scholarly journals Treatment of Colorectal Peritoneal Carcinomatosis With Systemic Chemotherapy: A Pooled Analysis of North Central Cancer Treatment Group Phase III Trials N9741 and N9841

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 263-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Franko ◽  
Qian Shi ◽  
Charles D. Goldman ◽  
Barbara A. Pockaj ◽  
Garth D. Nelson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Peritoneal Carcinomatosis ◽  
Survival Data ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Lung Metastases ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii

Purpose Symptoms and complications of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) differ by metastatic sites. There is a paucity of prospective survival data for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis colorectal cancer (pcCRC). We characterized outcomes of patients with pcCRC enrolled onto two prospective randomized trials of chemotherapy and contrasted that with other manifestations of mCRC (non-pcCRC). Methods A total of 2,095 patients enrolled onto two prospective randomized trials were evaluated for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). A Cox proportional hazard model was used to assess the adjusted associations. Results The characteristics of the pcCRC group (n = 364) were similar to those of the non-pcCRC patients in median age (63 v 61 years, P = .23), sex (57% males v 61%, P = .23), and performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1 94% v 96%, P = .06), but differed in frequency of liver (63% v 82%, P < .001) and lung metastases (27% v 34%, P = .01). Median OS (12.7 v 17.6 months, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.3; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.5; P < .001) and PFS (5.8 v 7.2 months, HR = 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.3; P = .001) were shorter for pcCRC versus non-pcCRC. The unfavorable prognostic influence of pcCRC remained after adjusting for age, PS, liver metastases, and other factors (OS: HR = 1.3, P < .001; PFS: HR = 1.1, P = .02). Infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin was superior to irinotecan, leucovorin, and fluorouracil as a first-line treatment among pcCRC (HR for OS = 0.62, P = .005) and non-pcCRC patients (HR = 0.66, P < .001). Conclusion pcCRC is associated with a significantly shorter OS and PFS as compared with other manifestations of mCRC. Future trials for mCRC should consider stratifying on the basis of pcCRC status.

On-treatment progression-free survival analysis of ziv-aflibercept/FOLFIRI treatment within 28 days of end of treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer: Updated efficacy results from the VELOUR study.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3573-3573
Author(s):  
David Ferry ◽  
Tae Won Kim ◽  
Tormod Kyrre Guren ◽  
Jayesh Desai ◽  
Luis Marcelo Villanueva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
The United States ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Free Survival

3573 Background: The phase III VELOUR study demonstrated that adding the novel antiangiogenic agent ziv-aflibercept (known as aflibercept outside the United States) to FOLFIRI in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with oxaliplatin significantly improved overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate vs placebo/FOLFIRI. We performed an additional analysis of PFS “on-treatment,” censoring events that occurred more than 28 days after last treatment dose. Methods: Patients were randomized to receive ziv-aflibercept 4 mg/kg or placebo every 2 weeks in combination with FOLFIRI. An independent review committee determined progression based on radiologic review. PFS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis, with censoring of events after the last dose plus 28 days. Treatment groups were compared using a log-rank test and were stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and prior bevacizumab therapy. Hazard ratio (HR) and confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a Cox proportional hazard model. Results: On-treatment analysis showed significantly increased PFS for patients treated with ziv-aflibercept/FOLFIRI compared with placebo/FOLFIRI (Table). More patients were censored in the ziv-aflibercept arm due to adverse events. Conclusions: The on-treatment PFS analysis demonstrates a significantly improved treatment effect of the addition of ziv-aflibercept to FOLFIRI (HR=0.55) over what was observed in the primary analysis suggesting that continuing treatment with ziv-aflibercept up to disease progression provides additional benefit. Clinical trial information: NCT00561470. [Table: see text]

Randomized, Phase III Trial of Panitumumab With Infusional Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) Versus FOLFOX4 Alone As First-Line Treatment in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The PRIME Study

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (31) ◽  
pp. 4697-4705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Yves Douillard ◽  
Salvatore Siena ◽  
James Cassidy ◽  
Josep Tabernero ◽  
Ronald Burkes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
End Point

