Final overall survival analysis of the phase 3 HERITAGE study demonstrates equivalence of trastuzumab-dkst to trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer.

Purpose: The phase 3 HERITAGE trial demonstrated that the biosimilar trastuzumab-dkst is well tolerated with similar efficacy (measured by overall response rate [ORR] and progression-free survival [PFS]) compared with originator trastuzumab combined with taxane followed by monotherapy in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Herein, we present final overall survival (OS) from HERITAGE.

Methods: HERITAGE is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study.

Correlation between week 24 trastuzumab-dkst response and week 48 progression-free survival: the HERITAGE trial.

Background: Trastuzumab-dkst is a biosimilar of trastuzumab. The phase 3 HERITAGE trial demonstrated equivalent overall response rate (ORR) with trastuzumab-dkst or originator trastuzumab at 24 weeks in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. We now present the correlation of ORR with progression-free survival (PFS) for maintenance monotherapy with trastuzumab-dkst vs trastuzumab at 48 weeks of treatment, and the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity.

Randomized phase 3 efficacy and safety trial of proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar MYL-1401H in the prophylactic treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.

Pegfilgrastim is indicated for reducing the duration of neutropenia and incidence of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy. Here, safety and efficacy of MYL-1401H, a proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar, were investigated as prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. This was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group equivalence trial of MYL-1401H vs European Union-sourced reference pegfilgrastim.

A pharmacokinetics phase 1 bioequivalence study of the trastuzumab biosimilar MYL-1401O vs. EU-trastuzumab and US-trastuzumab.

Aims: Trastuzumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) oncoprotein and is an effective therapy for HER2-overexpressing breast cancer. MYL-1401O is a trastuzumab biosimilar. Here, we report results from a phase 1 study that investigated bioequivalence among MYL-1401O, reference EU-trastuzumab and US-trastuzumab.

A pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics equivalence trial of the proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar, MYL-1401H, versus reference pegfilgrastim.

Purpose: Pegfilgrastim is a long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor indicated for prevention of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy by promoting neutrophil recovery.

Methods: This phase 1, randomized, double-blind, three-way crossover trial in healthy volunteers evaluated the pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), safety, and tolerability of the proposed biosimilar, comparing MYL-1401H, reference pegfilgrastim (Neulasta, Amgen Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA) sourced from the European Union, and reference pegfilgrastim sourced from the USA. Primary PK end points were peak plasma concentration of pegfilgrastim (C) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from the time of dosing to infinity (AUC).

Exploratory Subset Analysis of African Americans From the PointBreak Study: Pemetrexed-Carboplatin-Bevacizumab Followed by Maintenance Pemetrexed-Bevacizumab Versus Paclitaxel-Carboplatin-Bevacizumab Followed by Maintenance Bevacizumab in Patients With Stage IIIB/IV Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

Introduction: African Americans have a greater incidence of lung cancer than whites and have been underrepresented in clinical trials. In the PointBreak trial (pemetrexed-carboplatin-bevacizumab and maintenance pemetrexed-bevacizumab [PemCBev] vs. paclitaxel-carboplatin-bevacizumab and maintenance bevacizumab [PacCBev]), 10% of the patients were African American.

PointBreak: a randomized phase III study of pemetrexed plus carboplatin and bevacizumab followed by maintenance pemetrexed and bevacizumab versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin and bevacizumab followed by maintenance bevacizumab in patients with stage IIIB or IV nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

Purpose: PointBreak (A Study of Pemetrexed, Carboplatin and Bevacizumab in Patients With Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer) compared the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed (Pem) plus carboplatin (C) plus bevacizumab (Bev) followed by pemetrexed plus bevacizumab (PemCBev) with paclitaxel (Pac) plus carboplatin (C) plus bevacizumab (Bev) followed by bevacizumab (PacCBev) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Patients And Methods: Patients with previously untreated stage IIIB or IV nonsquamous NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1 were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) or paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) combined with carboplatin area under the curve 6 and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks for up to four cycles. Eligible patients received maintenance until disease progression: pemetrexed plus bevacizumab (for the PemCBev group) or bevacizumab (for the PacCBev group).

Treatment rationale and study design for the pointbreak study: a randomized, open-label phase III study of pemetrexed/carboplatin/bevacizumab followed by maintenance pemetrexed/bevacizumab versus paclitaxel/carboplatin/bevacizumab followed by maintenance bevacizumab in patients with stage IIIB or IV nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

We present the treatment rationale and study design of the PointBreak study, a phase III study of pemetrexed/ carboplatin/bevacizumab induction followed by pemetrexed/bevacizumab maintenance (arm A) compared with paclitaxel/carboplatin/bevacizumab induction followed by bevacizumab maintenance (arm B) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Treatment consists of up to 4 cycles of induction therapy followed by maintenance therapy until disease progression or treatment discontinuation in approximately 900 patients (450 per treatment arm). The efficacy objectives of this study are to compare overall survival (OS), response rates, disease control rates, progression-free survival, and time to progressive disease between the 2 treatment arms.