A phase I/II study of pemetrexed plus cisplatin in Japanese patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 18152-18152
Author(s):  
K. Gemba ◽  
K. Yamazaki ◽  
H. Kunitoh ◽  
T. Hida ◽  
K. Nakagawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Asian Population ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Japanese Patients ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Vitamin Supplementation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Histologic Diagnosis ◽  
Level 1

18152 Background: Pemetrexed (pem) is globally used for the treatment of malignant mesothelioma (MPM) in combination with cisplatin (cis). Pharmacokinetic (PK) difference of pem/cis between Western and Asian population (pop) so far remains unknown. To investigate safety/efficacy of pem/cis therapy and PK profiles of pem/cis for Japanese (Jpn) MPM patients (pts), we designed a phase I/II study. Methods: Primary objectives in phase (Ph) I part were to determine a recommended dose (RD), and in Ph II part were to examine the efficacy of the RD and safety. PK profiles were to be analyzed as a secondary objective. A cohort of 6 pts, starting from a dose of pem 500 mg/m2 and cis 75 mg/m2 (level 1: LV1), was used in the dose-escalation Ph I. The efficacy of the RD was to be evaluated in at least 18 pts in the study. Key eligibility criteria were: histologic diagnosis of MPM incurable by surgery, no prior systemic chemotherapy, and a performance status 0–1. Under full vitamin supplementation, pem was administered as a 10-min. infusion on day 1 of a 21-day cycle, followed by cis administration as a 2-hr. infusion 30 min. after pem administration. For comparison of PK profiles, PK data of this study and a Western phase III study were analyzed by pop PK approach. Results: In Ph I, 13 pts were enrolled: 7 in LV1 and 6 in level -1 (LV-1: pem 500 mg/m2 and cis 60 mg/m2). Two dose-limiting toxicities were observed in LV1: pneumonitis and neutropenia. The RD were then determined to be LV1. In Ph II, 12 pts were enrolled in LV1. For safety, one drug-related death was reported among 25 pts due to worsening of underlying pneumonia observed before enrollment. The most common G3/4 toxicities were neutropenia and hemoglobin decrease. For efficacy, a partial response was achieved for 7 of 19 pts who received LV1. Response rate was 36.8% (95% CI: 16.3- 61.6). PK profiles of pem/cis in Jpn pts were similar to those in Western. The results of other secondary objectives, e.g., progression-free survival, QOL, and pulmonary function test, will be presented in the conference. Conclusions: The profiles of efficacy/safety/PK shown in this study are almost comparable to those in Western pts, and indicate that pem/cis therapy will be a promising therapy for Jpn MPM pts. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Cisplatin + irinotecan versus cisplatin + etoposide in extensive stage small cell lung cancer (E-SCLC): Final “common arm”: Comparative outcomes analysis of JCOG 9511 and SWOG 0124

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8027-8027
Author(s):  
P. Lara ◽  
K. Chansky ◽  
T. Shibata ◽  
H. Fukuda ◽  
T. Tamura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Racial Differences ◽  
Drug Disposition ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eligible Patient ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Japanese Patients ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Treatment Regimens

8027 Background: S0124 was a large North American phase III trial (n=651) that failed to confirm a survival benefit for cisplatin/irinotecan over cisplatin/etoposide in patients with E-SCLC, contrary to the results of J9511, a phase III trial exclusively in Japanese patients (n=154). As S0124 and J9511 protocols used identical treatment regimens and similar eligibility criteria, we compared demographics, toxicity, and outcomes using patient-level data and a “common arm” analysis to explore potential reasons for the divergent results. Methods: In both trials, patients with documented E-SCLC and adequate end-organ function were randomized to receive either cisplatin 60 mg/m2 day 1 + irinotecan 60 mg/m2 days 1, 8, & 15 Q 4 weeks or cisplatin 80 mg/m2 day 1 + etoposide 100 mg/m2 days 1–3 Q 3 weeks. Demographics and outcomes data were compared among 805 patients enrolled in J9511 and S0124 receiving identical treatment using a logistic model adjusted for age, sex, and performance status. Results: Of 671 patients in S0124, 651 were eligible. Patient characteristics (J9511 & S0124, respectively): Mean age - 61 & 62 years; Male sex - 132 (86%) & 370 (57%), p<0.001; Performance status 0 - 19 (12%) & 211 (32%), p<0.001. Efficacy and toxicity comparisons are summarized below. Conclusions: Significant differences in patient demographics, toxicity, and efficacy exist between J9511 and S0124 populations. These results, relevant in the current era of clinical trials globalization, warrant 1) consideration of differential patient characteristics and outcomes amongst populations receiving identical therapy; 2) utilization of the “common arm” model in prospective trials; and 3) inclusion of pharmacogenomic correlates in cancer trials where ethnic/racial differences in drug disposition are expected. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

