Short intensive chemotherapy is the standard of care for adult patients with Burkitt’s leukaemia or lymphoma. Findings from single-arm studies suggest that addition of rituximab to these regimens could improve patient outcomes. Our objective was to test this possibility in a randomised trial.
In this randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients older than 18 years with untreated HIV-negative Burkitt’s lymphoma (including Burkitt’s leukaemia) from 45 haematological centres in France. Exclusion criteria were contraindications to any drug included in the chemotherapy regimens, any serious comorbidity, poor renal (creatinine concentration >150 μmol/L) or hepatic (cirrhosis or previous hepatitis B or C) function, pregnancy, and any history of cancer except for non-melanoma skin tumours or stage 0 (in situ) cervical carcinoma. Patients were stratified into two groups based on disease extension (absence [group B] or presence [group C] of bone marrow or central nervous system involvement). Patients were further stratified in group C according to age (<40 years, 40-60 years, and >60 years) and central nervous system involvement. Participants were randomly assigned in each group to either intravenous rituximab injections and chemotherapy (lymphome malin B [LMB]) or chemotherapy alone by the Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte datacentre. Randomisation was stratified by treatment group and centre using computer-assisted permuted-block randomisation (block size of four; allocation ratio 1:1). We gave rituximab (375 mg/m(2)) on day 1 and day 6 during the first two courses of chemotherapy (total of four infusions). The primary endpoint is 3 year event-free survival (EFS). We analysed all patients who had data available according to their originally assigned group. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00180882.
Between Oct 14, 2004, and Sept 7, 2010, we randomly allocated 260 patients to rituximab or no rituximab (group B 124 patients [64 no rituximab; 60 rituximab]; group C 136 patients [66 no rituximab; 70 rituximab]). With a median follow-up of 38 months (IQR 24-59), patients in the rituximab group achieved better 3 year EFS (75% [95% CI 66-82]) than did those in the no rituximab group (62% [53-70]; log-rank p stratified by treatment group=0·024). The hazard ratio estimated with a Cox model stratified by treatment group, assuming proportionality, was 0·59 for EFS (95% CI 0·38-0·94; p=0·025). Adverse events did not differ between the two treatment groups. The most common adverse events were infectious (grade 3-4 in 137 [17%] treatment cycles in the rituximab group vs 115 [15%] in the no rituximab group) and haematological (mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia of 3·31 days per cycle [95% CI 3·01-3·61] vs 3·38 days per cycle [3·05-3·70]) events.
Addition of rituximab to a short intensive chemotherapy programme improves EFS in adults with Burkitt’s leukaemia or lymphoma.
Gustave Roussy Cancer Campus, Roche, Chugai, Sanofi.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Schedule your 30 min Free 1stOncology Demo!
Discover why more than 1,500 members use 1stOncology™ to excel in:

Early/Late Stage Pipeline Development - Target Scouting - Clinical Biomarkers - Indication Selection & Expansion - BD&L Contacts - Conference Reports - Combinatorial Drug Settings - Companion Diagnostics - Drug Repositioning - First-in-class Analysis - Competitive Analysis - Deals & Licensing

                  Schedule Your 30 min Free Demo!

The Giens 2015 Workshop Round Table entitled "What specifications for a centre or network of excellence in clinical research?" took a viewpoint distinct from earlier work and studies on changes in clinical research activities in France. The purpose of the present work was to identify, starting from concrete examples, the main strengths and advantages of clinical research activity in France related, in part, to the background environment and also to the specific characteristics of the investigation centres considered to be among the most high-performance units in activity. The criteria retained were grouped into a set of specifications that could be used to establish a "label of excellence" upon which the different teams and clinical research centres could model themselves. It was thus considered that belonging to a centre or structured network with at least a national configuration, when this is possible for the medial topic in question, constitutes a real advantage. Four benchmarks were identified: the scientific and clinical expertise of the head investigator, as well as the qualification and operational capacity of the centre’s team; definition and measurement of performance using clearly displayed indicators and evaluation procedures; the quality of the overall trial "process" and of each of its component steps; communication, because know-how and promotion go hand in hand, with the main objective of informing the professional and general public about the value of the research centre meeting the above-mentioned criteria, about its networks of competencies, and more generally, about the important assets of the background of clinical research in France. This sector of research is funded by the public authorities via calls for public grants, financial aids for structures supporting clinical research in the University Hospital Centres and other healthcare institutions allowing for a professionalization of the research occupations, and the national public health plans (cancer, rare disease, HIV).
Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.

