scholarly journals Azacitidine with or without eltrombopag for first-line treatment of intermediate- or high-risk MDS with thrombocytopenia

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (25) ◽  
pp. 2629-2638 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Dickinson ◽  
Honar Cherif ◽  
Pierre Fenaux ◽  
Moshe Mittelman ◽  
Amit Verma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Myelodysplastic Syndromes ◽  
Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
International Prognostic Scoring System ◽  
East Asians ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Platelet Recovery ◽  
End Point

Abstract Azacitidine treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs) generally exacerbates thrombocytopenia during the first treatment cycles. A Study of Eltrombopag in Myelodysplastic Syndromes Receiving Azacitidine (SUPPORT), a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, investigated the platelet supportive effects of eltrombopag given concomitantly with azacitidine. International Prognostic Scoring System intermediate-1, intermediate-2, or high-risk MDS patients with baseline platelets <75 × 109/L were randomized 1:1 to eltrombopag (start, 200 mg/d [East Asians, 100 mg/d], maximum, 300 mg/d [East Asians, 150 mg/d]) or placebo, plus azacitidine (75 mg/m2 subcutaneously once daily for 7 days every 28 days). The primary end point was the proportion of patients platelet transfusion-free during cycles 1 through 4 of azacitidine therapy. Based on planned interim analyses, an independent data monitoring committee recommended stopping the study prematurely because efficacy outcomes crossed the predefined futility threshold and for safety reasons. At termination, 28/179 (16%) eltrombopag and 55/177 (31%) placebo patients met the primary end point. Overall response (International Working Group criteria; complete, marrow, or partial response) occurred in 20% and 35% of eltrombopag and placebo patients, respectively, by investigator assessment. There was no difference in hematologic improvement in any cell lineage between the 2 arms. There was no improvement in overall or progression-free survival. Adverse events with ≥10% occurrence in the eltrombopag vs placebo arm were febrile neutropenia and diarrhea. Compared with azacitidine alone, eltrombopag plus azacitidine worsened platelet recovery, with lower response rates and a trend toward increased progression to acute myeloid leukemia. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02158936.

A phase III trial in progress comparing tislelizumab plus concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT) with placebo plus cCRT in patients with localized esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS475-TPS475
Author(s):  
Wei-Hu Wang ◽  
Jiancheng Li ◽  
Tao Li ◽  
Kuaile Zhao ◽  
Rong Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Predictive Biomarker ◽  
Pharmacokinetic Profile ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Cell Clearance ◽  
Innovative Therapies ◽  
Duration Of Response

TPS475 Background: In China, esophageal cancer (EC) ranks as the eigth most common cancer and the sixth most common cause of cancer related death. The predominant histological subtype of EC is ESCC. At first diagnosis, more than half of patients (pts) with ESCC are unfit for surgery. An alternative to surgery is cCRT; however, many pts experience local failure or distant metastasis after cCRT. As such, innovative therapies are needed. Tislelizumab, an investigational humanized monoclonal antibody with high affinity and specificity for PD-1, was engineered to minimize binding to FcγR on macrophages in order to abrogate antibody-dependent phagocytosis, a mechanism of T-cell clearance and potential resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy. In previous studies, tislelizumab, as a monotherapy and in combination with chemotherapy, was generally well tolerated and had antitumor activity in pts with ESCC. Methods: This phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (NCT03957590) is designed to compare the efficacy of tislelizumab versus placebo in combination with cCRT. Patients with histologically confirmed localized ESCC for whom cCRT is suitable and surgery is unsuitable/declined are being enrolled. Approximately 316 Chinese pts will be randomized 1:1 to receive tislelizumab (200 mg IV Q3W) or placebo (IV Q3W) in combination with cisplatin (25 mg/m2 IV on Days 1-3 of each 3-week cycle) plus paclitaxel (135 mg/m2 IV Q3W) and radiotherapy at a total dose of 50.4 Gy. An Independent Data Monitoring Committee will be established to assess the safety/tolerability of tislelizumab plus cCRT in the first 20 enrolled pts; monitoring across the study will occur at regular intervals thereafter. Progression-free survival (PFS), assessed by a Blinded Independent Review Committee per RECIST v1.1, is the primary endpoint. Secondary efficacy endpoints include overall response rate, duration of response, and overall survival. Incidence and severity of adverse events (CTCAE V5.0) and HRQoL are additional secondary endpoints. Exploratory endpoints include PFS rate at Years 1 and 2, pharmacokinetic profile, and predictive biomarker analyses. Clinical trial information: NCT03957590.

