Dataset Information

Efficacy of bevacizumab plus erlotinib versus erlotinib alone in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer after failure of standard first-line chemotherapy (BeTa): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

ABSTRACT: Bevacizumab and erlotinib target different tumour growth pathways with little overlap in their toxic-effect profiles. On the basis of promising results from a phase 1/2 trial assessing safety and activity of erlotinib plus bevacizumab for recurrent or refractory non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we aimed to assess efficacy and safety of this combination in a phase 3 trial.In our double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised phase 3 trial (BeTa), we enrolled patients with recurrent or refractory NSCLC who presented to 177 study sites in 12 countries after failure of first-line treatment. Patients were randomly allocated in a one-to-one ratio to receive erlotinib plus bevacizumab (bevacizumab group) or erlotinib plus placebo (control group) according to a computer-generated randomisation sequence by use of an interactive voice response system. The primary endpoint was overall survival in all enrolled patients. Patients, study staff, and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. We assessed safety by calculation of incidence of adverse events and tissue was collected for biomarker analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00130728.Overall survival did not differ between 317 controls and 319 patients in the bevacizumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·80-1·18, p=0·7583). Median overall survival was 9·3 months (IQR 4·1-21·6) for patients in the bevacizumab group compared with 9·2 months (3·8-20·2) for controls. Progression-free survival seemed to be longer in the bevacizumab group (3·4 months [1·4-8·4]) than in the control group (1·7 months [1·3-4·1]; HR 0·62, 95% CI 0·52-0·75) and objective response rate suggested some clinical activity of bevacizumab and erlotinib. However, these secondary endpoint differences could not be defined as significant because the study prespecified that the primary endpoint had to be significant before testing of secondary endpoints could be done, to control type I error rate. In the bevacizumab group, 130 (42%) of 313 patients with safety data had a serious adverse event, compared with 114 (36%) controls. There were 20 (6%) grade 5 adverse events, including two arterial thromboembolic events, in the bevacizumab group, and 14 (4%) in the control group.Addition of bevacizumab to erlotinib does not improve survival in patients with recurrent or refractory NSCLC.Genentech.

SUBMITTER: Herbst RS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4134127 | biostudies-literature | 2011 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of bevacizumab plus erlotinib versus erlotinib alone in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer after failure of standard first-line chemotherapy (BeTa): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

Herbst Roy S RS Ansari Rafat R Bustin Frederique F Flynn Patrick P Hart Lowell L Otterson Gregory A GA Vlahovic Gordana G Soh Chang-Heok CH O'Connor Paula P Hainsworth John J

Lancet (London, England) 20110501 9780

<h4>Background</h4>Bevacizumab and erlotinib target different tumour growth pathways with little overlap in their toxic-effect profiles. On the basis of promising results from a phase 1/2 trial assessing safety and activity of erlotinib plus bevacizumab for recurrent or refractory non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), we aimed to assess efficacy and safety of this combination in a phase 3 trial.<h4>Methods</h4>In our double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised phase 3 trial (BeTa), we enrolled pa ...[more]

