Updated analysis of phase II trial of irinotecan/s-1/cetuximab (IRIS/Cet) as second-line treatment in patients with KRAS exon2 wild type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): HGCSG0902—Comparison of administration interval in cetuximab treatment.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 771-771
Author(s):  
Tomohiro Kondo ◽  
Satoshi Yuki ◽  
Yasuyuki Kawamoto ◽  
Yasushi Tsuji ◽  
Ayumu Hosokawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Safety Analysis ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Treatment Schedule ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Administration Interval

771 Background: HGCSG0902 is the multicenter phase II study to investigate the safety and efficacy of irinotecan, S-1 (IRIS) plus cetuximab as second line treatment in patients with KRAS exon2 wild type mCRC. Response rate (RR) was 33.3% (95%CI 20.8-45.9%), therefore primary endpoint was met (Muto O, et al. ESMO 2014). Here we report an exploratory analysis of outcomes based on administration interval of cetuximab (every week [EW] vs bi-weekly [BW]). Methods: Eligibility includes histologically confirmed mCRC, previously received oxaliplatin-contained chemotherapy, PS: 0-1, EGFR positive and KRAS exon2 wild type. Patients received S-1 80-120 mg/day p.o. on days 1-14 and irinotecan 100mg/m2 on day 1 and 15 repeated every 28 days. Cetuximab was administrated 400mg/m2 as loading dose and continued 250mg/m2 every week or 500mg/m2 bi-weekly. The primary endpoint was RR and the secondary endpoints were disease control rate, PFS, OS and safety. To compare with EW and BW, Fisher’s exact test was used in terms of patient characteristics, AE, RR, and Log-rank test was used in terms of PFS and OS. Results: Between Mar 2010 and Sep 2013, 58 pts were enrolled. One patient was not administered (57 pts were safety analysis set), and 3 pts were ineligible (54 pts were efficacy analysis set). Based on each physician’s choice, 34 patients of EW and 23 of BW were included in the full safety analysis set. RR was 34.4% in the EW and 31.8% in the BW (p = 1.000). Median PFS was 4.2 months in the EW and 6.1 months in the BW (HR 0.752, p = 0.350). Median OS was 8.9 months in the EW and 10.7 months in the BW (HR 0.902, p = 0.737). The most common non-hematological adverse events of grade 3 or higher were diarrhea (23.5% in the EW vs 52.2% in the BW: p = 0.005) and stomatitis (2.9% in the EW vs 30.4% in the BW group: p = 0.046), these were significantly more common in the BW. Conclusions: IRIS/Cet appeared to be highly effective with RR, PFS and OS in the both treatment schedule. Diarrhea and stomatitis were significantly more common in the BW. Therefore, in case of treatment with IRIS/Cet should be administered in the EW. Clinical trial information: UMIN000004882.

Phase II trial of irinotecan plus s-1 (IRIS) with cetuximab (IRIS/Cet) as second-line treatment in patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): HGCSG0902—Comparison of administration interval in cetuximab treatment.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 746-746 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshito Komatsu ◽  
Satoshi Yuki ◽  
Hiroshi Nakatsumi ◽  
Ayumu Hosokawa ◽  
Michio Nakamura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Safety Analysis ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Treatment Schedule ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Administration Interval

