Clinical Benefit With Docetaxel Plus Fluorouracil and Cisplatin Compared With Cisplatin and Fluorouracil in a Phase III Trial of Advanced Gastric or Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma: The V-325 Study Group

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (22) ◽  
pp. 3205-3209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaffer A. Ajani ◽  
Vladimir M. Moiseyenko ◽  
Sergei Tjulandin ◽  
Alejandro Majlis ◽  
Manuel Constenla ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Weight Loss ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Life Time ◽  
Clinic Visit ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Free Survival

Purpose For patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal cancer (AGGEC) providing clinical benefit with improved palliation is highly desirable. However, a prospective evaluation of clinical benefit in AGGEC patients has never before been reported in a phase III setting. Patients and Methods In a multinational trial (V325), 445 patients were randomly assigned and treated with either docetaxel plus cisplatin and fluorouracil (DCF) or cisplatin and fluorouracil (CF). Clinical benefit was prospectively evaluated in this trial as a secondary end point. The primary measure for clinical benefit analysis was time to definitive worsening by one or more categories of Karnofsky performance status (KPS). Secondary clinical benefit end points included time to 5% definitive weight loss, time to definitive worsening of appetite by one grade, pain-free survival (defined as time to first appearance of pain), and time to first cancer pain-related opioid intake. Clinical benefit assessments were recorded at each clinic visit. Results Clinical benefit assessments were performed in more than 75% of patients throughout V325. DCF significantly prolonged time to definitive worsening of KPS compared with CF (median, 6.1 v 4.8 months; hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.76; log-rank P = .009). Although time to definitive weight loss and time to definitive worsening of appetite favored DCF, the results were not statistically significant. Pain-free survival and time to first cancer pain-related opioid intake were comparable. Conclusion To our knowledge, V325 is the first phase III trial to report clinical benefit in AGGEC patients. Clinical benefit was assessed beyond protocol-specific chemotherapy. The addition of D to CF not only significantly improved clinical benefit but also improved quality of life, time to progression, and overall survival compared with CF.

EORTC 1709/CCTG CE.8: A phase III trial of marizomib in combination with standard temozolomide-based radiochemotherapy versus standard temozolomide-based radiochemotherapy alone in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS2072-TPS2072 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Roth ◽  
Jaap C. Reijneveld ◽  
Thierry Gorlia ◽  
Frederic Dhermain ◽  
Filip Yves Francine Leon De Vos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Standard Treatment ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Recurrent Glioblastoma ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma

TPS2072 Background: The standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma comprises maximum safe surgery, radiotherapy (RT), and concomitant and up to six cycles of maintenance temozolomide (TMZ) chemotherapy (TMZ/RT→TMZ). Despite this intense therapy, the prognosis remains poor and there is an urgent need to develop new therapeutic options. Marizomib is a novel, irreversible and brain-penetrant pan-proteasome inhibitor. Following its successful assessment in phase I trials in patients with newly diagnosed as well as recurrent glioblastoma, marizomib is now being investigated in a phase III trial. Methods: EORTC 1709/CCTG CE.8 is a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open label phase III superiority trial. Eligibility criteria include histologically confirmed newly diagnosed glioblastoma and a performance status ≥70. Approximately a total of 750 patients will be enrolled and randomized 1:1. Stratification factors include institution, age, Karnofsky performance status and extent of surgery. The primary objective of this study is to compare overall survival in patients receiving marizomib in addition to standard of care (TMZ/RT→TMZ) with patients receiving standard treatment only. The testing strategy specifies the determination of this objective in both the intent-to-treat population and the subgroup of patients with tumors harboring an unmethylated MGMT promoter. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, safety, neurocognitive function and quality of life. The study is accompanied by a translational research program. The study will be opened at 50 EORTC sites in Europe and done as an intergroup collaboration with the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) with 25 sites in Canada and additional sites in the US. Patient enrolment started in June 2018 and as of January 29, 2019, a total of 85 patients have been randomized. An update on the enrolment status will be provided at the ASCO conference. Clinical trial information: NCT03345095.

PDIGREE: An adaptive phase III trial of PD-inhibitor nivolumab and ipilimumab (IPI-NIVO) with VEGF TKI cabozantinib (CABO) in metastatic untreated renal cell cancer (Alliance A031704).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS366-TPS366
Author(s):  
Tian Zhang ◽  
Karla V. Ballman ◽  
Atish Dipankar Choudhury ◽  
Ronald C. Chen ◽  
Colleen Watt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Cell Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Combination Immunotherapy ◽  
Vegf Inhibitors ◽  
Optimal Sequence ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Progression Of Disease

