Safety and quality of life (QoL) findings from a randomized phase III study of capecitabine (X) + oxaliplatin (O) (XELOX) vs. infusional 5-FU/LV + O (FOLFOX-6) in metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC)

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4099-4099 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Hebbar ◽  
J. Bennouna ◽  
V. Boige ◽  
M. Ychou ◽  
G. Lledo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Safety Profile ◽  
Compliance Rate ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Final Visit ◽  
First Line ◽  
Best Response ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Eortc Qlq

4099 Background: A recent phase III trial in first-line MCRC showed that XELOX is non-inferior to infusional 5-FU + oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) for progression-free survival (PFS) [Cassidy ESMO 2006]. Here we present safety and QoL findings from a study of XELOX vs. FOLFOX-6 in first-line MCRC. Methods: Between 16 May 03 and 31 Aug 04, 306 patients (pts) were randomized to receive either XELOX (156 pts: × 1,000mg/m2 bid d1–14, O 130mg/m2 d1, q3w) or FOLFOX-6 (150 pts: O 100mg/m2 d1 LV 400mg/m2 2h infusion then 5-FU 400mg/m2 i.v. bolus then 2,400–3,000mg/m2 46h infusion, q2w) for 6 months. Primary objective: demonstrate non inferiority of XELOX in terms of best response rate (RECIST). Secondary objectives: evaluate QoL and pt satisfaction with care by EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACIT (chemotherapy convenience and satisfaction) questionnaires. Pts completed questionnaires at baseline, before cycles 3/4, 6/8 and at final visit in XELOX/FOLFOX-6 arms, respectively. Results: 245 pts (QLQ-C30) and 225 pts (satisfaction) were evaluable for QoL. The compliance rate was >70%. At baseline, QoL scores were not significantly different. QLQ-C30 functional and symptomatic scores were stable in both arms. According to FACIT, there was no difference between arms, although XELOX-treated pts wasted less hours of their free time than those on FOLFOX-6: 10±23 vs. 37±68 hours, respectively (p=0.007). XELOX was a more ‘comfortable’ treatment (p<0.001 vs. FOLFOX-6 at 2nd evaluation and p=0.009 at 3rd evaluation). Safety profile was acceptable in both arms. In the safety population (n=304), XELOX pts had more grade 3/4 hand-foot syndrome (3 vs. 1% p=0.215), thrombocytopenia (12 vs. 5% p=0.052) and diarrhea (12% vs. 7% p=0.1), but less grade 3/4 febrile neutropenia (0 vs. 6% p=0.001) and neuropathy (8 vs. 19% p=0.003) than those on FOLFOX-6. Treatment discontinuation for toxicity was 19% and 23% for XELOX and FOLFOX-6 arms, respectively. Conclusions: XELOX is comparable to FOLFOX-6 in terms of QoL with less time wasted receiving XELOX. XELOX is also non-inferior to FOLFOX-6 (primary endpoint met/presented at same meeting) with a similar safety profile in first-line MCRC. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Randomized phase II study of first-line everolimus plus bevacizumab (E+B) versus interferon α-2a plus bevacizumab (I+B) in patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): Record-2 final overall survival (OS) and safety results.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4576-4576 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alain Ravaud ◽  
Carlos H. Barrios ◽  
Boris Y. Alekseev ◽  
Miah Hiang Tay ◽  
Sanjiv S. Agarwala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Interferon Α ◽  
First Line ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Safety Issues ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Subsequent Phase ◽  
Grade 3

