A Prospective Randomized Study of Rituximab and Dexamethasone vs Dexamethasone Alone in ITP.

Blood ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 110 (11) ◽  
pp. 567-567 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Zaja ◽  
Patrizio Mazza ◽  
Nicola Vianelli ◽  
Marzia De Fina ◽  
Vincenzo Liso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Demographic Data ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Sustained Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Entire Study ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Previous uncontrolled studies have highlighted the potential activity of Rituximab in patients with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) relapsed or refractory to standard treatments. To better address this effect, a prospective randomized, multicenter, phase III study comparing treatment with Dexamethasone alone (arm A) vs Dexamethasone plus Rituximab (arm B) was started in July 2005 for adult patients with ITP according to the ASH guidelines. Main inclusion criteria were: age ≥ 18 years, untreated ITP, platelet (PLT) count ≤ 20 x109/L, HIV- HCV-HbsAg negativity, informed consent. Patients randomized to arm A received a single course of Dexamethasone 40 mg po on days +1, +2, +3, +4, while patients randomized to arm B received Dexamethasone (as in arm A) in association with Rituximab 375 mg/m2 iv on days +7, +14, +21, +28. Patients in arm A who failed to achieve a sustained response (SR) could be rescued with arm B treatment. The primary objective of the study was to compare SR, i.e. PLT ≥ 50 x 109/L at month + 6 of treatment. The secondary objectives were: the initial overall (OR= PLT ≥ 50 x109/L) and complete response (CR= PLT ≥ 100 x 109/L) by day 30 after starting treatment, respectively; the toxic profile. The statistical plan considered three interim analyses, after the first 50, 100 and 150 enrolled patients, with an estimated sample size of 198 patients (99 per arm). Table 1 summarizes the main demographic data and the results of efficacy and toxicity according to an intention to treat analysis of the first interim analysis. The toxic profile was characterized by only grade 3 adverse events (AE); no patient died during the study period. 16 patients of arm A were rescued with arm B. For this group SR was 81% and no patient experienced SAE or ≥ grade 3 AE. In accordance with the initial statistical plan of the study, which stated that patients’ recruitment would ceased if a ≥ 50% difference in sustained response was demonstrated, enrolment has been stopped in June 2007 with a total number of 103 randomized patients. This preliminary report indicates a significantly higher SR for arm B of treatment with no difference in toxicity profile. A final report will be prepared when the results on the entire study group will be available. Table 1 Therapy Arm A Arm B Statistics Patients 24 26 Male/female 11/13 10/16 p = NS Age (median ± SD) 54.54 ± 18.78 48.65 ± 15.10 p = NS Initial OR 15 (62.5%) 18 (69%) p = NS Initial CR 10 (42%) 16 (61%) p = NS SR 7 (29%) 21 (81%) p = 0.0001 SAE or grade 3 AE 3 (12.5%) 2 (8%) p = NS

Neoadjuvant trastuzumab (H), pertuzumab (P), and chemotherapy versus trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) and P in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer (BC): Final outcome results from the phase III KRISTINE study.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 500-500 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara A. Hurvitz ◽  
Miguel Martin ◽  
Kyung Hae Jung ◽  
Chiun-Sheng Huang ◽  
Nadia Harbeck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Study ◽  
Pathologic Complete Response ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Treatment Discontinuation ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Her2 Positive ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Post Surgery ◽  
Grade 3

