A phase III randomized trial of adjuvant biochemotherapy (BC) versus interferon-α-2b (IFN) in patients (pts) with high risk for melanoma recurrence

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8003-8003 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. B. Kim ◽  
S. S. Legha ◽  
R. Gonzalez ◽  
C. Anderson ◽  
N. E. Papadopoulos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Interferon Α ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Regional Lymph Nodes ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Grade 3

8003 Background: High-dose IFN (HDI) is associated with significant toxicity, and its clinical benefit as an adjuvant therapy for melanoma has been often debated. BC is associated with higher response rates than other regimens, but it has never been tested in an adjuvant setting. Methods: We conducted a prospective randomized phase III study comparing the clinical benefit of IFN and BC in pts who had undergone lymphadenectomy within 56 days for melanoma metastatic to regional lymph nodes. Pts were randomized to receive BC (Cisplatin 20 mg/m2 IV [d1–4]; Vinblastine 1.5 mg/m2 IV [d1–4]; DTIC 800 mg/m2 IV [d1]; IFN 5 MU/m2 SQ [d1–5]; IL-2 9 MU/m2 continuous IV infusion [d1–4] every 3 wks for 4 courses) or IFN, and those who were randomized to IFN were further randomized to either HDI (20 MU/m2 IV for 5 d/week for 4 wks and 10 MU/m2 SQ 3 times a wk for 48 wks) or intermediate-dose IFN (IDI) (10 MU/m2 SQ 3 times a wk for 1 year). The primary end points were overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS). Using 80% power and 5% significance level, 200 pts would be required to detect the difference in median RFS of 18 vs. 36 months and in OS of 40 vs. 80 months between IFN and BC groups. Results: An interim analysis was performed because of slow accrual. 138 pts were enrolled between 1995 and 2003, with 71, 33 and 33 in the BC, HDI and IDI group, respectively. There were no significant differences in both RFS and OS between HDI and IDI groups. With median follow up of 49.3 months, neither the BC or IFN had reached the median RFS and OS. Log-rank test was used to compare RFS (p=0.96) and OS (p=0.52) between 2 groups. RFS and OS data are presented below. Pts in the BC arm had more grade 3–4 fatigue, nausea, anorexia, capillary leak syndrome, diarrhea and myelosuppression. Conclusions: There were no significant differences in both OS and RFS between the BC and IFN groups. This interim analysis supports terminating this trial before achieving the specified target for patient accrual. Supported in part by Schering-Plough. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

Planned interim analysis of the intergroup FFCD-GERCOR-FNCLCC-AERO phase III study comparing two sequences of chemotherapy in locally advanced or metastatic gastric cancers

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4533-4533 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Guimbaud ◽  
O. Bouché ◽  
C. Rebischung ◽  
F. Bonnetain ◽  
C. Louvet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Grade 3

4533 Background: There are several standard chemotherapies in locally advanced or metastatic gastric or cardia adenocarcinoma, including ECF. Methods: Patients (pts) with a gastric or cardiac adenocarcinoma, locally advanced or metastatic, not surgically curable, with a WHO PS ≤2 and evaluable or measurable lesions, were randomized (1:1) according to the following sequences: ECC (epirubicin 50 mg/m2 D1+ cisplatin 60 mg/m2 D1 + capecitabine 2000 mg/m2 D2 to D15, every 3 weeks) in 1st line, then FOLFIRI (IRI 180 mg/m2 D1, leucovorin 400 mg/m2 D1, bolus 5FU 400 mg/m2 D1 and continuous 5FU 2400 mg/m2 in 46h, every 2 weeks) in 2nd line (Arm A) vs the reverse sequence (Arm B) with a stratification for center, PS, adjuvant treatment, site, linitis and measurable disease. To show an improvement in median time to treatment failure for the 1st line (TTF: time between randomization and progression, or treatment discontinuation or recurrence or death) of 15 to 20 weeks for arm B (α bilateral 5%; β 20 %), 381 failures and 416 pts are required in 4-year period. An interim analysis is planned when at least 190 failures are observed (ITT). TTF is estimated according to the Kaplan Meier method and compared with a Log-rank test. Results: In arm A and B, 174 and 175 pts were included respectively, between 17/06/05 and 21/12/07. Pts characteristics are: PS 1: 51%, med. age 60 years, gastric 67%, M+ 88%, resected primary tumor 27% and linitis 23%. In arms A and B respectively, 141 and 147 pts received at least one dose in 1st line and 61 and 44 pts in 2nd line. Toxicities during the first line is more frequent in the ECC than in the FOLFIRI arm: grade 3/4 (88 vs 68% - p ≤0.0001) and grade 3/4 hemato toxicities (69 vs 36% - p ≤0.001). In 2nd line, toxicities frequency is not different in both arms. The median TTF in 1st line (n = 310 pts) is 4.7 months [3.8 - 5.7] for ECC and 5.2 months [4.4–6.0] for FOLFIRI (Log Rank p = 0. 78). Regarding the 252 failures observed (67% of the required events), the significance level to reject H0 is p = 0.012 (EAST V5). Conclusions: It is not possible yet to conclude to the superiority of FOLFIRI in 1st line; the final analysis after observation of 381 failures is required. Regarding toxicity, hemato-toxicity is more frequent with ECC in 1st line. [Table: see text]

