Cabozantinib (C) exposure-response (ER) modeling of safety endpoints in patients (pts) with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the phase III METEOR study.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 447-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Lacy ◽  
Matthew M Hutmacher ◽  
Bei Yang ◽  
Robert J. Motzer ◽  
Bernard J. Escudier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dose Reduction ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Dose Modification ◽  
Steady Stage ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
The Relationship

447 Background: ER models were previously developed to characterize the relationship between C exposure and efficacy endpoints in RCC pts in the phase III METEOR study (J Clin Oncol 34, 2016 [suppl; abstr 2565]). Higher C exposure correlated with decreased tumor size and improved progression-free survival and objective response rate. Model-based predictions showed that C would be effective at the 60 mg starting dose evaluated in METEOR as well as dose levels of 40 and 20 mg resulting from dose reduction. In the current study, ER models were developed to characterize the relationship between C exposure and safety endpoints in RCC pts. Methods: The ER analysis included 318 RCC pts who had received at least one C dose and had at least one measurable C concentration. Time-to-event Cox proportional hazard ER models were developed to characterize the relationship between various individual predicted C exposure measures and the likelihood of dose modification and 6 specific adverse events (AEs): fatigue/asthenia, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE), nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, hypertension, and stomatitis. Results: A statistically significant relationship was identified between individual predicted C clearance (CL/F) and the rate of dose modification (p <0.0001), with the risk of dose modification decreasing with increasing CL/F. An increase in average C concentration was associated with increased risk of fatigue/asthenia (Grade ≥3), PPE (Grade ≥1), hypertension (systolic blood pressure [BP] >160 mmHg or diastolic BP >100 mmHg), and diarrhea (Grade ≥3). The predicted hazard ratios for these AEs were 2.01, 2.21, 1.85, and 1.78, respectively, based on the predicted steady-stage average C concentration for a 60 mg dose relative to a 20 mg dose. Statistically significant ER relationships were not identified for nausea/vomiting (Grade ≥3) or stomatitis (Grade ≥3). Conclusions: Based on the ER analysis, higher C exposures resulting from lower C CL/F are predicted to increase the dose modification rate. Reduced C exposures resulting from dose reduction are predicted to decrease the risk of fatigue/asthenia, PPE, hypertension, and diarrhea while maintaining clinical benefit. Clinical trial information: NCT01865747.

Phase III Trial of Doxorubicin Plus Cisplatin With or Without Paclitaxel Plus Filgrastim in Advanced Endometrial Carcinoma: A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (11) ◽  
pp. 2159-2166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gini F. Fleming ◽  
Virginia L. Brunetto ◽  
David Cella ◽  
Katherine Y. Look ◽  
Gary C. Reid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peripheral Neuropathy ◽  
Endometrial Carcinoma ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology Group ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Grade 3

Purpose To determine whether the addition of paclitaxel to doxorubicin plus cisplatin improves overall survival (OS) in women with advanced or recurrent endometrial carcinoma. Secondary comparisons included progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and toxicities. Patients and Methods Eligible, consenting patients received doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 and cisplatin 50 mg/m2 (AP), or doxorubicin 45 mg/m2 and cisplatin 50 mg/m2 (day 1), followed by paclitaxel 160 mg/m2 (day 2) with filgrastim support (TAP). The initial doxorubicin dose in the AP arm was reduced to 45 mg/m2 in patients with prior pelvic radiotherapy and those older than 65 years. Both regimens were repeated every 3 weeks to a maximum of seven cycles. Patients completed a neurotoxicity questionnaire before each cycle. Results Two hundred seventy-three women (10 ineligible) were registered. Objective response (57% v 34%; P < .01), PFS (median, 8.3 v 5.3 months; P < .01), and OS (median, 15.3 v 12.3 months; P = .037) were improved with TAP. Treatment was hematologically well tolerated, with only 2% of patients receiving AP, and 3% of patients receiving TAP experiencing neutropenic fever. Neurologic toxicity was worse for those receiving TAP, with 12% grade 3, and 27% grade 2 peripheral neuropathy, compared with 1% and 4%, respectively, in those receiving AP. Patient-reported neurotoxicity was significantly higher in the TAP arm following two cycles of therapy. Conclusion TAP significantly improves RR, PFS, and OS compared with AP. Evaluation of this regimen in the high-risk adjuvant setting is warranted, but close attention should be paid to the increased risk of peripheral neuropathy.

scholarly journals Phase III Trial of Bevacizumab Plus Interferon Alfa Versus Interferon Alfa Monotherapy in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Final Results of CALGB 90206

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (13) ◽  
pp. 2137-2143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian I. Rini ◽  
Susan Halabi ◽  
Jonathan E. Rosenberg ◽  
Walter M. Stadler ◽  
Daniel A. Vaena ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Interferon Alfa ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Grade 3

