Explore the vast range of titles available.

Although comprehensive biomarker testing is recommended for all patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) before initiation of first-line treatment, tissue availability can limit testing. Genomic testing in liquid biopsies can be utilized to overcome the inherent limitations of tissue sampling and identify the most appropriate biomarker-informed treatment option for patients. The Blood First Assay Screening Trial is a global, open-label, multicohort trial that evaluates the efficacy and safety of multiple therapies in patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC and targetable alterations identified by liquid biopsy. We present data from Cohort D ( ROS1 -positive). Patients ≥18 years of age with stage IIIB/IV, ROS1 -positive NSCLC detected by liquid biopsies received entrectinib 600 mg daily. At data cutoff (November 2021), 55 patients were enrolled and 54 had measurable disease. Cohort D met its primary endpoint: the confirmed objective response rate (ORR) by investigator was 81.5%, which was consistent with the ORR from the integrated analysis of entrectinib (investigator-assessed ORR, 73.4%; data cutoff May 2019, ≥12 months of follow-up). The safety profile of entrectinib was consistent with previous reports. These results demonstrate consistency with those from the integrated analysis of entrectinib in patients with ROS1 -positive NSCLC identified by tissue-based testing, and support the clinical value of liquid biopsies to inform clinical decision-making. The integration of liquid biopsies into clinical practice provides patients with a less invasive diagnostic method than tissue-based testing and has faster turnaround times that may expedite the reaching of clinical decisions in the advanced/metastatic NSCLC setting. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03178552 . Results from this single-arm cohort of the BFAST trial showed that the clinical efficacy of entrectinib in patients with ROS1 -positive NSCLC, selected using liquid biopsies, is consistent with that seen in previous reports where patients were selected using tissue-based testing methods.

Patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to receive daily niraparib, a PARP inhibitor, or placebo as maintenance therapy after having had a response to platinum-based chemotherapy. Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the niraparib group than in the placebo group, with some increase in the frequency of myelosuppression and nausea.

Among patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer, the use of niraparib, a PARP inhibitor, was associated with a significantly longer duration of progression-free survival than placebo, with moderate bone marrow toxicity. Ovarian cancer is a leading cause of death from gynecologic cancers worldwide. 1 , 2 Despite a high initial response rate to platinum and taxane treatment in patients with advanced cancer, the effectiveness of the treatments diminishes over time, and most patients have a relapse. 3 Platinum retreatment is used in patients in whom there is an assumed platinum sensitivity, with diminishing effectiveness and a cumulative increase in toxicity. 3 Niraparib is a highly selective inhibitor of poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]–ribose) polymerase (PARP) 1/2, 4 nuclear proteins that detect DNA damage and promote its repair. Clinical studies have evaluated PARP inhibitors in patients with recurrent ovarian . . .

Recurrent gene fusions, such as ROS1 fusions, are oncogenic drivers of various cancers, including non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Up to 36% of patients with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC have brain metastases at the diagnosis of advanced disease. Entrectinib is a ROS1 inhibitor that has been designed to effectively penetrate and remain in the CNS. We explored the use of entrectinib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC. We did an integrated analysis of three ongoing phase 1 or 2 trials of entrectinib (ALKA-372-001, STARTRK-1, and STARTRK-2). The efficacy-evaluable population included adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with locally advanced or metastatic ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC who received entrectinib at a dose of at least 600 mg orally once per day, with at least 12 months' follow-up. All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, and previous cancer treatment (except for ROS1 inhibitors) was allowed. The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with an objective response (complete or partial response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1) and duration of response, and were evaluated by blinded independent central review. The safety-evaluable population for the safety analysis included all patients with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC in the three trials who received at least one dose of entrectinib (irrespective of dose or duration of follow-up). These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02097810 (STARTRK-1) and NCT02568267 (STARTRK-2), and EudraCT, 2012–000148–88 (ALKA-372-001). Patients were enrolled in ALKA-372-001 from Oct 26, 2012, to March 27, 2018; in STARTRK-1 from Aug 7, 2014, to May 10, 2018; and in STARTRK-2 from Nov 19, 2015 (enrolment is ongoing). At the data cutoff date for this analysis (May 31, 2018), 41 (77%; 95% CI 64–88) of 53 patients in the efficacy-evaluable population had an objective response. Median follow-up was 15·5 monhts (IQR 13·4–20·2). Median duration of response was 24·6 months (95% CI 11·4–34·8). In the safety-evaluable population, 79 (59%) of 134 patients had grade 1 or 2 treatment-related adverse events. 46 (34%) of 134 patients had grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events, with the most common being weight increase (ten [8%]) and neutropenia (five [4%]). 15 (11%) patients had serious treatment-related adverse events, the most common of which were nervous system disorders (four [3%]) and cardiac disorders (three [2%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred. Entrectinib is active with durable disease control in patients with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC, and is well tolerated with a manageable safety profile, making it amenable to long-term dosing in these patients. These data highlight the need to routinely test for ROS1 fusions to broaden therapeutic options for patients with ROS1 fusion-positive NSCLC. Ignyta/F Hoffmann-La Roche.

The treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma has been revolutionised by targeted therapy with drugs that block angiogenesis. So far, no phase 3 randomised trials comparing the effectiveness of one targeted agent against another have been reported. We did a randomised phase 3 study comparing axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors, with sorafenib, an approved VEGF receptor inhibitor, as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer. We included patients coming from 175 sites (hospitals and outpatient clinics) in 22 countries aged 18 years or older with confirmed renal clear-cell carcinoma who progressed despite first-line therapy containing sunitinib, bevacizumab plus interferon-alfa, temsirolimus, or cytokines. Patients were stratified according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and type of previous treatment and then randomly assigned (1:1) to either axitinib (5 mg twice daily) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). Axitinib dose increases to 7 mg and then to 10 mg, twice daily, were allowed for those patients without hypertension or adverse reactions above grade 2. Participants were not masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and was assessed by a masked, independent radiology review and analysed by intention to treat. This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00678392. A total of 723 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive axitinib (n=361) or sorafenib (n=362). The median PFS was 6·7 months with axitinib compared to 4·7 months with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0·665; 95% CI 0·544–0·812; one-sided p<0·0001). Treatment was discontinued because of toxic effects in 14 (4%) of 359 patients treated with axitinib and 29 (8%) of 355 patients treated with sorafenib. The most common adverse events were diarrhoea, hypertension, and fatigue in the axitinib arm, and diarrhoea, palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia, and alopecia in the sorafenib arm. Axitinib resulted in significantly longer PFS compared with sorafenib. Axitinib is a treatment option for second-line therapy of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Pfizer Inc.

In a phase 3 trial comparing the efficacy and safety of axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma, patients given axitinib had a longer progression-free survival (PFS). Here, we report overall survival and updated efficacy, quality of life, and safety results. Eligible patients had clear cell metastatic renal cell carcinoma, progressive disease after one approved systemic treatment, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0–1. 723 patients were stratified by ECOG PS and previous treatment and randomly allocated (1:1) to receive axitinib (5 mg twice daily; n=361) or sorafenib (400 mg twice daily; n=362). The primary endpoint was PFS assessed by a masked, independent radiology review committee. We assessed patient-reported outcomes using validated questionnaires. Baseline characteristics and development of hypertension on treatment were studied as prognostic factors. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. This ongoing trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00678392. Median overall survival was 20·1 months (95% CI 16·7–23·4) with axitinib and 19·2 months (17·5–22·3) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR] 0·969, 95% CI 0·800–1·174; one-sided p=0·3744). Median investigator-assessed PFS was 8·3 months (95% CI 6·7–9·2) with axitinib and 5·7 months (4·7–6·5) with sorafenib (HR 0·656, 95% CI 0·552–0·779; one-sided p<0·0001). Patient-reported outcomes scores were similar in the treatment groups at baseline, were maintained during treatment, but decreased at end-of-treatment. Common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (60 [17%]), diarrhoea (40 [11%]), and fatigue (37 [10%]) in 359 axitinib-treated patients and hand–foot syndrome (61 [17%]), hypertension (43 [12%]), and diarrhoea (27 [8%]) in 355 sorafenib-treated patients. In a post-hoc 12-week landmark analysis, median overall survival was longer in patients with a diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or greater than in those with a diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg: 20·7 months (95% CI 18·4–24·6) versus 12·9 months (10·1–20·4) in the axitinib group (p=0·0116), and 20·2 months (17·1–32·0) versus 14·8 months (12·0–17·7) in the sorafenib group (one-sided p=0·0020). Although overall survival, a secondary endpoint for the study, did not differ between the two groups, investigator-assessed PFS remained longer in the axitinib group compared with the sorafenib group. These results establish axitinib as a second-line treatment option for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Pfizer Inc.

