cox regression analysis (p=0·014). Post-relapse survival was similar in adjusted (p=0·23) and unadjusted analyses (p=0·33) for the comparison of XELOX or FOLFOX versus leucovorin and fluorouracil, and was also similar for capecitabine-based regimens versus leucovorin and fluorouracil-based regimens (unadjusted p=0·26). Combination therapy with oxaliplatin provided consistently improved outcomes without adversely affecting post-relapse survival in the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer, irrespective of whether the fluoropyrimidine backbone was capecitabine or leucovorin and fluorouracil. These data add to the existing evidence that oxaliplatin plus capecitabine or leucovorin and fluorouracil is the standard of care for the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer, and offers physicians flexibility to treat patients according to the patients' overall physical performance and preference. Genentech Inc.

Treatments with survival benefit are greatly needed for women with heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer. Eribulin mesilate is a non-taxane microtubule dynamics inhibitor with a novel mode of action. We aimed to compare overall survival of heavily pretreated patients receiving eribulin versus currently available treatments. In this phase 3 open-label study, women with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer were randomly allocated (2:1) to eribulin mesilate (1·4 mg/m 2 administered intravenously during 2–5 min on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle) or treatment of physician's choice (TPC). Patients had received between two and five previous chemotherapy regimens (two or more for advanced disease), including an anthracycline and a taxane, unless contraindicated. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region, previous capecitabine treatment, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00388726. 762 women were randomly allocated to treatment groups (508 eribulin, 254 TPC). Overall survival was significantly improved in women assigned to eribulin (median 13·1 months, 95% CI 11·8–14·3) compared with TPC (10·6 months, 9·3–12·5; hazard ratio 0·81, 95% CI 0·66–0·99; p=0·041). The most common adverse events in both groups were asthenia or fatigue (270 [54%] of 503 patients on eribulin and 98 [40%] of 247 patients on TPC at all grades) and neutropenia (260 [52%] patients receiving eribulin and 73 [30%] of those on TPC at all grades). Peripheral neuropathy was the most common adverse event leading to discontinuation from eribulin, occurring in 24 (5%) of 503 patients. Eribulin showed a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival compared with TPC in women with heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer. This finding challenges the notion that improved overall survival is an unrealistic expectation during evaluation of new anticancer therapies in the refractory setting. Eisai.

Prediction of response to anthracycline-based therapy for breast cancer is challenging. We aimed to assess the value of HER2 and TOP2A as predictive markers of response to anthracycline-based adjuvant therapy in patients with early breast cancer. We did a meta-analysis of individual patient data from five randomised adjuvant trials that compared anthracycline-based regimens with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) regimens. We assessed the status of HER2 and TOP2A genes with fluorescent in-situ hybridisation. Tumour samples were submitted to an external laboratory for validation. We calculated hazard ratios (HR) to compare event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival in patients receiving anthracycline-based treatment with those receiving CMF in two HER2 cohorts ( HER2 amplified and non-amplified tumours) and in three TOP2A cohorts (normal, amplified, and deleted tumours). We analysed data for 3452 patients for HER2 and 3102 patients for TOP2A. For EFS, HRs were 0·89 (95% CI 0·79–1·01) for HER2 non-amplified patients and 0·71 (0·58–0·86) for HER2-amplified patients (p interaction=0·0485); for overall survival, HRs were 0·91 (95% CI 0·79–1·05) for HER2 non-amplified patients and 0·73 (0·59–0·89) for HER2-amplified patients (p interaction=0·0718). In analysis of TOP2A status, HRs for EFS were 0·88 (0·78–1·00) for normal, 0·63 (0·46–0·87) for deleted, and 0·62 (0·43–0·90) for amplified (p interaction=0·0513); HRs for overall survival were 0·89 (0·78–1·03) for normal, 0·68 (0·49–0·95) for deleted, and 0·67 (0·46–0·98) for amplified (p interaction=0·1608). When patients with TOP2A-deleted and TOP2A-amplified tumours were grouped together (altered cohort) and compared with data from patients with normal TOP2A tumours, HRs for EFS were 0·64 (0·50–0·81) for altered and 0·88 (0·78–1·00) for normal (p interaction=0·0183); HRs for overall survival were 0·67 (0·52–0·86) for altered and 0·89 (0·78–1·03) for normal (p interaction=0·0455). Although HER2 amplification and combined TOP2A amplification and deletion may have some value in the prediction of responsiveness to anthracycline-based chemotherapy, our findings do not support the use of anthracyclines only in patients with HER2-amplified or TOP2A-aberrated tumours. Associazione Italiana Ricerca Cancro, Academy of Finland, Belgian Federation Against Cancer, Cancer Research UK, Les Amis de l'Institut Bordet, Scottish Breast Cancer Trials Group, NCIC Clinical Trials Group, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Danish Council for Strategic Research, Pharmacia-Upjohn (now Pfizer), and Abbott Laboratories.