500 Background: KRISTINE compared neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus dual HER2- blockade (HP) with T-DM1 plus P (T-DM1+P), a targeted regimen that omits standard chemotherapy. T-DM1+P resulted in a lower pathologic complete response (pCR) rate, but a more favorable safety profile. Here we present the final outcomes from KRISTINE. Methods: KRISTINE (NCT02131064) was a randomized study of T-DM1+P versus docetaxel, carboplatin, and H plus P (TCHP). Patients with HER2-positive stage II–III BC received 6 cycles of neoadjuvant T-DM1+P or TCHP q3w. Patients receiving T-DM1+P continued adjuvant T-DM1+P; patients receiving TCHP received adjuvant HP, for 12 cycles in each arm. Patients in the T-DM1+P arm without pCR were encouraged to receive standard adjuvant chemotherapy before adjuvant T-DM1+P. Secondary endpoints, analyzed with descriptive statistics, included event-free survival (EFS; all events pre- and post-surgery), invasive disease-free survival (IDFS; invasive events post-surgery), overall survival and safety. Results: At median follow-up of 37 months, EFS favored TCHP (HR = 2.61 [95% CI: 1.36–4.98]), due to more locoregional progression events in the T-DM1+P arm before surgery (6.7% vs 0; Table). pCR was associated with reduced risk of an IDFS event (HR = 0.24 [95% CI: 0.09– 0.60]) regardless of treatment arm. There were 5 deaths (2.3%) in the TCHP arm and 6 (2.7%) in the T-DM1+P arm. There were more grade ≥3 AEs with TCHP but a higher rate of AEs leading to treatment discontinuation with T-DM1+P. Conclusions: EFS numerically favors TCHP due to locoregional progression events with T-DM1+P prior to surgery. T-DM1+P was associated with fewer grade ≥3 AEs but increased treatment discontinuation. Clinical trial information: NCT02131064. [Table: see text]

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]

INNOVA: Interval or neoadjuvant chemotherapy in rectal cancer—A phase II randomized study comparing interval versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in magnetic resonance imaging-defined high-risk rectal cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 91-91
Author(s):  
Ramakrishnan Ayloor Seshadri ◽  
Trivadi S. Ganesan ◽  
Manikandan Dhanushkodi ◽  
Arunkumar M N ◽  
Shirley Sundersingh
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Neoadjuvant Treatment ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry ◽  
Grade 3

91 Background: Total neoadjuvant treatment is a promising option in rectal cancer. We aim to compare neoadjuvant versus interval chemotherapy in high risk rectal cancer to identify the optimal sequencing of treatment. Methods: Using a Simon two-stage design, newly diagnosed MRI defined high risk rectal cancer patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive three 21 day cycles of chemotherapy with Capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 and Oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 either before (Arm A-neoadjuvant) or after (Arm B-interval) chemoradiation followed by surgery. Primary end point was the pathological complete response (pCR) following surgery. A heirarchial model was used to assess the primary and secondary end points (toxicity and compliance) and compare the two regimens. (Clinical Trial Registry of India No. CTRI/2015/01/005385). Results: In this single centre study conducted between November 2015 and February 2020, 42 patients were randomised in the first stage. A pCR was seen in 4 patients in Arm A and 6 in Arm B. Hence another 52 patients were randomised in the second stage of which an additional 3 and 2 patients had a pCR leading to an overall pCR of 7 and 8 patients (15.5% vs 17% and 18.4% vs 19.5% in the intent-to-treat and per-protocol populations in Arm A and B respectively. This exceeded the minimum predetermined number of 5 pCR needed to qualify for further evaluation for each arm. Grade ≥3 toxicity was observed in 2.2% of 132 cycles and 4.6% of 129 cycles of chemotherapy delivered in 45 and 43 patients in Arm A and B respectively while 11/43 (25.5%) and 10/47 (21.2%) patients experienced grade ≥3 toxicity during chemoradiation. Treatment break of > 7 days was seen in 23.2% and 29.7% of patients in Arm A and B respectively while 93.3% in Arm A and 100% of patients in Arm B completed all 3 planned cycles of pre-operative chemotherapy. A non-significant trend towards greater pathological downstaging was seen in Arm B than in Arm A (ypT1-2 39% vs 26.3%; p = 0.1 and ypN0 68.3% vs 57.9%; p = 0.5 respectively). Conclusions: In this phase two study, both neoadjuvant and interval chemotherapy emerged eligible for further evaluation against the standard of care in a future phase III study. Although we could not pick one winner based on pCR, toxicity or compliance, the greater downstaging observed with interval chemotherapy suggests it could play a greater role in an organ preservation approach. Clinical trial information:CTRI/2015/01/005385, UTN no: U111111650578.

