Efficacy of neoadjuvant bevacizumab added to docetaxel followed by fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide, for women with HER2-negative early breast cancer (ARTemis): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

The ARTemis trial was developed to assess the efficacy and safety of adding bevacizumab to standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-negative early breast cancer.

METHODS

In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, we enrolled women (≥18 years) with newly diagnosed HER2-negative early invasive breast cancer (radiological tumour size >20 mm, with or without axillary involvement), at 66 centres in the UK. Patients were randomly assigned via a central computerised minimisation procedure to three cycles of docetaxel (100 mg/m(2) once every 21 days) followed by three cycles of fluorouracil (500 mg/m(2)), epirubicin (100 mg/m(2)), and cyclophosphamide (500 mg/m(2)) once every 21 days (D-FEC), without or with four cycles of bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) (Bev+D-FEC). The primary endpoint was pathological complete response, defined as the absence of invasive disease in the breast and axillary lymph nodes, analysed by intention to treat. The trial has completed and follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with EudraCT (2008-002322-11), ISRCTN (68502941), and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01093235).

FINDINGS

Between May 7, 2009, and Jan 9, 2013, we randomly allocated 800 participants to D-FEC (n=401) and Bev+D-FEC (n=399). 781 patients were available for the primary endpoint analysis. Significantly more patients in the bevacizumab group achieved a pathological complete response compared with those treated with chemotherapy alone: 87 (22%, 95% CI 18-27) of 388 patients in the Bev+D-FEC group compared with 66 (17%, 13-21) of 393 patients in the D-FEC group (p=0·03). Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were reported at expected levels in both groups, although more patients had grade 4 neutropenia in the Bev+D-FEC group than in the D-FEC group (85 [22%] vs 68 [17%]).

INTERPRETATION

Addition of four cycles of bevacizumab to D-FEC in HER2-negative early breast cancer significantly improved pathological complete response. However, whether the improvement in pathological complete response will lead to improved disease-free and overall survival outcomes is unknown and will be reported after longer follow-up. Meta-analysis of available neoadjuvant trials is likely to be the only way to define subgroups of early breast cancer that would have clinically significant long-term benefit from bevacizumab treatment.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis.

Abstract PD2-3: ARTemis: A randomised trial of bevacizumab with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with HER2-negative early breast cancer

Background: Bevacizumab (bev) has been used with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in breast cancer trials. Geparquinto reported benefit for bev in triple negative (neg) patients (pts) (pathological complete response (pCR) 36.4% vs 27.8% p=0.02), as did CALGB 40603 (pCR 52% vs 44%, p=0.057), although NSABP-B40 showed benefit in ER positive (pos) pts (pCR 23.3% vs 15.2%, p=0.008).

Methods: ARTemis is a randomised phase 3 trial adding bev to NACT (docetaxel (D)-FEC). Pts with HER2-neg invasive breast cancer were eligible. Stratification was by age, ER status (neg:weak pos:strong pos), tumour size (T2:T3/4), clinical involvement of axillary nodes and inflammatory/locally advanced disease. Pts were randomised (1:1) to bev+D-FEC or D-FEC. The primary endpoint was pCR, defined as no residual invasive cancer in the breast or axillary lymph nodes after NACT. 800 pts were required to detect 10% differences in pCR rates; 85% power, 5% alpha level.

Results: 800 pts were randomised from 66 UK centres (May 2009 to Jan 2013). 68% were <50 years old, 19% had inflammatory and/or locally advanced disease, 79% of tumours <50mm, 52% clinical node pos and 33% ER-neg. A 2-reader independent review of pathology reports determined whether pCR had been achieved or, at least, minimal residual disease (MRD) status. Significantly more pts on bev+D-FEC had a pCR (22% vs 17%; adjusted p=0.03) (see table). pCR rates differed significantly across ER groups (neg 38%, weak pos 39%, strong pos 7%; p<0.0001). Treatment effect of bev remained significant after adjustment for ER (p=0.03). Similarly significantly more pts on bev+D-FEC had a pCR or MRD (36% vs 29%; adjusted p=0.035). Rates differed significantly across ER groups (neg 51%, weak pos 58%, strong pos 18%; p<0.0001). Treatment effect of bev remained significant after adjustment for ER (p=0.03).

