Edith A. Perez, Ahmad Awada, Joyce O Shaughnessy, Hope Rugo, Chris Twelves, Seock-Ah Im, Carol Zhao, Ute Hoch, Alison L. Hannah, Javier Cortes

Similar documents
New chemotherapy drugs in metastatic breast cancer. Guy Jerusalem, MD, PhD

Novel Chemotherapy Agents for Metastatic Breast Cancer. Joanne L. Blum, MD, PhD Baylor-Sammons Cancer Center Dallas, TX

Cancer du sein métastatique et amélioration de la survie Pr. X. Pivot

Secuencia óptima de tratamiento de quimioterapia en el cáncer de mama metastásico

Contemporary Chemotherapy-Based Strategies for First-Line Metastatic Breast Cancer

Triple Negative Breast Cancer: Part 2 A Medical Update

METRIC Study Key Eligibility Criteria

Evolving Paradigms in HER2+ MBC: Strategies for Individualizing Therapy with Available Agents

Lead team presentation Eribulin for treating locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer after two or more prior chemotherapy regimens STA

The next wave of successful drug therapy strategies in HER2-positive breast cancer. Hans Wildiers University Hospitals Leuven Belgium

San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium December 5-9, 2017

Karcinom dojke. PANEL: Semir Bešlija, Zdenka Gojković, Robert Šeparović, Tajana Silovski

Expert Review: The Role of PARP Inhibition in the Treatment of Breast Cancer. Reference Slides

Recent advances in the management of metastatic breast cancer in older adults

Immunoconjugates in Both the Adjuvant and Metastatic Setting

DR LUIS MANSO UNIDAD TUMORES DE MAMA Y GINECOLÓGICOS HOSPITAL 12 DE OCTUBRE MADRID

Primary Endpoint The primary endpoint is overall survival, measured as the time in weeks from randomization to date of death due to any cause.

Update on the Management of HER2+ Breast Cancer. Christian Jackisch, MD, PhD Sana Klinikum Offenbach Offenbach, Germany

This clinical study synopsis is provided in line with Boehringer Ingelheim s Policy on Transparency and Publication of Clinical Study Data.

Common disease 175,000 new cases/year 44,000 deaths/year Less than 10% with newly diagnosed at presentation have stage IV disease Chronic disease,

Metronomic chemotherapy for breast cancer

GASTRIC & PANCREATIC CANCER

Science-Based Innovation-Focused ADC Company. Corporate Overview June 2018

Chemotherapy options for patients suffering from heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer

ENFERMEDAD AVANZADA Qué hacemos con el triple negativo? Nuevas aproximaciones

This clinical study synopsis is provided in line with Boehringer Ingelheim s Policy on Transparency and Publication of Clinical Study Data.

Beyond Second-Line Treatment for Metastatic Breast Cancer

Targe:ng HER2 in Metasta:c Breast Cancer in 2014

Science-Based Innovation-Focused ADC Company. Corporate Overview August 2018

Simultaneous filing in US/EU/JPN

Maintenance paradigm in non-squamous NSCLC

Chemotherapy for Advanced Gastric Cancer

Low Dose Docetaxel Combined With Low Dose Capecitabine in Treatment of Metastatic Breast Cancer Previously Treated With Anthracycline

Alternativas terapéuticas en fenotipo triple negativo Javier Cortes, Hospital Universitario Ramon y Cajal, Madrid

LOTUS (NCT ) randomized phase II trial

L Oncologo Sperimentatore nel Disegno e nella Conduzione dello Studio Clinico

Breast : ASCO Abstracts for Review

New Targeted Agents Demonstrate Greater Efficacy and Tolerability in the Treatment of HER2-positive Breast Cancer

Trabectedin in ASTS. Le Cesne A, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(suppl): Abstract

Case 1 Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: What Therapy Should I Select First?

