Preliminary results of G versus GViElC: A phase III trial of gemcitabine associated to vindesine or gemcitabine alone in elderly or poor performance patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 17083-17083
Author(s):  
A. Santo ◽  
G. Genestreti ◽  
A. Terzi ◽  
P. Azzoni ◽  
O. Caffo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Standard Treatment ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Stage Iiib ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
To Receive

17083 Background: Monochemotherapy with gemcitabine (GEM) or vinorelbine is considered the standard treatment in elderly or poor performance (PS) patients (pts) with advanced NSCLC. Many topics report a synergic enhancement of antitumor effect of GEM if associated to Vindesine (VDS). The aim of this study is to evaluate if GEM combined to VDS produces an advantage in terms of overall survival (OS) compared to GEM alone without enhancement of toxicity. Methods: Chemonaive pts with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC, aged ≥ 70 years with PS < 2 or aged < 70 years with PS > 2 were enrolled. Pts were randomized to receive either GEM 1200 mg/m2 day 1 and 8 every 21 days for three cycles (arm 1) or GEM 1000 mg/m2 and VDS 3 mg/m2 (max dose 5 mg) both drugs infused on day 1 and 8 every 21 days for three cycles (arm 2). Pts of both arms received other three cycles in case of responsive or stable disease. Overall survival (OS) was the primary end-point, secondary end-points were time-to-progression and toxicity. First interim analysis was planned at 120 pts enrolled. Results: From May 2002 to December 2005, 107 pts from 13 Italian institutions were enrolled. Their characteristics are: 24 stage IIIB and 83 stage IV, 79 pts with ≥ 70 years (ECOG PS 0–1) and 28 pts with < 70 years (ECOG PS > 2). In arm 1 there were enrolled 55 pts while 52 pts in arm 2: both arms were well balanced with pts characteristics. Conclusions: The enrollment of this phase III trial is ongoing: we are achieving first step for an interim analysis to assess if GEM associated to VDS produces an advantage in terms of OS compared to standard treatment as GEM in monochemotherapy without toxicity enhancement. (Supported by GIVOP: Gruppo Interdisciplinare Veronese di Oncologia Polmonare). No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Efficacy and tolerability of gemcytabine plus docetaxel in patients with locally advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the lung

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 17134-17134
Author(s):  
M. Krzakowski ◽  
D. M. Kowalski ◽  
K. Zajda ◽  
T. Denisso ◽  
P. Jaskiewicz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Total Dose ◽  
Median Overall Survival ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Stage Iiib ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Adenocarcinoma Of Lung

17134 Background: Chemotherapy prolongs survival of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Subanalysis of a phase III trial suggests better outcome of treatment with platinum and gemcytabine containing combinations in patients with adenocarcinoma. Also docetaxel is active in NSCLC. The aim of this phase II trial was to wvaluate the efficacy and tolerability of third generation doublet (GCB and DXL) in cheminaive patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of lung. Methods: Chemonaive patients with biopsy proven stage IIIB or IV adenocarcinoma of lung not suitable for curative radical treatment witk KPS 80–100 received 2 to 6 chemotherapy cycles (DXL 80 mg/m2 day 1 plus GCB 1000 mg/m2 day 1 and 8; every 21 days). Response rate and tolerability were the primary endpionts, while the overall survival and 1-year survival were secondary objectives. Results: Twenty eigth patients (15 women, 13 men) with median age 59,04 (range 40–74) were treated. Twenty three patients was analysed. Stage IV was found in 23 (95.8%) and stage IIIB in 1 (4.2%) patients. Partial response was achiwed in 9 (37,5%), stable disease in 12 (50%) and pregressive disease in 3 (12,5%) patients. Median time to progression was 8, 37 months (range: 1.5–14 months). Median overall survival was 12,87 months (range: 4–35 months). Eleven (11) patients received second-line therapy (6-RT, 11-CTH). All patients received 94 cycles of chemotherapy (range: 2, median 3,9). Total dose of docetaxel on each patients was fro 120 to 960 mg (median 556 mg). Total dose of gemcytabine on each patients was from 2100 mg to 21000 mg (median 10475 mg). Treatment toxicicy presents on the table . Conclusions: First line gemcytabine and docetaxel containing chemotherapy is effective palliative treatment for patients with advanced AC of the lung. Toxicity was within acceptable limits. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