  D→FECBev+D→FEC   % (95%CI)% (95%CI)p *$pCR in all breast tumours AND absence of disease in ax LNs in all breast tumours(n=66/393)(n=87/388)   17% (13-21%)22% (18-27%)0.03 ER neg (Allred 0-2) (n=253)32% (24-41)44% (36-54)  ER weak pos (Allred 3-5) (n=67)26% (13-44)52% (34-69)  ER strong pos (Allred 6-8) (n=461)7% (4-11)6% (3-10)  pCR or MRD in all breast tumours(n=114/394)(n=138/388)   29% (25-34%)36% (31-41%)0.035 ER neg (Allred 0-2) (n=254)45% (36-54)56% (47-65)  ER weak pos (Allred 3-5) (n=67)44% (27-62)73% (54-87)  ER strong pos (Allred 6-8) (n=461)18% (13-23)19% (14-24) * Adjusted for stratification variables. $ Primary endpoint for the ARTemis trial

Conclusions: ARTemis showed a significant improvement in both pCR and MRD rates with the addition of bev to D-FEC. ER-neg and ER-weak pos / HER2-neg breast cancer pts appeared to benefit most from bev, whilst pCR and MRD rates in ER-strong pos pts were lower and did not appear to benefit from bev. Our results are similar to those reported in Geparquinto and CALGB 40603.

Citation Format: Helena M Earl, Louise Hiller, Janet A Dunn, Clare Blenkinsop, Louise Grybowicz, Anne-Laure Vallier, Jean Abraham, Jeremy Thomas, Elena Provenzano, Luke Hughes-Davies, Karen McAdam, Stephen Chan, Rizvana Ahmad, Tamas Hickish, Stephen Houston, Daniel Rea, John Bartlett, Carlos Caldas, David Cameron, Larry Hayward. ARTemis: A randomised trial of bevacizumab with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with HER2-negative early breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PD2-3.

A meta-analysis of prevalence rates and moderating factors for cancer-related post-traumatic stress disorder

OBJECTIVE

Systematic reviews highlight a broad range of cancer-related post-traumatic stress disorder (CR-PTSD) prevalence estimates in cancer survivors. This meta-analysis was conducted to provide a prevalence estimate of significant CR-PTSD symptoms and full diagnoses to facilitate the psychological aftercare of cancer survivors.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies using samples of cancer survivors by using validated clinical interviews and questionnaires to assess the prevalence of CR-PTSD (k = 25, n = 4189). Prevalence estimates were calculated for each assessment method using random-effects meta-analysis. Mixed-effects meta-regression and categorical analyses were used to investigate study-level moderator effects.

RESULTS

Studies using the PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version yielded lower event rates using cut-off [7.3%, 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 4.5-11.7, k = 10] than symptom cluster (11.2%, 95% CI = 8.7-14.4, k = 9). Studies using the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition (SCID), yielded low rates for lifetime (15.3%, 95% CI = 9.1-25, k = 5) and current CR-PTSD (5.1%, 95% CI = 2.8-8.9, k = 9). Between-study heterogeneity was substantial (I(2)  = 54-87%). Studies with advanced-stage samples yielded significantly higher rates with PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version cluster scoring (p = 0.05), and when assessing current CR-PTSD on the SCID (p = 0.05). The effect of mean age on current PTSD prevalence met significance on the SCID (p = 0.05). SCID lifetime prevalence rates decreased with time post-treatment (R(2)  = 0.56, p < 0.05).

