Cobimetinib

2016 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 146-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessie Signorelli ◽  
Arpita Shah Gandhi
Keyword(s):  
Metastatic Melanoma ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Liver Function Tests ◽  
Mek Inhibitor ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Reversible Inhibitor ◽  
Grade 3

Objective: To review and summarize data on cobimetinib, which was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in November 2015 for use in combination with vemurafenib for unresectable or metastatic melanoma with a BRAFV600E or V600K mutation. Data Sources: A literature search using PubMed was conducted using the terms cobimetinib, MEK inhibitor, and melanoma from January 2000 to June 2016. Study Selection and Data Extraction: The literature search was confined to human studies published in English. Trials of cobimetinib for melanoma were prioritized. Data Synthesis: Cobimetinib is a reversible inhibitor of MEK1 and MEK2. Its FDA approval was based on a phase III, randomized trial of vemurafenib monotherapy (n = 248) or vemurafenib and cobimetinib (n = 247) in unresectable stage IIIC or IV melanoma with a BRAFV600 mutation. Cobimetinib was administered as 60 mg orally daily for 21 days/7 days off, whereas vemurafenib was administered as 960 mg twice daily. Vemurafenib and cobimetinib were associated with an objective response rate of 68%, and median progression-free survival of 9.9 months. The overall survival was not reached at the time of first interim analysis. Clinically relevant grade ≥3 adverse events were diarrhea (6%), rash (6%), photosensitivity (2%), elevated liver function tests (LFTs) (8%-12%), increased creatine kinase (11%), and retinal detachment (3%). Conclusion: Cobimetinib combined with vemurafenib is an alternative BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy for unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BRAFV600 mutation. The role of cobimetinib in melanoma and other solid tumors is likely to expand as the results from ongoing studies become available.

Randomized Phase III Study of Temozolomide Versus Dacarbazine in the Treatment of Patients With Advanced Metastatic Malignant Melanoma

2000 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 158-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.R. Middleton ◽  
J.J. Grob ◽  
N. Aaronson ◽  
G. Fierlbeck ◽  
W. Tilgen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Metastatic Melanoma ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Systemic Exposure ◽  
Parent Drug ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Treated Group ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Moderate Nausea

PURPOSE: : To compare, in 305 patients with advanced metastatic melanoma, temozolomide and dacarbazine (DTIC) in terms of overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), objective response, and safety, and to assess health-related quality of life (QOL) and pharmacokinetics of both drugs and their metabolite, 5-(3-methyltriazen-1-yl)imidazole-4-carboximide (MTIC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either oral temozolomide at a starting dosage of 200 mg/m2/d for 5 days every 28 days or intravenous (IV) DTIC at a starting dosage of 250 mg/m2/d for 5 days every 21 days. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat population, median survival time was 7.7 months for patients treated with temozolomide and 6.4 months for those treated with DTIC (hazards ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.52). Median PFS time was significantly longer in the temozolomide-treated group (1.9 months) than in the DTIC-treated group (1.5 months) (P = .012; hazards ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.75). No major difference in drug safety was observed. Temozolomide was well tolerated and produced a noncumulative, transient myelosuppression late in the 28-day cycle. The most common nonhematologic toxicities were mild to moderate nausea and vomiting, which were easily managed. Temozolomide therapy improved health-related QOL; more patients showed improvement or maintenance of physical functioning at week 12. Systemic exposure (area under the curve) to the parent drug and the active metabolite, MTIC, was higher after treatment with oral temozolomide than after IV administration of DTIC. CONCLUSION: Temozolomide demonstrates efficacy equal to that of DTIC and is an oral alternative for patients with advanced metastatic melanoma.

scholarly journals Phase III Trial of Bevacizumab Plus Interferon Alfa Versus Interferon Alfa Monotherapy in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Final Results of CALGB 90206

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (13) ◽  
pp. 2137-2143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian I. Rini ◽  
Susan Halabi ◽  
Jonathan E. Rosenberg ◽  
Walter M. Stadler ◽  
Daniel A. Vaena ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Interferon Alfa ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Grade 3

