scholarly journals P-147 Final analysis: phase II trial of Irinotecan/S-1/cetuximab (IRIS/Cet) as second line treatment in patients with KRAS exon2 wild type mCRC: HGCSG0902. -comparison of administration interval in cetuximab treatment

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. ii43
Author(s):  
S. Yuki ◽  
Y. Komatsu ◽  
H. Nakatsumi ◽  
Y. Kawamoto ◽  
T. Muranaka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Analysis Phase ◽  
Administration Interval

Phase II trial of irinotecan plus s-1 (IRIS) with cetuximab (IRIS/Cet) as second-line treatment in patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): HGCSG0902—Comparison of administration interval in cetuximab treatment.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 746-746 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshito Komatsu ◽  
Satoshi Yuki ◽  
Hiroshi Nakatsumi ◽  
Ayumu Hosokawa ◽  
Michio Nakamura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Safety Analysis ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Treatment Schedule ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Administration Interval

746 Background: HGCSG0902 is the multicenter phase II study to investigate the safety and efficacy of IRIS/Cet as second-line treatment in patients with KRAS wild type mCRC. RR was 33.3% (95% CI, 20.8%-45.9%), therefore primary endpoint was met (Muto et al. ESMO 2014 ). Here we report an exploratory analysis of outcomes based on administration interval of Cet (every week [EW] vs bi-weekly [BW]). Methods: Eligibility includes histologically confirmed colorectal cancer, previously received oxaliplatin-contained chemotherapy, PS: 0-1, EGFR positive and KRAS WT. Pts. received S-1 80-120 mg/day p.o. on days 1-14 and irinotecan 100 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15 repeated every 28 days. Cet was administrated 400 mg/m2 as loading dose and continued 250 mg/m2 every week or 500 mg/m2 bi-weekly. The primary endpoint was RR and the secondary endpoints were disease control rate, PFS, OS and safety. To compare with EW and BW, Fisher’s exact test was used in terms of patient characteristics, AE, RR, and Log-rank test was used in terms of PFS, OS, and TTF. Results: Between March 2010 and September 2013, 58 pts were enrolled. One patient was not administered (57 pts were safety analysis set), and 3 pts were ineligible (54 pts were efficacy analysis set). Based on each physician choice, 34 pts. of EW and 23 of BW were included in the full safety analysis set. RR was 34.4% in the EW group and 31.8% in the BW group (p=1.000). Median PFS was 4.2 months (95% CI 3.5−4.9) in the EW group and 6.1 months (4.1-8.1) in the BW group (HR 0.752, 95% CI 0.413−1.372, p=0.350). The most common non-hematological adverse events of grade 3 or higher were diarrhea (23.5% in the EW group vs. 52.2% in the BW group: p=0.005) and stomatitis (2.9% in the EW group vs. 30.4% in the BW group: p=0.046), these were significantly more common in the BW group. Conclusions: IRIS/Cet appeared to be highly effective with RR and PFS in the both treatment schedule, and also had met the primary endpoint. Diarrhea and stomatitis were significantly more common in the BW group. Therefore, in case of treatment with IRIS, cetuximab should be administered weekly. Clinical trial information: 000004882.

Updated analysis of phase II trial of irinotecan/s-1/cetuximab (IRIS/Cet) as second-line treatment in patients with KRAS exon2 wild type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): HGCSG0902—Comparison of administration interval in cetuximab treatment.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 771-771
Author(s):  
Tomohiro Kondo ◽  
Satoshi Yuki ◽  
Yasuyuki Kawamoto ◽  
Yasushi Tsuji ◽  
Ayumu Hosokawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Safety Analysis ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Treatment Schedule ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Administration Interval

