PARTNER: A randomized phase II study of docetaxel/cisplatin (doc/cis) chemotherapy with or without panitumumab (pmab) as first-line treatment (tx) for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6029-6029 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori J. Wirth ◽  
Shaker R. Dakhil ◽  
Gabriela Kornek ◽  
Rita Axelrod ◽  
Douglas Adkins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Hpv Status ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Baseline Characteristics ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Clinical Trial Information

6029 Background: PARTNER was a multicenter, randomized phase II estimation study evaluating 1stEline tx of R/M SCCHN with doc/cis ± pmab. Methods: Patients (pts) were randomized 1:1 to doc/cis with pmab (Arm 1) or doc/cis alone (Arm 2). Arm 1 received 9 mg/kg pmab on day 1 of each 21-day cycle, and all pts received 1stEline doc/cis both at 75 mg/m2 on day 1 for up to 6 cycles. In Arm 1, pts could receive pmab monotherapy upon completion of 6 cycles of doc/cis until disease progression (PD). In Arm 2, pts could receive pmab as 2ndEline monotherapy upon PD. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. HPV status was determined using p16 INK IHC. No formal hypothesis was tested. Results: Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. Of 103 pts, HPV status was evaluable in 66 (64%); 29% were HPV positive. Efficacy results are shown (Table). Worst grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were 73% in Arm 1 vs 56% in Arm 2. Conclusions: Median PFS was increased in both arms over historical doublet cytotoxic chemotherapy. PFS and ORR were higher in the pmab arm in the overall population, in the HPV positive (n=19) group, and in the HPV negative (n=47) group. There was an increase in grade 3/4 AEs with this regimen. The crossover design, with 57% of Arm 2 pts receiving pmab as 2ndEline monotherapy, confounds interpretation of OS. Clinical trial information: NCT00454779. [Table: see text]

Randomized phase II trial of NGR-hTNF in combination with standard chemotherapy in previously untreated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8035-8035
Author(s):  
Vanesa Gregorc ◽  
Nicoletta Zilembo ◽  
Francesco Grossi ◽  
Tommaso M De Pas ◽  
Gilda Rossoni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Synergistic Effects ◽  
Pulmonary Hemorrhage ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Baseline Characteristics ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Clinical Trial Information

8035 Background: NGR-hTNF, a selective antivascular agent, induces at low dose an initial vascular normalization that greatly enhances the intratumoral chemotherapy uptake, with synergistic effects that were noted especially in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine. Methods: Chemo-naive patients (pts) with advanced NSCLC were stratified by histology (nonsquamous or squamous) and PS (0 or 1) and randomly assigned to receive cisplatin 80 mg/m2/d1 plus either pemetrexed 500 mg/m2/d1 (nonsquamous) or gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2/d1+8 (squamous) every 3 weeks (q3w) for 6 cycles, with (arm A) or without (arm B) NGR-hTNF given at 0.8 μg/m2/d1/q3w until progression. Progression-free survival (PFS) was primary aim (1-β=80%, 1-sided α=10%, n=102). Secondary aims comprised adverse events (AEs), response rate (RR), and overall survival (OS). Results: Baseline characteristics in arm A (n=62) vs B (n=59) were: median age: 62 vs 63 years; men: 37 vs 39; PS 1: 23 vs 23; squamous: 18 v 17; smokers: 41 vs 43. For the nonsquamous stratum, 299 cycles were given in arm A (mean 7.0; range 1-20) and 192 in arm B (4.8; 1-6), while for the squamous stratum, 113 in arm A (6.7; 1-31) and 52 in arm B (3.5; 1-6). Rates of grade 3/4 AEs were similar (arm A vs B): neutropenia 13% vs 18%, anaemia 7% vs 4% and fatigue 7% vs 11%. No grade 3/4 AEs related to NGR-hTNF or bleeding/pulmonary hemorrhage events were reported in the squamous subset. With median follow-up time of 24.2 months, median PFS (5.8 vs 5.6 months; HR=0.92), RR (25% vs 21%) and 1-year OS (53% vs 53%) were similar between the two treatment arms. However, by predefined analysis in the squamous stratum, median PFS was 5.6 months for arm A and 4.3 months for arm B (hazard ratio, HR=0.75) and median OS was 14.2 months for arm A and 9.7 months for arm B (HR=0.49; p=0.07). In pts with squamous histology, RR was 38% for arm A and 27% for arm B (odds ratio=1.6), while the median changes in tumor size on treatment from baseline to 2nd, 4th and 6th cycle for arm A vs B were -32% vs -20%, -41% vs -19%, and -42% vs -14%, respectively. Conclusions: Clinical tolerability and benefit were noted in squamous NSCLC with NGR-hTNF plus cisplatin and gemcitabine, which deserve further investigation. Clinical trial information: NCT00994097.

