Abstract Learning Objectives After completing this course, the reader should be able to: Describe the clinical trial that led to the approval of lapatinib in combination with capecitabine for the treatment of previously treated patients with HER-2–overexpressing metastatic breast cancer.Determine appropriate patients to receive lapatinib plus capecitabine treatment.Assess and manage the toxicities of lapatinib plus capecitabine treatment. CME This article is available for continuing medical education credit at CME.TheOncologist.com On March 13, 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved lapatinib (Tykerb® tablets; GlaxoSmithKline, Philadelphia), an oral, small molecule, dual tyrosine kinase inhibitor of ErbB-2 and ErbB-1, for use in combination with capecitabine for the treatment of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-2–overexpressing metastatic breast cancer who had received prior therapy including an anthracycline, a taxane, and trastuzumab. One multicenter, open-label, randomized trial was submitted. Eligible patients had stage IIIb or IV breast cancer, ErbB-2 overexpression (immunohistochemistry 3+ or 2+ with fluorescence in situ hybridization confirmation), measurable disease, a 0 or 1 Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score, a cardiac ejection fraction within the institutional normal range, and adequate laboratory function. Patients received either lapatinib (1,250 mg once daily on days 1–21) plus capecitabine (1,000 mg/m2 every 12 hours on days 1–14) every 21 days or capecitabine alone (1,250 mg/m2 every 12 hours on days 1–14) every 21 days. The primary endpoint was time to progression (TTP) determined by a blinded independent review panel. After TTP results of a prespecified interim analysis were made available, study enrollment was discontinued (399 patients enrolled). The median TTP was 27.1 versus 18.6 weeks (hazard ratio, 0.57; p = .00013) favoring the lapatinib plus capecitabine arm. Response rates were 23.7% (lapatinib plus capecitabine) versus 13.9% (capecitabine alone). Survival data were not mature. Although the toxicities observed in the lapatinib and capecitabine combination arm were generally similar to those in the capecitabine alone arm, a higher incidence of diarrhea and rash was noted with the combination. Grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions that occurred with a frequency of >5% in patients on the combination arm were diarrhea (13%) and palmar–plantar erythrodysesthesia (12%). There was a 2% incidence of reversible decreased left ventricular function in the combination arm.
On May 15, 2013, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved radium Ra 223 dichloride (Ra-223; Xofigo injection; Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.) for the treatment of patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), symptomatic bone metastases, and no known visceral metastatic disease. The FDA review was based on clinical trial BC1-06, which randomly allocated patients (2:1) to either Ra-223 plus best standard of care (BSoC) or placebo plus BSoC. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) with a key secondary endpoint of time to first symptomatic skeletal event (SSE). A statistically significant improvement in OS was demonstrated [HR, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.88, P = 0.0019]. At the prespecified interim analysis, the median OS durations were 14.0 and 11.2 months in the Ra-223 and placebo arms, respectively. The improvement in OS was supported by a delay in time to first SSE favoring the Ra-223 arm. The most common (>10%) adverse reactions in patients receiving Ra-223 were nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, and peripheral edema. The most common (>10%) hematologic laboratory abnormalities were anemia, lymphocytopenia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia. Ra-223 is the first α-emitting radiotherapeutic and the first radiopharmaceutical to demonstrate an OS advantage in metastatic prostate cancer.
On March 8, 2019, the FDA granted accelerated approval to atezolizumab in combination with paclitaxel protein-bound for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) whose tumors express PD-L1 [PD-L1 stained tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC) of any intensity covering ≥1% of the tumor area], as determined by an FDA-approved test. Approval was based on data from IMpassion130, which randomized patients to receive atezolizumab or placebo in combination with paclitaxel protein-bound. Investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1-positive populations were coprimary endpoints. After 13-month median follow-up, the estimated median PFS in the PD-L1-positive population was 7.4 months in the atezolizumab arm and 4.8 months in the placebo arm [HR = 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.48-0.77]. Overall survival (OS) results were immature with 43% deaths in the ITT population, representing 59% of the OS events required to perform the final OS analysis. Adverse reactions occurring in ≥20% of patients receiving atezolizumab with paclitaxel protein-bound were alopecia, peripheral neuropathies, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, anemia, constipation, cough, headache, neutropenia, vomiting, and decreased appetite. Accelerated approval was appropriate taking into account the unmet medical need along with the immaturity of the OS results and potential for PFS in the PD-L1-expressing population to predict clinical benefit.
