Randomized, multicenter, open-label, phase III study of the BTK inhibitor ibrutinib versus chlorambucil in patients 65 years or older with treatment-naive CLL/SLL (RESONATE-2, PCYC-1115-CA).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS7130-TPS7130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Andreas Burger ◽  
Paolo Ghia ◽  
Aaron Polliack ◽  
Constantine Tam ◽  
Deepali Suri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Status ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Unmet Need ◽  
Previous Treatment ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Ecog Ps

TPS7130 Background: There is an unmet need for safer and more effective therapies for CLL patients who are older/have comorbidites. Ibrutinib, a small molecule inhibitor of BTK, has demonstrated single-agent activity in CLL in the Ph 1b/2 study, PCYC-1102-CA. Treatment-naïve (TN) patients aged >= 65 yrs (n=31) experienced an estimated PFS and OS of 96% at 26 months; ORRs per iwCLL were: 10% CR, 58% PR, and 13% PR with lymphocytosis (Byrd, ASH 2012). AEs were generally Grade 1/2, most commonly diarrhea. Incidence of Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities was low. These findings support a phase III study of ibrutinib in older patients with treatment-naïve CLL/SLL. Methods: The ongoing study is a randomized, multicenter, open label Ph 3 study comparing safety and efficacy of ibrutinib vs. chlorambucil in TN patients aged >= 65 yrs with CLL/SLL. Approximately 272 patients will be randomized in 1:1 ratio to receive either chlorambucil or ibrutinib, stratified for ECOG PS and Rai stage. Oral chlorambucil will be administered at 0.5 mg/kg on Days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle, for up to 12 cycles. Ibrutinib 420 mg q.d. will continue until PD or unacceptable toxicity. Key incl. criteria include age >= 65 yrs, active disease requiring treatment per iwCLL, measurable nodal disease by CT, ECOG performance status 0-2, and adequate organ function (ANC ≥1,000/μL, platelets ≥50,000/μL, creatinine clearance ≥30 mL/min). Key excl. criteria include Richter’s transformation, del(17p13.1) or previous treatment for CLL/SLL. The primary endpoint of the study is PFS, assessed by Independent Review Committee (IRC). Secondary endpoints include ORR, MRD-negative CRs, fatigue by FACIT-F, hematological improvement, safety, and tolerability. Subjects who relapse on PCYC-1115 will be enrolled on PCYC-1116 for long term follow up. Second line therapy is investigator choice; ibrutinib will be made available for patients who experience IRC-confirmed PD ≤12 months of completing chlorambucil therapy, if they meet the treatment criteria. Approximately 85 sites will enroll patients in North America, Europe, Israel, Australia/New Zealand and China. Enrollment began in Q1 2013. Clinical trial information: NCT01722487.

A single-arm, open-label, U.S. expanded access study of vemurafenib in patients with metastatic melanoma.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8567-8567
Author(s):  
Lynn Mara Schuchter ◽  
Lawrence E. Flaherty ◽  
Omid Hamid ◽  
Gerald P. Linette ◽  
Sigrun Hallmeyer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Metastatic Melanoma ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Expanded Access ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Prior Systemic Therapy ◽  
Ecog Ps

8567 Background: Vemurafenib (vem) has been FDA approved for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic BRAFV600E mutated melanoma since August 2011 based on results of a randomized phase III study (treatment-naive) and a single arm phase II study (previously treated). We report results of an expanded access study that allowed appropriate patients (pts) to receive vem until the drug was approved. Methods: Eligible pts had metastatic melanoma with a BRAFV600E mutation as detected by the cobas 4800 BRAFV600 Mutation Test. Enrolled pts received oral vem 960 mg b.i.d. Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated for vem-related toxicities; tumor responses were assessed using RECIST 1.1. Results: 29 US sites screened 745 pts and enrolled 374 from December 2010 until October 2011. The following results are based on a median follow up time and treatment duration of 2 months. At baseline, mean age of pts was 54 y with 22% of pts ≥65 y; 75% had stage M1c disease; 29% had received radiotherapy for brain metastases. 19% of pts were ECOG PS 2 or 3; 71% of pts had prior systemic therapy for metastatic melanoma (21% 1 regimen; 50% ≥2 regimens). 50 pts had prior adjuvant treatment. At data cut-off, 243 pts had sufficient follow-up time for tumor assessment. In this group, the unconfirmed overall response rate was 52% (95% CI, 46 to 59). The median time to response was 1.8 months. Based on 240 pts with available ECOG PS status at time of analysis, response rate was 53% for pts with ECOG PS 0 or 1 (n=209), and 45% for pts with ECOG PS 2 or 3 (n=31). 370 pts were evaluable for safety analysis. The most common vem-related AEs were rash (36%), arthralgia (33%) and fatigue (21%) with the majority (~90%) of grade 1 or 2. 25 vem-related serious AEs were reported in 5.4% of pts with a slightly higher rate of pts with ECOG PS 2 or 3 (8.7%) compared to ECOG PS 0 or 1 (4.7%). 18% of pts missed at least one dose and 11% of pts required dose reduction of at least one level due to AEs. Conclusions: This expanded access study, with its limited follow-up time, confirms the established rapid and high tumor response rate with vem. No new safety signals were detected. Compared to the overall population, pts with an ECOG PS 2 or 3 demonstrated a similar benefit.