Mutations in ESR1 have been associated with resistance to aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy in patients with ER+ metastatic breast cancer. Little is known of the impact of these mutations in patients receiving selective oestrogen receptor degrader (SERD) therapy. In this study, hotspot mutations in ESR1 and PIK3CA from ctDNA were assayed in clinical trial samples from ER+ metastatic breast cancer patients randomized either to the SERD fulvestrant or fulvestrant plus a pan-PI3K inhibitor. ESR1 mutations are present in 37% of baseline samples and are enriched in patients with luminal A and PIK3CA -mutated tumours. ESR1 mutations are often polyclonal and longitudinal analysis shows distinct clones exhibiting divergent behaviour over time. ESR1 mutation allele frequency does not show a consistent pattern of increases during fulvestrant treatment, and progression-free survival is not different in patients with ESR1 mutations compared with wild-type patients. ESR1 mutations are not associated with clinical resistance to fulvestrant in this study. Fulvestrant degrades the oestrogen receptor. Here, the authors report on a clinical trial using fulvestrant and show that mutations in the oestrogen receptor alpha gene are prevalent in circulating tumour DNA and do not influence the clinical outcome of patients to fulvestrant.

In previous clinical trials of patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma, patients treated with axitinib as second-line therapy had longer median progression-free survival than those treated with sorafenib. We therefore undertook a phase 3 trial comparing axitinib with sorafenib in patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients with treatment-naive, measurable, clear-cell metastatic renal-cell carcinoma from 13 countries were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and then randomly assigned (2:1) by a centralised registration system to receive axitinib 5 mg twice daily, or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, assessed by masked independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00920816. Between June 14, 2010, and April 21, 2011, we randomly assigned 192 patients to receive axitinib, and 96 patients to receive sorafenib. The cutoff date for this analysis was July 27, 2012, when 171 (59%) of 288 patients died or had disease progression, as assessed by the independent review committee. There was no significant difference in median progression-free survival between patients treated with axitinib or sorafenib (10·1 months [95% CI 7·2–12·1] vs 6·5 months [4·7–8·3], respectively; stratified hazard ratio 0·77, 95% CI 0·56–1·05). Any-grade adverse events that were more common (≥10% difference) with axitinib than with sorafenib were diarrhoea (94 [50%] of 189 patients vs 38 [40%] of 96 patients), hypertension (92 [49%] vs 28 [29%]), weight decrease (69 [37%] vs 23 [24%]), decreased appetite (54 [29%] vs 18 [19%]), dysphonia (44 [23%] vs ten [10%]), hypothyroidism (39 [21%] vs seven [7%]), and upper abdominal pain (31 [16%] vs six [6%]); those more common with sorafenib than with axitinib included palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (PPE; 37 [39%] of 96 patients vs 50 [26%] of 189), rash (19 [20%] vs 18 [10%]), alopecia (18 [19%] vs eight [4%]), and erythema (18 [19%] vs five [3%]). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in patients treated with axitinib included hypertension (26 [14%] of 189 patients), diarrhoea (17 [9%]), asthenia (16 [8%]), weight decrease (16 [8%]), and PPE (14 [7%]); common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in patients treated with sorafenib included PPE (15 [16%] of 96 patients), diarrhoea (five [5%]), and asthenia (five [5%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 64 (34%) of 189 patients receiving axitinib, and 24 (25%) of 96 patients receiving sorafenib. Axitinib did not significantly increase progression-free survival in patients with treatment-naive metastatic renal-cell carcinoma compared with those treated with sorafenib, but did demonstrate clinical activity and an acceptable safety profile. Pfizer Inc.

