Gemcitabine-based polychemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC): Is it ready for prime time? A pooled analysis of 3,682 patients (pts) enrolled in 12 phase III trials

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4118-4118 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Milella ◽  
P. Carlini ◽  
A. Gelibter ◽  
E. Ruggeri ◽  
A. Ceribelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Combination Regimens

4118 Background: Since the introduction of gemcitabine (G), attempts have been made to develop G-based combination regimens to improve the dismal outcome of APC pts. Results of randomized trials, however, have been conflicting and single-agent G presently remains the standard of care for such pts. Methods: All prospective phase III trials comparing single-agent G with G-based polychemotherapy regimens (poly-G) were considered eligible. A pooled analysis was performed and event-based relative risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI were derived through both a fixed- and a random-effect model approach, exploring OS as the primary outcome and PFS and ORR as secondary outcomes. Heterogeneity between different trials was also taken into account. Results: Twelve trials involving 3682 pts were identified. The analysis was conducted considering three different subgroups: 1) overall population (3682 patients, 12 trials), 2) platinum-containing poly-G (PG) vs G (768 pts, 5 trials), and 3) fluoropyrimidine-containing poly-G (FG) vs G (1640 pts, 4 trials). As shown in the table, no significant differences in the primary outcome (OS) were observed in any of the three groups analyzed. Conversely, a significant advantage for poly-G was evident with regard to both PFS and ORR in the overall population as well as in the PG vs G subgroup, although with some heterogeneity. A heterogeneous non-significant trend towards a better PFS and ORR outcome was also observed in the FG vs G subgroup. Conclusions: Single-agent G remains the treatment of choice in APC pts. However, the addition of platinum compounds to G appears to significantly improve PFS and ORR, possibly justifying the use of platinum-based poly-G in younger and fit patients. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Current status of targeted agents in advanced pancreatic cancer (APC): A pooled analysis of 2,361 patients (pts) enrolled in six phase III trials

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4126-4126 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Bria ◽  
P. Carlini ◽  
A. Gelibter ◽  
E. Ruggeri ◽  
A. Ceribelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Cancer Biology ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Negative Trend ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Significant Negative Trend ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

4126 Background: Molecular targeting of pathways that are deregulated in pancreatic cancer is a promising approach aimed at improving the dismal prognosis of APC pts. However, the clinical impact of novel “biological” drugs (ND) remains to be defined. Methods: All prospective phase III trials comparing single-agent Gemcitabine (G) with either a ND or a combination of ND and G (ND+G) were considered eligible. A pooled analysis was performed and event-based relative risk ratios (RR) with 95% CI were derived through both a fixed- and a random-effect model approach, exploring OS as the primary outcome and PFS and ORR as secondary outcomes. Heterogeneity between different trials was also taken into account. Results: Six trials involving 2361 pts were identified; ND tested included: FTI inhibitors (1 trial), MMP inhibitors (3 trials), EGFR inhibitors (1 trial), and anti-gastrin vaccine (1 trial). The analysis was conducted considering three different subgroups: 1) overall population (2361 patients, 6 trials), 2) ND+G vs G (1879 patients, 4 trials), and 3) ND vs G (482 patients, 2 trials). As shown in the table, no significant differences in either the primary outcome (OS) or the secondary outcome of PFS were observed in the overall population as well as in ND+G vs G trials, while a significant negative trend for ND was found in ND vs G trials with regard to both endpoints. Conversely the evaluation of the secondary endpoint of ORR significantly favored G in the overall population as well as in ND vs G trials, while a not significant negative trend for ND was observed in ND+G vs G trials. Conclusions: G remains the treatment of choice in APC pts. The ND tested, either alone or combined with G, do not seem to add any benefit over G. A better understanding of pancreatic cancer biology and further clinical evaluation of new agents and is needed to improve prognosis in APC pts. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Predictors of benefits to chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): A meta-analysis.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20595-e20595
Author(s):  
Hazem Edmond El-Osta ◽  
Anita Lyn Sabichi
Keyword(s):  
Liver Metastasis ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Smoking History ◽  
Metastatic Nsclc

