Results of a randomized phase II trial of an anti-notch 2/3, tarextumab (OMP-59R5, TRXT, anti-Notch2/3), in combination with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine (Nab-P+Gem) in patients (pts) with untreated metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 279-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eileen Mary O'Reilly ◽  
Vaibhav Sahai ◽  
Johanna C. Bendell ◽  
Andrea J. Bullock ◽  
Noelle K. LoConte ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gene Expression ◽  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Tumor Regression ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Notch 3 ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Igg2 Antibody

279 Background: Tarextumab (TRXT), fully human IgG2 antibody inhibits signaling of Notch2/ 3 receptors. Tumor regression seen in Notch3 (N3) expressing pt-derived pancreatic cancer xenografts when TRXT combined with Nab-P+Gem. Phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted to evaluate efficacy, safety of combination in mPC. Methods: Pts randomized 1:1 to TRXT or placebo (PL). TRXT given IV at 15 mg/kg q 2wks (D 1, 15), nab-P 125 mg/m2, GEM 1000mg/m2 on D1, 8, 15 q 28 days. Tissue for N3 gene expression determination was required. Primary endpoints: overall survival (OS) in all and in 3 subgroups determined by Notch 3 gene expression. Secondary: safety, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR). Results: N = 177 pts randomized. Performance status (0 or 1), CA19-9 stratum (0 – ULN, > ULN – 59ULN, ≥ 59ULN) balanced. Clinical trial information: NCT01647828. .  Conclusions: Addition of TRXT to Nab-P+Gem did not improve OS in 1st line mPC. A potential detrimental effect on PFS and ORR was seen in subjects with N3 < 25%ile.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals Real-world comparative effectiveness of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus FOLFIRINOX in advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 175883591985036 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Gabriela Chiorean ◽  
Winson Y. Cheung ◽  
Guido Giordano ◽  
George Kim ◽  
Salah-Eddin Al-Batran
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Real World ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
First Line ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Grade 3

Background: No clinical trial has directly compared nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (nab-P/G) with FOLFIRINOX (fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin/irinotecan) in metastatic or advanced pancreatic cancer (mPC or aPC). We conducted a systematic review of real-world studies comparing these regimens in the first-line setting. Methods: Embase and MEDLINE databases through 22 January 2019, and Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2019 abstracts were searched for real-world, retrospective studies comparing first-line nab-P/G versus FOLFIRINOX in mPC or aPC that met specific parameters. Studies with radiotherapy were excluded. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results: Of 818 records initially identified, 35 were duplicates and 749 did not meet the eligibility criteria, mostly because they were either not comparative ( n = 356) or not first line ( n = 245). The remaining 34 studies (21 mPC; 13 aPC) assessed >6915 patients who received nab-P/G or FOLFIRINOX. In the studies identified, the median overall survival (OS) reached 14.4 and 15.9 months with nab-P/G and FOLFIRINOX, respectively, and median progression-free survival reached 8.5 and 11.7 months, respectively. Safety data were reported in 14 studies (2205 patients), including 8 single-institutional studies. In most single-institutional studies that reported safety data, rates were higher with FOLFIRINOX versus nab-P/G for grade 3/4 neutropenia (five of six studies) and febrile neutropenia (all three studies), while rates of grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy were higher with nab-P/G in four of seven studies. Conclusions: Although FOLFIRINOX was associated with slightly longer median OS in more studies, the differences, when available, were not statistically significant. Therefore, a randomized, controlled trial is warranted. Toxicity profile differences represent key considerations for treatment decisions.