A phase I/II study of biweekly docetaxel (D) in combination with fixed-dose cisplatin plus fluorouracil (CF) in patients (pts) with advanced esophageal cancer (AEC) (JCOG0807).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15016-e15016
Author(s):  
Shuichi Hironaka ◽  
Yasuhiro Tsubosa ◽  
Junki Mizusawa ◽  
Takayuki Kii ◽  
Ken Kato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Treatment Compliance ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Fixed Dose ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Grade 3

e15016 Background: Thougha triplet chemotherapy with D plus CF (DCF) has shown promising activity, high incidence of adverse events (AEs) especially in febrile neutropenia (FN) was observed in previous studies for head and neck cancer (TAX323, 324) and gastric cancer (TAX325). To reduce its AEs with keeping activity, we conducted a multicenter open-label phase I/II study of biweekly D plus CF for AEC. Methods: Eligibility criteria included histologically proven AEC with measurable disease, age 20 to 75, non-resectable or recurrent disease, performance status (PS) 0 to 1. Pts received escalating doses of D (dose level (DL) 1: 30 mg/m2, DL 2: 40 mg/m2, on days 1, 15) in combination with fixed dose of CF (cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1, fluorouracil 800 mg/m2on days 1-5) repeated every 4 weeks with 3+3 design in phase I part (P-I). The primary endpoint of P-I was dose limiting toxicity (DLT) and that of phase II part (P-II) was response rate (RR) defined by central peer review. Based on a SWOG two stage design (p0=35%, p1=50%; one-sided a=0.1, β =0.2) at least 22 responders among 50 eligible pts should be observed to satisfy the primary endpoint. Results: Between Feb 2009 and Mar 2010, 62 pts were enrolled for P-I and P-II. In P-I, 10 pts were enrolled with DLT of 0/3 in DL1 and 2/7 in DL2. Considering DLT and treatment compliance, the recommended dose for P-II was determined as DL1. Thus, 3 (P-I) and additional 52 pts (P-II) were analyzed: 53 for efficacy (excluded 2 ineligible pts) and 55 for safety. Pts characteristics were as follows: male/female 49/6, age median 61 (range 44 to 75), PS 0/1 39/16. The RR was 62% (95% confidence interval, 48-75%, p<0.0001) by central peer review. Median OS and PFS were 11.1 and 5.8 months. Grade 3/4 toxicity was observed in neutropenia (25%), anemia (36%), hyponatremia (29%), anorexia (24%) and nausea (11%). No grade 3/4 FN was observed. Treatment related death occurred in one patient due to pneumonitis. Conclusions: Biweekly D (30mg/m2) combined with CF showed promising activity and tolerability. A phase III study comparing CF with DCF is warranted. Clinical trial information: UMIN000001737.

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

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

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

PEAK (study 20070509): A randomized phase II study of mFOLFOX6 with either panitumumab (pmab) or bevacizumab (bev) as first-line treatment (tx) in patients (pts) with unresectable wild‑type (WT) KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 446-446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee Steven Schwartzberg ◽  
Fernando Rivera ◽  
Meinolf Karthaus ◽  
Gianpiero Fasola ◽  
Jean-Luc Canon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Prior Therapy ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii

446 Background: Pmab has demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) in pts with WT KRAS mCRC as 1st-line tx in a phase III trial comparing pmab + FOLFOX4 vs FOLFOX4 alone. Here, we describe the results of PEAK, a multicenter, randomized phase II study evaluating pmab + mFOLFOX6 and bev + mFOLFOX6 in pts with previously untreated WT KRASmCRC. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to pmab 6.0 mg/kg + mFOLFOX6 Q2W or bev 5.0 mg/kg + mFOLFOX6 Q2W. Pt eligibility criteria included: WT KRASmCRC, ECOG performance status ≤ 1, and no prior chemotherapy, anti-VEGF tx, or anti-EGFR tx for mCRC. The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. No formal hypothesis was tested. Results: 285 pts with WT KRASmCRC were randomized and 278 pts received tx. Demographics were balanced between arms. Intent-to-treat efficacy results are shown (Table). Worst grade 3/4 adverse events (AE) occurred in 86% of pts in the pmab + mFOLFOX6 arm vs 76% of pts in the bev + mFOLFOX6 arm. Grade 5 AEs occurred in 5% of pts in the pmab + mFOLFOX6 arm and 6% of pts in the bev + mFOLFOX6 arm. Tx discontinuation due to any AE was 24% in the pmab + mFOLFOX6 arm and 27% in the bev + mFOLFOX6 arm. Conclusions: In this estimation study of pts with WT KRASmCRC without any prior therapy for mCRC, PFS and ORR were similar between arms. The median OS was not reached in the pmab + mFOLFOX6 arm. The safety profile for both arms was consistent with previously reported studies of either combination. Tx discontinuation rates due to AEs were similar between arms. Clinical trial information: NCT00819780. [Table: see text]

A phase I/II study of HB-201, an arenavirus-based cancer immunotherapy, alone, or in combination with anti-PD-1 in patients with HPV16+ cancers.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS3171-TPS3171
Author(s):  
Bharat Burman ◽  
Jiaxin Niu ◽  
Rom S. Leidner ◽  
Ding Wang ◽  
Debra L. Richardson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Metastatic Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cancer Disease

TPS3171 Background: Human Papillomavirus 16 (HPV16) is linked to several cancer types; treatment options are limited for patients with HPV16+ recurrent or metastatic cancers. The generation and maintenance of the HPV16+ malignant state requires the stable expression of HPV16-specific E7 and E6 oncogenes, which can also serve as immunogenic tumor-associated antigens. HB-201 is a replication-competent live-attenuated vector based on the arenavirus LCMV encoding a non-oncogenic E7 and E6 fusion protein. In preclinical models, both intravenously (IV) and intratumorally (IT) administered HB-201 demonstrate potent immunogenicity by induction of HPV16-specific cytotoxic T cells and associated efficacy. Methods: This is a first in human, Phase I/II study of HB-201 monotherapy or in combination with PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor (anti-PD-1) in HPV16+ confirmed recurrent/metastatic cancers. Phase I consists of 2 treatment groups, each conducted with a 3+3 dose escalation design. Group 1 is enrolling patients with HPV16+ head and neck squamous cell carcinoma who will receive HB-201 IV only. Group 2 is enrolling HPV16+ cancer patients with a safely accessible tumor site who will receive HB-201 IT for the first dose, followed by HB-201 IV for subsequent doses (IT-IV). HB-201 will be administered every 21 days. The Phase II component will be conducted with the recommended Phase II doses (RP2Ds) defined in Phase I and will consist of 3 groups: Group A (HB-201 IV only), Group B (HB-201 IV plus anti-PD-1), and Group C (HB-201 IT-IV). Key eligibility criteria include age > 18, ECOG performance status 0-1, confirmed HPV16+ recurrent or metastatic cancer, disease progression from at least 1 systemic standard of care therapy, and measurable disease per RECIST v1.1. The Phase I primary objective is to determine RP2Ds for IV and IT HB-201. The Phase II primary objective is to assess antitumor activity. Secondary endpoints for both phases include safety, tolerability, overall survival, progression-free survival, and duration of response. Exploratory objectives include characterization of immunogenicity of HB-201 and biomarkers associated with immune or antitumor response. Enrollment to Groups 1 and 2 began in December 2019. Clinical trial information: NCT04180215 .

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

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

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

AMEERA-5: A randomized, double-blind phase III study of amcenestrant (SAR439859) + palbociclib versus letrozole + palbociclib for previously untreated ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS1104-TPS1104
Author(s):  
Aditya Bardia ◽  
Javier Cortes ◽  
Sara A. Hurvitz ◽  
Suzette Delaloge ◽  
Hiroji Iwata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Estrogen Receptor ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Advanced Breast Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Advanced Breast ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii Study

