Updated results of BICC-C study comparing first-line irinotecan/fluoropymidine combinations with or without celecoxib in mCRC: Updated efficacy data

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4027-4027 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Fuchs ◽  
J. Marshall ◽  
E. Mitchell ◽  
R. Wierzbicki ◽  
V. Ganju ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
First Line ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Period 2 ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
One Year

4027 Background: This multicenter, randomized study assessed efficacy & safety for irinotecan/fluoropyrimidines combinations in previously untreated mCRC. Methods: Pts were randomized to: infusional FOLFIRI, modified bolus IFL (mIFL), or CapeIri; and concurrent celecoxib or placebo in a double-blind fashion. The protocol was amended in April 2004: bevacizumab (bev) was added to the FOLFIRI and mIFL arms, whereas CapeIri was discontinued. Period 1 (P1) and Period 2 (P2) designate subjects enrolled before or after the amendment. Initial efficacy & safety analyses were reported at ASCO ’06. We now report follow-up of 46 months for P1 and 31 months for P2. Results: 430 pts were treated in P1 and 117 pts in P2. Baseline characteristics and post-study treatment were balanced. P1 results: Median progression free survival (PFS) was 7.6 mos for FOLFIRI; 5.9 mos for mIFL (p=0.004); and 5.8 mos for CapeIri (p=0.015). Median overall survival (OS) was 23.1 mos for FOLFIRI; 17.6 mos for mIFL (p=0.087); and 18.9 mos for CapeIri (p=0.27). One-year survival rate favored FOLFIRI (75%) compared to either mIFL (65%) or CapeIri (66%). Overall Response Rate (ORR) was 47% in FOLFIRI, 43% in mIFL, 39% in CapeIri (not significantly different). P2 results: Median PFS was 11.2 mos for FOLFIRI+bev and 8.3 mos for mIFL+bev (p=0.28). Median OS was not reached for FOLFIRI+bev but was 19.2 mos for mIFL+bev (p=0.007). One-year survival rate favored FOLFIRI+bev (87%) when compared to mIFL+bev (61%). ORR was 58% for FOLFIRI+bev and 54% for mIFL+bev (p=0.73). Common grade = 3 AEs are listed below. Celecoxib did not impact safety or efficacy. Conclusions: First line FOLFIRI or FOLFIRI+bev were superior to their comparators and show favorable results in survival and tolerability in untreated mCRC. Median survival for FOLFIRI+bev has not been reached. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Safety and efficacy of first-line irinotecan/fluoropymidine combinations in mCRC patients >65 years compared with those ≤65: The BICC-C study

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4076-4076 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Barrueco ◽  
J. Marshall ◽  
E. Mitchell ◽  
R. Wierzbicki ◽  
V. Ganju ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Study ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
First Line ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Period 2 ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Asco 2006

4076 Background: BICC-C was a multicenter, randomized study that assessed efficacy & safety of irinotecan/fluoropyrimidines combinations in previously untreated mCRC patients. This study showed that FOLFIRI or FOLFIRI+bev were superior to their comparators (Proc ASCO 2006). We conducted a secondary analysis of efficacy & safety among all patients >65 years compared with those =65. Methods: Pts were randomized to: infusional FOLFIRI, modified bolus IFL (mIFL), or CapeIri; and concurrent celecoxib or placebo in a double-blind fashion. The protocol was amended in April 2004 and bevacizumab (bev) was added to the FOLFIRI and mIFL arms whereas CapeIri was discontinued. Period 1 (P1) and Period 2 (P2) designate subjects enrolled before or after the amendment. Results: Of 430 pts enrolled in P1, 150 were age >65 (median 71; range, 66–87) and 280 were = 65 (median, 56; 20–65). Of 117 pts in P2, 75 were >65 (median, 73; 66–84) and 42 were = 65 (median, 54; 32–65). No significant differences in efficacy or safety were observed between the two age groups. Results for P1: median progression free survival (PFS) was 6.5 and 6.7 mos; and median overall survival (OS) was 18.8 and 19.2 for >65 and =65, respectively. For the FOLFIRI regimen specifically median PFS was 7.5 and 7.6 mos, and median OS was 20.1 and 24.3 mos for >65 and =65, respectively. Results for P2: median PFS was 10.3 and 10.6 mos; and median OS was 19.8 and 23 mos for >65 and =65, respectively. For the FOLFIRI+bev regimen specifically median PFS was 11.1 and 11.2 mos for >65 and =65 respectively, and median OS has not yet been reached for either subgroup at time of analysis. Common grade = 3 AEs are listed below. Conclusions: Efficacy and safety for first line irinotecan/fluoropyrimidine regimens and for FOLFIRI & FOLFIRI+bev, specifically, did not differ for older and younger mCRC patients. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

