Explore the vast range of titles available.

Glioblastoma is a highly vascularised tumour and there are few treatment options after disease recurrence. Regorafenib is an oral multikinase inhibitor of angiogenic, stromal, and oncogenic receptor tyrosine kinases. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of regorafenib in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma. REGOMA is a randomised, multicentre, open-label phase 2 trial done in ten centres in Italy. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed glioblastoma, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1, and documented disease progression after surgery followed by radiotherapy and temozolomide chemoradiotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1) by a web-based system, stratified by centre and surgery at recurrence (yes vs no), to receive regorafenib 160 mg once daily for the first 3 weeks of each 4-week cycle or lomustine 110 mg/m2 once every 6 weeks until disease progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02926222, and is currently in follow-up. Between Nov 27, 2015, and Feb 23, 2017, 124 patients were screened and 119 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive regorafenib (n=59) or lomustine (n=60). Median follow-up was 15·4 months (IQR 13·8–18·1). At the analysis cutoff date, 99 (83%) of 119 patients had died: 42 (71%) of 59 in the regorafenib group and 57 (95%) of 60 in the lomustine group. Overall survival was significantly improved in the regorafenib group compared with the lomustine group, with a median overall survival of 7·4 months (95% CI 5·8–12·0) in the regorafenib group and 5·6 months (4·7–7·3) in the lomustine group (hazard ratio 0·50, 95% CI 0·33–0·75; log-rank p=0·0009). Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 33 (56%) of 59 patients treated with regorafenib and 24 (40%) of 60 with lomustine. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to regorafenib were hand–foot skin reaction, increased lipase, and blood bilirubin increased (in six [10%] of 59 patients each). In the lomustine group, the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were decreased platelet count (eight [13%] of 60 patients), decreased lymphocyte count (eight [13%]), and neutropenia (seven [12%]). No death was considered by the investigators to be drug related. REGOMA showed an encouraging overall survival benefit of regorafenib in recurrent glioblastoma. This drug might be a new potential treatment for these patients and should be investigated in an adequately powered phase 3 study. Veneto Institute of Oncology and Bayer Italy.

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 .).

Treatment for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia who are elderly or who have comorbidities is challenging because fludarabine-based chemoimmunotherapies are mostly not suitable. Chlorambucil remains the standard of care in many countries. We aimed to investigate whether the addition of ofatumumab to chlorambucil could lead to better clinical outcomes than does treatment with chlorambucil alone, while also being tolerable for patients who have few treatment options. We carried out a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial for treatment-naive patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in 109 centres in 16 countries. We included patients who had active disease needing treatment, but in whom fludarabine-based treatment was not possible. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to receive oral chlorambucil (10 mg/m2) on days 1–7 of a 28 day treatment course or to receive chlorambucil by this schedule plus intravenous ofatumumab (cycle 1: 300 mg on day 1 and 1000 mg on day 8; subsequent cycles: 1000 mg on day 1) for three to 12 cycles. Assignment was done with a randomisation list that was computer generated at GlaxoSmithKline, and was stratified, in a block size of two, by age, disease stage, and performance status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population and assessment was done by an independent review committee that was masked to group assignment. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00748189. We enrolled 447 patients, median age 69 years (range 35–92). Between Dec 22, 2008, and May 26, 2011, we randomly assigned 221 patients to chlorambucil plus ofatumumab and 226 patients to chlorambucil alone. Median progression-free survival was 22·4 months (95% CI 19·0–25·2) in the group assigned to chlorambucil plus ofatumumab compared with 13·1 months (10·6–13·8) in the group assigned to chlorambucil only (hazard ratio 0·57, 95% CI 0·45–0·72; p<0·0001). Grade 3 or greater adverse events were more common in the chlorambucil plus ofatumumab group (109 [50%] patients; vs 98 [43%] given chlorambucil alone), with neutropenia being the most common event (56 [26%] vs 32 [14%]). Grade 3 or greater infections had similar frequency in both groups. Grade 3 or greater infusion-related adverse events were reported in 22 (10%) patients given chlorambucil plus ofatumumab. Five (2%) patients died during treatment in each group. Addition of ofatumumab to chlorambucil led to clinically important improvements with a manageable side-effect profile in treatment-naive patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia who were elderly or had comorbidities. Chlorambucil plus ofatumumab is therefore an important treatment option for these patients who cannot tolerate more intensive therapy. GlaxoSmithKline, Genmab A/S.

