BACKGROUND: Single-agent oral vinorelbine is a standard of care for hormone receptor (HR)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) that has progressed on endocrine therapy. Metronomic administration may offer a better balance of efficacy and safety than standard regimens, but data from previous trials are scarce.
METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, phase II trial, patients were randomized to oral vinorelbine administered on a metronomic (50 mg three times weekly) or weekly (60 mg/m2 in cycle 1, increasing to 80 mg/m2 if well tolerated) schedule. Treatment was continued until disease progression or intolerance. The primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR, the proportion of patients with a best overall confirmed response of CR, PR, or stable disease lasting 6 months or more).
RESULTS: One-hundred sixty-three patients were randomized and treated. The DCR was 63.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 52.0-73.8) with metronomic vinorelbine and 72.8% (95% CI: 61.8-82.1) with weekly vinorelbine. Weekly vinorelbine was also associated with longer progression-free survival (5.6 vs 4.0 months) and overall survival (26.7 vs 22.3 months) than metronomic vinorelbine, but was associated with more adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized phase II trial, single-agent metronomic oral vinorelbine was effective and well tolerated as first-line chemotherapy for patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative ABC. Formal comparisons are not done in this phase II study and one can simply observe that confidence intervals of all endpoints overlap. When deciding for a chemotherapy after failure of endocrine therapy and CDK 4/6 inhibitors, oral vinorelbine might be an option to be given with either schedule.
BACKGROUND: EudraCT 2014-003860-19.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab following platinum chemotherapy and complete pulmonary resection has become the new standard of adjuvant care for patients with stage II-III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) expressing programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). However, the efficacy and safety of postoperative adjuvant therapy and subsequent atezolizumab in patients aged 75 and older have not been established.
METHODS: Patients with completely resected stage II-III NSCLC aged 75 and older will be prospectively registered in this single-arm phase II study. The enrolled patients will receive cisplatin plus vinorelbine (CDDP + VNR) followed by atezolizumab for up to 12 months. PD-L1 expression in at least 1% of cells will be confirmed by immunohistochemical staining. We plan to enroll 33 patients over 1 year at 25 institutions in Japan. The primary endpoint is the completion rate of adjuvant treatment (CDDP + VNR initiation to atezolizumab completion).
CONCLUSIONS: The present study represents the first prospective trial of the tolerability of postoperative adjuvant therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors in elderly individuals. The results of this trial might help promote postoperative adjuvant immunotherapy in the future for the elderly.

UNASSIGNED: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted agents have significantly improved the outcomes of patients with HER2-positive breast cancer; however, a large proportion of patients still develop resistance to trastuzumab. In this study, we investigated the efficacy and safety of inetetamab, another anti-HER2 antibody, combined with pyrotinib and oral vinorelbine in patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer so as to provide new ideas for the treatment.
UNASSIGNED: In this prospective, single-arm, phase 2 trial, patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer with disease progression after trastuzumab were recruited. Patients received a combination of inetetamab (loading dose of 8 mg/kg and subsequent doses of 6 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks), pyrotinib (400 mg orally once daily), and vinorelbine (60 mg/m2 orally once weekly) until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), and safety.
UNASSIGNED: Between February 13, 2022 and December 25, 2022, 30 patients were screened and enrolled in this study. The median age of the patients at enrollment was 54 years, 12 patients (40.0 %) had hormone-receptor-positive disease and 23 patients (76.7 %) had visceral metastasis. The median PFS was 8.63 months (95 % confidence interval [CI] 4.15-13.12 months). The median OS was not reached. The ORR was 53.3 % (16/30) and the DCR was 96.7 % (29/30). The most common Grade III/IV adverse events were leukopenia (n = 5, 16.7 %), neutropenia (n = 4, 13.3 %), and diarrhea (n = 3, 10 %). No treatment-related serious adverse events or deaths occurred.
UNASSIGNED: The combination regimen of inetetamab, pyrotinib, and oral vinorelbine showed encouraging efficacy and favorable safety in patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer and could be considered as an alternative treatment option for the patients.
UNASSIGNED: No.NCT05823623; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic breast cancer refractory to anthracycline and taxanes often shows rapid progression. The development of effective and tolerable combination regimens for these patients is needed. This phase II trial investigated the efficacy of pemetrexed plus vinorelbine in patients with metastatic breast cancer.
METHODS: This randomized, open-label, phase II trial was conducted in 17 centers in Korea. Patients with advanced breast cancer who had previously been treated with anthracyclines and taxanes were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vinorelbine or pemetrexed plus vinorelbine. Randomization was stratified by prior capecitabine treatment and hormone receptor status. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included the objective response rate, overall survival, safety, and quality of life.
RESULTS: Between March 2017 and August 2019, a total of 125 patients were enrolled. After a median follow-up duration of 14.1 months, 118 progression events and 88 death events had occurred. Sixty-two patients were assigned to the pemetrexed plus vinorelbine arm, and 63 were assigned to the vinorelbine arm. Pemetrexed plus vinorelbine significantly prolonged PFS compared to vinorelbine (5.7 vs. 1.5 months, p < 0.001). The combination arm had higher disease control rate (76.8% vs. 45.9%, p = 0.001) and a tendency toward longer overall survival (16.8 vs. 10.5 months, p = 0.102). Anemia was more frequent in the pemetrexed plus vinorelbine arm per cycle compared with vinorelbine (7.9% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001), but there was no difference in the incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia per cycle between the pemetrexed plus vinorelbine arm and the vinorelbine single arm (14.7% vs. 19.5%, p = 0.066).
CONCLUSIONS: This phase II study showed that pemetrexed plus vinorelbine led to a longer PFS than vinorelbine. Adverse events of pemetrexed plus vinorelbine were generally manageable.

