Cohort compassionate-use program (CUP) and early access program (EAP) with cabazitaxel (Cbz) plus prednisone (P; Cbz + P) in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) previously treated with docetaxel (D): Analysis by age group.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 109-109
Author(s):  
Zafar Malik ◽  
Giuseppe di Lorenzo ◽  
Sergio Bracarda ◽  
Alexandros Ardavanis ◽  
Mert Basaran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disease Progression ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
World Population ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Grade 3

109 Background: Cbz + P demonstrated an overall survival benefit vs mitoxantrone + P in pts with mCRPC in the Phase III TROPIC trial. The CUP (CABAZ_C_05005) and EAP (NCT01254279) (both funded by Sanofi) were established to allow access to Cbz ahead of commercial availability. The programs are also evaluating Cbz safety in a real-world population. Data analyzed by age group (≤75 and >75 years) are presented here. Methods: Expected enrolment across both programs is 1,450 pts from 236 centres worldwide. Pts received Cbz 25 mg/m2 IV Q3W + P 10 mg QD until disease progression, death, unacceptable toxicity or physician/pt decision. G-CSF is administered as per ASCO guidelines. Results: As of May 30, 2012, 1,301 pts have enrolled (≤75 years: 1,061 pts [81.6%]; >75 years: 240 pts [18.4%]). Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and incidence of visceral metastases were generally balanced between treatment groups. The most frequent reasons for discontinuation were disease progression (46.8%) followed by adverse events (AEs; 24.4%) in pts ≤75 years, and AEs (36.4%) followed by disease progression (31.1%) in pts >75 years. Time from initial diagnosis to inclusion was greater in pts >75 years (median 79.66 months) than in pts ≤75 years (median 53.94 months), but time from mCRPC diagnosis to inclusion was approximately equivalent (>75 years: median 22.6 months; ≤75 years: median 20.94 months). G-CSF use was more frequent in pts >75 years (cycle 1: 62.9% of pts) compared with pts ≤75 years (cycle 1: 52.2% of pts). AEs of clinical concern were more frequent in the older age group (Grade ≥3 AEs: >75 years 64.2%; ≤75 years 54.8%). Grade ≥3 neutropenia was observed in 25.8% of pts >75 years and in 17.0% of pts ≤75 years. Conclusions: We observed several differences between age groups in baseline and on-treatment parameters, suggesting differences in the natural history of mCRPC (faster disease progression in pts ≤75 years than in pts >75 years) and secondary to treatment (AEs more frequent in pts >75 years compared with pts ≤75 years). Clinical trial information: NCT01254279.

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.

Randomized phase III trial of pemetrexed (Pem)+carboplatin (Cb)+bevacizumab (Bev) followed by maintenance Pem+Bev (Pem arm) versus paclitaxel (Pac)+Cb+Bev followed by maintenance Bev (Pac arm) in patients (pts) with stage IIIb/IV nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (nsNSCLC) (POINTBREAK): African American (AA) subset.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19150-e19150
Author(s):  
Craig H. Reynolds ◽  
Jyoti D. Patel ◽  
Edward B. Garon ◽  
Mark R. Olsen ◽  
Philip D. Bonomi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Febrile Neutropenia ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
The Us ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Intent To Treat

