Phase III study of nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) plus gemcitabine (Gem) versus Gem alone in patients (pts) with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPC): Subgroup analysis of Canadian pts from the MPACT trial.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 439-439
Author(s):  
Mustapha Ali Tehfe ◽  
Scot D. Dowden ◽  
Hagen F. Kennecke ◽  
Robert Hassan El-Maraghi ◽  
Bernard Lesperance ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Pancreatic Head ◽  
Dose Intensity ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Intent To Treat

439 Background: Weekly nab-P + Gem is a new option for first-line treatment (Tx) of mPC. In the MPACT trial, nab-P/Gem demonstrated superior overall survival (OS; primary endpoint) vs Gem alone as first-line Tx of mPC (Table). Here we report a subgroup analyses evaluating the efficacy and safety outcomes with nab-P + Gem vs Gem alone from the Canadian cohort of the MPACT trial. Methods: Previously untreated pts (N = 861) with mPC were randomized 1:1 (stratified by Karnofsky Performance Status [KPS], region, and the presence of liver metastases) to receive nab-P 125 mg/m2 + Gem 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle or Gem 1000 mg/m2 weekly for 7 weeks followed by 1 week of rest (cycle 1) and then days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle (cycle ≥ 2). Results: 63 pts from Canada enrolled in the MPACT trial. Baseline pt characteristics were well balanced. Median age was 61 years and KPS was similar for both groups and comparable to the intent-to-treat (ITT) populations. Primary lesion in the pancreatic head was more common among pts in the nab-P + Gem vs Gem arm (55% vs 30%); use of biliary stent was similar (33% nab-P + Gem; 27% Gem). Median OS and progression-free survival (PFS) were longer with nab-P + Gem vs Gem (Table). Median Tx duration was 4.2 mo with nab-P + Gem vs 3.2 mo with Gem. Use of subsequent therapy was 30% in the nab-P + Gem arm vs 43% in the Gem arm. The median relative dose intensity for Gem was similar in each arm (81% nab-P + Gem vs 85% Gem). The most common grade ≥ 3 AEs for nab-P + Gem vs Gem were neutropenia (22% vs 10%), fatigue (34% vs 33%), and neuropathy (25% vs 0%). Conclusions: Canadian pts participating in MPACT were similar to the ITT population and nab-P + Gem was well tolerated and showed improved median OS, PFS, and ORR vs Gem alone, although not statistically significant (likely due to the small number of pts). Clinical trial information: NCT00844649. [Table: see text]

Randomized phase III study of weekly nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone in patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (MPACT).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA148-LBA148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel D. Von Hoff ◽  
Thomas J. Ervin ◽  
Francis P. Arena ◽  
E. Gabriela Chiorean ◽  
Jeffrey R. Infante ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Metastases ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Adenocarcinoma Of The Pancreas

LBA148 Background: nab-Paclitaxel (nab-P, 130 nm albumin-bound paclitaxel) provides tumor selective localization via transcytosis across the endothelium, potential tumor uptake via macropinocytosis, and improved pharmacokinetics vs cremophor-paclitaxel. In vitro, nab-P increased tumoral gemcitabine (G) levels, and in a phase I/II study in metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) nab-P + G showed promising activity. Methods: Patients (pts) with mPC were randomized to nab-P 125 mg/m2, followed by G 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or G 1000 mg/m2 weekly for 7 weeks (cycle 1), then on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (≥ cycle 2). For the primary endpoint of overall survival (OS), 608 events from 842 patients provided a power of 0.9 to detect a HR of 0.769 (2-side α = 0.049). Results: 861 pts received therapy. Baseline pt characteristics were well balanced. Median age was 63 years, Karnofsky performance status was 90-100 in 60% and ≤80 in 40% of pts, 43% had head of pancreas lesions, 84% had liver and 39% had lung metastases, and 52% of pts had CA19-9 ≥59 x ULN. Treatment duration was 4 vs 3 months in nab-P + G vs G. The relative protocol G dose was 75% vs 85% in nab-P + G vs G; nab-P dose was 81%. OS, progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), and overall response rate (ORR) were significantly improved in the nab-P + G arm (Table). Most common grade ≥3 AEs were neutropenia (38% vs 27%), fatigue (17% vs 7%), and neuropathy (17% vs 1%) in the nab-P + G vs G arms. Grade ≥3 neuropathy improved to grade ≤1 in 29 days. Febrile neutropenia was reported in 3% (nab-P + G) vs 1% (G) pts. Conclusions: In this multinational, multiinstitutional study, nab-P + G was well tolerated and superior to G with statistically significant and clinically meaningful results in all endpoints and across subgroups. Clinical trial information: NCT00844649. [Table: see text]