DISCUSSION

The cancer experience is sufficiently traumatic to induce PTSD in a minority of cancer survivors. Post-hoc analyses suggest that those who are younger, are diagnosed with more advanced disease and recently completed treatment may be at greater risk of PTSD. More research is needed to investigate vulnerability factors for PTSD in cancer survivors. © 2014 The Authors. Psycho-Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Abstract 1612: Gene expression and proteomic analysis to identify predictive biomarkers of response in the ENCHANT-1 Trial (NCT01677455), a Phase 2 Proof of Concept study evaluating first-line ganetespib monotherapy in women with metastatic HER2 positive or triple negat

Background: The chaperone protein HSP90 is required for the stabilization and activation of many client proteins critical to breast cancer growth and aggressiveness, such as HER2, HIF1-α, EGFR, ER, PI3K, AKT, P53 and VEGFR. Ganetespib, a novel triazolone inhibitor of HSP90, has shown activity in breast cancer in both preclinical models (HER2+, ER+/PR+ and TNBC), and in early clinical trials (patients with HER2+ disease, as well as TNBC). Ganetespib has been well tolerated in clinical trials with a favorable safety profile. The ENCHANT-1 trial was designed to further evaluate ganetespib single agent activity in metastatic breast cancer (mBC) and identify potential predictive biomarkers.

Methods: The ENCHANT-1 trial is an international, first-line phase 2 study in mBC patients: Cohort A, HER2+ (up to n=35) and Cohort B, TNBC (up to n=35). Patients with previously untreated metastatic disease are eligible for treatment with ganetespib at 150 mg/m2 twice weekly on 3 out of 4 wks. Primary endpoint: ORR assessed using RECIST1.1 criteria. Key secondary endpoints include early metabolic effects as assessed by PET/CT at week 3. Tissue samples were collected from all pts at baseline prior to initiation of treatment; fresh biopsies at C1D18 and end of treatment were optional. Gene expression will be evaluated using RNAseq to survey mutations and gene expression levels in breast cancer genes. A reverse phase protein microarray assay will be used to map the activated protein signaling architecture of laser capture micro-dissected tumor cells from collected tissue samples to evaluate the level of phosphorylation/activation of HSP90 clients and coordinated signaling pathways. Analysis of ∼150 signaling proteins is planned.

Results and Conclusions: The study was initiated in 27 centers globally. At the time of submission, a total of 35 patients were enrolled; TNBC (n= 30) and HER2+ (n=5). In an interim analysis, of the evaluable 4 patients in HER2-positive cohort, 2 had objective response (OR), and 2 stable disease (SD). In the TNBC cohort, of the evaluable 10 patients, 2 had OR, 3 SD and 5 PD. Full molecular analysis to identify biomarkers of response is underway and will be reported at the meeting.

Citation Format: Emanuel F. Petricoin, Julia Wulfkuhle, Tamas Hickish, Iman El-Hariry, Vienna Reichert, Vojislav M. Vukovic, David A. Cameron, Ahmad Awada, Neil Spector. Gene expression and proteomic analysis to identify predictive biomarkers of response in the ENCHANT-1 Trial (NCT01677455), a Phase 2 Proof of Concept study evaluating first-line ganetespib monotherapy in women with metastatic HER2 positive or triple negat [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 1612. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-1612

Randomized Phase II trial of nintedanib, afatinib and sequential combination in castration-resistant prostate cancer

AIMS

The aim of this article was to evaluate afatinib (BIBW 2992), an ErbB family blocker, and nintedanib (BIBF 1120), a triple angiokinase inhibitor, in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients.

PATIENTS & METHODS

Patients were randomized to receive nintedanib (250 mg twice daily), afatinib (40 mg once daily [q.d.]), or alternating sequential 7-day nintedanib (250 mg twice daily) and afatinib (70 mg q.d. [Combi70]), which was reduced to 40 mg q.d. (Combi40) due to adverse events. The primary end point was progression-free rate at 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Of the 85 patients treated 46, 20, 16 and three received nintedanib, afatinib, Combi40 and Combi70, respectively. At 12 weeks, the progression-free rate was 26% (seven out of 27 patients) for nintedanib, and 0% for afatinib and Combi40 groups. Two patients had a ≥50% decline in PSA (nintedanib and the Combi40 groups). The most common drug-related adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and lethargy.