JASPAC 01: Randomized phase III trial of adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine versus S-1 for patients with resected pancreatic cancer.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4008-4008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akira Fukutomi ◽  
Katsuhiko Uesaka ◽  
Narikazu Boku ◽  
Hideyuki Kanemoto ◽  
Masaru Konishi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Standard Treatment ◽  
Dose Intensity ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Full Analysis ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Ecog Ps

4008 Background: Adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine (G) has been standard treatment for resected pancreatic cancer (PC). In the GEST study, S-1 (S) had shown non-inferiority to G in overall survival (OS) for unresectable PC. The aim of this phase III study is to investigate non-inferiority of S to G on OS as adjuvant chemotherapy for resected PC. Methods: Patients (pts) after macroscopically curative resection of PC with an ECOG PS of 0-1 and adequate organ functions were randomly assigned to G (1000 mg/m2, iv, d1, 8 and 15, q4w, for 6 courses) or S (80/100/120 mg/day based on BSA, po, d1-28, q6w, for 4 courses) with balancing by surgical margins (R), nodal status (N) and institution. Primary endpoint was OS. With 180 pts per arm, the study had 80% power to prove non-inferiority with a margin of hazard ratio (HR) 1.25 on the basis of expected HR 0.87, with 0.05 two-sided alpha. Secondary endpoints were relapse-free survival (RFS), safety, and quality of life (EQ-5D). One interim analysis was planned after 180 deaths. Results: From 4/2007 to 6/2010, 385 pts were enrolled from 33 hospitals in Japan. 378 pts (G/S: 191/187) were included in the full analysis set. Pts characteristics (G/S) were well balanced (PS0: 67%/70%, R0: 86%/88%, N0: 38%/36%). Based on the interim analysis with 205 OS events, IDMC recommended to publish the results. OS at 2-years were 53% for G and 70% for S. HR for S to G was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.42-0.74, p<0.0001 for non-inferiority, p<0.0001 for superiority). On subgroup analysis, HRs for R0/R1, N0/N1 pts were 0.57 (95% CI, 0.42-0.78)/0.53 (0.27-1.05), 0.48 (0.28-0.83)/0.58 (0.41-0.80), respectively. RFS at 2-years were 29% for G and 49% for S. HR of relapse for S to G was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.43-0.71, log-rank p<0.0001). Incidences of grade 3/4 toxicities in G/S were leukopenia 39%/9%, hemoglobin decrease 17%/13%, thrombocytopenia 9%/4%, elevated AST 5%/1%, fatigue 5%/5%, and anorexia 6%/8%. Relative dose intensity of G/S was 84%/97%. EQ-5D QOL score in S was significantly better than that in G (p<0.0001). Conclusions: S-1 adjuvant chemotherapy is shown non-inferior, and furthermore, even superior to GEM. S-1 is considered as the new standard treatment for resected PC pts. Clinical trial information: UMIN000000655.

Is there a role for chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with a poor performance status?

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 534-534
Author(s):  
Hui-li Wong ◽  
Kathryn M Field ◽  
Jeanne Tie ◽  
Suzanne Kosmider ◽  
Jeremy David Shapiro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Poor Performance Status ◽  
Routine Practice ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
To Receive