Randomized phase II study of modified FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel combination therapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (JCOG1407).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4017-4017
Author(s):  
Masato Ozaka ◽  
Makoto Ueno ◽  
Hiroshi Ishii ◽  
Junki Mizusawa ◽  
Hiroshi Katayama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii

4017 Background: FOLFIRINOX, consisting of leucovorin (LV), fluorouracil (FU), irinotecan (IRI) and oxaliplatin (L-OHP), and GnP, consisting of gemcitabine (GEM) plus nab-paclitaxel (nPTX), have shown superior efficacy over GEM in patients (pts) with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Although several studies have reported the efficacy of FOLFIRINOX or GnP for pts with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), no randomized controlled trial to compare the two regimens has been conducted in those pts. To select the most promising chemotherapy for LAPC, a randomized phase II selection design trial (JCOG1407) was conducted to compare between modified FOLFIRINOX (FOLFIRINOX with dose reduction of IRI and without bolus FU; Arm A) and GnP (Arm B) for pts with LAPC. Methods: In Arm A, 85 mg/m2 of L-OHP, 200 mg/m2 of l-LV, 150 mg/m2 of IRI, followed by 2,400 mg/m2 of continuous FU over 46 hours are infused every 2 weeks. In Arm B, 125 mg/m2 of nPTX followed by 1,000 mg/m2 of GEM are infused on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival (the proportion of 1-year OS), and secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), distant metastasis-free survival (MFS) and response rate in pts with target lesions. The planned sample size was 124 pts to select more effective regimen in 1-year OS with a probability of at least 0.85 and to test the null hypothesis of 53% in 1-year OS with a one-sided alpha of 5% and 80% Results: From 2015 to 2019, a total of 126 pts was enrolled from 29 Japanese institutions, and were allocated to Arm A (n = 62) or Arm B (n = 64). The median (range) age was 66 (44-75) years and 58.7% were male. At the analysis, after a median (range) follow-up of 1.52 (0.55-3.99) years, 75 (59.5%) pts died. The proportion of 1-year OS was better in Arm B, 77.4% [95% CI 64.9–86.0] vs. 82.5% [95% CI 70.7–89.9], but 2-year OS was better in Arm A, 48.2% [95% CI 33.3–61.7] vs. 39.7% [95% CI 28.6–52.5]. Median OS was 2.0 years [95% CI 1.6-2.7] in Arm A and 1.8 years [95% CI 1.5-2.0] in Arm B. 1-year PFS for Arm A/B was 47.5 % [95% CI 34.5-59.4]/40.2% [95% CI 27.8-52.3], and 1-year MFS was 64.2 % [95% CI 50.9-74.8]/57.3% [95% CI 43.9-68.6]. Arm A was better OS in pts with CA19-9 <1000 U/mL and the opposite trend was observed in pts with CA19-9>1000 U/mL. Response rate was 30.9% [95% CI 19.1-44.8] in Arm A, and 41.4% [95% CI 28.6-55.1]) in Arm B. Incidences of grade 3-4 non-hematological toxicities for Arm A and Arm B were 66.1% and 67.2%, respectively. There was no treatment-related death. Conclusions: This study was the first randomized trial comparing the two regimens. The 1-year OS of the primary endpoint in GnP was better than mFOLFIRINOX, but mFOLFIRINOX achieved longer survival in 2-year OS. It is required to confirm longer OS and safety profiles which regimen should be selected as a standard regimen in LAPC. Clinical trial information: jRCTs031180085.

scholarly journals Attenuated regimen of biweekly gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in patients aged 65 years or older with advanced pancreatic cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 175628482097491
Author(s):  
Hasan Rehman ◽  
Jeffrey Chi ◽  
Nausheen Hakim ◽  
Shreya Prasad Goyal ◽  
Coral Olazagasti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Poor Performance Status ◽  
Weekly Schedule ◽  
Dose Reductions

Background: Treatment with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel confers a survival benefit over gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). However, such treatment can be associated with significant toxicities especially in older patients and carries practical disadvantages related to a weekly schedule along with financial cost. We retrospectively analyzed patients >65 years of age with APC who received a modified biweekly regimen of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel to evaluate efficacy and toxicity. Methods: Patients aged >65 years with chemo-naïve APC with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ⩽2 were studied. Patients were treated with a modified regimen of gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 and nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 every 2 weeks on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Patients were evaluated for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with analyses performed using the Kaplan–Meier method. Adverse events were recorded on the day of chemotherapy. Cancer antigen 19.9 was measured in every cycle and restaging scans were performed every two cycles. Results: A total of 73 patients (median age: 73 years; range: 66–93) were treated with biweekly gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel as first-line treatment. The median OS and PFS were 9.1 months and 4.8 months, respectively. Around 66% of patients received growth-factor support based on American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines and no patient developed neutropenic fever. The incidences of grade ⩾3 toxicity for neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neurotoxicity were 2%, 7%, 3%, and 5%, respectively. Dose reductions of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel were required in 10% and 4% patients, respectively. Conclusion: In patients older than >65 years of age with APC, a modified regimen of biweekly gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel was found to be effective when compared with the historical control from the MPACT study. This regimen allowed for fewer dose reductions, reduced healthcare costs from additional appointments, travel-related cost, as well as a favorable side-effect profile while maintaining efficacy. Though retrospective in nature, this study underlines the need for further investigation, particularly in elderly patients with poor performance status, such as those with pancreatic cancer, and in order to combine with a third agent, such as a targeted treatment or immunotherapy.