Bortezomib, Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone Vs. Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone in Patients (Pts) with Previously Untreated Multiple Myeloma without an Intent for Immediate Autologous Stem Cell Transplant (ASCT): Results of the Randomized Phase III Trial SWOG S0777

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 25-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Durie ◽  
Antje Hoering ◽  
S. Vincent Rajkumar ◽  
Muneer H. Abidi ◽  
Joshua Epstein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
P Value ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background: Lenalidomide with dexamethasone (Rd) is a standard of care for patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma. SWOG S0777, a randomized phase III trial, has compared Rd with bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd). The primary end point is progression-free survival (PFS) using a pre-specified one-sided stratified log rank test at a significance level of 0.02. The stratification factors are International Staging System (ISS) stage (I, II or III) and intent to transplant (yes or no), a total of 6 strata. Overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and safety are secondary end points. Methods: This analysis includes 474 patients evaluable for survival endpoints: 232 patients were randomized to Rd and 242 patients to VRd. Rd patients received lenalidomide 25 mg/day on days 1-21 and dexamethasone 40 mg/day on days 1, 8, 15 and 22 of a 28-day cycle. VRd patients received lenalidomide 25 mg/day on days 1-14 and dexamethasone 20/mg/day on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 12 plus bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 IV push on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 of a 21-day cycle. All patients received aspirin 325 mg/day and VRd patients received HSV prophylaxis per institutional standard. Induction was six 28-day cycles of Rd and eight 21-day cycles of VRd followed by Rd maintenance for all patients until progression, unacceptable toxicity or withdrawal of consent. Initial analyses utilized the pre-specified one-sided stratified log rank test. Results: Data are presented for VRd followed by Rd throughout. Between 2008 and 2012, 525 patients from 48 institutions were randomized. Fifty-one patients, 29 randomized to Rd and 22 randomized to RVd, were ineligible for the following reasons: missing, insufficient or early or late baseline labs (40); not meeting requirements of measurable disease (6); inadequate marrow function (1); inadequate creatinine clearance (1); prior malignancy (1); prior therapy (1); and more than 2 weeks of prior steroid therapy (1). The pre-specified significance level of 0.02 was reached in the log rank testing. The stratified hazard ratio (HR) was 0.742 (96% Wald confidence interval: 0.579, 0.951), and the one-sided stratified log rank p-value for PFS (VRd vs. Rd) was 0.0066. The OS was improved for VRd vs. Rd with HR = 0.666; two-sided log-rank p-value = 0.0114. The PFS and OS survival charts are displayed below. Median PFS was 43 months (VRd) versus 31 months (Rd). Median OS was not reached (VRd) versus 63 months (Rd). Patient characteristics were well-matched between VRd and Rd with the exception of fewer women (37% vs. 47%: P = 0.033) and fewer older