scholarly journals RTID-05. INDIGO: A GLOBAL, RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND, PHASE 3 STUDY OF VORASIDENIB (AG-881) VS PLACEBO IN PATIENTS WITH RESIDUAL/RECURRENT GRADE II GLIOMA WITH AN ISOCITRATE DEHYDROGENASE 1/2 (IDH1/2) MUTATION

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. ii194-ii194
Author(s):  
Ingo Mellinghoff ◽  
Martin van den Bent ◽  
Jennifer Clarke ◽  
Elizabeth Maher ◽  
Katherine Peters ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
High Risk Population ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Who Grade ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Grade Ii

Abstract BACKGROUND Low-grade gliomas (LGGs; WHO grade II) are incurable and ultimately progress to high-grade gliomas. The current treatment options are surgery followed by observation (“watch and wait”) for patients with lower risk for disease progression or postoperative chemoradiotherapy (high-risk population). There are no approved targeted therapies. IDH1 and IDH2 mutations (mIDH1/2) occur in approximately 80% and 4% of LGGs, respectively, and promote tumorigenesis via neomorphic production of D-2-hydroxyglutarate. Vorasidenib, an oral, potent, reversible, brain-penetrant pan-inhibitor of mIDH1/2, was evaluated in 76 patients with glioma in two phase 1 studies (dose escalation and perioperative) and was associated with a favorable safety profile at daily doses below 100 mg. Preliminary clinical activity was observed in non-enhancing glioma patients in both studies, with an objective response rate (ORR) of 18.2% and median progression-free survival of 31.4 months in the dose escalation study. METHODS Approximately 366 patients will be randomized 1:1 to vorasidenib (50 mg QD) or matched placebo and stratified by 1p19q status (intact vs co-deleted). Key eligibility criteria: age ≥ 12 years; grade II oligodendroglioma or astrocytoma (per WHO 2016 criteria) not in need of immediate treatment and without high-risk features; centrally confirmed mIDH1/2 status; ≥ 1 surgery for glioma with most recent ≥ 1 year but ≤ 5 years before randomization, and no other anticancer therapy; Karnofsky performance status ≥ 80%; and centrally confirmed measurable, non-enhancing disease evaluable by magnetic resonance imaging. Crossover from placebo to the vorasidenib arm is permitted upon centrally confirmed radiographic progression per RANO-LGG criteria. Primary endpoint: progression-free survival assessed by independent review. Secondary endpoints: safety and tolerability, tumor growth rate assessed by volume, ORR, overall survival, and quality of life. Clinical data will be reviewed regularly by an independent data monitoring committee. The study is currently enrolling patients in the US, with additional countries planned (NCT04164901).

Phase III Trial of Gemcitabine Plus Tipifarnib Compared With Gemcitabine Plus Placebo in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (8) ◽  
pp. 1430-1438 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Van Cutsem ◽  
H. van de Velde ◽  
P. Karasek ◽  
H. Oettle ◽  
W.L. Vervenne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Free Survival

Purpose To determine whether addition of the farnesyltransferase inhibitor tipifarnib (Zarnestra, R115777; Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, Beerse, Belgium) to standard gemcitabine therapy improves overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared gemcitabine + tipifarnib versus gemcitabine + placebo in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma previously untreated with systemic therapy. Tipifarnib was given at 200 mg bid orally continuously; gemcitabine was given at 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously weekly × 7 for 8 weeks, then weekly × 3 every 4 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points included 6-month and 1-year survival rates, progression-free survival, response rate, safety, and quality of life. Results Six hundred eighty-eight patients were enrolled. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two treatment arms. No statistically significant differences in survival parameters were observed. The median overall survival for the experimental arm was 193 v 182 days for the control arm (P = .75); 6-month and 1-year survival rates were 53% and 27% v 49% and 24% for the control arm, respectively; median progression-free survival was 112 v 109 days for the control arm. Ten drug-related deaths were reported for the experimental arm and seven for the control arm. Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia grade ≥ 3 were observed in 40% and 15% in the experimental arm versus 30% and 12% in the control arm. Incidences of nonhematologic adverse events were similar in two groups. Conclusion The combination of gemcitabine and tipifarnib has an acceptable toxicity profile but does not prolong overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer compared with single-agent gemcitabine.

