Tivo-3: A phase 3, randomized, controlled, multi-center, open-label study to compare tivozanib hydrochloride to sorafenib in subjects with refractory advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS4600-TPS4600 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian I. Rini ◽  
Michael B. Atkins ◽  
Bernard J. Escudier ◽  
Thomas E. Hutson ◽  
Piotr Koralewski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Tyrosine Kinase ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Negative Trend ◽  
Risk Category ◽  
Vegf Receptor ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Randomized Controlled

TPS4600 Background: Tivozanib is a biochemically potent and selective VEGF tyrosine kinase inhibitor in clinical development in RCC. Other agents used for treatment of RCC inhibit multiple tyrosine kinases in addition to the VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase, leading to off-target toxicities such as fatigue, hand-foot syndrome, stomatitis, and neutropenia. The adverse event (AE) profile of tivozanib demonstrates minimal off-target toxicities. TIVO-1 (AV-951-09-301) was an open-label, randomized, controlled, multi-national, multi-center, parallel-arm trial comparing tivozanib to sorafenib in patients with advanced RCC. The blinded independent radiological assessment showed the median progression free survival (mPFS) in the tivozanib arm to be 11.9 months (95% confidence interval (CI) [9.3, 14.7]), compared with 9.1 months (95% CI [7.3, 9.5]) in the sorafenib arm (p = 0.042, HR = 0.797). Overall survival had a negative trend, most likely due to a one-way crossover for patients randomized to sorafenib. This study is designed, in part, to demonstrate that the negative trend in OS was an artifact. Methods: Subjects with metastatic RCC who have failed 2 or 3 prior systemic regimens, one of which includes a VEGFR TKI other than sorafenib or tivozanib, will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio stratified by the IMDC risk category (favorable; intermediate; poor) and prior therapy (two VEGFR TKIs; a prior checkpoint inhibitor plus a prior VEGFR TKI; a prior VEGFR TKI plus any other systemic agent). The primary objective is to compare the progression-free survival (PFS) of subjects randomized to tivozanib with those randomized to sorafenib as assessed by blinded independent radiological review (IRR). Secondary endpoints are overall survival, objective response rate, and duration of response. Clinical trial information: NCT02627963.

Bevacizumab Alone and in Combination With Irinotecan in Recurrent Glioblastoma

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (28) ◽  
pp. 4733-4740 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry S. Friedman ◽  
Michael D. Prados ◽  
Patrick Y. Wen ◽  
Tom Mikkelsen ◽  
David Schiff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Recurrent Glioblastoma ◽  
Survival Times ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Noncomparative Trial ◽  
End Points ◽  
Free Survival

Purpose We evaluated the efficacy of bevacizumab, alone and in combination with irinotecan, in patients with recurrent glioblastoma in a phase II, multicenter, open-label, noncomparative trial. Patients and Methods One hundred sixty-seven patients were randomly assigned to receive bevacizumab 10 mg/kg alone or in combination with irinotecan 340 mg/m2 or 125 mg/m2 (with or without concomitant enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs, respectively) once every 2 weeks. Primary end points were 6-month progression-free survival and objective response rate, as determined by independent radiology review. Secondary end points included safety and overall survival. Results In the bevacizumab-alone and the bevacizumab-plus-irinotecan groups, estimated 6-month progression-free survival rates were 42.6% and 50.3%, respectively; objective response rates were 28.2% and 37.8%, respectively; and median overall survival times were 9.2 months and 8.7 months, respectively. There was a trend for patients who were taking corticosteroids at baseline to take stable or decreasing doses over time. Of the patients treated with bevacizumab alone or bevacizumab plus irinotecan, 46.4% and 65.8%, respectively, experienced grade ≥ 3 adverse events, the most common of which were hypertension (8.3%) and convulsion (6.0%) in the bevacizumab-alone group and convulsion (13.9%), neutropenia (8.9%), and fatigue (8.9%) in the bevacizumab-plus-irinotecan group. Intracranial hemorrhage was noted in two patients (2.4%) in the bevacizumab-alone group (grade 1) and in three patients (3.8%) patients in the bevacizumab-plus-irinotecan group (grades 1, 2, and 4, respectively). Conclusion Bevacizumab, alone or in combination with irinotecan, was well tolerated and active in recurrent glioblastoma.