746 Background: HGCSG0902 is the multicenter phase II study to investigate the safety and efficacy of IRIS/Cet as second-line treatment in patients with KRAS wild type mCRC. RR was 33.3% (95% CI, 20.8%-45.9%), therefore primary endpoint was met (Muto et al. ESMO 2014 ). Here we report an exploratory analysis of outcomes based on administration interval of Cet (every week [EW] vs bi-weekly [BW]). Methods: Eligibility includes histologically confirmed colorectal cancer, previously received oxaliplatin-contained chemotherapy, PS: 0-1, EGFR positive and KRAS WT. Pts. received S-1 80-120 mg/day p.o. on days 1-14 and irinotecan 100 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15 repeated every 28 days. Cet was administrated 400 mg/m2 as loading dose and continued 250 mg/m2 every week or 500 mg/m2 bi-weekly. The primary endpoint was RR and the secondary endpoints were disease control rate, PFS, OS and safety. To compare with EW and BW, Fisher’s exact test was used in terms of patient characteristics, AE, RR, and Log-rank test was used in terms of PFS, OS, and TTF. Results: Between March 2010 and September 2013, 58 pts were enrolled. One patient was not administered (57 pts were safety analysis set), and 3 pts were ineligible (54 pts were efficacy analysis set). Based on each physician choice, 34 pts. of EW and 23 of BW were included in the full safety analysis set. RR was 34.4% in the EW group and 31.8% in the BW group (p=1.000). Median PFS was 4.2 months (95% CI 3.5−4.9) in the EW group and 6.1 months (4.1-8.1) in the BW group (HR 0.752, 95% CI 0.413−1.372, p=0.350). The most common non-hematological adverse events of grade 3 or higher were diarrhea (23.5% in the EW group vs. 52.2% in the BW group: p=0.005) and stomatitis (2.9% in the EW group vs. 30.4% in the BW group: p=0.046), these were significantly more common in the BW group. Conclusions: IRIS/Cet appeared to be highly effective with RR and PFS in the both treatment schedule, and also had met the primary endpoint. Diarrhea and stomatitis were significantly more common in the BW group. Therefore, in case of treatment with IRIS, cetuximab should be administered weekly. Clinical trial information: 000004882.

Safety analysis of the randomized phase II study of FOLFOXIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab as the first-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer with RAS wild-type tumors: The DEEPER trial (JACCRO CC-13).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 86-86
Author(s):  
Takanori Watanabe ◽  
Akihito Tsuji ◽  
Manabu Shiozawa ◽  
Hirofumi Ota ◽  
Hironaga Satake ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Safety Analysis ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
First Line Treatment ◽  
Triplet Regimen

86 Background: Triplet regimens, FOLFOXIRI, combined with bevacizumab (bev) or panitumumab have been shown to be superior in terms of early tumor shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DpR) compared to doublet regimen plus bev or triplet regimen in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), in the TRIBE trial ( N Engl J Med 2014) or VOLFI trial ( J Clin Oncol 2019), respectively. There have been few studies which directly compared cetuximab (cet) with bev when combined with triplet regimen. Therefore, we investigated the efficacy and safety of bev vs. cet in combination with FOLFOXIRI in previously untreated mCRC patients with RAS wild-type tumors. Methods: This trial was a randomized phase II trial to evaluate modified (m)-FOLFOXIRI (irinotecan 150 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, 5-FU 2400 mg/m2) plus cet vs. bev as first-line treatment in terms of the DpR during the entire course as the primary endpoint in 360 patients with RAS wild-type mCRC (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02515734). The experimental arm with cet was considered to be active if the difference of median DpR was over 12.5% compared with the bev arm, under the conditions of significance level of 0.05 and power of 0.85. Secondary endpoints included the ETS at week 8, progression-free survival, overall survival, secondary resection rate, and toxicity. Results: A total of 359 patients were enrolled between July 2015 and June 2019. For the safety analysis set (median age 65y, 64% male, PS0/1:91%/9%, left/right primary:83%/17%), 173 and 175 patients were randomly assigned to the cet and bev arms, respectively, some patients were excluded for the safety analysis due to the violation of inclusion criteria (6 for cet arm and 5 for bev). On the cutoff date of September 2020, median number of cycles administered was 10 (range, 1-51) for the cet arm and 12 (range, 1-51) for the bev arm. The incidence of severe adverse events (AEs) was 25.4% (44/173) for the cet arm and 25.7% (45/175) for the bev arm, respectively. The following AEs of grade 3-4 were observed more frequently in the cet arm compared to the bev arm: oral mucositis (9.2% vs. 2.3%), diarrhea (12.1% vs. 8.0%), dermatitis acneiform (12.1% vs. 0%), and hypomagnesemia (4.0% vs. 0%). The treatment-related death occurred in 2 patients of the cet arm, while no patients in the bev arm. The rate of treatment discontinuation due to AEs of any cause was comparable between the cet and bev arms (7% vs. 9%). Conclusions: This safety analysis indicated that both regimens of m-FOLFOXIRI plus cet or bev were tolerable in RAS wt mCRC patients although some frequent severe AEs were observed. Clinical trial information: UMIN000018217.