patients (≥ 65 years 38% vs. 48%: P = 0.042) receiving VRd. With univariate Cox regression analysis correlates of better PFS/OS were: use of VRd (HR 0.72/0.65; P = 0.006); hemogoblin ≥10 g/dl (HR 1.17/1.43; P = 0.2/0.026) and lower ISS disease stage (HR 1.35/1.98; P = 0.014/< 0.001). The ORR for VRd was 71.07% versus 63.79% for Rd. The adverse events by CTC category and toxicity category were fairly well balanced. The most common hematologic adverse events (≥ Grade 3 and at least possibly attributable to therapy) were low hemoglobin (RVd=13%; Rd=16%), leukopenia (RVd=14%; Rd=16%), lymphopenia (RVd=23%; Rd=18%), neutropenia (RVd=19%; Rd=21%), and thrombocytopenia (RVd=18%; Rd=14%). The most common non-hematologic adverse events (≥ Grade 3 and at least possibly attributable to therapy) were: fatigue (RVd=16%; Rd=14%), sensory neuropathy (RVd=23%; Rd=3%), hyperglycemia (RVd=7%; Rd=11%), thrombosis/embolism (RVd=8%; Rd=9%), hypokalemia (RVd=9%; Rd=6%), muscle weakness (RVd=7%; Rd=4%), diarrhea (RVd=8%; Rd=2%), and dehydration (RVd=8%; Rd=2%). As expected ≥ Grade 3 neuropathy was more frequent with VRd (24% vs. 5%: P < 0.0001). Sixteen patients experienced a second primary malignancy, 7 (3%) on VRd and 9 (4%) on Rd. Conclusion: The addition of bortezomib to lenalidomide dexamethasone for induction therapy in previously untreated myeloma results in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS as well as better OS. VRd had an acceptable safety and tolerability profile despite increased neurotoxicity and represents a potential new standard of care. Support: NIH/NCI/NCTN grants CA180888, CA180819, CA180821, CA180820; and in part by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., The Takeda Oncology Company, for provision of study drug. Figure 1. Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 2. Disclosures Durie: Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Abidi:Millennium: Research Funding. Epstein:University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences: Employment. Reu:Takeda/Millennium: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Orlowski:BioTheryX, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acetylon: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy; Forma Therapeutics: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Barlogie:Dana Farber Cancer Institute: Other: Travel Stipend; International Workshop on Waldenström's Macroglobulinemia: Other: Travel Stipend; ComtecMed- World Congress on Controversies in Hematology: Other: Travel Stipend; European School of Haematology- International Conference on Multiple Myeloma: Other: Travel Stipend; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Myeloma Health, LLC: Patents & Royalties: Co-inventor of patents and patent applications related to use of GEP in cancer medicine licensed to Myeloma Health, LLC; Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation: Other: Travel Stipend.

A randomized trial of 79.2Gy versus 70.2Gy radiation therapy (RT) for localized prostate cancer.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff M. Michalski ◽  
Jennifer Moughan ◽  
James Purdy ◽  
Walter Bosch ◽  
Jean-Paul Bahary ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Late Toxicity ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Local Progression ◽  
Gu Toxicity ◽  
Grade 3

