Pfizer (Italy)

BACKGROUND: In single-group studies, chromosomal rearrangements of the anaplastic lymphoma kinase gene (ALK) have been associated with marked clinical responses to crizotinib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting ALK. Whether crizotinib is superior to standard chemotherapy with respect to efficacy is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, open-label trial comparing crizotinib with chemotherapy in 347 patients with locally advanced or metastatic ALK-positive lung cancer who had received one prior platinum-based regimen. Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral treatment with crizotinib (250 mg) twice daily or intravenous chemotherapy with either pemetrexed (500 mg per square meter of body-surface area) or docetaxel (75 mg per square meter) every 3 weeks. Patients in the chemotherapy group who had disease progression were permitted to cross over to crizotinib as part of a separate study. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 7.7 months in the crizotinib group and 3.0 months in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for progression or death with crizotinib, 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 0.64; P<0.001). The response rates were 65% (95% CI, 58 to 72) with crizotinib, as compared with 20% (95% CI, 14 to 26) with chemotherapy (P<0.001). An interim analysis of overall survival showed no significant improvement with crizotinib as compared with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for death in the crizotinib group, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.54; P=0.54). Common adverse events associated with crizotinib were visual disorder, gastrointestinal side effects, and elevated liver aminotransferase levels, whereas common adverse events with chemotherapy were fatigue, alopecia, and dyspnea. Patients reported greater reductions in symptoms of lung cancer and greater improvement in global quality of life with crizotinib than with chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Crizotinib is superior to standard chemotherapy in patients with previously treated, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with ALK rearrangement. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00932893.).

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of the ALK inhibitor crizotinib as compared with standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced ALK-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is unknown. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, phase 3 trial comparing crizotinib with chemotherapy in 343 patients with advanced ALK-positive nonsquamous NSCLC who had received no previous systemic treatment for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral crizotinib at a dose of 250 mg twice daily or to receive intravenous chemotherapy (pemetrexed, 500 mg per square meter of body-surface area, plus either cisplatin, 75 mg per square meter, or carboplatin, target area under the curve of 5 to 6 mg per milliliter per minute) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. Crossover to crizotinib treatment after disease progression was permitted for patients receiving chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by independent radiologic review. RESULTS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with crizotinib than with chemotherapy (median, 10.9 months vs. 7.0 months; hazard ratio for progression or death with crizotinib, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.60; P<0.001). Objective response rates were 74% and 45%, respectively (P<0.001). Median overall survival was not reached in either group (hazard ratio for death with crizotinib, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.26; P=0.36); the probability of 1-year survival was 84% with crizotinib and 79% with chemotherapy. The most common adverse events with crizotinib were vision disorders, diarrhea, nausea, and edema, and the most common events with chemotherapy were nausea, fatigue, vomiting, and decreased appetite. As compared with chemotherapy, crizotinib was associated with greater reduction in lung cancer symptoms and greater improvement in quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Crizotinib was superior to standard first-line pemetrexed-plus-platinum chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated advanced ALK-positive NSCLC. (Funded by Pfizer; PROFILE 1014 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01154140.).

BACKGROUND: In a single-group, phase 1b trial, avelumab plus axitinib resulted in objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. This phase 3 trial involving previously untreated patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma compared avelumab plus axitinib with the standard-of-care sunitinib. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive avelumab (10 mg per kilogram of body weight) intravenously every 2 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The two independent primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival among patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors. A key secondary end point was progression-free survival in the overall population; other end points included objective response and safety. RESULTS: A total of 886 patients were assigned to receive avelumab plus axitinib (442 patients) or sunitinib (444 patients). Among the 560 patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (63.2%), the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months with avelumab plus axitinib, as compared with 7.2 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.79; P<0.001); in the overall population, the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months, as compared with 8.4 months (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.84; P<0.001). Among the patients with PD-L1-positive tumors, the objective response rate was 55.2% with avelumab plus axitinib and 25.5% with sunitinib; at a median follow-up for overall survival of 11.6 months and 10.7 months in the two groups, 37 patients and 44 patients had died, respectively. Adverse events during treatment occurred in 99.5% of patients in the avelumab-plus-axitinib group and in 99.3% of patients in the sunitinib group; these events were grade 3 or higher in 71.2% and 71.5% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with avelumab plus axitinib than with sunitinib among patients who received these agents as first-line treatment for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Pfizer and Merck [Darmstadt, Germany]; JAVELIN Renal 101 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02684006.).

