Olaparib monotherapy versus (vs) chemotherapy for germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm) platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSR OC) patients (pts): Phase III SOLO3 trial.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5506-5506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard T. Penson ◽  
Ricardo Villalobos Valencia ◽  
David Cibula ◽  
Nicoletta Colombo ◽  
Charles A. Leath ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Open Label Study ◽  
Platinum Sensitive ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Platinum Chemotherapy

5506 Background: Data from a randomized Phase II trial (NCT00628251) of olaparib (capsules, 200 or 400 mg bid, n=32 per arm) vs pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD, n=33) in gBRCAm OC pts with recurrence ≤12 months after prior platinum therapy indicated efficacy for olaparib (Kaye et al. JCO 2012). However, the efficacy of PLD was higher than previously reported in this setting. We led a confirmatory Phase III, open-label study of olaparib vs non-platinum chemotherapy in gBRCAm PSR OC pts (NCT02282020). Methods: Pts were randomized (2:1) to olaparib tablets (300 mg bid) or chemotherapy treatment of physician’s choice (TPC) (paclitaxel [P; 80 mg/m2 on day 1 (D1), D8, D15, D22 every 4 weeks (q4w)], topotecan [T; 4 mg/m2 D1, D8, D15 q4w], gemcitabine [G; 1000 mg/m2 D1, D8, D15 q4w] or PLD [50 mg/m2 D1 q4w]) until progression, stratified by: TPC, prior lines of chemotherapy (2–3 vs ≥4) and platinum-free interval (6–12 vs >12 months). Primary endpoint: ORR (blinded independent central review [BICR]). Secondary endpoints included PFS and safety. Results: 266 gBRCAm PSR OC pts were randomized (olaparib, n=178; TPC, n=88 [ PLD, n=47; P, n=20; G, n=13; T, n=8]); 12 in the TPC arm withdrew before receiving study treatment. 223 pts (84%) had baseline BICR measurable disease (olaparib, n=151; TPC, n=72). ORR was 72% with olaparib vs 51% with TPC (OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.40–4.58; P=0.002). HR for PFS by BICR was 0.62 (95% CI 0.43–0.91; P=0.013; median 13.4 vs 9.2 months [olaparib vs TPC]) and by investigator assessment was 0.49 (95% CI 0.35–0.70; P<0.001; median 13.2 vs 8.5 months, respectively). Most common adverse events (AEs) with olaparib were nausea (65% vs 34% [TPC]) and anemia (50% vs 25%) and with TPC were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (PPE; 36% vs 1% [olaparib]) and nausea. Most common grade ≥3 AEs in either arm were anemia (21% [olaparib] vs 0 [TPC]), PPE (0 vs 12%) and neutropenia (6% vs 11%). For olaparib vs TPC, serious AEs were reported by 24% vs 18% and AEs led to treatment discontinuation in 7% vs 20%. Conclusions: Pts with gBRCAm PSR OC receiving olaparib monotherapy had a significant, clinically relevant improvement in ORR and PFS vs TPC, with no new safety signals. Clinical trial information: NCT02282020.

Randomized phase II trial of sorafenib, capecitabine and oxaliplatin (SECOX) versus single agent sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 365-365
Author(s):  
Thomas Cheung Yau ◽  
Vikki Tang ◽  
Roland Ching-Yu Leung ◽  
Gin Wai Kwok ◽  
Ann-Shing Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Single Agent ◽  
Hepatocellular Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Prior Systemic Therapy ◽  
Grade 3

