Best supportive care in combination with polychemotherapy versus best supportive care alone as second-line therapy in stage IV metastatic melanoma (DeCOG MM-PAL 8)

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8567-8567
Author(s):  
J. Ulrich ◽  
U. Trefzer ◽  
W. Tilgen ◽  
D. Schadendorf ◽  
M. Kaatz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Metastatic Melanoma ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Best Supportive Care ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

8567 Background: To date, there is no evidence of survival benefit from randomized trials in stage IV metastatic melanoma (MM) after disease progression to first-line therapy. Therefore, we initiated a phase III trial to evaluate the impact on survival of polychemotherapy in patients (pts.) receiving best supportive care (BSC) as second-line therapy. Methods: This prospective multicenter controlled study was conducted by the Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group (DeCOG) with 13 participating centers. Pts. with stage IV MM disease between 18 and 75 yrs. and a Karnofsky performance status (KPS) > 60 with progression after first-line chemotherapy or chemo-immunotherapy were offered to choose between polychemotherapy + BSC or BSC alone. Pts. were required to have adequate renal, liver and bone marrow function. The regimen consisted of cisplatin (50 mg/m2), vindesine (3 mg/m2) and dacarbacin (450 mg/m2) given on day 1 and 8 every 28 days (CVD). Reevaluation according to WHO response criteria were performed every 2 cycles. Primary endpoint was the median overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were overall response rate (OR) (only CVD arm) and quality of life (QOL). Results: Between 1/02 and 8/06 120 pts. were recruited, a minority of 35 pts. (29%) chose the BSC arm (A) and 85 (71%) the CVD + BSC arm (B). Five pts. were ineligible, and thus 115 pts. treated per protocol. There was a significant lower KPS in arm A at study entry. At the time of data analysis, 85% of the pts. had died from melanoma. There was no siginificant difference (p=0.093) in median OS between the two arms, 9.0 [95% CI: 3,9–14,1] months in arm A and 8.0 [95% CI: 6,5–9,5] months in arm B. The OR in arm B was 7.5% (2 CR, 3 PR). Conclusions: Polychemotherapy (CVD) + BSC as second-line therapy in stage IV MM does not improve overall survival as compared to BSC alone. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Impact of first-line platinum therapy on survival in patients with platinum-refractory advanced transitional cell carcinoma of the urothelium (TCCU) treated with vinflunine.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15007-e15007
Author(s):  
Ronan Fougeray ◽  
Toni K. Choueiri ◽  
Francesc Pons ◽  
Fabio Augusto Barros Schutz ◽  
Yacine Salhi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Best Supportive Care ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Line Setting

e15007 Background: Standard first-line therapy of advanced TCCU is based on cisplatin-based combinations. In patients deemed unfit to receive CISPLATIN, carboplatin-based or non-platinum combinations are considered. A phase III trial comparing vinflunine (VFL) and best supportive care (BSC) with BSC alone for second-line treatment of advanced TCCU patients demonstrated a survival advantage for VFL+BSC. We studied the impact of the first-line platinum therapy on overall survival in second line setting. Methods: Eligible 357 patients of the phase III study were split in the two following subsets: CISPLATIN (Patients with prior CISPLATIN administration) and NO CISPLATIN (patients without prior CISPLATIN administration). Survival was measured from the date of random assignment. Overall Survival (OS) was calculated using Kaplan-Meier method, with log-rank comparisons. Multivariate Analysis of OS was analyzed with the Cox proportional hazards model, including prognostic factors for second-line setting previously identified (Bellmunt, 2010). Updated survival data in 11/2008 cut-off date was used. Results: CISPLATIN group represented 70.3% (n=251) and NO CISPLATIN 29,7% (n= 106). CISPLATIN group had less Liver involvement (25% vs 43%, p=0.0007) and better WHO-PS (>1: 66% vs 76%; p=0.0478). OS was higher in CISPLATIN group for all eligible patients (HR: 0.77; CI 95% 0.61-0.97; p=0.0294), for VFL+BSC arm (HR: 0.78; CI 95% 0.59-1.02; p=0.0693) and for BSC arm (HR: 0.68; CI 95% 0.42-1.08; p=0.0978). Multivariate analysis including prognostic factors (liver involvement, hemoglobin, PS) and prior platinum administration, did not show effect of CDDP on OS. VFL reduced the risk of death by 24% in CDDP-group (HR: 0.76; CI 95% 0.58-0.99; p=0.043) and by 35% in NO CDDP –group (HR: 0.65; CI 95% 0.41-1.04; p=0.0724). Conclusions: Differences in prognostic factors between CISPLATIN and NO CISPLATIN groups may explain the differences in OS in patients who undergo 2nd line therapy. The choice of Cisplatin or no Cisplatin chemotherapy in the first line did not impact subsequent benefit of vinflunine over best supportive care.

