MATERIALS AND METHODS: Key efficacy endpoints were blinded independent review committee (BIRC)-assessed overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR) evaluated per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. Other efficacy endpoints were investigator-assessed ORR and DOR; BIRC- and investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and disease control rate; overall survival (OS). Safety was evaluated by frequency and severity of adverse events.

RESULTS: At final data cutoff (6 March 2020), 198 treatment-naïve patients were included in efficacy analysis, of which 74 (37%) comprised the Asian subset; 450-mg fed (n=29), 600-mg fed (n=19), and 750-mg fasted (n=26). Baseline characteristics were mostly comparable across study arms. At baseline, more patients in 450-mg fed arm (44.8%) had brain metastases than in 750-mg fasted arm (26.9%). Per BIRC, patients in the 450-mg fed arm had a numerically higher ORR, 24-month DOR rate and 24-month PFS rate than the 750-mg fasted arm. The 36-month OS rate was 93.1% in 450-mg fed arm and 70.9% in 750-mg fasted arm. Any-grade GI toxicity occurred in 82.8% and 96.2% of patients in the 450-mg fed and 750-mg fasted arms, respectively.

METHODS: This multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled phase 2 trial included 110 solid malignant tumor patients (stage II-IV) undergoing chemotherapy. They were randomly selected and provided oral Nuvastatic™ 1000 mg (N = 56) or placebo (N = 54) thrice daily for 9 weeks. The primary outcomes were fatigue (Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI)) and Visual Analog Scale for Fatigue (VAS-F)) scores measured before and after intervention at baseline and weeks 3, 6, and 9. The secondary outcomes were mean group difference in the vitality subscale of the Medical Outcome Scale Short Form-36 (SF-36) and urinary F2-isoprostane concentration (an oxidative stress biomarker), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scores, adverse events, and biochemical and hematologic parameters. Analysis was performed by intention-to-treat (ITT). Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed by two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (mixed ANOVA).

METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, randomized phase II trial, pre/perimenopausal women with clinically aggressive HR+/HER2- ABC were randomly assigned 1:1 to first-line ribociclib (600 mg once daily; 3 weeks on, 1 week off) plus letrozole/anastrozole and goserelin or investigator's choice of combination CT (docetaxel plus capecitabine, paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, or capecitabine plus vinorelbine). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS: Among 222 patients randomly assigned to ribociclib plus ET (n = 112) or combination CT (n = 110), 150 (67.6%) had symptomatic visceral metastases, 41 (18.5%) had rapid disease progression per investigator's judgment, and 31 (14.0%) had symptomatic nonvisceral disease. Overall, 106 (47.7%) patients had investigator-assessed visceral crisis. The median follow-up time was 37.0 months. At data cutoff, 31.3% (ribociclib arm) and 15.5% (CT arm) of patients had completed study treatment and transitioned to post-trial access. The median PFS was 21.8 months (ribociclib plus ET; [95% CI, 17.4 to 26.7]) and 12.8 months (combination CT; [95% CI, 10.1 to 18.4); hazard ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.87]; P = .003. The overall response rates and the median time to response in the ribociclib versus CT arms, respectively, were 66.1% and 61.8% and 4.9 months and 3.2 months (hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.55 to 1.06]). Lower rates of symptomatic adverse events were observed in the ribociclib versus CT arm.