365 Background: We aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of SECOX regimen with sorafenib alone as first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular cancer (HCC) in a multicenter, open-label and randomized setting. Methods: Patients not suitable for surgery or various loco-regional therapies and no prior systemic therapy for advanced HCC were recruited in 3 centres. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either SECOX (sorafenib 400 mg BD continuously, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 on D1, and capecitabine 1700 mg/m2 on D1-7 q2w) or sorafenib alone continuously in 1:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was time-to-progression (TTP). Secondary endpoints were tolerability, overall tumor response rate, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Forty-six patients were randomized and treated, of whom 22 were in the SECOX arm. Median age was 64 years and majority of the patients were male (72%). 40 patients (87%) were hepatitis B carrier, and 42 patients (91%) had Child-Pugh A liver function. Thirty patients (65%) had received prior non-systemic treatment for HCC. Median duration of follow-up was 7.8 months (mos) (range 0.3-25.8). At the time of analysis,one patient in the SECOX arm is still receiving treatment. Median TTP was 3.2 mos (95% CI 1.7-5.8) for SECOX vs 2.8 mos (95% CI 1.8-4.0) for sorafenib. The hazard ratio (HR) for TTP was 0.91 (95% CI 0.5-1.7; p=0.77; predetermined futility boundary HR ≥ 0.86). Median OS was 7.1 mos (95% CI 3.0-15.3) for SECOX vs 12.5 mos (95% CI 7.2-15.4) for sorafenib (p=0.29). Median PFS was 3.1 mos (95% CI 1.6-5.8) for SECOX vs 2.7 mos (95% CI 1.8-4.0) for sorafenib. 2 patients (9%) and no patients achieved partial response in the SECOX and sorafenib arms, respectively. The clinical benefit rate (CR+PR+SD) was 36% for the SECOX arm and 21% for the sorafenib arm (p=0.50). Incidence of treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) was common in both SECOX and sorafenib arms (64% and 71% respectively, p=0.75). The most common grade 3-4 trAE was ALP increase (14%) for SECOX and hand-foot skin reaction (25%) for sorafenib. Conclusions: The addition of capecitabine and oxaliplatin to sorafenib did not result in significant improvement in TTP. Clinical trial information: NCT02716766.

Pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM + LoDEX) versus high-dose dexamethasone (HiDEX) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): Impact of cytogenetics in MM-003.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8528-8528
Author(s):  
Hartmut Goldschmidt ◽  
Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽  
Katja C. Weisel ◽  
Philippe Moreau ◽  
Martha Lacy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Open Label ◽  
High Dose Dexamethasone ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Intent To Treat

8528 Background: RRMM patients (pts) who fail lenalidomide (LEN) and bortezomib (BORT) have poor prognosis. High-risk cytogenetics predict shorter survival. POM + LoDEX has demonstrated efficacy in pts with prior LEN and BORT and high-risk cytogenetics. MM-003 is an open-label, multicenter, phase III trial comparing POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in RRMM pts who failed LEN and BORT treatment (Tx) and have progressed on their last therapy. Methods: Pts must have been refractory to the last prior Tx (progressive disease [PD] during or within 60 days) and failed LEN and BORT after ≥ 2 consecutive cycles of each (alone or in combination). Randomization was 2:1 to POM 4 mg D1–21 + DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) weekly; or DEX 40 mg (20 mg for pts aged > 75 y) D1–4, 9–12, and 17–20 (28-day cycles). Tx continued until PD or unacceptable adverse events (AEs). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included OS and AEs. This analysis examined pts meeting modified high-risk cytogenetic criteria—del(17p13) and/or t(4p16/14q32). Results: 302 pts received POM + LoDEX, and 153 pts received HiDEX. 225 and 107 pts, respectively, were evaluable for cytogenetics. Baseline characteristics were similar. Median PFS and OS were significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX, regardless of cytogenetic risk (Table). The most common grade 3/4 AEs were neutropenia, anemia, and infection (Table). Discontinuation due to AE was low: 4% vs. 6% (high risk) and 10% vs. 4% (standard risk). Conclusions: Median PFS and OS were significantly longer with POM + LoDEX vs. HiDEX in pts with cytogenetically-defined high-risk disease, consistent with results from the intent-to-treat population. Tolerability was acceptable. POM + LoDEX should be considered a new Tx option in pts failing LEN and BORT. Clinical trial information: NCT01311687. [Table: see text]

Hematologic Improvement, Transfusion Independence, and Safety Assessed Using Three Alternative Dosing Schedules of Azacitidine in Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndromes.