Purpose Bevacizumab is an antibody that binds vascular endothelial growth factor and has activity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Interferon alfa (IFN-α) is the historic standard initial treatment for RCC. A prospective, randomized, phase III trial of bevacizumab plus IFN-α versus IFN-α monotherapy was conducted. Patients and Methods Patients with previously untreated, metastatic clear cell RCC were randomly assigned to receive either bevacizumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks) plus IFN-α (9 million units subcutaneously three times weekly) or the same dose and schedule of IFN-α monotherapy in a multicenter phase III trial. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, and safety. Results Seven hundred thirty-two patients were enrolled. The median OS time was 18.3 months (95% CI, 16.5 to 22.5 months) for bevacizumab plus IFN-α and 17.4 months (95% CI, 14.4 to 20.0 months) for IFN-α monotherapy (unstratified log-rank P = .097). Adjusting on stratification factors, the hazard ratio was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.73 to 1.01; stratified log-rank P = .069) favoring bevacizumab plus IFN-α. There was significantly more grade 3 to 4 hypertension (HTN), anorexia, fatigue, and proteinuria for bevacizumab plus IFN-α. Patients who developed HTN on bevacizumab plus IFN-α had a significantly improved PFS and OS versus patients without HTN. Conclusion OS favored the bevacizumab plus IFN-α arm but did not meet the predefined criteria for significance. HTN may be a biomarker of outcome with bevacizumab plus IFN-α.

Vandetanib versus erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after failure of at least one prior cytotoxic chemotherapy: A randomized, double-blind phase III trial (ZEST)

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8009-8009
Author(s):  
R. B. Natale ◽  
S. Thongprasert ◽  
F. A. Greco ◽  
M. Thomas ◽  
C. M. Tsai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Equivalent Efficacy ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

8009 Background: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of VEGFR, EGFR and RET signaling. This phase III study compared the efficacy of vandetanib vs erlotinib in patients (pts) with advanced, previously treated NSCLC. Methods: Eligible pts (stage IIIB/IV NSCLC, PS 0–2, 1–2 prior chemotherapies; all histologies permitted) were randomized 1:1 to receive vandetanib 300 mg/day or erlotinib 150 mg/day until progression/toxicity. The primary objective was to show superiority in progression-free survival (PFS) for vandetanib vs erlotinib. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), time to deterioration of symptoms (TDS; EORTC QoL Questionnaire) and safety. Results: Between Oct 06-Nov 07, 1240 pts (mean age 61 yrs; 38% female; 22% squamous) were randomized to receive vandetanib (n=623) or erlotinib (n=617). Baseline characteristics were similar in both arms. Median duration of follow-up was 14 months, with 88% pts progressed and 67% dead. There was no difference in PFS for pts treated with vandetanib vs erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.98, 95.22% CI 0.87–1.10; P=0.721), and no difference in the secondary endpoints of OS (HR 1.01, 95.08% CI 0.89–1.16; P=0.830), ORR (both 12%) and TDS (pain: HR 0.92, P=0.289; dyspnea: HR 1.07, P=0.407; cough: HR 0.94, P=0.455). A preplanned non-inferiority analysis for PFS and OS demonstrated equivalent efficacy for vandetanib and erlotinib. The adverse events (AEs) observed for vandetanib were generally consistent with previous NSCLC studies with vandetanib 300 mg. There was a higher incidence of some AEs (any grade) with vandetanib vs erlotinib, including diarrhea (50% vs 38%) and hypertension (16% vs 2%); rash was more frequent with erlotinib (38% vs 28%). The overall incidence of CTCAE grade ≥3 AEs was also higher with vandetanib (50% vs 40%). The incidence of protocol-defined QTc prolongation in the vandetanib arm was 5%. Conclusions: The study did not meet its primary objective of demonstrating PFS prolongation with vandetanib vs erlotinib in pts with previously treated advanced NSCLC. However, vandetanib and erlotinib showed equivalent efficacy for PFS and OS in a preplanned non-inferiority analysis. [Table: see text]

An international, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase III study (MONET1) of motesanib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel (C/P) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA7512-LBA7512 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Scagliotti ◽  
I. Vynnychenko ◽  
Y. Ichinose ◽  
K. Park ◽  
K. Kubota ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cox Model ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Nonsquamous Nsclc

