A phase II study of DJ-927 as second-line therapy in patients (pts) with advanced gastric cancer (GC) who have failed a 5-FU non taxane based regimen

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4081-4081 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Evans ◽  
R. Dobrila ◽  
R. Berardi ◽  
K. A. Sumpter ◽  
L. R. Wall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Optimal Dose ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Neutropenic Sepsis ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Starting Dose ◽  
Measurable Disease ◽  
Complete Treatment ◽  
Grade 3

4081 Background: Most 1st-line combination chemotherapy regimens in pts with advanced GC include 5-FU. Taxanes are also active agents in GC, either alone or in combination. However, there is no recognized 2nd-line regimen for use in pts with advanced GC. DJ-927 is a semi-synthetic novel taxane with in vitro activity against GC cells lines. It is administered orally, with hematologic dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in Phase I studies. The primary objective of this study was to determine the objective response rate of DJ-927 as 2nd-line therapy in pts with advanced GC. Methods: Eligible pts had confirmed advanced GC with no more than 1 prior systemic 5-FU-containing regimen for advanced disease, with adequate hematologic, renal and liver function, and with measurable disease. The starting dose in the 1st cohort of 6 pts was 27 mg/m2 orally, every 3 weeks. If < 2 DLTs occurred at this dose, the next cohort of 6 pts would start at a dose of 35 mg/m2, every 3 weeks, and all subsequent pts would be treated at the optimal dose level. Measurable disease was assessed after every 2 courses. Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed during course 1 only. Sample size based on a 3-outcome 1-stage design was calculated to be 27 pts evaluable for response, with ≥ 4 responses of 27 pts indicating that DJ-927 has activity in advanced GC. Results: 36 pts (male=25; female = 11), KPS ≥ 60%, with GC (n = 23) or OG junction cancer (n = 13), received 104 courses (median = 2; range 1–9) of DJ-927. 2 DLTs (febrile neutropenia; Grade 4 neutropenia > 5 days) occurred at 35 mg/m2, and the optimal starting dose was confirmed as 27 mg/m2. 6 of 36 pts were not evaluable for response (< 1 complete treatment course) due to early disease progression (3), toxicity (2), and drug not given (1). Response data is available for 26 of 30 evaluable pts with confirmed PR (n = 5), SD (15), and PD (6). Toxicity, ≥ grade 3, in evaluable pts (n = 33) included neutropenia (17), anemia (5), thrombocytopenia (4), diarrhoea (7), fatigue (5), lethargy (4), neutropenic sepsis (5). Conclusions: DJ-927 has modest activity in pts with GC who have failed a 5-FU non-taxane based regimen. Toxicities include neutropenia ± sepsis, diarrhoea and lethargy. Further studies of DJ-927 in combination with other active agents are warranted in pts with GC. [Table: see text]

A randomized phase II study of concomitant CT (docetaxel±cisplatin) and (RT) in first-line treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer (LAHNC)

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6047-6047 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Bouillet ◽  
D. Nizri ◽  
A. Zawadi ◽  
D. Herman ◽  
D. Cupissol ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Skin Toxicity ◽  
Secondary Prophylaxis ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
First Line ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Grade 3