Blood ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 108 (11) ◽  
pp. 2662-2662 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger M. Lyons ◽  
Thomas Cosgriff ◽  
Sanjiv Modi ◽  
Heidi McIntyre ◽  
C.L. Beach ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myelodysplastic Syndromes ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Open Label Study ◽  
Transfusion Independence ◽  
Fab Classification ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Efficacy and safety of azacitidine (Vidaza®), at the FDA-approved dosing schedule of 75 mg/m2/day x 7 days every 28 days, was demonstrated in a phase III CALGB study by Silverman et al (JCO2002; 20:2429) for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). The objective of this phase II, multicenter, randomized, open-label study in all FAB subtypes of MDS was to study the treatment response and safety of 3 alternative subcutaneous azacitidine dosing schedules, eliminating the need for weekend azacitidine injections. Patients were randomized to either AZA 5-2-2 (75 mg/m2 day x 5 days, followed by 2 days no treatment, followed by 75 mg/m2/day x 2 days), AZA 5-2-5 (50 mg/m2/day x 5 days, followed by 2 days no treatment, followed by 50 mg/m2/day x 5 days) or AZA 5 (75 mg/m2/day x 5 days). After 6 cycles of azacitidine, patients meeting International Working Group MDS response/improvement criteria (Blood2000; 96:3671), defined as complete remission, partial remission, stable disease, or hematologic improvement, were eligible to receive an additional 12 cycles. As of July 1st, a total of 106 patients have been randomized in the AZA 5-2-2 (n=33), AZA 5-2-5 (n=35), and AZA 5 (n=38) treatment arms. Based on FAB classification, most patients have RA (42%, 45/106) or RAEB (30%, 32/106). Of 80 patients who have received ≥2 cycles of treatment, hematologic improvement (major or minor in at least 1 cell line) occurred in 58% (46/80) of the patients (Table). Median time to improvement in the 3 arms ranged between 1 and 3 cycles (AZA 5-2-2: 1.1, AZA 5-2-5: 3.0, AZA 5: 2.6). Of 38 patients who were RBC transfusion dependent at baseline, 27 (71%) became independent (AZA 5-2-2: 59%, 10/17, AZA 5-2-5: 89%, 8/9; AZA 5: 75%, 9/12). The most common grade 3 or 4 events included neutropenia 29%, 28/98 (AZA 5-2-2: 44%, 14/32; AZA 5-2-5: 20%, 6/30, and AZA 5: 22%, 8/36), thrombocytopenia 15%, 15/98 (AZA 5-2-2: 28%, 9/32; AZA 5-2-5: 10%, 3/30, and AZA 5: 8%, 3/36) and anemia 12%, 12/98 (AZA 5-2-2: 16%, 5/32; AZA 5-2-5: 17%, 5/30, and AZA 5: 6%, 2/36). The frequency of patients with a grade 3 or 4 infection was 15%, 15/98 (AZA 5-2-2: 19%, 6/32; AZA 5-2-5: 23%, 7/30; AZA 5: 6%, 2/36) or hemorrhage was 4%, 4/98 (AZA 5-2-2: 6%, 2/32; AZA 5-2-5: 7%, 2/30; AZA 5: 0/36). Updated data will be available at the time of the meeting. Based on preliminary results, these data indicate that the 3 alternative dosing schedules provide clinical benefit (i.e., transfusion independence and hematologic improvement) and are consistent with the FDA-approved 75 mg/m2/day x 7 days dosing results from previous CALGB studies. Table: Hematologic Improvement Response Rates

Adverse events (AEs) with maintenance olaparib tablets in patients (pts) with BRCA-mutated (BRCAm) platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer (PSR SOC): Phase III SOLO2 trial.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5518-5518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan A. Ledermann ◽  
Alain Lortholary ◽  
Richard T. Penson ◽  
Emma Gibbs ◽  
Diane M. Provencher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Parp Inhibitor ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Platinum Sensitive ◽  
Treatment Dose ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Platinum Chemotherapy ◽  
Dose Reductions ◽  
Clinical Trial Information

