Maintenance treatment with capecitabine and bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer (CAIRO3): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group.

The optimum duration of first-line treatment with chemotherapy in combination with bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer is unknown. The CAIRO3 study was designed to determine the efficacy of maintenance treatment with capecitabine plus bevacizumab versus observation. In this open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial, we recruited patients in 64 hospitals in the Netherlands. We included patients older than 18 years with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer, with stable disease or better after induction treatment with six 3-weekly cycles of capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab (CAPOX-B), WHO performance status of 0 or 1, and adequate bone marrow, liver, and renal function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either maintenance treatment with capecitabine and bevacizumab (maintenance group) or observation (observation group). Randomisation was done centrally by minimisation, with stratification according to previous adjuvant chemotherapy, response to induction treatment, WHO performance status, serum lactate dehydrogenase concentration, and treatment centre. Both patients and investigators were aware of treatment assignment. We assessed disease status every 9 weeks. On first progression (defined as PFS1), patients in both groups were to receive the induction regimen of CAPOX-B until second progression (PFS2), which was the study's primary endpoint. All endpoints were calculated from the time of randomisation. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00442637. Between May 30, 2007, and Oct 15, 2012, we randomly assigned 558 patients to either the maintenance group (n=279) or the observation group (n=279). Median follow-up was 48 months (IQR 36-57). The primary endpoint of median PFS2 was significantly improved in patients on maintenance treatment, and was 8·5 months in the observation group and 11·7 months in the maintenance group (HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·56-0·81, p<0·0001). This difference remained significant when any treatment after PFS1 was considered. Maintenance treatment was well tolerated, although the incidence of hand-foot syndrome was increased (64 [23%] patients with hand-foot skin reaction during maintenance). The global quality of life did not deteriorate during maintenance treatment and was clinically not different between treatment groups. Maintenance treatment with capecitabine plus bevacizumab after six cycles of CAPOX-B in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer is effective and does not compromise quality of life. Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG). The DCCG received financial support for the study from the Commissie Klinische Studies (CKS) of the Dutch Cancer Foundation (KWF), Roche, and Sanofi-Aventis.

Simkens LH ，van Tinteren H ，May A ，ten Tije AJ ，Creemers GJ ，Loosveld OJ ，de Jongh FE ，Erdkamp FL ，Erjavec Z ，van der Torren AM ，Tol J ，Braun HJ ，Nieboer P ，van der Hoeven JJ ，Haasjes JG ，Jansen RL ，Wals J ，Cats A ，Derleyn VA ，Honkoop AH ，Mol L ，Punt CJ ，Koopman M ... -  《-》

Maintenance strategies after first-line oxaliplatin plus fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (AIO 0207): a randomised, non-inferiority, open-label, phase 3 trial.

The definition of a best maintenance strategy following combination chemotherapy plus bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer is unclear. We investigated whether no continuation of therapy or bevacizumab alone are non-inferior to fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab, following induction treatment with a fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab. In this open-label, non-inferiority, randomised phase 3 trial, we included patients aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed, previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, adequate bone marrow, liver, and renal function, no pre-existing neuropathy greater than grade 1, and measurable disease, from 55 hospitals and 51 private practices in Germany. After 24 weeks of induction therapy with either fluorouracil plus leucovorin plus oxaliplatin or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin, both with bevacizumab, patients without disease progression were randomly assigned centrally by fax (1:1:1) to standard maintenance treatment with a fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab, bevacizumab alone, or no treatment. Both patients and investigators were aware of treatment assignment. Stratification criteria were response status, termination of oxaliplatin, previous adjuvant treatment with oxaliplatin, and ECOG performance status. At first progression, re-induction with all drugs of the induction treatment was a planned part of the protocol. Time to failure of strategy was the primary endpoint, defined as time from randomisation to second progression after maintenance (and if applicable re-induction), death, or initiation of further treatment including a new drug. Time to failure of strategy was equivalent to time to first progression for patients who did not receive re-induction (for any reason). The boundary for assessment of non-inferiority was upper limit of the one-sided 98·8% CI 1·43. Analyses were done by intention to treat. The study has completed recruitment, but follow-up of participants is ongoing. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00973609. Between Sept 17, 2009, and Feb 21, 2013, 837 patients were enrolled and 472 randomised; 158 were randomly assigned to receive fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab, 156 to receive bevacizumab monotherapy, and 158 to receive no treatment. Median follow-up from randomisation is 17·0 months (IQR 9·5-25·4). Median time to failure of strategy was 6·9 months (95% CI 6·1-8·5) for the fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab group, 6·1 months (5·3-7·4) for the bevacizumab alone group, and 6·4 months (4·8-7·6) for the no treatment group. Bevacizumab alone was non-inferior to standard fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab (hazard ratio [HR] 1·08 [95% CI 0·85-1·37]; p=0·53; upper limit of the one-sided 99·8% CI 1·42), whereas no treatment was not (HR 1·26 [0·99-1·60]; p=0·056; upper limit of the one-sided 99·8% CI 1·65). The protocol-defined re-induction after first progression was rarely done (30 [19%] patients in the fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab group, 67 [43%] in the bevacizumab monotherapy group, and 73 [46%] in the no treatment group. The most common grade 3 adverse event was sensory neuropathy (21 [13%] of 158 patients in the fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab group, 22 [14%] of 156 patients in the bevacizumab alone group, and 12 [8%] of 158 patients in the no treatment group). Although non-inferiority for bevacizumab alone was demonstrated for the primary endpoint, maintenance treatment with a fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab may be the preferable option for patients following an induction treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab, as it allows the planned discontinuation of the initial combination without compromising time with controlled disease. Only a few patients were exposed to re-induction treatment, thus deeming the primary endpoint time to failure of strategy non-informative and clinically irrelevant. Progression-free survival and overall survival should be considered primary endpoints in future trials exploring maintenance strategies.