ACELARATE: A phase III, open label, multicentre randomised clinical study comparing Acelarin (NUC-1031) with gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic carcinoma.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS537-TPS537 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel H. Palmer ◽  
Paul J. Ross ◽  
Paul Silcocks ◽  
William Greenhalf ◽  
Olusola Olusesan Faluyi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Combination Chemotherapy ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Active Agent ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Phase Iii Study

TPS537 Background: Single agent gemcitabine still remains an appropriate choice for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma who are not suitable for combination therapy. Known resistance factors, such as low hENT1 and dCK, and CDA overexpression limit gemcitabine’s efficacy. NUC-1031 (Acelarin), is designed to overcome this resistance and deliver significantly higher intracellular levels of the active agent, dFdCTP, than gemcitabine. In Phase I studies Acelarin has shown activity in a range of metastatic cancers, including pancreatic, biliary and ovarian cancers. This Phase III study is designed to show superiority of Acelarin over gemcitabine in patients unsuitable for combination chemotherapy. Methods: To date, 85 patients have been randomised in this multicentre, Phase III study comparing Acelarin with gemcitabine first-line in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Patients must have a Performance Status of 0-2 and be unsuitable for combination chemotherapy. To detect a hazard ratio of 0.705 between the two arms, 270 events must be obtained from 328 patients, assuming a median survival of 6 months in the control arm. Currently, pts are being recruited at 27 centres. Patients receive either 825mg/m2 Acelarin or 1000mg/m2 gemcitabine on Day 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle until disease progression. The primary outcome measure is Overall Survival. Secondary outcome measures include Progression Free Survival, Response Rate, Disease Control Rate and Toxicity. Translational research will explore the use of biomarkers for predictive benefit of Acelarin over gemcitabine. Clinical trial information: ISRCTN16765355.

Comparative trial of BBR 2778 (pixantrone) + rituximab vs single agent rituximab in the treatment of relapsed/refractory indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL)

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7578-7578 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Santoro ◽  
J. Voglova ◽  
N. Gabrail ◽  
T. Ciuleanu ◽  
M. Liberati ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
International Workshop ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Time To Progression ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Serious Adverse Events

7578 Background: BBR 2778 is a novel aza-anthracenedione that shows structural similarities to the anthracyclines, demonstrates single agent activity in patients with NHL, and does not exhibit cardiotoxic effects in animal models. This phase III open-label study was designed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of combination rituximab and BBR 2778, with that of single agent rituximab, in patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory indolent NHL. Methods: Pts were randomly assigned to receive both rituximab and BBR 2778 (experimental arm), or rituximab alone (control arm). In the experimental arm, pts received 375 mg/m2 rituximab IV on days 1 and 8 of cycles 1 and 2 only, and 90 mg/m2 BBR 2778 IV on days 2 and 8 of cycle 1, and on days 1 and 8 of all subsequent cycles. Pts could receive six 21-day cycles of BBR 2778. In the control arm, pts received 375 mg/m2 rituximab IV on days 1, 8 and 15 of cycle 1 and day 1 of cycle 2 only. Disease response was assessed every other cycle according to International Workshop to Standardize Response Criteria for NHL. Toxicities were assessed throughout the study using NCI-CTC criteria. Study was closed early due to poor enrollment. Results: 38 pts (20 experimental, 18 control) were enrolled. Mean age was 66 and 59 years in the experimental and control arm, respectively. Most patients were males and most had ECOG performance status 0 or 1. Efficacy is summarized in the table. Response rate (75 vs 33%) and time to progression (13.2 vs 8.1 months) were better in the BBR 2778 arm. Only pts in the experimental arm had study drug related serious adverse events (2 febrile neutropenia, 1 pneumonia, 1 neutropenia) and adverse events resulting in withdrawal (6 vs 0). Conclusions: Combination of BBR 2778 and rituximab is superior to rituximab alone with regard to time to progression and overall response rate. BBR 2778 combined with rituximab appeared to be a generally well tolerated regimen in patients with relapsed/refractory indolent NHL. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Ledipasvir/sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin for 8 or 12 weeks for the treatment of HCV genotype 4 infection: results from a randomised phase III study in Egypt

