Regorafenib (REG) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) progressing following sorafenib: An ongoing randomized, double-blind, phase III trial.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS4163-TPS4163
Author(s):  
Ann-Lii Cheng ◽  
Richard S. Finn ◽  
Masatoshi Kudo ◽  
Josep M. Llovet ◽  
Shukui Qin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Sorafenib Treatment ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Ecog Ps

TPS4163 Background: Sorafenib is the accepted first-line systemic therapy for HCC, but no standard option is available for patients with tumor progression following sorafenib. An open-label phase II study suggested that REG, a multikinase inhibitor, had an acceptable safety profile and showed evidence of antitumor activity in patients with progressive HCC (Bolondi et al. Eur J Cancer 2011; 47 [Suppl 1]: abstract 6.576): disease control was achieved in 26/36 patients (72%) and median time to progression (TTP) was 4.3 months; median overall survival (OS) was 13.8 months. On the basis of these promising data, a phase III trial was designed. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled, multinational study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01774344) will assess the efficacy and tolerability of REG vs PBO in patients with HCC that has progressed following sorafenib treatment (target n=530). Inclusion criteria include Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C disease, Child–Pugh A liver function, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0 or 1. Patients who discontinued sorafenib ≥8 weeks before study entry or who received other previous systemic therapy for HCC will be excluded. Patients will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive REG 160 mg or matching PBO OD for weeks 1–3 of each 4-week cycle; all patients will also receive best supportive care. Treatment will continue until disease progression, death, intolerable toxicity, or patient/investigator decision to stop. Doses of study drug may be delayed or reduced to manage clinically significant drug-related toxicities. The primary endpoint is OS; secondary endpoints are TTP, progression-free survival, tumor response, and safety. Analysis will be according to randomized group, stratified by geographic region (Asia vs rest of world), ECOG PS (0 vs 1), alfa-fetoprotein level (<400 vs ≥400 ng/ml), extrahepatic disease (yes vs no), and macrovascular invasion (yes vs no). In addition, blood, plasma, and archival tissue will be assessed for pharmacokinetic and biomarker analyses, and health-related quality of life and health utility will be measured. Clinical trial information: NCT01774344.

LAPACT: An open-label, multicenter phase II trial of nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) plus gemcitabine (Gem) in patients (pts) with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC).

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS477-TPS477 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Agop Philip ◽  
Jill Lacy ◽  
Scot D. Dowden ◽  
Javier Sastre ◽  
Venu Gopal Bathini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
The United States ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Primary Tumors

TPS477 Background: In pts with LAPC, more effective systemic therapies may be associated with improved local control, delay of metastasis, and overall survival (OS). The phase III MPACT trial in pts with metastatic PC demonstrated longer OS (median, 8.7 vs 6.6 mos; HR, 0.72; P < 0.001) and an ≈ 3-fold greater shrinkage of primary tumors with nab-P + Gem vs Gem alone (−22.15% vs −7.02%), raising the possibility of improved local PC control with nab-P + Gem. LAPACT will assess the efficacy and safety of nab-P + Gem in LAPC. Methods: LAPACT will enroll treatment-naive pts (planned n ≈ 110) in the United States, Canada, and Europe with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 1, confirmed unresectable LAPC, no distant metastases, and adequate organ function. Pts with mixed-origin tumors, any other malignancy within 5 years, peripheral neuropathy grade > 1, or clinically significant ascites are ineligible. Pts will receive nab-P 125 mg/m2 + Gem 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Pts without progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity after 6 cycles will receive investigator’s choice of surgery, chemoradiotherapy, or continued nab-P + Gem. If a major response is observed, surgery may occur prior to completing 6 cycles of nab-P + Gem. The primary endpoint is time to treatment failure (TTF; time from first therapy dose to discontinuation due to PD, start of a new non–protocol-defined anti-cancer therapy, or death). The study design allows for 80% power at a 1-sided α of 0.05 to detect a 30% increase over the 5.1-month median TTF observed for nab-P + Gem in the MPACT study. The secondary endpoints are disease control rate (DCR) after 6 cycles, overall response rate, progression-free survival, OS, safety, and quality of life. The exploratory endpoint is correlation of changes in circulating nucleic acids with PD and treatment response. An interim DCR analysis will occur after all pts have completed 6 cycles of nab-P + Gem, discontinued therapy due to PD, died, or started a new non–protocol-defined therapy before completing 6 cycles of therapy. Enrollment is ongoing (first pt enrolled in April 2015). Clinical trial information: NCT02301143.

