A randomized, double-blind, placebo (Pbo)-controlled phase III study of ombrabulin plus cisplatin in patients (pts) with advanced-stage soft-tissue sarcoma after failure of anthracycline and ifosfamide chemotherapies.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 10506-10506
Author(s):  
Zsuzsanna Papai ◽  
Anthony W. Tolcher ◽  
Antoine Italiano ◽  
Didier Cupissol ◽  
Antonio Lopez-Pousa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Soft Tissue Sarcoma ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Vascular Disrupting Agent ◽  
Phase Iii Study

10506 Background: Ombrabulin (AVE8062) is a vascular disrupting agent that damages established tumor vasculature and has demonstrated synergistic antitumor activity with cisplatin in vivo. In a phase I study, ombrabulin 25 mg/m² plus cisplatin 75 mg/m² was identified as the recommended dose in pts with solid tumors (AACR 2008; Abs 08-AB-4925). This phase III study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ombrabulin plus cisplatin in pts with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma (NCT00699517). Methods: Pts (aged ≥18 yrs, ECOG PS ≤2) with metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma who had received prior anthracycline and ifosfamide, with ≤2 prior chemotherapies for advanced disease, were randomized (1:1) to receive either ombrabulin 25 mg/m² or Pbo plus cisplatin 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks. The primary objective was to compare progression-free survival (PFS) between arms; secondary objectives included overall survival (OS) and safety. Results: Overall, 355 pts (median age 52 yrs; 51.5% male) were randomized (176 ombrabulin, 179 Pbo) in 44 centers worldwide. Median duration of follow-up was 27.9 and 30.5 months in Pbo and ombrabulin arms, respectively. PFS analysis showed a statistically significant improvement with ombrabulin (median 1.54 vs 1.41 months Pbo; HR=0.76, 95% CI 0.59–0.98; p=0.0302), with 3- and 6-month rates in favor of ombrabulin vs Pbo: 35.4% vs 24.9% and 19.3% vs 10.6%, respectively. A trend for an improvement with ombrabulin was observed in 3 of the 4 prespecified histology strata: liposarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, and “other”, but not for pleomorphic. Analysis of OS did not show statistically significant improvement with ombrabulin (median 11.43 vs 9.33 months Pbo, HR=0.85, 95% CI 0.67–1.09). OS rates at 1 year were in favor of ombrabulin (48.6% vs 42.4% Pbo). Grade 3/4 TEAEs more frequently seen with ombrabulin included neutropenia (19.2% vs 7.9% Pbo) and thrombocytopenia (8.5% vs 3.4% Pbo). Conclusions: Although this trial met its primary efficacy endpoint, the combination of ombrabulin and cisplatin did not demonstrate sufficient clinical benefit in pts with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma to warrant further study. Clinical trial information: NCT00699517.

scholarly journals Anti-Angiogenic Agents in Management of Sarcoma Patients: Overview of Published Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre-Yves Cren ◽  
Loïc Lebellec ◽  
Thomas Ryckewaert ◽  
Nicolas Penel
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Soft Tissue Sarcoma ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Multikinase Inhibitors ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

We reviewed all fully published clinical trials assessing anti-angiogenic agents in sarcoma patients (last issue, January 13, 2020). Anti-angiogenic macromolecules (e.g., bevacizumab or ombrabulin) provide disappointing results. Many multikinase inhibitors have been assessed with non-randomized phase II trials with limited samples and without stratification according to histological subtypes, therefore interpretation of such trials is very challenging. On the contrary, pazopanib, regorafenib, and sorafenib have been assessed using double-blind placebo-controlled randomized phase II or phase III trials. Compared to placebo, sorafenib demonstrates activity in desmoid-type fibromatosis patients. Based on results of phase 3 trial, pazopanib had obtained approval for treatment of pretreated non-adipocytic soft tissue sarcoma. Regorafenib is currently assessed in several clinical settings and provides significant improvement of progression-free survival in pre-treated non-adipocytic soft tissue sarcoma and in advanced pretreated osteosarcoma. Multikinase inhibitors are a breakthrough in sarcoma management. Many trials are ongoing. Nevertheless, predictive factors are still missing.