6047 Background: 4 randomized trials demonstrated superiority of concomitant CT and radiotherapy (CRT) versus RT. Radiosensitizing effect of docetaxel showed in vitro, phase I recommended docetaxel dose as weekly 20 mg/m2 with concomitant RT. Methods: (pts) with inoperable LAHNC (T3/T4); PS < 2.RT in both arms was 70 Gy. In arm A, pts received 7 cycles of weekly Docetaxel 20 mg/m2 before RT and cisplatin 20 mg/m2 D1–3 every three weeks (3 cycles). In arm B, docetaxel alone at the same dose as in arm A.G-CSF secondary prophylaxis and ciprofloxacin recommended in both arms. Primary objective was WHO objective response rate (ORR). Statistical analysis: 2 steps according to a Simon plan authorized early interruption in case of insufficient efficacy. Results: 82 pts treated (Arms A/B:35/47); Arm A stopped in the first step. 47 pts treated in arm B. M/F (%) (83/17), median age 56.6 y, PS 0/1 (%) 54/46, T2/T3/T4 (%) 2/36/62, N0–1/N2/N3 (%) 30/55/15, primary site (%): buccal cavity (38), hypo-oropharynx (47), larynx (11). Median nbr of cycles 7 (3–7), 85% of pts completed planned CRT. ITT ORR: 89 % [75–96], median TTP 31.3 [19.3 –42.4], median OS 36.8 [21.2–49.5] months. Main grade 3–4 toxicities were mucositis (31.9%),skin toxicity (21.3%). Grade 3–4 hematological, GI and neurological toxicities were not observed. Conclusions: In this study, concomitant RT and weekly 20 mg/m2 docetaxel is effective and well tolerated in LAHNC. The docetaxel/cisplatin arm was prematurely discontinued for insufficient efficacy. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Phase (Ph) 1b/2 evaluation of olaratumab in combination with gemcitabine and docetaxel in advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11517-11517
Author(s):  
Steven Attia ◽  
Victor Manuel Villalobos ◽  
Nadia Hindi ◽  
Brian Andrew Van Tine ◽  
Andrew J. Wagner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Parameter Estimates ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Ecog Ps

11517 Background: Doxorubicin (doxo) remains standard first-line therapy for advanced STS. Doxo in combination with olaratumab (O) demonstrated superior clinical activity compared to doxo alone in a Ph 2 trial (NCT01185964), although this was not confirmed in the subsequent Ph 3 trial (NCT02451943). Gemcitabine (G) plus docetaxel (D) is a second line therapy for advanced STS. Here, we report a concurrent Ph 2 study that explored a second-line addition of O to G and D for advanced STS (ANNOUNCE 2 NCT02659020). Methods: Adult patients (pts) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic STS, ≤ 2 prior lines of systemic therapy, and ECOG PS 0-1 were eligible. Pts were enrolled from 2 cohorts: O-naïve and O-pretreated. In both cohorts, pts were randomized 1:1 to either O, G plus D or placebo (PBO), G plus D. Pts received 21-day cycles of O (20 mg/ kg cycle 1 and 15 mg/kg other cycles, day (d) 1 and d8), G (900 mg/m2, d1 and d8) and D (75 mg/m2, d8). Pts continued treatment until progression, toxicity, or withdrawal. Randomization was stratified by histology (leiomyosarcoma [LMS] vs non-LMS), prior systemic therapy, ECOG PS, and prior pelvic radiation. The primary objective was overall survival (OS) in the O-naïve population using an alpha level of 0.20. Secondary endpoints included OS (O-pretreated) and other efficacy parameters, as well as safety and pharmacokinetics (PK). Results: 167 pts were enrolled in the O-naïve cohort and 89 pts in the O-pretreated cohort. Baseline patient characteristics were well balanced. OS for O-naïve pts was 16.8 vs 18.0 months (m) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.64-1.40; p = 0.78) for the investigational vs control arm, respectively. Other efficacy outcomes are presented in the table. Safety was manageable across treatment arms. PK parameter estimates for O were consistent with previous studies. Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference in OS between the two arms in the O-naïve population. However, while not statistically significant, the combination of O, G and D demonstrated favorable OS in the O-pretreated cohort, and PFS and objective response rate (ORR) in both cohorts. For O-naïve pts, a clinically meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) improvement was observed. Further investigations in specific histological subtypes are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT02659020. [Table: see text]

ANCHOR (OP-104): Melflufen plus dexamethasone (dex) and bortezomib (BTZ) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM)—Optimal dose, updated efficacy and safety results.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8037-8037
Author(s):  
Roman Hajek ◽  
Luděk Pour ◽  
Miquel Granell ◽  
Vladimir Maisnar ◽  
Paul G. Richardson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Partial Response ◽  
Cardiac Failure ◽  
Alkylating Agents ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Optimal Dose ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Development Of Resistance ◽  
Grade 3

