Cetuximab biweekly plus mFOLFOX6 as first-line therapy in patients (pts) with KRAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): An interim analysis of the CEBIFOX trial.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14502-e14502
Author(s):  
Stefan Kasper ◽  
Johannes Meiler ◽  
Heike Knipp ◽  
Thomas Hoehler ◽  
Peter Reimer ◽  
...  

e14502 Background: Combination of mFOLFOX6 with weekly cetuximab is a standard first line regimen in pts with KRAS wt mCRC. Weekly application of cetuximab increases the in-hospital time of pts with negative impact on quality of life. This multicentric phase II trial evaluates the efficacy of mFOLFOX6 + biweekly cetuximab as first line therapy in KRAS wt mCRC. Methods: Pts with KRAS wt mCRC who were not candidates for primary metastasectomy received cetuximab (500 mg/m2 every 2 weeks) in combination with mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, folinic acid 400 mg/m2, 5-FU 400 mg/m2 bolus and 2,400mg/m2 over 46 h q14d). Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.0, secondary endpoints were safety, secondary resection rate, quality of life (QoL), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival. Data of a pre-specified interim analysis are presented in which 13 responders were needed in the first 37 pts (Simon stage I). Results: As of Dec 2012, 46 pts were registered. Fourty three pts received ≥1 course of treatment, and 34 pts were evaluable for response. Baseline characteristics of the ITT population and efficacy data are listed in the Table. Median follow-up was 14.6 months. Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 39% of pts, including leukocytopenia (11%), gastrointestinal toxicity (11%), and rash (9%). Median PFS was 9.6 months (95% CI: 5.0 to 14.1). QoL data will be presented. Conclusions: This pre-specified interim analysis supports efficacy and safety of biweekly cetuximab given in combination with mFOLFOX6 in pts with mCRC. A high rate of objective responses and secondary hepatic resections was achieved. Based on these results enrolment in CEBIFOX is continued. Clinical trial information: NCT01051167. [Table: see text]

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA348-LBA348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Hutson ◽  
Jorge Gallardo ◽  
Vladmir Lesovoy ◽  
Salman Al-Shukri ◽  
Viktor Stus ◽  
...  

LBA348 Background: In the phase III AXIS trial, second-line therapy with axitinib resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) versus sorafenib for mRCC. We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III trial to compare PFS of axitinib vs sorafenib as first-line therapy. Methods: Patients with untreated, measurable (RECIST v1.0), clear‑cell mRCC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) 0 or 1 were randomized 2:1 to axitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) or sorafenib 400 mg BID. Randomization was stratified by PS. Primary endpoint was PFS per independent radiology committee. The study had 90% power to detect a 78% PFS improvement from 5.5 mo with sorafenib to 9.8 mo with axitinib, corresponding to a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.561 (overall 1-sided α=0.025). Results: Patients (N=288) were mainly from Eastern Europe (51%), Asia (25%), North America (14%), or South America (10%).Patient baseline characteristics for axitinib (n=192) vs sorafenib (n=96) included: median age, 58y vs 58y; male, 70% vs 77%; white, 71% vs 69%; favorable risk, 49% vs 55%; PS 0, 57% vs 57%; nephrectomy, 85% vs 90%. Median (m) PFS was 10.1 vs 6.5 mo with axitinib vs sorafenib (HR adjusted for PS, 0.767; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.559–1.053; 1‑sided P=0.0377). In patients with PS 0 and 1, respectively, mPFS with axitinib vs sorafenib was 13.7 vs 6.6 mo (HR, 0.644; 95% CI, 0.419–0.991; 1‑sided P=0.022) and 6.5 vs 6.4 mo (HR, 0.931; 95% CI, 0.585–1.482; 1‑sided P=0.38). Objective response rates (ORRs) with axitinib vs sorafenib were 32.3% vs 14.6% (1‑sided P=0.0006 adjusted for PS). Overall survival data were not mature. All-grade all‑causality adverse events (≥20%) with axitinib vs sorafenib were diarrhea (50% vs 40%), hypertension (49% vs 29%), weight decreased (37% vs 24%), fatigue (33% vs 26%), decreased appetite (29% vs 19%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (26% vs 39%), dysphonia (23% vs 10%), asthenia (21% vs 16%), and hypothyroidism (21% vs 7%). Conclusions: The study did not achieve its primary endpoint statistically, but axitinib demonstrated numerically longer mPFS and significantly higher ORR vs sorafenib, with an acceptable safety profile, as first-line therapy for mRCC. Clinical trial information: NCT00920816.


Cancer ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 124 (10) ◽  
pp. 2228-2237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabio Efficace ◽  
Fausto Castagnetti ◽  
Bruno Martino ◽  
Massimo Breccia ◽  
Mariella D'Adda ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document