Final results from study 181: Randomized phase III study of FOLFIRI with or without panitumumab (pmab) for the treatment of second-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 387-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto F. Sobrero ◽  
Marc Peeters ◽  
Timothy Jay Price ◽  
Yevhen Hotko ◽  
Andres Cervantes-Ruiperez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Event Rates

387 Background: In the primary analysis of study 181, pmab+FOLFIRI significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs FOLFIRI as second-line therapy in patients (pts) with wild-type (WT) KRAS mCRC. Here, we report the results of a prespecified final descriptive analysis planned for 30 months (mos) after the last pt was enrolled. Methods: Pts were randomised 1:1 to pmab 6.0 mg/kg Q2W+FOLFIRI (Arm 1) vs FOLFIRI alone (Arm 2). Pts had one prior fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimen for mCRC and ECOG 0-2. The co-primary endpoints were PFS (central assessment) and OS, and were independently tested. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), and safety. KRAS status was determined by a blinded central lab. Results: 1,186 pts were randomised and received treatment (tx): 591 in Arm 1, 595 In Arm 2. 1,083/1,186 pts (91%) had KRAS results. Adverse event rates were consistent with the primary analysis. Results are shown in the table . Conclusions: In Arm 1, PFS (standard and on-treatment definition) and ORR were improved, and there was a trend toward improved OS in pts with WT KRAS mCRC. The large proportion of pts receiving post-progression anti-EGFR therapy may have affected the ability to observe a difference in OS between the tx arms. In pts with MT KRAS there was no difference in efficacy. KRAS testing is critical to select appropriate pts for tx with pmab. [Table: see text]

Final results of study 20050181: A randomized phase III study of FOLFIRI with our without panitumumab (pmab) for the second‑line treatment (tx) of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3535-3535 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto F. Sobrero ◽  
Marc Peeters ◽  
Timothy Jay Price ◽  
Yevhen Hotko ◽  
Andres Cervantes-Ruiperez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Event Rates

3535 Background: The primary analysis of study 20050181 showed that in patients (pts) with wild-type (WT) KRAS mCRC, pmab plus FOLFIRI given as second-line therapy significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs FOLFIRI alone. Here, we report on a prespecified descriptive analysis planned for 30 months (mos) after the last pt was enrolled. Methods: Pts with mCRC, ECOG 0-2, who had one prior fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimen were randomized 1:1 to pmab 6.0 mg/kg Q2W+FOLFIRI (Arm 1) vs FOLFIRI (Arm 2). Co-primary endpoints were OS and PFS (central assessment). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and safety. Tumor KRAS status was determined by a blinded central lab. Results: 1186 pts were randomised and received tx: 591 in Arm 1, 595 In Arm 2. 1083 pts (91%) had KRAS results. Adverse event rates were consistent with the primary analysis. Results are shown below. Conclusions: In pts with WT KRAS mCRC receiving pmab+FOLFIRI vs FOLFIRI, PFS and ORR were significantly improved, and there was a trend toward improved OS. Post-progression anti-EGFR tx may have attenuated any significant difference in OS between tx arms. In pts with MT KRAS mCRC, no difference in efficacy was observed between tx arms. KRAS testing is critical to select appropriate pts for tx with pmab. [Table: see text]

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]

Randomized phase III study of panitumumab (pmab) vs. cetuximab (cmab) in chemorefractory wild-type (WT) KRAS exon 2 metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Outcomes by hypomagnesemia (hypomag) in ASPECCT.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 705-705
Author(s):  
Timothy Jay Price ◽  
Marc Peeters ◽  
Tae Won Kim ◽  
Jin Li ◽  
Stefano Cascinu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Exon 2 ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Dose Modifications ◽  
Kras Exon

