Explore the vast range of titles available.

Enzalutamide is an oral androgen-receptor inhibitor that has been shown to improve survival in two placebo-controlled phase 3 trials, and is approved for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. The objective of the TERRAIN study was to compare the efficacy and safety of enzalutamide with bicalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. TERRAIN was a double-blind, randomised phase 2 study, that recruited asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic men with prostate cancer progression on androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) from academic, community, and private health-care provision sites across North America and Europe. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice response system to receive enzalutamide 160 mg/day or bicalutamide 50 mg/day, both taken orally, in addition to ADT, until disease progression. Patients were stratified by a permutated block method (block size of four), by whether bilateral orchiectomy or receipt of luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonist or antagonist therapy started before or after the diagnosis of metastases, and by study site. Participants, investigators, and those assessing outcomes were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, analysed in all randomised patients. Safety outcomes were analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The open-label period of the trial is in progress, wherein patients still on treatment at the end of the double-blind treatment period were offered open-label enzalutamide at the discretion of the patient and study investigator. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01288911. Between March 22, 2011, and July 11, 2013, 375 patients were randomly assigned, 184 to enzalutamide and 191 to bicalutamide. 126 (68%) and 168 (88%) patients, respectively, discontinued their assigned treatment before study end, mainly due to progressive disease. Median follow-up time was 20·0 months (IQR 15·0–25·6) in the enzalutamide group and 16·7 months (10·2–21·9) in the bicalutamide group. Patients in the enzalutamide group had significantly improved median progression-free survival (15·7 months [95% CI 11·5–19·4]) compared with patients in the bicalutamide group (5·8 months [4·8–8·1]; hazard ratio 0·44 [95% CI 0·34–0·57]; p<0·0001). Of the most common adverse events, those occurring more frequently with enzalutamide than with bicalutamide were fatigue (51 [28%] of 183 patients in the enzalutamide group vs 38 [20%] of 189 in the bicalutamide group), back pain (35 [19%] vs 34 [18%]), and hot flush (27 [15%] vs 21 [11%]); those occurring more frequently with bicalutamide were nausea (26 [14%] vs 33 [17%]), constipation (23 [13%] vs 25 [13%]), and arthralgia (18 [10%] vs 30 [16%]). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the enzalutamide or bicalutamide treatment groups, respectively, were hypertension (13 [7%] vs eight [4%]), hydronephrosis (three [2%] vs seven [4%]), back pain (five [3%] vs three [2%]), pathological fracture (five [3%] vs two [1%]), dyspnoea (four [2%] vs one [1%]), bone pain (one [1%] vs four [2%]), congestive cardiac failure (four [2%] vs two [1%]), myocardial infarction (five [3%] vs none), and anaemia (four [2%] vs none]). Serious adverse events were reported by 57 (31%) of 183 patients and 44 (23%) of 189 patients in the enzalutamide and bicalutamide groups, respectively. One of the nine deaths in the enzalutamide group was thought to be possibly related to treatment (due to systemic inflammatory response syndrome) compared with none of the three deaths in the bicalutamide group. The data from the TERRAIN trial support the use of enzalutamide rather than bicalutamide in patients with asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Astellas Pharma, Inc and Medivation, Inc.

