P14.58 Efficacy and safety of lomustine versus fotemustine as first and second line treament in relapsed glioblastoma patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. ii49-ii49
Author(s):  
M Domènech ◽  
C Fabregat ◽  
A Hernández ◽  
S del Barco ◽  
C Panciroli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Status ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Initial Therapy ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Treatment Delays ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Primary Brain Tumour ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Mild Toxicity

Abstract BACKGROUND Glioblastoma (GB) is the most aggressive primary brain tumour. Despite the survival benefit associated with adjuvant therapy, most of patients (pts) relapse after initial therapy. Nitrosoureas (NU) are the standard treatment at relapse in Europe. Both fotemustine (FM) (Addeo schema) and lomustine (LM) (administered orally every 6 weeks) are used in this context. MATERIAL AND METHODS This retrospective cohort study included pts diagnosed with GB treated with NU at relapse in four Catalonia hospitals from 2010 to 2020. Clinical and pathological data were collected from medical records. We analysed 6months-progression-free survival (6m-PFS), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from the start of NU to progression or death respectively. Differences in toxicity grade using CTCAE v5.0 were analysed globally as ‘non-toxicity’, ‘mild toxicity (grade 1 or 2)’ and ‘high toxicity (grade 3 or 4)’. RESULTS We identified 236 GB pts with a median age of 58 years old. 29% of the pts presented MGMT promotor methylation and only 3%(n=7) had IDH mutation. After a median follow-up of 20 months, 94% of the pts were dead at the time of the analyses. At first line, 83 pts were treated with FM and 18 with LM. Pts treated with FM had better performance status (PS) than those treated with LM (p=.010). Median PFS was 2 months and 6m-PFS was 12% vs 6% in FM and LM group respectively (p=.87). Median OS was 3 months with LM vs 6 months with FM, with no statistically significant differences even adjusted for prognostic factors (p=.79 HR:0.9 CI 95% 0.41–1.96).At second line, 78 were treated with FM and 24 with LM, no differences between groups. Median PFS was 2 months in both groups and median OS was 3 vs 5 months for pts treated with LM vs FM respectively, with no significant differences. 6m-PFS was 13% for LM vs 0% for the FM group (p=.39).Pts received a mean of 1.7 cycles (every 6 weeks) and 4.1 cycles (every 2 weeks) in LM and FM group, respectively. Thrombocytopenia was the most common serious side-effect, with a higher proportion of grade 1–2 toxicity in the FM group (p=.03) that also required more treatment delays (p=.01). CONCLUSION Despite being retrospective study and a few pts were treated with LM, there were no differences neither in PFS nor in OS in pts treated with LM vs FM at first or second line. Higher G1-2 thrombocytopenia was shown in the FM group probably due to a higher number of hematology samples collected.

Patient Outcomes with Proteosome Inhibitor Bortezomib in Multiple Myeloma at an English District General Hospital

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 5745-5745
Author(s):  
Anil Vaikunth Kamat ◽  
Tariq Shafi ◽  
Raphael A. Ezekwesili
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Second Primary ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Second Primary Malignancies