534 Background: The management of patients with poor performance status (PS) remains challenging in the absence of data on optimal treatment. Here we assessed the treatment and outcomes of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS (≥ 2) in routine clinical care. Methods: Analysis of patients prospectively entered onto the TRACC (Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer) database, a clinician-designed initiative to collect comprehensive data on consecutive patients with mCRC from sites across Australia. Data collection commenced in July 2009 and is ongoing at 14 participating public and private centres. Results: Of the 679 patients entered, 129 (19.0%) had an ECOG PS ≥ 2. In total, 77 (11.3%) were PS 2, 41 (6.0%) PS 3 and 11 (1.6%) PS 4. Chemotherapy was administered to 55 (71.4%) PS 2 and 15 (36.6%) PS 3 patients, with none of the PS 4 patients being treated. Overall, poor PS patients were significantly less likely to receive any chemotherapy compared to their good PS (PS 0-1) counterparts (55.0% versus 86.8%, p<0.0001) and, when chemotherapy was given, significantly less likely to receive combination chemotherapy (38.0% vs 71.6%, p<0.0001) or bevacizumab (15.5% vs 46.9%, p<0.0001). Overall survival (OS) was reduced with declining PS, with medians of 31.2, 9.0, 3.0 and 0.8 months for PS 0-1, 2, 3 and 4 patients respectively (p<0.0001). Poor PS patients treated with chemotherapy had a better OS outcome (9.8 vs 4.1 months for untreated patients, p<0.0001). At one and two years, 22 (31.4%) and 8 (11.4%) treated poor PS patients were alive. Conclusions: In routine practice many patients with a poor PS, particularly those that are PS 2, receive active treatment. Although overall survival for poor PS patients is poor, some patients appear to benefit from treatment. Further data analysis, particularly to define subsets that may benefit most from treatment, is planned as further sites around Australia contribute data to the project.

Analysis of prognostic factors in patients with advanced relapsed/refractory NSCLC: Cox regression analysis of a randomized phase III trial comparing docetaxel and paclitaxel poliglumex (PPX)

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7040-7040 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Bonomi ◽  
C. Langer ◽  
M. O’Brien ◽  
K. O’Byrne ◽  
B. Bandstra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Tumor Stage ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Cox Regression Analysis ◽  
The Impact

7040 Background: A phase III trial compared PPX to docetaxel as 2nd-line treatment in pts with relapsed/refractory advanced NSCLC (STELLAR 2). While overall survival was similar between arms, the need for supportive measures to manage the effects of myelosuppression was significantly reduced in the PPX arm. The current analysis was performed to evaluate determinants of survival in the 2nd-line treatment of NSCLC. Methods: STELLAR 2 enrolled 849 pts, 427 on PPX and 422 on docetaxel; all patients were included in the analysis. Randomization between the study arms was stratified by tumor stage, performance status (PS), start of frontline chemotherapy (< 4 mo vs more than 4 mo), gender, and prior taxane therapy. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of baseline characteristics on overall survival (OS). Results: At randomization, 29% of pts had received prior taxane, 14% were PS2, 80% had stage IV disease, and 31% had started frontline therapy within the prior 4 months. Risk factors significantly affecting survival as determined by multivariate analysis are listed in the table . These factors were consistent when treatment was added to the model. Prior exposure to taxane was not predictive of survival; tumor stage was a significant univariate predictor (p=0.0349), but had relatively less impact in the multivariate model. Conclusion: These analyses identified several factors associated with reduced survival benefit from standard second line therapy. Consequently, alternative treatment strategies may be necessary in patients with poor prognosis. For example, more tolerable agents may enhance the benefit/toxicity ratio in these patients. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

Phase III randomized study of vinorelbine (V), gemcitabine (G) followed by docetaxel (D) (VGD) versus paclitaxel (P) and carboplatin (C) (PC) in patients (pts) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (Japan Multinational Trial Organization LC00–03)

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7013-7013
Author(s):  
M. Kawahara ◽  
M. Ogawara ◽  
Y. Nishiwaki ◽  
K. Kubota ◽  
K. Komuta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Stage Iiib ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Level Of Significance ◽  
Ecog Ps

