Vandetanib with FOLFIRI in patients with advanced colorectal adenocarcinoma: an open-label, multicenter Phase I study

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4085-4085
Author(s):  
M. Saunders ◽  
E. Van Cutsem ◽  
R. Wilson ◽  
M. Peeters ◽  
R. Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tyrosine Kinases ◽  
Colorectal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Day Treatment ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Preliminary Evaluation ◽  
Related Complication ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Grade 3

4085 Background: Vandetanib (ZD6474) is a once-daily oral agent in Phase III development that selectively targets key signaling pathways in cancer by inhibiting VEGF, EGF and RET receptor tyrosine kinases. Methods: Patients with metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma who were eligible for 1st- or 2nd-line chemotherapy received once-daily oral doses of vandetanib (100 mg) in combination with standard 14-day treatment cycles of FOLFIRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m2 1.5-hr and leucovorin 400 mg/m2 2-hr i.v. infusions, followed by 5-fluorouracil [5-FU] 400 mg/mg2 i.v. bolus and 5-FU 2400 mg/m2 46–48-hr i.v. infusion). If <2 of 6 evaluable patients (i.e., having completed 6 weeks of treatment) experienced a vandetanib- related dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), an additional cohort received vandetanib 300 mg + FOLFIRI. The primary objective of the study was to establish the safety and tolerability of vandetanib + FOLFIRI. Secondary objectives included an assessment of any pharmacokinetic (PK) interaction between vandetanib, irinotecan (SN-38) and 5-FU, and preliminary evaluation of efficacy (RECIST). Results: Twenty- one patients (12 male/9 female; mean age 53 years, range 33–72) received vandetanib 100 mg (n=11) or 300 mg (n=10) + FOLFIRI. Combination therapy was well tolerated at both vandetanib dose levels. There were no DLTs in the vandetanib 100 mg cohort, with one DLT of hypertension (CTC grade 3) with QTc prolongation in the 300 mg cohort. The most common adverse events (AEs; all grade 1/2) were diarrhea (n=20), nausea (n=12), fatigue (n=10) and alopecia (n=9); AEs =grade 3 reported in more than one patient were neutropenia (n=4, all grade 3), hypertension (n=3, all grade 3), catheter-related complication (n=2, both grade 3) and pulmonary embolism (n=2, both grade 4). There was no apparent PK interaction between vandetanib and irintotecan (SN-38) or 5-FU. Best overall responses in the 14 patients evaluable for efficacy were partial response (n=2), stable disease =8 weeks (n=9), and progressive disease (n=3). Conclusions: In patients with advanced colorectal adenocarcinoma, combining once-daily vandetanib (100 or 300 mg) with a standard FOLFIRI regimen was generally well tolerated. ZACTIMA is a trademark of the AstraZeneca group of companies. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Vandetanib with mFOLFOX6 in advanced colorectal adenocarcinoma: An open-label, multicenter phase I study

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4095-4095
Author(s):  
M. Michael ◽  
N. Tebbutt ◽  
P. Gibbs ◽  
R. Smith ◽  
A. Godwood ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Phase I Study ◽  
Day Treatment ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Electrolyte Imbalance ◽  
Preliminary Evaluation ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Grade 3

