Bendamustine Induces Higher Remission Rates, Prolongs Progression Free Survival as Well as Time to Next Treatment, and Improves Overall Survival for Patients In Complete Remission without Compromising Quality of Life When Compared to Chlorambucil In First Line Treatment of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 2449-2449 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Ulrich Knauf ◽  
Toshko Lissitchkov ◽  
Ali Aldaoud ◽  
Anna Marina Liberati ◽  
Javier Loscertales ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Treated Group ◽  
Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Line Therapy

Abstract Abstract 2449 Introduction: Bendamustine (BEN), either alone or in combination with Rituximab, is increasingly used in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and various types of low grade Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL). The approval to treat CLL with BEN is based on a prospectively randomized trial (Knauf et al., J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 4378–4384) comparing single drug BEN with chlorambucil (CLB). Here, we report on follow-up data of this pivotal trial with specific reference to survival times, time to next treatment, and efficacy of second line regimens. Since CLL is a disease of the elderly and potentially co-morbid patients, we also analyzed quality of life (QoL) parameters in relation to the treatment with both BEN and CLB. Patients and Methods: The efficacy and safety of BEN and CLB have been compared in a randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase III trial in patients with previously untreated advanced (Binet stage B/C) CLL. Patients were randomized to receive either BEN (100 mg/m2 on days 1 + 2) or CLB (0.8 mg/kg on days 1 and 15) for up to 6 treatment cycles. The primary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), which was defined as complete (CR) or partial response (PR), and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), and QoL. The latter was analyzed by using both the EORTC questionnaires QLQ C30 and QLQ-CLL25. We also looked at time to next treatment and efficacy of second line regimens. The response to treatment was evaluated by a blinded Independent Response Assessment Committee. Results: A total of 319 patients were randomized (162 BEN and 157 CLB), all of whom were included in the efficacy analysis, while 308 patients were evaluable for QoL analysis (158 BEN and 150 CLB). Median age was 64 years (range 35 to 78). The mean number of treatment cycles was 5 in both study arms, regardless of an age above or below 65 years. The median observation time was 54 months. ORR was significantly higher with BEN than with CLB (68% versus 31%, P<0.0001). A CR was achieved in 31% of pts with BEN and in 2% of pts with CLB (P<0.0001). In the intent to treat (ITT) population, the median PFS was 21.2 months with BEN and 8.8 months with CLB (P<0.0001). Sixty-three patients in the BEN treated group and 35 in the CLB treated group had not received any second line therapy (P<0.001) at the time of this analysis. The median time to next treatment in the ITT population was 31.5 months with BEN and 10.1 months with CLB (P<0.0001). ORR after second line therapy of any type was 35.4% in the BEN first line arm and 45.9% in the CLB first line arm (P=0.131). So far, there is no difference in OS (P = 0.24; hazard ratio = 1.3 in favour of BEN) in the ITT population. However, patients achieving a CR (almost exclusively after BEN) experienced a longer OS than pts not in CR (median not reached versus 76.2 months; P=0.002). Also, pts with any response (CR + PR) either after BEN or CLB had a longer OS than the non-responders (median not reached versus 68.3 months; P< 0.0001). Base line scores regarding QoL parameters showed no difference between the groups. After completion of study treatment (mean 5 cycles administered), no differences became evident with respect to physical, social, emotional, and cognitive functioning. The self assessment of the global health status also revealed no difference. Conclusion: This study has shown that BEN offers significantly greater response rates, PFS, and a much longer time to next treatment than CLB. OS is prolonged significantly in all responders and especially in those patients who achieve CR after BEN. In comparison to CLB, the additional efficacy of BEN was achieved without compromising QoL. BEN should be considered as a backbone drug in first-line chemotherapy of patients with advanced CLL. Disclosures: Knauf: Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria. Klein: Mundipharma: Honoraria. Merkle: Mundipharma: Honoraria.

scholarly journals Protocol of the EFFORT study: a prospective study of FOLFIRI plus aflibercept as second-line treatment after progression on FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab or during maintenance treatment in patients with unresectable/metastatic colorectal cancer

BMC Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hironaga Satake ◽  
Koji Ando ◽  
Eiji Oki ◽  
Mototsugu Shimokawa ◽  
Akitaka Makiyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