CONCLUSION

Nintedanib and/or afatinib demonstrated limited anti-tumor activity in unselected advanced castration-resistant prostate cancer patients.

Gemcitabine and capecitabine with or without telomerase peptide vaccine GV1001 in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer (TeloVac): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of sequential or simultaneous telomerase vaccination (GV1001) in combination with chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

TeloVac was a three-group, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. We recruited patients from 51 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were treatment naive, aged older than 18 years, with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy with sequential GV1001 (sequential chemoimmunotherapy), or chemotherapy with concurrent GV1001 (concurrent chemoimmunotherapy). Treatments were allocated with equal probability by means of computer-generated random permuted blocks of sizes 3 and 6 in equal proportion. Chemotherapy included six cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2), 30 min intravenous infusion, at days 1, 8, and 15) and capecitabine (830 mg/m(2) orally twice daily for 21 days, repeated every 28 days). Sequential chemoimmunotherapy included two cycles of combination chemotherapy, then an intradermal lower abdominal injection of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; 75 μg) and GV1001 (0·56 mg; days 1, 3, and 5, once on weeks 2-4, and six monthly thereafter). Concurrent chemoimmunotherapy included giving GV1001 from the start of chemotherapy with GM-CSF as an adjuvant. The primary endpoint was overall survival; analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN4382138.

FINDINGS

The first patient was randomly assigned to treatment on March 29, 2007, and the trial was terminated on March 27, 2011. Of 1572 patients screened, 1062 were randomly assigned to treatment (358 patients were allocated to the chemotherapy group, 350 to the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 354 to the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group). We recorded 772 deaths; the 290 patients still alive were followed up for a median of 6·0 months (IQR 2·4-12·2). Median overall survival was not significantly different in the chemotherapy group than in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group (7·9 months [95% CI 7·1-8·8] vs 6·9 months [6·4-7·6]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·19, 98·25% CI 0·97-1·48, p=0·05), or in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group (8·4 months [95% CI 7·3-9·7], HR 1·05, 98·25% CI 0·85-1·29, p=0·64; overall log-rank of χ(2)2df=4·3; p=0·11). The commonest grade 3-4 toxic effects were neutropenia (68 [19%] patients in the chemotherapy group, 58 [17%] patients in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 79 [22%] patients in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group; fatigue (27 [8%] in the chemotherapy group, 35 [10%] in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 44 [12%] in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group); and pain (34 [9%] patients in the chemotherapy group, 39 [11%] in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 41 [12%] in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group).

INTERPRETATION

Adding GV1001 vaccination to chemotherapy did not improve overall survival. New strategies to enhance the immune response effect of telomerase vaccination during chemotherapy are required for clinical efficacy.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK and KAEL-GemVax.

A midline for oxaliplatin infusion: the myth of safety devices

Oxaliplatin is a platinum compound mainly used in the treatment of colorectal cancer. According to its manufacturer it is not considered vesicant agent though it has been shown to cause severe tissue damage if extravasation occurs in large doses. Several cases of extravasation have been reported; most of them from incorrectly placed peripheral cannula or incorrect use of central venous access devices. To reduce these risks, peripherally inserted central catheters and midline catheters have been increasingly used and are especially helpful if poor peripheral venous access. Midlines are mainly used for patients not receiving vesicant drugs, and are generally inserted without radiological guidance. They are believed to be safe, but we present the first ever-documented oxaliplatin extravasation injury from a midline catheter.

Systemic chemotherapy with or without cetuximab in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastasis: the New EPOC randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Surgery for colorectal liver metastases results in an overall survival of about 40% at 5 years. Progression-free survival is increased with the addition of oxaliplatin and fluorouracil chemotherapy. The addition of cetuximab to these chemotherapy regimens results in an overall survival advantage in patients with advanced disease who have the KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumour genotype. We aimed to assess the benefit of addition of cetuximab to standard chemotherapy in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastasis.