A Prospective Randomized Study Comparing Rituximab and Dexamethasone Vs Dexamethasone Alone in ITP: Results of Final Analysis and Long Term Follow up

Blood ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 112 (11) ◽  
pp. 1-1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Zaja ◽  
Michele Baccarani ◽  
Patrizio Mazza ◽  
Nicola Vianelli ◽  
Monica Bocchia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Safety Profile ◽  
Salvage Therapy ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Initial Response ◽  
Salvage Treatment ◽  
Sustained Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Response Analysis ◽  
P Value ◽  
Intention To Treat

Abstract Introduction. Previous uncontrolled studies have highlighted the activity of rituximab in patients with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) relapsed or refractory to standard treatments. To better address this effect, a prospective randomized (1:1), multicenter, phase III study comparing treatment with dexamethasone alone (arm A) vs dexamethasone plus rituximab (arm B) was conducted from July 2005 through June 2007 for adult patients with previously untreated ITP and a platelet (PLT) count ≤20 × 109/L. Material and methods. Patients randomized to arm A received a single course of oral dexamethasone 40 mg on days +1, +2, +3, +4, while patients randomized to arm B received dexamethasone (as in arm A) in association with rituximab 375 mg/m2 iv on days +7, +14, +21, +28. Patients in arm A who failed to achieve a sustained response and had a platelet count ≤20 × 109/L (from day +30 up to the end of 6 months) could receive salvage treatment with the experimental arm (dexamethasone plus rituximab). The primary objective of the study was to compare the sustained response (SR), i.e. PLT count 50 × 109/L at month + 6 of treatment. Secondary objectives were: evaluation of the safety, the initial response (PLT count 50 × 109/L) by day 30 after the initiation of treatment, the activity of salvage therapy with dexamethasone plus rituximab in patients non responding to dexamethasone monotherapy, the definition of clinical and laboratory factors predictive of response and to explore the pharmacokinetics parameters of rituximab and their potential relation with response. Results were analyzed by an intention to treat (ITT) and by a per-protocol (PP) analysis. Results. One-hundred-one patients (52 for arm A and 49 for arm B) and 64 patients (38 for arm A and 26 for arm B) represented the ITT and PP population, respectively. Demographic baseline data were in accordance to what expected for a population of ITP patients. No significant differences among the two groups of randomization were present. There was a female prevalence and the mean age was 47 and 49 years in arm A and B, respectively. Table 1 summarizes the ITT and PP efficacy results considering 3 different levels of response (i.e. PLT count 50 × 109/L, 100 × 109/L and 150 × 109/L). A significant advantage for arm B patients was documented. Table 1 Initial response Initial response Sustained response Sustained response Analysis Intention-to Treat Per-Protocol Intention-to Treat Per-Protocol Treatment Arm A Arm B P value Arm A Arm B P value Arm A Arm B P value Arm A Arm B P value Valuable patients 44 25 32 13 52 49 38 26 PLT 3 50×109/L 27% 68% .001 31% 69% .009 36% 63% .004 39% 85% <.001 PLT 3 100×109/L 23% 48% .015 28% 46% .122 33% 53% .019 37% 77% <.001 PLT 3 150×109/L 18% 36% .178 22% 38% .127 25% 43% .029 29% 65% .002 Twenty-seven patients initially allocated to arm A and who failed to achieve initial response or SR received salvage treatment with the dexamethasone plus rituximab. In this group, ITT and PP SR rate were 56% and 59%, respectively. No clinical or laboratory factors predictive of SR were identified. In arm B patients the serum concentrations of rituximab levels did not correlate with the rate of response. Twelve SR patients of arm A, 27 of arm B and 19 of salvage therapy group were systematically followed up beyond month 6 for a median period of observation of 18 months (range 10–34 months). The rate of SR loss (platelets < 50 × 109/L) in these three groups was 25 % (3/12), 11% (3/27) and 10.5% (2/19). The safety profile was good with no substantial difference between the two arms of randomization. No patient died during the study period. Conclusion. The results of this study indicate that the association of dexamethasone plus rituximab improves patients outcome without worsening of the safety profile. This effect is characterized by prolongation of SR and reduction in relapse rate. The long period of relapse free survival registered in some patients suggests a possible curative effect. This treatment can be offered as an option before splenectomy, particularly in those patients where the surgical option is not well accepted or have higher risk of complications.