4095 Background: Vandetanib (ZD6474) is a once-daily oral anticancer agent that selectively inhibits VEGFR- dependent tumor angiogenesis, and EGFR- and RET-dependent tumor cell proliferation. The primary objective of this Phase I study was to establish the safety and tolerability of the vandetanib + mFOLFOX6 combination in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Secondary objectives included an assessment of pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions between vandetanib and mFOLFOX6, and preliminary evaluation of efficacy (RECIST). Methods: Patients with CRC who were eligible for 1st- or 2nd-line chemotherapy received once-daily oral doses of vandetanib (100 mg) plus standard 14-day treatment cycles of mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 and leucovorin 400 mg/m2 2-hr IV; 5-fluorouracil [5-FU] 400 mg/mg2 IV bolus and 5-FU 2400 mg/m2 46-hr IV). If <2 of 6 evaluable patients (ie, having completed 6 weeks of vandetanib treatment with associated mFOLFOX6 cycles) experienced a vandetanib-related dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), an additional cohort received vandetanib 300 mg + mFOLFOX6. Results: Seventeen patients (12 male/5 female; 7 1st-line/10 2nd-line; mean age 61 years, range 48–75) received vandetanib 100 mg (n=9) or 300 mg (n=8) + mFOLFOX6; the median number of oxaliplatin cycles was 8. Two DLTs were reported: one patient receiving 100 mg vandetanib developed diarrhea (CTC grade 2), dehydration, electrolyte imbalance and QTc prolongation, and one patient receiving vandetanib 300 mg developed diarrhea (grade 3) that responded to dose reduction. Common adverse events (AEs), irrespective of grade, were diarrhea, nausea, lethargy (all n=11), neutropenia and peripheral neuropathy (both n=10); AEs =grade 3 reported in more than one patient were diarrhea (n=4, all grade 3) and neutropenia (n=5, grade 3; n=2, grade 4). There was no apparent PK interaction between vandetanib and oxaliplatin or 5-FU. Best overall responses in the 14 patients evaluable for efficacy were partial response (n=3), stable disease =8 weeks (n=8), and progressive disease (n=3). Conclusions: In patients with advanced CRC, combining once-daily vandetanib (100 or 300 mg) with mFOLFOX6 was generally well tolerated. ZACTIMA is a trademark of the AstraZeneca group of companies No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Vandetanib plus mFOLFOX6 in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC): A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4084-4084
Author(s):  
T. S. Yang ◽  
D. Y. Oh ◽  
R. Guimbaud ◽  
J. Szanto ◽  
T. Salek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tyrosine Kinases ◽  
Day Treatment ◽  
Sensory Neuropathy ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Assessment Visit ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Peripheral Sensory ◽  
To Receive

4084 Background: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral agent that selectively targets key signaling pathways in cancer by inhibiting VEGF, EGF and RET receptor tyrosine kinases. Methods: Eligible patients with advanced CRC and who had previously progressed after an irinotecan- and fluoropyrimidine-containing regimen were randomized 1:1:1 to receive once-daily oral vandetanib (100 or 300 mg) + modified FOLFOX6 (mFOLFOX6) or placebo + mFOLFOX6; mFOLFOX6 was given as standard 14-day treatment cycles (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 2-hr and leucovorin 400 mg/m2 2-hr i.v. infusions, followed by 5- fluorouracil [5-FU] 400 mg/mg2 i.v. bolus and 5-FU 2400 mg/m2 46-hr i.v. infusion). The primary objective was to compare the number of patients with a progression event on or before a mandatory tumor assessment visit at data cut-off (∼4 months after last patient randomized). A progression event was defined as the earliest of objective and/or clinical disease progression, or death from any cause. Results: Between March and November 2007, 104 patients (aged 32–81 years) were randomized to receive study treatment ( Table ). At data cut-off on 8 March 2008, there was a greater % of progression events in the vandetanib 100 mg arm compared with placebo (72% [n=23] versus 65% [n=24]; HR=1.21, 2-sided 80% CI 0.82–1.80; 2-sided P=0.53), and also in the vandetanib 300 mg arm compared with placebo (77% [n=27] versus 65% [n=24]; HR=1.41, 2-sided 80% CI 0.96–2.07; 2-sided P=0.25). All except one patient in each group experienced an adverse event (AE) during the study with diarrhea, nausea, thrombocytopenia, and peripheral sensory neuropathy the most commonly reported AEs ( Table ). Neutropenia was the only CTC grade 4 AE to occur in >1 patient in any group (n=2, vandetanib 100 mg arm; n=0, vandetanib 300 mg arm; n=3, placebo arm). Conclusions: In this study of patients with advanced, previously treated CRC, there was no efficacy benefit for vandetanib (100 or 300 mg) + mFOLFOX6 versus placebo + mFOLFOX6. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

Vandetanib with pemetrexed in patients with previously treated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): An open-label, multicenter phase I study

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7654-7654 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. De Boer ◽  
J. Vansteenkiste ◽  
Y. Humblet ◽  
J. Wolf ◽  
L. Nogova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Electrolyte Imbalance ◽  
Smoking History ◽  
Qtc Interval ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Short Baseline ◽  
Once Daily