8037 Background: Development of resistance to standard treatments for RRMM highlights the need for novel therapies. Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen) is a first-in-class peptide-drug conjugate (PDC) that leverages aminopeptidases and rapidly releases alkylating agents inside tumor cells. Melflufen + dex showed clinical activity and an acceptable safety profile in HORIZON (Richardson et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Dec 9 [Epub]). This is an update of the BTZ arm of the phase 1/2a ANCHOR study (NCT03481556). Methods: Patients (pts) with RRMM were intolerant or refractory to a prior IMiD, with 1-4 prior lines of therapy (LoTs). Prior treatment with a proteasome inhibitor (PI) was allowed, but pts could not be refractory to PIs in the last LoT. Melflufen (30, 40, or 20 mg intravenously; d 1 of each 28-d cycle) was administered with BTZ (1.3 mg/m2 subcutaneous) + oral dex (20 mg on d 1, 4, 8, and 11 and 40 mg on d 15 and 22; dex dose reduced if aged ≥ 75 y). The primary objective in phase 1 was to determine the optimal phase 2 dose of melflufen for this combination. Results: As of the data cutoff date (October 19, 2020), 13 pts received melflufen (30 mg, n = 6; 40 mg, n = 7) + dex and BTZ. In the 30 mg and 40 mg cohorts, respectively, median age was 78.5 y (range, 70-82) and 70.0 y (range, 61-76); median prior LoTs was 3.5 (range, 2-4) and 2.0 (range, 1-4); 33% and 50% of evaluable pts had high-risk cytogenetics; 83% and 71% were refractory to last LoT; 100% and 86% received a prior PI; 33% and 14% were refractory to PIs. In the 30 mg and 40 mg cohorts, respectively, median treatment duration was 6.5 mo (range, 1.4-29.0) and 8.7 mo (range, 2.1-19.6); 4 (67%) and 4 pts (57%) were still on treatment; 2 and 3 pts discontinued (30 mg: progressive disease [PD] and other [1 pt each]; 40 mg: adverse event [AE], lack of efficacy, and PD [1 pt each]). Confirmed overall response rate in the 30 mg and 40 mg cohorts, respectively, was 50% (1 very good partial response [VGPR] and 2 partial response [PR]) and 71% (1 complete response, 3 VGPR, and 1 PR). Most common grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were thrombocytopenia (30 mg: 50%; 40 mg: 100%) and neutropenia (30 mg: 33%; 40 mg: 71%); grade 3/4 nonhematologic TRAEs were infrequent; 3 pts discontinued study treatment due to treatment-emergent AEs (30 mg: cardiac failure chronic and osteolysis [1 pt each]; 40 mg: thrombocytopenia [1 pt]). Serious TRAEs occurred in 2 pts (33%) in the 30 mg cohort (neutropenia and pneumonia [1 pt], syncope [1 pt]) and 1 pt (14%) in the 40 mg cohort (thrombocytopenia and neutropenia). No dose-limiting toxicities occurred at either dose level. Fatal AEs occurred in 1 pt in the 30 mg cohort (cardiac failure chronic; unrelated to study treatment). Conclusions: ANCHOR determined that the optimal dose of melflufen is 30 mg + dex and BTZ; results showed clinical activity in heavily pretreated pts. Recruitment is ongoing; updated data will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT03481556.

DEDUCTIVE: A study of tivozanib in combination with durvalumab in subjects with untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma—Phase Ib results.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 294-294
Author(s):  
Renuka V. Iyer ◽  
Daneng Li ◽  
Farshid Dayyani ◽  
Alexandria T. Phan ◽  
Michael N. Needle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Advanced Hcc ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Improve Patient