Abstract Bortezomib is a targeted proteosome inhibitor licensed & approved for in multiple myeloma both as first line and in relapsed setting. This is a retrospective non experimental cross sectional quantitative comparative group study using clinical case notes, laboratory & pharmacy records for patients treated with Bortezomib in 2011 & 2012. Outcomes studied included remission status, adverse events, progression free survival and overall survival at follow up. The study also looked at the comparative responses of cohort of patients administered Bortezomib through intravenous & subcutaneous route. The cohort consisted of 33 patients, 21 male, 11 female, median age 71 years, first line 10 patients, second line 23 , median number of cycles in 2011 & 2012 – first line 3 & 8 , second line 5 & 4, respectively. In 2011, 8 received intravenous treatment, 9 were switched from intravenous to subcutaneous route whilst all patients from 2012 received subcutaneous Bortezomib. The most frequently used regimen was Bortezomib Dexamethasone ( VD). The overall response rate ( ORR >/= Minor Response) was: First line 70% (7/10) ; Second line 47.8% ( 11/23); median PFS ( Figure 1) 6 months ( First line: 7 months ; Second line : 6 months) and median overall survival ( Figure 2) at follow up: 9 months ; 39.4 % ( 13/33) First line 8.5 months, Second line 11 months. Subcutaneous Bortezomib was equivalent to intravenous Bortezomib in terms of efficacy & tolerance. Of 33 patients, there were 12 dose reductions. Adverse events reported included: peripheral Neuropathy - grade 3 - 6% ( all grades 27.3%); Diarrhoea - grade 3 - 3% (all grades 6%); Nausea / Vomiting - grade 3 - 3% ( all grades 6%) and Second Primary Malignancies - 12% ( 4 of 33). Mortality at follow up was 20 patients from cohort of 33 ; causes included disease progression in 11, second primary malignancy with disease progression in 4, COPD 2, Systemic Amyloidosis 2, Tuberculosis 1 , Multiple co morbidities 1 and Asthma with mechanical failure in single patient. Second primary malignancies ( 4/33) included Prostate carcinoma ( 1), Renal Cell Carcinoma (1), Neuroendocrine tumour ( 1 ) and Unknown Primary in single patient. Beyond second line treatment, majority (14 of 23 patients; 60.9 %) did not have further active treatment. These data indicate that patient outcomes were modest compared to published data from VISTA and APEX trials. Majority of patients did not have further active treatment beyond second line which suggests the most effective treatment strategy should be used upfront as patients may not be fit to have further lines of therapy despite availability of recently introduced novel targeted agents. A higher percentage of second primary malignancies were noticed in this cohort which should be an area of further clinical research. Figure 1: Progression free survival with Bortezomib as first line & second line in multiple myeloma Figure 1:. Progression free survival with Bortezomib as first line & second line in multiple myeloma Figure 2: Overall survival with Bortezomib as first line & second line in multiple myeloma Figure 2:. Overall survival with Bortezomib as first line & second line in multiple myeloma Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals Impact of Early Switching to Nilotinib As Second Line TKI in Patients with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Who Were Intolerant to, Suboptimal to and Failed Imatinib: The Thai Multi-Centered Study

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4267-4267
Author(s):  
Pongtep Viboonjuntra ◽  
Arnuparp Lekhakula ◽  
Kanchana Chansung ◽  
Chittima Sirijerachai ◽  
Pimjai Niparuck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Introduction : To date, the ELN recommendation and NCCN guidelines are the principle mile stones to follow up the treatment response and to make the decision of TKIs switching. However, in real life practice, many factors influence changing the real switching date from the date had an indication. This study aims to analyze the impact of early switching to second line TKI, nilotinib, in real life practice, for the CML patients who failed, had sub-optimal response or were intolerant to imatinib. Methods : This prospective study was conducted through 7 medical centers in Thailand between 1st of September 2009 and 31st of August 2011. Adult CML patients of age ≥ 18 years old, in chronic and accelerated phase, who had failure, suboptimal response or intolerance to imatinib, based on ELN 2009 guideline, were included and were eligible with nilotinib 400 mg twice daily. Prospective data collection for 24 months of each patient was performed. The main objective was to identify the impact of early switching to nilotinib on major molecular response (MMR). The other objectives were to observe the efficacy of nilotinib including overall survival, progression free survival and the safety. The survival results were presented as Kaplan-Meier survival curves. For the comparison of the treatment groups, the Kaplan-Meier estimator with the corresponding log-rank test for equality of survivor functions across treatment group was applied. Results : The final 108 cases were analysed. The median age was 47 (17-79) years with the proportion of male to female of 1.4:1 respectively. The median duration of the prior imatinib treatment was 18 months (2-142 months). The median duration between the date of indication and the date of real switching was 3.1 months (0-62.8 months) with 50% changing less than 3 months, 26.9% between 3 months and 12 months, and 23.1% changing longer than 12 months. The indication of switching included 63.6% failure to imatinib, 29% intolerance to imatinib and 7.4% suboptimal to imatinib. On the nilotinib switching, 70.4% completed 24 months follow-up, and 29.6% discontinued treatment mostly because of unsatisfactory results or adverse events. Evaluation was made every 3 months based on 2009 ELN recommendation. At 3 months, 57%, 20%, and 8% of the patients achieved CHR, CCyR and MMR, respectively. Those who did not achieve CHR at 3 months never achieved MMR, while 86 % of those who achieved CCyR at 3 months achieved MMR. All CML achieving MMR at 3 months had sustained MMR throughout the study period (24 months). Imatinib suboptimal response had better outcome than imatinib failure and imatinib intolerance groups. A preliminary analysis of BCR-ABL mutation was performed on 90 cases, and mutations were found on 21 cases. Two of them were T315I which were excluded from the study. The cases with mutation had poorer response to treatment than those without mutation. There was one case with initial G250E mutation developing T315I mutation after treatment with nilotinib. At 24 months, one case progressed to accelerated phase and 3 cases progressed to blastic transformation. The 2-year overall survival and 2-year progression-free survival and were 98.9% and 96.9% (figure 1 and 2), respectively. The interquatile analysis was done to identify the groups of cumulative MMR according to the duration between the date of indication and the date of real switching to nilotinib. The patients who switched to nilotinib within 12 months after date of indication could have a greater chance to achieved MMR than those who switched treatment later than 12 months (p(log-rank) = 0.002) (figure 3). Skin rash, musculoskeletal pain, and infection were the three most common non-hematologic adverse events, However, most of them were grade 1-2, except for 4 cases with grade 3-4 infections. Grade 3-4 hematologic adverse events included thrombocytopenia (12%), neutropenia (11%), anemia (5%) and leucopenia (4%), and most of them were manageable. Although biochemical abnormalities were commonly found, most of them were mild. Conclusions : Nilotinib, as a second line treatment showed excellent efficacy and tolerability. Indication for nilotinib treatment, initial mutation status and depth of response at 3 months after treatment can predict outcomes of the patients. However, the patients will have a greater chance to achieve MMR if they switched to nilotinib within 12 months after the date of indication for changing. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Updated survival results of the randomized phase II study comparing cisplatin/capecitabine (CX) with epirubicin plus CX (ECX) in advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 46-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Lim ◽  
J. Yun ◽  
J. Lee ◽  
S. Park ◽  
J. Park ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Status ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

