A randomized phase II trial comparing two doses of lenalidomide for the treatment of stage IV ocular melanoma

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20012-e20012 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. B. Zeldis ◽  
C. Heller ◽  
G. Seidel ◽  
N. Yuldasheva ◽  
D. Stirling ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Stable Disease ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Ocular Melanoma ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Animal Data ◽  
Disease Stabilization ◽  
Grade 3

e20012 Background: Ocular melanoma is the most common primary intraocular malignancy in adults with an incidence of 4.3 new cases per million. Approximately 50% of patients will develop metastases and the mean survival of those with liver metastases is 8–10 months. There are no effective systemic therapies. Pre-clinical studies of the antiangiogenic and immunomodulatory agent, lenalidomide, have shown promise in animal models of human ocular melanoma. We therefore conducted a phase II trial comparing two doses of oral lenalidomide. Methods: Patients with stage IV ocular melanoma, who met eligibility criteria and demonstrated disease progression, were enrolled on an IRB approved prospective random assignment trial comparing 5 mg and 25 mg of lenalidomide administered once a day orally for 21 days with a 7 day recovery (one cycle). Lesions were measured at baseline and every 3 months and scored for response by RECIST criteria. Patients who completed 3 cycles were eligible for response evaluation. Patients with responding lesions or with stable disease could continue receiving the agent. Toxicity was assessed using the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria. Results: Seventeen patients (13 female, 4 male; mean age 53) met eligibility criteria and were randomized to 5 mg (9 patients) or 25 mg (8 patients) of lenalidomide. The agent was well tolerated at both doses with only three grade 3 toxicities (two decreased ANC and one rash/puritis) requiring dose adjustments. Sixteen patients were eligible for response assessments. Nine patients had progressive disease by RECIST criteria following 3 cycles of therapy. Seven patients (44%) had stable disease for a mean of 7 months (range 6–12 months). There were no RECIST defined responders. There were no differences between the two dose groups with respect to toxicity or disease stabilization. Conclusions: Lenalidomide is well tolerated at doses of 5 mg and 25 mg orally for a 21 day cycle by patients with stage IV ocular melanoma. While no responses were seen, disease stabilization for a mean of 7 months was seen in 44% of patients. This effect was consistent with the pre-clinical animal data. Based on these results, further development of lenalidomide in combination with other agents should be considered for the treatment of metastatic ocular melanoma. [Table: see text]

Combination Biologic Therapy as Initial Treatment for Follicular Lymphoma: Initial Results From CALGB 50701 - a Phase II Trial of Extended Induction Epratuzumab (anti-CD22) and Rituximab (anti-CD20)

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 427-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Grant ◽  
John P. Leonard ◽  
Jeffrey L Johnson ◽  
Lale Kostakoglu ◽  
Eric Hsi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Monoclonal Antibody ◽  
Follicular Lymphoma ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Stable Disease ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Good Tolerability ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Anti Cd20

