Efficacy of panitumumab (pmab) vs. cetuximab (cmab) in patients (pts) with wild-type (WT) KRAS exon 2 metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with prior bevacizumab (bev): Results from ASPECCT.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 519-519 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Peeters ◽  
Tae Won Kim ◽  
Jin Li ◽  
Stefano Cascinu ◽  
Paul Ruff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Exon 2 ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
Metastatic Sites ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Kras Exon

519 Background: The phase 3 ASPECCT trial of pts with chemorefractory WT KRAS exon 2 mCRC demonstrated that pmab was noninferior to cmab for overall survival (OS). A previous subgroup analysis of hazard ratios (HRs) suggested that pts who had received prior bev (any line, at any point before study start) in the pmab arm may have had better outcomes vs pts in the cmab arm (Price, 2014). Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive pmab or cmab. The subset of pts who had received prior bev were analyzed based on the final analysis of ASPECCT. Results: 999 pts were randomized and treated: 499 pmab and 500 cmab. The prior bev subset included 126 pts in the pmab arm (25%) and 132 pts in the cmab arm (26%). Pts in the pmab arm had longer median OS and progression-free survival (PFS) and higher objective response rates (ORR) compared with pts in the cmab arm. Results are shown (table). After adjustment for baseline covariates including ECOG performance status, number of metastatic sites, and baseline LDH, OS HR was 0.65 (95%CI=0.49-0.85) with pmab vs cmab in pts who had received prior bev. Pts in the pmab and cmab arms who did not receive prior bev had similar OS, PFS, and ORR. Post-progression antitumor therapy was similar between the pmab (47%) and cmab arms (52%) in pts who received prior bev. Conclusions: In ASPECCT, pts with WT KRASexon 2 mCRC who received prior bev-containing regimens may have derived greater benefit with pmab versus cmab monotherapy. Clinical trial information: NCT01001377. [Table: see text]

Overall survival (OS) analysis from PRIME: Randomized phase III study of panitumumab (pmab) with FOLFOX4 for first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3620-3620 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Yves Douillard ◽  
Salvatore Siena ◽  
Josep Tabernero ◽  
Ronald L. Burkes ◽  
Mario Edmundo Barugel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Exon 2 ◽  
Kras Exon

3620 Background: The primary and final analyses of PRIME demonstrated that pmab + FOLFOX4 significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs FOLFOX4 alone for first-line treatment of patients (pts) with wild-type (WT) KRAS exon 2 mCRC. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to pmab 6.0 mg/kg every 2 weeks + FOLFOX4 or FOLFOX4 alone and had no prior chemotherapy for mCRC, ECOG performance status ≤ 2, and tumor tissue for biomarker testing. The primary endpoint was PFS by central assessment. Secondary endpoints included OS, objective response rate, and safety. KRAS exon 2 tumor status was determined by a blinded central lab prior to the primary analysis. This exploratory analysis of updated survival (>80% OS events) estimated the treatment effect of pmab + FOLFOX4 compared with FOLFOX4 alone on OS by KRAS exon 2 status. Previous analyses in pts with WT KRAS exon 2 tumor status reported OS with an event rate of 54% of pts in the primary analysis and 68% of pts in the final analysis. Results: 1183 pts were randomized and received treatment: 593 pts in the pmab + FOLFOX4 arm and 590 pts in the FOLFOX4 alone arm. The KRAS exon 2 ascertainment rate was 93%, consistent with the primary analysis. 535/656 pts (82%) with WT KRAS exon 2 mCRC had an OS event at the time of this analysis. Results are shown (Table). Conclusions: In this updated analysis, an improvement in OS was observed in pts with WT KRAS exon 2 mCRC treated with pmab + FOLFOX4 vs FOLFOX4 alone (p = 0.03). Median OS was reduced in pts with mutant (MT) KRAS mCRC (p = 0.16) and is consistent with previous analyses. Updated efficacy and safety results will be presented. KRAS testing is critical to select appropriate pts with mCRC for treatment with pmab. Clinical trial information: NCT00364013. [Table: see text]

An open label, randomized phase III trial evaluating the treatment (tx) effects of panitumumab (pmab) + best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC in chemorefractory wild-type (WT) KRAS exon 2 metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and in WT RAS mCRC.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 642-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tae Won Kim ◽  
Anneli Elme ◽  
Zvonko Kusic ◽  
Joon Oh Park ◽  
Anghel Adrian Udrea ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Best Supportive Care ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Exon 2 ◽  
Ras Mutation ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Kras Exon