7654 Background: Vandetanib (ZD6474) is a once-daily oral anticancer drug that selectively inhibits VEGF-dependent tumor angiogenesis and EGFR- and RET-dependent tumor cell proliferation and survival. Methods: Eligible patients had locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC (stage IIIB/IV) after failure of 1st-line chemotherapy. An initial cohort of 10 patients received once- daily oral vandetanib (100 mg) with pemetrexed (500 mg/m2 i.v. infusion every 21 days). If <2 patients experienced a vandetanib- related dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), an additional cohort received vandetanib 300 mg + pemetrexed. The planned duration of treatment was =6 weeks. The primary objective of the study was to establish the safety and tolerability of vandetanib + pemetrexed. Secondary objectives included an assessment of pharmacokinetic (PK) interaction and preliminary assessment of efficacy (RECIST). Results: Twenty- one patients (14 male, 7 female; mean age 60 years, range 44–77) received vandetanib 100 mg + pemetrexed (n=10) or vandetanib 300 mg + pemetrexed (n=11). One DLT was reported in each cohort: QTc prolongation (>100 ms from baseline, but absolute QTc <500 ms) in a male patient who had electrolyte imbalance and short baseline QTc interval of 318 ms (100 mg cohort); and interstitial lung disease, which resolved after steroid therapy, in a Caucasian female patient with bronchoalveolar carcinoma and a long smoking history (300 mg cohort). The most common adverse events (AEs) were rash, anorexia, fatigue and diarrhea (all n=10; 48%). The most frequent CTC grade 3/4 AEs were increased gamma-glutamyltransferase (n=4), anorexia (n=3) and dyspnea (n=3), which are generally consistent with previous experience with vandetanib and pemetrexed as monotherapies. There was no apparent PK interaction between vandetanib and pemetrexed. In 18 patients evaluable for efficacy, there was one confirmed partial response (female; 100 mg cohort) and 13 stable disease =6 weeks. Conclusions: In patients with advanced NSCLC, vandetanib + pemetrexed was generally well tolerated, with no apparent PK interaction. A Phase III trial of vandetanib 100 mg + pemetrexed in 2nd-line NSCLC has begun. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Phase I evaluation of vandetanib with radiation therapy (RT) ± cisplatin in previously untreated advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC)

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6016-6016 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Papadimitrakopoulou ◽  
S. J. Frank ◽  
G. R. Blumenschein ◽  
C. Chen ◽  
M. Kane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Tyrosine Kinases ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Maximum Tolerated Dose ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Open Label Phase ◽  
To Receive

6016 Background: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral anticancer agent that selectively targets VEGF, EGF and RET receptor tyrosine kinases. We report preliminary results from an ongoing open-label phase I study of vandetanib with RT ± cisplatin in patients (pts) with previously untreated, unresected, locally advanced (stage III-IV) HNSCC. Methods: Eligible pts received once-daily vandetanib for 14 days followed by either 1) concomitant vandetanib + RT (2 Gy/d, 5 d/wk; total 70 Gy) + cisplatin (30 mg/m2, 2 h iv infusion/wk) for 7 wks, or 2) concomitant vandetanib + RT (2.2 Gy/d accelerated fractionation, 5 d/wk; total 66 Gy) for 6 wks. The primary objective was to determine the safety, tolerability and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of vandetanib in both regimens. The first pt cohort received vandetanib 100 mg/day; escalation to 200 mg and 300 mg in subsequent cohorts was permitted providing <2/6 (33%) pts in the preceding cohort experienced a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Cohort expansion at the MTD of vandetanib was also planned. Results: As of Dec 1 2008, 24 pts (median age 53.5 yrs; 19 male; all M0) had received treatment with vandetanib + RT + cisplatin (n=18) or vandetanib + RT (n=6). In the triplet arm, no DLTs occurred in the initial vandetanib 100 mg cohort (n=6); an additional 6 pts were enrolled to receive vandetanib 200 mg but this dose was considered to exceed the MTD since DLTs were reported in 3/5 evaluable pts (Table). Vandetanib 100 mg was therefore declared the MTD with RT + cisplatin and cohort expansion at this dose continues. In regimen 2), 6 pts have received vandetanib 100 mg + RT and evaluation of this initial cohort is ongoing. Conclusions: This study, which continues to recruit, is the first to evaluate dual targeting of VEGFR/EGFR tyrosine kinases with chemoradiation or radiation alone in HNSCC pts. Among the 24 treated pts, 2 have completed the 2-year follow up, 1 death occurred that was causally related to cisplatin, and 21 remain in follow up or continue to receive treatment. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

