Adavosertib with chemotherapy (CT) in patients (pts) with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PPROC): An open label, four-arm, phase II study.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5513-5513 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen N. Moore ◽  
Setsuko K. Chambers ◽  
Erika Paige Hamilton ◽  
Lee-may Chen ◽  
Amit M. Oza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Dose Schedule ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Grade 3

5513 Background: Adavosertib (AZD1775; A), a highly selective WEE1 inhibitor, demonstrated activity and tolerability in combination with carboplatin (C) in primary PROC. This study (NCT02272790) assessed the objective response rate (ORR) and safety of A in PROC. Methods: Pts with recurrent RECIST v1.1 measurable PROC received A with C, gemcitabine (G), weekly paclitaxel (P), or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in 3- (C) or 4-week (G, P, PLD) cycles (Table). Tumor assessments were performed every 2 cycles until disease progression. Primary objective: ORR; other objectives: disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. Results: In the 94 pts treated (median treatment duration 3 months; range 0–16 months), outcomes were greatest with A (weeks [W]1–3) + C (Table), with ORR of 67% and median PFS (mPFS) of 10.1 months for this cohort. Most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are shown in the Table, with hematologic toxicity most notable with A (W1–3) + C. TEAEs led to A dose interruptions, reductions and discontinuations in 63%, 30% and 13% of the whole cohort, respectively. A possible positive relationship between CCNE1 amplification and response warrants further investigation. Conclusions: A shows preliminary efficacy when combined with CT. Pts receiving A (W1–3) + C showed greatest benefit. The increased but not unexpected hematologic toxicity is a challenge and could be further studied to optimize the dose schedule and supportive medications. Clinical trial information: NCT02272790. [Table: see text]

Biweekly Raltitrexed in Combination with Irinotecan (RIR) as Second-Line Therapy for Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Non-Randomized, Open-Label Phase II Trial.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ke Cheng ◽  
Yu-Wen Zhou ◽  
Ye Chen ◽  
Zhi-Ping Li ◽  
Meng Qiu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Open Label Phase ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background Irinotecan-based doublet chemotherapy strategy was standard second-line backbone treatment for patients with oxaliplatin‑refractory metastatic colorectal cancer(mCRC). The aim of this study was to evaluate tolerability and efficacy of raltitrexed combined with irinotecan biweekly administered as the second-line therapy for mCRC patients.Methods The study was a single-center, non-randomized, open-label phase II trial. Patients with mCRC after failure with first-line treatment of oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine or its derivatives were enrolled. Irinotecan (180 mg/m2) and raltitrexed (2.5 mg/m2) were given intravenously on day 1. Cycles were repeated every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, and the secondary endpoints included overall response rate, disease control rate, overall survival and treatment related adverse events. Results Between December 2012 and October 2016, 35 patients were enrolled. 33 and 35 patients were assessed for response and safety, respectively. The overall response rate (ORR) was 8.6 %, and the disease control rate (DCR) was 71.4%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.5 months (95% CI 3.8–5.2). The median overall survival was 12.0 months (95% CI 8.5–15.5). Four patients received conversion therapy to no evidence of disease (NED), and 2 patients were still alive with beyond 24 months survival. The most common grade 3/4 hematological adverse events were leukopenia (8.6%), neutropenia (5.7%). The most common grade 3/4 nonhematological adverse events were anorexia (14.3%), vomiting (14.3%), nausea (11.4%) and fatigue (8.6%). Two patients discontinued the protocol treatment because of treatment-related gastrointestinal adverse events. No one died from treatment-related events. The incidence and severity of toxicity was irrelevant to UGT1A1 status.Conclusions The combination of irinotecan with raltitrexed is an active, convenient and acceptable toxic regimen for second-line treatment for mCRC patients, which needs further study as a chemotherapy backbone to be combined with targeted agents in mCRC.Trial registration No. ChiCTR-ONC-12002767. The study was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry at 29 Octorber 2012, http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx.

