Cisplatin/5-FU (CF) +/- panitumumab (P) for patients (pts) with non-resectable, advanced, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell cancer (ESCC): An open-label, randomized AIO/TTD/BDGO/EORTC phase III trial (POWER).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4011-4011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus H. Moehler ◽  
Peter C. Thuss-Patience ◽  
Baruch Brenner ◽  
Federico Longo ◽  
Johannes Meiler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cell Cancer ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Skin Reactions ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Metastatic Setting ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome

4011 Background: Most ESCC pts have advanced disease at time of diagnosis. Chemotherapy (CTX) is used to improve quality of life (QoL) and overall survival (OS), but still with limited impact. Prior studies suggested increased efficacy of EGFR antibodies (AB) combined with CF (Lorenzen, Ann Oncol 2009). Methods: This open-label, randomized (1:1), multicenter, multinational phase III included pts with non-resectable, advanced or metastatic ESCC (RECIST1.1), not radiochemotherapy (RCTX) eligible and ECOG 0-1. Previous CTX in metastatic setting, concurrent RCTX and exposure to EGFR-AB were excluded. Pts received CF (C 100 mg/m² d1 + F 1000 mg/m²/d, d1-4) or CFP (9 mg/kg d1) q3 weeks until disease progression. Due to more Gr3-4 SAEs in the first 60 Pts with CFP, C was reduced to 80mg/m²d1 Tumor assessment was performed q9 weeks. Primary objective was OS: superiority of CFP (9 months [mo]) over CF (6 mo) with 300 pts (90% power). Results: Between 6.2012-5.2015, 146/155 pts were randomized. After interim analysis for futility, the trial was stopped. 60(83%) of CFP and 55(79%) of CF pts had any AE, mostly diarrhea, hypokalemia, hypomagnesaemia, rash, and hand-foot syndrome. Main Gr≥3 AEs were low neutrophils 21/ 24% and anemia 13/16 % for CFP vs CF, respectively. Gr 3-4 skin reactions and rash were higher in CFP (10%) vs CF (0%). Overall, 51/72 (71%) of CFP and 36/70 (51%) of CF had SAE. Main SAE were dysphagia, acute kidney injury, diarrhea, fevers and febrile neutropenia in 6/6%, 7/4%, 7/3%, 3/6% and 6/1% for CFP vs CF, respectively. For all CFP vs CF pts, median OS was 9.4 vs. 10.2 mo (hazard ratio (HR) 1.17, 95%CI 0.79-1.75; P=0.43). For 56 pts treated with cisplatin 100mg/m²d1, OS was 9.4 vs. 12.9 mo (HR 1.83, 95 % CI 0.98-3.42; P=0.06). After C was reduced (80mg/m²), OS (85 pts) favored CFP vs CF, with 9.8 vs. 8.3 mo (HR 0.84, 95%CI 0.49-1.43; P=0.51). Median PFS for all CFP vs CF pts, was 5.3 vs. 5.8 mo. (HR 1.21, 95%CI 0.85-1.73; P=0.29) respectively. Conclusions: Addition of Panitumumab to CF provided no additional benefit to chemotherapy alone as first-line treatment of ESCC. Biomarker program is going on for further analyses. Clinical trial information: NCT1627379.

POWER: An open-label, randomized phase III trial of cisplatin and 5-FU with or without panitumumab (P) for patients (pts) with nonresectable, advanced, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell cancer (ESCC).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS4158-TPS4158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Hermann Moehler ◽  
Ingo Ringshausen ◽  
Ralf Hofheinz ◽  
Salah-Eddin Al-Batran ◽  
Lothar Mueller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Cell Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Tumor Control ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Metastatic Setting