Survival of Patients With Advanced Colorectal Cancer Improves With the Availability of Fluorouracil-Leucovorin, Irinotecan, and Oxaliplatin in the Course of Treatment

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (7) ◽  
pp. 1209-1214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Axel Grothey ◽  
Daniel Sargent ◽  
Richard M. Goldberg ◽  
Hans-Joachim Schmoll
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Advanced Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cytotoxic Agents ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

Purpose Fluorouracil (FU)-leucovorin (LV), irinotecan, and oxaliplatin administered alone or in combination have proven effective in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). Combination protocols using FU-LV with either irinotecan or oxaliplatin are currently regarded as standard first-line therapies in this disease. However, the importance of the availability of all three active cytotoxic agents, FU-LV, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin, on overall survival (OS) has not yet been evaluated. Materials and Methods We analyzed data from seven recently published phase III trials in advanced CRC to correlate the percentage of patients receiving second-line therapy and the percentage of patients receiving all three agents with the reported median OS, using a weighted analysis. Results The reported median OS is significantly correlated with the percentage of patients who received all three drugs in the course of their disease (P = .0008) but not with the percentage of patients who received any second-line therapy (P = .19). In addition, the use of combination protocols as first-line therapy was associated with a significant improvement in median survival of 3.5 months (95% CI, 1.27 to 5.73 months; P = .0083). Conclusion Our results support the strategy of making these three active drugs available to all patients with advanced CRC who are candidates for such therapy to maximize OS. In addition, our findings suggest that, with the availability of effective salvage options, OS should no longer be regarded as the most appropriate end point by which to assess the efficacy of a palliative first-line treatment in CRC.

scholarly journals Evaluation of second line and subsequent targeted therapies in metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) patients treated with first line cediranib

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (11-12) ◽  
pp. 398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Richter ◽  
Jo-An Seah ◽  
Gregory R Pond ◽  
Hui K Gan ◽  
Mary J. Mackenzie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Cell Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Pivotal Phase ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
To Receive

Introduction: Pivotal phase III trials have positioned angiogenesis inhibitors as first-line therapy for the management of most advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinomas (mRCC). Approaches to second-line therapy, however, remain more controversial with respect to drug selection and drug sequencing.Methods: In this study we evaluated mRCC patients who were initially treated on the first-line National Cancer Institute (NCI) trial with the highly potent vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), cediranib, to determine the efficacy and tolerability of subsequent therapies.Results: Twenty-eight (65.1%) of the 43 patients enrolled on the first-line cediranib trial were known to receive second-line therapy, most commonly sunitinib (n = 21), with 4 (14%), 2 (7%) and 1 (3%) patients receiving temsirolimus, sorafenib, and interleukin, respectively. Of these, 14 (50%) went on to have 3 or more lines of therapy. The progression-free survival (PFS) proportion (PFS) at 1 year from starting second line was 30% (14.5%–47.9%). Longer duration of first-line cediranib treatment was modestly associated with longer duration of second-line treatment (Spearman rho 0.26). Patients who discontinued cediranib for toxicity were less likely to receive second-line sunitinib.Conclusion: In this real world evaluation, sequential use of TKIs for the management of mRCC was common. PFS with sequential TKIs was similar to observed and published results for any second-line therapy. Prior toxicity affected treatment patterns and the frequent use of at least 3 lines of therapy underscores the need for prospective sequencing trials in this disease.