A randomized phase II trial of weekly docetaxel plus either cisplatin or oxaliplatin in patients with previously untreated advanced gastric cancer: Preliminary results

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4566-4566
Author(s):  
S. Sym ◽  
S. Park ◽  
J. Park ◽  
K. Kwon ◽  
I. Jung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Tolerability Profile ◽  
Preliminary Results ◽  
Weekly Docetaxel ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Significant Difference

4566 Background: Docetaxel, in combination with cisplatin or oxaliplatin, has demonstrated efficacy against AGC. This randomized phase II trial evaluated two weekly docetaxel-based regimens to see which would be most promising according to objective response rate (ORR) as first-line therapy in AGC. Methods: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with measurable unresectable and/or metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma and a performance status ≤2 were randomly assigned to receive docetaxel (35 mg/m2) weekly on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle plus either cisplatin (60 mg/m2 on day 1) (arm A) or oxaliplatin (120 mg/m2 on day 1) (arm B). Toxicity was assessed on days 1, 8, and 21 of each cycle, and response was evaluated every 2 cycles. Results: Between March 2007 and December 2008, 61 eligible patients entered. In Arm A, 29 patients were evaluable for objective response and 31 for safety. In Arm B, 28 patients were evaluable for objective response and 30 for safety. Median age was 52 years and disease status was comparable for both arms. Ten of 29 (34.5%) patients had a confirmed objective response in the arm A (95% confidence interval [CI] 17.1–51.8%) and 11 of 28 (39.2%) patients had a confirmed objective response in the arm B (95% CI 21.1- 57.2%). No significant difference was noted between the arms both for ORR (p=0.202) or for disease control (58.6% and 82.1%, respectively, p=0.082). Median progression free survival time was 4.4 month in the arm A and 4.3 months in the arm B (Hazard ratio = 0.936; 95% CI, 0.503–1.744; p = 0.836). There was no relevant difference in the occurrence of overall grade ¾ toxicity between the two arms (51.6% vs. 46.6%, respectively; p=0.800). Neutropenia was the most common grade 3/4 toxicity (32.3% vs. 36.6%, respectively). There was one treatment related death in Arm B. Conclusions: The preliminary results showed that both treatment arms have similar clinical efficacy as front-line treatment in AGC. Each regimen has a manageable tolerability profile. The accrual is ongoing. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Randomized phase III trial of regorafenib in patients (pts) with metastatic and/or unresectable gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) progressing despite prior treatment with at least imatinib (IM) and sunitinib (SU): GRID trial.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA10008-LBA10008 ◽  
Author(s):  
George D. Demetri ◽  
Peter Reichardt ◽  
Yoon-Koo Kang ◽  
Jean-Yves Blay ◽  
Heikki Joensuu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Multikinase Inhibitor