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.

Phase IV trial of dose-intense PEFG (cisplatin, epirubicin, 5-fluorouracil, gemcitabine) in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4121-4121
Author(s):  
M. Reni ◽  
S. Cereda ◽  
P. Passoni ◽  
E. Bonetto ◽  
M. G. Viganò ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Dose Intensity ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Hematological Toxicity ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Intent To Treat ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

4121 Background: In a phase III trial (Reni, Lancet Oncol 2005), PEFG regimen (cisplatin and epirubicin 40 mg/m2 day 1, gemcitabine 600 mg/m2 day 1 and 8, 5-fluorouracil (FU) 200 mg/m2/day continuous infusion) significantly improved the outcome of patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) with respect to standard gemcitabine. This regimen was subsequently modified by increasing dose-intensity (FU unmodified, cisplatin and epirubicin both at 30 mg/m2, and gemcitabine at 800 mg/m2 every 14 days; Dell’Oro, Ann Oncol 2004). The present study assessed activity and feasibility of dose-intense (DI) PEFG. Methods: DI-PEFG was administered to chemotherapy-naive patients with stage III-IV pancreatic adenocarcinoma, ≤ 75 years, performance status (PS) > 50, till progressive disease or for a maximum of 6 months. Analyses were conducted in the intent-to-treat population. Results: Between January ’04 and June ’05, 49 (31 or 63% metastatic) patients, median age 62 yrs, median PS 80, were treated with DI-PEFG at our institution. Partial response and stable disease was observed in 25 (51%) and 15 (31%) patients, respectively; 31 patients were progression-free at 6 months (PFS-6 = 63%). Median survival was 8.5+ months and 1-yr overall survival (OS) was 46%. 211 courses (range 1–6, median 5) of DI-PEFG were delivered. Main grade 3–4 toxicity was: neutropenia in 9% of cycles, anaemia, stomatitis, fatigue in 3%, nausea/vomit, deep venous thrombosis and diarrhoea in 2%, thrombocytopenia, febrile neutropenia and hand-foot syndrome in 1%. Dose intensity (mg/m2/week) was 13 for both epirubicin and cisplatin, 338 for gemcitabine and 1106 for FU. Conclusion: With respect to classical PEFG, DI-PEFG was not inferior in terms of PFS-6 (63% vs. 42%), 1-yr OS (46% vs. 38.5%) and response rate (49% vs. 38.5%); allowed to increase dose intensity for gemcitabine by 32%, for cisplatin and epirubicin by 36% (FU reduced by 3%), to reduce grade 3–4 hematological toxicity (neutropenia 9% vs. 43%; thrombocytopenia 1% vs. 28.5%) and to reduce by one third the number of outpatients accesses. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Efficacy and cost of nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) in metastatic melanoma (mM).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20033-e20033
Author(s):  
Sanjiv S Agarwala ◽  
Scott Whiting ◽  
Gary Binder ◽  
Evan Hersh
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Drug Infusion ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Full Analysis ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Intent To Treat

