Effectiveness of Vinorelbine/Capecitabine (NX) versus Docetaxel/Doxorubicin/Cyclophosphamide (TAC) in patients non-responding to 2 cycles of neoadjuvant TAC chemotherapy: First Results of the phase III GEPARTRIO-Study by the German Breast Group

2006 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 148-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Gerber ◽  
von Minckwitz ◽  
J.U. Blohmer ◽  
A. Loehr ◽  
G. Raab ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA4001-LBA4001
Author(s):  
Ian Chau ◽  
Yuichiro Doki ◽  
Jaffer A. Ajani ◽  
Jianming Xu ◽  
Lucjan Wyrwicz ◽  
...  

LBA4001 Background: NIVO demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) vs chemo in previously treated patients (pts) with ESCC (ATTRACTION-3). We report OS and progression-free survival (PFS) from CheckMate 648, the first global phase III study to evaluate both an immuno-oncology (I-O)/chemo combination and an I-O/I-O combination in advanced ESCC. Methods: Adults with previously untreated, unresectable advanced, recurrent or metastatic ESCC were enrolled regardless of tumor cell PD-L1 expression. Pts were randomized to NIVO (240 mg Q2W) + chemo (fluorouracil + cisplatin Q4W), NIVO (3 mg/kg Q2W) + IPI (1 mg/kg Q6W), or chemo alone. Primary endpoints for both comparisons were OS and PFS per blinded independent central review (BICR) in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1%. Hierarchically tested secondary endpoints included OS and PFS in all randomized pts. Results: 970 pts were randomized to NIVO + chemo, NIVO + IPI, and chemo arms (49% with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1%). With 13 months (mo) minimum follow-up, NIVO + chemo and NIVO + IPI led to statistically significant improvement in OS vs chemo in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1% and all randomized pts (Table). Statistically significant PFS benefit was also observed for NIVO + chemo vs chemo (HR 0.65 [98.5% CI 0.46–0.92]; P = 0.0023) in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1%. PFS in NIVO + IPI vs chemo in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1% did not meet the prespecified boundary for significance. The objective response rate (per BICR) was 53% (NIVO + chemo), 35% (NIVO + IPI), and 20% (chemo) in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1% and in all randomized pts was 47%, 28%, and 27%, respectively; longer median (95% CI) duration of response was observed vs chemo for pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1%: 8.4 (6.9–12.4), 11.8 (7.1–27.4), and 5.7 (4.4–8.7) mo and for all randomized pts: 8.2 (6.9–9.7), 11.1 (8.3–14.0), and 7.1 (5.7–8.2) mo, respectively. No new safety signals were identified (Table). Conclusions: NIVO plus chemo and NIVO plus IPI both demonstrated superior OS vs chemo, along with durable objective responses and acceptable safety, in pts with advanced ESCC, and each represents a potential new 1L treatment option. Clinical trial information: NCT03143153. [Table: see text]


Blood ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 108 (11) ◽  
pp. 319-319 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Lioure ◽  
J. Delaunay ◽  
D. Blaise ◽  
N. Milpied ◽  
P. Guardiola ◽  
...  

Abstract From 11/01 until 04/05, 832 patients (median age 46, 18–60) with AML (previous diagnosis of myelodysplasia or myeloproliferative disorder, and M3 excluded) were included in prospective phase III AML 2001 trial. After achieving CR, research to identify an HLA-identical sibling was performed for all patients as they received low dose consolidation (Daunorubicin (D): 60 mg/m2 × 2d OR Idarubicin (I): 12 mg/m2 × 2d plus SC ARAC 100 mg/m2 ×7d). 33 % patients had a donor then could proceed to a T-replete alloSCT: either conventional if age ≤ 50 (bone marrow graft; conditioning regimen: TBI (12 Gy 6 fractions over 3d) - cyclophosphamide (60 mg/kg × 2d); GvHD prophylaxis: ciclosporin-methotrexate d1+3+6) = arm M; or NST if age 51–60 (peripheral blood; Busulfan (oral Bu 4–8 mg/kg over 2d) - Fludarabin (30 mg/m2 × 4d) – Thymoglobulin® (2,5 mg/kg × 2d); ciclosporin alone), AFTER intensive consolidation (D: 60 mg/m2 × 2d OR I: 12 mg/m2 × 2d plus ARAC 3 g/m2 × 8 doses over 4d) = arm m. A small group of patients with a donor but low-risk prognostic features (favorable cytogenetics, no hyperleucocytosis, CR after 1 induction = 3% CR1 patients) didn’t receive 1st line alloSCT but intensive consolidation then a 2nd HD ARAC course; alloSCT was therefore considered at relapse = arm C. Patients without donor proceed to intensive consolidation then 1 or 2 autoSCT (1st after HDM 200 mg/m2 according to randomization, then Bu 16 mg/kg over 4d + HDM 140 mg/m2 for all patients) = arms A + B; they were combined for analysis as no difference was observed for DFS and OS. Actual results concern 532 patients with 15 months follow-up (A + B = 367; M = 111; m = 54). Median age was different between 3 groups (A + B = 46; M = 40; m = 54) as no difference was observed regarding leukocytosis or cytogenetic subgroups: favorable (t8;21) or inv16: A + B = 15%; M = 11%; m = 11%), intermediate (A + B = 72%; M = 78%; m = 67%), defavorable (5, 7, complex, 11q23 except t(9;11) or 3q; A + B = 13%; M = 11%; m = 22%). Conventional alloSCT results in better 2y DFS than autoSCT arms (M 71% vs A+B 52%, p=0,007) thought 2y OS advantage remains non significant (M 77% vs A+B 68%, p=0,06) as toxic death rate is higher (36% all deaths in arm M vs 14 % in arms A + B). No significant difference was observed between conventional alloSCT and NST (2y DFS 62%, OS 68%). Advantage for NST over autoSCT arms was non significant for DFS (p=0,24) and OS. Same results are obtained if considering only patients aged > 50: 2y EFS (m 62% vs A+B 50%, p=0,27) and OS (m 68% vs A+B 65%). After NST, toxicity accounts for 25% deaths, as relapse rate is 40% at 2y with no late relapse thereafter (vs 48 % at 2y and 61 % at 4y in arms A + B). In conclusion: 1) conventional alloSCT remains the best consolidation treatment for patients ≤ 50 with AML in CR1 despite higher toxicity; 2) NST after intensive consolidation seems promising: for older patients as toxicity is lower than conventional alloSCT, as few late relapse are observed in comparison with chemotherapy or autoSCT approaches; 3) NST may extend use of alternative sources of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cells to propose alloSCT approach for the majority of patients ≤ 60 with AML in CR1. Data with more than 2 years follow-up will be presented.


2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA6006-LBA6006
Author(s):  
C. Nutting ◽  
R. A'Hern ◽  
M. S. Rogers ◽  
M. A. Sydenham ◽  
F. Adab ◽  
...  

LBA6006 The full, final text of this abstract will be available in Part II of the 2009 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings, distributed onsite at the Meeting on May 30, 2009, and as a supplement to the June 20, 2009, issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology. [Table: see text]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document