e20595 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have changed the landscape of NSCLC therapy. In previous study, gender, smoking history, and PD-L1 status were found to influence the efficacy of ICI monotherapy in NSCLC. This meta-analysis evaluated the clinical and molecular factors predictive of benefit from the addition of ICIs to first-line (1L) chemotherapy in metastatic NSCLC. Methods: Using the random effect model, we computed and compared the pooled hazard ratio (HR) of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) among the selected subgroups. The correlation between PD-L1 expression level and outcome was analyzed by meta-regression. Results: 7 phase III randomized trials comparing CIT vs. chemo in the 1L treatment of stage 4 NSCLC were included. CIT evenly improved the PFS irrespective of age, gender, histology, smoking history and ECOG performance status (PS). While patients (pts) with liver metastasis or ALK/EGFR aberration had greater PFS with the addition of ICI to Bevacizumab (BEV) based chemo regimen, the derived benefit was no longer statistically significant among pts treated with non-BEV-based regimens. Whereas the PFS superiority conferred by CIT was noticed across all PD-L1 expression subgroups, the benefit correlated with PD-L1 level and was more pronounced in the “PD-L1 high” subset. Except for pts with EGFR/ALK abnormalities, squamous histology or liver metastasis, CIT yielded a consistent amelioration of OS across the other selected subgroups. Conclusions: Survival advantage associated with 1L CIT in metastatic NSCLC was observed in different pts population including those for which single-agent ICI has limited therapeutic benefit. Our findings support the role of chemo +/- VEGF blockade as enhancer of ICIs activity even in “less immunogenic” context. [Table: see text]

Impact of single agent daily prednisone on survival and toxicities in post-docetaxel men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC): An analysis of 2 phase III trials.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 213-213
Author(s):  
Guru Sonpavde ◽  
Gregory Russell Pond ◽  
Arnoud J. Templeton ◽  
Eugene D. Kwon ◽  
Johann S. De Bono
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Oral Prednisone ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Combination Regimens ◽  
The Impact

213 Background: Daily oral prednisone (P) has been employed for the therapy of mCRPC, alone or in combination regimens. Despite palliative benefits and PSA responses, the overall clinical impact of P is unknown and it may foster resistance mechanisms. We performed a pooled analysis of control arms of randomized trials which either did or did not administer single agent P to evaluate its impact on overall survival (OS) and toxicities. Methods: Individual patient data from control arms ofrandomized trials of post-docetaxel men receiving placebo or P + placebo were eligible for analysis. Patient demographics, survival, and toxicity data were collected. The impact of P on OS and toxicities was investigated in Cox regression models adjusted for known clinical and laboratory prognostic factors. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value < 0.05 and all tests were two-sided. Results: The control arms of 2 randomized phase III trials were available totaling 794 men: the COU-AA-301 trial (n = 394) administered P plus placebo and the CA184-043 trial (n = 400) administered placebo alone. P plus placebo was not significantly associated with OS compared to placebo alone in a multivariable analysis (HR = 0.89 [95% CI 0.72-1.10], p = 0.27). Other factors associated with poor OS were Eastern Cooperative Oncology group (ECOG)-performance status (PS) ≥ 1, Gleason Score ≥ 8, liver metastasis, high PSA, hypoalbuminemia, and elevated LDH.In contrast, CTCAE grade ≥ 3 therapy-related toxicities were significantly increased with P plus placebo compared to placebo alone (HR = 1.48 (1.03-2.13), p = 0.034) in a multivariable analysis. Other baseline factors significantly associated with a higher risk of grade ≥ 3 toxicities were ECOG-PS ≥ 1, hypoalbuminemia and elevated LDH. Conclusions: P plus placebo compared with placebo alone for post-docetaxel men with mCRPC was not associated with extension of OS, but was associated with higher grade ≥ 3 toxicities. With the exception of the use of P in combination with abiraterone, P alone or in combination regimens should be questioned given its unclear palliative benefits and association with increased toxicities.