BACKGROUND: Tamoxifen, taken for five years, is the standard adjuvant treatment for postmenopausal women with primary, estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer. Despite this treatment, however, some patients have a relapse. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized trial to test whether, after two to three years of tamoxifen therapy, switching to exemestane was more effective than continuing tamoxifen therapy for the remainder of the five years of treatment. The primary end point was disease-free survival. RESULTS: Of the 4742 patients enrolled, 2362 were randomly assigned to switch to exemestane, and 2380 to continue to receive tamoxifen. After a median follow-up of 30.6 months, 449 first events (local or metastatic recurrence, contralateral breast cancer, or death) were reported--183 in the exemestane group and 266 in the tamoxifen group. The unadjusted hazard ratio in the exemestane group as compared with the tamoxifen group was 0.68 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.56 to 0.82; P<0.001 by the log-rank test), representing a 32 percent reduction in risk and corresponding to an absolute benefit in terms of disease-free survival of 4.7 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 2.6 to 6.8) at three years after randomization. Overall survival was not significantly different in the two groups, with 93 deaths occurring in the exemestane group and 106 in the tamoxifen group. Severe toxic effects of exemestane were rare. Contralateral breast cancer occurred in 20 patients in the tamoxifen group and 9 in the exemestane group (P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Exemestane therapy after two to three years of tamoxifen therapy significantly improved disease-free survival as compared with the standard five years of tamoxifen treatment.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based chemotherapy is standard-of-care first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma. However, progression-free survival and overall survival are limited by chemotherapy resistance. METHODS: In a phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer who did not have disease progression with first-line chemotherapy (four to six cycles of gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin) to receive best supportive care with or without maintenance avelumab. The primary end point was overall survival, assessed among all patients who underwent randomization (overall population) and among those with tumors positive for programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Secondary end points included progression-free survival and safety. RESULTS: Among all 700 patients who underwent randomization, the addition of maintenance avelumab to best supportive care significantly prolonged overall survival as compared with best supportive care alone (control). Overall survival at 1 year was 71.3% in the avelumab group and 58.4% in the control group (median overall survival, 21.4 months vs. 14.3 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.86; P = 0.001). Avelumab also significantly prolonged overall survival in the PD-L1-positive population; overall survival at 1 year was 79.1% in the avelumab group and 60.4% in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.79; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 3.7 months in the avelumab group and 2.0 months in the control group in the overall population (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.75) and 5.7 months and 2.1 months, respectively, in the PD-L1-positive population (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.73). The incidence of adverse events from any cause was 98.0% in the avelumab group and 77.7% in the control group; the incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher was 47.4% and 25.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Maintenance avelumab plus best supportive care significantly prolonged overall survival, as compared with best supportive care alone, among patients with urothelial cancer who had disease that had not progressed with first-line chemotherapy. (Funded by Pfizer and Merck [Darmstadt, Germany]; JAVELIN Bladder 100 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02603432.).

INTRODUCTION: Alterations in cell cycle regulators have been implicated in human malignancies including breast cancer. PD 0332991 is an orally active, highly selective inhibitor of the cyclin D kinases (CDK)4 and CDK6 with ability to block retinoblastoma (Rb) phosphorylation in the low nanomolar range. To identify predictors of response, we determined the in vitro sensitivity to PD 0332991 across a panel of molecularly characterized human breast cancer cell lines. METHODS: Forty-seven human breast cancer and immortalized cell lines representing the known molecular subgroups of breast cancer were treated with PD 0332991 to determine IC50 values. These data were analyzed against baseline gene expression data to identify genes associated with PD 0332991 response. RESULTS: Cell lines representing luminal estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) subtype (including those that are HER2 amplified) were most sensitive to growth inhibition by PD 0332991 while nonluminal/basal subtypes were most resistant. Analysis of variance identified 450 differentially expressed genes between sensitive and resistant cells. pRb and cyclin D1 were elevated and CDKN2A (p16) was decreased in the most sensitive lines. Cell cycle analysis showed G0/G1 arrest in sensitive cell lines and Western blot analysis demonstrated that Rb phosphorylation is blocked in sensitive lines but not resistant lines. PD 0332991 was synergistic with tamoxifen and trastuzumab in ER+ and HER2-amplified cell lines, respectively. PD 0332991 enhanced sensitivity to tamoxifen in cell lines with conditioned resistance to ER blockade. CONCLUSIONS: These studies suggest a role for CDK4/6 inhibition in some breast cancers and identify criteria for patient selection in clinical studies of PD 0332991

