Basset-Seguin N.,Hopital Saint Louis |
Hauschild A.,University of Kiel |
Grob J.-J.,Aix - Marseille University |
Kunstfeld R.,Medical University of Vienna |
And 16 more authors.
The Lancet Oncology | Year: 2015
Background: The Hedgehog pathway inhibitor vismodegib has shown clinical benefit in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma and is approved for treatment of patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma for whom surgery is inappropriate. STEVIE was designed to assess the safety of vismodegib in a situation similar to routine practice, with a long follow-up. Methods: In this multicentre, open-label trial, adult patients with histologically confirmed locally advanced basal cell carcinoma or metastatic basal cell carcinoma were recruited from regional referral centres or specialist clinics. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, and adequate organ function. Patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma had to have been deemed ineligible for surgery. All patients received 150 mg oral vismodegib capsules once a day on a continuous basis in 28-day cycles. The primary objective was safety (incidence of adverse events until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects), with assessments on day 1 of each treatment cycle (28 days) by principal investigator and coinvestigators at the site. Efficacy variables were assessed as secondary endpoints. The safety evaluable population included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. Patients with histologically confirmed basal cell carcinoma who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the efficacy analysis. An interim analysis was pre-planned after 500 patients achieved 1 year of follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01367665. The study is still ongoing. Findings: Between June 30, 2011, and Nov 6, 2014, we enrolled 1227 patients. At clinical cutoff (Nov 6, 2013), 499 patients (468 with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma and 31 with metastatic basal cell carcinoma) had received study drug and had the potential to be followed up for 12 months or longer. Treatment was discontinued in 400 (80%) patients; 180 (36%) had adverse events, 70 (14%) had progressive disease, and 51 (10%) requested to stop treatment. Median duration of vismodegib exposure was 36·4 weeks (IQR 17·7-62·0). Adverse events happened in 491 (98%) patients; the most common were muscle spasms (317 [64%]), alopecia (307 [62%]), dysgeusia (269 [54%]), weight loss (162 [33%]), asthenia (141 [28%]), decreased appetite (126 [25%]), ageusia (112 [22%]), diarrhoea (83 [17%]), nausea (80 [16%]), and fatigue (80 [16%]). Most adverse events were grade 1 or 2. We recorded serious adverse events in 108 (22%) of 499 patients. Of the 31 patients who died, 21 were the result of adverse events. As assessed by investigators, 302 (66·7%, 62·1-71·0) of 453 patients with locally advanced basal cell carcinoma had an overall response (153 complete responses and 149 partial responses); 11 (37·9%; 20·7-57·7) of 29 patients with metastatic basal cell carcinoma had an overall response (two complete responses, nine partial responses). Interpretation: This study assessed the use of vismodegib in a setting representative of routine clinical practice for patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma. Our results show that treatment with vismodegib adds a novel therapeutic modality from which patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma can benefit substantially. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd.
Robert C.,French Institute of Health and Medical Research |
Long G.V.,University of Sydney |
Brady B.,Cabrini Health |
Dutriaux C.,Hopital Saint Andre Center Hospitalier University |
And 23 more authors.
New England Journal of Medicine | Year: 2015
BACKGROUND: Nivolumab was associated with higher rates of objective response than chemotherapy in a phase 3 study involving patients with ipilimumab-refractory metastatic melanoma. The use of nivolumab in previously untreated patients with advanced melanoma has not been tested in a phase 3 controlled study. METHODS: We randomly assigned 418 previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks and dacarbazine-matched placebo every 3 weeks) or dacarbazine (at a dose of 1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks and nivolumab-matched placebo every 2 weeks). The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: At 1 year, the overall rate of survival was 72.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.5 to 78.9) in the nivolumab group, as compared with 42.1% (95% CI, 33.0 to 50.9) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.42; 99.79% CI, 0.25 to 0.73; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 5.1 months in the nivolumab group versus 2.2 months in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio for death or progression of disease, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.56; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 40.0% (95% CI, 33.3 to 47.0) in the nivolumab group versus 13.9% (95% CI, 9.5 to 19.4) in the dacarbazine group (odds ratio, 4.06; P<0.001). The survival benefit with nivolumab versus dacarbazine was observed across prespecified subgroups, including subgroups defined by status regarding the programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Common adverse events associated with nivolumab included fatigue, pruritus, and nausea. Drugrelated adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 11.7% of the patients treated with nivolumab and 17.6% of those treated with dacarbazine. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab was associated with significant improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival, as compared with dacarbazine, among previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation. Copyright © 2014 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Rosato V.,Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri |
Bosetti C.,Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri |
Talamini R.,Centro Of Riferimento Oncologico |
Levi F.,University of Lausanne |
And 6 more authors.
