First-, second-, third-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): Benchmarks for trials design from the International mRCC Database Consortium (IMDC).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4586-4586
Author(s):  
Daniel Yick Chin Heng ◽  
Brian I. Rini ◽  
Jae-Lyun Lee ◽  
Nils Kroeger ◽  
Sandy Srinivas ◽  
...  

4586 Background: Limited data exists on outcomes for mRCC patients treated with multiple lines of therapy. Benchmarks for survival are required for patient counseling and clinical trial design. Methods: Outcomes of mRCC patients from the IMDC treated with 1, 2, or 3+ lines of targeted therapy (TT) were compared and adjusted by proportional hazards regression. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) benchmarks were calculated using different population inclusion criteria. OS and PFS are calculated from the line of therapy under consideration unless otherwise specified. Results: 2,705 patients were treated with TT of which 1,533 (57%) received only 1st-line TT, 734 (27%) received 2 lines of TT, and 438 (16%) received 3+ lines of TT. The median OS of patients that received 1, 2 or 3+ lines of TT starting from initial TT was 14.9, 21.0, and 39.2 months, respectively (p<0.0001). On multivariable analysis adjusting for baseline Heng prognostic factors, the use of 2nd-line and 3rd-line therapy were each independently associated with better OS (HR=0.738 and 0.626, respectively, both p<0.0001). Survival benchmarks derived from patients in the IMDC using selected inclusion criteria as seen in contemporary mRCC clinical trials are shown below. Conclusions: Patients that are able to receive more lines of TT live longer. Survival benchmarks provide context and perspective when interpreting and designing new clinical trials. [Table: see text]

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sei Naito ◽  
Osamu Ichiyanagi ◽  
Tomoyuki Kato ◽  
Hidenori Kanno ◽  
Takafumi Narisawa ◽  
...  

Abstract Data on the outcomes of third- or fourth-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are limited. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of therapy beyond the second line. We retrospectively analysed data of mRCC patients who underwent systemic therapy at Yamagata University Hospital. The best objective response (BOR), response rate (RR), and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed for each line of treatment. To investigate the correlation between overall survival (OS) and the number of treatment lines during a patient’s lifetime, the median OS was assessed using univariate and multivariate analyses. In the first-, second-, and third-line therapies, approximately 20% of patients had long PFS of >15 months. In targeted treatments beyond the third line, only one treatment suppressed disease progression for >10 months. Among patients who died during the follow-up period, those treated with triple and quadruple lines had similar OS (42.5 months vs. 48.4 months, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that patients with triple or more lines of therapy had better OS; however, quadruple or more lines of therapy was not an independent prognostic factor. We concluded that third-line systemic therapy could improve OS; however, fourth-line therapy could not.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6092-6092
Author(s):  
Christelle de la Fouchardiere ◽  
Marie-Helene Massicotte ◽  
Isabelle Borget ◽  
Maryse Brassard ◽  
Mederic Claude-Desroches ◽  
...  

6092 Background: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) are currently used to treat patients with advanced iodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancers (DTC) but none has been approved by the FDA or the EMA until now. Sometimes, patients are treated with off-label TKI when a clinical trial is not available or in second- and third-line therapy. Methods: We hereby report the efficacy of “off-label” sorafenib and sunitinib treatments as first-, second- and third-line therapy in metastatic DTC patients from the French TUTHYREF (TUmeurs THYroïdiennes REFractaires) network. Primary endpoints were progression free survival (PFS) and tumor response according to sequential TKI treatment. Secondary endpoint was organ-specific metastatic site analysis. Results: 45 patients with advanced iodine-refractory DTC treated with off-label TKI were included in this study (26 men, mean age: 62 years). 22 had papillary, 10 had follicular and 13 had poorly DTC. 24/45 patients were treated with two and 3/45 with three lines of TKIs. Sorafenib was the most frequently used (57%) followed by sunitinib (21.5%) and vandetanib (21.5%). Partial response (PR) rate was of 29% in the 21 patients who received first-line sorafenib therapy whereas PR was observed in 57% of the 7 first-line sunitinib patients. There was no PR with second- (n=24) and third-line (n=3) treatments. However, median progression free survival (PFS) was similar in second- as compared to first-line sorafenib or sunitinib treatment (6.7 vs. 7.6 months, HR 0.85 (95CI 0.45-1.61) p=0.6). Liver metastases were the most responsive to treatment (n=7; mean of -30%), followed by lung (n=57; mean of -19%) and lymph node (n=43; mean of -13%) metastases. Bone (n=14) and pleural (n=9) lesions were the most refractory to treatment (mean of -1% and -5%, respectively). Conclusions: Due to the small number of patients, we could not recommend a specific treatment sequence (sorafenib then sunitinib) over another (sunitinib then sorafenib). But TKI therapy appears to be beneficial in refractory DTC patients even in second- and third-line therapy, with similar PFS and stable disease as best response. Bone and pleural metastases were the most refractory and liver lesions the most responsive to treatment.