705 Background: ASPECCT met its primary endpoint of non-inferiority of overall survival (OS) of pmab vs. cmab. We evaluate outcomes by hypomag, an on-treatment, anti-EGFR related adverse event that develops due to the inhibition of EGFR function. Conflicting reports have suggested hypomag is associated with survival. Methods: Patients with previously treated WT KRAS exon 2 mCRC were randomized 1:1 to receive pmab or cmab. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of OS. Progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) were secondary endpoints. Patients were categorized ± any grade hypomag during the study and data analyzed by treatment arm. Analysis of Mg supplementation during hypomag was not conducted. Results: 999 patients were randomized and treated: 499 pmab, 500 cmab. Any grade hypomag was 28.8% and grade ≥3 was 7.3% in the pmab arm vs. 18.9% and 2.6% in the cmab arm, respectively. Median time to first hypomag onset was 82 days in the pmab arm and 57 days in the cmab arm. In the pmab arm, 1.0% of patients discontinued treatment and 5% of patients had dose modifications due to hypomag vs. <0.5% and 3% in the cmab arm, respectively. Results are shown (Table). Conclusions: In ASPECCT, rates of hypomag were higher in the pmab vs. the cmab arm. Patients who developed any grade hypomag with pmab or cmab had higher ORR, PFS, and OS compared with those patients who did not. Clinical trial information: NCT00788957. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Randomized Phase III Study of FOLFOX Alone or With Pegilodecakin as Second-Line Therapy in Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer That Progressed After Gemcitabine (SEQUOIA)

2021 ◽  
pp. JCO.20.02232
Author(s):  
J. Randolph Hecht ◽  
Sara Lonardi ◽  
Johanna Bendell ◽  
Hao-Wen Sim ◽  
Teresa Macarulla ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Transforming Growth Factor ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Response Evaluation ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Gemcitabine Refractory

PURPOSE SEQUOIA compared efficacy and safety of adding pegilodecakin (PEG), a pegylated recombinant human interleukin (IL)-10, with folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) in patients following progression on first-line gemcitabine-containing therapy with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). PATIENTS AND METHODS SEQUOIA, a randomized, global phase III study, compared FOLFOX with PEG + FOLFOX as second line in gemcitabine-refractory PDAC. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 (PEG + FOLFOX:FOLFOX) and stratified by prior gemcitabine and region. Eligible patients had only one prior gemcitabine-containing treatment. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), response evaluation per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor (RECIST) 1.1, and safety. Exploratory analyses included biomarkers related to immune activation. RESULTS Between March 1, 2017, and September 9, 2019, 567 patients were randomly assigned PEG + FOLFOX (n = 283) or FOLFOX (n = 284). Most (94.7%) patients received prior gemcitabine plus nab paclitaxel. OS was similar comparing PEG + FOLFOX versus FOLFOX (median: 5.8 v 6.3 months; hazard ratio = 1.045; 95% CI, 0.863 to 1.265). Also, PFS (median 2.1 v 2.1 months; hazard ratio = 0.981; 95% CI, 0.808 to 1.190) and objective response rate (4.6% v 5.6%) were similar between the treatment arms. Most common (≥ 35%) treatment-emergent adverse events in PEG + FOLFOX versus FOLFOX were thrombocytopenia (55% v 20%), anemia (40% v 16%), fatigue (61% v 45%), neutropenia (39% v 28%), abdominal pain (37% v 29%), nausea (45% v 41%), neuropathy (37% v 38%), and decreased appetite (35% v 31%). Exploratory analyses revealed increases in total IL-18, interferon (IFN)-γ, and granzyme B and decreases in transforming growth factor (TGF)-β with the addition of PEG. CONCLUSION PEG added to FOLFOX did not improve efficacy in advanced gemcitabine-refractory PDAC. Safety findings were consistent as previously observed from PEG with chemotherapy; toxicity was manageable and tolerable. Exploratory pharmacodynamic results were consistent with immunostimulatory signals of the IL-10R pathway.