scholarly journals Augmenting the randomized controlled trial with real-world data to aid clinical decision making in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (34) ◽  
pp. 3987-4001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Moran ◽  
Dana Nickens ◽  
Katherine Adcock ◽  
Meg Bennetts ◽  
Natalie Charnley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Median Overall Survival ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Median Progression Free Survival ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Aim: To evaluate how efficacy outcomes from real-world data (RWD) can support those from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in the context of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Patients & methods: PubMed, Ovid, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for RCTs and RWD studies with ≥50 adult patients per arm published in 2000–2017. Outcome measures were median progression-free survival, median overall survival and objective response rate. Results: A total of 13 RCTs and 22 RWD studies met eligibility criteria; 31, 28 and 25 studies, respectively, reported median progression-free survival, median overall survival and objective response rate. Summary outcome measures were similar in RWD and RCTs. Conclusion: RWD validates efficacy-based outcomes from RCTs and may provide supportive evidence to inform clinical decisions.

scholarly journals Phase 3, randomized, open-label study of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib versus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: ENGOT-en9/LEAP-001

2021 ◽  
pp. ijgc-2021-003017
Author(s):  
Christian Marth ◽  
Rafal Tarnawski ◽  
Alexandra Tyulyandina ◽  
Sandro Pignata ◽  
Lucy Gilbert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Endometrial Cancer ◽  
Mismatch Repair ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Recurrent Endometrial Cancer

BackgroundPembrolizumab plus lenvatinib is a novel combination with promising efficacy in patients with advanced and recurrent endometrial cancer. This combination demonstrated high objective response rates in a single-arm phase 1b/2 trial of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced endometrial cancer (KEYNOTE-146/Study 111) after ≤2 previous lines of therapy. In a randomized phase 3 trial of lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab versus treatment of physician's choice in patients with advanced endometrial cancer (KEYNOTE-775/Study 309), after 1‒2 previous lines of therapy (including neoadjuvant/adjuvant), this combination improved objective response rates, progression-free survival, and overall survival compared with chemotherapy.Primary ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of first-line pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin in patients with newly diagnosed stage III/IV or recurrent endometrial cancer, with measurable or radiographically apparent disease.Study HypothesisPembrolizumab plus lenvatinib is superior to chemotherapy with respect to progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with mismatch repair-proficient tumors and all patients (all-comers).Trial DesignPhase 3, randomized (1:1), open-label, active-controlled trial. Patients will receive pembrolizumab intravenously every 3 weeks plus lenvatinib orally daily or paclitaxel plus carboplatin intravenously every 3 weeks, stratified by mismatch repair status (proficient vs deficient). Patients with mismatch repair-proficient tumors will be further stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0/1), measurable disease (yes/no), and prior chemotherapy and/or chemoradiation (yes/no).Major Inclusion/Exclusion CriteriaAdults with stage III/IV/recurrent histologically confirmed endometrial cancer that is measurable or radiographically apparent per blinded independent central review. Patients may have received previous chemotherapy only as neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapy and/or concurrently with radiation. Patients with carcinosarcoma (malignant mixed Müllerian tumor), endometrial leiomyosarcoma, or other high grade sarcomas, or endometrial stromal sarcomas were excluded.Primary EndpointsProgression-free and overall survival (dual primary endpoints).Sample SizeAbout 875 patients.Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting ResultsEnrollment is expected to take approximately 24 months, with presentation of results in 2022.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03884101.

scholarly journals Efficacy of Vemurafenib in Patients With Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer With BRAF V600 Mutation: An Open-Label, Single-Arm Cohort of the Histology-Independent VE-BASKET Study

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivek Subbiah ◽  
Radj Gervais ◽  
Gregory Riely ◽  
Antoine Hollebecque ◽  
Jean-Yves Blay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Safety Profile ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Free Survival