LBA10008 Background: Oral multikinase inhibitor regorafenib (REG) demonstrated substantial activity in a phase II trial in pts with GIST after failure of both IM and SU (J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29:606s; abstr 10007). This phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of REG for this unmet clinical need. Methods: Eligible pts had metastatic and/or unresectable GIST, objective failure of both prior IM and SU (progressive disease [PD] on, or intolerance to, IM and PD on SU), ≥1 measurable lesion, ECOG performance status 0 or 1. Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive best supportive care plus either REG 160 mg po once daily (3 wks on/1 wk off) or placebo (PL). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) (modified RECIST 1.1, independent central review). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR, defined as rate of partial response [PR] plus stable disease [SD] lasting for ≥12 wks), response rate and duration, safety and correlative genotype analyses. At time of PD, pts were eligible for unblinding and crossover to open-label REG. Results: Between Jan and Aug of 2011, 234 pts were screened; 199 were randomized (REG: 133, PL: 66). Pts were stratified at randomization according to number of prior systemic therapies and geographical region. Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two arms. The primary endpoint was met: median PFS was 4.8 months for REG vs. 0.9 months for PL. Hazard ratio for PFS was 0.27 (95% CI, 0.18-0.39), p<0.0001. PFS rates at 3 and 6 months were 60% and 38% for REG vs. 11% and 0% for PL. DCR was 53% (REG) vs. 9% (PL).The HR for OS was 0.77 (p=0.20) with 85% PL pts having crossed over to REG. The most common > grade 3 treatment-emergent AEs in the REG arm during double-blind study were hypertension (28%), hand-foot skin reaction (21%), and diarrhea (8%). Conclusions: This randomized trial demonstrated that REG significantly improved PFS and DCR in pts with advanced GIST after failure of at least prior IM and SU. REG was well tolerated, with AEs as expected for this class and manageable with dose modifications.

A randomized phase II study of bevacizumab versus bevacizumab plus lomustine versus lomustine single agent in recurrent glioblastoma: The Dutch BELOB study.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2001-2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter Taal ◽  
Hendrika M Oosterkamp ◽  
Annemiek M.E. Walenkamp ◽  
Laurens Victor Beerepoot ◽  
Monique Hanse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Combination Treatment ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Recurrent Glioblastoma ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Hematological Toxicity ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii

2001 Background: Bevacizumab (BEV) is widely used in recurrent glioblastoma, alone or in combination with other agents. There is however no well-controlled trial to support the use for this indication. Methods: In a three-arm Dutch multicenter randomized phase II study (NTR 1929) patients were assigned to either BEV 10 mg/kg iv every 2 weeks, BEV 10 mg/kg iv every 2 weeks and 110 mg/m2 lomustine every 6 weeks, or lomustine 110 mg/m2every 6 weeks. Eligible were patients with histologically proven glioblastoma, with a first recurrence after chemo-irradiation with temozolomide, having concluded radiotherapy more than 3 months ago, with adequate bone marrow, renal and hepatic function, and WHO performance status (PS) 0-2. Primary endpoint was 9 months overall survival (OS); P0 was set at 35% and P1 at 55%. Progression was defined using RANO criteria. A safety review after the first 10 patients in the combination arm was preplanned. Results: Between December 2009 and November 2011, 153 patients were enrolled of whom 148 were considered eligible. Median age was 57 years (range, 24-77) and median WHO PS was 1. With respect to prognostic factors groups were well balanced. After review of the safety cohort the dosage lomustine in the combination arm was lowered to 90 mg/m2 because of hematological toxicity (predominantly thrombocytopenia without symptoms). At this lower lomustine dose level the combination treatment was in general well tolerated. Outcome: see Table. Conclusions: In this first well-controlled study on BEV in recurrent glioblastoma with a primary OS endpoint, combination treatment with bevacizumab and lomustine met the prespecified criterion for further investigation in clinical trials, whereas both drugs given as single agent failed to meet this criterion. Clinical trial information: NTR1929. [Table: see text]

Randomized phase II study of pharmacodynamic separation (PDS) of pemetrexed (Pem) and erlotinib (Erl) versus pem alone in patients (pts) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8097-8097 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tianhong Li ◽  
Bilal Piperdi ◽  
William Vincent Walsh ◽  
Mimi Kim ◽  
Rasim Gucalp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Dose Schedule ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Smoking History ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
P Value ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii

8097 Background: Preclinical and phase I studies showed that PDS optimizes cytotoxicity of concurrent EGFR inhibitors and chemotherapy. We conducted a randomized phase II trial to assess relative efficacy of Pem alone (Arm A) versus Pem +Erl on a PDS dose-schedule (Arm B) as 2nd-line therapy in pts with advanced NSCLC (NCT00950365). Methods: Eligible pts were randomized 2:1 (Arm B: A), stratified by sex, smoking history, and performance status (0/1 vs 2). Accrual was restricted to non-squamous histology in 2009. Treatment: Arm A – Pem 500 mg/m2IV on day 1; Arm B – Pem + Erl 150 mg po QD on days 2-17. 1 cycle = 3 weeks. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). 50 pts in Arm B were needed to detect an increase in median PFS from ~3 to 4.5 months. Results: 83 pts were entered. Age: 63 yo. Female: 42 (53%). Smoking ≥15PY: 58 (72%). Nonsquamous: 78 (99%). The primary endpoint of the study was met: Efficacy results from 79 eligible pts showed 1.6-fold longer PFS in Arm B (4.6 m) compared to Arm A (2.8 m). Although the study was not designed to directly compare two arms, p value was 0.052. Toxicity: G3/4 Hem (A/B): 8(30%)/12(23%); Neutropenia with infection (A/B): 0/3(6%). G3/4 Non-Hem (A/B): skin rash: 0/3(6%); diarrhea: 0/2(4%); joint pain: 1(4%)/6(11.5%). Treatment related death (A/B): 0/1. Interstitial lung disease (A/B): 0/1. Conclusions: PDS of Pem and Erl is well tolerated and has promising clinical activity in 2nd-line non-squamous NSCLC. Ongoing correlative studies aim to identify a subgroup of patients who might benefit most from this treatment, which will guide the design of a confirmatory phase III study. (UL1 RR024146, P30CA093373, Lilly, Astellas) Clinical trial information: NCT00950365. [Table: see text]

Randomized phase II study of best available fluoropyrimidine compared with continuation of gemcitabine (Gem) monotherapy in patients with Gem-refractory pancreatic cancer.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 287-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatsuya Ioka ◽  
Kazuhiro Katayama ◽  
Nobuko Ishida ◽  
Ryoji Takada ◽  
Takuo Yamai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Survival Time ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Standard Dose ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Standard Regimen ◽  
Radiographic Findings ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Clinical Trial Information

287 Background: Gem is a standard chemotherapy for unresectable pancreatic cancer (PC) patients (pts); however there is no standard regimen for Gem-refractory PC pts. We often continue to administer Gem for Gem-refractory PC pts because Gem is less toxic. The aim of this study is to elucidate the efficacy of second line treatment in PC. Methods: The pts who were treated with standard dose of Gem and diagnosed disease progression with radiographic findings were randomly allocated to arm A (to treat with best available fluoropyrimidine) or arm B (to continue to treat with standard dose of Gem). Each doctor could choose one of the available fluoropyrimidine (5FU, UFT and S-1) in arm A. Results: We collected 80 patients from Jan, 2004 to Sep, 2008 into this trial. 27 pts (67.5%) were treated with S-1, 8 pts (20%) with UFT and 5 pts (12.5%) with 5FU in arm A. Response Rate were 10% in arm A and 0% in arm B, respectively. Disease Control Rate were 50% and 17.5%, Progression Free Survival Time were 113 days and 50 days (p<0.1050) and Overall Survival Time were 226 days and 161 days (p<0.0384), respectively. Conclusions: Fluoropyrimidine statistically improve survival time in Gem-refractory PC pts, compared to continue Gem. Clinical trial information: UMIN000002154.

A randomized phase II trial comparing different schedules of nab-paclitaxel (nabP) combined with gemcitabine (GEM) as first line treatment for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPDAC).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4100-4100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippa Corrie ◽  
Wendi Qian ◽  
Bristi Basu ◽  
Juan W. Valle ◽  
Stephen Falk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cytidine Deaminase ◽  
Karnofsky Performance Status ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Pancreatic Head ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Age Range