Results of a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pegfilgrastim (PEG) in patients (pts) receiving first-line FOLFOX or FOLFIRI and bevacizumab (B) for colorectal cancer (CRC).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3575-3575
Author(s):  
Tamas Pinter ◽  
Esteban Abella ◽  
Alvydas Cesas ◽  
Adina Croitoru ◽  
Jochen Decaestecker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Grade 3

3575 Background: The literature reports that adding biologics to chemotherapy (ctx) may increase the incidence of clinically significant neutropenia. his trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of PEG in reducing the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in pts with locally-advanced (LA) or metastatic (m)CRC receiving first-line treatment with either FOLFOX/B or FOLFIRI/B. Methods: Key eligibility: ≥ 18 years old; measurable, nonresectable CRC per RECIST 1.1. Pts were randomly assigned 1:1 to either placebo or 6 mg PEG ~24 h after ctx/B. The study treatment period included four Q2W cycles, but pts could continue their assigned regimen until progression. Pts were stratified by region (North America vs rest of world), stage (LA vs mCRC), and ctx (FOLFOX vs FOLFIRI). Estimated sample size (N = 800) was based on the expected incidence of grade 3/4 FN (primary endpoint) across the first 4 cycles of ctx/B, powered for PEG superiority over placebo. Other endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: 845 pts were randomized (Nov 2009 to Jan 2012) and received study treatment; 783 pts completed 4 cycles of ctx/B. Median age was 61 years; 512 (61%) pts were male; 819 (97%) had mCRC; 414 (49%) received FOLFOX, and 431 (51%) received FOLFIRI. Grade 3/4 FN (first 4 cycles) for placebo vs PEG was 5.7% vs 2.4%; OR 0.41; p = 0.014. A similar incidence of other ≥ grade 3 adverse events was seen in both arms (28% placebo; 27% PEG). See table for additional results. Conclusions: PEG significantly reduced the incidence of grade 3/4 FN in this pt population receiving standard ctx/B for CRC. Follow-up is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT00911170. [Table: see text]

Results of a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pegfilgrastim (PEG) in patients (pts) receiving first-line FOLFOX or FOLFIRI and bevacizumab (B) for colorectal cancer (CRC).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA445-LBA445 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamas Pinter ◽  
Steve Abella ◽  
Alvydas Cesas ◽  
Adina Croitoru ◽  
Jochen Decaestecker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Grade 3

LBA445 Background: The literature reports that adding biologics to chemotherapy (ctx) may increase the incidence of clinically significant neutropenia. This trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of PEG in reducing the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in pts with locally advanced (LA) or metastatic (m)CRC receiving first-line treatment with either FOLFOX/B or FOLFIRI/B. Methods: Key eligibility: ≥ 18 years old; measurable, nonresectable CRC per RECIST 1.1. Pts were randomly assigned 1:1 to either placebo or 6 mg PEG ~24 h after ctx/B. The study treatment period included four Q2W cycles, but pts could continue their assigned regimen until progression. Pts were stratified by region (North America vs rest of world), stage (LA vs mCRC), and ctx (FOLFOX vs FOLFIRI). Estimated sample size (N = 800) was based on the expected incidence of grade 3/4 FN (primary endpoint) across the first 4 cycles of ctx/B, powered for PEG superiority over placebo. Other endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: 845 pts were randomized (Nov 2009 to Jan 2012) and received study treatment; 783 pts completed 4 cycles of ctx/B. Median age was 61 years; 512 (61%) pts were male; 819 (97%) had mCRC; 414 (49%) received FOLFOX, and 431 (51%) received FOLFIRI. Grade 3/4 FN (first 4 cycles) for placebo vs PEG was 5.7% vs 2.4%; OR 0.41; p = 0.014. A similar incidence of other ≥ grade 3 adverse events was seen in both arms (28% placebo; 27% PEG). See Table for additional results. Conclusions: PEG significantly reduced the incidence of grade 3/4 FN in this pt population receiving standard ctx/B for CRC. Follow-up is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT00911170. [Table: see text]

