Explore the vast range of titles available.

Rovalpituzumab tesirine is a first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate directed against delta-like protein 3 (DLL3), a novel target identified in tumour-initiating cells and expressed in more than 80% of patients with small-cell lung cancer. We aimed to assess the safety and activity of rovalpituzumab tesirine in patients who progressed after one or more previous regimen. We conducted a phase 1 open-label study at ten cancer centres in the USA. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had histologically or cytologically confirmed small-cell lung cancer or large-cell neuroendocrine tumours with progressive measurable disease (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST], version 1.1) previously treated with one or two chemotherapeutic regimens, including a platinum-based regimen. We assigned patients to dose-escalation or expansion cohorts, ranging from 0·05 mg/kg to 0·8 mg/kg rovalpituzumab tesirine intravenously every 3 weeks or every 6 weeks, followed by investigation of the dose schedules 0·3 mg/kg and 0·4 mg/kg every 6 weeks and 0·2 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Primary objectives were to assess the safety of rovalpituzumab tesirine, including the maximum tolerated dose and dose-limiting toxic effects. The primary activity endpoint was objective response by intention-to-treat analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01901653. The study is closed to enrolment; this report focuses on the cohort with small-cell lung cancer. Between July 22, 2013, and Aug 10, 2015, 82 patients were enrolled, including 74 patients with small-cell lung cancer and eight with large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, all of whom received at least one dose of rovalpituzumab tesirine. Dose-limiting toxic effects of rovalpituzumab tesirine occurred at a dose of 0·8 mg/kg every 3 weeks, including grade 4 thrombocytopenia (in two of two patients at that dose level) and grade 4 liver function test abnormalities (in one patient). The most frequent grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events in 74 patients with small-cell lung cancer were thrombocytopenia (eight [11%]), pleural effusion (six [8%]), and increased lipase (five [7%]). Drug-related serious adverse events occurred in 28 (38%) of 74 patients. The maximum tolerated dose of rovalpituzumab tesirine was 0·4 mg/kg every 3 weeks; the recommended phase 2 dose and schedule is 0·3 mg/kg every 6 weeks. At active doses of rovalpituzumab tesirine (0·2 mg/kg or 0·4 mg/kg every 3 weeks or 0·3 mg/kg or 0·4 mg/kg every 6 weeks), 11 (18%) of 60 assessable patients had a confirmed objective response. 11 (18%) of 60 assessable patients had a confirmed objective response, including ten (38%) of 26 patients confirmed to have high DLL3 expression (expression in 50% or more of tumour cells). Rovalpituzumab tesirine shows encouraging single-agent antitumour activity with a manageable safety profile. Further development of rovalpituzumab tesirine in DLL3-expressing malignant diseases is warranted. Stemcentrx Inc.

Abstract Rationale As of April 2015, participants in the Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial had been followed for at least 5 years since their last screening. Objectives Mortality, causes of death, and lung cancer findings are reported to explore the effect of computed tomography (CT) screening. Methods A total of 4,104 participants aged 50–70 years at the time of inclusion and with a minimum 20 pack-years of smoking were randomized to have five annual low-dose CT scans (study group) or no screening (control group). Measurements and Main Results Follow-up information regarding date and cause of death, lung cancer diagnosis, cancer stage, and histology was obtained from national registries. No differences between the two groups in lung cancer mortality (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.66–1.6; P = 0.888) or all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.82–1.27; P = 0.867) were observed. More cancers were found in the screening group than in the no-screening group (100 vs. 53, respectively; P < 0.001), particularly adenocarcinomas (58 vs. 18, respectively; P < 0.001). More early-stage cancers (stages I and II, 54 vs. 10, respectively; P < 0.001) and stage IIIa cancers (15 vs. 3, respectively; P = 0.009) were found in the screening group than in the control group. Stage IV cancers were nonsignificantly more frequent in the control group than in the screening group (32 vs. 23, respectively; P = 0.278). For the highest-stage cancers (T4N3M1, 21 vs. 8, respectively; P = 0.025), this difference was statistically significant, indicating an absolute stage shift. Older participants, those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and those with more than 35 pack-years of smoking had a significantly increased risk of death due to lung cancer, with nonsignificantly fewer deaths in the screening group. Conclusions No statistically significant effects of CT screening on lung cancer mortality were found, but the results of post hoc high-risk subgroup analyses showed nonsignificant trends that seem to be in good agreement with the results of the National Lung Screening Trial. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00496977).