The standard combination of intravenous fluorouracil plus leucovorin for adjuvant treatment of colon cancer was compared with the oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine in almost 2000 patients with resected colon cancer. With disease-free survival as the primary end point, capecitabine was at least as effective as fluorouracil plus leucovorin. The oral drug had fewer side effects than the intravenous combination. With disease-free survival as the primary end point, capecitabine was at least as effective as fluorouracil plus leucovorin. The oral drug had fewer side effects than the intravenous combination. Almost 1 million patients receive a diagnosis of colorectal cancer yearly, and half a million deaths from this neoplasm occur annually worldwide. 1 Each year, approximately 230,000 patients with colon cancer are eligible for adjuvant chemotherapy. 1 – 3 The benefits of fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy in reducing the risk of relapse and prolonging survival in patients with resected colon cancer are well established, particularly in stage III disease. 4 – 6 Survival advantages were demonstrated with bolus intravenous fluorouracil plus leucovorin administered according to the Mayo Clinic regimen (five days, monthly, for six months) or the Roswell Park regimen (weekly bolus, six of every eight . . .

The NEAT/BR9601 trial showed benefit for addition of anthracyclines to cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) as adjuvant treatment for early breast cancer. We investigated prospectively predictive biomarkers of anthracycline benefit including HER2 and TOP2A. 1941 tumours from 2391 women recruited to NEAT/BR9601 were analysed on tissue microarrays for HER2 and TOP2A amplification and deletion, HER1–3 and Ki67 expression, and duplication of chromosome 17 centromere enumeration probe (Ch17CEP). Log-rank analyses identified factors affecting relapse-free and overall survival, and regression models tested independent prognostic effect of markers, with adjustment for known prognostic factors (age, nodal status, oestrogen-receptor status, grade, and tumour size). The predictive value of markers was tested by treatment interactions for relapse-free and overall survival. 1762 patients were analysed. 21% of tumours (n=367) were HER2 amplified, 10% were TOP2A amplified (n=169), 11% showed TOP2A deleted (n=191), 23% showed Ch17CEP duplication (n=406), and 61% had high (>13·0%) Ki67 (n=1136). In univariate analyses, only HER2 amplification and TOP2A deletion were significant prognostic factors for relapse-free (hazard ratio [HR] 1·59, 95% CI 1·32–1·92, p<0·0001; and 1·52, 1·20–1·92, p=0·0006, respectively) and overall survival (1·79, 1·47–2·19, p<0·0001; and 1·62, 1·26–2·08, p=0·0002 respectively). We detected no significant interaction with anthracycline benefit for Ki67, HER2, HER1–3, or TOP2A. By contrast, in multivariate analyses, Ch17CEP duplication was associated with significant improvements in both relapse-free (HR 0·92, 95% CI 0·72–1·18 for tumours with normal Ch17CEP vs 0·52, 0·34–0·81 for tumours with abnormal Ch17CEP; p for interaction=0·004) and overall survival (0·94, 0·72–1·24 vs 0·57, 0·36–0·92; p for interaction=0·02) with anthracycline use. In women with early breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, the most powerful predictor of benefit from anthracyclines is Ch17CEP duplication. In view of the location of HER2/TOP2A on chromosome 17, Ch17CEP duplication might explain the inconsistencies in previous studies of factors predicting benefit from anthracyclines. Cancer Research UK and the Scottish Breast Cancer Clinical Trials Group.

Prior pooled analysis of eribulin studies (301 and 305) indicated eribulin prolonged overall survival (OS) in patients with locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer (MBC) regardless of visceral or nonvisceral disease. This hypothesis-generating post hoc analysis examined the efficacy of eribulin according to the location of metastatic sites at baseline in 1864 pretreated patients with locally advanced/MBC from studies 301 and 305. Analyses included OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate; OS and PFS were also analyzed according to estrogen-receptor status. Eribulin appeared efficacious in patients with locally advanced/MBC, irrespective of the location of metastases at baseline. A nominally significant difference in OS in favor of patients randomized to eribulin compared with control in patients with bone, lymph node, and chest wall/breast/skin metastases at baseline was observed. Additionally, a difference in OS was also seen in patients with liver metastases randomized to eribulin versus control (median: 13.4 versus 11.3 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.84 [95% CI: 0.72, 0.97]). Results of this exploratory analysis suggest that eribulin may be efficacious for the treatment of locally advanced/MBC for patients with bone, liver, lung, lymph node, and chest wall/breast/skin metastases.