4576 Background: RECORD-2 (NCT00719264) primary analysis demonstrated similar median progression-free survival (PFS) for pts with mRCC treated with E+B and I+B (Dec 2011 cut-off). The primary objective was not met; median PFS in E+B/I+B was 9.3/10.0 mo (HRIFN/EVE, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.69-1.19; P=0.485) and probability of success (PoS) of a subsequent phase III trial was 5.1%. Here we present final OS and safety/exposure results (Aug 2012 cut-off). Methods: Untreated pts with clear cell mRCC and previous nephrectomy were randomized 1:1 to B 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks and either E 10 mg/day or I (9 MIU 3 times/week). The primary objective was treatment effect on PFS per central review based on an estimation of PoS (≥50%) of a subsequent phase III study. Secondary objectives included OS and safety. Results: In E+B (n=182) and I+B (n=183) arms, median age was 60/60 years and 76/72% of pts were men, respectively. In both arms, most pts (93%) were of favorable/intermediate MSKCC risk. Median follow-up was 33 mo. In E+B and I+B arms, 51/52% of pts died, respectively. Median OS (95% CI) was 27.1 mo (19.9-35.3) in the E+B arm and 27.1 mo (20.4-30.8) in the I+B arm. After discontinuing study treatment, 64/60% of pts in E+B and I+B arms, respectively, received antineoplastic therapy. Median exposure duration in E+B and I+B arms was 8.5/8.3 mo, respectively; AEs resulted in treatment discontinuation for 23/25% of pts, respectively. The most frequent AEs (%) were stomatitis (63), proteinuria (50), diarrhea (40), hypertension (38), and epistaxis (35) in the E+B arm and decreased appetite (45), fatigue (42), proteinuria (38), asthenia (35), and pyrexia (35) in the I+B arm. The most frequent grade 3/4 AEs (%) were proteinuria (24), stomatitis (11), and anemia (11) for E+B and fatigue (17), asthenia (14), and proteinuria (10) for I+B. Conclusions: OS of E+B and I+B was similar. OS results are consistent with PFS primary analysis. First-line treatment with mTOR inhibitor-based therapy did not impair chance of survival relative to standard therapy. No new safety issues were identified and E+B remained generally well tolerated. Clinical trial information: NCT00719264.

Avelumab (Ave) first-line (1L) maintenance plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC): JAVELIN Bladder 100 Japanese subgroup analysis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 425-425
Author(s):  
Norihiko Tsuchiya ◽  
Yoshiaki Yamamoto ◽  
Hirotsugu Uemura ◽  
Hiro-Omi Kanayama ◽  
Masatoshi Eto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Japanese Patients ◽  
Best Supportive Care ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Best Response ◽  
Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

425 Background: A randomized phase III trial (JAVELIN Bladder 100; NCT02603432) to investigate avelumab (anti–PD-L1) as 1L maintenance therapy in patients with advanced UC met its primary objective, demonstrating significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) with Ave + BSC vs BSC alone in all randomized patients and in patients with PD-L1+ tumors. We report efficacy and safety in Japanese patients enrolled in this study. Methods: Eligible patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic UC that had not progressed with 4-6 cycles of gemcitabine with either cisplatin or carboplatin were randomized 1:1 to receive maintenance Ave (10 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks) + BSC or BSC alone, stratified by best response to 1L chemotherapy (complete/partial response vs stable disease) and by visceral vs nonvisceral disease when initiating 1L chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was OS, assessed from randomization in all randomized patients and in patients with PD-L1+ tumors (Ventana SP263 assay). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) per blinded independent central review and safety. Results: Japanese patients (n=73) were randomized to receive Ave + BSC (n=36) or BSC alone (n=37); 52.8% vs 62.2% had PD-L1+ tumors, respectively. Median OS (95% CI) was 24.7 months (18.2-not estimable [NE]) with Ave + BSC vs 18.7 months (12.8-33.0) with BSC alone (HR, 0.81 [95% CI; 0.409-1.585]) in all randomized patients and 18.6 months (9.4-NE) with Ave + BSC vs 19.4 months (11.7-33.0) with BSC alone (HR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.413-2.412]) in patients with PD-L1+ tumors. Median PFS (95% CI) was 5.6 months (1.9-9.4) with Ave + BSC vs 1.9 months (1.9-3.8) with BSC alone (HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.358-1.113]) in all randomized patients and 5.6 months (1.8-11.2) with Ave + BSC vs 1.9 months (1.9-3.8) with BSC alone (HR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.298-1.301]) in patients with PD-L1+ tumors. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (all grade; grade ≥3) in the Ave + BSC arm were pyrexia (10 [27.8%]; 0), nasopharyngitis (7 [19.4%]; 0), and anemia (7 [19.4%]; 4 [11.1%]). Conclusions: Ave 1L maintenance + BSC was efficacious and tolerable in Japanese patients with advanced UC, and results were generally consistent with those in the overall population. Clinical trial information: NCT02603432.