A randomized phase II study of gemcitabine (G) alone or with pazopanib (P) in refractory soft tissue sarcoma (STS).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11515-11515
Author(s):  
Christopher W. Ryan ◽  
Catherine Degnin ◽  
Lee D. Cranmer ◽  
Yiyi Chen ◽  
Seth Pollack ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Power ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Wilcoxon Test ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Grade 3

11515 Background: Both G and P are active single-agents in the treatment of STS. We hypothesized that the anti-VEGF-R activity of P could augment the efficacy of G and conducted this study of G+P vs G+placebo (0). Methods: In this multi-center, double-blind study, eligibility included metastatic STS with receipt of 1–3 prior systemic regimens inclusive of an anthracycline. Patients (pts) were stratified by sarcoma subtype (liposarcoma (LPS) vs. other) and study site, then randomly assigned 1:1 to receive G 1000 mg/m2 IV over 30 minutes on days 1 and 8 every 21 days plus either P 800 mg PO or matching 0 daily. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Results: 54 pts were accrued from 2012–2019, Accrual was halted prior to the planned N of 80 due to withdrawal of funding. There were no differences in pt characteristics between the two arms including age (median = 60), sex (M/F 52/48%), histology (LPS 30%, leiomyosarcoma 26%, UPS 15%, synovial 11%, other 17%) and number of prior systemic therapies (median = 1). With a median follow-up of 19.1 months, PFS favored G+P and was significant using the Gehan-Wilcoxon test which favorably weighs earlier events (table). The response rate was 6.9% on the G+P arm and 8.0% on the G+0 arm; response rate was 22% for LPS treated with G+P. The most common grade ≥3 AEs (G+P v G+0) were: neutropenia (41% vs 40), hypertension (17% v 4), anemia (7% v 12). One patient died of hepatic failure on the G+P arm. Conclusions: This study demonstrated improved PFS with G+P as compared with G alone. Early termination limited statistical power. G+P is active in LPS, although P regulatory labeling currently limits use for LPS. Clinical trial information: NCT01532687 . [Table: see text]

A randomized trial of first-line irinotecan/fluoropymidine combinations with or without celecoxib in metastatic colorectal cancer (BICC-C)

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3506-3506 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Fuchs ◽  
J. Marshall ◽  
E. Mitchell ◽  
R. Wierzbicki ◽  
V. Ganju ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survival Data ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
First Line ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome ◽  
Baseline Characteristics ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Reduced Toxicity ◽  
Better Than