First-Line Ribociclib + Letrozole for Postmenopausal Women With HR+, HER2-, Advanced Breast Cancer: First Results From the Phase III MONALEESA-2 Study

Novel Cytotoxic Agents. Suresh S. Ramalingam, MD Associate Professor Director, Division of Medical Oncology Emory University Winship Cancer Institute

Sponsor / Company: Sanofi Drug substance(s): Docetaxel (Taxotere )

Phase II Study of Weekly Albumin-Bound Paclitaxel for Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer Heavily Pretreated with Taxanes

EGFR inhibitors in NSCLC

Post-ASCO 2017 Cancer du sein Triple Négatif

A vision for HER2 future

Targeted Therapies in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: An Update

Clinical Research on PARP Inhibitors and Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC)

Breast Cancer Immunotherapy. Leisha A. Emens, MD PhD Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg Kimmel Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy

Amreen Husain, 10 Eric P. Winer, 11 Sylvia Adams, 12 Peter Schmid 13

Immunotherapy for Breast Cancer. Aurelio B. Castrellon Medical Oncology Memorial Healthcare System

非臨床試験 臨床の立場から 京都大学医学部附属病院戸井雅和

Gemcitabine and Carboplatin in Patients with Refractory or Progressive Metastatic Breast Cancer after Treatment

RIBOCICLIB EN PRIMERA LINEA DE TRATAMIENTO. Dra. Elena Aguirre H.U. Miguel Servet

Expanding Therapeutic Strategies for HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer

Eribulin for locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer third line; monotherapy

Ruth M. O Regan, MD Professor and Vice-Chair for Educational Affairs, Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University, Chief of

Cisplatin plus Gemcitabine versus Gemcitabine for Biliary Tract Cancer. Valle J et al. N Engl J Med 2010;362(14):

Choosing Optimal Therapy for Advanced Non-Squamous (NS) Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Breast cancer treatment

Immune checkpoint blockade in lung cancer

ESMO 2017, Madrid, Spain Dr. Loredana Vecchione Charite Comprehensive Cancer Center, Berlin HIGHLIGHTS ON CANCERS OF THE UPPER GI TRACT

Endocrine Therapy 2017: Is There a Better Single Agent and when Should we Use it?

HER2-positive Breast Cancer

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Lung Cancer William N. William Jr.

INMUNOTERAPIA I. Dra. Virginia Calvo

in combination with cisplatin as first-line doublet 3 as maintenance agent following non-pemetrexed platinum doublet 4

Management Guidelines and Targeted Therapies in Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: An Oncologist s Perspective

Background CPX-351. Lancet J, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(suppl): Abstract 7035.

Metastatic NSCLC: Expanding Role of Immunotherapy. Evan W. Alley, MD, PhD Abramson Cancer Center at Penn Presbyterian

Her 2 Positive Advanced Breast Cancer: From Evidence to Practice

Emerging Agents in HER2-positive Disease. Mary Cianfrocca, DO Director, Breast Oncology Program Banner MD Anderson Cancer Center Gilbert, AZ

Neodjuvant chemotherapy

IMMUNOMEDICS, INC. November Advanced Antibody-Based Therapeutics. Oncology Autoimmune Diseases

PROGNOSTICO DE PACIENTES COM CA DE MAMA METASTATICO HER2+: PODEMOS FAZER MAIS? TDM-1 AND BEYOND!

Targeted Agents as Maintenance Therapy. Karen Kelly, MD Professor of Medicine UC Davis Cancer Center

COMETS: COlorectal MEtastatic Two Sequences

Nadia Harbeck Breast Center University of Cologne, Germany

PARP inhibitors for breast cancer

New Drug Development in HER2+ Breast Cancer

MMAE disrupts cell division and triggers apoptosis. Pola binds to cell surface antigen CD79b. Pola is internalized; linker cleaves, releasing MMAE

DALLA CAPECITABINA AL TAS 102

Convegno Nazionale AIOM Giovani 2016: News in Oncology. Daniele Alesini. Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori Regina Elena

Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy in Combination Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)

Nuovo paradigma terapeutico nel trattamento del carcinoma mammario HER2+ metastatico: dagli studi alla pratica clinica Prima linea di trattamento

