Pembrolizumab As Second-Line Therapy in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in KEYNOTE-240: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 193-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Finn ◽  
Baek-Yeol Ryoo ◽  
Philippe Merle ◽  
Masatoshi Kudo ◽  
Mohamed Bouattour ◽  
...  

PURPOSE Pembrolizumab demonstrated antitumor activity and safety in the phase II KEYNOTE-224 trial in previously treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). KEYNOTE-240 evaluated the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS This randomized, double-blind, phase III study was conducted at 119 medical centers in 27 countries. Eligible patients with advanced HCC, previously treated with sorafenib, were randomly assigned at a two-to-one ratio to receive pembrolizumab plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS; one-sided significance thresholds, P = .0174 [final analysis] and P = .002 [first interim analysis], respectively). Safety was assessed in all patients who received ≥ 1 dose of study drug. RESULTS Between May 31, 2016, and November 23, 2017, 413 patients were randomly assigned. As of January 2, 2019, median follow-up was 13.8 months for pembrolizumab and 10.6 months for placebo. Median OS was 13.9 months (95% CI, 11.6 to 16.0 months) for pembrolizumab versus 10.6 months (95% CI, 8.3 to 13.5 months) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.781; 95% CI, 0.611 to 0.998; P = .0238). Median PFS for pembrolizumab was 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.1 months) versus 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.5 to 4.1 months) for placebo at the first interim analysis (HR, 0.775; 95% CI, 0.609 to 0.987; P = .0186) and 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.1 months) versus 2.8 months (95% CI, 1.6 to 3.0 months) at final analysis (HR, 0.718; 95% CI, 0.570 to 0.904; P = .0022). Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 147 (52.7%) and 62 patients (46.3%) for pembrolizumab versus placebo; those that were treatment related occurred in 52 (18.6%) and 10 patients (7.5%), respectively. No hepatitis C or B flares were identified. CONCLUSION In this study, OS and PFS did not reach statistical significance per specified criteria. The results are consistent with those of KEYNOTE-224, supporting a favorable risk-to-benefit ratio for pembrolizumab in this population.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA3-LBA3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Van Cutsem ◽  
Kun-Huei Yeh ◽  
Yung-Jue Bang ◽  
Lin Shen ◽  
Jaffer A. Ajani ◽  
...  

LBA3 Background: The prognosis for patients with AGC after failure of first-line chemotherapy is poor. Currently, there is no level 1 evidence established for second-line treatment. EVE inhibits the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway, a key regulator of cell proliferation, metabolism, and angiogenesis, and has shown efficacy against AGC in preclinical and phase I/II studies. Methods: In a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase III study, patients age ≥18 years with confirmed AGC and disease progression after 1 or 2 lines of systemic chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to oral EVE 10 mg/d plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo (PBO) plus BSC. Randomization was stratified by region (Asia vs rest of world) and previous lines of chemotherapy (1 vs 2). Study drug was discontinued upon progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and safety. The final analysis was performed when 526 deaths occurred. Results: A total of 656 patients from 23 countries were enrolled from Jul 2009 to Dec 2010; 439 were randomized to EVE, 217 to PBO. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between arms; 73.6% were men, 55.3% were enrolled in Asia, 47.7% received 1 previous line of chemotherapy, and 50.6% had a gastrectomy. Median OS was 5.39 months with EVE vs 4.34 months with PBO (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.75-1.08; P=0.1244). Median PFS per local investigator assessment was 1.68 months with EVE vs 1.41 months with PBO (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56-0.78; p<0.0001). Six-month PFS estimates were 12.0% with EVE and 4.3% with PBO. OS and PFS results were consistent across the various subgroups. ORR (95% CI) was 4.5% (2.6%-7.1%) with EVE vs 2.1% (0.6%-5.3%) with PBO. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were anemia (16.0% with EVE vs 12.6% with PBO), decreased appetite (11.0% vs 5.6%), and fatigue (7.8% vs 5.1%). Conclusions: EVE monotherapy did not significantly improve OS in patients with AGC previously treated with 1 or 2 lines of systemic chemotherapy. EVE did improve PFS. Results for OS and PFS were consistent across the various subgroups. The safety profile was consistent with that previously observed with EVE.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA2-LBA2
Author(s):  
Rui-hua Xu ◽  
Hai-Qiang Mai ◽  
Qiu-Yan Chen ◽  
Dongping Chen ◽  
Chaosu Hu ◽  
...  