3506 Background: This multicenter, randomized study assessed efficacy & safety for 3 irinotecan/fluoropyrimidines combinations in previously untreated mCRC. In a 3 × 2 factorial design, we also assessed whether celecoxib added to chemotherapy (CT) improved CT efficacy and/or reduced toxicity. Methods: Pts were randomized to: FOLFIRI - irinotecan (I) 180 mg/m2, leucovorin (LV) 400 mg/m2, 5-FU bolus 400 mg/m2, & infusional 5-FU 2400 mg/m2 over 46 hours q 2 wks; modified IFL (m-IFL) - I 125 mg/m2, LV 20 mg/m2, & bolus 5-FU 500 mg/m2 wkly × 2, q 3 wks; or CapeIri - I 250 mg/m2 day 1 & capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 po BID × 14 days, q 3 wks. Pts were also randomized to concurrent celecoxib (400 mg po BID) or placebo in a double-blind fashion. Time to progression (TTP) was the primary endpoint. Results: 430 pts were enrolled from 2/03 to 4/04, prior to an amendment that added bevacizumab to CT arms. Baseline characteristics were balanced. TTP for FOLFIRI (median = 8.2 mos) was significantly better than for either m-IFL (6.0 mos; p = 0.01) or CapeIri (5.7 mos; p = 0.01). Overall survival (OS) also favored FOLFIRI (median = 23.1 mos) compared to either m-IFL (17.6 mos; p=0.10) or CapeIri (18.8 mos; p = 0.19). Common grade ≥ 3 toxicities are listed below. CapeIri had the highest rates of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration & hand-foot syndrome, whereas FOLFIRI had lower rates. Among all 430 pts, median TTP did not differ for pts randomized to celecoxib compared to placebo (6.9 vs 6.9 mos; p=0.71). Median OS was also similar for celecoxib vs placebo (19.5 vs 18.8 mos; p=0.63). CT toxicities did not differ for celecoxib vs placebo. Rates for MI/stroke were 1.5% for celecoxib and 1.9% for placebo. Conclusions: First-line FOLFIRI offers a superior TTP when compared to m-IFL or CapeIri; OS & toxicity analyses also favored FOLFIRI. Celecoxib neither improved CT efficacy nor reduced CT toxicity. Updated survival data & data on pts enrolled after the addition of bevacuzimab will be presented. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

First-line nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) plus two cycles of chemotherapy (chemo) versus chemo alone (4 cycles) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Two-year update from CheckMate 9LA.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9000-9000
Author(s):  
Martin Reck ◽  
Tudor-Eliade Ciuleanu ◽  
Manuel Cobo ◽  
Michael Schenker ◽  
Bogdan Zurawski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Expression Level ◽  
First Line ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Grade 3

9000 Background: In the randomized phase 3 CheckMate 9LA trial (NCT03215706), first-line NIVO + IPI combined with 2 cycles of chemo significantly improved overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) vs chemo alone (4 cycles). Clinical benefit was observed regardless of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression level and histology. Here we report data with 2 years’ minimum follow-up from this study. Methods: Adult patients (pts) with stage IV / recurrent NSCLC, ECOG performance status ≤ 1, and no known sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations were stratified by PD-L1 (< 1% vs ≥ 1%), sex, and histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and were randomized 1:1 to NIVO 360 mg Q3W + IPI 1 mg/kg Q6W + chemo (2 cycles; n = 361) or chemo alone (4 cycles; n = 358). Pts with non-squamous NSCLC in the chemo-alone arm could receive pemetrexed maintenance. The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints included PFS and ORR by blinded independent central review, and efficacy by different PD-L1 levels. Safety was exploratory. Results: At a minimum follow-up of 24.4 months for OS (database lock: Feb 18, 2021), pts treated with NIVO + IPI + chemo continued to derive OS benefit vs chemo, with a median OS of 15.8 months vs 11.0 months, respectively (HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.61–0.86]); 2-year OS rates were 38% vs 26%. Median PFS with NIVO + IPI + chemo vs chemo was 6.7 months vs 5.3 months (HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.56–0.79]); 8% and 37% of pts who had disease progression received subsequent immunotherapy, respectively. ORR was 38% with NIVO + IPI + chemo vs 25% with chemo. Similar clinical benefit with NIVO + IPI + chemo vs chemo was observed in all randomized pts and across the majority of subgroups, including by PD-L1 expression level (Table) or histology. Any grade and grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 92% and 48% of pts in the NIVO + IPI + chemo arm vs 88% and 38% in the chemo arm, respectively. Conclusion: With 2 years’ minimum follow-up, first-line NIVO + IPI + chemo demonstrated durable survival and benefit versus chemo in pts with advanced NSCLC; no new safety signals were identified. Clinical trial information: NCT03215706. [Table: see text]

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.