7013 Background: Our phase II study of non-platinum VGD for advanced NSCLC demonstrated excellent results with the median survival time (MST) of 15.7 mos and a 1-year survival rate of 59% (Brit J Cancer 88:42,2003). A phase III trial was performed to determine the survival benefit of VGD compared with PC for advanced NSCLC as a Japan-SWOG Lung Cancer Common Arm Trial. Methods: Between Mar 2001 and Apr 2005, 401 chemo-naïve NSCLC pts with Stage IIIB with pleural effusion or Stage IV without brain metastasis, who had ECOG PS 0–1, were randomized to VGD; V 25 mg/m2 iv and G 1000 mg/m2 iv, days 1, 8, every 21 days for 3 cycles followed by D 60 mg/m2 iv, d1, every 21 days for 3 cycles or PC; C AUC=6 iv and P 225 mg/m2 iv, day 1, every 21 days for 6 cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). For a two-sided test at the 5% level of significance and power of 85%, the number of pts required to detect a 40% difference in MST was 400. Results: 393 pts (196 VGD, 197 PC) were evaluable for response, OS and toxicity. Baseline demographics were balanced (VGD vs PC): median age 65 yrs(both arms);male(74 vs 69%); PS 0 40%(both arms);Stage IIIB (17 vs 18%); Ad/Sq (66%/23% vs 76%/15%). There were 238 deaths with a median follow-up of 23 mos. 49% in VGD and 29% in PC arm completed 6 cycles (p=0.00005). Response rates in arms VGD/PC were 23% vs 36% (p= 0.008). There were no significant differences in progression free survival, OS, 1- and 2-yr survivals between VGD and PC arms: 5.9 vs 6.0 mos (p=0.95, Log rank), 13.1 vs 13.8 mos (MST, p=0.28, Log rank), 55.6 vs 55.5%, and 27.6 vs 31.8%. Grade 3/4 toxicities in arms VGD/PC were: neutropenia (G4) (30 vs 54%, p<0.00001), thrombocytopenia (4 vs 6%), febrile neutropenia (20 vs 19%), neuropathy (2 vs 21%, p<0.00001), pulmonary (9 vs 2%, p=0.0006). There were 2 treatment-related deaths (pneumonitis) in VGD arm. Conclusions: Non-platinum triplet chemotherapy had comparable activity in pts with advanced NSCLC. The VGD had significantly less myelosuppression, but more pulmonary toxicity than PC. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

A phase III study comparing amrubicin and cisplatin (AP) with irinotecan and cisplatin (IP) for the treatment of extended-stage small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC): JCOG0509.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7003-7003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshikazu Kotani ◽  
Miyako Satouchi ◽  
Masahiko Ando ◽  
Kazuhiko Nakagawa ◽  
Nobuyuki Yamamoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Standard Treatment ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Severe Diarrhea ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
To Receive

7003 Background: IP is the standard treatment for ED-SCLC, however often cause severe diarrhea. AP have shown promising activity in SCLC with fewer diarrhea. We conducted a phase III trial comparing AP with IP. Methods: Eligibility criteria included patients (pts) with chemotherapy-naïve, ED-SCLC, aged 20 to 70, and ECOG PS 0-1. Pts were randomized to receive either IP or AP, balancing for site, sex, and PS. IP comprised administration of I (60 mg/m2) iv on days 1, 8, and 15, and P (60 mg/m2) iv on day1,every 4 weeks. AP comprised administration of A (40 mg/m2) iv on day 1-3, and P (60 mg/m2) iv on day1, every 3 weeks. The planned sample size was 141 pts in each arm with a one-sided alpha of 5% and power of 70% and a non-inferiority margin of hazard ratio (HR) as 1.31. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), and quality of life (QOL). We evaluated pts’ QOL twice: at the baseline and after completion of the second course. Results: 284 pts were randomized to IP (n=142) and AP (n=142). Median age was 63, 84% were male, and 56% had PS 0. When 191pts enrolled, more febrile neutropenia (FN) was observed in AP than anticipated, and the initial dose of A was decreased from 40 mg/m2 to 35 mg/m2. At the second interim analysis conducted after the completion of patient accrual, the median OS of AP (15.0 m) was much worse than that of IP (18.3 m) and the HR (1.41; 96.3% CI, 1.03-1.93) exceeds even the non-inferiority margin, so the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee recommended early publication of the results. Median PFS was 5.7 (IP) vs. 5.2 months (AP) (HR 1.43, 95% CI, 1.13-1.82). RR was 69.5% (IP) vs. 77.9% (AP) (p=0.14). AEs in IP and AP arm were Grade 4 neutropenia (22.5% vs. 78.6%), G3-4 FN (10.7% vs. 32.1%), and G3-4 diarrhea (7.1% vs.1.4%). Proportion of improvement in physical status of QOL was 37.1%(IP) vs. 31.7%(AP), (odds ratio 0.72; 95%CI, 0.43-1.22; P=0.227). Conclusions: AP showed more bone marrow suppression than expected although it caused less diarrhea. The non-inferiority of AP to IP was not demonstrated and IP remains the standard treatment for ED-SCLC.