scholarly journals Nintedanib Plus Pemetrexed/Cisplatin in Patients With Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: Phase II Results From the Randomized, Placebo-Controlled LUME-Meso Trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31) ◽  
pp. 3591-3600 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federica Grosso ◽  
Nicola Steele ◽  
Silvia Novello ◽  
Anna K. Nowak ◽  
Sanjay Popat ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Placebo Group ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Pleural Mesothelioma ◽  
Double Blind

Purpose LUME-Meso is a phase II/III randomized, double-blind trial designed to assess efficacy and safety of nintedanib plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Phase II results are reported here. Patients and Methods Chemotherapy-naïve patients with unresectable, nonsarcomatoid MPM (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1), stratified by histology (epithelioid or biphasic), were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to up to six cycles of pemetrexed and cisplatin plus nintedanib (200 mg twice daily) or placebo followed by nintedanib plus placebo monotherapy until progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results Eighty-seven patients were randomly assigned. The median number of pemetrexed and cisplatin cycles was six; the median treatment duration for nintedanib was 7.8 months and 5.3 months for placebo. Primary PFS favored nintedanib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.91; P = .017), which was confirmed in updated PFS analyses (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.87; P = .010). A trend toward improved overall survival also favored nintedanib (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.29; P = .319). Benefit was evident in epithelioid histology, with a median overall survival gain of 5.4 months (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.21; P = .197; median [nintedanib v placebo], 20.6 months v 15.2 months) and median PFS gain of 4.0 months (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.82; P = .006; median [nintedanib v placebo], 9.7 v 5.7 months). Neutropenia was the most frequent grade ≥ 3 adverse event (AE; nintedanib 43.2% v placebo 12.2%); rates of febrile neutropenia were low (4.5% in nintedanib group v 0% in placebo group). AEs leading to discontinuation were reported in 6.8% of those receiving nintedanib versus 17.1% of those in the placebo group. Conclusion Addition of nintedanib to pemetrexed plus cisplatin resulted in PFS improvement. AEs were manageable. The clinical benefit was evident in patients with epithelioid histology. The confirmatory phase III part of the study is ongoing.

Phase IIb, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Naldemedine for the Treatment of Opioid-Induced Constipation in Patients With Cancer

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (17) ◽  
pp. 1921-1928 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nobuyuki Katakami ◽  
Koji Oda ◽  
Katsunori Tauchi ◽  
Ken Nakata ◽  
Katsunori Shinozaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Group Performance ◽  
Day Treatment ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Frequency Change ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
End Point

Purpose This randomized, double-blind, multicenter study aimed to determine the dose of naldemedine, a peripherally-acting μ-opioid receptor antagonist, for future trials by comparing the efficacy and safety of three doses of naldemedine versus placebo in patients with cancer and opioid-induced constipation. Methods Patients ≥ 18 years old with cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2, who had been receiving a stable regimen of opioid analgesics for ≥ 2 weeks, had at least one constipation symptom despite laxative use, and no more than five spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) during the past 14 days, were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to oral, once-daily naldemedine 0.1, 0.2, or 0.4 mg, or placebo, for 14 days. The primary end point was change in SBM frequency per week from baseline during the treatment period. Secondary end points included SBM responder rates, change from baseline in the frequency of SBM without straining, and complete SBM. Safety was also assessed. Results Of 227 patients who were randomly assigned, 225 were assessed for efficacy (naldemedine 0.1 mg, n = 55; 0.2 mg, n = 58; 0.4 mg, n = 56; placebo, n = 56) and 226 for safety. Change in SBM frequency (primary end point) was higher with all naldemedine doses versus placebo ( P < .05 for all comparisons), as were SBM responder rates and change in complete SBM frequency. Change in SBM frequency without straining was significantly improved with naldemedine 0.2 and 0.4 (but not 0.1) mg versus placebo (at least P < .05). Treatment-emergent adverse events were more common with naldemedine (0.1 mg: 66.1%; 0.2 mg: 67.2%; 0.4 mg: 78.6%) than placebo (51.8%); the most common treatment-emergent adverse event was diarrhea. Conclusion Fourteen-day treatment with naldemedine significantly improved opioid-induced constipation in patients with cancer and was generally well tolerated. Naldemedine 0.2 mg was selected for phase III studies.