IMbrave150: Updated overall survival (OS) data from a global, randomized, open-label phase III study of atezolizumab (atezo) + bevacizumab (bev) versus sorafenib (sor) in patients (pts) with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 267-267
Author(s):  
Richard S. Finn ◽  
Shukui Qin ◽  
Masafumi Ikeda ◽  
Peter R. Galle ◽  
Michel Ducreux ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Treatment Benefit ◽  
Recist 1.1 ◽  
Open Label Phase ◽  
Phase Iii Study

267 Background: Atezo + bev has been approved globally for pts with unresectable HCC who have not received prior systemic therapy, based on results from IMbrave150 (NCT03434379). At a median of 8.6 mo follow-up, both coprimary endpoints were met, with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements observed with atezo + bev vs sor for OS (HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.42, 0.79]; P<0.001) and independently-assessed progression-free survival (PFS; per RECIST 1.1; HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.47, 0.76]; P<0.001) (Finn, et al. N Engl J Med 2020). Here, we report an updated OS analysis for IMbrave150. Methods: The global, multicenter, randomized, open-label, Phase III study IMbrave150 enrolled 501 systemic treatment–naive pts with unresectable HCC, ≥1 measurable untreated lesion (RECIST 1.1), Child-Pugh class A liver function and ECOG PS 0/1. Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive either atezo 1200 mg IV q3w + bev 15 mg/kg IV q3w or sor 400 mg bid until unacceptable toxicity or loss of clinical benefit per investigator. This post hoc, descriptive OS analysis was conducted with 12 mo of additional follow up from the primary analysis. Results: 501 pts were enrolled, including 336 to atezo + bev and 165 to sor. At the clinical cut-off date of Aug 31, 2020, median follow-up was 15.6 mo and 280 OS events were observed. Median OS was 19.2 mo with atezo + bev vs 13.4 mo with sor (HR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.52, 0.85]; P=0.0009). Survival at 18 mo was 52% with atezo + bev and 40% with sor. Survival benefit with atezo + bev over sor was generally consistent across subgroups and with the primary analysis. The updated objective response rate (ORR; 29.8% per RECIST 1.1) with atezo + bev was in line with the primary analysis, with more pts achieving complete response (CR; 7.7%) than previously reported. Additional response data are in Table. Safety was aligned with the primary analysis, with no new signals identified. Conclusions: IMbrave150 showed consistent clinically meaningful treatment benefit and safety with 12 mo of additional follow-up. The combination provides the longest survival seen in a front-line Phase III study in advanced HCC, confirming atezo + bev as a standard of care for previously untreated, unresectable HCC. Clinical trial information: NCT03434379. [Table: see text]

Pembrolizumab versus paclitaxel for previously treated patients with PD-L1–positive advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GC): Update from the phase III KEYNOTE-061 trial.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4503-4503 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles S. Fuchs ◽  
Mustafa Özgüroğlu ◽  
Yung-Jue Bang ◽  
Maria Di Bartolomeo ◽  
Mario Mandalà ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Standard Dose ◽  
Gastroesophageal Junction ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Analysis Data ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer ◽  
Duration Of Response

4503 Background: KEYNOTE-061 ( NCT02370498) is a global phase 3 study of pembrolizumab vs paclitaxel as second-line therapy for GC. At the time of primary analysis (data cutoff: Oct 26, 2017), in patients with PD-L1–positive status (combined positive score [CPS] ≥1), pembrolizumab did not significantly prolong overall survival (OS) vs paclitaxel (9.1 months vs 8.3 months) but did elicit a longer duration of response (DOR) and a favorable safety profile vs paclitaxel. We present results of KEYNOTE-061 in patients with CPS ≥1, ≥5, and ≥10 after 2 additional years of follow-up (cutoff: Oct 7, 2019). Methods: Adult patients with GC that progressed after platinum + fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for up to 35 cycles (~2 y) or standard-dose paclitaxel. OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in the CPS ≥1 population were the primary end points. Comparisons were made using stratified log-rank tests. Results: At the time of this analysis, 366/395 patients with CPS ≥1 had died (92.6%). Pembrolizumab prolonged OS vs paclitaxel in PD-L1–positive patients (Table). No significant differences appeared between groups in PFS (Table). Objective response rate (ORR) was higher for pembrolizumab in the CPS ≥10 group, and DOR was longer with pembrolizumab using all CPS cutoffs (Table). There were fewer drug-related adverse events (AEs) with pembrolizumab than paclitaxel in the overall population (53% vs 84%). Conclusions: This long-term analysis found that second-line pembrolizumab prolonged OS among patients with PD-L1–positive GC and led to fewer drug-related AEs vs paclitaxel. Clinical trial information: NCT02370498 . [Table: see text]