Is there a role for chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with a poor performance status?

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14583-e14583
Author(s):  
Hui-li Wong ◽  
Kathryn M Field ◽  
Jeanne Tie ◽  
Suzanne Kosmider ◽  
Jeremy David Shapiro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Poor Performance Status ◽  
Routine Practice ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
To Receive

e14583 Background: The management of patients with poor performance status (PS) remains challenging in the absence of data on optimal treatment. Here we assessed the treatment and outcomes of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS (≥ 2) in routine clinical care. Methods: Analysis of patients prospectively entered onto the TRACC (Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer) database, a clinician-designed initiative to collect comprehensive data on consecutive patients with mCRC from sites across Australia. Data collection commenced in July 2009 and is ongoing at 14 participating public and private centers. Results: Of the 864 patients entered, 161 (18.6%) had an ECOG PS ≥ 2. In total, 95 (11.0%) were PS 2, 54 (6.3%) PS 3 and 12 (1.4%) PS 4. Chemotherapy was administered to 65 (68.4%) PS 2 and 17 (31.5%) PS 3 patients, with none of the PS 4 patients being treated. Overall, poor PS patients were significantly less likely to receive any chemotherapy compared to their good PS (PS 0-1) counterparts (51.6% versus 86.8%, p<0.0001) and, when chemotherapy was given, significantly less likely to receive combination chemotherapy (67.5% vs 81.1%, p=0.0057) or bevacizumab (31.3% vs 55.8%, p<0.0001). Overall survival (OS) was reduced with declining PS, with medians of 28.7, 8.9, 3.5 and 0.8 months for PS 0-1, 2, 3 and 4 patients respectively (p<0.0001). Poor PS patients treated with chemotherapy had a better OS outcome (9.0 vs 3.5 months for untreated patients, p<0.0001). At one and two years, 24 (28.9%) and 7 (8.4%) treated poor PS patients were alive. Conclusions: In routine practice many patients with a poor PS, particularly those that are PS 2, receive active treatment. Although overall survival for poor PS patients is poor, some patients appear to benefit from treatment. Further data analysis, particularly to define subsets that may benefit most from treatment, is planned as further sites around Australia contribute data to the project.

Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase III Trial of Trifluridine/Tipiracil (TAS-102) Monotherapy in Asian Patients With Previously Treated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The TERRA Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 350-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jianming Xu ◽  
Tae Won Kim ◽  
Lin Shen ◽  
Virote Sriuranpong ◽  
Hongming Pan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Biologic Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Asian Patients ◽  
To Receive

Purpose Trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) was effective in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in a phase II Japanese trial. This regional trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of trifluridine/tipiracil in Asian patients with mCRC with or without exposure to biologic therapy. Patients and Methods This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial was conducted at 30 sites in China, the Republic of Korea, and Thailand. Patients ≥ 18 years old with histologically or cytologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum and known KRAS status who were refractory or intolerant to two or more prior chemotherapy regimens were enrolled. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1 ratio; minimization method) to receive trifluridine/tipiracil (twice per day orally; 5 days on and 2 days off for 2 weeks, followed by 14 days off per cycle) or placebo. The primary end point was overall survival (intent-to-treat population). Results Between October 16, 2013, and June 15, 2015, 406 patients were randomly assigned to receive trifluridine/tipiracil (n = 271) or placebo (n = 135). Risk of death was significantly lower in the trifluridine/tipiracil arm than in the placebo arm (hazard ratio for death, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.99; log-rank P = .035). Median overall survival was significantly longer in the trifluridine/tipiracil than in the placebo arm (7.8 months [95% CI, 7.1 to 8.8 months] v 7.1 months [95% CI, 5.9 to 8.2 months], respectively), for a median survival follow-up time of 13.8 months (95% CI, 13.1 to 15.3 months) compared with 13.4 months (95% CI, 11.6 to 17.3 months), respectively. The incidence of serious adverse events was similar between the arms (trifluridine/tipiracil, n = 63 [23.2%]; placebo, n = 32 [23.7%]). No treatment-related deaths were reported. Conclusion Trifluridine/tipiracil has a statistically significant survival benefit compared with placebo in Asian patients with mCRC refractory or intolerant to standard chemotherapies, regardless of exposure to biologic therapy. The safety profile is similar to previous reports.

