Interim safety analysis from TYTAN: A phase III Asian study of lapatinib in combination with paclitaxel as second-line therapy in gastric cancer.

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4057-4057 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Satoh ◽  
Y. Bang ◽  
J. Wang ◽  
J. Xu ◽  
H. C. Chung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Safety Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Asian Study ◽  
Line Therapy

A multinational, randomized, phase III trial of XELIRI with or without bevacizumab versus FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab as second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: Safety analysis of Asian XELIRI project (AXEPT).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 681-681
Author(s):  
Masato Nakamura ◽  
Tae Won Kim ◽  
Rui-hua Xu ◽  
Young Suk Park ◽  
Yong Sang Hong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Safety Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3

681 Background: Several studies have shown that capecitabine plus irinotecan (XELIRI) has promising efficacy and safety in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. AXEPT is a non-inferiority, phase III comparison of XELIRI with or without bevacizumab vs 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid plus irinotecan (FOLFIRI) with or without bevacizumab as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Methods: We undertook an open-label, non-inferiority, randomized phase III trial in South Korea, China and Japan. Patients were randomized 1:1 to XELIRI (irinotecan 200 mg/m2 on day 1 plus capecitabine 800 mg/m2 twice daily for 2 weeks in a 3-week cycle) with or without bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg or FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Results: From December 2013 to August 2015, 650 patients were enrolled and 625 (311 in FOLFIRI and 314 in XELIRI) were included to safety analysis at the cutoff dates on August 31, 2016. Patient baseline characteristics including KRAS status and UGT1A1 gene polymorphism were similar between the two treatment arms. Prior chemotherapy with oxaliplatin was given to 97.4% in both arms. The overall incidence of grade 3-4 toxicity was 73% in FOLFIRI arm and 53.2% in XELIRI arm. Whereas FOLFIRI was associated with more grade 3-4 neutropenia (43.7% vs 16.2%), leucopenia (13.5% vs 7.3%) and all grades anemia (80.4% vs 69.4%) than XELIRI, XELIRI was associated with more all grades hand-foot syndrome (34.1% vs 14.8%) and grade 3-4 diarrhea (7.0% vs 3.2%). There was no significant difference in febrile neutropenia (4.2% in FOLFIRI and 2.9% in XELIRI). The addition of bevacizumab did not alter safety profiles between XELIRI and FOLFIRI. There was a treatment-related death in FOLFIRI arm (0.3%). Conclusions: Both FOLFIRI and XELIRI were safe and well tolerated, though there were differences in the rates and toxicity profiles at which adverse events occur. Clinical trial information: NCT01996306. UMIN000012263.

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.

scholarly journals Late-line treatment in metastatic gastric cancer: today and tomorrow

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 175883591986752 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth C. Smyth ◽  
Markus Moehler
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Asian Population ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Response To Treatment ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Specific Patient ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Third Line

Survival for patients with unresectable advanced or recurrent gastric cancer (GC) remains poor and the historical lack of evidence-based therapeutic options after second-line therapy is reflected in current clinical guidelines for this condition. Despite uncertainty about optimal therapeutic strategies, further treatment is appropriate for some patients after failure of second line and may prolong survival. This approach has been reported in clinical trials and is becoming more common in real-world clinical settings. Several prognostic factors may increase the likelihood that a patient will be eligible for treatment in the third-line setting, including geographic location, status at diagnosis and response to treatment. There has been little progress over the last decade until the results from two large phase III randomized controlled trials completed in the last year: the ATTRACTION-2 trial with the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor, nivolumab, in an Asian population; and the TAGS trial with the oral chemotherapy trifluridine/tipiracil in a global population. Both ATTRACTION-2 and TAGS reported positive results in third-line treatment in advanced GC in specific patient groups. A further recently reported study, KEYNOTE-059, which was a single-arm phase II trial of the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab in a mainly non-Asian population, has provided evidence supporting the use of this immunotherapy in patients with advanced GC. As further third-line options become available, more GC patients are expected to benefit from an individualized evidence-based approach to later-line therapy, with a common goal of extending survival and improving outcomes for their refractory disease.

