Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine as first-line treatment for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: Interim efficacy results of the randomised, Open-label, Non-inferiority, Phase 3 TURANDOT trial

National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary.
The Lancet Oncology (Impact Factor: 24.73). 01/2013; 14(2). DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70566-1
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Randomised phase 3 trials in metastatic breast cancer have shown that combining bevacizumab with either paclitaxel or capecitabine significantly improves progression-free survival and response rate compared with chemotherapy alone but the relative efficacy of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine has not been investigated. We compared the efficacy of the two regimens. METHODS: In this open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial, patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had received no chemotherapy for advanced disease were randomised (by computer-generated sequence; 1:1 ratio; block size six; stratified by hormone receptor status, country, and menopausal status) to receive either intravenous bevacizumab (10 mg/kg on days 1 and 15) plus intravenous paclitaxel (90 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15) repeated every 4 weeks (paclitaxel group) or intravenous bevacizumab (15 mg/kg on day 1) plus oral capecitabine (1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14) repeated every 3 weeks (capecitabine group) until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Treatment allocation was not masked because of the differences in routes of administration and cycle lengths. The primary objective was to show non-inferior overall survival with bevacizumab plus capecitabine versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel. We report results of an interim overall survival analysis, which was planned for after 175 deaths in the per-protocol population. This trial is registered with, number NCT00600340. FINDINGS: Between Sept 10, 2008, and Aug 30, 2010, we randomised 564 patients (paclitaxel group n=285; capecitabine group n=279) from 51 centres in 12 countries. The per-protocol population consisted of 533 patients (paclitaxel group n=268; capecitabine group n=265). After median follow-up of 18·6 months (IQR 14·9-24·7), 181 patients in the per-protocol population had died (89 [33%] in the paclitaxel group; 92 [35%] in the capecitabine group). The hazard ratio [HR] for overall survival was 1·04 (97·5% repeated CI -∞ to 1·69; p=0·059); the non-inferiority criterion of the interim analysis (interim α=0·00105) was not met. More patients who received bevacizumab plus paclitaxel had an objective response than did those who received bevacizumab plus capecitabine (125 [44%] of 285 patients vs 76 [27%] of 279; p<0·0001). Similarly, progression-free survival was significantly longer in the paclitaxel group than in the capecitabine group (median progression-free survival 11·0 months [95% CI 10·4-12·9] vs 8·1 months [7·1-9·2]; HR 1·36 [95% CI 1·09-1·68], p=0·0052). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (51 [18%]), peripheral neuropathy (39 [14%]), and leucopenia (20 [7%]) in the paclitaxel group and hand-foot syndrome (44 [16%]), hypertension (16 [6%]), and diarrhoea (15 [5%]) in the capecitabine group. One treatment-related death occurred in the paclitaxel group; no deaths in the capecitabine group were deemed to be treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: In this planned interim analysis, the non-inferiority criterion was not met and overall survival results are inconclusive. Final results are expected in 2014. Progression-free survival was better, and more patients achieved an objective response, with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel than with bevacizumab plus capecitabine. Efficacy results in both groups were consistent with previous reports. FUNDING: Central European Cooperative Oncology Group; Roche.

  • Source
    • "There are disappointing results in the clinical trials of antiangiogenesis agents in cancer therapy. The trial of monoclonal anti-VEGF antibody, bevacizumab, has been failed in Phase III which results indicated that there was no benefit when administered with capecitabine [45] [46]. One of the mechanisms of tumor resistance to bevacizumab may be due to the VM activity of cancer cells and there is no effect of bevacizumab to VM [5]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Tumor vascularization, which is mainly contributed by angiogenesis and vascularization, is necessary for tumor maintenance and progression. Vasculogenic mimicry (VM), vascular-like channels which are lack of the involvement of endothelial cells, has been observed in aggressive cancers and also involves in tumor vascularization. Breast cancer stem/progenitor cells (BCSCs) have been identified as a subpopulation of breast cancer cells with markers of CD24-CD44+, high aldehyde dehydrogenase activity (ALDH+) or could be enriched by mammosphere cultivation. These cells have been proven to be associated with tumor vascularization. Here we investigated the molecular mechanisms in VM activity of BCSCs. By periodic acid-Schiff or hematoxylin-eosin stain, we found that there were VM structures in two xenografted human breast cancer tissues established from CD24-CD44+ or ALDH+ cells. Only ALDH+ or mammosphere-forming BCSCs could form tube structures on matrigel coated surface as similar as microvascular endothelial cells. Inhibition of the phosphorylation of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) by gefitinib or knockdown of EGFR by lentiviral shRNA abolished the in vitro VM activity of BCSCs. By quercetin treatment, a plant flavonoid compound which is known to suppress heat shock proteins, or siRNA mediated gene silencing, both Hsp27 expression and VM capability of BCSCs were suppressed. Forced expression of phosphor-mimic form of Hsp27 in ALDH+ BCSCs could overcome the inhibitory effect of gefitinib. In conclusion, our data demonstrate that VM activity of BCSCs is mediated by EGF/Hsp27 signaling and targeting this pathway may benefit to breast cancer therapy.
    Biochimie 01/2014; · 3.12 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hintergrund Das Mammakarzinom ist der häufigste Tumor bei Frauen, und 15–25% der Patientinnen entwickeln im Verlauf eine Metastasierung. Die medikamentöse Therapie des metastasierten Mammakarzinoms unterliegt gegenwärtig einem stetigen Wandel. So ergänzen zielgerichtete Therapien mittlerweile die klassische antihormonelle und zytostatische Therapie. Zielgerichtete Therapien attackieren Signaltransduktionswege von Tumorzellen durch Blockade von zellulären Rezeptoren, Kinasen oder Rezeptorliganden. Schlussfolgerung Der Beitrag soll einen Überblick über die neuesten, insbesondere über klinisch relevante Veränderungen der zielgerichteten medikamentösen Therapie des metastasierten Mammakarzinoms geben.
    Der Onkologe 06/2013; 19(6). DOI:10.1007/s00761-013-2450-z · 0.13 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: During the past 20 years, dozens-if not hundreds-of monoclonal antibodies have been developed and characterized for their capacity to mediate antineoplastic effects, either as they activate/enhance tumor-specific immune responses, either as they interrupt cancer cell-intrinsic signal transduction cascades, either as they specifically delivery toxins to malignant cells or as they block the tumor-stroma interaction. Such an intense research effort has lead to the approval by FDA of no less than 14 distinct molecules for use in humans affected by hematological or solid malignancies. In the inaugural issue of OncoImmunology, we briefly described the scientific rationale behind the use of monoclonal antibodies in cancer therapy and discussed recent, ongoing clinical studies investigating the safety and efficacy of this approach in patients. Here, we summarize the latest developments in this exciting area of clinical research, focusing on high impact studies that have been published during the last 15 months and clinical trials launched in the same period to investigate the therapeutic profile of promising, yet hitherto investigational, monoclonal antibodies.
    OncoImmunology 01/2013; 2(1):e22789. DOI:10.4161/onci.22789 · 6.28 Impact Factor
Show more