642 Background: An overall survival (OS) benefit in WT KRAS exon 2 mCRC was not seen with pmab monotherapy in study 20020408 possibly due to crossover of patients (pts) in the BSC arm. Retrospective analyses have indicated that other KRAS and NRAS mutations beyond KRAS exon 2 are predictive of anti-EGFR tx effects. Study 20100007 assesses the OS benefit of pmab in chemorefractory WT KRAS exon 2 mCRC and is the first phase 3 trial to prospectively evaluate pmab tx effects in WT RAS (exons 2, 3, and 4 of KRAS and NRAS) mCRC. Methods: Anti-EGFR naive pts were randomized 1:1 to receive pmab (6 mg/kg Q2W) + BSC or BSC. KRAS exon 2 and RAS mutation status of tumors were determined centrally. The primary endpoint was OS in WT KRAS exon 2 mCRC. Secondary endpoints were OS in WT RAS mCRC and progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety in both WT KRAS exon 2 and WT RAS groups. Crossover was not permitted. Results: 377 pts with WT KRAS exon 2 mCRC were enrolled. RAS ascertainment rate was 86%. OS was significantly improved with pmab + BSC vs BSC in both WT KRAS exon 2 (HR=0.73, 95% CI=0.57-0.93, P=0.0096) and WT RAS (HR=0.70, 95% CI=0.53-0.93, P=0.0135) mCRC (results in table). Pts with mutant RAS mCRC did not benefit from pmab tx (OS HR=0.99, 95% CI=0.49-2.00). No new safety signals were seen. Conclusions: Pmabsignificantly improved OS in chemorefractory WT KRAS exon 2 mCRC. The tx effects in OS and PFS were more pronounced in those with WT RAS mCRC, further substantiating the importance of RAS testing at diagnosis to best inform the use of pmab to treat mCRC. Clinical trial information: NCT01412957. [Table: see text]

Safety and efficacy of axitinib in pretreated patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A single center experience of the Medical University of Vienna, Austria.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15535-e15535
Author(s):  
Ursula Maria Vogl ◽  
Lothar Ponhold ◽  
Gottfried J Locker ◽  
Christoph Zielinski ◽  
Christoph Klingler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Cell Cancer ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Single Center Experience ◽  
Metastatic Sites

e15535 Background: Axitinib is a highly selective inhibitor of VEGFR-1, 2 and 3 and has recently been approved for second-line treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). We present data of 43 patients treated with axitinib in second-line and beyond. Methods: Medical records of all patients who were treated with axitinib between July 2009 and December 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Axitinib was prescribed at a dose of 5 mg bid and escalated to 7 or 10 mg bid in the absence of hypertension and other dose-limiting toxicities. Objective response rate (ORR) was assessed by RECIST. Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the first day of axitinib until progression and/or death, respectively. Results: Fourty-three patients with a median age of 65 years (range: 17-84) are currently evaluable for analysis. The majority of patients (58.1%) had an ECOG Performance status of 0 and were classified MSKC- intermediate risk (62.8%). All patients had undergone surgery for the primary tumor and 53.5% had three or more metastatic sites. Fifty-five percent of the patients received axitinib in third or fourth-line (14% and 41.9%, respectively). Prior therapies included sunitinib (86%), everolimus (35%) and pazopanib (35%) and 62.8% had progressed on sunitinib before axitinib was initiated. Objective remission and disease stabilization were observed in 14.3% and 40% of the entire population. The median PFS and OS were 6.8 months (95% CI: 5.5 – 8.0) and 17.2 months (95% CI: 10.8 – 23.6), respectively. Dose escalation to 7 or 10 mg bid was feasible in 40% of the patients. Fatigue (76.7%), hypertension (65.1%) and hypothyroidism (53.5%) were among the most commonly observed all grade toxicities. Conclusions: Axitinib showed considerable efficacy in both second-line and beyond second-line patients. Generous dose escalation based on a “treat to hypertension”-concept may have led to a longer PFS than previously reported from a purely VEGFR-TKI-refractory patient population.