Purpose Panitumumab, a fully human anti–epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody that improves progression-free survival (PFS), is approved as monotherapy for patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The Panitumumab Randomized Trial in Combination With Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer to Determine Efficacy (PRIME) was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of panitumumab plus infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) versus FOLFOX4 alone as initial treatment for mCRC. Patients and Methods In this multicenter, phase III trial, patients with no prior chemotherapy for mCRC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2, and available tissue for biomarker testing were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive panitumumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4. The primary end point was PFS; overall survival (OS) was a secondary end point. Results were prospectively analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis by tumor KRAS status. Results KRAS results were available for 93% of the 1,183 patients randomly assigned. In the wild-type (WT) KRAS stratum, panitumumab-FOLFOX4 significantly improved PFS compared with FOLFOX4 (median PFS, 9.6 v 8.0 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.97; P = .02). A nonsignificant increase in OS was also observed for panitumumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 (median OS, 23.9 v 19.7 months, respectively; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.02; P = .072). In the mutant KRAS stratum, PFS was significantly reduced in the panitumumab-FOLFOX4 arm versus the FOLFOX4 arm (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.62; P = .02), and median OS was 15.5 months versus 19.3 months, respectively (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.57; P = .068). Adverse event rates were generally comparable across arms with the exception of toxicities known to be associated with anti-EGFR therapy. Conclusion This study demonstrated that panitumumab-FOLFOX4 was well tolerated and significantly improved PFS in patients with WT KRAS tumors and underscores the importance of KRAS testing for patients with mCRC.

Randomized Phase III Study of Panitumumab With Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Irinotecan (FOLFIRI) Compared With FOLFIRI Alone As Second-Line Treatment in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (31) ◽  
pp. 4706-4713 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Peeters ◽  
Timothy Jay Price ◽  
Andrés Cervantes ◽  
Alberto F. Sobrero ◽  
Michel Ducreux ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Kras Status

PurposePanitumumab is a fully human anti–epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody that improves progression-free survival (PFS) in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of panitumumab plus fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) compared with FOLFIRI alone after failure of initial treatment for mCRC by tumor KRAS status.Patients and MethodsPatients with mCRC, one prior chemotherapy regimen for mCRC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 2, and available tumor tissue for biomarker testing were randomly assigned 1:1 to panitumumab 6.0 mg/kg plus FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI every 2 weeks. The coprimary end points of PFS and overall survival (OS) were independently tested and prospectively analyzed by KRAS status.ResultsFrom June 2006 to March 2008, 1,186 patients were randomly assigned 1:1 and received treatment. KRAS status was available for 91% of patients: 597 (55%) with wild-type (WT) KRAS tumors, and 486 (45%) with mutant (MT) KRAS tumors. In the WT KRAS subpopulation, when panitumumab was added to chemotherapy, a significant improvement in PFS was observed (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.90; P = .004); median PFS was 5.9 months for panitumumab-FOLFIRI versus 3.9 months for FOLFIRI. A nonsignificant trend toward increased OS was observed; median OS was 14.5 months versus 12.5 months, respectively (HR = 0.85, 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.04; P = .12); response rate was improved to 35% versus 10% with the addition of panitumumab. In patients with MT KRAS, there was no difference in efficacy. Adverse event rates were generally comparable across arms with the exception of known toxicities associated with anti-EGFR therapy.ConclusionPanitumumab plus FOLFIRI significantly improved PFS and is well-tolerated as second-line treatment in patients with WT KRAS mCRC.

Activity of Eribulin in Patients With Advanced Liposarcoma Demonstrated in a Subgroup Analysis From a Randomized Phase III Study of Eribulin Versus Dacarbazine

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (30) ◽  
pp. 3433-3439 ◽  
Author(s):  
George D. Demetri ◽  
Patrick Schöffski ◽  
Giovanni Grignani ◽  
Jean-Yves Blay ◽  
Robert G. Maki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Eribulin Mesylate ◽  
Systemic Treatments ◽  
Phase Iii Study

