Mature overall survival (OS) results from the LUME-Meso study of nintedanib (N) + pemetrexed/cisplatin (PEM/CIS) vs placebo (P) + PEM/CIS in chemo-naïve patients (pts) with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8506-8506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna K. Nowak ◽  
Federica Grosso ◽  
Nicola Steele ◽  
Silvia Novello ◽  
Sanjay Popat ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Study ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Abl Kinases ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
To Receive

8506 Background: LUME-Meso is a Phase (Ph) II/III, double-blind, randomized study. N targets MPM by inhibiting VEGFR 1–3, PDGFR α/β, FGFR 1–3, Src and Abl kinases. Primary analysis of the Ph II data demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR]=0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34–0.91; p=0.017). Mature Ph 2 OS and updated PFS results are reported here. Methods: Pts with unresectable MPM (ECOG PS 0–1) were stratified by histology (epithelioid/biphasic) and randomized 1:1 to receive ≤6 cycles PEM (500 mg/m2)/CIS (75 mg/m2) Day 1 + N or P (200 mg bid, Days 2–21), followed by N or P monotherapy until progression or toxicity. The primary endpoint was PFS. The primary OS analysis and updated PFS analysis were performed as predefined. Results: 87 pts were randomly assigned (N=44, P=43). OS benefit favored N over P treatment (HR=0.77; 95% CI 0.46–1.29; p=0.319; 62 [71%] OS events) and was greatest in epithelioid pts (HR=0.70; 95% CI 0.40–1.21; p=0.197) with a median (m) OS gain of 5.4 months (mOS [95% CI]: 20.6 [16.2–28.8] N vs 15.2 [12.2–23.6] P). Updated PFS results (HR=0.54; 95% CI 0.33–0.87; p=0.010) also showed greatest benefit for epithelioid pts (HR=0.49; 95% CI 0.30–0.82; p=0.006) with a mPFS gain of 4.0 months (mPFS [95% CI]: 9.7 [7.2–12.4] N vs 5.7 [5.5–7.0] P). Improved forced vital capacity, objective response rates and duration of response were also observed with N treatment. Drug-related adverse events (AEs) in N- vs P-treated pts were 97.7% vs 97.6%. Grade ≥3 AEs of note included neutropenia (27.3% vs 4.9%), ALT (11.4% vs 0) and GGT (6.8% vs 0) elevations, and diarrhea (6.8% vs 0). AEs led to trial discontinuation in only 3 (6.8%) N vs 7 (17.1%) P pts. Conclusions: Mature Ph II OS data show that adding N to standard 1st-line treatment gives a strong signal towards improved OS. Updated PFS confirmed the primary analysis; AEs were manageable. The greatest clinical benefit was observed in pts with epithelioid histology. Median survival of 20.6 months in epithelioid pts treated with N is unprecedented in advanced MPM trials. Ph III is actively recruiting in this pt population. Clinical trial information: NCT01907100.

Vandetanib versus erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after failure of at least one prior cytotoxic chemotherapy: A randomized, double-blind phase III trial (ZEST)

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8009-8009
Author(s):  
R. B. Natale ◽  
S. Thongprasert ◽  
F. A. Greco ◽  
M. Thomas ◽  
C. M. Tsai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Equivalent Efficacy ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