scholarly journals A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III study of pazopanib in patients with soft tissue sarcoma: results from the Japanese subgroup

2016 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 248-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akira Kawai ◽  
Nobuhito Araki ◽  
Hiroaki Hiraga ◽  
Hideshi Sugiura ◽  
Akihiko Matsumine ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Soft Tissue Sarcoma ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Phase Iii Study

Phase III Trial of Two Investigational Schedules of Ifosfamide Compared With Standard-Dose Doxorubicin in Advanced or Metastatic Soft Tissue Sarcoma: A European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group Study

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (21) ◽  
pp. 3144-3150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Lorigan ◽  
Jaap Verweij ◽  
Zsuzsa Papai ◽  
Sjoerd Rodenhuis ◽  
Axel Le Cesne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Soft Tissue Sarcoma ◽  
Standard Dose ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Free Survival

Purpose Single-agent doxorubicin remains the standard treatment for advanced soft tissue sarcomas. Combining doxorubicin with standard-dose ifosfamide has not been shown to improve survival and is associated with a significantly increased toxicity; it is not known whether higher dose single-agent ifosfamide is superior to doxorubicin. Patients and Methods This randomized prospective multicenter phase III trial was designed to compare progression-free survival of patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma receiving either regimen of standard doxorubicin 75 mg/m2 every 21 days, ifosfamide 9 g/m2 over 3 days continuous infusion, or ifosfamide 3 g/m2 per day in 3 hours over 3 days. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, response rate, and toxicity. Results The study included 326 patients. Grade 4 leukopenia, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and encephalopathy were more frequent in the ifosfamide arms. Progression-free survival, overall survival, and response rates were not significantly different between the three arms. An independent data monitoring committee reviewed the interim data and recommended early closure of the trial for futility (ie, no significant difference would be shown). Conclusion Single-agent doxorubicin remains the treatment of choice for patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma.

An international, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III trial (EXAM) of cabozantinib (XL184) in medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC) patients (pts) with documented RECIST progression at baseline.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5508-5508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Schoffski ◽  
Rossella Elisei ◽  
Stefan Müller ◽  
Marcia S. Brose ◽  
Manisha H. Shah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Efficacy Measure ◽  
Independent Review ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Grade 3

5508 Background: MTC arises from parafollicular cells of the thyroid gland, accounts for 5-8% of thyroid cancers and represents an unmet medical need. Cabozantinib (cabo) is an oral inhibitor of MET, VEGFR2, and RET. We conducted a phase III study of cabo vs placebo (P) in pts with progressive, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic MTC. Methods: Eligible pts were required to have documented RECIST progression within 14 months of screening. The primary efficacy measure was progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by an independent review facility (IRF) using RECIST. Secondary efficacy measures included objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). The study has 90% power to detect a 75% increase in PFS and 80% power to detect a 50% increase in OS. Tumor assessments occurred every 12 weeks. Crossover between treatment arms was not allowed. Results: Between Sept 2008 and Feb 2011, 330 pts (median age 55 yrs; 67% male; 96% measureable disease; RET mutation status: pos 48%; neg 12%; unknown 39%; prior TKI exposure: yes 21%, no 78%, unknown 2%) were randomized 2:1 to cabo (140 mg free base [175 mg salt form] qd; n=219) or P (n=111). The planned primary PFS analysis included events through the date of the 138th event. As of 15June2011, 44.7% of pts on cabo and 13.5% on P were still receiving study treatment. Statistically significant PFS prolongation of 7.2 mo was observed; median PFS for cabo was 11.2 mo vs 4.0 mo for P (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.19-0.40, p<0.0001). PFS results favored the cabo group across subset analyses including RET status and prior TKI use. ORR was 28% for cabo vs 0% for P (p<0.0001). An interim analysis of OS (44% of the 217 required events) did not show a difference between cabo and P. The most frequent grade ≥3 adverse events (cabo vs P) were diarrhea (15.9 vs 1.8%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (12.6 vs 0%), fatigue (9.3 vs 2.8%), hypocalcemia (9.3 vs 0%), and hypertension (7.9 vs 0%). Conclusions: This phase III study met its primary objective of demonstrating substantial PFS prolongation with cabo vs. P in a patient population with MTC and documented progressive disease in need of therapeutic intervention.