LBA2 Background: Gemcitabine-cisplatin (GP) chemotherapy is the standard 1st line treatment for locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic (r/m) NPC. Toripalimab, a humanized IgG4K monoclonal antibody specific for PD-1, provided durable responses in patients (pts) with r/m NPC as monotherapy in the ≥2nd line setting (POLARIS-02 study). The results of JUPITER-02, a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded Phase III trial of toripalimab in combination with GP chemotherapy as first-line treatment for r/m NPC are summarized. Methods: Pts with advanced NPC with no prior chemotherapy in the r/m setting were randomized (1:1) to receive toripalimab 240 mg or placebo d1 in combination with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 d1, d8 and cisplatin 80 mg/m2 d1 every 3 weeks (Q3W) for up to 6 cycles, followed by monotherapy with toripalimab or placebo Q3W until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or completion of 2 years of treatment. Stratification factors were ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) and extent of disease (recurrent vs. primary metastatic) at enrollment. Progression-free survival (PFS) and response were assessed by independent review committee (IRC) per RECIST v1.1. The primary endpoint was PFS by IRC in the ITT population. Secondary end points included ORR, DOR and OS. There was one prespecified interim analysis of PFS at 130 PFS events with a planned final analysis at 200 PFS events. Results: 289 pts were randomized: 146 to the toripalimab arm and 143 to the placebo arm. By May 30, 2020 as the interim analysis cutoff date, the median treatment duration was 39 weeks in the toripalimab arm and 36 weeks in the placebo arm. A significant improvement in PFS was detected for the toripalimab arm compared to the placebo arm (HR = 0.52 [95% CI: 0.36-0.74] two-sided p = 0.0003), with median PFS of 11.7 vs. 8.0 months. The 1-year PFS rates were 49% and 28% respectively. An improvement in PFS was observed across relevant subgroups, including all PD-L1 subgroups. The ORR was 77.4% vs. 66.4% (P = 0.033) and the median DOR was 10.0 vs. 5.7 months (HR = 0.50 [95% CI: 0.33-0.78]). As of Jan 15, 2021, OS was not mature, with 25 deaths in the toripalimab arm and 35 in the placebo arm (HR = 0.68 [95% CI: 0.41-1.14], P = 0.14). The incidence of Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) (89.0% vs 89.5%); AEs leading to discontinuation of toripalimab/placebo (7.5% vs 4.9%); and fatal AEs (2.7% vs 2.8%) were similar between two arms; however, immune-related (irAEs) (39.7% vs. 18.9%) and Grade ≥3 irAEs (7.5% vs. 0.7%) were more frequent in the toripalimab arm. Conclusions: The addition of toripalimab to GP chemotherapy as 1st-line treatment for pts with advanced NPC provided superior PFS and ORR and longer DOR than GP alone with a manageable safety profile. These results support the use of toripalimab with GP chemotherapy as the new standard care for this population. Clinical trial information: NCT03581786.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (28) ◽  
pp. 3501-3508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shukui Qin ◽  
Yuxian Bai ◽  
Ho Yeong Lim ◽  
Sumitra Thongprasert ◽  
Yee Chao ◽  
...  

Purpose To determine whether FOLFOX4 (infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) administered as palliative chemotherapy to patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) provides a survival benefit and efficacy versus doxorubicin. Patients and Methods This multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase III study in mainland China, Taiwan, Korea, and Thailand involved 371 patients age 18 to 75 years who had locally advanced or metastatic HCC and were ineligible for curative resection or local treatment. They were randomly assigned at a ratio of one to one to receive either FOLFOX4 (n = 184) or doxorubicin (n = 187). The primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR) by RECIST (version 1.0), and safety. Results At the prespecified final analysis, median OS was 6.40 months with FOLFOX4 (95% CI, 5.30 to 7.03) and 4.97 months with doxorubicin (95% CI, 4.23 to 6.03; P = .07; hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.02). Median PFS was 2.93 months with FOLFOX4 (95% CI, 2.43 to 3.53), and 1.77 months with doxorubicin (95% CI, 1.63 to 2.30; P < .001; HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.79). RR was 8.15% with FOLFOX4 and 2.67% with doxorubicin (P = .02). On continued follow-up, the trend toward increased OS with FOLFOX4 was maintained (P = .04; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99). Toxicity was consistent with previous experiences with FOLFOX4; proportions of grade 3 to 4 adverse events were similar between treatments. Conclusion Although the study did not meet its primary end point, the trend toward improved OS with FOLFOX4, along with increased PFS and RR, suggests that this regimen may confer some benefit to Asian patients, but an OS benefit cannot be concluded from these data.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 268-268
Author(s):  
Philippe Merle ◽  
Julien Edeline ◽  
Mohamed Bouattour ◽  
Ann-Lii Cheng ◽  
Stephen Lam Chan ◽  
...  