46 Background: We previously reported results of a randomized study showing that CX is equally active to ECX in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) (Yun et al. Eur J Cancer. 2010). Here we report updated overall survival (OS) results with an additional 12 months' follow-up. Methods: Ninety-one chemotherapy-naïve patients with histologically-confirmed, measurable AGC were randomized to receive CX (cisplatin 75 mg/m2 iv on day 1 and capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2 bid po on days 1-14, n=45) or ECX (epirubicin 50 mg/m2 plus CX, n=44) every 3 weeks. After CX or ECX had failed, second-line chemotherapy (SLC) was recommended for all patients if their performance status was preserved. Results: Treatment duration was similar for both arms (4.4 for CX v 4.2 months for ECX). There was no relevant difference in the occurrence of overall grade 3 or 4 toxicities between the CX and ECX arms (80% v 78%, respectively; p=0.516). However, none in the CX and 12% in the ECX arm discontinued treatment because of toxicity. There were no significant differences in therapeutic efficacy between CX and ECX with respect to the response rate (38% v 37%, respectively), PFS (6.4 v 6.5 months), as well as OS (12.7 v 13.8 months; p=0.51). After failure, 60% of patients (26 CX and 28 ECX patients) received SLC. However, OS was not differed whether a patient was treated with SLC or not (13.1 v 11.2 months; p=0.94). Conclusions: The present analysis confirms previous findings that both CX and ECX appear to be comparatively active as first-line chemotherapy for AGC. Furthermore, the role of SLC in AGC warrants further evaluation. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

scholarly journals ACTR-24. A RANDOMIZED PHASE II TRIAL OF VELIPARIB (V), RADIOTHERAPY (RT) AND TEMOZOLOMIDE (TMZ) IN PATIENTS (PTS) WITH UNMETHYLATED MGMT (uMGMT) GLIOBLASTOMA (GBM): THE VERTU STUDY