4100 Background: NabP+GEM chemotherapy improves survival compared with GEM monotherapy as treatment for mPDAC. A PDAC mouse model suggested that nabP potentiates GEM activity by reducing cytidine deaminase levels and scheduling may be critical to optimise clinical benefit. Methods: Patients (pts) were randomised to receive standard concomitant (CON) nabP+GEM or sequential (SEQ) administration, with nabP given 24 hours before GEM. After 6 cycles, pts benefiting from treatment could continue the same regimen until disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST v1.1; secondary endpoints included safety, objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL). Serial blood and baseline tumour samples were collected for exploratory biomarkers. Results: Between March 2014 and 2016, 146 pts (71 SEQ, 75 CON) were recruited. Median age (range) was 66 (45-82) years; Karnofsky performance status was 70 (in 12% pts), 80 (27%), 90 (38%) or 100 (24%); 47% had pancreatic head primaries; 84% had liver metastases. Median no. cycles received was 4 SEQ, 3 CON; 51 pts (35%) received ≥6 cycles of treatment (42% SEQ, 28% CON). A 24+2hr interval was achieved in > 90% SEQ admin. Grade ≥3 adverse events experienced by ≥10% pts (SEQ, CON) were neutropaenia (54%, 30%; p = 0.003), febrile neutropaenia (12%, 12%), fatigue (22%, 15%), vomiting (7%, 11%) and anaemia (10%, 5%). G-CSF was administered at local investigator's discretion to 35 pts (23 SEQ, 12 CON; p = 0.015). To date, 112 pts have died. 6 month (m) PFS by SEQ and CON arms were 47% and 33%; median PFS were 5.8 and 4.0m; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.46-0.95; 12m OS by SEQ and CON arms were 29% and 26%; median OS were 10.1 and 7.9m; HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.61-1.29. ORR was 50% SEQ and 33% CON (p = 0.065). Mean baseline QoL Global health status score was 60.6 SEQ and 63.4 CON. The mean change in QoL score from baseline at 24 weeks was -2.1 SEQ and -12.1 CON. Conclusions: Sequential delivery of nabP combined with GEM trended towards improving all clinically relevant efficacy end points: PFS, OS, and ORR. Translational correlates will be reported in due course. Clinical trial information: ISRCTN71070888.

A randomized, phase II efficacy assessment of multiple MET kinase inhibitors in metastatic papillary renal carcinoma (PRCC): SWOG S1500.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS4599-TPS4599 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sumanta K. Pal ◽  
Catherine M. Tangen ◽  
Ian Murchie Thompson ◽  
Brian M. Shuch ◽  
Naomi B. Haas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Metastatic Disease ◽  
Kinase Inhibitors ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Type I ◽  
Type Ii ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Clear Cell Rcc

TPS4599 Background: PRCC constitutes approximately 15% of RCC cases, and no standard of care exists for metastatic disease. Approved VEGF- and mTOR-directed therapies for clear cell RCC in metastatic PRCC (mPRCC) have generally been ineffective. Trials assessing sunitinib and everolimus in non-clear cell RCC show a numerical advantage in progression-free survival (PFS) with sunitinib therapy. Prospective studies evaluating sunitinib in mPRCC show a broad range of efficacy, with PFS ranging from 1.6-6.6 months. Another possible approach to treating mPRCC is to target the MET protooncogene, which is frequently altered across both type I and type II disease. SWOG 1500 is a randomized, phase II study which will compare sunitinib to three MET-directed therapies in pts with mPRCC. Methods: Eligible pts will have PRCC (type I, type II or NOS), Zubrod performance status 0-1, and measurable metastatic disease. Pts may have received up to 1 prior systemic therapy, with the exception of prior VEGF-directed treatments. Treated brain metastases are allowed. Tissue must be available for central pathologic review of papillary subtype. Pts will receive either oral sunitinib, cabozantinib, crizotinib or savolitinib in a 1:1:1:1 randomization, with stratification by (1) prior therapy (0 vs 1) and (2) PRCC subtype (type I vs type II vs NOS). The primary endpoint of the study is to compare PFS with sunitinib to PFS with MET-directed therapies. Secondary endpoints in the study include comparison of response rate, overall survival and safety profile. Translational aims of the study include correlation of clinical outcome with MET mutation, copy number and other markers of MET signaling. Radiographic assessment will be performed every 12 wks. Interim analyses are planned for each arm. A total of 275 pts will be enrolled, with 26 pts registered as of Jan 30, 2017. Clinical trial information: NCT02761057.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document