4 Background: RTOG 0126 is a phase III trial for localized prostate cancer (PC) testing whether dose escalation to 79.2Gy with 3DCRT or IMRT will improve overall survival (OS). Methods: Stage cT1b-T2b with Gleason Score (GS) 2-6 and PSA ≥ 10 and <20 or GS 7 and PSA <15 were eligible and randomized to receive 79.2Gy or 70.2Gy. No androgen withdrawal was used. Treatment was 3DCRT or IMRT to 79.2Gy in 44 fractions or 70.2Gy in 39 fractions. The objective was to detect a 23% reduction in mortality hazard (HR=0.77) for 79.2Gy. ASTRO and Phoenix definition was used for biochemical failure (BF). Time to local progression (LP), distant metastases (DM), PC death, and late GI/GU toxicity was calculated from date of registration. OS was estimated by Kaplan Meier and arms compared with log rank test. BF, LP, DM, time to late GI/GU, and PC death were estimated by cumulative incidence method and arms compared with Gray’s test. Results: 1,532 men were randomized, 763 to 79.2Gy and 769 to 70.2Gy. 1,499 were eligible, 751 and 748 in the 79.2Gy and 70.2Gy arms respectively. Median age was 69, 70% had PSA < 10 ng/ml, 84% with GS 7, 57% had T1 disease, and 66% used 3D-CRT. With a median of 7.0 years follow up, the 5 and 10-yr rates of OS are 88% and 67% with 79.2Gy and 89% and 66% with 70.2Gy (p=0.87; HR (95%CI)=0.98 (0.79,1.21)). The ASTRO (Phoenix) BF rates at 5 and 10 yr are 25% (16%) and 30% (26%) with 79.2Gy and 40% (21%) and 45% (43%) with 70.2Gy (both p<0.0001). The 5 and 10-yr rates of LP are 1% and 4% with 79.2Gy and 2% and 8% with 70.2Gy (p=0.0059; HR (95%CI)=0.46 (0.27,0.81)). The 5 and 10 yr rates of DM are 2% and 5% with 79.2Gy and 3% and 8% with 70.2Gy (p=0.026; HR (95%CI)=0.57 (0.35,0.94)). The high dose arm had lower rate of salvage therapy, 13.5% vs 21%, p=0.0002. The 10 yr rates for time to late grade ≥ 2 GI/GU are 22%/15% with 79.2Gy and 16%/10% with 70.2Gy (p=0.0063/p=0.001). Time to late grade ≥ 3 GI was higher for the 79.2Gy arm (p=0.035) but time to late grade ≥ 3 GU toxicity was not (p=0.14). Conclusions: Despite significant improvement in BF, DM, and LP rates, dose escalation did not improve OS. Patients receiving high dose radiation experience more late toxicity. Clinical trial information: NCT00033631.

Comparison of l and dl forms of folinic acid in Gercor C96.1 trial (A phase III trial comparing bimonthly LV5FU2 to monthly high-dose 5FU-leucovorin in patients with Dukes’ B2 and C colon cancer)

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15004-e15004
Author(s):  
E. M. Quinaux ◽  
I. Baumgaertner ◽  
A. Khalil ◽  
C. Louvet ◽  
M. E. Buyse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Folinic Acid ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Grade 3

e15004 In C96.1 study (André T et al; J Clin Oncol. 2007 20;25:3732–8), patients were randomized to either monthly 5FU-LV hd (dl LV 200 mg/m2 or l LV 100 mg/m2 15 min iv followed by 5FU 400 mg/m2 15 min iv, d1–5 q4 wk) or LV5FU2 (dl LV 200 mg/m2 or l LV 100 mg/m2 2-hour infusion followed by iv bolus 5FU 400 mg/m2 and 22 hours continuous infusion 600 mg/m2, d1 and d2 q 2 wk). Form l LV was administered to 60% (n=519) of patients and dl LV to 40% (n=357) of patients. It was unknown in 29 patients. No randomization was made between form l or dl (It was the choice of each center). The aim of this analysis was to compare the 2 LV forms in term of safety and efficacy. Important prognostic characteristics were well balanced between the 2 groups. The proportion of any grade III-IV toxicity was 20% in l form and 17% in dl form. There was no difference in term of toxicity between the two groups, except a trend for more diarrhea grade 3–4 in form l (8% in l form vs 4% in dl form, p=0.07). The median follow-up time was 6.2 years in l form and 6.0 years in dl form. There were no statistically significant differences between l and dl forms in term of disease free survival (33.3% vs 32.8% of patients with at least one event in l and dl forms respectively, hazard ratio=1.03, 95% CI=[0.82–1.31], p=0.78). In term of overall survival, there was a trend without statistical significance in favor of l form (21.8% vs 25.5% of patients who died, hazard ratio=1.28, 95% CI=[0.97–1.69], p=0.078). We conclude that the toxicity profile is similar between the two forms (excepted diarrhea). The difference in overall survival should not be attributed to folinic acid form as no difference was observed on DFS. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Phase III trial of lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone versus lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (E4A03): A trial coordinated by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA8025-LBA8025 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. V. Rajkumar ◽  
S. Jacobus ◽  
N. Callander ◽  
R. Fonseca ◽  
D. Vesole ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Bone Lesions ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Type I ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
High Dose Dexamethasone ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
One Year

