CanStem111P trial: A phase III study of napabucasin (BBI-608) plus nab-paclitaxel (nab-PTX) with gemcitabine (gem) in adult patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPDAC).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS4148-TPS4148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab ◽  
Chung-Pin Li ◽  
Takuji Okusaka ◽  
Bert H. O'Neil ◽  
Michele Reni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cells ◽  
Cancer Stem Cells ◽  
Disease Control ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Chemotherapeutic Agents ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Study Population

TPS4148 Background: Cancer stem cells are considered to be fundamentally important for resistance to therapy, recurrence and metastasis. Napabucasin is a first-in-class cancer stemness inhibitor identified by its ability to inhibit STAT3-driven gene transcription and spherogenesis of cancer stem cells (Li et al, PNAS 112(6):1839, 2015). Preclinical studies suggest that napabucasin sensitizes heterogeneous cancer cells to chemotherapeutic agents, including nab-PTX and gem. Encouraging anticancer activity in mPDAC was observed in a phase Ib (El-Rayes et al, ASCO 2016) study of 37 pts, reporting 93% (28/30) disease control rate (DCR) and 50% (15/30) overall response rate (ORR), with 1 complete and 14 partial responses and prolonged disease control ( > 24 wks) in 57% (17/30) of pts who have had a RECIST evaluation. On the basis of these data, a phase III trial is being conducted in North America, Europe, Australia and Asia. Methods: This study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02993731) will assess the efficacy of napabucasin+nab-PTX+gem vs nab-PTX+gem in pts with mPDAC (n = 1132). Pts must have been diagnosed with mPDAC < 6 weeks prior to randomization and not have received treatment for metastatic disease. Pts are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive napabucasin 240 mg PO twice daily continuously plus nab-PTX+gem IV weekly for 3 out every 4 weeks, or nab-PTX+gem IV weekly for 3 out every 4 weeks. Pts will be stratified by geography, performance status and presence of liver metastases. Treatment will continue until disease progression, death, intolerability or patient/investigator decision to stop. Primary endpoint is overall survival (OS) in the general study population (HR 0.80 for OS improvement from 8.5 to 10.63 months); secondary endpoints include progression free survival (PFS), OS and PFS in the biomarker positive sub-population, ORR and DCR, safety and quality of life. In addition, blood and tumor archival tissue will be assessed for pharmacokinetic and biomarker analyses. Global enrollment is underway. Clinical trial information: NCT02993731.

CanStem303C trial: A phase III study of napabucasin (BBI-608) in combination with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), leucovorin, irinotecan (FOLFIRI) in adult patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS3619-TPS3619 ◽  
Author(s):  
Axel Grothey ◽  
Manish A. Shah ◽  
Takayuki Yoshino ◽  
Eric Van Cutsem ◽  
Julien Taieb ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stem Cells ◽  
Cancer Stem Cells ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Tumor Location ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Study Population ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Line Of Therapy