Bendamustine is Effective Therapy in Patients with Rituximab-Refractory, Indolent B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

Use of Taxanes in Older Breast Cancer Patients

EVIDENCE IN BRIEF OVERALL CLINICAL BENEFIT

Bodoky G, Gil-Delgado M, Cascinu S, Lipatov ON, Cunningham D, Van Cutsem E, Muro K, Chandrawansa K, Liepa AM, Carlesi R, Ohtsu A, Wilke H

Review of adjuvant and neo-adjuvant abstracts from SABCS 2011 January 7 th 2012

Advanced HER2+ Breast Cancer: New Options and How to Deploy Them. José Baselga MD, PhD

LA CHEMIOTERAPIA DI I LINEA

The issues that will be resolved through PMCs include the the requalification of bioburden test.

MAINTENANCE TREATMENT CHEMO MAINTENANCE OR TARGETED OF BOTH? Martin Reck Department of Thoracic Oncology LungenClinic Grosshansdorf

Patient-Centric Science-Based Performance-Driven

Vinorelbine, methotrexate and fluorouracil (VMF) as first-line therapy in metastatic breast cancer: a randomized phase II trial

Transcription:

BEACON: A Phase 3 Open-label, Randomized, Multicenter Study of Etirinotecan Pegol (EP) versus Treatment of Physician s Choice (TPC) in Patients With Locally Recurrent or Metastatic Breast Cancer Previously Treated With an Anthracycline, a Taxane, and Capecitabine Edith A. Perez, Ahmad Awada, Joyce O Shaughnessy, Hope Rugo, Chris Twelves, Seock-Ah Im, Carol Zhao, Ute Hoch, Alison L. Hannah, Javier Cortes

Is a New Chemotherapy Option Needed? Chemotherapy remains mainstay of treatment for patients with advanced breast cancer Additional options are needed for patients after treatment with an anthracycline, taxane and capecitabine Anti-tumor activity No neuropathy No cardiac toxicity 2

Novel Pharmacology of Etirinotecan Pegol Hydrolysis Hydrolysis Irinotecan Ester-based Releasable Linker 20 kda, 4-arm PEG Compared to irinotecan, Etirinotecan Pegol prolongs elimination half-life of SN38 from 2 days to 50 days in patients 1 Given its size, Etirinotecan Pegol escapes from leaky tumor vasculature, concentrating the active metabolite in tumor 2 In a murine model of brain metastases, Etirinotecan Pegol results in 100-fold greater concentration of SN38 in brain lesions compared to irinotecan, prolonging survival 3 SN38, Active 1. Jameson et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:268-78 2. Hoch et al. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2014;74:1125-1137 3. Nounou et al. AACR Proceedings 2014 Abstract 35 3

Comparative Pharmacokinetics of SN38: Irinotecan vs Etirinotecan Pegol Etirinotecan Pegol s design results in low initial peak and sustained concentrations of active topoisomerase 1 inhibitor 100 = Irinotecan 1 = Etirinotecan Pegol 2 Plasma Active Metabolite SN38 Concentration (ng/ml) 10 1 0.1 0 3 6 9 12 1 week Dose Schedule (weeks) 1. Xie et al. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:3293-3301 2. Jameson et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:268-78 4 4

Etirinotecan Pegol Phase 1 and 2 Clinical Trials Phase 1 conducted in patients with advanced solid tumors 1 Primary toxicity: Diarrhea with minimal myelosuppression Two schedules compared in MBC phase 2 (n=70), with a median of 2 prior regimens for MBC 145 mg/m 2 every 2 or 3 weeks 2 Etirinotecan Pegol every 3 weeks chosen as the schedule for phase 3 trials due to numerically superior activity/better tolerability 1. Jameson et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:268-78 2. Awada et al. Lancet Oncol. 14(12):1216-1225 5