Efficacy and safety findings from a randomized phase III study of capecitabine (X) + oxaliplatin (O) (XELOX) vs. infusional 5- FU/LV + O (FOLFOX-6) for metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC)

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4029-4029 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Ducreux ◽  
J. Bennouna ◽  
M. Hebbar ◽  
M. Ychou ◽  
G. Lledo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dose Intensity ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Comparable Efficacy ◽  
First Line ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Best Response ◽  
Grade 3

4029 Background: X has comparable efficacy, safety and convenience benefits over 5-FU/LV (Mayo clinic) in adjuvant colon cancer and first-line MCRC. A recent phase III trial in first line MCRC showed that XELOX is well tolerated and non inferior to FOLFOX-4 for progression-free survival (PFS) [Cassidy ESMO 2006]. Methods: We initiated a phase III trial to demonstrate non inferiority in terms of best response rates (RR, RECIST) of XELOX versus FOLFOX-6 as first-line therapy in patients (pts) with MCRC. Between 16 May 03 and 31 Aug 04, 306 patients (intention to treat), were randomized to receive either XELOX (n=156: × 1,000mg/m2 bid d1–14, O 130mg/m2 d1, q3w) or FOLFOX-6 (n=150: O 100mg/m2 d1 LV 400mg/m2 2h infusion then 5-FU 400mg/m2 i.v. bolus then 2,400–3,000mg/m2 46h infusion, q2w) for 6 months. Efficacy results are presented in the per protocol population (PP) (n=284:144 pts XELOX; 140 pts FOLFOX-6). Results: Baseline characteristics were well balanced. Pts received a median of 8 and 11 cycles of XELOX (range 0–8) and FOLFOX-6 (range 0–12), respectively. Dose intensity (median) for oxaliplatin was 99.6% and 95.4% with XELOX and FOLFOX-6, respectively. Best RR (independent review, PP) was 42% and 46% with XELOX and FOLFOX-6, respectively. Difference between groups for RR was 4.7%; upper limit of 95% unilateral CI (14.4%) was below non-inferiority margin of 15%. RR by investigators (PP) was 46% for each arm. With a median follow up of 16.5 months (range 0.4–38.3), median PFS and overall survival (PP) were 9.3/19.9 vs. 9.7/18.4 months with XELOX and FOLFOX-6, respectively. In the safety population (n=304), XELOX pts had more grade 3/4 hand-foot syndrome (3 vs. 0%, p=0.21), thrombocytopenia (12 vs. 5% p=0.052), and diarrhea (12% vs. 7% p=0.1), but less grade 3/4 febrile neutropenia (0 vs. 6% p=0.001), neuropathy (8 vs. 19% p=0.003), than those on FOLFOX-6. Treatment discontinuation for toxicity was 19% and 23% in XELOX and FOLFOX-6 arms, respectively. Conclusions: The primary endpoint has been met: XELOX is non inferior to FOLFOX-6, with a good safety profile in first-line MCRC. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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.

Randomized phase II trial of the multi-kinase inhibitor sorafenib versus interferon (IFN) in treatment-naïve patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC)

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4501-4501 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Escudier ◽  
C. Szczylik ◽  
T. Demkow ◽  
M. Staehler ◽  
F. Rolland ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Prognostic Score ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Grade 3

4501 Background: Sorafenib, an oral multi-kinase inhibitor that targets tumor growth and vascularization, significantly prolonged PFS in a Phase III trial with previously treated mRCC patients. This randomized Phase II trial investigated the efficacy and tolerability of sorafenib compared with IFN in first-line therapy of patients with clear-cell RCC. Methods: Untreated patients with mRCC were stratified by MSKCC prognostic score and randomized to receive continuous oral sorafenib 400 mg bid or IFN 9 million units tiw, with an option of dose escalation (600 mg bid sorafenib) or crossover from IFN to sorafenib upon disease progression. The study assessed PFS at 99 events as primary objective, best response (RECIST), overall survival, health-related quality of life, and adverse events (AEs). Results: Baseline characteristics of 188 patients (sorafenib n=97; IFN n = 91) were: median age 62.0 years; MSKCC score: 57% low, 41% intermediate, 1% high; prior nephrectomy: 82%; ECOG 0:1, 55.3%:44.7%. As of January 6, 2006, PFS events have been reported for 64 (34%) patients. Preliminary data showed drug-related AEs of any severity (sorafenib vs IFN) in 50.5% vs 51.6% of patients (≥grade 3: 8.2% vs 11.0%), including diarrhea (24.7% vs 5.5%), fatigue (14.4% vs 20.9%), fever (2.1% vs 18.7%), hypertension (13.4% vs 0%), nausea (5.2% vs 13.2%), flu-like syndrome (1.0% vs 6.6%), hand-foot skin reaction (6.2% vs 0%), and rash/desquamation (4.1% vs 0%). Drug-related metabolic/laboratory abnormalities at grade 3 (no grade 4) comprised hypophosphatemia (21.7% vs. 0%), lipase elevation (5.6% vs. 11.1%), anemia (0% vs. 5.3%) and hypoalbuminemia (0% vs. 3.6%). Five patients receiving IFN withdrew from treatment due to AEs, whereas only one patient withdrew from sorafenib. Conclusions: Sorafenib was generally well tolerated in RCC patients in the first-line setting, with relatively infrequent drug-related AEs ≥grade 3. Full PFS data will be presented at the meeting. [Table: see text]

