Combined analysis of randomized controlled trial (RCT) and patient-preference trial (PPT) evaluating second-line chemotherapy (SLC) in advanced gastric cancer (AGC).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4064-4064 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soonil Lee ◽  
Jung Hun Kang ◽  
Do Hyoung Lim ◽  
Keon-Woo Park ◽  
Sung Yong Oh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Preference ◽  
Patient Population ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Participation Rate ◽  
Best Supportive Care ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Achievable Rate ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Prior Chemotherapy

4064 Background: While prolonged overall survival (OS) from SLC compared to best supportive care (BSC) has recently been demonstrated for AGC (Park et al, ASCO 2011), the prognosis of pretreated AGC remains poor. We assessed whether patient preference, willing to participate onto RCT, or other parameters contributed to this OS improvement. Methods: In the phase III trial, pretreated AGC patients (n=372) were first offered RCT. If a patient agreed to participate, randomly assigned 2:1 to SLC or BSC (n=202). If refused RCT, but agreed to receive treatment of their preference, they were offered SLC or BSC (PPT; n=170). OS of RCT participants was compared to that of whole patient population according to prognostic subgroups. In addition, analyses of OS unadjusted for multiple comparisons were conducted across predefined subgroups. Results: Median OS was 6.3 months among 254 patients treated with SLC and 3.3 months among 118 patients treated with BSC (HR, 0.507; 95% CI, 0.405 to 0.637; one-sided p<0.001). Compared to the RCT patients, younger age group, those with an ECOG performance status (PS) of 0, and with one prior chemotherapy were under-represented in the PPT patients. OS was comparable between RCT (5.0 months) and PPT (4.4 months) patients even after controlling for major prognostic factors (log-rank p=0.322). The OS benefit for SLC was preserved when analyzed according to baseline parameters. Parameters that were associated significantly with a prolonged OS included a PS of 0, the chemotherapy-free interval ≥3 months, and one prior chemotherapy. When the analysis was adjusted for these three parameters, patients who received SLC still had improved OS (HR, 0.554; 95% CI, 0.441 to 0.696; p<0.001). Conclusions: The 54% participation rate obtained in the current study represents the best achievable rate for this kind of phase III RCT involving BSC only arm. Even if we consider differences in the baseline characteristics between RCT and PPT patients, it is concluded that the RCT results can be generalized for the patient population and provided additional evidence supporting the use of SLC in patients with pretreated AGC.

scholarly journals TROG 18.01 phase III randomised clinical trial of the Novel Integration of New prostate radiation schedules with adJuvant Androgen deprivation: NINJA study protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e030731 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jarad Martin ◽  
Paul Keall ◽  
Shankar Siva ◽  
Peter Greer ◽  
David Christie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Androgen Deprivation ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Initial Portion ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionStereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is a non-invasive alternative to surgery for the treatment of non-metastatic prostate cancer (PC). The objectives of the Novel Integration ofNew prostate radiation schedules with adJuvant Androgen deprivation (NINJA) clinical trial are to compare two emerging SBRT regimens for efficacy with technical substudies focussing on MRI only planning and the use of knowledge-based planning (KBP) to assess radiotherapy plan quality.Methods and analysisEligible patients must have biopsy-proven unfavourable intermediate or favourable high-risk PC, have an Eastern Collaborative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-1 and provide written informed consent. All patients will receive 6 months in total of androgen deprivation therapy. Patients will be randomised to one of two SBRT regimens. The first will be 40 Gy in five fractions given on alternating days (SBRT monotherapy). The second will be 20 Gy in two fractions given 1 week apart followed 2 weeks later by 36 Gy in 12 fractions given five times per week (virtual high-dose rate boost (HDRB)). The primary efficacy outcome will be biochemical clinical control at 5 years. Secondary endpoints for the initial portion of NINJA look at the transition of centres towards MRI only planning and the impact of KBP on real-time (RT) plan assessment. The first 150 men will demonstrate accrual feasibility as well as addressing the KBP and MRI planning aims, prior to proceeding with total accrual to 472 patients as a phase III randomised controlled trial.Ethics and disseminationNINJA is a multicentre cooperative clinical trial comparing two SBRT regimens for men with PC. It builds on promising results from several single-armed studies, and explores radiation dose escalation in the Virtual HDRB arm. The initial component includes novel technical elements, and will form an important platform set for a definitive phase III study.Trial registration numberANZCTN 12615000223538.

