Updated overall survival (OS) results for BRIM-3, a phase III randomized, open-label, multicenter trial comparing BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib (vem) with dacarbazine (DTIC) in previously untreated patients with BRAFV600E-mutated melanoma.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8502-8502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul B. Chapman ◽  
Axel Hauschild ◽  
Caroline Robert ◽  
James M. G. Larkin ◽  
John B. A. G. Haanen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Braf Inhibitor ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Multicenter Trial ◽  
Data Safety Monitoring Board ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Response Data ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Unresectable Stage

8502^ Background: We previously reported results of the planned OS interim analysis for BRIM-3 (50% of the planned 196 deaths required for final analysis) at which time the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board recommended release of results due to compelling efficacy (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.37 [95% CI 0.26–0.55]); p<0.0001 and PFS HR 0.26 [95% CI 0.20–0.33]; p<0.0001) and that DTIC-treated patients be permitted to cross over to receive vem. Median follow-up for vem patients was 3.75 months, and longer follow-up would estimate median OS more reliably. Updated OS with median 6.2 months follow-up and 199 total deaths showed HR for death 0.44 (95% CI 0.33–0.59) favoring vem and median OS for vem not reached. We report here the results of an updated OS analysis performed in Nov 2011 with ~10 months median follow-up on vem. Methods: 675 patients with previously untreated, unresectable Stage IIIC or IV melanoma that tested positive for BRAFV600E mutation by the cobas 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test were randomized (1:1) from Jan to Dec 2010 to vem (960 mg po bid) or DTIC (1000 mg/m2 IV q3w). Co-primary endpoints were OS and PFS. OS data for DTIC patients who crossed over to vem were censored at the time of crossover. Results: Median lengths of follow-up on vem and DTIC were 10.5 months (range 0.4–18.1) and 8.4 months (range <0.1–18.3), respectively. There were 334 deaths. Median OS rates with vem and DTIC were 13.2 months (95% CI 12.0–15.0) and 9.6 months (95% CI 7.9–11.8), respectively. 12-month OS rates were 55% for vem and 43% for DTIC. HR for death was 0.62 (95% CI 0.49–0.77) in favor of vem. 81 DTIC patients crossed over to vem. 44 (13%) vem and 65 (19%) DTIC patients received ipilimumab post-progression. Conclusions: With longer follow-up, vem treatment continues to be associated with improved OS in the BRIM-3 study. An updated analysis, with estimated median follow-up of ~13 months and including response data, will be conducted in Apr 2012 and presented at the meeting.

Phase III randomized, open-label, multicenter trial (BRIM3) comparing BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib with dacarbazine (DTIC) in patients with V600EBRAF-mutated melanoma.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA4-LBA4 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. B. Chapman ◽  
A. Hauschild ◽  
C. Robert ◽  
J. M. G. Larkin ◽  
J. B. A. G. Haanen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Braf Mutation ◽  
Braf Inhibitor ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Response Duration ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Multicenter Trial ◽  
Geographic Region ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label

