scholarly journals Phase III Study of Adjuvant Ipilimumab (3 or 10 mg/kg) Versus High-Dose Interferon Alfa-2b for Resected High-Risk Melanoma: North American Intergroup E1609

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 567-575 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmad A. Tarhini ◽  
Sandra J. Lee ◽  
F. Stephen Hodi ◽  
Uma N. M. Rao ◽  
Gary I. Cohen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adjuvant Therapy ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Interferon Alfa ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
7Th Edition ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Intent To Treat ◽  
High Dose Interferon

PURPOSE Phase III adjuvant trials have reported significant benefits in both relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) for high-dose interferon alfa (HDI) and ipilimumab at 10 mg/kg (ipi10). E1609 evaluated the safety and efficacy of ipilimumab at 3 mg/kg (ipi3) and ipi10 versus HDI. PATIENTS AND METHODS E1609 was a phase III trial in patients with resected cutaneous melanoma (American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition stage IIIB, IIIC, M1a, or M1b). It had 2 coprimary end points: OS and RFS. A 2-step hierarchic approach first evaluated ipi3 versus HDI followed by ipi10 versus HDI. RESULTS Between May 2011 and August 2014, 1,670 adult patients were centrally randomly assigned (1:1:1) to ipi3 (n = 523), HDI (n = 636), or ipi10 (n = 511). Treatment-related adverse events grade ≥ 3 occurred in 37% of patients receiving ipi3, 79% receiving HDI, and 58% receiving ipi10, with adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation in 35%, 20%, and 54%, respectively. Comparison of ipi3 versus HDI used an intent-to-treat analysis of concurrently randomly assigned patient cases (n = 1,051) and showed significant OS difference in favor of ipi3 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95.6% repeated CI, 0.61 to 0.99; P = .044; RFS: HR, 0.85; 99.4% CI, 0.66 to 1.09; P = .065). In the second step, for ipi10 versus HDI (n = 989), trends in favor of ipi10 did not achieve statistical significance. Salvage patterns after melanoma relapse showed significantly higher rates of ipilimumab and ipilimumab/anti–programmed death 1 use in the HDI arm versus ipi3 and ipi10 ( P ≤ .001). CONCLUSION Adjuvant therapy with ipi3 benefits survival versus HDI; for the first time to our knowledge in melanoma adjuvant therapy, E1609 has demonstrated a significant improvement in OS against an active control regimen. The currently approved adjuvant ipilimumab dose (ipi10) was more toxic and not superior in efficacy to HDI.

High-Dose Interferon Alfa-2b Does Not Diminish Antibody Response to GM2 Vaccination in Patients With Resected Melanoma: Results of the Multicenter Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Phase II Trial E2696

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 1430-1436 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Kirkwood ◽  
Joseph Ibrahim ◽  
David H. Lawson ◽  
Michael B. Atkins ◽  
Sanjiv S. Agarwala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Interferon Alfa ◽  
Immunoglobulin M ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
High Risk Melanoma ◽  
Risk Melanoma ◽  
High Dose Interferon ◽  
Very High

PURPOSE: High-dose interferon alfa-2b (IFNα2b) is the only established adjuvant therapy of resectable high-risk melanoma. GM2-KLH/QS-21 (GMK) is a chemically defined vaccine that is one of the best developed of a range of vaccine candidates for melanoma. A single-institution phase III trial conducted at Memorial Hospital served as the impetus for an intergroup adjuvant E1694/S9512/C509801 trial, which recently completed enrollment of 880 patients. To build on the apparent benefit of IFNα2b in resectable high-risk American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage IIB or III melanoma, this phase II study was designed to evaluate the combination of GMK and IFNα2b. The E2696 trial was undertaken to evaluate the toxicity and other effects of the established adjuvant high-dose IFNα2b regimen in relation to immune responses to GMK and to evaluate the potential clinical and immunologic effects of the combined therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This trial enrolled 107 patients with resectable high- or very high–risk melanoma (AJCC stages IIB, III, and IV). RESULTS: The results demonstrate that IFNα2b does not significantly inhibit immunoglobulin M or G serologic responses to the vaccine and that the combination of high-dose IFNα2b and GMK is well tolerated in this patient population. CONCLUSION: Cox analysis of the results of the combination with IFNα2b show improvement in the relapse-free survival of patients with very high–risk melanoma (including those with resectable M1 disease).

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.