8009 Background: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of VEGFR, EGFR and RET signaling. This phase III study compared the efficacy of vandetanib vs erlotinib in patients (pts) with advanced, previously treated NSCLC. Methods: Eligible pts (stage IIIB/IV NSCLC, PS 0–2, 1–2 prior chemotherapies; all histologies permitted) were randomized 1:1 to receive vandetanib 300 mg/day or erlotinib 150 mg/day until progression/toxicity. The primary objective was to show superiority in progression-free survival (PFS) for vandetanib vs erlotinib. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), time to deterioration of symptoms (TDS; EORTC QoL Questionnaire) and safety. Results: Between Oct 06-Nov 07, 1240 pts (mean age 61 yrs; 38% female; 22% squamous) were randomized to receive vandetanib (n=623) or erlotinib (n=617). Baseline characteristics were similar in both arms. Median duration of follow-up was 14 months, with 88% pts progressed and 67% dead. There was no difference in PFS for pts treated with vandetanib vs erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.98, 95.22% CI 0.87–1.10; P=0.721), and no difference in the secondary endpoints of OS (HR 1.01, 95.08% CI 0.89–1.16; P=0.830), ORR (both 12%) and TDS (pain: HR 0.92, P=0.289; dyspnea: HR 1.07, P=0.407; cough: HR 0.94, P=0.455). A preplanned non-inferiority analysis for PFS and OS demonstrated equivalent efficacy for vandetanib and erlotinib. The adverse events (AEs) observed for vandetanib were generally consistent with previous NSCLC studies with vandetanib 300 mg. There was a higher incidence of some AEs (any grade) with vandetanib vs erlotinib, including diarrhea (50% vs 38%) and hypertension (16% vs 2%); rash was more frequent with erlotinib (38% vs 28%). The overall incidence of CTCAE grade ≥3 AEs was also higher with vandetanib (50% vs 40%). The incidence of protocol-defined QTc prolongation in the vandetanib arm was 5%. Conclusions: The study did not meet its primary objective of demonstrating PFS prolongation with vandetanib vs erlotinib in pts with previously treated advanced NSCLC. However, vandetanib and erlotinib showed equivalent efficacy for PFS and OS in a preplanned non-inferiority analysis. [Table: see text]

LOTUS (NCT02162719): A double-blind placebo (PBO)-controlled randomized phase II trial of first-line ipatasertib (IPAT) + paclitaxel (P) for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1009-1009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Alexandra Dent ◽  
Sung-Bae Kim ◽  
Seock-Ah Im ◽  
Marc Espie ◽  
Sibel Blau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Dose Intensity ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Akt Inhibitor ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Median Cumulative Dose

1009 Background: The oral Akt inhibitor IPAT is being evaluated in cancers with a high prevalence of PI3K/Akt pathway activation, including TNBC. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) had measurable inoperable locally advanced/metastatic TNBC previously untreated with systemic therapy. Pts were stratified by prior (neo)adjuvant therapy, chemotherapy-free interval and tumor PTEN status, and randomized 1:1 to P 80 mg/m2 (d1, 8 & 15) with either IPAT 400 mg or PBO (d1–21) q28d until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in the ITT population and pts with PTEN-low tumors by IHC. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR) and overall survival in the ITT and IHC PTEN-low populations, efficacy in pts with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN-altered tumors by next-generation sequencing (NGS), and safety. Results: Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between arms. Efficacy is shown below. The most common grade ≥3 AEs (grouped terms) were diarrhea (23% IPAT+P vs 0% PBO+P; no grade 4 or colitis in either arm), neutropenia (18% vs 8%), asthenia (5% vs 6%), peripheral neuropathy (5% vs 5%) and pneumonia (5% vs 0%). More pts receiving IPAT+P than PBO+P had an AE leading to dose reduction of IPAT/PBO (21% vs 6%) or P (38% vs 11%) but median cumulative dose intensity was similar (IPAT/PBO: 99% vs 100%; P: 100% vs 100%). AEs led to IPAT/PBO discontinuation in 13% vs 11% of pts, respectively; 2 pts (3%) discontinued IPAT for grade 3 diarrhea. Conclusions: Adding IPAT to P for TNBC modestly improved PFS in the ITT pts. The effect was more pronounced in the prespecified subgroup with PIK3CA/AKT1/PTEN alterations, warranting further evaluation of IPAT in these pts. AEs were manageable. Clinical trial information: NCT02162719. [Table: see text]

Olaparib treatment in patients (pts) with platinum-sensitive relapsed (PSR) ovarian cancer (OC) by BRCA mutation (BRCAm) and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status: Phase II LIGHT study.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6013-6013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Anne Cadoo ◽  
Fiona Simpkins ◽  
Cara Amanda Mathews ◽  
Nashwa Kabil ◽  
James Bennett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Brca Mutation ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Platinum Sensitive ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Platinum Chemotherapy