LBA4 Background: About 50% of melanomas have an activating V600EBRAF mutation which led to the hypothesis that inhibition of the mutated BRAF kinase may be of clinical benefit. Phase I and II trials with vemurafenib (previously PLX4032/RO5185426), an orally available inhibitor of oncogenic BRAF kinase, showed response rates (RR; CR+PR) >50% in V600EBRAF- mutated melanoma patients (pts). We conducted a phase III trial to determine if vemurafenib improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in melanoma pts with V600EBRAF mutation. Methods: Pts with previously untreated, unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma that tested positive for V600EBRAF mutation by the cobas 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test were randomized (1:1) to vemurafenib (960 mg po bid) or DTIC (1,000 mg/m2, IV, q3w). Randomization was stratified by PS, stage, LDH, and geographic region. Pts were assessed for tumor responses after weeks 6, 12, and then q9 weeks. Co-primary endpoints were OS and PFS on the intent-to-treat population; secondary endpoints included RR, response duration, and safety. Final analysis was planned at 196 deaths. Results: 675 pts were enrolled at 103 centers worldwide between Jan and Dec 2010. Treatment cohorts were well-balanced. At the pre-planned interim analysis (50% of deaths needed for final analysis), the hazard ratios for OS and PFS were 0.37 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.55; p<0.0001) and 0.26 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.33; p<0.0001), respectively, both in favor of vemurafenib. The confirmed RR was 48.4% and 5.5% to vemurafenib and DTIC, respectively, among the 65% of pts evaluable for RR to date. Benefit in OS, PFS, and RR was seen in all subgroups examined. Due to these data, the DTIC cohort has been allowed to cross over to vemurafenib. At the time of data analysis, 66% of vemurafenib pts and 25% DTIC pts were still on treatment. The most common toxicities of vemurafenib were: diarrhea, rash, alopecia, photosensitivity, fatigue, arthralgia, and keratoacanthoma/skin squamous cell carcinoma. Conclusions: Vemurafenib is associated with significantly improved OS and PFS compared to DTIC in pts with previously untreated, V600EBRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma.

Phase III randomized, open-label, multicenter trial (BRIM3) comparing BRAF inhibitor RG7204 with dacarbazine in patients with V600E BRAF-mutated melanomas.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA4-LBA4 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. B. Chapman ◽  
A. Hauschild ◽  
C. Robert ◽  
J. M. G. Larkin ◽  
J. B. A. G. Haanen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Braf Inhibitor ◽  
Multicenter Trial ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label

Efficacy of oxaliplatin plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (FOLFOX4) versus doxorubicin in advanced HCC: Updates on the EACH study.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 160-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Thongprasert ◽  
S. Qin ◽  
H. Lim ◽  
V. Bhudhisawasdi ◽  
X. Yin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Advanced Hcc

160 Background: In Asia, where hepatitis B is very common, patients often present with locally advanced or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and their prognosis is poor. The EACH study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FOLFOX4 vs. doxorubicin as palliative systemic chemotherapy in advanced HCC. Methods: The open-label, randomized, multicenter phase III study was conducted in 371 patients in China, Taiwan, Korea and Thailand, who had locally advanced or metastatic HCC and were ineligible for resection. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 i.v. d1; LV 200 mg/m2 i.v. h0–h2 d1 and d2; 5FU 400 mg/m2 i.v. bolus h2, then 600 mg/m2 over 22 hours d1 and d2 q2w) or doxorubicin (50 mg/m2 i.v. q3w). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR) by RECIST and safety. Data from final and follow-up analyses of the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and selected subgroup analyses are presented. Results: At the final analysis, median OS with FOLFOX4 (N = 184) was 6.40 months (95% CI: 5.30, 7.03) vs. 4.97 months (95% CI: 4.23, 6.03) with doxorubicin [N = 187; p = 0.0695 using a stratified log-rank test; statistical significance (p = 0.0425) was achieved at the post hoc follow-up analysis conducted 7 months later]. Median PFS with FOLFOX4 was 2.93 months (95% CI: 2.43, 3.53) vs. 1.77 months with doxorubicin (95% CI: 1.63, 2.30; p = 0.0002). The RR was 8.2% vs. 2.7% of patients with FOLFOX4 and doxorubicin, respectively (p = 0.0233), and the disease control rate (DCR) was 52.2% vs. 31.6% (p < 0.0001). In the Chinese sub-population, OS, PFS, RR and DCR were significantly improved with FOLFOX4 vs. doxorubicin at both the final and follow-up analyses. In the other subgroups analyzed, the OS and PFS benefits of FOLFOX4 vs. doxorubicin were generally consistent. Conclusions: In the ITT population, median OS was greater with FOLFOX4 than doxorubicin throughout the study and statistical significance was achieved after continued follow-up. FOLFOX4 can benefit patients with advanced HCC, as it significantly increases median OS, PFS, RR and DCR compared with doxorubicin. [Table: see text]