TPS4158 Background: More than 50% of pts with esophageal cancer have locally advanced or metastatic disease at the time of initial diagnosis. For this group chemotherapy is increasingly used intending local and distant tumor control, improvement of quality of life (QoL) and longer survival. Previous data suggested that EGFR-targeting antibodies may be safely combined with cisplatin and 5-FU, and in addition may increase the efficacy of the standard cisplatin/5-FU regimen [Lorenzen et al, Ann Oncol2009; 20(10): 1667-1673]. Methods: In this open-label, randomized (1:1), multicenter, multinational phase III trial pts with nonresectable, advanced or metastatic ESCC, not eligible for definitive radiochemotherapy, are included. Pts have measurable or non-measurable disease according to RECIST 1.1 and an ECOG PS 0-1. Previous chemotherapy of ESCC in the metastatic setting, concurrent radiotherapy involving target lesions and previous exposure to EGFR-targeted therapy are excluded. Pts receive either CTX (cisplatin 100 mg/m² on day 1 and 5-FU 1000 mg/m²/d on day 1-4) or CTX + P (9 mg/kg on day 1). Cycles are repeated every 3 weeks until progression of disease. Tumor assessment is performed every 9 weeks. The primary objective is to demonstrate superiority of CTX + P over CTX alone in terms of overall survival. Secondary endpoints are progression-free survival, 1-year survival, response rate, safety and tolerability, and QoL. A translational analysis in tumor tissue and serum samples is included. 300 pts are planned to be enrolled for a power of 90% to reject the null hypothesis in which the median overall survival in the control and experimental groups are 6 and 9 months, respectively. 18 pts have been enrolled to date. A Data Monitoring Board will review safety data after 40, 100 and 200 pts. The clinical trial registry number is NCT1627379. Clinical trial information: NCT01627379.

EORTC 1709/CCTG CE.8: A phase III trial of marizomib in combination with standard temozolomide-based radiochemotherapy versus standard temozolomide-based radiochemotherapy alone in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS2072-TPS2072 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Roth ◽  
Jaap C. Reijneveld ◽  
Thierry Gorlia ◽  
Frederic Dhermain ◽  
Filip Yves Francine Leon De Vos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Standard Treatment ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Recurrent Glioblastoma ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma

TPS2072 Background: The standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma comprises maximum safe surgery, radiotherapy (RT), and concomitant and up to six cycles of maintenance temozolomide (TMZ) chemotherapy (TMZ/RT→TMZ). Despite this intense therapy, the prognosis remains poor and there is an urgent need to develop new therapeutic options. Marizomib is a novel, irreversible and brain-penetrant pan-proteasome inhibitor. Following its successful assessment in phase I trials in patients with newly diagnosed as well as recurrent glioblastoma, marizomib is now being investigated in a phase III trial. Methods: EORTC 1709/CCTG CE.8 is a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open label phase III superiority trial. Eligibility criteria include histologically confirmed newly diagnosed glioblastoma and a performance status ≥70. Approximately a total of 750 patients will be enrolled and randomized 1:1. Stratification factors include institution, age, Karnofsky performance status and extent of surgery. The primary objective of this study is to compare overall survival in patients receiving marizomib in addition to standard of care (TMZ/RT→TMZ) with patients receiving standard treatment only. The testing strategy specifies the determination of this objective in both the intent-to-treat population and the subgroup of patients with tumors harboring an unmethylated MGMT promoter. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, safety, neurocognitive function and quality of life. The study is accompanied by a translational research program. The study will be opened at 50 EORTC sites in Europe and done as an intergroup collaboration with the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) with 25 sites in Canada and additional sites in the US. Patient enrolment started in June 2018 and as of January 29, 2019, a total of 85 patients have been randomized. An update on the enrolment status will be provided at the ASCO conference. Clinical trial information: NCT03345095.