Meta-analysis of randomized phase II and phase III trials of gemcitabine with/without S-1 in Asian patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 311-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Yuyat Ku ◽  
Benjamin Haaland ◽  
Tatsuya Ioka ◽  
Hiroyuki Isayama ◽  
Yousuke Nakai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Asian Patients ◽  
Ecog Ps

311 Background: Advanced pancreatic cancer (PC) is a virulent disease, where gemcitabine is considered the standard-of-care. A recent phase III evaluation demonstrated superiority of FOLFIRINOX (bolus and infusional 5-fluorouracil (FU), irinotecan, oxaliplatin) in patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of ≤1. Recently, three studies were presented in abstract form, comparing gemcitabine/S-1 (GS) to gemcitabine. S-1 is a mixture of tegafur (an oral 5-FU prodrug), a dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase inhibitor and an agent designed to reduce the gastrointestinal toxicity of 5-FU. All three trials demonstrated significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) while one study also showed a statistically significant improvement in overall survival (OS). Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of the three trials. Results: Seven hundred and seventy patients were randomized to receive GS vs. gemcitabine; 75% had metastatic disease and 65% had an ECOG PS of 0. GS was associated with superior RR (hazard ratio (HR) 0.348, p=3.06×10-7), PFS (HR 0.64, p=7.26×10-9) and OS (HR 0.79, p=2.47×10-2) compared to gemcitabine. Patients receiving GS were more likely to experience nausea, diarrhea, rash and stomatitis (mostly grade 1/2); neutropenic fever occurred in <2% of patients. One study demonstrated superior quality-of-life for GS. Conclusions: GS should be considered a first-line option for the treatment of advanced PC in Asian patients. This regimen should serve as the reference for future trials and comparison with FOLFIRINOX in patients with ECOG PS ≤1 is warranted.

A phase III study of S-1 plus cisplatin versus fluorouracil plus cisplatin in patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4025-4025 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rui-hua Xu ◽  
Guo-ping Sun ◽  
Hui-shan Lu ◽  
Liu Yun Peng ◽  
Jian-ming Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Gastroesophageal Junction ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Time To Failure ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma

4025 Background: A combination of S-1 and cisplatin (DDP) has been shown to be effective and safe for the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer in Japan. This is the first randomized phase III trial to compare S-1 plus DDP with 5-fluorouracil (5-Fu) plus DDP in Asia. Methods: This is an open-label, multicenter, phase 3, randomized controlled study. Patients with gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive S-1 plus DDP (experiment group) or 5-Fu plus DDP (control group) for 6 cycles. In the experiment group, the dose of S-1 was 80 mg/m2/day, po, twice daily on day 1-21 and DDP was 20mg/m2 iv on day 1-4, repeat every 5 weeks. In the control group, 5-Fu was given as 0.8g/m2/d CI 120h ,and the dose of DDP was the same with the experiment group, while repeat every 4 weeks. Allocation was by block randomization stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, sites of metastasis and prior gastrectomy. The primary endpoint was time to progression (TTP). Secondary end points included time to failure (TTF), overall survival (OS), and quality of life. Results: Totally 255 patients were enrolled into the study, of whom 236 were included in the analysis (n=120; n=116). Median TTP was 5.51 months (95% CI 4.59-6.26) in those assigned to experiment group compared with 4.62 months (95% CI 4.00-6.33) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.03; 95%CI 0.76-1.39, p=0.86). In the experiment and control groups, response rates were 22.5% vs 21.5%; P=0.86. Median OS was 10.00 months (95% CI 8.59-14.52) in the experiment group compared with 10.46 months (8.92-13.84) in the control group (HR 1.05; 95%CI 0.71-1.54, p=0.82). The most common adverse events in both groups were anemia (S-1 plus cisplatin, 80.17% vs 5-Fu plus cisplatin, 71.19%), leukopenia (71.90% vs 62.71%), neutropenia (68.60% vs 55.93%), nausea (50.41% vs 60.17%), thrombocytopenia (44.63% vs 26.27%), vomiting (42.98% vs 42.37%) and anorexia (38.02% vs 41.53%). Conclusions: S-1 plus DDP is an effective and tolerable option for patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Clinical trial information: NCT01198392.