Phase II study of pemetrexed (Pem) and cisplatin (Cis) plus cetuximab (Cet) followed by Pem and Cet maintenance therapy in patients (Pts) with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7554-7554
Author(s):  
Gerald Schmid-Bindert ◽  
Vittorio Gebbia ◽  
Frank Mayer ◽  
Edurne Arriola ◽  
Diego Marquez-Medina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
One Year

7554 Background: A prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter study was conducted to assess the effect of adding cet to pem and cis in pts with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC. Methods: 113 Caucasian performance status 0-1 pts received 1st line pem (500 mg/m2) and cis (75 mg/m2) on day 1 (21d cycle) for 4-6 cycles and cet (400 mg/m2 loading dose followed by 250 mg/m2) weekly. Non-progressive pts received pem 500 mg/m2 on day 1 (21d cycle) plus cet (250mg/m2 weekly) until progression. Pts received vitamin B12/folic acid and dexamethasone. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) (RECIST 1.0). Secondary endpoints were progression free survival (PFS), 1 year survival rate, translational research (TR) and safety. Results: Pts’ characteristics: median age 59.7 years, 64% male, 50% PS 0, 92% stage IV, and 78% adenocarcinoma. All pts completed ≥ 1 cycle of induction therapy and 45% and 43% completed ≥ 1 cycle of maintenance with pem and cet, respectively. ORR (n=109) was 38.5% (80% CI 32.2-45.1), all partial responses. Disease control rate (response/stable disease) was 59.6% (80% CI: 53.1-65.9). Median PFS was 5.82 months (80% CI: 4.40-6.70). One year survival rate was 0.45 (80% CI: 0.39-0.51). Significant associations were seen between high EGFR by IHC and increased PFS (cytoplasm: HR=0.46, p=0.035; membrane: HR=0.41, p=0.008), and between high nuclear TTF-1 and increased ORR (OR=7.73, p=0.021) / PFS (HR=0.21, p<0.001) / OS (HR=0.25, p=0.035). Of 113 pts evaluated for safety, 73 (64.6%) pts had drug related CTC Grade 3/4 adverse events (AE): most frequent were neutropenia (14.2%), rash (15%), and vomiting (8.8%). Drug related serious AEs were reported in 27.4% pts: most frequent were anemia (5.3%), neutropenia (5.3%), vomiting (3.5%), and rash, renal failure, diarrhea and fatigue (1.8% each). There were 2 potential on-study drug related deaths (sudden death and large intestinal perforation). Conclusions: Pem, cis and cet appeared efficacious and tolerable. These results support further evaluation in a randomized trial. The TR outcomes are hypothesis generating given the study’s size and nonrandomized nature.