BEACON Phase 3 Study Design Locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (n=852) Prior treatment with anthracycline, a taxane, and capecitabine ECOG PS 0-1 2-5 prior chemotherapies for advanced disease Stable brain mets allowed R Single-Agent Etirinotecan Pegol 145 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks (n=429) Single-Agent Treatment of Physician s Choice (TPC) Docetaxel, eribulin, gemcitabine, ixabepilone, nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel or vinorelbine (n=423) Primary Endpoint Overall Survival Secondary Endpoints PFS, ORR, CBR, DoR, HRQoL Exploratory Endpoints PD Markers in CTC, others Stratification: Geographic region Prior eribulin use Receptor status 135 centers in US, Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Korea, Russia, Spain, The Netherlands, UK Enrollment: Dec 2011 Aug 2013 Event cutoff: Dec 2014 6

Statistical Considerations Overall Survival Target enrollment = 840 patients (420 per treatment arm) 90% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.77 (two-sided alpha, 0.05); 10 months vs 13 months 615 deaths required for the final analysis Planned interim analysis by Lan-Demets method with O Brien-Fleming guideline at 50% of events (two-sided significance level = 0.003) OS and PFS endpoints tested by two-sided stratified log-rank (ITT population) 7

Baseline Characteristics Characteristic, n (%) Etirinotecan Pegol (n=429) TPC (n=423) Age, years, median (range) 55 (28-84) 55 (32-80) ECOG PS 0 175 (41%) 134 (32%) 1 252 (59%) 285 (67%) 2 2 (<1%) 4 (1%) Median time since initial diagnosis of BC (yr) 5.8 5.4 Median time since diagnosis of ABC (yr) 2.5 2.5 Brain metastasis (history or stable) 36 (8%) 31 (7%) Liver metastasis 229 (53%) 227 (54%) Lung metastasis 155 (36%) 168 (40%) ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; ABC, advanced breast cancer; TPC, treatment of physicians choice. 8

Baseline Characteristics (cont d) Characteristic Etirinotecan Pegol (n=429) TPC (n=423) Receptor status (n, %) Hormone receptor positive 295 (69%) 290 (69%) Triple negative 119 (28%) 117 (28%) HER2 positive 30 (7%) 32 (8%) Stage IV disease at initial diagnosis (n, %) 70 (16%) 75 (18%) Visceral disease at enrollment (n, %) 319 (74%) 324 (77%) Prior regimens for metastatic disease (median, range) 3 (1-6) 3 (1-6) Prior chemotherapy exposure (n, %) Prior anthracycline 410 (96%) 406 (96%) Prior taxane 429 (100%) 423 (100%) Prior capecitabine 429 (100%) 423 (100%) Prior eribulin 71 (17%) 72 (17%) 9

Patients on TPC Received Chemotherapy Breakdown of Agents Used % 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Eribulin 40% Vinorelbine 23% Gemcitabine 18% nab-paclitaxel Ixabepilone Paclitaxel 8% Docetaxel 4% 4% 3% 1 Chemotherapy Agent 10

Primary Efficacy Endpoint: Overall Survival Survival Probability 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 Events OS (95% CI) Etirinotecan Pegol (n=429) 318 12.4 mo (11.0-13.6) TPC (n=423) 329 10.3 mo (9.0-11.3) HR (95% CI): 0.872 (0.747-1.019) Log-rank P-value = 0.0835 0.0 Number at Risk: 429 392 331 423 371 301 276 229 219 177 161 142 91 93 53 52 25 25 10 9 3 2 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 Months from Randomization 11

Secondary Efficacy Endpoints Endpoint Progression-free survival, median mo (95% CI) Objective response rate, n (%) 1 (95% CI) Duration of response, median mo 1 (95% CI) Clinical benefit rate, n (%) 2 (95% CI) Analyzed for patients with measurable disease by RECIST v1.1 at baseline 1 In patients with measurable disease at baseline (n=354 [EP]; n=358 [TPC]) 2 CR+PR+SD 6 months Etirinotecan Pegol (n=429) 2.4 (2.1-3.5) 58 (16%) (12.7-20.7) 3.9 (3.5-5.1) 88 (21%) (16.8-24.6) TPC (n=423) 2.8 (2.1-3.5) 61 (17%) (13.3-21.3) 3.7 (2.1-3.9) 83 (20%) (15.9-23.7) CI, confidence interval; CR, complete response; HR, hazard ratio; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; TPC, treatment of physicians choice. 12