5518 Background: In the SOLO2 trial (ENGOT Ov-21; NCT01874353), maintenance therapy with the PARP inhibitor olaparib significantly improved PFS vs placebo (PBO) in BRCAm PSR SOC pts (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.22–0.41, P<0.0001; median 19.1 vs 5.5 months) and was well tolerated (Pujade-Lauraine et al, SGO 2017). We analyzed AEs in SOLO2, the first study in PSR SOC to use the olaparib tablet formulation. Methods: Pts with BRCAm PSR SOC, who were in response to platinum chemotherapy, were treated with olaparib (300 mg bid; tablets; n=195) or PBO (n=99) until progression. AEs were graded by CTCAE v4.0. Results: The most common AEs with olaparib – nausea, fatigue/asthenia, anemia, and vomiting – were largely grade 1–2, though anemia was the most common grade ≥3 AE. AEs of fatigue/asthenia, vomiting and nausea generally improved as treatment continued, though fatigue/asthenia and anemia could last for several months (table). Most AEs were manageable by supportive treatment, dose interruptions (olaparib, 45%; PBO, 18%) and dose reductions (olaparib, 25%; PBO, 3%). Discontinuation of olaparib due to AEs was minimal (11%); anemia and neutropenia were the only AEs leading to discontinuation of olaparib in >one pt. Conclusions: Most AEs experienced by pts receiving olaparib tablets in SOLO2 were low grade and manageable. Initial nausea, vomiting and fatigue generally improved with ongoing treatment. The majority of AEs first occurred within the first three months of treatment. AEs causing treatment discontinuation were rare and mainly hematological. Clinical trial information: NCT01874353. [Table: see text]

Randomized phase II trial of sorafenib, capecitabine, and oxaliplatin (SECOX) versus single agent sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15630-e15630
Author(s):  
Gin Wai Kwok ◽  
Vikki Tang ◽  
Roland Ching-Yu Leung ◽  
Ann-Shing Lee ◽  
Ada Law ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Single Agent ◽  
Hepatocellular Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Prior Systemic Therapy ◽  
Grade 3

e15630 Background: We aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of SECOX regimen with sorafenib alone as first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular cancer (HCC) in a multicenter, open-label and randomized setting. Methods: Patients not suitable for surgery or various loco-regional therapies and no prior systemic therapy for advanced HCC were recruited in 3 centres. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive either SECOX (sorafenib 400 mg BD continuously, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 on D1, and capecitabine 1700 mg/m2 on D1-7 q2w) or sorafenib alone continuously in 1:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was time-to-progression (TTP). Secondary endpoints were tolerability, overall tumor response rate, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Forty-six patients were randomized and treated, of whom 22 were in the SECOX arm. Median age was 64 years and majority of the patients were male (72%). 40 patients (87%) were hepatitis B carrier, and 42 patients (91%) had Child-Pugh A liver function. Thirty patients (65%) had received prior non-systemic treatment for HCC. Median duration of follow-up was 7.8 months (mos) (range 0.3-25.8). At the time of analysis,one patient in the SECOX arm is still receiving treatment. Median TTP was 3.2 mos (95% CI 1.7-5.8) for SECOX vs 2.8 mos (95% CI 1.8-4.0) for sorafenib. The hazard ratio (HR) for TTP was 0.91 (95% CI 0.5-1.7; p = 0.77; predetermined futility boundary HR ≥ 0.86). Median OS was 7.1 mos (95% CI 3.0-15.3) for SECOX vs 12.5 mos (95% CI 7.2-15.4) for sorafenib (p = 0.29). Median PFS was 3.1 mos (95% CI 1.6-5.8) for SECOX vs 2.7 mos (95% CI 1.8-4.0) for sorafenib. 2 patients (9%) and no patients achieved partial response in the SECOX and sorafenib arms, respectively. The clinical benefit rate (CR+PR+SD) was 36% for the SECOX arm and 21% for the sorafenib arm (p = 0.50). Incidence of treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) was common in both SECOX and sorafenib arms (64% and 71% respectively, p = 0.75). The most common grade 3-4 trAE was ALP increase (14%) for SECOX and hand-foot skin reaction (25%) for sorafenib. Conclusions: The addition of capecitabine and oxaliplatin to sorafenib did not result in significant improvement in TTP. Clinical trial information: NCT02716766.