Abstract Background FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab is used as a first-line therapy for patients with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer. However, there are no clear recommendations for second-line therapy after FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab combination. Here, we describe our planning for the EFFORT study to investigate whether FOLFIRI plus aflibercept has efficacy following FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab for mCRC. Methods EFFORT is an open-label, multicenter, single arm phase II study to evaluate whether a FOLFIRI plus aflibercept has efficacy following FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab for mCRC. Patients with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer who received FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab as a first-line therapy will receive aflibercept and FOLFIRI (aflibercept 4 mg/kg, irinotecan 150 mg/m2 IV over 90 min, with levofolinate 200 mg/m2 IV over 2 h, followed by fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion over 46 h) every 2 weeks on day 1 of each cycle. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). To achieve 80% power to show a significant response benefit with a one-sided alpha level of 0.10, assuming a threshold progression-free survival of 3 months and an expected value of at least 5.4 months, we estimated that 32 patients are necessary. Secondary endpoints include overall survival, overall response rate, safety, and exploratory biomarker analysis for differentiating anti-VEGF drug in 2nd-line chemotherapy for unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer. Discussion This is the first study to investigate whether FOLFIRI plus aflibercept has efficacy following FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer. Switching to a different type of anti-VEGF drug in second-line therapy after FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab appears to be an attractive treatment strategy when considering survival benefit. It is expected that this phase II study will prove the efficacy of this strategy and that a biomarker for drug selection will be discovered. Trial registration Japan Registry of Clinical Trials jRCTs071190003. Registered April 18, 2019.

Progression-free survival in patients with cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements: An exploration of response to systemic therapy.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 588-588 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen Bibeau ◽  
Luis Féliz ◽  
Scott Barrett ◽  
Ling Na ◽  
Christine Francis Lihou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Prior Therapy ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

588 Background: Most cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) patients (pts) are diagnosed with advanced disease and are ineligible for surgery. FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements are present in 10–16% of pts with intrahepatic CCA (iCCA) and are reported to be oncogenic drivers. However, little data are available on the role of FGFR2 genetic alterations in the response to systemic cancer therapy. FIGHT-202 is a phase 2 study of pemigatinib (a selective, potent, oral FGFR1–3 inhibitor) in pts with previously treated advanced/metastatic CCA (NCT02924376); primary results were reported at ESMO 2019. FIGHT-202 enrolled pts who progressed on ≥1 prior therapy, allowing the examination of the role of FGFR2 alterations on the response to prior therapy. The objective of this post hoc analysis was to evaluate progression free survival (PFS) on standard systemic therapy received prior to study enrollment among pts with CCA harboring FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements ( FGFR2+). Methods: Case report forms were reviewed to determine disease history and exposure to prior lines of systemic cancer therapies (LOSCT) in the advanced setting before receiving pemigatinib. Only pts with sufficient data on prior LOSCT were included in this analysis. Median PFS was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: 102 pts were included in this analysis (median age 54.5, 61.8% female). Median PFS on first-line therapy was 5.5 (95% CI: 4.0, 8.0) months. Among the 38 pts (37.3%) with ≥2 prior LOSCT, median PFS on second-line therapy was 4.4 (95% CI: 3.0, 5.3) months. Conclusions: This analysis provides data about PFS on standard systemic therapies for pts with FGFR2+ CCA. Median PFS on first-line therapy was lower than historical published data, and median PFS on second-line therapy was slightly longer than previously reported, in unselected CCA populations. Limitations of this analysis include retrospective examination of investigator reported data, and that clinical trial participants may not truly reflect a general CCA patient population. The short PFS on standard therapies in pts with FGFR2+ CCA highlights the need for development of other options including targeted therapies to improve outcomes.

Improved Progression-Free Survival (PFS) of Alemtuzumab (Campath®, MabCampath®) Plus Fludarabine (Fludara®) Versus Fludarabine Alone as Second-Line Treatment of Patients with B-Cell Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Preliminary Results From a Phase III Randomized Trial.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 537-537 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Engert ◽  
Liana Gercheva ◽  
Tadeusz Robak ◽  
Pilipenko Galina ◽  
Jingyang Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Line Therapy