294 Background: A recent ph3 study combining bevacizumab (VEGF-A Mab) with atezolizumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) has shown significant improvements in OS and PFS demonstrating that a combination of VEGF and PDL1 inhibition can improve patient outcomes over sorafenib. Tivozanib (T, a potent and selective VEGFR 1, 2 & 3 TKI) and durvalumab (D, a PD-L1 antibody) have both demonstrated single agent activity in HCC and have been combined safely with other therapies. T blocks all three VEGF receptors, and when combined with a PD-L1 inhibitor may improve patient outcomes. The ph1 portion of this study combines T with D to establish the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and provide preliminary safety and efficacy data. Methods: Major eligibility criteria are adults with documented advanced HCC, Child-Pugh Class A, ECOG 0 or 1, creatinine clearance > 40 ml/min. Major exclusion criteria are co-infection with HBV and HCV and significant organ dysfunction. The starting dose is the combination of T 1 mg orally for 21 days followed by 7 days off treatment and D 1500 mg intravenously every 28 days. A DLT is generally defined as the occurrence of any Grade ≥3 immune or non-immune adverse event (AE) in Cycle 1 that is at least possibly related to the investigational regimen other than any grade of vitiligo or alopecia or Grade 3 controllable hypertension in cycle 1. The primary objective is to establish the RP2D and the safety and tolerability for this combination in patients with advanced HCC. Patients will be treated until progression of disease, unacceptable side effects, or death. Outcome measures will be AEs per CTCAE v.5 and cross-sectional imaging performed every 8 weeks. Results: Seven patients were enrolled in phase I. Six were male; the median age was 75 (range 40 to 82). One patient had mild elevation of LFTs and did not complete the 21-day course of T and was replaced. No patient experienced a >=grade 3 AE in cycle 1. The most common AEs, each seen in two of seven patients, were anorexia, cough, diarrhea, dysphonia, fatigue, hypertension, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia. Two of seven have achieved a partial response. Conclusions: The combination of T with D in patients with untreated advanced HCC is well tolerated. The RP2D for the combination is T 1 mg orally for 21 days on treatment followed by 7 days off treatment and D 1500 mg intravenously every 28 days. In the phase II portion of the study an additional 30 patients will be treated at the RP2D. Secondary objectives are to assess the objective response rate, progression free survival, and overall survival in this population. Clinical trial information: NCT03970616.

Safety and efficacy of the anti-CD73 monoclonal antibody (mAb) oleclumab ± durvalumab in patients (pts) with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC), pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), or EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer (EGFRm NSCLC).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9047-9047
Author(s):  
Johanna C. Bendell ◽  
Patricia LoRusso ◽  
Michael J. Overman ◽  
Anne M. Noonan ◽  
Dong-Wan Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Expansion Phase ◽  
Human Dose ◽  
Local Immunosuppression ◽  
Grade 3

9047 Background: Upregulation of CD73 in multiple cancers increases adenosine production, leading to local immunosuppression. Oleclumab, a human IgG1λ mAb, inhibits CD73 function and may increase antitumor immunity. Initial data from a Phase I, first-in-human, dose-escalation and expansion study showed that oleclumab ± durvalumab had manageable safety and encouraging clinical activity in pts with advanced CRC or PDAC. We report updated safety and activity in these cohorts and the first results in an expansion cohort of pts with advanced EGFRm NSCLC. Methods: Previously treated pts with histologically or cytologically confirmed microsatellite stable CRC, PDAC, or EGFRm NSCLC received oleclumab 5–40 mg/kg (escalation) and 40 mg/kg (expansion) IV Q2W, alone (escalation only) or with durvalumab 10 mg/kg IV Q2W. The primary objective was safety; secondary efficacy objectives included objective response (OR) per RECIST v1.1 and duration of response (DoR). Results: 66 pts were enrolled in the escalation phase (35 CRC, 31 PDAC) and 126 in the expansion phase (42 CRC, 42 PDAC, 42 EGFRm NSCLC). At data cutoff (DCO; June 9, 2020), the median number of oleclumab doses was 4 in pts on monotherapy (range 1–26) and 4 in pts on combination therapy across both phases (range 1–76). In the escalation phase, there were no DLTs in pts on monotherapy or combination therapy; treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 54.8% of pts on monotherapy (Grade 3–4 in 7.1%) and 54.2% of pts on combination therapy (Grade 3–4 in 20.8%); fatigue was the most common TRAE with both regimens. No TRAEs resulted in death. In previous interim analyses before this DCO, no ORs were reported in the escalation phase. In the expansion phase, 5 pts were treated for ≥12 mos; 6 pts were ongoing at DCO. TRAEs occurred in 54.0% (Grade 3–5 in 15.1%); the most common TRAEs were fatigue (15.1%), diarrhea (9.5%), and rash (7.1%). One pt had a TRAE resulting in death (systemic inflammatory response syndrome). ORs were seen in 1 CRC pt (DoR 35.9+ mos [+ = ongoing response]), 2 PDAC pts (DoR 22.1+ and 28.6+ mos), and 4 EGFRm NSCLC pts (DoR range 5.6 to 15.7+ mos, median not reached; only 1 of the 4 pts had ≥25% programmed cell death ligand-1 [PD-L1]+ tumor cells). Nine CRC pts, 8 PDAC pts, and 9 EGFRm NSCLC pts had SD. Of 6 pts with matched biopsies who received combination therapy, 5 had increases in CD8+ T cells, PD-L1, and granzyme B. Baseline tumor CD73 expression and association with clinical response will be presented. Conclusions: Oleclumab ± durvalumab had a tolerable safety profile and combination therapy showed promising antitumor activity in EGFRm NSCLC. ORs and SD were durable, even in tumor types that are generally immunotherapy-resistant. Clinical trial information: NCT02503774.

