scholarly journals PCN222 CARFILZOMIB/LENALIDOMIDE/DEXAMETHASONE IN THE SECOND-LINE SETTING FOLLOWED BY DARATUMUMAB/LENALIDOMIDE/DEXAMETHASONE IN THE THIRD-LINE SETTING VERSUS THE OPPOSITE TREATMENT SEQUENCE: A COST COMPARISON STUDY FROM A BRAZILIAN PRIVATE HEALTH CARE PERSPECTIVE

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. S479
Author(s):  
S. Tanaka ◽  
A. Coggia ◽  
A. Arancibia ◽  
I.M. Majer ◽  
G. Aratangy
2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21086-e21086
Author(s):  
Geoffroy Bilger ◽  
Anne-Claire Toffart ◽  
Marie Darasson ◽  
Michaël Duruisseaux ◽  
Lucie Ulmer ◽  
...  

e21086 Background: With the growing role of immunotherapy (ICI) as first-line setting for advanced NSCLC, strategies must be redefined after failure. The combination paclitaxel-bevacizumab showed in the ULTIMATE trial a significant superiority versus docetaxel as second or third-line treatment. Limited restropective studies has demonstrated unexpected efficacy of chemotherapy after prior progression on ICI. This combination could be use as salvage treatment following ICI. Methods: This multi-centric retrospective study identifies patients treated with the combination paclitaxel-bevacizumab in metastatic non-squamous NSCLC as second-line therapy or beyond. Main objectives were to describe safety and efficacy of this combination, with a special attention to the sub-group treated just after ICI. Results: From January 2010 to February 2020, 314 patients started the paclitaxel-bevacizumab combination : 55% male, with a median age of 60 years, 27% with a performance status ≥2, 45% with brain metastases. A majority of patients were treated in second (20%) and third-line (39%), and 28% were treated just after ICI failure (88/314). Objective response rate (ORR) was 40% and disease control rate was 77 %. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 5,7 months [IQ,3,2–9,6] and 10,8 months [IQ,5,3–19,6] respectively. All grades adverse events concerned 82% of patients, including 53% asthenia and 39% neurotoxicity, and 25% of patients continued a monotherapy alone due to toxicity. Median PFS for patients treated after ICI failure (ICI+) was significantly superior compare to those not previously treated with ICI (ICI-) : 7,0 months [IQ,4,2–11,0] vs 5,2 months [IQ,2,9–8,8] p (log-rank) = 0,01. There was not statistically significant difference in term of OS between this two groups. In multivariate analysis, factors associated with superior PFS were previous ICI treatment (ICI+) and performance status. Conclusions: This study confirms an acceptable toxicity profile associated with interesting efficacy of the combination paclitaxel-bevacizumab as second-line treatment or beyond for non–squamous NSCLC patients, particularly after progression with ICI.


2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 175883592095686
Author(s):  
Fotios Loupakis ◽  
Lorenzo Antonuzzo ◽  
Jean-Baptiste Bachet ◽  
Feng-Che Kuan ◽  
Teresa Macarulla ◽  
...  

Over the past 20 years, management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has improved considerably, leading to increased overall survival and more patients eligible for third- or later-line therapy. Currently, two oral therapies are recommended in the third-line treatment of mCRC, regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil. Selecting the most appropriate treatment in the third-line setting poses different challenges compared with treatment selection at earlier stages. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand and differentiate between available treatment options and to communicate the benefits and challenges of these to patients. In this narrative review, practical information on regorafenib is provided to aid physicians in their decision-making and patient communications in daily practice. We discuss the importance of appropriate patient selection and adverse events management through close patient monitoring and dose adjustments to ensure patients stay on treatment for longer and receive as much benefit as possible. We also highlight key physician–patient communication points to facilitate shared decision-making.


Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 2294-2294
Author(s):  
Antonella Russo Rossi ◽  
Massimo Breccia ◽  
Fausto Castagnetti ◽  
Luigiana Luciano ◽  
Antonella Gozzini ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 2294 Background. The TKIs Nilotinib and Dasatinib offer additional therapeutic options for patients with CML who are resistant or intolerant to Imatinib. These agents, active against the majority of Imatinib resistant BCR-ABL mutated clones, have a different pattern of kinase target selectivity, pharmacokinetics parameters, cell uptake, efflux properties and adverse events profiles. Preliminary results suggest that some patients may respond to a second TKI used as third line therapy, but little is known about the long term benefit of such an approach.Aim of this collaborative Italian study was to verify the response (rate and duration) and the clinical outcome in patients with CML treated with a third TKI after sequential failure of the previous ones. Methods. We evaluated 66 patients with CML, resistant/intolerant to Imatinib and treated with Dasatinib or Nilotinib, then switched to a third- line TKI after treatment failure. Of these, 29 patients were treated with dasatinib after imatinib/nilotinib failure and 37 with nilotinib after imatinib/dasatinib failure. Patients were monitored with complete blood counts, cytogenetic analysis, bone marrow aspiration RT-PCR and mutational analysis. Results. A total of 66 patients (median age 63 years, range, 33–85 years) were treated with sequential TKIs; 40 (61%) patients had received interferon-a before starting Imatinib; 26 (39%) patients received imatinib as first line therapy. The median time on imatinib therapy was 47.5 months (range 4–101 months). At the start of nilotinib as second line, 27/29 (93%) patients were in CP, 1 (3.5%) in AP, and 1 (3.5%) in BP. 9 patients (31%) had developed mutations before starting treatment. The median time on second line TKI was 8 months (range 2–36 months). In the resistant patients 4 new mutations were identified (F359V in two patients, T315I, Y253H+F359V). At the start of dasatinib as second line, 33/37 (89.2%) patients were in CP, 4 (10.8%) in AP. 7 patients (18.9%) had developed mutations before starting treatment. The median time on second line TKI was 14 months (range 4–59 months).In the resistant patients 5 new mutations were identified (F137L in three pts, M318T, M244V+F317L). At the start of the third TKI, 60/66 (90.9%) patients were in CP, 5 (7.6%) in AP, and 1 (1.5%) in BP. Of these, 7 patients (18.9%) on dasatinib and 7 (24.1%) on nilotinib had mutations before starting treatment. The best response to the third line treatment with TKI was 10 (15.2%) MMR, 10 (15.2%) CCyR, 8 PcyR (12.1%), 5 (7.5%) mCyR, 24 (36.4%) CHR and 9 (13.6%) No Response (NR). In the dasatinib group, 9 (31%) patients discontinued treatment because of toxicity versus 17 (45.9%) patients in the nilotinib group.Two new mutations (F317L, E255V) emerged with dasatinib as third line therapy.After a median follow up of 13 months (range 2–37 months) 50 patients (48 CP, 2 AP) are continuing therapy (33 on nilotinib, 17 on dasatinib).Since the start of the third TKI, 61 patients (92.4%) are still alive for a median overall survival of 110 months (range 15–300) (52 CP, 7 AP, 2 NA); the 5 deaths (7.6%) were caused by disease progression and spread of the gene mutation T315I. Discussion. In our study, about one third of patients derived benefit from the use of three sequential TKIs; patients with better, longer response (28.7%) to third TKI were the same patients with a better response to the Imatinib and 2TKIs therapy. All these patients had taken interferon therapy before the Imatinib. In this subset of patients (good responders: CCyR and MMR) 5 patients developed mutations that were sensitive to the sequential treatment.The lack of a durable cytogenetic remission could be explained by the emergence of new kinase domain mutations as patients are exposed to sequential TKI; a change of therapy resulted in an adequate response. In our series, patients with poor prognosis showed mutations not sensitive to the TKIs treatment. Conclusions. Although allogeneic SCT is the treatment of choice in all patients failing 2 TKIs who are suitable candidates for this approach, alternative strategies are required for ineligible patients. The use of a third TKI after failure of two previous TKIs induces response in some patients. Longer follow up of a larger series of patients is needed to determine the long term impact of the response. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2012 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim-Son H. Nguyen ◽  
Rachel A. Sanford ◽  
Mark S. Huberman ◽  
Michael A. Goldstein ◽  
Danielle M. McDonald ◽  
...  