AMEERA-5: A randomized, double-blind phase III study of amcenestrant (SAR439859) + palbociclib versus letrozole + palbociclib for previously untreated ER+/HER2- advanced breast cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS1104-TPS1104
Author(s):  
Aditya Bardia ◽  
Javier Cortes ◽  
Sara A. Hurvitz ◽  
Suzette Delaloge ◽  
Hiroji Iwata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Estrogen Receptor ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Advanced Breast Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Advanced Breast ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii Study

TPS1104 Background: Selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs) block estrogen receptor (ER) associated signaling and have created interest for treating patients (pts) with advanced ER+ breast cancer (BC). Fulvestrant is currently the only SERD available for advanced BC but requires intramuscular administration, limiting the applied dose, exposure and receptor engagement. Amcenestrant (SAR439859) is an oral SERD that binds with high affinity to both wild-type and mutant ER, blocking estradiol binding and promoting up to 98% ER degradation in preclinical studies. In the phase I AMEERA-1 study of pretreated pts with ER+/HER2- advanced BC, amcenestrant 150–600 mg once daily (QD) showed a mean ER occupancy of 94% with plasma concentrations > 100 ng/mL and a favorable safety profile (Bardia, 2019; data on file). Combination therapy with amcenestrant + palbociclib (palbo) was also evaluated as part of this ongoing phase I study. CDK 4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) combined with an aromatase inhibitor (AI), the gold standard for first line treatment for advanced breast cancer, prolong progression free survival (PFS) in pts with no prior treatment for ER+/HER2- advanced BC, but OS benefit has not been shown yet in postmenopausal pts. There remains a clinical need for more effective treatments in this setting. Methods: AMEERA-5 (NCT04478266) is an ongoing, prospective, randomized, double-blind phase III study comparing the efficacy and safety of amcenestrant + palbo with that of letrozole + palbo in pts with advanced, locoregional recurrent or metastatic ER+/HER2- BC who have not received prior systemic therapy for advanced disease. The study includes men, pre/peri-menopausal (with goserelin) and post-menopausal women. Pts with progression during or within 12 months of (neo)adjuvant endocrine therapy using any of the following agents are excluded: AI, selective estrogen receptor modulators, CDK4/6i. Pts are randomized 1:1 to either continuous amcenestrant 200 mg or letrozole 2.5 mg QD orally with matching placebos; both combined with palbo 125 mg QD orally (d1–21 every 28-d cycle). Randomization is stratified according to disease type (de novo metastatic vs recurrent disease), the presence of visceral metastasis, and menopausal status. The primary endpoint is investigator assessed progression free survival (PFS) (RECIST v1.1). Secondary endpoints are overall survival, PFS2, objective response rate, duration of response, clinical benefit rate, pharmacokinetics of amcenestrant and palbo, health-related quality of life, time to chemotherapy, and safety. Biomarkers will be measured in paired tumor biopsies and cell free deoxyribonucleic acid (cfDNA) over time. Target enrolment = 1066 pts; enrolment as of 1/2021 = 33 pts. Bardia A, et al., J Clin Oncol. 2019; 37 (15 suppl):1054 Clinical trial information: NCT04478266 .