SPIRITT (study 20060141): A randomized phase II study of FOLFIRI with either panitumumab (pmab) or bevacizumab (bev) as second-line treatment (tx) in patients (pts) with wild-type (WT) KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 454-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Randolph Hecht ◽  
Allen Lee Cohn ◽  
Shaker R. Dakhil ◽  
Mansoor N. Saleh ◽  
Bilal Piperdi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Grade 5 ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Previously Treated

454 Background: Pmab has demonstrated significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) in pts with WT KRAS mCRC as 2nd-line tx in a phase III trial comparing pmab + FOLFIRI vs FOLFIRI alone. Here, we describe the results of SPIRITT, a multicenter, randomized phase II study evaluating pmab + FOLFIRI and bev + FOLFIRI in pts with WT KRAS mCRC previously treated with a 1st-line bev + oxaliplatin (Ox)-based chemotherapy regimen. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to pmab 6.0 mg/kg + FOLFIRI Q2W or to bev 5.0 or 10.0 mg/kg + FOLFIRI Q2W. Eligibility criteria included: WT KRAS mCRC, ECOG ≤ 1, no prior irinotecan or anti-EGFR tx, and tx failure of prior 1st-line bev + Ox-based therapy (≥ 4 cycles). The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. No formal hypothesis was tested. Results: 182 pts with WT KRAS mCRC were randomized. All pts received tx. Efficacy results are shown (table). Worst grade of 3/4 adverse events (AE) occurred in 78% of pts in the pmab + FOLFIRI arm and 65% in the bev + FOLFIRI arm. Grade 5 AEs occurred in 7% of pts in the pmab + FOLFIRI arm and 7% in the bev + FOLFIRI arm. Tx discontinuation due to any AE was 29% in the pmab + FOLFIRI arm and 25% in the bev + FOLFIRI arm. Conclusions: In this estimation study of pts with WT KRAS mCRC that previously received bev + Ox-based tx, the PFS hazard ratio (HR) was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.68 - 1.50). The OS HR was 1.06 (95% CI: 0.75 - 1.49). The observed ORR was higher in the pmab + FOLFIRI arm. 54% of bev + FOLFIRI pts received subsequent anti-EGFR tx. The safety profile for both arms was similar to previously reported studies. Tx discontinuation rates due to AEs were similar between the arms. Clinical trial information: NCT00418938. [Table: see text]

Expression patterns of gpNMB in breast cancer (BC): Retrospective evaluation of tumor tissue from the phase II EMERGE study.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 129-129
Author(s):  
Denise A. Yardley ◽  
Michelle E. Melisko ◽  
Andres Forero ◽  
Rebecca G. Bagley ◽  
Joshua Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Tumor Tissue ◽  
Transmembrane Protein ◽  
Expression Patterns ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Antibody Drug Conjugate ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Disease Characteristics ◽  
Clinical Trial Information

129 Background: Glycoprotein NMB (gpNMB) is an internalizable transmembrane protein overexpressed in ~20% of BC. gpNMB promoted BC metastases in a murine model and is a poor prognostic marker in BC patients (pts) (Rose 2010). Glembatumumab vedotin (GV, CDX-011) is a novel antibody-drug conjugate targeting gpNMB+ cancer cells with the potent cytotoxin monomethyl auristatin E. In a Phase I/II and in the Phase II EMERGE study, GV was well-tolerated (treatment-related toxicity included rash, neutropenia, and neuropathy) with promising activity in gpNMB+ BC tumors including TNBC. In EMERGE, GV vs. investigator’s choice chemotherapy, demonstrated an objective response rate of 30% (7/23) vs. 9% (1/11) in pts with tumor gpNMB overexpression (gpNMB in > 25% of tumor cells); 18% (5/28) vs. 0% (0/11) in TNBC; and 40% (4/10) vs. 0% (0/6) in gpNMB-overexpressing TNBC. Improvements in progression-free survival (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.11) and overall survival (HR = 0.14) in gpNMB-overexpressing TNBC were noted. Methods: This retrospective analysis of the EMERGE study examined frequency of gpNMB overexpression by various baseline and disease characteristics. Tumors were centrally assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and included data for 328 pts. Results: Tumor gpNMB overexpression was present in 21% (69/328) of screened and 40% (38/96) of TNBC pts. gpNMB overexpression was consistent in progesterone, estrogen, or HER2+ expressing tumors at rates of 12-15%. gpNMB overexpression was not observed among 17 lobular tumors, but was present in 21% (57/270) of ductal tumors. gpNMB overexpression was seen across organ sites, including lung (43%, 3/7), lymph node (31%, 12/39), chest wall (23%, 3/13), breast (21%, 44/209), bone (13%, 1/8), and liver (13%, 3/24). There were no apparent differences in gpNMB overexpression by age, race or disease setting (early vs. advanced) at tissue collection. Analysis is ongoing to determine if prior treatments may upregulate gpNMB expression. Conclusions: gpNMB overexpression in BC, especially in TNBC, appears consistent in archival primary and/or metastatic BC, regardless of age. A randomized multicenter study of GV in gpNMB overexpressing metastatic TNBC (METRIC) is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT01156753.