Purpose A phase III study comparing eribulin with dacarbazine in patients with advanced liposarcoma (LPS) or leiomyosarcoma showed a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) for the eribulin arm, with a manageable toxicity profile. We now report the histology-specific subgroup analysis of the efficacy and safety of eribulin compared with dacarbazine in patients with LPS, an independently randomized stratified subgroup of this phase III trial. Methods Patients ≥ 18 years with advanced or metastatic dedifferentiated, myxoid/round cell, or pleomorphic LPS incurable by surgery or radiotherapy were included. Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2 and two or more prior systemic treatment regimens, including one with anthracycline, were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive eribulin mesylate (1.4 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8) or dacarbazine (850, 1,000, or 1,200 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1) every 21 days. OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and safety were analyzed. Results In the LPS subgroup, OS was significantly improved: 15.6 versus 8.4 months (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.75; P < .001) with eribulin versus dacarbazine, respectively. Longer OS with eribulin was observed in all LPS histologic subtypes and in all geographic regions evaluated. PFS was also improved with eribulin versus dacarbazine (2.9 v 1.7 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.78; P = .0015). Adverse events were similar between arms. Conclusion In patients with previously treated LPS, eribulin was associated with significantly superior OS and PFS compared with dacarbazine. Eribulin represents an important treatment option for patients with LPS, a sarcoma subtype for which limited effective systemic treatments are available. Further studies are justified to explore the role of eribulin in earlier lines of therapy as well as in combination with other agents.

Axitinib versus sorafenib as first‑line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA348-LBA348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Hutson ◽  
Jorge Gallardo ◽  
Vladmir Lesovoy ◽  
Salman Al-Shukri ◽  
Viktor Stus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Survival Data ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

LBA348 Background: In the phase III AXIS trial, second-line therapy with axitinib resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) versus sorafenib for mRCC. We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III trial to compare PFS of axitinib vs sorafenib as first-line therapy. Methods: Patients with untreated, measurable (RECIST v1.0), clear‑cell mRCC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) 0 or 1 were randomized 2:1 to axitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) or sorafenib 400 mg BID. Randomization was stratified by PS. Primary endpoint was PFS per independent radiology committee. The study had 90% power to detect a 78% PFS improvement from 5.5 mo with sorafenib to 9.8 mo with axitinib, corresponding to a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.561 (overall 1-sided α=0.025). Results: Patients (N=288) were mainly from Eastern Europe (51%), Asia (25%), North America (14%), or South America (10%).Patient baseline characteristics for axitinib (n=192) vs sorafenib (n=96) included: median age, 58y vs 58y; male, 70% vs 77%; white, 71% vs 69%; favorable risk, 49% vs 55%; PS 0, 57% vs 57%; nephrectomy, 85% vs 90%. Median (m) PFS was 10.1 vs 6.5 mo with axitinib vs sorafenib (HR adjusted for PS, 0.767; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.559–1.053; 1‑sided P=0.0377). In patients with PS 0 and 1, respectively, mPFS with axitinib vs sorafenib was 13.7 vs 6.6 mo (HR, 0.644; 95% CI, 0.419–0.991; 1‑sided P=0.022) and 6.5 vs 6.4 mo (HR, 0.931; 95% CI, 0.585–1.482; 1‑sided P=0.38). Objective response rates (ORRs) with axitinib vs sorafenib were 32.3% vs 14.6% (1‑sided P=0.0006 adjusted for PS). Overall survival data were not mature. All-grade all‑causality adverse events (≥20%) with axitinib vs sorafenib were diarrhea (50% vs 40%), hypertension (49% vs 29%), weight decreased (37% vs 24%), fatigue (33% vs 26%), decreased appetite (29% vs 19%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (26% vs 39%), dysphonia (23% vs 10%), asthenia (21% vs 16%), and hypothyroidism (21% vs 7%). Conclusions: The study did not achieve its primary endpoint statistically, but axitinib demonstrated numerically longer mPFS and significantly higher ORR vs sorafenib, with an acceptable safety profile, as first-line therapy for mRCC. Clinical trial information: NCT00920816.

LAPACT: An open-label, multicenter phase II trial of nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) plus gemcitabine (Gem) in patients (pts) with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC).

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS477-TPS477 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Agop Philip ◽  
Jill Lacy ◽  
Scot D. Dowden ◽  
Javier Sastre ◽  
Venu Gopal Bathini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
The United States ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Primary Tumors