Afatinib monotherapy in patients with metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the lung progressing after erlotinib/gefitinib (E/G) and chemotherapy: Interim subset analysis from a phase III trial.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7558-7558 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joo-Hang Kim ◽  
Francesco Grossi ◽  
Filippo De Marinis ◽  
Manuel Cobo ◽  
James Chih-Hsin Yang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tyrosine Kinases ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Metastatic Nsclc ◽  
Erbb4 Receptor ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Patient Enrolment ◽  
Nsclc Patients ◽  
To Receive

7558 Background: Patients with squamous NSCLC have limited treatment options. For those deriving benefit from EGFR TKIs, it is unclear whether sustained ErbB family blockade offers benefit upon progression. We evaluated afatinib, an irreversible blocker of EGFR (ErbB1), HER2 (ErbB2) and ErbB4 receptor tyrosine kinases, in patients with metastatic NSCLC who had failed chemotherapy and E/G. Here we describe a pre-specified analysis of those with squamous histology in Part A. Methods: This randomized Phase III, open-label, multi-center trial enrolled patients with pathologically confirmed metastatic NSCLC after failing ≥1 line of cytotoxic chemotherapy and E/G. In Part A, patients received oral afatinib 50 mg until disease progression. Those with clinical benefit (≥12 wks) who progressed were eligible to receive afatinib plus paclitaxel or investigator’s choice chemotherapy (Part B). Primary endpoint was PFS (RECIST 1.1). Following an amendment, an interim analysis of Part A was performed to assess afatinib monotherapy. Results: Patient enrolment into Part A was from April 2010 to May 2011. Of 1154 afatinib-treated patients, 91 (8%) had squamous histology; 18/91 and 40/91 had CR/PR and SD on prior E/G, respectively (by investigator). Median age was 63 yrs, 71% were male, 76% were current/ex-smokers. Median PFS on afatinib was 3.7 mths in the squamous histology subset. Of 91 patients, 42 had PFS ≥3 mths; 13 had PFS of ≥6 mths. In evaluable patients (n=77), 1 CR and 3 PRs were confirmed; 51 and 22 patients had best overall response of SD and PD, respectively. Of the 31 patients with PD on prior E/G with no intervening chemotherapy, 10 achieved confirmed disease control (2 PR; 8 SD) on afatinib. Most commonly reported grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) in Part A were diarrhea (13%) and rash/acne (12%). The safety profile in the squamous histology subset was similar to that observed for the whole trial. Conclusions: Afatinib monotherapy demonstrated encouraging activity in treatment-refractory NSCLC patients with squamous histology that merits further evaluation.

SAVOIR: A phase III study of savolitinib versus sunitinib in pts with MET-driven papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5002-5002
Author(s):  
Toni K. Choueiri ◽  
Daniel Yick Chin Heng ◽  
Jae-Lyun Lee ◽  
Mathilde Cancel ◽  
Remy B Verheijen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Chromosome 7 ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Dose Modifications

