BACCI: A phase II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of capecitabine bevacizumab plus atezolizumab versus capecitabine bevacizumab plus placebo in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS873-TPS873 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niharika B. Mettu ◽  
Donna Niedzwiecki ◽  
Patrick McKay Boland ◽  
Marwan Fakih ◽  
Christy Arrowood ◽  
...  

TPS873 Background: Initial treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) involves a 5-fluorouracil based chemotherapy regimen, often in combination with anti-VEGF therapy. Upon disease progression, multiple studies have suggested a benefit for continued anti-VEGF therapy. There is increasing evidence that VEGF plays a role in cancer immune evasion. Targeting of inflammatory and immune checkpoints are attractive approaches to enhance the benefits of anti-VEGF therapy. The safety and activity of the anti-PD-L1 antibody atezolizumab with bevacizumab and with 5-FU, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab have been recently reported; the combinations were well-tolerated and suggested clinical activity. Therefore, bevacizumab may increase the immunogenicity of colorectal cancers, and the combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab may be associated with clinically meaningful response rates and disease control. Furthermore, there may be candidate biomarkers that may identify those patients most likely to benefit from this combination. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled phase II study, 135 patients with mCRC will be randomized 2:1 to receive capecitabine/bevacizumab/atezolizumab or capecitabine/bevacizumab/placebo. Patients with prior PD-L1/PD-1 therapy are ineligible. Primary and secondary efficacy will be conducted using ITT analysis. Safety analyses will include all randomized patients who receive at least one dose of study treatment. The primary objective is PFS. The secondary objectives are ORR, OS, safety, and tolerability. The primary comparison will be superiority of the active treatment for the PFS endpoint, atezolizumab versus placebo testing at 1-sided α = 0.1 (log rank test). A PFS hazard ratio of 0.618 (active treatment versus placebo) is detectable with 86% power (1 sided α = 0.1). No interim analyses for futility or efficacy will be conducted. A subset analysis will be performed in the microsatellite-high patients looking at potential differences in PFS and OS. Trial is active and currently recruiting patients. Clinical trial information: NCT02873195.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (33) ◽  
pp. 4394-4400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanna C. Bendell ◽  
John Nemunaitis ◽  
Sasha J. Vukelja ◽  
Christopher Hagenstad ◽  
Luis T. Campos ◽  
...  

Purpose In a multicenter, double-blind phase II trial, we compared the efficacy and safety of perifosine plus capecitabine (P-CAP) with placebo plus capecitabine (CAP) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who had progressed after as many as two prior therapies. Patients and Methods Patients (n = 38) not previously treated with capecitabine received P-CAP (perifosine 50 mg orally once daily, days 1 to 21 and CAP 825 mg/m2 orally twice daily, days 1 to 14) or CAP (825 mg/m2 orally twice daily, days 1 to 14) in 21-day cycles until disease progression. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), safety, and tolerability. Results Twenty patients were randomly assigned to P-CAP and 18 to CAP. Median TTP (27.5 v 10.1 weeks; P < .001) and median OS (17.7 v 7.6 months; P = .0052) were improved in patients receiving P-CAP versus CAP. ORR was 20% v 7% in the P-CAP and CAP groups, respectively, and one patient in the P-CAP group had a complete response. A subset analysis of fluorouracil-refractory patients showed a median TTP of 17.6 v 9.0 weeks (P < .001) and median OS of 15.1 v 6.5 months (P = .0061). Toxicities, including diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, and hand-foot syndrome, were manageable. Conclusion P-CAP showed promising clinical activity compared with CAP in previously treated patients with mCRC. A phase III trial is underway comparing P-CAP with CAP in patients with refractory mCRC.


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS3640-TPS3640
Author(s):  
Johanna C. Bendell ◽  
Thomas J. Ervin ◽  
David H. Gallinson ◽  
Jaswinder Singh ◽  
James Alfred Wallace ◽  
...  

TPS3640 Background: Dysregulation of the HGF/Met (Met) pathway has been linked with poor prognosis in colorectal cancer. Crosstalk between the Met and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathways may be important during tumorigenesis. Aberrant activation of the HGF/Met pathway may promote angiogenesis via tumor cell secretion of angiogenic factors or directly activating endothelial cells. Onartuzumab (MetMAb) is a monovalent, monoclonal antibody that specifically binds to the Met receptor. The combination of onartuzumab and VEGF inhibition in preclinical models resulted in enhanced antitumor activity over either treatment alone. Preclinical efficacy data support the combination of onartuzumab with platinum agents. In phase I studies, onartuzumab has been generally well tolerated alone and in combination with bevacizumab. Adverse events most commonly associated with onartuzumab are peripheral edema and fatigue. Methods: This is a randomized, two-arm, phase II study in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients (n=188) will be randomized (1:1) to either mFOLFOX6/bevacizumab/placebo or mFOLFOX6/bevacizumab/onartuzumab. Oxaliplatin will be discontinued after 8 cycles with remaining drugs continued until progression. The primary endpoint of this study is PFS in all patients. PFS by Met IHC diagnostic status (Met positive vs Met negative) will also be analyzed. Secondary endpoints include OS, ORR, safety, and biomarker analyses. Primary and secondary analyses will include all randomized patients and will be conducted according to assigned treatment arm. Kaplan–Meier methodology will be used to estimate median PFS for each treatment arm. An estimate of HR with 95% CI will be determined using a Cox regression model. Safety will be assessed in all patients receiving at least one dose of any treatment. This study is open for accrual; further details can be found on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01418222).