To harmonize the eligibility criteria and radiologic disease assessment definitions in clinical trials of adjuvant therapy for renal cell carcinoma (RCC).On November 28, 2017, US-based experts in RCC clinical trials, including medical oncologists, urologic oncologists, regulators, biostatisticians, radiologists, and patient advocates, convened at a public workshop to discuss eligibility for trial entry and radiologic criteria for assessing disease recurrence in adjuvant trials in RCC. Multiple virtual meetings were conducted to address the issues identified at the workshop.The key workshop conclusions for adjuvant RCC therapy clinical trials were as follows. First, patients with non-clear cell RCC could be routinely included, preferably in an independent cohort. Second, patients with T3-4, N+M0, and microscopic R1 RCC tumors may gain the greatest advantages from adjuvant therapy. Third, trials of agents not excreted by the kidney should not exclude patients with severe renal insufficiency. Fourth, therapy can begin 4 to 16 weeks after the surgical procedure. Fifth, patients undergoing radical or partial nephrectomy should be equally eligible. Sixth, patients with microscopically positive soft tissue or vascular margins without gross residual or radiologic disease may be included in trials. Seventh, all suspicious regional lymph nodes should be fully resected. Eighth, computed tomography should be performed within 4 weeks before trial enrollment; for patients with renal insufficiency who cannot undergo computed tomography with contrast, noncontrast chest computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging of the abdomen and pelvis with gadolinium should be performed. Ninth, when feasible, biopsy should be undertaken to identify any malignant disease. Tenth, when biopsy is not feasible, a uniform approach should be used to evaluate indeterminate radiologic findings to identify what constitutes no evidence of disease at trial entry and what constitutes radiologic evidence of disease. Eleventh, a uniform approach for establishing the date of recurrence should be included in any trial design. Twelfth, patient perspectives on the use of placebo, conditions for unblinding, and research biopsies should be considered carefully during the conduct of an adjuvant trial.The discussions suggested that a uniform approach to eligibility criteria and radiologic disease assessment will lead to more consistently interpretable trial results in the adjuvant RCC therapy setting.
4508 Background: Traditional measurement of disease progression by RECIST v1.1 criteria may not fully capture patient benefit from PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors. Contemporary immunotherapy protocols generally allow patients to continue treatment beyond investigator-assessed radiographic PD as long as there is ongoing clinical benefit. However, the frequency of responses beyond PD is unknown, and whether this strategy is beneficial to the patient remains unclear. We present a review of the data from patients with mRCC treated beyond PD with nivolumab on CheckMate 025 (a randomized, phase 3 study of nivolumab vs. everolimus in locally advanced or mRCC). Methods: Subjects on CheckMate 025 who received any treatment beyond radiographic PD were identified. Dates of progression, treatment discontinuation, and corresponding tumor measurements were analyzed. Results: Treatment beyond radiographic PD occurred in 171 of patients treated with nivolumab. Median treatment duration beyond radiographic progression was 3.2 months (range 0.1-23.4). There were 5 patients (2.9% of those treated beyond progression) with a partial response after initially meeting criteria for RECIST 1.1-defined PD. In these 5 patients, small changes in tumor burden led to assessments of progression and response. Median survival in the 171 patients on the nivolumab arm treated beyond PD was 28.1 months. Median survival was 25.0 months among the 410 patients randomized to nivolumab and 16.6 months among the 134 patients who did not receive nivolumab after PD. Conclusions: Responses beyond investigator-assessed PD in mRCC patients treated with nivolumab appear to be rare, similar to data from treatment beyond PD with nivolumab in melanoma (FDA review). However, it is possible that some patients may derive clinical benefit that is not captured by radiographic assessments, and further investigation is needed. This data may help inform future treatment decisions and/or trial design in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Clinical trial information: NCT01668784.