Randomized phase III trial of regorafenib in patients (pts) with metastatic and/or unresectable gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) progressing despite prior treatment with at least imatinib (IM) and sunitinib (SU): GRID trial.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA10008-LBA10008 ◽  
Author(s):  
George D. Demetri ◽  
Peter Reichardt ◽  
Yoon-Koo Kang ◽  
Jean-Yves Blay ◽  
Heikki Joensuu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Multikinase Inhibitor

LBA10008 Background: Oral multikinase inhibitor regorafenib (REG) demonstrated substantial activity in a phase II trial in pts with GIST after failure of both IM and SU (J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29:606s; abstr 10007). This phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of REG for this unmet clinical need. Methods: Eligible pts had metastatic and/or unresectable GIST, objective failure of both prior IM and SU (progressive disease [PD] on, or intolerance to, IM and PD on SU), ≥1 measurable lesion, ECOG performance status 0 or 1. Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive best supportive care plus either REG 160 mg po once daily (3 wks on/1 wk off) or placebo (PL). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) (modified RECIST 1.1, independent central review). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR, defined as rate of partial response [PR] plus stable disease [SD] lasting for ≥12 wks), response rate and duration, safety and correlative genotype analyses. At time of PD, pts were eligible for unblinding and crossover to open-label REG. Results: Between Jan and Aug of 2011, 234 pts were screened; 199 were randomized (REG: 133, PL: 66). Pts were stratified at randomization according to number of prior systemic therapies and geographical region. Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two arms. The primary endpoint was met: median PFS was 4.8 months for REG vs. 0.9 months for PL. Hazard ratio for PFS was 0.27 (95% CI, 0.18-0.39), p<0.0001. PFS rates at 3 and 6 months were 60% and 38% for REG vs. 11% and 0% for PL. DCR was 53% (REG) vs. 9% (PL).The HR for OS was 0.77 (p=0.20) with 85% PL pts having crossed over to REG. The most common > grade 3 treatment-emergent AEs in the REG arm during double-blind study were hypertension (28%), hand-foot skin reaction (21%), and diarrhea (8%). Conclusions: This randomized trial demonstrated that REG significantly improved PFS and DCR in pts with advanced GIST after failure of at least prior IM and SU. REG was well tolerated, with AEs as expected for this class and manageable with dose modifications.

Efficacy and safety of gemcitabine in combination with TH-302 compared with gemcitabine in combination with placebo in previously untreated patients with metastatic or locally advanced unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: The MAESTRO trial.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS4148-TPS4148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Van Cutsem ◽  
Robert J. Fram ◽  
Michael Schlichting ◽  
David P. Ryan
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Predictive Biomarkers ◽  
Treatment Discontinuation ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Double Blind

TPS4148 Background: Tumors often consist of highly hypoxic subregions that are resistant to chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The investigational hypoxia-targeted drug TH-302 is reduced at its nitroimidazole group, and under hypoxic conditions releases the DNA alkylator bromo-isophosphoramide mustard (Br-IPM). A randomized Phase IIb trial of TH-302 in pts with metastatic or locally advanced unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) confirmed a significant PFS improvement (p=0.008) in pts treated with TH-302 at 340 mg/m2+ gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone (Borad et al, ESMO 2012). Skin and mucosal toxicities, mainly Grade 1/2, and myelosuppression (thrombocytopenia, neutropenia and anemia) were the most common AEs related to TH-302 and did not lead to increases in treatment discontinuation. Grade 3/4 myelosuppression was more frequent in the TH-302 + gemcitabine arm. AEs leading to treatment discontinuation as well as non-hematological serious AEs were balanced across arms. Methods: This is a Phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (NCT01746979) of gemcitabine + TH-302 compared with gemcitabine + placebo in pts with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic PDAC. The study is designed to detect a 25% risk reduction of death with 90% power and two-sided alpha of 5%. A total of 660 pts are planned to be randomized 1:1. Key eligibility criteria include histologically or cytologically confirmed disease, no prior chemotherapy or systemic therapy (except as specified in the protocol), ECOG performance status 0 – 1, and bilirubin ≤ 1.5x upper limit of normal. Randomized pts receive TH-302 + gemcitabine or gemcitabine + placebo in 4-week cycles until progressive disease, intolerable toxicity, or pt withdrawal. The primary objective is to evaluate OS. Secondary objectives include PFS, objective response, and disease control; safety and tolerability; pt-reported QoL and pain; CA 19-9 levels and PK of TH-302; exploratory pharmacogenomic markers and potential predictive biomarkers. Enrollment to the study is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT01746979.

