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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

A randomized, double-blind, phase II study of first-line FOLFOX plus bevacizumab with onartuzumab versus placebo in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 663-663 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanna C. Bendell ◽  
Howard S. Hochster ◽  
Lowell L. Hart ◽  
Irfan Firdaus ◽  
Joseph Ronald Mace ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
First Line ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Venous Thromboembolic Events ◽  
Venous Thromboembolic ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Tumor Types

663 Background: In mCRC, MET overexpression has been associated with poor prognosis and resistance to anti-VEGF therapy. We initiated a phase II study to evaluate the combination of onartuzumab (O), a ligand-blocking monoclonal antibody directed against the MET receptor, plus bevacizumab and FOLFOX, in first-line mCRC (GO27827; NCT01418222). Methods: This double-blind, randomized, multicenter phase II study randomized patients 1:1 to receive O (10 mg/kg iv) or placebo (P), plus mFOLFOX6 and bevacizumab (5 mg/kg iv). Stratification was by prior adjuvant therapy. All treatments were given on day 1–3 of a 2-week cycle. Oxaliplatin was given for up to 8–12 cycles; all other agents were continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity or death. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in ITT and MET+ subgroup by immunohistochemistry (IHC). MET status was determined by central laboratory IHC evaluation, with scores of 2+ or 3+ considered MET+. Results: From September 2011 to November 2012, 194 patients were enrolled. A recommendation was made to stop O after an interim efficacy and safety analysis in September 2013, due to lack of efficacy. The final analysis (cut-off Feb 2014) found that O did not improve PFS vs. P in the ITT (HR 0.75 [0.52–1.08]; p=0.12) or MET IHC+ populations (n=79; HR 1.03 [0.56–1.89]; p=0.93), although improvement was noted in the MET IHC− population (n=108; HR 0.60 [0.37–0.97]; p=0.03). Neither overall survival (OS) nor response rate (RR) was improved with O vs. P in any of the groups (OS HR 0.96 [0.61–1.50], p=0.85 for ITT; OS HR 1.24 [0.63–2.43], p=0.54 for MET IHC+; OS HR 0.83 [0.44–1.56], p=0.56 for MET IHC−; RR 57.3% vs. 57.7% for ITT, 43.2% vs. 57.1% for MET IHC+, 66.1% vs. 60.8% for MET IHC−). More edema (65.7% vs. 12.9%) and venous thromboembolic events (30.3% vs. 16.1%) were seen with O vs. P, respectively. Grade ≥3 events were similar (86.9% vs. 84.9%) and events leading to discontinuation were increased (48.5% vs. 37.6%) with O vs. P. Conclusions: Adding onartuzumab to FOLFOX/bevacizumab did not prolong PFS in first-line unselected or MET IHC+ mCRC. A trend towards PFS benefit was seen in those with MET IHC− mCRC, contrary to prior reports in other tumor types. Clinical trial information: NCT01418222.

Phase III study of nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) plus gemcitabine (Gem) versus Gem alone in patients (pts) with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPC): Subgroup analysis of Canadian pts from the MPACT trial.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 439-439
Author(s):  
Mustapha Ali Tehfe ◽  
Scot D. Dowden ◽  
Hagen F. Kennecke ◽  
Robert Hassan El-Maraghi ◽  
Bernard Lesperance ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Pancreatic Head ◽  
Dose Intensity ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Intent To Treat