PMID: 21621716

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMany patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive only active supportive care because of poor performance status or presence of several comorbidities. We investigated whether erlotinib improves clinical outcome in these patients.MethodsTOPICAL was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, done at 78 centres in the UK. Eligibility criteria were newly diagnosed, pathologically confirmed NSCLC; stage IIIb or IV; chemotherapy naive; no symptomatic brain metastases; deemed unsuitable for chemotherapy because of poor (≥2) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status or presence of several comorbidities, or both; and estimated life expectancy of at least 8 weeks. Patients were randomly assigned (by phone call, in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by disease stage, performance status, smoking history, and centre, block size 10) to receive oral placebo or erlotinib (150 mg per day) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Investigators, clinicians, and patients were masked to assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were by intention to treat, and prespecified subgroup analyses included development of a rash due to erlotinib within 28 days of starting treatment. This study is registered, number ISRCTN 77383050.FindingsBetween April 14, 2005, and April 1, 2009, we randomly assigned 350 patients to receive erlotinib and 320 to receive placebo. We followed up patients until March 31, 2011. 657 patients died; median overall survival did not differ between groups (erlotinib, 3·7 months, 95% CI 3·2-4·2, vs placebo, 3·6 months, 3·2-3·9; unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·81-1·10, p=0·46). 59% (178 of 302) of patients assigned erlotinib and who were assessable at 1 month developed first-cycle rash, which was the only independent factor associated with overall survival. Patients with first-cycle rash had better overall survival (HR 0·76, 95% CI 0·63-0·92, p=0·0058), compared with placebo. Compared with placebo, overall survival seemed to be worse in the group that did not develop first-cycle rash (1·30, 1·05-1·61, p=0·017). Grade 3 or 4 diarrhoea was more common with erlotinib than placebo (8% [28 of 334] vs 1% [four of 313], p=0·0001), as was high-grade rash (23% [79 of 334] vs 2% [five of 313], p<0·0001); other adverse events were much the same between groups.InterpretationPatients with NSCLC who are deemed unsuitable for chemotherapy could be given erlotinib. Patients who develop a first-cycle rash should continue to receive erlotinib, whereas those who do not have a rash after 28 days should discontinue erlotinib, because of the possibility of decreased survival.FundingCancer Research UK, Roche.

Project description:Purpose Treating small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) remains a therapeutic challenge. Experimental studies show that statins exert additive effects with agents, such as cisplatin, to impair tumor growth, and observational studies suggest that statins combined with anticancer therapies delay relapse and prolong life in several cancer types. To our knowledge, we report the first large, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of a statin with standard-of-care for patients with cancer, specifically SCLC. Patients and Methods Patients with confirmed SCLC (limited or extensive disease) and performance status 0 to 3 were randomly assigned to receive daily pravastatin 40 mg or placebo, combined with up to six cycles of etoposide plus cisplatin or carboplatin every 3 weeks, until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Primary end point was overall survival (OS), and secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), response rate, and toxicity. Results Eight hundred forty-six patients from 91 United Kingdom hospitals were recruited. The median age of recruited patients was 64 years of age, 43% had limited disease, and 57% had extensive disease. There were 758 deaths and 787 PFS events. No benefit was found for pravastatin, either in all patients or in several subgroups. For pravastatin versus placebo, the 2-year OS rate was 13.2% (95% CI, 10.0 to 16.7) versus 14.1% (95% CI, 10.9 to 17.7), respectively, with a hazard ratio of 1.01 (95% CI, 0.88 to 1.16; P = .90. The median OS was 10.7 months v 10.6 months, respectively. The median PFS was 7.7 months v 7.3 months, respectively. The median OS (pravastatin v placebo) was 14.6 months in both groups for limited disease and 9.1 months versus 8.8 months, respectively, for extensive disease. Adverse events were similar between groups. Conclusion Pravastatin 40 mg combined with standard SCLC therapy, although safe, does not benefit patients. Our conclusions are the same as those found in all four much smaller, randomized, placebo-controlled trials specifically designed to evaluate statin therapy in patients with cancer.