A Phase II Study of PXD101 in Advanced Multiple Myeloma.

Blood ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 108 (11) ◽  
pp. 3583-3583 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Sullivan ◽  
Seema Singhal ◽  
Michael Schuster ◽  
James Berenson ◽  
Peter Gimsing ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Cell Lines ◽  
Stable Disease ◽  
Progressive Disease ◽  
Synergistic Effects ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Primary Objective

Abstract Background: PXD101 is a small molecule HDAC inhibitor of the hydroxamate class, which demonstrates broad anti-neoplastic activity in vitro and in vivo. PXD101 has antiproliferative activity on multiple myeloma cell lines, and shows additive/synergistic effects with standard agents used in myeloma, against these cell lines. PXD101 is being tested as monotherapy and in combination with standard agents for treatment of multiple myeloma. Methods: The primary objective of this study was to assess the activity of PXD101 alone or with dexamethasone, in multiple myeloma patients (pts) who have failed at least 2 prior therapies. Response was measured using the Blade criteria. PXD101 was administered as a 30-min IV infusion on Days 1–5 of a 3-wk cycle, at a dose of 1000 mg/m2/d (900 mg/m2/d in earlier patients). Patients are initially treated with PXD101 alone for two cycles. At the end of cycle two and every cycle thereafter, pts are evaluated for tumor response and continue on the study as follows: pts with objective response or stable disease continue on PXD101 monotherapy, while pts who have progressive disease (PD) are treated with a combination of PXD101 + dexamethasone (Dex). Dex was given orally 40 mg daily on Days 2–5 and 10–13 of the treatment cycle. Results: To date, 24 pts have been enrolled, 19 for which data are currently available. These pts have received a median of 5 (range 2–10) prior therapies. Seventeen pts are evaluable, 12 of whom are evaluable for ≥ 2 cycles, and 5 evaluable for 1 cycle only; 2 pts are unevaluable due to inconsistent baseline that prevented response assessment. Of the 5 pts evaluable for 1 cycle only, 4 discontinued due to PD and one withdrew from study. The 12 pts evaluable for ≥ 2 cycles received a median of 4 treatment cycles (range 2–12); 6 of these patients went on to receive PXD101+Dex. In these 12 pts, duration of PXD101 monotherapy was for 2–4 cycles, with almost all pts (10) receiving only 2 cycles. PXD101+Dex treatment in 6 pts was for 1–10 cycles (10, 6, 4, 4, 3, and 1). In 12 pts on monotherapy for ≥ 2 cycles, there were 6 SD (duration 6–12 wks) and 6 PD. The short duration of SD in PXD101 monotherapy was attributed to patient withdrawal or moving to Dex addition in spite of disease stabilization. All 6 pts receiving PXD101+Dex had previously received at least 2 Dex-containing regimens. One pt had MR (duration 6 wks), and 5 pts had SD. One pt has had SD for 35 wks, with 90% decrease in serum M-component sustained in the last 12 wks; another pt has had SD for 15 wks. In 69 cycles of treatment there were 7 Grade 3/4 adverse events assessed by the investigator as potentially related to study drug. These include anemia (2), infection, respiratory distress, hyperglycemia, thrombocytopenia, and fatigue. Conclusions: PXD101 treatment has resulted in stabilization of advanced and progressive disease, providing clinical benefit to patients. PXD101 combination with dexamethasone led to an MR as well as long duration of stable disease in patients who have previously received multiple Dex regimens. These observations support the continued exploration of PXD101 in combination with other agents for treatment of multiple myeloma.