Nomogram to estimate the activity of second-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma (UC).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4524-4524
Author(s):  
Guru Sonpavde ◽  
Gregory Russell Pond ◽  
Neeraj Agarwal ◽  
Toni K. Choueiri ◽  
Angela Q. Qu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
The Impact

4524 Background: Prognostic factors may impact on endpoints used in phase II trials of second-line therapy for advanced UC. We aimed to study the impact of prognostic factors (liver metastasis [LM], anemia [Hb<10 g/dl], ECOG-performance status [PS] ≥1, time from prior chemotherapy [TFPC]) on PFS6 and RR. Methods: Twelve phase II trials evaluating second-line chemotherapy and/or biologics (n=748) in patients with progressive disease were pooled. PFS was defined as tumor progression or death from any cause. PFS6 was defined from the date of registration and calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RR was defined using RECIST 1.0. A nomogram predicting PFS6 was constructed using the RMS package in R (www.r-project.org). Results: Data regarding progression, Hb, LM, PS and TFPC were available from 570 patients. The mean age was 65.1 years, 45.3% had ECOG-PS ≥1, 30.2% had LM, 14.6% had anemia and TFPC was <6 months (mo) in 60.2%. The overall median PFS was 2.7 mo, PFS6 was 22.2% (95% CI: 18.8-25.9) and RR was 17.5% (95% CI: 14.5%-20.9%). For every unit increase in risk group, the hazard of progression increased by 41% and the odds of response decreased by 48% (Table). A nomogram was constructed to predict PFS6 on an individual patient level. Conclusions: PFS6 and RR vary as a function of prognostic factors in patients receiving second-line therapy for advanced UC. A nomogram incorporating prognostic factors might facilitate the evaluation of activity across phase II trials enrolling heterogeneous populations and can help to select and stratify patients for phase III evaluation of suitable agents. [Table: see text]

Prognostic factors in 868 advanced gastric cancer patients exposed to second-line therapy.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15553-e15553
Author(s):  
Valentina Fanotto ◽  
Caterina Fontanella ◽  
Mario Uccello ◽  
Giulia Pasquini ◽  
Silvia Bozzarelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Advanced Gastric Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Gastric Cancer Patients

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC C/D) in patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastasis.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 387-387
Author(s):  
Mehdi Javanbakht ◽  
Mohsen Yaghoubi ◽  
Atefeh Mashayekhi ◽  
Philipp Horvath ◽  
Alfred Koenigsrainer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Palliative Chemotherapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Dominant Strategy ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Upfront Therapy ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

387 Background: The efficacy of systemic chemotherapy is still highly unsatisfactory for patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal metastases (PM). The aim of this study was to assess the costs effectiveness of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with low-dose cisplatin and doxorubicin (PIPAC C/D) for advanced gastric cancer. Methods: We developed a state transition Markov Model to estimate the costs and effectiveness of the use of PIPAC C/D versus palliative chemotherapy. Intervention was assessed in two different levels including upfront therapy (PIPAC C/D plus XELOX chemotherapy versus first-line chemotherapy alone) and second line therapy (PIPAC C/D only versus second-line chemotherapy (ramucirumab monotherapy)). Data from multiple sources such as published literature and UK-based databases were used to inform the economic model. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of key parameter variation on the results. Results: For the upfront therapy the estimated total costs in the intervention and comparator arms were £33,587(SD: £2,394) and £17,477 (£927) respectively. PIPAC C/D plus XELOX led to an increase of 0.56 in QALYs. Estimated incremental cost per quality adjusted life years (QALYs) was £28,879. Result from probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that PIPAC C/D plus XELOX is cost effective in more than 50% of Monte Carlo simulations at £30,000 threshold. For the second-line therapy, the total costs for PIPAC C/D was £15,985 (£1,391) and for the second-line palliative chemotherapy was £36,319 (£3,673). PIPAC C/D led to an increase of 0.21 in QALYs and £20,222 reduction in costs, meaning the intervention is dominant strategy in the second line therapy as it is less costly and more effective. Conclusions: The cost effectiveness results for the upfront therapy indicate that PIPAC C/D plus chemotherapy intervention is more costly and more effective and a cost effective intervention. PIPAC C/D only intervention has the potential to reduce costs and improve clinical outcomes for patients with advanced gastric cancer with peritoneal metastasis and therefore a dominant strategy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document