PURPOSE To study whether BRAF V600 mutations in non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) may indicate sensitivity to the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib, we included a cohort of patients with NSCLC in the vemurafenib basket (VE-BASKET) study. On the basis of observed early clinical activity, we expanded the cohort of patients with NSCLC. We present results from this cohort. METHODS This open-label, histology-independent, phase II study included six prespecified cohorts, including patients with NSCLC, and a seventh all-comers cohort. Patients received vemurafenib (960 mg two times per day) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point of the final analysis was objective response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1). Secondary end points included progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. Because the prespecified clinical benefit endpoint was met in the initial NSCLC cohort, the cohort was expanded. RESULTS Sixty-two patients with BRAF V600–mutant NSCLC were enrolled and treated: 13% (n = 8) had received no prior systemic therapy, and 87% (n = 54) had received prior therapies. The objective response rate was 37.1% (95% CI, 25.2% to 50.3%) overall, 37.5% (95% CI, 8.5% to 75.5%) in previously untreated patients, and 37.0% (24.3% to 51.3%) in previously treated patients. Median progression-free survival was 6.5 months (95% CI, 5.2 to 9.0 months), and median overall survival was 15.4 months (95% CI, 9.6 to 22.8 months). The most common all-grade adverse event was nausea (40%). The safety profile of vemurafenib was similar to that observed in melanoma studies. CONCLUSION Vemurafenib showed promising activity in patients with NSCLC harboring BRAF V600 mutations. The safety profile of vemurafenib was similar to previous observations in patients with melanoma. Our results suggest a role for single-agent BRAF inhibition in patients with NSCLC and BRAF V600 mutations.

scholarly journals Evaluation of efficacy and toxicity of nivolumab combined with or without docetaxel in patients with advanced NSCLC

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yang Wang ◽  
Jun Nie ◽  
Ling Dai ◽  
Weiheng Hu ◽  
Jie Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Meaningful Improvement ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Doublet Chemotherapy ◽  
Platinum Doublet

Abstract Background The combination of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor and chemotherapy has been clinically confirmed to be beneficial as the first-line treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC. This study aimed to assess the effect of nivolumab + docetaxel versus nivolumab monotherapy in patients with NSCLC after the failure of platinum doublet chemotherapy. Materials and methods The efficacy and toxicity of nivolumab + docetaxel combination therapy versus nivolumab monotherapy were compared in this retrospective study. Primary endpoint of the study was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Results Between November 2017 and December 2019, 77 patients were included in this study, with 58 patients in the nivolumab group and 19 in the nivolumab + docetaxel group. The median follow-up was 18 months, and the PFS was 8 months for patients receiving nivolumab + docetaxel and 2 months for those receiving nivolumab alone (p = 0.001), respectively. Nivolumab + docetaxel showed superior OS compared with nivolumab, with the median OS unreached versus 7 months (p = 0.011). Among patients without EGFR/ALK variation, compared to nivolumab monotherapy, nivolumab + docetaxel showed better PFS (p = 0.04) and OS (p  = 0.05). There was no significant difference in grade 3–4 adverse events (AEs) between the two groups (p = 0.253). Conclusions The combination of nivolumab and docetaxel demonstrated a meaningful improvement in progression-free survival and overall survival compared to nivolumab monotherapy, in patients with NSCLC after the failure of platinum doublet chemotherapy, irrespective of EGFR/ALK variation status.

TIVO-3: Tivozanib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) who have progressed after treatment with axitinib.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 278-278
Author(s):  
Brian I. Rini ◽  
Sumanta K. Pal ◽  
Bernard Escudier ◽  
Michael B. Atkins ◽  
Thomas E. Hutson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Risk Category ◽  
Vegf Receptor ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Prior Therapy ◽  
Third Line ◽  
Line Setting ◽  
Clinical Trial Information

278 Background: Tivozanib (T) is a potent and highly selective VEGF receptor (R) tyrosine kinase inhibitor in clinical development for RCC. Axitinib is also a potent and selective VEGF-R inhibitor now commonly part of front-line aRCC treatment. The activity of T after axitinib has not been previously defined. The activity of T after prior therapy types including axitinib is of clinical relevance. Methods: The pivotal TIVO-3 study enrolled subjects with mRCC who failed 2 or 3 prior systemic regimens, one of which included a VEGFR TKI, stratified by IMDC risk category and type of prior therapy (two TKIs; TKI plus checkpoint; TKI + other) then randomized in a 1:1 ratio to T or S. The primary objective of the overall trial was to compare progression free survival (PFS) by blinded independent radiological review. Patients with prior axitinib received as monotherapy in the second or third line setting and other predefined subgroups were reviewed for outcome with T. Results: Patients treated with T after prior axitinib had a PFS of 5.5 months and an ORR of 13% compared to 3.7 months and 8% for patients treated with S. Other subgroups are presented in the table below. Clinical trial information: NCT02627963 . Conclusions: Tivozanib improved PFS vs. sorafenib in patients who have progressed after multiple VEGFR-TKIs, including patients with prior second or third line axitinib treatment. These results suggest differential activity from tivozanib and axitinib despite both being potent and selective VEGF-R inhibitors. [Table: see text]