Randomized phase II trial of irofulven (IROF)/prednisone (P), IROF/capecitabine (C)/P or mitoxantrone (M)/P in docetaxel-pretreated hormone refractory prostate cancer (HRPC) patients (pts)

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 14513-14513 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Hart ◽  
T. Ciuleanu ◽  
J. Hainsworth ◽  
S. Oudard ◽  
E. R. Berger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Site Distribution ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Psa Response ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
M 12 ◽  
Hormone Refractory ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Semisynthetic Derivative

14513 Background: IROF, a semisynthetic derivative of the natural product illudin S, is a novel DNA binding agent. IROF alone or in combination has shown activity in phase I-II trials in HRPC, notably with IROF/C (Cvitkovic et al, ASCO 2004). Methods: Pts with histologically-proven metastatic HRPC who progressed (RECIST or PSA) during prior docetaxel or within 3 months of discontinuing treatment, with adequate hematologic and organ functions and KPS ≥70% were stratified by pain and randomized to one of three treatments: Arm A: IROF (0.45 mg/kg, day 1 and 8 q3weeks [w]) and P (10 mg po daily); Arm B: IROF (0.4 mg/kg day 1 and 15), C(2000 mg/m2 day 1–15 q4w) and P; or Arm C: M (12 mg/m2 q3w) and P. Primary endpoint was TTP (RECIST, PSA or clinical progression); secondary endpoints included PSA response (≥50% decrease for ≥4 w), pain response, and toxicity; 135 pts are planned in a 2:2:1 ratio. The study was powered to detect a difference in TTP of 1.5 vs 3 months. Results: As of Dec 2005, 78 pts were randomized and treated with ≥ 5 months follow-up (A/B/C: 31/31/16). Median age (A/B/C) 69/70/61, KPS ≥80% 24/28/9, median baseline PSA ng/mL 90/147/235, disease related pain at baseline 61%/58%/63%; other characteristics, including metastatic site distribution, were similar between arms. Safety: 65 pts were evaluated for safety. Median cycles/Pt (A, B, C) 3/2/2; grade 3/4 toxicities (% pts A, B, C): asthenia (4%, 16%, 0%), vomiting (0%, 12%, 0%) and diarrhea (4%, 8%, 0%). The most common grade 3/4 laboratory abnormalities were neutropenia (10%, 6%, 31%) and thrombocytopenia (15%, 12%, 0%). Conclusion: IROF in combination with P and, in particular, C/P shows improved activity and acceptable tolerance compared to M/P in docetaxel-resistant HRPC. Patient accrual is complete as of Jan 2006, and final results will be presented. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

International randomized phase III study of capecitabine (Cap), bevacizumab (Bev), and mitomycin C (MMC) in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Final results of the AGITG MAX trial

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4023-4023
Author(s):  
N. C. Tebbutt ◽  
V. Gebski ◽  
K. Wilson ◽  
M. Cummins ◽  
Y. Chua ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Low Toxicity ◽  
Grade 3

4023 Background: The addition of Bev to oxaliplatin or irinotecan based doublet chemotherapy has shown benefit in mCRC. Cap± MMC are alternate chemotherapy regimens suitable for patients (pts) who are either unfit for or who do not require initial oxaliplatin/irinotecan. This phase III study compared Cap with Cap Bev and Cap Bev MMC. The aim was to develop a low toxicity regimen suitable for a broad population of pts with mCRC. Methods: Previously untreated pts with unresectable mCRC considered suitable for Cap monotherapy were randomised to arm A Cap (Cap 2000mg/m2/d or 2500mg/m2 d1–14 q21d), arm B Cap Bev (Bev 7.5mg/kg q3w) or arm C Cap Bev MMC (MMC 7mg/m2 q6w). Primary endpoint: PFS, secondary endpoints: RR, toxicity, OS, QoL . Randomisation was stratified by age, PS, centre and Cap dose. Response was assessed every 6w. The study was designed to detect an increase in the median PFS from 5.5m (arm A) to 8m (arm B or C) at p<0.025 with 80% power. Results: A total of 471 pts were randomised from July 2005-June 2007. Outcomes were evaluated on an intention to treat basis and included 15 ineligible pts. Baseline demographics were well balanced between arms with median age 67y (range 31–86y). Toxicity was reported: ASCO 2008 abstr 4029. The most common grade 3/4 toxicities were PPE (16%, 26%, 28%) and diarrhoea (11%, 17%, 16%) for arms (A,B,C). However, adjusted rates per cycle were similar as arms B & C received more cycles of Cap (A8.3, B10.8, C10.5). Other toxicity rates were generally <10%. The study achieved its primary endpoint with a highly significant improvement in PFS for arms B & C. RR and OS are summarized ( Table ). Conclusions: All treatment regimens were well tolerated in a relatively elderly patient cohort. The addition of Bev±MMC to Cap significantly improved PFS without significant additional toxicity. OS was similar for all arms. Cap Bev±MMC is an active, low toxicity regimen that may be considered as a treatment option for pts with mCRC. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