A randomized phase II trial comparing different schedules of nab-paclitaxel (nabP) combined with gemcitabine (GEM) as first line treatment for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPDAC).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4100-4100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippa Corrie ◽  
Wendi Qian ◽  
Bristi Basu ◽  
Juan W. Valle ◽  
Stephen Falk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cytidine Deaminase ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Pancreatic Head ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Age Range

4100 Background: NabP+GEM chemotherapy improves survival compared with GEM monotherapy as treatment for mPDAC. A PDAC mouse model suggested that nabP potentiates GEM activity by reducing cytidine deaminase levels and scheduling may be critical to optimise clinical benefit. Methods: Patients (pts) were randomised to receive standard concomitant (CON) nabP+GEM or sequential (SEQ) administration, with nabP given 24 hours before GEM. After 6 cycles, pts benefiting from treatment could continue the same regimen until disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST v1.1; secondary endpoints included safety, objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL). Serial blood and baseline tumour samples were collected for exploratory biomarkers. Results: Between March 2014 and 2016, 146 pts (71 SEQ, 75 CON) were recruited. Median age (range) was 66 (45-82) years; Karnofsky performance status was 70 (in 12% pts), 80 (27%), 90 (38%) or 100 (24%); 47% had pancreatic head primaries; 84% had liver metastases. Median no. cycles received was 4 SEQ, 3 CON; 51 pts (35%) received ≥6 cycles of treatment (42% SEQ, 28% CON). A 24+2hr interval was achieved in > 90% SEQ admin. Grade ≥3 adverse events experienced by ≥10% pts (SEQ, CON) were neutropaenia (54%, 30%; p = 0.003), febrile neutropaenia (12%, 12%), fatigue (22%, 15%), vomiting (7%, 11%) and anaemia (10%, 5%). G-CSF was administered at local investigator's discretion to 35 pts (23 SEQ, 12 CON; p = 0.015). To date, 112 pts have died. 6 month (m) PFS by SEQ and CON arms were 47% and 33%; median PFS were 5.8 and 4.0m; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.46-0.95; 12m OS by SEQ and CON arms were 29% and 26%; median OS were 10.1 and 7.9m; HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.61-1.29. ORR was 50% SEQ and 33% CON (p = 0.065). Mean baseline QoL Global health status score was 60.6 SEQ and 63.4 CON. The mean change in QoL score from baseline at 24 weeks was -2.1 SEQ and -12.1 CON. Conclusions: Sequential delivery of nabP combined with GEM trended towards improving all clinically relevant efficacy end points: PFS, OS, and ORR. Translational correlates will be reported in due course. Clinical trial information: ISRCTN71070888.

SAPPHIRE: A randomized phase II study of mFOLFOX6 + panitumumab versus 5-FU/LV + panitumumab after 6 cycles of frontline mFOLFOX6 + panitumumab in patients with colorectal cancer.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 729-729 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masato Nakamura ◽  
Yoshinori Munemoto ◽  
Masazumi Takahashi ◽  
Masahito Kotaka ◽  
Hiroaki Kuroda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Term Administration ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Clinical Trial Information