2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 413-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sofia Palacio ◽  
Ikechukwu Immanuel Akunyili ◽  
Vinicius Ernani ◽  
Jessica Macintyre ◽  
Jaime R. Merchan ◽  
...  

413 Background: The combination of nab-P and Gem improves survival compared to Gem alone in first-line therapy of metastatic pancreatic cancer. Efficacy data with this doublet in previously treated pts are scant. Our group presented preliminary results on 10 pts treated with this two-drug combination in the second and third line setting and herein present updated data on 59 pts. Methods: This IRB approved analysis identified all pts diagnosed with advanced refractory pancreatic cancer, treated with second-line Gem and nab-P at University of Miami and Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center between September 2010 and June 2014. Response by RECIST, CA19-9, and symptomatic improvement were assessed. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the start of Gem + nab-P and were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Clinical benefit was defined as the percentage of patients with a partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD). Results: Data from59 pts were analyzed. The median age was 60; 55% were male; 54% received Gem + nab-P as second line therapy and 46% received it as third-line or beyond. Five (10%) pts had confirmed PR, 23 (47%) SD and 21 (43%) progressed. Among the 31 (52%) pts who received prior Gem, 18 (58%) had clinical benefit, 3 PR and 15 SD. The median OS was 3.9 months. The median PFS was 3 months. Toxicity appears similar to what has been reported on the MPACT trial with the combination. Conclusions: The clinical benefit seen withGem and nab-P in this group of pretreated pancreatic cancer pts suggests that it can be considered as an option. Additionally, prior Gem treatment appears not to decrease Gem and nab-P benefit in this population. Since nab-P monotherapy has modest activity in pre-treated pancreatic cancer pts, our data suggests a positive interaction between Gem and nab-P that may overcome resistance to Gem. [Table: see text]


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21015-e21015
Author(s):  
Charles Lance Cowey ◽  
Frank Xiaoqing Liu ◽  
Jenny Black-Shinn ◽  
Kendall Lee Stevinson ◽  
Marley Boyd ◽  
...  

e21015 Background: PD-1 monoclonal antibodies are promising immunotherapies approved for treatment of patients (pts) with advanced melanoma. As the first US FDA approved PD-1 antibody, pembrolizumab (pembro) has demonstrated efficacy and safety in clinical trial settings. However, patterns of real world utilization and pt outcomes associated with pembro are limited. Methods: Adult pts with advanced melanoma who initiated pembro between 9/1/ 2014-3/31/2016 were identified retrospectively fromelectronic health records (EHR) of McKesson Specialty Health and followed through 9/ 30/2016. Pts in clinical trials were excluded. Demographic, disease, treatment characteristics and reasons for treatment discontinuation of pembro were abstracted from structured data elements of the EHR with further supplementation of unstructured data within the patient chart (progress notes, radiology scan reports). Overall survival (OS) and physician-reported progression free survival (PFS) from pembro initiation were analyzed using Kaplan Meier analysis. Results: 182 pts, with a median follow-up of 9.9 mos (range = 0.0-25.0), were included. Median age at pembro initiation was 66.0 yrs; 30.8% had an elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH); 23.6% had brain metastases and 65.4% had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. The most common reason for pembro discontinuation was progression (45.5%) followed by treatment-related toxicity (24.4%). In the overall population, median PFS from pembro initiation was 4.2 mos (95% CI = 3.2-5.3). Median OS was 19.4 mos (14.0-NR) with 12 and 24-month survival probabilities of 61.4% (95% CI = 53.4-68.5) and 43.9% (95% CI = 31.1-55.9). In multivariable analyses, characteristics predictive of worse survival included receipt of pembro at a later line of therapy (HR = 3.36, p = 0.0013 for 3L+), presence of brain metastases (HR = 2.67, p = 0.0007) and elevated LDH (HR = 4.10, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The study results are consistent with those from pembro clinical trials (KeyNote001) and are in support of the effectiveness of pembro in real world treatment of advanced melanoma. Presence of brain metastases, elevated LDH, and use of pembro 3L+ were associated with worse survival outcome.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15688-e15688
Author(s):  
Mojun Zhu ◽  
Thorvardur Ragnar Halfdanarson ◽  
Bonnie Elyssa Gould Rothberg