Adding Mercaptopurine and Methotrexate to Alternate Week ATRA Maintenance Therapy Does Not Improve the Outcome for Adults with Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia (APL) in First Remission: Results From North American Leukemia Intergroup Trial C9710

Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 258-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bayard L. Powell ◽  
Barry K Moser ◽  
Wendy Stock ◽  
Robert E. Gallagher ◽  
Cheryl L Willman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Arsenic Trioxide ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Consolidation Therapy ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
First Remission ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Abstract 258 This randomized phase III clinical trial was designed to evaluate the potential benefit and toxicity of (a) arsenic trioxide (ATO) as initial consolidation therapy and (b) maintenance therapy with oral tretinoin (ATRA) either alone or together with 6-mercaptopurine (MP) and methotrexate (MTX) in newly diagnosed patients with APL. All patients received induction therapy with ATRA, daunorubicin (DNR) and cytarabine. Adults (≥ 15 years) were randomized at study entry to receive a standard consolidation with 2 courses of ATRA plus DNR, or 2 courses of ATO as initial consolidation followed by 2 courses of ATRA plus DNR. Patients who remained in complete remission (CR; n=331) were then randomized (stratified by consolidation arm and age group) to one year of maintenance with ATRA alone (45 mg/m2/d) for 7 days repeated every other week (n=166) or in combination with MP 60 mg/m2/daily plus oral MTX 20 mg/m2/weekly (n=161). The target number of maintenance events was 146, and the study had 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 1.6 at 5 years. We previously reported that the addition of ATO consolidation markedly improved event-free (EFS) and disease-free (DFS) survival (Blood 2010; 116:3751–3757). We now report the results of the maintenance randomization after a median follow up of 6.2 years. The two groups were well balanced by pretreatment characteristics. DFS, the primary endpoint, and overall survival (OS) were not statistically different for the two maintenance arms (log-rank p=0.14 and p=0.33, respectively). Evaluation by consolidation arm (by intention-to-treat, ITT) and by APL risk group also failed to demonstrate a significant advantage for either maintenance treatment. There was no interaction effect between consolidation and maintenance arms (p=0.78). Age, gender, CD56 expression and FLT3-ITD or TKD mutations at diagnosis did not have an impact on outcome by maintenance arm.ATRA*ATRA/MP/MTX*PDFS: overall41/16630/1610.14DFS by consolidation arm (ITT): ATO10/844/780.13no ATO31/8226/830.21DFS by risk group: low/intermediate25/12819/1300.20high16/3811/310.683-year DFS from CR79%87%0.056OS: overall22/16616/1650.33OS by consolidation arm (ITT): ATO8/843/810.15no ATO14/8213/840.72OS by risk group: low/intermediate14/1289/1340.20high8/387/310.733-year OS from study entry92%95%0.28*Number of events/number of patients in each group or subgroup. No treatment-related deaths were reported during maintenance therapy. Hematologic adverse events were more common in the combination arm (maximum grade 3/4, 18% vs 4%; p< 0.0001), as were non-hematologic adverse events (maximum grade 3/4, 36% vs 25%; p=0.033). Only 71 DFS events have occurred to date. Although the 3-yr DFS favors the combination arm, the differences in DFS and OS with the addition of MP and MTX to ATRA maintenance do not reach statistical significance. The addition of ATO consolidation therapy remains the most important determinant of DFS and OS for APL patients in first remission on this randomized trial. Among patients who were randomized to maintenance, only 5 patients who received ATO consolidation have relapsed – 2 from the combination arm and 3 from the ATRA alone arm. Relapse of APL is uncommon in patients who received ATO consolidation, and the need for any maintenance therapy in these patients has yet to be determined. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Arsenic trioxide as consolidation treatment for APL.

Adjuvant therapy with pegylated interferon alfa-2b (36 months) versus low-dose interferon alfa-2b (18 months) in melanoma patients without macro-metastatic nodes: EADO trial.

