Olaparib plus paclitaxel in patients with recurrent or metastatic gastric cancer: A randomized, double-blind phase II study.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4013-4013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yung-Jue Bang ◽  
Seock-Ah Im ◽  
Keun-Wook Lee ◽  
Jae Yong Cho ◽  
Eun-Kee Song ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Parp Inhibitor ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Metastatic Gastric Cancer ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Protein Levels ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Atm Protein ◽  
Grade 3

4013 Background: Our multicenter study compared the efficacy of the oral PARP inhibitor olaparib plus paclitaxel (O/P) vs paclitaxel alone (P) as second-line therapy in pts with recurrent/metastatic gastric cancer (GC) (NCT01063517). As initial preclinical data suggested that responsiveness of GC cell lines to olaparib was associated with low ATM protein levels, our study was enriched for pts with low ATM tumors (ATM–) by IHC (50% randomized vs 14% screening prevalence). Methods: Eligible pts were randomized 1:1 (stratified by ATM status) to receiveolaparib 100 mg bid (tablet form) plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 iv on days 1, 8, 15 per 28-day cycle) or placebo plus paclitaxel until progression or investigator decision. After combination therapy, pts could take olaparib 200 mg bid monotherapy or placebo until progression. Co-primary endpoints: progression-free survival (PFS; RECIST v1.1) in all pts and ATM– pts. Secondary endpoints: overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), safety. Results: 123/124 randomized pts were treated (O/P=61; P=62). Baseline characteristics were generally well balanced. Use of post-progression therapy was similar in both arms (O/P=48.4%; P=43.5%) as was median paclitaxel duration (O/P=17 wks; P=16 wks); 18 pts received monotherapy (O/P=11; P=7). More pts in the O/P than P arm had delays (79 vs 63%) and reductions (41 vs 27%) in paclitaxel dosing. The most common grade ≥3 AEs in the O/P and P arms were neutropenia (56 vs 39%) and anemia (11 vs 11%). Conclusions: Olaparib plus paclitaxel was well tolerated and led to a statistically significant improvement in OS, but not PFS, vs paclitaxel alone in both all pts and ATM– pts, with a larger benefit in ATM– pts. Clinical trial information: NCT01063517. [Table: see text]

LOTUS (NCT02162719): A double-blind placebo (PBO)-controlled randomized phase II trial of first-line ipatasertib (IPAT) + paclitaxel (P) for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1009-1009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Alexandra Dent ◽  
Sung-Bae Kim ◽  
Seock-Ah Im ◽  
Marc Espie ◽  
Sibel Blau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Dose Intensity ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Akt Inhibitor ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Median Cumulative Dose

1009 Background: The oral Akt inhibitor IPAT is being evaluated in cancers with a high prevalence of PI3K/Akt pathway activation, including TNBC. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) had measurable inoperable locally advanced/metastatic TNBC previously untreated with systemic therapy. Pts were stratified by prior (neo)adjuvant therapy, chemotherapy-free interval and tumor PTEN status, and randomized 1:1 to P 80 mg/m2 (d1, 8 & 15) with either IPAT 400 mg or PBO (d1–21) q28d until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in the ITT population and pts with PTEN-low tumors by IHC. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR) and overall survival in the ITT and IHC PTEN-low populations, efficacy in pts with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered tumors by next-generation sequencing (NGS), and safety. Results: Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between arms. Efficacy is shown below. The most common grade ≥3 AEs (grouped terms) were diarrhea (23% IPAT+P vs 0% PBO+P; no grade 4 or colitis in either arm), neutropenia (18% vs 8%), asthenia (5% vs 6%), peripheral neuropathy (5% vs 5%) and pneumonia (5% vs 0%). More pts receiving IPAT+P than PBO+P had an AE leading to dose reduction of IPAT/PBO (21% vs 6%) or P (38% vs 11%) but median cumulative dose intensity was similar (IPAT/PBO: 99% vs 100%; P: 100% vs 100%). AEs led to IPAT/PBO discontinuation in 13% vs 11% of pts, respectively; 2 pts (3%) discontinued IPAT for grade 3 diarrhea. Conclusions: Adding IPAT to P for TNBC modestly improved PFS in the ITT pts. The effect was more pronounced in the prespecified subgroup with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN alterations, warranting further evaluation of IPAT in these pts. AEs were manageable. Clinical trial information: NCT02162719. [Table: see text]

Randomized, Double-Blind Phase II Trial With Prospective Classification by ATM Protein Level to Evaluate the Efficacy and Tolerability of Olaparib Plus Paclitaxel in Patients With Recurrent or Metastatic Gastric Cancer