Sunitinib Versus Sorafenib in Advanced Hepatocellular Cancer: Results of a Randomized Phase III Trial

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (32) ◽  
pp. 4067-4075 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann-Lii Cheng ◽  
Yoon-Koo Kang ◽  
Deng-Yn Lin ◽  
Joong-Won Park ◽  
Masatoshi Kudo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatitis C ◽  
Hepatitis B ◽  
Hepatocellular Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Severe Toxicity ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Open Label Phase ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome

Purpose Open-label, phase III trial evaluating whether sunitinib was superior or equivalent to sorafenib in hepatocellular cancer. Patients and Methods Patients were stratified and randomly assigned to receive sunitinib 37.5 mg once per day or sorafenib 400 mg twice per day. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Results Early trial termination occurred for futility and safety reasons. A total of 1,074 patients were randomly assigned to the study (sunitinib arm, n = 530; sorafenib arm, n = 544). For sunitinib and sorafenib, respectively, median OS was 7.9 versus 10.2 months (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; one-sided P = .9990; two-sided P = .0014); median progression-free survival (PFS; 3.6 v 3.0 months; HR, 1.13; one-sided P = .8785; two-sided P = .2286) and time to progression (TTP; 4.1 v 3.8 months; HR, 1.13; one-sided P = .8312; two-sided P = .3082) were comparable. Median OS was similar among Asian (7.7 v 8.8 months; HR, 1.21; one-sided P = .9829) and hepatitis B–infected patients (7.6 v 8.0 months; HR, 1.10; one-sided P = .8286), but was shorter with sunitinib in hepatitis C–infected patients (9.2 v 17.6 months; HR, 1.52; one-sided P = .9835). Sunitinib was associated with more frequent and severe adverse events (AEs) than sorafenib. Common grade 3/4 AEs were thrombocytopenia (29.7%) and neutropenia (25.7%) for sunitinib; hand-foot syndrome (21.2%) for sorafenib. Discontinuations owing to AEs were similar (sunitinib, 13.3%; sorafenib, 12.7%). Conclusion OS with sunitinib was not superior or equivalent but was significantly inferior to sorafenib. OS was comparable in Asian and hepatitis B–infected patients. OS was superior in hepatitis C–infected patients who received sorafenib. Sunitinib-treated patients reported more frequent and severe toxicity.

Phase III trial of sunitinib (SU) in combination with capecitabine (C) versus C in previously treated advanced breast cancer (ABC).

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA1011-LBA1011 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Crown ◽  
V. Dieras ◽  
E. Staroslawska ◽  
D. A. Yardley ◽  
N. Davidson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Her2 Positive ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Metastatic Setting ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome ◽  
Ecog Ps

LBA1011 Background: Recent trials support combining an antiangiogenic agent with chemotherapy (CT) in pretreated patients (pts) with metastatic BC (MBC). SU, an oral multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor demonstrated single-agent activity (11% ORR) in heavily pretreated pts with MBC. Antitumor activity with SU+C was reported in pts with advanced solid tumors. This multicenter, randomized, phase III trial (SUN 1099) compared the efficacy and safety of SU + C vs. C in pts with ABC. Methods: Eligibility criteria were: age ≥18 yrs, ECOG PS ≤1, measurable HER2-positive (FISH+, CISH+ or IHC3+) or -negative ABC, no brain metastases, prior treatment (tx) with an anthracycline and taxane in the (neo)adjuvant or metastatic setting, and ≤2 prior CT regimens for advanced disease. Prior C tx was not permitted. Pts were randomized (1:1) to combination tx with C 2,000 mg/m2/d po days 1–14 every q3w + SU 37.5 mg/d po daily, or to C 2,500 mg/m2/d days 1–14 q3w. Pts with progressive disease per RECIST on the C arm were offered single-agent SU (37.5 mg/d). Endpoints included PFS (primary), ORR, OS, QoL, and safety. Stratified and unstratified log-rank tests compared PFS between arms. Results: At the data cutoff (December 15, 2009), the ITT population comprised 442 pts: 221 in each arm with baseline characteristics well balanced between arms. The trial did not meet its primary endpoint of prolonging PFS based on the independent radiologic assessment nor secondary endpoint of longer OS (final analysis March 10, 2010). Median PFS was 5.5 mos (95% CI 4.5–6.0) in the SU+C arm vs. 5.9 mos (95% CI 5.4–7.6) in the C arm (HR 1.224). Median OS was 16.4 mos (95% CI 13.6–18.4) for the SU+C arm and 16.5 mos (95% CI 14.2–18.6) for the C arm (HR 0.995). ORR was 18.6% for the SU+C arm and 16.3% for the C arm. The most common all causality grade 3/4 AEs (≥10%) were neutropenia (32%), hand–foot syndrome (HFS; 16%), thrombocytopenia (17%), asthenia (12%), fatigue (10%) in the SU+C arm and HFS (24%) and diarrhea (10%) in the C arm. Intended drug delivery for each arm was >80%. Discontinuations due to an AE were more frequent in the SU+C arm vs. the C arm. Discontinuations by drug in the SU+C arm: SU 39%, C 42%, SU and C 33%; in the C arm: 18%. Conclusions: Data from this randomized phase III trial do not support use of SU+C for therapy of patients with ABC. [Table: see text]