Abstract Abstract 537 Introduction: Single-arm pilot and Phase II trial data suggested that the combination of fludarabine and alemtuzumab (FluCam) may improve outcome for patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). To validate these observations, a Phase III, multicenter, open-label, randomized study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of FluCam vs. fludarabine (Flu) alone as second-line therapy for pts with relapsed or refractory CLL. Methods: Patients with Rai Stages I-IV were randomized to FluCam or Flu using the minimization method to ensure a balance between treatment arms by study center, Rai stage, disease status, age, sex, prior Flu therapy, and maximum lymph node (LN) size. FluCam was administered in Phases A and B. Patients received escalating doses of intravenous (IV) alemtuzumab alone (Phase A). Once alemtuzumab 30 mg IV was tolerated, pts received FluCam as Flu 30 mg/m2 IV followed immediately by alemtuzumab 30 mg IV on days 1-3 of a 28 day cycle (Phase B). In the Flu arm, pts received 25 mg/m2IV on days 1-5 of a 28 day cycle. For both arms, all pts could receive up to six cycles depending on response and toxicity. All pts received prophylaxis with trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole DS and famciclovir until CD4+ counts were ≥200 cells/μL. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall response (OR), complete response (CR), overall and 3 year survival, and safety. The primary analysis was based on the independent response review panel's (IRRP) assessment of response and date of progression for each patient. Two interim analyses were prospectively planned and conducted by the data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) with the final analysis planned after a total of 190 events. The 2nd interim analysis included 139 PFS events and met the pre-specified criteria; the DSMB recommended early study termination. Results: 335 pts were randomized (FluCam n=168 and Flu n=167); Rai Stage III-IV: 37%; median age: 60 years; prior Flu therapy: 20% and maximum LN size ≥5 cm: 14%. The median treatment cycles received were 6 for both arms. 60% of FluCam and 64% of Flu pts received 6 cycles of treatment. The median IRRP determined PFS for FluCam was significantly prolonged compared to Flu (29.6 months vs. 20.7 months, respectively; p=0.005; HR 1.63 [95% CI: 1.16, 2.28]; Figure 1). Median PFS by Rai Stage was: Stage I-II - 27.4 months for FluCam (n = 105) vs. 21.3 months for Flu (n = 103), p=0.215; Stage III-IV - 26.1 months for FluCam (n = 61) vs. 12.1 months for Flu (n = 62), p=0.003. Per investigator response assessment, FluCam resulted in significantly higher OR and CR rates (OR: FluCam 84.8% vs. Flu 67.9%, p<0.001; and CR: FluCam 30.4% vs. Flu 16.4%, p=0.002). The IRRP assessment of response was not completed for all pts and is not availabel for the 2nd interim analysis. No differences in survival have been observed (FluCam 37 deaths and Flu 41 deaths) with a median follow up of 17 months. Adverse events (AEs) occurring in >10% of the pts included pyrexia, neutropenia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, chills, lymphopenia, rash, infusion related reactions, nausea and urticaria in the FluCam arm; and, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia and leukopenia in the Flu arm. Treatment-emergent grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (18% vs. 22%), neutropenia (60% vs. 66%) and anemia (13% vs. 22%) were comparable in FluCam vs. Flu arms. Overall, 33% (n=54) of pts in the FluCam arm experienced a SAE vs. 26% (n=42) in the Flu arm. Reported SAEs for neutropenia were 4.9% in the FluCam arm and 1.8% in the Flu arm; however, febrile neutropenia was similarly reported in the two arms 3.7% vs 3.6% of pts, respectively. Infections including CMV occurred in 47% and 35% of the FluCam and Flu pts, respectively. Symptomatic CMV infection occurred only in the FluCam arm in 8% of pts, of which 1% were SAEs and 0% classified as grade 4 or higher. Deaths occurring on therapy or within 30 days after last dose were 2% on the FluCam arm vs. 5% on the Flu arm. Conclusions: The 2ndinterim analysis indicates that the combination of FluCam is superior to Flu as second-line therapy for pts with relapsed or refractory CLL, including those with advanced disease stage. With significantly longer PFS, higher OR and CR rates, an acceptable safety profile and a convenient administration regimen, FluCam may be an additional second-line treatment option for pts with relapsed or refractory CLL. Disclosures: Engert: Genzyme Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Alemtuzumab (Campath, MabCampath) is indicated for the treatment of CLL. This trial examined the use of alemtuzumab in combination with fludarabine monophospate.. Gercheva:Genzyme Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Robak:Genzyme Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Galina:Genzyme Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Wu:Genzyme Corporation: Employment. Sirard:Genzyme Corporation: Employment. Elter:Genzyme Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Oral vinorelbine as a second-line chemotherapy option in advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20073-e20073
Author(s):  
Raul Rogelio Trejo Rosales ◽  
Jose Gustavo Nuñez Cerrillo ◽  
Juan Carlos Silva Godinez ◽  
Rodrigo Fernando Riera Sala ◽  
Maritza Peña Campos
Keyword(s):  
Performance Status ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Pleural Mesothelioma ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Oral Vinorelbine ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