TPS3619 Background: Cancer stem cells are considered to be fundamentally important for resistance to therapy, recurrence and metastasis. Napabucasin is a first-in-class cancer stemness inhibitor in development identified by its ability to inhibit STAT3-driven gene transcription and spherogenesis of cancer stem cells (Li et al, PNAS 112(6):1839, 2015). Preclinically, napabucasin sensitizes cancer cells to chemotherapeutics, including 5-FU and irinotecan. Encouraging anticancer activity in advanced CRC was observed in a phase Ib/II (Bendell et al, GI ASCO 2017) study of 63 pts with disease control rate (DCR) of 93% (28/30) and overall response rate (ORR) of 33% (10/30) in FOLFIRI-naïve pts who have had an on-study RECIST evaluation. On the basis of these data, a phase III trial is being conducted in North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia. Methods: This study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02753127) will assess the efficacy of napabucasin+FOLFIRI vs FOLFIRI in pts with mCRC (n = 1250). Addition of bevacizumab (bev) is permissible per investigator choice. Pts must have failed 1 prior line of therapy with oxaliplatin and a fluoropyrimidine +/- bev for metastatic disease. Pts are randomized 1:1 to receive napabucasin 240 mg PO BID plus FOLFIRI bi-weekly, or FOLFIRI bi-weekly (bev may be added to FOLFIRI by investigator choice) and stratified by geography, time to progression on 1st-line therapy, RAS mutation status, bev as part of study treatment and primary tumor location. Treatment will continue until disease progression, or another discontinuation criterion. Primary endpoint is overall survival (OS) in the general study population (ITT) (HR 0.80 for OS improvement from 12.54 to 15.68 months); secondary endpoints include OS in the biomarker positive (biomarker+) population, progression free survival (PFS) in the ITT population, PFS in biomarker+ population, ORR and DCR in the ITT and in biomarker+ populations, safety and quality of life. Also, blood and tumor archival tissue will be assessed for PK and biomarker analyses. Global enrollment is underway. Clinical trial information: NCT02753127.

Nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) or NIVO plus chemotherapy (chemo) versus chemo as first-line (1L) treatment for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC): First results of the CheckMate 648 study.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA4001-LBA4001
Author(s):  
Ian Chau ◽  
Yuichiro Doki ◽  
Jaffer A. Ajani ◽  
Jianming Xu ◽  
Lucjan Wyrwicz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tumor Cell ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
First Results ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Previously Treated Patients

LBA4001 Background: NIVO demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) vs chemo in previously treated patients (pts) with ESCC (ATTRACTION-3). We report OS and progression-free survival (PFS) from CheckMate 648, the first global phase III study to evaluate both an immuno-oncology (I-O)/chemo combination and an I-O/I-O combination in advanced ESCC. Methods: Adults with previously untreated, unresectable advanced, recurrent or metastatic ESCC were enrolled regardless of tumor cell PD-L1 expression. Pts were randomized to NIVO (240 mg Q2W) + chemo (fluorouracil + cisplatin Q4W), NIVO (3 mg/kg Q2W) + IPI (1 mg/kg Q6W), or chemo alone. Primary endpoints for both comparisons were OS and PFS per blinded independent central review (BICR) in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1%. Hierarchically tested secondary endpoints included OS and PFS in all randomized pts. Results: 970 pts were randomized to NIVO + chemo, NIVO + IPI, and chemo arms (49% with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1%). With 13 months (mo) minimum follow-up, NIVO + chemo and NIVO + IPI led to statistically significant improvement in OS vs chemo in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1% and all randomized pts (Table). Statistically significant PFS benefit was also observed for NIVO + chemo vs chemo (HR 0.65 [98.5% CI 0.46–0.92]; P = 0.0023) in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1%. PFS in NIVO + IPI vs chemo in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1% did not meet the prespecified boundary for significance. The objective response rate (per BICR) was 53% (NIVO + chemo), 35% (NIVO + IPI), and 20% (chemo) in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1% and in all randomized pts was 47%, 28%, and 27%, respectively; longer median (95% CI) duration of response was observed vs chemo for pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1%: 8.4 (6.9–12.4), 11.8 (7.1–27.4), and 5.7 (4.4–8.7) mo and for all randomized pts: 8.2 (6.9–9.7), 11.1 (8.3–14.0), and 7.1 (5.7–8.2) mo, respectively. No new safety signals were identified (Table). Conclusions: NIVO plus chemo and NIVO plus IPI both demonstrated superior OS vs chemo, along with durable objective responses and acceptable safety, in pts with advanced ESCC, and each represents a potential new 1L treatment option. Clinical trial information: NCT03143153. [Table: see text]

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.