Prospective pooled analysis of six phase III trials investigating duration of adjuvant (adjuv) oxaliplatin-based therapy (3 vs 6 months) for patients (pts) with stage III colon cancer (CC): The IDEA (International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant chemotherapy) collaboration.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA1-LBA1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qian Shi ◽  
Alberto F. Sobrero ◽  
Anthony Frank Shields ◽  
Takayuki Yoshino ◽  
James Paul ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cox Model ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Differential Outcomes ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Stratified Cox Model

LBA1 Background: Since 2004, 6 months (m) of oxaliplatin (oxali)-based treatment has been the standard of care as adjuvant therapy for stage III CC. Since oxali is associated with cumulative neurotoxicity, shorter duration of adjuv therapy could spare pts toxicity and lead to substantial saving in health expenditures. Methods: A prospective, pre-planned pooled analysis of 6 concurrently conducted randomized phase III trials (SCOT, TOSCA, Alliance/SWOG 80702, IDEA France (GERCOR/PRODIGE), ACHIEVE, HORG) was performed to evaluate the non-inferiority (NI) of 3m compared with 6m (ref) of adjuv FOLFOX/XELOX. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS), defined as time from enrolment to relapse, 2nd CRC, and death (all causes). NI was to be declared if the 2-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for DFS hazard ratio (HR 3m v 6m) estimated by a stratified Cox model was below 1.12. NI was examined within regimen and stage subgroups as pre-planned. Results: The analysis included 12,834 pts from 12 countries, accrued from 6/07 to 12/15. Stage distribution: 13% T1-2, 66% T3, 21% T4; 28% N2; 40% received XELOX. G3+ neurotoxicity was higher in the 6m v 3m arm (16 v 3% FOLFOX, 9 v 3% XELOX, p<0.0001). With a median follow-up of 39 mos, 3263 DFS events were observed. Overall, the 3 year DFS rate was 74.6% (3m) and 75.5% (6m), with estimated DFS HR of 1.07 (95%CI, 1.00-1.15). The 3m v 6m DFS HRs were 1.16 (95%CI, 1.06-1.26) and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.85-1.06) for FOLFOX and XELOX treated pts, respectively. The 3m v 6m DFS HRs were 1.01 (95%CI, 0.90-1.12) in T1-3 N1, and 1.12 (95%CI, 1.03-1.23) for T4 or N2 pts. Conclusions: While NI was not established for the overall cohort, NI of 3m v 6m oxali-based adjuv therapy was supported for XELOX. As each IDEA trial treated varying proportions of pts with XELOX (0 to 75%), the regimen interaction likely produced the differential outcomes observed between individual studies. Certain substages (T1-3 N1) also showed NI for 3m v 6m. These data provide a framework for discussions on risks and benefits of individualized adjuv therapy approaches. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U10CA180888, U10CA180835, INCA, PHRC2009, EME 09/800/34, HTA 14/140/84, CRUK C1348/A15960, JFMC. Clinical trial information: NCT01150045.

Use of first-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer: FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16536-e16536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aimee Ginsburg Arlen ◽  
Thomas H. Cartwright ◽  
Lalan S. Wilfong ◽  
J. Russell Hoverman ◽  
Greg C Nelson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Community Setting ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
The United States ◽  
Age At Diagnosis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Combination Regimen ◽  
First Line