A multicenter phase III randomized double-blind placebo controlled trial of pravastatin added to first-line standard chemotherapy in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7595-7595 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Seckl ◽  
Christian Ottensmeier ◽  
Michael H. Cullen ◽  
Peter Schmid ◽  
Lindsay E. James ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Dose Intensity ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cell Types ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Standard Chemotherapy ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
The Uk

7595 Background: Most SCLC patients initially respond to chemotherapy but then relapse and die so new therapies are urgently required. Pre-clinical data shows statins induce growth arrest and apoptosis in SCLC and several other tumour cell types and are additive with chemotherapy. This may in part be due to impaired Ras superfamily function as statins deplete mevalonate, reducing geranylgeranylation and farnesylation of these proteins. We therefore undertook this large pragmatic phase III trial in order to determine if overall survival (OS) was affected by the addition of pravastatin in SCLC. Methods: Patients with limited (LD) or extensive (ED) stage SCLC were randomised to pravastatin 40mg OD or placebo for up to 2 years and given standard chemotherapy according to local practice recommended as either cisplatin 60mg/m2 iv or carboplatin AUC 5 or 6 and etoposide 120 mg/m2iv d1 to 3 or 100 mg BD po d2 & 3; max 6 cycles plus radiotherapy as usually given. Patients were excluded if they had used statins within 12 months prior to randomisation. Stratification was: LD vs ED and ECOG 0,1 vs 2,3. Endpoints were: primary - OS; secondary - progression free survival (PFS), local PFS (local control), response rates (RR) and toxicity. Results: Between 2007 and 2012, 846 patients were randomised, 422 (49.9.%) received pravastatin and 424 (50.1%) placebo in 93 participating sites in the UK. The median age was 64 years (range 54-69); ECOG performance status: 0: 23%; 1: 54%; 2: 17% and 3: 6%; weight 72.6 kg; LD, 357 (42.2%); ED, 479 (56.6%); 211 (24.9%) had ipsilateral effusion and 201 (23.8%) had ipsilateral SCF lymph nodes; Relative Dose intensity of cisplatin/carboplatin and etoposide was 91.6% (range 80.8 to 99.7), and 94.7% (range 85.7 to 100); 83.4% vs 86.3% completed > 4 cycles of chemotherapy on the pravastatin and placebo arms respectively. Most patients completed 6 cycles of chemotherapy: 263 (62.3%) vs 265 (62.5%) in the pravastatin vs. placebo groups. Updated results showing OS, PFS, local PFS and toxicity will be presented. Conclusions: This trial will report on whether pravastatin 40 mg OD added to standard therapy alters the outcome for SCLC patients. Clinical trial information: ISRCTN56306957.

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.

Randomized cross-over study of patient preference for oral or intravenous vinorelbine in the treatment of advanced NSCLC: A phase IV study.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20676-e20676
Author(s):  
Claudio Dazzi ◽  
Alessandro Gamboni ◽  
Angelo Delmonte ◽  
Francesco Rosetti ◽  
Alberto Verlicchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Preference ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Best Supportive Care ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Oral Vinorelbine ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
To Receive

e20676 Background: Elderly and patients with ECOG PS ≥ 2 often present with medical and physiological characteristics that make the selection of their treatment more challenging. Single-agent vinorelbine improves survival and quality of life compared with best supportive care. At constant effectiveness between two treatments formulations patient preference must be taken into account. Methods: Stage IIIB or IV NSCLC patients candidates to receive a first line chemotherapy with Vinorelbine alone due to age ≥ 70 and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance status ≤2 or age ≤ 70 but ECOG PS ≥ 2, could enter the study. Patients were randomized to receive: • Arm A: first cycle of IV vinorelbine (30 mg/m2) and second cycle of oral vinorelbine (60mg/m2) • Arm B: first cycle of oral vinorelbine followed by a second cycle of IV vinorelbine. In both arms vinorelbine was administered at day 1 and day 8 every 3 weeks. From the third cycle onwards patients had to choose to continue with oral or intravenous vinorelbine. The dosage of oral vinorelbine could be subsequently increased to 80 mg/m2 at physician’s choice. Treatment continued until disease progression, intolerable toxicity or patient refusal. The primary objective of the study was the patient preference for oral or intravenous vinorelbine. Results: Ninety-three patients entered the study and were randomized. Sixty-two were able to complete the first two cycles and to express a preference (32 in Arm A and 30 in Arm B). Forty-five out of 62 were males and 17 females. Median age was 80 (72-89). Nineteen patients had an ECOG PS of 0, 39 a PS of 1 and 4 a PS of 2 (30.7%, 62.9% and 6.4% respectively). Eighteen patients (29%) decided to continue with IV vinorelbine while 44 patients (71%) expressed a preference for oral vinorelbine p = 0.001 (Gart's test). Regarding secondary enpoints, median OS was 5.7 (4.7-7.7) and 5.5 (3.8-9.1) months and median PFS was 3.5 (2.4-4.4) and 3.5 (3.5-5.0) for arm A and arm B respectively. Conclusions: The study has clearly demonstrated that elderly or frail patients with NSCLC prefer to receive an oral rather than an intravenous chemotherapy. The reasons for the choice were expressed in a questionnaire still in evaluation. Clinical trial information: nct01848613.