Final results from study 181: Randomized phase III study of FOLFIRI with or without panitumumab (pmab) for the treatment of second-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 387-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto F. Sobrero ◽  
Marc Peeters ◽  
Timothy Jay Price ◽  
Yevhen Hotko ◽  
Andres Cervantes-Ruiperez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Event Rates

387 Background: In the primary analysis of study 181, pmab+FOLFIRI significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs FOLFIRI as second-line therapy in patients (pts) with wild-type (WT) KRAS mCRC. Here, we report the results of a prespecified final descriptive analysis planned for 30 months (mos) after the last pt was enrolled. Methods: Pts were randomised 1:1 to pmab 6.0 mg/kg Q2W+FOLFIRI (Arm 1) vs FOLFIRI alone (Arm 2). Pts had one prior fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimen for mCRC and ECOG 0-2. The co-primary endpoints were PFS (central assessment) and OS, and were independently tested. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), and safety. KRAS status was determined by a blinded central lab. Results: 1,186 pts were randomised and received treatment (tx): 591 in Arm 1, 595 In Arm 2. 1,083/1,186 pts (91%) had KRAS results. Adverse event rates were consistent with the primary analysis. Results are shown in the table . Conclusions: In Arm 1, PFS (standard and on-treatment definition) and ORR were improved, and there was a trend toward improved OS in pts with WT KRAS mCRC. The large proportion of pts receiving post-progression anti-EGFR therapy may have affected the ability to observe a difference in OS between the tx arms. In pts with MT KRAS there was no difference in efficacy. KRAS testing is critical to select appropriate pts for tx with pmab. [Table: see text]

MetGastric: A randomized phase III study of onartuzumab (MetMAb) in combination with mFOLFOX6 in patients with metastatic HER2-negative and MET-positive adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS4155-TPS4155 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Cunningham ◽  
Yung-Jue Bang ◽  
Josep Tabernero ◽  
Manish A. Shah ◽  
Florian Lordick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastroesophageal Junction ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Resistance Mechanisms ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Disease Stage ◽  
Prognostic Features ◽  
Tumor Invasiveness ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Secondary Analyses ◽  
Phase Iii Study

TPS4155 Background: Dysregulation of the HGF/MET pathway in patients with gastroesophageal cancer (GEC) is associated with diminished survival and poor prognostic features, such as nodal and organ metastasis, disease stage and tumor invasiveness. Preclinical data suggest that inhibition of the HGF/MET axis may increase the anti-tumor properties of platinum agents by overcoming HGF-mediated resistance mechanisms. Overexpression and inappropriate activation of the MET pathway has been shown to promote peritoneal metastasis in murine models of GEC. Overexpression of HGF or MET has also been linked to metastatic spread to the liver and peritoneum in patients with GEC. Clinical studies suggest that antibody-based inhibitors of the HGF/MET pathway are active in GEC. Onartuzumab, a monovalent monoclonal antibody, specifically binds to the MET receptor preventing HGF binding thereby inhibiting signal transduction. The most commonly reported adverse events associated with onartuzumab are grade 1–3 peripheral edema, hypoalbuminemia and fatigue. Methods: MetGastric is a randomized placebo-controlled, international phase III study in patients with previously untreated metastatic GEC. Only patients with tumors classified as both HER2-negative and MET-positive (by IHC) are eligible. Patients will be randomized (1:1) to receive mFOLFOX6 plus onartuzumab or mFOLFOX6 plus placebo. A maximum of 12 cycles of mFOLFOX6 are permitted. Onartuzumab or placebo will be continued until disease progression. The primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, overall response rate, safety and correlative biomarker studies. Primary and secondary analyses will include all randomized patients, analyzed according to treatment arm assignment and MET IHC score. Safety will be assessed in all patients who receive at least one dose of study treatment. This study is open for accrual. Clinical trial information: NCT01662869.