PURPOSE: To establish the safety, pharmacokinetics, and recommended dose of sunitinib, a novel oral multitargeting tyrosine kinase inhibitor with antiangiogenic and antitumor properties, in patients with advanced malignancies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sunitinib was given orally for 4 weeks every 6 weeks. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients received doses ranging from 15 to 59 mg/m2 (ranging from 50 mg every other day to 150 mg/d). Dose-limiting toxicities reported at the maximum-tolerated doses > or = 75 mg/d were reversible grade 3 fatigue, grade 3 hypertension, and grade 2 bullous skin toxicity. Therefore, the recommended dose was 50 mg/d. At this dose, the main adverse effects were sore mouth, edema, and thrombocytopenia. Hair discoloration and yellow coloration of the skin were observed at doses > or = 50 mg/d. Pharmacokinetic data indicate that potentially active target plasma concentrations > or = 50 ng/mL can be achieved with moderate interpatient variability and a long half-life compatible with a single daily dosing. Six objective responses were observed in three renal cell carcinomas, one neuroendocrine tumor, one stromal tumor, and one unknown primary adenocarcinoma patient. At higher doses (> or = 75 mg/d), tumor responses were often associated with reduced intratumoral vascularization and central tumor necrosis, eventually resulting in organ perforation or fistula. CONCLUSION: At the dose of 50 mg/d (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off), sunitinib displays manageable toxicity. Antitumor activity supports further studies in patients with renal cell carcinoma, gastrointestinal, neuroendocrine, and stromal tumors. Future studies may consider including prospective imaging techniques such as high frequency ultrasound to monitor tumor density.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib, a vascular endothelial growth factor pathway inhibitor, is an effective treatment for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. We sought to determine the efficacy and safety of sunitinib in patients with locoregional renal-cell carcinoma at high risk for tumor recurrence after nephrectomy. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we assigned 615 patients with locoregional, high-risk clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma to receive either sunitinib (50 mg per day) or placebo on a 4-weeks-on, 2-weeks-off schedule for 1 year or until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal. The primary end point was disease-free survival, according to blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included investigator-assessed disease-free survival, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: The median duration of disease-free survival was 6.8 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.8 to not reached) in the sunitinib group and 5.6 years (95% CI, 3.8 to 6.6) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.98; P=0.03). Overall survival data were not mature at the time of data cutoff. Dose reductions because of adverse events were more frequent in the sunitinib group than in the placebo group (34.3% vs. 2%), as were dose interruptions (46.4% vs. 13.2%) and discontinuations (28.1% vs. 5.6%). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more frequent in the sunitinib group (48.4% for grade 3 events and 12.1% for grade 4 events) than in the placebo group (15.8% and 3.6%, respectively). There was a similar incidence of serious adverse events in the two groups (21.9% for sunitinib vs. 17.1% for placebo); no deaths were attributed to toxic effects. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with locoregional clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma at high risk for tumor recurrence after nephrectomy, the median duration of disease-free survival was significantly longer in the sunitinib group than in the placebo group, at a cost of a higher rate of toxic events. (Funded by Pfizer; S-TRAC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00375674 .).

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing phase I PROFILE 1001 study, crizotinib showed antitumor activity in patients with ROS1-rearranged advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we present updated antitumor activity, overall survival (OS) and safety data (additional 46.2 months follow-up) for patients with ROS1-rearranged advanced NSCLC from PROFILE 1001. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ROS1 status was determined by FISH or reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. All patients received crizotinib at a starting dose of 250 mg twice daily. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients received crizotinib, with a median duration of treatment of 22.4 months. At data cut-off, treatment was ongoing in 12 patients (23%). The objective response rate (ORR) was 72% [95% confidence interval (CI), 58% to 83%], including six confirmed complete responses and 32 confirmed partial responses; 10 patients had stable disease. Responses were durable (median duration of response 24.7 months; 95% CI, 15.2-45.3). ORRs were consistent across different patient subgroups. Median progression-free survival was 19.3 months (95% CI, 15.2-39.1). A total of 26 deaths (49%) occurred (median follow-up period of 62.6 months), and of the remaining 27 patients (51%), 14 (26%) were in follow-up at data cut-off. Median OS was 51.4 months (95% CI, 29.3 to not reached) and survival probabilities at 12, 24, 36, and 48 months were 79%, 67%, 53%, and 51%, respectively. No correlation was observed between OS and specific ROS1 fusion partner. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were mainly grade 1 or 2, per CTCAE v3.0. There were no grade ≥4 TRAEs and no TRAEs associated with permanent discontinuation. No new safety signals were reported with long-term crizotinib treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These findings serve as a new benchmark for OS in ROS1-rearranged advanced NSCLC, and continue to show the clinically meaningful benefit and safety of crizotinib in this molecular subgroup. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00585195.