A Phase 2, Randomized, Open-Label Study of Irosustat Versus Megestrol Acetate in Advanced Endometrial Cancer

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 258-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Pautier ◽  
Ignace Vergote ◽  
Florence Joly ◽  
Bohuslav Melichar ◽  
Elzbieta Kutarska ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Endometrial Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Megestrol Acetate ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Recurrent Endometrial Cancer

ObjectiveAdvanced/metastatic or recurrent endometrial cancer has a poor prognosis. Malignant endometrial tissue has high steroid sulphatase (STS) activity. The aim of this study was to evaluate STS as a therapeutic target in patients with endometrial cancer.MethodsThis was a phase 2, multicenter, international, open-label, randomized (1:1), 2-arm study of the STS inhibitor oral irosustat 40 mg/d versus oral megestrol acetate 160 mg/d in women with advanced/metastatic or recurrent estrogen receptor–positive endometrial cancer. The primary end point was the proportion of patients without progression or death 6 months after start of treatment. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, time to progression, overall survival, and safety.ResultsSeventy-one patients were treated (36 with irosustat, 35 with megestrol acetate). The study was prematurely stopped after futility analysis. Overall, 36.1% and 54.1% of patients receiving irosustat or megestrol acetate had not progressed or died at 6 months, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between irosustat and megestrol acetate in response and overall survival rates. Irosustat patients had a median progression-free survival of 16 weeks (90% confidence interval, 9.0–31.4) versus 40 weeks (90% confidence interval, 16.3–64.0) in megestrol acetate patients. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 20 (55.6%) and 13 (37.1%) patients receiving irosustat or megestrol, respectively. Most adverse events in both groups were grade 1 or 2.ConclusionsAlthough irosustat monotherapy did not attain a level of activity sufficient for further development in patients with advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer, this study confirms the activity of hormonal treatment (megestrol acetate) for this indication.

Effects of adding necitumumab to first-line chemotherapy in patients with stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer: Meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 1331-1342
Author(s):  
Irena Ilic ◽  
Sandra Sipetic ◽  
Jovan Grujicic ◽  
Milena Ilic
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Objective Response Rate ◽  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival

Introduction Almost half of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are diagnosed at an advanced stage. Our aim was to assess the effects of adding necitumumab to chemotherapy in patients with stage IV NSCLC. Material and methods A comprehensive literature search was performed according to pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data on overall survival, progression-free survival, objective response rate and adverse events were extracted. A meta-analysis was performed to obtain pooled hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for time-to-event data and pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. Results The meta-analysis included four randomized clinical trials with 2074 patients. The pooled results showed significant improvement for overall survival (HR = 0.87 (95% CI 0.79–0.95), p = 0.004) when necitumumab was added to chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC. No statistically significant improvement was noted for progression-free survival and objective response rate (HR = 0.83 (95% CI 0.69–1.01), p = 0.06 and OR = 1.46 (95% CI 0.90–2.38), p = 0.13, respectively). Subgroup analysis showed that in patients with non-squamous NSCLC, there was no benefit in overall survival and objective response rate. Patients with advanced NSCLC who received necitumumab were at the highest odds of developing a skin rash (OR = 14.50 (95% CI 3.16–66.43), p = 0.0006) and hypomagnesaemia (OR = 2.77 (95% CI 2.23–3.45), p < 0.00001), while the OR for any grade ≥3 adverse event was 1.55 (95% CI 1.28–1.87, p < 0.00001). Conclusions The addition of necitumumab to standard chemotherapy in a first-line setting in patients with stage IV NSCLC results in a statistically significant improvement in overall survival, while the results were not significant for progression-free survival and objective response rate.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document