The NIBIT-M1 trial: Activity of ipilimumab plus fotemustine in patients with melanoma and brain metastases.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8529-8529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Maio ◽  
Alessandro Testori ◽  
Paolo Antonio Ascierto ◽  
Ruggero Ridolfi ◽  
Mario Santinami ◽  
...  

8529 Background: Patients (pts) with metastatic melanoma (MM) often develop treatment-resistant brain metastases (mets). Treatment includes fotemustine (FTM), which crosses the blood-brain barrier. Ipilimumab (ipi) has shown activity in pts with MM and asymptomatic brain mets (Heller et al. ASCO 2011; abs 8581). In the phase II NIBIT-M1 trial, MM pts with asymptomatic brain mets were eligible for treatment with ipi plus FTM. Here, data from this pt subset are reported. Methods: Eligible pts received induction therapy with ipi 10 mg/kg every 3 wks (Q3W) x4 and FTM 100 mg/m2 weekly for 3 wks, followed by ipi Q12W from Week (W) 24 and FTM Q3W from W9. The primary objective was the immune-related (ir) disease control rate (irDCR: complete/partial response [CR/PR] or stable disease [SD] using the ir response criteria). Secondary objectives included ir objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS); overall survival (OS), and safety. Tumor assessments were performed Q8W from W12 to W36 and Q12W thereafter. Results: Among 86 enrolled pts, 20 had brain mets. Of these, 7 had prior whole brain radiotherapy (n=4) or radiosurgery (n=3). As of December 2011, the irDCR was 50% (10/20; 95% CI, 27.2–72.8%) with an irORR of 40% (95% CI, 19.1–63.9%: 2 CRs and 6 PRs). Pts with irDC also had stability/reduction (n=5) or disappearance (n=5) of brain mets. Among pts with progressive disease, all but one had progression in the brain. With median follow-up of 8.3 months (range: 0.4–16.9), median irPFS was 4.6 months (95% CI, 0.7–12.3). The 1-year OS rate was 52.9% (95% CI, 26.6–79.2); median OS was not reached. Induction with ipi and FTM was completed by 55% and 85% pts, respectively. Grade 3/4 drug-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 60% pts; most commonly myelotoxicity (50%), increased ALT/AST (5%) and gastrointestinal (5%). AEs were generally manageable and reversible per protocol guidance. CNS AEs of any grade (i.e., haemorrhage, headache and seizure) occurred in 25% pts (grade 3/4 in 2 pts) and were attributed to disease progression. Conclusions: The combination of ipi plus FTM is active and safe in pts with MM and brain mets, regardless of prior treatment, and will be further explored in the phase III NIBIT-M2 trial.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8004-8004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul G. Richardson ◽  
Michel Attal ◽  
S. Vincent Rajkumar ◽  
Jesus San Miguel ◽  
Meral Beksac ◽  
...  