PURPOSE A large-panel gene expression analysis was conducted to identify biomarkers associated with the effectiveness of adding palbociclib to fulvestrant. METHODS The PALOMA-3 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01942135 ) trial randomly assigned 521 endocrine-pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer to receive palbociclib plus fulvestrant or placebo plus fulvestrant. Primary analysis was first conducted on 10 genes on the basis of pathway biology and evidence from previous studies followed by a systematic panel-wide search among 2,534 cancer-related genes. The association of gene expression with the effect of palbociclib on progression-free survival (PFS) was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, with gene expression as a continuous variable or dichotomized by median. An independent breast cancer cohort from the Preoperative Palbociclib (POP) Clinical Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02008734 ) was used for validation, in 61 patients with primary breast cancer treated with 2 weeks of palbociclib. RESULTS In the PALOMA-3 trial, 302 patients had tumor tissue analyzed (palbociclib arm, 194 patients; placebo arm, 108 patients). Palbociclib efficacy was lower in patients with high versus low cyclin E1 ( CCNE1) mRNA expression (median PFS: palbociclib arm, 7.6 v 14.1 months; placebo arm, 4.0 v 4.8 months, respectively; interaction P unadjusted = .00238; false discovery rate–adjusted P = .0238). CCNE1 mRNA was more predictive in metastatic than in archival primary biopsy tissue samples. No significant interaction was found between treatment and expression levels of CDK4, CDK6, cyclin D1, and RB1. Palbociclib was efficacious in both luminal A and luminal B tumors. High CCNE1 mRNA expression was associated with poor antiproliferative activity of palbociclib in the POP trial ( P = .005). CONCLUSION Addition of palbociclib to fulvestrant demonstrated efficacy in all biomarker groups, although high CCNE1 mRNA expression was associated with relative resistance to palbociclib.

•Avelumab plus axitinib significantly prolonged progression-free survival versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma.•Although overall survival data were immature, results favored the combination over sunitinib across prespecified subgroups.•Adjusting for subsequent use of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in the sunitinib arm predicted a survival benefit for the combination.•Among all randomized patients, avelumab plus axitinib had a longer mean duration of response than sunitinib.•Avelumab plus axitinib prolonged progression-free survival on next-line therapy versus sunitinib. BackgroundThe phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006) demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report updated efficacy data from the second interim analysis.Patients and methodsTreatment-naive patients with aRCC were randomized (1 : 1) to receive avelumab (10 mg/kg) intravenously every 2 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The two independent primary end points were PFS and overall survival (OS) among patients with programmed death ligand 1–positive (PD-L1+) tumors. Key secondary end points were OS and PFS in the overall population.ResultsOf 886 patients, 442 were randomized to the avelumab plus axitinib arm and 444 to the sunitinib arm; 270 and 290 had PD-L1+ tumors, respectively. After a minimum follow-up of 13 months (data cut-off 28 January 2019), PFS was significantly longer in the avelumab plus axitinib arm than in the sunitinib arm {PD-L1+ population: hazard ratio (HR) 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.490–0.777]}; one-sided P < 0.0001; median 13.8 (95% CI 10.1–20.7) versus 7.0 months (95% CI 5.7–9.6); overall population: HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.574–0.825); one-sided P < 0.0001; median 13.3 (95% CI 11.1–15.3) versus 8.0 months (95% CI 6.7–9.8)]. OS data were immature [PD-L1+ population: HR 0.828 (95% CI 0.596–1.151); one-sided P = 0.1301; overall population: HR 0.796 (95% CI 0.616–1.027); one-sided P = 0.0392].ConclusionAmong patients with previously untreated aRCC, treatment with avelumab plus axitinib continued to result in a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus sunitinib; OS data were still immature.Clinical Trial numberNCT02684006. The phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006) demonstrated significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We report updated efficacy data from the second interim analysis. Treatment-naive patients with aRCC were randomized (1 : 1) to receive avelumab (10 mg/kg) intravenously every 2 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The two independent primary end points were PFS and overall survival (OS) among patients with programmed death ligand 1–positive (PD-L1+) tumors. Key secondary end points were OS and PFS in the overall population. Of 886 patients, 442 were randomized to the avelumab plus axitinib arm and 444 to the sunitinib arm; 270 and 290 had PD-L1+ tumors, respectively. After a minimum follow-up of 13 months (data cut-off 28 January 2019), PFS was significantly longer in the avelumab plus axitinib arm than in the sunitinib arm {PD-L1+ population: hazard ratio (HR) 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.490–0.777]}; one-sided P < 0.0001; median 13.8 (95% CI 10.1–20.7) versus 7.0 months (95% CI 5.7–9.6); overall population: HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.574–0.825); one-sided P < 0.0001; median 13.3 (95% CI 11.1–15.3) versus 8.0 months (95% CI 6.7–9.8)]. OS data were immature [PD-L1+ population: HR 0.828 (95% CI 0.596–1.151); one-sided P = 0.1301; overall population: HR 0.796 (95% CI 0.616–1.027); one-sided P = 0.0392]. Among patients with previously untreated aRCC, treatment with avelumab plus axitinib continued to result in a statistically significant improvement in PFS versus sunitinib; OS data were still immature.