METHODS

Patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type resectable or suboptimally resectable colorectal liver metastases were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive chemotherapy with or without cetuximab before and after liver resection. Randomisation was done using minimisation with factors of surgical centre, poor prognostic tumour (one or more of: ≥ 4 metastases, N2 disease, or poor differentiation of primary tumour), and previous adjuvant treatment with oxaliplatin. Chemotherapy consisted of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) intravenously over 2 h and fluorouracil bolus 400 mg/m(2) intravenously over 5 min, followed by a 46 h infusion of fluorouracil 2400 mg/m(2) repeated every 2 weeks (regimen one) or oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) intravenously over 2 h and oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 repeated every 3 weeks (regimen two). Patients who had received adjuvant oxaliplatin could receive irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) intravenously over 30 min with fluorouracil instead of oxaliplatin (regimen three). Cetuximab was given as an intravenous dose of 500 mg/m(2) every 2 weeks with regimen one and three or a loading dose of 400 mg/m(2) followed by a weekly infusion of 250 mg/m(2) with regimen two. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. This is an interim analysis, up to Nov 1, 2012, when the trial was closed, having met protocol-defined futility criteria. This trial is registered, ISRCTN22944367.

FINDINGS

128 KRAS exon 2 wild-type patients were randomised to chemotherapy alone and 129 to chemotherapy with cetuximab between Feb 26, 2007, and Nov 1, 2012. 117 patients in the chemotherapy alone group and 119 in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group were included in the primary analysis. The median follow-up was 21.1 months (95% CI 12.6-33.8) in the chemotherapy alone group and 19.8 months (12.2-28.7) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group. With an overall median follow-up of 20.7 months (95% CI 17.9-25.6) and 123 (58%) of 212 required events observed, progression-free survival was significantly shorter in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group than in the chemotherapy alone group (14.1 months [95% CI 11.8-15.9] vs 20.5 months [95% CI 16.8-26.7], hazard ratio 1.48, 95% CI 1.04-2.12, p=0.030). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were low neutrophil count (15 [11%] preoperatively in the chemotherapy alone group vs six [4%] in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group; four [4%] vs eight [8%] postoperatively), embolic events (six [4%] vs eight [6%] preoperatively; two [2%] vs three [3%] postoperatively), peripheral neuropathy (six [4%] vs one [1%] preoperatively; two [2%] vs four [4%] postoperatively), nausea or vomiting (four [3%] vs six [4%] preoperatively; four [4%] vs two [2%] postoperatively), and skin rash (two [1%] vs 21 [15%] preoperatively; 0 vs eight [8%] postoperatively). There were three deaths in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group (one interstitial lung disease and pulmonary embolism, one bronchopneumonia, and one pulmonary embolism) and one in the chemotherapy alone group (heart failure) that might have been treatment related.

INTERPRETATION

Addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy and surgery for operable colorectal liver metastases in KRAS exon 2 wild-type patients results in shorter progression-free survival. Translational investigations to explore the molecular basis for this unexpected interaction are needed but at present the use of cetuximab in this setting cannot be recommended.

Effects of the addition of gemcitabine, and paclitaxel-first sequencing, in neoadjuvant sequential epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel for women with high-risk early breast cancer (Neo-tAnGo): an open-label, 2×2 factorial randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Anthracyclines and taxanes have been the standard neoadjuvant chemotherapies for breast cancer in the past decade. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of the addition of gemcitabine to accelerated paclitaxel with epirubicin and cyclophosphamide, and also the effect of sequencing the blocks of epirubicin and cyclophosphamide and paclitaxel (with or without gemcitabine).

METHODS

In our randomised, open-label, 2×2 factorial phase 3 trial (Neo-tAnGo), we enrolled women (aged >18 years) with newly diagnosed breast cancer (tumour size >20 mm) at 57 centres in the UK. Patients were randomly assigned via a central randomisation procedure to epirubicin and cyclophosphamide then paclitaxel (with or without gemcitabine) or paclitaxel (with or without gemcitabine) then epirubicin and cyclophosphamide. Four cycles of each component were given. The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR), defined as absence of invasive cancer in the breast and axillary lymph nodes. This study is registered with EudraCT (2004-002356-34), ISRCTN (78234870), and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00070278).

