A phase III study comparing amrubicin and cisplatin (AP) with irinotecan and cisplatin (IP) for the treatment of extended-stage small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC): JCOG0509.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7003-7003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshikazu Kotani ◽  
Miyako Satouchi ◽  
Masahiko Ando ◽  
Kazuhiko Nakagawa ◽  
Nobuyuki Yamamoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Standard Treatment ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Severe Diarrhea ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
To Receive

7003 Background: IP is the standard treatment for ED-SCLC, however often cause severe diarrhea. AP have shown promising activity in SCLC with fewer diarrhea. We conducted a phase III trial comparing AP with IP. Methods: Eligibility criteria included patients (pts) with chemotherapy-naïve, ED-SCLC, aged 20 to 70, and ECOG PS 0-1. Pts were randomized to receive either IP or AP, balancing for site, sex, and PS. IP comprised administration of I (60 mg/m2) iv on days 1, 8, and 15, and P (60 mg/m2) iv on day1,every 4 weeks. AP comprised administration of A (40 mg/m2) iv on day 1-3, and P (60 mg/m2) iv on day1, every 3 weeks. The planned sample size was 141 pts in each arm with a one-sided alpha of 5% and power of 70% and a non-inferiority margin of hazard ratio (HR) as 1.31. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), and quality of life (QOL). We evaluated pts’ QOL twice: at the baseline and after completion of the second course. Results: 284 pts were randomized to IP (n=142) and AP (n=142). Median age was 63, 84% were male, and 56% had PS 0. When 191pts enrolled, more febrile neutropenia (FN) was observed in AP than anticipated, and the initial dose of A was decreased from 40 mg/m2 to 35 mg/m2. At the second interim analysis conducted after the completion of patient accrual, the median OS of AP (15.0 m) was much worse than that of IP (18.3 m) and the HR (1.41; 96.3% CI, 1.03-1.93) exceeds even the non-inferiority margin, so the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee recommended early publication of the results. Median PFS was 5.7 (IP) vs. 5.2 months (AP) (HR 1.43, 95% CI, 1.13-1.82). RR was 69.5% (IP) vs. 77.9% (AP) (p=0.14). AEs in IP and AP arm were Grade 4 neutropenia (22.5% vs. 78.6%), G3-4 FN (10.7% vs. 32.1%), and G3-4 diarrhea (7.1% vs.1.4%). Proportion of improvement in physical status of QOL was 37.1%(IP) vs. 31.7%(AP), (odds ratio 0.72; 95%CI, 0.43-1.22; P=0.227). Conclusions: AP showed more bone marrow suppression than expected although it caused less diarrhea. The non-inferiority of AP to IP was not demonstrated and IP remains the standard treatment for ED-SCLC.

Phase III randomized trial of definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with FOLFOX or cisplatin and fluorouracil in esophageal cancer (EC): Final results of the PRODIGE 5/ACCORD 17 trial.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA4003-LBA4003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thierry Conroy ◽  
Marie-Pierre Galais ◽  
Jean Luc Raoul ◽  
Olivier Bouche ◽  
Sophie Gourgou-Bourgade ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Squamous Cell ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Ecog Ps

LBA4003 Background: CRT is one of the best treatment options for localized EC. As new combinations are required to improve safety and survival, we launched a randomized phase II study to assess the complete response (CR) rate of CRT with FOLFOX versus 5FU/cisplatin in 97 pts with localized EC (Conroy 2010). The trial having met its objectives, it has been pursued as a phase III trial. Stratified randomization was performed centrally in a 1:1 ratio according to histological type, pretreatment weight loss in the prior 6 months (<10% vs ≥10%), ECOG PS (0 vs 1 vs 2), and center. Methods: Pts with technically unresectable cancer or those with surgical contraindications or who refused to undergo surgery were eligible. Eligibility criteria also included age >18 years (y), PS ≤ 2, previously untreated adenocarcinoma or squamous cell EC (any T, N0 or N1, M0 or M1a). The radiation dose was 50 Gy (2Gy/fr) 5 d/wk for 5 wks in both arms. In Arm A, pts received 6 bimonthly cycles (cy): oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 d1 and leucovorin 200 mg/m2 followed by 5-FU 400 mg/m2 bolus d1 then 1,600 mg/m2 46h continuous infusion (ci) ; the first 3 cy were delivered during RT, the 3 other after. In Arm B, pts received 4 cy: cisplatin 75 mg/m2 d1 followed by 5FU 1,000 mg/m2/d ci d1-4, the first 2 cy during RT and 2 other after. The primary endpoint was PFS. Main secondary endpoints were OS, grade 3-4 toxicities, and quality of life. A total of 266 pts would provide 90% power to detect a 20% 3y-PFS difference (α=0.05). Results: 267 pts were enrolled between 10/2004 and 08/2011. Treatment cohorts were well balanced: male 81%; median age 61 y; PS 0 53%, squamous cell 85.8%, stage III 52%, IVA 6.0% and IVB 3.0%. Full treatment was delivered to 67.9% and 72.2% of pts in arms A/B, respectively. 7 toxic deaths occurred in each arm. Grade 3/4 toxicities per pt (%) in arms A/B were neutropenia 30.6/31.3, febrile neutropenia 5.3/7.0, anemia 5.4/11.0, asthenia 17.6/10.2, respectively. The median FU time was 25.3 mos. 3y-PFS was 18.2/17.4 % (HR=1.07; 95%CI =0.80-1.43) and median OS was 20.2 /17.5 m (HR=1.06; 95%CI =0.77-1.46). Conclusions: CRT with FOLFOX does not improve PFS compared to cisplatin and 5-FU and has similar toxicities.