PURPOSE: In the initial PALOMA-2 (NCT01740427) analysis with median follow-up of 23 months, palbociclib plus letrozole significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.58; P < 0.001]. Herein, we report results overall and by subgroups with extended follow-up. METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 study, post-menopausal women with ER+/HER2- ABC who had not received prior systemic therapy for their advanced disease were randomized 2:1 to palbociclib-letrozole or placebo-letrozole. Endpoints include investigator-assessed PFS (primary), safety, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS: After a median follow-up of approximately 38 months, median PFS was 27.6 months for palbociclib-letrozole (n = 444) and 14.5 months for placebo-letrozole (n = 222) (HR 0.563; 1-sided P < 0.0001). All subgroups benefited from palbociclib treatment. The improvement of PFS with palbociclib-letrozole was maintained in the next 2 subsequent lines of therapy and delayed the use of chemotherapy (40.4 vs. 29.9 months for palbociclib-letrozole vs. placebo-letrozole). Safety data were consistent with the known profile. Patients' quality of life was maintained. CONCLUSIONS: With approximately 15 months of additional follow-up, palbociclib plus letrozole continued to demonstrate improved PFS compared with placebo plus letrozole in the overall population and across all patient subgroups, while the safety profile remained favorable and quality of life was maintained. These data confirm that palbociclib-letrozole should be considered the standard of care for first-line therapy in patients with ER+/HER2- ABC, including those with low disease burden or long disease-free interval. Sponsored by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01740427.

Trichosporonosis is an uncommon but frequently fatal mycosis in immunocompromised patients. A multicenter retrospective study was conducted to characterize cases of proven or probable invasive trichosporonosis diagnosed over the past 20 years in Italian patients with hematological diseases. Of the 52 cases identified, 17 were classified as Trichosporon sp. infections and 35 were attributed to Geotrichum capitatum. Acute myeloid leukemia accounted for 65.4% of the cases. The incidence rates of Trichosporon sp. and G. capitatum infections in acute leukemia patients were 0.4 and 0.5%, respectively. Overall, 76.9% of cases had positive blood cultures. Pulmonary involvement was documented in 26.9% of cases. Death was reported for 57.1% of G. capitatum infections and for 64.7% of Trichosporon sp. infections. A literature review on trichosporonosis in patients with any underlying disease or condition reveals G. capitatum as a predominantly European pathogen, particularly in certain Mediterranean areas, while Trichosporon sp. infections are seen with similar frequencies on all continents. The majority of published Trichosporon sp. and G. capitatum infections occurred in patients with hematological diseases (62.8 and 91.7%, respectively). Well over half of these were suffering from acute leukemia (68 and 84% of patients with Trichosporon sp. and G. capitatum infections, respectively). Crude mortality rates were 77% for Trichosporon spp. and 55.7% for G. capitatum. The optimal therapy for trichosporonosis has yet to be identified; however, in vitro experiences are providing encouraging evidence of the potential role of the new triazoles, in particular, voriconazole.

