Docetaxel-based therapy with and without antiangiogenic agents as first-line chemotherapy for castration-resistant prostate cancer: A meta-analysis of nine randomized controlled trials

Progression-free survival, disease-free survival and other composite end points in oncology: improved reporting is needed

Composite outcome measures such as progression-free survival and disease-free survival are increasingly used as surrogate end points in oncology research, frequently serving as the primary end point of pivotal trials that form the basis for FDA and EMA approvals. Such outcome measures combine two or more distinct events (for example, tumour (re)growth, new lesions and/or death) into a single, time-to-event end point. The use of a composite end point can increase the statistical power of a clinical trial and decrease the follow-up period required to demonstrate efficacy, thus lowering costs; however, these end points have a number of limitations. Composite outcomes are often vaguely defined, with definitions that vary greatly between studies, complicating comparisons of results across trials. Altering the makeup of events included in a composite outcome can alter study conclusions, including whether treatment effects are statistically significant. Moreover, the events included in a composite outcome often vary in clinical significance, reflect distinct biological pathways and/or are affected differently by treatment. Therefore, knowing the precise breakdown of the component events is essential to accurately interpret trial results and gauge the true benefit of an intervention. In oncology clinical trials, however, such information is rarely provided. In this Perspective, we emphasize this deficiency through a review of 50 studies with progression-free survival as an outcome published in five top oncology journals, discuss the advantages and challenges of using composite end points, and highlight the need for transparent reporting of the component events.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer comparing cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil versus docetaxel plus cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

The standard treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer is preoperative chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (CF), followed by surgery. Although docetaxel plus cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) has been reported to have favorable outcomes, no study has compared its therapeutic efficacy to that of standard treatment. This study aimed to compare the therapeutic effects of CF and DCF in the real world by matching patient background factors using propensity scores.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the data of 237 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent esophagectomy between January 2008 and December 2018. Patients were divided into two groups based on the preoperative chemotherapy regimens of CF (79 patients) or DCF (158 patients), and 49 matched pairs were finally analyzed using propensity score matching. Short- and long-term outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

After matching, although no significant differences in survival were observed among the groups, patients receiving DCF showed a significantly high histological response (P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that DCF therapy had better overall survival (P = 0.046) and relapse-free survival (P = 0.010) among pathological T3 and T4 cases. Whereas, adverse effects of chemotherapy were more frequent in the DCF group.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving DCF had higher pathological response and better survival than those receiving CF, especially in pathological T3 and T4 cases matched using propensity scores. Thus, the DCF regimen might be an effective treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer. However, the adverse side effects of chemotherapy remain high and should be handled appropriately.

Targeting cancer metastasis with antibody therapeutics

Cancer metastasis, the spread of disease from a primary to a distal site through the circulatory or lymphatic systems, accounts for over 90% of all cancer related deaths. Despite significant progress in the field of cancer therapy in recent years, mortality rates remain dramatically higher for patients with metastatic disease versus those with local or regional disease. Although there is clearly an urgent need to develop drugs that inhibit cancer spread, the overwhelming majority of anticancer therapies that have been developed to date are designed to inhibit tumor growth but fail to address the key stages of the metastatic process: invasion, intravasation, circulation, extravasation, and colonization. There is growing interest in engineering targeted therapeutics, such as antibody drugs, that inhibit various steps in the metastatic cascade. We present an overview of antibody therapeutic approaches, both in the pipeline and in the clinic, that disrupt the essential mechanisms that underlie cancer metastasis. These therapies include classes of antibodies that indirectly target metastasis, including anti-integrin, anticadherin, and immune checkpoint blocking antibodies, as well as monoclonal and bispecific antibodies that are specifically designed to interrupt disease dissemination. Although few antimetastatic antibodies have achieved clinical success to date, there are many promising candidates in various stages of development, and novel targets and approaches are constantly emerging. Collectively, these efforts will enrich our understanding of the molecular drivers of metastasis, and the new strategies that arise promise to have a profound impact on the future of cancer therapeutic development. This article is categorized under: Therapeutic Approaches and Drug Discovery > Nanomedicine for Oncologic Disease.