Phase II Study of ET-743 in Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcomas: A European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group Trial

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 576-584 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Le Cesne ◽  
J.Y. Blay ◽  
I. Judson ◽  
A. Van Oosterom ◽  
J. Verweij ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Soft Tissue Sarcoma ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Median Duration ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Advanced Soft Tissue Sarcoma ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

Purpose This nonrandomized multicenter phase II study was performed to evaluate the activity and safety of Ecteinascidin (ET-743) administered at a dose of 1.5 mg/m2 as a 24-hour continuous infusion every 3 weeks in patients with pretreated advanced soft tissue sarcoma. Patients and Methods Patients with documented progressive advanced soft tissue sarcoma received ET-743 as second- or third-line chemotherapy. Antitumor activity was evaluated every 6 weeks until progression, excessive toxicity, or patient refusal. Results One hundred four patients from eight European institutions were included in the study (March 1999 to November 2000). A total of 410 cycles were administered in 99 assessable patients. Toxicity mainly involved reversible grade 3 to 4 asymptomatic elevation of transaminases in 40% of patients, and grade 3 to 4 neutropenia was observed in 52% of patients. There were eight partial responses (PR; objective regression rate, 8%), 45 no change (NC; > 6 months in 26% of patients), and 39 progressive disease. A progression arrest rate (PR + NC) of 56% was observed in leiomyosarcoma and 61% in synovialosarcoma. The median duration of the time to progression was 105 days, and the 6-month progression-free survival was 29%. The median duration of survival was 9.2 months. Conclusion ET-743 seems to be a promising active agent in advanced soft tissue sarcoma, with no cumulative toxicities. The 6-months progression-free survival observed in advanced soft tissue sarcoma compares favorably with those obtained with other active drugs tested in second-line chemotherapy in previous European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer trials. The median overall survival was unusually long in these heavily pretreated patients mainly due to the high number of patients who benefit from the drug in terms of tumor control.

A randomized, controlled, double-blind phase III study (AVOREN) of bevacizumab/interferon-α2a vs placebo/interferon- α2a as first-line therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3-3 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Escudier ◽  
P. Koralewski ◽  
A. Pluzanska ◽  
A. Ravaud ◽  
S. Bracarda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Interferon Α2a ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Adequate Organ Function

3 Background: Bevacizumab (BEV) is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits tumor angiogenesis by targeting VEGF. In relapsed RCC, BEV improved time to progression compared with placebo (2.5 vs. 4.8 months). A phase III trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BEV in combination with interferon (IFN)-a2a as first-line treatment in metastatic (m) RCC. The final analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) and interim analysis of overall survival (OS) are presented. Methods: Nephrectomized patients with clear cell mRCC, KPS of =70%, no CNS metastases and adequate organ function received IFN- a2a (x3/week at a recommended dose of 9 MIU for up to 1 year) plus BEV (10mg/kg q2w) or placebo until disease progression. Tumor assessments were performed every 8 weeks until week 32 and 12 weekly thereafter. Patients were stratified according to country and Motzer score. Results: Between June 2004 and October 2006, 649 patients were randomized (641 treated) at 101 centers in 18 countries. The treatment arms were well balanced for prognostic factors. At the data cutoff, 505 progression events had occurred, 111 patients remained on treatment, 287 had discontinued (discontinuations due to AEs were 12% with IFN vs. 28% with IFN-a2a/BEV), and 251 died. BEV-related side effects were generally mild and consistent with previous observations. The addition of BEV to IFN-a2a significantly increased PFS (10.2 vs. 5.4 mo) (HR=0.63; p<0.0001) and objective tumor response rate (30.6% vs. 12.4%; p<0.0001). A trend toward improved OS was observed with the addition of BEV to IFN-a2a (p=0.0670). Conclusions: BEV improves PFS when combined with IFN-a2a in mRCC. No unexpected safety events were observed. [Table: see text] [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]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document