729 Background: FOLFOX therapy, an infusion of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) with leucovorin in combination with oxaliplatin (OXA), is a common first-line chemotherapy regimen for unresectable, advanced or recurrent colorectal carcinoma (CRC). However, long-term administration of OXA is associated with peripheral neuropathy (PN); decreasing treatment length of OXA may be beneficial without reducing its efficacy. Methods: Chemotherapy-naïve pts aged ≥20 yrs with RAS wild-type advanced/recurrent CRC were enrolled to receive 6 cycles of panitumumab (Pmab) + mFOLFOX6 once every 2 wks. Pts who completed 6 cycles of Pmab + mFOLFOX6 and confirmed no progressive disease were subsequently randomized 1:1 to continue to receive Pmab + mFOLFOX6 (arm 1) or Pmab + 5-FU/LV (arm 2). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 9 mos after randomization. The threshold PFS rate was defined as 30%, and the expected rate was set at 50%, with a 90% power and a 1-sided alpha value of 0.10. In the primary analysis, a binomial test was conducted separately for each arm. This study was designed as a phase II randomized screening comparison study which does not use direct comparison for the primary analysis. Results: Of 164 enrolled pts who received initial Pmab + mFOLFOX6 treatment, 56 were randomized to arm 1 and 57 to arm 2. PFS rates at 9 mos after randomization were significantly higher than the defined threshold at 44.6% (80% CI, 36.4–53.2) in arm 1 and 47.4% (39.1–55.8) in arm 2. Median PFS after randomization was 9.1 (8.6–11.2) and 9.3 (6.0–13.0) mos, respectively. Grade ≥2 PNs occurred in 6 (10.7%) and 1 (1.8%) pts in arms 1 and 2, respectively. Serious AEs occurred in 14 (25.0%) pts in arm 1 and in 9 (16.7%) pts in arm 2. Conclusions: The results of this trial suggest that Pmab + 5-FU/LV after 6 fixed-cycles of Pmab + mFOLFOX6 may be a treatment option in pts with RAS wild type chemotherapy-naïve advanced/recurrent CRC. Pts treated with Pmab + 5-FU/LV had a lower occurrence of grade ≥2 PNs compared with Pmab + mFOLFOX6. Clinical trial information: NCT02337946.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of second-line palliative chemotherapy with paclitaxel plus raltitrexed and paclitaxel alone in patients with metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma: A randomized phase II trial.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4054-4054 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoying Zhao ◽  
Weijian Guo ◽  
Zhiyu Chen ◽  
Xiaowei Zhang ◽  
Xiaodong Zhu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Palliative Chemotherapy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Peripheral Neurotoxicity ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
P 75 ◽  
Grade 3

4054 Background: Paclitaxel is a microtubule stabilizing agent that has been the standard second line chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer. This study was designed to find out the clinical outcome of paclitaxel plus raltitrexed regimen as second line treatment in MGC patients. Methods: In an open, randomized, multi centers phase II clinical trial , 148 patients were randomly assigned and treated with either RP (raltitrexed 3 mg/m2 d1 and paclitaxel 135mg/m2 d1,3w) or P (paclitaxel 135mg/m2 d1,3w) as second-line palliative chemotherapy. The primary endpoint is PFS, secondary endpoint is ORR, OS and safety. Results: In 148 randomly assigned and treated patients (RP = 73; P = 75), the majority of patients were males (94 vs. 54). Progression free survival has a tendency to be prolonged with RP versus P (2.7m vs. 1.7m, p = 0.148). Overall survival also has a tendency to be prolonged with RP versus P (10.2m vs. 6.1m, p = 0.140). Overall response rate was equal with RP versus P (6.8% vs.4.0%, p = 0.72). DCR in the RP group was 56.2%, P group was 36.0%. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 36.2% (RP) v 28.2% (P) of patients. Frequent grade 3 to 4 toxicities for RP v P were: neutropenia (11.0% v 4.0%), anemia (1.4% v 4.0%), thrombocytopenia (1.4% v 5.3%), and all grade peripheral neurotoxicity (12.3% v 17.3%),all grade elevated aminotransferase (27.4% v 14.1%). Subgroup analysis shows if the disease combined with ascites or peritoneal involved , OS of RP regimen is more longer (p = 0.05). Conclusions: Second-line palliative chemotherapy with paclitaxel plus raltitrexed provides a tendency to prolong PFS and OS, and the patients with ascites or peritoneal involved may get benifits from combined chemotherapy, which needs to be confirmed by larger sample studies. Clinical trial information: NCT02072317.