LBA8025 Background: We compared lenalidomide plus high (standard) dose Dex (R+HighD) versus lenalidomide plus low dose Dex (R+LowD) in newly diagnosed MM. Methods: Pts with untreated, symptomatic MM were eligible. Pts in both arms received lenalidomide 25 mg/day PO days 1–21 every 28 days. In addition, pts in the R+HighD arm received Dex 40 mg days 1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 PO every 28 days; pts in the R+LowD arm received Dex 40 mg days 1, 8, 15, and 22 PO every 28 days. The primary null hypothesis was that response rates at 4 months on the 2 arms are equivalent. Planned sample size was 196 eligible pts per arm with one-sided 0.10 Type I and 0.05 Type II error rate. Pre-planned interim analysis is performed by an independent DMC when full information is available on 25%, 50% and 75% of accrual. All analysis were intent to treat. Results: 445 pts (median age, 65 yrs) were accrued; 223 randomized to R+HighD, 222 to R+LowD. Arms were well balanced for age, gender, stage, bone lesions, hemoglobin, beta-2 microglobulin, performance status, bone marrow plasma cells, and M protein levels at baseline. Major grade 3 or higher toxicities included thromboembolism (22.1% with R+HighD vs 6.1% in R+LowD), infection/pneumonia (15.7% vs 7.5%) and hyperglycemia (9.7% vs 6.6%). Grade 3 or higher non-hematologic toxicities occurred in 65.9% (R+HighD) versus 54.9% (R+LowD) respectively; corresponding grade 4 or higher rates were 20.3% vs 13.1% respectively. Overall survival (OS) at first interim analysis was significantly superior with R+LowD, P<0.001; one year survival 96.5% (R+LowD) versus 86% (Rev+HighD). OS differences in favor of R+LowD were seen in pts <65 (P=0.015; one year rate 98% vs 90%) and pts 65 and older (P=0.004; one year rate 95% vs 83%), respectively. DMC recommended release of survival results, and recommended switching all pts to R+LowD. DMC also recommended closure of an expansion phase trial of R+HighD investigating optimal thromboprophylaxis. Conclusions: Lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone is associated with superior OS compared to lenalidomide plus high-dose dexamethasone. This study has major implications for future use of high-dose dexamethasone in the treatment of MM. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

scholarly journals Safety and effectiveness of eculizumab in Japanese patients with generalized myasthenia gravis: interim analysis of post-marketing surveillance

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 175628642110019
Author(s):  
Hiroyuki Murai ◽  
Shigeaki Suzuki ◽  
Miki Hasebe ◽  
Yuji Fukamizu ◽  
Ema Rodrigues ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myasthenia Gravis ◽  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Japanese Patients ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Complement Protein ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Post Marketing Surveillance ◽  
Post Marketing ◽  
History Of

Background: Eculizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeted to terminal complement protein C5, is approved in Japan for treatment of patients with anti-acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive (AChR+) generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) whose symptoms are difficult to control with high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) therapy or plasmapheresis. Methods: This interim analysis of mandatory post-marketing surveillance in Japan assessed the safety and effectiveness of eculizumab at 26 weeks after treatment initiation in patients with AChR+ gMG. Results: Data were available for 40 adult patients in Japan [62.5% (25/40) female; mean age at eculizumab initiation, 51.0 years]. Fifteen patients had a history of thymoma. Six patients were excluded from the effectiveness analysis set due to participation in the open-label extension part of the phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled REGAIN study [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02301624]. After 26 weeks’ follow up, 32 patients (80%) were continuing eculizumab treatment. Adverse drug reactions were reported by seven patients [most frequently headache ( n = 3)]. One death was reported during eculizumab treatment (relationship unclear as determined by the treating physician) and there was one death 45 days after the last dose (considered unrelated). No meningococcal infections were reported. Mean (standard deviation) changes from baseline in Myasthenia Gravis-Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) and Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) scores were −3.7 (2.61) ( n = 27) and −5.6 (3.50) ( n = 26), respectively, at 12 weeks, and −4.3 (2.72) ( n = 26) and −5.6 (4.02) ( n = 24), respectively, at 26 weeks. Improvements in MG-ADL and QMG scores were generally similar in patients with/without a history of thymoma. Frequency of IVIg use decreased following eculizumab initiation. Conclusion: In a real-world setting, eculizumab was effective and well tolerated for the treatment of AChR+ gMG in adult Japanese patients whose disease was refractory to IVIg or plasmapheresis. These findings are consistent with the efficacy and safety results from the global phase III REGAIN study of eculizumab.