771 Background: HGCSG0902 is the multicenter phase II study to investigate the safety and efficacy of irinotecan, S-1 (IRIS) plus cetuximab as second line treatment in patients with KRAS exon2 wild type mCRC. Response rate (RR) was 33.3% (95%CI 20.8-45.9%), therefore primary endpoint was met (Muto O, et al. ESMO 2014). Here we report an exploratory analysis of outcomes based on administration interval of cetuximab (every week [EW] vs bi-weekly [BW]). Methods: Eligibility includes histologically confirmed mCRC, previously received oxaliplatin-contained chemotherapy, PS: 0-1, EGFR positive and KRAS exon2 wild type. Patients received S-1 80-120 mg/day p.o. on days 1-14 and irinotecan 100mg/m2 on day 1 and 15 repeated every 28 days. Cetuximab was administrated 400mg/m2 as loading dose and continued 250mg/m2 every week or 500mg/m2 bi-weekly. The primary endpoint was RR and the secondary endpoints were disease control rate, PFS, OS and safety. To compare with EW and BW, Fisher’s exact test was used in terms of patient characteristics, AE, RR, and Log-rank test was used in terms of PFS and OS. Results: Between Mar 2010 and Sep 2013, 58 pts were enrolled. One patient was not administered (57 pts were safety analysis set), and 3 pts were ineligible (54 pts were efficacy analysis set). Based on each physician’s choice, 34 patients of EW and 23 of BW were included in the full safety analysis set. RR was 34.4% in the EW and 31.8% in the BW (p = 1.000). Median PFS was 4.2 months in the EW and 6.1 months in the BW (HR 0.752, p = 0.350). Median OS was 8.9 months in the EW and 10.7 months in the BW (HR 0.902, p = 0.737). The most common non-hematological adverse events of grade 3 or higher were diarrhea (23.5% in the EW vs 52.2% in the BW: p = 0.005) and stomatitis (2.9% in the EW vs 30.4% in the BW group: p = 0.046), these were significantly more common in the BW. Conclusions: IRIS/Cet appeared to be highly effective with RR, PFS and OS in the both treatment schedule. Diarrhea and stomatitis were significantly more common in the BW. Therefore, in case of treatment with IRIS/Cet should be administered in the EW. Clinical trial information: UMIN000004882.

Results of a phase II trial with cystemustine at 90 mg/m2 as a first-or second-line treatment in advanced malignant melanoma

1999 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 607-610 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Cure ◽  
P. Souteyrand ◽  
R. Ouabdesselam ◽  
H. Roche ◽  
A. Ravaud ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Malignant Melanoma ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Advanced Malignant Melanoma

A phase II trial combining tumor-targeting TP53 gene therapy with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel as a second-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4139-4139
Author(s):  
Chris Poki Leung ◽  
Minal A. Barve ◽  
Ming-Shiang Wu ◽  
Kathleen F. Pirollo ◽  
James F. Strauss ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gene Therapy ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Tp53 Gene ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line

4139 Background: Nearly all stage IV pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC) patients progress after first-line treatment, and second-line options are limited. SGT-53 is an investigational product for tumor-targeted TP53 gene therapy that has completed phase Ia/Ib trials [Senser et al (2013), Mol Ther 21:1096; Pirollo et al (2016) Mol Ther 24:1697]. Methods: Here we provide an interim analysis of a Phase II trial (SGT53-02-1; NCT02340117) combining SGT-53 with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GEM/ABX). Eligible were first-line patients or those who had progressed after FOLFIRINOX (FFX) and/or gemcitabine-based therapy (second-line). In a 7-week treatment cycle, SGT-53 (3.6 mg DNA) was given once or twice weekly with GEM/ABX (1000 mg/m2/wk and 125 mg/m2/wk, respectively, for 3 of 4 weeks). Progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) are primary endpoints.Overall survival (OS) and PFS are estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: Of all evaluable patients (n=20), best response in 7 patients was determined to be partial response (PR) and 13 had stable disease (SD); none had progressive disease. In the second-line patients (n=11) there were 5 PR and 6 SD after 9 had failed FFX treatment, 3 had failed gemcitabine-based treatment and 1 had failed both. For patients with elevated CA19-9, SGT-53 + GEM/ABX resulted in marked reductions in the tumor marker. Published data for patients with PAC after therapy failure [Mita et al (2019) J Clin Med 8: 761; Portal et al (2015) Br J Cancer 113:989; Wang-Gillam et al (2016) Lancet 387:545] are shown for comparison. Notably, mPFS in our second-line patients was 7.4 months versus 3.1 months for the approved second-line therapy [Wang-Gillam et al (2016)]. This improvement in PFS exceeds the benchmark proposed to predict a clinically meaningful Phase III trial [Rahib et al (2016) Lancet Oncol 2:1209]. Conclusions: Our data suggest a clinically meaningful benefit of adding SGT-53 to GEM/ABX particularly for second-line PAC patients, most of whom had failed prior FFX treatment. Clinical trial information: NCT02340117. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document