These data point toward the need for improved evidence-based use of resources in the third-line setting of stage IV NSCLC.


2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenichiro Okimoto ◽  
Makoto Arai ◽  
Keiko Saito ◽  
Shoko Minemura ◽  
Daisuke Maruoka ◽  
...  

Objectives. The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the eradication rate of Helicobacter pylori as the third-line triple therapy with rabeprazole (RPZ) + amoxicillin (AMPC) + levofloxacin (LVFX) and high-dose RPZ + AMPC. Methods. 51 patients who failed Japanese first-line (proton pump inhibitor (PPI) + AMPC + clarithromycin) and second-line (PPI + AMPC + metronidazole) eradication therapy were randomly assigned at a 1 : 1 ratio to one of the following third-line eradication groups: (1) RAL group: RPZ 10 mg (b.i.d.), AMPC 750 mg (b.i.d.), and LVFX 500 mg (o.d.) for 10 days; (2) RA group: RPZ 10 mg (q.i.d.) and AMPC 500 mg (q.i.d.) for 14 days. Patients who failed to respond to third-line eradication therapy received salvage therapy. Results. The rates of eradication success, based on intention to treat (ITT) analysis, were 45.8% in the RAL group and 40.7% in the RA group. The overall eradication rates were 73.9% in the RAL group and 64.0% in the RA group. There was no significant difference between the two groups. Conclusions. The third-line triple therapy with RPZ, AMPC, and LVFX was as effective as that with high-dose RPZ and AMPC.


Author(s):  
TIGRAN MIKAYELYAN

In 2007 during its excavations within the citadel of Bjni fortress the expedition of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology of the National Academy of Sciences of Armenia discovered a stone with an inscription in Arabic characters. We have read this Persian inscription in five lines sculpted on a stone fragment showing missing parts from all sides. The first line is damaged and is unreadable, the second line mentions the name of some Isfahsalar Muhammad/Mohammad طوسي... Tusi محمد سلار] سفه ا ....[ The third line is also unclear, except for the guessable word ‘Islam’. The fourth line reads ‘May the God bless all’ in Persian. The fifth line communicates the date, which is ... [ئه [ما خمس و عين ...The date is incomplete, however it is definitely the 500th year of Hijra or the XII century AD. To define the decade we need to offer numbers ending with عين ..These are forty اربعين seventy سبعين or ninety تسعين . From these figures we prefer seventy سبعين because of a few considerations: if it is forty اربعين horizontal line of alif would be visible even if it is damaged; there is a dot over عين... even though ‘ba’s dot has been put over and not under the letter. سبعين or ninety also has no dots. So by choosing seventy, we can date the inscription to the period of 1175-1183. We can’t offer a more precise date as the first number before seventy is lost. We also believe that this inscription is not an epitaph as there are no Islamic formulas for the deceased put right before the name; also the sculpted characters are too big for a gravestone and in addition they are positioned perpendicularly to the stone unlike Armenia’s Muslim gravestones. Therefore, this must be a fragment of an inscription commemorating some construction or maybe a repair or strengthening of the Bjni fortress or citadel executed by the order of Isfahsalar Muhammad Tusi. Unfortunately the inscription does not communicate the dynasty to which it belongs. However, there is another Arabic inscription of 1174 by Shaddadids carved on a citadel of Nerkin Talin/Dashtadem (Aragatsotn region of Armenia). The newly discovered Persian inscription is evidence that Muslim military had some presence during the last decades of the XII century in the Armenian fortress of Bjni.