6013 Background: In Study 19 (NCT00753545), olaparib capsules demonstrated improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo in the PSR OC maintenance setting, irrespective of BRCAm status (Ledermann et al. Lancet Oncol 2014). LIGHT is the first prospective study to evaluate olaparib tablet treatment in PSR OC pts by BRCAm and HRD status. Methods: This is an open-label, non-randomized study (NCT02983799) that assessed efficacy and safety of olaparib monotherapy (300 mg BID) in pts with PSR, high-grade serous/endometrioid epithelial OC and ≥1 prior line of platinum chemotherapy. Pts were assigned to one of four cohorts: germline (g) BRCAm; somatic (s) BRCAm; HRD+ve (non-BRCAm); HRD–ve; by Myriad BRACAnalysis CDx and myChoice tests. HRD+ve was a score ≥42. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included: disease control rate (DCR) and investigator-assessed PFS (RECIST v1.1). Primary analysis was to be ~6 months (mo) after the last pt was enrolled. Results: Data cut off was 8/27/19. Of 271 pts treated (median of 31.7 weeks [2.1–96.0]), 270 had measurable disease at baseline and were included in efficacy analyses (Table). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were nausea (66%) and fatigue (62%).Serious AEs and Grade ≥3 AEs were experienced by 25% and 44% of pts, respectively. AEs leading to olaparib dose interruptions, reductions and discontinuations occurred in 33%, 24% and 4% of pts, respectively. Conclusions: Olaparib treatment demonstrated activity across all cohorts. As observed in the maintenance setting, similar efficacy was seen in the gBRCAm and sBRCAm cohorts. For non-BRCAm pts, longer median PFS and higher ORR were observed in the HRD+ve cohort. Olaparib treatment was well tolerated with no new safety signals identified and a safety profile consistent with that seen in the PSR and first-line settings. Clinical trial information: NCT02983799. [Table: see text]

Assessing different sequencing regimens of atezolizumab (atezo) and sipuleucel-T (sipT) in patients who have asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 141-141
Author(s):  
Tanya B. Dorff ◽  
Jared David Acoba ◽  
Sumanta K. Pal ◽  
Mark C. Scholz ◽  
David Jon Tamura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stable Disease ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Grade 5 ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Castrate Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Castrate Resistant ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
To Receive

141 Background: Combining an immune checkpoint inhibitor with a vaccine may leverage complementary mechanisms of action for treatment of mCRPC. We present a randomized study evaluating atezo (anti PD-L1) + sipT in patients (pts) with mCRPC. Methods: Pts who met standard criteria for sipT were randomized to receive (Arm1): atezo 1200 mg IV every 3 weeks for 2 doses then SipT every 2 weeks for a total of 3 infusions (induction) followed by maintenance atezo every 3 weeks until toxicity or loss of clinical benefit or (Arm2) sipT every 2 weeks for a total of 3 infusions followed by atezo 1200 mg IV every 3 weeks for 2 doses (induction) followed by maintenance atezo every 3 weeks until same. The primary endpoint was safety (CTCAE v4.0); secondary endpoints were PFS by PCWG2, objective response (modified RECIST1.1) and systemic immune responses after induction. Results: 37 pts, median age 75 [range 53–86] enrolled; median prior treatments was 4 [range 1-8] and 76% had ECOG PS = 0. Three patients did not complete induction (1 withdrew consent, 1 due to toxicity, and 1 progressed). There were no delays in induction dosing for Arm1 but 9 delays (1 week) for Arm2 (collection failure=6, holiday=2 and other=1). There were no grade 5 toxicities attributed to study drugs. 1 grade 4 toxicity was noted in each arm (Arm 1 bronchitis, Arm 2 hypotension). Eight grade 3 toxicities were noted in arm 1 (hyponatremia, pulmonary embolus x3, bone pain, hypophosphatemia, shock, fall with tooth fracture), while 4 grade 3 toxicities were noted in arm 2 (anemia, hypertension x 2, pneumonia). None of the grade 3 or 4 AEs were immune related. AEs led to discontinuation in 5 patients in Arm1 and 1 patient in Arm2. In Arm1 11 patients were RECIST evaluable at 6 months, with 1 PR (5.8%), 4 SD (23.5%) and 6 PD. In Arm2 13 patients were evaluable, with 1 PR (5.8%), 6 SD (32%) and 6 PD. 10/24 evaluable patients (41.7%) had stable disease at 6 months. Conclusions: The combination of atezo with sipT was safe, AEs consistent with the agents as monotherapy, with no immune related AEs. 2 pts had RECIST PR and 10 had stable disease at 6 months, more than expected with monotherapy. Clinical trial information: 03024216.