Safety and efficacy of AMG 655 plus modified FOLFOX6 (mFOLFOX6) and bevacizumab (B) for the first-line treatment of patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4079-4079 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Saltz ◽  
J. Infante ◽  
L. Schwartzberg ◽  
J. Stephenson ◽  
C. Rocha-Lima ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disease Progression ◽  
Human Monoclonal Antibody ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Death Receptor ◽  
Maximum Tolerated Dose ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Death Receptor 5 ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Ecog Ps

4079 Background: AMG 655 is an investigational fully human monoclonal antibody (IgG1) agonist of human death receptor 5 (DR5). AMG 655 activates caspases and induces apoptosis in sensitive tumor cells. The primary objective of this phase 1b study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (up to a target dose of 10 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks) of AMG 655 that can be safely administered in combination with mFOLFOX6-B to mCRC pts. Methods: Eligible pts were ≥ 18 years old with previously untreated mCRC, ECOG PS of 0 or 1, and adequate hematologic, hepatic, and renal function. Pts were enrolled into sequential cohorts of 3- or 10-mg/kg AMG 655 + mFOLFOX6-B administered on day 1 of each 14-day cycle. Study endpoints included incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), adverse events (AE), pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of AMG 655, and objective response rate (by modified RECIST). Results: As of 09/08, 12 pts (6 per cohort) were enrolled and received ≥ 1 cycle of treatment; 8 were female. Median (range) age was 54 (37–75), median (range) time on AMG 655 treatment was 6.9 (1.6 to 11.4+) months; 8 pts continue on study treatment. There were no DLTs in the first 28 days of treatment. Eight pts had grade 3–4 AE; the most common were diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, peripheral neuropathy, neutropenia, DVT, and pulmonary embolism (2 pts each). Post baseline laboratory parameters grade ≥ 3: no ALT and AST; 1 grade 3 bilirubin (due to disease progression), and 3 grade 3 lipase (asymptomatic). No anti-AMG 655 antibodies were detected. AMG 655 PK values (Cmax, Cmin) were similar to those observed with single-agent AMG 655 (LoRusso JCO 2007; 25: abstract 3534). AMG 655 did not appear to affect PK of oxaliplatin or bevacizumab. Best overall tumor response: 5 partial responses (2 unconfirmed, both underwent resection); 6 stable disease; 1 pt had non-measurable disease at baseline. Time to disease progression (3 patients): 8, 42, and 44 weeks. Conclusions: The addition of AMG 655 does not appear to substantially alter the safety profile of mFOLFOX6-B. The randomized phase 2 part of the trial (mFOLFOX6-B ± AMG 655) is in progress. [Table: see text]

Vandetanib versus erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after failure of at least one prior cytotoxic chemotherapy: A randomized, double-blind phase III trial (ZEST)

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8009-8009
Author(s):  
R. B. Natale ◽  
S. Thongprasert ◽  
F. A. Greco ◽  
M. Thomas ◽  
C. M. Tsai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Equivalent Efficacy ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

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]

FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (bev) as second-line therapy in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who have failed first-line bev plus oxaliplatin-based therapy: The randomized phase III EAGLE study.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3516-3516 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Tamagawa ◽  
Shigeyoshi Iwamoto ◽  
Takao Takahashi ◽  
Masato Nakamura ◽  
Yoshinori Munemoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Therapy Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Optimal Dose ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Grade 3