JUPITER-02: Randomized, double-blind, phase III study of toripalimab or placebo plus gemcitabine and cisplatin as first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA2-LBA2
Author(s):  
Rui-hua Xu ◽  
Hai-Qiang Mai ◽  
Qiu-Yan Chen ◽  
Dongping Chen ◽  
Chaosu Hu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
First Line Treatment

LBA2 Background: Gemcitabine-cisplatin (GP) chemotherapy is the standard 1st line treatment for locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic (r/m) NPC. Toripalimab, a humanized IgG4K monoclonal antibody specific for PD-1, provided durable responses in patients (pts) with r/m NPC as monotherapy in the ≥2nd line setting (POLARIS-02 study). The results of JUPITER-02, a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded Phase III trial of toripalimab in combination with GP chemotherapy as first-line treatment for r/m NPC are summarized. Methods: Pts with advanced NPC with no prior chemotherapy in the r/m setting were randomized (1:1) to receive toripalimab 240 mg or placebo d1 in combination with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 d1, d8 and cisplatin 80 mg/m2 d1 every 3 weeks (Q3W) for up to 6 cycles, followed by monotherapy with toripalimab or placebo Q3W until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or completion of 2 years of treatment. Stratification factors were ECOG PS (0 vs. 1) and extent of disease (recurrent vs. primary metastatic) at enrollment. Progression-free survival (PFS) and response were assessed by independent review committee (IRC) per RECIST v1.1. The primary endpoint was PFS by IRC in the ITT population. Secondary end points included ORR, DOR and OS. There was one prespecified interim analysis of PFS at 130 PFS events with a planned final analysis at 200 PFS events. Results: 289 pts were randomized: 146 to the toripalimab arm and 143 to the placebo arm. By May 30, 2020 as the interim analysis cutoff date, the median treatment duration was 39 weeks in the toripalimab arm and 36 weeks in the placebo arm. A significant improvement in PFS was detected for the toripalimab arm compared to the placebo arm (HR = 0.52 [95% CI: 0.36-0.74] two-sided p = 0.0003), with median PFS of 11.7 vs. 8.0 months. The 1-year PFS rates were 49% and 28% respectively. An improvement in PFS was observed across relevant subgroups, including all PD-L1 subgroups. The ORR was 77.4% vs. 66.4% (P = 0.033) and the median DOR was 10.0 vs. 5.7 months (HR = 0.50 [95% CI: 0.33-0.78]). As of Jan 15, 2021, OS was not mature, with 25 deaths in the toripalimab arm and 35 in the placebo arm (HR = 0.68 [95% CI: 0.41-1.14], P = 0.14). The incidence of Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) (89.0% vs 89.5%); AEs leading to discontinuation of toripalimab/placebo (7.5% vs 4.9%); and fatal AEs (2.7% vs 2.8%) were similar between two arms; however, immune-related (irAEs) (39.7% vs. 18.9%) and Grade ≥3 irAEs (7.5% vs. 0.7%) were more frequent in the toripalimab arm. Conclusions: The addition of toripalimab to GP chemotherapy as 1st-line treatment for pts with advanced NPC provided superior PFS and ORR and longer DOR than GP alone with a manageable safety profile. These results support the use of toripalimab with GP chemotherapy as the new standard care for this population. Clinical trial information: NCT03581786.