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (33) ◽  
pp. 3858-3865 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yung-Jue Bang ◽  
Seock-Ah Im ◽  
Keun-Wook Lee ◽  
Jae Yong Cho ◽  
Eun-Kee Song ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Metastatic Gastric Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Gastric Cancer Cell Lines ◽  
Study Population ◽  
Atm Protein

Purpose Gastric cancer cell lines, particularly those with low levels of ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM), a key activator of DNA damage response, are sensitive to the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib. We compared the efficacy of olaparib plus paclitaxel (olaparib/paclitaxel) with paclitaxel alone in patients with recurrent or metastatic gastric cancer and assessed whether low ATM expression is predictive of improved clinical outcome for olaparib/paclitaxel. Patients and Methods In this phase II, double-blind study (Study 39; NCT01063517), patients were randomly assigned to oral olaparib 100 mg twice per day (tablets) plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 per day intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 28-day cycle) or placebo plus paclitaxel (placebo/paclitaxel), followed by maintenance monotherapy with olaparib (200 mg twice per day) or placebo. The study population was enriched to 50% for patients with low or undetectable ATM levels (ATMlow). Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results One hundred twenty-three of 124 randomly assigned patients received treatment (olaparib/paclitaxel, n = 61; placebo/paclitaxel, n = 62). The screening prevalence of ATMlow patients was 14%. Olaparib/paclitaxel did not lead to a significant improvement in PFS versus placebo/paclitaxel (overall population: hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; median PFS, 3.91 v 3.55 months, respectively; ATMlow population: HR, 0.74; median PFS, 5.29 v 3.68 months, respectively). However, olaparib/paclitaxel significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus placebo/paclitaxel in both the overall population (HR, 0.56; 80% CI, 0.41 to 0.75; P = .005; median OS, 13.1 v 8.3 months, respectively) and the ATMlow population (HR, 0.35; 80% CI, 0.22 to 0.56; P = .002; median OS, not reached v 8.2 months, respectively). Olaparib/paclitaxel was generally well tolerated, with no unexpected safety findings. Conclusion Olaparib/paclitaxel is active in the treatment of patients with metastatic gastric cancer, with a greater OS benefit in ATMlow patients. A phase III trial in this setting is under way.

scholarly journals Clinical Study of Sintilimab as Second-Line or Above Therapy in Patients With Advanced or Metastatic Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caiyun Nie ◽  
Huifang Lv ◽  
Yingjun Liu ◽  
Beibei Chen ◽  
Weifeng Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Therapeutic Strategy ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Metastatic Gastric Cancer ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Systemic Therapies

BackgroundThe present study was conducted to analyze the clinical efficacy and safety of sintilimab as second-line or above therapy for patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer.MethodsPatients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer that progressed after prior systemic therapies and treated with sintilimab from March 2019 to July 2020 were retrospectively analyzed in this study. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), and safety.ResultsFifty-two patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer received sintilimab monotherapy or combination therapy after they failed from prior systemic therapies. Eight patients achieved partial response (PR), 26 patients had stable disease (SD), and 18 patients had progressive disease (PD). The ORR and DCR were 15.4% (8/52) and 65.4% (34/52), respectively. Median PFS was 2.5 months (95% CI = 2.0–3.0), and median OS was 5.8 months (95% CI = 4.9–6.7). The ORR and DCR were 30.0% (6/20) and 80.0% (16/20), respectively, in intestinal subtype, which were superior than in non-intestinal subtype (ORR: 6.3%, DCR: 56.3%). Patients with intestinal subtype obtained longer PFS (4.0 vs. 1.9) and OS (9.0 vs. 4.1) than those with non-intestinal subtype. The incidence of grade 3–4 adverse events was 44.2%.ConclusionsSintilimab monotherapy or combination therapy provides a feasible therapeutic strategy for patients with advanced or metastatic gastric cancer who failed from prior systemic therapies. The efficacy of sintilimab in intestinal subtype was superior than that in non-intestinal subtype.