5002 Background: PRCC is the most common type of non-clear cell RCC, accounting for 10–15% of renal malignancies. As a subset of PRCC cases are MET-driven, MET inhibition may be an appropriate targeted treatment approach. In a single-arm Phase II study, savolitinib (AZD6094, HMPL‐504, volitinib), a highly selective MET-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, demonstrated antitumor activity in pts with MET-driven PRCC (Choueiri et al. JCO 2017). The Phase III SAVOIR study (NCT03091192) further assessed savolitinib vs standard of care sunitinib in pts with MET-driven PRCC. Methods: In this open-label (sponsor blinded), randomized study, pts with centrally confirmed MET-driven ( MET and/or HGF amplification, chromosome 7 gain and/or MET kinase domain mutations), metastatic PRCC were randomized to savolitinib 600 mg once daily (QD), or sunitinib 50 mg QD 4 weeks on / 2 weeks off. Primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS; RECIST 1.1 by blinded independent central review). Secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety and tolerability. Results: After external data on predicted PFS with sunitinib in pts with MET-driven disease became available, study enrollment was closed. At data cutoff (Aug 2019), only 60 of the planned 180 pts were randomized (savolitinib n = 33; sunitinib n = 27). Most had chromosome 7 gain (savolitinib 91%; sunitinib 96%) and no prior therapy (savolitinib 85%; sunitinib 93%). PFS, OS, and ORR were numerically improved with savolitinib vs sunitinib (Table). CTCAE grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 42% and 81% of pts; dose modifications were related to AEs in 30% and 74% of pts with savolitinib and sunitinib respectively. After discontinuation, 36% of all savolitinib and 19% of all sunitinib pts received subsequent anticancer therapy. Conclusions: Although pt numbers and follow-up were limited, savolitinib demonstrated encouraging efficacy and an improved safety profile vs sunitinib, with fewer grade ≥3 AEs and fewer dose modifications required. Sunitinib performance was poorer than expected based on external retrospective data. Further investigation of savolitinib as a treatment option for MET-driven PRCC is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT03091192 . [Table: see text]

Open-label, phase IIIb, multicenter, expanded access study of everolimus in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors (NET).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4138-4138
Author(s):  
Oliver Edgar Bechter ◽  
Nicole Unger ◽  
Ivan Borbath ◽  
Sergio Ricci ◽  
Tsann-Long Hwang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Status ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Expanded Access ◽  
Open Label Phase ◽  
Grade 3

4138 Background: Everolimus (EVE) antitumor efficacy in patients (pts) with advanced NET was demonstrated in 2 double-blind, placebo (P)–controlled, phase III trials (RADIANT-2 and RADIANT-3). Median PFS in pancreatic (pNET) pts was 11.0 months (EVE) vs. 4.6 months (P) (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.27-0.45, P <0.001) in RADIANT-3. Median EVE exposure in RADIANT-3 was 38 wks. EVE was approved for advanced pNET in the US and Europe in 2011. An expanded access protocol was launched to gather additional safety data and provide access to EVE for pts with advanced NET while awaiting regulatory approval. Methods: Pts aged ≥18 years with biopsy-proven NET; WHO performance status 0-2; and adequate bone, hepatic, and renal function were enrolled. Main exclusion criteria were poorly differentiated NET and cytotoxic therapy within 4 wks of enrollment. EVE (10 mg/d) was administered until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, discontinuation, death, commercial availability of EVE, or until May 30, 2012. Pts were enrolled from April 21, 2011 to April 20, 2012. Primary objective was grade 3/4 and serious adverse events (AEs). Secondary objectives included investigator-assessed best overall response rate and PFS. Results: The full analysis set included 246 pts (pNET, n=126; non-pNET, n=120); the safety set included 240 pts (pNET, n=123; non-pNET, n=117). Median age was 61 and 66 years; 54% and 49% were male. Main primary tumor sites in non-pNET pts included small intestine (40%) and lung (22%). Median duration of EVE exposure was 12.1 wks and 24 wks in pNET and non-pNET. At data cutoff, there were 21 and 32 PFS events; 105 and 88 pts were censored. Grade 3/4 AEs were reported in 42.3% and 69.2% of pNET and non-pNET; those reported in ≥10% of pts in pNET and non-pNET included hyperglycemia (12.2% and 5.1%), diarrhea (10.6% and 31.6%), stomatitis (9.8% and 11.1%), nausea (8.1% and 10.3%), and anemia (5.7% and 11.1%). Median investigator-assessed PFS was 7.6 (95% CI 5.52-7.62) months and 10.8 (8.77-Not Estimable) months in pNET and non-pNET. Conclusions: EVE was well tolerated in pts with advanced NET. AEs were similar to those previously reported. Protocol-specified early termination of pts limits the interpretation of PFS medians. Clinical trial information: EudraCT Number: 2010-023032-17.