LBA7512 Background: This study evaluated whether motesanib (a selective oral inhibitor of VEGFR 1, 2 and 3; PDGFR and Kit) plus C/P improved overall survival (OS) compared with placebo + C/P in patients (pts) with nonsquamous NSCLC and in a subset of pts with adenocarcinoma. Methods: Pts had stage IIIB/IV or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC and no prior systemic therapy for advanced NSCLC. The study initially enrolled all histologies but was amended to exclude pts with squamous NSCLC owing to a high rate of hemoptysis. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive up to six 3-wk cycles of C (AUC 6 mg/mL·min) and P (200 mg/m2) with either motesanib 125 mg QD (Arm A) or placebo QD (Arm B) orally continuously. The primary endpoint was OS; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), objective response rate (ORR) and association between placental growth factor (PLGF) change and OS. OS was evaluated using a stratified Cox model and 2-sided log-rank test (α=0.03 for nonsquamous pts and α=0.02 for adenocarcinoma pts). Results: 1090 pts with nonsquamous NSCLC were randomized (Arm A/B, n=541/549); 890 had adenocarcinoma (n=448/442). 61% were men; median age was 60 years (range 21–87); 83% had stage IV disease. At the time of analysis, 753 pts had died (608 pts with adenocarcinoma). Median follow-up was 10.6 mo. OS was not significantly improved in Arm A compared with Arm B (Table). In Arm A, PLGF analysis did not show an association with OS. The incidence of grade ≥3 AEs in Arms A/B was 73/59%. Grade ≥3 AEs occurring more frequently in Arm A than B included neutropenia (22/15%), diarrhea (9/1%), hypertension (7/1%) and cholecystitis (3/0%). The incidence of grade 5 AEs was 14/9% in Arms A/B. Conclusions: In pts with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC, treatment with motesanib + C/P did not significantly improve OS compared with C/P alone. [Table: see text]

Bevacizumab (BEV) plus capecitabine as maintenance therapy after initial treatment with BEV plus XELOX in previously untreated patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Mature data from STOP and GO, a phase III, randomized, multicenter study.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3565-3565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suayib Yalcin ◽  
Ruchan Uslu ◽  
Faysal Dane ◽  
Ugur Yilmaz ◽  
Nurullah Zengin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Drop Out ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3

3565 Background: Colorectal cancer is one of the most frequent malignancies, second after breast cancer in women and third after lung cancer and prostate cancer in men. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the progression-free survival (PFS) between two arms: Arm A is a combination of BEV + XELOX; Arm B is a combination of BEV + XELOX for 6 cycles followed by maintenance BEV + capecitabine as first-line therapy in mCRC. Methods: BEV (7.5 mg/kg) + XELOX (capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 bid d1–14 + oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 d1 q3w) were administered until progression (Arm A) or 6 cycles of BEV + XELOX followed by BEV + capecitabine were administered until progression (Arm B). PFS was the primary endpoint; secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. A sample size of 118 pts was required to detect with 80% power an increase of 1.5 months in median PFS between two arms with a standard deviation of 3.9 months and significance level of 0.05 (10% drop-out rate). Results: A total of 123 pts were randomized. Demographic characteristics were balanced between the arms. Median treatment period was 7.5 (range 0.5–13.9) and 8.1 (range 0.1–20.7) months in Arms A and B, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in median PFS between arms, although there was no significant difference in ORR and OS (see table). Tolerability was acceptable in both arms with the following grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs): Arm A 48.4%; Arm B 34.4% (p=0.116). Grade 3/4 diarrhoea occurred in 9.7% vs. 3.3%, weakness in 8.1% vs. 8.2%, hand-foot syndrome in 3.2% vs. 1.6%, and neuropathy in 4.8% vs. 3.3% of pts in Arms A and B, respectively. Conclusions: These findings suggest that maintenance therapy with BEV + capecitabine following induction with 6 cycles of BEV + XELOX may be superior to continuous BEV + XELOX until progression inpts with previously untreated mCRC. [Table: see text]