e19150 Background: AAs with lung cancer (LC) have shorter survival than Caucasians (Cs). Despite a higher LC incidence among AAs than Cs (74.7 vs 64.4/100,000), AAs are underrepresented in clinical trials. There are no reports of randomized LC prospective trials reporting AA results. In POINTBREAK, we enrolled AAs at the same rate as the US incidence of NSCLC in AAs. We report efficacy/safety of AAs in both arms and efficacy/safety of AA and C within the Pem Arm. Methods: Data from AAs and Cs enrolled in POINTBREAK were analyzed. AAs in both arms were evaluated in a pre-specified analysis. Hazard ratio and p-values were derived from a multivariate Cox-PH model by adjusting stratification factors. Results: Of 939 randomized pts, 94 were AA and 805 were C. Demographics were comparable between AA/intent-to-treat populations (%): 56/53 male, 65/52 ≤65 years, 87/88 ever smoker, 86/90 stage IV, 43/44 Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0. The table shows efficacy results. Among AAs, drug-related grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) include (Pem Arm %/Pac Arm %): anemia (7.3/0), thrombocytopenia (9.8/4.0), fatigue (4.9/4.0), neutropenia (31.7/44.0), febrile neutropenia (0/4.0). Within Pem Arm, drug-related grade 3/4 AEs (AA%/ C%) were anemia (7.3/15.9), thrombocytopenia (9.8/25.5), fatigue (4.9/11.5), neutropenia (31.7/25.3), febrile neutropenia (0/1.6). Conclusions: Median OS for Pem Arm was not superior to Pac Arm in AAs. Within Pem Arm, there were no significant differences between AAs and Cs for efficacy outcomes. Both regimens were tolerable in AAs. Clinical trial information: NCT00762034. [Table: see text]

Outcomes in elderly patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with the androgen receptor inhibitor enzalutamide: Results from the phase III AFFIRM trial.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 16-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cora N. Sternberg ◽  
Johann Sebastian De Bono ◽  
Kim N. Chi ◽  
Karim Fizazi ◽  
Peter Mulders ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Androgen Receptor ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Improved Outcomes

16 Background: Enzalutamide (ENZA) inhibits multiple steps in the androgen receptor signaling pathway (Tran et al, Science. 2009;324:787). The phase III AFFIRM trial demonstrated that ENZA increased median overall survival (OS) by 4.8 months with a 37% reduction in the risk of death (P <0.001, HR 0.63) vs placebo (PBO) in post-docetaxel mCRPC patients (pts) (Scher et al, NEJM 2012; 367:1187). In a post-hoc analysis, the effect of ENZA on outcomes in elderly (≥ 75 yrs) vs younger (< 75 yrs) pts in the AFFIRM trial was assessed. Methods: The AFFIRM trial was a Phase III multinational, randomized, double-blind study in post-docetaxel mCRPC pts. Randomization was 2:1 to ENZA 160 mg/day or PBO, stratified by baseline ECOG performance status and mean pain score. Statistics are presented by age group (≥75, yrs <75 yrs) for efficacy outcomes of OS, radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression. Top line safety results are also presented for both age groups. Results: Elderly pts comprised 25% (199/800) of ENZA pts and 26% (104/399) of PBO pts. Improved outcomes with ENZA treatment were observed in both elderly and younger pts, with similar safety profiles in each age group. Conclusions: ENZA significantly improved outcomes in both elderly (≥ 75yrs) and younger pts (< 75yrs). Safety and tolerability findings were comparable between the two age groups. Clinical trial information: NCT00974311. [Table: see text]

Cabazitaxel Versus Docetaxel As First-Line Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Phase III Trial—FIRSTANA

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (28) ◽  
pp. 3189-3197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stéphane Oudard ◽  
Karim Fizazi ◽  
Lisa Sengeløv ◽  
Gedske Daugaard ◽  
Fred Saad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Castration Resistant

Purpose In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), overall survival (OS) is significantly improved with cabazitaxel versus mitoxantrone after prior docetaxel treatment. FIRSTANA ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01308567) assessed whether cabazitaxel 20 mg/m2 (C20) or 25 mg/m2 (C25) is superior to docetaxel 75 mg/m2 (D75) in terms of OS in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Patients and Methods Patients with mCRPC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2 were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive C20, C25, or D75 intravenously every 3 weeks plus daily prednisone. The primary end point was OS. Secondary end points included safety; progression-free survival (PFS); tumor, prostate-specific antigen, and pain response; pharmacokinetics; and health-related quality of life. Results Between May 2011 and April 2013, 1,168 patients were randomly assigned. Baseline characteristics were similar across cohorts. Median OS was 24.5 months with C20, 25.2 months with C25, and 24.3 months with D75. Hazard ratio for C20 versus D75 was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.20; P = .997), and hazard ratio for C25 versus D75 was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.16; P = .757). Median PFS was 4.4 months with C20, 5.1 months with C25, and 5.3 months with D75, with no significant differences between treatment arms. Radiographic tumor responses were numerically higher for C25 (41.6%) versus D75 (30.9%; nominal P = .037, without multiplicity test adjustment). Rates of grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were 41.2%, 60.1%, and 46.0% for C20, C25, and D75, respectively. Febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, and hematuria were more frequent with C25; peripheral neuropathy, peripheral edema, alopecia, and nail disorders were more frequent with D75. Conclusion C20 and C25 did not demonstrate superiority for OS versus D75 in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Tumor response was numerically higher with C25 versus D75; pain PFS was numerically improved with D75 versus C25. Cabazitaxel and docetaxel demonstrated different toxicity profiles, with overall less toxicity with C20.