Schedule your 30 min Free 1stOncology Demo!
Discover why more than 1,500 members use 1stOncology™ to excel in:

Early/Late Stage Pipeline Development - Target Scouting - Clinical Biomarkers - Indication Selection & Expansion - BD&L Contacts - Conference Reports - Combinatorial Drug Settings - Companion Diagnostics - Drug Repositioning - First-in-class Analysis - Competitive Analysis - Deals & Licensing

                  Schedule Your 30 min Free Demo!

Angiogenesis inhibition by the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) inhibitor sorafenib provides survival benefit in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, angiogenic escape from sorafenib may occur due to angiogenesis-associated fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) pathway activation. In addition to VEGFR and PDGFR, dovitinib inhibits FGFR. Frontline oral dovitinib (500 mg/day, 5 days on/2 days off; n = 82) vs sorafenib (400 mg, twice daily; n = 83) was evaluated in an open-label, randomized phase 2 study of Asian-Pacific patients with advanced HCC. Primary and key secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and time to tumor progression (TTP) per local investigator, respectively. Eligible patients had progressed after or were ineligible for surgical and/or locoregional therapies. Median OS (95% CI) was 8.0 (6.6-9.1) months for dovitinib and 8.4 (5.4-11.3) months for sorafenib. Median TTP (95% CI) per investigator assessment was 4.1 (2.8-4.2) and 4.1 (2.8-4.3) months for dovitinib and sorafenib, respectively. Common any-cause adverse events included diarrhea (62%), decreased appetite (43%), nausea (41%), vomiting (41%), fatigue (35%), rash (34%), and pyrexia (30%) for dovitinib, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (66%) and decreased appetite (31%) for sorafenib. Subgroup analysis showed higher median OS for patients on dovitinib, with baseline plasma soluble VEGFR1 (sVEGFR1) and hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) < median levels relative to ≥ median levels (median OS [95% CI]: sVEGFR1, 11.2 [9.0-13.8] and 5.7 [4.3-7.0] months, respectively [P = .0002]; HGF, 11.2 [8.9-13.8] and 5.9 [5.0-7.6] months, respectively [P = 0.0002]).
Dovitinib was well tolerated but activity was not greater than sorafenib as frontline systemic therapy for HCC. Based on these data, no subsequent phase 3 study is planned. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
© 2016 by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

Schedule your 30 min Free 1stOncology Demo!
Discover why more than 1,500 members use 1stOncology™ to excel in:

Early/Late Stage Pipeline Development - Target Scouting - Clinical Biomarkers - Indication Selection & Expansion - BD&L Contacts - Conference Reports - Combinatorial Drug Settings - Companion Diagnostics - Drug Repositioning - First-in-class Analysis - Competitive Analysis - Deals & Licensing

                  Schedule Your 30 min Free Demo!

Indoleamine-2,3-dioxygenase (IDO) is an immunosuppressive enzyme involved in tumor malignancy. However, the regulatory mechanism underlying its involvement remains largely uncharacterized. The present study aimed to investigate the hypothesis that NK4, an antagonist of hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), can regulate IDO and to characterize the signaling mechanism involved. Following successful transfection of the human ovarian cancer cell line SKOV-3 (which constitutively expresses IDO) with an NK4 expression vector, we observed that NK4 expression suppressed IDO expression; furthermore, NK4 expression did not suppress cancer cell growth in vitro [in the absence of natural killer (NK) cells], but did influence tumor growth in vivo. In addition, NK4 enhanced the sensitivity of cancer cells to NK cells in vitro and promoted NK cell accumulation in the tumor stroma in vivo. In an effort to clarify the mechanisms by which NK4 interacts with IDO, we performed investigations utilizing various biochemical inhibitors. The results of these investigations were as follows. First, c-Met (a receptor of HGF) tyrosine kinase inhibitor PHA-665752, and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitor LY294002 both suppress IDO expression. Second, enhanced expression of PTEN (a known tumor suppressor) via negative regulation within a PI3K-AKT pathway, inhibits IDO expression. Conversely, neither the MEK1/2 inhibitor U0126 nor the STAT3 inhibitor WP1066 affects IDO expression. These results suggest that NK4 inhibits IDO expression via a c-Met-PI3K-AKT signaling pathway.