Randomized phase III study of panitumumab (pmab) vs. cetuximab (cmab) in chemorefractory wild-type (WT) KRAS exon 2 metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Outcomes by hypomagnesemia (hypomag) in ASPECCT.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 705-705
Author(s):  
Timothy Jay Price ◽  
Marc Peeters ◽  
Tae Won Kim ◽  
Jin Li ◽  
Stefano Cascinu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Exon 2 ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Dose Modifications ◽  
Kras Exon

705 Background: ASPECCT met its primary endpoint of non-inferiority of overall survival (OS) of pmab vs. cmab. We evaluate outcomes by hypomag, an on-treatment, anti-EGFR related adverse event that develops due to the inhibition of EGFR function. Conflicting reports have suggested hypomag is associated with survival. Methods: Patients with previously treated WT KRAS exon 2 mCRC were randomized 1:1 to receive pmab or cmab. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of OS. Progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) were secondary endpoints. Patients were categorized ± any grade hypomag during the study and data analyzed by treatment arm. Analysis of Mg supplementation during hypomag was not conducted. Results: 999 patients were randomized and treated: 499 pmab, 500 cmab. Any grade hypomag was 28.8% and grade ≥3 was 7.3% in the pmab arm vs. 18.9% and 2.6% in the cmab arm, respectively. Median time to first hypomag onset was 82 days in the pmab arm and 57 days in the cmab arm. In the pmab arm, 1.0% of patients discontinued treatment and 5% of patients had dose modifications due to hypomag vs. <0.5% and 3% in the cmab arm, respectively. Results are shown (Table). Conclusions: In ASPECCT, rates of hypomag were higher in the pmab vs. the cmab arm. Patients who developed any grade hypomag with pmab or cmab had higher ORR, PFS, and OS compared with those patients who did not. Clinical trial information: NCT00788957. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Avelumab in patients with previously treated metastatic melanoma: Phase 1b results from the JAVELIN Solid Tumor trial.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (5_suppl) ◽  
pp. 191-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrich Keilholz ◽  
Janice M. Mehnert ◽  
Sebastian Bauer ◽  
Hugues Pierre Bourgeois ◽  
Manish R. Patel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Metastatic Melanoma ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Phase 1B ◽  
Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Line Of Therapy

191 Background: Avelumab is a human anti–PD-L1 IgG1 monoclonal antibody that is approved for the treatment of metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (US and EU) and advanced urothelial carcinoma progressed on platinum therapy (US). Here, we report phase 1b data for avelumab in a cohort of patients (pts) with previously treated metastatic melanoma. Methods: Pts with unresectable stage IIIC or IV melanoma progressed after ≥1 line of therapy for metastatic disease received avelumab 10 mg/kg IV Q2W until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. Endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs; NCI CTCAE v4.0). Results: As of Dec 31, 2016, 51 pts were treated and followed for a median of 24.2 mo (range 16.1–31.5). Median age was 64 y (range 31–84). Site of primary tumor was cutaneous (n = 28, 54.9%), ocular (n = 16, 31.4%), mucosal (n = 2, 3.9%), or unknown (n = 5, 9.8%). Pts had received a median of 2 prior lines of therapy for advanced disease (range 0–4), including ipilimumab (n = 26, 51.0%). Confirmed ORR was 21.6% (95% CI 11.3–35.3), with complete response in 7.8% and partial response in 13.7%. In pts with cutaneous melanoma, ORR was 28.6% (95% CI 13.2–48.7). There were no objective responses in pts with ocular melanoma; however, 7 pts (43.8%) had stable disease. In pts with ≤1 (n = 25), 2 (n = 17), or ≥3 (n = 9) prior lines, ORR was 36.0% (95% CI 18.0–57.5), 11.8% (95% CI 1.5–36.4), and 0% (95% CI 0–33.6), respectively. Antitumor activity by PD-L1 status will be presented. Median duration of response was not estimable (NE) (95% CI 2.6 mo–NE). Median PFS was 3.1 mo (95% CI 1.4–6.3) and the 6-mo PFS rate was 39.2% (95% CI 25.2–52.9). Median OS was 18.5 mo (95% CI 9.3–NE) and the 12-mo OS rate was 62.3% (95% CI 46.9–74.4). 39 pts (76.5%) had a treatment-related (TR)AE, most commonly infusion-related reaction (25.5%), fatigue (17.6%), and chills (11.8%). 4 pts (7.8%) had a grade ≥3 TRAE. 5 pts (9.8%) had an immune-related AE; all were grade 1/2. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Conclusions: Avelumab showed durable responses, promising survival outcomes, and an acceptable safety profile in pts with previously treated metastatic melanoma. Clinical trial information: NCT01772004.