UNASSIGNED: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of utidelone plus capecitabine for advanced first-line versus second-line or above therapy in metastatic breast cancer patients who had previously received anthracycline and taxane. At the same time, we compared the efficacy of utidelone plus capecitabine and vinorelbine plus cisplatin in advanced first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer.
UNASSIGNED: A retrospective cohort of 11 patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracycline and taxane (including neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapies) for advanced first-line with utidelone plus capecitabine, 32 patients treated with second-line or above, and 60 patients with vinorelbine plus cisplatin between October 2011 and August 2022 was collected. The first and second groups were treated with utidelone plus capecitabine, and the third group was treated with vinorelbine plus cisplatin. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and treatment safety.
UNASSIGNED: By 03/31/2023, median PFS reached 11.70 months (95 % CI 0.093-0.141) in utidelone plus capecitabine group in the advanced first-line therapy, compared to 5.60 months (95 % CI 0.025-0.079) in the second-line or above therapy [HR 0.42, (95 % CI 0.226-0.787), P = 0.0077]. In utidelone plus capecitabine, the median OS was not reached in the advanced first-line therapy, with a mean overall survival of 23.16 months (95 % CI 0.198-0.265); whereas the median OS in the second-line or above therapy was 19.50 months (95 % CI 0.083-0.307), with a mean overall survival of 16.89 months (95 % CI 0.136-0.202) [HR 0.26, (95 % CI 0.098-0.678), P = 0.0495]. The ORR for advanced first-line therapy was 27.27 % (95%CI 0.060, 0.610) compared with 15.63 % (95%CI 0.053, 0.328) for second-line or above. In advanced first-line therapy, utidelone plus capecitabine was superior to vinorelbine plus cisplatin with a median PFS of 6.12 months (95 % CI 0.051-0.072) [HR 0.49, (95 % CI 0.286-0.839), P = 0.0291]. Compared with utidelone plus capecitabine, the median OS in vinorelbine plus cisplatin advanced first-line therapy group was 35.37 months (95 % CI 0.258-0.449), and the mean overall survival was 40.79 months (95 % CI 0.315-0.501) [HR 0.54, (95 % CI 0.188-1.568), P = 0.2587]. The ORR for vinorelbine plus cisplatin was 18.33 % (95 % CI 0.095, 0.304). The most common adverse events in our study were neurological toxicity, hand-foot syndrome, hematological toxicity, gastrointestinal toxicity, and hepatic and renal function abnormalities. There were no deaths due to adverse effects during the utidelone plus capecitabine treatment period.
UNASSIGNED: In MBC, advanced first-line therapy with utidelone plus capecitabine resulted in more favorable PFS, OS, and ORR than second-line or above therapy. In advanced first-line therapy, utidelone plus capecitabine had superior PFS, and ORR compared with vinorelbine plus cisplatin. This study concludes that utidelone plus capecitabine is a more valuable chemotherapy option in advanced first-line MBC.