Olaparib plus paclitaxel plus carboplatin (P/C) followed by olaparib maintenance treatment in patients (pts) with platinum-sensitive recurrent serous ovarian cancer (PSR SOC): A randomized, open-label phase II study.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5001-5001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amit M. Oza ◽  
David Cibula ◽  
Ana Oaknin ◽  
Christopher John Poole ◽  
Ron H.J. Mathijssen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Maintenance Treatment ◽  
Parp Inhibitor ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Platinum Sensitive ◽  
Open Label Phase ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Grade 3

5001 Background: The oral PARP inhibitor olaparib has shown antitumor activity in pts with SOC. Our multicenter study compared the efficacy of (Arm A) olaparib capsules plus P/C for 6 cycles then maintenance olaparib monotherapy vs (Arm B) P/C alone for 6 cycles and no further therapy in pts with PSR SOC (NCT01081951). Methods: Pts received 6 x 21-day(d) cycles of olaparib (200 mg bid, d1–10/21) + P (175 mg/m2 iv, d1) + C (AUC4 iv, d1), then olaparib monotherapy as maintenance (400 mg bid, continuous) (Arm A), or 6 x 21d cycles of P (175 mg/m2 iv, d1) + C (AUC6 iv, d1) then no further therapy (Arm B), until progression. Randomization (1:1) was stratified by number of platinum treatments and platinum-free interval. Primary endpoint: progression-free survival (PFS) by central review (RECIST 1.1). Secondary endpoints: overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), safety. Archival tissue was collected where available for analysis of biomarker correlation. Results: Of 162 pts randomized (n=81 per arm), 156 received treatment (Arm A, n=81; Arm B, n=75) and 121 began the maintenance/no further therapy phase (Arm A, n=66; Arm B, n=55). Olaparib + P/C (AUC4) followed by maintenance olaparib showed a significant improvement in PFS vs P/C (AUC6) alone (HR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.34, 0.77; P=0.0012; median = 12.2 vs 9.6 months). OS data are immature (total events: 14%). ORR was similar for Arm A and Arm B (64 vs 58%). Most common AEs during the combination phase were alopecia (74 vs 59%), nausea (69 vs 57%) and fatigue (64 vs 57%) for Arm A vs Arm B, respectively. Pts with grade ≥3 AEs (65 vs 57%), serious AEs (SAEs: 15 vs 21%) and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (19 vs 16%) were similar for Arm A vs Arm B. Most common AEs during maintenance/no further therapy were nausea (50 vs 6%) and vomiting (29 vs 7%). 29 vs 16% of pts had grade ≥3 AEs, 9 vs 7% had SAEs and 8% vs N/A discontinued due to AEs in the olaparib vs no treatment arms, respectively. There were no fatal AEs. Conclusions: In pts with PSR SOC, olaparib plus P/C (AUC4) followed by olaparib 400 mg bid monotherapy maintenance treatment resulted in a significant improvement in PFS vs P/C (AUC6) alone.

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]

scholarly journals Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in recurrent, advanced urothelial cancer in Japanese patients: a subgroup analysis of the phase 3 KEYNOTE-045 trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 165-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroyuki Nishiyama ◽  
Yoshiaki Yamamoto ◽  
Naoto Sassa ◽  
Kazuo Nishimura ◽  
Kiyohide Fujimoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Urothelial Cancer ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Japanese Patients ◽  
Open Label ◽  
End Points ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Metastatic Urothelial Cancer ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Background The open-label, randomized, active-controlled KEYNOTE-045 study (NCT02256436) showed that second-line pembrolizumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer (UC) that progressed after first-line platinum-containing chemotherapy, compared with standard chemotherapy (paclitaxel, docetaxel, or vinflunine). Pembrolizumab is approved for patients with bladder cancer in Japan. Patients and methods Analysis was performed in the subgroup of Japanese patients enrolled in the KEYNOTE-045 study. Coprimary end points were OS and progression-free survival (PFS). Objective response rate (ORR) and safety were secondary end points. Results Fifty-two Japanese patients (pembrolizumab, n = 30; chemotherapy, n = 22) were followed up for a median of 26.1 months. Patients who received pembrolizumab compared with chemotherapy had a 19% lower risk for death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81, 95% CI 0.44–1.50); after adjusting for baseline covariates, the HR for OS was 0.61 (95% CI 0.32–1.15). The 24-month OS rate was higher with pembrolizumab (26.9% vs 14.3%). PFS was 2.0 and 4.9 months for pembrolizumab and chemotherapy, respectively (HR 1.71, 95% CI 0.95–3.08). ORR was similar for pembrolizumab and chemotherapy (20.0% vs 18.2%); durability of response was higher with pembrolizumab: 67% and 33% of patients, respectively, maintained a response for > 12 months. Treatment-related adverse events, including grade 3–5 events, occurred less frequently with pembrolizumab. Conclusions Pembrolizumab provided durable antitumor activity in patients with locally advanced/metastatic UC that progressed after platinum-containing chemotherapy in the overall population and in the Japanese subgroup; safety profile was consistent with that previously observed for pembrolizumab.