439 Background: Weekly nab-P + Gem is a new option for first-line treatment (Tx) of mPC. In the MPACT trial, nab-P/Gem demonstrated superior overall survival (OS; primary endpoint) vs Gem alone as first-line Tx of mPC (Table). Here we report a subgroup analyses evaluating the efficacy and safety outcomes with nab-P + Gem vs Gem alone from the Canadian cohort of the MPACT trial. Methods: Previously untreated pts (N = 861) with mPC were randomized 1:1 (stratified by Karnofsky Performance Status [KPS], region, and the presence of liver metastases) to receive nab-P 125 mg/m2 + Gem 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle or Gem 1000 mg/m2 weekly for 7 weeks followed by 1 week of rest (cycle 1) and then days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle (cycle ≥ 2). Results: 63 pts from Canada enrolled in the MPACT trial. Baseline pt characteristics were well balanced. Median age was 61 years and KPS was similar for both groups and comparable to the intent-to-treat (ITT) populations. Primary lesion in the pancreatic head was more common among pts in the nab-P + Gem vs Gem arm (55% vs 30%); use of biliary stent was similar (33% nab-P + Gem; 27% Gem). Median OS and progression-free survival (PFS) were longer with nab-P + Gem vs Gem (Table). Median Tx duration was 4.2 mo with nab-P + Gem vs 3.2 mo with Gem. Use of subsequent therapy was 30% in the nab-P + Gem arm vs 43% in the Gem arm. The median relative dose intensity for Gem was similar in each arm (81% nab-P + Gem vs 85% Gem). The most common grade ≥ 3 AEs for nab-P + Gem vs Gem were neutropenia (22% vs 10%), fatigue (34% vs 33%), and neuropathy (25% vs 0%). Conclusions: Canadian pts participating in MPACT were similar to the ITT population and nab-P + Gem was well tolerated and showed improved median OS, PFS, and ORR vs Gem alone, although not statistically significant (likely due to the small number of pts). Clinical trial information: NCT00844649. [Table: see text]

LOTUS (NCT02162719): A double-blind placebo (PBO)-controlled randomized phase II trial of first-line ipatasertib (IPAT) + paclitaxel (P) for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1009-1009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Alexandra Dent ◽  
Sung-Bae Kim ◽  
Seock-Ah Im ◽  
Marc Espie ◽  
Sibel Blau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Dose Intensity ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Akt Inhibitor ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Median Cumulative Dose

1009 Background: The oral Akt inhibitor IPAT is being evaluated in cancers with a high prevalence of PI3K/Akt pathway activation, including TNBC. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) had measurable inoperable locally advanced/metastatic TNBC previously untreated with systemic therapy. Pts were stratified by prior (neo)adjuvant therapy, chemotherapy-free interval and tumor PTEN status, and randomized 1:1 to P 80 mg/m2 (d1, 8 & 15) with either IPAT 400 mg or PBO (d1–21) q28d until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in the ITT population and pts with PTEN-low tumors by IHC. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR) and overall survival in the ITT and IHC PTEN-low populations, efficacy in pts with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered tumors by next-generation sequencing (NGS), and safety. Results: Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between arms. Efficacy is shown below. The most common grade ≥3 AEs (grouped terms) were diarrhea (23% IPAT+P vs 0% PBO+P; no grade 4 or colitis in either arm), neutropenia (18% vs 8%), asthenia (5% vs 6%), peripheral neuropathy (5% vs 5%) and pneumonia (5% vs 0%). More pts receiving IPAT+P than PBO+P had an AE leading to dose reduction of IPAT/PBO (21% vs 6%) or P (38% vs 11%) but median cumulative dose intensity was similar (IPAT/PBO: 99% vs 100%; P: 100% vs 100%). AEs led to IPAT/PBO discontinuation in 13% vs 11% of pts, respectively; 2 pts (3%) discontinued IPAT for grade 3 diarrhea. Conclusions: Adding IPAT to P for TNBC modestly improved PFS in the ITT pts. The effect was more pronounced in the prespecified subgroup with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN alterations, warranting further evaluation of IPAT in these pts. AEs were manageable. Clinical trial information: NCT02162719. [Table: see text]

A phase III trial of ganitumab (GAN, AMG 479) with gemcitabine (G) as first-line treatment (tx) in patients (pts) with metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC): An analysis of safety from the GAMMA trial (GEM and AMG 479 in Metastatic Adenocarcinoma of the Pancreas).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4042-4042 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles S. Fuchs ◽  
Masafumi Ikeda ◽  
Gyorgy Bodoky ◽  
Takuji Okusaka ◽  
Shinichi Ohkawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Human Monoclonal Antibody ◽  
Data Monitoring Committee ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
First Line ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Ecog Ps