TPS1104 Background: Selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs) block estrogen receptor (ER) associated signaling and have created interest for treating patients (pts) with advanced ER+ breast cancer (BC). Fulvestrant is currently the only SERD available for advanced BC but requires intramuscular administration, limiting the applied dose, exposure and receptor engagement. Amcenestrant (SAR439859) is an oral SERD that binds with high affinity to both wild-type and mutant ER, blocking estradiol binding and promoting up to 98% ER degradation in preclinical studies. In the phase I AMEERA-1 study of pretreated pts with ER+/HER2- advanced BC, amcenestrant 150–600 mg once daily (QD) showed a mean ER occupancy of 94% with plasma concentrations > 100 ng/mL and a favorable safety profile (Bardia, 2019; data on file). Combination therapy with amcenestrant + palbociclib (palbo) was also evaluated as part of this ongoing phase I study. CDK 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) combined with an aromatase inhibitor (AI), the gold standard for first line treatment for advanced breast cancer, prolong progression free survival (PFS) in pts with no prior treatment for ER+/HER2- advanced BC, but OS benefit has not been shown yet in postmenopausal pts. There remains a clinical need for more effective treatments in this setting. Methods: AMEERA-5 (NCT04478266) is an ongoing, prospective, randomized, double-blind phase III study comparing the efficacy and safety of amcenestrant + palbo with that of letrozole + palbo in pts with advanced, locoregional recurrent or metastatic ER+/HER2- BC who have not received prior systemic therapy for advanced disease. The study includes men, pre/peri-menopausal (with goserelin) and post-menopausal women. Pts with progression during or within 12 months of (neo)adjuvant endocrine therapy using any of the following agents are excluded: AI, selective estrogen receptor modulators, CDK4/6i. Pts are randomized 1:1 to either continuous amcenestrant 200 mg or letrozole 2.5 mg QD orally with matching placebos; both combined with palbo 125 mg QD orally (d1–21 every 28-d cycle). Randomization is stratified according to disease type (de novo metastatic vs recurrent disease), the presence of visceral metastasis, and menopausal status. The primary endpoint is investigator assessed progression free survival (PFS) (RECIST v1.1). Secondary endpoints are overall survival, PFS2, objective response rate, duration of response, clinical benefit rate, pharmacokinetics of amcenestrant and palbo, health-related quality of life, time to chemotherapy, and safety. Biomarkers will be measured in paired tumor biopsies and cell free deoxyribonucleic acid (cfDNA) over time. Target enrolment = 1066 pts; enrolment as of 1/2021 = 33 pts. Bardia A, et al., J Clin Oncol. 2019; 37 (15 suppl):1054 Clinical trial information: NCT04478266 .

Ziv-aflibercept: A novel angiogenesis inhibitor for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

2013 ◽  
Vol 70 (21) ◽  
pp. 1887-1896 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clement Chung ◽  
Nisha Pherwani
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Angiogenesis Inhibitor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Patient Response ◽  
Line Setting

Abstract Purpose The pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, safety, and administration of ziv-aflibercept in combination therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are reviewed. Summary Ziv-aflibercept (Zaltrap, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and sanofi-aventis) is a novel recombinant fusion protein that targets the angiogenesis signaling pathway of tumor cells by blocking vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors that play a key role in tumor growth and metastasis; it is a more potent VEGF blocker than bevacizumab. Ziv-aflibercept is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in combination with fluorouracil, irinotecan, and leucovorin (the FOLFIRI regimen) for second-line treatment of patients with mCRC who have disease progression during first-line oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. A Phase III trial demonstrated that relative to FOLFIRI therapy alone, the use of ziv-aflibercept was associated with significantly improved patient response, overall survival, and progression-free survival in patients with good performance status at baseline, including some who had received prior bevacizumab therapy. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse effects associated with ziv-aflibercept use in clinical studies were neutropenia, hypertension, and diarrhea; the U.S. product labeling warns of potential hemorrhage and other treatment-related risks. Conclusion Current clinical data are insufficient to directly compare ziv-aflibercept and bevacizumab when used with standard combination chemotherapy as first- or second-line regimens for mCRC. The role of ziv-aflibercept is currently limited to the second-line setting in combination with irinotecan-based regimens in mCRC patients who have not received irinotecan previously. The role of ziv-aflibercept in chemotherapy for other tumor types is yet to be determined.