Lenalidomide Treatment For Lower Risk Non-Deletion 5q Myelodysplastic Syndromes Patients Yields Higher Response Rates When Used Prior To Azanucleosides

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 1507-1507
Author(s):  
Rami S Komrokji ◽  
Maria G. Corrales-Yepez ◽  
Najla H Al Ali ◽  
Eric Padron ◽  
Jeffrey E Lancet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Myelodysplastic Syndromes ◽  
Lower Risk ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

Abstract Introduction Lenalidomide (LEN) is the standard of care for treatment of transfusion dependent lower risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) with chromosome 5q deletion (del 5q). In the MDS-002 study, 26% of lower risk transfusion dependent MDS patients became red blood cell transfusion independent after LEN treatment. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical guidelines list LEN as a second line treatment alternative for transfusion dependent anemia in lower risk non-del 5q MDS after azanucleosides failure. The response rate to LEN after azanucleosides failure, however, is not known given that the MDS-002 study preceded FDA approval of azanucleosides. To address the best sequence of LEN to optimize response potential in lower risk MDS, we examined the response rates to LEN in non-del 5q lower risk MDS when offered as first line after (erythroid stimulating agents) ESA's or after azacitidine failure. Methods This was a retrospective study conducted using the Moffitt Cancer Center (MCC) MDS database. We identified patients with lower risk MDS who received both LEN and azacitidine as first or second line therapy after erythroid stimulating agents. Lower risk MDS was defined according to the international prognostic scoring system (IPSS) Low or intermediate-1 (int-1) risk groups. The primary endpoint was to compare rates of erythroid hematological improvement (HI-E) between the group of patients who received LEN as first line therapy followed by azacitidine as second line (LEN 1st line group) and those who received LEN as second line therapy after azacitidine (LEN 2nd line group). HI was defined according to international working group criteria (IWG 2006). Chi- square test was used for categorical variables, T-test was used for continuous variables, and Kaplan Meier estimates for overall survival. All analyses were conducted using SPSS statistical software (IBM version 21) Results We identified 63 patients who received both azacitidine and LEN as first and second line where 37 patients were in group 1 (LEN 1st line) and 26 patients were in group 2 (LEN 2nd line). Baseline characteristics between the two groups are summarized in Table-1. There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of mean age at diagnosis, gender, WHO subtype, revised IPSS, or mean blood counts. The majority of patients had refractory cytopenia with multilineage dysplasia (RCMD) and had low risk revised IPSS . The rate of HI-E was 38% (n=14) among LEN 1st line group compared to 12% (n=3) in LEN 2nd line group. (p=0.04). There was no difference in overall survival (OS) among the two groups with a median OS of 104 months and 87 months, respectively, p=0.55. There was no difference in AML transformation rate, 5.4% (n=2) and 11% (n=3) among the two groups, respectively, p=0.33. There were no differences in response rates to azacitidine among the two groups. Among the Len 1st line group response to 2nd line azacitidine was 38% (n=14) compared to 35% (n=9) among those who received azacitidine as first line followed by LEN as 2nd line. (p=0.69). Conclusion LEN yields a higher rate of HI-E in non-del 5q lower risk MDS when used as first line therapy. If validated in a larger cohort, LEN should be considered for 1st line therapy after ESAs rather than after azacitidine failure. Responses to azacitidine were similar among the two groups, indicating no adverse effect of LEN on azacitidine response. Disclosures: Komrokji: Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: use of lenalidomide in non del 5q. Lancet:Celgene: Research Funding. List:Celgene: Research Funding.

Determinants of first-line treatment selection in advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 468-468
Author(s):  
Hui-Li Wong ◽  
Ying Wang ◽  
Yaling Yin ◽  
Hagen F. Kennecke ◽  
Winson Y. Cheung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Treatment Selection ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
The Impact ◽  
First Line Treatment