RECIST and iRECIST criteria for the evaluation of nivolumab + ipilimumab combination in patients (pts) with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient (MSI/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Results of the GERCOR NIPICOL phase II study.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 101-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Romain Cohen ◽  
Jaafar Bennouna ◽  
Julie Henriques ◽  
Christophe Tournigand ◽  
Christelle De La Fouchardiere ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Clinical Trial Information

101 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICKi) are highly effective for MSI/dMMR mCRC pts. RECIST1.1 criteria are reported to underestimate response to ICKi. The GERCOR NIPICOL phase II study aimed to evaluate disease control rate (DCR) using RECIST1.1 and iRECIST for MSI/dMMR mCRC pts treated with nivolumab (NIVO) and ipilimumab (IPI). Methods: MSI/dMMR mCRC pts previously treated with fluoropyrimidines (FP), oxaliplatin (OX) and irinotecan (IRI) ± targeted therapies received NIVO 3 mg/kg + IPI 1 mg/kg Q3W for 4 cycles then NIVO 3 mg/kg Q2W until progression or a maximum of 20 cycles. CT-scan tumor assessments were done every 6 weeks during 24 weeks and then every 12 weeks. Primary objective was DCR at 12 weeks (12wDCR) according to RECIST1.1 and iRECIST by central review. Response rates and progression-free survival (PFS) by central review were secondary objectives. A one-stage Fleming design was used with a targeted improvement of 12wDCR from 70% to 85%. Results: Of 57 pts included between Dec 2017 and Nov 2018, 43.9% had received ≥ 3 prior lines including FP (100%), OX (100%), IRI (95.5%), antiangiogenics (57.9%) and anti-EGFRs (45.6%). 17.5% of pts had BRAF mutation and 27.5% Lynch syndrome. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 49.1% of pts, mainly hepatitis (12.3%). 12wDCR was 86.0% and 87.7% using RECIST1.1 and iRECIST respectively, with only 1 pseudo-progression (1.8%) observed during the first 12 weeks, and one later. Kappa coefficient between RECIST and iRECIST 12wDCR was 0.92 (95%CI 0.77-1.0). Best observed responses with RECIST1.1/iRECIST were: 2/2 complete responses (3.5/3.5%), 19/19 partial responses (33.3/33.3%), 30/31 stable diseases (52.6/54.4%) and 3/2 disease progressions (5.3/3.5%), with 3 pts not evaluable (cancer-related deaths before first evaluation). Conclusions: Combination of NIVO and IPI in MSI/dMMR mCRC is associated with a low frequency of pseudo-progression and high DCR rate. PFS will be evaluated in Dec 2019, with all pts having completed the predefined 1-year of ICKi therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT033501260.

scholarly journals Pimasertib Versus Dacarbazine in Patients With Unresectable NRAS-Mutated Cutaneous Melanoma: Phase II, Randomized, Controlled Trial with Crossover

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
pp. 1727 ◽  
Author(s):  
Celeste Lebbé ◽  
Caroline Dutriaux ◽  
Thierry Lesimple ◽  
Willem Kruit ◽  
Joseph Kerger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Cutaneous Melanoma ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Unresectable Stage ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Grade 3

