Phase IIb, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Naldemedine for the Treatment of Opioid-Induced Constipation in Patients With Cancer

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (17) ◽  
pp. 1921-1928 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nobuyuki Katakami ◽  
Koji Oda ◽  
Katsunori Tauchi ◽  
Ken Nakata ◽  
Katsunori Shinozaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Group Performance ◽  
Day Treatment ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Frequency Change ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
End Point

Purpose This randomized, double-blind, multicenter study aimed to determine the dose of naldemedine, a peripherally-acting μ-opioid receptor antagonist, for future trials by comparing the efficacy and safety of three doses of naldemedine versus placebo in patients with cancer and opioid-induced constipation. Methods Patients ≥ 18 years old with cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2, who had been receiving a stable regimen of opioid analgesics for ≥ 2 weeks, had at least one constipation symptom despite laxative use, and no more than five spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) during the past 14 days, were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to oral, once-daily naldemedine 0.1, 0.2, or 0.4 mg, or placebo, for 14 days. The primary end point was change in SBM frequency per week from baseline during the treatment period. Secondary end points included SBM responder rates, change from baseline in the frequency of SBM without straining, and complete SBM. Safety was also assessed. Results Of 227 patients who were randomly assigned, 225 were assessed for efficacy (naldemedine 0.1 mg, n = 55; 0.2 mg, n = 58; 0.4 mg, n = 56; placebo, n = 56) and 226 for safety. Change in SBM frequency (primary end point) was higher with all naldemedine doses versus placebo ( P < .05 for all comparisons), as were SBM responder rates and change in complete SBM frequency. Change in SBM frequency without straining was significantly improved with naldemedine 0.2 and 0.4 (but not 0.1) mg versus placebo (at least P < .05). Treatment-emergent adverse events were more common with naldemedine (0.1 mg: 66.1%; 0.2 mg: 67.2%; 0.4 mg: 78.6%) than placebo (51.8%); the most common treatment-emergent adverse event was diarrhea. Conclusion Fourteen-day treatment with naldemedine significantly improved opioid-induced constipation in patients with cancer and was generally well tolerated. Naldemedine 0.2 mg was selected for phase III studies.

scholarly journals Nintedanib Plus Pemetrexed/Cisplatin in Patients With Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: Phase II Results From the Randomized, Placebo-Controlled LUME-Meso Trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31) ◽  
pp. 3591-3600 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federica Grosso ◽  
Nicola Steele ◽  
Silvia Novello ◽  
Anna K. Nowak ◽  
Sanjay Popat ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Placebo Group ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Pleural Mesothelioma ◽  
Double Blind

Purpose LUME-Meso is a phase II/III randomized, double-blind trial designed to assess efficacy and safety of nintedanib plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). Phase II results are reported here. Patients and Methods Chemotherapy-naïve patients with unresectable, nonsarcomatoid MPM (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1), stratified by histology (epithelioid or biphasic), were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to up to six cycles of pemetrexed and cisplatin plus nintedanib (200 mg twice daily) or placebo followed by nintedanib plus placebo monotherapy until progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results Eighty-seven patients were randomly assigned. The median number of pemetrexed and cisplatin cycles was six; the median treatment duration for nintedanib was 7.8 months and 5.3 months for placebo. Primary PFS favored nintedanib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.56; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.91; P = .017), which was confirmed in updated PFS analyses (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.87; P = .010). A trend toward improved overall survival also favored nintedanib (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.29; P = .319). Benefit was evident in epithelioid histology, with a median overall survival gain of 5.4 months (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.21; P = .197; median [nintedanib v placebo], 20.6 months v 15.2 months) and median PFS gain of 4.0 months (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.82; P = .006; median [nintedanib v placebo], 9.7 v 5.7 months). Neutropenia was the most frequent grade ≥ 3 adverse event (AE; nintedanib 43.2% v placebo 12.2%); rates of febrile neutropenia were low (4.5% in nintedanib group v 0% in placebo group). AEs leading to discontinuation were reported in 6.8% of those receiving nintedanib versus 17.1% of those in the placebo group. Conclusion Addition of nintedanib to pemetrexed plus cisplatin resulted in PFS improvement. AEs were manageable. The clinical benefit was evident in patients with epithelioid histology. The confirmatory phase III part of the study is ongoing.

scholarly journals L-Carnitine Supplementation for the Management of Fatigue in Patients With Cancer: An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (31) ◽  
pp. 3864-3869 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo A. Cruciani ◽  
Jenny J. Zhang ◽  
Judith Manola ◽  
David Cella ◽  
Bilal Ansari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Separate Analysis ◽  
Carnitine Supplementation ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Significant Difference