We previously confirmed the non-inferiority of accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) with interstitial brachytherapy in terms of local control and overall survival compared with whole-breast irradiation for patients with early-stage breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery in a phase 3 randomised trial. Here, we present the 5-year late side-effects and cosmetic results of the trial. We did this randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial at 16 centres in seven European countries. Women aged 40 years or older with stage 0–IIA breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving surgery with microscopically clear resection margins of at least 2 mm were randomly assigned 1:1, via an online interface, to receive either whole-breast irradiation of 50 Gy with a tumour-bed boost of 10 Gy or APBI with interstitial brachytherapy. Randomisation was stratified by study centre, menopausal status, and tumour type (invasive carcinoma vs ductal carcinoma in situ), with a block size of ten, according to an automated dynamic algorithm. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint of our initial analysis was ipsilateral local recurrence; here, we report the secondary endpoints of late side-effects and cosmesis. We analysed physician-scored late toxicities and patient-scored and physician-scored cosmetic results from the date of breast-conserving surgery to the date of onset of event. Analysis was done according to treatment received (as-treated population). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00402519. Between April 20, 2004, and July 30, 2009, we randomly assigned 1328 women to receive either whole-breast irradiation (n=673) or APBI with interstitial brachytherapy (n=655); 1184 patients comprised the as-treated population (551 in the whole-breast irradiation group and 633 in the APBI group). At a median follow-up of 6·6 years (IQR 5·8–7·6), no patients had any grade 4 toxities, and three (<1%) of 484 patients in the APBI group and seven (2%) of 393 in the whole-breast irradiation group had grade 3 late skin toxicity (p=0·16). No patients in the APBI group and two (<1%) in the whole-breast irradiation group developed grade 3 late subcutaneous tissue toxicity (p=0·10). The cumulative incidence of any late side-effect of grade 2 or worse at 5 years was 27·0% (95% CI 23·0–30·9) in the whole-breast irradiation group versus 23·3% (19·9–26·8) in the APBI group (p=0·12). The cumulative incidence of grade 2–3 late skin toxicity at 5 years was 10·7% (95% CI 8·0–13·4) in the whole-breast irradiation group versus 6·9% (4·8–9·0) in the APBI group (difference −3·8%, 95% CI −7·2 to 0·4; p=0·020). The cumulative risk of grade 2–3 late subcutaneous tissue side-effects at 5 years was 9·7% (95% CI 7·1–12·3) in the whole-breast irradiation group versus 12·0% (9·4–14·7) in the APBI group (difference 2·4%; 95% CI −1·4 to 6·1; p=0·28). The cumulative incidence of grade 2–3 breast pain was 11·9% (95% CI 9·0–14·7) after whole-breast irradiation versus 8·4% (6·1–10·6) after APBI (difference −3·5%; 95% CI −7·1 to 0·1; p=0·074). At 5 years' follow-up, according to the patients' view, 413 (91%) of 454 patients had excellent to good cosmetic results in the whole-breast irradiation group versus 498 (92%) of 541 patients in the APBI group (p=0·62); when judged by the physicians, 408 (90%) of 454 patients and 503 (93%) of 542 patients, respectively, had excellent to good cosmetic results (p=0·12). No treatment-related deaths occurred, but six (15%) of 41 patients (three in each group) died from breast cancer, and 35 (85%) deaths (21 in the whole-breast irradiation group and 14 in the APBI group) were unrelated. 5-year toxicity profiles and cosmetic results were similar in patients treated with breast-conserving surgery followed by either APBI with interstitial brachytherapy or conventional whole-breast irradiation, with significantly fewer grade 2–3 late skin side-effects after APBI with interstitial brachytherapy. These findings provide further clinical evidence for the routine use of interstitial multicatheter brachytherapy-based APBI in the treatment of patients with low-risk breast cancer who opt for breast conservation. German Cancer Aid.

In a study involving women undergoing breast-conserving therapy, the group that had the cavity of tumor resection shaved had a significantly lower rate of positive margins than the no-shave group (19% vs. 34%). Half as many such patients required second surgery for margin clearance. Many women who receive a diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer opt for breast-conserving surgery with partial mastectomy. 1 Although the survival rate with such surgery is equivalent to that with total mastectomy, margin status is a critical determinant of local recurrence. 2 Approximately 20 to 40% of patients have positive margins (margins positive for tumor) after partial mastectomy and require a second operation for margin clearance. 3 , 4 Retrospective studies have shown that taking additional tissue circumferentially around the cavity left by partial mastectomy (also known as cavity shave margins) may reduce the rate of positive margins. However, others have argued that it . . .