This study investigated the efficacy and safety of pimasertib (MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor) versus dacarbazine (DTIC) in patients with untreated NRAS-mutated melanoma. Phase II, multicenter, open-label trial. Patients with unresectable, stage IIIc/IVM1 NRAS-mutated cutaneous melanoma were randomized 2:1 to pimasertib (60 mg; oral twice-daily) or DTIC (1000 mg/m2; intravenously) on Day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Patients progressing on DTIC could crossover to pimasertib. Primary endpoint: investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints: overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life (QoL), and safety. Overall, 194 patients were randomized (pimasertib n = 130, DTIC n = 64), and 191 received treatment (pimasertib n = 130, DTIC n = 61). PFS was significantly improved with pimasertib versus DTIC (median 13 versus 7 weeks, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42–0.83; p = 0.0022). ORR was improved with pimasertib (odds ratio 2.24, 95% CI 1.00–4.98; p = 0.0453). OS was similar between treatments (median 9 versus 11 months, respectively; HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61–1.30); 64% of patients receiving DTIC crossed over to pimasertib. Serious adverse events (AEs) were more frequent for pimasertib (57%) than DTIC (20%). The most common treatment-emergent AEs were diarrhea (82%) and blood creatine phosphokinase (CPK) increase (68%) for pimasertib, and nausea (41%) and fatigue (38%) for DTIC. Most frequent grade ≥3 AEs were CPK increase (34%) for pimasertib and neutropenia (15%) for DTIC. Mean QoL scores (baseline and last assessment) were similar between treatments. Pimasertib has activity in NRAS-mutated cutaneous melanoma and a safety profile consistent with known toxicities of MEK inhibitors. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01693068.

Olaparib plus paclitaxel plus carboplatin (P/C) followed by olaparib maintenance treatment in patients (pts) with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer (PSR SOC): A randomized, open-label phase II study.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5001-5001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amit M. Oza ◽  
David Cibula ◽  
Ana Oaknin ◽  
Christopher John Poole ◽  
Ron H.J. Mathijssen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Maintenance Treatment ◽  
Parp Inhibitor ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Platinum Sensitive ◽  
Open Label Phase ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Grade 3

5001 Background: The oral PARP inhibitor olaparib has shown antitumor activity in pts with SOC. Our multicenter study compared the efficacy of (Arm A) olaparib capsules plus P/C for 6 cycles then maintenance olaparib monotherapy vs (Arm B) P/C alone for 6 cycles and no further therapy in pts with PSR SOC (NCT01081951). Methods: Pts received 6 x 21-day(d) cycles of olaparib (200 mg bid, d1–10/21) + P (175 mg/m2 iv, d1) + C (AUC4 iv, d1), then olaparib monotherapy as maintenance (400 mg bid, continuous) (Arm A), or 6 x 21d cycles of P (175 mg/m2 iv, d1) + C (AUC6 iv, d1) then no further therapy (Arm B), until progression. Randomization (1:1) was stratified by number of platinum treatments and platinum-free interval. Primary endpoint: progression-free survival (PFS) by central review (RECIST 1.1). Secondary endpoints: overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), safety. Archival tissue was collected where available for analysis of biomarker correlation. Results: Of 162 pts randomized (n=81 per arm), 156 received treatment (Arm A, n=81; Arm B, n=75) and 121 began the maintenance/no further therapy phase (Arm A, n=66; Arm B, n=55). Olaparib + P/C (AUC4) followed by maintenance olaparib showed a significant improvement in PFS vs P/C (AUC6) alone (HR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.34, 0.77; P=0.0012; median = 12.2 vs 9.6 months). OS data are immature (total events: 14%). ORR was similar for Arm A and Arm B (64 vs 58%). Most common AEs during the combination phase were alopecia (74 vs 59%), nausea (69 vs 57%) and fatigue (64 vs 57%) for Arm A vs Arm B, respectively. Pts with grade ≥3 AEs (65 vs 57%), serious AEs (SAEs: 15 vs 21%) and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (19 vs 16%) were similar for Arm A vs Arm B. Most common AEs during maintenance/no further therapy were nausea (50 vs 6%) and vomiting (29 vs 7%). 29 vs 16% of pts had grade ≥3 AEs, 9 vs 7% had SAEs and 8% vs N/A discontinued due to AEs in the olaparib vs no treatment arms, respectively. There were no fatal AEs. Conclusions: In pts with PSR SOC, olaparib plus P/C (AUC4) followed by olaparib 400 mg bid monotherapy maintenance treatment resulted in a significant improvement in PFS vs P/C (AUC6) alone.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document