•In BRCA1/2-mutated advanced breast cancer, talazoparib did not significantly improve overall survival (OS) versus chemotherapy.•OS was generally consistent across subgroups including by prior platinum, hormone-receptor status, or line of treatment.•Most patients received subsequent systemic treatments, which may have confounded the survival outcome.•Toxicities were managed by supportive care medication/dose modifications; safety was consistent with previous observations.•Extended follow-up of patient-reported outcomes continued to favor talazoparib over chemotherapy. BackgroundIn EMBRACA, talazoparib prolonged progression-free survival versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.542 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.413-0.711]; P < 0.0001) and improved patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2)-mutated advanced breast cancer (ABC). We report final overall survival (OS).Patients and methodsThis randomized phase III trial enrolled patients with gBRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative ABC. Patients received talazoparib or physician's choice of chemotherapy. OS was analyzed using stratified HR and log-rank test and prespecified rank-preserving structural failure time model to account for subsequent treatments.ResultsA total of 431 patients were entered in a randomized study (287 talazoparib/144 chemotherapy) with 412 patients treated (286 talazoparib/126 chemotherapy). By 30 September 2019, 216 deaths (75.3%) occurred for talazoparib and 108 (75.0%) chemotherapy; median follow-up was 44.9 and 36.8 months, respectively. HR for OS with talazoparib versus chemotherapy was 0.848 (95% CI 0.670-1.073; P = 0.17); median (95% CI) 19.3 months (16.6-22.5 months) versus 19.5 months (17.4-22.4 months). Kaplan–Meier survival percentages (95% CI) for talazoparib versus chemotherapy: month 12, 71% (66% to 76%)/74% (66% to 81%); month 24, 42% (36% to 47%)/38% (30% to 47%); month 36, 27% (22% to 33%)/21% (14% to 29%). Most patients received subsequent treatments: for talazoparib and chemotherapy, 46.3%/41.7% received platinum and 4.5%/32.6% received a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, respectively. Adjusting for subsequent PARP and/or platinum use, HR for OS was 0.756 (95% bootstrap CI 0.503-1.029). Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 69.6% (talazoparib) and 64.3% (chemotherapy) patients, consistent with previous reports. Extended follow-up showed significant overall improvement and delay in time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration in global health status/quality of life and breast symptoms favoring talazoparib versus chemotherapy (P < 0.01 for all), consistent with initial analyses.ConclusionsIn gBRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative ABC, talazoparib did not significantly improve OS over chemotherapy; subsequent treatments may have impacted analysis. Safety was consistent with previous observations. PRO continued to favor talazoparib. In EMBRACA, talazoparib prolonged progression-free survival versus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.542 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.413-0.711]; P < 0.0001) and improved patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2)-mutated advanced breast cancer (ABC). We report final overall survival (OS). This randomized phase III trial enrolled patients with gBRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative ABC. Patients received talazoparib or physician's choice of chemotherapy. OS was analyzed using stratified HR and log-rank test and prespecified rank-preserving structural failure time model to account for subsequent treatments. A total of 431 patients were entered in a randomized study (287 talazoparib/144 chemotherapy) with 412 patients treated (286 talazoparib/126 chemotherapy). By 30 September 2019, 216 deaths (75.3%) occurred for talazoparib and 108 (75.0%) chemotherapy; median follow-up was 44.9 and 36.8 months, respectively. HR for OS with talazoparib versus chemotherapy was 0.848 (95% CI 0.670-1.073; P = 0.17); median (95% CI) 19.3 months (16.6-22.5 months) versus 19.5 months (17.4-22.4 months). Kaplan–Meier survival percentages (95% CI) for talazoparib versus chemotherapy: month 12, 71% (66% to 76%)/74% (66% to 81%); month 24, 42% (36% to 47%)/38% (30% to 47%); month 36, 27% (22% to 33%)/21% (14% to 29%). Most patients received subsequent treatments: for talazoparib and chemotherapy, 46.3%/41.7% received platinum and 4.5%/32.6% received a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, respectively. Adjusting for subsequent PARP and/or platinum use, HR for OS was 0.756 (95% bootstrap CI 0.503-1.029). Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 69.6% (talazoparib) and 64.3% (chemotherapy) patients, consistent with previous reports. Extended follow-up showed significant overall improvement and delay in time to definitive clinically meaningful deterioration in global health status/quality of life and breast symptoms favoring talazoparib versus chemotherapy (P < 0.01 for all), consistent with initial analyses. In gBRCA1/2-mutated HER2-negative ABC, talazoparib did not significantly improve OS over chemotherapy; subsequent treatments may have impacted analysis. Safety was consistent with previous observations. PRO continued to favor talazoparib.