Paclitaxel, oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin combination chemotherapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic gastric cancer

2018 ◽  
Vol 104 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-29
Author(s):  
Yan-qin Lan ◽  
Ri-ping Wu ◽  
Xiao-bing Huang ◽  
Xin-li Wang ◽  
Dong-ta Zhong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Combination Chemotherapy ◽  
Intravenous Infusion ◽  
Median Overall Survival ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Metastatic Gastric Cancer ◽  
Peripheral Neurotoxicity ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Safe Approach

Purpose: This study evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of combination chemotherapy with paclitaxel, oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (POFL) in patients with recurrent or metastatic gastric cancer. Methods: One hundred and thirty-eight patients with histologically confirmed recurrent or metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma were treated with the POFL regimen: paclitaxel at a dose of 135 mg/m2 as a 3-hour intravenous infusion on day 1, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 and leucovorin 400 mg/m2 as an intravenous infusion over 2 hours on day 1, followed by 5-fluorouracil 2,400 mg/m2 as an infusion over a 46-hour period on 3 consecutive days, in a 2-week cycle. Results: Twelve patients could not be evaluated for response because of the absence of any measurable lesions or early discontinuation of therapy, so responses were assessed in 126 patients. The overall objective response rate was 56.3% (95% CI, 47.5%-64.9%). The median time to progression was 6.7 months (95% CI, 5.8-7.6 months), and the median overall survival was 12.6 months (95% CI, 11.3-13.9 months). The most common grade 3 and 4 toxicities were neutropenia (50.7%), peripheral neurotoxicity (16.7%) and alopecia (27.5%). Conclusions: Combination chemotherapy with POFL offers a new, active and safe approach to the treatment of recurrent or metastatic gastric cancer.

Weekly nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel(nab-PTX) as second-or later-line treatment for unresectable or recurrent gastric cancer in practice.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 168-168
Author(s):  
Masataka Yagisawa ◽  
Susumu Sogabe ◽  
Ichiro Iwanaga ◽  
Tomohiro Oshino ◽  
Takahiro Yamamura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Sensory Neuropathy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Metastatic Gastric Cancer ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Recurrent Gastric Cancer ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Gastric Cancer Patients

168 Background: Nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-PTX) is a novel, solvent polyoxyethylated castor oil-free, biologically interactive form of paclitaxel (PTX). Nab-PTX allows shorter infusion schedules and needs no premedication for hypersensitivity reactions, so nab-PTX will be used as the alternative to PTX for more patients. In Japan, nab-PTX was approved as tri-weekly regimen (210mg/m2 every 3weeks) for gastric cancer. On the other hands, weekly PTX (80mg/m2 on day1, 8, and 15, every 4weeks) is mostly used as PTX regimen as 2nd or later line treatment for gastric cancer in Japan. So in practice, nab-PTX would be used by weekly regimen same as weekly PTX. However, the safety and efficacy of weekly nab-PTX for gastric cancer had not been reported yet. Methods: Unresectable or metastatic gastric cancer patients who began receiving weekly nab-PTX as 2nd or later line chemotherapy in our two facilities from February 2013 to August 2014 were retrospectively analyzed for the safety and efficacy. Written informed consent about the treatment of weekly nab-PTX was obtained from all patients before treatment. Results: A total of 32 patients were assessed, retrospectively. The dose and schedule of nab-PTX was 100mg/m2 on day1, 8, and 15, every 4weeks in all patients. Patients characteristics were as follows: median age 67.5(37-84); Male/female: 24/8; PS 0/1/2/3:15/8/7/2; treatment line 2/3/4/5: 12/14/5/1. The overall response rate was 9.3% (CR/PR/SD/PD/NE: 1/2/12/15/2). The median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median overall survival (mOS) were 2.99 months and 5.95 months, in all patients. In 23 patients whose PS were 0 or 1, mPFS and mOS were 4.14 months and 8.44 months. Most common grade 3/4 hematological toxicities were anemia (46.9%), neutropenia (40.6%), febrile neutropenia (15.6%). About the sensory neuropathy, grade 3 was 9.3%, grade2 was 21.9%, and grade1 was 3.1%. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: Weekly nab-PTX showed promising efficacy against previously treated unresectable or recurrent gastric cancer especially for good PS patients, The Common toxicities of weekly nab-PTX were well-tolerated.

Updated results of BICC-C study comparing first-line irinotecan/fluoropymidine combinations with or without celecoxib in mCRC: Updated efficacy data

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4027-4027 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Fuchs ◽  
J. Marshall ◽  
E. Mitchell ◽  
R. Wierzbicki ◽  
V. Ganju ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
First Line ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Period 2 ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
One Year