Phase III study of lapatinib (L) plus trastuzumab (T) and aromatase inhibitor (AI) vs T+AI vs L+AI in postmenopausal women (PMW) with HER2+, HR+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC): ALTERNATIVE.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1004-1004 ◽  
Author(s):  
William John Gradishar ◽  
Roberto Hegg ◽  
Seock-Ah Im ◽  
In Hae Park ◽  
Sergei Tjulandin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Clinical Trial Information

1004 Background: Combination ofHER2-targeted therapy+AI improved clinical benefit in patients (pts) with HER2+, HR+ MBC vs AI alone in two previous trials, median progression free survival (mPFS) 4.8 vs 2.4 mo (TAnDEM), and 8.2 vs 3.0 mo (EGF30008). Dual HER2 blockade enhances clinical benefit vs single HER2 blockade. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of dual vs single HER2 blockade (L+T vs T/L)+AI in HER2+, HR+ MBC progressing on (neo)adjuvant/first-line T+chemotherapy (CT). HER2 and HR status were assessed for eligibility at local lab. Methods: PMW were randomized 1:1:1 to receive T (8mg/kg followed by 6mg/kg IV Q3W)+L (1000mg/d)+AI or T+AI or L (1500mg/d)+AI. AI was per investigator’s choice. Pts were excluded if they were intended for CT. The primary endpoint was to assess superiority of PFS with L+T vs T. Secondary endpoints included PFS (L vs T), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and safety. Results: 369 pts were enrolled; current analysis included 355 pts (data cutoff, March 11, 2016); L+T (n = 120), T (n = 117) or L (n = 118). Final PFS data were analyzed after 137 events. Baseline characteristics were balanced across all treatment (tx) arms. The primary endpoint was met; superior PFS was observed with L+T vs T (mPFS, 11 vs 5.7 mo; HR = 0.62, 95% CI [0.45, 0.88], P= 0.0064). This benefit of L+T was consistent in key subgroups. mPFS with L vs T was 8.3 vs 5.7 mo (HR = 0.71, 95% CI [0.51, 0.98], P= 0.0361). ORR with L+T, T, and L was 32%, 14%, and 19% respectively. OS data are immature. Most common adverse events (AEs) with L+T, T and L (≥15%, any arm) were diarrhea (69%, 9%, 51%), rash (36%, 2%, 28%), nausea (22%, 9%, 22%), and paronychia (30%, 0, 15%). Hepatic abnormalities of > 3 ULN ALT/AST levels were noted in 4%, 6%, and 16% respectively. Incidence of tx-related SAEs was 5%, 2%, and 4% and on-tx deaths was 3%, 4%, and 5%, respectively. Conclusions: Dual HER2 blockade with L+T+AI showed superior PFS benefit vs T+AI, in pts with HER2+, HR+ MBC. Incidence of AEs was increased with L+T. This combination can potentially offer an effective CT-sparing tx option in subgroup of HER2+, HR+ pts without aggressive disease and who are not candidates for CT. Clinical trial information: 2010-019577-16.