Gut ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 721-728 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gamal Shiha ◽  
Gamal Esmat ◽  
Mohamed Hassany ◽  
Reham Soliman ◽  
Mohamed Elbasiony ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Previous Treatment ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Genotype 4 ◽  
Hcv Genotype ◽  
Multicentre Phase ◽  
Highly Effective ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
To Receive

ObjectiveWe evaluated the efficacy and safety of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir alone and with ribavirin for 8 and 12 weeks in Egyptian patients with and without cirrhosis, who were infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 4, including those who had failed previous treatment with sofosbuvir regimens.DesignIn this open-label, multicentre, phase III study, treatment-naive patients were randomised to receive 8 or 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir±ribavirin. Interferon treatment-experienced patients were randomised to receive 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir±ribavirin, while sofosbuvir-experienced or ledipasvir/sofosbuvir-experienced patients received 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir+ribavirin. Randomisation was stratified by cirrhosis status. The primary endpoint was sustained virological response 12 weeks post-treatment (SVR12).ResultsWe enrolled 255 patients from four centres in Egypt. Among treatment-naive patients, SVR12 rates were 95% and 90% for those receiving 8 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir alone and with ribavirin, respectively, and 98% for those receiving 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir both alone and with ribavirin. Among interferon-experienced patients, SVR rates were 94% for those receiving 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir and 100% for those receiving 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir plus ribavirin. All patients previously treated with sofosbuvir regimens who received ledipasvir/sofosbuvir plus ribavirin achieved SVR12. The most common adverse events, headache and fatigue, were more common among patients receiving ribavirin.ConclusionAmong non-cirrhotic treatment-naive patients with HCV genotype 4, 8 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir±ribavirin was highly effective. Twelve weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir±ribavirin was highly effective regardless of presence of cirrhosis or prior treatment experience, including previous treatment with sofosbuvir or ledipasvir/sofosbuvir.Trial registration numberNCT02487030.

Results of a randomized phase II trial of amrubicin (AMR) versus topotecan (Topo) in patients with extensive-disease small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC) sensitive to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8028-8028
Author(s):  
R. Jotte ◽  
P. Conkling ◽  
C. Reynolds ◽  
L. Klein ◽  
J. F. Fitzgibbons ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Prior Therapy ◽  
Platinum Based Chemotherapy ◽  
Ecog Ps

8028 Background: SCLC presents as ED-SCLC in 60%-70% of patients (pts). AMR, a synthetic anthracycline, is approved for these pts in Japan. We compare the efficacy and safety of single-agent AMR vs topotecan in non-Japanese pts with 2nd-line ED-SCLC sensitive to 1st-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Methods: This phase II, open-label, multicenter study enrolled pts with ED-SCLC sensitive to 1st-line platinum-based chemotherapy (recurrence or progression ≥90 days from 1st-line treatment). Pts aged ≥18 years with ECOG performance status (PS) ≤2 and only 1 prior therapy were eligible. Pts were randomized (2:1) to receive IV AMR 40 mg/m2/d (d, 1–3) or IV topotecan 1.5 mg/m2/d (d 1–5) and treated every 21 days until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. The primary endpoint, overall response rate (ORR, complete + partial response), used RECIST criteria. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: In all, 76 pts were randomized to AMR (n=50) or topotecan (n=26) with AMR given for a median of 6 cycles (range 1–16) and topotecan 3 cycles (1–16). AMR significantly improved ORR rates vs topotecan (p<0.012; Table ). Median PFS/OS was 4.3 months (95% CI 2.0, 6.1)/9.3 months (95% CI 5.7, 12.0) with AMR vs 3.5 months (95% CI 2.1, 6.3)/8.9 months (95% CI 4.8, 13.8) with topotecan. There was a higher proportion of ECOG PS 2 pts in the AMR group (n=6) vs the topotecan group (n=2). A trend towards improved OS was observed in the ECOG 0–1 subgroup of 68 pts: median OS was 10.5 months with AMR vs 9.7 months with topotecan. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events with AMR vs topotecan were neutropenia (53% vs 74%), thrombocytopenia (31% vs 52%) and leukopenia (27% vs 30%). Three AMR pts (6%) and 1 topotecan pt (4%) died of neutropenic infection. Conclusions: AMR significantly improves ORR and has acceptable tolerability as 2nd-line treatment in pts with sensitive ED-SCLC. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