TPS477 Background: In pts with LAPC, more effective systemic therapies may be associated with improved local control, delay of metastasis, and overall survival (OS). The phase III MPACT trial in pts with metastatic PC demonstrated longer OS (median, 8.7 vs 6.6 mos; HR, 0.72; P < 0.001) and an ≈ 3-fold greater shrinkage of primary tumors with nab-P + Gem vs Gem alone (−22.15% vs −7.02%), raising the possibility of improved local PC control with nab-P + Gem. LAPACT will assess the efficacy and safety of nab-P + Gem in LAPC. Methods: LAPACT will enroll treatment-naive pts (planned n ≈ 110) in the United States, Canada, and Europe with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 1, confirmed unresectable LAPC, no distant metastases, and adequate organ function. Pts with mixed-origin tumors, any other malignancy within 5 years, peripheral neuropathy grade > 1, or clinically significant ascites are ineligible. Pts will receive nab-P 125 mg/m2 + Gem 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Pts without progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity after 6 cycles will receive investigator’s choice of surgery, chemoradiotherapy, or continued nab-P + Gem. If a major response is observed, surgery may occur prior to completing 6 cycles of nab-P + Gem. The primary endpoint is time to treatment failure (TTF; time from first therapy dose to discontinuation due to PD, start of a new non–protocol-defined anti-cancer therapy, or death). The study design allows for 80% power at a 1-sided α of 0.05 to detect a 30% increase over the 5.1-month median TTF observed for nab-P + Gem in the MPACT study. The secondary endpoints are disease control rate (DCR) after 6 cycles, overall response rate, progression-free survival, OS, safety, and quality of life. The exploratory endpoint is correlation of changes in circulating nucleic acids with PD and treatment response. An interim DCR analysis will occur after all pts have completed 6 cycles of nab-P + Gem, discontinued therapy due to PD, died, or started a new non–protocol-defined therapy before completing 6 cycles of therapy. Enrollment is ongoing (first pt enrolled in April 2015). Clinical trial information: NCT02301143.

scholarly journals Safety, efficacy and patient-reported outcomes with trifluridine/tipiracil in pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer: results of the PRECONNECT study

ESMO Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. e000698
Author(s):  
Jean-Baptiste Bachet ◽  
Lucjan Wyrwicz ◽  
Timothy Price ◽  
Chiara Cremolini ◽  
Jean-Marc Phelip ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Grade 3

BackgroundIn RECOURSE (, trifluridine/tipiracil significantly improved overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in patients with pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PRECONNECT was designed to further characterise safety and clinical use of trifluridine/tipiracil.MethodsIn this ongoing, international, multicentre, open-label trial, patients with pretreated mCRC received oral trifluridine/tipiracil 35 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1–5 and 8–12 of each 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was safety; secondary endpoints included PFS and quality of life (QoL).Results793 patients (median age 62 years) from 13 countries received trifluridine/tipiracil for a median of 2.84 months (IQR 2.64). Adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 96.7%; the most common (≥20% of patients) were neutropaenia, asthenia/fatigue, nausea, anaemia and diarrhoea. Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 73.9% of patients, with the most common being neutropaenia (39.1% of patients), anaemia (9.8%) and asthenia/fatigue (5.0%). Median PFS was 2.8 months (95% CI 2.7 to 2.9). Median time to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status deterioration (≥2) was 8.9 months (range 0.03–14.72). There was no clinically relevant change from baseline in QoL.ConclusionsPRECONNECT showed consistent results with the previously demonstrated safety and efficacy profile of trifluridine/tipiracil, with no new safety concerns identified. QoL was maintained during treatment.Trial registration numberNCT03306394.

Outcomes differences for African Americans and Caucasians treated with bevacizumab, FOLFOX4 or the combination in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC): Results from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study E3200

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4100-4100 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. J. Catalano ◽  
E. P. Mitchell ◽  
B. J. Giantonio ◽  
N. J. Meropol ◽  
A. B. Benson
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
African Americans ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Age Distribution ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Disease Extent ◽  
Prior Therapy

4100 Background: The relationship between race and clinical outcomes with systemic chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer is uncertain. E3200 is a large, randomized, multicenter phase III trial that demonstrated a gain in overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS) and response (RR) for the addition of bevacizumab to FOLFOX4 in previously treated patients with MCRC. We analyzed outcomes for African Americans and Caucasian patients enrolled in E3200. Methods: Patients enrolled in E3200 were randomized to one of three treatments: FOLFOX4, bevacizumab, or the combination. OS, PFS, RR and cycles of chemotherapy were examined as a function of race in 779 patients. Demographic information including race was collected by data management personnel at study sites and reported at registration. Results: There were no differences noted for Caucasians and African Americans with regards to: disease extent, performance status, gender, prior therapy and age distribution (not shown). Outcomes by race are tabulated. Conclusion: These results suggest outcomes differences based on race in the treatment of patients with MCRC. Additional studies are required to elucidate the cause for the observed variation. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Cabazitaxel Versus Docetaxel As First-Line Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Phase III Trial—FIRSTANA