8004 Background: The primary objective of this phase 3 trial was to demonstrate progression free survival (PFS) improvement of isatuximab (Isa), a novel anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, combined with pomalidomide (P)/dexamethasone (d) versus (vs) Pd. Methods: Patients (pts) with RRMM who received ≥2 prior lines, including lenalidomide (len) and a proteasome inhibitor (PI), refractory to last therapy were enrolled. IsaPd arm received Isa 10 mg/kg IV weekly for first 4 weeks (wks), then every 2 wks. Both arms received approved schedules of pom and dex (4mg PO days 1-21; 40mg [20mg if >75 yrs] PO or IV weekly) every 28 days until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results: 307 pts (154 IsaPd, 153 Pd) were randomized and analyzed (ITT). Patient characteristics were well balanced across arms. Median age: 67 (36-86) yrs; median prior lines of therapy: 3 (2-11); estimated GFR: <60ml/min in 33.9% pts; 92.5% refractory to len, 75.9% to PI; and 19.5% pts had high-risk cytogenetics. At median follow-up of 11.6 months (mos), median PFS was 11.5 mos IsaPd vs 6.5 mos Pd; HR 0.596 (95% CI 0.44-0.81), P=0.001. PFS benefit was consistent across all major subgroups. ORR (≥PR) was 60.4% IsaPd vs 35.3% Pd, P<0.0001. VGPR rate or better was 31.8% IsaPd vs 8.5% Pd, and MRD negativity (NGS, 10-5) was seen in 5.2% IsaPd pts vs 0% Pd. At analysis date, overall survival (OS) was immature (99 events) but a trend to OS improvement in IsaPd (vs Pd) was observed (HR 0.687; 95% CI 0.461-1.023). Median treatment duration was 41 wks IsaPd vs 24 wks Pd; median Isa infusion (inf.) duration was 3.3h at 1st inf. and 2.8h at subsequent inf. Grade ≥3 AEs were observed in 86.8% IsaPd vs 70.5% Pd; 7.2% IsaPd and 12.8% Pd pts discontinued due to AEs; 7.9% IsaPd and 9.4% Pd pts died due to AEs. Inf. reactions were reported in 38.2% (2.6% grade 3-4) IsaPd. Grade ≥3 infections were seen in 42.8% IsaPd and 30.2% Pd, grade ≥3 neutropenia in 84.9% (febrile 11.8%) IsaPd and 70.1% (febrile 2.0%) Pd. Conclusions: IsaPd significantly improved PFS and ORR vs Pd, with a manageable safety profile. IsaPd is an important new treatment option for the management of RRMM. Clinical trial information: NCT02990338.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 302-302
Author(s):  
Yoshihiko Tomita ◽  
Robert J. Motzer ◽  
Toni K. Choueiri ◽  
Brian I. Rini ◽  
Hideaki Miyake ◽  
...  

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]


Blood ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 112 (11) ◽  
pp. 652-652 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Palumbo ◽  
Sara Bringhen ◽  
Davide Rossi ◽  
Valeria Magarotto ◽  
Francesco Di Raimondo ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: In newly diagnosed myeloma patients the combination of bortezomib with melphalan-prednisone (VMP) was superior to MP. In relapsed-refractory patients the 4 drug combination of bortezomib-melphalan-prednisone-thalidomide (VMPT) induced a high proportion of complete responses (CR). Methods: Newly diagnosed myeloma patients (N=393) older than 65 years, from 58 centers in Italy, were randomly assigned to receive VMPT (N=193) or VMP (N=200). Initially, patients were treated with nine 6-week cycles of VMPT (bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 days 1,4,8,11,22,25,29,32 in cycles 1–4 and days 1,8,22,29 in cycles 5–9; melphalan 9 mg/m2 days 1–4; prednisone 60 mg/m2 days 1–4 and thalidomide 50 mg days 1–42, followed by bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 every 15 days and thalidomide 50 mg/day as maintenance) or VMP (bortezomib, melphalan and prednisone at the same doses and schedules previously described without maintenance). In March 2007, the protocol was amended: both VMPT and VMP schedules were changed to nine 5-week cycles and bortezomib schedule was modified to weekly administration (bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 days 1,8,15,22 in cycles 1–9). Primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Patient characteristics were similar in both groups: median age was 71 years, 23% of patients were aged > 75 years. Patients who received at least 1 cycle were evaluated: 152 patients for VMPT (62 received bortezomib bi-weekly infusion and 90 weekly infusion) and 152 patients for VMP (62 received bortezomib bi-weekly infusion and 90 weekly infusion). Data were analyzed in intention-to-treat. The very good partial response (VGPR) rate was higher in the VMPT group (55% versus 42%, p=0.02), including a CR rate of 31% in the VMPT group and 16% in the VMP group (p=0.003). In the subgroup treated with weekly infusion of bortezomib, VGPR was 59% for VMPT and 37% for VMP (p=0.004), including 28% CR for VMPT and 10% for VMP (p=0.004). Subgroup analyses did not show any statistical difference between responses and either age, B2-microglobulin or chromosomal abnormalities, such as del13, t(4;14), t(14;16) and del17. After a median follow-up of 13.6 months, the 2-year PFS was 83.9% in the VMPT group and 75.7% in the VMP group (HR=0.73, 95% CI 0.38–1.42, p=0.35). In patients who received weekly infusion of bortezomib, the 2-year PFS was 86.8% in the VMPT group and 78.1% in the VMP group (HR=0.65, 95% CI 0.24–1.8, p=0.41). In patients who achieved CR after induction, the 2-year PFS was 100% for VMPT and 79% for VMP (p=0.02). The 3-year overall survival (OS) was 89.5% in the VMPT group and 88.7% in the VMP group (HR=1.02, 95% CI 0.43–2.46, p=0.96). The incidence of grade 3–4 adverse events (AEs) was similar in both groups. In the VMPT patients and in the VMP patients, the more frequent AEs were neutropenia (36% vs 31%), thrombocytopenia (20% vs 19%), peripheral neuropathy (18% vs 12%), infections (14% vs 10%), and gastrointestinal complications (7% vs 8%), respectively. The weekly infusion of bortezomib significantly decreased the incidence of grade 3–4 peripheral neuropathy (9% for VMPT and 3% for VMP). Conclusion: VMPT is superior to VMP in terms of response rates. Longer follow-up is needed to assess their effects on PFS and OS. The weekly infusion of bortezomib significantly reduced the incidence of grade 3–4 peripheral neuropathy without influencing outcome. Table. Complete responses, progression-free survival and peripheral neuropathy in all patients and in those who received weekly infusion of bortezomib VMPT group (n=152) VMP group (n=152) All patients (n=152) Subgroup with bortezomib weekly infusion (n=90) All patients (n=152) Subgroup with bortezomib weekly infusion (n=90) CR rate (%) 31 28 16 10 2-year PFS (%) 84 87 76 78 Grade 3–4 peripheral neuropathy (%) 18 9 12 3