In this randomized trial, adults who had been exposed to a household contact with Covid-19 were given nirmatrelvir–ritonavir or placebo. Prophylaxis with nirmatrelvir–ritonavir did not prevent symptomatic Covid-19.

Quality of life (QOL) has become an important complementary endpoint in cancer clinical studies alongside more traditional assessments (eg, tumour response, progression-free survival, overall survival). Niraparib maintenance treatment has been shown to significantly improve progression-free survival in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. We aimed to assess whether the benefits of extending progression-free survival are offset by treatment-associated toxic effects that affect QOL. The ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial was a multicentre, double-blind, phase 3, randomised controlled trial done in 107 study sites in the USA, Canada, Europe, and Israel. Patients with recurrent ovarian cancer who were in response to their last platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either niraparib (300 mg once daily) as a maintenance treatment or placebo. Randomisation was stratified based on time to progression after the penultimate platinum-based regimen, previous use of bevacizumab, and best response (complete or partial) to the last platinum-based regimen with permuted-block randomisation (six in each block) using an interactive web response system. The trial enrolled two independent cohorts on the basis of germline BRCA (gBRCA) mutation status (determined by BRACAnalysis Testing, Myriad Genetics, Salt Lake City, UT, USA). The primary endpoint of the trial was progression-free survival, and has already been reported. In this study, we assessed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the intention-to-treat population using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Ovarian Symptoms Index (FOSI) and European QOL five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). We collected PROs from trial entry every 8 weeks for the first 14 cycles and every 12 weeks thereafter. If a patient discontinued, we collected PROs at discontinuation and during a postprogression visit 8 weeks (plus or minus 2 weeks) later. We assessed the effect of haematological toxic effects on QOL with disutility analyses of the most common grade 3–4 adverse events (thrombocytopenia, anaemia, and neutropenia) using a mixed model with histology, region, previous treatment, age, planned treatment, and baseline score as covariates. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01847274. Between Aug 28, 2013, and June 1, 2015, 553 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive niraparib (n=138 in the gBRCAmut cohort, n=234 in the non-gBRCAmut cohort) or placebo (n=65 in the gBRCAmut cohort, n=116 in the non-gBRCAmut cohort). The mean FOSI score at baseline was similar between the two groups (range between 25·0–25·6 in the two groups). Overall QOL scores remained stable during the treatment and preprogression period in the niraparib group; no significant differences were observed between the niraparib and placebo group, and preprogression EQ-5D-5L scores were similar between the two groups in both cohorts (0·838 [0·0097] in the niraparib group vs 0·834 [0·0173] in the placebo group in the gBRCAmut cohort; and 0·833 [0·0077] in the niraparib group vs 0·815 [0·0122] in the placebo group in the non-gBRCAmut cohort). The most common adverse events reported at screening (baseline) were lack of energy (425 [79%]; 97 [18%] reporting severe lack of energy), pain (236 [44%]), and nausea (118 [22%]). All symptoms, except nausea, either remained stable or improved over time in the niraparib group. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities observed in the niraparib group were haematological in nature: thrombocytopenia (124 [34%] of 367 patients), anaemia (93 [25%]), and neutropenia (72 [20%]); disutility analyses showed no significant QOL impairment associated with these toxic effects. These PRO data suggest that women who receive niraparib as maintenance treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer after responding to platinum treatment are able to maintain QOL during their treatment when compared with placebo. TESARO.