Phase III randomized trial of definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with FOLFOX or cisplatin and fluorouracil in esophageal cancer (EC): Final results of the PRODIGE 5/ACCORD 17 trial.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA4003-LBA4003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thierry Conroy ◽  
Marie-Pierre Galais ◽  
Jean Luc Raoul ◽  
Olivier Bouche ◽  
Sophie Gourgou-Bourgade ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Squamous Cell ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Ecog Ps

LBA4003 Background: CRT is one of the best treatment options for localized EC. As new combinations are required to improve safety and survival, we launched a randomized phase II study to assess the complete response (CR) rate of CRT with FOLFOX versus 5FU/cisplatin in 97 pts with localized EC (Conroy 2010). The trial having met its objectives, it has been pursued as a phase III trial. Stratified randomization was performed centrally in a 1:1 ratio according to histological type, pretreatment weight loss in the prior 6 months (<10% vs ≥10%), ECOG PS (0 vs 1 vs 2), and center. Methods: Pts with technically unresectable cancer or those with surgical contraindications or who refused to undergo surgery were eligible. Eligibility criteria also included age >18 years (y), PS ≤ 2, previously untreated adenocarcinoma or squamous cell EC (any T, N0 or N1, M0 or M1a). The radiation dose was 50 Gy (2Gy/fr) 5 d/wk for 5 wks in both arms. In Arm A, pts received 6 bimonthly cycles (cy): oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 d1 and leucovorin 200 mg/m2 followed by 5-FU 400 mg/m2 bolus d1 then 1,600 mg/m2 46h continuous infusion (ci) ; the first 3 cy were delivered during RT, the 3 other after. In Arm B, pts received 4 cy: cisplatin 75 mg/m2 d1 followed by 5FU 1,000 mg/m2/d ci d1-4, the first 2 cy during RT and 2 other after. The primary endpoint was PFS. Main secondary endpoints were OS, grade 3-4 toxicities, and quality of life. A total of 266 pts would provide 90% power to detect a 20% 3y-PFS difference (α=0.05). Results: 267 pts were enrolled between 10/2004 and 08/2011. Treatment cohorts were well balanced: male 81%; median age 61 y; PS 0 53%, squamous cell 85.8%, stage III 52%, IVA 6.0% and IVB 3.0%. Full treatment was delivered to 67.9% and 72.2% of pts in arms A/B, respectively. 7 toxic deaths occurred in each arm. Grade 3/4 toxicities per pt (%) in arms A/B were neutropenia 30.6/31.3, febrile neutropenia 5.3/7.0, anemia 5.4/11.0, asthenia 17.6/10.2, respectively. The median FU time was 25.3 mos. 3y-PFS was 18.2/17.4 % (HR=1.07; 95%CI =0.80-1.43) and median OS was 20.2 /17.5 m (HR=1.06; 95%CI =0.77-1.46). Conclusions: CRT with FOLFOX does not improve PFS compared to cisplatin and 5-FU and has similar toxicities.

Randomized, open-label, phase II study comparing five-weekly S-1 plus cisplatin (SP) with tri-weekly capecitabine plus cisplatin (XP) in chemotherapy-naïve patients with HER2 negative advanced gastric cancer (AGC): OGSG 1105 HERBIS-4A trial.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 102-102
Author(s):  
Atsushi Takeno ◽  
Youichi Makari ◽  
Shunji Endo ◽  
Jin Matsuyama ◽  
Ryohei Kawabata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Group 13 ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Open Label Phase ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