Randomized phase III study of panitumumab (pmab) vs. cetuximab (cmab) in chemorefractory wild-type (WT) KRAS exon 2 metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Outcomes by hypomagnesemia (hypomag) in ASPECCT.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 705-705
Author(s):  
Timothy Jay Price ◽  
Marc Peeters ◽  
Tae Won Kim ◽  
Jin Li ◽  
Stefano Cascinu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Exon 2 ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Dose Modifications ◽  
Kras Exon

705 Background: ASPECCT met its primary endpoint of non-inferiority of overall survival (OS) of pmab vs. cmab. We evaluate outcomes by hypomag, an on-treatment, anti-EGFR related adverse event that develops due to the inhibition of EGFR function. Conflicting reports have suggested hypomag is associated with survival. Methods: Patients with previously treated WT KRAS exon 2 mCRC were randomized 1:1 to receive pmab or cmab. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of OS. Progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) were secondary endpoints. Patients were categorized ± any grade hypomag during the study and data analyzed by treatment arm. Analysis of Mg supplementation during hypomag was not conducted. Results: 999 patients were randomized and treated: 499 pmab, 500 cmab. Any grade hypomag was 28.8% and grade ≥3 was 7.3% in the pmab arm vs. 18.9% and 2.6% in the cmab arm, respectively. Median time to first hypomag onset was 82 days in the pmab arm and 57 days in the cmab arm. In the pmab arm, 1.0% of patients discontinued treatment and 5% of patients had dose modifications due to hypomag vs. <0.5% and 3% in the cmab arm, respectively. Results are shown (Table). Conclusions: In ASPECCT, rates of hypomag were higher in the pmab vs. the cmab arm. Patients who developed any grade hypomag with pmab or cmab had higher ORR, PFS, and OS compared with those patients who did not. Clinical trial information: NCT00788957. [Table: see text]

Randomized phase III study comparing FOLFOX + bevacizumab versus folfoxiri + bevacizumab (BEV) as 1st line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with ≥3 baseline circulating tumor cells (bCTCs).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3507-3507 ◽  
Author(s):  
Javier Sastre ◽  
Jose María Vieitez ◽  
Maria Auxilidora Gomez-España ◽  
Silvia Gil Calle ◽  
Antonieta Salud Salvia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Adequate Treatment ◽  
Poor Prognostic Factor ◽  
Efficacy Analysis ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Group A ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Group B

3507 Background: FOLFOXIRI+BEV has demonstrated a survival benefit compared with FOLFIRI plus BEV (TRIBE Lancet Oncol 2015) in first-line mCRC. Nevertheless, due to its safety profile, this schedule is not recommended for all pts. In addition, we have showed that the detection of ≥3 bCTCs is a poor prognostic factor for survival (MACRO The Oncologist 2012). The VISNU-1 trial compares FOLFOX + BEV vs FOLFOXIRI + BEV in pts with mCRC and ≥3 bCTCs. Progression-free survival (PFS) is the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). Methods: This is an open, multicentric, randomized phase III trial. Patients with mCRC younger than 70 years, ECOG 0-1 were randomized to FOLFOX+BEV (arm A) or FOLFOXIRI+BEV (arm B), stratified per KRAS mutation (mutated vs WT) and number of involved organs (1 vs >1). Results: 349 pts were included in the ITT population; 177 in group A and 172 in group B. Characteristics of the pts, molecular profiling and safety analysis have been previously presented at ASCO 2018 and showed that this schedule had an acceptable toxicity profile. Efficacy analysis in the ITT population is shown in the table. Conclusions: In this population with very bad prognosis, our study met its primary endpoint. Pts who received FOLFOXIRI + Bev benefit for a statistically significative PFS and ORR. OS showed a trend of benefit in the experimental arm. According to these results, FOLFOXIRI-Bev could be considered an adequate treatment option for pts with mCRC and ≥3 bCTCs. Clinical trial information: 2012-000846-37. [Table: see text]

Phase III study of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with enzalutamide (ENZA) or placebo (PBO) in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC): The ARCHES trial.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 687-687 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Armstrong ◽  
Russell Zelig Szmulewitz ◽  
Daniel Peter Petrylak ◽  
Arnauld Villers ◽  
Arun Azad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Grade 3