Anlotinib in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC): A randomized, double-blind, multicenter phase II trial.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 95-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Huang ◽  
Juxiang Xiao ◽  
Wentao Fang ◽  
Ping Lu ◽  
Qingxia Fan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Vegfr Inhibitor ◽  
Loss Of Appetite

95 Background: The treatment option for ESCC patients (pts) progressing after chemotherapy is still uncertain. Anlotinib is a multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor involved in tumor angiogenesis and growth, such as vascular endothelia growth factor receptor (VEGFR) 2/3, etc. Methods: Eligible pts were advanced ESCC who had progressed after platinum or taxane containing chemotherapy. Between January 6, 2016 and May 22, 2018, a total of 165 pts from 13 centers in China were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) to anlotinib arm (n=110), and placebo arm (n=55). Pts were given anlotinib (12 mg/day) or placebo orally from day 1 to day 14 in a 21-day cycle until disease progression or had unacceptable toxic effects. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Median PFS was 3.0 months with anlotinib and 1.4 months with placebo (HR 0.5, 95% CI, 0.3-0.7; P<0.0001). Complete response occured in 2 pts with anlotinib and 0 pt with placebo. The objective response rates were 7% in the anlotinib group and 4% in the placebo group (P=0.498), and the disease control rates (DCR) were 64% and 18%, respectively (P<0.0001). In anlotinib arm, median duration of response was 5.8 months (range, 3.1-19.7+). Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were reported in 36.7% and 11.0% of the two group pts, and grade 5 TRAE were 2.8% and 0%, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 TRAE (>5%) in anlotinib arm were hypertension (15.6%) and loss of appetite (5.5%). Median overall survival were similar between the groups (6.1 months vs 7.2 months; HR 1.2, 95%CI 0.8-1.8, P=0.4261). The ratio of pts received post study treatments was 41.2% (40/97) in anlotinib arm and 72.7% (40/55) in placebo arm (P=0.0002), including chemotherapy (23.7% vs 54.6%), PD-1 inhibitors (4.1% vs 11.0%), and Apatinib, a VEGFR inhibitor, (10.3% vs 20.0%), etc. Conclusions: In pretreated advanced ESCC pts, anlotinib significantly improved PFS and DCR compared with placebo, with a manageable safety profile. Clinical trial information: NCT02649361.

scholarly journals Prolonged duration of response in lenvatinib responders with thyroid cancer (Russian translation)

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 53-60
Author(s):  
A. G. Gianoukakis ◽  
C. E. Dutcus ◽  
N. Batty ◽  
M. Guo ◽  
M. Baig
Keyword(s):  
Thyroid Cancer ◽  
Disease Burden ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Prolonged Duration ◽  
Duration Of Response

We present an updated analysis of lenvatinib in radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC) with new duration of response (DOR) data unavailable for the primary analysis. In this randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, patients ≥18 years old with measurable, pathologically confirmed RR-DTC with independent radiologic confirmation of disease progression within the previous 13 months were randomized 2:1 to oral lenvatinib 24 mg/day or placebo. The main outcome measures for this analysis are DOR and progression-free survival (PFS). The median DOR for all lenvatinib responders (patients with complete or partial responses; objective response rate: 60.2 %; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 54.2–66.1) was 30.0 months (95 % CI 18.4–36.7) and was generally similar across subgroups. DOR was shorter in patients with greater disease burden and with brain and liver metastases. Updated median PFS was longer in the overall lenvatinib group vs placebo (19.4 vs 3.7 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.24; 99 % CI 0.17–0.35; nominal P <0.0001). In lenvatinib responders, median PFS was 33.1 months (95 % CI 27.8–44.6) vs 7.9 months (95 % CI 5.8–10.7) in nonresponders. The median DOR of 30.0 months seen with patients who achieved complete or partial responses with lenvatinib (60.2 %) demonstrates that lenvatinib responders can have prolonged, durable and clinically meaningful responses. Prolonged PFS (33.1 months) was also observed in these lenvatinib responders.