scholarly journals ACTR-32. NRG ONCOLOGY RTOG 1205: RANDOMIZED PHASE II TRIAL OF CONCURRENT BEVACIZUMAB AND RE-IRRADIATION VS. BEVACIZUMAB ALONE AS TREATMENT FOR RECURRENT GLIOBLASTOMA

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_6) ◽  
pp. vi20-vi20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Tsien ◽  
Stephanie Pugh ◽  
adam Dicker ◽  
Jeffrey Raizer ◽  
Martha Matuszak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Recurrent Glioblastoma ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Log Rank Test ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Recurrent Gbm

Abstract This study sought to determine whether re-irradiation (ReRT) and concurrent bevacizumab (BEV) improves overall survival (OS) compared to BEV alone in recurrent glioblastoma (GBM). Patients (pts) were randomized 1:1 to ReRT (35 Gy/10 fractions) plus BEV (IV 10 mg/kg q2 wks) vs. BEV alone. With 160 pts, there was 80% power to detect a 31% reduction in death hazard for BEV+RT at a one-sided significance level of 0.10 using a log rank test. OS and PFS were estimated by Kaplan-Meier and HRs estimated by exact binomial distribution. Objective response was assessed using MacDonald and RANO criteria. From 11/2012 to 4/2016, 182 pts were randomized, with 170 eligible, analyzable pts. 11 pts did not receive protocol treatment. Patient characteristics (age, KPS, re-resection rates) were balanced between arms. Median f/u for censored pts was 12.8 months (mos; min-max, 0.03–52.8). BEV+ReRT did not improve OS vs BEV alone, with median OS of 10.1 vs 9.7 mos, (HR=0.98, 95% CI=0.70–1.38, p=0.46). Median PFS for BEV+RT and BEV was 7.1 vs. 3.8 mos, respectively (HR=0.73, 95% CI=0.53–1.0, p=0.051). BEV+ReRT improved 6-mo PFS rate (PFS6): 54 vs. 29%, (HR=0.42, 95% CI=0.34–0.5, p=0.001). Overall, treatment was well tolerated: 5% acute and 0% delayed grade 3+ treatment-related AE. Most patients died from recurrent GBM. CONCLUSION: RTOG 1205 is the first, prospective, randomized multi-institutional study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ReRT in recurrent GBM using modern RT techniques. Overall, ReRT was shown to be safe and well tolerated. BEV+ReRT did not demonstrate a benefit in OS but an improved PFS6, and clinically meaningful PFS improvement. Molecular correlates of response analyses are ongoing. Funded by U10CA180868, U10CA180822 from the National Cancer Institute.

scholarly journals Sequencing of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy With External-Beam Radiotherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: A Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 593-601 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shawn Malone ◽  
Soumyajit Roy ◽  
Libni Eapen ◽  
Choan E ◽  
Robert MacRae ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Androgen Deprivation Therapy ◽  
Androgen Deprivation ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Localized Prostate Cancer ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Log Rank Test ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3

PURPOSE Dose-escalated radiotherapy (RT) with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) is a standard definitive treatment of localized prostate cancer (LPCa). The optimal sequencing of these therapies is unclear. Our phase III trial compared neoadjuvant versus concurrent initiation of ADT in combination with dose-escalated prostate RT (PRT). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with newly diagnosed LPCa with Gleason score ≤ 7, clinical stage T1b to T3a, and prostate-specific antigen < 30 ng/mL were randomly allocated to neoadjuvant and concurrent ADT for 6 months starting 4 months before RT (neoadjuvant group) or concurrent and adjuvant ADT for 6 months starting simultaneously with RT (concurrent group). The primary end point was biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS). Stratified log-rank test was used to compare bRFS and overall survival (OS). Incidence of grade ≥ 3 late RT-related toxicities was compared by log-rank test. RESULTS Overall, 432 patients were randomly assigned to the neoadjuvant (n = 215) or concurrent group (n = 217). At 10 years, bRFS rates for the two groups were 80.5% and 87.4%, respectively. Ten-year OS rates were 76.4% and 73.7%, respectively. There was no significant difference in bRFS ( P = .10) or OS ( P = .70) between the two groups. Relative to the neoadjuvant group, the hazard ratio for the concurrent group was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.41 to 1.07) for bRFS and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.68 to 1.30) for OS. No significant difference was observed in the 3-year incidence of late RT-related grade ≥ 3 GI (2.5% v 3.9%) or genitourinary toxicity (2.9% v 2.9%). CONCLUSION In our study, there was no statistically significant difference in bRFS between the two treatment groups. Similarly, no difference was seen in OS or late RT-related toxicities. On the basis of these results, both neoadjuvant and concurrent initiations of short-term ADT with dose-escalated PRT are reasonable standards of care for LPCa.