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA3501-LBA3501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanna C. Bendell ◽  
Thomas J. Ervin ◽  
Neil N. Senzer ◽  
Donald A. Richards ◽  
Irfan Firdaus ◽  
...  

LBA3501 Background: Perifosine (P) is an oral, synthetic alkylphospholipid that inhibits or modifies signal transduction pathways including AKT, NFkB and JNK. A randomized phase II study examined P-CAP vs. CAP in pts with 2nd or 3rd line mCRC. This study showed improvement in mTTP (HR 0.254 [0.117, 0.555]) and mOS (HR 0.370 [0.180,0.763]). Based on these results, a randomized phase III study of P-CAP vs. CAP with a primary endpoint of overall survival (OS) in pts with refractory mCRC was initiated. Methods: The study was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized phase III trial. Eligible pts had mCRC which was refractory to all standard therapies. Pts randomized 1:1 to Arm A = P-CAP (P 50 mg PO QD + CAP 1000 mg/m2PO BID d1-14) or Arm B = CAP (placebo + CAP 1000 mg/m2 PO BID d 1-14). Cycles were 21 days. Baseline tumor block collection and a biomarker cohort of pts with pre- and on-treatment tumor and blood samples were performed. Results: Between 3/31/10 and 8/12/11, 468 pts were randomized, 234 pts were in each arm. Baseline demographics were balanced between the arms: age < 65y (A: 65%, B: 58.5%), male (A: 57.7%, B: 53.0%), ECOG PS 0 (A: 39.7%, B: 39.7%), K-ras mutant (A: 50.4%, B: 51.3%), and median number of prior therapies (A: 4, B: 4). As of 3/19/12, median follow up was 6.6 months. Median overall survival: Arm A = 6.4 mo, Arm B = 6.8 mo, HR 1.111 [0.905,1.365], p = 0.315. Median overall survival for K-ras WT pts: Arm A = 6.6 mo, Arm B = 6.8 mo, HR 1.020 [0.763,1.365], p = 0.894; K-ras mutant pts: Arm A = 5.4 mo, Arm B = 6.9 mo HR 1.192 [0.890,1.596], p = 0.238. Conclusions: Despite promising randomized phase II data, this phase III study shows no benefit in overall survival adding perifosine to capecitabine in the refractory colorectal cancer setting. Response rate, progression free survival, and safety data will be presented. Biomarker analysis is pending to see if subgroups of patients may have potential benefit.


2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manish R. Sharma ◽  
Elizabeth Gray ◽  
Richard M. Goldberg ◽  
Daniel J. Sargent ◽  
Theodore G. Karrison

Purpose The optimal end point for randomized phase II trials of anticancer therapies remains controversial. We simulated phase II trials by resampling patients from N9741, a randomized phase III trial of chemotherapy regimens for metastatic colorectal cancer, and compared the power of various end points to detect the superior therapy (FOLFOX [infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin] had longer overall survival than both IROX [irinotecan plus oxaliplatin] and IFL [irinotecan and bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin]). Methods Tumor measurements and progression-free survival (PFS) data were obtained for 1,471 patients; 1,002 had consistently measured tumors and were resampled (5,000 replicates) to simulate two-arm, randomized phase II trials with α = 0.10 (one sided) and 20 to 80 patients per arm. End points included log ratio of tumor size at 6, 12, and 18 weeks relative to baseline; time to tumor growth (TTG), estimated using a nonlinear mixed-effects model; and PFS. Arms were compared using rank sum tests for log ratio and TTG and a log-rank test for PFS. Results For FOLFOX versus IFL, TTG and PFS had similar power, with both exceeding the power of log ratio at 18 weeks; for FOLFOX versus IROX, TTG and log ratio at 18 weeks had similar power, with both exceeding the power of PFS. The best end points exhibited > 80% power with 60 to 80 patients per arm. Conclusion TTG is a powerful end point for randomized phase II trials of cytotoxic therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer; it was either comparable or superior to PFS and log ratio at 18 weeks. Additional studies will be needed to clarify the potential of TTG as a phase II end point.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document