Phase III, randomized, open-label, multicenter trial (BREAK-3) comparing the BRAF kinase inhibitor dabrafenib (GSK2118436) with dacarbazine (DTIC) in patients with BRAFV600E-mutated melanoma.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA8500-LBA8500 ◽  
Author(s):  
Axel Hauschild ◽  
Jean Jacques Grob ◽  
Lev V. Demidov ◽  
Thomas Jouary ◽  
Ralf Gutzmer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Safety Profile ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Braf Inhibitor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Multicenter Trial ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Independent Review

LBA8500^ Background: Dabrafenib, a selective BRAF inhibitor, has shown activity with a manageable safety profile in phase I/II studies in patients (pts) with BRAFV600E-mutated metastatic melanoma (MM). This phase III trial (NCT01227889) compared progression-free survival (PFS) in pts with advanced MM treated either with dabrafenib or dacarbazine (DTIC). Methods: Pts with previously untreated, unresectable stage III or IV BRAFV600E-mutated melanoma were randomized (3:1) and stratified by stage to dabrafenib (150 mg po bid) or DTIC (1000 mg/m2, IV, q3w). Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS. Primary analysis for PFS was planned after 102 events. Pts on the DTIC arm were allowed to cross over once progression was confirmed by independent review (IR). Secondary endpoints included PFS by IR, overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), duration of response, safety and pharmacokinetics. Results: 250 pts were enrolled at 93 centers globally from February to September 2011. 187 were randomized to dabrafenib and 63 to DTIC. 141pts were on study treatment at the data cut-off at December 19, 2011 (dabrafenib n = 127; DTIC n = 14), including 21/28 DTIC pts crossed over to dabrafenib. Median age was 52 years, 31% of pts were ECOG >1, 66% M1c, 33% LDH > ULN. Demographics were well balanced between the two arms. At the time of the primary analysis, there were 118 events (77 dabrafenib and 41 DTIC). The hazard ratio for PFS was 0.30 (95% CI: 0.18–0.53; p < 0.0001). Median PFS was 5.1 months for dabrafenib and 2.7 for DTIC. OS data were immature, with 30 deaths reported. Confirmed RR was 53% for dabrafenib and 19% for DTIC. Benefits in PFS and RR were observed in all subgroups evaluated. Common adverse events (AEs) on the dabrafenib arm were hyperkeratosis (37%), headache (32%), pyrexia (28%), arthralgia (27%), skin papillomas (24%). Serious AEs (> 1%) on the dabrafenib arm included pyrexia (4%), squamous cell carcinomas (6%), and new primary melanomas (2%). Conclusions: Dabrafenib demonstrated a significant improvement in PFS and ORR over DTIC with an acceptable safety profile.

Final analysis of the PROMISE-GIM6 phase III trial assessing GnRH agonist use during chemotherapy as a strategy to preserve ovarian function in premenopausal patients with early breast cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 516-516
Author(s):  
Matteo Lambertini ◽  
Luca Boni ◽  
Andrea Michelotti ◽  
Emanuela Magnolfi ◽  
Alessio Aligi Cogoni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Hormone Receptor ◽  
Ovarian Function ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Post Treatment ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive ◽  
Premenopausal Patients