e20033 Background: A recent phase III trial of nab-paclitaxel (nab-P, 130 nm albumin-bound paclitaxel) vs dacarbazine (DTIC) in mM demonstrated a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS). An economic analysis was applied to the results of this trial. Methods: Chemotherapy naive stage IV mM patients received nab-P 150 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or DTIC 1000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. 529 patients were randomized to nab-P (n = 264) or DTIC (n = 265). The primary endpoint was independently assessed PFS, with overall survival (OS) as a secondary endpoint. Costs of nab-P and DTIC were taken from published 2013 Medicare reimbursement rates. A literature review identified costs for expected adverse events (AE), administration, and recently approved mM treatments. Results: In the intent-to-treat population, median PFS was 4.8 and 2.5 months in the nab-P and DTIC arms, respectively (HR: 0.792; P = 0.044). Median OS at the time of an interim analysis was 12.8 months with nab-P and 10.7 months with DTIC (HR: 0.831; P = 0.094; determination of ultimate statistical significance is pending full analysis at study conclusion). The most common grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs were neuropathy (nab-P: 25% vs DTIC: 0%) and neutropenia (nab-P: 20% vs DTIC: 10%). Grade 4 neutropenia rates were similar between arms (nab-P: 3% vs DTIC: 4%). Median time to neuropathy improvement by >1 grade was 28 days. Median treatment duration was 3 months with nab-P vs 2.1 months with DTIC. Incremental costs per patient were $23,359 ($24,663 for nab-P vs $1,304 for DTIC) including drug, infusion, and AE management costs. These costs compare favorably to incremental costs of over $50,000 for newly approved therapies with similar median OS gains vsDTIC. Conclusions: nab-P is the only chemotherapy in a phase III trial to demonstrate a significant and clinically meaningful delay in disease progression over dacarbazine. Total costs are attractive in the context of other agents recently approved for mM. Further analysis is merited when final OS is available. Clinical trial information: NCT00864253.

Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) versus high-dose dexamethasone (HiDEX) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): Impact of cytogenetics in MM-003.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8528-8528
Author(s):  
Hartmut Goldschmidt ◽  
Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽  
Katja C. Weisel ◽  
Philippe Moreau ◽  
Martha Lacy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Open Label ◽  
High Dose Dexamethasone ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Intent To Treat

8528 Background: RRMM patients (pts) who fail lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT) have poor prognosis. High-risk cytogenetics predict shorter survival. POM + LoDEX has demonstrated efficacy in pts with prior LEN and BORT and high-risk cytogenetics. MM-003 is an open-label, multicenter, phase III trial comparing POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in RRMM pts who failed LEN and BORT treatment (Tx) and have progressed on their last therapy. Methods: Pts must have been refractory to the last prior Tx (progressive disease [PD] during or within 60 days) and failed LEN and BORT after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination). Randomization was 2:1 to POM 4 mg D1–21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) weekly; or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 (28-day cycles). Tx continued until PD or unacceptable adverse events (AEs). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included OS and AEs. This analysis examined pts meeting modified high-risk cytogenetic criteria—del(17p13) and/or t(4p16/14q32). Results: 302 pts received POM + LoDEX, and 153 pts received HiDEX. 225 and 107 pts, respectively, were evaluable for cytogenetics. Baseline characteristics were similar. Median PFS and OS were significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX, regardless of cytogenetic risk (Table). The most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia, anemia, and infection (Table). Discontinuation due to AE was low: 4% vs. 6% (high risk) and 10% vs. 4% (standard risk). Conclusions: Median PFS and OS were significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in pts with cytogenetically-defined high-risk disease, consistent with results from the intent-to-treat population. Tolerability was acceptable. POM + LoDEX should be considered a new Tx option in pts failing LEN and BORT. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687. [Table: see text]

Phase II Trial of Cisplatin, Gemcitabine, and Bevacizumab As First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: Hoosier Oncology Group GU 04-75

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (12) ◽  
pp. 1525-1530 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noah M. Hahn ◽  
Walter M. Stadler ◽  
Robin T. Zon ◽  
David Waterhouse ◽  
Joel Picus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
First Line ◽  
Metastatic Urothelial Cancer ◽  
Grade 3