Update results from ALTER-C-001: Efficacy and safety of anlotinib plus XELOX regimen as first-line treatment followed by maintenance monotherapy of anlotinib for patients with mCRC-A single-arm, multicenter, phase Ⅱ clinical trial.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15550-e15550
Author(s):  
Jin Yan ◽  
Yunwei Han ◽  
Li Zhang ◽  
Yongdong Jin ◽  
Hao Sun
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Multicenter Phase ◽  
First Line Treatment

e15550 Background: The combination of anti-VEGF or anti-EGFR targeted drugs with chemotherapy is the standard first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), and the followed maintenance treatment is an optional approach to balance the efficacy and toxicity. However, studies regarding the maintenance strategies based on antiangiogenic TKIs are limited currently. Anlotinib, a novel oral multi-target TKI which can inhibit both tumor angiogenesis and tumor cell proliferation simultaneously, substantially prolonged the PFS with manageable toxicity for refractory mCRC in the phase III ALTER0703 clinical trial. Here we report an update on the effectiveness and safety of anlotinib plus XELOX as first-line treatment followed by anlotinib monotherapy for mCRC. Methods: In this open label, single-arm, multicenter phase II clinical trial, 53 mCRC patients without prior systemic treated, aged 18-75 and an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 were planned to recruit. Eligible patients received capecitabine (1000 mg/m2, po, d1-14, q3w) and oxaliplatin (130 mg/m2, iv, d1, q3w) plus anlotinib (10mg, po, d1̃14, q3w) treatment for 6 cycles. After 6 cycles of inducing therapy, patients would receive anlotinib (12mg, po, d1̃14, q3w) as maintenance therapy until disease progression or intolerable adverse events (AEs). The primary endpoint was PFS; Secondary endpoints included ORR, DCR, DOR and safety. Results: By the data analysis cutoff date of January 22, 2021, a total of 18 patients were enrolled, of which 12 patients were available for efficacy assessment. In best overall response assessment, there were 50.0% PR (6/12), 33.3% SD (4/12) and 16.7% PD (2/12). The ORR was 50.0% (95% CI, 21.1-78.9%) and DCR was 83.3% (95% CI, 51.5-97.9%). The longest duration of treatment was 8.8 months and the response was still ongoing. The median PFS was not reached. The most common treatment related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade (≥20%) were leukopenia, hypertension, neutropenia, diarrhea, fatigue, hypertriglyceridemia. Grade 3/4 TRAEs included hypertension (22.2%), hypertriglyceridemia (11.1%), lipase elevated (11.1%) and neutropenia (5.6%). No grade 5 AEs occurred. Conclusions: The update results suggested that anlotinib combined with XELOX as first line regimen followed by anlotinib monotherapy showed promising anti-tumor activity and manageable safety for patients with mCRC. And the conclusions needed to be confirmed in trials continued subsequently. Clinical trial information: ChiCTR1900028417.

DREAMseq (Doublet, Randomized Evaluation in Advanced Melanoma Sequencing): A phase III trial—ECOG-ACRIN EA6134.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (36_suppl) ◽  
pp. 356154-356154
Author(s):  
Michael B. Atkins ◽  
Sandra J. Lee ◽  
Bartosz Chmielowski ◽  
Antoni Ribas ◽  
Ahmad A. Tarhini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Initial Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Treatment Sequence ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Randomized Evaluation ◽  
Alternate Therapy ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Grade 3