Schedule your 30 min Free 1stOncology Demo!
Discover why more than 1,500 members use 1stOncology™ to excel in:

Early/Late Stage Pipeline Development - Target Scouting - Clinical Biomarkers - Indication Selection & Expansion - BD&L Contacts - Conference Reports - Combinatorial Drug Settings - Companion Diagnostics - Drug Repositioning - First-in-class Analysis - Competitive Analysis - Deals & Licensing

                  Schedule Your 30 min Free Demo!

The RECORD study evaluated the effects of rosiglitazone on cardiovascular outcomes. A 4-year observational follow-up was added to the study to monitor the occurrence of cancer and bone fractures. We present the cancer and bone fracture data aggregated across the main study and its observational follow-up.
RECORD was a multicentre, open-label trial in people with type 2 diabetes on metformin or sulfonylurea monotherapy randomly assigned to addition of rosiglitazone (n = 2,220) or to a combination of metformin and sulfonylurea (n = 2,227). At the end of the main study, patients stopped study drug and were invited to enter the observational follow-up during which glucose-lowering treatment was selected by the patient’s physician. Serious adverse events of cancer and serious and non-serious events of bone fracture were recorded. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00379769.
Of the 4,447 patients comprising the intent-to-treat population, 2,546 entered the observational follow-up (1,288 rosiglitazone, 1,258 metformin/sulfonylurea) and added 9,336 patient-years experience to the main RECORD study, making an aggregate of 33,744 patient-years. Based on the totality of follow-up, malignancies were reported in 179 of 2,220 patients (8.1 %) in the group originally randomised to rosiglitazone and in 195 of 2,227 patients (8.8 %) in the group allocated metformin/sulfonylurea [relative risk, RR, 0.92 (95 % CI 0.76-1.12)]. More patients reported bone fractures in the rosiglitazone group (238, 10.7 %) than in the metformin/sulfonylurea control [151, 6.8 %; RR 1.58 (1.30-1.92)]. For women, the corresponding figures were rosiglitazone 156 (14.5 %), metformin/sulfonylurea 91 (8.5 %), RR 1.71 (1.34-2.18), and for men, the corresponding figures were rosiglitazone 82 (7.2 %), metformin/sulfonylurea 60 (5.2 %), RR 1.37 (0.99-1.90). Potentially high-morbidity fractures (hip, pelvis, femur, and spine) occurred in the same number of patients (31, 1.4 %) in the two treatment groups.
We conclude that data from a 4-year observational follow-up, combined with the main RECORD study data, do not suggest an increased risk of cancer in patients randomised to rosiglitazone combination use compared with those randomised to metformin/sulfonylurea. Consistent with the main study, rosiglitazone is associated with an increased risk of peripheral bone fracture in women, and probably in men, but the combined data do not suggest an increase in potentially high-morbidity (hip, pelvis, femur, and spine) fractures.

Schedule your 30 min Free 1stOncology Demo!
Discover why more than 1,500 members use 1stOncology™ to excel in:

Early/Late Stage Pipeline Development - Target Scouting - Clinical Biomarkers - Indication Selection & Expansion - BD&L Contacts - Conference Reports - Combinatorial Drug Settings - Companion Diagnostics - Drug Repositioning - First-in-class Analysis - Competitive Analysis - Deals & Licensing

                  Schedule Your 30 min Free Demo!