4027 Background: This multicenter, randomized study assessed efficacy & safety for irinotecan/fluoropyrimidines combinations in previously untreated mCRC. Methods: Pts were randomized to: infusional FOLFIRI, modified bolus IFL (mIFL), or CapeIri; and concurrent celecoxib or placebo in a double-blind fashion. The protocol was amended in April 2004: bevacizumab (bev) was added to the FOLFIRI and mIFL arms, whereas CapeIri was discontinued. Period 1 (P1) and Period 2 (P2) designate subjects enrolled before or after the amendment. Initial efficacy & safety analyses were reported at ASCO ’06. We now report follow-up of 46 months for P1 and 31 months for P2. Results: 430 pts were treated in P1 and 117 pts in P2. Baseline characteristics and post-study treatment were balanced. P1 results: Median progression free survival (PFS) was 7.6 mos for FOLFIRI; 5.9 mos for mIFL (p=0.004); and 5.8 mos for CapeIri (p=0.015). Median overall survival (OS) was 23.1 mos for FOLFIRI; 17.6 mos for mIFL (p=0.087); and 18.9 mos for CapeIri (p=0.27). One-year survival rate favored FOLFIRI (75%) compared to either mIFL (65%) or CapeIri (66%). Overall Response Rate (ORR) was 47% in FOLFIRI, 43% in mIFL, 39% in CapeIri (not significantly different). P2 results: Median PFS was 11.2 mos for FOLFIRI+bev and 8.3 mos for mIFL+bev (p=0.28). Median OS was not reached for FOLFIRI+bev but was 19.2 mos for mIFL+bev (p=0.007). One-year survival rate favored FOLFIRI+bev (87%) when compared to mIFL+bev (61%). ORR was 58% for FOLFIRI+bev and 54% for mIFL+bev (p=0.73). Common grade = 3 AEs are listed below. Celecoxib did not impact safety or efficacy. Conclusions: First line FOLFIRI or FOLFIRI+bev were superior to their comparators and show favorable results in survival and tolerability in untreated mCRC. Median survival for FOLFIRI+bev has not been reached. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Docetaxel, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine (TEX regimen) for patients with metastatic gastric cancer: Interim results from a phase II trial by the German AIO Group

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4554-4554 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. H. Moehler ◽  
P. Thuss-Patience ◽  
D. Arnold ◽  
W. Grothe ◽  
A. Stein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Distant Metastases ◽  
Response Assessment ◽  
Metastatic Gastric Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Ecog Ps

4554 Background: Combination regimens of 3 drugs have shown promising activity as treatment for patients (pts) with metastatic gastric cancer (GC). Docetaxel combined with cisplatin and 5-FU (CF) improved overall survival and response rates when compared to standard CF. However, the identification of less toxic and more convenient variants of this regimen is still important. We have previously established a regimen with docetaxel (T) combined with oxaliplatin (E) and capecitabine (X) in a phase I trial [Grothe et al., Proc. ASCO 2006]. Results of a preplanned interim analysis of subsequent multicenter phase II trials of the TEX regimen are presented here. Methods: Pts with metastatic or locally advanced GC, adequate organ function, ECOG PS 0–2, and no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease (adjuvant allowed) were enrolled. TEX regimen was administered as defined: T 35 mg/m2 and E 70 mg/m2 on days (d) 1 and 8, with X 800 mg/m2 bid on d1–14 every 22 days Toxicity assessment was done 3-weekly while CT scans were repeated 9-weekly. Results: 35 of 48 pts were enrolled until 06/08: 28 male / 7 female, median age 59 (36–81) years, ECOG PS 0/1/2 69%/31%/0%, gastric / gastroesophageal cancer 60%/40%, distant metastases 96%, tumor in situ 37%. The most common toxicities reported were (CTC grade [gr] 3/4): diarrhea 20%/3%, vomiting 11%/3%, asthenia and neurotoxicity each 9%/0%. Mucositis and hand-foot-syndrome were observed in (grade 1+2 / grade 3) 29%/0% and 26%/3%, respectively. Hematoxicity was mild with grade 3 anemia in 10% and no other grade 3/4 toxicity except one episode of febrile neutropenia . Of 25 pts evaluable so far, first tumor response assessment revealed (RECIST criteria) partial response in 36% and stable disease in 40% of patients. Conclusions: TEX is a safe and tolerable regimen for patients with metastatic gastric cancer. Preliminary efficacy results indicate promising activity. Mature data including progression free survival will be presented at the meeting. [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]

An international, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase III study (MONET1) of motesanib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel (C/P) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA7512-LBA7512 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Scagliotti ◽  
I. Vynnychenko ◽  
Y. Ichinose ◽  
K. Park ◽  
K. Kubota ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cox Model ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Nonsquamous Nsclc