New options are needed for patients with heavily pretreated breast cancer. Etirinotecan pegol is a long-acting topoisomerase-I inhibitor that prolongs exposure to, but reduces the toxicity of, SN38 (the active metabolite of irinotecan). We assessed whether etirinotecan pegol is superior to currently available treatments for patients with previously treated, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. In this open-label, multicentre, randomised phase 3 study (BEACON; BrEAst Cancer Outcomes with NKTR-102), conducted at 135 sites in 11 countries, patients with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline, a taxane, and capecitabine (and two to five previous regimens for advanced disease) were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally via an interactive response system to etirinotecan pegol (145 mg/m2 as a 90-min intravenous infusion every 3 weeks) or single-drug treatment of physician's choice. Patients with stable brain metastases and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1 were eligible. Randomisation was stratified with a permuted block scheme by region, previous eribulin, and receptor status. After randomisation, patients and investigators were aware of treatment assignments. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01492101. Between Dec 19, 2011, and Aug 20, 2013, 852 patients were randomly assigned; 429 to etirinotecan pegol and 423 to treatment of physician's choice. There was no significant difference in overall survival between groups (median 12·4 months [95% CI 11·0–13·6] for the etirinotecan pegol group vs 10·3 months [9·0–11·3] for the treatment of physician's choice group; hazard ratio 0·87 [95% CI 0·75–1·02]; p=0·084). The safety population includes the 831 patients who received at least one dose of assigned treatment (425 assigned to etirinotecan pegol and 406 to treatment of physician's choice). Serious adverse events were recorded for 128 (30%) patients treated with etirinotecan pegol and 129 (32%) treated with treatment of physician's choice. Fewer patients in the etirinotecan pegol group had grade 3 or worse toxicity than those in the treatment of physician's choice group (204 [48%] vs 256 [63%]; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were diarrhoea (41 [10%] in the experimental group vs five [1%] in the control group), neutropenia (41 [10%] vs 125 [31%]), and peripheral neuropathy (two [<1%] vs 15 [4%]). Three patients in the etirinotecan pegol group died of treatment-related adverse events (pneumonia, myelodysplastic syndrome, and acute renal failure) and two in the treatment of physician's choice group (neutropenic sepsis and septic shock). This trial did not demonstrate an improvement in overall survival for etirinotecan pegol compared to treatment of physician's choice in patients with heavily pre-treated advanced breast cancer. The toxicity profile noted in the etirinotecan pegol group differed from that in the control group. In view of the frequency of cross-resistance and overlapping toxicities noted with many available drugs and the need for effective drugs in highly refractory disease, etirinotecan pegol may warrant further research in some subgroups of patients. Nektar Therapeutics.

Background Study aimed to characterise treatment and outcomes for patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor 2 negative (HER2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) within a large regional cancer centre, as a benchmark for evaluating real-world impact of novel therapies. Methods Retrospective longitudinal cohort, using electronic patient records of adult females with a first diagnosis of HR+/HER2- MBC January 2012–March 2018. Results One hundred ninety-six women were identified with HR+/HER2- MBC. Median age was 67 years, 85.2% were post-menopausal and median time between primary diagnosis and metastasis was 5.4 years. Most (75.1%) patients received endocrine therapy as first line systemic treatment (1st LoT); use of 1st LoT chemotherapy halved between 2012 and 2017. Patients receiving 1st LoT chemotherapy were younger and more likely to have visceral metastasis ( p  < 0.01). Median OS was 29.5 months and significantly greater for patients with exclusively non-visceral metastasis ( p  < 0.01). The adjusted hazard ratio for death of patients with visceral (or CNS) metastasis was 1.91 relative to those with exclusively non-visceral metastasis. Conclusions Diverse endocrine therapies predominate as 1st LoT for patients with HR+/HER2- MBC, chemotherapy being associated with more aggressive disease in younger patients, emphasising the importance of using effective and tolerable therapies early.