A randomized phase III trial of cisplatin and tumor volume directed irradiation followed by carboplatin and paclitaxel vs. carboplatin and paclitaxel for optimally debulked, advanced endometrial carcinoma.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5505-5505 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela Matei ◽  
Virginia L. Filiaci ◽  
Marcus Randall ◽  
Margaret Steinhoff ◽  
Paul DiSilvestro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Local Recurrence ◽  
Residual Disease ◽  
Uterine Cancer ◽  
Residual Tumor ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Significant Treatment ◽  
Phase Iii Trial

5505 Background: Patients with stage III/IVA uterine cancer (UC) carry high risk of systemic and local recurrence. Chemotherapy was shown to reduce systemic recurrence, however the risk of local failure remains high. Methods: The primary endpoint of this open label, randomized phase III trial was to determine if treatment with cisplatin and volume-directed radiation followed by carboplatin and paclitaxel for 4 cycles (C-RT, experimental arm) reduces the rate of recurrence or death (i.e., increases recurrence-free survival, RFS) when compared to carboplatin and paclitaxel for 6 cycles (CT, control arm) in patients with stages III-IVA (<2 cm residual disease) or FIGO 2009 stage I/II serous or clear cell UC and positive cytology. Secondary objectives were assessment of overall survival (OS), acute and late toxicities, and quality of life. A 28.5% reduction in the rate of recurrence or death was considered significant. Treatment randomization and analysis were stratified by gross residual tumor and age. Results: Between 6/2009 and 7/2014, 813 patients were enrolled and randomized (407 C-RT and 406-CT). Of those, 733 were eligible (344 C-RT and 360 CT), and 680 received the trial intervention (333 C-RT and 347 CT). Median follow up is 47 months. Patients characteristics were balanced between arms. There were 201 (58%) > grd 3 toxicity events in the C-RT arm and 227 (63%) in the CT arm. The most common > grd 3 events were myelosupression (40% vs. 52%), gastrointestinal (13% vs. 4%), metabolic (15% vs. 19%), neurological (7% vs. 6%), infectious (4% vs. 5%). Treatment hazard ratio for RFS was 0.9 (C-RT vs. CT; CI 0.74 to 1.10). C-RT reduced the incidence of vaginal (3% vs. 7%, HR = 0.36, CI 0.16 to 0.82), pelvic and paraaortic recurrences (10% vs. 21%, HR=0.43, CI 02.8 to 0.66) compared to CT, but distant recurrences were more common with C-RT vs. CT (28% vs. 21%, HR 1.36, CI 1 to 1.86). The analysis is premature for OS comparison. Conclusions: Although C-RT reduced the rate of local recurrence compared to CT; the combined modality regimen did not increase RFS in optimally debulked, stage III/IVA UC. Clinical trial information: NCT00942357.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document