Sun Young Rha

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab or everolimus has activity against advanced renal cell carcinoma. The efficacy of these regimens as compared with that of sunitinib is unclear. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and no previous systemic therapy to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks), lenvatinib (18 mg orally once daily) plus everolimus (5 mg orally once daily), or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily, alternating 4 weeks receiving treatment and 2 weeks without treatment). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as assessed by an independent review committee in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Overall survival and safety were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 1069 patients were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (355 patients), lenvatinib plus everolimus (357), or sunitinib (357). Progression-free survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (median, 23.9 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.49; P<0.001) and was longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (median, 14.7 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.80; P<0.001). Overall survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.88; P = 0.005) but was not longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.50; P = 0.30). Grade 3 or higher adverse events emerged or worsened during treatment in 82.4% of the patients who received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, 83.1% of those who received lenvatinib plus everolimus, and 71.8% of those who received sunitinib. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in at least 10% of the patients in any group included hypertension, diarrhea, and elevated lipase levels. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival than sunitinib. (Funded by Eisai and Merck Sharp and Dohme; CLEAR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02811861.).

PURPOSE: The Avastin in Gastric Cancer (AVAGAST) trial was a multinational, randomized, placebo-controlled trial designed to evaluate the efficacy of adding bevacizumab to capecitabine-cisplatin in the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg or placebo followed by cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily for 14 days every 3 weeks. Fluorouracil was permitted in patients unable to take oral medications. Cisplatin was given for six cycles; capecitabine and bevacizumab were administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Log-rank test was used to test the OS difference. RESULTS: In all, 774 patients were enrolled; 387 were assigned to each treatment group (intention-to-treat population), and 517 deaths were observed. Median OS was 12.1 months with bevacizumab plus fluoropyrimidine-cisplatin and 10.1 months with placebo plus fluoropyrimidine-cisplatin (hazard ratio 0.87; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.03; P = .1002). Both median progression-free survival (6.7 v 5.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.93; P = .0037) and overall response rate (46.0% v 37.4%; P = .0315) were significantly improved with bevacizumab versus placebo. Preplanned subgroup analyses revealed regional differences in efficacy outcomes. The most common grade 3 to 5 adverse events were neutropenia (35%, bevacizumab plus fluoropyrimidine-cisplatin; 37%, placebo plus fluoropyrimidine-cisplatin), anemia (10% v 14%), and decreased appetite (8% v 11%). No new bevacizumab-related safety signals were identified. CONCLUSION: Although AVAGAST did not reach its primary objective, adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy was associated with significant increases in progression-free survival and overall response rate in the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Gastric cancer is a major gastrointestinal malignancy for which targeted therapies are emerging as treatment options. This study sought to identify the most prevalent molecular targets in gastric cancer and to elucidate systematic patterns of exclusivity and co-occurrence among these targets, through comprehensive genomic analysis of a large panel of gastric cancers. DESIGN: Using high-resolution single nucleotide polymorphism arrays, copy number alterations were profiled in a panel of 233 gastric cancers (193 primary tumours, 40 cell lines) and 98 primary matched gastric non-malignant samples. For selected alterations, their impact on gene expression and clinical outcome were evaluated. RESULTS: 22 recurrent focal alterations (13 amplifications and nine deletions) were identified. These included both known targets (FGFR2, ERBB2) and also novel genes in gastric cancer (KLF5, GATA6). Receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK)/RAS alterations were found to be frequent in gastric cancer. This study also demonstrates, for the first time, that these alterations occur in a mutually exclusive fashion, with KRAS gene amplifications highlighting a clinically relevant but previously underappreciated gastric cancer subgroup. FGFR2-amplified gastric cancers were also shown to be sensitive to dovitinib, an orally bioavailable FGFR/VEGFR targeting agent, potentially representing a subtype-specific therapy for FGFR2-amplified gastric cancers. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates the existence of five distinct gastric cancer patient subgroups, defined by the signature genomic alterations FGFR2 (9% of tumours), KRAS (9%), EGFR (8%), ERBB2 (7%) and MET (4%). Collectively, these subgroups suggest that at least 37% of gastric cancer patients may be potentially treatable by RTK/RAS directed therapies.