2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8009-8009
Author(s):  
R. B. Natale ◽  
S. Thongprasert ◽  
F. A. Greco ◽  
M. Thomas ◽  
C. M. Tsai ◽  
...  

8009 Background: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of VEGFR, EGFR and RET signaling. This phase III study compared the efficacy of vandetanib vs erlotinib in patients (pts) with advanced, previously treated NSCLC. Methods: Eligible pts (stage IIIB/IV NSCLC, PS 0–2, 1–2 prior chemotherapies; all histologies permitted) were randomized 1:1 to receive vandetanib 300 mg/day or erlotinib 150 mg/day until progression/toxicity. The primary objective was to show superiority in progression-free survival (PFS) for vandetanib vs erlotinib. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), time to deterioration of symptoms (TDS; EORTC QoL Questionnaire) and safety. Results: Between Oct 06-Nov 07, 1240 pts (mean age 61 yrs; 38% female; 22% squamous) were randomized to receive vandetanib (n=623) or erlotinib (n=617). Baseline characteristics were similar in both arms. Median duration of follow-up was 14 months, with 88% pts progressed and 67% dead. There was no difference in PFS for pts treated with vandetanib vs erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.98, 95.22% CI 0.87–1.10; P=0.721), and no difference in the secondary endpoints of OS (HR 1.01, 95.08% CI 0.89–1.16; P=0.830), ORR (both 12%) and TDS (pain: HR 0.92, P=0.289; dyspnea: HR 1.07, P=0.407; cough: HR 0.94, P=0.455). A preplanned non-inferiority analysis for PFS and OS demonstrated equivalent efficacy for vandetanib and erlotinib. The adverse events (AEs) observed for vandetanib were generally consistent with previous NSCLC studies with vandetanib 300 mg. There was a higher incidence of some AEs (any grade) with vandetanib vs erlotinib, including diarrhea (50% vs 38%) and hypertension (16% vs 2%); rash was more frequent with erlotinib (38% vs 28%). The overall incidence of CTCAE grade ≥3 AEs was also higher with vandetanib (50% vs 40%). The incidence of protocol-defined QTc prolongation in the vandetanib arm was 5%. Conclusions: The study did not meet its primary objective of demonstrating PFS prolongation with vandetanib vs erlotinib in pts with previously treated advanced NSCLC. However, vandetanib and erlotinib showed equivalent efficacy for PFS and OS in a preplanned non-inferiority analysis. [Table: see text]