38 Background: FDA approved 3 androgen receptor inhibitors for nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) based on global randomized trials with control arms of placebo + ADT. Despite similar enrolled populations, grade 1 or higher investigator-reported, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE)-graded fatigue ranged 11-25% in the placebo arms. We sought to characterize variability in investigator-reported, CTCAE-graded fatigue across geographic regions and compare this with the variability in patient-reported fatigue. Methods: Data from patients receiving ≥ 1 placebo dose were reviewed from control arms of 3 nmCRPC double-blind, placebo-controlled trials submitted to FDA. We determined worst grade clinician-reported (ClinRO) CTCAE fatigue, and most severe fatigue reported by patient-reported outcome (PRO) for each patient at any time during treatment or within 30 days of last dose in each trial by geographic region: North America/Western Europe (NAWE) versus rest of the world (ROW). We compared variability in fatigue rates to those of a more objective AE, CTCAE-defined anemia. Results: NAWE enrollment comprised 46-75% of placebo cohorts. Median age was comparable across trials and regions. ClinRO CTCAE fatigue was higher in NAWE (15-33%) compared to ROW (8-14%) in each of the 3 placebo cohorts (see Table). Rates of PRO fatigue varied by region (50-73% in NAWE compared to 42-59% in ROW), and the regional differential was present at baseline. Anemia rates were similar in NAWE and ROW in each trial ( < 5%) per CTCAE. Conclusions: CTCAE reporting of fatigue, a subjective symptom, was inconsistent across sites. Anemia, an objective AE, was more consistently reported. ROW investigators less frequently reported fatigue compared to NAWE investigators. Reasons for this are unclear, but could include cultural and language factors. PRO fatigue was relatively consistent across trials and regions. These results should be interpreted with caution, as we acknowledge the limitations of cross-trial comparison.[Table: see text]
The development and review of combination drug regimens in oncology may present unique challenges to investigators and regulators. For regulatory approval of combination regimens, it is necessary to demonstrate the contribution of effect of each monotherapy to the overall combination. Alternative approaches to traditional designs may be needed to accelerate oncology drug development, for example, when combinations are substantially superior to available therapy, to reduce exposure to less effective therapies, and for drugs that are inactive as single agents and that in combination potentiate activity of another drug. These approaches include demonstration of activity in smaller randomized trials and/or monotherapy trials conducted in a similar disease setting. This article will discuss alternative approaches used in the development of approved drugs in combination, based on examples of recent approvals of combination regimens in renal cell carcinoma.
Abstract Learning Objectives After completing this course, the reader will be able to: Compare temsirolimus with IFN-α for the treatment of adults with treatment-naïve, advanced, poor-prognosis RCC and discuss the differences in OS time and PFS time for each.Enumerate the laboratory parameters that should be monitored at baseline and while patients are receiving temsirolimus and implement appropriate laboratory monitoring procedures. This article is available for continuing medical education credit at CME.TheOncologist.com This report summarizes the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s approval of temsirolimus (Torisel®), on May 30, 2007, for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Information provided includes regulatory history, study design, study results, and literature review. A multicenter, three-arm, randomized, open-label study was conducted in previously untreated patients with poor-prognosis, advanced RCC. The study objectives were to compare overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, and safety in patients receiving interferon (IFN)-α versus those receiving temsirolimus alone or in combination with IFN-α. In the second planned interim analysis of the intent-to-treat population (n = 626), there was a statistically significant longer OS time in the temsirolimus (25 mg) arm than in the IFN-α arm (median, 10.9 months versus 7.3 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; p = .0078). The combination of temsirolimus (15 mg) and IFN-α did not lead to a significant difference in OS compared with IFN-α alone. There was also a statistically significant longer PFS time for the temsirolimus (25 mg) arm than for the IFN-α arm (median, 5.5 months versus 3.1 months; HR, 0.66, p = .0001). Common adverse reactions reported in patients receiving temsirolimus were rash, asthenia, and mucositis. Common laboratory abnormalities were anemia, hyperglycemia, hyperlipidemia, and hypertriglyceridemia. Serious but rare cases of interstitial lung disease, bowel perforation, and acute renal failure were observed. Temsirolimus has demonstrated superiority in terms of OS and PFS over IFN-α and provides an additional treatment option for patients with advanced RCC.