Randomized, Phase III Trial of Panitumumab With Infusional Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) Versus FOLFOX4 Alone As First-Line Treatment in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The PRIME Study

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (31) ◽  
pp. 4697-4705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Yves Douillard ◽  
Salvatore Siena ◽  
James Cassidy ◽  
Josep Tabernero ◽  
Ronald Burkes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
End Point

Purpose Panitumumab, a fully human anti–epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody that improves progression-free survival (PFS), is approved as monotherapy for patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The Panitumumab Randomized Trial in Combination With Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer to Determine Efficacy (PRIME) was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of panitumumab plus infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) versus FOLFOX4 alone as initial treatment for mCRC. Patients and Methods In this multicenter, phase III trial, patients with no prior chemotherapy for mCRC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2, and available tissue for biomarker testing were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive panitumumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4. The primary end point was PFS; overall survival (OS) was a secondary end point. Results were prospectively analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis by tumor KRAS status. Results KRAS results were available for 93% of the 1,183 patients randomly assigned. In the wild-type (WT) KRAS stratum, panitumumab-FOLFOX4 significantly improved PFS compared with FOLFOX4 (median PFS, 9.6 v 8.0 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.97; P = .02). A nonsignificant increase in OS was also observed for panitumumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 (median OS, 23.9 v 19.7 months, respectively; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.02; P = .072). In the mutant KRAS stratum, PFS was significantly reduced in the panitumumab-FOLFOX4 arm versus the FOLFOX4 arm (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.62; P = .02), and median OS was 15.5 months versus 19.3 months, respectively (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.57; P = .068). Adverse event rates were generally comparable across arms with the exception of toxicities known to be associated with anti-EGFR therapy. Conclusion This study demonstrated that panitumumab-FOLFOX4 was well tolerated and significantly improved PFS in patients with WT KRAS tumors and underscores the importance of KRAS testing for patients with mCRC.

65 plus: A randomized phase III trial of pemetrexed and bevacizumab versus pemetrexed, bevacizumab, and carboplatin as first-line treatment for elderly patients with advanced nonsquamous, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8013-8013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Schuette ◽  
Sylke Nagel ◽  
Claus-Peter Schneider ◽  
Walburga Engel-Riedel ◽  
Christian Schumann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Wilcoxon Test ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Treatment Comparison ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Ecog Ps