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA8506-LBA8506 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. J. Grob ◽  
T. Jouary ◽  
B. Dreno ◽  
R. Gutzmer ◽  
A. Hauschild ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adjuvant Therapy ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Pegylated Interferon ◽  
Interferon Alfa ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Type I ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Pegylated Interferon Alfa ◽  
Grade 3

LBA8506 Background: Adjuvant therapy with low-dose adjuvant interferon alfa-2b (IFN) as well as with pegylated interferon alfa-2b (PEG-IFN) were both shown to be superior to observation in melanoma (M) patients (pts) without macro-metastatic nodes. However, the two strategies have never been assessed head to head. Weekly injection of PEG-IFN facilitates a longer duration of treatment which may be critical for benefit. We thus compared adjuvant therapy of flat low-dose PEG-IFN (36 months) versus low-dose IFN (18 months) in intermediate-risk M pts without macro-metastatic nodes. Methods: In this multicenter, open-label, prospective randomized phase III trial, pts with resected M ≥ 1.5 mm in thickness and without clinically detectable nodes were randomized either to IFN (3 MU subcutaneously [sc] 3 times a week for 18 months) or to PEG-IFN (100 mcg sc once weekly for 36 months). Sentinel node procedure (SNP) was not a standard in 2003 and thus was optional. Approach was consistent by center. Randomization was stratified for centers and SNP procedure. Primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS), and secondary were distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), overall survival (OS), and grade 3-4 severe adverse events (SAE). Sample size (890 pts) was calculated to detect a 10% difference (power >80%, type I error of 5%, 2-sided) for RFS. Analysis describes 5-year probability of survival. Comparisons were done by intent-to-treat using Cox proportional models. Results: Of 898 pts enrolled, 896 (443 PEG vs 453 IFN) were eligible for evaluation after a median follow-up of 4.7 years. SLNB was performed in 68.2% of pts. Neither RFS (PEG-IFN 66.2% vs IFN 64.8%, p=0.43; HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.15) nor DMFS (71.3% vs 72.6%, p=0.86; HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.32) or OS (77.0% vs 78.4%, p=0.55; HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.45) showed statistical difference. There was an excess of SAE grade 3-4 in PEG-IFN arm (44.6% vs 26.6% in the first 18 months) which impacted on median duration of treatment (17.8 months in IFN arm; 19.2 in PEG-IFN arm, with only 28% completing 36 months treatment). Conclusions: Flat low-dose PEG-IFN did not show superiority over conventional low dose IFN. Attempts to increase benefit by prolonging treatment with PEG-IFN over 3 years were hampered by a high rate of treatment discontinuation possibly linked to SAEs with PEG-IFN. [Table: see text]

A phase III randomized study of adjuvant ipilimumab (3 or 10 mg/kg) versus high-dose interferon alfa-2b for resected high-risk melanoma (U.S. Intergroup E1609): Preliminary safety and efficacy of the ipilimumab arms.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9500-9500 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmad A. Tarhini ◽  
Sandra J. Lee ◽  
F. Stephen Hodi ◽  
Uma N. M. Rao ◽  
Gary I Cohen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Adjuvant Therapy ◽  
Interferon Alfa ◽  
Regulatory Approval ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
High Risk Melanoma ◽  
Relative Safety ◽  
Risk Melanoma ◽  
High Dose Interferon

9500 Background: In the U.S., 3 regimens have regulatory approval as adjuvant therapy for high-risk melanoma, including high-dose interferon-alfa (HDI) and ipilimumab 10 mg/kg (ipi10). Ipilimumab 3 mg/kg (ipi3) has regulatory approval for metastatic inoperable melanoma. The toxicity of ipi is dose- dependent, and following the recent approval of adjuvant ipi10, it has become urgent to evaluate the relative safety and efficacy of adjuvant ipi at the 2 dose levels that have been tested in E1609. Methods: E1609 randomized patients (pts) with resected high-risk melanoma (stratified by stages IIIB, IIIC, M1a, M1b) to ipi10 or ipi3 versus HDI. Co-primary endpoints were RFS and OS. The current analysis investigates the relative safety and preliminary, non-comparative RFS of the ipi arms as of 3/2/17. Results: E1609 was activated on 5/25/11 and completed adult pt accrual on 8/15/14. Accrual to ipi10 was suspended due to toxicity between 9/23-11/16/2013. Final adult pt accrual was 1670 including 511 ipi10, 636 HDI and 523 ipi3 pts. Treatment related adverse events (AEs) were reported among 503 ipi10 and 516 ipi3 pts. Worst degree (Gr 3+) AEs were experienced by 57% ipi10 and 36.4% ipi3 pts and were mostly immune related (Table 1). AEs led to discontinuation of treatment in 271 (53.8 %) of 503 ipi10 and in 180 (35.2 %) of 512 ipi3 pts during the initial 4 dose induction phase. Gr5 AEs considered at least possibly related were 8 with ipi10 and 2 with ipi3. At a median follow-up of 3.1 years, an unplanned RFS analysis of ipi3 and ipi10 on concurrently randomized pts showed no difference between the 2 arms. Three-year RFS rate was 54% (95% CI: 49, 60) with ipi10 and 56% (50, 61) with ipi3. Conclusions: Adjuvant therapy of pts with high-risk melanoma is associated with significantly more toxicity at ipi10 compared to ipi3. An unplanned RFS analysis of concurrently randomized pts on the 2 ipi arms showed no difference in RFS. Clinical trial information: NCT01274338. [Table: see text]