scholarly journals Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trial Comparing Docetaxel and Prednisone With or Without Bevacizumab in Men With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: CALGB 90401

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (13) ◽  
pp. 1534-1540 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Kevin Kelly ◽  
Susan Halabi ◽  
Michael Carducci ◽  
Daniel George ◽  
John F. Mahoney ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Castration Resistant

Purpose A randomized, placebo-controlled study based on preclinical and clinical data that supports the potential role of vascular endothelial growth factor in prostate cancer was performed to evaluate the addition of bevacizumab to standard docetaxel and prednisone therapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Patients and Methods Patients with chemotherapy-naive progressive mCRPC with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2 and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function were randomly assigned to receive docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) over 1 hour for 21 days plus prednisone 5 mg orally twice per day (DP) with either bevacizumab 15 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks (DP + B) or placebo. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), 50% decline in prostate-specific antigen, objective response (OR), and toxicity. Results In total, 1,050 patients were randomly assigned. The median OS for patients given DP + B was 22.6 months compared with 21.5 months for patients treated with DP (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.05; stratified log-rank P = .181). The median PFS time was superior in the DP + B arm (9.9 v 7.5 months, stratified log-rank P < .001) as was the proportion of patients with OR (49.4% v 35.5%; P = .0013). Grade 3 or greater treatment-related toxicity was more common with DP + B (75.4% v 56.2%; P ≤ .001), as was the number of treatment-related deaths (4.0% v 1.2%; P = .005). Conclusion Despite an improvement in PFS and OR, the addition of bevacizumab to docetaxel and prednisone did not improve OS in men with mCRPC and was associated with greater toxicity.

Activity of Eribulin in Patients With Advanced Liposarcoma Demonstrated in a Subgroup Analysis From a Randomized Phase III Study of Eribulin Versus Dacarbazine

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (30) ◽  
pp. 3433-3439 ◽  
Author(s):  
George D. Demetri ◽  
Patrick Schöffski ◽  
Giovanni Grignani ◽  
Jean-Yves Blay ◽  
Robert G. Maki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Eribulin Mesylate ◽  
Systemic Treatments ◽  
Phase Iii Study

Purpose A phase III study comparing eribulin with dacarbazine in patients with advanced liposarcoma (LPS) or leiomyosarcoma showed a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) for the eribulin arm, with a manageable toxicity profile. We now report the histology-specific subgroup analysis of the efficacy and safety of eribulin compared with dacarbazine in patients with LPS, an independently randomized stratified subgroup of this phase III trial. Methods Patients ≥ 18 years with advanced or metastatic dedifferentiated, myxoid/round cell, or pleomorphic LPS incurable by surgery or radiotherapy were included. Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2 and two or more prior systemic treatment regimens, including one with anthracycline, were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive eribulin mesylate (1.4 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8) or dacarbazine (850, 1,000, or 1,200 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1) every 21 days. OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and safety were analyzed. Results In the LPS subgroup, OS was significantly improved: 15.6 versus 8.4 months (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.75; P < .001) with eribulin versus dacarbazine, respectively. Longer OS with eribulin was observed in all LPS histologic subtypes and in all geographic regions evaluated. PFS was also improved with eribulin versus dacarbazine (2.9 v 1.7 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.78; P = .0015). Adverse events were similar between arms. Conclusion In patients with previously treated LPS, eribulin was associated with significantly superior OS and PFS compared with dacarbazine. Eribulin represents an important treatment option for patients with LPS, a sarcoma subtype for which limited effective systemic treatments are available. Further studies are justified to explore the role of eribulin in earlier lines of therapy as well as in combination with other agents.