TPS366 Background: First-line treatment of mRCC has rapidly changed to include IPI-NIVO or CABO, with clinical benefit of each based on the Checkmate 214 and CABOSUN (A031203) trials. Combination immunotherapy with VEGF therapies has shown benefit over sunitinib in the JAVELIN 101 and KEYNOTE 426 trials. It is yet unclear which patients (pts) benefit most from combination immunotherapy-VEGF inhibitors, and the optimal sequence of drugs. Methods: In an adaptive, randomized, multicenter phase III trial (Alliance A031704, PDIGREE), pts start treatment with induction IPI 1 mg/kg and NIVO 3 mg/kg intravenously (IV) once every 3 weeks. Key inclusion criteria include clear cell mRCC, International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) intermediate or poor risk, Karnofsky performance status >70, and no prior treatments for mRCC. Based on 3-month radiographic assessment (after completing IPI-NIVO combination), pts with complete responses (CR) undergo maintenance NIVO 480 mg IV every 4 weeks; pts with progression of disease (PD) switch to CABO 60 mg oral daily; pts with non-CR/non-PD are randomized to NIVO 480 mg IV every 4 weeks versus NIVO 480 mg IV every 4 weeks with CABO 40 mg oral daily. Randomization is stratified by IMDC risk criteria and presence of bone metastases. The primary endpoint of the study is overall survival (OS). We hypothesize that 3-year OS will improve to 70% for NIVO-CABO compared to 60% for NIVO alone; to achieve 85% power with a two-sided alpha of 0.05 and exponential distribution, 696 patients will be randomized. Accounting for 30% patients with either CR or PD, and 5% dropout from toxicity, up to 1046 pts will be enrolled. Key secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, 12-month CR rate, overall response rate based on RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST criteria, and toxicity profiles. Quality of life will be assessed based on the FKSI-19, PROMIS-fatigue, and EQ5D-5L questionnaires. Biomarkers associated with CR, tissue-based and plasma-based biomarkers will be assessed. Updated enrollment through January 2021 will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT03793166 .

Phase III Trial of Sunitinib in Combination With Capecitabine Versus Capecitabine Monotherapy for the Treatment of Patients With Pretreated Metastatic Breast Cancer

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (23) ◽  
pp. 2870-2878 ◽  
Author(s):  
John P. Crown ◽  
Véronique Diéras ◽  
Elzbieta Staroslawska ◽  
Denise A. Yardley ◽  
Thomas Bachelot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Free Survival

Purpose Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) remains an incurable illness in the majority of cases, despite major therapeutic advances. This may be related to the ability of breast tumors to induce neoangiogenesis, even in the face of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Sunitinib, an inhibitor of key molecules involved in neoangiogenesis, has an established role in the treatment of metastatic renal cell and other cancers and demonstrated activity in a phase II trial in MBC. We performed a randomized phase III trial comparing sunitinib plus capecitabine (2,000 mg/m2) with single-agent capecitabine (2,500 mg/m2) in patients with heavily pretreated MBC. Patients and Methods Eligibility criteria included MBC, prior therapy with anthracyclines and taxanes, one or two prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease or early relapse after a taxane plus anthracycline adjuvant regimen, and adequate organ function and performance status. The primary end point was progression-free survival, for which the study had 90% power to detect a 50% improvement (from 4 to 6 months). Results A total of 442 patients were randomly assigned. Progression-free survival was not significantly different between the treatment arms, with medians of 5.5 months (95% CI, 4.5 to 6.0) for the sunitinib plus capecitabine arm and 5.9 months (95% CI, 5.4 to 7.6) for the capecitabine monotherapy arm (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.58; one-sided P = .941). There were no significant differences in response rate or overall survival. Toxicity, except for hand-foot syndrome, was more severe in the combination arm. Conclusion The addition of sunitinib to capecitabine does not improve the clinical outcome of patients with MBC pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes.

Phase III Trial of Ifosfamide With or Without Paclitaxel in Advanced Uterine Carcinosarcoma: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 526-531 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard D. Homesley ◽  
Virginia Filiaci ◽  
Maurie Markman ◽  
Pincas Bitterman ◽  
Lynne Eaton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Status ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology ◽  
Sensory Neuropathy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology Group ◽  
Uterine Carcinosarcoma ◽  
New Agents ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Free Survival

Purpose To determine if paclitaxel added to ifosfamide as first-line treatment for advanced uterine carcinosarcoma (CS) improves overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response, and toxicity. Patients and Methods Eligible patients had measurable stage III or IV, persistent, or recurrent uterine CS. Random assignment to treatment was between ifosfamide 2.0 g/m2 intravenously (IV) daily for 3 days (arm 1) or ifosfamide 1.6 g/m2 IV daily for 3 days plus paclitaxel 135 mg/m2 by 3-hour infusion day 1 (arm 2). Mesna was administered similarly (both arms); filgrastim began on day 4 (arm 2). Cycles were repeated every 21 days up to eight cycles. Results Of 214 patients enrolled, 179 were eligible (arm 1, 91 patients; arm 2, 88 patients). Arm 2 patients experienced more frequent and severe sensory neuropathy (grade 1 to 4; 8% v 30%). The crude response rate was 29% (arm 1) and 45% (arm 2). The odds of response stratified by performance status were 2.21 greater in arm 2 (P = .017). Median PFS and OS, respectively, for arm 1 compared with arm 2 were 3.6 v 5.8 months and 8.4 v 13.5 months, respectively. There was a 31% decrease in the hazard of death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.97; P = .03) and a 29% decrease in the hazard of progression (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.97; P = .03) relative to arm 1 when stratifying by performance status. Conclusion OS was significantly improved in arm 2, and toxicities were as expected and manageable. However, the need for active new agents persists, given that OS remains relatively poor in this disease.

