Sunitinib Versus Sorafenib in Advanced Hepatocellular Cancer: Results of a Randomized Phase III Trial

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (32) ◽  
pp. 4067-4075 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann-Lii Cheng ◽  
Yoon-Koo Kang ◽  
Deng-Yn Lin ◽  
Joong-Won Park ◽  
Masatoshi Kudo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatitis C ◽  
Hepatitis B ◽  
Hepatocellular Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Severe Toxicity ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Open Label Phase ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome

Purpose Open-label, phase III trial evaluating whether sunitinib was superior or equivalent to sorafenib in hepatocellular cancer. Patients and Methods Patients were stratified and randomly assigned to receive sunitinib 37.5 mg once per day or sorafenib 400 mg twice per day. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Results Early trial termination occurred for futility and safety reasons. A total of 1,074 patients were randomly assigned to the study (sunitinib arm, n = 530; sorafenib arm, n = 544). For sunitinib and sorafenib, respectively, median OS was 7.9 versus 10.2 months (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; one-sided P = .9990; two-sided P = .0014); median progression-free survival (PFS; 3.6 v 3.0 months; HR, 1.13; one-sided P = .8785; two-sided P = .2286) and time to progression (TTP; 4.1 v 3.8 months; HR, 1.13; one-sided P = .8312; two-sided P = .3082) were comparable. Median OS was similar among Asian (7.7 v 8.8 months; HR, 1.21; one-sided P = .9829) and hepatitis B–infected patients (7.6 v 8.0 months; HR, 1.10; one-sided P = .8286), but was shorter with sunitinib in hepatitis C–infected patients (9.2 v 17.6 months; HR, 1.52; one-sided P = .9835). Sunitinib was associated with more frequent and severe adverse events (AEs) than sorafenib. Common grade 3/4 AEs were thrombocytopenia (29.7%) and neutropenia (25.7%) for sunitinib; hand-foot syndrome (21.2%) for sorafenib. Discontinuations owing to AEs were similar (sunitinib, 13.3%; sorafenib, 12.7%). Conclusion OS with sunitinib was not superior or equivalent but was significantly inferior to sorafenib. OS was comparable in Asian and hepatitis B–infected patients. OS was superior in hepatitis C–infected patients who received sorafenib. Sunitinib-treated patients reported more frequent and severe toxicity.

A randomized phase III trial of S-1/oxaliplatin (SOX) plus bevacizumab versus 5-FU/l-LV/oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) plus bevacizmab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: The SOFT study.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3519-3519 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daisuke Takahari ◽  
Yasuhide Yamada ◽  
Hiroshi Matsumoto ◽  
Hideo Baba ◽  
Kazuhiro Yoshida ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
P Value ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Open Label Phase ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Ecog Ps