356154 Background: Combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) blocking PD-1 and CTLA-4 or BRAF/MEK inhibitors have both shown significant antitumor efficacy and overall survival (OS) benefit in patients (pts) with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma (MM), leading to broad regulatory approval. Little prospective data exists to guide the choice of one over the other as initial therapy or the preferred treatment sequence in this population. The DREAMseq Trial was designed to compare the efficacy and toxicity of the sequence of nivolumab/ipilimumab (N/I) followed by dabrafenib/trametinib (D/T) to the converse sequence. Methods: Eligible pts with treatment-naive BRAFV600-mutant MM were stratified by ECOG Performance Status (PS) 0 or 1 and LDH level and randomized 1:1 to receive Step 1 with either N/I (Arm A) or D/T (Arm B) and at disease progression (PD) were enrolled in Step 2 receiving the alternate therapy, D/T (Arm C) or N/I (Arm D), respectively. Pts received N (1mg/kg)/I (3 mg/kg) q3 wks x 4 doses followed by N 240 IV q2 wks for up to 72 wks (Arms A and D) or D 150 mg po BID and T 2 mg po qD until PD (Arms B and C). In 2019, investigators were given the option to use alternate induction dosing of N (3mg/kg)/I (1 mg/kg) q3 wks x 4 doses for Arms A and D. Cycles were every 6 wks and imaging was obtained at baseline and q12 wks on each arm. Primary endpoint was 2-year OS. At the 4th Interim Analysis with 59% of pts being 2 yrs from enrollment, the DSMC and NCI CTEP recommended halting accrual and releasing the data. Results: Beginning 7/2015, 265 out of a proposed 300 pts were enrolled (133 Arm A and 132 Arm B). Median age was 61 (25-85) and 63% were male. Demographics for Arm A and B were balanced with 67% PS 0 and 60% with normal LDH. As of 7/16/21, at a median follow-up of 27.7 mos, 27 pts had switched to Arm C and 46 to Arm D. Overall Grade 3+ toxicity was 60% in Arm A and 52% in Arm B. Grade 5 treatment-related AEs included 2 on Arm A and 1 on Arm C. ORR to date is: Arm A 46% (52/113), Arm B 43% (49/114), Arm C 48% (11/23) and Arm D 30% (8/27). 37/42 assessed pts in Arm A and 19/37 in Arm B remain in response. Median DOR: Arm A- Not reached; Arm B-12.7 mos (95% CI: 8.2, -) (p <0.001). There were 100 deaths (Arm A to C- 38/Arm B to D- 62). 2-yr OS rate for those starting with Arm A was 72% (95% CI: 62-81%) and for Arm B 52% (95% CI: 42-62%) (log-rank p= 0.0095). PFS showed a trend in favor of Arm A (log-rank p=0.054). Both the PFS and OS curves show a biphasic pattern with Arm B being above Arm A until 6 and 10 mos, respectively. For the 115 pts with documented progression on Step 1 (Arm A-44/Arm B-71), 60 (52%) had registered for Step 2. The principal reason for not enrolling on Step 2 was death from PD within 6 mos (Arm A:15/23; Arm B: 25/32). Conclusions: For pts with advanced BRAFV600-mutant MM, the treatment sequence beginning with the CPI combination of N/I resulted in superior OS, which became evident at 10 mos, with longer Step 1 DOR and more ongoing responses than the treatment sequence beginning with D/T. Clinical trial information: NCT02224781.

scholarly journals Cabozantinib in combination with atezolizumab versus sorafenib in treatment-naive advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: COSMIC-312 Phase III study design

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (21) ◽  
pp. 1525-1536 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Kate Kelley ◽  
Jennifer W Oliver ◽  
Saswati Hazra ◽  
Fawzi Benzaghou ◽  
Thomas Yau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Single Agent Therapy ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Immunomodulatory Properties

Cabozantinib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets VEGFR, MET and the TAM (TYRO3, AXL, MER) family of kinase receptors. In addition to their role in tumor growth and angiogenesis, cabozantinib targets promote an immune-suppressive microenvironment. Cabozantinib is approved as single-agent therapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who received prior sorafenib. Owing to its antitumor and immunomodulatory properties, cabozantinib is being developed in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Early studies of these combinations have shown promising antitumor activity and tolerability in patients with solid tumors. Here, we describe the rationale and design of COSMIC-312, a Phase III study evaluating the safety and efficacy of cabozantinib in combination with atezolizumab (anti–PD-L1 monoclonal antibody) versus sorafenib for treatment-naive patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. ClinicalTrial.gov Registration: NCT03755791

scholarly journals Phase III Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Docetaxel With or Without Gefitinib in Recurrent or Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer: An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Trial

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (11) ◽  
pp. 1405-1414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Athanassios Argiris ◽  
Musie Ghebremichael ◽  
Jill Gilbert ◽  
Ju-Whei Lee ◽  
Kamakshi Sachidanandam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Head And Neck ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Oncology Group ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Grade 3