268 Background: KEYNOTE-240 (NCT02702401) examined the anti-PD-1 antibody pembro and demonstrated improvement in OS and PFS vs pbo in pts with aHCC previously treated with sorafenib. However, the study did not meet prespecified statistical significance criteria for OS and PFS. Median OS (final analysis) was 13.9 mo for pembro vs 10.6 mo for pbo (HR 0.781; 95% CI 0.611-0.998). At the first interim analysis when PFS and ORR were prespecified to be tested, median PFS was 3.0 mo for pembro vs 2.8 mo for pbo (HR 0.775; 95% CI 0.609-0.987) and ORR was 16.9% (CR, n = 3) for pembro and 2.2% (CR, n = 0) for pbo. AEs were consistent with the known safety profile of pembro. Longer-term data from KEYNOTE-240 after ~1.5 years of additional follow-up are reported. Methods: Adults with confirmed aHCC who experienced failure (progression or intolerance) to sorafenib therapy were randomized 2:1 to pembro 200 mg IV Q3W + best supportive care (BSC) or pbo + BSC for ≤35 cycles or until confirmed progression/unacceptable toxicity, pt withdrawal of consent, or investigator decision. Dual primary end points were OS and PFS, assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) per RECIST v1.1. Secondary end points included ORR, DOR, DCR, TTP (all assessed by BICR per RECIST v1.1), and safety. Results: Of 413 pts, 278 were randomized to pembro and 135 to pbo. As of July 13, 2020, median time from randomization to data cutoff was 39.6 mo (range 31.7-48.8) for pembro and 39.8 mo (31.7-47.8) for pbo. Median OS was 13.9 mo (95% CI 11.6-16.0) for pembro and 10.6 mo (8.3-13.5) for pbo (HR 0.771; 95% CI 0.617-0.964). Estimated OS rates at 24 and 36 mo for pembro and pbo were 28.8% and 20.4% and 17.7% and 11.7%, respectively. Median PFS was 3.3 mo (95% CI 2.8-4.1) for pembro and 2.8 mo (1.6-3.0) for pbo (HR 0.703; 95% CI 0.559-0.885). Estimated PFS rate at 24 mo was 11.8% for pembro and 4.8% for pbo. ORR was 18.3% (95% CI 14.0-23.4) for pembro and 4.4% (1.6-9.4) for pbo. Median time to response was 2.7 mo (95% CI 1.2-16.9) for pembro and 2.9 mo (1.1-6.9) for pbo. Median DOR was 13.9 mo (range 1.5+ to 41.9+) for pembro and 15.2 mo (2.8-21.9) for pbo; 45.1% of responders in pembro arm and 33.3% of responders in pbo arm had DOR ≥12 mo. DCR was 61.9% for pembro and 53.3% for pbo. Best overall responses were 10 CR, 41 PR, 121 SD, and 85 PD for pembro and 0 CR, 6 PR, 66 SD, and 54 PD for pbo. The median TTP was 4.0 mo (95% CI 2.8-5.3) for pembro and 2.8 mo (1.6-3.0) for pbo. No new or unexpected AEs occurred. The frequency of sponsor-assessed immune-mediated hepatitis events did not increase with additional follow-up. There continued to be no HBV or HCV viral flare events. Conclusions: In previously treated pts with aHCC, improvement in OS and PFS was maintained over time with pembro vs pbo, and the safety profile remained consistent over time. These data support the benefit:risk profile of pembro. Clinical trial information: NCT02702401.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (28) ◽  
pp. 3509-3516 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josep M. Llovet ◽  
Thomas Decaens ◽  
Jean-Luc Raoul ◽  
Eveline Boucher ◽  
Masatoshi Kudo ◽  
...  