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_6) ◽  
pp. vi18-vi18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mustafa Khasraw ◽  
Kerrie Leanne McDonald ◽  
Mark Rosenthal ◽  
Zarnie Lwin ◽  
David Ashley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
De Novo ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Extent Of Resection ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Phase 2 Trial ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract BACKGROUND TMZ offers minimal benefit in pts with de novo uMGMT GBM. V is synergistic with RT and TMZ in uMGMT preclinical GBM models, safe when combined with either RT or TMZ clinically, but the triplet (V+RT+TMZ) is poorly tolerated. VERTU tested V in pts with uMGMT GBM. METHODS VERTU is a randomized Phase 2 trial comparing Standard Arm (Arm A), RT (60Gy/30 fractions) + TMZ (75mg/m2 daily) followed by TMZ (150–200mg/m2D 1–5) every 28 days for 6 cycles vs Experimental Arm (Arm B), RT (60Gy/30 fractions) + V (200mg PO BID) followed by TMZ (150–200mg/m2D 1–5) + V (40mg bid, D 1–7) every 28 days for 6 cycles in pts with de novo uMGMT GBM according to centralised testing. RESULTS 125 pts were randomized 1:2 (41:84). The 2 groups were matched for age, sex, performance status and extent of resection. Median follow-up was 25.8 months and 91 pts had died. The 6-month Progression-Free Survival (6mPFS) for Arms A and B were 34% (95% CI 20–48) and 46% (95% CI 36–57) respectively. The median PFS for Arms A and B were 4.2m (95% CI 2.5–6.0) and 5.7m (95% CI 4.1–6.6) respectively (HR = 0.80, 95%CI 0.55–1.18). 55% of pts in both arms experienced Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) with no significant differences in frequency or severity between the arms. Most common Grade 3/4 AEs were thrombocytopenia, seizures, hyperglycaemia and diarrhoea. CONCLUSION VERTU demonstrated that a novel treatment strategy for patients with de novo uMGMT GBM was feasible and tolerable. The observed 6mPFS and PFS were similar in both arms. Overall survival and other endpoints will be presented. Central MRI review, biomarker analyses, including DNA repair and methylation signature analyses are ongoing. (ANZCTR#ACTRN12615000407594).

Modified DCF (mDCF) regimen seems to be as effective as original DCF in advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14628-e14628
Author(s):  
Serkan Keskin ◽  
Fatma Sen ◽  
Fatma Aydogan ◽  
Meltem Ekenel ◽  
Leyla Kilic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Status ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Severe Thrombocytopenia ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Prospective Comparative Study ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
And Performance

e14628 Background: The aim of this retrospective study (from January 2007 to December 2011) was to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of mDCF schedule for chemotherapy naïve AGC patients. Methods: Patients (n=54) with locally inoperable or distant metastasis, and performance status of 0–2 were eligible. The triplet combination chemotherapy consists of docetaxel 60 mg/m2 day 1, cisplatin 60 mg/m2 day 1, 5-flourouracil 600 mg/m2 for 5 days continuous infusion were administered every 21 days, up to 9 cycles. Prophylactic G-CSF was not allowed. Two of the patients treated with second line cisplatin/capecitabine. None of the patients treated with radiotherapy. Results: In all, 36 (67%) patients were male and 18 (33%) were female; median age was 59 years (range: 23-80 years). Majority of patients (n=46, 85%) were metastatic disease and 8 (15%) of them were locally advanced disease. Liver metastasis and peritonitis carcinomatosa were found in 20 (%43) and 18 (39%) of the 46 cases, respectively. The median cycle of chemotherapy was 6 (ranging from 1 to 9 cycles). In assessing fifty patients for response evaluation, one had complete response. The partial responses achieved in 27 (54%) patients. Seventeen patients (34%) had stable disease and 5 (10%) progressed. Of 2% (n=4) and 11% (n=6) of the patients developed severe (grade 3-4) neutropenia and anemia, respectively. One patient developed febrile neutropenia. Severe thrombocytopenia, hepatic and renal toxicity were not seen. During median follow-up time (8.1 months, range: 1.3-24), 28 (52%) patients were died. The overall and progression-free survival were 11.6 [95% CI: 10.2-13] and 7.7 [95% CI: 6.8-8.7] months, respectively. Conclusions: Although this was not a prospective comparative study, the mDCF regimen seems to be as effective as original DCF in AGC with acceptable and manageable side effects.