COMMD3:BMI1 Fusion and COMMD3 Protein Regulate C-MYC Transcription: Novel Therapeutic Target for Metastatic Prostate Cancer

Gene rearrangement is reported to be associated to the aggressive phenotype and poor prognosis in prostate cancer. We identified a gene fusion between a transcription repressor (BMI1) and transcriptional factor (COMMD3) in human prostate cancer. We show that COMMD3:BMI1 fusion expression is significantly increased in prostate cancer disease in an order: normal tissue < primary < metastatic tumors (Mets). Although elevated TMPRSS-ERG/ETV fusion is reported in prostate cancer, we identified a subtype of Mets exhibiting low TMPRSS:ETV and high COMMD3:BMI1 We delineated the mechanism and function of COMMD3 and COMMD3:BMI1 in prostate cancer. We show that COMMD3 level is elevated in prostate cancer cell models, PDX models (adenocarcinoma, NECaP), and Mets. The analysis of TCGA/NIH/GEO clinical data showed a positive correlation between increased COMMD3 expression to the disease recurrence and poor survival in prostate cancer. We show that COMMD3 drives proliferation of normal cells and promotes migration/invasiveness of neoplastic cells. We show that COMMD3:BMI1 and COMMD3 regulate C-MYC transcription and C-MYC downstream pathway. The ChIP analysis showed that COMMD3 protein is recruited at the promoter of C-MYC gene. On the basis of these data, we investigated the relevance of COMMD3:BMI1 and COMMD3 as therapeutic targets using in vitro and xenograft mouse models. We show that siRNA-mediated targeting of COMMD3:BMI1 and COMMD3 significantly decreases (i) C-MYC expression in BRD/BET inhibitor-resistant cells, (ii) proliferation/invasion in vitro, and (iii) growth of prostate cancer cell tumors in mice. The IHC analysis of tumors confirmed the targeting of COMMD3-regulated molecular pathway under in vivo conditions. We conclude that COMMD3:BMI1 and COMMD3 are potential progression biomarkers and therapeutic targets of metastatic prostate cancer.

Biomarkers and Bone Imaging Dynamics Associated with Clinical Outcomes of Oral Cabozantinib Therapy in Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

Cabozantinib is a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor that demonstrated remarkable responses on bone scan in metastatic prostate cancer. Randomized trials failed to demonstrate statistically significant overall survival (OS). We studied the dynamics of biomarker changes with imaging and biopsies pretherapy and posttherapy to explore factors that are likely to be predictive of efficacy with cabozantinib.Experimental Design: Eligibility included patients with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer with normal organ function and performance status 0-2. Cabozantinib 60 mg orally was administered daily. Pretherapy and 2 weeks post, ^99mTc-labeled bone scans, positron emission tomography with ¹⁸F-sodium fluoride (NaF-PET) and ¹⁸F-(1-(2'-deoxy-2'-fluoro-β-D-arabinofuranosyl) thymine (FMAU PET) scans were conducted. Pretherapy and posttherapy tumor biopsies were conducted, and serum and urine bone markers were measured.

RESULTS

Twenty evaluable patients were treated. Eight patients had a PSA decline, of which 2 had a decline of ≥50%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and OS were 4.1 and 11.2 months, respectively, and 3 patients were on therapy for 8, 10, and 13 months. The NaF-PET demonstrated a median decline in SUVmax of -56% (range, -85 to -5%, n = 11) and -41% (range, -60 to -25%, n = 9) for patients who were clinically stable and remained on therapy for ≥4 or <4 cycles, respectively. The FMAU PET demonstrated a median decline in SUVmax of -44% (-60 to -14%) and -42% (-63% to -23%) for these groups. The changes in bone markers and mesenchymal epithelial transition/MET testing did not correlate with clinical benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Early changes in imaging and tissue or serum/urine biomarkers did not demonstrate utility in predicting clinical benefit with cabozantinib therapy.

Efficacy and safety of taxane-based systemic chemotherapy of advanced gastric cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Taxanes are chemotherapeutic agents commonly used to treat several cancers. However, the effects of taxanes on advanced gastric cancer (AGC) are still not clear, especially when used as a first-line treatment. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of taxanes as a first-line treatment of AGC. The quality of our included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs and NOS scale for nRCTs, and the data of the included studies was of satisfactory quality to analyze. The outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and toxicity. Taxanes significantly improved OS (HR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.76-0.92, P = 0.0004) and had a slight effect on ORR (RR = 1.23, 95% CI 1.00-1.51, P = 0.05). However, taxanes may also increase the risks of neutropenia and leucopenia, similar to effects observed in other conventional chemotherapeutic treatments such as oxaliplatin and epirubicin. Therefore, patient characteristics including concomitant diseases, physical condition, and prior therapies should be considered before selecting taxane-based treatments for AGC.