Update results from ALTER-C-001: Efficacy and safety of anlotinib plus XELOX regimen as first-line treatment followed by maintenance monotherapy of anlotinib for patients with mCRC-A single-arm, multicenter, phase Ⅱ clinical trial.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15550-e15550
Author(s):  
Jin Yan ◽  
Yunwei Han ◽  
Li Zhang ◽  
Yongdong Jin ◽  
Hao Sun
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Multicenter Phase ◽  
First Line Treatment

e15550 Background: The combination of anti-VEGF or anti-EGFR targeted drugs with chemotherapy is the standard first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), and the followed maintenance treatment is an optional approach to balance the efficacy and toxicity. However, studies regarding the maintenance strategies based on antiangiogenic TKIs are limited currently. Anlotinib, a novel oral multi-target TKI which can inhibit both tumor angiogenesis and tumor cell proliferation simultaneously, substantially prolonged the PFS with manageable toxicity for refractory mCRC in the phase III ALTER0703 clinical trial. Here we report an update on the effectiveness and safety of anlotinib plus XELOX as first-line treatment followed by anlotinib monotherapy for mCRC. Methods: In this open label, single-arm, multicenter phase II clinical trial, 53 mCRC patients without prior systemic treated, aged 18-75 and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 were planned to recruit. Eligible patients received capecitabine (1000 mg/m2, po, d1-14, q3w) and oxaliplatin (130 mg/m2, iv, d1, q3w) plus anlotinib (10mg, po, d1̃14, q3w) treatment for 6 cycles. After 6 cycles of inducing therapy, patients would receive anlotinib (12mg, po, d1̃14, q3w) as maintenance therapy until disease progression or intolerable adverse events (AEs). The primary endpoint was PFS; Secondary endpoints included ORR, DCR, DOR and safety. Results: By the data analysis cutoff date of January 22, 2021, a total of 18 patients were enrolled, of which 12 patients were available for efficacy assessment. In best overall response assessment, there were 50.0% PR (6/12), 33.3% SD (4/12) and 16.7% PD (2/12). The ORR was 50.0% (95% CI, 21.1-78.9%) and DCR was 83.3% (95% CI, 51.5-97.9%). The longest duration of treatment was 8.8 months and the response was still ongoing. The median PFS was not reached. The most common treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade (≥20%) were leukopenia, hypertension, neutropenia, diarrhea, fatigue, hypertriglyceridemia. Grade 3/4 TRAEs included hypertension (22.2%), hypertriglyceridemia (11.1%), lipase elevated (11.1%) and neutropenia (5.6%). No grade 5 AEs occurred. Conclusions: The update results suggested that anlotinib combined with XELOX as first line regimen followed by anlotinib monotherapy showed promising anti-tumor activity and manageable safety for patients with mCRC. And the conclusions needed to be confirmed in trials continued subsequently. Clinical trial information: ChiCTR1900028417.

DREAMseq (Doublet, Randomized Evaluation in Advanced Melanoma Sequencing): A phase III trial—ECOG-ACRIN EA6134.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (36_suppl) ◽  
pp. 356154-356154
Author(s):  
Michael B. Atkins ◽  
Sandra J. Lee ◽  
Bartosz Chmielowski ◽  
Antoni Ribas ◽  
Ahmad A. Tarhini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Initial Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Treatment Sequence ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Randomized Evaluation ◽  
Alternate Therapy ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Grade 3