IMmotion151: A Randomized Phase III Study of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab vs Sunitinib in Untreated Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma (mRCC)

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 578-578 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Motzer ◽  
Thomas Powles ◽  
Michael B. Atkins ◽  
Bernard Escudier ◽  
David F. McDermott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Intent To Treat ◽  
The Individual ◽  
To Receive

578 Background: Atezolizumab (atezo; anti–PD-L1) + bevacizumab (bev; anti-VEGF) showed first-line (1L) anti-tumor activity with a manageable safety profile in PD-L1+ mRCC pts in a Phase II study (McDermott ASCO-GU 2017). Here we describe the first randomized Phase III trial of a PD-L1/PD-1 pathway inhibitor combined with an anti-VEGF agent in 1L mRCC. Methods: IMmotion151 (NCT02420821) enrolled treatment-naïve pts regardless of prognostic risk group randomized 1:1 to receive atezo 1200 mg IV q3w + bev 15 mg/kg IV q3w or sunitinib (sun) 50 mg PO QD 4 wk on/2 wk off. Pts were stratified by PD-L1 status (< 1% vs ≥ 1% PD-L1 expression on tumor-infiltrating immune cells [IC]; SP142 IHC assay). Coprimary endpoints: progression-free survival (PFS; by investigator per RECIST v1.1) in PD-L1+ pts (≥ 1% IC) and overall survival (OS) in intent-to-treat (ITT) pts. Secondary endpoints included PFS in ITT pts, ORR and DOR. Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable between arms within PD-L1+ (40% of ITT) and ITT pts. Median survival follow-up was 15 mo. PFS HR for atezo + bev vs sun was 0.74 (95% CI 0.57, 0.96) in PD-L1+ pts and 0.83 (95% CI 0.70, 0.97) in ITT pts. OS was immature at first interim analysis. PFS benefit was consistent across analyzed subgroups, including MSKCC risk, liver metastases and sarcomatoid histology. In PD-L1+ pts, ORR was 43% and DOR was not reached for atezo + bev vs 35% and 12.9 mo for sun. 40% of atezo + bev–treated pts and 54% of sun-treated pts had treatment-related Gr 3-4 AEs; 12% and 8% of treatment-related all-Gr AEs led to discontinuation, respectively. Conclusions: The study showed longer PFS for atezo + bev vs sun in PD-L1+ pts. Improved PFS was also observed in ITT pts. Safety was consistent with that of the individual agents. These results support the use of atezo + bev as a 1L treatment option in mRCC. Clinical trial information: NCT02420821. [Table: see text]

Docetaxel (D) and estramustine (E) as first-line chemotherapy for patients (pts) with hormone-refractory advanced prostate cancer (HRPC): Final results of a multicentric phase II randomized trial

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 15552-15552 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. Caffo ◽  
T. Sava ◽  
E. Comploj ◽  
M. Giampaolo ◽  
F. Zustovich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Psa Response ◽  
Psa Progression ◽  
Hormone Refractory ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Ecog Ps

15552 Background: Preclinical data showed a synergism between E and D and several studies supported an advantage in associating E and D. Nevertheless, D is considered a standard treatment for HRPC pts and the role of D+E combination remains controversial. Purpose of this study was to evaluate the activity, in terms of PSA decline (PSA↓), the safety and quality of life (QoL) of D±E in HRPC pts. Methods: Eligibility criteria included: HRPC diagnosis, hormone-refractory advanced disease (PSA progression after at least two hormonal therapy), ECOG PS < 2, adequate renal, hepatic and hematological functions, no prior chemotherapy. Pts were randomized to D 70 mg/m2 IV d1 q3w (arm A) or D 70 mg/m2 IV d1 q3w + E 280 mg/TID PO starting 1 day prior to D, for 5 consecutive days (arm B). The treatments were planned until best PSA response achievement or PSA progression. Toxicity was recorded according to NCIC criteria. Qol was assessed by self-filled questionnaires during the treatment. Results: Between 04/2003 and 09/2005, 95 pts (median age 69 years, range 48–86, median PSA 80 ng/ml, range 5–2,166 and measurable disease in 45) were randomized to arm A (49) or arm B (46). In arm A, pts received 321 cycles (median 6, range 0–28) with only 13 (4 %) delays = 7 days. In arm B, pts received 338 cycles (median 7, range 0–20) with only 16 (4.7%) delays. Grade 3–4 hematological toxicities consisted of neutropenia, 4% in arm A and 6% in B. One pt in arm B had febrile neutropenia and grade 3 diarrhea. Grade 3–4 non-hematologic toxicities were vomiting (1 pt in both arms), stomatitis (1 pt in arm A and 2 pts in B) and diarrhoea (1 pt in arm B). Two cases of stroke were reported in arm A. No treatment related death was recorded. Responses, in terms of PSA↓ >50% were: 40% in arm A and 75%in arm B with PSA normalization in 5% and 32% respectively. After a median follow-up of 17 months, 65 patients are died (31 in Arm A and 34 in Arm B). Progression free survival (biochemical) was 20 weeks in arm A and 30 in B. Conclusions: D-based regimens are active in HRPC with a manageable toxicity profile. From this preliminary data, DE combination appears promising, in terms of activity and tolerability so, front-to-front formal comparison in a phase III trial can be recommended. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