Purpose Bevacizumab is an antibody that binds vascular endothelial growth factor and has activity in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Interferon alfa (IFN-α) is the historic standard initial treatment for RCC. A prospective, randomized, phase III trial of bevacizumab plus IFN-α versus IFN-α monotherapy was conducted. Patients and Methods Patients with previously untreated, metastatic clear cell RCC were randomly assigned to receive either bevacizumab (10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks) plus IFN-α (9 million units subcutaneously three times weekly) or the same dose and schedule of IFN-α monotherapy in a multicenter phase III trial. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, and safety. Results Seven hundred thirty-two patients were enrolled. The median OS time was 18.3 months (95% CI, 16.5 to 22.5 months) for bevacizumab plus IFN-α and 17.4 months (95% CI, 14.4 to 20.0 months) for IFN-α monotherapy (unstratified log-rank P = .097). Adjusting on stratification factors, the hazard ratio was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.73 to 1.01; stratified log-rank P = .069) favoring bevacizumab plus IFN-α. There was significantly more grade 3 to 4 hypertension (HTN), anorexia, fatigue, and proteinuria for bevacizumab plus IFN-α. Patients who developed HTN on bevacizumab plus IFN-α had a significantly improved PFS and OS versus patients without HTN. Conclusion OS favored the bevacizumab plus IFN-α arm but did not meet the predefined criteria for significance. HTN may be a biomarker of outcome with bevacizumab plus IFN-α.

Impact of bevacizumab dose reduction on clinical outcomes for patients treated on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group’s Study E3200

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3538-3538 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. J. Giantonio ◽  
P. J. Catalano ◽  
P. J. O’Dwyer ◽  
N. J. Meropol ◽  
A. B. Benson
Keyword(s):  
Dose Reduction ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Number Of Cycles ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Patients ◽  
Dose Modifications ◽  
Dose Reductions

3538 Background: E3200 demonstrated improved survival (OS) for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer patients who received second-line therapy with bevacizumab (10 mg/kg) in combination with FOLFOX4. Dose reductions of bevacizumab to 5 mg/kg were allowed for: hypertension, bleeding and thrombosis of ≤ grade 2; proteinuria of > 2 grams/24 that resolved to <0.5 grams/24hrs; liver function abnormalities ≥ grade 3 that resolved to ≤ grade 1. Methods: Data on dose modifications of bevacizumab were obtained from a post-study survey of participating institutions for all participants. Median OS and progression-free survival (PFS) were determined based upon a dose reduction any time during treatment. Hazard ratios (HR) for OS and PFS were stratified by number of cycles (1–5, 6–10, 11+) to adjust for the time-varying nature of dose reductions. Results: Surveys were received on 84% of E3200 patients treated with bevacizumab. Dose reductions of bevacizumab were performed in 134 of 240 (55.8%) patients treated with FOLFOX + bevacizumab (Arm A) and 77 of 205 (37.6%) patients treated with bevacizumab alone (Arm C). The average number of cycles of bevacizumab administered at a dose reduction for Arm A is 42% and for Arm C is 52%. Conclusions: OS and PFS on E3200 were not compromised for patients who underwent dose reductions of bevacizumab. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

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]

An international, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase III study (MONET1) of motesanib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel (C/P) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA7512-LBA7512 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Scagliotti ◽  
I. Vynnychenko ◽  
Y. Ichinose ◽  
K. Park ◽  
K. Kubota ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cox Model ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Nonsquamous Nsclc

LBA7512 Background: This study evaluated whether motesanib (a selective oral inhibitor of VEGFR 1, 2 and 3; PDGFR and Kit) plus C/P improved overall survival (OS) compared with placebo + C/P in patients (pts) with nonsquamous NSCLC and in a subset of pts with adenocarcinoma. Methods: Pts had stage IIIB/IV or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC and no prior systemic therapy for advanced NSCLC. The study initially enrolled all histologies but was amended to exclude pts with squamous NSCLC owing to a high rate of hemoptysis. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive up to six 3-wk cycles of C (AUC 6 mg/mL·min) and P (200 mg/m2) with either motesanib 125 mg QD (Arm A) or placebo QD (Arm B) orally continuously. The primary endpoint was OS; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), objective response rate (ORR) and association between placental growth factor (PLGF) change and OS. OS was evaluated using a stratified Cox model and 2-sided log-rank test (α=0.03 for nonsquamous pts and α=0.02 for adenocarcinoma pts). Results: 1090 pts with nonsquamous NSCLC were randomized (Arm A/B, n=541/549); 890 had adenocarcinoma (n=448/442). 61% were men; median age was 60 years (range 21–87); 83% had stage IV disease. At the time of analysis, 753 pts had died (608 pts with adenocarcinoma). Median follow-up was 10.6 mo. OS was not significantly improved in Arm A compared with Arm B (Table). In Arm A, PLGF analysis did not show an association with OS. The incidence of grade ≥3 AEs in Arms A/B was 73/59%. Grade ≥3 AEs occurring more frequently in Arm A than B included neutropenia (22/15%), diarrhea (9/1%), hypertension (7/1%) and cholecystitis (3/0%). The incidence of grade 5 AEs was 14/9% in Arms A/B. Conclusions: In pts with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC, treatment with motesanib + C/P did not significantly improve OS compared with C/P alone. [Table: see text]