A randomized, open-label phase II study of nanoliposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI)-containing regimens versus nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPAC).

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS482-TPS482 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Dean ◽  
Li-Tzong Chen ◽  
Ramesh K. Ramanathan ◽  
Sarah Blanchette ◽  
Bruce Belanger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
First Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Open Label Phase ◽  
Secondary Endpoints

TPS482 Background: Two combination chemotherapy regimens have emerged as standard of care options for first-line treatment of mPAC: 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin (LV) + irinotecan + oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX), and nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine. Nal-IRI (MM-398) is a nanoliposomal formulation of irinotecan. In a randomized phase 3 study (NAPOLI-1), of patients with mPAC who had been previously treated with gemcitabine-based therapy, nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV demonstrated its safety and significant clinical activity, increasing overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) relative to 5-FU/LV. The goal of this current study is to determine the preliminary safety and efficacy of nal-IRI+ + 5-FU/LV with or without oxaliplatin as compared to nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine in previously untreated patients with mPAC. Methods: This open-label, phase 2 comparative study will be conducted in two parts. Part 1 is a safety run-in of a nal-IRI+5-FU/LV + oxaliplatin regimen. The safety run-in will enroll small cohorts of patients following a traditional 3 + 3 dose escalation design to confirm the target dose of oxaliplatin (n = ~6-18). The primary objective of Part 1 is the safety and tolerability of nal-IRI + 5FU/LV + oxaliplatin. Part 2 is a randomized, efficacy study of a nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV + oxaliplatin regimen (Arm 1), the nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV combination that previously demonstrated efficacy in the NAPOLI-1 trial (Arm 2), versus a nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine control arm (Arm 3) (n = ~156-168). The primary objective of Part 2 is to assess the efficacy of nal-IRI-containing regimens in first-line mPAC patients compared to nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine using the progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 24 weeks as the primary endpoint. Secondary of part 1 is a PK study and Part 2 secondary endpoints will include OS, PFS, objective response rate (per RECIST, v1.1), decrease in CA19-9 levels and quality of life assessments. Clinical trial information: NCT02551991.

scholarly journals Toxicity and efficacy of FOLFIRI regimen and aflibercept combination in metastatic colorectal cancer: first results of a Russian multicenter retrospective study

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 53-63
Author(s):  
M. Yu. Fedyanin ◽  
L. Yu. Vladimirova ◽  
V. A. Chubenko ◽  
L. A. Zagorskaya ◽  
A. V. Belyayeva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Objective Response Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Grade 3