102 Background: This phase II study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of XP compared to SP in the first-line treatment of HER2 negative AGC. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either SP (S-1 at 40–60 mg twice daily for 21 days plus cisplatin at 60 mg/ m2 on day 8, every 5 weeks) or XP (capecitabine 1,000 mg/m2 twice daily for 14 days plus cisplatin 80 mg/m2 on day 1, every 3 weeks). Primary endpoint was response rate (RR), and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), time to treatment failure (TTF), and adverse events. Results: 84 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive SP ( N = 41) or XP ( N = 43). No statistical difference was observed in overall RR between the SP and XP groups [51.2% (95% CI, 35.1% to 67.1%) vs. 53.5% (95% CI, 37.7% to 68.8%), P = 1.000]. Despite not significant, however, SP vs. XP showed a trend toward better PFS [median, 5.9 months vs. 4.1 months; hazard ratio (HR), 0.763; 95% CI, 0.462 to 1.259; P = .284] and OS (median, 13.5 months vs. 10.0 months; HR, 0.776; 95% CI, 0.485 to 1.244; P = .290). This trend in the SP vs. XP comparison was more pronounced in TTF (median, 4.5 months vs. 3.1 months; HR, 0.651; 95% CI, 0.421 to 1.006; P = .052). Common grade 3 to 4 hematological toxicities were neutropenia and anemia (SP group, 23% and 23%; XP group, 35% and 28%). Grade 3-4 anorexia and hyponatremia were more frequently seen in the XP group (31% and 16%) compared to the SP group (13% and 5%). Treatment-related deaths occurred in one patient (2.3%) in the XP group. Conclusions: XP failed to demonstrate the superior efficacy over SP. Higher incidence of severe toxicities by XP suggests SP as the standard 1st line chemotherapy for HER2 negative AGC in Japan. Clinical trial information: UMIN000006755.

Phase III study of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone as first-line (1L) treatment for advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer (sq NSCLC).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9554-9554
Author(s):  
Jie Wang ◽  
Xinmin Yu ◽  
Shun Lu ◽  
Yanping Hu ◽  
Yuping Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tumor Stage ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Tolerability Profile ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Open Label Phase ◽  
Independent Review ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Number Of Treatment

9554 Background: Tislelizumab is an anti-PD-1 antibody engineered to minimize binding to FcγR on macrophages to abrogate antibody-dependent phagocytosis. Tislelizumab in combination with chemotherapy has demonstrated a manageable tolerability profile and preliminary efficacy as 1L treatment for NSCLC. Methods: In this open-label phase 3 study (NCT03594747), Chinese pts with histologically confirmed stage IIIB or IV sq NSCLC were randomized (1:1:1) to receive IV Q3W: tislelizumab (200 mg, D1) + paclitaxel (P; 175 mg/m2, D1) and carboplatin (carb; AUC 5, D1) ( Arm A); tislelizumab + nab-P (100 mg/m2; D1, 8, and 15) and carb (AUC 5, D1) ( Arm B); or P (175 mg/m2, D1) and carb (AUC 5, D1) ( Arm C). Chemotherapy was administered for 4-6 cycles followed by tislelizumab. Patients were stratified by tumor stage and PD-L1 expression. The primary endpoint, PFS per RECIST v1.1, was assessed by Independent Review Committee; key secondary endpoints included OS, ORR, DoR, and safety/tolerability. Results: Across 360 pts, median PFS was significantly improved with tislelizumab plus chemotherapy ( Arms A and B) compared with chemotherapy alone ( Arm C) (Table). As of 6 Dec 2019, ORRs were higher and median DoRs were longer in Arms A and B vs Arm C. Across all arms, median OS was not reached and median number of treatment cycles were comparable. Adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation of any treatment were reported in 12.5%, 29.7%, and 15.4% of pts in Arms A, B, and C, respectively. The most commonly reported grade ≥3 AEs were hematologic in nature (eg, neutropenia) and consistent with known chemotherapy AEs. Serious treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were reported in 72 pts (37.5% [ A]; 38.9% [ B]; 23.6% [ C]); TRAEs leading to death were reported in 6 pts (n=1 [ A]; n=2 [ B]; n=3 [ C]), none of which were solely attributed to tislelizumab. Conclusions: As 1L treatment for advanced sq NSCLC, addition of tislelizumab to P/carb or nab-P/carb chemotherapy significantly improved PFS and showed higher ORR and longer DoR than chemotherapy alone. The safety profile is in line with the known profiles of tislelizumab, chemotherapy, and underlying NSCLC; no new safety signals were identified with addition of tislelizumab to chemotherapy. Clinical trial information: NCT03594747 . [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document