Taxane–platinum combinations have shown promising activity in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancers in single-group clinical studies but not in randomised trials. Distinct biological subsets of the disease might derive the greatest benefit from the addition of platinum. We aimed to determine whether adding carboplatin to cabazitaxel would improve the outcomes of men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We did a phase 1–2, open label, randomised study at two centres in men with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. In phase 1, patients received intravenous cabazitaxel 20–25 mg/m2 and intravenous carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 3–4 mg/mL per min every 21 days. The maximum tolerated dose was defined as the highest dose cohort studied in which one of six or fewer patients experienced a dose-limiting toxicity. In phase 2, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by a computerised algorithm to intravenous cabazitaxel 25 mg/m2 with or without intravenous carboplatin AUC 4 mg/mL per min. All patients received growth factor support and oral prednisone 10 mg daily. The primary endpoints were the maximum tolerated dose of the combination in phase 1 and investigator-assessed progression-free survival in phase 2. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01505868. Between Aug 17, 2012, and May 11, 2015, nine patients completed phase 1 as planned, and 160 were randomly assigned to cabazitaxel (n=79) or cabazitaxel plus carboplatin (n=81) in phase 2. During phase I, grade 3 adverse events were anaemia (n=2), fatigue (n=1), thrombocytopenia (n=1), hypomagnesaemia (n=1), diarrhoea (n=1), hypokalaemia (n=1), anorexia (n=1), and dehydration (n=1), and no grade 4 adverse events occurred. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed, therefore, a maximum tolerated dose of cabazitaxel of 25 mg/m2 and carboplatin of AUC 4 mg/mL per min was selected for phase 2. At a median follow-up of 31·0 months (IQR 20·5–37·1), the combination improved the median progression-free survival from 4·5 months (95% CI 3·5–5·7) to 7·3 months (95% CI 5·5–8·2; hazard ratio 0·69, 95% CI 0·50–0·95, p=0·018). In the phase 2 study, the most common grade 3–5 adverse events were fatigue (7 [9%] of 79 in the cabazitaxel group vs 16 [20%] of 81 in the combination group), anaemia (3 [4%] vs 19 [23%]), neutropenia (3 [4%] vs 13 [16%]), and thrombocytopenia (1 [1%] vs 11 [14%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. Carboplatin added to cabazitaxel showed improved clinical efficacy compared with cabazitaxel alone for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Although adverse events were more common with the combination, the treatment was safe and generally well tolerated. Our data suggest that taxane–platinum combinations have a clinically beneficial role in advanced prostate cancer and a randomised phase 3 study is planned. Sanofi Genzyme, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Prostate Cancer Moon Shot Program, Solon Scott III Prostate Cancer Research Fund, National Institutes of Health, and National Cancer Institute.

Avelumab (MSB0010718C) is a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody that binds to PD-L1, inhibiting its binding to PD-1, which inactivates T cells. We aimed to establish the safety and pharmacokinetics of avelumab in patients with solid tumours while assessing biological correlatives for future development. This open-label, single-centre, phase 1a, dose-escalation trial (part of the JAVELIN Solid Tumor trial) assessed four doses of avelumab (1 mg/kg, 3 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg, and 20 mg/kg), with dose-level cohort expansions to provide additional safety, pharmacokinetics, and target occupancy data. This study used a standard 3 + 3 cohort design and assigned patients sequentially at trial entry according to the 3 + 3 dose-escalation algorithm and depending on the number of dose-limiting toxicities during the first 3-week