BEACON CRC (binimetinib [BINI], encorafenib [ENCO], and cetuximab [CTX] combined to treat BRAF-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer [mCRC]): A multicenter, randomized, open-label, three-arm phase III study of ENCO plus CTX plus or minus BINI vs irinotecan (IRI)/CTX or infusional 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid/IRI (FOLFIRI)/CTX with a safety lead-in of ENCO + BINI + CTX in patients (Pts) with BRAFV600E mCRC.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS3622-TPS3622 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanne Huijberts ◽  
Jan H. M. Schellens ◽  
Marwan Fakih ◽  
Marc Peeters ◽  
Scott Kopetz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Mek Inhibitor ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Braf Mutations ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Egfr Inhibition ◽  
Metastatic Setting

TPS3622 Background: BRAF mutations are found in ≈10% of mCRC cases. Pts with BRAFV600E mCRC have a poor prognosis, with shorter progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) than pts with BRAFwt mCRC (Van Cutsem et al 2011; Modest et al 2012; Sorbye et al 2015). The benefits of combined BRAF + EGFR inhibition in mCRC have been demonstrated in vitro (Corcoran et al 2012; Prahallad et al 2012; Yang et al 2012), and preclinical evidence suggests that adding MEK signaling inhibition improves antitumor activity. Early clinical data indicate that BRAF + EGFR + MEK inhibition has greater activity than BRAF + EGFR inhibition in pts with BRAFV600E mCRC (Van Cutsem et al 2016). Our study will examine the combination of BINI (a MEK inhibitor) + ENCO (a selective BRAF kinase inhibitor) + CTX (an anti-EGFR antibody) and of ENCO + CTX in pts with BRAFV600E mCRC. Methods: BEACON CRC (NCT02928224) is enrolling pts with BRAFV600E mCRC whose disease has progressed after 1 or 2 prior regimens in the metastatic setting. A safety lead-in phase (≈30 pts) will determine the safety and tolerability of oral ENCO 300 mg QD + oral BINI 45 mg BID + intravenous CTX 400 mg/m2 followed by 250 mg/m2 QW. In the phase 3 portion, ≈615 pts will be randomized 1:1:1 to triplet (ENCO + BINI + CTX), doublet (ENCO + CTX), or control (investigator’s choice of IRI/CTX or FOLFIRI/CTX) arms. Pts will be treated in 28-day cycles until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, initiation of subsequent anticancer therapy, or death. The primary endpoint is OS (triplet vs control). Secondary endpoints include OS (doublet vs control), confirmed investigator-assessed objective response rate according to RECIST version 1.1 (triplet or doublet vs control; triplet vs doublet), PFS (triplet or doublet vs control), duration of response, time to response, pharmacokinetics, and pt-reported outcomes. Safety will be summarized using standard adverse event reporting. Clinical trial information: NCT02928224.

SAVOIR: A phase III study of savolitinib versus sunitinib in pts with MET-driven papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5002-5002
Author(s):  
Toni K. Choueiri ◽  
Daniel Yick Chin Heng ◽  
Jae-Lyun Lee ◽  
Mathilde Cancel ◽  
Remy B Verheijen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Chromosome 7 ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Dose Modifications