2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 195-195
Author(s):  
Keya Shah ◽  
Kelvin K. Chan ◽  
Yoo-Joung Ko

195 Background: Treatment for metatastatic or unresectable GIST is with imatinib. The majority of patients eventually acquire imatinib resistance, prompting the development of a growing number of agents as post-first-line treatment. Currently no studies directly compare these treatments. Methods: A systematic review was performed through MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and ASCO meeting abstracts up to July 2014 to identify randomized controlled trials that included GIST patients who were previously treated with a first-line chemotherapy for advanced disease. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with 95% credible regions were extracted using the Parmar method. Direct pairwise meta-analyses and indirect comparisons using the Bucher method were performed. Results: Four studies were identified for the systematic review. 1 study (n=312) showed that sunitinib in the second-line setting (vs. placebo) improved PFS but not OS. 3 studies (n=528) examined the third-line setting (imatinib resumption vs. placebo; regorafenib vs. placebo; nilotinib vs. best supportive care with or without imatinib or sunitinib). Of the 3 third-line studies, there was significant heterogeneity between placebo-controlled trials and the non-placebo controlled trial (I2= 98%). Direct pairwise meta-analysis using random-effects of the 2 placebo-controlled studies showed that the PFS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.63 (0.22-0.61, p=0.0001), whereas the PFS HR for the non-placebo controlled study was 0.90 (0.65-1.26, p=0.56). These 2 HRs are different statistically (interaction: p=0.002). Indirect comparisons of imatinib resumption vs. regorafenib suggested that the PFS HR was 0.59 (0.31-1.11, p=0.10), trending in favor of regorafenib. OS HRs were not significant for direct or indirect comparison in the third-line setting. Conclusions: The number and size of completed phase III studies and the lack of a standard comparator arm limit the use of direct and indirect comparison methods to determine the best therapeutic option for patients who have progressed on imatinib. At this time, clinicians should interpret the available evidence at an individual level.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 568-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Austin Kalirai ◽  
Lori Wood ◽  
Aly-Khan A. Lalani ◽  
Daniel Yick Chin Heng ◽  
Sunita Ghosh ◽  
...  

568 Background: While the use of CPI has demonstrated clinical benefit in patients with mRCC, data showing the efficacy of subsequent TT is limited. This real-world analysis evaluated the efficacy of TT post CPI in mRCC patients. Methods: Data was collected and analyzed from CKCis. Patients with mRCC who received TT after CPI were identified and analyzed based on line of therapy. Time to treatment failure (TTF – time from starting first subsequent TT to stopping TT) and overall survival (OS) were calculated. Hazard Ratio (HR) calculations were adjusted for IMDC group and age. Results: 102 patients were treated with TT post CPI (table). Those who received first-line ipilimumab + nivolumab (I/N) versus a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor (VEGFi) + CPI combination prior to second-line TT had a median TTF of 8.0 vs 5.2 months (m) (HR=0.43, 95% CI: 0.13-1.44) and median OS of 16.5 m vs not reached (HR=0.76, 95% CI: 0.11-5.24). Patients who received a VEGFi versus a mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTORi) as third-line TT had a median TTF of 7.6 vs 4.4 m (HR=0.52, 95% CI: 0.24-1.10) and median OS of 21.7 vs 16.2 m (HR=0.41, 95% CI: 0.16-1.08). All third-line TT patients received first-line VEGFi and second-line nivolumab. Of the third-line VEGFi TT patients, 24 received axitinib (TTF 7.1 m, OS 21.7 m) and 22 received cabozantinib (data immature). Conclusions: Activity of TT in mRCC patients after CPI is demonstrated in multiple lines. In second-line, VEGFi TT had numerically better outcomes after I/N than after VEGFi+CPI combination. Efficacy of third-line TT was seen with a trend favoring VEGFi over mTORi. Axitinib in the third-line has notable activity after CPI, while data on cabozantinib and fourth-line TT are maturing. These results support the use of VEGFi after CPI in mRCC patients. [Table: see text]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document