Vandetanib versus erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after failure of at least one prior cytotoxic chemotherapy: A randomized, double-blind phase III trial (ZEST)

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8009-8009
Author(s):  
R. B. Natale ◽  
S. Thongprasert ◽  
F. A. Greco ◽  
M. Thomas ◽  
C. M. Tsai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Equivalent Efficacy ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

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]

SELECT: Randomized phase III study of docetaxel (D) or pemetrexed (P) with or without cetuximab (C) in recurrent or progressive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after platinum-based therapy.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7502-7502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward S. Kim ◽  
Marcus A. Neubauer ◽  
Allen Lee Cohn ◽  
Lee Steven Schwartzberg ◽  
Lawrence E. Garbo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Staining Intensity ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Independent Review ◽  
Secondary Endpoints

7502 Background: SELECT investigated whether the addition of C to standard chemotherapy improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with recurrent or progressive NSCLC after failure of platinum-based therapy. Methods: SELECT was a multicenter, open label, randomized phase III trial. Per investigator choice, pts received either P (500 mg/m2) or D (75 mg/m2) on day 1 and then were randomized within each group to chemotherapy plus C (400/250 mg/m2) (initial/weekly) or chemotherapy alone. Therapy was given for up to six 3-week cycles; pts randomized to C continued weekly monotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was PFS for PC vs. P as determined by an Independent Review Committee (IRC). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR) by IRC, and safety. Preplanned subgroup analyses for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) staining intensity by immunohistochemistry and histology were performed. Results for PC vs. P only are presented. Results: Between Jan 2005 and Feb 2010, 938 total pts were randomized. Baseline demographics were comparable between PC (n=301) and P (n=304): median age 64 years; male 60%; Caucasian 88%; KPS 80-100/60-70 84%/16%; squamous/non-squamous 24%/76%. Median PFS (months) PC: 2.89 and P: 2.76 (hazard ratio [HR] =1.03 [95% confidence interval (CI)=0.87-1.21]; p=0.76). Median OS (months) PC: 6.93 and P: 7.79 (HR=1.01 [95% CI=0.86-1.20]; p=0.86). ORR PC: 6.6% and P: 4.3% (odds ratio =1.59 [95% CI=0.78-3.26]; p=0.20). Median DOR (months) PC: 4.17 and P: 6.93 (HR=1.58 [95% CI=0.74-3.36]; p=0.24). There were no statistical differences in efficacy based on histology or EGFR staining intensity. More drug-related AEs/SAEs were observed in the PC arm, with differences mainly attributable to skin toxicities, GI (diarrhea/stomatitis), and hypomagnesemia. Conclusions: The addition of C to P did not improve efficacy in this pt population. Further biomarker analyses are planned. The safety profiles for C and P were consistent with existing data and no new safety signals were observed.

MetGastric: A randomized phase III study of onartuzumab (MetMAb) in combination with mFOLFOX6 in patients with metastatic HER2-negative and MET-positive adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS4155-TPS4155 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Cunningham ◽  
Yung-Jue Bang ◽  
Josep Tabernero ◽  
Manish A. Shah ◽  
Florian Lordick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastroesophageal Junction ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Resistance Mechanisms ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Disease Stage ◽  
Prognostic Features ◽  
Tumor Invasiveness ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Secondary Analyses ◽  
Phase Iii Study