e20073 Background: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an infrequent entity with a poor prognosis. Standard first line chemotherapy therapy is based on pemetrexed and cisplatin, however, there is no established standard second-line therapy. We report our experience with patients treated at a third-level referral center in Mexico, making emphasis in the use of oral vinorelbine. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of MPM patients treated between 2012 and 2018 at the Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, a third-level referral center in Mexico City. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of different second-line chemotherapy schemes in MPM patients. Results: A total of 143 patients were included. There were 47 women (32.8%) and 96 men (67.1%). Median age was 64 (range 39 - 86). The histological subtypes comprised of 73.4 % epitheloid, 9 % with a sarcomatoid component and 17.4% not otherwise specified. The majority of patients presented with advanced disease 32.1 stage III and 63.6 stage IV. 72% of patients had performance status 0-1, however 9.7% of patients had performance status 3-4 at diagnosis, and received only palliative care as treatment. A total of 125 patients received first-line chemotherapy, and 40 patients underwent second-line therapy. Usual schemes were based on pemetrexed, paclitaxel, gemcitabine and oral vinolrebine. Overall, partial response rate was 5% and stable disease was 35%. There were no statistical differences in response rates between schemes (p = 0.75). The most usual second-line scheme was oral vinolrebine. Progression-free survival was 4 months in vinolrebine-treated patients vs 2 months (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86 – 1.25, p = 0.63) as compared with patients treated with other schemes. Conclusions: Our results are comparable with similar series in the second-line scenario. Oral-vinolrebine treatment progression-free survival was similar to other, more toxic drugs. However, we included few patients. More work is needed to identify the characteristics of benefitting patients.

scholarly journals Anxiety in Adult Patients Living with ITP Stratified across Different Treatment Types and Groups

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 18-18
Author(s):  
Jennifer Diraimo ◽  
Caroline Kruse ◽  
Michele P. Lambert ◽  
Alexandra Kruse
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Treatment History ◽  
Line Therapy