Abstract Abstract 427 Rituximab is effective as single agent therapy in the treatment of follicular lymphoma (FL), and when combined with chemotherapy has extended remissions and survival. Epratuzumab (Immunomedics), a humanized anti-CD22 monoclonal antibody, also has single agent activity in FL, and in combination with rituximab led to durable complete responses in the treatment of patients (pts) with relapsed and refractory indolent NHL. To evaluate the hypothesis that combining a second biological agent with rituximab might improve efficacy with good tolerability, the CALGB treated 60 previously untreated pts with epratuzumab and rituximab in a multicenter phase II trial and we report here the preliminary response and toxicity findings. Rituximab was administered at 375 mg/m2 iv weekly for four weeks, then every 8 weeks for four additional doses for a total of 8 doses over 9 months. Epratuzumab, was given at 360 mg/m2 two days before the first rituximab dose to assess toxicity. From week 2 on, epratuzumab was given before the rituximab on the same day for a total of 8 doses over 9 months. Fifty-seven evaluable pts were enrolled between May 2008 and September 2009. FLIPI scores at study entry were 13 (22%) low; 28 (47.5%) intermediate; and 18 (30.5%) high. Fifty-three pts completed all therapy through month 9. One pt was taken off therapy due to progression after month 5. One pt died during induction from line sepsis. Two pts were taken off study due to adverse events, 1 during induction (grade 4 thrombosis and MI), 1 following month 5 (dyspnea, hypoxia and pulmonary NOS). All other toxicities were grade 3 or lower, including fatigue (grade 3 3%, grade 2 17%), nodal pain (grade 3 5%, grade 2 8%), and cytokine release and pruritis (grade 2, 5% each). To date, there have been 19 CRs (33.3%), 29 PRs (50.9%)(ORR 84.2%); 9 (15.8%) had stable disease. All 19 CR patients completed all treatment. The mean time to CR was 9 months. Two patients progressed after a period of stable disease, and 25 of the 29 patients who achieved PR remain in response. All 19 CRs also remain in remission at this point with a median follow-up of 0.82 years (range 0.52 to 2.0). FLIPI score was not predictive of response. The CR rate in low risk pts was 31%, 44% in intermediate risk and 18% in high risk pts. There was a trend toward higher CR rate among patients with FcgR2A His (n=10, CR 60%) and to a lower CR rate among those with FcgR2A Arg (n=14, CR 14.3%). Correlations with PET scan at week 3, with tissue biomarkers and to statin use are being analyzed. Rituximab and epratuzumab is an effective and very well tolerated regimen with an ORR of 84% in previously untreated patients with follicular lymphoma. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Use of Epratuzumab, a humanized antiCD22 monoclonal antibody in treatment of follicular lymphoma. Leonard:BiogenIDEC: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Immunomedics: Consultancy. Jones:Glaxo Smith-Kline: Consultancy; Abbott: Research Funding. Cheson:Genentech: Consultancy.

Phase II trial of oxaliplatin and gemcitabine in patients with malignant pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 17133-17133 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. S. Boyar ◽  
M. Hesdorffer ◽  
R. N. Taub
Keyword(s):  
Partial Response ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Stable Disease ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Peritoneal Mesothelioma ◽  
Platinum Compound ◽  
Prior Chemotherapy ◽  
Gastrointestinal Dysmotility ◽  
Disease Stabilization

17133 Background: A prior phase II trial of oxaliplatin and gemcitabine in malignant pleural mesothelioma reported activity with a 40% partial response rate and stable disease in 24% of 25 previously untreated patients (Schutte W. et al., Clin Lung Cancer 2003;4:294). This trial was designed to further evaluate the efficacy of oxaliplatin and gemcitabine in patients with malignant pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma. Methods: Patients with histologically-confirmed malignant pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma not amenable to curative surgical treatment are eligible for enrollment on this single-institution phase II trial. One prior chemotherapy regimen is allowed, including pemetrexed with a platinum compound or gemcitabine. Presence of at least one radiologically-measurable lesion that has not been previously irradiated is required. Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 IV over 90 minutes is administered followed by oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2 IV over 2 hours on day 1 of a 14-day cycle. Treatment is continued for at least 6 cycles unless unacceptable toxicity or disease progression occurs. The primary outcome is to evaluate efficacy as measured by tumor response rate. The sequential two-stage design allows for enrollment of a total of 29 patients if 3 of 18 patients enrolled in the first stage have at least a partial response. Results: Ten eligible patients have been enrolled thus far and 6 are evaluable for response. Sites of disease include pleural (3) and peritoneal (3), and histologic subtypes are epithelioid (5) and sarcomatoid (1). Four patients had received prior chemotherapy. A total of 42 cycles have been given with a median of 8 cycles per patient. There are no partial or complete responses. Four patients have had stable disease for at least 4 months. Two patients with stable disease had received prior pemetrexed/gemcitabine or pemetrexed/cisplatin. Frequently observed toxicities include grade II fatigue, neuropathy and upper gastrointestinal dysmotility. Conclusion: This regimen of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin may provide disease stabilization in a subset of patients with malignant pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma, including those who have received prior chemotherapy. The regimen is well-tolerated. This study remains open to accrual. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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]