LBA7512 Background: This study evaluated whether motesanib (a selective oral inhibitor of VEGFR 1, 2 and 3; PDGFR and Kit) plus C/P improved overall survival (OS) compared with placebo + C/P in patients (pts) with nonsquamous NSCLC and in a subset of pts with adenocarcinoma. Methods: Pts had stage IIIB/IV or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC and no prior systemic therapy for advanced NSCLC. The study initially enrolled all histologies but was amended to exclude pts with squamous NSCLC owing to a high rate of hemoptysis. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive up to six 3-wk cycles of C (AUC 6 mg/mL·min) and P (200 mg/m2) with either motesanib 125 mg QD (Arm A) or placebo QD (Arm B) orally continuously. The primary endpoint was OS; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), objective response rate (ORR) and association between placental growth factor (PLGF) change and OS. OS was evaluated using a stratified Cox model and 2-sided log-rank test (α=0.03 for nonsquamous pts and α=0.02 for adenocarcinoma pts). Results: 1090 pts with nonsquamous NSCLC were randomized (Arm A/B, n=541/549); 890 had adenocarcinoma (n=448/442). 61% were men; median age was 60 years (range 21–87); 83% had stage IV disease. At the time of analysis, 753 pts had died (608 pts with adenocarcinoma). Median follow-up was 10.6 mo. OS was not significantly improved in Arm A compared with Arm B (Table). In Arm A, PLGF analysis did not show an association with OS. The incidence of grade ≥3 AEs in Arms A/B was 73/59%. Grade ≥3 AEs occurring more frequently in Arm A than B included neutropenia (22/15%), diarrhea (9/1%), hypertension (7/1%) and cholecystitis (3/0%). The incidence of grade 5 AEs was 14/9% in Arms A/B. Conclusions: In pts with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC, treatment with motesanib + C/P did not significantly improve OS compared with C/P alone. [Table: see text]

Efficacy and safety of sunitinib (SU) in patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and lung metastases (mets) only at baseline.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15098-e15098
Author(s):  
Nobuo Shinohara ◽  
Hideyuki Akaza ◽  
Yoshihiko Tomita ◽  
Takeshi Yuasa ◽  
Hiroyuki Fujimoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Metastases ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
White Blood Cells ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome ◽  
Grade 3

e15098 Background: The lungs may be the sole site of mets in RCC.In this retrospective analysis, we analyzed the efficacy and safety of SU in mRCC pts from a global phase (ph) III study and a Japanese ph II study who had lung mets only at baseline. Methods: In the ph III study, treatment (Tx)-naïve mRCC pts were randomized 1:1 to SU 50 mg/d on a 4-weeks-on-2-weeks-off schedule (n=375) or interferon-a (IFN) 9 MU subcutaneously TIW (n=360). In the single-arm ph II study, Tx-naïve (n=25) and cytokine refractory (n=26) mRCC pts received the same SU Tx. In the ph III study, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by Kaplan–Meier method, with median values compared by log-rank test. In both studies, objective response rate (ORR) was calculated with a two-sided 95% CI. PFS, OS, ORR, and safety were analyzed at final data cutoff. Results: In the ph III study, 31 (8%) and 42 (11%) pts in the SU and IFN groups, respectively, had lung mets only, compared with 12 (24%) in the ph II study. Baseline characteristics in lung mets pts were similar to all pts. In lung mets pts from the ph III study, ORR was higher with SU than with IFN (58.1% [95% CI: 39.1–75.5] vs. 19.0% [95% CI: 8.6–34.1]; P<0.001); there was a trend for longer median PFS with SU (14.1 vs. 7.8 months; HR: 0.531 [95% CI: 0.278–1.015]; P=0.0513); and median OS was comparable in both Tx subgroups (HR: 0.739 [95% CI: 0.335–1.628]; P=0.4507), although, at 25% of events, median OS was 22.9 months with SU vs. 15.8 months with IFN. In lung mets pts from the ph II study, ORR was 75.0% (95% CI: 42.8–94.5); at the time of analysis, median PFS and OS had not been reached; 4 pts (33%) had died due to any cause and 8 (67%) were alive without disease progression. The most common grade ≥3 SU-related AEs were fatigue, hand-foot syndrome, and diarrhea (all 19%) in the ph III study, and decreased platelets (100%), white blood cells (92%), and neutrophils (92%) in the ph II study. Conclusions: In the ph III study, Tx-naïve mRCC pts with lung mets only had significantly higher ORR and a trend for improved PFS and OS with SU compared with IFN. In the Japanese ph II study, ORR with SU was 75% in lung mets pts. Thus, 1st-line use of SU in mRCC pts with lung mets should be encouraged.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document