Randomized phase III trial of sorafenib versus placebo in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA1-LBA1 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Llovet ◽  
S. Ricci ◽  
V. Mazzaferro ◽  
P. Hilgard ◽  
J. Raoul ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Early Stopping ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Advanced Hcc ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Ecog Ps

LBA1 Background: HCC is the 3rd cause of cancer death globally with most deaths occurring within 1 year of diagnosis. No standard therapy exists for advanced HCC. Sorafenib (Sor) is a multikinase inhibitor with anti-angiogenic, pro-apoptotic and Raf kinase inhibitory activity, with clinical activity in a phase II HCC trial. This large, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of Sor vs placebo (P) in pts with HCC. Methods: Patients with advanced measurable HCC, no prior systemic treatment, ECOG PS 0–2 and Child-Pugh status A received Sor 400 mg bid or P. Primary efficacy endpoints were overall survival (OS) and time to symptomatic progression (TTSP). Time to progression (TTP) and disease control rate (DCR; CR+PR+SD for at least 2 cycles) were secondary endpoints.Treatment arms were compared for OS and TTSP using a 1-sided log-rank test [overall a of 0.02 (OS) and 0.005 (TTSP)] stratified by region, ECOG PS and tumor burden. An O’Brien-Fleming-type error spending function determined criteria for early stopping for efficacy. Results: 602 pts (Sor n=299; P n=303) were randomized. Baseline characteristics were similar for Sor vs P: median age (67 vs 68 y), male (87% vs 87%), ECOG PS 0 (54% vs 54%), Child-Pugh A (95% vs 98%), and BCLC stage C (82% vs 83%). Based on 321 deaths (Sor n=143; P n=178), the hazard ratio (HR) for OS (Sor/P) was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.55, 0.87; p=0.0006), representing a 44% improvement in OS vs P which met early stopping criteria. Median OS was 10.7 vs 7.9 mos (Sor vs P). Primary TTSP analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference for Sor vs P. HR for TTP (independent assessment) was 0.58 (95% CI: 0.45, 0.74; p=0.000007). Median TTP was longer (5.5 vs 2.8 mos) and DCR was higher (43% vs 32%) with Sor vs P. Incidence of serious adverse events was similar for Sor vs P (52% vs 54%). The most frequent grade 3/4 events were diarrhea (11% vs 2%), hand-foot skin reaction (8% vs 1%), fatigue (10% vs 15%), and bleeding (6% vs 9%) for Sor vs P. Conclusions: Sorafenib was well tolerated and is the first agent to demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in OS for pts with advanced HCC. This effect is clinically meaningful and establishes sorafenib as first-line treatment for these pts. [Table: see text]

A phase II (PhII) trial of sorafenib (S) in combination with 5-fluorouracil (5FU) continuous infusion (c.i.) in patients (pts) with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): Preliminary data

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4592-4592
Author(s):  
I. Petrini ◽  
M. Lencioni ◽  
M. Ricasoli ◽  
M. Iannopollo ◽  
C. Orlandini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disease Control ◽  
Tyrosine Kinases ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Tumour Response ◽  
Pharmacokinetic Interaction ◽  
Disease Control Rate ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Advanced Hcc ◽  
Ecog Ps

4592 Background: S, an oral multi-kinase inhibitor that targets Raf-kinase and receptor tyrosine kinases, improved overall survival (OS) and time to progression (TTP) versus placebo in a randomized phase III study in HCC (SHARP study). The safety of S in association with infusional and bolus 5FU regimens was established in a previous PhI study, with no clinically relevant pharmacokinetic interaction between S and 5FU. The present trial was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of S with infusional 5FU in HCC pts. Methods: Patients with advanced HCC (not eligible to surgical or locoregional therapies), age≥18 years, Child-Pugh Class A or B, ECOG PS 0–1, without prior systemic treatment for HCC and adequate bone marrow, liver and renal function, were eligible for the study. The primary endpoint is the Disease Control Rate (DCR). Secondary endpoints included response rate, TTP, OS and safety. According to a two-step Simon's model 46 pts were to be accrued. Pts were treated with oral S 400 mg bid continuously and c.i. 5FU 200 mg/sqm/day day 1–14 every 3 weeks. Tumour response was assessed according to RECIST criteria every 9 weeks. Results: Between October 2006 and October 2008 38 pts were enrolled: M-F: 32–6, median age (range): 68(47–83) years, ECOG-PS 0–1: 28–10, Child-Pugh A-B: 35–3, extrahepatic spread: 14 pts, macroscopic vascular invasion: 6 pts. Grade 3/4 (%) toxicities (NCI CTC v 3.0 criteria) included diarrhoea 5/0, stomatitis 21/3, hand foot syndrome 21/0, skin rash 11/0, hypertension 11/0; hyperbilirubinemia 5/3, AST 11/0, ALT 8/0, cardiac toxicity (one cardiac failure, one atrial fibrillation) 5/0 and bleeding (melena) in 3/0. One partial response was observed. Stable disease was obtained in 45% of pts with a median duration of 9.6 months (range 5–18+). Median TTP was 7.6 months (CI 95%=5.3–9.9) and median OS 12.2 months (CI 95%=4.45–19.8). Conclusions: Preliminary results of this PhII study show encouraging disease control rate, TTP and OS in pts with advanced HCC. The S+5FU association is feasible, well tolerated and AEs were predictable and manageable. [Table: see text]

Impact of p16 status on the QOL effects of chemoradiation for locally advanced oropharynx cancer: Results of TROG 02.02.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5571-5571 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jolie Ringash ◽  
Richard Fisher ◽  
Lester J. Peters ◽  
Brian O'Sullivan ◽  
Andy Trotti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Oropharyngeal Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Subsequent Time Point

5571 Background: We report the impact of p16 status on quality of life (QOL) for patients with stage III or IV (excluding T1-2N1 and M1) squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx (OPC) treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy in a large international phase III trial (TROG 02.02/HeadSTART). Methods: The 861 patients accrued received definitive radiotherapy (RT) (70 Gy/7 weeks) concurrently with 3 cycles of either cisplatin (100mg/m2) or cisplatin (75 mg/m2) plus tirapazamine (290 mg/m2/day) by random assignment, as previously described. QOL was measured with the FACT-H&N at baseline, 2,6,12, 23 and 38 months. No significant difference in overall or subscale QOL score change from baseline was observed between arms at any subsequent time point; results for the oropharynx subgroup by p16 status are reported for both treatment arms combined. Results: Of 853 eligible participants, 465 had OPC, for whom p16 status could be determined in 206. Of 179 who received adequate RT (≥ 60 Gy, no major deviations) and completed baseline QOL, 104 were p16+ and 79 were p16-. p16+ patients had better baseline ECOG PS, lower T-category, higher N-category, were younger and were less likely to be current smokers. Baseline mean FACT-H&N score was statistically and clinically significantly better in p16+ patients (111 vs. 102, p=0.001). The drop in QOL from baseline to 2 months was more severe in p16+ cases (-20.4 vs -9.1, p=0.001), resulting in an equalization of 2 month scores (p16+: 90.6, p16-: 93.6, p=0.16). At 6 and 12 months post-treatment, no difference in score changes from baseline by p16 status was seen (6 mo, p16+: -6.2, p16 -:-1.2, p=0.22; 12 mo, p16 +: -0.3, p16 -: +2.0, p=0.82). Conclusions: p16 associated oropharyngeal cancer has been shown to be a distinct entity with different demographic features. In our study, such patients exhibited better baseline QOL and a more severe drop immediately after treatment, but did not differ in long-term QOL response to the effects of aggressive concurrent chemoradiation. Given the favorable prognosis of p16-associated oropharyngeal cancer, efforts to reduce the QOL burden of treatment are warranted.

Pattern of progression in advanced HCC treated with ramucirumab/placebo: Results from two randomized phase III trials (REACH/REACH-2).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 544-544
Author(s):  
Maria Reig ◽  
Peter R. Galle ◽  
Masatoshi Kudo ◽  
Richard S. Finn ◽  
Josep M. Llovet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Cox Models ◽  
Poor Prognostic Factor ◽  
Advanced Hcc ◽  
Pooled Data ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
The Impact

544 Background: REACH (NCT01140347) and REACH-2 (NCT02435433) studied ramucirumab (RAM) in pts with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) following sorafenib; REACH-2 enrolled pts with baseline alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) ≥400 ng/mL, and met its primary endpoint of overall survival (OS) for RAM vs placebo. This post-hoc analysis examined radiological progression patterns (RPP) incidence every 6 weeks per RECIST v1.1, and if RPP were related to OS and post-progression survival (PPS). Methods: Pts with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh A, and ECOG PS 0-1 with prior sorafenib were randomized (REACH 1:1; REACH-2 2:1) to receive RAM 8 mg/kg or placebo Q2W. Among pts with ≥1 RPP (new extrahepatic lesion [NEH], new intrahepatic lesion [NIH], extrahepatic growth [EHG], or intrahepatic growth [IHG]), results were analyzed by trial and for pooled individual patient data of REACH-2 and REACH (AFP ≥400 ng/mL). Cox models evaluated treatment effect of RPP on OS, and prognostic implications of RPP on OS (adjusting baseline ECOG PS, AFP, macrovascular invasion, arm) and on PPS (adjusting ECOG PS, AFP at progression). Results: RPP incidence in the pooled population was: NEH 39%; NIH 24%; EHG 39%; IHG 37%. When examining NEH vs other RPP, PPS was worse among those with NEH in REACH (HR 2.33, 95% CI 1.51, 3.60), REACH-2 (HR 1.49, 95% CI 0.72, 3.08), and the pooled data (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.12, 2.74). Use of post-discontinuation therapy may have influenced results. OS was also significantly reduced in those with NEH across studies (Table). RAM provided OS benefit in the pooled population, including pts with NEH (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39, 0.80). Conclusions: Acknowledging limitations of post-randomization RPP analysis, the emergence of NEH on RAM or placebo may be an independent poor prognostic factor for PPS. The impact of RAM on OS was consistent across all RPP subgroups. Clinical trial information: NCT01140347 and NCT02435433. [Table: see text]

Randomized, double-blind, placebo (PL)-controlled, phase III trial of pimitespib (TAS-116), an oral inhibitor of heat shock protein 90 (HSP90), in patients (pts) with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) refractory to imatinib (IM), sunitinib (SU) and regorafenib (REG).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11524-11524
Author(s):  
Yoshitaka Honma ◽  
Yukinori Kurokawa ◽  
Akira Sawaki ◽  
Yoichi Naito ◽  
Shiro Iwagami ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Failure Time ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Kit Mutation ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Advanced Gist

11524 Background: Pimitespib (PIM) is a novel class of orally active selective HSP90 inhibitors. KIT and PDGFRA are clients of HSP90 for their functional stability; therefore, HSP90 is a rational therapeutic target on GIST in pts with acquired resistance, such as secondary mutation in KIT, to approved tyrosine kinase inhibitors. A phase II trial showed clinical activity of PIM in pts with advanced GIST refractory to standard treatments whose medical need remains unmet. This phase III trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of PIM for this unmet clinical need. Methods: Eligible pts had histologically confirmed advanced GIST refractory to IM, SU, and REG, ≥1 measurable lesion, and ECOG performance status 0 or 1. Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive either PIM 160 mg once daily on a 5-days-on/ 2-days-off schedule or PL. Pts eligible for unblinding at the time of progressive disease were allowed to crossover to open-label PIM. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded central radiological review based on modified RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), PFS in the pts crossed over to PIM (secondary PFS), and safety. Crossover-adjusted OS was derived using the rank preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) model. Exploratory endpoints included pharmacogenomics (PGx). Results: From Oct 2018 to Apr 2020, 86 pts were randomized to receive either PIM (n = 58) or PL (n = 28). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two arms. Median PFS was 2.8 months (mo) (95% CI: 1.6–2.9) for PIM vs. 1.4 mo (95% CI: 0.9–1.8) for PL. The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was 0.51 (95% CI: 0.30–0.87) ( p = 0.006, stratified log-rank test). Median OS was 13.8 mo (95% CI: 9.2–not reached) for PIM vs. 9.6 mo (95% CI: 5.5–not reached) for PL (HR for OS 0.63; p = 0.081), with 60.7 % of PL pts crossed over to PIM; secondary PFS was 2.7 mo (95% CI: 0.7–4.1). The RPSFT-adjusted median OS of PL was 7.6 mo (adjusted HR for OS 0.42; p = 0.007). Furthermore, the results of PGx analysis suggested that PIM was also effective in pts with secondary KIT mutation detected from blood samples. The most common ( > 5%) grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) in PIM/PL were diarrhea (13.8%/0%), anemia (6.9%/10.7%), decreased appetite (6.9%/0%), and tumor hemorrhage (5.2%/0%). AEs leading to PIM/PL study discontinuation were observed in 4/2 pts (6.9%/7.1%), respectively. Conclusions: This randomized trial demonstrated that PIM significantly improved PFS with OS prolongation in pts with advanced GIST refractory to IM, SU, and REG, as a HSP90 inhibitor for the first time. PIM was tolerated and AEs were manageable. With a mechanism of action different from that of standard therapies, PIM has the potential to be a new standard treatment in GIST. Clinical trial information: JapicCTI-184094.

Phase III Trial in Metastatic Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma with Fluorouracil, Leucovorin Plus Either Oxaliplatin or Cisplatin: A Study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (9) ◽  
pp. 1435-1442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salah-Eddin Al-Batran ◽  
Joerg Thomas Hartmann ◽  
Stephan Probst ◽  
Harald Schmalenberg ◽  
Stephan Hollerbach ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Time To Treatment Failure ◽  
Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Reduced Toxicity ◽  
To Receive

Purpose This study was designed to compare fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and cisplatin in patients with advanced gastric cancer. Patients and Methods Patients with previously untreated advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach or esophagogastric junction were randomly assigned to receive either fluorouracil 2,600 mg/m2 via 24-hour infusion, leucovorin 200 mg/m2, and oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 (FLO) every 2 weeks or fluorouracil 2,000 mg/m2 via 24-hour infusion, leucovorin 200 mg/m2 weekly, and cisplatin 50 mg/m2 every 2 weeks (FLP). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results Two hundred twenty patients (median age, 64 years; metastatic, 94%) were randomly assigned. FLO was associated with significantly less (any grade) anemia (54% v 72%), nausea (53% v 70%), vomiting (31% v 52%), alopecia (22% v 39%), fatigue (19% v 34%), renal toxicity (11% v 34%), thromboembolic events (0.9% v 7.8%), and serious adverse events related to the treatment (9% v 19%). FLP was associated with significantly less peripheral neuropathy (22% v 63%). There was a trend toward improved median PFS with FLO versus FLP (5.8 v 3.9 months, respectively; P = .077) and no significant difference in median overall survival (10.7 v 8.8 months, respectively). However, in patients older than 65 years (n = 94), treatment with FLO resulted in significantly superior response rates (41.3% v 16.7%; P = .012), time to treatment failure (5.4 v 2.3 months; P < .001), and PFS (6.0 v 3.1 month; P = .029) and an improved OS (13.9 v 7.2 months) as compared with FLP, respectively. Conclusion FLO reduced toxicity as compared with FLP. In older adult patients, FLO also seemed to be associated with improved efficacy.

Effect of macroscopic vascular invasion (MVI), extrahepatic spread (EHS), and ECOG performance status (ECOG PS) on outcome in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with sorafenib: Analysis of two phase III, randomized, double-blind trials

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4580-4580 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Bruix ◽  
A. Cheng ◽  
Y. Kang ◽  
C. Tsao ◽  
S. Qin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clin Oncol ◽  
Annual Meeting ◽  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Principal Investigator ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Advanced Hcc ◽  
Interest Policy ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Ecog Ps

4580^ Background: The landmark phase III SHARP trial (Llovet et al, N Engl J Med, 2008) showed that sorafenib is effective and safe for the treatment of advanced HCC. These results were confirmed in an Asian population in the phase III Asia-Pacific (AP) study (Cheng et al, Lancet Oncol, 2009). We compared outcomes of sorafenib treatment in patients enrolled in the SHARP and AP trials with known baseline predictors of poor prognosis. Methods: Patients with advanced, unresectable, measurable HCC, ECOG PS 0–2, Child-Pugh A, and no prior systemic therapy for HCC were randomized to sorafenib 400 mg BID or placebo (SHARP: N=602; AP: N=226). Patients in the AP study had more evolved disease and a predominance of hepatitis B infection. Endpoints included overall survival (OS), disease-control rate (DCR; defined as complete/partial response or stable disease by RECIST, maintained for ≥28 days from first demonstration of response), and safety. Results: Efficacy results are shown in the table . The incidence of grade 3/4 drug-related adverse events (AEs) across subgroups in each study was consistent with the overall population for each study. The most common grade 3/4 AEs in all sorafenib populations were hand-foot skin reaction and diarrhea. Conclusions: Sorafenib is effective and safe for the treatment of advanced HCC in patients globally, irrespective of baseline ECOG PS and presence or absence of MVI and/or EHS. [Table: see text] [Table: see text] ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy and Exceptions In compliance with the guidelines established by the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:519–521) and the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), ASCO strives to promote balance, independence, objectivity, and scientific rigor through disclosure of financial and other interests, and identification and management of potential conflicts. According to the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy, the following financial and other relationships must be disclosed: employment or leadership position, consultant or advisory role, stock ownership, honoraria, research funding, expert testimony, and other remuneration (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:520). The ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy disclosure requirements apply to all authors who submit abstracts to the Annual Meeting. For clinical trials that began accrual on or after April 29, 2004, ASCO's Policy places some restrictions on the financial relationships of principal investigators (J Clin Oncol. 2006 Jan 20;24[3]:521). If a principal investigator holds any restricted relationships, his or her abstract will be ineligible for placement in the 2009 Annual Meeting unless the ASCO Ethics Committee grants an exception. Among the circumstances that might justify an exception are that the principal investigator (1) is a widely acknowledged expert in a particular therapeutic area; (2) is the inventor of a unique technology or treatment being evaluated in the clinical trial; or (3) is involved in international clinical oncology research and has acted consistently with recognized international standards of ethics in the conduct of clinical research. NIH-sponsored trials are exempt from the Policy restrictions. Abstracts for which authors requested and have been granted an exception in accordance with ASCO's Policy are designated with a caret symbol (^) in the Annual Meeting Proceedings. For more information about the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy and the exceptions process, please visit www.asco.org/conflictofinterest .

Phase III trial of linifanib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 249-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Calin Cainap ◽  
Shukui Qin ◽  
Wen-Tsung Huang ◽  
Ik-Joo Chung ◽  
Hongming Pan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Growth Factor ◽  
Vascular Invasion ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Advanced Hcc

249 Background: Linifanib (ABT-869; Lin) is a potent and selective inhibitor of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) receptor tyrosine kinase families. In a phase II trial in patients (pts) with advanced HCC, Lin showed clinical activity (objective response rate [ORR] 10.5% in Child-Pugh A [CPA] pts). This open-label, global phase 3 trial evaluated Lin versus sorafenib (Sor) as first-line therapy in pts with advanced CPA HCC (NCT01009593). Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to Lin 17.5 mg QD or Sor 400 mg BID and stratified by region (non-Asia/Japan/rest of Asia), ECOG performance status (0/1), vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread (yes/no) and HBV infection (yes/no). The primary efficacy endpoint was overall survival (OS); both non-inferiority (margin 1.0491) and superiority hypotheses were to be tested. Secondary efficacy endpoints included time to progression (TTP) and ORR, using RECIST v1.1. AE severity was graded using NCI-CTCAE v4.0. Results: 1035 pts (median age 60 y, 68% Asian, 65% ECOG 0, 49% HBV, 70% vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread) were randomized at 149 sites in 26 countries. Hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 1.046 (95% CI: 0.896, 1.221). Median OS (95% CI) was 9.1 months (m) (8.1, 10.2) on Lin and 9.8 m (8.3, 11.0) on Sor. For all pre-specifed subgroup analyses, OS HRs ranged from 0.793-1.119, and the 95% CI contained 1.0. TTP HR was 0.759 (95% CI: 0.643, 0.895; p=0.001) favoring Lin. Median TTP (95% CI) was 5.4 m (4.2, 5.6) on Lin and 4.0 m (2.8. 4.2) on Sor. ORR was 13.0% on Lin and 6.9% on Sor. Grade 3/4 AEs, serious AEs and AEs leading to discontinuations, dose interruptions and reductions were more frequent on Lin versus Sor (all p<0.001). Conclusions: Lin and Sor resulted in similar OS in advanced HCC. Predefined superiority and non-inferiority OS boundaries were not met for Lin. Secondary endpoints (TTP and ORR) favored Lin while safety results favored Sor. Clinical trial information: NCT01009593.

Alpha fetoprotein (AFP) response and efficacy outcomes in the phase III CELESTIAL trial of cabozantinib (C) versus placebo (P) in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 423-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Kate Kelley ◽  
Lorenza Rimassa ◽  
Baek-Yeol Ryoo ◽  
Joong-Won Park ◽  
Jean-Frédéric Blanc ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Serum Levels ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Advanced Hcc ◽  
Best Response ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Ecog Ps

423 Background: AFP response, defined as a decrease in serum levels of the tumor marker AFP after therapy, may be associated with improved survival of patients (pts) with HCC treated with locoregional or systemic therapy, and high baseline AFP levels may be associated with poor prognosis. In the phase III CELESTIAL trial (NCT01908426), C, an inhibitor of MET, VEGFR, and AXL, significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus P in pts with previously treated advanced HCC. Here we evaluate clinical outcomes with C in CELESTIAL based on AFP response or progression on treatment. Methods: 707 pts were randomized 2:1 to receive C (60 mg daily) or P. Eligible patients had a pathologic diagnosis of HCC, Child-Pugh score A, and ECOG PS ≤ 1. Pts received prior sorafenib and ≤ 2 lines of prior systemic therapy for HCC. Serum AFP levels were measured centrally at baseline and every 8 weeks thereafter. Outcomes were evaluated for pts with baseline AFP ≥ 20 ng/mL based on AFP response ( ≥ 20% decrease from baseline) or progression ( ≥ 20% increase from baseline) at Week 8. This definition of AFP response has been used in previous studies but requires further validation in large prospective studies. Results: Overall, 331 pts (70%) in the C arm and 160 (68%) in the P arm had baseline AFP ≥ 20 ng/mL; among these pts, 236 (71%) and 111 (69%), respectively, were evaluable for AFP response at week 8. Among evaluable pts, 117 pts (50%) in the C arm vs 14 (13%) in the P arm had an AFP response, and 72 (31%) vs 75 (68%) had AFP progression. Median OS with C was 16.1 mo for pts with an AFP response versus 9.1 mo for pts without a response (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45-0.84), and median PFS with C was 7.3 mo versus 4.0 mo (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.74). For pts with AFP progression, median OS with C was 8.1 mo, and median PFS with C was 3.6 mo. Hazard ratios for OS and PFS with C also favored AFP responders over non-responders when analyzed using best response through week 24. Conclusions: The AFP response rate was higher with C versus P, and AFP response was associated with longer OS and PFS with C for pts with previously treated advanced HCC. On-treatment AFP changes warrant further evaluation as a biomarker of response. Clinical trial information: NCT01908426.

A randomized phase III trial comparing sorafenib plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone in Child-Pugh B patients (pts) with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): The BOOST study.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS4151-TPS4151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno Daniele ◽  
Massimo Di Maio ◽  
Ciro Gallo ◽  
Antonio Gasbarrini ◽  
Giacomo Carteni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Best Supportive Care ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Sorafenib Treatment ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Non Profit ◽  
Advanced Hcc

TPS4151 Background: The efficacy of sorafenib in pts with advanced HCC has been demonstrated in two randomized phase III trials (Llovet JM, NEJM 2008;359:378; Cheng AL, Lancet Oncol 2009;10:25), both restricted to pts with well-preserved liver function (Child-Pugh A). Child-Pugh B (CPB) pts, that represent a relevant proportion of pts with advanced HCC in clinical practice, were not eligible. Despite this limitation, the marketing authorization of sorafenib by the main regulatory agencies was not restricted to Child A pts. CPB pts are different in terms of prognosis, and are potentially different in terms of balance between treatment efficacy and toxicity. Large observational studies [Marrero JA, ASCO 2011 (abstr 4001)] are producing quite reassuring data about sorafenib tolerability in CPB pts, but the real efficacy of the drug in this setting remains substantially unknown, due to the lack of randomized trials. Methods: BOOST (B Child HCC patients – Optimization Of Sorafenib Treatment) is a randomized phase III trial comparing sorafenib + best supportive care (BSC) vs. BSC alone in CPB pts with advanced HCC. Pts are eligible if older than 18, with ECOG performance status 0-2. Pts assigned to experimental arm receive sorafenib 400 mg twice daily, with dose reductions and interruptions according to toxicity. Overall survival (OS) is the primary endpoint. In order to demonstrate a Hazard Ratio of death 0.70 in favor of sorafenib (2-month improvement in median OS, from 4.5 to 6.5 months), with 80% power and α 0.05, 320 pts have to be randomized, 160 per arm. The BOOST trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01405573; Eudract number 2009-013870-42) is approved by the Ethical Committee of the National Cancer Institute, Napoli, Italy, as coordinating centre, and is currently under evaluation by several other Institutions. BOOST is a non-profit, academic trial. The trial has received a financial support by Italian Ministry of Health (FARM84SA2X), although the support is not enough to supply sorafenib to participating centers. BOOST is partially supported by AIRC (grant IG2009-9316). The study is open to all international Centers wishing to participate.

Identification of a high-response patient population to S-1 via predictive enrichment strategy analysis of the S-CUBE phase III trial.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 229-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masatoshi Kudo ◽  
Takuji Okusaka ◽  
Shuichi Kaneko ◽  
Junji Furuse ◽  
Madoka Takeuchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Population ◽  
The United States ◽  
High Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Strategy Analysis ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Advanced Hcc ◽  
Enrichment Strategy

229 Background: S-CUBE was a randomized, double-blind, phase III trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of S-1 in patients with sorafenib-refractory advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The study’s primary outcome was presented at the 2015 ASCO Annual Meeting. Although S-1 did not significantly improve overall survival (OS) in all cohort (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86; confidence interval [CI] = 0.67–1.10; P = 0.2201), we conducted predictive enrichment strategy analysis (PESA) to identify a patient population with a better response to S-1. Methods: Predictive enrichment strategy is a newly introduced concept proposed by the United States Food and Drug Administration, “to select a study population in which detection of a drug effect (if one is in fact present) is more likely than it would be in an unselected population. (Temple R. [2012] )” Therefore, in our study, PESA provides robust results and identifies advanced HCC patients who are more likely to respond to S-1. Clinically meaningful baseline characteristics were selected to create a scoring system; patients were ranked based on their scores, and the population with a better response was identified. Patient mapping was used to further characterize the population. Results: The full S-CUBE analysis set consisted of 333 patients, including 222 in the S-1 arm and 111 in the placebo. PESA and patient mapping identified 219 patients (65.8% of the total population) as the high-response patient population. High-response patients are classified as those with the following criteria; 1) TNM stage III, IVa, or IVb, 2) Child-Pugh class A, and 3) Levels of both the tumor markers are not high (AFP ≥ 400 ng/mL and PIVKA-II ≥ 10000 mAU/mL). In this population, the median OS of S-1 group was significantly longer than that of placebo group (426.0 days vs. 375.5 days; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.93; P = 0.0156). Conclusions: PESA and patient mapping identified a high-response patient population to S-1. This statistically robust analysis demonstrated S-1 showed survival benefit for identified clinically-important population of sorafenib-refractory advanced HCC patients. Clinical trial information: JapicCTI-090920.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document