Randomized phase II trial of capecitabine versus capecitabine, low molecular weight heparin, and prednisone in refractory colorectal carcinoma

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15126-e15126 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Mak ◽  
C. Townsley ◽  
R. Buckman ◽  
E. Chen ◽  
L. Lopez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Disease Control ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Stable Disease ◽  
Previous Treatment ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome ◽  
Grade 3

e15126 Background: Capecitabine is widely used in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. Continuous low dose chemotherapy has been postulated to have anti-angiogenic effects discrete from its anti-proliferative effects on tumors (metronomic therapy). Dalteparin and prednisone have also been implicated in inhibiting tumour angiogenesis and hypothesized to have additive benefit to chemotherapy. This randomized phase II study examined the additive effect of dalteparin and prednisone with capecitabine in metastatic colorectal cancer. Methods: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were randomized to either capecitabine (C) 2,500 mg/m2 in divided doses from days 1–14 in a 3-week cycle or capecitabine with dalteparin and prednisone (CDP). There was no restriction on previous treatment, other than no prior capecitabine. Dalteparin was given at 5,000 units once daily subcutaneously, and prednisone orally 10 mg daily, both on a continuous basis. Thirty patients were planned for accrual in each arm with interim analysis when accrual reached fifteen in each arm. The primary end-point was disease control defined as treatment response or stable disease >4 months. Radiological evaluation was performed every 6 weeks. Treatment was discontinued if patients had progressive disease or intolerable toxicity. Results: Thirty patients were recruited. Fourteen patients had received ≥3 previous regimens (median 3 (C), 2 (CDP)). Median performance statuses were ECOG 1 (C) and 0 (CDP). Nine patients achieved stable disease greater than 6 months (5 (C)/4 (CDP)). There was no statistical difference in the median survival time and time-to- progression for the two groups (11.1 mth (C)/15.8 mth (CDP); 3.2 mth (C)/2.8 mth (CDP)). The commonest toxicities overall were myelosuppression and hand-foot syndrome (HFS). The most common Grade 3+ adverse events were HFS (6 patients) and diarrhea (4 patients). Conclusions: The combination of dalteparin, prednisone and capecitabine did not improve disease control over that seen with capecitabine in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Updated phase I results of a phase I/II trial of BNC105P with everolimus in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 397-397
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Hutson ◽  
Long H. Dang ◽  
Richard C. Lauer ◽  
Alexander Starodub ◽  
Ralph J. Hauke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Cellular Response ◽  
Kinase Inhibitors ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Sequential Approach ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Disease Stabilization ◽  
Grade 3

397 Background: BNC105P is an inhibitor of tubulin polymerization. In vivo exposure to BNC105P leads to selective damage of tumor vasculature in both primary and metastatic lesions, causing disruption of blood flow to tumors, hypoxia and associated tumor necrosis. BNC105P also has a direct anti-proliferative action on cancer cells. Up regulation of the mTOR pathway has been identified as a cellular response to hypoxic stress. The combined use of BNC105P with an agent active against mTOR may improve clinical outcome in patients with progressive mRCC who are refractory to VEGFR-directed tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Methods: A phase I/II study in mRCC patients who have received 1-2 prior TKIs was undertaken. The phase I component enrolled 12 subjects at 4 dose levels of BNC105P (4.2, 8.4, 12.6, 16 mg/m2; IV infusion Days 1 and 8, 21-day repeating cycle). Everolimus was administered concurrently (10 mg p.o.). PK analysis was performed during cycle 1. Results: Updated results from the completed phase I component confirm the BNC105P/everolimus combination was well tolerated. No DLTs (drug-related, during cycle 1) were observed in any of the phase I subjects. Toxicities on study deemed to be drug-related (either single agent or combination) included single grade 3 events of anemia and pericardial effusion. Grade 2 events (more than 1 occurrence) of fatigue, anemia, and oral mucositis were also observed. 8 of the 12 phase I subjects achieved disease stabilization (7 of these subjects had a minimum time on therapy of 18 weeks, 6 cycles). Across all subjects a median of 6 cycles (range: 1-21) was administered, with removal from study predominantly due to disease progression. PK analysis confirmed no drug-drug interaction. The randomized phase II component of the study continues and will compare everolimus given concomitantly with BNC105P to a sequential approach (everolimus followed by BNC105P). Conclusions: BNC105P (16 mg/m2) can be combined with full dose everolimus and is being evaluated in a randomized phase II study. Clinical trial information: NCT01034631.