Patient Outcomes with Proteosome Inhibitor Bortezomib in Multiple Myeloma at an English District General Hospital

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 5745-5745
Author(s):  
Anil Vaikunth Kamat ◽  
Tariq Shafi ◽  
Raphael A. Ezekwesili
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Second Primary ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Second Primary Malignancies

Abstract Bortezomib is a targeted proteosome inhibitor licensed & approved for in multiple myeloma both as first line and in relapsed setting. This is a retrospective non experimental cross sectional quantitative comparative group study using clinical case notes, laboratory & pharmacy records for patients treated with Bortezomib in 2011 & 2012. Outcomes studied included remission status, adverse events, progression free survival and overall survival at follow up. The study also looked at the comparative responses of cohort of patients administered Bortezomib through intravenous & subcutaneous route. The cohort consisted of 33 patients, 21 male, 11 female, median age 71 years, first line 10 patients, second line 23 , median number of cycles in 2011 & 2012 – first line 3 & 8 , second line 5 & 4, respectively. In 2011, 8 received intravenous treatment, 9 were switched from intravenous to subcutaneous route whilst all patients from 2012 received subcutaneous Bortezomib. The most frequently used regimen was Bortezomib Dexamethasone ( VD). The overall response rate ( ORR >/= Minor Response) was: First line 70% (7/10) ; Second line 47.8% ( 11/23); median PFS ( Figure 1) 6 months ( First line: 7 months ; Second line : 6 months) and median overall survival ( Figure 2) at follow up: 9 months ; 39.4 % ( 13/33) First line 8.5 months, Second line 11 months. Subcutaneous Bortezomib was equivalent to intravenous Bortezomib in terms of efficacy & tolerance. Of 33 patients, there were 12 dose reductions. Adverse events reported included: peripheral Neuropathy - grade 3 - 6% ( all grades 27.3%); Diarrhoea - grade 3 - 3% (all grades 6%); Nausea / Vomiting - grade 3 - 3% ( all grades 6%) and Second Primary Malignancies - 12% ( 4 of 33). Mortality at follow up was 20 patients from cohort of 33 ; causes included disease progression in 11, second primary malignancy with disease progression in 4, COPD 2, Systemic Amyloidosis 2, Tuberculosis 1 , Multiple co morbidities 1 and Asthma with mechanical failure in single patient. Second primary malignancies ( 4/33) included Prostate carcinoma ( 1), Renal Cell Carcinoma (1), Neuroendocrine tumour ( 1 ) and Unknown Primary in single patient. Beyond second line treatment, majority (14 of 23 patients; 60.9 %) did not have further active treatment. These data indicate that patient outcomes were modest compared to published data from VISTA and APEX trials. Majority of patients did not have further active treatment beyond second line which suggests the most effective treatment strategy should be used upfront as patients may not be fit to have further lines of therapy despite availability of recently introduced novel targeted agents. A higher percentage of second primary malignancies were noticed in this cohort which should be an area of further clinical research. Figure 1: Progression free survival with Bortezomib as first line & second line in multiple myeloma Figure 1:. Progression free survival with Bortezomib as first line & second line in multiple myeloma Figure 2: Overall survival with Bortezomib as first line & second line in multiple myeloma Figure 2:. Overall survival with Bortezomib as first line & second line in multiple myeloma Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Phase II study of pemetrexed (Pem) and cisplatin (Cis) plus cetuximab (Cet) followed by Pem and Cet maintenance therapy in patients (Pts) with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7554-7554
Author(s):  
Gerald Schmid-Bindert ◽  
Vittorio Gebbia ◽  
Frank Mayer ◽  
Edurne Arriola ◽  
Diego Marquez-Medina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
One Year