516 Background: Current guidelines recommend GnRH agonist (GnRHa) use during chemotherapy (CT) as a strategy to reduce the risk of premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) in premenopausal patients with early breast cancer (EBC). However, no long-term safety data are available raising some concerns on concurrent use of GnRHa during CT in patients with hormone receptor-positive disease. In addition, there is no evidence on the protective role of this strategy in patients with germline BRCA mutations ( mBRCA). Here, we report the final analysis of the PROMISE-GIM6 phase III randomized study, the largest trial addressing the role of GnRHa use during CT in premenopausal EBC patients (Del Mastro et al, JAMA 2011 & Lambertini et al, JAMA 2015). Methods: From October 2003 to January 2008, 281 premenopausal patients aged 18 to 45 years with stage I-III EBC candidates for (neo)adjuvant CT were randomized to receive CT alone or combined with the GnRHa triptorelin. Primary endpoint was incidence of CT-induced POI (defined as amenorrhea and post-menopausal FSH/estradiol levels 1 year following CT). This final analysis reports on post-treatment pregnancies, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). An exploratory descriptive analysis in mBRCA patients is also reported. (ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT00311636) Results: Of the 281 randomized patients (CT+GnRHa arm = 148; CT alone arm = 133), 80% had hormone receptor-positive disease. At the time of this final analysis, 38 (13.5%) patients were lost to follow-up. Median follow-up was 12.4 years (IQR: 11.3-13.2 years). In the CT+GnRHa and CT alone arms, respectively, 9 (10-year cumulative incidence of pregnancy 6.5%, 95% CI 3.5%-12.3%) and 4 (10-year cumulative incidence of pregnancy 3.2%, 95% CI 1.2%-8.3%) patients had a post-treatment pregnancy (HR 2.14, 95% CI 0.66-6.92). No differences in 10-year DFS (72.4% in CT+GnRHa arm vs. 71.2% in CT alone arm: HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.76-1.77) nor in 10-year OS (82.0% in CT+GnRHa arm vs. 85.9% in CT alone arm: HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.67-2.03) were observed. There was no interaction between treatment effect and hormone receptor status. In patients with hormone receptor-positive disease, HR was 1.02 (95% CI 0.63-1.63) for DFS and 1.12 (95% CI 0.59-2.11) for OS. Out of 43 patients tested for BRCA, overall incidence of POI, irrespective of treatment arm, was 20% in mBRCA patients (n = 10) and 12% in patients without mBRCA (n = 33). In mBRCA patients, incidence of POI was 0% and 33% in the CT+GnRHa and CT alone arms, respectively. One post-treatment pregnancy was described in a patient with mBRCA1 in the CT alone arm. Conclusions: The final analysis of the PROMISE-GIM6 trial at a median follow-up of 12.4 years provides reassuring evidence on the safety of GnRHa use during CT as a strategy to preserve ovarian function in premenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive EBC. Clinical trial information: NCT00311636.

Analysis of the effect of crossover from placebo (PBO) to darolutamide (DARO) on overall survival (OS) benefit in the ARAMIS Trial.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 240-240
Author(s):  
Neal D. Shore ◽  
Karim Fizazi ◽  
Teuvo Tammela ◽  
Murilo Luz ◽  
Manuel Philco Salas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Effect ◽  
Safety Profile ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
The Impact

240 Background: DARO is a structurally distinct androgen receptor inhibitor approved for the treatment of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) based on significantly prolonged metastasis-free survival compared with PBO (median 40.4 vs 18.4 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34–0.50; P < 0.0001) and a favorable safety profile in the phase III ARAMIS trial. Following unblinding at the primary analysis, crossover from PBO to DARO was permitted for the subsequent open-label treatment phase. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effect of PBO–DARO crossover on OS benefit. Methods: Patients (pts) with nmCRPC receiving androgen deprivation therapy were randomized 2:1 to DARO (n = 955) or PBO (n = 554). In addition to OS, secondary endpoints included times to pain progression, first cytotoxic chemotherapy, first symptomatic skeletal event, and safety. The OS analysis was planned to occur after approximately 240 deaths, and secondary endpoints were evaluated in a hierarchical order. Iterative parameter estimation (IPE) and rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) analyses were performed as pre-planned sensitivity analyses to adjust for the treatment effect of PBO–DARO crossover. The IPE method used a parametric model for the survival times and iteratively determined the model parameter describing the magnitude of the treatment effect, whereas a grid search and non-parametric log-rank test were used for the RPSFT analysis. The IPE and RPSFT analyses both generated a Kaplan–Meier curve for the PBO arm that predicts what would have been observed in the absence of PBO–DARO crossover. Results: After unblinding, 170 pts (30.7% of those randomized to PBO) crossed over from PBO to DARO; median treatment duration from unblinding to the final data cut-off was 11 months. Final analysis of the combined double-blind and open label periods was conducted after 254 deaths (15.5% of DARO and 19.1% of PBO pts) and showed a statistically significant OS benefit for DARO vs PBO (HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.53–0.88; P = 0.003). Results from the IPE (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.51–0.84; P < 0.001) and RPSFT (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.51–0.90; P = 0.007) analyses were similar to those from the intention-to-treat population, showing that the impact of PBO–DARO crossover was small. Additional analyses accounting for the effect of PBO–DARO crossover will be presented. The safety profile of DARO continued to be favorable at the final analysis, and discontinuation rates at the end of the double-blind period remained unchanged from the primary analysis (8.9% with DARO and 8.7% with PBO). Conclusions: Early treatment with DARO in men with nmCRPC is associated with significant improvement in OS regardless of pts crossing over from PBO to DARO. The safety profile of DARO remained favorable at the final analysis. Clinical trial information: NCT02200614.