e15688 Background: PNETs are marked by histological heterogeneity and variable clinical outcomes. Other than Ki67 index, reliable circulating or tissue biomarkers for prognosis do not exist. Methods: PubMed was searched through 01/31/2017. Inclusion criteria were: 1) prospective/retrospective cohort with defined source population, boundary dates, and justifications for exclusions; 2) assay of primary tumors; 3) clear descriptions of methods including techniques and controls; 4) use of multivariate proportional hazards modeling adjusted for prognostic factors including but not limited to stage or grade; and 5) reporting adjusted hazard ratios (HR) with 95 % confidence intervals and P values. Studies with < 50 % PNETs were excluded. PNET-specific data was summarized in the table. Results: A total of 2958 manuscripts were identified and 462 manuscripts were reviewed. Only 23 multivariate studies met all inclusion criteria. These altogether analyzed 24 unique targets and 14 were associated with survival. Conclusions: This meta-analysis identified 14 markers associated with survival of PNET patients. Future studies should adhere to the REMARK criteria and incorporate the 2017 WHO grading system for multivariate analysis. 1. I-immunohistochemistry, F-fluorescence in situ hybridization, E-enzyme linked immunosorbent assay, M- methylation specific PCR, P-polymerase chain reaction; 2. O-overall survival, F-disease free survival, S-disease specific survival, P- progression free survival.[Table: see text]


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 5880-5880
Author(s):  
Nathan H Fowler ◽  
Yanni Hao ◽  
Stephen Lim ◽  
Guifang Chen ◽  
Frank Li ◽  
...  

Introduction: Follicular lymphoma (FL) is the most common indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the Western hemisphere. Patient characteristics and burden of FL are incomplete and vary from previous studies. This study evaluated patient profile, including patient characteristics, treatment patterns, and duration using real-world data. Methods: Using the Truven MarketScan® databases, patients with FL who were newly initiated with FL indicated regimens were identified from 1/1/2010-12/31/2013 (initial treatment identification period). Patients were selected if they were ≥18 years old, had 1 FL ICD-9 code (202.0) as primary or secondary diagnosis, at least 1 FL commonly prescribed systemic anti-cancer therapy after the diagnosis, and did not use any FL indicated regimen in the past 6 months prior to first agent included in the initial treatment identification period. These patents were followed ≥3 months or to June 30, 2018. Primary outcomes were the distribution of regimens by line, the number of patients who switched from first- to second-line therapies, and from second- to third-line therapies. The treatment duration by line of therapy and regimen were also analyzed. Discontinuation was defined as 3 months without receiving a regimen after treatment. Results: This study identified 4,970 patients who initiated treatment for FL. Of these patients, 48.1% were female (n=2,390), with a mean age of 62.0 (SD: 14.0) years. The average follow-up time was approximately 2 years (median: 733 days). In this analysis, 4,970 patients with FL received first-line therapy for 153 days (median: 94 days), 1,985 received second-line therapy (39.9% of patients who received first-line therapy) for 208 days (median: 80 days), and 664 received third-line therapy (13.4% of patients who received first-line therapy) for 117 days (median: 43 days). Of the 4,970 patients on first-line therapy, 453 (9.1%) remained on first-line therapy, 2,532 (51.0%) discontinued treatment, and 1,985 (39.9%) patients switched to the next line of therapy during the follow-up period. Of the 1,985 patients who switched to second-line therapy, 328 (16.5%) remained by the end of follow-up period, 993 (50.0%) discontinued, and 664 (33.4%) switched to the next line of therapy during the follow-up period. Of the 664 patients who switched to third-line therapy, 125 (18.8%) remained, 269 (40.5%) discontinued, and 270 (40.7%) switched to the next line of therapy. The most common first-line regimens in descending order received by patients were rituximab (n=1,478, 29.7%), R-CHOP (n=1,368, 27.5%), BR (n=1,050, 21.1%), R-CVP (n=371, 7.5%), and FCR (n=63, 1.3%). Second-line treatment regimens were (N=1,985) rituximab (n=992, 50.0%), BR (n=202, 10.2%), R-CHOP (n=138, 7.0%), and R-CVP (n=120, 6.1%). Third-line treatment regimens were (N=664) rituximab (n=228, 34.3%), BR (n=91, 13.7%), R-CHOP (n=75, 11.3%), cyclophosphamide (n=35, 5.3%) and R-CVP (n=31, 4.7%). Conclusion: This data set describes the percentage of patients that transition from first- to second-line and second- to third-line treatment for FL. The primary regimens used across the treatment lines conform to those recommended by the NCCN guidelines. In addition, smaller numbers of non-recommended regimens were reported. Disclosures Fowler: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ABBVIE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hao:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lim:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Employment. Chen:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Employment. Li:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Employment. Arcona:Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Employment.


Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 1751-1751 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anders Österborg ◽  
Anna Asklid ◽  
Joris Diels ◽  
Johanna Repits ◽  
Frans Söltoft ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Ibrutinib (Ibr), an oral, first-in-class covalent Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor, showed in the Phase 3 RESONATE trial significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS, hazard ratio [HR] =0.22, p<0.001) and overall survival (OS, HR=0.39,p=0.001) compared with ofatumumab (ofa) in patients with previously treated CLL who were not eligible for chemoimmunotherapy (Byrd et al, NEJM 2013). Long-term follow-up data from a single arm Phase 2 study have also demonstrated that patients treated with ibrutinib have long durable responses with a PFS at 2.5 years of 69% (Byrd et al, Blood 2015). While ofatumumab is a licensed comparator and included in treatment guidelines, some Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies require comparisons with a wider range of treatments. In the absence of direct head-to-head comparison of single-agent ibrutinib with other frequently used treatments in this patient population, additional comparative evidence against standard of care as observed in clinical practice can provide useful insights on the relative efficacy of ibrutinib. Naïve (unadjusted) comparisons of outcomes from different sources are prone to bias due to confounding, as treatment assignments were not randomly assigned, and populations can vary in important prognostic factors. The objective of this analysis was to compare the relative efficacy of Ibr versus physician's choice in R/R CLL-patients based on patient-level data from RESONATE pooled with an observational cohort, adjusting for confounders using multivariate statistical modelling. Methods Patient-level data from the Phase 3 RESONATE trial (Ibr: n=195; ofa: n=196) were pooled with data from a retrospective observational study conducted in the Stockholm area in Sweden. This retrospective study collected efficacy and safety data from a detailed, in-depth retrospective review of individual patient files from 148 consecutively identified patients with R/R CLL initiated on second or later line treatment between 2002 and 2013 at the four CLL-treating centers in Stockholm, Sweden, with complete follow-up. Longitudinal follow-up in subsequent treatment lines was available for patients in 3rd (n=91), 4th (n=51), 5th (n=29), and 6+ (n=15) line, and as such individual patients could contribute information to the analysis for multiple lines of therapy, with baseline defined as the date of initiation of the actual treatment line. A multivariate cox proportional hazards model was developed to compare PFS and OS between treatments, including line of therapy, age, gender, Binet stage, ECOG, and refractory disease as covariates. Adjusted HRs and 95% CIs are presented vs. Ibr. Results Across all treatment lines, fludarabine-cyclophosphamide (FC) (n=64), chlorambucil (n=59), alemtuzumab (n=33), FC+rituximab (FCR) (n=30), bendamustine+rituximab (BR) (n=28), and other rituximab-based combination chemotherapy (n=28) were the most frequently used treatments. Line of therapy, age and gender, Binet stage, ECOG performance status, and refractory disease were all independent risk factors for worse outcome on both PFS and OS. The adjusted HR for PFS and OS pooled observational data versus Ibr were 6.80 [4.72;9.80] (p<0.0001) and 2.90 [1.80;4.69] (p<0.0001). HR's for PFS/OS versus most frequent treatment regimens ranged between 2.50/1.82 (FCR) and 14.00/5.34 (anti-CD20 Mab). Baseline adjusted results for the Ofa-arm in RESONATE were comparable for both PFS and OS to outcome data from the consecutive historical cohort, however OS outcomes for Ofa were partly confounded by cross-over to Ibr. Conclusions Comparison of results from the Phase 3 RESONATE study with treatments used as part of previous standard of care in a well-defined cohort of consecutive Swedish patients shows that ibrutinib is superior to physician's choice in patients with relapsed/refractory CLL, suggesting a more than 6 fold improvement in PFS and almost 3 fold improvement in OS. Results were consistent across all different physician chosen treatments and provides further evidence that ibrutinib improves both PFS and OS vs current and prior standard of care regimens. Figure 1. Adjusted Hazard ratio's for PFS and OS of physician's choice versus Ibrutinib (RESONATE) (Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression) a. Progression-free survival b. Overall survival Figure 1. Adjusted Hazard ratio's for PFS and OS of physician's choice versus Ibrutinib (RESONATE) (Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression). / a. Progression-free survival b. Overall survival Disclosures Österborg: Janssen Cilag: Research Funding. Asklid:Janssen Cilag: Research Funding. Diels:Janssen: Employment. Repits:Janssen Cilag: Employment. Söltoft:Janssen Cilag: Employment. Hansson:Jansse Cilag: Research Funding. Jäger:Janssen Cilag: Research Funding.