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (28) ◽  
pp. 3189-3197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stéphane Oudard ◽  
Karim Fizazi ◽  
Lisa Sengeløv ◽  
Gedske Daugaard ◽  
Fred Saad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Castration Resistant

Purpose In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), overall survival (OS) is significantly improved with cabazitaxel versus mitoxantrone after prior docetaxel treatment. FIRSTANA ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01308567) assessed whether cabazitaxel 20 mg/m2 (C20) or 25 mg/m2 (C25) is superior to docetaxel 75 mg/m2 (D75) in terms of OS in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Patients and Methods Patients with mCRPC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2 were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive C20, C25, or D75 intravenously every 3 weeks plus daily prednisone. The primary end point was OS. Secondary end points included safety; progression-free survival (PFS); tumor, prostate-specific antigen, and pain response; pharmacokinetics; and health-related quality of life. Results Between May 2011 and April 2013, 1,168 patients were randomly assigned. Baseline characteristics were similar across cohorts. Median OS was 24.5 months with C20, 25.2 months with C25, and 24.3 months with D75. Hazard ratio for C20 versus D75 was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.20; P = .997), and hazard ratio for C25 versus D75 was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.16; P = .757). Median PFS was 4.4 months with C20, 5.1 months with C25, and 5.3 months with D75, with no significant differences between treatment arms. Radiographic tumor responses were numerically higher for C25 (41.6%) versus D75 (30.9%; nominal P = .037, without multiplicity test adjustment). Rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were 41.2%, 60.1%, and 46.0% for C20, C25, and D75, respectively. Febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, and hematuria were more frequent with C25; peripheral neuropathy, peripheral edema, alopecia, and nail disorders were more frequent with D75. Conclusion C20 and C25 did not demonstrate superiority for OS versus D75 in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Tumor response was numerically higher with C25 versus D75; pain PFS was numerically improved with D75 versus C25. Cabazitaxel and docetaxel demonstrated different toxicity profiles, with overall less toxicity with C20.

scholarly journals ASCEND: Phase III, Randomized Trial of Acalabrutinib Versus Idelalisib Plus Rituximab or Bendamustine Plus Rituximab in Relapsed or Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (25) ◽  
pp. 2849-2861 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Ghia ◽  
Andrzej Pluta ◽  
Malgorzata Wach ◽  
Daniel Lysak ◽  
Tomas Kozak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Serious Adverse Events

PURPOSE Acalabrutinib, a highly selective, potent, Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was evaluated in this global, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III study in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). METHODS Eligible patients, aged ≥ 18 years with R/R CLL, were randomly assigned 1:1 centrally and stratified by del(17p) status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score, and number of prior lines of therapy. Patients received acalabrutinib monotherapy or investigator’s choice (idelalisib plus rituximab [I-R] or bendamustine plus rituximab [B-R]). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by an independent review committee (IRC) in the intent-to-treat population. Key secondary end points included IRC-assessed overall response rate, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS From February 21, 2017, to January 17, 2018, a total of 398 patients were assessed for eligibility; 310 patients were randomly assigned to acalabrutinib monotherapy (n = 155) or investigator’s choice (n = 155; I-R, n = 119; B-R, n = 36). Patients had received a median of two prior therapies (range, 1-10). After a median follow-up of 16.1 months (range, 0.03-22.4 months), median PFS was significantly longer with acalabrutinib monotherapy (PFS not reached) compared with investigator’s choice (16.5 months [95% CI, 14.0 to 17.1 months]; hazard ratio, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.20 to 0.49]; P < .0001). Estimated 12-month PFS was 88% (95% CI, 81% to 92%) for acalabrutinib and 68% (95% CI, 59% to 75%) for investigator’s choice. Serious adverse events occurred in 29% of patients (n = 44 of 154) treated with acalabrutinib monotherapy, 56% (n = 66 of 118) with I-R, and 26% (n = 9 of 35) with B-R. Deaths occurred in 10% (n = 15 of 154), 11% (n = 13 of 118), and 14% (n = 5 of 35) of patients receiving acalabrutinib monotherapy, I-R, and B-R, respectively. CONCLUSION Acalabrutinib significantly improved PFS compared with I-R or B-R and has an acceptable safety profile in patients with R/R CLL.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document