TPS4155 Background: Dysregulation of the HGF/MET pathway in patients with gastroesophageal cancer (GEC) is associated with diminished survival and poor prognostic features, such as nodal and organ metastasis, disease stage and tumor invasiveness. Preclinical data suggest that inhibition of the HGF/MET axis may increase the anti-tumor properties of platinum agents by overcoming HGF-mediated resistance mechanisms. Overexpression and inappropriate activation of the MET pathway has been shown to promote peritoneal metastasis in murine models of GEC. Overexpression of HGF or MET has also been linked to metastatic spread to the liver and peritoneum in patients with GEC. Clinical studies suggest that antibody-based inhibitors of the HGF/MET pathway are active in GEC. Onartuzumab, a monovalent monoclonal antibody, specifically binds to the MET receptor preventing HGF binding thereby inhibiting signal transduction. The most commonly reported adverse events associated with onartuzumab are grade 1–3 peripheral edema, hypoalbuminemia and fatigue. Methods: MetGastric is a randomized placebo-controlled, international phase III study in patients with previously untreated metastatic GEC. Only patients with tumors classified as both HER2-negative and MET-positive (by IHC) are eligible. Patients will be randomized (1:1) to receive mFOLFOX6 plus onartuzumab or mFOLFOX6 plus placebo. A maximum of 12 cycles of mFOLFOX6 are permitted. Onartuzumab or placebo will be continued until disease progression. The primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, overall response rate, safety and correlative biomarker studies. Primary and secondary analyses will include all randomized patients, analyzed according to treatment arm assignment and MET IHC score. Safety will be assessed in all patients who receive at least one dose of study treatment. This study is open for accrual. Clinical trial information: NCT01662869.

Efficacy analyses of a randomized phase III clinical trial of combined therapy with CPT-11/CDDP versus CPT-11 alone in patients with advanced or recurrent gastric cancer refractory to prior S-1 chemotherapy.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 69-69
Author(s):  
Hitoshi Inagaki ◽  
Kazuhiro Nishikawa ◽  
Kazumasa Fujitani ◽  
Naotoshi Sugimoto ◽  
Tadashi Shigematsu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Combined Therapy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Recurrent Gastric Cancer ◽  
Secondary Endpoints

69 Background: There has been no established regimen as the second-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer (AGC), though CPT-11 showed survival benefit over BSC. Combination of CPT-11 with CDDP is one of the promising regimens as the second-line chemotherapy after S-1 mono-therapy. Methods: This is a prospective, multicenter randomized phase III study comparing CPT-11+CDDP (Arm A) vs. CPT-11 alone (Arm B) in patients with advanced or recurrent gastric cancer resistant to S-1 mono-therapy or prior adjuvant chemotherapy using S-1. Eligibility criteria include histologically confirmed gastric adenocarcinoma, age over 20 years old, PS: 0-2, adequate organ functions and written informed consent. Arm A: patients received CPT 11 60mg/m2 and CDDP 30mg/m2 on day 1, q2w. Arm B: patients received CPT-11 150mg/m2on day 1, q2w. Stratification was made according to PS, advanced or recurrence cases, institution and presence or absence of measurable target lesions. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), secondary endpoints were progression free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), response rate (RR), and safety. Results: 168 patients were registered between 2007 and 2011. Arm A (n=84) and Arm B (n=84) were well balanced for baseline factors. Median age was 67 vs 68 years old, number of advanced/recurrence after resection was 36/48 vs 35/49, and median number of treatment course was 5 vs. 6 (range:0-31, 0-39). Common grade 3/4 toxicities in Arm A vs. Arm B were neutropenia; 35.4% vs. 27.2% (p=0.259), anemia; 15.9% vs. 3.7% (p=0.009), diarrhea; 0% vs. 2.5% (p=0.152), nausea; 3.7% vs. 4.9% (p=0.687), vomiting; 1.2% vs. 3.7% (p=0.305), anorexia 6.1% vs. 8.6% (p=0.534). The rate of patients who were required dose modification for these toxicities was 22.9% vs 21.4%. The pooled OS, PFS and RR for both Arms were as follows; 13.8 months (95% CI, 10.7 to 17.5), 4.5 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.1), and 13.7%. Conclusions: There was no significantly difference in the incidence and severity of adverse events in both Arms except for anemia. Updated efficacy data of secondary endpoints will be presented. Clinical trial information: UMIN000002571.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document