2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 12504-12504
Author(s):  
A. G. Young ◽  
P. J. Mulholland ◽  
A. D. Waldman ◽  
F. Roncaroli ◽  
K. S. O’Neill ◽  
...  

12504 Background: Patients (pts) with relapsed glioma have poor prognosis with few treatment options. Methods: Retrospective analysis was made of toxicity and outcome in pts with relapsed glioma treated between 2001–06 with temozolomide (TMZ, 75mg/m2/day, D1–21) & irinotecan (IRINO, 125mg/m2, D1, 8, 15), q35. Toxicity was graded using NCI-CTC version 2.0. Progression free survival (PFS) was calculated from start of TMZ/IRINO to relapse. Results: 24 pts (M:F, 15:9) were treated, comprising glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) (n=11); anaplastic astrocytoma (AA) (n=7); astrocytoma (n=4); oligoastrocytoma (n=2). Primary treatment following biopsy (n=12) or debulking surgery (n=12) was radiotherapy (RT) alone (n=12) or in combination with TMZ (n=12) (Stupp et al, 2005). At relapse, 10/24 pts received TMZ/IRINO as second-line therapy following TMZ+RT. 12/24 pts received third-line TMZ/IRINO, after TMZ alone (n=9), or TMZ/procarbazine (PCB) (n=2) or IRINO alone (n=1). 2/24 pts received fourth-line TMZ/IRINO, after TMZ then IRINO (n=1) & after TMZ/PCB then IRINO (n=1). 19/21 pts took enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs (EIAED). EIAEDs can potentially reduce IRINO exposure. 218 chemotherapy cycles (median, 5; range 1–42+) were given. Grade (G) 3 or 4 hematological toxicities were leucopenia (G3, n=3, 1.4%), neutropenia (G3, n=3, 1.4%; G4, n=1, 0.5%), lymphopenia (G3, n=64, 29%). 5 pts (20.8%) had cotrimoxazole prophylaxis; 1 pt developed PCP on it. 1 pt developed G3 urogenital sepsis. There were no other G3 or G4 toxicities. 13 cycles were delayed due to G2 infection (5.9%). 3 pts had dose reductions.1 pt died from AML; in retrospect symptoms appear to pre-date treatment start. Overall median PFS was 6 months (mo) (range 1.5–39.75+ mo). Overall 2 yr PFS was 28% (95%CI: 10–47%). Median PFS was: GBM 2.5mo (range 1.5–27.25+ mo); AA 11.5 mo (range 2–33.5+ mo). Median 2yr PFS was: GBM 27% (95%CI: 1–53%); AA 14% (95%CI: 0–40%) Conclusions: TMZ/IRINO is well tolerated in heavily pre- treated pts & warrants further evaluation. Long PFS was seen in pts with relapsed GBM & AA. Importantly, re-challenge including TMZ can induce durable response. [Table: see text]


2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2020-2020
Author(s):  
N. A. Butowski ◽  
K. Lamborn ◽  
S. Chang ◽  
E. Hsieh ◽  
A. Fedoroff ◽  
...  