Background:Immune thrombocytopenia purpura (ITP) is an autoimmune bleeding disorder that is heterogeneous in presentation, disease course, treatment response, and impact on quality of life. Treatments often cause unpleasant side effects, and prolonged use can lead to tolerability issues and toxicity. Disease symptoms and treatments available impact the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among patients living with ITP. Here, we compare anxiety and its impact among adult ITP patients and determine whether anxiety levels differ dependent on treatment. Methods: For this study, we used three of the five surveys from the PDSA Natural History Study Registry including; treatment history and two adult QoL surveys. As of June 2020, 357 adult patients completed the survey assessing treatment history. A total of 310 adult patients completed the adult QoL (part one) survey, and 301 adults completed the adult QoL (part two) survey. Patients were stratified by 1) no treatment received 2) treated in the past 3) on therapy within the last six months; patients currently on therapy were further stratified by first and second-line therapy. Results: Among the 357 completed surveys on treatment history, 11% (n=40) have never received treatment for ITP, 46% (n=166) have in past, and 43% (n=158) currently receive therapy (within the last six months). Among those currently on treatment, 82% receive monotherapy; 26% use a first-line therapy (corticosteroid, IVIG, or Anti-D), and 43% are using a second-line therapy (TPO-RA, rituximab, and other second-line options). Therapies reported include TPO-RA's (41%), corticosteroids (24%), IVIG (7%), rituximab (3%), SYK inhibitor (1%), antibiotics (4%), anti-D (1%) and other second-line treatments (such as MMF), and "other" treatments including complementary therapies (14%). Overall, 23% had a splenectomy at some point to manage their active ITP. When asked to reflect on the last seven days, patients completing the QoL survey (n=310), 66% felt anxious; 17% reported this was experienced 'almost always/often'. Among those who have never been treated, feeling anxious was reported 67% of the time; 18% reported feeling this way 'almost always/often'. A similar trend was observed in patients not currently on treatment. Among those receiving a first line therapy, anxiousness was reported 74% overall; 19% 'almost always/often'. Among those receiving a second line therapy, 72% reported feeling anxious; 9% reported feeling this way 'almost always/often'. Differences in high levels of anxiousness reported among the different treatment groups was not significant (X2= 3.4, p=.48). Difficulties focusing were reported (51%, 9% reporting this occurred 'almost always/often'). Among those who have never been treated, difficulties were reported (48%, 12%, 'almost always/often'). Those not currently receiving treatment had difficulties focusing due to anxiety (50%, 4% reporting this 'almost always/often'). Those on first line treatment indicated focus was impacted by anxiety overall (60%, 36% 'almost always/often') and those receiving second-line therapy reported (58%, 8% 'almost always/often'). Differences in high levels of anxiety affecting concentration reported among the treatment groups was significant (X2= 20.87, p=.00033), revealing a higher anxiety profile among those using corticosteroids. When difficulty with focus due to anxiety was compared between those receiving corticosteroids and those receiving a TPO-RA specifically, anxiety was significantly higher in the steroid group (X2=9.15, P=.0024); this trend was not found to be statistically significant among other second line therapies. Conclusion: The physical symptoms of ITP often guide treatment selection for patients however, providers should also focus on mitigating stress and other indicators of mental health in order to provide the best outcome and quality of life in disease course. Differences in interpretation behind the terms feeling 'anxious' vs ' anxiety affecting focus' may explain our conflicting results. Higher anxiety levels (in contrast to higher anxiousness) appeared related to treatment type in those currently receiving therapy; corticosteroid users were more impacted by their anxiety than those receiving TPO-RAs; steroids are known to interfere with mood and concentration, and this is confirmed by patients in this survey. Disclosures Kruse: CSL Behring: Other: Grant paid to PDSA; UCB: Other: Grant and consultancy fee, all paid to PDSA; Rigel: Other: Grant paid to PDSA; Principia: Other: Grant paid to PDSA; Pfizer: Other: Grant and consultancy fee, all paid to PDSA; Argenx: Other: Grant paid to PDSA; Amgen: Other: Grant and honorarium, all paid to PDSA; Novartis: Other: PDSA received payment for recruiting patients to I-WISh and for promoting I-WISh on the globalitp.org website. Grant and consultancy fee, all paid to PDSA outside the submitted work. Lambert:AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Principia: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dova: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shionogi: Consultancy; Sysmex: Research Funding; RDMD ITP study: Consultancy; ITP Australia: Consultancy; CdLS Foundation: Consultancy; 22qSociety: Consultancy; Platelet Disorder Support Association (PDSA): Consultancy; ClinGen: Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy; Argenix: Consultancy; Octapharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Educational Concepts in Medicine: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Modified FOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab beyond first progression in advanced colorectal cancer: CCOG-0801 study.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 641-641
Author(s):  
Kiyoshi Ishigure ◽  
Goro Nakayama ◽  
Keisuke Uehara ◽  
Hiroyuki Yokoyama ◽  
Akiharu Ishiyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Bleeding Event ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
To Receive

641 Background: Bevacizumab provides survival benefit as the first-line and second-line therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). A large observational study suggested use of bevacizumab beyond first progression (BBP) improved survival. This prompted us to conduct a multicenter phase II study of mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizimab in mCRC to further explore the strategy of BBP in Japanese patients. Methods: Previously untreated patients with assessable disease were treated with mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab until tumor progression, followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. The primary endpoint of the study was the second progression-free survival (2nd PFS), defined as duration from enrollment until progression after the second-line therapy. If the patient failed to receive the second-line treatment due to medical reasons or refusal, the PFS during the first-line therapy was used for analysis. Secondary endpoints were PFS, overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), disease control rate (DCR) and safety. Results: In the first-line therapy, 47 patients treated with mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab achieved RR of 61.7%, DCR of 89.4% and median PFS of 11.7 months. Thirty patients went on to receive the second-line therapy with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab and achieved RR of 27.6%, DCR of 62.1%, and median PFS of 6.0 months. Median 2nd PFS was 16.2 months. Median survival time did not reach the median follow-up time of 27.4 months. Severe adverse events associated with bevacizumab during the first-line therapy were a venous thromboembolic event in one case (2%), a grade 2 bleeding event in one case (2%) and GI perforation in one case (2%). However, no critical events associated with bevacizumab were reported during the second-line therapy. Conclusions: The planned continuation of bevacizumab during the second line treatment is feasible in Japanese mCRC patients. A prospective randomized control study to confirm the efficacy has to be conducted in the future.