5002 Background: PRCC is the most common type of non-clear cell RCC, accounting for 10–15% of renal malignancies. As a subset of PRCC cases are MET-driven, MET inhibition may be an appropriate targeted treatment approach. In a single-arm Phase II study, savolitinib (AZD6094, HMPL‐504, volitinib), a highly selective MET-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, demonstrated antitumor activity in pts with MET-driven PRCC (Choueiri et al. JCO 2017). The Phase III SAVOIR study (NCT03091192) further assessed savolitinib vs standard of care sunitinib in pts with MET-driven PRCC. Methods: In this open-label (sponsor blinded), randomized study, pts with centrally confirmed MET-driven ( MET and/or HGF amplification, chromosome 7 gain and/or MET kinase domain mutations), metastatic PRCC were randomized to savolitinib 600 mg once daily (QD), or sunitinib 50 mg QD 4 weeks on / 2 weeks off. Primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS; RECIST 1.1 by blinded independent central review). Secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety and tolerability. Results: After external data on predicted PFS with sunitinib in pts with MET-driven disease became available, study enrollment was closed. At data cutoff (Aug 2019), only 60 of the planned 180 pts were randomized (savolitinib n = 33; sunitinib n = 27). Most had chromosome 7 gain (savolitinib 91%; sunitinib 96%) and no prior therapy (savolitinib 85%; sunitinib 93%). PFS, OS, and ORR were numerically improved with savolitinib vs sunitinib (Table). CTCAE grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 42% and 81% of pts; dose modifications were related to AEs in 30% and 74% of pts with savolitinib and sunitinib respectively. After discontinuation, 36% of all savolitinib and 19% of all sunitinib pts received subsequent anticancer therapy. Conclusions: Although pt numbers and follow-up were limited, savolitinib demonstrated encouraging efficacy and an improved safety profile vs sunitinib, with fewer grade ≥3 AEs and fewer dose modifications required. Sunitinib performance was poorer than expected based on external retrospective data. Further investigation of savolitinib as a treatment option for MET-driven PRCC is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT03091192 . [Table: see text]

Efficacy and safety of avelumab plus axitinib (A + Ax) versus sunitinib (S) in elderly patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC): Extended follow-up results from JAVELIN Renal 101.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 301-301
Author(s):  
Yoshihiko Tomita ◽  
Robert J. Motzer ◽  
Toni K. Choueiri ◽  
Brian I. Rini ◽  
Hideaki Miyake ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Grade 3

301 Background: In the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006), A + Ax demonstrated significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) and a higher objective response rate (ORR) vs S in patients with previously untreated aRCC. The role of immune checkpoint + VEGFR inhibition in elderly patients remains unclear. Here we report the efficacy of A + Ax vs S by age group from the second interim analysis (IA) of overall survival (OS) and the safety of A + Ax by age group from the first IA. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive A 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 wk + Ax 5 mg orally twice daily or S 50 mg orally once daily for 4 wk (6-wk cycle). PFS and ORR per independent central review (RECIST 1.1), OS, and safety by age group (<65, ≥65 to <75, and ≥75 y) were assessed. Results: A total of 271/138/33 and 275/128/41 patients in each age group (<65, ≥65 to <75, and ≥75 y, respectively) were randomized to the A + Ax or S arm, respectively. The proportion of IMDC risk groups was generally well balanced between the A + Ax and S arm in each age group, although in the ≥75 y age group, the frequency of patients with intermediate risk was slightly higher in the A + Ax arm, and that of patients with favorable risk was slightly higher in the S arm. The percentages of patients with favorable/intermediate/poor risk in each age group were 19%/61%/19%, 28%/58%/13%, and 12%/76%/12% in the A + Ax arm vs 20%/63%/16%, 23%/60%/16%, and 24%/61%/15% in the S arm. At data cut-off (Jan 2019) for the second IA, median follow-up for OS and PFS was 19.3 vs 19.2 mo and 16.8 vs 15.2 mo for the A + Ax vs S arm, respectively. The table shows OS, PFS, and ORR by age group. In the A + Ax arm, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (62%/68%/42%), hypertension (49%/49%/55%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (37%/31%/15%), fatigue (37%/53%/30%), and nausea (34%/37%/21%) in each age group. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs and immune-related AEs were observed in 69%/74%/73% and 39%/40%/24% of patients in each age group, respectively. Conclusions: A + Ax demonstrated favorable efficacy across age groups, including patients aged ≥75 y. OS was still immature; follow-up for the final analysis is ongoing. The safety profile was generally consistent between age groups. Clinical trial information: NCT02684006 . [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document