METRIC phase III study: Efficacy of trametinib (T), a potent and selective MEK inhibitor (MEKi), in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), compared with chemotherapy (C) in patients (pts) with BRAFV600E/K mutant advanced or metastatic melanoma (MM).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA8509-LBA8509 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Robert ◽  
Keith T. Flaherty ◽  
Peter Hersey ◽  
Paul D. Nathan ◽  
Claus Garbe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Mek Inhibitor ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Brafv600e Mutation ◽  
Independent Review ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

LBA8509 Background: Dacarbazine (D) and paclitaxel (P) have been used to treat MM pts with limited effect. The MM treatment landscape has recently changed with the approval of vemurafenib and ipilimumab in 2011, but secondary malignancies or other toxicities are of concerns. T is a reversible, highly selective allosteric inhibitor of MEK1/2 activation and kinase activity. In a PhII trial (NCT01037127), pts with BRAFV600E mutation MM had median PFS of 5.3 mos. This PhIII trial (NCT01245062) was conducted in pts with BRAFV600E/K mutant advanced or MM. Methods: Pts were randomized 2:1 to T (2mg QD) or C (D or P). Pts were stratified by baseline LDH level and prior C; pts in the C arm were allowed to crossover to receive T after confirmation of PD. Primary endpoint was PFS in pts with BRAFV600E mutation-positive MM and no prior brain mets; secondary endpoints were OS, ORR and safety in primary and ITT. PFS and OS were compared using a stratified log-rank test. The study was designed with ≥99% power and one-sided α = 0.025 to detect 57% reduction in the risk of PD or death in pts treated with T vs C. Results: Between Dec 2010 and Jul 2011, 322 pts were randomized to T (n=214) or C (n=108); 273 pts were BRAFV600E mutation-positive with no prior brain mets. HR for primary population for PFS by investigator was 0.44 (95% CI 0.31–0.64; p<0.0001) in favor of T with a median PFS of 4.8 mo vs 1.4 mo with C. PFS benefit in favor of T was observed in ITT; this was confirmed by an independent review. The confirmed ORR was 24% with T and 7% with C. HR for interim OS was 0.53 (95% CI 0.30–0.94; p=0.0181), in favor of T in primary population. OS benefit was consistent in ITT pop despite 51 pts crossover from C to T. The most frequent AEs with T were skin rash, diarrhea, edema, hypertension, fatigue. Known MEKi class effects were observed, e.g. chorioretinopathy (<1%) and decreased ejection fraction (7%). Grade 3 AEs in T arm were hypertenstion (12%) and rash (7%). Conclusions: T is the first in class MEKi associated with a significant improvement of PFS and OS compared to C in pts with BRAFV600E/K mutant MM.

Nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) or NIVO plus chemotherapy (chemo) versus chemo as first-line (1L) treatment for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC): First results of the CheckMate 648 study.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA4001-LBA4001
Author(s):  
Ian Chau ◽  
Yuichiro Doki ◽  
Jaffer A. Ajani ◽  
Jianming Xu ◽  
Lucjan Wyrwicz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tumor Cell ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
First Results ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Previously Treated Patients