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3575-3575
Author(s):  
Tamas Pinter ◽  
Esteban Abella ◽  
Alvydas Cesas ◽  
Adina Croitoru ◽  
Jochen Decaestecker ◽  
...  

3575 Background: The literature reports that adding biologics to chemotherapy (ctx) may increase the incidence of clinically significant neutropenia. his trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of PEG in reducing the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in pts with locally-advanced (LA) or metastatic (m)CRC receiving first-line treatment with either FOLFOX/B or FOLFIRI/B. Methods: Key eligibility: ≥ 18 years old; measurable, nonresectable CRC per RECIST 1.1. Pts were randomly assigned 1:1 to either placebo or 6 mg PEG ~24 h after ctx/B. The study treatment period included four Q2W cycles, but pts could continue their assigned regimen until progression. Pts were stratified by region (North America vs rest of world), stage (LA vs mCRC), and ctx (FOLFOX vs FOLFIRI). Estimated sample size (N = 800) was based on the expected incidence of grade 3/4 FN (primary endpoint) across the first 4 cycles of ctx/B, powered for PEG superiority over placebo. Other endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: 845 pts were randomized (Nov 2009 to Jan 2012) and received study treatment; 783 pts completed 4 cycles of ctx/B. Median age was 61 years; 512 (61%) pts were male; 819 (97%) had mCRC; 414 (49%) received FOLFOX, and 431 (51%) received FOLFIRI. Grade 3/4 FN (first 4 cycles) for placebo vs PEG was 5.7% vs 2.4%; OR 0.41; p = 0.014. A similar incidence of other ≥ grade 3 adverse events was seen in both arms (28% placebo; 27% PEG). See table for additional results. Conclusions: PEG significantly reduced the incidence of grade 3/4 FN in this pt population receiving standard ctx/B for CRC. Follow-up is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT00911170. [Table: see text]


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13589-e13589
Author(s):  
Alicia Marin ◽  
Margarita Martin ◽  
Emma Gonzalez ◽  
Lisselott Torres ◽  
David Hernandez ◽  
...  

e13589 Background: We report our experience with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT-IGRT) use to plan and deliver whole brain radiotherapy whit a simultaneous integrated boost in patients with brain metastases, using hippocampal sparing. Methods: In this retrospective study 57 patients with brain metastases were treated with radiotherapy VMAT-IGRT were administered in 12 daily fractions of 2.7Gy for a total of 32.4Gy (EBD 40Gy) to whole-brain and simultaneous integrated boost to brain metastases, multiple targets, in 12 fractions to 3.4Gy for a total dose of 40.8Gy (EBD 60Gy). The primary endpoint was intracranial progression-free survival (PFS) and secondary endpoints were preserves neurocognitive function and overall survival (OS). Survival rates were determined by Kaplan-Meier method. Differences between survival curves were analyzed by the log-rank test. Results: From January 2015 to December 2018, 57 patients were enrolled. The median follow-up time was 7 months. PFS6, PFS12 and PFS18 were 91.3%, 70.8% and 70.8% respectively. mOS, OS6, OS12 and OS18 were 10 months (95% IC 4.2-15.7 months), 67.2%, 48.6% and 35.3% respectively. Response rates were as follows: 29RC (50.9%), 21RP (36.8%), 7SD (12.3%) and 0PD (0%). Long progression-free survival patients: PFS > 12, 15 and 18 months for initial diagnosis 70%, 70% and 70% respectively. Conclusions: Whole-brain radiotherapy with simultaneous integrated boost to brain-metastases: VMAT-IGRT is safe and promising and possibly produces survival and tolerance benefits. Sparing the hippocampus during cranial irradiation poses important technical challenges with respect to contouring and treatment planning.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4040-4040 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heinz-Josef Lenz ◽  
Sara Lonardi ◽  
Vittorina Zagonel ◽  
Eric Van Cutsem ◽  
M. Luisa Limon ◽  
...  