468 Background: Chemotherapy options currently available for the first-line treatment of advanced PDAC include FOLFIRINOX (FX), gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel (GP) and single agent gemcitabine (Gem). GP was introduced most recently and funded for clinical use in British Columbia (BC) in September 2014. In this retrospective analysis, we explore the impact of GP availability on first-line treatment selection and overall survival (OS) in advanced PDAC. Methods: The BC Cancer Agency provincial pharmacy database was used to identify patients (pts) who started FX, GP or Gem between January and August 2014 (pre-GP) or January and August 2015 (post-GP). Pts were eligible for inclusion if they received at least one cycle of first-line therapy for locally advanced or metastatic PDAC. Clinical data were extracted from electronic medical records. OS was defined as time from diagnosis of advanced PDAC to death and compared by treatment era, adjusting for age, ECOG, comorbidities, disease extent and baseline CA19-9. Results: 286 pts fulfilled eligibility criteria: 88 (31%) with locally advanced and 198 (69%) with metastatic disease. 131 and 155 pts were treated in the pre- and post-GP eras respectively. Prior to GP approval, 44% and 49% of pts received Gem and FX; this decreased to 21% and 33% after GP funding, with 46% of pts receiving GP in the latter period. Nine (7%) pts received GP in the pre-GP era, either through self-pay or addition of nab-paclitaxel after approval. There were no significant differences in pt characteristics across both eras. 46% of pts who received GP post approval had ECOG ≥ 2. The proportion of pts receiving second-line therapy was lower in the post-GP era (22% vs. 38%). Median OS in the post-GP era was 8.1 vs. 10.1 months in the pre-GP era; adjusted HR 1.28 (95% CI 0.96–1.71). Pts with ECOG ≥ 2 who received GP had a median OS of 6.5 months. Conclusions: After GP was funded, it became the preferred first-line regimen for advanced PDAC. Its more frequent use instead of FX did not appear to compromise overall survival even though a substantial proportion of pts were ECOG ≥ 2 and few pts received second-line therapy.

Pulsed high-dose erlotinib with gemcitabine as second-line therapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 421-421
Author(s):  
Christopher Larson ◽  
Tony R. Reid
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Recommended Phase Ii Dose

421 Background: The options for treatment of pancreatic cancer follow progression on first line therapy are limited and associated with significant toxicity. Erlotinib has been approved for treatment of pancreatic cancer in first-line therapy. We conducted a phase I dose-escalation trial of erlotinib in combination with gemcitabine for patients that had failed first-line therapy. Erlotinib was administered by a novel pulse-dose schedule where the drug was given orally for 3 days every two weeks. Purpose: Assess the safety and determine a recommended phase II dose for pulsed high dose erlotinib in combination with gemcitabine for pancreatic cancer, and obtain preliminary data on activity. Methods: Patients with pancreatic cancer that progressed on or after first-line therapy were treated in a dose escalation study with erlotinib at 750 to 2,000 mg daily for three days every two weeks in combination with weekly gemcitabine at 1,000 mg/m2 for three weeks on and one week off. Results: No dose limiting toxicities were encountered and erlotinib-induced rash was mild and transient. Median overall survival was 6.7 months and 12-month overall survival was 27%. Progression free survival but not overall survival was longer in patients who did not previously receive gemcitabine. Rash was not associated with longer survival. Conclusions: The recommended phase II dose is erlotinib 2,000 mg daily for three consecutive days every two weeks in combination with gemcitabine. Tolerability was excellent, and outcomes were better than expected for second-line therapy in pancreatic cancer. Further studies are warranted, both as therapy after first-line and as first-line therapy for patients unable to tolerate more aggressive regimens. Clinical trial information: NCT02154737.

Assessment of ramucirumab plus paclitaxel as switch maintenance versus continuation of first-line chemotherapy in patients (pts) with advanced HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancers: The ARMANI phase III trial.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS4151-TPS4151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federica Morano ◽  
Monica Niger ◽  
Salvatore Corallo ◽  
Sara Lonardi ◽  
Stefano Tamberi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastroesophageal Junction ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Her 2

TPS4151 Background: Platinum/fluoropyrimidine regimens are the backbone of first-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The optimal duration of first-line therapy is still unknown and its continuation until disease progression represents the standard. However this strategy is often associated with cumulative toxicity and rapid development of drug resistance. Moreover, only 40% of AGC pts are eligible for second-line treatment. This study aims at assessing whether switch maintenance to ramucirumab plus paclitaxel will extend the progression-free survival (PFS) of subjects with HER-2 negative AGC who have not progressed after a first-line with a platinum/fluoropyrimidine regimen. The hypothesis is that the early administration of an active, non-cross resistant regimen may delay disease progression and, consequently, improve pts’ quality of life. This strategy may also rescue all those subjects that become ineligible for a second-line therapy due to the rapid clinical deterioration. Methods: This is a randomized, open-label, multicenter, phase III trial. Eligibility criteria are: unresectable/metastatic HER-2 negative AGC or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer; ECOG PS 0-1; measurable and/or evaluable disease by RECIST v1.1; no progression after 3 months of therapy with either FOLFOX4, mFOLFOX6 or XELOX . The primary endpoint is to compare PFS of pts in ARM A (continuation of the same first-line therapy with oxaliplatin/fluoropyrimidine) versus ARM B (switch maintenance to ramucirumab and placlitaxel). Secondary endpoints are: overall survival, time-to-treatment failure, overall response rate, duration of response, percentage of pts receiving a second-line therapy per treatment arm, safety and quality of life. Exploratory analyses to identify primary resistance and prognosis biomarkers are planned, including Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) on archival tumor tissues. The ARMANI study is sponsored by the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori and it is ongoing at 29 Italian centers with a planned population of 280 pts. Clinical trial information: NCT02934464.

Phase III study of pembrolizumab (pembro) versus best supportive care (BSC) for second-line therapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC): KEYNOTE-240 Asian subgroup.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 526-526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masatoshi Kudo ◽  
Ho Yeong Lim ◽  
Ann-Lii Cheng ◽  
Yee Chao ◽  
Thomas Yau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Safety Data ◽  
Best Supportive Care ◽  
Geographic Region ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
End Points ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Line Therapy

526 Background: Pembro received accelerated approval for second-line therapy in aHCC based on KEYNOTE-224 (phase 2). KEYNOTE-240 (NCT02702401) is a randomized, phase 3 study of pembro v BSC in previously treated aHCC. We report outcomes for the Asian subgroup. Methods: Pts with a radiographic/pathologic HCC diagnosis, radiographic progression with/intolerance to sorafenib, Child-Pugh A disease, and ECOG PS 0/1 were randomized 2:1 to pembro (200 mg) + BSC or PBO + BSC Q3W (≤35 cycles or until confirmed PD/unacceptable toxicity). Pts were stratified by geographic region (Asia without Japan; non-Asia with Japan), AFP, and macrovascular invasion. Response was assessed Q6W (RECIST v1.1, central review). Primary end points: OS, PFS; secondary end points: ORR, DOR, safety. Data cutoff: Jan 2, 2019. Results: 413 pts were randomized (overall cohort: n = 278 pembro, n = 135 PBO; Asian subgroup [Hong Kong, Japan, Philippines, S Korea, Taiwan, Thailand]: n = 107, n = 50). HBV+ status and BCLC stage C were higher in Asian subgroup (HBV+: 51% v 24.5% overall; stage C: 86.6% v 79.4%). Median follow-up: pembro (21.3 mo overall; 23.5 mo); PBO (21.5 mo overall; 23.0 mo). Pembro improved OS v PBO (median OS [95% CI]: 13.9 [11.6-16.0] v 10.6 [8.3-13.5] mo; HR: 0.781; 95% CI, 0.611-0.998; P = 0.0238) and PFS (HR: 0.718; 0.570-0.904; P = 0.0022) for overall cohort and Asian subgroup (median OS: 13.8 [10.1-16.9] v 8.3 [6.3-11.8] mo; HR: 0.548; 0.374-0.804; P = 0.0009; PFS: HR: 0.475; 0.324-0.696; P < 0.0001). Differences did not meet prespecified significance level for overall cohort. ORR in overall cohort was 18.3% (14.0-23.4) for pembro; 4.4% (1.6-9.4; P = 0.00007) for PBO; in Asian subgroup, 20.6% (13.4-29.5) and 2.0% (0.1-10.6; P = 0.00135). Safety was consistent with that previously reported in pembro studies. No HBV/HCV flares were identified. Conclusions: Pembro reduced risk for death by 22% in overall cohort and 45% in Asian subgroup and improved PFS v PBO. Safety was comparable to that of pembro monotherapy. Results are consistent with KEYNOTE-224 and magnitude of OS benefit was enhanced in Asian subgroup, supporting a favorable risk-benefit balance for second-line pembro in HCC. Clinical trial information: NCT02702401.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document