In patients 65 or younger with multiple myeloma, high-dose consolidation therapy was associated with longer survival and more myelotoxicity than conventional-dose therapy. Lenalidomide maintenance improved progression-free survival but not overall survival. High-dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem-cell transplantation, as compared with conventional chemotherapy, prolongs progression-free survival and overall survival among patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. 1 – 4 and it is currently the standard of care for patients who are younger than 65 years of age. However, since autologous stem-cell transplantation has substantial toxic effects and requires prolonged hospitalization, the comparison with less toxic, orally administered treatments is important. Immunomodulatory drugs and proteasome inhibitors have significantly improved outcomes in patients, regardless of whether they are eligible for transplantation. 5 – 18 These improvements have raised questions about the role of transplantation in comparison with conventional . . .

Ipilimumab has been shown to improve survival in patients with previously treated metastatic melanoma. In this study, ipilimumab plus dacarbazine improved survival in patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma. The survival rate for patients with metastatic melanoma is low, with an expected 2-year survival rate of 10 to 20%. 1 – 3 Although dacarbazine has never been shown to improve survival in randomized, controlled studies, it has been the drug most frequently compared with new agents or combination therapies in randomized trials involving patients with melanoma. 4 , 5 High-dose interleukin-2 is associated with durable, complete responses, with a survival benefit, in a small subgroup of patients with metastatic melanoma. 6 , 7 Ipilimumab, a fully human, IgG1 monoclonal antibody, blocks cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4), a negative regulator of T cells, and thereby augments . . .

Bevacizumab is frequently used in the treatment of recurrent WHO grade II and III glioma, but without supporting evidence from randomised trials. Therefore, we assessed the use of bevacizumab in patients with first recurrence of grade II or III glioma who did not have 1p/19q co-deletion. The TAVAREC trial was a randomised, open-label phase 2 trial done at 32 centres across Europe in patients with locally diagnosed grade II or III glioma without 1p/19q co-deletion, with a first and contrast-enhancing recurrence after initial radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or both. Previous chemotherapy must have been stopped at least 6 months before enrolment and radiotherapy must have been stopped at least 3 months before enrolment. Random group assignment was done electronically through the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer web-based system, stratified by a minimisation procedure using institution, initial histology (WHO grade II vs III), WHO performance status (0 or 1 vs 2), and previous treatment (radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or both). Patients were assigned to receive either temozolomide (150–200 mg/m2, orally) monotherapy on days 1–5 every 4 weeks for a maximum of 12 cycles, or the same temozolomide regimen in combination with bevacizumab (10 mg/kg, intravenously) every 2 weeks until progression. The primary endpoint was overall survival at 12 months in the per-protocol population. Safety analyses were done in all patients who started their allocated treatment. The study is registered at EudraCT (2009–017422–39) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01164189), and is complete. Between Feb 8, 2011, and July 31, 2015, 155 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either monotherapy (n=77) or combination therapy (n=78). Overall survival in the per-protocol population at 12 months was achieved by 44 (61% [80% CI 53–69]) of 72 patients in the temozolomide group and 38 (55% [47–69]) of 69 in the combination group. The most frequent toxicity was haematological: 17 (23%) of 75 patients in the monotherapy group and 25 (33%) of 76 in the combination group developed grade 3 or 4 haematological toxicity. Other than haematological toxicities, the most common adverse events were nervous system disorders (59 [79%] of 75 patients in the monotherapy group vs 65 [86%] of 76 in the combination group), fatigue (53 [70%] vs 61 [80%]), and nausea (39 [52%] vs 43 [56%]). Infections were more frequently reported in the combination group (29 [38%] of 76 patients) than in the monotherapy group (17 [23%] of 75). One treatment-related death was reported in the combination group (infection after intratumoral haemorrhage during a treatment-related grade 4 thrombocytopenia). We found no evidence of improved overall survival with bevacizumab and temozolomide combination treatment versus temozolomide monotherapy. The findings from this study provide no support for further phase 3 studies on the role of bevacizumab in this disease. Roche Pharmaceuticals.