FINDINGS

Between Jan 18, 2005, and Sept 28, 2007, we randomly allocated 831 participants; 207 received epirubicin and cyclophosphamide then paclitaxel; 208 were given paclitaxel then epirubicin and cyclophosphamide; 208 had epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel and gemcitabine; and 208 received paclitaxel and gemcitabine then epirubicin and cyclophosphamide. 828 patients were eligible for analysis. Median follow-up was 47 months (IQR 37-51). 207 (25%) patients had inflammatory or locally advanced disease, 169 (20%) patients had tumours larger than 50 mm, 413 (50%) patients had clinical involvement of axillary nodes, 276 (33%) patients had oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative disease, and 191 (27%) patients had HER2-positive disease. Addition of gemcitabine did not increase pCR: 70 (17%, 95% CI 14-21) of 404 patients in the epirubicin and cyclophosphamide then paclitaxel group achieved pCR compared with 71 (17%, 14-21) of 408 patients who received additional gemcitabine (p=0·98). Receipt of a taxane before anthracycline was associated with improved pCR: 82 (20%, 95% CI 16-24) of 406 patients who received paclitaxel with or without gemcitabine followed by epirubicin and cyclophosphamide achieved pCR compared with 59 (15%, 11-18) of 406 patients who received epirubicin and cyclophosphamide first (p=0·03). Grade 3 toxicities were reported at expected levels: 173 (21%) of 812 patients who received treatment and had full treatment details had grade 3 neutropenia, 66 (8%) had infection, 41 (5%) had fatigue, 41 (5%) had muscle and joint pains, 37 (5%) had nausea, 36 (4%) had vomiting, 34 (4%) had neuropathy, 23 (3%) had transaminitis, 16 (2%) had acute hypersensitivity, and 20 (2%) had a rash. 86 (11%) patients had grade 4 neutropenia and 3 (<1%) had grade 4 infection.

INTERPRETATION

Although addition of gemcitabine to paclitaxel and epirubicin and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy does not improve pCR, sequencing chemotherapy so that taxanes are received before anthracyclines could improve pCR in standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Abstract P2-16-23: The ENCHANT-1 trial (NCT01677455): An open label multicenter phase 2 proof of concept study evaluating first line ganetespib monotherapy in women with metastatic HER2 positive or triple negative breast cancer (TNBC)

Background: Hsp90 is a molecular chaperone protein required for the stabilization and activation of many proteins, referred to as Hsp90 ‘clients’, such as HER2, HIF1-a, EGFR, ER, PI3K, AKT, P53 and VEGFR. The drug candidate, ganetespib is a novel triazolone inhibitor of Hsp90, with over 700 patients treated to date. Ganetespib has shown activity in preclinical models of HER2+, ER+/PR+ and TNBC. Early clinical trials documented ganetespib single agent activity in heavily pretreated HER2+ and TNBC patients. Ganetespib has been well tolerated in clinical trials with a favorable safety profile. This efficacy-screening study is designed to provide further evidence of ganetespib activity and identify potentially predictive biomarkers in metastatic breast cancer (BC).

Methods: The ENCHANT-1 Trial is an international, first-line 2-cohort Phase 2 study in BC patients: Cohort A, HER2 amplified (n = 35), and Cohort B, TNBC (n = 35). Patients who present with previously untreated metastatic disease are eligible for treatment with ganetespib at 150 mg/m2 twice weekly on 3 out of 4 wks, for a total of up to 12 wks. Primary endpoint: ORR assessed using RECIST1.1 criteria. Key secondary endpoints include metabolic response as assessed by PET/CT at wk 3 utilizing modified EORTC criteria. Disease progression (PD) at wk 3 by PET imaging indicates discontinuation of study therapy, and is performed to quickly offer patients with metabolic PD a standard of care treatment.