We carried out a genome-wide association study of breast cancer predisposition with replication and refinement studies involving 6,145 cases and 33,016 controls and identified two SNPs (rs4415084 and rs10941679) on 5p12 that confer risk, preferentially for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumors (OR = 1.27, P = 2.5 × 10 −12 for rs10941679). The nearest gene, MRPS30 , was previously implicated in apoptosis, ER-positive tumors and favorable prognosis. A recently reported signal in FGFR2 was also found to associate specifically with ER-positive breast cancer.

Necitumumab is a second-generation, recombinant, human immunoglobulin G1 EGFR antibody. In this study, we aimed to compare treatment with necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin versus gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with previously untreated stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. We did this open-label, randomised phase 3 study at 184 investigative sites in 26 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed stage IV squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–2 and adequate organ function and who had not received previous chemotherapy for their disease were eligible for inclusion. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned centrally 1:1 to a maximum of six 3-week cycles of gemcitabine and cisplastin chemotherapy with or without necitumumab according to a block randomisation scheme (block size of four) by a telephone-based interactive voice response system or interactive web response system. Chemotherapy was gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 administered intravenously over 30 min on days 1 and 8 of a 3-week cycle and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 administered intravenously over 120 min on day 1 of a 3-week cycle. Necitumumab 800 mg, administered intravenously over a minimum of 50 min on days 1 and 8, was continued after the end of chemotherapy until disease progression or intolerable toxic side-effects occurred. Randomisation was stratified by ECOG performance status and geographical region. Neither physicians nor patients were masked to group assignment because of the expected occurrence of acne-like rash—a class effect of EGFR antibodies—that would have unmasked most patients and investigators to treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. We report the final clinical analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00981058. Between Jan 7, 2010, and Feb 22, 2012, we enrolled 1093 patients and randomly assigned them to receive necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (n=545) or gemcitabine and cisplatin (n=548). Overall survival was significantly longer in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin alone group (median 11·5 months [95% CI 10·4–12·6]) vs 9·9 months [8·9–11·1]; stratified hazard ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·74–0·96; p=0·01]). In the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group, the number of patients with at least one grade 3 or worse adverse event was higher (388 [72%] of 538 patients) than in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group (333 [62%] of 541), as was the incidence of serious adverse events (257 [48%] of 538 patients vs 203 [38%] of 541). More patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group had grade 3–4 hypomagnesaemia (47 [9%] of 538 patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group vs six [1%] of 541 in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group) and grade 3 rash (20 [4%] vs one [<1%]). Including events related to disease progression, adverse events with an outcome of death were reported for 66 (12%) of 538 patients in the necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin group and 57 (11%) of 541 patients in the gemcitabine and cisplatin group; these were deemed to be related to study drugs in 15 (3%) and ten (2%) patients, respectively. Overall, we found that the safety profile of necitumumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin was acceptable and in line with expectations. Our findings show that the addition of necitumumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy improves overall survival in patients with advanced squamous non-small-cell lung cancer and represents a new first-line treatment option for this disease. Eli Lilly and Company.