Purpose. To assess the incidence and severity of adverse events; to explore clinical factors associated with grade 3–4 non-hematologic toxicity; to assess the immediate efficacy and progression-free survival during treatment with the FOLFIRI regimen in combination with aflibercept in Russia.Materials and Methods. A retrospective multicenter study has been conducted with data collected from 20 clinics in 15 regions of Russia. There was no statistical hypothesis. Progression-free survival was the main efficacy criterion. The statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPPS Statistics v. 20 software.Results. FOLFIRI and Aflibercept combination was administered to 264 patients. The mean number of treatment cycles was 6 (1 to 29). The toxicity of aflibercept was addressed by dose reduction and dosing delay in 10.1 % and 11.4 % of patients, respectively, and dose reductions and dosing delays in any of FOLIFRI components were reported in 20.1 % of participants. The objective response rate was 20.3 %. The median progression-free survival in patients receiving second-line treatment was 6 months (95 % CI: 5.3–6.6 months). Seventy-two percent of patients experienced any grade of adverse events most of which were limited to grade 1–2 (62.1 %). Non-hematologic toxicity was reported in 64 % of patients (grade 3–4 in 17.9 %). Hematologic events were detected in only 17.9 % of patients. Multifactorial analysis has shown that drug therapy for concomitant diseases (OR 1.98, 95 % CI: 1.04–3.78, p = 0.037) and the number of chemotherapy lines prior to aflibercept (ОR 1.5, 95 % CI: 1.06–2.11, p = 0.02) were independent predictors of grade 3–4 non-hematologic toxicity.Conclusions. Objective response rate, progression-free survival, and frequency of toxicity-related aflibercept discontinuations in the Russian study with patients receiving aflibercept in combination with FOLFIRI regimen as a second-line treatment has shown the results that were comparable with VELOUR study. Comorbidities requiring drug treatment and the number of prior chemotherapy lines appear to be risk factors for grade 3–4 nonhematological toxicity events. 

The NIBIT-M1 trial: Activity of ipilimumab plus fotemustine in patients with melanoma and brain metastases.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8529-8529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Maio ◽  
Alessandro Testori ◽  
Paolo Antonio Ascierto ◽  
Ruggero Ridolfi ◽  
Mario Santinami ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Brain Metastases ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Whole Brain Radiotherapy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Brain Radiotherapy ◽  
Grade 3

8529 Background: Patients (pts) with metastatic melanoma (MM) often develop treatment-resistant brain metastases (mets). Treatment includes fotemustine (FTM), which crosses the blood-brain barrier. Ipilimumab (ipi) has shown activity in pts with MM and asymptomatic brain mets (Heller et al. ASCO 2011; abs 8581). In the phase II NIBIT-M1 trial, MM pts with asymptomatic brain mets were eligible for treatment with ipi plus FTM. Here, data from this pt subset are reported. Methods: Eligible pts received induction therapy with ipi 10 mg/kg every 3 wks (Q3W) x4 and FTM 100 mg/m2 weekly for 3 wks, followed by ipi Q12W from Week (W) 24 and FTM Q3W from W9. The primary objective was the immune-related (ir) disease control rate (irDCR: complete/partial response [CR/PR] or stable disease [SD] using the ir response criteria). Secondary objectives included ir objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS); overall survival (OS), and safety. Tumor assessments were performed Q8W from W12 to W36 and Q12W thereafter. Results: Among 86 enrolled pts, 20 had brain mets. Of these, 7 had prior whole brain radiotherapy (n=4) or radiosurgery (n=3). As of December 2011, the irDCR was 50% (10/20; 95% CI, 27.2–72.8%) with an irORR of 40% (95% CI, 19.1–63.9%: 2 CRs and 6 PRs). Pts with irDC also had stability/reduction (n=5) or disappearance (n=5) of brain mets. Among pts with progressive disease, all but one had progression in the brain. With median follow-up of 8.3 months (range: 0.4–16.9), median irPFS was 4.6 months (95% CI, 0.7–12.3). The 1-year OS rate was 52.9% (95% CI, 26.6–79.2); median OS was not reached. Induction with ipi and FTM was completed by 55% and 85% pts, respectively. Grade 3/4 drug-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 60% pts; most commonly myelotoxicity (50%), increased ALT/AST (5%) and gastrointestinal (5%). AEs were generally manageable and reversible per protocol guidance. CNS AEs of any grade (i.e., haemorrhage, headache and seizure) occurred in 25% pts (grade 3/4 in 2 pts) and were attributed to disease progression. Conclusions: The combination of ipi plus FTM is active and safe in pts with MM and brain mets, regardless of prior treatment, and will be further explored in the phase III NIBIT-M2 trial.