8013 Background: Pemetrexed (P) and bevacizumab (B) are efficacious drugs for treatment of non-squamous NSCLC. In this trial the benefit of combining PB with carboplatin (C) was investigated in elderly patients (pts) ≥ 65 years with NSCLC. Methods: In this German multicenter (27 centers), open-label phase III trial pts with stage IIIb/IV non-squamous NSCLC were recruited. Pts were randomized 1:1 to P (500 mg/m2) + B (7.5 mg/kg) or P+B+C (AUC5) d1 q3 wks for 4 to 6 cycles followed by maintenance therapy with B or P+B. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), while secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), 1-year survival rate, overall response rate (ORR) as well as tolerability (AEs/SAEs). Results: 271 pts were enrolled from Sep 2009 to Jan 2012, the ITT population consists of 251 evaluable pts, less than 10 pts are still receiving maintenance therapy. Baseline characteristics were balanced between both treatment groups (PB 118 pts, PBC 133 pts). Median age was 71 years in PB and 72 in PBC. Median PFS time was 4.8 mo in PB and 6.8 mo in PBC. Treatment comparison for ECOG performance status (PS) 0-1 subgroup (PB 112 pts, PBC 126 pts): p=0.0426 (Wilcoxon test), hazard ratio (HR) = 1.31 (95% CI 0.99-1.73). ORR was 31.4% in PB vs. 44.4% in PBC (p=0.0343). Median OS time was 11.6 mo in PB vs. 15.2 mo in PBC. Treatment comparison ECOG PS 0-1: p=0.2050, HR = 1.20 (95% CI 0.85-1.70). 1-year survival rates were 48.2% and 58.8%, respectively. Compared to this the median OS time in the small group of pts with ECOG PS 2 was 11.5 mo in PB vs. 3.8 mo in PBC. AE grade 3/4 and SAE profiles were comparable in both treatment arms, 76 pts (64.4%) with AEs grade 3/4 in PB and 87 pts (65.4%) in PBC, 58 pts (49.2%) with SAEs in PB and 64 pts (48.1%) in PBC. 46 pts (39.0%) in PB vs. 69 pts (51.9%) in PBC received maintenance therapy. Conclusions: Combination of PBC demonstrates with a median OS of 15.2 mo a strong efficacy with acceptable toxicity profile for elderly patients. Addition of carboplatin is recommended for eligible patients. However, in patients with ECOG PS 2 the administration of carboplatin must be carefully reviewed. Clinical trial information: NCT00976456.

A phase III study of nivolumab (NIVO), NIVO + ipilimumab (IPI), or chemotherapy (CT) for microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Checkmate 8HW.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS266-TPS266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandzhar Abdullaev ◽  
Thierry André ◽  
Ming Lei ◽  
Heinz-Josef Lenz ◽  
James Novotny ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase 3

TPS266 Background: Patients (pts) with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC treated with CT have poorer outcomes than pts with microsatellite stable/MMR proficient mCRC. NIVO (anti–programmed death [PD]-1) and IPI (anti–cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 [CTLA-4]) are immune checkpoint inhibitors that act synergistically and promote antitumor immune response by complementary mechanisms. NIVO±IPI received accelerated US FDA approval for MSI-H/dMMR mCRC that progressed after fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan treatment based on the phase 2, non-randomized, multicohort CheckMate 142 study. Indirect comparisons suggest that NIVO (3 mg/kg) + low-dose IPI (1 mg/kg) provides improved clinical benefit vs NIVO (investigator-assessed [INV] objective response rate [ORR] 55% vs 31%; 12-month [mo] INV progression-free survival [PFS] rate 71% vs 50%; 12-mo overall survival [OS] rate 85% vs 73%) with a favorable benefit-risk profile for previously treated MSI-H/dMMR mCRC (Overman et al. JCO 2018). NIVO+low-dose IPI also demonstrated robust and durable clinical benefit in first-line MSI-H/dMMR mCRC (INV ORR 64%; 12-mo INV PFS rate 77%; 12-mo OS rate 84%; Lenz et al. ASCO 2019, #3521). To date, no prospective phase 3 studies have reported results for anti–PD-1, anti–PD-1 + anti–CTLA-4, or CT in MSI-H/dMMR mCRC; these treatments will be evaluated in the international, multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 3 CheckMate 8HW (NCT04008030) study. Methods: Approximately 494 pts aged ≥18 years with histologically confirmed recurrent or mCRC, irrespective of prior treatment with CT and/or targeted agents, not amenable to surgery, and with known tumor MSI-H or dMMR status, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1 will be randomized to receive NIVO, NIVO+IPI, or investigator’s choice CT (pts in the CT arm can receive NIVO+IPI upon progression). The primary endpoint is PFS, assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints include PFS by INV, ORR and disease control rate by BICR and INV, OS, time to and duration of response. Exploratory endpoints include safety. Clinical trial information: NCT04008030.

scholarly journals ASCEND: Phase III, Randomized Trial of Acalabrutinib Versus Idelalisib Plus Rituximab or Bendamustine Plus Rituximab in Relapsed or Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (25) ◽  
pp. 2849-2861 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Ghia ◽  
Andrzej Pluta ◽  
Malgorzata Wach ◽  
Daniel Lysak ◽  
Tomas Kozak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Serious Adverse Events