Purpose We hypothesized that the addition of gefitinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor, to docetaxel would enhance therapeutic efficacy in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). Patients and Methods Patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2, or patients with ECOG performance status of 0 to 2 but were previously treated with chemotherapy, were randomly assigned to receive weekly docetaxel plus either placebo (arm A) or gefitinib 250 mg/d, orally (arm B) until disease progression. At the time of progression, patients in the placebo arm could receive single-agent gefitinib. EGFR, c-MET, and KRAS mutations and polymorphisms in drug metabolizing enzymes and transporters were evaluated by pyrosequencing. Results Two hundred seventy patients were enrolled before the study was closed early at interim analysis (arm A, n = 136; arm B, n = 134). Median overall survival was 6.0 months in arm A versus 7.3 months in arm B (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.21; P = .60). An unplanned subset analysis showed that gefitinib improved survival in patients younger than 65 years (median 7.6 v 5.2 months; P = .04). Also, there was a trend for improved survival in patients with c-MET wild-type (5.7 v 3.6 months; P = .09) regardless of treatment. Grade 3/4 toxicities were comparable between the two arms except that grade 3/4 diarrhea was more common with docetaxel/gefitinib. Of 18 eligible patients who received gefitinib after disease progression in arm A, one patient had a partial response. Conclusion The addition of gefitinib to docetaxel was well tolerated but did not improve outcomes in poor prognosis but otherwise unselected patients with SCCHN.

Irinotecan versus best supportive care (BSC) as second-line therapy in gastric cancer: A randomized phase III study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie (AIO)

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4540-4540 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. C. Thuss-Patience ◽  
A. Kretzschmar ◽  
T. Deist ◽  
A. Hinke ◽  
D. Bichev ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Logrank Test ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

4540 Background: Up to now the value of 2nd-line therapy for metastatic gastric cancer is unclear. So far there are no randomized phase III data comparing 2nd-line chemotherapy to BSC. Irinotecan has proven activity in 1st-line therapy. In this randomized phase III study we compared irinotecan to BSC to evaluate the value of 2nd- line chemotherapy for gastric cancer. Methods: Prospective multicenter randomized phase III study, open label. Eligibility: Metastatic or locally advanced gastro-esophageal junction or gastric adenocarcinoma. Objective tumor progession (PD) within 6 months after 1st- line chemotherapy. ECOG PS 0–2. Statistics: Primary endpoint: Overall survival (OS). Hypothesis: H1: OS(Irinotecan)>OS(BSC). Calculated number of pts needed (power 80%, alpha error 5%): 60 pts per arm. Stratification for a) PD less versus (vs) more than 3 months after 1st line chemotherapy, b) ECOG PS 0/1 vs 2. Treatment: Arm A: Irinotecan 250mg/m2 q3w (1st cycle) to be increased to 350 mg/m2, depending on toxicity. Arm B: BSC Results: Between Oct 2002 and Dec 2006 40 pts were randomized. The study was closed prematurely due to poor accrual. Arm A:21 pts, arm B 19 pts. Median age A: 58 yrs (43–73), B: 55 yrs (35–72); PD less vs more than 3 months after 1st-line chemotherapy: A: 18 / 3, B: 17 / 2pts. ECOG PS 0/1 vs 2: A: 17/ 4, B: 14/ 5pts. Pre-treatment with cisplatin: A: 21, B:19 pts. Arm A: 68 cycles administered in 21 pts. Toxicity: (main CTC grade 3/ 4): Nausea 1 pt, vomiting 1 pt, diarrhoea: 5 pts, neutropenic fever: 2 pts, data incomplete 6 pts. In 37% of 19 evaluable pts irinotecan dose was escalated to 350mg/m2. Response (19 pts evaluable): No objective responses, SD 58%, PD 42%. Improvement of tumor related symptoms: 44% of pts in arm A, 5% in arm B. Survival: (evaluable pts arm A 21, arm B 18): median survival arm A: 123 days (95%CI 95–216), arm B 72.5 days (95%CI 41–106); OS: HR=2.85 (95%CI 1.41–5.79), Logrank test (two-sided): p=0.0027. Conclusions: To our knowledge this is the first randomized phase III study investigating 2nd- line chemotherapy in gastric cancer. Irinotecan as 2nd-line chemotherapy significantly prolongs overall survival compared to BSC. 2nd-line chemotherapy can now be considered as a proven option in gastric cancer. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document