Patients with metastatic melanoma, 50% of whose tumours harbour a BRAF mutation, have a poor prognosis. Selumetinib, a MEK1/2 inhibitor, has shown antitumour activity in patients with BRAF-mutant melanoma and in preclinical models when combined with chemotherapy. This study was designed to look for a signal of improved efficacy by comparing the combination of selumetinib and dacarbazine with dacarbazine alone. This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 study investigated selumetinib plus dacarbazine versus placebo plus dacarbazine as first-line treatment in patients older than 18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced BRAF-mutant cutaneous or unknown primary melanoma. Patients were randomly assigned by central interactive voice response system (1:1 ratio, block size four) to take either oral selumetinib (75 mg twice daily in a 21-day cycle) or placebo; all patients received intravenous dacarbazine (1000 mg/m2 on day 1 of a 21-day cycle). Patients, investigators, and the study team were masked to the treatment assigned. The primary endpoint was overall survival analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00936221. Between July 20, 2009, and April 8, 2010, 91 patients were randomly assigned to receive dacarbazine in combination with selumetinib (n=45) or placebo (n=46). Overall survival did not differ significantly between groups (median 13·9 months, 80% CI 10·2–15·6, in the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group and 10·5 months, 9·6–14·7, in the placebo plus dacarbazine group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·93, 80% CI 0·67–1·28, one-sided p=0·39). However, progression-free survival was significantly improved in the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group versus the placebo plus dacarbazine group (HR 0·63, 80% CI 0·47–0·84, one-sided p=0·021), with a median of 5·6 months (80% CI 4·9–5·9) versus 3·0 months (2·8–4·6), respectively. The most frequent adverse events included nausea (28 [64%] of 44 patients on selumetinib vs 25 [56%] of 45 on placebo), acneiform dermatitis (23 [52%] vs one [2%]), diarrhoea (21 [48%] vs 13 [29%]), vomiting (21 [48%] vs 15 [33%]), and peripheral oedema (19 [43%] vs three [7%]). The most common grade 3–4 adverse event was neutropenia (six [14%] patients in the selumetinib plus dacarbazine group vs four [9%] in the placebo plus dacarbazine group). Selumetinib plus dacarbazine showed clinical activity in patients with BRAF-mutant cutaneous or unknown primary melanoma, reflected by a significant benefit in progression-free survival compared with placebo plus dacarbazine group, although no significant change in overall survival was noted. The tolerability of this combination was generally consistent with monotherapy safety profiles. AstraZeneca.

The benefit or harm of trabectedin discontinuation in patients with non-progressive soft-tissue sarcoma remains unclear. We report the final analysis of a phase 2 trial investigating the clinical benefit of continuation of trabectedin treatment until progression versus interruption of therapy after six treatment cycles in patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma. For this open-label, non-comparative, multicentre, phase 2 study, eligible adult patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcomas, who had previously received doxorubicin-based chemotherapy and were able to receive trabectedin, were enrolled from 14 centres of the French Sarcoma Group. Trabectedin was administered at a dose of 1·5 mg/m2 through a central venous line as a 24-h continuous infusion every 3 weeks. After the initial six cycles of trabectedin, patients who were free from progressive disease were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio either to continuous treatment or therapy interruption. Randomisation was done centrally by a computer-generated system using permuted blocks of four patients, stratified by tumour grade and performance status. Patients allocated to the interruption group were allowed to restart trabectedin in case of progressive disease. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 6 months after randomisation, analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01303094. In 178 evaluable patients, 91 (51%) patients had not progressed after six cycles. Of these patients, 53 patients were randomly assigned to the two treatment groups: 27 to the continuation group and 26 to the interruption group. Overall, patients in the two groups received a similar median number of trabectedin cycles (continuation group: 11 cycles [range 6–31+] vs interruption group: 11 [range 6–23+]). After randomisation, progression-free survival at 6 months was 51·9% (95% CI 31·9–68·6) in the continuation group versus 23·1% (9·4–40·3) in the interruption group (p=0·0200). The occurrence of treatment-related grade 3 adverse events (four [16%] of 25 patients in the continuation group vs three [14%] of 21 in the interruption group) and grade 4 adverse events (one [4%] vs none) was similar in both groups. The most common grade 3 and 4 toxicities were alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase increases (one [4%] in the interruption group vs three [14%] in the continuation group), neutropenia (two [8%] vs two [10%]), and intestinal occlusion (one [4%] vs one [5%]). We do not recommend trabectedin discontinuation in patients with advanced, doxorubicin-refractory soft-tissue sarcoma who have not progressed after six cycles of treatment. The French National Cancer Institute (INCa) and PharmaMar SA.

Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone (VMP) is significantly better than melphalan plus prednisone alone for elderly patients with untreated multiple myeloma; however, toxic effects are high. We investigated a novel and less intensive bortezomib-based regimen to maintain efficacy and to reduce toxic effects. Between March, 2006, and October, 2008, 260 patients with untreated multiple myeloma, 65 years and older, from 63 Spanish centres, were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of VMP (n=130) or bortezomib plus thalidomide and prednisone (VTP; n=130) as induction therapy, consisting of one cycle of bortezomib twice per week for 6 weeks (1·3 mg/m 2 on days 1, 4, 8, 11, 22, 25, 29, and 32), plus either melphalan (9 mg/m 2 on days 1–4) or daily thalidomide (100 mg), and prednisone (60 mg/m 2 on days 1–4). The first cycle was followed by five cycles of bortezomib once per week for 5 weeks (1·3 mg/m 2 on days 1, 8, 15, and 22) plus the same doses of melphalan plus prednisone and thalidomide plus prednisone. 178 patients completed the six induction cycles and were randomly assigned to maintenance therapy with bortezomib plus prednisone (n=87) or bortezomib plus thalidomide (n=91), consisting of one conventional cycle of bortezomib for 3 weeks (1·3 mg/m 2 on days 1, 4, 8, and 11) every 3 months, plus either prednisone (50 mg every other day) or thalidomide (50 mg per day), for up to 3 years. Treatment codes were generated with a computerised random number generator, and neither participants nor study personnel were masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was response rate in induction and maintenance phases. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00443235. In the induction phase, 105 (81%) patients in the VTP group and 104 (80%) in the VMP group achieved partial responses or better (p=0·9), including 36 (28%) and 26 (20%) complete remissions, respectively (p=0·2). Treatment with VTP resulted in more serious adverse events (40 [31%] vs 20 [15%], p=0·01) and discontinuations (22 [17%] vs 15 [12%], p=0·03) than did treatment with VMP. The most common toxicities (grade 3 or worse) were infections (one [1%] in the VTP group vs nine [7%] in the VMP group), cardiac events (11 [8%] vs 0), and peripheral neuropathy (nine [7%] vs 12 [9%]). After maintenance therapy, the complete remission rate was 42% (40 [44%] patients in complete remission in the bortezomib plus thalidomide group, 34 [39%] in the bortezomib plus prednisone group). No grade 3 or worse haematological toxicities were recorded during maintenance therapy; two (2%) patients in the bortezomib plus prednisone group and six (7%) in the bortezomib plus thalidomide group developed peripheral neuropathy. Reduced-intensity induction with a bortezomib-based regimen, followed by maintenance, is a safe and effective treatment for elderly patients with multiple myeloma. Pethema (Spanish Program for the Treatment of Hematologic Diseases).

Tamoxifen is standard adjuvant treatment for postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. We assessed the benefit of adding chemotherapy to adjuvant tamoxifen and whether tamoxifen should be given concurrently or after chemotherapy. We undertook a phase 3, parallel, randomised trial (SWOG-8814, INT-0100) in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive, node-positive breast cancer to test two major objectives: whether the primary outcome, disease-free survival, was longer with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil (CAF) given every 4 weeks for six cycles plus 5 years of daily tamoxifen than with tamoxifen alone; and whether disease-free survival was longer with CAF followed by tamoxifen (CAF-T) than with CAF plus concurrent tamoxifen (CAFT). Overall survival and toxicity were predefined, important secondary outcomes for each objective. Patients in this open-label trial were randomly assigned by a computer algorithm in a 2:3:3 ratio (tamoxifen:CAF-T:CAFT) and analysis was by intention to treat of eligible patients. Groups were compared by stratified log-rank tests, followed by Cox regression analyses adjusted for significant prognostic factors. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00929591. Of 1558 randomised women, 1477 (95%) were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. After a maximum of 13 years of follow-up (median 8·94 years), 637 women had a disease-free survival event (tamoxifen, 179 events in 361 patients; CAF-T, 216 events in 566 patients; CAFT, 242 events in 550 patients). For the first objective, therapy with the CAF plus tamoxifen groups combined (CAFT or CAF-T) was superior to tamoxifen alone for the primary endpoint of disease-free survival (adjusted Cox regression hazard ratio [HR] 0·76, 95% CI 0·64–0·91; p=0·002) but only marginally for the secondary endpoint of overall survival (HR 0·83, 0·68–1·01; p=0·057). For the second objective, the adjusted HRs favoured CAF-T over CAFT but did not reach significance for disease-free survival (HR 0·84, 0·70–1·01; p=0·061) or overall survival (HR 0·90, 0·73–1·10; p=0·30). Neutropenia, stomatitis, thromboembolism, congestive heart failure, and leukaemia were more frequent in the combined CAF plus tamoxifen groups than in the tamoxifen-alone group. Chemotherapy with CAF plus tamoxifen given sequentially is more effective adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal patients with endocrine-responsive, node-positive breast cancer than is tamoxifen alone. However, it might be possible to identify some subgroups that do not benefit from anthracycline-based chemotherapy despite positive nodes. National Cancer Institute (US National Institutes of Health).