Bevacizumab (BEV) plus capecitabine as maintenance therapy after initial treatment with BEV plus XELOX in previously untreated patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Mature data from STOP and GO, a phase III, randomized, multicenter study.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3565-3565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suayib Yalcin ◽  
Ruchan Uslu ◽  
Faysal Dane ◽  
Ugur Yilmaz ◽  
Nurullah Zengin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Drop Out ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3

3565 Background: Colorectal cancer is one of the most frequent malignancies, second after breast cancer in women and third after lung cancer and prostate cancer in men. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the progression-free survival (PFS) between two arms: Arm A is a combination of BEV + XELOX; Arm B is a combination of BEV + XELOX for 6 cycles followed by maintenance BEV + capecitabine as first-line therapy in mCRC. Methods: BEV (7.5 mg/kg) + XELOX (capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 bid d1–14 + oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 d1 q3w) were administered until progression (Arm A) or 6 cycles of BEV + XELOX followed by BEV + capecitabine were administered until progression (Arm B). PFS was the primary endpoint; secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. A sample size of 118 pts was required to detect with 80% power an increase of 1.5 months in median PFS between two arms with a standard deviation of 3.9 months and significance level of 0.05 (10% drop-out rate). Results: A total of 123 pts were randomized. Demographic characteristics were balanced between the arms. Median treatment period was 7.5 (range 0.5–13.9) and 8.1 (range 0.1–20.7) months in Arms A and B, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in median PFS between arms, although there was no significant difference in ORR and OS (see table). Tolerability was acceptable in both arms with the following grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs): Arm A 48.4%; Arm B 34.4% (p=0.116). Grade 3/4 diarrhoea occurred in 9.7% vs. 3.3%, weakness in 8.1% vs. 8.2%, hand-foot syndrome in 3.2% vs. 1.6%, and neuropathy in 4.8% vs. 3.3% of pts in Arms A and B, respectively. Conclusions: These findings suggest that maintenance therapy with BEV + capecitabine following induction with 6 cycles of BEV + XELOX may be superior to continuous BEV + XELOX until progression inpts with previously untreated mCRC. [Table: see text]

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]

SAVOIR: A phase III study of savolitinib versus sunitinib in pts with MET-driven papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5002-5002
Author(s):  
Toni K. Choueiri ◽  
Daniel Yick Chin Heng ◽  
Jae-Lyun Lee ◽  
Mathilde Cancel ◽  
Remy B Verheijen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Chromosome 7 ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Dose Modifications

5002 Background: PRCC is the most common type of non-clear cell RCC, accounting for 10–15% of renal malignancies. As a subset of PRCC cases are MET-driven, MET inhibition may be an appropriate targeted treatment approach. In a single-arm Phase II study, savolitinib (AZD6094, HMPL‐504, volitinib), a highly selective MET-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, demonstrated antitumor activity in pts with MET-driven PRCC (Choueiri et al. JCO 2017). The Phase III SAVOIR study (NCT03091192) further assessed savolitinib vs standard of care sunitinib in pts with MET-driven PRCC. Methods: In this open-label (sponsor blinded), randomized study, pts with centrally confirmed MET-driven ( MET and/or HGF amplification, chromosome 7 gain and/or MET kinase domain mutations), metastatic PRCC were randomized to savolitinib 600 mg once daily (QD), or sunitinib 50 mg QD 4 weeks on / 2 weeks off. Primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS; RECIST 1.1 by blinded independent central review). Secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety and tolerability. Results: After external data on predicted PFS with sunitinib in pts with MET-driven disease became available, study enrollment was closed. At data cutoff (Aug 2019), only 60 of the planned 180 pts were randomized (savolitinib n = 33; sunitinib n = 27). Most had chromosome 7 gain (savolitinib 91%; sunitinib 96%) and no prior therapy (savolitinib 85%; sunitinib 93%). PFS, OS, and ORR were numerically improved with savolitinib vs sunitinib (Table). CTCAE grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 42% and 81% of pts; dose modifications were related to AEs in 30% and 74% of pts with savolitinib and sunitinib respectively. After discontinuation, 36% of all savolitinib and 19% of all sunitinib pts received subsequent anticancer therapy. Conclusions: Although pt numbers and follow-up were limited, savolitinib demonstrated encouraging efficacy and an improved safety profile vs sunitinib, with fewer grade ≥3 AEs and fewer dose modifications required. Sunitinib performance was poorer than expected based on external retrospective data. Further investigation of savolitinib as a treatment option for MET-driven PRCC is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT03091192 . [Table: see text]