Hegewisch-Becker S ，Graeven U ，Lerchenmüller CA ，Killing B ，Depenbusch R ，Steffens CC ，Al-Batran SE ，Lange T ，Dietrich G ，Stoehlmacher J ，Tannapfel A ，Reinacher-Schick A ，Quidde J ，Trarbach T ，Hinke A ，Schmoll HJ ，Arnold D ... -  《-》

Maintenance capecitabine and bevacizumab versus bevacizumab alone after initial first-line bevacizumab and docetaxel for patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (IMELDA): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

Longer duration of first-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer is associated with prolonged overall survival and improved progression-free survival. We investigated capecitabine added to maintenance bevacizumab after initial treatment with bevacizumab and docetaxel in this setting. We did this open-label randomised phase 3 trial at 54 hospitals in Brazil, China, Egypt, France, Hong Kong, India, Italy, Poland, Spain, and Turkey. We enrolled patients with HER2-negative measurable metastatic breast cancer; each received three to six cycles of first-line bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) and docetaxel (75-100 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks. Progression-free patients were randomly assigned with an interactive voice-response system by block (size four) randomisation (1:1) to receive either bevacizumab and capecitabine or bevacizumab only (bevacizumab 15 mg/kg on day 1; capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice per day on days 1-14, every 3 weeks) until progression, stratified by oestrogen receptor status (positive vs negative), visceral metastases (present vs absent), response status (stable disease vs response vs non-measurable), and lactate dehydrogenase concentration (≤1·5 vs >1·5 × upper limit of normal). Neither patients nor investigators were masked to allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (from randomisation) in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00929240. Between July 16, 2009, and March 7, 2011 (when enrolment was prematurely terminated), 284 patients received initial bevacizumab and docetaxel; 185 (65%) were randomly assigned (91 to bevacizumab and capecitabine versus 94 to bevacizumab only). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the bevacizumab and capecitabine group than in the bevacizumab only group (median 11·9 months [95% CI 9·8-15·4] vs 4·3 months [3·9-6·8]; stratified hazard ratio 0·38 [95% CI 0·27-0·55]; two-sided log-rank p<0·0001), as was overall survival (median 39·0 months [95% CI 32·3-not reached] vs 23·7 months [18·5-31·7]; stratified HR 0·43 [95% CI 0·26-0·69]; two-sided log-rank p=0·0003). Results for time to progression were consistent with those for progression-free survival. 78 (86%) patients in the bevacizumab and capecitabine group and 72 (77%) in the bevacizumab only group had an objective response. Clinical benefit was recorded in 92 (98%) patients in the bevacizumab alone group and 90 (99%) in the bevacizumab and capecitabine group. Mean change from baseline in global health score did not differ significantly between groups. Grade 3 or worse adverse events during the maintenance phase were more common with bevacizumab and capecitabine than with bevacizumab only (45 [49%] of 91 patients vs 25 [27%] of 92 patients). The most common grade 3 or worse events were hand-foot syndrome (28 [31%] in the bevacizumab and capecitabine group vs none in the bevacizumab alone group), hypertension (eight [9%] vs three [3%]), and proteinuria (three [3%] vs four [4%]). Serious adverse events were reported by ten (11%) patients in the bevacizumab and capecitabine group and seven (8%) patients in the bevacizumab only group. Despite prematurely terminated accrual and the lack of information about post-progression treatment, both progression-free survival and overall survival were significantly improved with bevacizumab and capecitabine compared with bevacizumab alone as maintenance treatment. These results might inform future maintenance trials and current first-line treatment strategies for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Gligorov J ，Doval D ，Bines J ，Alba E ，Cortes P ，Pierga JY ，Gupta V ，Costa R ，Srock S ，de Ducla S ，Freudensprung U ，Mustacchi G ... -  《-》

Leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab versus S-1 and oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (SOFT): an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised phase 3 trial.