4040 Background: In the phase 2 CheckMate 142 trial, NIVO + low-dose IPI had robust, durable clinical benefit and was well tolerated as 1L therapy for MSI-H/dMMR mCRC (median follow-up 13.8 months [mo; range, 9–19]; Lenz et al. Ann Oncol 2018;29:LBA18). Longer follow-up is presented here. Methods: Patients (pts) with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC and no prior treatment for metastatic disease received NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W + low-dose IPI 1 mg/kg Q6W until disease progression or discontinuation. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed (INV) objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Results: In 45 pts with median follow-up of 29.0 mo, ORR (95% CI) increased to 69% (53–82) (Table) from 60% (44.3–74.3); complete response (CR) rate increased to 13% from 7%. The concordance rate of INV and blinded independent central review was 89%. Median duration of response (DOR) was not reached (Table). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not reached, and 24-mo rates were 74% and 79%, respectively (Table). Nineteen pts discontinued study treatment without subsequent therapy. An analysis of tumor response post discontinuation will be presented. Ten (22%) pts had grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs); 3 (7%) had grade 3–4 TRAEs leading to discontinuation. Conclusions: NIVO + low-dose IPI continued to show robust, durable clinical benefit with a deepening of response, and was well tolerated with no new safety signals identified with longer follow-up. NIVO + low-dose IPI may represent a new 1L therapy option for pts with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC. Clinical trial information: NTC02060188 . [Table: see text]


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 427-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zev A. Wainberg ◽  
Charles S. Fuchs ◽  
Josep Tabernero ◽  
Kohei Shitara ◽  
Kei Muro ◽  
...  

427 Background: Pts with advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer received pembro monotherapy (200 mg Q3W) 3L+ in cohort 1 of KEYNOTE-059 (NCT02335411), 2L in KEYNOTE-061 (NCT02370498), or 1L in KEYNOTE-062 (NCT02494583). We present efficacy data for patients with PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥10 tumors in these trials. Methods: In study 059, 46 pts in cohort 1 with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 received pembro. In study 061, 108 pts with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 received pembro (n=53) or chemotherapy (chemo; n=55). In study 062, 182 pts with CPS ≥10 received pembro (n=92) or placebo + chemo (n=90). Efficacy end points included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DOR). Results: Median follow-up in study 059 was 5.6 mo. Median OS with pembro was 7.9 mo (95% CI, 5.8-11.1), and 12-mo OS was 32.6%. PFS at 6 mo was 17.4%, ORR was 17.4%, and median DOR was 20.9 mo (2.8+ to 34.9+). In study 061, after a median follow-up of 8.8 mo, pembro prolonged OS vs chemo (median 10.4 vs 8.0 mo; HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.41-1.02); 12-mo OS was 45.3% for pembro and 23.6% for chemo. Median PFS was 2.7 mo for pembro and 3.4 mo for chemo (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.56-1.33). ORR was 24.5% vs 9.1%, and median DOR was NR (4.1-26.0+) and 6.9 mo (2.6-6.9) for pembro vs chemo. In study 062, median follow-up was 17.4 mo for pembro and 10.8 mo for chemo. Pembro prolonged OS vs chemo (median 17.4 vs 10.8 mo; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.97); 12-mo OS was 56.5% vs 46.7%. Median PFS was 2.9 mo vs 6.1 mo (HR, 1.09, 95% CI, 0.79-1.49). ORR was 25.0% vs 37.8%, and median DOR was 19.3 mo (1.4+ to 33.6+) vs 6.8 mo (1.5+ to 30.4+) for pembro vs chemo, respectively. Conclusions: Collectively, these data indicate that 1L, 2L, and 3L+ pembro monotherapy showed clinically meaningful efficacy in CPS ≥10, with a more durable response than chemotherapy. Clinical trial information: NCT02335411, NCT02370498, and NCT02494583. [Table: see text]