687 Background: ENZA, a potent androgen receptor inhibitor, has demonstrated benefit in men with metastatic and nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Efficacy of ENZA with ADT in men with mHSPC is unknown. Methods: ARCHES is a multinational, double-blind, phase 3 study (NCT02677896). Patients (pts) with mHSPC were randomized 1:1 to ENZA (160 mg/day) + ADT or PBO + ADT, stratified by disease volume (CHAARTED criteria) and prior docetaxel therapy. Primary endpoint was radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) assessed centrally or death within 24 weeks of treatment discontinuation. Secondary endpoints included time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, PSA and radiographic responses and overall survival (OS). Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results: 1150 men were randomized to ENZA (n=574) or PBO (n=576); baseline characteristics were balanced between groups. Overall, 67% had distant metastasis at initial diagnosis; 63% had high volume disease, 18% had prior docetaxel. Median follow-up was 14.4 mo. ENZA + ADT significantly improved rPFS (Table); similar significant improvements in rPFS were reported in prespecified subgroups of disease volume, pattern of spread, region and prior docetaxel (HRs 0.24–0.53). Secondary endpoints improved with ENZA + ADT (Table); OS data are immature. Grade 3–4 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 23.6% of ENZA pts vs 24.7% of PBO pts with no unexpected AEs. Conclusions: ENZA + ADT significantly improved rPFS and other efficacy endpoints vs PBO + ADT in men with mHSPC, with a preliminary safety analysis that appears consistent with the safety profile of ENZA in previous CRPC clinical trials. Acknowledgements: Medical writing and editing assistance was provided by Stephanie Rippon, MBio, and Lauren Smith from Complete HealthVizion, funded by the study sponsors. This study was funded by Astellas Pharma Inc. and Medivation LLC, a Pfizer Company, the co-developers of enzalutamide. Clinical trial information: NCT02677896. [Table: see text]

A phase III study comparing amrubicin and cisplatin (AP) with irinotecan and cisplatin (IP) for the treatment of extended-stage small cell lung cancer (ED-SCLC): JCOG0509.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7003-7003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshikazu Kotani ◽  
Miyako Satouchi ◽  
Masahiko Ando ◽  
Kazuhiko Nakagawa ◽  
Nobuyuki Yamamoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Standard Treatment ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Severe Diarrhea ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
To Receive

7003 Background: IP is the standard treatment for ED-SCLC, however often cause severe diarrhea. AP have shown promising activity in SCLC with fewer diarrhea. We conducted a phase III trial comparing AP with IP. Methods: Eligibility criteria included patients (pts) with chemotherapy-naïve, ED-SCLC, aged 20 to 70, and ECOG PS 0-1. Pts were randomized to receive either IP or AP, balancing for site, sex, and PS. IP comprised administration of I (60 mg/m2) iv on days 1, 8, and 15, and P (60 mg/m2) iv on day1,every 4 weeks. AP comprised administration of A (40 mg/m2) iv on day 1-3, and P (60 mg/m2) iv on day1, every 3 weeks. The planned sample size was 141 pts in each arm with a one-sided alpha of 5% and power of 70% and a non-inferiority margin of hazard ratio (HR) as 1.31. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), and quality of life (QOL). We evaluated pts’ QOL twice: at the baseline and after completion of the second course. Results: 284 pts were randomized to IP (n=142) and AP (n=142). Median age was 63, 84% were male, and 56% had PS 0. When 191pts enrolled, more febrile neutropenia (FN) was observed in AP than anticipated, and the initial dose of A was decreased from 40 mg/m2 to 35 mg/m2. At the second interim analysis conducted after the completion of patient accrual, the median OS of AP (15.0 m) was much worse than that of IP (18.3 m) and the HR (1.41; 96.3% CI, 1.03-1.93) exceeds even the non-inferiority margin, so the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee recommended early publication of the results. Median PFS was 5.7 (IP) vs. 5.2 months (AP) (HR 1.43, 95% CI, 1.13-1.82). RR was 69.5% (IP) vs. 77.9% (AP) (p=0.14). AEs in IP and AP arm were Grade 4 neutropenia (22.5% vs. 78.6%), G3-4 FN (10.7% vs. 32.1%), and G3-4 diarrhea (7.1% vs.1.4%). Proportion of improvement in physical status of QOL was 37.1%(IP) vs. 31.7%(AP), (odds ratio 0.72; 95%CI, 0.43-1.22; P=0.227). Conclusions: AP showed more bone marrow suppression than expected although it caused less diarrhea. The non-inferiority of AP to IP was not demonstrated and IP remains the standard treatment for ED-SCLC.