LBA4001 Background: NIVO demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) vs chemo in previously treated patients (pts) with ESCC (ATTRACTION-3). We report OS and progression-free survival (PFS) from CheckMate 648, the first global phase III study to evaluate both an immuno-oncology (I-O)/chemo combination and an I-O/I-O combination in advanced ESCC. Methods: Adults with previously untreated, unresectable advanced, recurrent or metastatic ESCC were enrolled regardless of tumor cell PD-L1 expression. Pts were randomized to NIVO (240 mg Q2W) + chemo (fluorouracil + cisplatin Q4W), NIVO (3 mg/kg Q2W) + IPI (1 mg/kg Q6W), or chemo alone. Primary endpoints for both comparisons were OS and PFS per blinded independent central review (BICR) in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1%. Hierarchically tested secondary endpoints included OS and PFS in all randomized pts. Results: 970 pts were randomized to NIVO + chemo, NIVO + IPI, and chemo arms (49% with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1%). With 13 months (mo) minimum follow-up, NIVO + chemo and NIVO + IPI led to statistically significant improvement in OS vs chemo in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1% and all randomized pts (Table). Statistically significant PFS benefit was also observed for NIVO + chemo vs chemo (HR 0.65 [98.5% CI 0.46–0.92]; P = 0.0023) in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1%. PFS in NIVO + IPI vs chemo in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1% did not meet the prespecified boundary for significance. The objective response rate (per BICR) was 53% (NIVO + chemo), 35% (NIVO + IPI), and 20% (chemo) in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1% and in all randomized pts was 47%, 28%, and 27%, respectively; longer median (95% CI) duration of response was observed vs chemo for pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1%: 8.4 (6.9–12.4), 11.8 (7.1–27.4), and 5.7 (4.4–8.7) mo and for all randomized pts: 8.2 (6.9–9.7), 11.1 (8.3–14.0), and 7.1 (5.7–8.2) mo, respectively. No new safety signals were identified (Table). Conclusions: NIVO plus chemo and NIVO plus IPI both demonstrated superior OS vs chemo, along with durable objective responses and acceptable safety, in pts with advanced ESCC, and each represents a potential new 1L treatment option. Clinical trial information: NCT03143153. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Final Results of the IELSG-19 Randomized Trial of Mucosa-Associated Lymphoid Tissue Lymphoma: Improved Event-Free and Progression-Free Survival With Rituximab Plus Chlorambucil Versus Either Chlorambucil or Rituximab Monotherapy

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (17) ◽  
pp. 1905-1912 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuele Zucca ◽  
Annarita Conconi ◽  
Giovanni Martinelli ◽  
Reda Bouabdallah ◽  
Alessandra Tucci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Lymphoid Tissue ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Final Sample ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
To Receive

Purpose There is no consensus on the optimal systemic treatment of patients with extranodal marginal zone lymphoma of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue. The IELSG-19 phase III study, to our knowledge, was the first such study to address the question of first-line treatment in a randomized trial. Patients and Methods Eligible patients were initially randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive either chlorambucil monotherapy (6 mg/m2/d orally on weeks 1 to 6, 9 to 10, 13 to 14, 17 to 18, and 21 to 22) or a combination of chlorambucil (same schedule as above) and rituximab (375 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 of weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 13, 17, and 21). After the planned enrollment of 252 patients, the protocol was amended to continue with a three-arm design (1:1:6 ratio), with a new arm that included rituximab alone (same schedule as the combination arm) and with a final sample size of 454 patients. The main end point was event-free survival (EFS). Analysis of chlorambucil versus the combination arm was performed and reported separately before any analysis of the third arm. Results At a median follow-up of 7.4 years, addition of rituximab to chlorambucil led to significantly better EFS (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.77). EFS at 5 years was 51% (95% CI, 42 to 60) with chlorambucil alone, 50% (95% CI, 42 to 59) with rituximab alone, and 68% (95% CI, 60 to 76) with the combination ( P = .0009). Progression-free survival was also significantly better with the combination ( P = .0119). Five-year overall survival was approximately 90% in each arm. All treatments were well tolerated. No unexpected toxicities were recorded. Conclusion Rituximab in combination with chlorambucil demonstrated superior efficacy in mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma; however, improvements in EFS and progression-free survival did not translate into longer overall survival.

Toxicity of epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (EC) vs. docetaxel (D) followed by EC in the adjuvant (adj) treatment of node positive breast cancer. A multicenter randomized phase III study (GOIM9902)

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 10526-10526
Author(s):  
M. Lopez ◽  
M. Brandi ◽  
P. Foggi ◽  
F. Giotta ◽  
N. Gebbia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cardiac Toxicity ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Cross Resistance ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Sequential Trials ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Hormonal Receptor Status ◽  
Normal Cardiac Function