assessment period (the primary endpoint). Patient eligibility criteria included age 18 years or older, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–1, metastatic or locally advanced previously treated solid tumours, and adequate end-organ function. Avelumab was given as a 1-h intravenous infusion every 2 weeks. Patients in the dose-limiting toxicity analysis set were assessed for the primary endpoint of dose-limiting toxicity, and all patients enrolled in the dose-escalation part were assessed for the secondary endpoints of safety (treatment-emergent and treatment-related adverse events according to National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0), pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles (immunological effects), best overall response by Response Evaluation Criteria, and antidrug antibody formation. The population for the pharmacokinetic analysis included a subset of patients with rich pharmacokinetic samples from two selected disease-specific expansion cohorts at the same study site who had serum samples obtained at multiple early timepoints. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01772004. Patient recruitment to the dose-escalation part reported here is closed. Between Jan 31, 2013, and Oct 8, 2014, 53 patients were enrolled (four patients at 1 mg/kg, 13 at 3 mg/kg, 15 at 10 mg/kg, and 21 at 20 mg/kg). 18 patients were analysed in the dose-limiting toxicity analysis set: three at dose level 1 (1 mg/kg), three at dose level 2 (3 mg/kg), six at dose level 3 (10 mg/kg), and six at dose level 4 (20 mg/kg). Only one dose-limiting toxicity occurred, at the 20 mg/kg dose, and thus the maximum tolerated dose was not reached. In all 53 enrolled patients (the safety analysis set), common treatment-related adverse events (occurring in >10% of patients) included fatigue (21 patients [40%]), influenza-like symptoms (11 [21%]), fever (8 [15%]), and chills (6 [11%]). Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in nine (17%) of 53 patients, with autoimmune disorder (n=3), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (n=2), and increased aspartate aminotransferase (n=2) each occurring in more than one patient (autoimmune disorder in two patients at 10 mg/kg and one patient at 20 mg/kg, increased blood creatine phosphokinase in two patients at 20 mg/kg, and increased aspartate aminotransferase in one patient at 1 mg/kg, and one patient at 10 mg/kg). Six (11%) of 53 patients had a serious treatment-related adverse event: autoimmune disorder (two [13%]), lower abdominal pain (one [7%]), fatigue (one [7%]), and influenza-like illness (one [7%]) in three patients treated at 10 mg/kg dose level, and autoimmune disorder (one [5%]), increased amylase (one [5%]), myositis (one [5%]), and dysphonia (one [5%]) in three patients who received the 20 mg/kg dose. We recorded some evidence of clinical activity in various solid tumours, with partial confirmed or unconfirmed responses in four (8%) of 53 patients; 30 (57%) additional patients had stable disease. Pharmacokinetic analysis (n=86) showed a dose-proportional exposure between doses of 3 mg/kg and 20 mg/kg and a half-life of 95–99 h (3·9–4·1 days) at the 10 mg/kg and 20 mg/kg doses. Target occupancy was greater than 90% at doses of 3 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg. Antidrug antibodies were detected in two (4%) of 53 patients. No substantial differences were found in absolute lymphocyte count or multiple immune cell subsets, including those expressing PD-L1, after treatment with avelumab. 31 (58%) of 53 patients in the overall safety population died; no deaths were related to treatment on study. Avelumab has an acceptable toxicity profile up to 20 mg/kg and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached. Based on pharmacokinetics, target occupancy, and immunological analysis, we chose 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks as the dose for further development and phase 3 trials are ongoing. National Cancer Institute and Merck KGaA.