356154 Background: Combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) blocking PD-1 and CTLA-4 or BRAF/MEK inhibitors have both shown significant antitumor efficacy and overall survival (OS) benefit in patients (pts) with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma (MM), leading to broad regulatory approval. Little prospective data exists to guide the choice of one over the other as initial therapy or the preferred treatment sequence in this population. The DREAMseq Trial was designed to compare the efficacy and toxicity of the sequence of nivolumab/ipilimumab (N/I) followed by dabrafenib/trametinib (D/T) to the converse sequence. Methods: Eligible pts with treatment-naive BRAFV600-mutant MM were stratified by ECOG Performance Status (PS) 0 or 1 and LDH level and randomized 1:1 to receive Step 1 with either N/I (Arm A) or D/T (Arm B) and at disease progression (PD) were enrolled in Step 2 receiving the alternate therapy, D/T (Arm C) or N/I (Arm D), respectively. Pts received N (1mg/kg)/I (3 mg/kg) q3 wks x 4 doses followed by N 240 IV q2 wks for up to 72 wks (Arms A and D) or D 150 mg po BID and T 2 mg po qD until PD (Arms B and C). In 2019, investigators were given the option to use alternate induction dosing of N (3mg/kg)/I (1 mg/kg) q3 wks x 4 doses for Arms A and D. Cycles were every 6 wks and imaging was obtained at baseline and q12 wks on each arm. Primary endpoint was 2-year OS. At the 4th Interim Analysis with 59% of pts being 2 yrs from enrollment, the DSMC and NCI CTEP recommended halting accrual and releasing the data. Results: Beginning 7/2015, 265 out of a proposed 300 pts were enrolled (133 Arm A and 132 Arm B). Median age was 61 (25-85) and 63% were male. Demographics for Arm A and B were balanced with 67% PS 0 and 60% with normal LDH. As of 7/16/21, at a median follow-up of 27.7 mos, 27 pts had switched to Arm C and 46 to Arm D. Overall Grade 3+ toxicity was 60% in Arm A and 52% in Arm B. Grade 5 treatment-related AEs included 2 on Arm A and 1 on Arm C. ORR to date is: Arm A 46% (52/113), Arm B 43% (49/114), Arm C 48% (11/23) and Arm D 30% (8/27). 37/42 assessed pts in Arm A and 19/37 in Arm B remain in response. Median DOR: Arm A- Not reached; Arm B-12.7 mos (95% CI: 8.2, -) (p <0.001). There were 100 deaths (Arm A to C- 38/Arm B to D- 62). 2-yr OS rate for those starting with Arm A was 72% (95% CI: 62-81%) and for Arm B 52% (95% CI: 42-62%) (log-rank p= 0.0095). PFS showed a trend in favor of Arm A (log-rank p=0.054). Both the PFS and OS curves show a biphasic pattern with Arm B being above Arm A until 6 and 10 mos, respectively. For the 115 pts with documented progression on Step 1 (Arm A-44/Arm B-71), 60 (52%) had registered for Step 2. The principal reason for not enrolling on Step 2 was death from PD within 6 mos (Arm A:15/23; Arm B: 25/32). Conclusions: For pts with advanced BRAFV600-mutant MM, the treatment sequence beginning with the CPI combination of N/I resulted in superior OS, which became evident at 10 mos, with longer Step 1 DOR and more ongoing responses than the treatment sequence beginning with D/T. Clinical trial information: NCT02224781.

TM1-1 Seizure prophylaxis in gliomas (SPRING): a phase III randomised controlled trial comparing prophylactic levetiracetam versus no prophylactic anti-epileptic drug in glioma surgery

2019 ◽  
Vol 90 (3) ◽  
pp. e8.2-e8
Author(s):  
MD Jenkinson ◽  
C Watts ◽  
AG Marson ◽  
R Hill ◽  
K Murray ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Glioma Surgery ◽  
Seizure Prophylaxis ◽  
Anti Epileptic Drug ◽  
Seizure Rate ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesThere is no consensus regarding the need for prophylactic anti-epileptic drug (AED) in seizure-naive newly-diagnosed glioma patients. Data regarding prophylactic AED use are scant and inconclusive from older, small studies that enrolled patients with brain metastases, benign tumours and gliomas. A definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to determine whether the policy of prophylactic AED therapy reduces the risk of first seizures in this population.DesignMulti-centre RCT.SubjectsInclusion criteria: i. seizure-naive, ii. supratentorial glioma suitable for surgery (biopsy/resection), iii. age ≥16 years; iv. Karnofsky performance status >60.MethodsPatients are randomised 1:1. Levetiracetam 500 mg bd for 2 weeks, increased to 750 mg bd thereafter for 1 year. Non-blinded. No placebo. Primary Outcome: one year risk of first seizure. Secondary outcomes: time to first seizure, time to first tonic-clonic seizure, mood, fatigue, quality of life, progression free survival, overall survival and incremental cost per QALY. Estimate of 1 year seizure rate in glioma after surgery is 20%. Based on a reduction in seizure rate to 10% a total of 806 patients will be recruited.ResultsGrant awarded by NIHR. Feasibility questionnaire demonstrated prophylactic AED rarely used. Neurosurgeons willing to randomise. 15 UK centres have expressed interest in participating.ConclusionsSPRING will establish class I evidence for the use of seizure prophylaxis in glioma surgery. The trial will open to recruitment in January 2019.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document