e16536 Background: Pancreatic cancer (PC) is the fourth leading cause of death in the United States. It is estimated that 43,920 patients will be diagnosed in 2012 and 37,390 will die (Siegel, CA Cancer J Clin, 2012). Gemcitabine has long been the standard of care chemotherapy. Recent advances in treatment options have led to the utilization of a combination regimen (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, leucovorin, fluorouracil [FOLFIRINOX]) in patients with good Karnofsky performance status (PS). This regimen was compared to single-agent gemcitabine, presented at ASCO 2010 and recently published (Conroy, NEJM, 2011). This retrospective analysis was conducted to evaluate characteristics and overall survival (OS) of patients receiving FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine-based treatments in a large outpatient community setting. Methods: Patients with advanced PC treated within The US Oncology Network and entered into the iKnowMed (iKM) database between June 2010 and November 2011 were included. Patterns of treatment were characterized by the median age at diagnosis, sex, PS, and first-line metastatic chemotherapy prescribed. The primary endpoints of the analysis were OS and uptake of FOLFIRINOX within the network. Results: Of the 717 patients identified within the iKM database, 13% received FOLFIRINOX and 87% gemcitabine-based therapy. Increased utilization of FOLFIRINOX for patients with good PS began in June 2010. For all patients (54% male), the median age at diagnosis was 67 years and the majority of patients (89%) had a PS of 70% or greater. The OS was significantly longer for FOLFIRINOX (8.4 months) versus gemcitabine (6.4 months) (p=0.036). OS was also significantly longer for PS of 70% or greater given FOLFIRINOX (9.0 months) versus gemcitabine (6.7 months) (p=0.022). After controlling for PS, the use of gemcitabine led to a shorter OS (HR 1.4; 95% CI: 1.02-2.01). Conclusions: Utilization of FOLFIRINOX has rapidly been adopted in patients with good PS after the publication of phase III trials. Our data in a community setting supports a survival advantage for FOLFIRINOX. Although the magnitude of benefit may be smaller in the community setting, we agree that should FOLFIRINOX become a standard of care for good PS patients.

scholarly journals Thromboembolism (TE) and adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) in hormone receptor positive (HR+) early breast cancer (EBC): Did the evolution of treatment change the incidence of the adverse event? A metanalysis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e12516-e12516
Author(s):  
Luca Moscetti ◽  
Claudia Omarini ◽  
Isabella Sperduti ◽  
Fabio Canino ◽  
Monica Barbolini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Standard Therapy ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Switch Strategy

e12516 Background: The AET of HR+ EBC has been changing in the recent years. Aromatase inhibitors (AI) as upfront, or in a planned switch strategy after Tamoxifen (T), have been added to the choice of T alone. An increased risk of TE is well known in the T treated patients while AIs have showed a reduced rate of TE. Recently, adding the cyclin dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6) abemaciclib to AIs, has showed a positive impact in the high risk HR+ EBC subgroups, but we are seeing an increase of the TE rate. We conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of the new AETs on the incidence of TE if compared to the standard monotherapy. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of the randomized phase III trials comparing the experimental AETs and the endocrine standard therapy. A random-effect model to find differences in the rate of TE events between the experimental treatments and the standard therapy has been used. Results: Twelve phase III trials were included. Five trials evaluated the upfront strategy, 6 studies the switch and one the combination with a CDK4/6inhibitor (i.e. abemaciclib). Overall, the new AETs did not significantly modify or affect the rate of TE events (OR 0.708, 0.444-1.130, p = 0.148) with high heterogeneity among studies (I2 87, p < 0.0001). Excluding the abemaciclib trial, the incidence of TE is reduced (OR 0.609, 0.462-0.802, p < 0.0001) with a moderate heterogeneity among the studies (I2 59, p < 0.006). Considering the upfront strategies with AIs, the TE events are reduced (OR 0.507, 0.394-0.651, p < 0.0001) but they are not if we consider the trials in which T is used upfront before AIs (OR 0.762, 0.546-1.065, p = 0.112). Conclusions: Overall, the new treatments (AIs alone or plus CDK4/6 inhibitors) did not affect the rate in TE events. AIs as upfront strategy is the safest AETs of HR+ EBC, being associated to the lowest incidence of TE. The switch strategy increases the TE rate whereas the addition of abemaciclib to the standard AET showed to significantly increase the TE events. The results of the currently ongoing trials with the CDK4/6 inhibitors will help to obtain additional data to evaluate any differences among the different CDK4/6 inhibitors and to clarify the weight of the TE adverse events in the balance of benefit/risk of this new adjuvant strategy.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Moxifloxacin in Hospitalized Patients with Secondary Peritonitis: Pooled Analysis of Four Randomized Phase III Trials