A phase II trial of atezolizumab and bevacizumab in patients with relapsed/refractory and unresectable malignant peritoneal mesothelioma.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9013-9013
Author(s):  
Kanwal Pratap Singh Raghav ◽  
Michael J. Overman ◽  
Suyu Liu ◽  
Anneleis Willett ◽  
Richard Eldon Royal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Peritoneal Mesothelioma ◽  
Malignant Peritoneal Mesothelioma ◽  
Liquid Biopsies ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Ecog Ps

9013 Background: Malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPeM) is an orphan malignancy. No recommended/FDA approved therapies exist for salvage treatment beyond first-line platinum and pemetrexed based chemotherapy. While immune checkpoint inhibition has shown preliminary efficacy in mesotheliomas, data and efficacy is limited in MPeM patients (pts) [objective response rate (ORR) ~ 11%; median progression-free survival (mPFS) ~ 4 months (m); median overall survival (mOS) ~ 11 m]. We aimed to prospectively assess the safety and efficacy of combined anti-PD1 (atezolizumab) and VEGF (bevacizumab) blockade (AtezoBev) in pts with MPeM. Methods: In this phase 2 study, eligible pts with histologically confirmed MPeM, ECOG PS 0-1, and prior platinum and pemetrexed treatment were treated with 1200 mg of atezolizumab and 15 mg/kg of bevacizumab IV every 21 days until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. Primary endpoint was confirmed ORR by RECIST 1.1 by independent radiology review. Duration of response (DOR), PFS and OS were pre-specified secondary endpoints. Results: Among 20 enrolled pts (3/2017 - 2/2019), median age was 63 (range, 33-87) years, 12 (60%) were female, 12 (60%) had PS 0, and 2 (10%) had biphasic MPeM. Among 20 evaluable pts (median cycles 14), confirmed ORR was 35% (7 pts; 95% CI: 15.4-59.2) (median DOR 8.8 m). Responses were ongoing in 5/7 (71.4%) pts at data cutoff. The median follow-up was 20.5 months. Six deaths were observed during follow-up, and the 1-year OS was 79% (95% CI: 52 – 91) (median OS ~ NR). Median PFS was estimated as 17.6 m (95% CI: 9.1 – NR). The 1-year PFS was 54% (95% CI: 28 – 74). Grade 3 (no grade 4/5) treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 10 (50%) pts; most common being hypertension (40%) and anemia (10%). Two (10%) pts had grade 3 immune-related adverse events. Translational studies are ongoing. Conclusions: AtezoBev showed promising and durable efficacy in relapsed/refractory MPeM with acceptable safety profile. Ongoing multiomic analyses of pre and on-treatment tissue/liquid biopsies obtained on all these pts will provide additional insight into mechanisms and biomarkers of response and resistance. Clinical trial information: NCT03074513.

scholarly journals KEYNOTE-022 part 3: a randomized, double-blind, phase 2 study of pembrolizumab, dabrafenib, and trametinib in BRAF-mutant melanoma

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e001806
Author(s):  
Pier Francesco Ferrucci ◽  
Anna Maria Di Giacomo ◽  
Michele Del Vecchio ◽  
Victoria Atkinson ◽  
Henrik Schmidt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Advanced Melanoma ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Grade 3

BackgroundIn the KEYNOTE-022 study, pembrolizumab with dabrafenib and trametinib (triplet) improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo with dabrafenib and trametinib (doublet) without reaching statistical significance. Mature results on PFS, duration of response (DOR), and overall survival (OS) are reported.MethodsThe double-blind, phase 2 part of KEYNOTE-022 enrolled patients with previously untreated BRAFV600E/K-mutated advanced melanoma from 22 sites in seven countries. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to intravenous pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) or placebo plus dabrafenib (150 mg orally two times per day) and trametinib (2 mg orally one time a day). Primary endpoint was PFS. Secondary endpoints were objective response rate, DOR, and OS. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, and safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This analysis was not specified in the protocol.ResultsBetween November 30, 2015 and April 24, 2017, 120 patients were randomly assigned to triplet (n=60) or doublet (n=60) therapy. With 36.6 months of follow-up, median PFS was 16.9 months (95% CI 11.3 to 27.9) with triplet and 10.7 months (95% CI 7.2 to 16.8) with doublet (HR 0.53; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.83). With triplet and doublet, respectively, PFS at 24 months was 41.0% (95% CI 27.4% to 54.2%) and 16.3% (95% CI 8.1% to 27.1%); median DOR was 25.1 months (95% CI 14.1 to not reached) and 12.1 months (95% CI 6.0 to 15.7), respectively. Median OS was not reached with triplet and was 26.3 months with doublet (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.06). With triplet and doublet, respectively, OS at 24 months was 63.0% (95% CI 49.4% to 73.9%) and 51.7% (95% CI 38.4% to 63.4%). Grade 3–5 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 35 patients (58%, including one death) receiving triplet and 15 patients (25%) receiving doublet.ConclusionIn BRAFV600E/K-mutant advanced melanoma, pembrolizumab plus dabrafenib and trametinib substantially improved PFS, DOR, and OS with a higher incidence of TRAEs. Interpretation of these results is limited by the post hoc nature of the analysis.