A phase II study of picoplatin (pico) as second-line therapy for patients (pts) with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) who have resistant or refractory disease or have relapsed within 180 days of completing first-line, platinum (plat)-containing chemotherapy

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7722-7722 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Bentzion ◽  
O. Lipatov ◽  
I. Polyakov ◽  
R. MacKintosh ◽  
J. Eckardt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Median Survival ◽  
Stable Disease ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Refractory Disease ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
First Line ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Grade 3

7722 Background: Pico is a sterically hindered plat analogue designed to overcome plat resistance with improved safety and efficacy. In >600 pts pico had single-agent activity in lung, prostate, ovarian and other malignancies with rare significant nephro-, oto-, or neurotoxicity (∼2% grade 3 and 0% grade 4). In a previous phase 2 study of single agent pico as 2nd line therapy in SCLC, 4 of 48 pts (8%) had a partial response and 21 (44%) stable disease. Median survival was 27.0 (95% CI = 16–35) wks. This multi-center phase 2 trial was designed to confirm the activity of pico as 2nd line monotherapy for plat-resistant SCLC. Methods: Pts with SCLC who either 1) failed or progressed through 1st line plat-containing chemo (refractory disease), or 2) initially responded to 1st line plat-containing chemo and then relapsed/ progressed within 3 months (resistant disease), or 3) initially responded and then relapsed/progressed between 90 to 180 days (sensitive, relapsed 90 to 180 days), had measurable disease and ECOG PS 0–2 were treated with pico, 150 mg/m2 iv over1–2 hrs, q 21 days. Tumor response was assessed q 6 wks. Adverse events (AEs) were graded using the NCI CTCAE. Results: 77 pts received pico (45 refractory, 27 resistant, 5 sensitive). The median number of cycles received was 2 (mean = 2.9). The most frequently reported AEs of any severity were thrombocytopenia (39% of pts), anemia (35%), neutropenia (22%), nausea (20%), emesis (14%) and dyspnea (25%). Neutropenic fever occurred in 1 pt; there were no treatment related deaths. One pt had grade 3 neuropathy; there was no grade 3 or 4 ototoxicity or nephrotoxicity. Median overall survival is 28.1 (95% CI = 26–37) wks. Median progression free survival is 9.3 (95% CI = 7–12) wks. Of 63 pts with at least 1 post-treatment assessment of disease status, 33 (52%) had stable disease. Conclusion: Median survival compares favorably with other therapeutic options and toxicity is reduced in pico treated SCLC pts who have failed prior plat-containing first-line chemo or who have progressed within 180 days of first-line chemo. A phase III trial to confirm these results has been initiated. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Vandetanib versus erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after failure of at least one prior cytotoxic chemotherapy: A randomized, double-blind phase III trial (ZEST)

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8009-8009
Author(s):  
R. B. Natale ◽  
S. Thongprasert ◽  
F. A. Greco ◽  
M. Thomas ◽  
C. M. Tsai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Equivalent Efficacy ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