Purpose L-carnitine, a popular complementary and alternative medicine product, is used by patients with cancer for the treatment of fatigue, the most commonly reported symptom in this patient population. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of L-carnitine supplementation as a treatment for fatigue in patients with cancer. Patients and Methods In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients with invasive malignancies and fatigue were randomly assigned to either 2 g/d of L-carnitine oral supplementation or matching placebo. The primary end point was the change in average daily fatigue from baseline to week 4 using the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI). Results Three hundred seventy-six patients were randomly assigned to treatment with L-carnitine supplementation or placebo. L-carnitine supplementation resulted in significant carnitine plasma level increase by week 4. The primary outcome, fatigue, measured using the BFI, improved in both arms compared with baseline (L-carnitine: −0.96, 95% CI, −1.32 to −0.60; placebo: −1.11, 95% CI −1.44 to −0.78). There were no statistically significant differences between arms (P = .57). Secondary outcomes, including fatigue measured by the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy–Fatigue instrument, depression, and pain, did not show significant difference between arms. A separate analysis of patients who were carnitine-deficient at baseline did not show statistically significant improvement in fatigue or other outcomes after L-carnitine supplementation. Conclusion Four weeks of 2 g of L-carnitine supplementation did not improve fatigue in patients with invasive malignancies and good performance status.

A phase III study of S-1 plus cisplatin versus fluorouracil plus cisplatin in patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4025-4025 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rui-hua Xu ◽  
Guo-ping Sun ◽  
Hui-shan Lu ◽  
Liu Yun Peng ◽  
Jian-ming Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Gastroesophageal Junction ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Time To Failure ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma

4025 Background: A combination of S-1 and cisplatin (DDP) has been shown to be effective and safe for the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer in Japan. This is the first randomized phase III trial to compare S-1 plus DDP with 5-fluorouracil (5-Fu) plus DDP in Asia. Methods: This is an open-label, multicenter, phase 3, randomized controlled study. Patients with gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive S-1 plus DDP (experiment group) or 5-Fu plus DDP (control group) for 6 cycles. In the experiment group, the dose of S-1 was 80 mg/m2/day, po, twice daily on day 1-21 and DDP was 20mg/m2 iv on day 1-4, repeat every 5 weeks. In the control group, 5-Fu was given as 0.8g/m2/d CI 120h ,and the dose of DDP was the same with the experiment group, while repeat every 4 weeks. Allocation was by block randomization stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, sites of metastasis and prior gastrectomy. The primary endpoint was time to progression (TTP). Secondary end points included time to failure (TTF), overall survival (OS), and quality of life. Results: Totally 255 patients were enrolled into the study, of whom 236 were included in the analysis (n=120; n=116). Median TTP was 5.51 months (95% CI 4.59-6.26) in those assigned to experiment group compared with 4.62 months (95% CI 4.00-6.33) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 1.03; 95%CI 0.76-1.39, p=0.86). In the experiment and control groups, response rates were 22.5% vs 21.5%; P=0.86. Median OS was 10.00 months (95% CI 8.59-14.52) in the experiment group compared with 10.46 months (8.92-13.84) in the control group (HR 1.05; 95%CI 0.71-1.54, p=0.82). The most common adverse events in both groups were anemia (S-1 plus cisplatin, 80.17% vs 5-Fu plus cisplatin, 71.19%), leukopenia (71.90% vs 62.71%), neutropenia (68.60% vs 55.93%), nausea (50.41% vs 60.17%), thrombocytopenia (44.63% vs 26.27%), vomiting (42.98% vs 42.37%) and anorexia (38.02% vs 41.53%). Conclusions: S-1 plus DDP is an effective and tolerable option for patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Clinical trial information: NCT01198392.

Regorafenib (REG) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) progressing following sorafenib: An ongoing randomized, double-blind, phase III trial.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS4163-TPS4163
Author(s):  
Ann-Lii Cheng ◽  
Richard S. Finn ◽  
Masatoshi Kudo ◽  
Josep M. Llovet ◽  
Shukui Qin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Sorafenib Treatment ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Ecog Ps

TPS4163 Background: Sorafenib is the accepted first-line systemic therapy for HCC, but no standard option is available for patients with tumor progression following sorafenib. An open-label phase II study suggested that REG, a multikinase inhibitor, had an acceptable safety profile and showed evidence of antitumor activity in patients with progressive HCC (Bolondi et al. Eur J Cancer 2011; 47 [Suppl 1]: abstract 6.576): disease control was achieved in 26/36 patients (72%) and median time to progression (TTP) was 4.3 months; median overall survival (OS) was 13.8 months. On the basis of these promising data, a phase III trial was designed. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled, multinational study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01774344) will assess the efficacy and tolerability of REG vs PBO in patients with HCC that has progressed following sorafenib treatment (target n=530). Inclusion criteria include Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C disease, Child–Pugh A liver function, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0 or 1. Patients who discontinued sorafenib ≥8 weeks before study entry or who received other previous systemic therapy for HCC will be excluded. Patients will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive REG 160 mg or matching PBO OD for weeks 1–3 of each 4-week cycle; all patients will also receive best supportive care. Treatment will continue until disease progression, death, intolerable toxicity, or patient/investigator decision to stop. Doses of study drug may be delayed or reduced to manage clinically significant drug-related toxicities. The primary endpoint is OS; secondary endpoints are TTP, progression-free survival, tumor response, and safety. Analysis will be according to randomized group, stratified by geographic region (Asia vs rest of world), ECOG PS (0 vs 1), alfa-fetoprotein level (<400 vs ≥400 ng/ml), extrahepatic disease (yes vs no), and macrovascular invasion (yes vs no). In addition, blood, plasma, and archival tissue will be assessed for pharmacokinetic and biomarker analyses, and health-related quality of life and health utility will be measured. Clinical trial information: NCT01774344.