RAINBOW: A global, phase 3, double-blind study of ramucirumab (RAM) plus paclitaxel (PTX) versus placebo (PL) plus PTX in the treatment of advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma following disease progression on first-line platinum- and fluoropyrimidine-containing combination therapy—An age-group analysis.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kei Muro ◽  
Gyorgy Bodoky ◽  
Alvydas Cesas ◽  
Yee Chao ◽  
Philip Clingan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disease Progression ◽  
Gastroesophageal Junction ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Group Analysis ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Ecog Ps

11 Background: RAM is a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody VEGF-R2 antagonist. The RAINBOW trial demonstrated that RAM added to PTX significantly improved overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and objective response rates (ORR) in 2nd-line gastric and GEJ adenocarcinoma patients (pts). Outcomes are reported by pts aged <65 and ≥65 yrs. Methods: Pts with advanced gastric and GEJ adenocarcinoma after disease progression on platinum- and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to receive RAM (8 mg/kg) or placebo (PL) on days 1 and 15 plus PTX 80 mg/m2IV on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Eligible pts had ECOG PS ≤ 1 and adequate organ function. OS was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included PFS, ORR, and safety. Results: Baseline characteristics were generally well balanced. Outcomes are summarized in the Table. The incidence of Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) was higher in the RAM+PTX arms for both age groups and similar across age groups. Grade ≥3 AEs occurring in ≥10% of pts and at higher rate in the RAM+PTX arm, and febrile neutropenia are shown in the Table. Conclusions: RAM+PTX conferred similar improvements over PL+PTX for OS, PFS, and ORR in both age groups. Toxicity profiles were similar in both groups, although a relatively higher incidence of Grade ≥3 neutropenia and leukopenia in pts ≥65 years was noted. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Prolonged duration of response in lenvatinib responders with thyroid cancer

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 699-704 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew G Gianoukakis ◽  
Corina E Dutcus ◽  
Nicolas Batty ◽  
Matthew Guo ◽  
Mahadi Baig
Keyword(s):  
Thyroid Cancer ◽  
Disease Burden ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Prolonged Duration ◽  
Duration Of Response

We present an updated analysis of lenvatinib in radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC) with new duration of response (DOR) data unavailable for the primary analysis. In this randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled phase 3 study, patients ≥18 years old with measurable, pathologically confirmed RR-DTC with independent radiologic confirmation of disease progression within the previous 13 months were randomized 2:1 to oral lenvatinib 24 mg/day or placebo. The main outcome measures for this analysis are DOR and progression-free survival (PFS). The median DOR for all lenvatinib responders (patients with complete or partial responses; objective response rate: 60.2%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 54.2–66.1) was 30.0 months (95% CI 18.4–36.7) and was generally similar across subgroups. DOR was shorter in patients with greater disease burden and with brain and liver metastases. Updated median PFS was longer in the overall lenvatinib group vs placebo (19.4 vs 3.7 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.24; 99% CI 0.17–0.35; nominal P < 0.0001). In lenvatinib responders, median PFS was 33.1 months (95% CI 27.8–44.6) vs 7.9 months (95% CI 5.8–10.7) in non-responders. The median DOR of 30.0 months seen with patients who achieved complete or partial responses with lenvatinib (60.2%) demonstrates that lenvatinib responders can have prolonged, durable and clinically meaningful responses. Prolonged PFS (33.1 months) was also observed in these lenvatinib responders.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document