A prospective multicenter, single blinded, randomized phase III trial to compare the efficacy of ramosetron, aprepitant and dexamethasone with ondansetron, aprepitant, and dexamethasone for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: KCSG PC10-21.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9633-9633
Author(s):  
Hyo Jung Kim ◽  
Eun-Kee Song ◽  
Jun Suk Kim ◽  
Jin Seok Ahn ◽  
Hwan Jung Yun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Complete Response ◽  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Combination Regimen ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Acute Period ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

9633 Background: Combination of aprepitant, 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and steroid improve complete response (CR) of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). But until now, there was no information whether ramosetron is as effective as other 5-HT3receptor antagonists for the combination regimen. Therefore, we compared a ramosetron, aprepitant and dexamethasone (RAD) with ondansetron, aprepitant and dexamethasone (OAD) to establish the non-inferiority of RAD in controlling highly emetogenic chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting. Methods: A total of 334 patients with malignant disease who were scheduled to receive highly emetogenic chemotherapy were randomized to RAD or OAD. Aprepitant (125 mg day 1; 80 mg day 2, 3) and dexamethasone (12 mg day 1; 8 mg day 2-4) were administered to both group. Intravenous ramosetron (0.3mg day 1) or ondansetron (16mg day1) was given to RAD or OAD, respectively. Patients recorded vomiting and nausea (VAS score) on the diary. The primary end point was CR (no vomiting or retching and no rescue medication) rate in the acute period (chemotherapy day 1). The non-inferiority margin was defined as -15% differences. Results: 299 patients (RAD 143, OAD 156) were eligible for the efficacy analyses of modified intention-to-treat. Median age and sex were 60 (IQR 52 – 66) and 61 (51.5 – 68, p=0.54), 90 Male/66 Female and 114 Male/29 Female (p<0.0001) in RAD and OAD, respectively. There were no significant differences between two groups on the other baseline characteristics. The CR rates of RAD vs OAD were 84.6% vs 77.6% (95% C.I. -0.4 – 14.5%) at acute period, 69.5% vs 62.6% (-2.1 – 16.0%) at delayed period (days 2-5), and 66.7% vs 58.1% (-0.6 – 17.8%) at overall period. Median nausea score at acute period were 4 (IQR 2 – 5) and 3 (2-5, p=0.14) in RAD and OAD, respectively. There were no grade 3 or 4 toxicities. Conclusions: RAD regimen is as effective and tolerable as OAD antiemetic combination for the prevention of CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Ramosetron could be considered as one of the best partners for aprepitant. Clinical trial information: NCT01536691.

ANCHOR (OP-104): Melflufen plus dexamethasone (dex) and bortezomib (BTZ) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM)—Optimal dose, updated efficacy and safety results.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8037-8037
Author(s):  
Roman Hajek ◽  
Luděk Pour ◽  
Miquel Granell ◽  
Vladimir Maisnar ◽  
Paul G. Richardson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Partial Response ◽  
Cardiac Failure ◽  
Alkylating Agents ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Optimal Dose ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Development Of Resistance ◽  
Grade 3