Pre-planned Subgroup Analyses Safety and Quality of Life Circulating Tumor Cells Initial Results 13

Pre-planned OS Subgroup Analyses EP TPC Subgroup N # Events N # Events Prior Eribulin Y 71 59 72 60 N 358 259 351 269 TNBC 119 102 117 97 HER2+ 30 19 32 22 HR+ 295 208 290 221 Prior Regimens 5 117 91 94 75 4 142 101 153 117 3 170 126 176 137 Liver Metastasis 229 179 227 197 Lung Metastasis 155 121 168 132 Brain Metastasis 36 31 31 29 Sites Involved > 2 201 158 202 178 2 228 160 221 151 HR (95% CI) EP Median TPC Median 0.87 (0.60, 1.25) 11.0 8.0 0.87 (0.73, 1.03) 12.8 10.9 1.00 (0.76, 1.32) 9.8 8.8 0.96 (0.52, 1.78) 8.6 11.6 0.83 (0.69, 1.00) 13.6 11.0 0.82 (0.60, 1.11) 11.9 9.7 0.82 (0.63, 1.07) 13.6 9.7 0.92 (0.72, 1.17) 12.1 11.5 0.73 (0.59, 0.89) 10.9 8.3 0.93 (0.73, 1.20) 12.0 10.4 0.51 (0.30, 0.86) 10.0 4.8 0.77 (0.62, 0.95) 10.6 8.6 0.98 (0.78, 1.22) 13.3 12.6 Favoring Etirinotecan Pegol 0.1 0.5 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 14

Pre-planned OS Subgroup Analyses EP TPC Subgroup N # Events N # Events Prior Eribulin Y 71 59 72 60 N 358 259 351 269 TNBC 119 102 117 97 HER2+ 30 19 32 22 HR+ 295 208 290 221 Prior Regimens 5 117 91 94 75 4 142 101 153 117 3 170 126 176 137 Liver Metastasis 229 179 227 197 Lung Metastasis 155 121 168 132 Brain Metastasis 36 31 31 29 Sites Involved > 2 201 158 202 178 2 228 160 221 151 HR (95% CI) EP Median TPC Median 0.87 (0.60, 1.25) 11.0 8.0 0.87 (0.73, 1.03) 12.8 10.9 1.00 (0.76, 1.32) 9.8 8.8 0.96 (0.52, 1.78) 8.6 11.6 0.83 (0.69, 1.00) 13.6 11.0 0.82 (0.60, 1.11) 11.9 9.7 0.82 (0.63, 1.07) 13.6 9.7 0.92 (0.72, 1.17) 12.1 11.5 0.73 (0.59, 0.89) 10.9 8.3 0.93 (0.73, 1.20) 12.0 10.4 0.51 (0.30, 0.86) 10.0 4.8 0.77 (0.62, 0.95) 10.6 8.6 0.98 (0.78, 1.22) 13.3 12.6 Favoring Etirinotecan Pegol 0.1 0.5 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 15

Overall Survival in Patients With History of Brain Metastases (n=67) Survival Probability 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 Events OS (95% CI) Etirinotecan Pegol (n=36) 31 10.0 mo (7.8-15.7) TPC (n=31) 29 4.8 mo (3.7-7.3) HR (95% CI): 0.511 (0.304-0.858) Log-rank P-value = 0.0099 0.0 Number at Risk: 36 31 33 27 26 14 22 7 16 6 13 4 4 2 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 Months from Randomization 16 16