Clinical Outcomes and Safety of Patients Treated with NAb-Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine in Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: The NAPA Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. 887-895 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martina Catalano ◽  
Giandomenico Roviello ◽  
Raffaele Conca ◽  
Alberto D’Angelo ◽  
Valeria Emma Palmieri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Status ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Hematological Toxicity ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
Prognostic And Predictive Markers

Background: The phase III MPACT trial demonstrated the superiority of gemcitabine (Gem) combined with Nab-paclitaxel (Nab-P) versus gemcitabine alone in previously untreated patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of Gem/Nab-P in routine clinical practice. Methods: From January 2015 to December 2018, patients with metastatic PDAC receiving firstline treatment with a combination of gemcitabine and Nab-paclitaxel were included in a multicentre retrospective observational study. Exploratory analyses of efficacy, and prognostic and predictive markers, were performed. Results: The cohort comprised 115 patients (median age 65 [range 50-84] years) with good performance status (ECOG PS 0-1). The median overall survival (OS) was 11 months (95% CI; 9-13) and the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6 months (95% CI 5-7). Partial response and stable disease were achieved in 44 and 30 patients, respectively, yielding an overall disease control rate (DCR) of 64.3%. Grade 3-4 hematological toxicity frequency was 22.61% for neutropenia, 5.22% for anemia, and 3.48% for thrombocytopenia. Grade 3 asthenia was recorded in 2.61% of patients. No grade 4 non-hematological events were reported. Dose reduction was necessary in 51.3% of the patients. Conclusions: Our results confirm the efficacy and safety of a first-line regimen comprising gemcitabine and Nab-paclitaxel in metastatic PDAC in a real-life population.

Gemcitabine Plus Nab-Paclitaxel as Second-Line Chemotherapy following FOLFIRINOX in Patients with Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Single-Institution, Retrospective Analysis

Chemotherapy ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Kotone Hayuka ◽  
Hiroyuki Okuyama ◽  
Akitsu Murakami ◽  
Yoshihiro Okita ◽  
Takamasa Nishiuchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Grade 3

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer have a poor prognosis. FOLFIRINOX (FFX) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) have been established as first-line treatment, but they have not been confirmed as second-line treatment after FFX. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of GnP as second-line therapy after FFX in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Twenty-five patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer were enrolled. The patients were treated with GnP after FFX between September 2015 and September 2019. Tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and incidence of adverse events were evaluated. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The response rate, disease control rate, median PFS, and median OS were 12%, 96%, 5.3 months, and 15.6 months, respectively. The common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (76%) and anemia (16%). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> GnP after FOLFIRINOX is expected to be one of the second-line recommendations for patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.

scholarly journals FAS and Subsequent Therapies in Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane E. Rogers ◽  
Michael Lam ◽  
Daniel M. Halperin ◽  
Cecile G. Dagohoy ◽  
James C. Yao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Neuroendocrine Tumors ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Prior Therapy ◽  
Well Differentiated ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Line Of Therapy

We evaluated outcomes of treatment with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), doxorubicin, and streptozocin (FAS) in well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) and its impact on subsequent therapy (everolimus or temozolomide). Advanced PanNET patients treated at our center from 1992 to 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients received bolus 5-FU (400 mg/m2), streptozocin (400 mg/m2) (both IV, days 1-5) and doxorubicin (40 mg/m2 IV, day 1) every 28 days. Overall response rate (ORR) was assessed using RECIST version 1.1. Of 243 eligible patients, 220 were evaluable for ORR, progression-free survival (PFS), and toxicity. Most (90%) had metastatic, nonfunctional PanNETs; 14% had prior therapy. ORR to FAS was 41% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 36-48%). Median follow-up was 61 months. Median PFS was 20 (95% CI: 15-23) months; median overall survival (OS) was 63 (95% CI: 60-71) months. Cox regression analyses suggested improvement with first-line vs subsequent lines of FAS therapy. Main adverse events ≥ grade 3 were neutropenia (10%) and nausea/vomiting (5.5%). Dose reductions were required in 32% of patients. Post-FAS everolimus (n=108; 68% second line) had a median PFS of 10 (95% CI: 8-14) months. Post-FAS temozolomide (n=60; 53% > fourth line) had an ORR of 13% and median PFS of 5.2 (95% CI: 4-12) months. In this largest reported cohort of PanNETs treated with chemotherapy, FAS demonstrated activity without significant safety concerns. FAS did not appear to affect subsequent PFS with everolimus; this sequence is being evaluated prospectively. Responses were noted with subsequent temozolomide-based regimens although PFS was possibly limited by line of therapy.