The study is designed as Simon 2-stage requiring at least one OR in 15 patients for the respective cohort to expand to 35 patients. A Steering Committee is established to oversee the overall study and review the interim results.

Results: The study was initiated in 23 centers globally. At the time of submission, a total of 17 patients had been enrolled; TNBC (n = 15) and HER2 (n = 2). Here we report the interim analysis in the TNBC cohort. The median age was 54 years (range 30 -77) with ECOG PS 0 (n = 7/15). Most patients (n = 9) presented with de novo metastatic disease. 5 patients were not evaluable for PET assessment (3 had not yet reached wk 3 and 2 withdrawn before wk 3 for clinical progression), and 9 patients were not evaluable for objective response at wk 6 (3 withdrawn before or at wk 3 for clinical progression and 6 had not yet reached wk 6 evaluation). In the 10 patients with evaluable PET imaging, 9 patients achieved metabolic (m) response (2 mPR, 4 mSD with dominant tumor shrinkage and 3 SD) and one patient with mPD. In the 6 patients evaluable for OR at wk 6, one patient achieved PR, 2 SD and 3 PD. Treatment with ganetespib was well tolerated; the most common AEs were mild or moderate diarrhea (8/15, 53%), fatigue (5/15, 33%), decreased appetite (4/15, 27%), insomnia (4/15, 27%), and nausea (4/15, 27%).

Conclusion: Ganetespib single agent was generally well tolerated and showed anti-tumor activity TNBC patients as early as 3 weeks following treatment. PET seems to be a good tool to screen antitumor activity of new agents in early settings rather that in heavily pretreated patients. The TNBC cohort has met the protocol criteria for proceeding to stage 2.

Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P2-16-23.

Management of colorectal cancer and diabetes

Colorectal cancer is associated with diabetes mellitus and both of these common conditions are often managed together by a surgeon. The surgical focus is usually upon cancer treatment rather than diabetes management. The relationship between colorectal cancer and diabetes is a complex one and can raise problems in both diagnosis and the management of patients with both conditions. This literature review explores the relationship between diabetes, diabetic treatment and colorectal cancer and addresses the issues that arise in diagnosing and treating this patient group. By highlighting these difficulties, this review aims to improve understanding and to provide clearer insight into both surgical and non-surgical management.

A randomized clinical trial of chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy in combination with cetuximab in k-RAS wild-type patients with operable metastases from colorectal cancer: The new EPOC study

3504

Background: Resection of liver metastases from colorectal cancer with or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy is the standard of care. The EPOC study (Nordlinger et al, Lancet 2008) randomised patients between surgery and surgery with chemotherapy and demonstrated an improvement in 3 year progression free survival (PFS) of 7·3% (from 28·1% to 35·4%). As a rational extension to the EPOC study data, the New EPOC study evaluates the benefit of cetuximab, an EGF receptor antibody, in addition to standard chemotherapy in patients with operable liver metastases. Methods: 272 patients were randomised between February 2007 and November 2012 into the New EPOC study. Eligible patients were required to be k-RAS wild type, have operable liver metastases and to be sufficiently fit for chemotherapy and surgery. Patients with the primary tumour in situ, and those who required short course rectal radiation were eligible. Patients were randomised to receive a fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin plus or minus cetuximab for 12 weeks before, then 12 weeks following surgery. Patients who had been treated with adjuvant oxaliplatin could receive irinotecan and 5 – fluorouracil. Results: Following a recommendation from the Independent Data Monitoring Committee on 19/11/2012, the New EPOC study was stopped when the study met a protocol pre-defined futility analysis. With 45.3% (96/212) of the expected events observed, progression free survival was significantly worse in the cetuximab arm (14.8 vs 24.2 months, HR (95%CI) 1.50037 (1.000707 to 2.249517) p< 0.048). The result of a pre-planned analysis excluding the 23 patients treated with irinotecan based chemotherapy was similar (15.2 vs 24.2 months, HR 1.565546 (1.014967-2.414793) P<0.043). Conclusions: Although the data are immature, the accumulation of more events is unlikely to change this result. In patients with resectable liver metastases and K-RAS wt tumours the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy is not beneficial. Clinical trial information: ISRCTN22944367.