PurposeNovel approaches are needed for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (UC). This trial assessed the efficacy and toxicity of bevacizumab in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine (CGB) as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic UC.Patients and MethodsChemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic or unresectable UC received cisplatin 70 mg/m2on day 1, gemcitabine 1,000 to 1,250 mg/m2on days 1 and 8, and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg on day 1, every 21 days.ResultsForty-three patients with performance status of 0 (n = 26) or 1 (n = 17) and median age of 66 years were evaluable for toxicity and response. Grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicity included neutropenia (35%), thrombocytopenia (12%), anemia (12%), and neutropenic fever (2%). Grade 3 to 5 nonhematologic toxicity included deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (21%), hemorrhage (7%), cardiac (7%), hypertension (5%), and proteinuria (2%). Three treatment-related deaths (CNS hemorrhage, sudden cardiac death, and aortic dissection) were observed. Best response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors was complete response in eight patients (19%) and partial response in 23 patients (53%), for an overall response rate of 72%. Stable disease lasting ≥ 12 weeks occurred in four patients (9%), and progressive disease occurred in six patients (14%). With a median follow-up of 27.2 months (range, 3.5 to 40.9 months), median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.2 months (95% CI, 6.8 to 10.3 months) with a median overall survival (OS) time of 19.1 months (95% CI, 12.4 to 22.7 months). The study-defined goal of 50% improvement in PFS was not met.ConclusionCGB demonstrates promising OS and antiangiogenic treatment-related toxicities in the phase II setting of metastatic UC. The full risk/benefit profile of CGB in patients with metastatic UC will be determined by an ongoing phase III intergroup trial.

A multicenter phase II study of cisplatin (C), gemcitabine (G), and bevacizumab (B) as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC): Hoosier Oncology Group GU-0475

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5018-5018
Author(s):  
N. M. Hahn ◽  
W. M. Stadler ◽  
R. T. Zon ◽  
D. M. Waterhouse ◽  
J. Picus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Status ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
First Line ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Angiogenic Therapy ◽  
Grade 3

5018 Background: Despite CG therapy, most metastatic UC patients die from their disease. Novel approaches are needed. Combining anti-angiogenic therapy with chemotherapy has improved outcomes in other malignancies, offering hope for similar improvements in UC patients. Methods: Metastatic or unresectable chemonaive UC patients (pts) with an ECOG performance status of 0–1 received C 70 mg/m2 iv d1, G 1,000–1,250 mg/m2 iv d1, 8, and B 15 mg/kg iv d1 on a q21d cycle for up to 8 cycles. Gemcitabine was reduced to 1,000 mg/m2 iv d1, 8 for all subsequent pts after 7 thromboembolic events were noted in the first 17 pts. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). The trial was designed to detect a 33% improvement in PFS from 7.5 months with traditional CG therapy to 11.25 months with CGB. Results: By December 2008, 45 pts were enrolled, with 43 evaluable for toxicity, 36 for response. Demographics include: 33 (77%) male, 10 (23%) female; median age 66 (Range: 41 - 78); 26 (60%) and 17 (40%) ECOG 0/1; 19 (44%) and 24 (56%) lymph node only / visceral metastases. PFS will be evaluated in May 2009 when all pts will have more than 6 month follow-up data. 14 (33%) and 6 (14%) pts experienced grade 3 or 4 hematologic toxicity (4 pts - thrombocytopenia, 2 pts - neutropenic fever). Grade 3 or 4 nonhematologic toxicity was observed in 24 (56%) and 9 (21%) pts (DVT/PE - 9 pts, CNS hemorrhage/proteinuria/hypertension - 1 pt each) Best RECIST response was: complete response 6 pts (17%, 95% CI 6–33%), partial response 18 pts (50%, 95% CI 33–67%); with overall response rate of 67% (95% CI 51–82%). Stable disease lasting at least 12 weeks was observed in 10 pts (28%, 95% CI 14–45%) and progressive disease in 2 pts (5%, 95% CI 1–19%). Conclusions: CGB demonstrates significant clinical activity in the first-line treatment of metastatic UC patients at the expense of considerable toxicity. The durability of disease control will be determined by assessment of PFS. A phase III trial to further define the toxicity risk vs. clinical benefit of bevacizumab addition to platinum-based doublets is planned in this population. [Table: see text]