PURPOSE Lorlatinib is a potent, brain-penetrant, third-generation anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)/ROS1 tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with robust clinical activity in advanced ALK-positive non–small-cell lung cancer, including in patients who have failed prior ALK TKIs. Molecular determinants of response to lorlatinib have not been established, but preclinical data suggest that ALK resistance mutations may represent a biomarker of response in previously treated patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS Baseline plasma and tumor tissue samples were collected from 198 patients with ALK-positive non–small-cell lung cancer from the registrational phase II study of lorlatinib. We analyzed plasma DNA for ALK mutations using Guardant360. Tumor tissue DNA was analyzed using an ALK mutation–focused next-generation sequencing assay. Objective response rate, duration of response, and progression-free survival were evaluated according to ALK mutation status. RESULTS Approximately one quarter of patients had ALK mutations detected by plasma or tissue genotyping. In patients with crizotinib-resistant disease, the efficacy of lorlatinib was comparable among patients with and without ALK mutations using plasma or tissue genotyping. In contrast, in patients who had failed 1 or more second-generation ALK TKIs, objective response rate was higher among patients with ALK mutations (62% v 32% [plasma]; 69% v 27% [tissue]). Progression-free survival was similar in patients with and without ALK mutations on the basis of plasma genotyping (median, 7.3 months v 5.5 months; hazard ratio, 0.81) but significantly longer in patients with ALK mutations identified by tissue genotyping (median, 11.0 months v 5.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.47). CONCLUSION In patients who have failed 1 or more second-generation ALK TKIs, lorlatinib shows greater efficacy in patients with ALK mutations compared with patients without ALK mutations. Tumor genotyping for ALK mutations after failure of a second-generation TKI may identify patients who are more likely to derive clinical benefit from lorlatinib.

PURPOSE Lorlatinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) and intracranial activity versus crizotinib in patients with previously untreated, advanced, ALK -positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase III CROWN study. Here, we report long-term outcomes from CROWN after 5 years of follow-up. METHODS Two hundred ninety-six patients with ALK -positive NSCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive lorlatinib 100 mg once daily (n = 149) or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily (n = 147). This post hoc analysis presents updated investigator-assessed efficacy outcomes, safety, and biomarker analyses. RESULTS With a median follow-up for PFS of 60.2 and 55.1 months, respectively, median PFS was not reached (NR [95% CI, 64.3 to NR]) with lorlatinib and 9.1 months (95% CI, 7.4 to 10.9) with crizotinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.19 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.27]); 5-year PFS was 60% (95% CI, 51 to 68) and 8% (95% CI, 3 to 14), respectively. Median time to intracranial progression was NR (95% CI, NR to NR) with lorlatinib and 16.4 months (95% CI, 12.7 to 21.9) with crizotinib (HR, 0.06 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.12]). Safety profile was consistent with that in prior analyses. Emerging new ALK resistance mutations were not detected in circulating tumor DNA collected at the end of lorlatinib treatment. CONCLUSION After 5 years of follow-up, median PFS has yet to be reached in the lorlatinib group, corresponding to the longest PFS ever reported with any single-agent molecular targeted treatment in advanced NSCLC and across all metastatic solid tumors. These results coupled with prolonged intracranial efficacy and absence of new safety signals represent an unprecedented outcome for patients with advanced ALK -positive NSCLC and set a new benchmark for targeted therapies in cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Five anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents have received regulatory approval for use in rheumatology: adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, certolizumab, and etanercept. Apart from their well-documented therapeutic value, it is still uncertain to what extent they are associated with an increased risk of infectious adverse events. Areas covered: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized studies to determine the effect of anti-TNF drugs on the occurrence of infectious adverse events (serious infections; tuberculosis; opportunistic infections; any infection). We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to May 2014 to identify eligible studies in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis that evaluated anti-TNF drugs compared with placebo or no treatment. Expert opinion: Our study encompassed data from 71 randomized controlled trials involving 22,760 participants (range of follow-up: 1-36 months) and seven open label extension studies with 2,236 participants (range of follow-up: 6-48 months). Quantitative synthesis of the available data found statistically significant increases in the occurrence of any infections (20%), serious infections (40%), and tuberculosis (250%) associated with anti-TNF drug use, while the data for opportunistic infections were scarce. The quality of synthesized evidence was judged as moderate. Further evidence from registries and long-term epidemiological studies are needed to better define the relationship between anti-TNF agents and infection complications.