4042 Background: GAN is an investigational, fully human, monoclonal antibody inhibitor of IGF1R. GAMMA is assessing the safety and efficacy of GAN plus G as first-line tx in MPC pts (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01231347). Methods: This is an ongoing, global, phase III, double-blind study. Pts are randomized 2:2:1 to receive placebo, GAN 12 mg/kg, or GAN 20 mg/kg (IV; days 1 and 15 Q28D) with G 1000 mg/m2 (IV; days 1, 8, and 15 Q28D). The planned sample size is 825. Primary endpoint: overall survival. Key secondary endpoints: progression-free survival, 1-year survival rate, patient-reported outcomes, and safety. This study includes multiple planned safety analyses conducted by an independent Data Monitoring Committee (DMC). The current predefined safety analyses occurred when 150pts received ≥ 1 cycle of tx. Results: As of Sep 16, 2011, 207 pts are included in this aggregate analysis: 50% male; median age, 63 yrs (range 36-83); ECOG PS 0/1, 50%/50%. Of the 207 pts, 204 pts received study tx, and 61 pts ended study tx. Most frequent adverse events (AE) are shown (table). Ten pts (5%) died during or within 30 days of the end of tx. Seven events were attributed to or associated with disease progression. One event of cardiac failure was reported to be possibly tx related. Pulmonary embolism was suspected but not confirmed. Conclusions: The GAMMA study continues per protocol. The only grade 3/4 AE occurring in more than 5% of patients to date is neutropenia. [Table: see text]

Phase III trial of everolimus (EVE) in previously treated patients with advanced gastric cancer (AGC): GRANITE-1.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA3-LBA3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Van Cutsem ◽  
Kun-Huei Yeh ◽  
Yung-Jue Bang ◽  
Lin Shen ◽  
Jaffer A. Ajani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Chemotherapy ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Best Supportive Care ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Grade 3

LBA3 Background: The prognosis for patients with AGC after failure of first-line chemotherapy is poor. Currently, there is no level 1 evidence established for second-line treatment. EVE inhibits the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway, a key regulator of cell proliferation, metabolism, and angiogenesis, and has shown efficacy against AGC in preclinical and phase I/II studies. Methods: In a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase III study, patients age ≥18 years with confirmed AGC and disease progression after 1 or 2 lines of systemic chemotherapy were randomized 2:1 to oral EVE 10 mg/d plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo (PBO) plus BSC. Randomization was stratified by region (Asia vs rest of world) and previous lines of chemotherapy (1 vs 2). Study drug was discontinued upon progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and safety. The final analysis was performed when 526 deaths occurred. Results: A total of 656 patients from 23 countries were enrolled from Jul 2009 to Dec 2010; 439 were randomized to EVE, 217 to PBO. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between arms; 73.6% were men, 55.3% were enrolled in Asia, 47.7% received 1 previous line of chemotherapy, and 50.6% had a gastrectomy. Median OS was 5.39 months with EVE vs 4.34 months with PBO (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.75-1.08; P=0.1244). Median PFS per local investigator assessment was 1.68 months with EVE vs 1.41 months with PBO (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56-0.78; p<0.0001). Six-month PFS estimates were 12.0% with EVE and 4.3% with PBO. OS and PFS results were consistent across the various subgroups. ORR (95% CI) was 4.5% (2.6%-7.1%) with EVE vs 2.1% (0.6%-5.3%) with PBO. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were anemia (16.0% with EVE vs 12.6% with PBO), decreased appetite (11.0% vs 5.6%), and fatigue (7.8% vs 5.1%). Conclusions: EVE monotherapy did not significantly improve OS in patients with AGC previously treated with 1 or 2 lines of systemic chemotherapy. EVE did improve PFS. Results for OS and PFS were consistent across the various subgroups. The safety profile was consistent with that previously observed with EVE.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document