PURPOSE Acalabrutinib, a highly selective, potent, Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was evaluated in this global, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III study in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). METHODS Eligible patients, aged ≥ 18 years with R/R CLL, were randomly assigned 1:1 centrally and stratified by del(17p) status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score, and number of prior lines of therapy. Patients received acalabrutinib monotherapy or investigator’s choice (idelalisib plus rituximab [I-R] or bendamustine plus rituximab [B-R]). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by an independent review committee (IRC) in the intent-to-treat population. Key secondary end points included IRC-assessed overall response rate, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS From February 21, 2017, to January 17, 2018, a total of 398 patients were assessed for eligibility; 310 patients were randomly assigned to acalabrutinib monotherapy (n = 155) or investigator’s choice (n = 155; I-R, n = 119; B-R, n = 36). Patients had received a median of two prior therapies (range, 1-10). After a median follow-up of 16.1 months (range, 0.03-22.4 months), median PFS was significantly longer with acalabrutinib monotherapy (PFS not reached) compared with investigator’s choice (16.5 months [95% CI, 14.0 to 17.1 months]; hazard ratio, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.20 to 0.49]; P < .0001). Estimated 12-month PFS was 88% (95% CI, 81% to 92%) for acalabrutinib and 68% (95% CI, 59% to 75%) for investigator’s choice. Serious adverse events occurred in 29% of patients (n = 44 of 154) treated with acalabrutinib monotherapy, 56% (n = 66 of 118) with I-R, and 26% (n = 9 of 35) with B-R. Deaths occurred in 10% (n = 15 of 154), 11% (n = 13 of 118), and 14% (n = 5 of 35) of patients receiving acalabrutinib monotherapy, I-R, and B-R, respectively. CONCLUSION Acalabrutinib significantly improved PFS compared with I-R or B-R and has an acceptable safety profile in patients with R/R CLL.

scholarly journals Quality of life analyses in patients with multiple myeloma: results from the Selinexor (KPT-330) Treatment of Refractory Myeloma (STORM) phase 2b study

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel Tremblay ◽  
Patrick Daniele ◽  
Janis Breeze ◽  
Lingling Li ◽  
Jatin Shah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Nuclear Export ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Difference Threshold ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Ecog Ps

Abstract Background Selinexor is an oral, selective nuclear export inhibitor. STORM was a phase 2b, single-arm, open-label, multicenter trial of selinexor with low dose dexamethasone in patients with penta-exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) that met its primary endpoint, with overall response of 26% (95% confidence interval [CI], 19 to 35%). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was a secondary endpoint measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Multiple Myeloma (FACT-MM). This study examines impact of selinexor treatment on HRQoL of patients treated in STORM and reports two approaches to calculate minimal clinically important differences for the FACT-MM. Methods FACT-MM data were collected at baseline, on day 1 of each 4-week treatment cycle, and at end of treatment (EOT). Changes from baseline were analyzed for the FACT-MM total score, FACT-trial outcome index (TOI), FACT-General (FACT-G), and the MM-specific domain using mixed-effects regression models. Two approaches for evaluating minimal clinically important differences were explored: the first defined as 10% of the instrument range, and the second based on estimated mean baseline differences between Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) scores. Post-hoc difference analysis compared change in scores from baseline to EOT for treatment responders and non-responders. Results Eighty patients were included in the analysis; the mean number of prior therapies was 7.9 (standard deviation [SD] 3.1), and mean duration of myeloma was 7.6 years (SD 3.4). Each exploratory minimal clinically important difference threshold yielded consistent results whereby most patients did not experience HRQoL decline during the first six cycles of treatment (range: 53.9 to 75.7% for the first approach; range: 52.6 to 72.9% for the second). Treatment responders experienced less decline in HRQoL from baseline to EOT than non-responders, which was significant for the FACT-G, but not for other scores. Conclusion The majority of patients did not experience decline in HRQoL based on minimal clinically important differences during early cycles of treatment with selinexor and dexamethasone in the STORM trial. An anchor-based approach utilizing patient-level data (ECOG PS score) to define minimal clinically important differences for the FACT-MM gave consistent results with a distribution-based approach. Trial registration This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under the trial-ID NCT02336815 on January 8, 2015.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document