Updated survival from a randomized phase III trial (MPACT) of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone for patients (pts) with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 178-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Goldstein ◽  
Robert Hassan El Maraghi ◽  
Pascal Hammel ◽  
Volker Heinemann ◽  
Volker Kunzmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survival Analysis ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Intent To Treat ◽  
Adenocarcinoma Of The Pancreas ◽  
Post Hoc

178^ Background: In the phase III MPACT trial, nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) + gemcitabine (G) was tolerable and demonstrated superiority to G alone for all efficacy endpoints in pts with metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC). nab-P + G vs G alone met the study’s primary endpoint by demonstrating a significant improvement in overall survival (OS; median 8.5 vs 6.7 months; HR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.617 - 0.835; P < 0.001) and the secondary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS; median 5.5 vs 3.7 months; HR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.581 - 0.821; P < 0.001) and overall response rate (ORR; 23% vs 7%; P < 0.001). The 1-year survival rates for nab-P + G vs G alone were 35% vs 22%. The OS data reported above were based on a database cutoff of September 17, 2012, at which time 80% of pts had died. Here, we report an updated OS analysis (post hoc) from MPACT. Methods: 861 pts with MPC and a Karnofsky performance status (KPS) ≥ 70 were randomized at 151 community and academic centers 1:1 to receive nab-P 125 mg/m2 + G 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle or G alone 1000 mg/m2weekly for 7 weeks followed by 1 week of rest (cycle 1) and then days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle (cycle ≥ 2). The data for this survival analysis were collected through April 1, 2013. Results: As of the updated data cutoff, 380/431 (88%) pts in the nab-P + G arm and 394/430 (92%) pts in the G alone arm had died. OS was superior for nab-P + G vs G alone in the intent-to-treat population, and the longer follow-up allowed an estimate of the 3-year survival rates (Table). The treatment effect was consistent across all pt subgroups examined. Conclusions: This updated survival analysis revealed a sustained difference in OS over time between the 2 arms. MPACT is the first phase III study in MPC to report 3-year survival rates. These data confirm and extend the previous report of the primary endpoint and support the superior efficacy of nab-P + G over G alone. These results may encourage efforts to build upon this well tolerated backbone to further extend survival. Clinical trial information: NCT00844649. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Phase II Study of Gemcitabine, Carboplatin, and Bevacizumab in Patients With Advanced Unresectable or Metastatic Urothelial Cancer

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 724-730 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arjun V. Balar ◽  
Andrea B. Apolo ◽  
Irina Ostrovnaya ◽  
Svetlana Mironov ◽  
Alexia Iasonos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Urothelial Cancer ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Solitary Kidney ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Time Curve ◽  
Metastatic Urothelial Cancer ◽  
Lower Confidence Bound ◽  
Grade 3