VELCADE/Dexamethasone (Vel/Dex) Versus VAD as Induction Treatment Prior to Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT) in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (MM): An Interim Analysis of the IFM 2005-01 Randomized Multicenter Phase III Trial.

Blood ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 108 (11) ◽  
pp. 56-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Luc Harousseau ◽  
Gerald Marit ◽  
Denis Caillot ◽  
Philippe Casassus ◽  
Thierry Facon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cell ◽  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Induction Treatment ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Β2 Microglobulin

Abstract ASCT is considered the standard of care for patients up to 65 years of age with MM. The optimal induction treatment prior to ASCT is still unknown. VAD is a commonly used regimen but is associated with a number of toxicities, administrative inconvenience, and a complete remission (CR) rate of typically less than 10%. Recently the combination thalidomide/Dex was reported to induce a higher overall response rate than Dex alone in newly diagnosed patients, but with significantly more toxicities, especially deep vein thrombosis, and a 4% CR rate (Rajkumar et al, J Clin Oncol 2006;24:431–6). In a phase II trial we have evaluated the combination of Vel 1.3mg/m2 D1, 4, 8, 11 with Dex 40mg/D D1-4, D9-12, for 4 consecutive 21-D cycles (Dex only on D1-4 during cycles 3–4). This combination was well tolerated and yielded a 21% CR/nCR rate with successful stem cell harvest and engraftment (Harousseau et al, Haematologica 2006). In 2005, the IFM initiated a multicenter randomized phase III trial comparing Vel/Dex with VAD as induction treatment of patients with newly diagnosed MM up to the age of 65. The primary objective of the study is the CR (negative immunofixation) plus nCR (CR but positive immunofixation) rate after 4 cycles. A secondary objective is to evaluate the role of consolidation with 2 courses of DCEP (Dex, cyclophosphamide, etoposide, cisplatin). Patients were randomized at diagnosis among 4 arms (A1: 4 cycles of VAD; A2: 4 cycles of VAD + 2 cycles of DCEP; B1: 4 cycles of Vel/Dex; B2: 4 cycles of Vel/Dex + 2 cycles of DCEP); stratification was by cytogenetics and β2 microglobulin. Stem cell collection was performed between cycle 3 and cycle 4 after priming with G-CSF (10μg/kg/D × 6 D). At the end of induction (± DCEP consolidation) treatment, patients received melphalan 200mg/m2 plus ASCT. Enrollment of 480 patients is planned, to detect a 10% higher CR/nCR rate with Vel/Dex (20% vs 10%) with 80% power (two-sided test, significance level 0.05). An interim analysis is planned when 222 patients have been evaluated for response at the end of induction. As of July 2006, 304 patients have been enrolled. Randomization of the 222 patients to be considered for interim analysis was completed on May 19th. Baseline characteristics include: median age 55y; 140M, 82F; β2 microglobulin >3mg/L in 54%; del13 by FISH in 45%. The occurrence of serious adverse events (SAEs) was similar between the VAD and Vel/Dex arms (31% with VAD, 33% with Vel/Dex). The most frequent SAEs were pneumopathy (5.3% VAD, 4.0% Vel/Dex), thrombosis (2.7% VAD, 3.3% Vel/Dex), and peripheral neuropathy (1.3% VAD, 3.3% Vel/Dex). We intend to present results from the interim analysis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document