Randomized, Phase III Trial of Panitumumab With Infusional Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) Versus FOLFOX4 Alone As First-Line Treatment in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The PRIME Study

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (31) ◽  
pp. 4697-4705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Yves Douillard ◽  
Salvatore Siena ◽  
James Cassidy ◽  
Josep Tabernero ◽  
Ronald Burkes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
End Point

Purpose Panitumumab, a fully human anti–epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody that improves progression-free survival (PFS), is approved as monotherapy for patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The Panitumumab Randomized Trial in Combination With Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer to Determine Efficacy (PRIME) was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of panitumumab plus infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) versus FOLFOX4 alone as initial treatment for mCRC. Patients and Methods In this multicenter, phase III trial, patients with no prior chemotherapy for mCRC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2, and available tissue for biomarker testing were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive panitumumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4. The primary end point was PFS; overall survival (OS) was a secondary end point. Results were prospectively analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis by tumor KRAS status. Results KRAS results were available for 93% of the 1,183 patients randomly assigned. In the wild-type (WT) KRAS stratum, panitumumab-FOLFOX4 significantly improved PFS compared with FOLFOX4 (median PFS, 9.6 v 8.0 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.97; P = .02). A nonsignificant increase in OS was also observed for panitumumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 (median OS, 23.9 v 19.7 months, respectively; HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.02; P = .072). In the mutant KRAS stratum, PFS was significantly reduced in the panitumumab-FOLFOX4 arm versus the FOLFOX4 arm (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.62; P = .02), and median OS was 15.5 months versus 19.3 months, respectively (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.57; P = .068). Adverse event rates were generally comparable across arms with the exception of toxicities known to be associated with anti-EGFR therapy. Conclusion This study demonstrated that panitumumab-FOLFOX4 was well tolerated and significantly improved PFS in patients with WT KRAS tumors and underscores the importance of KRAS testing for patients with mCRC.

Randomized Phase III and Extension Studies of Naldemedine in Patients With Opioid-Induced Constipation and Cancer

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (34) ◽  
pp. 3859-3866 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nobuyuki Katakami ◽  
Toshiyuki Harada ◽  
Toru Murata ◽  
Katsunori Shinozaki ◽  
Masakazu Tsutsumi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Iii ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Spontaneous Bowel Movement ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
End Point ◽  
Μ Opioid Receptor ◽  
To Receive

Purpose Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is a frequent and debilitating adverse effect (AE) of opioids—common analgesics for cancer pain. We investigated the efficacy and safety of a peripherally acting μ-opioid receptor antagonist, naldemedine (S-297995), for OIC, specifically in patients with cancer. Patients and Methods This phase III trial consisted of a 2-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (COMPOSE-4) and an open-label, 12-week extension study (COMPOSE-5). In COMPOSE-4, eligible adults with OIC and cancer were randomly assigned on a 1:1 basis to receive once-daily oral naldemedine 0.2 mg or placebo. The primary end point was the proportion of spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) responders (≥ 3 SBMs/week and an increase of ≥ 1 SBM/week from baseline). The primary end point of COMPOSE-5 was safety. Results In COMPOSE-4, 193 eligible patients were randomly assigned to naldemedine (n = 97) or placebo (n = 96). The proportion of SBM responders in COMPOSE-4 was significantly greater with naldemedine than with placebo (71.1% [69 of 97 patients] v 34.4% [33 of 96 patients]; P < .0001). A greater change from baseline was observed with naldemedine than with placebo in the frequency of SBMs/week (5.16 v 1.54; P < .0001), SBMs with complete bowel evacuation/week (2.76 v 0.71; P < .0001), and SBMs without straining/week (3.85 v 1.17; P = .0005). In COMPOSE-4, more patients treated with naldemedine than with placebo reported treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) (44.3% [43 of 97 patients] v 26.0% [25 of 96 patients]; P = .01); in COMPOSE-5, 105 (80.2%) of 131 of patients reported TEAEs. Diarrhea was the most frequently reported TEAE in COMPOSE-4 (19.6% [19 of 97 patients] v 7.3% [seven of 96 patients] with naldemedine v placebo) and COMPOSE-5 (18.3% [24 of 131 patients] with naldemedine). Naldemedine was not associated with signs or symptoms of opioid withdrawal and had no notable impact on opioid-mediated analgesia. Conclusion Once-daily oral naldemedine 0.2 mg effectively treated OIC and was generally well tolerated in patients with OIC and cancer.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document