Carboplatin and paclitaxel administered every 3 weeks is standard-of-care first-line chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer. The Japanese JGOG3016 trial showed a significant improvement in progression-free and overall survival with dose-dense weekly paclitaxel and 3-weekly carboplatin. In this study, we aimed to compare efficacy and safety of two dose-dense weekly regimens to standard 3-weekly chemotherapy in a predominantly European population with epithelial ovarian cancer. In this phase 3 trial, women with newly diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IC–IV epithelial ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to group 1 (carboplatin area under the curve [AUC]5 or AUC6 and 175 mg/m2 paclitaxel every 3 weeks), group 2 (carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 every 3 weeks and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly), or group 3 (carboplatin AUC2 and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly). Written informed consent was provided by all women who entered the trial. The protocol had the appropriate national research ethics committee approval for the countries where the study was conducted. Patients entered the trial after immediate primary surgery, or before neoadjuvant chemotherapy with subsequent planned delayed primary surgery. The trial coprimary outcomes were progression-free survival and overall survival. Data analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis, and were powered to detect a hazard ratio of 0·75 in progression-free survival. The main comparisons were between the control group (group 1) and each of the weekly research groups (groups 2 and 3). Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 women were randomly assigned to treatment. 72% (365), completed six protocol-defined treatment cycles in group 1, 60% (305) in group 2, and 63% (322) in group 3, although 90% (454), 89% (454), and 85% (437) completed six platinum-based chemotherapy cycles, respectively. Paclitaxel dose intensification was achieved with weekly treatment (median total paclitaxel dose 1010 mg/m2 in group 1; 1233 mg/m2 in group 2; 1274 mg/m2 in group 3). By February, 2017, 1018 (65%) patients had experienced disease progression. No significant progression-free survival increase was observed with either weekly regimen (restricted mean survival time 24·4 months [97·5% CI 23·0–26·0] in group 1, 24·9 months [24·0–25·9] in group 2, 25·3 months [23·9–26·9] in group 3; median progression-free survival 17·7 months [IQR 10·6–not reached] in group 1, 20·8 months [11·9–59·0] in group 2, 21·0 months [12·0–54·0] in group 3; log-rank p=0·35 for group 2 vs group 1; group 3 vs 1 p=0·51). Although grade 3 or 4 toxic effects increased with weekly treatment, these effects were predominantly uncomplicated. Febrile neutropenia and sensory neuropathy incidences were similar across groups. Weekly dose-dense chemotherapy can be delivered successfully as first-line treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer but does not significantly improve progression-free survival compared with standard 3-weekly chemotherapy in predominantly European populations. Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Health Research Board in Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, Cancer Australia.

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.

The optimum timing of sentinel-lymph-node biopsy for breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy is uncertain. The SENTINA (SENTinel NeoAdjuvant) study was designed to evaluate a specific algorithm for timing of a standardised sentinel-lymph-node biopsy procedure in patients who undergo neoadjuvant chemotherapy. SENTINA is a four-arm, prospective, multicentre cohort study undertaken at 103 institutions in Germany and Austria. Women with breast cancer who were scheduled for neoadjuvant chemotherapy were enrolled into the study. Patients with clinically node-negative disease (cN0) underwent sentinel-lymph-node biopsy before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (arm A). If the sentinel node was positive (pN1), a second sentinel-lymph-node biopsy procedure was done after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (arm B). Women with clinically node-positive disease (cN+) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Those who converted to clinically node-negative disease after chemotherapy (ycN0; arm C) were treated with sentinel-lymph-node biopsy and axillary dissection. Only patients whose clinical nodal status remained positive (ycN1) underwent axillary dissection without sentinel-lymph-node biopsy (arm D). The primary endpoint was accuracy (false-negative rate) of sentinel-lymph-node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for patients who converted from cN1 to ycN0 disease during neoadjuvant chemotherapy (arm C). Secondary endpoints included comparison of the detection rate of sentinel-lymph-node biopsy before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and also the false-negative rate and detection rate of sentinel-lymph-node biopsy after removal of the sentinel lymph node. Analyses were done according to treatment received (per protocol). Of 1737 patients who received treatment, 1022 women underwent sentinel-lymph-node biopsy before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (arms A and B), with a detection rate of 99·1% (95% CI 98·3–99·6; 1013 of 1022). In patients who converted after neoadjuvant chemotherapy from cN+ to ycN0 (arm C), the detection rate was 80·1% (95% CI 76·6–83·2; 474 of 592) and false-negative rate was 14·2% (95% CI 9·9–19·4; 32 of 226). The false-negative rate was 24·3% (17 of 70) for women who had one node removed and 18·5% (10 of 54) for those who had two sentinel nodes removed (arm C). In patients who had a second sentinel-lymph-node biopsy procedure after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (arm B), the detection rate was 60·8% (95% CI 55·6–65·9; 219 of 360) and the false-negative rate was 51·6% (95% CI 38·7–64·2; 33 of 64). Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy is a reliable diagnostic method before neoadjuvant chemotherapy. After systemic treatment or early sentinel-lymph-node biopsy, the procedure has a lower detection rate and a higher false-negative rate compared with sentinel-lymph-node biopsy done before neoadjuvant chemotherapy. These limitations should be considered if biopsy is planned after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Brustkrebs Deutschland, German Society for Senology, German Breast Group.