Effect of adding oxaliplatin to adjuvant 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5FU/LV) in patients with defective mismatch repair (dMMR) colon cancer stage II and III included in the MOSIAC study

3524

Background: The MOSAIC study (André T, N Engl J Med, 2004) demonstrated that adding oxaliplatin to adjuvant 5FU and LV improved three-year disease-free survival (DFS) in stage II and III resected CC. Efficacy of FOLFOX4 in pts with dMMR stage III was suggested in a retrospective study (Zaanan A, Ann Oncol 2010). Methods: Of the 2,246 pts included in MOSAIC study, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue blocks or slides from 1,019 pts were obtained. Thirty-three samples with insufficient tumor tissue were excluded from this translational study. MMR status was determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis of the protein products of MLH1, MSH2, PMS2, and MSH6 genes. Results: A total of 986 pts (44%) were evaluable for MMR status and MMR status was not evaluable for 1,260 pts (56%). Relapse-free survival (RFS), DFS and overall survival (OS) were similar in both, MMR and MMR not evaluable population. Ninety (9.1%) and 896 (90.9%) pts had dMMR and proficient MMR (pMMR) CC, respectively. Of the patients with 90 dMMR CC, 45 pts had stage II and 45 stage III. Hazard Ratios (HRs) for stage II and III dMMR are 0.52 (0.21–1.28) for RFS, 0.52 (0.24–1.14) for DFS, and 0.45 (0.19–1.05) for OS, respectively. HR for stage III dMMR are 0.56 (0.19–1.61) for RFS, 0.51 (0.18–1.41) for DFS, and 0.44 (0.15–1.34) for OS, respectively. HR for stage II dMMR are 0.64 (0.11–3.70) for RFS, 0.60 (0.17–2.09) for DFS, and 0.52 (0.13–2.10) for OS, respectively. Conclusions: Analyses ofcolon cancerMMR status in pts included in the MOSAIC study support the use of FOLFOX4 in pts with dMMR stage III cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT00275210. [Table: see text]

Cognitive decline as a result of impaired sleep and glucose levels during chemotherapy treatment in breast cancer patients

e20713

Background: Sleep efficiency might be altered during chemotherapy treatment. Cognitive decline has been associated with sleep disruption, impaired glucose levels, and chemotherapy treatment. We hypothesize that the biological factors considered in this study are playing an important role. Anecdotical reports have shown discrepancy with neuropsychological batteries results, therefore a qualitative interview and memory self-reports will be conducted for the cancer group. Methods: A sample of 32 Breast cancer patients and 29 healthy controls has been recruited in the Dorset area in the UK. The chemotherapy group will be tested three times within de course of their treatment (baseline, mid-treatment, after treatment). The radiotherapy participants will be tested three times within a period of four months, and the healthy control group two times within a four-month period. A subset of chemotherapy participants will be tested six months after chemotherapy. A neuropsychological battery is being used to assess cognitive function, and sleep efficiency is analysed using a sleep monitor and validated self-reports; Furthermore, glucose levels will be analysed for the chemotherapy group, and an online semi-qualitative interview will be conducted for cancer patients for a thematic analysis, along with a Prospective Memory questionnaire. Results: Preliminary data shows that sleep efficiency is disturbed during the course of chemotherapy, although not statistically significant, there is a trend in decreased sleep efficiency percentage when we compared baseline and mid-chemotherapy assessment The strongest tendency is observed on the PSQI self-report, showing an increase in Global PSQI score . Glucose levels show an increase during mid-treatment, although preliminary analyses show no significant effect. Memory data is still under scrutiny and more data will be reported at the poster presentation, along with assessments for times three and four. Conclusions: The inclusion of a semi-qualitative study will add a very important information to this study when test results are compered with anecdotical and self-reports.