8037 Background: Development of resistance to standard treatments for RRMM highlights the need for novel therapies. Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen) is a first-in-class peptide-drug conjugate (PDC) that leverages aminopeptidases and rapidly releases alkylating agents inside tumor cells. Melflufen + dex showed clinical activity and an acceptable safety profile in HORIZON (Richardson et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Dec 9 [Epub]). This is an update of the BTZ arm of the phase 1/2a ANCHOR study (NCT03481556). Methods: Patients (pts) with RRMM were intolerant or refractory to a prior IMiD, with 1-4 prior lines of therapy (LoTs). Prior treatment with a proteasome inhibitor (PI) was allowed, but pts could not be refractory to PIs in the last LoT. Melflufen (30, 40, or 20 mg intravenously; d 1 of each 28-d cycle) was administered with BTZ (1.3 mg/m2 subcutaneous) + oral dex (20 mg on d 1, 4, 8, and 11 and 40 mg on d 15 and 22; dex dose reduced if aged ≥ 75 y). The primary objective in phase 1 was to determine the optimal phase 2 dose of melflufen for this combination. Results: As of the data cutoff date (October 19, 2020), 13 pts received melflufen (30 mg, n = 6; 40 mg, n = 7) + dex and BTZ. In the 30 mg and 40 mg cohorts, respectively, median age was 78.5 y (range, 70-82) and 70.0 y (range, 61-76); median prior LoTs was 3.5 (range, 2-4) and 2.0 (range, 1-4); 33% and 50% of evaluable pts had high-risk cytogenetics; 83% and 71% were refractory to last LoT; 100% and 86% received a prior PI; 33% and 14% were refractory to PIs. In the 30 mg and 40 mg cohorts, respectively, median treatment duration was 6.5 mo (range, 1.4-29.0) and 8.7 mo (range, 2.1-19.6); 4 (67%) and 4 pts (57%) were still on treatment; 2 and 3 pts discontinued (30 mg: progressive disease [PD] and other [1 pt each]; 40 mg: adverse event [AE], lack of efficacy, and PD [1 pt each]). Confirmed overall response rate in the 30 mg and 40 mg cohorts, respectively, was 50% (1 very good partial response [VGPR] and 2 partial response [PR]) and 71% (1 complete response, 3 VGPR, and 1 PR). Most common grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were thrombocytopenia (30 mg: 50%; 40 mg: 100%) and neutropenia (30 mg: 33%; 40 mg: 71%); grade 3/4 nonhematologic TRAEs were infrequent; 3 pts discontinued study treatment due to treatment-emergent AEs (30 mg: cardiac failure chronic and osteolysis [1 pt each]; 40 mg: thrombocytopenia [1 pt]). Serious TRAEs occurred in 2 pts (33%) in the 30 mg cohort (neutropenia and pneumonia [1 pt], syncope [1 pt]) and 1 pt (14%) in the 40 mg cohort (thrombocytopenia and neutropenia). No dose-limiting toxicities occurred at either dose level. Fatal AEs occurred in 1 pt in the 30 mg cohort (cardiac failure chronic; unrelated to study treatment). Conclusions: ANCHOR determined that the optimal dose of melflufen is 30 mg + dex and BTZ; results showed clinical activity in heavily pretreated pts. Recruitment is ongoing; updated data will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT03481556.

Olaparib maintenance monotherapy for non-germline BRCA1/2-mutated (non-gBRCAm) platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSR OC) patients (pts): Phase IIIb OPINION primary analysis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5545-5545
Author(s):  
Andres Poveda ◽  
Stephanie Lheureux ◽  
Nicoletta Colombo ◽  
David Cibula ◽  
Kristina Lindemann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Brca Mutation ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Subsequent Treatment ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Platinum Sensitive ◽  
Platinum Based Chemotherapy ◽  
Phase Iiib ◽  
Grade 3

5545 Background: In the Phase II Study 19 trial (NCT00753545; Ledermann et al Lancet Oncol 2014), maintenance olaparib improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo in PSR OC pts, including non-BRCAm pts. A significant PFS benefit was also seen with maintenance olaparib vs placebo in gBRCAm PSR OC pts in the Phase III SOLO2 trial (NCT01874353; Pujade-Lauraine et al Lancet Oncol 2017). To investigate olaparib maintenance monotherapy in non-gBRCAm PSR OC pts who had received ≥2 prior lines of platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC), we performed the Phase IIIb, single-arm, OPINION study (NCT03402841). Methods: Pts had high-grade serous or endometrioid OC and were in complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) to PBC. Pts received maintenance olaparib (tablets; 300 mg bid) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS (modified RECIST v1.1). Secondary endpoints included PFS by homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) and somatic BRCA mutation (sBRCAm) status determined by central Myriad tumor and germline testing; and time to first subsequent treatment (TFST). The primary analysis was planned for 18 months (mo) after the last patient was enrolled. Results: 279 pts were enrolled from 17 countries (mean age: 64 years); 253 pts (90.7%) were confirmed non-gBRCAm. At data cut-off (Oct 2, 2020), median PFS was 9.2 mo (95% CI 7.6–10.9), with 210 PFS events (75.3% maturity). 65.3%, 38.5% and 24.3% of pts were progression-free (PF) at 6, 12 and 18 mo, respectively. The Table shows PFS in key subgroups. Median TFST was 13.9 mo (95% CI 11.5–16.4). Median exposure to olaparib was 9.4 mo (range 0.0–31.9). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 29.0% of pts and serious TEAEs in 19.7% of pts. TEAEs led to dose interruption, dose reduction and treatment discontinuation in 47.0%, 22.6% and 7.5% of pts, respectively. Conclusions: Our findings support the use of olaparib maintenance therapy in non-gBRCAm PSR OC pts, consistent with our interim analysis and previous trials in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT03402841. [Table: see text]