Concordance between independently and investigator-assessed progression-free survival in CLEOPATRA.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e11055-e11055
Author(s):  
David Miles ◽  
Sandra M. Swain ◽  
Young-Hyuck Im ◽  
Adam Knott ◽  
Graham Ross ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Equal Proportion ◽  
Her2 Positive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Independent Review ◽  
Event Based

e11055^ Background: In CLEOPATRA, pertuzumab (P) + trastuzumab (T) + docetaxel (D) was compared to placebo (Pla)+T+D in HER2-positive 1st-line MBC. In MBC trials, PFS rather than overall survival is often defined as the primary endpoint as PFS data are available earlier and later-line therapy does not impact results. The primary endpoint in CLEOPATRA, PFS, was assessed by an Independent Review Facility (IRF), with investigator (inv)-assessed PFS as a secondary endpoint. As a measure of consistency and robustness, concordance between IRF- and inv-assessed PFS was analyzed. Methods: PFS was defined as time from randomization to first documented radiographic evidence of progressive disease (PD) or death from any cause within 18 wk of the last IRF tumor assessment. Tumor assessments took place every 9 wk and continued until IRF-confirmed PD. Treatment decisions were solely based on the inv’s assessment of PD. Indicators of concordance between IRF- and inv-assessed PFS included: PFS event by IRF only; PFS event by inv only; PFS event by IRF and inv; no PFS event by IRF and inv. These indicators were assessed at any time on study, within 30 d or within 9 wk. Several pre-specified sensitivity analyses for PFS were also performed. Results: 808 pt were enrolled and central tumor assessments performed for 781 pt. Compliance with the schedule of tumor assessments was generally high and comparable between arms, with >78% of pt undergoing assessments within 7 d of the scheduled visit over the 1st yr. At any time on study, concordance between IRF- and inv-assessed PFS was 85%. Of the 15% discordant cases, an equal proportion was assessed by the IRF as a PFS event but not by the inv and vice versa. Estimates of the median time to PFS event based on IRF and inv assessments were identical, Pla+T+D: 12.4 mo, P+T+D: 18.5 mo (IRF: HR 0.62, P < .0001; inv: HR 0.65, P < .0001). Conclusions: Concordance between IRF- and inv-assessed PFS was high, supporting consistency and robustness of the PFS analyses. The subjective nature of PD and potential for bias were reduced by the double-blind, placebo-controlled study design; RECIST 1.0 criteria; identical schedule of assessments in both arms; IRF review and continuation of tumor assessments until IRF confirmation of PD.

INTEGRATE: A randomized phase II double-blind placebo-controlled study of regorafenib in refractory advanced oesophagogastric cancer (AOGC)—A study by the Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group (AGITG), first results.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nick Pavlakis ◽  
Katrin Marie Sjoquist ◽  
Eric Tsobanis ◽  
Andrew Martin ◽  
Yoon-Koo Kang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Best Supportive Care ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Prognostic Indicators ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Double Blind

9 Background: Advanced Oesophago-Gastric Carcinoma (AOGC) has limited options following failure of first or second line chemotherapy (CT). Regorafenib (REG) is an oral multi-kinase inhibitor of kinases involved in angiogenesis, tumor microenvironment, and oncogenesis. This study examined whether REG has sufficient activity and safety for further evaluation. Methods: International (Australia & New Zealand (ANZ), Korea, Canada (NCIC CTG)) randomised phase II trial with 2:1 randomisation and stratification by: (1) Lines of prior CT for advanced disease (1 vs. 2) and (2) Region. Eligible patients received best supportive care plus 160mg REG or matching PBO orally on days 1-21 each 28-day cycle until disease progression or prohibitive adverse events. Primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS) in the REG arm, assuming median 8 weeks (wks) in PBO arm, aiming for 13.2 wks with REG to be of interest. Results: From Nov 2012 to Feb 2014, 152 patients were enrolled, 147 evaluable [pre-specified primary analysis population]: (REG n=97: PBO n=50); well matched for key baseline prognostic indicators; male:female (118:29); primary location: OG Junction (56), stomach (85); lines of prior therapy: 1 (63), 2 (84); ECOG 0 (62): 1 (85). Time on treatment: Median: 7.9 (REG) v 4 (PBO) wks. In the evaluable population median PFS was 11.1 wks (95% CI: 7.7 - 12.3) (REG) and 3.9 wks (95% CI: 3.7 - 4.0) (PBO), log-rank p <0.0001; HR 0.41 (95% CI: 0.28 to 0.59). PFS results were maintained for secondary analysis including all randomized patients (n = 152). REG was well tolerated, with the spectrum of toxicity in keeping with previous reports. Conclusions: PFS was clearly significantly longer with REG than PBO, though PBO PFS was less than anticipated. The pre-specified exploratory comparisons provide compelling evidence that REG has sufficient activity with acceptable tolerability in refractory AOGC to warrant phase III evaluation. Mature OS results will be presented at the meeting. Clinical trial information: 12612000239864.