Phase III Comparison of Vitespen, an Autologous Tumor-Derived Heat Shock Protein gp96 Peptide Complex Vaccine, With Physician's Choice of Treatment for Stage IV Melanoma: The C-100-21 Study Group

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 955-962 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Testori ◽  
Jon Richards ◽  
Eric Whitman ◽  
G. Bruce Mann ◽  
Jose Lutzky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Heat Shock ◽  
Heat Shock Protein ◽  
Interleukin 2 ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Autologous Tumor ◽  
Heat Shock Protein Gp96 ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Stage Iv Melanoma

Purpose To assess the antitumor activity of vitespen (autologous, tumor- derived heat shock protein gp96 peptide complexes) by determining whether patients with stage IV melanoma treated with vitespen experienced longer overall survival than patients treated with physician's choice. Patients and Methods Patients (N = 322) were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive vitespen or physician's choice (PC) of a treatment containing one or more of the following: dacarbazine, temozolomide, interleukin-2, or complete tumor resection. This open-label trial was conducted at 71 centers worldwide. Patients were monitored for safety and overall survival. Results Therapy with vitespen is devoid of significant toxicity. Patients randomly assigned to the vitespen arm received variable number of injections (range, 0 to 87; median, 6) in part because of the autologous nature of vitespen therapy. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that overall survival in the vitespen arm is statistically indistinguishable from that in the PC arm. Exploratory landmark analyses show that patients in the M1a and M1b substages receiving a larger number of vitespen immunizations survived longer than those receiving fewer such treatments. Such difference was not detected for substage M1c patients. Conclusion These results are consistent with the immunologic mechanism of action of vitespen, indicating delayed onset of clinical activity after exposure to the vaccine. The results suggest patients with M1a and M1b disease who are able to receive 10 or more doses of vitespen as the candidate population for a confirmatory study.

The use of olanzapine versus metoclopramide for the treatment of breakthrough chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9064-9064 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rudolph M. Navari ◽  
Cindy K Nagy ◽  
Sarah E Gray
Keyword(s):  
Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Better Than ◽  
Observation Period

9064 Background: Olanzapine (OLN) has been shown to be a safe and effective agent for the prevention of CINV. OLN may also be an effective rescue medication for patients who develop breakthrough CINV despite having received guideline directed CINV prophylaxis. Methods: A double blind, randomized phase III trial was performed for the treatment of breakthrough CINV in chemotherapy naïve patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) (cisplatin, >70 mg/m2, or doxorubicin, >50 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide, > 600mg/m2 ) comparing OLN to Metoclopramide (METO). Patients who developed breakthrough emesis or nausea despite prophylactic dexamethasone (12 mg IV), palonosetron (0.25 mg IV), and fosaprepitant (150 mg IV) pre chemotherapy and dexamethasone (8 mg p.o. daily, days 2-4) post chemotherapy were randomized to receive OLN, 10 mg orally daily for three days or METO, 10 mg orally TID for three days. Patients were monitored for emesis and nausea for the 72 hours after taking OLN or METO. Eighty patients (median age 56 yrs, range 38-79; 43 females; ECOG PS 0,1) consented to the protocol and all were evaluable. Results: During the 72 hour observation period, 30 of 42 (71%) patients receiving OLN had no emesis compared to 12 of 38 (32%) patients with no emesis for patients receiving METO (p<0.01). Patients without nausea (0, scale 0-10, M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory) during the 72 hour observation period was: OLN: 67% (28 of 42); METO 24% (9 of 38) (p<0.01). There were no Grade 3 or 4 toxicities. Conclusions: OLN was significantly better than METO in the control of breakthrough emesis and nausea in patients receiving HEC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document