Phase II trial of irinotecan, S-1, and bevacizumab (IRIS/Bev) combination chemotherapy as second line for advanced colorectal cancer (NCCSG04).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 496-496
Author(s):  
Yasumasa Takii ◽  
Kouichi Hurukawa ◽  
Satoshi Maruyama ◽  
Toshiyuki Yamazaki ◽  
Jun Nishimura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Line Therapy

496 Background: The FIRIS study (Muro K et al. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:853-860) previously demonstrated the non-inferiority of Irinotecan plus S-1 (IRIS) to FOLFIRI for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), with progression-free survival as the primary endpoint. IRIS plus bevacizumab (IRIS/Bev) was reported an active and generally well-tolerated first-line treatment for mCRC (Yuki et al. ASCO 2012 #3593). We planned a Phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IRIS/Bev as second-line therapy for patients with mCRC. Methods: The study design was multicenter, single-arm, open-label phase II study. Eligible patients had to have mCRC with confirmed diagnosis of adenocarcinoma, history of oxaliplatin containing regimen as first-line therapy, an age from 20 to 80 years, ECOG performance status (PS) of 0-1. S-1 65 mg/m2 daily p.o. was given on days 1-14 and Irinotecan 75mg/m2 and Bevacizumab 10mg/kg i.v. were given on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints included overall response rate (OR), overall survival (OS), time to treatment failure (TTF) and safety. Results: From 08/12 until 11/06, 35 patients were enrolled. One patient did not start therapy. Thirty-four patients were investigated. Median age was 63 years (range, 38 to 82). Twenty-five patients were male. The mean of relative dose intensity of TS-1/Irinotecan/Bev were respectively 92.1%/87.0%/86.2%. The OR was 21.1% (7/33) and disease control rate was 84.8% (28/33). Median PFS was 9.3 months, median TTF was 8.2 month and median survival time 23.1 month. On safety analysis, the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions were as follows: neutropenia, 14.7%; fatigue, 14.7%; white blood cell decreased, 11.8%; anorexia, 8.8%; anemia, 8.8%; diarrhea, 2.9%; proteinuria, 5.9%; thromboembolic event, 2.9%. Conclusions: IRIS/Bev is an active and well-tollarated second-line treatment for patients with mCRC. Clinical trial information: UMIN000001631.

Randomized phase II study on gemcitabine with or without ramucirumab as second-line treatment for advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM): Results of Italian Rames Study.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9004-9004
Author(s):  
Maria Pagano ◽  
Giovanni Luca Ceresoli ◽  
Paolo Andrea Zucali ◽  
Giulia Pasello ◽  
Marina Chiara Garassino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Asbestos Exposure ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii

9004 Background. The RAMES Study (EudraCT Number 2016-001132-36) is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized phase II trial exploring the efficacy and the safety of the addition of ramucirumab to gemcitabine as the second-line treatment in MPM patients (pts) after platinum/pemetrexed regimens. Methods. The pts were assigned (1:1) to receive Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 i v on days 1 and 8 every 21 days with Placebo (Arm A) or Ramucirumab 10 mg/kg i v on day 1, of a 21-day cycle (Arm B), until tolerability or progressive disease. Pts was stratified by ECOG/PS (0-1 vs 2), age (≤ 70 vs > 70 yrs), histology (epithelioid vs non-epithelioid) and time to progression (TTP) after first-line therapy. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Assuming a proportion of OS equal to 40% at 1 year in arm A, a 12% absolute improvement in OS at 1 yrs was expected in Arm B (hazard ratio = 0.70).114 events (156 subjects) are required for a one-sided log-rank test with α = 0.15 to have 80% power. Results. From December 2016 to July 2018, 164 pts were randomized, 81 pts in Arm A and 80 Arm B; 3 pts were randomized but not treated. Characteristics of pts were: median age 69 yrs (44-81), males 119 (73.9%), females 42 (26.1%); ECOG/PS0 96 (59.6%) ECOG/PS1-2 65 (40.4%); histotype epithelioid 132 (81.9%), non-epithelioid 29 (18.1%); stage III 98 (60.7%), stage IV 60 (37.3%), 3 (2.0%) missing; asbestos exposure assessed 80 (49.7%). Median of courses was 3.50 in Arm A and 7.50 in Arm B. OS was significantly longer in Arm B with median 13.8 mths (70% CI 12.7-14.4) vs Arm A with 7.5 mths (70% CI 6.9-8.9), HR 0.71 (70% CI 0.59-0.85, p = 0.057). OS at 6 and 12 mths was in Arm A 63.9% and 33.9%, and in Arm B 74.7% and 56.5%, respectively. In Arm B OS was not correlated to TTP at first-line therapy (13.6 mths in TTP ≤6 mths and 13.9 mths in TTP > 6 mths) and histotypes (13.8 months in the epithelioid and 13.0 months in non-epithelioid). No significant differences in thromboembolism G3-4 events were observed in Arm A vs Arm B (p= 0.64). None hypertension G3-4 was reported in Arm A vs 5 pts (6.3%) in Arm B (p= 0.022). No significant differences in G3-4 haematological toxicities between the two arms were reported. Conclusion: In the RAMES Study the addition of Ramucirumab to Gemcitabine significantly improved OS regardless of age of pts, tumor histotype and TTP at the first-line treatment. Gemcitabine plus Ramucirumab can be considered a manageable regimen in second-line treatment of advanced MPM pts. Clinical trial information: NTC03560973.

A randomized phase II study of second-line treatment with liposomal irinotecan, and S-1 versus liposomal irinotecan and 5-fluorouracil in gemcitabine-refractory metastatic pancreatic cancer patients.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS4664-TPS4664
Author(s):  
Esther Pijnappel ◽  
Judith de Vos-Geelen ◽  
Teresa Macarulla Mercade ◽  
Davide Melisi ◽  
Per Pfeiffer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Fixed Dose ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Liposomal Irinotecan

TPS4664 Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the deadliest form of cancer with a 5-year survival of less than 5% for patients with metastatic disease. Despite improvements over the past years, with the introduction of FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel, the majority has disease progression within 6 months after start of first line treatment. The NAPOLI trial was the first phase III study showing that patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer that progressed after treatment with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy benefitted from second line treatment. Patients received liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) either as a single agent or in combination with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV), or 5-FU/LV alone. Patients treated with both nal-IRI and 5-FU/LV experienced a median overall survival (mOS) of 6.1 months versus 4.2 months for the 5-FU/LV group. Recently, two Japanese studies (GEST and JASPAC 01) reported on the use of S-1 in patients with PDAC. In patients with locally advanced or metastatic PDAC, S-1 was non-inferior compared to gemcitabine in terms of mOS (8.8 months for gemcitabine versus 9.7 months for S-1). In the adjuvant setting, S-1 showed superior mOS compared to gemcitabine, 46.5 and 25.5 months respectively, HR for mortality of S-1 compared with gemcitabine was 0.57 (95% CI 0.44–0.72). In view of these results, the objective of this NAPAN study is to compare the progression free survival (PFS) of nal-IRI plus S-1, with nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV in a Western study population for second line treatment of PDAC. Methods: This is a multi-center, open label, randomized phase II trial. Patients ≥ 18 years of age with histologically or cytologically confirmed PDAC, previously treated with gemcitabine (-based) therapy, or progression within 6 months of adjuvant gemcitabine-based treatment are eligible. After a safety run-in of the nal-IRI plus S-1 regimen, patients will be randomized between nal-IRI plus S-1 and nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV. Primary endpoint of the run-in phase is to determine dose limiting toxicity (DLT) and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of nal-IRI when co-administered with fixed dose S-1. The primary endpoint of the phase II part is to determine the efficacy of the treatment arms in terms of PFS. Secondary endpoints include OS, response rate according to RECIST 1.1, adverse events according to CTC version 5.0 and Quality of life. Until now 2 of the planned 120 patients have been enrolled. Clinical trial information: NCT03986294 .

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document