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 567-575 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan J. De Waele ◽  
Jose M. Tellado ◽  
Günter Weiss ◽  
Jeffrey Alder ◽  
Frank Kruesmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Secondary Peritonitis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

BOIN: A novel Bayesian design platform to accelerate early phase brain tumor clinical trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ying Yuan ◽  
Jing Wu ◽  
Mark R Gilbert
Keyword(s):  
Brain Tumor ◽  
Brain Tumors ◽  
Early Phase ◽  
Late Onset ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Combination Regimen ◽  
Operating Characteristics ◽  
Optimal Interval ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

Abstract Despite decades of extensive research, the progress in developing effective treatments for primary brain tumors lags behind that of other cancers, largely due to the unique challenges of brain tumors (e.g., the blood-brain barrier and high heterogeneity) that limit the delivery and efficacy of many therapeutic agents. One way to address this issue is to employ novel trial designs to better optimize the treatment regimen (e.g., dose and schedule) in early phase trials to improve the success rate of subsequent phase III trials. The objective of this article is to introduce Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) designs as a novel platform to design various types of early phase brain tumor trials, including single-agent and combination regimen trials, trials with late-onset toxicities, and trials aiming to find the optimal biological dose (OBD) based on both toxicity and efficacy. Unlike many novel Bayesian adaptive designs, which are difficult to understand and complicated to implement by clinical investigators, the BOIN designs are self-explanatory and user friendly, yet yield more robust and powerful operating characteristics than conventional designs. We illustrate the BOIN designs using a phase I clinical trial of brain tumor, and provide software (freely available at www.trialdesign.org) to facilitate the application of the BOIN design.

Novel oral anticoagulats for the treatment of left ventricle thrombosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

EP Europace ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Serenelli ◽  
F Vitali ◽  
R Pavasini ◽  
E Tonet ◽  
G Pompei ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Thrombus ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Ventricular Thrombus

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are not guideline-recommanded treatment for left ventricular thrombus.  Purpose: the aim of this meta-analysis is to compare NOACs versus vitamin-K atagonsits (VKAs) efficacy in treating left ventricular thrombus (LVT). Methods: we systematically searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Biomed Central, and Web of Science for trials comparing NOACs versus VKAs in the setting of LVT. Five studies, out of the 74 initially selected after first screening, were included in the meta-analysis. For the development of this meta-analysis, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. The shortlisted studies were retrieved as full articles and appraised independently by two unblinded reviewers. The Mantel-Haensel method with a random effect model was used for the pooled analysis. The primary outcome was the occurrence of stroke and systemic embolism. Secondary outcome was occurrence of left ventricular thrombosis resolution during treatment.  Results: 707 patients were included in the analysis for the primary outcome. Of these, 230 were treated with NOACs and 477 with VKAs. The pooled OR for the primary outcome was 0.71 (95% CI 0.18-2.86, I2 67%), thus showing similar effect in term of ischaemic protection. A total of 698 patients, 228 on NOACs and 470 on VKAs were included in the analysis of the secondary outcome. The pooled OR for the secondary outcome pooled OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.56-1.68, I2 46%. Conclusions and Relevance: NOACs seem to have a similar efficacy profile compare to VKAs and so they should be considered as an alternative treatment for left ventricular thrombosis. Large prospective randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm this exploratory finding. Abstract Figure 1

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document