A randomized phase II study of axitinib in combination with pemetrexed/cisplatin (pem/cis) as first-line therapy for nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7551-7551 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chandra Prakash Belani ◽  
Nobuyuki Yamamoto ◽  
Igor Bondarenko ◽  
Sergey V Orlov ◽  
Jie Tang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Status ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Starting Dose ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

7551 Background: Axitinib is a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of VEGF receptors 1, 2, and 3 that has promising single-agent activity in advanced NSCLC. Efficacy and safety of axitinib (in 2 dosing schedules) combined with pem/ciswere evaluatedfor non-squamous NSCLC. Methods: Patients with confirmed stage IIIB, IV, or recurrent non-squamous NSCLC and ECOG performance status (PS) 0 or 1 were stratified by gender and PS, and randomized 1:1:1 to receive six 21-day cycles of axitinib continuously plus pem/cis (arm I); axitinib on Days 2 through 19 followed by a 3-day interruption plus pem/cis (arm II); or pem/cis alone (arm III). Axitinib was administered at a starting dose of 5 mg BID. Pem/cis (500/75 mg/m2) was infused on Day 1 of each cycle. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Baseline characteristics of patients in arm I (n=55), arm II (n=58), or arm III (n=57) ranged between 59–62 yr median age; 62–65% male; 71–85% White; 73–85% current/ex-smokers; and 43–47% PS 0. There were no significant differences in PFS or overall survival (OS) between axitinib-containing arms I and II compared with pem/cis alone, but objective response rates (ORR) were higher (Table). Most common all causality grade 3 adverse events (AEs) in arm I, II, and III, respectively, were hypertension (20%, 17%, 0%); neutropenia (18%, 10%, 9%); nausea (16%, 5%, 7%); vomiting (13%, 5%, 4%); fatigue (11%,16%,16%); and anemia (7%, 14%, 9%). Grade 4 AEs observed in >1 patient were asthenia and pulmonary embolism (2 patients each in arm II). Conclusions: Axitinib combined with pem/cis was generally well tolerated, but efficacy was not significantly better than pem/cis alone in non-squamous NSCLC. [Table: see text]

Final skin toxicity (ST) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) results from PRIME: A randomized phase III study of panitumumab (pmab) plus FOLFOX4 (CT) for first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 531-531 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Yves Douillard ◽  
Salvatore Siena ◽  
Josep Tabernero ◽  
Ronald L. Burkes ◽  
Mario Edmundo Barugel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Skin Toxicity ◽  
Least Square ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Patient Reported

531^ Background: Final PRIME results showed that pmab + CT significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate vs CT alone for first-line wild type (WT) KRAS mCRC. Efficacy and PRO by ST severity from the final descriptive analysis of PRIME are presented. Methods: Patients (pts) had no prior chemotherapy for mCRC, ECOG performance status ≤ 2, and tumor tissue available for biomarker testing. The final analysis occurred 30 months after the last pt was enrolled; the primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints included OS, objective response, and safety. Pts who received treatment and were alive without progression at day 28 were included in the ST analysis. Results: 1183 pts were randomized. 1057 pts with WT or MT KRAS mCRC met the criteria for inclusion in the ST analysis. Maximum grade ST was observed by day 28 in > 50% of pts. Results are shown ( table ). Overall differences in change from baseline of the least square means from a mixed effects model of the EQ-5D Overall Health Rating for pmab + CT (n = 285) minus CT alone (n = 294) and for ST gr 0-1 (n = 53) minus ST gr 2-4 (n = 232) were −1.069 (95% CI: −3.6277 to 1.4896) and 0.8971 (95% CI: ‐4.0224 to 5.8167), respectively. The overall safety profile was broadly comparable across ST groups and treatment arms. Conclusions: Pts with WT KRAS mCRC receiving pmab with ST gr 2-4 had longer PFS and OS vs pts receiving CT alone. PRO were not adversely affected by ST severity. [Table: see text]

First-line nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) plus two cycles of chemotherapy (chemo) versus chemo alone (4 cycles) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Two-year update from CheckMate 9LA.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9000-9000
Author(s):  
Martin Reck ◽  
Tudor-Eliade Ciuleanu ◽  
Manuel Cobo ◽  
Michael Schenker ◽  
Bogdan Zurawski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Expression Level ◽  
First Line ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Grade 3