3516 Background: The phase III ML18147 study (NCT00700102) showed a survival benefit for the continuation of bev after 1st-line bev-containing therapy in pts with mCRC. Continuation of bev beyond disease progression in this setting was approved by the FDA in Jan 2013. In the randomized, phase II SPIRITT study (NCT00418938) assessing 2nd-line treatment for mCRC, progression-free survival (PFS) was longer in the bev arm compared with the panitumumab arm, but the difference was not statistically significant. We describe the results of EAGLE, a multicenter, randomized phase III study evaluating the optimal dose of 2nd-line bev in Japan (UMIN000002557). Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive bev 5 mg/kg (Arm A) or 10 mg/kg (Arm B) plus FOLFIRI Q2W. Key eligibility criteria: age ≥20 years, mCRC, ECOG PS ≤1, and treatment failure to prior 1st-line bev plus oxaliplatin-based therapy (≥4 cycles). The primary endpoint was PFS. Secondary endpoints included time to treatment failure (TTF), PFS from 1st-line therapy, response rate (RR) and safety. The planned sample size was 370 pts to detect 30% risk reduction with 90% power assuming a two-sided significance level of 0.05. Results: 387 pts were randomized between Sep 2009 and Jan 2012; 367 pts formed the full analysis set (Arm A 179 pts; Arm B 188 pts). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment arms. Respectively for Arm A and B, PFS was 6.2 and 6.3 months (HR 1.03, 95% CI: 0.82-1.30; p=0.815), TTF 5.3 and 5.3 months (HR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.87-1.33; p=0.485), PFS from 1st-line therapy 17.6 and 17.8 months (HR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.78-1.25; p=0.919) and RR 11.7% and 10.1%. Frequently reported AEs in Arm A and B, respectively, were: hypertension (13.0%, 18.1%), proteinurea (36.8%, 35.2%), GI perforation (4.7%, 3.1%), grade 3/4 neutropenia (46.1%, 39.9%), grade 3/4 fatigue (7.8%, 10.9%), and grade 3/4 anorexia (5.7%, 5.2%). Treatment-related deaths occurred in 2 pts in each arm. Conclusions: The study did not meet its primary endpoint. PFS in Arm A was comparable to that reported in the ML18147 study. Safety in both arms was consistent with previously reported studies. Clinical trial information: UMIN000002557.

IMAGE, a randomized phase Ib/II study of elisidepsin (E) as a single agent in pretreated advanced gastroesophageal (GE) cancer.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 92-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramon Salazar ◽  
Jean Philippe Metges ◽  
David Alan Anthoney ◽  
Gianluca Laus ◽  
Maria Alsina Maqueda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antitumor Activity ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Optimal Dose ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Ib ◽  
Flat Dose

92 Background: E is a new marine compound with broad in vitro/in vivo antitumor activity. Low μM concentrations lead to cell-death through membrane permeabilization. E has shown evidence of activity in pre-treated GE patients (pts) in phase I trials. Methods: The primary objective was to determine the tolerability and efficacy of E in pts with GE cancer after 1-2 prior chemotherapy (CT) lines. Initially, dose was optimized (Phase Ib) in two different schedules: a fixed flat dose (FD) of intravenous (i.v) E (8 and 10 mg), in 24h, biweekly (Arm A) and i.v E (3.0 and 3.75mg), in 3h, weekly (Arm B). After dose optimization patients were included and stratified by histology to each optimal dose (Phase II) to determine the rate of progression-free survival at week 16 ± 1 (PFS4) in an intention to treat analysis. If at least two out of 15 pts reached PFS4, recruitment would continue to a maximum of 40 pts per arm. Results: A total of 45 pts were recruited, 12 pts into Phase Ib (Arm A/B: 6/6 pts) and 33 pts into Phase II (Arm A/B: 15/18 pts). Median age was 60 years (35–81 years), 39 were males and ECOG PS was 1 in 75% of pts. Tumour sites were gastric (32% pts), esophageal (39% pts) and esophago-gastric junction (30% pts). Ninety percent of pts had metastatic disease, 31.8% of which had liver metastasis; 55% of pts had two prior lines of CT . No DLTs occurred during the first cycle in the Phase Ib. The optimal dose for Arm A was 10 mg FD, 24h, biweekly; the optimal dose for Arm B was 3.75mg FD, 3h, weekly. Two patients reached PFS4 in Phase Ib (Arm A). Only one patient reached PFS4 in Phase II (Arm A). No objective responses were observed. Therefore, protocol criteria for further recruitment were not met. The safety profile showed grade 1-2 toxicity pruritus (29.5%), nausea (15.9%), vomiting (6.8%) and fatigue (25%). Grade 3-4 toxicity consisted of asymptomatic reversible liver enzyme increases in 20.5% of patients. Conclusions: E is a very tolerable drug with a unique mechanism of action. In the current setting of non-stratified advanced GE patients, E has insufficient antitumor activity to warrant further investigation. Clinical trial information: 2010-020325-40.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document