Clinical Benefit and Quality of Life in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Receiving Gemcitabine Plus Capecitabine Versus Gemcitabine Alone: A Randomized Multicenter Phase III Clinical Trial—SAKK 44/00–CECOG/PAN.1.3.001

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (22) ◽  
pp. 3695-3701 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jürg Bernhard ◽  
Daniel Dietrich ◽  
Werner Scheithauer ◽  
Daniela Gerber ◽  
György Bodoky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii

Purpose To compare clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (Cap) versus single-agent Gem for advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral Cap 650 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m2 in a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m2 in a 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks or until progression. CBR criteria and QOL indicators were assessed over this period. CBR was defined as improvement from baseline for ≥ 4 consecutive weeks in pain (pain intensity or analgesic consumption) and Karnofsky performance status, stability in one but improvement in the other, or stability in pain and performance status but improvement in weight. Results Of 319 patients, 19% treated with GemCap and 20% treated with Gem experienced a CBR, with a median duration of 9.5 and 6.5 weeks, respectively (P < .02); 54% of patients treated with GemCap and 60% treated with Gem had no CBR (remaining patients were not assessable). There was no treatment difference in QOL (n = 311). QOL indicators were improving under chemotherapy (P < .05). These changes differed by the time to failure, with a worsening 1 to 2 months before treatment failure (all P < .05). Conclusion There is no indication of a difference in CBR or QOL between GemCap and Gem. Regardless of their initial condition, some patients experience an improvement in QOL on chemotherapy, followed by a worsening before treatment failure.

Clinical Outcomes and Safety of Patients Treated with NAb-Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine in Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: The NAPA Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. 887-895 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martina Catalano ◽  
Giandomenico Roviello ◽  
Raffaele Conca ◽  
Alberto D’Angelo ◽  
Valeria Emma Palmieri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Status ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Hematological Toxicity ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
Prognostic And Predictive Markers

Background: The phase III MPACT trial demonstrated the superiority of gemcitabine (Gem) combined with Nab-paclitaxel (Nab-P) versus gemcitabine alone in previously untreated patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of Gem/Nab-P in routine clinical practice. Methods: From January 2015 to December 2018, patients with metastatic PDAC receiving firstline treatment with a combination of gemcitabine and Nab-paclitaxel were included in a multicentre retrospective observational study. Exploratory analyses of efficacy, and prognostic and predictive markers, were performed. Results: The cohort comprised 115 patients (median age 65 [range 50-84] years) with good performance status (ECOG PS 0-1). The median overall survival (OS) was 11 months (95% CI; 9-13) and the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6 months (95% CI 5-7). Partial response and stable disease were achieved in 44 and 30 patients, respectively, yielding an overall disease control rate (DCR) of 64.3%. Grade 3-4 hematological toxicity frequency was 22.61% for neutropenia, 5.22% for anemia, and 3.48% for thrombocytopenia. Grade 3 asthenia was recorded in 2.61% of patients. No grade 4 non-hematological events were reported. Dose reduction was necessary in 51.3% of the patients. Conclusions: Our results confirm the efficacy and safety of a first-line regimen comprising gemcitabine and Nab-paclitaxel in metastatic PDAC in a real-life population.

624 A PHASE III STUDY ON NEOADJUVANT TORIPALIMAB PLUS CHEMOTHERAPY VERSUS NEOADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY FOR LOCALLY RESECTABLE ESOPHAGEAL SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Zheng ◽  
Jiangong Zhang ◽  
Wenqun Xing
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Pathologic Complete Response ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Free Survival

Abstract   In recent years, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have shown promising results in the treatment of ESCC. More than 20 phase II clinical trials have been launched to explore combinations of ICIs in the neoadjuvant setting for ESCC. Based on our phase II clinical trial, a two-arm phase III trial was launched in our Hospital. Methods A two-arm phase III trial was launched in April 2020 in our Hospital. Patient recruitment will be completed within 18 months. The primary endpoint is event-free survival (EFS). The secondary endpoints include pathologic complete response (pCR), disease-free survival (DFS) rate, overall response rate (ORR), R0 resection rate, major pathologic response (MPR), adverse events (AEs), complication rate and quality of life (QOL). A biobank of pretreatment, resected tumor tissue and paired blood samples will be built for translational research in the future. Results Until Dec. 2021, one hundred and twenty ESCC patients recruited in the trial. The trial is ongoing. Conclusion This RCT directly compares NAC with neoadjuvant toripalimab plus chemotherapy in terms of EFS for locally advanced ESCC. The results may usher in a new era of resectable ESCC treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document