2020 Background: ENZ, an oral serine/threonine kinase inhibitor, suppresses signaling through PKCβ and the PI3K/AKT pathways to induce apoptosis, reduce proliferation, and suppress angiogenesis. The primary endpoint of this single-arm phase II trial was overall survival (OS). Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), safety, PK/PD, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). A concurrent PGx project assessed the value of pretreatment molecular profiles as predictive of outcome. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) was also evaluated during treatment for its value in predicting OS. Methods: Patients enrolled with newly diagnosed GBM/GS and KPS ≥60. Treatment started <5 weeks after diagnosis with RT 60 Gy given over 6 weeks and TMZ 75 mg/m2 given daily during RT and then at 200 mg/m2 from days 1–5 of a 28-day cycle. ENZ 250 mg/day was given daily during RT and adjuvantly. Planned treatment duration was 1 year. PGx parameters were: MGMT promoter methylation, mismatch repair status, PKC isoforms, pERK, pCREB, EGFR, PTEN, GSK3B, ser9, VEGF, and pS6. MRS was performed at baseline and at scheduled intervals. Changes in molecular signatures and imaging characteristics relative to survival were estimated using Kaplan-Meier and proportional hazards models. Analyses included phase I patients at ENZ 250 mg/day. Results: From September 2007 to November 2008, 60 phase II patients enrolled; 52 completed RT and eight are receiving RT. Of these, seven patients progressed immediately after RT and 17 progressed after one or more adjuvant cycles; five discontinued due to toxicity; four withdrew from trial. Treatment was well tolerated. The only toxicities seen in more than one-third of pateints were grade 1 fatigue, grade 1 nausea, and grade 1–2 lymphopenia. Grade 1 thrombocytopenia was seen in eight patients and grade 3 lymphopenia in five patients. OS, PFS, PROs, PGx, and imaging findings will be reported. Conclusions: The combination of ENZ plus TMZ during and following RT was well tolerated and may be an active regimen in GBM. This study represents the future of neuro-oncology clinical trial design by employing a novel multi-modal therapy while concurrently studying novel imaging and molecular techniques that may predict efficacy. [Table: see text]


2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9078-9078
Author(s):  
J. B. Allred ◽  
V. Suman

9078 Background: A frequently discussed topic at meetings of oncologists is the question of expected clinical outcomes for patients with metastatic melanoma undergoing 1st vs 2nd line systemic therapy. Differing outcomes in these two patient populations could affect interpretation of non-randomized clinical trials involving both patient populations. Some have suggested superior clinical outcome in patients undergoing 2nd line therapy. As there is little data addressing this issue, we sought to answer the question by comparing the clinical outcomes of patients with metastatic melanoma treated on 1st vs 2nd line therapy across clinical trials conducted at our institution. Methods: Data were collected from 10 phase II clinical trials for patients with stage IV melanoma for which Mayo Clinic was the data center. The 10 trials included three categories of treatments: cytotoxic chemotherapy (4), cancer vaccines (4), and biologic agents (2). In all studies, eligibility criteria required: stage IV melanoma, life expectancy >3 months, reasonable hematology and serum chemistry laboratory results, and an ECOG performance status of ≤2. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to assess the relationship between patients' “therapy” status (1st vs 2nd line) and time to events, both overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS), for each treatment category. Results: We identified 318 unique eligible patients across 10 trials. Removed from the analysis were 55 patients (ocular melanoma and/or metastases involving the central nervous system) leaving 263. Cox proportional hazards results demonstrated no differences in PFS or OS for 1st vs 2nd line patients for either “chemotherapy” or “vaccine” treatment regimens. However, patient treated on “biologic” trials as 1st line therapy appeared to demonstrate a PFS advantage over 2nd line treatments (HR=1.98, p-value=0.02). There was a suggestion of an OS benefit for 1st line patients in this category, however, the relationship was not significant (HR=1.77, p=0.07). Conclusions: The presented data suggest that there is no PFS/OS difference in stage IV melanoma patients receiving 1st vs 2nd line therapy (no PFS/OS advantage to patients treated in 2nd line vs. 1st line). No significant financial relationships to disclose.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document