PurposeAlthough gemcitabine and carboplatin (GCa) is a standard option for patients with advanced urothelial cancer (UC) who are ineligible for cisplatin, outcomes remain poor. This trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab with GCa in advanced UC.Patients and MethodsPatients with Karnofsky performance status of 60% to 70%, creatinine clearance less than 60 mL/min, visceral metastasis, or solitary kidney were eligible and received a lead-in dose of bevacizumab 10 mg/kg followed 2 weeks later by gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2on days 1 and 8 and carboplatin at area under the [concentration-time] curve (AUC) 5.0 or 4.5 and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg on day 1 every 21 days for six cycles. Patients achieving at least stable disease (SD) continued bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 21 days for 18 additional cycles. The study was powered to detect a 50% improvement in median progression-free survival (PFS) over a historical control.ResultsFifty-one patients, median age 67 years (range, 42 to 83 years), were enrolled onto the study and were evaluable for toxicity. Twenty (39%) experienced grade 3 to 4 toxicity, and 10 (20%) had thromboembolic events (deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism). Four received one or fewer cycles leaving 47 evaluable for outcomes. Twenty-three (49%) achieved response (three complete; 20 partial), and 11 had SD. Median PFS was 6.5 months (95% CI, 4.7 to 7.8 months); PFS was greater in the carboplatin AUC 5.0 group (P = .04). Median overall survival (OS) was 13.9 months.ConclusionThe 95% one-sided lower confidence bound of 4.77 months for median PFS did not meet the predesignated PFS of more than 4.8 months considered sufficient for further study. Median OS was greater than expected. An ongoing phase III trial in patients who are eligible for therapy with cisplatin will define the role of bevacizumab in UC.

Efficacy and safety findings from a randomized phase III study of capecitabine (X) + oxaliplatin (O) (XELOX) vs. infusional 5- FU/LV + O (FOLFOX-6) for metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC)

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4029-4029 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Ducreux ◽  
J. Bennouna ◽  
M. Hebbar ◽  
M. Ychou ◽  
G. Lledo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dose Intensity ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Comparable Efficacy ◽  
First Line ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Best Response ◽  
Grade 3

4029 Background: X has comparable efficacy, safety and convenience benefits over 5-FU/LV (Mayo clinic) in adjuvant colon cancer and first-line MCRC. A recent phase III trial in first line MCRC showed that XELOX is well tolerated and non inferior to FOLFOX-4 for progression-free survival (PFS) [Cassidy ESMO 2006]. Methods: We initiated a phase III trial to demonstrate non inferiority in terms of best response rates (RR, RECIST) of XELOX versus FOLFOX-6 as first-line therapy in patients (pts) with MCRC. Between 16 May 03 and 31 Aug 04, 306 patients (intention to treat), were randomized to receive either XELOX (n=156: × 1,000mg/m2 bid d1–14, O 130mg/m2 d1, q3w) or FOLFOX-6 (n=150: O 100mg/m2 d1 LV 400mg/m2 2h infusion then 5-FU 400mg/m2 i.v. bolus then 2,400–3,000mg/m2 46h infusion, q2w) for 6 months. Efficacy results are presented in the per protocol population (PP) (n=284:144 pts XELOX; 140 pts FOLFOX-6). Results: Baseline characteristics were well balanced. Pts received a median of 8 and 11 cycles of XELOX (range 0–8) and FOLFOX-6 (range 0–12), respectively. Dose intensity (median) for oxaliplatin was 99.6% and 95.4% with XELOX and FOLFOX-6, respectively. Best RR (independent review, PP) was 42% and 46% with XELOX and FOLFOX-6, respectively. Difference between groups for RR was 4.7%; upper limit of 95% unilateral CI (14.4%) was below non-inferiority margin of 15%. RR by investigators (PP) was 46% for each arm. With a median follow up of 16.5 months (range 0.4–38.3), median PFS and overall survival (PP) were 9.3/19.9 vs. 9.7/18.4 months with XELOX and FOLFOX-6, respectively. In the safety population (n=304), XELOX pts had more grade 3/4 hand-foot syndrome (3 vs. 0%, p=0.21), thrombocytopenia (12 vs. 5% p=0.052), and diarrhea (12% vs. 7% p=0.1), but less grade 3/4 febrile neutropenia (0 vs. 6% p=0.001), neuropathy (8 vs. 19% p=0.003), than those on FOLFOX-6. Treatment discontinuation for toxicity was 19% and 23% in XELOX and FOLFOX-6 arms, respectively. Conclusions: The primary endpoint has been met: XELOX is non inferior to FOLFOX-6, with a good safety profile in first-line MCRC. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document