Assessment of ramucirumab plus paclitaxel as switch maintenance versus continuation of first-line chemotherapy in patients (pts) with advanced HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancers: The ARMANI phase III trial.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS4151-TPS4151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federica Morano ◽  
Monica Niger ◽  
Salvatore Corallo ◽  
Sara Lonardi ◽  
Stefano Tamberi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastroesophageal Junction ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Her 2

TPS4151 Background: Platinum/fluoropyrimidine regimens are the backbone of first-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The optimal duration of first-line therapy is still unknown and its continuation until disease progression represents the standard. However this strategy is often associated with cumulative toxicity and rapid development of drug resistance. Moreover, only 40% of AGC pts are eligible for second-line treatment. This study aims at assessing whether switch maintenance to ramucirumab plus paclitaxel will extend the progression-free survival (PFS) of subjects with HER-2 negative AGC who have not progressed after a first-line with a platinum/fluoropyrimidine regimen. The hypothesis is that the early administration of an active, non-cross resistant regimen may delay disease progression and, consequently, improve pts’ quality of life. This strategy may also rescue all those subjects that become ineligible for a second-line therapy due to the rapid clinical deterioration. Methods: This is a randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase III trial. Eligibility criteria are: unresectable/metastatic HER-2 negative AGC or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer; ECOG PS 0-1; measurable and/or evaluable disease by RECIST v1.1; no progression after 3 months of therapy with either FOLFOX4, mFOLFOX6 or XELOX . The primary endpoint is to compare PFS of pts in ARM A (continuation of the same first-line therapy with oxaliplatin/fluoropyrimidine) versus ARM B (switch maintenance to ramucirumab and placlitaxel). Secondary endpoints are: overall survival, time-to-treatment failure, overall response rate, duration of response, percentage of pts receiving a second-line therapy per treatment arm, safety and quality of life. Exploratory analyses to identify primary resistance and prognosis biomarkers are planned, including Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) on archival tumor tissues. The ARMANI study is sponsored by the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori and it is ongoing at 29 Italian centers with a planned population of 280 pts. Clinical trial information: NCT02934464.

PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy as 2nd/subsequent line therapy had similar clinical outcome with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy in advanced NSCLC.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21600-e21600
Author(s):  
Xiaoyang Zhai ◽  
Yaru Tian ◽  
Weiwei Yan ◽  
Ning An ◽  
Hui Zhu
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Monotherapy Group ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Chemotherapy Group ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Nsclc Patients

e21600 Background: PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy has been approved as second line therapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The study aims to compare clinical outcome of PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy as 2nd/subsequent line therapy in advanced NSCLC. Methods: The clinical data of NSCLC patients who received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor as 2nd/subsequent line therapy were retrospectively collected in our study. According to the therapy modality, patients were assigned to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy group and PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy group. Disease control rates (DCRs), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated between the 2 groups. The prognostic role of derived neutrophils-to-lymphocyte ratio (dNLR) on the outcomes was also evaluated at the same time. Results: From April 2017 to October 2019, a total of 84 patients were enrolled in the current study. Twenty-six patients were allocated to the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy group and fifty-eight patients were allocated to PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy group. Chemotherapy regimens were detailed as follow: liposome paclitaxel (n = 15), nab-paclitaxel(n = 12), docetaxel(n = 9), pemetrexed(n = 6), and others(n = 16). Disease control rates (DCRs) and overall survival (OS) were not significantly different between the two groups. Progression free survival (PFS) in the PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy was longer(median PFS: NR vs 4.4 months, p = 0.02). Univariate and multivariate analyses suggested that derived neutrophils-to-lymphocyte ratio (dNLR) was independent prognostic factor of OS and gender was independent prognostic factor of PFS. In the second-line therapy subgroup of 38 patients, OS and PFS were not significantly different in the two groups. In the subgroup of 46 patients of over 2nd line, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy group had longer PFS (median PFS: NR vs 4.0 months, p = 0.01).The incidence of any grade adverse events (AEs) was no significant difference in the two groups. One patient in the PD-1 inhibitor plus chemotherapy group died of immune-related pneumonitis. Conclusions: The addition of chemotherapy to PD-1 inhibitor as 2nd/subsequent line therapy had similar clinical outcomes compared with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy of advanced NSCLC patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document