7554 Background: A prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter study was conducted to assess the effect of adding cet to pem and cis in pts with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Methods: 113 Caucasian performance status 0-1 pts received 1st line pem (500 mg/m2) and cis (75 mg/m2) on day 1 (21d cycle) for 4-6 cycles and cet (400 mg/m2 loading dose followed by 250 mg/m2) weekly. Non-progressive pts received pem 500 mg/m2 on day 1 (21d cycle) plus cet (250mg/m2 weekly) until progression. Pts received vitamin B12/folic acid and dexamethasone. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) (RECIST 1.0). Secondary endpoints were progression free survival (PFS), 1 year survival rate, translational research (TR) and safety. Results: Pts’ characteristics: median age 59.7 years, 64% male, 50% PS 0, 92% stage IV, and 78% adenocarcinoma. All pts completed ≥ 1 cycle of induction therapy and 45% and 43% completed ≥ 1 cycle of maintenance with pem and cet, respectively. ORR (n=109) was 38.5% (80% CI 32.2-45.1), all partial responses. Disease control rate (response/stable disease) was 59.6% (80% CI: 53.1-65.9). Median PFS was 5.82 months (80% CI: 4.40-6.70). One year survival rate was 0.45 (80% CI: 0.39-0.51). Significant associations were seen between high EGFR by IHC and increased PFS (cytoplasm: HR=0.46, p=0.035; membrane: HR=0.41, p=0.008), and between high nuclear TTF-1 and increased ORR (OR=7.73, p=0.021) / PFS (HR=0.21, p<0.001) / OS (HR=0.25, p=0.035). Of 113 pts evaluated for safety, 73 (64.6%) pts had drug related CTC Grade 3/4 adverse events (AE): most frequent were neutropenia (14.2%), rash (15%), and vomiting (8.8%). Drug related serious AEs were reported in 27.4% pts: most frequent were anemia (5.3%), neutropenia (5.3%), vomiting (3.5%), and rash, renal failure, diarrhea and fatigue (1.8% each). There were 2 potential on-study drug related deaths (sudden death and large intestinal perforation). Conclusions: Pem, cis and cet appeared efficacious and tolerable. These results support further evaluation in a randomized trial. The TR outcomes are hypothesis generating given the study’s size and nonrandomized nature.

Olaparib plus paclitaxel in patients with recurrent or metastatic gastric cancer: A randomized, double-blind phase II study.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4013-4013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yung-Jue Bang ◽  
Seock-Ah Im ◽  
Keun-Wook Lee ◽  
Jae Yong Cho ◽  
Eun-Kee Song ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Parp Inhibitor ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Metastatic Gastric Cancer ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Protein Levels ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Atm Protein ◽  
Grade 3

4013 Background: Our multicenter study compared the efficacy of the oral PARP inhibitor olaparib plus paclitaxel (O/P) vs paclitaxel alone (P) as second-line therapy in pts with recurrent/metastatic gastric cancer (GC) (NCT01063517). As initial preclinical data suggested that responsiveness of GC cell lines to olaparib was associated with low ATM protein levels, our study was enriched for pts with low ATM tumors (ATM–) by IHC (50% randomized vs 14% screening prevalence). Methods: Eligible pts were randomized 1:1 (stratified by ATM status) to receiveolaparib 100 mg bid (tablet form) plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 iv on days 1, 8, 15 per 28-day cycle) or placebo plus paclitaxel until progression or investigator decision. After combination therapy, pts could take olaparib 200 mg bid monotherapy or placebo until progression. Co-primary endpoints: progression-free survival (PFS; RECIST v1.1) in all pts and ATM– pts. Secondary endpoints: overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), safety. Results: 123/124 randomized pts were treated (O/P=61; P=62). Baseline characteristics were generally well balanced. Use of post-progression therapy was similar in both arms (O/P=48.4%; P=43.5%) as was median paclitaxel duration (O/P=17 wks; P=16 wks); 18 pts received monotherapy (O/P=11; P=7). More pts in the O/P than P arm had delays (79 vs 63%) and reductions (41 vs 27%) in paclitaxel dosing. The most common grade ≥3 AEs in the O/P and P arms were neutropenia (56 vs 39%) and anemia (11 vs 11%). Conclusions: Olaparib plus paclitaxel was well tolerated and led to a statistically significant improvement in OS, but not PFS, vs paclitaxel alone in both all pts and ATM– pts, with a larger benefit in ATM– pts. Clinical trial information: NCT01063517. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document