Randomized, open-label, phase III study of pemetrexed plus carboplatin (PemC) followed by maintenance pemetrexed versus paclitaxel/carboplatin/bevacizumab (PCB) followed by maintenance bevacizumab in patients with advanced nonsquamous (NS) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA8003-LBA8003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph Zinner ◽  
Helen J. Ross ◽  
Robert Weaver ◽  
Ramaswamy Govindan ◽  
Viran R. Holden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Safety Data ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Drug Regimen ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Type I ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Grade 3

LBA8003 Background: PemC and PCB are regimens used for first-line treatment of advanced NS-NSCLC. The primary objective was to compare progression-free survival without Grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS) between two vs three drug regimen arms. Methods: Patients ≥18 years, Stage IV NS NSCLC, AJCC (v7.0), and ECOG PS 0/1 were enrolled. Patients were randomized (1:1); received 4 cycles of induction (PemC: Pem, 500 mg/m2 and C, AUC = 6; PCB: P, 200 mg/m2, C, AUC = 6, and B, 15 mg/kg) followed by Pem (PemC Arm) or B (PCB Arm) maintenance therapy in the absence of progressive disease or discontinuation. Secondary endpoints were PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR). The study was powered for G4PFS; assuming hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75; there was 80% power to detect superiority of PemC over PCB with a 2-sided type I error of 0.10. Efficacy data were analyzed by intent-to-treat principle using the log-rank test for time-to-event variables, and an exact test for ORR and DCR. Safety data were evaluated using CTCAE v3 for patients who received ≥1 dose of study treatment. Results: Patients were randomized to PemC (N = 182) or PCB (N = 179). Baseline factors were balanced between arms: median age 66/66 years; % female 42/42; % PS=0, 47/47; % stage IV M1a 29/30; for PemC vs PCB, median G4PFS (months) was 3.91/2.86 (HR = 0.85, 90% CI 0.7, 1.04, p = 0.176); PFS and OS had HR = 1.06 (95% CI 0.84, 1.35), p = 0.610, and HR = 1.07 (95% CI 0.83, 1.36), p = 0.616, respectively. The ORR (%) 23.6/ 27.4 and DCR (%) 59.9/57.0 were for PemC vs PCB, respectively. Significantly more drug-related grade 3/4 anemia (18.7% vs 5.4%), and thrombocytopenia (24.0% vs 9.6%) were seen on PemC; significantly more grade 3/4 neutropenia (48.8% vs 24.6%) and grade 1/2 alopecia (28.3 % vs 8.2%) were seen on PCB. Conclusions: PemC was not superior to PCB in G4PFS; no difference in PFS or OS was observed for the two- vs three-drug regimens. There were no unexpected toxicities; the toxicity profiles demonstrated distinctions by arm, and both regimens demonstrated tolerability. Clinical trial information: NCT00948675.

A phase III randomized, open label, multicenter study comparing isatuximab, pomalidomide, and low-dose dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8004-8004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul G. Richardson ◽  
Michel Attal ◽  
S. Vincent Rajkumar ◽  
Jesus San Miguel ◽  
Meral Beksac ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Dose ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
New Treatment ◽  
Grade 3