First-line nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) plus two cycles of chemotherapy (chemo) versus chemo alone (4 cycles) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Two-year update from CheckMate 9LA.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9000-9000
Author(s):  
Martin Reck ◽  
Tudor-Eliade Ciuleanu ◽  
Manuel Cobo ◽  
Michael Schenker ◽  
Bogdan Zurawski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Expression Level ◽  
First Line ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Grade 3

9000 Background: In the randomized phase 3 CheckMate 9LA trial (NCT03215706), first-line NIVO + IPI combined with 2 cycles of chemo significantly improved overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) vs chemo alone (4 cycles). Clinical benefit was observed regardless of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression level and histology. Here we report data with 2 years’ minimum follow-up from this study. Methods: Adult patients (pts) with stage IV / recurrent NSCLC, ECOG performance status ≤ 1, and no known sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations were stratified by PD-L1 (< 1% vs ≥ 1%), sex, and histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and were randomized 1:1 to NIVO 360 mg Q3W + IPI 1 mg/kg Q6W + chemo (2 cycles; n = 361) or chemo alone (4 cycles; n = 358). Pts with non-squamous NSCLC in the chemo-alone arm could receive pemetrexed maintenance. The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints included PFS and ORR by blinded independent central review, and efficacy by different PD-L1 levels. Safety was exploratory. Results: At a minimum follow-up of 24.4 months for OS (database lock: Feb 18, 2021), pts treated with NIVO + IPI + chemo continued to derive OS benefit vs chemo, with a median OS of 15.8 months vs 11.0 months, respectively (HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.61–0.86]); 2-year OS rates were 38% vs 26%. Median PFS with NIVO + IPI + chemo vs chemo was 6.7 months vs 5.3 months (HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.56–0.79]); 8% and 37% of pts who had disease progression received subsequent immunotherapy, respectively. ORR was 38% with NIVO + IPI + chemo vs 25% with chemo. Similar clinical benefit with NIVO + IPI + chemo vs chemo was observed in all randomized pts and across the majority of subgroups, including by PD-L1 expression level (Table) or histology. Any grade and grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 92% and 48% of pts in the NIVO + IPI + chemo arm vs 88% and 38% in the chemo arm, respectively. Conclusion: With 2 years’ minimum follow-up, first-line NIVO + IPI + chemo demonstrated durable survival and benefit versus chemo in pts with advanced NSCLC; no new safety signals were identified. Clinical trial information: NCT03215706. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Impact of superselective intra-arterial and systemic chemoradiotherapy for gingival carcinoma; analysis of treatment outcomes and prognostic factors

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuki Mukai ◽  
Yuichiro Hayashi ◽  
Izumi Koike ◽  
Toshiyuki Koizumi ◽  
Madoka Sugiura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Clinical Stage ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Late Toxicity ◽  
Free Survival

Abstract Background: We compared outcomes and toxicities between concurrent retrograde super-selective intra-arterial chemoradiotherapy (IACRT) and concurrent systemic chemoradiotherapy (SCRT) for gingival carcinoma (GC).　Methods: We included 84 consecutive patients who were treated for non-metastatic GC ≥ stage III, from 2006 to 2018, in this retrospective analysis (IACRT group: n=66; SCRT group: n=18).Results: The median follow-up time was 24 (range: 1–124) months. The median prescribed dose was 60 (6–70.2) Gy (IACRT: 60 Gy; SCRT: 69 Gy). There were significant differences between the two groups in terms of 3-year overall survival (OS; IACRT: 78.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 66.0–87.6; SCRT: 50.4%, 95% CI: 27.6–73.0; P = 0.039), progression-free survival (PFS; IACRT: 75.6%, 95% CI: 62.7–85.2; SCRT: 42.0%, 95% CI: 17.7–70.9; P = 0.028) and local control rates (LC; IACRT: 77.2%, 95% CI: 64.2–86.4; SCRT: 42.0%, 95% CI: 17.7–70.9; P = 0.015). In univariate analysis, age ≥ 65 years, decreased performance status (PS) and SCRT were significantly associated with worse outcomes (P < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, age ≥ 65 years, clinical stage IV, and SCRT were significantly correlated with a poor OS rate (P < 0.05). Patients with poorer PS had a significantly worse PFS rate. Regarding acute toxicity, 22 IACRT patients had grade 4 lymphopenia, and osteoradionecrosis was the most common late toxicity in both groups.Conclusions: This is the first report to compare outcomes from IACRT and SCRT among patients with GC. ALL therapy related toxicities were manageable. IACRT is an effective and safe treatment for GC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document