The phase III IMPACT study (UMIN000044738) compared adjuvant gefitinib with cisplatin plus vinorelbine (cis/vin) in completely resected epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although the primary endpoint of disease-free survival (DFS) was not met, we searched for molecular predictors of adjuvant gefitinib efficacy. Of 234 patients enrolled in the IMPACT study, 202 patients were analyzed for 409 cancer-related gene mutations and tumor mutation burden using resected lung cancer specimens. Frequent somatic mutations included tumor protein p53 (TP53; 58.4%), CUB and Sushi multiple domains 3 (CSMD3; 11.8%), and NOTCH1 (9.9%). Multivariate analysis showed that NOTCH1 co-mutation was a significant poor prognostic factor for overall survival (OS) in the gefitinib group and cAMP response element binding protein (CREBBP) co-mutation for DFS and OS in the cis/vin group. In patients with NOTCH1 co-mutations, gefitinib group had a shorter OS than cis/vin group (Hazard ratio 5.49, 95% CI 1.07-28.00), with a significant interaction (P for interaction = 0.039). In patients with CREBBP co-mutations, the gefitinib group had a longer DFS than the cis/vin group, with a significant interaction (P for interaction = 0.058). In completely resected EGFR-mutated NSCLC, NOTCH1 and CREBBP mutations might predict poor outcome in patients treated with gefitinib and cis/vin, respectively.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new combination treatment of vinorelbine and pyrotinib in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and provide higher level evidence for clinical practice.
METHODS: This was a prospective, single-arm, phase 2 trial conducted at three institutions in China. Patients with HER2-positive MBC, who had previously been treated with trastuzumab plus a taxane or trastuzumab plus pertuzumab combined with a chemotherapeutic agent, were enrolled between March 2020 and December 2021. All patients received pyrotinib 400 mg orally once daily plus vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 intravenously or 60-80 mg/m2 orally on day 1 and day 8 of 21-day cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoints included the objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival, and safety.
RESULTS: A total of 39 patients were enrolled. All patients had been pretreated with trastuzumab and 23.1% (n=9) of them had accepted trastuzumab plus pertuzumab. The median follow-up time was 16.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.3 to 27.2), and the median PFS was 6.4 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 8.8). The ORR was 43.6% (95% CI, 27.8% to 60.4%) and the DCR was 84.6% (95% CI, 69.5% to 94.1%). The median PFS of patients with versus without prior pertuzumab treatment was 4.6 and 8.3 months (p=0.017). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were diarrhea (28.2%), neutrophil count decreased (15.4%), white blood cell count decreased (7.7%), vomiting (5.1%), and anemia (2.6%).
CONCLUSIONS: Pyrotinib plus vinorelbine showed promising efficacy and tolerable toxicity as second-line treatment in patients with HER2-positive MBC.

暂无摘要。

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.The JIPANG study is an open-label phase III trial evaluating the efficacy of pemetrexed plus cisplatin (PemP) versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin (NP) as adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage II-IIIA nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Here, we report the long follow-up overall survival (OS) data. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either PemP or NP. The primary end point was recurrence-free survival (RFS), and the secondary end point included OS. This analysis was performed using data collected 5 years after the last patient enrollment. Among 804 patients enrolled, 783 patients were eligible (384 for NP and 389 for PemP). The updated median RFS was 37.5 months in the NP arm and 43.4 months in the PemP arm with a hazard ratio of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.14). At a median follow-up of 77.3 months, the OS rates at 3 and 5 years were 84.1% and 75.6% versus 87.0% and 75.0% with a hazard ratio of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.81 to 1.34). This long-term follow-up analysis showed that PemP had similar efficacy to NP in both RFS and OS for this population, with one of the longest OS data compared with the historical data.

In spite of the effectiveness of endocrine therapy plus cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors as the first-line treatment for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 (ERBB2 [formerly HER2/neu])-negative (ER+/ERBB2-) metastatic breast cancer (MBC), patients eventually develop resistance, and eventually most will receive chemotherapy. The METEORA-II trial compared a metronomic all-oral treatment with intravenous (IV) chemotherapy.
To compare the efficacy of the oral vinorelbine plus cyclophosphamide plus capecitabine (VEX) regimen vs weekly IV paclitaxel among patients with ER+/ERBB2- MBC who are candidates for chemotherapy.
This phase 2 randomized clinical trial including 140 women 18 years and older (randomized 1:1) with ER+/ERBB2- MBC was carried out from September 13, 2017, to January 14, 2021 at 15 centers in Italy. Eligible patients could have received 1 prior line of chemotherapy for MBC and/or 2 lines of endocrine therapy (including CDK4/6 inhibitors).
In 4-week cycles, patients received either metronomic oral VEX or weekly IV paclitaxel.
The primary end point was investigator-assessed time to treatment failure (TTF) defined as the interval between the date of randomization to the end of treatment (because of disease progression or lack of tolerability or because further trial treatment was declined). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and disease control rate (complete or partial response or stable disease lasting for at least 24 weeks).
In total, 133 patients received either VEX (n = 70) or paclitaxel (n = 63) in 4-weekly cycles. The median age was 61 (range, 30-80) years. The VEX treatment significantly prolonged TTF vs paclitaxel (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42-0.88; P = .008), median TTF was 8.3 (95% CI, 5.6-11.1) months for VEX vs 5.7 (95% CI, 4.1-6.1) months for paclitaxel, and the 12-month TTF was 34.3% for VEX vs 8.6% for paclitaxel. The median PFS was 11.1 (95% CI, 8.3-13.8) months vs 6.9 (95% CI, 5.4-10.1) months favoring VEX (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.46-0.96, P = .03). The 12-month PFS was 43.5% for VEX vs 21.9% for paclitaxel. No difference in OS was found. The TF event for 55.6% of patients was progression of disease; for 23% it was AEs. More patients assigned to VEX had at least 1 grade 3 or 4 targeted adverse event (VEX, 42.9%; 95% CI, 31.1%-55.3% vs paclitaxel, 28.6%; 95% CI, 17.9%-41.3%), but essentially no alopecia.
This randomized clinical trial found significantly prolonged TTF and PFS for oral VEX but no improvement in OS compared with intravenous paclitaxel, despite increased but still manageable toxic effects. The VEX regimen may provide more prolonged disease control than weekly paclitaxel for ER+/ERBB2- MBC.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02954055.