Efficacy and safety of avelumab plus axitinib (A + Ax) versus sunitinib (S) in elderly patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC): Extended follow-up results from JAVELIN Renal 101.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 301-301
Author(s):  
Yoshihiko Tomita ◽  
Robert J. Motzer ◽  
Toni K. Choueiri ◽  
Brian I. Rini ◽  
Hideaki Miyake ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Grade 3

301 Background: In the phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006), A + Ax demonstrated significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) and a higher objective response rate (ORR) vs S in patients with previously untreated aRCC. The role of immune checkpoint + VEGFR inhibition in elderly patients remains unclear. Here we report the efficacy of A + Ax vs S by age group from the second interim analysis (IA) of overall survival (OS) and the safety of A + Ax by age group from the first IA. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive A 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 wk + Ax 5 mg orally twice daily or S 50 mg orally once daily for 4 wk (6-wk cycle). PFS and ORR per independent central review (RECIST 1.1), OS, and safety by age group (<65, ≥65 to <75, and ≥75 y) were assessed. Results: A total of 271/138/33 and 275/128/41 patients in each age group (<65, ≥65 to <75, and ≥75 y, respectively) were randomized to the A + Ax or S arm, respectively. The proportion of IMDC risk groups was generally well balanced between the A + Ax and S arm in each age group, although in the ≥75 y age group, the frequency of patients with intermediate risk was slightly higher in the A + Ax arm, and that of patients with favorable risk was slightly higher in the S arm. The percentages of patients with favorable/intermediate/poor risk in each age group were 19%/61%/19%, 28%/58%/13%, and 12%/76%/12% in the A + Ax arm vs 20%/63%/16%, 23%/60%/16%, and 24%/61%/15% in the S arm. At data cut-off (Jan 2019) for the second IA, median follow-up for OS and PFS was 19.3 vs 19.2 mo and 16.8 vs 15.2 mo for the A + Ax vs S arm, respectively. The table shows OS, PFS, and ORR by age group. In the A + Ax arm, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (62%/68%/42%), hypertension (49%/49%/55%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (37%/31%/15%), fatigue (37%/53%/30%), and nausea (34%/37%/21%) in each age group. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs and immune-related AEs were observed in 69%/74%/73% and 39%/40%/24% of patients in each age group, respectively. Conclusions: A + Ax demonstrated favorable efficacy across age groups, including patients aged ≥75 y. OS was still immature; follow-up for the final analysis is ongoing. The safety profile was generally consistent between age groups. Clinical trial information: NCT02684006 . [Table: see text]

Real-Life Clinical Practice with Sorafenib in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Single-Center Experience Second Analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 728-734 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tadaaki Arizumi ◽  
Kazuomi Ueshima ◽  
Mina Iwanishi ◽  
Hirokazu Chishina ◽  
Masashi Kono ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Tumor Response ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Single Center ◽  
Grade 3

Objectives: Sorafenib has become a standard therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma following the demonstration of significant increase in progression-free survival as well as overall survival (OS) in the 2-phase III trials. We examined efficacy and adverse events (AEs) in patients treated with sorafenib over a 6-year period since approval in Japan. Methods: Two hundred and forty-one patients treated with sorafenib at the Kinki University Hospital were retrospectively analyzed clinically for the factors related to survival periods, tumor response evaluated by the Response Evaluation Criteria In Cancer of the Liver (RECICL) and AEs. Results: OS was 14.3 months. According to the RECICL, the objective response and disease control rates were 18.6% (43 of 241) and 61.1% (137 of 241), respectively. AEs were seen in 77.3% (187 of 241), with Grade 3 or higher in 23.6% (57 of 241). The most frequent AE was hand-foot skin reaction in 109 patients (45.0%), and 28 patients (11.8%) showed Grade 3 or higher. Significant factors contributing to the OS were treatment duration (p = 0.0204), up-to-7 criteria (p = 0.0400), increase of Child-Pugh score (p = 0.0008) and tumor response determined by the RECICL (p = 0.0007). Conclusion: Based on the analysis, using many cases at a single center, we concluded that continuation of treatment with sorafenib for ≥90 days without decrease of liver function was critical if tumor response was determined as stable disease or higher.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document