Randomized phase II trial of ficlatuzumab with or without cetuximab in pan-refractory, advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6015-6015
Author(s):  
Julie E. Bauman ◽  
Nabil F. Saba ◽  
Denise Roe ◽  
Jessica R. Bauman ◽  
John M. Kaczmar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lower Bound ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Platinum Resistance ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Immune Biomarkers ◽  
Hpv Status

6015 Background: Cetuximab (C), an anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody (mAb), is approved for advanced HNSCC but benefits a minority. Crosstalk between the EGFR and hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)/cMet pathways is a known resistance mechanism. HGF is also immunosuppressive within the tumor microenvironment. A Phase I study confirmed the safety of C and ficlatuzumab (F), an IgG1 anti-HGF mAb, with preliminary efficacy and biomarker data suggesting that dual pathway inhibition may overcome tumor-intrinsic or immune cetuximab resistance. Methods: The primary objective of this phase II randomized, non-comparative trial was to evaluate the efficacy of F (20 mg/kg every 2 wks), with or without C (500 mg/m2 every 2 wks), in pan-refractory, advanced HNSCC. Eligibility criteria included recurrent/metastatic HNSCC, performance status (PS) 0-1, C resistance (defined as progression on or within 6 months of exposure), and resistance to or ineligibility for platinum and anti-PD1 mAb. Randomization was stratified by HPV status and center. The primary endpoint was median progression-free survival (mPFS). An arm was deemed worthy of further study if the lower bound of the 90% 1-sided confidence interval (CI) excluded the historical control of 2 months. Secondary objectives included overall response rate (ORR) in the overall and HPV-stratified populations. A Bayesian continuous monitoring rule for futility was applied. Results: 60 patients were randomized and 58 treated between Jan 2018 and Dec 2020 (27 to F; 33 to FC). Baseline characteristics were balanced across major prognostic variables including age, PS, HPV status, platinum resistance, and PD1 mAb exposure. Median time since prior cetuximab was 3.5 months (range 0-48 months). Grade ≥3 adverse events attributed to F included: pneumonitis (2); edema (3); diarrhea (1); LFT elevation (1); rash (2); electrolyte abnormality (2). The Table presents efficacy data. The F arm stopped for futility after 26 evaluable subjects accrued. The FC arm completed accrual and met the primary endpoint; 32 evaluable subjects had mPFS of 3.6 months (lower bound 90% 1-sided CI: 2.3 months) and ORR of 19% (6/32). All responses were in HPV- subjects, including 2 complete (CR) and 4 partial responses (PR) to the FC combination and 1 PR to F monotherapy. The mPFS and ORR for the HPV- population (n = 16) on FC were 3.8 months and 38% (6/16). Mechanistic signaling and immune biomarkers are under analysis. Conclusions: The well-tolerated FC combination met the primary PFS endpoint in pan-refractory, advanced HNSCC with notable activity in HPV- HNSCC, warranting phase III investigation. Clinical trial information: NCT03422536. [Table: see text]

Activity of Eribulin in Patients With Advanced Liposarcoma Demonstrated in a Subgroup Analysis From a Randomized Phase III Study of Eribulin Versus Dacarbazine

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (30) ◽  
pp. 3433-3439 ◽  
Author(s):  
George D. Demetri ◽  
Patrick Schöffski ◽  
Giovanni Grignani ◽  
Jean-Yves Blay ◽  
Robert G. Maki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Eribulin Mesylate ◽  
Systemic Treatments ◽  
Phase Iii Study

Purpose A phase III study comparing eribulin with dacarbazine in patients with advanced liposarcoma (LPS) or leiomyosarcoma showed a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) for the eribulin arm, with a manageable toxicity profile. We now report the histology-specific subgroup analysis of the efficacy and safety of eribulin compared with dacarbazine in patients with LPS, an independently randomized stratified subgroup of this phase III trial. Methods Patients ≥ 18 years with advanced or metastatic dedifferentiated, myxoid/round cell, or pleomorphic LPS incurable by surgery or radiotherapy were included. Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2 and two or more prior systemic treatment regimens, including one with anthracycline, were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive eribulin mesylate (1.4 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8) or dacarbazine (850, 1,000, or 1,200 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1) every 21 days. OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and safety were analyzed. Results In the LPS subgroup, OS was significantly improved: 15.6 versus 8.4 months (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.75; P < .001) with eribulin versus dacarbazine, respectively. Longer OS with eribulin was observed in all LPS histologic subtypes and in all geographic regions evaluated. PFS was also improved with eribulin versus dacarbazine (2.9 v 1.7 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.78; P = .0015). Adverse events were similar between arms. Conclusion In patients with previously treated LPS, eribulin was associated with significantly superior OS and PFS compared with dacarbazine. Eribulin represents an important treatment option for patients with LPS, a sarcoma subtype for which limited effective systemic treatments are available. Further studies are justified to explore the role of eribulin in earlier lines of therapy as well as in combination with other agents.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document