Age-related efficacy and safety of apalutamide (APA) plus ongoing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in subgroups of patients (pts) with nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC): Post hoc analysis of SPARTAN.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5024-5024 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Nicole Graff ◽  
Matthew Raymond Smith ◽  
Fred Saad ◽  
Boris A. Hadaschik ◽  
Hiroji Uemura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Safety Profile ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cox Models ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Age Related ◽  
The Impact

5024 Background: SPARTAN, a randomized phase 3 placebo (PBO)-controlled study in pts with high-risk nmCRPC and PSA doubling time ≤ 10 mo, showed that, compared with PBO, addition of APA to ongoing ADT treatment (tx) prolonged metastasis-free survival (MFS) by > 2 y, reduced the risk of symptomatic progression by 55%, and increased second progression-free survival (PFS2), which is the time from randomization to disease progression on first subsequent anticancer tx, or death. The impact of APA in terms of benefit and safety profile was evaluated in pts aged < 65, 65-74, and ≥ 75 y. Methods: Pts with nmCRPC were randomized 2:1 to APA (240 mg QD) or PBO; ADT was continuous. APA effect was analyzed by Cox models and Kaplan-Meier methods across age subgroups. Results: Baseline characteristics among age groups were similar, although ECOG PS 1 vs 0 increased with age. MFS benefit with APA was highly significant for all age subgroups (Table). In pts ≥ 75 y, MFS risk with APA vs PBO was reduced by 59%; MFS risk was reduced by 86% and 76% for pts < 65 and 65-74 y, respectively. Risk of PFS2 with APA vs PBO was reduced across all age subgroups. PFS2 in pts < 65, 65-74, and ≥ 75 y: HR, 0.09 (p < 0.0001); HR, 0.56 (p = 0.0343); HR, 0.59 (p = 0.0092), respectively. Risk of symptomatic progression was lessened with APA vs PBO for all age subgroups (Table). There was a similar increase in incidence of tx-emergent adverse events (TEAE) with age in both tx arms that remained higher with APA. Incidence of grade 3/4 TEAE (≥ 75 vs < 65 y): APA, 50% vs 37%; PBO, 37% vs 28%. Conclusions: Pts in all age subgroups with high-risk nmCRPC had significant improvement in MFS with APA + ongoing ADT. The safety profile of APA was similar across age subgroups. Clinical trial information: NCT01946204. [Table: see text]

ENGOT-EN6/NSGO-RUBY: A phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of dostarlimab + carboplatin-paclitaxel versus placebo + carboplatin-paclitaxel in recurrent or primary advanced endometrial cancer (EC).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS6107-TPS6107
Author(s):  
Mansoor Raza Mirza ◽  
Robert L. Coleman ◽  
Lars Christian Hanker ◽  
Brian M. Slomovitz ◽  
Giorgio Valabrega ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Disease Status ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Primary Stage ◽  
Patient Reported

TPS6107 Background: Carboplatin-paclitaxel is considered standard systemic anticancer therapy for recurrent or advanced EC for which surgery and/or radiation are not curative. Dostarlimab (TSR-042) is an anti-programmed cell death (PD)-1 humanized monoclonal antibody that has demonstrated antitumor activity and an acceptable safety profile in patients (pts) with recurrent or advanced EC in the GARNET trial. The RUBY trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dostarlimab in combination with carboplatin-paclitaxel in recurrent or primary advanced EC compared with carboplatin-paclitaxel alone. Methods: This is a global, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled study. Eligible pts must have first recurrent or primary stage III or stage IV EC with a low potential for cure by radiation therapy or surgery alone or in combination. Pts with carcinosarcoma are eligible for enrollment. 470 pts will be enrolled from approximately 160 sites in the ENGOT countries, United States, and Canada. Stratification factors are microsatellite instability (MSI) status (MSI-high [MSI-H] or microsatellite stable [MSS]), prior external pelvic radiotherapy (yes or no), and disease status (recurrent, primary stage III, or primary stage IV). Pts will be randomized 1:1 to receive combination dostarlimab 500 mg or placebo + carboplatin AUC 5 + paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 every 3 weeks for 6 cycles followed by dostarlimab 1000 mg or placebo monotherapy every 6 weeks for up to 3 years in the absence of progressive disease, death, unacceptable toxicity, or patient/physician decision to withdraw from the study. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by the investigator in the all-comers population and the MSI-H population per RECIST version 1.1. Secondary efficacy endpoints are PFS assessed by blinded independent central review per RECIST version 1.1, overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, disease control rate, safety and tolerability, and patient-reported outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT03981796.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document