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA445-LBA445 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamas Pinter ◽  
Steve Abella ◽  
Alvydas Cesas ◽  
Adina Croitoru ◽  
Jochen Decaestecker ◽  
...  

LBA445 Background: The literature reports that adding biologics to chemotherapy (ctx) may increase the incidence of clinically significant neutropenia. This trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of PEG in reducing the incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) in pts with locally advanced (LA) or metastatic (m)CRC receiving first-line treatment with either FOLFOX/B or FOLFIRI/B. Methods: Key eligibility: ≥ 18 years old; measurable, nonresectable CRC per RECIST 1.1. Pts were randomly assigned 1:1 to either placebo or 6 mg PEG ~24 h after ctx/B. The study treatment period included four Q2W cycles, but pts could continue their assigned regimen until progression. Pts were stratified by region (North America vs rest of world), stage (LA vs mCRC), and ctx (FOLFOX vs FOLFIRI). Estimated sample size (N = 800) was based on the expected incidence of grade 3/4 FN (primary endpoint) across the first 4 cycles of ctx/B, powered for PEG superiority over placebo. Other endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Results: 845 pts were randomized (Nov 2009 to Jan 2012) and received study treatment; 783 pts completed 4 cycles of ctx/B. Median age was 61 years; 512 (61%) pts were male; 819 (97%) had mCRC; 414 (49%) received FOLFOX, and 431 (51%) received FOLFIRI. Grade 3/4 FN (first 4 cycles) for placebo vs PEG was 5.7% vs 2.4%; OR 0.41; p = 0.014. A similar incidence of other ≥ grade 3 adverse events was seen in both arms (28% placebo; 27% PEG). See Table for additional results. Conclusions: PEG significantly reduced the incidence of grade 3/4 FN in this pt population receiving standard ctx/B for CRC. Follow-up is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT00911170. [Table: see text]


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5513-5513 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen N. Moore ◽  
Setsuko K. Chambers ◽  
Erika Paige Hamilton ◽  
Lee-may Chen ◽  
Amit M. Oza ◽  
...  

5513 Background: Adavosertib (AZD1775; A), a highly selective WEE1 inhibitor, demonstrated activity and tolerability in combination with carboplatin (C) in primary PROC. This study (NCT02272790) assessed the objective response rate (ORR) and safety of A in PROC. Methods: Pts with recurrent RECIST v1.1 measurable PROC received A with C, gemcitabine (G), weekly paclitaxel (P), or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in 3- (C) or 4-week (G, P, PLD) cycles (Table). Tumor assessments were performed every 2 cycles until disease progression. Primary objective: ORR; other objectives: disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. Results: In the 94 pts treated (median treatment duration 3 months; range 0–16 months), outcomes were greatest with A (weeks [W]1–3) + C (Table), with ORR of 67% and median PFS (mPFS) of 10.1 months for this cohort. Most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are shown in the Table, with hematologic toxicity most notable with A (W1–3) + C. TEAEs led to A dose interruptions, reductions and discontinuations in 63%, 30% and 13% of the whole cohort, respectively. A possible positive relationship between CCNE1 amplification and response warrants further investigation. Conclusions: A shows preliminary efficacy when combined with CT. Pts receiving A (W1–3) + C showed greatest benefit. The increased but not unexpected hematologic toxicity is a challenge and could be further studied to optimize the dose schedule and supportive medications. Clinical trial information: NCT02272790. [Table: see text]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document