Overall Survival in Patients With History of Brain Metastases (n=67) Survival Probability 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 72.2% (54.5-84.0) 45.2% (27.4-61.4) 44.4% (28.0-59.6) 19.4% (7.9-34.6) Events OS (95% CI) Etirinotecan Pegol (n=36) 31 10.0 mo (7.8-15.7) TPC (n=31) 29 4.8 mo (3.7-7.3) HR (95% CI): 0.511 (0.304-0.858) Log-rank P-value = 0.0099 0.0 Number at Risk: 36 31 33 27 26 14 22 7 16 6 13 4 4 2 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 Months from Randomization 17 17

Adverse Events: All Grades All Grades (>5% Difference, Incidence > 20%) Etirinotecan Pegol (n=425) TPC (n=406) More Common on Etirinotecan Pegol Diarrhea 66% 20% Nausea 60% 38% Vomiting 41% 19% Decreased appetite 31% 24% Abdominal pain 21% 12% More Common on TPC Neutropenia 1 26% 43% Infections 31% 40% Asthenia 22% 29% Alopecia 10% 23% 1 Neutropenia=neutropenia, neutrophil count decreased, febrile neutropenia, neutropenic sepsis 18

Adverse Events: Grade 3 Grade 3 Toxicity Regardless of Causality ( 3% Difference) Etirinotecan Pegol (n=425) TPC (n=406) 48% 63% 1 More Common on Etirinotecan Pegol Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 3 Grade 4 Diarrhea 10% 0 1% 0 More Common on TPC Neutropenia 2 8% 2% 20% 11% Peripheral neuropathy 3 <1% <1% 4% 0 1 P < 0.001 2 Neutropenia=neutropenia, neutrophil count decreased, febrile neutropenia, neutropenic sepsis 3 Peripheral neuropathy is a combination of 12 Preferred Terms 19

Health-Related Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ-C30 1 ) Difference in Mean Scores Over 32 Weeks Change from Baseline Treatment Difference (95% CI) P-value Global Health Status 4.1 (0.68-7.43) 0.0185 5 Functional Scales: Physical Role Emotional Cognitive Social 4.1 (0.89-7.36) 0.0125 2.9 (-1.14-6.85) 0.1611 2.8 (-0.38-5.99) 0.0836 2.4 (-0.54-5.32) 0.1092 1.9 (-1.91-5.79) 0.3217 +10 +5 0-5 Favors Etirinotecan Pegol Estimated using a mixed-effects model repeated measures from baseline scores over 32 weeks 20 1. Fayers P, et al. EORTC Monograph. 1998.

Circulating Tumor Cells (CTCs) Biomarkers under evaluation include: Topoisomerase 1 and 2 Marker of proliferation Marker of apoptosis Marker of double-stranded DNA breaks Efflux transporter Analyzed at baseline and by change over time Most promising signal to date: Change in number of topoisomerase 1 (Top1) positive CTCs (from high to low) over time 21

Change in Top1 Positive CTCs Associated with Survival in Etirinotecan Pegol Arm Classification of patients as Top1-high or Top1-low based on median number of Top1 positive CTCs at baseline Survival Probability 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Number at Risk: 47 45 39 33 33 23 12 10 5 2 1 0 64 63 49 40 27 18 11 8 5 2 1 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 Months from Randomization Top1 Status (n=111) Baseline C2D1 OS HR p-value High Low 14.9 mo High High 10.7 mo 0.54 0.007 22

Conclusions Etirinotecan Pegol is a novel topoisomerase 1 inhibitor with clinical activity and good tolerability in patients with heavily pretreated advanced breast cancer The 2.1 month improvement in median survival favoring Etirinotecan Pegol did not reach statistical significance Important survival results in pre-defined subgroups of patients deserve further study History of brain metastases: 10.0 vs 4.8 months (HR=0.51; p<0.01) History of liver metastases: 10.9 vs 8.3 months (HR=0.73; p=0.002) Etirinotecan Pegol has fewer grade 3 toxicities and improved quality of life compared to TPC Exploration of potential predictive biomarkers ongoing 23

Acknowledgements All patients, their families and caregivers All co-investigators and research coordinators Data Monitoring Committee: Kathy Miller, Banu Arun, James Boyett Canada USA Netherlands Belgium UK Germany Russia France Spain Italy Republic of Korea 24