9000 Background: In the randomized phase 3 CheckMate 9LA trial (NCT03215706), first-line NIVO + IPI combined with 2 cycles of chemo significantly improved overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) vs chemo alone (4 cycles). Clinical benefit was observed regardless of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression level and histology. Here we report data with 2 years’ minimum follow-up from this study. Methods: Adult patients (pts) with stage IV / recurrent NSCLC, ECOG performance status ≤ 1, and no known sensitizing EGFR/ALK alterations were stratified by PD-L1 (< 1% vs ≥ 1%), sex, and histology (squamous vs non-squamous) and were randomized 1:1 to NIVO 360 mg Q3W + IPI 1 mg/kg Q6W + chemo (2 cycles; n = 361) or chemo alone (4 cycles; n = 358). Pts with non-squamous NSCLC in the chemo-alone arm could receive pemetrexed maintenance. The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints included PFS and ORR by blinded independent central review, and efficacy by different PD-L1 levels. Safety was exploratory. Results: At a minimum follow-up of 24.4 months for OS (database lock: Feb 18, 2021), pts treated with NIVO + IPI + chemo continued to derive OS benefit vs chemo, with a median OS of 15.8 months vs 11.0 months, respectively (HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.61–0.86]); 2-year OS rates were 38% vs 26%. Median PFS with NIVO + IPI + chemo vs chemo was 6.7 months vs 5.3 months (HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.56–0.79]); 8% and 37% of pts who had disease progression received subsequent immunotherapy, respectively. ORR was 38% with NIVO + IPI + chemo vs 25% with chemo. Similar clinical benefit with NIVO + IPI + chemo vs chemo was observed in all randomized pts and across the majority of subgroups, including by PD-L1 expression level (Table) or histology. Any grade and grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 92% and 48% of pts in the NIVO + IPI + chemo arm vs 88% and 38% in the chemo arm, respectively. Conclusion: With 2 years’ minimum follow-up, first-line NIVO + IPI + chemo demonstrated durable survival and benefit versus chemo in pts with advanced NSCLC; no new safety signals were identified. Clinical trial information: NCT03215706. [Table: see text]

Efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib (A + Ax) versus sunitinib (S) by number of IMDC risk factors and tumor sites at baseline in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC): Extended follow-up results from JAVELIN Renal 101.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 302-302
Author(s):  
Yoshihiko Tomita ◽  
Robert J. Motzer ◽  
Toni K. Choueiri ◽  
Brian I. Rini ◽  
Hideaki Miyake ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
To Receive

302 Background: In the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006), A + Ax demonstrated progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) benefit across IMDC risk groups (favorable, intermediate, and poor) vs S in patients with previously untreated aRCC. Here we report efficacy of A + Ax vs S by number of IMDC risk factors (0, 1, 2, 3, and 4-6) and target tumor sites (1, 2, 3, and ≥4) at baseline from the second interim analysis of overall survival (OS). Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive A 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 wk + Ax 5 mg orally twice daily or S 50 mg orally once daily for 4 wk (6-wk cycle). PFS and ORR per independent central review (RECIST 1.1) and OS were assessed. Results: At data cut-off (Jan 2019), median (m) follow-up for OS and PFS was 19.3 vs 19.2 mo and 16.8 vs 15.2 mo for the A + Ax vs S arm, respectively. The table shows OS, PFS, and ORR by number of IMDC risk factors and target tumor sites at baseline. A + Ax generally demonstrated efficacy benefit vs S across subgroups. Conclusions: With extended follow-up, A + Ax generally demonstrated efficacy benefit vs S across the number of IMDC risk factors and tumor sites at baseline in aRCC. OS was still immature; follow-up for the final analysis is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT02684006 . [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Real-world efficacy and safety of liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil/leucovorin in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a study by the Korean Cancer Study Group

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 175883591987112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Changhoon Yoo ◽  
Hyeon-Su Im ◽  
Kyu-pyo Kim ◽  
Do-Youn Oh ◽  
Kyung-Hun Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Real World ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Liposomal Irinotecan

Background: Liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) plus 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (5-FU/LV) was effective and well-tolerated in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPAC) that progressed on gemcitabine-based therapy in the global NAPOLI-1 trial. Real-world data may further clarify the outcomes and safety profile of nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV in clinical practice. Methods: This retrospective analysis included patients with mPAC who received nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV following gemcitabine-based therapy under a Managed Access Program in Korea. Results: From January 2017 to April 2018, 86 patients across 10 institutions received nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV (median age, 61 years; 60% male; ECOG performance status, 0–1). A total of 35 (41%) and 51 (59%) patients had received less than two and two or more lines of chemotherapy before inclusion, respectively. At a median follow up of 6.4 months, median overall survival (OS) was 9.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.4–11.4) and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.5 months (95% CI 1.3–5.7). Six-month OS and PFS rates were 65.1% and 37.5%, respectively. Objective response and disease control rates were 10% and 55%, respectively. Most common grade 3–4 toxicities were neutropenia (37.2%), nausea (10.5%), vomiting (9.3%), anorexia (8.1%) and diarrhoea (4.7%). Conclusion: Real-life data for Korean patients indicate that, consistent with NAPOLI-1, nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV is effective and well-tolerated in patients with mPAC that progressed on gemcitabine-based therapy.