8004 Background: The primary objective of this phase 3 trial was to demonstrate progression free survival (PFS) improvement of isatuximab (Isa), a novel anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, combined with pomalidomide (P)/dexamethasone (d) versus (vs) Pd. Methods: Patients (pts) with RRMM who received ≥2 prior lines, including lenalidomide (len) and a proteasome inhibitor (PI), refractory to last therapy were enrolled. IsaPd arm received Isa 10 mg/kg IV weekly for first 4 weeks (wks), then every 2 wks. Both arms received approved schedules of pom and dex (4mg PO days 1-21; 40mg [20mg if >75 yrs] PO or IV weekly) every 28 days until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results: 307 pts (154 IsaPd, 153 Pd) were randomized and analyzed (ITT). Patient characteristics were well balanced across arms. Median age: 67 (36-86) yrs; median prior lines of therapy: 3 (2-11); estimated GFR: <60ml/min in 33.9% pts; 92.5% refractory to len, 75.9% to PI; and 19.5% pts had high-risk cytogenetics. At median follow-up of 11.6 months (mos), median PFS was 11.5 mos IsaPd vs 6.5 mos Pd; HR 0.596 (95% CI 0.44-0.81), P=0.001. PFS benefit was consistent across all major subgroups. ORR (≥PR) was 60.4% IsaPd vs 35.3% Pd, P<0.0001. VGPR rate or better was 31.8% IsaPd vs 8.5% Pd, and MRD negativity (NGS, 10-5) was seen in 5.2% IsaPd pts vs 0% Pd. At analysis date, overall survival (OS) was immature (99 events) but a trend to OS improvement in IsaPd (vs Pd) was observed (HR 0.687; 95% CI 0.461-1.023). Median treatment duration was 41 wks IsaPd vs 24 wks Pd; median Isa infusion (inf.) duration was 3.3h at 1st inf. and 2.8h at subsequent inf. Grade ≥3 AEs were observed in 86.8% IsaPd vs 70.5% Pd; 7.2% IsaPd and 12.8% Pd pts discontinued due to AEs; 7.9% IsaPd and 9.4% Pd pts died due to AEs. Inf. reactions were reported in 38.2% (2.6% grade 3-4) IsaPd. Grade ≥3 infections were seen in 42.8% IsaPd and 30.2% Pd, grade ≥3 neutropenia in 84.9% (febrile 11.8%) IsaPd and 70.1% (febrile 2.0%) Pd. Conclusions: IsaPd significantly improved PFS and ORR vs Pd, with a manageable safety profile. IsaPd is an important new treatment option for the management of RRMM. Clinical trial information: NCT02990338.

scholarly journals Randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase III study of eribulin versus dacarbazine in patients (pts) with leiomyosarcoma (LMS) and adipocytic sarcoma (ADI).

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA10502-LBA10502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Schöffski ◽  
Robert G. Maki ◽  
Antoine Italiano ◽  
Hans Gelderblom ◽  
Giovanni Grignani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensory Neuropathy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Peripheral Sensory

LBA10502 Background: In a phase II study of pts with advanced soft tissue sarcoma, 32% and 47% of pts with LMS and ADI respectively, treated with the microtubule dynamics inhibitor eribulin achieved progression-free survival (PFS) at the 12 wk timepoint (Schöffski et al. Lancet Oncol. 2011; NCT00413192). Based on these findings, this phase III study (NCT01327885) compared overall survival (OS) in pts with advanced LMS and ADI treated with eribulin or dacarbazine. Methods: Pts aged ≥ 18 yrs with advanced high/intermediate grade LMS or dedifferentiated, myxoid, round cell or pleomorphic variants of ADI incurable by surgery and/or radiotherapy were enrolled. Pts had ECOG status ≤ 2 and had received ≥ 2 standard systemic treatment regimens including an anthracycline. Pts were randomized 1:1 to eribulin (1.4 mg/m2, IV on D1 and D8) or dacarbazine (850–1200 mg/m2, IV on D1) every 21 days until disease progression. Primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints included PFS, PFS rate at Wk 12 and safety. Results: Overall, 452 pts (67% female; 79% < 65 yrs) were randomized (228 eribulin; 224 dacarbazine). Median OS for eribulin and dacarbazine was 13.5 and 11.5 months, respectively (HR = 0.768, 95% CI 0.618–0.954; P= 0.017). PFS was 2.6 months in both arms (HR = 0.877, 95% CI 0.710–1.085; P= 0.229). PFS rate at Wk 12 was 33% and 29% for eribulin and dacarbazine, respectively. In eribulin and dacarbazine arms, respectively, 26% and 14% of pts required dose reductions and 8% and 5% discontinued due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). TEAEs were more frequent in eribulin than dacarbazine arm, including neutropenia (44% vs 24%), pyrexia (28% vs 14%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (20% vs 4%) and alopecia (35% vs. 3%); as were TEAEs of grade 3 (63% vs 53%), grade 4 (26% vs 20%), and fatal TEAEs (4% vs 1%). Thrombocytopenia was more frequent in dacarbazine than eribulin arm (28% vs 6%). Conclusions: This phase III trial of eribulin trial met its primary objective of OS benefit in pretreated pts with advanced LMS or ADI. Eribulin had a toxicity profile consistent with prior experience, with no unexpected or new safety findings. Funding Source: Eisai Inc. Clinical trial information: NCT01327885.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document