Efficacy and cost of nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) in metastatic melanoma (mM).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20033-e20033
Author(s):  
Sanjiv S Agarwala ◽  
Scott Whiting ◽  
Gary Binder ◽  
Evan Hersh
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Drug Infusion ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Full Analysis ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Intent To Treat

e20033 Background: A recent phase III trial of nab-paclitaxel (nab-P, 130 nm albumin-bound paclitaxel) vs dacarbazine (DTIC) in mM demonstrated a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS). An economic analysis was applied to the results of this trial. Methods: Chemotherapy naive stage IV mM patients received nab-P 150 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or DTIC 1000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. 529 patients were randomized to nab-P (n = 264) or DTIC (n = 265). The primary endpoint was independently assessed PFS, with overall survival (OS) as a secondary endpoint. Costs of nab-P and DTIC were taken from published 2013 Medicare reimbursement rates. A literature review identified costs for expected adverse events (AE), administration, and recently approved mM treatments. Results: In the intent-to-treat population, median PFS was 4.8 and 2.5 months in the nab-P and DTIC arms, respectively (HR: 0.792; P = 0.044). Median OS at the time of an interim analysis was 12.8 months with nab-P and 10.7 months with DTIC (HR: 0.831; P = 0.094; determination of ultimate statistical significance is pending full analysis at study conclusion). The most common grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs were neuropathy (nab-P: 25% vs DTIC: 0%) and neutropenia (nab-P: 20% vs DTIC: 10%). Grade 4 neutropenia rates were similar between arms (nab-P: 3% vs DTIC: 4%). Median time to neuropathy improvement by >1 grade was 28 days. Median treatment duration was 3 months with nab-P vs 2.1 months with DTIC. Incremental costs per patient were $23,359 ($24,663 for nab-P vs $1,304 for DTIC) including drug, infusion, and AE management costs. These costs compare favorably to incremental costs of over $50,000 for newly approved therapies with similar median OS gains vsDTIC. Conclusions: nab-P is the only chemotherapy in a phase III trial to demonstrate a significant and clinically meaningful delay in disease progression over dacarbazine. Total costs are attractive in the context of other agents recently approved for mM. Further analysis is merited when final OS is available. Clinical trial information: NCT00864253.

Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) versus high-dose dexamethasone (HiDEX) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): Impact of cytogenetics in MM-003.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8528-8528
Author(s):  
Hartmut Goldschmidt ◽  
Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽  
Katja C. Weisel ◽  
Philippe Moreau ◽  
Martha Lacy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Open Label ◽  
High Dose Dexamethasone ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Intent To Treat

8528 Background: RRMM patients (pts) who fail lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT) have poor prognosis. High-risk cytogenetics predict shorter survival. POM + LoDEX has demonstrated efficacy in pts with prior LEN and BORT and high-risk cytogenetics. MM-003 is an open-label, multicenter, phase III trial comparing POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in RRMM pts who failed LEN and BORT treatment (Tx) and have progressed on their last therapy. Methods: Pts must have been refractory to the last prior Tx (progressive disease [PD] during or within 60 days) and failed LEN and BORT after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination). Randomization was 2:1 to POM 4 mg D1–21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) weekly; or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 (28-day cycles). Tx continued until PD or unacceptable adverse events (AEs). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included OS and AEs. This analysis examined pts meeting modified high-risk cytogenetic criteria—del(17p13) and/or t(4p16/14q32). Results: 302 pts received POM + LoDEX, and 153 pts received HiDEX. 225 and 107 pts, respectively, were evaluable for cytogenetics. Baseline characteristics were similar. Median PFS and OS were significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX, regardless of cytogenetic risk (Table). The most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia, anemia, and infection (Table). Discontinuation due to AE was low: 4% vs. 6% (high risk) and 10% vs. 4% (standard risk). Conclusions: Median PFS and OS were significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in pts with cytogenetically-defined high-risk disease, consistent with results from the intent-to-treat population. Tolerability was acceptable. POM + LoDEX should be considered a new Tx option in pts failing LEN and BORT. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document