Purpose Brivanib is a selective dual inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor and fibroblast growth factor receptors implicated in tumorigenesis and angiogenesis in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). An unmet medical need persists for patients with HCC whose tumors do not respond to sorafenib or who cannot tolerate it. This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial assessed brivanib in patients with HCC who had been treated with sorafenib. Patients and Methods In all, 395 patients with advanced HCC who progressed on/after or were intolerant to sorafenib were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive brivanib 800 mg orally once per day plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to progression (TTP), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate based on modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) and safety. Results Median OS was 9.4 months for brivanib and 8.2 months for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95.8% CI, 0.69 to 1.15; P = .3307). Adjusting treatment effect for baseline prognostic factors yielded an OS HR of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.04; P = .1044). Exploratory analyses showed a median time to progression of 4.2 months for brivanib and 2.7 months for placebo (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.76; P < .001), and an mRECIST ORR of 10% for brivanib and 2% for placebo (odds ratio, 5.72). Study discontinuation due to treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 61 brivanib patients (23%) and nine placebo patients (7%). The most frequent treatment-related grade 3 to 4 AEs for brivanib included hypertension (17%), fatigue (13%), hyponatremia (11%), and decreased appetite (10%). Conclusion In patients with HCC who had been treated with sorafenib, brivanib did not significantly improve OS. The observed benefit in the secondary outcomes of TTP and ORR warrants further investigation.


Liver Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 613-624 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaekyung Cheon ◽  
Hong Jae Chon ◽  
Yeonghak Bang ◽  
Neung Hwa Park ◽  
Jung Woo Shin ◽  
...  

Introduction/Objective: Lenvatinib demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the randomized phase III REFLECT trial. Considering the discrepancies in patients between clinical trial data and daily practice, an account of practical experience is needed. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis in which 3 tertiary referral centers participated. A total of 92 patients with advanced HCC treated with lenvatinib between September 2018 and January 2020 were analyzed. Results: Lenvatinib was used as the first-line therapy for 67 (72.8%) patients, and for 25 (27.2%) patients previously treated with other systemic therapy including immune checkpoint inhibitors. At the time of initiation of lenvatinib, 74 (80.4%) and 18 (19.6%) patients were classified as Child-Pugh A and B, respectively. Thirty-five patients (38.0%) had extensive disease that would have excluded them from the REFLECT trial. In the Child-Pugh A group, the response rate graded according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 was 21.1%, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.1–6.1) months, and overall survival (OS) was 10.7 (95% CI 4.8–16.5) months for patients treated with first-line lenvatinib (n = 57). With second- or later-line lenvatinib (n = 17), median PFS and OS were 4.1 (95% CI 3.1–5.1) and 6.4 (95% CI 5.1–7.7) months, respectively. In the Child-Pugh B group (n = 18), median PFS and OS were 2.6 (95% CI 0.6–4.6) and 5.3 (95% CI 2.0–8.5) months, respectively. The most common grade 3–4 toxicities were hyperbilirubinemia (n = 8; 8.7%), AST elevation (n = 6; 6.5%), and diarrhea (n = 5; 5.4%) across all study patients. Conclusions: In this real-world study, lenvatinib was found to be well tolerated and effective in more heterogeneous HCC patient populations.


Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 471-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Thieblemont ◽  
Hervé Tilly ◽  
Maria Gomez da Silva ◽  
Rene-Olivier Casasnovas ◽  
Christophe Fruchart ◽  
...  