3519 Background: Several studies of oxaliplatin plus S-1 combination therapy (SOX) conducted in Asia have shown promising efficacy and safety for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), suggesting the potential to replace mFOLFOX6. We performed a randomized phase III trial to determine whether SOX plus bevacizmab (SOX+Bev) is non-inferior to mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizmab (mFOLFOX6+Bev) in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). Methods: The SOFT study was a randomized, open-label, phase III trial. Chemotherapy-naïve patients (pts) with mCRC, an ECOG PS of 0-1, and adequate organ functions were randomized to receive either mFOLFOX6+Bev (5 mg/kg of bevacizumab, followed by 200 mg/m2 of l-leucovorin given simultaneously with 85 mg/m2 of oxaliplatin, followed by a 400 mg/m2 bolus of 5-FU on day 1 and then 2,400 mg/m2 of 5-FU over 46 h, every 2 weeks) or SOX+Bev (7.5 mg/kg of bevacizumab, 130 mg/m2 of oxaliplatin on day 1, and 40−60 mg of S-1 twice daily for 2 weeks, followed by a 1-week rest). The primary endpoint was PFS. A sample size of 225 pts per group was estimated to be necessary based on a median PFS of 10.0 months in each group and an 80% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of SOX+Bev with a 2.5-month margin (hazard ratio, HR = 1.33) and a 2-sided alpha of 0.05. Results: A total of 512 pts were enrolled from February 2009 to March 2011. Data were analyzed after confirming >388 events as planned. Demographic factors were well balanced. Pts received a median of 12 cycles (1 cycle = 2 weeks) of mFOLFOX6+Bev and 8 cycles (1 cycle = 3 weeks) of SOX+Bev (range: 1−16). Median PFS was 11.5 months (95% CI: 10.7−13.2) with mFOLFOX6+Bev and 11.7 months (95% CI: 10.7−12.9) with SOX+Bev. The adjusted HR for PFS was 1.043 (95% CI: 0.860−1.266), and the p value for non-inferiority was 0.0139. Response rate was 62.7% with mFOLFOX6+Bev and 61.5% with SOX+Bev. Grade 3/4 toxicities (%) with mFOLFOX6+Bev/SOX+Bev were leukopenia 8.4/2.4, neutropenia 33.7/8.8, anorexia 1.2/5.2, and diarrhea 2.8/9.2. Conclusions: SOX+Bev is non-inferior to mFOLFOX6+Bev with respect to PFS as 1st-line treatment for mCRC and thus can replace mFOLFOX6+Bev. Clinical trial information: JapicCTI-090699.

Silmitasertib (CX-4945) in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin as first-line treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma: A phase Ib/II study.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 312-312
Author(s):  
Mitesh J. Borad ◽  
Li-Yuan Bai ◽  
Ming-Huang Chen ◽  
Joleen M. Hubbard ◽  
Kabir Mody ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Preliminary Evidence ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Response To Treatment ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase Ib ◽  
Open Label Phase ◽  
Almost All

312 Background: Silmitasertib (CX-4945), an oral small molecule inhibitor of casein kinase 2 (CK2), has exhibited preclinical antitumor activity and strong synergism with gemcitabine + cisplatin. We investigated the safety and efficacy of silmitasertib in combination with gemcitabine + cisplatin in patients with unresectable cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). Methods: S4-13-001 is a multicenter, open-label, phase Ib/II study of silmitasertib in combination with gemcitabine + cisplatin in patients with locally advanced or metastatic CCA. The phase Ib portion included dose-escalation, expansion, and exploratory cohorts of silmitasertib with doses ranging from 200 to 1000 mg bid (6 days for the escalation/expansion cohorts and 10 and 21 days’ continuous dosing for the exploratory cohorts). In the phase II portion patients received silmitasertib 1000 mg bid for 10 days in combination with gemcitabine + cisplatin on days 1 & 8 over a 21-day cycle. In this interim analysis, we present findings from the combined population of patients from the phase Ib and II portions of the study. Response to treatment was assessed by RECIST v1.1 every 6 weeks. Primary efficacy outcome measure was progression-free survival (PFS). ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02128282). Results: A total of 87 patients were enrolled and received silmitasertib in the phase Ib (n=50) and phase II (n=37) portions of the study. Of these, 55 patients were evaluable for efficacy with details as follows: median PFS 11.1 (95% CI 7.6–14.7) months; median overall survival (OS) 17.4 (95% CI 13.4–25.7) months; overall response rate (ORR) 32.1%; and disease control rate (DCR) 79.3%. Almost all patients (79/87; 90.8%) evaluable for safety reported ≥1 treatment-related adverse event (TEAE). The most common TEAEs (all grades) with silmitasertib were diarrhea (65.5%), nausea (50.6%), vomiting (33.3%), fatigue (31.0%), and anemia (21.8%). The most common grade ≥3 TEAEs were diarrhea (13.8%), neutropenia (11.5%), nausea (9.2%), anemia (8.0%), and thrombocytopenia (8.0%). Eleven patients (12.6%) discontinued treatment due to TEAEs. Conclusions: Silmitasertib in combination with gemcitabine + cisplatin yields promising preliminary evidence of efficacy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic CCA. Based on these data a randomized phase III trial is planned. Clinical trial information: NCT02128282.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document