8009 Background: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of VEGFR, EGFR and RET signaling. This phase III study compared the efficacy of vandetanib vs erlotinib in patients (pts) with advanced, previously treated NSCLC. Methods: Eligible pts (stage IIIB/IV NSCLC, PS 0–2, 1–2 prior chemotherapies; all histologies permitted) were randomized 1:1 to receive vandetanib 300 mg/day or erlotinib 150 mg/day until progression/toxicity. The primary objective was to show superiority in progression-free survival (PFS) for vandetanib vs erlotinib. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), time to deterioration of symptoms (TDS; EORTC QoL Questionnaire) and safety. Results: Between Oct 06-Nov 07, 1240 pts (mean age 61 yrs; 38% female; 22% squamous) were randomized to receive vandetanib (n=623) or erlotinib (n=617). Baseline characteristics were similar in both arms. Median duration of follow-up was 14 months, with 88% pts progressed and 67% dead. There was no difference in PFS for pts treated with vandetanib vs erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.98, 95.22% CI 0.87–1.10; P=0.721), and no difference in the secondary endpoints of OS (HR 1.01, 95.08% CI 0.89–1.16; P=0.830), ORR (both 12%) and TDS (pain: HR 0.92, P=0.289; dyspnea: HR 1.07, P=0.407; cough: HR 0.94, P=0.455). A preplanned non-inferiority analysis for PFS and OS demonstrated equivalent efficacy for vandetanib and erlotinib. The adverse events (AEs) observed for vandetanib were generally consistent with previous NSCLC studies with vandetanib 300 mg. There was a higher incidence of some AEs (any grade) with vandetanib vs erlotinib, including diarrhea (50% vs 38%) and hypertension (16% vs 2%); rash was more frequent with erlotinib (38% vs 28%). The overall incidence of CTCAE grade ≥3 AEs was also higher with vandetanib (50% vs 40%). The incidence of protocol-defined QTc prolongation in the vandetanib arm was 5%. Conclusions: The study did not meet its primary objective of demonstrating PFS prolongation with vandetanib vs erlotinib in pts with previously treated advanced NSCLC. However, vandetanib and erlotinib showed equivalent efficacy for PFS and OS in a preplanned non-inferiority analysis. [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]

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]

Activity and safety of Nab-FOLFIRI and Nab-FOLFOX as first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer (phase II NabucCO study).

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 351-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisa Giommoni ◽  
Evaristo Maiello ◽  
Vanja Vaccaro ◽  
Ermanno Rondini ◽  
Caterina Vivaldi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Maximum Tolerated Dose ◽  
Dose Finding ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
First Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Grade 3

351 Background: FOLFIRINOX is an approved regimen for metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). We performed a modification in FOLFIRINOX schedule, using nab-paclitaxel (nab-p) to obtain two regimens that could be as effective and less toxic than the original triplet. NabucCO study was a randomized phase II trial to assess activity and toxicity of nab-p instead of either oxaliplatin (Nab-FOLFIRI) or irinotecan (Nab-FOLFOX) in first line setting. Previous dose–finding NabucCO study defined that maximum tolerated dose of nab-p with FOLFIRI is 120 mg/m2, and with FOLFOX is 160 mg/m2. Methods: The study was a 1:1 parallel arm, open label, not comparative one to assess overall response rate (ORR) of Nab-FOLFIRI and Nab-FOLFOX as primary end-point. Patients (pts) with PS 0-1, untreated for mPC were randomized to receive leucovorin 400 mg/m2, 5FU bolus 400 mg/m2, 5FU 48h ci 2400 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2 plus nab-p 120 mg/m2 (arm A) or leucovorin 400 mg/m2, 5FU bolus 400 mg/m2, 5FU 48h ci 2400 mg/m2 and oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 iv plus nab-p 160 mg/m2 (arm B) every 2 weeks for up to 12 cycles. Secondary end points were clinical benefit rate (CBR), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: From November 2015 to January 2017, 84 pts were treated (42 for each arm). Median age was 60 years (29-65) in arm A and 64 years (47-64) in arm B. The ORR was 31 % for both schedules, with a CBR of 69% and 71%, respectively. At a median follow-up of 11.4 months for arm A and 14.5 months for arm B (censored on august, 31th 2017), 1-year survival is 41% and 50%, respectively. For Nab-FOLFIRI PFS and mOS were 6 months (90% CI: 4.9-8.0) and 13.2 months (90% CI: 8.3-14.8), while in Nab-FOLFOX were 5.6 months (90% CI:4.9-7.2) and 10.8 months (90% CI: 8.4-12.8). Grade ≥3 toxicities in arm A were neutropenia (19%) and febrile neutropenia (12%). In arm B, main grade ≥3 toxicities were neutropenia (29%), fatigue (14%), peripheral neuropathy (7%). No toxic death were registered. Conclusions: Nab-FOLFIRI and Nab–FOLFOX demonstrated a similar activity to FOLFIRINOX, with better safety profile in terms of neutropenia, fatigue and neuropathy. These results could justify a future phase III evaluation. Clinical trial information: NCT02109341.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document