Annals of Oncology | Year: 2011
Background: Only a few small studies investigated the association between postmenopausal breast cancer and metabolic syndrome (MetS) as a single entity. Materials and methods: We analyzed the data of two Italian and Swiss case-control studies conducted between 1983 and 2007, including 3869 postmenopausal women with incident breast cancer and 4082 postmenopausal controls admitted to the same hospitals as cases for acute conditions. MetS was defined as the presence of at least three components among diabetes, drug-treated hypertension, drug-treated hyperlipidemia, and obesity. Results: The odds ratios (ORs) of postmenopausal breast cancer were 1.33 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.62] for diabetes, 1.19 (95% CI 1.07-1.33) for hypertension, 1.08 (95% CI 0.95-1.22) for hyperlipidemia, 1.26 (95% CI 1.11-1.44) for body mass index ≥30 kg/m 2, and 1.22 (95% CI 1.09-1.36) for waist circumference ≥88 cm. The risk of postmenopausal breast cancer was significantly increased for women with MetS (OR = 1.75, 95% CI 1.37-2.22, for three or more MetS components, P for trend for increasing number of components < 0.0001) and the risk was higher at older age (OR = 3.04, 95% CI 1.75-5.29, at age ≥70 years for three or more MetS components). Conclusions: This study supports a direct association between MetS and postmenopausal breast cancer risk. © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved.
Agency: Cordis | Branch: FP7 | Program: CP-FP | Phase: HEALTH.2013.2.4.1-2 | Award Amount: 8.20M | Year: 2013
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver cancer and accounts for about 6% of all new cancer cases worldwide. Given the lack of available effective treatments, the overall prognosis for HCC patients is poor, with a dismal 5-year survival of 5-6%. The main goal of this proposal is to develop a therapeutic cancer vaccine aiming at improving clinical outcome in early-stage HCC patients after loco-regional ablative therapy. HepaVac is an European consortium of academic, SME and pharmaceutical company partners with complementary and substantial expertise in cancer immunotherapy and vaccine development. The main objective of HepaVac is to develop a novel cancer vaccine approach for HCC based on epitopes naturally processed and presented by HLA class I and II (HLA-ligandome), to elicit both CD4\ T helper and CD8\ CTL tumor-specific effector and memory responses. The HCC HLA-ligandome will be identified in primary tumor tissues using a combined and integrated approach, developed and thoroughly validated by Partners #2 and #5. The selected peptide epitopes will constitute the candidate cancer vaccine for HCC, aiming at covering the broadest haplotype diversity with a multi-epitope and multi-TAA strategy. T cell epitopes derived from universal TAA and unique patient-specific mutated antigens will allow the design of a prime-boost vaccine strategy based either on a prime-boost schedule made of an off-the-shelf T cell epitope cocktail or on a schedule where the boost is complemented by a personalized T cell epitope cocktail. Both epitope cocktails will be adjuvanted in a novel and potent immunomodulator developed by Partner #6. Such a vaccination strategy will be tested in a randomized controlled multi-center phase I/II human clinical trial, assessing as primary endpoints safety and induction of specific cellular immune responses and, as secondary endpoints, OS and PFS of patients receiving the vaccine after tumor ablation vs tumor ablation alone.
Chapman P.B.,Sloan Kettering Cancer Center |
Hauschild A.,University of Kiel |
Robert C.,Institute Gustave Roussy |
Haanen J.B.,Netherlands Cancer Institute |
And 24 more authors.
New England Journal of Medicine | Year: 2011
BACKGROUND: Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials of the BRAF kinase inhibitor vemurafenib (PLX4032) have shown response rates of more than 50% in patients with metastatic melanoma with the BRAF V600E mutation. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3 randomized clinical trial comparing vemurafenib with dacarbazine in 675 patients with previously untreated, metastatic melanoma with the BRAF V600E mutation. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either vemurafenib (960 mg orally twice daily) or dacarbazine (1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area intravenously every 3 weeks). Coprimary end points were rates of overall and progression-free survival. Secondary end points included the response rate, response duration, and safety. A final analysis was planned after 196 deaths and an interim analysis after 98 deaths. RESULTS: At 6 months, overall survival was 84% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78 to 89) in the vemurafenib group and 64% (95% CI, 56 to 73) in the dacarbazine group. In the interim analysis for overall survival and final analysis for progression-free survival, vemurafenib was associated with a relative reduction of 63% in the risk of death and of 74% in the risk of either death or disease progression, as compared with dacarbazine (P<0.001 for both comparisons). After review of the interim analysis by an independent data and safety monitoring board, crossover from dacarbazine to vemurafenib was recommended. Response rates were 48% for vemurafenib and 5% for dacarbazine. Common adverse events associated with vemurafenib were arthralgia, rash, fatigue, alopecia, keratoacanthoma or squamous-cell carcinoma, photosensitivity, nausea, and diarrhea; 38% of patients required dose modification because of toxic effects. CONCLUSIONS: Vemurafenib produced improved rates of overall and progression-free survival in patients with previously untreated melanoma with the BRAF V600E mutation. (Funded by Hoffmann-La Roche; BRIM-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01006980.) Copyright © 2011 Massachusetts Medical Society.