Phase II trial of uracil and tegafur plus oral leucovorin: an effective oral regimen in the treatment of metastatic colorectal carcinoma.

1994 ◽  
Vol 12 (11) ◽  
pp. 2296-2300 ◽  
Author(s):  
R Pazdur ◽  
Y Lassere ◽  
V Rhodes ◽  
J A Ajani ◽  
S M Sugarman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Carcinoma ◽  
Oral Mucositis ◽  
Rest Period ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Significant Activity ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma ◽  
Oral Regimen ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Grade 3

PURPOSE To determine the activity and evaluate the toxicity of uracil and tegafur in a 4:1 molar concentration (UFT; Taiho Pharmaceutical Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) plus oral calcium leucovorin in the treatment of patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS Forty-five patients with advanced, bidimensionally measurable metastatic colorectal carcinoma were enrolled onto the trial. None of the patients had received prior chemotherapy or biologic therapy for advanced disease. Patients received either 350 or 300 mg/m2/d UFT plus 150 mg/d leucovorin administered orally in divided daily doses every 8 hours for 28 days followed by a 7-day rest period. Response was evaluated after two courses of therapy. RESULTS Eighteen patients (three treated at 350 mg/m2/d and 15 at 300 mg/m2/d) had partial responses, and one patient had a complete response (response rate, 42.2%; 95% confidence interval, 28% to 58%). Responses were observed in sites that included liver (n = 18), lung (n = 6), and bone (n = 1). Of seven patients who received 350 mg/m2 UFT, prolonged grade 3 diarrhea developed in five; this resulted in a reduction in the UFT starting dose to 300 mg/m2/d in the remaining 38 patients. Grade 1 or 2 toxic effects included diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal cramping, anorexia, fatigue, oral mucositis, excessive lacrimation, and rash. Among 38 patients who received the 300-mg/m2/d dose, grade 3 toxic reactions included diarrhea (n = 4), vomiting (n = 2), abdominal cramping (n = 1), and fatigue (n = 2). CONCLUSION UFT 300 mg/m2/d plus oral leucovorin 150 mg/d administered for 28 days demonstrated significant activity against metastatic colorectal carcinoma. This oral regimen was well tolerated and devoid of the neutropenia or significant oral mucositis that complicates intravenous schedules of fluorouracil (5-FU) plus leucovorin. The results of this clinical trial will serve as the basis for a randomized phase III study to compare this oral schedule of UFT plus leucovorin with intravenous 5-FU plus leucovorin to determine the relative efficacy, impact on quality of life, and cost of the two regimens.

Phase II Window of Idarubicin in Children With Extraocular Retinoblastoma

1999 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 1847-1847 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guillermo L. Chantada ◽  
Adriana Fandiño ◽  
Gabriel Mato ◽  
Sandra Casak
Keyword(s):  
Bone Marrow ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Progressive Disease ◽  
Bone Marrow Involvement ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Starting Dose ◽  
Hematopoietic Toxicity ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Phase Iii Studies

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate in an upfront phase II study the response to idarubicin in children with extraocular retinoblastoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The starting dose of idarubicin was 15 mg/m2/d (days 1 and 2) weeks 0 and 3. After an interim evaluation, the dose was reduced to 10 mg/m2/d (days 1 and 2) weeks 0 and 3 because of hematopoietic toxicity. Response was evaluated at week 6. RESULTS: At the Hospital JP Garrahan (Buenos Aires, Argentina), 10 patients (five bilateral) were entered onto the study from 1995 to 1998. A total of 19 cycles were administered. Extraocular sites included orbit (n = 10), bone marrow (n = 3), bone (n = 1), lymph node (n = 1), and CNS (n = 1). The response rate was 60% (95% confidence interval, 30% to 90%). One complete response was achieved, in addition to five partial responses, two cases of stable disease, and two cases of progressive disease. All patients with bone marrow involvement achieved complete clearance of tumor cells. The patient with CNS disease had progressive disease. All patients had severe hematopoietic toxicity (grade 4 neutropenia and grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia after most cycles). Other toxicities included grade 2 diarrhea in 30%. No echocardiographic changes were detected. CONCLUSION: Idarubicin is active in extraocular retinoblastoma. The activity of this drug should be explored in future phase III studies.