Phase III study of lapatinib (L) plus trastuzumab (T) and aromatase inhibitor (AI) vs T+AI vs L+AI in postmenopausal women (PMW) with HER2+, HR+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC): ALTERNATIVE.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1004-1004 ◽  
Author(s):  
William John Gradishar ◽  
Roberto Hegg ◽  
Seock-Ah Im ◽  
In Hae Park ◽  
Sergei Tjulandin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Clinical Trial Information

1004 Background: Combination ofHER2-targeted therapy+AI improved clinical benefit in patients (pts) with HER2+, HR+ MBC vs AI alone in two previous trials, median progression free survival (mPFS) 4.8 vs 2.4 mo (TAnDEM), and 8.2 vs 3.0 mo (EGF30008). Dual HER2 blockade enhances clinical benefit vs single HER2 blockade. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of dual vs single HER2 blockade (L+T vs T/L)+AI in HER2+, HR+ MBC progressing on (neo)adjuvant/first-line T+chemotherapy (CT). HER2 and HR status were assessed for eligibility at local lab. Methods: PMW were randomized 1:1:1 to receive T (8mg/kg followed by 6mg/kg IV Q3W)+L (1000mg/d)+AI or T+AI or L (1500mg/d)+AI. AI was per investigator’s choice. Pts were excluded if they were intended for CT. The primary endpoint was to assess superiority of PFS with L+T vs T. Secondary endpoints included PFS (L vs T), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and safety. Results: 369 pts were enrolled; current analysis included 355 pts (data cutoff, March 11, 2016); L+T (n = 120), T (n = 117) or L (n = 118). Final PFS data were analyzed after 137 events. Baseline characteristics were balanced across all treatment (tx) arms. The primary endpoint was met; superior PFS was observed with L+T vs T (mPFS, 11 vs 5.7 mo; HR = 0.62, 95% CI [0.45, 0.88], P= 0.0064). This benefit of L+T was consistent in key subgroups. mPFS with L vs T was 8.3 vs 5.7 mo (HR = 0.71, 95% CI [0.51, 0.98], P= 0.0361). ORR with L+T, T, and L was 32%, 14%, and 19% respectively. OS data are immature. Most common adverse events (AEs) with L+T, T and L (≥15%, any arm) were diarrhea (69%, 9%, 51%), rash (36%, 2%, 28%), nausea (22%, 9%, 22%), and paronychia (30%, 0, 15%). Hepatic abnormalities of > 3 ULN ALT/AST levels were noted in 4%, 6%, and 16% respectively. Incidence of tx-related SAEs was 5%, 2%, and 4% and on-tx deaths was 3%, 4%, and 5%, respectively. Conclusions: Dual HER2 blockade with L+T+AI showed superior PFS benefit vs T+AI, in pts with HER2+, HR+ MBC. Incidence of AEs was increased with L+T. This combination can potentially offer an effective CT-sparing tx option in subgroup of HER2+, HR+ pts without aggressive disease and who are not candidates for CT. Clinical trial information: 2010-019577-16.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document