10526 Background: Due to high activity of taxanes (T) and anthracyclines (A) in advanced breast cancer (BC) and to the lack of cross-resistance between them, several adjuvant (adj) trials have been performed to test the efficacy of combination or sequential schedules of T and A adjuvant. In most of the sequential trials A followed T. The sequence T->A was proven active in metastatic BC, but no data are available in the adj setting. This multicenter randomized phase III study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of the sequence T->A vs an A containing regimen Methods: Pts with pT1–3 pN1 M0 (UICC1997) BC, age 18–70, PS(ECOG) 0–1, normal cardiac function, adequate bone marrow, hepatic and renal function were eligible for the study. Pts were stratified according to institution, age (≤ 50 vs > 50), hormonal receptor status and number of involved nodes (≤ 3, 4–9, ≥ 10) and were randomized to receive either 4 cycles of EC (Epirubicin 120 mg/m2 + Cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 on day 1 q21) in arm A or 4 cycles of D (100 mg/m2 on day 1 q21) followed by 4 cycles of EC in arm B. Primary endpoint was DFS. Secondary endpoints OS and toxicity. Results: Between april 1999 and october 2005, 750 pts were enrolled (374 in arm A and 376 in arm B) in 25 Italian institutions. Pts characteristics are as follows: Arm A: age ≤ 50 yrs 185/374; ≤ 3 nodes 182/374, 4–9 nodes 129/374, ≥ 10 nodes 63/374; positive HR 287/374 Arm B: age ≤ 50 yrs 197/376; ≤ 3 nodes 184/376, 4–9 nodes 131/376, ≥ 10 nodes 61/376; positive HR 289/376 Toxicity data (Arm A vs Arm B) of the first 495(241/254) pts are the following: Neutropenia G3 (29% vs 21.3%), neutropenia G4 (32.7% vs 48.8%), febrile neutropenia G3–4 (3.7% vs 9.5%), thrombocytopenia G3–4 (3.3% vs 1.6%), anemia G3 (0% vs 2.4%), N/V G3–4 (6.2% vs 3.1%), mucositis G3–4 (3.7% vs 3.9%), diarrhea G3–4 (0.4% vs 2.8%), peripheral neuropathy G1–3 (0% vs 9.9%), hypersensitivity reactions G3–4 (0% vs 4.3%), cardiac toxicity G3 (0.4% vs 0%) Conclusions: Treatment was generally well tollerated in both arms with a higher incidence of neutropenia, usually short lasting, in arm B. The use of prophylactic G-CSF in those patients experiencing neutropenia G3–4 may be advisable. There were no significant differences in cardiac toxicity. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Preliminary results of G versus GViElC: A phase III trial of gemcitabine associated to vindesine or gemcitabine alone in elderly or poor performance patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 17083-17083
Author(s):  
A. Santo ◽  
G. Genestreti ◽  
A. Terzi ◽  
P. Azzoni ◽  
O. Caffo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Standard Treatment ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Stage Iiib ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
To Receive

17083 Background: Monochemotherapy with gemcitabine (GEM) or vinorelbine is considered the standard treatment in elderly or poor performance (PS) patients (pts) with advanced NSCLC. Many topics report a synergic enhancement of antitumor effect of GEM if associated to Vindesine (VDS). The aim of this study is to evaluate if GEM combined to VDS produces an advantage in terms of overall survival (OS) compared to GEM alone without enhancement of toxicity. Methods: Chemonaive pts with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC, aged ≥ 70 years with PS < 2 or aged < 70 years with PS > 2 were enrolled. Pts were randomized to receive either GEM 1200 mg/m2 day 1 and 8 every 21 days for three cycles (arm 1) or GEM 1000 mg/m2 and VDS 3 mg/m2 (max dose 5 mg) both drugs infused on day 1 and 8 every 21 days for three cycles (arm 2). Pts of both arms received other three cycles in case of responsive or stable disease. Overall survival (OS) was the primary end-point, secondary end-points were time-to-progression and toxicity. First interim analysis was planned at 120 pts enrolled. Results: From May 2002 to December 2005, 107 pts from 13 Italian institutions were enrolled. Their characteristics are: 24 stage IIIB and 83 stage IV, 79 pts with ≥ 70 years (ECOG PS 0–1) and 28 pts with < 70 years (ECOG PS > 2). In arm 1 there were enrolled 55 pts while 52 pts in arm 2: both arms were well balanced with pts characteristics. Conclusions: The enrollment of this phase III trial is ongoing: we are achieving first step for an interim analysis to assess if GEM associated to VDS produces an advantage in terms of OS compared to standard treatment as GEM in monochemotherapy without toxicity enhancement. (Supported by GIVOP: Gruppo Interdisciplinare Veronese di Oncologia Polmonare). No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document