Abstract Background. R-CHOP is the standard first-line treatment for elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). However 30% of patients will relapse and 70% of relapsed patients will die within 2 years of diagnosis. The REMARC study (clinicalTrials.gov NCT01122472) is an international, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled, phase III trial that assessed the benefit of lenalidomide (LEN) maintenance after response to R-CHOP in patients aged 60 to 80 years with untreated DLBCL, FL3b or transformed lymphoma. Patients achieving CR or PR at the end of 6 or 8 cycles of R-CHOP21 or R-CHOP14 were stratified by CR/PR status and country and randomized 1:1 to receive 2 years of LEN maintenance (25 mg/day for 21 of every 28 days) or placebo (PBO). The primary endpoint of the study was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were safety, PR to CR conversion rate, and overall survival (OS). Diagnosis was retrospectively centrally reviewed. In patients with adequate samples, GCB/nonGCB profile was assessed by the Hans algorithm and GCB/ABC/unclassified profile was assessed using NanoString gene expression profiling technology. Methods. From 05/2009 to 05/2014, 784 patients were enrolled either before R-CHOP (n= 437) or after completion of 6 or 8 cycles of R-CHOP (n= 347). At the end of R-CHOP therapy, 650 patients were randomized to maintenance, either in CR (n= 495) or in PR (n= 152). Central review found that 3 patients were randomized in SD or PD, all in LEN arm. At time of diagnosis, median age was 68 y (range 58-80), 43.5% were older than 70 y, and 56% were male. aaIPI was low in 38.5% and high in 57.5% of patients (missing data 4%). COO analyses are ongoing for both Hans algorithm and NanoString technology. Results. With a median follow-up of 40 months, median PFS (according to independent centralized radiology review) was not reached in the LEN group versus 68 months in the PBO group (hazard ratio favoring the LEN group, 0.708 (95% CI 0.537-0.932; p=0.0135))(See Figure). In the LEN group, 18 patients (21%) converted from PR to CR during maintenance compared to 13 patients (14%) in the PBO group. Immature overall survival data did not show any benefit for LEN arm, a lack of difference not attributable to an excess of lymphoma relapse, secondary cancer or safety problems in LEN arm. Deaths generally occurred off study drug (median time from last dose of study drug to death was 277 days (range 20, 1291) in LEN arm and 334 (41, 1594) in control arm. During maintenance, the most common observed grade 3 or 4 AEs were neutropenia (56% vs. 22%), rash (5% vs. 1%), infections (8% vs. 6%), and thrombocytopenia (2.5% vs. 0.6%) in LEN and PBO arms, respectively. Dose adjustments were necessary in 72% of the LEN patients and 42% of PBO patients. 59% of patients stopped LEN and 40% stopped PBO for toxicity (p<0.001). Median number of cycles was 15 in LEN and 25 in PBO (p<0.001). Secondary primary malignancies occurred in 33 patients receiving LEN and in 42 patients on PBO. Conclusion. This analysis of the REMARC study shows that 2 years of LEN maintenance in patients responding to R-CHOP significantly improved PFS (primary endpoint) without an early significant impact on OS. The COO analysis is currently ongoing. This is the first report finding that using an immunomodulatory agent as maintenance therapy prolongs PFS for patients with DLBCL after first line treatment with R-CHOP. Figure 1. Progression-free survival of elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in response to R-CHOP treated in maintenance with either lenalidomide or placebo Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Thieblemont: Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Research Funding; Bayer healthcare: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gomez da Silva:Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ROche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Meyer Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Morschhauser:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria. Haioun:Sandoz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cabecadas:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Salles:Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Coiffier:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.


2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3-3 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Escudier ◽  
P. Koralewski ◽  
A. Pluzanska ◽  
A. Ravaud ◽  
S. Bracarda ◽  
...  

3 Background: Bevacizumab (BEV) is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits tumor angiogenesis by targeting VEGF. In relapsed RCC, BEV improved time to progression compared with placebo (2.5 vs. 4.8 months). A phase III trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BEV in combination with interferon (IFN)-a2a as first-line treatment in metastatic (m) RCC. The final analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) and interim analysis of overall survival (OS) are presented. Methods: Nephrectomized patients with clear cell mRCC, KPS of =70%, no CNS metastases and adequate organ function received IFN- a2a (x3/week at a recommended dose of 9 MIU for up to 1 year) plus BEV (10mg/kg q2w) or placebo until disease progression. Tumor assessments were performed every 8 weeks until week 32 and 12 weekly thereafter. Patients were stratified according to country and Motzer score. Results: Between June 2004 and October 2006, 649 patients were randomized (641 treated) at 101 centers in 18 countries. The treatment arms were well balanced for prognostic factors. At the data cutoff, 505 progression events had occurred, 111 patients remained on treatment, 287 had discontinued (discontinuations due to AEs were 12% with IFN vs. 28% with IFN-a2a/BEV), and 251 died. BEV-related side effects were generally mild and consistent with previous observations. The addition of BEV to IFN-a2a significantly increased PFS (10.2 vs. 5.4 mo) (HR=0.63; p<0.0001) and objective tumor response rate (30.6% vs. 12.4%; p<0.0001). A trend toward improved OS was observed with the addition of BEV to IFN-a2a (p=0.0670). Conclusions: BEV improves PFS when combined with IFN-a2a in mRCC. No unexpected safety events were observed. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]


2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8009-8009
Author(s):  
R. B. Natale ◽  
S. Thongprasert ◽  
F. A. Greco ◽  
M. Thomas ◽  
C. M. Tsai ◽  
...  

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]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document