Project description:BackgroundWhether a combination of chemotherapy and erlotinib is beneficial for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains controversial. This study aimed to summarize the currently available evidence and compare the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy plus erlotinib versus chemotherapy alone for treating advanced NSCLC.MethodsEMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for relevant studies. Our protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42014015015).ResultsNine randomized controlled trials with a total of 3599 patients were included. Compared to chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy plus erlotinib was superior in PFS (HR = 0.76 [95% CI 0.62, 0.92], P = 0.006), and no statistically significant difference was observed in OS (HR = 0.94 [95% CI 0.86, 1.03], P = 0.16). Intercalated erlotinib plus chemotherapy demonstrated improvements in PFS (HR = 0.67 [95% CI 0.50, 0.91], P = 0.009) and OS (HR = 0.82 [95% CI 0.69, 0.98], P = 0.03). Continuous erlotinib plus chemotherapy treatment failed to demonstrate improvements in PFS (HR = 0.91 [95% CI 0.80, 1.04], P = 0.16) and OS (HR = 0.98 [95% CI 0.89, 1.09], P = 0.75). The association of chemotherapy plus erlotinib with improvement in PFS was significant in never smoking patients (HR = 0.46 [95% CI 0.37, 0.56], P<0.00001) but not in smoking patients (HR = 0.70 [95% CI 0.49, 1.00], P = 0.05). Among patients with EGFR mutant tumors, chemotherapy plus erlotinib demonstrated significant improvements in PFS (HR = 0.31 [95% CI 0.17, 0.58], P = 0.0002) and OS (HR = 0.52 [95% CI 0.30, 0.88], P = 0.01). Among patients with EGFR wild-type tumors, no statistically significant difference was observed with respect to PFS (HR = 0.87 [95% CI 0.70, 1.08], P = 0.21) and OS (HR = 0.78 [95% CI 0.59, 1.01], P = 0.06).ConclusionCombination of chemotherapy and erlotinib is a viable treatment option for patients with NSCLC, especially for patients who never smoked and patients with EGFR mutation-positive disease. In addition, intercalated administration is an effective combinatorial strategy.

Project description:BackgroundThe oral AKT inhibitor ipatasertib is being investigated in cancers with a high prevalence of PI3K/AKT pathway activation, including triple-negative breast cancer. The LOTUS trial investigated the addition of ipatasertib to paclitaxel as first-line therapy for triple-negative breast cancer.MethodsIn this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial, women aged 18 years or older with measurable, inoperable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer previously untreated with systemic therapy were recruited from 44 hospitals in South Korea, the USA, France, Spain, Taiwan, Singapore, Italy, and Belgium. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, 15) with either ipatasertib 400 mg or placebo once per day (days 1-21) every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was by stratified permuted blocks (block size of four) using an interactive web-response system with three stratification criteria: previous (neo)adjuvant therapy, chemotherapy-free interval, and tumour PTEN status. The co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population and progression-free survival in the PTEN-low (by immunohistochemistry) population. This ongoing trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02162719).FindingsBetween Sept 2, 2014, and Feb 4, 2016, 166 patients were assessed for eligibility and 124 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to paclitaxel plus ipatasertib (n=62) or paclitaxel plus placebo (n=62). Median follow-up was 10·4 months (IQR 6·5-14·1) in the ipatasertib group and 10·2 months (6·0-13·6) in the placebo group. Median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 6·2 months (95% CI 3·8-9·0) with ipatasertib versus 4·9 months (3·6-5·4) with placebo (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·60, 95% CI 0·37-0·98; p=0·037) and in the 48 patients with PTEN-low tumours, median progression-free survival was 6·2 months (95% CI 3·6-9·1) with ipatasertib versus 3·7 months (1·9-7·3) with placebo (stratified HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·26-1·32, p=0·18). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were diarrhoea (14 [23%] of 61 ipatasertib-treated patients vs none of 62 placebo-treated patients), neutrophil count decreased (five [8%] vs four [6%]), and neutropenia (six [10%] vs one [2%]). No colitis, grade 4 diarrhoea, or treatment-related deaths were reported with ipatasertib. One treatment-related death occurred in the placebo group. Serious adverse events were reported in 17 (28%) of 61 patients in the ipatasertib group and nine (15%) of 62 patients in the placebo group.InterpretationProgression-free survival was longer in patients who received ipatasertib than in those who received placebo. To our knowledge, these are the first results supporting AKT-targeted therapy for triple-negative breast cancer. Ipatasertib warrants further investigation for the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer.FundingF Hoffmann-La Roche.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of bevacizumab plus erlotinib versus erlotinib alone in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer after failure of standard first-line chemotherapy (BeTa): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

Publications

Efficacy of bevacizumab plus erlotinib versus erlotinib alone in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer after failure of standard first-line chemotherapy (BeTa): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets