Sequential chemoradiotherapy (SCRT) for larynx preservation (LP): Preliminary results of the randomized phase II TREMPLIN study

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6010-6010 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Lefebvre ◽  
Y. Pointreau ◽  
F. Rolland ◽  
M. Alfonsi ◽  
A. Baudoux ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Larynx Preservation ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Function Preservation ◽  
To Receive

6010 Background: Induction chemotherapy (ICT) followed by irradiation (RT) and concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) are validated options for LP. Docetaxel-based ICT, concurrent cetuximab and RT are new options and SCRT (ICT followed by CRT) has been reported as a potential new approach. However, to date there are no data assessing SCRT specifically for LP. Methods: Previously untreated patients (pts) with larynx or hypopharynx squamous cell carcinoma and candidates for a total laryngectomy were eligible for this randomized phase II study. Eligible pts received 3 cycles of ICT (docetaxel and cisplatin both 75 mg/m2 on day 1 and 5-FU 750 mg/m2/day on days 1–5). In case of response ≥ 50 % pts were randomized to receive either in arm A: RT (70 Gy) with cisplatin (100 mg/m2 on days 1, 22 and 43 of RT) or in arm B: Cetuximab (400 mg/m2 loading dose before RT and 250 mg/m2 on the first day of the 7 weeks of RT. Pts with response < 50% had salvage surgery. Primary endpoint was LP 3 months after treatment, secondary endpoints were larynx function preservation at 18 months, quality of function and tolerance to treatment. Results: From March 2006 to April 2008 (end of accrual), 153 pts with stage III-IV larynx/hypopharynx cancer were enrolled in the study and could start ICT. Of them 74 % could receive the planned ICT while the others had either reduced dosages or less than 3 cycles. Toxic deaths occurred in 3 pts (2%). Of the 147 evaluable pts after ICT, 22 were non-responders (15%), 4 pts were withdrawn from the study, 6 responding pts with ICT-related toxicity precluding any further cisplatin could not be randomized and finally 115 pts could be randomized (59 in arm A and 56 in arm B). 3 months after treatment there was no significant difference in LP (93% in arm A and 96% in arm B). In arm A, 45 % of pts could receive the full CRT protocol vs 71 % in arm B. In arm A 50% of pts had cisplatin-related toxicity (definitive in 52% the cases) while in arm B 26 % of patients had cetuximab-related toxicity (definitive in only 1 case). There was no CRT treatment-related death. Conclusions: SCRT is considered for LP. ICT followed by RT with concurrent cetuximab appeared better tolerated than with concurrent cisplatin with the same LP rate 3 months after treatment. [Table: see text]

Randomized phase II study of gemcitabine-oxaliplatin or gemcitabine-cisplatin in chemonaive patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)-CLEO 05

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7097-7097 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Le Chevalier ◽  
S. Thezenas ◽  
J. Breton ◽  
J. Pujol ◽  
B. Coudert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Stage Iiib ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Number Of Cycles ◽  
To Receive

7097 Background: Gemcitabine-cisplatin is one of the reference doublets used in NSCLC. Oxaliplatin is a platin analog which offers a promising efficacy/tolerance profile in NSCLC. The combination of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin has been proven feasible and active in solid tumors. Methods: Patients with chemonaive, measurable, PS 0 or 1, stage IIIB/ IV NSCLC were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 day 1 & 8 plus oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 day 1 (GEMOX) or gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 day 1 & 8 plus cisplatin 80 mg/m2day 1 (GEMCIS). Cycles were given every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint of the study was the response rate according to the RECIST criteria. Secondary endpoints included tolerance, survival and quality of life. Results: Between October 2003 and December 2004, 130 patients (66 in GEMOX and 64 in GEMCIS) were accrued at 12 centres. Baseline patient characteristics were similar in the 2 groups. Mean age was 61. There were 96 males and 34 females; 27% of patients were PS 0 and 73% were PS 1; 15% had stage IIIB and 85% had stage IV. Median number of cycles was 5 in each group. Objective response rates were 36% in GEMOX (CI 95%: 25%-50%) and 39% in GEMCIS (CI 95%: 28%-54%) respectively. Time to progression was 173 days in the GEMOX group and 163 days in the GEMCIS group. Median survival was 10.8 months in the GEMOX group and 10.4 months in the GEMCIS group. Grade III/IV neutropenia was observed in 38% of patients after GEMOX and 41% after GEMCIS; thrombocytopenia was observed in 40% and 33% of cases respectively. Grade 2+ neurotoxicity was more frequent after GEMOX (18% vs 3%). Conclusions: GEMOX has an activity comparable to GEMCIS and may be an alternative for those patients with advanced NSCLC who have a contra-indication to cisplatin. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Randomized Phase II Trial of Combination Idiotype Vaccine and Anti-CD3/Anti-CD28 Costimulated Autologous T Cells in Patients with Multiple Myeloma Post-Autotransplantation

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 4548-4548 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muzaffar H. Qazilbash ◽  
Edward A Stadtmauer ◽  
Veera Baladandayuthapani ◽  
Heather Lin ◽  
Beryl M. Tross ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
T Cells ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Hematopoietic Stem ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Equity Ownership ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Background: Despite major advances in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) only a minority of patients achieve long-term disease control. Immunotherapy combined with autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (auto-HCT) may reduce relapse rates. Immunoglobulin idiotype (Id) conjugated with a carrier protein, Keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH), is a tumor-specific antigen in MM. Vaccine-primed, anti-CD3/anti-CD28 costimulated adoptive T-cell transfer can augment humoral and cellular immune responses to vaccination despite cytotoxic therapy. We hypothesized that Id-KLH vaccine + the vaccine-primed costimulated T cells will result in a robust Id-specific humoral and cellular response, compared to a control vaccine (KLH only). Methods: In this randomized, phase II trial, the primary objective was to determine if Id-KLH primed, costimulated T cells will induce a more robust Id-specific immunity than KLH-primed T cells. Eligible patients had IgG monoclonal protein. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either Id-KLH vaccine or KLH-only vaccine, followed by auto-HCT, and then vaccine- primed costimulated T cells followed by two booster doses of the vaccine to which they were randomized. This study was supported by The MD Anderson Cancer Center SPORE in Multiple Myeloma. Results: A total of 36 patients were enrolled between 1/2013 and 5/2015. Sixteen (44%) were randomized to Id-KLH and 20 (55%) to KLH-only. The Table below summarizes the patient characteristics. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, risk status or induction therapy. No treatment-related mortality, infusion reactions or dose-limiting toxicity was seen in either arm. Five (31%) and 3 (15%) patients achieved complete remission (CR) by day+180 in the Id-KLH and KLH arms, respectively (p=0.42). Initial analysis of a subgroup of patients revealed a significantly higher mRNA expression of immune activation genes IL-2, CCR6 and CD40 by NanoString nCounter in the Id-KLH group compared with the KLH only group (Figure). Eleven (68%) and 17 (85%) went on to receive maintenance therapy with lenalidomide or lenalidomide + ixazomib in the Id-KLH and KLH arms, respectively (p=0.42). After a median follow up of 26 months, 2-year PFS was 81% and 83% in Id-KLH and KLH arms, respectively (p=0.35). Conclusion: Id-KLH vaccine and vaccine-primed costimulated T cells can be safely administered in the setting of auto-HCT.There was a more robust immune response and a trend towards higher CR rate in the Id-KLH group. Disclosures Stadtmauer: Teva: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Takada: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Garfall:Medimmune: Consultancy; Bioinvent: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cohen:Janssen: Consultancy; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. June:Johnson & Johnson: Research Funding; Immune Design: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Novartis: Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: Immunology, Research Funding; University of Pennsylvania: Patents & Royalties; Celldex: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Tmunity: Equity Ownership, Other: Founder, stockholder ; Pfizer: Honoraria.

A randomized phase II/III study of naptumomab estafenatox plus IFN-α versus IFN-α in advanced renal cell carcinoma.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3073-3073 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Hawkins ◽  
Martin Eric Gore ◽  
Yaroslav Shparyk ◽  
Vladimir Bondar ◽  
Oleg Gladkov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clin Oncol ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
To Receive

3073 Background: Naptumomab estafenatox/ANYARA (Nap) is a fusion protein of an antibody (5T4) and a superantigen (SEA/E-120). After phase I studies (Borghaei. J Clin Oncol. 2009, 27:4116) a prospective, randomized phase II/III trial of Nap + IFN-α (A) vs IFN-α (I) was conducted. Methods: Patients (pts) with RCC were randomized in an open label study to receive A or I. The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints were PFS, response rate and safety. Baseline (bl) plasma IL-6 was predictive of pazopanib (Tran. Lancet Oncol. 2012, 13:827) and MVA-5T4 vaccine (Harrop. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2012, 61:2283) benefit in RCC pts. IL-6 and anti-SEA/E-120 antibodies (a-S) were analyzed. A subgroup SG1 had bl levels below median for IL-6 (<7 pg/ml) and a-S. Another subgroup SG2 had IL-6 below 13 pg/ml (Tran. Lancet Oncol. 2012, 13:827) and excluding upper quartile of a-S according to phase 1 levels (Borghaei. J Clin Oncol. 2009, 27:4116). Results: From 5/2007 to 10/2010 513 pts were treated (ITT) with a median follow-up time for censored pts of 43 months. Unexpectedly, pts in certain territories had increased bl a-S (median of 61 pmol/ml in Russia vs 34 in UK). The table summarizes efficacy results. The primary endpoint was not met. Multivariate analysis adjusted for risk scores and subsequent TKI usage verified Nap benefit in pts with low IL-6 and normal a-S. Nap was well tolerated. Pyrexia (A:46%/I:18%), nausea (21%/11%), back pain (18%/6%), vomiting (16%/7%) and chills (12%/4%) were more common after Nap. Conclusions: The study did not meet primary endpoint. In pts with low IL-6 and normal levels of a-S, addition of Nap to IFN-α improves OS and PFS. The results warrant further studies with Nap in sequence or combo with e.g. TKIs in this subgroup. More generally, as bl IL-6 appears to be prognostic and predictive of outcome on treatment with TKIs and immunotherapies this may be a stratification factor for RCC studies. Clinical trial information: NCT00420888. [Table: see text]

Prospective randomized phase II study of FOLFIRI versus FOLFOX7 in advanced gastric adenocarcinoma: A Chinese Western Cooperative Gastrointestinal Oncology Group study.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1-1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Feng Bi ◽  
Qiu Li ◽  
Feng Wen ◽  
Chengya Zhou ◽  
Meng Qiu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Evaluable Population ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Advanced Gastric Adenocarcinoma

1 Background: The purpose was to compare mFOLFIRI (arm A) with mFOLFOX7 (arm B) as first-line treatments in patients (pts) with locally advanced gastric adenocarcinoma in an open, randomized, phase II study. Methods: Previously untreated metastatic or recurrent gastric adenocarcinoma pts with measurable disease received mFOLFIRI (arm A) or mFOLFOX7 (arm B) every 2 weeks. The second-line treatment was mFOLFOX7 for arm A and mFOLFIRI for arm B. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR) and toxicity. Results: In total, 200 pts were included. The evaluable population consisted of 128 pts (54 in arm A; 74 in arm B). The median PFS of arm A was 2.9 months (m) (1.9 to 4.1 m) versus 4.1 m (3.2 to 4.8 m) for arm B(p0.109). The median OS was 9.9 months (6.0 to 13.5 m) for arm A versus 12.0 m for arm B (10.3 to 13.7m; p= 0.431). The DCRs for arm A and arm B were 59.3% and 66.3%, respectively (p = 0.850). In subgroup analysis of the pts who completed both treatment lines per protocol, the median OS was 11.0 m (5.1 to 16.9 m) for the mFOLFIRI/mFOLFOX7 group and 20.2 m (13.4 to 26.6 m) for the mFOLFOX7/mFOLFIRI group ( p= 0.030). Both regimens were well-tolerated with acceptable and manageable toxicities. Grade ¾ adverse events were 53.2% and 55.4% in arm A and arm B, respectively. Conclusions: There was no significant difference in the PFS or DCR. However, mFOLFOX7 followed by mFOLFIRI might have a better OS. Clinical trial information: ChiCTR-TRC-08000167. [Table: see text]

Induction Chemotherapy Followed by Either Chemoradiotherapy or Bioradiotherapy for Larynx Preservation: The TREMPLIN Randomized Phase II Study

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (7) ◽  
pp. 853-859 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Louis Lefebvre ◽  
Yoann Pointreau ◽  
Frederic Rolland ◽  
Marc Alfonsi ◽  
Alain Baudoux ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Induction Chemotherapy ◽  
Salvage Surgery ◽  
Local Treatment ◽  
Treatment Compliance ◽  
Poor Responders ◽  
Larynx Preservation ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Function Preservation ◽  
Intent To Treat

Purpose To compare the efficacy and safety of induction chemotherapy (ICT) followed by chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or bioradiotherapy (BRT) for larynx preservation (LP). Patients and Methods Previously untreated patients with stage III to IV larynx/hypopharynx squamous cell carcinoma received three cycles of ICT—docetaxel and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 each on day 1 and fluorouracil 750 mg/m2 per day on days 1 through 5. Poor responders (< 50% response) underwent salvage surgery. Responders (≥ 50% response) were randomly assigned to conventional radiotherapy (RT; 70 Gy) with concurrent cisplatin 100 mg/m2 per day on days 1, 22, and 43 of RT (arm A) or concurrent cetuximab 400 mg/m2 loading dose and 250 mg/m2 per week during RT (arm B). Primary end point was LP at 3 months. Secondary end points were larynx function preservation (LFP) and overall survival (OS) at 18 months. Results Of the 153 enrolled patients, 116 were randomly assigned after ICT (60, arm A; 56, arm B). Overall toxicity of both CRT and BRT was substantial following ICT. However, treatment compliance was higher in the BRT arm. In an intent-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in LP at 3 months between arms A and B (95% and 93%, respectively), LFP (87% and 82%, respectively), and OS at 18 months (92% and 89%, respectively). There were fewer local treatment failures in arm A than in arm B; salvage surgery was feasible in arm B only. Conclusion There is no evidence that one treatment was superior to the other or could improve the outcome reported with ICT followed by RT alone (French Groupe Oncologie Radiothérapie Tête et Cou [GORTEC] 2000-01 trial [Induction CT by Cisplatin, 5FU With or Without Docetaxel in Patients With T3 and T4 Larynx and Hypopharynx Carcinoma]). The protocol that can best compare with RT alone after ICT is still to be determined.

Conducting Goals-of-Care Discussions Takes Less Time Than Imagined

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. e1499-e1506
Author(s):  
Sofya Pintova ◽  
Ryan Leibrandt ◽  
Cardinale B. Smith ◽  
Kerin B. Adelson ◽  
Jason Gonsky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Progression ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Goals Of Care ◽  
Coaching Model ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Encounter Time ◽  
Face Time ◽  
To Receive

PURPOSE: To describe the length of encounter during visits where goals-of-care (GoC) discussions were expected to take place. METHODS: Oncologists from community, academic, municipal, and rural hospitals were randomly assigned to receive a coaching model of communication skills to facilitate GoC discussions with patients with newly diagnosed advanced solid-tumor cancer with a prognosis of < 2 years. Patients were surveyed after the first restaging visit regarding the quality of the GoC discussion on a scale of 0-10 (0 = worst; 10 = best), with ≥ 8 indicating a high-quality GoC discussion. Visits were audiotaped, and total encounter time was measured. RESULTS: The median face-to-face time oncologists spent during a GoC discussion was 15 minutes (range, 10-20 minutes). Among the different hospital types, there was no significant difference in encounter time. There was no difference in the length of the encounter whether a high-quality GoC discussion took place or not (15 v 14 minutes; P = .9). If there was imaging evidence of cancer progression, the median encounter time was 18 minutes compared with 13 minutes for no progression ( P = .03). In a multivariate model, oncologist productivity, patient age, and Medicare coverage affected duration of the encounter. CONCLUSION: Oncologists can complete high-quality GoC discussions in 15 minutes. These data refute the common misperception that discussing such matters with patients with advanced cancer requires significant time.

Phase II investigational window using carboplatin, iproplatin, ifosfamide, and epirubicin in children with untreated disseminated neuroblastoma: a Pediatric Oncology Group study.

1994 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. 1616-1620 ◽  
Author(s):  
R P Castleberry ◽  
A B Cantor ◽  
A A Green ◽  
V Joshi ◽  
R L Berkow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Pediatric Oncology ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Oncology Group ◽  
New Agents ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Pediatric Oncology Group ◽  
To Receive

PURPOSE Children less than 1 year of age with metastatic neuroblastoma NB are at high risk of death. The need to identify new and effective chemotherapy agents is clear. A study was conducted by the Pediatric Oncology Group (POG) to determine the efficacy and safety of administering two courses of a single phase II agent before conventional treatment as a means to evaluate new agents in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS One hundred seventy-three eligible patients more than 1 year of age with disseminated neuroblastoma received two courses of one of the following: ifosfamide (IFOS) 2 g/m2/d for 4 days intravenously (IV) plus mesna; carboplatin (CARB) 560 mg/m2 i.v. over 1 hour; iproplatin (CHIP) 325 mg/m2 IV over 2 hours; or epirubicin (EPIR) 90 mg/m2 i.v. push. Following evaluation for response and toxicity, eligible patients were randomized to receive either cisplatin 90 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1, etoposide 200 mg/m2 i.v. on day 3, cyclophosphamide 150 mg/m2/d orally on days 7 to 13, doxorubicin 35 mg/m2 i.v. on day 14 (CECA), or cisplatin 40 mg/m2 IV on days 1 to 5 and etoposide 200 mg/m2 i.v. on days 2 to 4 alternating at 3-week intervals with cyclophosphamide 150 mg/m2/d orally on days 1 to 7 and doxorubicin 35 mg/m2 IV on day 8 (HDP/VP/CA). An additional 86 patients were randomized to receive either CECA or HDP/VP/CA without initial phase II therapy. RESULTS After phase II therapy, only 20% of patients experienced grade 3/4 hematopoietic toxicity. No toxic deaths occurred. Objective response rates (partial responses [PRs] plus minor responses [MRs]) following IFOS, CARB, CHIP, and EPIR were 70%, 77%, 67%, and 26%, respectively. Following phase III treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in rates of complete response (CR)/PR or progressive disease (PD), or in time to PD of patients who participated in the phase II window versus those who received only CECA or HDP/VP/CA. CONCLUSION IFOS, CARB, and CHIP are efficacious in neuroblastoma, are well tolerated, and should be incorporated into primary treatment regimens. Combination regimens using these agents may be possible, since most repeat courses were given within 2 weeks. Administering phase II therapy to untreated patients with high-risk tumors provides a unique and sensitive method to assess new agents without compromising patient outcome.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document