Impact of PSMA PET/CT on SRT planning: Preliminary results from the randomized phase III trial NCT03582774.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 30-30
Author(s):  
Jeremie Calais ◽  
Wesley R Armstrong ◽  
Amar Upadhyaya Kishan ◽  
Kiara M Booker ◽  
David Elashoff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Preliminary Results ◽  
Volume Delineation ◽  
Psma Pet ◽  
Pet Ct ◽  
The Impact

30 Background: The purpose of this trial is to evaluate the success rate of salvage radiation therapy (SRT) for recurrence of prostate cancer (PCa) after radical prostatectomy with and without planning based on prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET). Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label, Phase 3 clinical imaging trial powered for clinical outcome at 5 years. UCLA is the leading central site in which PSMA PET, clinical follow-up and data management are being done. UCSF was a participating site in which PSMA PET imaging can be done. SRT can be performed anywhere, patients are followed remotely by the UCLA investigators. Patients scheduled for SRT for recurrence after primary prostatectomy and with PSA ≥ 0.1ng/ml at time of enrollment were eligible. Patients were randomized to proceed with standard SRT allowing for any conventional imaging aside from PSMA PET/CT (control arm) or undergo a 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT scan prior to SRT planning (investigational arm). The primary endpoint is the success rate of SRT at 5 years in patients who undergo SRT. We report here the preliminary results of a secondary endpoint: the impact of PSMA PET on SRT planning by comparing the pre-randomization RT plans prospectively obtained on surveys before randomization to the actually delivered RT plans obtained after follow-up. Results: Enrollment of the trial was complete. 193 patients were enrolled from 09.06.2018 to 08.17.2020. 7/90 patients (9%) in the control arm dropped-out the study because they underwent a PSMA PET at another institution, while 1/103 (1%) patients of the intervention arm dropped-out due to COVID-19 related complications. After a median follow-up of 13.3 months (last follow-up date 09/01/2020), delivered RT plans were obtained in 60/83 (72%) and 70/102 (69%) of patients of the control and the PSMA arms, respectively. Median PSA at enrollment was 0.32 ng/ml (IQR 0.17-1.35) and 0.22 ng/ml (IQR 0.14-0.50) in the control and PSMA arms, respectively. There was a change between the intended pre-randomization RT plan and the actually delivered RT plan in 17/60 (28%) and 40/70 (57%) of the patients in the control and PSMA arms, respectively (p = 0.002). SRT was aborted in favor of systemic therapy and/or metastasis directed RT for extra-pelvic M1 disease in 2/60 (3%) and 12/70 (17%) of the control and PSMA arms, respectively (p = 0.17). Dose prescription and/or target volume delineation was changed in 2/60 (3%) and 1/70 (26%) in the control and PSMA arms, respectively (p = 0.001). Conclusions: In this prospective randomized phase 3 study, PSMA PET had an impact on the SRT plan in more than half of the patients. Long-term follow-up will show if the impact of PSMA PET on SRT planning translates into improved outcome or not. Clinical trial information: NCT03582774.

Efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib (A + Ax) versus sunitinib (S) by number of IMDC risk factors and tumor sites at baseline in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC): Extended follow-up results from JAVELIN Renal 101.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 302-302
Author(s):  
Yoshihiko Tomita ◽  
Robert J. Motzer ◽  
Toni K. Choueiri ◽  
Brian I. Rini ◽  
Hideaki Miyake ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
To Receive

302 Background: In the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006), A + Ax demonstrated progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) benefit across IMDC risk groups (favorable, intermediate, and poor) vs S in patients with previously untreated aRCC. Here we report efficacy of A + Ax vs S by number of IMDC risk factors (0, 1, 2, 3, and 4-6) and target tumor sites (1, 2, 3, and ≥4) at baseline from the second interim analysis of overall survival (OS). Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive A 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 wk + Ax 5 mg orally twice daily or S 50 mg orally once daily for 4 wk (6-wk cycle). PFS and ORR per independent central review (RECIST 1.1) and OS were assessed. Results: At data cut-off (Jan 2019), median (m) follow-up for OS and PFS was 19.3 vs 19.2 mo and 16.8 vs 15.2 mo for the A + Ax vs S arm, respectively. The table shows OS, PFS, and ORR by number of IMDC risk factors and target tumor sites at baseline. A + Ax generally demonstrated efficacy benefit vs S across subgroups. Conclusions: With extended follow-up, A + Ax generally demonstrated efficacy benefit vs S across the number of IMDC risk factors and tumor sites at baseline in aRCC. OS was still immature; follow-up for the final analysis is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT02684006 . [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Central radiology assessment of the randomized phase III open-label OVHIPEC-1 trial in ovarian cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (12) ◽  
pp. 1928-1934
Author(s):  
Simone N Koole ◽  
Leigh Bruijs ◽  
Cristina Fabris ◽  
Karolina Sikorska ◽  
Maurits Engbersen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Cancer ◽  
Peritoneal Cancer Index ◽  
Disease Recurrence ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Ct Scans ◽  
Recurrence Free Survival ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Peritoneal Cancer

IntroductionHyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) improved investigator-assessed recurrence-free survival and overall survival in patients with stage III ovarian cancer in the phase III OVHIPEC-1 trial. We analyzed whether an open-label design affected the results of the trial by central blinded assessment of recurrence-free survival, and tested whether HIPEC specifically targets the peritoneal surface by analyzing the site of disease recurrence.MethodsOVHIPEC-1 was an open-label, multicenter, phase III trial that randomized 245 patients after three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy to interval cytoreduction with or without HIPEC using cisplatin (100 mg/m2). Patients received three additional cycles of chemotherapy after surgery. Computed tomography (CT) scans and serum cancer antigen 125 (CA125) measurements were performed during chemotherapy, and during follow-up. Two expert radiologists reviewed all available CT scans. They were blinded for treatment allocation and clinical outcome. Central revision included Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 measurements and peritoneal cancer index scorings at baseline, during treatment, and during follow-up. Time to centrally-revised recurrence was compared between study arms using Cox proportional hazard models. Subdistribution models compared time to peritoneal recurrence between arms, accounting for competing risks.ResultsCT scans for central revision were available for 231 patients (94%) during neoadjuvant treatment and 212 patients (87%) during follow-up. Centrally-assessed median recurrence-free survival was 9.9 months in the surgery group and 13.2 months in the surgery+HIPEC group (HR for disease recurrence or death 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.94; p=0.015). The improved recurrence-free survival and overall survival associated with HIPEC were irrespective of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and baseline peritoneal cancer index. Cumulative incidence of peritoneal recurrence was lower after surgery+HIPEC, but there was no difference in extraperitoneal recurrences.ConclusionCentrally-assessed recurrence-free survival analysis confirms the benefit of adding HIPEC to interval cytoreductive surgery in patients with stage III ovarian cancer, with fewer peritoneal recurrences. These results rule out radiological bias caused by the open-label nature of the study.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document