Randomized phase II trial of MIBG versus MIBG/vincristine/irinotecan versus MIBG/vorinostat for relapsed/refractory neuroblastoma: A report from the New Approaches to Neuroblastoma Therapy Consortium.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 10500-10500
Author(s):  
Steven G. DuBois ◽  
Meaghan Granger ◽  
Susan G. Groshen ◽  
Denice Tsao-Wei ◽  
Anasheh Shamirian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Partial Response ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Response Criteria ◽  
Current Response ◽  
Minor Response ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Grade 3

10500 Background: 131I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) remains one of the most active agents for neuroblastoma. It is not clear if putative radiation sensitizers improve upon this activity. The primary aim of this trial was to identify the MIBG treatment regimen with highest response rate among: MIBG monotherapy (Arm A); MIBG/Vincristine/Irinotecan (Arm B); MIBG/Vorinostat (Arm C). The secondary aim was to compare toxicity across arms. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, randomized phase II trial. Patients 1-30 years with relapsed/refractory high-risk neuroblastoma were eligible with at least one MIBG-avid site and adequate autologous stem cells (ASCs). All patients received MIBG 18 mCi/kg on Day 1 and ASC on day 15. Patients on Arm A received only MIBG; patients on Arm B also received vincristine (2 mg/m2) IV on Day 0 and irinotecan (50 mg/m2) IV daily on Days 0-4; patients on Arm C also received vorinostat (180 mg/m2) orally once daily on days -1 to 12. The primary endpoint was response after one course according to NANT response criteria. The trial was designed as a pick-the-winner study with a maximum of 105 eligible and evaluable patients to ensure an 80% chance that the arm with highest response rate is selected, if that response rate is at least 15% higher than the other arms. Results: 114 patients enrolled. Three patients were ineligible and 6 eligible patients never received MIBG, leaving 105 eligible and evaluable patients (36 Arm A; 35 Arm B; and 34 Arm C; 55 boys; median age 6.5 years). 9 patients had received prior MIBG monotherapy, 65 prior irinotecan, and 7 prior vorinostat. After one course, the response rates (Partial Response or better) on Arms A, B, and C were 17% (95% CI 7-33%), 14% (5-31%), and 32% (18-51%). An additional 4, 4, and 7 patients met NANT Minor Response criteria [partial response in one disease category (e.g., bone marrow) and stable disease in other categories] on Arms A, B, and C, respectively. On Arms A, B, and C, rates of any grade 3+ non-hematologic toxicity were 19%, 49% and 32%; rates of grade 3+ diarrhea were 0%, 11%, 0%; and rates of grade 3+ febrile neutropenia were 6%, 11%, and 0%. Conclusions: The combination of vorinostat/MIBG had the highest response rate, with manageable toxicity. Vincristine and irinotecan do not improve the response rate to MIBG and are associated with increased toxicity. These data provide response rates for MIBG monotherapy in a contemporary patient population assessed with current response criteria. Clinical trial information: NCT02035137.

scholarly journals Randomized phase II trial of gemcitabine plus irinotecan or docetaxel in stage IIIB or stage IV NSCLC

2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 410-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.M. Rocha Lima ◽  
N.A. Rizvi ◽  
C. Zhang ◽  
J.E. Herndon ◽  
J. Crawford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Stage Iiib ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document