A Prospective, Randomized, Phase III Study of Melphalan 200 mg/m2 (MEL200) Versus Melphalan 100 mg/m2 (MEL100) in Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Patients.

Blood ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 108 (11) ◽  
pp. 55-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Palumbo ◽  
Sara Bringhen ◽  
Maria Teresa Petrucci ◽  
Antonietta Falcone ◽  
Anna Marina Liberati ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Complete Response Rate ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Psychiatric Disease ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Several trials have shown the superior impact of high-dose melphalan (usually 200 mg/m2, MEL200) versus standard therapy in myeloma patients. Intermediate-dose melphalan (100 mg/m2, MEL100) was also superior to the standard dose, but MEL100 has not been clinically compared with MEL200 in a randomized study. In a case-matched study, response rate and event-free survival of MEL200 were superior to MEL100, but overall survival (OS) was similar. In this prospective, randomized, phase III trial, we compared the efficacy and toxicity of MEL200 and MEL100. Between January 2002 and July 2006, 299 patients were enrolled. Inclusion criteria were previously untreated myeloma, aged < 65 and Durie and Salmon stage II or III. Exclusion criteria were abnormal cardiac function, respiratory disease, abnormal liver function, abnormal renal function, HBV, HCV, or HIV positivity, concomitant cancer or psychiatric disease. The institutional review board approved the protocol and written informed consent was obtained from all patients. All patients received: 2 dexamethasone-doxorubicin-vincristine debulking courses (doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 day 1, vincristine 1 mg day 1, dexamethasone 40 mg days 1, 2, 3, 4, each course repeated every 28 days), 2 cycles of cyclophosphamide (4 g/m2, day 1) plus G-CSF followed by stem cell harvest. The MEL200 group was conditioned with 2 cycles of melphalan 200 mg/m2 followed by stem cell reinfusion; the MEL100 group was conditioned with 2 courses of melphalan 100 mg/m2 followed by stem cell reinfusion. At the present, 246 patients, median age 57 (range 32–65), completed the assigned therapy and were evaluated for response, progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. One-hundred and twenty-four patients were randomized to MEL200 and 122 to MEL100. Patient characteristics were similar in both groups. Abnormal cytogenetics (13q deletion, t(4;14), t(11;14), p53) were 75% in MEL200 patients and 56% in MEL100 patients (p=0.05). Forty-six patients did not complete tandem MEL200; 36 patients did not complete tandem MEL100. The near complete response rate of MEL200 was superior to MEL100 (32% versus 18%, p=0.011), but partial response was 80% versus 71%, respectively (p=0.079). The median follow-up for censored patients was 26.5 months. The 3 years PFS was 51% in the MEL200 arm and 33% in the MEL100 arm (HR=0.81, 95% CI 0.55–1.21, p=0.31). The 3 years OS was 86% in the MEL200 group and 71% in the MEL100 group (HR=0.82, 95 CI 0.45–1.48, p=0.51). Duration of grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia was comparable in two arms, but MEL200 patients required more platelet transfusions (p=0.03). Grade 3–4 non-hematological adverse events were reported in 49% of the MEL200 patients and in 38% of the MEL100 patients (P=0.07). The most frequent grade 3–4 adverse events were infections (54% of MEL200 patients versus 45% of MEL100 patients, p=0.25), mucositis (31% of MEL200 patients versus 7% of MEL100 patients, p=0.002) and gastrointestinal toxicities (20% of MEL200 patients versus 14% of MEL100 patients, p=0.3). In conclusion, MEL200 resulted in a significantly higher near complete response rate but this did not translate in a superior PFS and OS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document