Optimizing Treatment for Elderly Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Personalized Approach

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (30) ◽  
pp. 3600-3604 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandra Larocca ◽  
Antonio Palumbo
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Staging System ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Bone Lesions ◽  
Best Response ◽  
Personalized Approach

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors’ suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice. An 84-year-old woman presented with bone pain and lytic bone lesions in April 2010. Diagnosis of multiple myeloma was based on the presence of an immunoglobulin G lambda serum M protein (4,784 mg/dL) and confirmed by the findings of bone marrow plasma cell infiltration, with t(11;14) chromosomal abnormality detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis. The patient’s medical history was significant for hypertension; she had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1, International Staging System (ISS) stage of 1, and Durie–Salmon stage of IIIA. In May 2010, the patient was enrolled in a randomized phase III trial comparing different lenalidomide-based treatments and received induction with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (nine cycles) followed by lenalidomide maintenance. The patient started treatment with lenalidomide 25 mg per day for 21 days and reduced-dose dexamethasone 20 mg per week per protocol because of age. Induction was well tolerated; no relevant complications occurred, except for grade 1 fatigue and grade 1 diarrhea. Best response was partial response. In March 2011, she started maintenance with lenalidomide 10 mg per day. A dose reduction of lenalidomide 5 mg per day was required because of grade 2 diarrhea. In July 2015, the patient experienced relapse, with painful collapse of L3 vertebral body.

Axitinib versus sorafenib as first‑line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA348-LBA348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Hutson ◽  
Jorge Gallardo ◽  
Vladmir Lesovoy ◽  
Salman Al-Shukri ◽  
Viktor Stus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Survival Data ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

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.

Clinical outcomes and safety in men ≥ 75 and < 75 years with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with enzalutamide in the phase 3 PREVAIL trial.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 200-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie Nicole Graff ◽  
Giulia Baciarello ◽  
Andrew J. Armstrong ◽  
Celestia S. Higano ◽  
Peter Iversen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Status ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Treatment Safety ◽  
The Impact

200 Background: In the phase 3 PREVAIL trial, enzalutamide (ENZA), an androgen receptor inhibitor, improved overall survival (OS) and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) relative to placebo (PBO) in chemotherapy-naïve men with mCRPC. Methods: PREVAIL randomized 1,717 patients (pts) with asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC 1:1 to ENZA 160 mg daily or PBO. Coprimary endpoints were OS and rPFS. This prespecified analysis evaluated the impact of age (≥ 75 vs < 75 years) on efficacy and safety. Results: In PREVAIL, 609 (35%) pts were aged ≥ 75 years. This older subset had several poorer baseline prognostics relative to those aged < 75 years: worse ECOG performance status (ECOG 1: 45.0% vs 24.7%), higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA; 73.3 vs 37.3 ng/mL) and more cardiovascular disease (26.9% vs 16.5%). In both older and younger pts, ENZA improved OS, rPFS and time to PSA progression (Table). Pts aged ≥ 75 years in both the ENZA and PBO groups combined had a higher rate of grade ≥ 3 adverse events (46% vs 37% in younger pts) and among enzalutamide-treated men more older pts reported falls (any grade; ENZA 19% and PBO 8%) than younger pts (ENZA 7% and PBO 4%). Fewer pts ≥ 75 years received subsequent antineoplastic therapies. Conclusions: In PREVAIL, efficacy outcomes in elderly (≥ 75 years) and younger (< 75 years) pts with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC were comparable and pts consistently benefited from ENZA treatment. Safety with ENZA was similar in both age groups, although older pts reported a higher incidence of falls and received fewer subsequent antineoplastic therapies. Clinical trial information: NCT01212991. [Table: see text]

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document