While rheumatologists often focus on treatment targets, for many patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), control over pain and fatigue, as well as sustaining physical function and quality of life (QoL), is of primary importance. This literature review aimed at examining patients' and physicians' treatment aspirations, and identifying the unmet needs for patients with RA receiving ongoing treatment. Searches were performed using MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Econlit literature databases for articles published from 2004 to 2014 in the English language. Published literature was screened to identify articles reporting the unmet needs in RA. We found that, despite the wide range of available treatments, RA continues to pose a substantial humanistic and economic burden on patients, and there are still unmet needs across key domains such as pain, physical function, mental function, and fatigue. These findings suggest that there is a need for further treatment advances in RA that address these domains of contemporary unmet need.

Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis are chronic inflammatory disorders of the gastrointestinal tract. Treatment options include biologic therapies; however, a proportion of patients lose response to biologics, partly due to the formation of anti-drug antibodies (ADAbs). Concomitant immunosuppressive agents reduce the development of ADAbs. This review article aims to assess the immunogenicity of biologic therapies and their clinical implications. A comprehensive literature search was conducted for articles published January 2009 to August 2015 reporting immunogenicity to adalimumab (ADM), certolizumab pegol (CZP), golimumab, infliximab (IFX), ustekinumab, and vedolizumab in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Eligible articles were reviewed and quality assessed by independent reviewers. Overall, 122 publications reporting 114 studies were assessed. ADAbs were reported for all agents, but the percentage of patients developing ADAbs was extremely variable, with the highest (65.3%) being for IFX administration to patients with IBD. ADAb presence was frequently associated with a reduction in primary efficacy and a loss of response, and, for IFX, an increase in adverse events (AEs). Lower serum levels of ADM, CZP and IFX were seen in ADAbs-positive rather than ADAbs-negative patients; pharmacokinetic data were unavailable for other therapies. Little information was available regarding the timing of ADAb development; studies reported their detection from as early as 10-14 days up to months after treatment initiation. Biologic therapies carry an intrinsic risk of immunogenicity, although reported rates of ADAbs vary considerably. The clinical implications of immunogenicity are a concern for effective treatment; further research, particularly into the more recently approved biologics, is required.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant sunitinib significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) versus placebo in patients with locoregional renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high risk of recurrence after nephrectomy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-0.98; p=0.03). OBJECTIVE: To report the relationship between baseline factors and DFS, pattern of recurrence, and updated overall survival (OS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data for 615 patients randomized to sunitinib (n=309) or placebo (n=306) in the S-TRAC trial. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Subgroup DFS analyses by baseline risk factors were conducted using a Cox proportional hazards model. Baseline risk factors included: modified University of California Los Angeles integrated staging system criteria, age, gender, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), weight, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and Fuhrman grade. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 615 patients, 97 and 122 in the sunitinib and placebo arms developed metastatic disease, with the most common sites of distant recurrence being lung (40 and 49), lymph node (21 and 26), and liver (11 and 14), respectively. A benefit of adjuvant sunitinib over placebo was observed across subgroups, including: higher risk (T3, no or undetermined nodal involvement, Fuhrman grade ≥2, ECOG PS ≥1, T4 and/or nodal involvement; hazard ratio [HR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-0.99; p=0.04), NLR ≤3 (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54-0.95; p=0.02), and Fuhrman grade 3/4 (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55-0.98; p=0.04). All subgroup analyses were exploratory, and no adjustments for multiplicity were made. Median OS was not reached in either arm (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.66-1.28; p=0.6); 67 and 74 patients died in the sunitinib and placebo arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A benefit of adjuvant sunitinib over placebo was observed across subgroups. The results are consistent with the primary analysis, which showed a benefit for adjuvant sunitinib in patients at high risk of recurrent RCC after nephrectomy. PATIENT SUMMARY: Most subgroups of patients at high risk of recurrent renal cell carcinoma after nephrectomy experienced a clinical benefit with adjuvant sunitinib. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00375674.