Studies done in Asia have shown that a regimen of S-1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX) has promising efficacy and safety in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. We aimed to establish whether SOX plus bevacizumab is non-inferior to mFOLFOX6 (modified regimen of leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) plus bevacizumab as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. We undertook an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised phase 3 trial in 82 sites in Japan. We enrolled individuals aged 20-80 years who had metastatic colorectal cancer, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had assessable lesions, had received no previous chemotherapy or radiotherapy, could take drugs orally, and had adequate organ function. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab (on day 1 of each 2-week cycle, 5 mg/kg intravenous infusion of bevacizumab and a simultaneous intravenous infusion of 85 mg/m(2) oxaliplatin, 200 mg/m(2)l-leucovorin, 400 mg/m(2) bolus fluorouracil, and 2400 mg/m(2) infusional fluorouracil) or SOX plus bevacizumab (on day 1 of each 3-week cycle, 7·5 mg/kg intravenous infusion of bevacizumab and 130 mg/m(2) intravenous infusion of oxaliplatin; assigned dose of S-1 twice a day from after dinner on day 1 to after breakfast on day 15, followed by 7-day break). Randomisation was done centrally with the minimisation method, with stratification by institution and whether postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy had been given. Participants, investigators, and data analysts were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), which was defined as the interval between enrolment and progressive disease (≥20% increase in sum of longest dimensions of target lesions from baseline, or appearance of new lesions) or death, whichever came first. The primary analysis was done by modified intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center, number JapicCTI-090699. Between Feb 1, 2009, and March 31, 2011, 512 patients underwent randomisation. 256 patients assigned to receive SOX plus bevacizumab and 255 assigned to receive mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab were included in the primary analysis. Median PFS was 11·5 months (95% CI 10·7-13·2) in the group assigned to mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab and 11·7 months (10·7-12·9) in the group assigned to SOX plus bevacizumab (HR 1·04, 95% CI 0·86-1·27; less than non-inferiority margin of 1·33, pnon-inferiority=0·014). The most common haematological adverse events of grade 3 or higher were leucopenia (21 [8%] of 249 patients given mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab included in safety analysis vs six [2%] of 250 given SOX plus bevacizumab; p=0·0029) and neutropenia (84 [34%] vs 22 [9%]; p<0·0001). Grade 3 or higher anorexia (13 [5%] vs three [1%]; p=0·019) and diarrhoea (23 [9%] vs seven [3%]; p=0·0040) were significantly more common in patients given SOX plus bevacizumab than in those given mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab. We recorded seven treatment-related deaths (three in the group given mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab; four in that given SOX plus bevacizumab). SOX plus bevacizumab is non-inferior to mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab with respect to PFS as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer, and could become standard treatment in Asian populations. Taiho.

Yamada Y ，Takahari D ，Matsumoto H ，Baba H ，Nakamura M ，Yoshida K ，Yoshida M ，Iwamoto S ，Shimada K ，Komatsu Y ，Sasaki Y ，Satoh T ，Takahashi K ，Mishima H ，Muro K ，Watanabe M ，Sakata Y ，Morita S ，Shimada Y ，Sugihara K ... -  《-》

Adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin for gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy (CLASSIC): 5-year follow-up of an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

The CLASSIC trial was done to compare adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin versus observation after D2 gastrectomy for patients with stage II or III gastric cancer. The planned interim analysis of CLASSIC (median follow-up 34 months) showed that adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin significantly improved disease-free survival, the primary endpoint, compared with observation after D2 gastrectomy. We report the 5-year follow-up data from the trial. CLASSIC was a phase 3, randomised, open-label study done at 35 cancer centres, medical centres, and hospitals in China, South Korea, and Taiwan. Patients with stage II-IIIB gastric cancer who underwent curative D2 gastrectomy were randomly assigned (1:1) after surgery to receive adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin (eight 3-week cycles of oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 plus intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1) for 6 months or observation alone. Randomisation was stratified by country and disease stage with a permuted block (size four) design. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was 3-year disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This analysis presents the final preplanned assessment of outcomes after 5 years. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00411229. We enrolled 1035 patients: 520 were randomly assigned to adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin, and 515 to observation. Median follow-up for this analysis in the intention-to-treat population was 62·4 months (IQR 54-70). 139 (27%) patients had disease-free survival events in the adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin group versus 203 (39%) patients in the observation group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·58, 95% CI 0·47-0·72; p<0·0001). Estimated 5-year disease-free survival was 68% (95% CI 63-73) in the adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin group versus 53% (47-58) in the observation alone group. By the clinical cutoff date, 103 patients (20%) had died in the adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin group versus 141 patients (27%) in the observation group (stratified HR 0·66, 95% CI 0·51-0·85; p=0·0015). Estimated 5-year overall survival was 78% (95% CI 74-82) in the adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin group versus 69% (64-73) in the observation group. Adverse event data were not collected after the primary analysis. Adjuvant treatment with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin after D2 gastrectomy should be considered for patients with operable stage II or III gastric cancer. F Hoffmann La-Roche and Sanofi.

Noh SH ，Park SR ，Yang HK ，Chung HC ，Chung IJ ，Kim SW ，Kim HH ，Choi JH ，Kim HK ，Yu W ，Lee JI ，Shin DB ，Ji J ，Chen JS ，Lim Y ，Ha S ，Bang YJ ，CLASSIC trial investigators ... -  《-》