Treatment options for patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors are limited. The efficacy of cabozantinib in the treatment of previously treated, progressive extrapancreatic or pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors is unclear. We enrolled two independent cohorts of patients - those with extrapancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and those with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors - who had received peptide receptor radionuclide therapy or targeted therapy or both. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive cabozantinib at a dose of 60 mg daily or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. Key secondary end points included objective response, overall survival, and safety. In the cohort of 203 patients with extrapancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, the median progression-free survival with cabozantinib was 8.4 months, as compared with 3.9 months with placebo (stratified hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25 to 0.59; P<0.001). In the cohort of 95 patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, the median progression-free survival with cabozantinib was 13.8 months, as compared with 4.4 months with placebo (stratified hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.42; P<0.001). The incidence of confirmed objective response with cabozantinib was 5% and 19% among patients with extrapancreatic and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, respectively, as compared with 0% with placebo. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were noted in 62 to 65% of the patients treated with cabozantinib, as compared with 23 to 27% of the patients who received placebo. Common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher included hypertension, fatigue, diarrhea, and thromboembolic events. Cabozantinib, as compared with placebo, significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with previously treated, progressive advanced extrapancreatic or pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of cabozantinib. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; CABINET ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03375320.).

In the ongoing phase 3 CheckMate 214 trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior efficacy over sunitinib in patients with previously untreated intermediate-risk or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma, with a manageable safety profile. In this study, we aimed to assess efficacy and safety after extended follow-up to inform the long-term clinical benefit of nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in this setting. In the phase 3, randomised, controlled CheckMate 214 trial, patients aged 18 years and older with previously untreated, advanced, or metastatic histologically confirmed renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component were recruited from 175 hospitals and cancer centres in 28 countries. Patients were categorised by International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium risk status into favourable-risk, intermediate-risk, and poor-risk subgroups and randomly assigned (1:1) to open-label nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) plus ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously) every 2 weeks; or sunitinib (50 mg orally) once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). Randomisation was done through an interactive voice response system, with a block size of four and stratified by risk status and geographical region. The co-primary endpoints for the trial were overall survival, progression-free survival per independent radiology review committee (IRRC), and objective responses per IRRC in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival per IRRC, and objective responses per IRRC in the intention-to-treat population, and adverse events in all treated patients. In this Article, we report overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, investigator-assessed objective response, characterisation of response, and safety after extended follow-up. Efficacy outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was assessed in all treated patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231749, and is ongoing but now closed to recruitment. Between Oct 16, 2014, and Feb 23, 2016, of 1390 patients screened, 1096 (79%) eligible patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib (550 vs 546 in the intention-to-treat population; 425 vs 422 intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, and 125 vs 124 favourable-risk patients). With extended follow-up (median follow-up 32·4 months [IQR 13·4–36·3]), in intermediate-risk or poor-risk patients, results for the three co-primary efficacy endpoints showed that nivolumab plus ipilimumab continued to be superior to sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI 35·6–not estimable] vs 26·6 months [22·1–33·4]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·54–0·80], p<0·0001), progression-free survival (median 8·2 months [95% CI 6·9–10·0] vs 8·3 months [7·0–8·8]; HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·65–0·90], p=0·0014), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (178 [42%] of 425 vs 124 [29%] of 422; p=0·0001). Similarly, in intention-to-treat patients, nivolumab and ipilimumab showed improved efficacy compared with sunitinib in terms of overall survival (median not reached [95% CI not estimable] vs 37·9 months [32·2–not estimable]; HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·59–0·86], p=0·0003), progression-free survival (median 9·7 months [95% CI 8·1–11·1] vs 9·7 months [8·3–11·1]; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·73–0·98], p=0·027), and the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (227 [41%] of 550 vs 186 [34%] of 546 p=0·015). In all treated patients, the most common grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events in the nivolumab and ipilimumab group were increased lipase (57 [10%] of 547), increased amylase (31 [6%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (28 [5%]), whereas in the sunitinib group they were hypertension (90 [17%] of 535), fatigue (51 [10%]), and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (49 [9%]). Eight deaths in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and four deaths in the sunitinib group were reported as treatment-related. The results suggest that the superior efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab over sunitinib was maintained in intermediate-risk or poor-risk and intention-to-treat patients with extended follow-up, and show the long-term benefits of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma across all risk categories. Bristol-Myers Squibb and ONO Pharmaceutical.

Nanoliposomal irinotecan showed activity in a phase 2 study in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma previously treated with gemcitabine-based therapies. We assessed the effect of nanoliposomal irinotecan alone or combined with fluorouracil and folinic acid in a phase 3 trial in this population. We did a global, phase 3, randomised, open-label trial at 76 sites in 14 countries. Eligible patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma previously treated with gemcitabine-based therapy were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive web response system at a central location to receive either nanoliposomal irinotecan monotherapy (120 mg/m2 every 3 weeks, equivalent to 100 mg/m2 of irinotecan base) or fluorouracil and folinic acid. A third arm consisting of nanoliposomal irinotecan (80 mg/m2, equivalent to 70 mg/m2 of irinotecan base) with fluorouracil and folinic acid every 2 weeks was added later (1:1:1), in a protocol amendment. Randomisation was stratified by baseline albumin, Karnofsky performance status, and ethnic origin. Treatment was continued until disease progression or intolerable toxic effects. The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The primary analysis was planned after 305 events. Safety was assessed in all patients who had received study drug. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01494506. Between Jan 11, 2012, and Sept 11, 2013, 417 patients were randomly assigned either nanoliposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and folinic acid (n=117), nanoliposomal irinotecan monotherapy (n=151), or fluorouracil and folinic acid (n=149). After 313 events, median overall survival in patients assigned nanoliposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and folinic acid was 6·1 months (95% CI 4·8–8·9) vs 4·2 months (3·3–5·3) with fluorouracil and folinic acid (hazard ratio 0·67, 95% CI 0·49–0·92; p=0·012). Median overall survival did not differ between patients assigned nanoliposomal irinotecan monotherapy and those allocated fluorouracil and folinic acid (4·9 months [4·2–5·6] vs 4·2 months [3·6–4·9]; 0·99, 0·77–1·28; p=0·94). The grade 3 or 4 adverse events that occurred most frequently in the 117 patients assigned nanoliposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and folinic acid were neutropenia (32 [27%]), diarrhoea (15 [13%]), vomiting (13 [11%]), and fatigue (16 [14%]). Nanoliposomal irinotecan in combination with fluorouracil and folinic acid extends survival with a manageable safety profile in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who previously received gemcitabine-based therapy. This agent represents a new treatment option for this population. Merrimack Pharmaceuticals.

Avelumab, a human Ig-G1 monoclonal antibody targeting PD-L1 and approved in the USA for the treatment of metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma, has shown antitumour activity and an acceptable safety profile in patients with advanced solid tumours in a dose-escalation phase 1a trial. In this dose-expansion cohort of that trial, we assess avelumab treatment in a cohort of patients with advanced, platinum-treated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this dose-expansion cohort of a multicentre, open-label, phase 1 study, patients with progressive or platinum-resistant metastatic or recurrent NSCLC were enrolled at 58 cancer treatment centres and academic hospitals in the USA. Eligible patients had confirmed stage IIIB or IV NSCLC with squamous or non-squamous histology, measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1), tumour biopsy or archival sample for biomarker assessment, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1, among other criteria. Patient selection was not based on PD-L1 expression or expression of other biomarkers, including EGFR or KRAS mutation or ALK translocation status. Patients received infusional avelumab monotherapy 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks until disease progression or toxicity. The primary objective was to assess safety and tolerability. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01772004; enrolment in this cohort is closed and the trial is ongoing. Between Sept 10, 2013, and June 24, 2014, 184 patients were enrolled and initiated treatment with avelumab. Median follow-up duration was 8·8 months (IQR 7·2–11·9). The most common treatment-related adverse events of any grade were fatigue (46 [25%] of 184 patients), infusion-related reaction (38 [21%]), and nausea (23 [13%]). Grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events occurred in 23 (13%) of 184 patients; the most common (occurring in more than two patients) were infusion-related reaction (four [2%] patients) and increased lipase level (three [2%]). 16 (9%) of 184 patients had a serious adverse event related to treatment with avelumab, with infusion-related reaction (in four [2%] patients) and dyspnoea (in two [1%]) occurring in more than one patient. Serious adverse events irrespective of cause occurred in 80 (44%) of 184 patients. Those occurring in more than five patients (≥3%) were dyspnoea (ten patients [5%]), pneumonia (nine [5%]), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (six [3%]). Immune-related treatment-related events occurred in 22 patients (12%). Of 184 patients, 22 (12% [95% CI 8–18]) achieved a confirmed objective response, including one complete response and 21 partial responses. 70 (38%) had stable disease. Overall, 92 (50%) of 184 patients achieved disease control (they had a confirmed response or stable disease as their best overall response). One patient was initially thought to have died from grade 5 radiation pneumonitis during the study; however, this adverse event was subsequently regraded to grade 3 and the death was attributed to disease progression. Avelumab showed an acceptable safety profile and antitumour activity in patients with progressive or treatment-resistant NSCLC, providing a rationale for further studies of avelumab in this disease setting. Merck KGaA and Pfizer.

In men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer who were receiving testosterone suppression, the addition of enzalutamide led to significantly longer progression-free and overall survival than the addition of standard nonsteroidal antiandrogen therapy. The better outcome was less clear among patients who had received docetaxel.

The Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib was compared with the alkylating agent chlorambucil in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Ibrutinib was associated with a higher response rate, longer duration of response, and longer overall survival. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most common leukemia among adults in Western countries; it affects primarily older persons, with a median age at diagnosis of 72 years. 1 , 2 Chlorambucil has been a standard first-line therapy in CLL, especially for older patients or those with coexisting conditions. 1 , 3 Until recently, no treatment was clearly superior to chlorambucil in this population. 3 – 7 Fludarabine or bendamustine has been associated with higher response rates and longer progression-free survival than those with chlorambucil, but both have also been associated with higher rates of toxic effects, and neither has provided overall survival benefit. 3 , 5 , . . .

In childhood and adolescent migraine, amitriptyline and topiramate were no better than placebo and not significantly different from each other in achieving a 50% or greater reduction in days with headache. The trial was stopped early for futility. More than 6 million children and adolescents in the United States have migraines. 1 – 3 The majority continue to have headaches into adulthood, taking a toll on the U.S. economy of approximately $36 billion and resulting in substantial effects on quality of life. 4 – 7 Pediatric clinical practice guidelines for migraine treatment are consensus based rather than evidence based, 8 , 9 with no Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved migraine prevention medication for children younger than 12 years of age. The Childhood and Adolescent Migraine Prevention (CHAMP) trial tested the effects of amitriptyline and topiramate in comparison with each other and with placebo in . . .