A randomized double-blind trial of carboplatin plus paclitaxel (CP) with daily oral cediranib (CED), an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, or placebo (PLA) in patients (pts) with previously untreated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC):  NCIC Clinical Trials Group study BR29.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7511-7511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Andrew Laurie ◽  
Benjamin J. Solomon ◽  
Lesley Seymour ◽  
Peter Michael Ellis ◽  
Glenwood D. Goss ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Response Rate ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Vascular Endothelial ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Endothelial Growth Factor ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Unacceptable Toxicity

7511 Background: In NCIC CTG study BR24, CED 30 mg/d + CP increased objective response rate (RR) and progression-free survival (PFS), but there were concerns regarding toxicity in some pts. BR29 tested a lower dose of CED 20 mg/d limiting accrual to pts without significant weight loss/hypoalbuminemia. Methods: Consenting, eligible adult pts with advanced incurable NSCLC of any histology were randomized to receive CED 20 mg/d or PLA with up to 6 cycles of C (AUC = 6) P (200 mg/m2); non-progressing pts continued CED/PLA after CP until progression, unacceptable toxicity or pt request. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). An interim analysis (IA) for PFS was planned after 170 events in the first 260 pts; the study would continue if the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was < 0.7. Accrual continued until the required number of events was reached then held pending IA. Results: The trial was halted when the IA (n=260) revealed a HR for PFS of 0.89 (95% CI 0.66-1.20). A final analysis including all 306 randomized pts (median age 62, male 55%, PS 0 26%, PS 1 74%, adenocarcinoma 64%, squamous 13%, other histology 23%. RR was significantly higher with CED (52% vs 34 %, p = 0.001). For CED/PLA, respectively, median OS and PFS were 12.2/12.1 [HR: 0.95 (0.69-1.30, p=0.74)] and 5.5/5.5 months [HR: 0.91 (0.71-1.18, p=0.5)]. Grade >3 hypertension (15% vs 3%, p=0.0002), anorexia (7% vs 1%, p=0.02) and diarrhea (16% vs 1%, p<0.0001) were all significantly increased with CED; there were 2 deaths possibly-related to CED [1 each hemorrhage, leukoencephalopathy (prior radiation)]. Conclusions: Adding a lower dose of CED to CP increased RR and toxicity, but not PFS or OS.

Phase II efficacy and safety study of nintedanib versus sunitinib in previously untreated renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4506-4506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Eisen ◽  
Yaroslav Shparyk ◽  
Robert Jones ◽  
Nicholas James MacLeod ◽  
Graham Temple ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Qtc Interval ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Interval Change ◽  
First Line Therapy

4506 Background: Sunitinib (S) is established as a standard first-line therapy for patients (pts) with advanced RCC. However, treatment can be limited by the occurrence of drug-related adverse events (AEs). This Phase II study assessed the efficacy and safety of nintedanib (N) – a potent, triple angiokinase inhibitor of VEGFR-1–3, PDGFR-α/β, and FGFR-1–3, as well as RET and Flt3 – vs S in previously untreated pts with RCC. Methods: Ninety-nine eligible pts (96 of whom were treated) with advanced, unresectable/recurrent clear cell RCC, an ECOG performance status of 0–1, and no prior systemic therapy were randomized 2:1 to receive N 200 mg twice daily (n=64; given in 4-week cycles) or S 50 mg once daily (n=32; 4 weeks on, 2 weeks off schedule). Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable drug-related AEs. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival at 9 months (PFS-9) and, in N-treated pts only, QTc interval change (baseline to day 15). Secondary endpoints included PFS, objective response rate (ORR; RECIST 1.1), overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP), time to treatment failure (TTF), and AEs. Results: Baseline characteristics were balanced between the arms. PFS-9 was not statistically significantly different between N- and S-treated pts (43 vs 45%; p=0.85). There were also no statistically significant differences between N and S with regard to PFS (median: 8.44 vs 8.38 mo; hazard ratio: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.71–1.89; p=0.56), confirmed ORR (18.8 vs 31.3%; p=0.19), OS (median: 20.37 vs 21.22 mo; p=0.63), TTP (median: 8.48 vs 8.54 mo; p=0.52), and TTF (median: 8.41 vs 8.36 mo; p=0.46). Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 47% of N-treated pts and 56% of S-treated pts. Common AEs (all grades; N vs S) included diarrhea (61 vs 50%), nausea (38 vs 34%), fatigue (both 25%), and vomiting (16 vs 22%). Dermatologic AEs (8 vs 47%) were less frequent with N than S. There was no increase from baseline in QTc >60 ms on days 1 or 15 in N-treated pts, and there was no relationship between N exposure and QT interval change. Conclusions: N demonstrated similar efficacy to S and had a manageable safety profile, including a lower incidence of dermatologic AEs vs S. In addition, N was not associated with QT prolongation. Clinical trial information: NCT01024920.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document