A phase III randomized, open label, multicenter study comparing isatuximab, pomalidomide, and low-dose dexamethasone versus pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8004-8004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul G. Richardson ◽  
Michel Attal ◽  
S. Vincent Rajkumar ◽  
Jesus San Miguel ◽  
Meral Beksac ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Dose ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
New Treatment ◽  
Grade 3

8004 Background: The primary objective of this phase 3 trial was to demonstrate progression free survival (PFS) improvement of isatuximab (Isa), a novel anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, combined with pomalidomide (P)/dexamethasone (d) versus (vs) Pd. Methods: Patients (pts) with RRMM who received ≥2 prior lines, including lenalidomide (len) and a proteasome inhibitor (PI), refractory to last therapy were enrolled. IsaPd arm received Isa 10 mg/kg IV weekly for first 4 weeks (wks), then every 2 wks. Both arms received approved schedules of pom and dex (4mg PO days 1-21; 40mg [20mg if >75 yrs] PO or IV weekly) every 28 days until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results: 307 pts (154 IsaPd, 153 Pd) were randomized and analyzed (ITT). Patient characteristics were well balanced across arms. Median age: 67 (36-86) yrs; median prior lines of therapy: 3 (2-11); estimated GFR: <60ml/min in 33.9% pts; 92.5% refractory to len, 75.9% to PI; and 19.5% pts had high-risk cytogenetics. At median follow-up of 11.6 months (mos), median PFS was 11.5 mos IsaPd vs 6.5 mos Pd; HR 0.596 (95% CI 0.44-0.81), P=0.001. PFS benefit was consistent across all major subgroups. ORR (≥PR) was 60.4% IsaPd vs 35.3% Pd, P<0.0001. VGPR rate or better was 31.8% IsaPd vs 8.5% Pd, and MRD negativity (NGS, 10-5) was seen in 5.2% IsaPd pts vs 0% Pd. At analysis date, overall survival (OS) was immature (99 events) but a trend to OS improvement in IsaPd (vs Pd) was observed (HR 0.687; 95% CI 0.461-1.023). Median treatment duration was 41 wks IsaPd vs 24 wks Pd; median Isa infusion (inf.) duration was 3.3h at 1st inf. and 2.8h at subsequent inf. Grade ≥3 AEs were observed in 86.8% IsaPd vs 70.5% Pd; 7.2% IsaPd and 12.8% Pd pts discontinued due to AEs; 7.9% IsaPd and 9.4% Pd pts died due to AEs. Inf. reactions were reported in 38.2% (2.6% grade 3-4) IsaPd. Grade ≥3 infections were seen in 42.8% IsaPd and 30.2% Pd, grade ≥3 neutropenia in 84.9% (febrile 11.8%) IsaPd and 70.1% (febrile 2.0%) Pd. Conclusions: IsaPd significantly improved PFS and ORR vs Pd, with a manageable safety profile. IsaPd is an important new treatment option for the management of RRMM. Clinical trial information: NCT02990338.

A phase II study of anlotinib combined with STUPP regimen in the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2039-2039
Author(s):  
Peijing Li ◽  
Yuan yuan Yuan Chen ◽  
Shuzhen Lai ◽  
Fagui Jiang ◽  
Xiaohui Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adjuvant Therapy ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Who Grade ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Grade 3

2039 Background: STUPP regimen is now the standard treatment for newly diagnosed GBM, while the effectiveness is limited. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of anlotinib, a multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor, combined with the STUPP regimen in treating these patients. Methods: This is a phase II, multicenter, open-label, single-arm trial (NCT04119674). Thirty-three patients (17 males and 16 females) were enrolled from 8 hospitals in China between January 2019 and February 2021. Inclusion criterion included 1) newly diagnosed histologically confirmed glioblastoma (WHO grade IV), 2) 2-6 weeks (wks) after surgery with healed incision, 3) 18-70 years old, 4) KPS≥60, 5) at least one measurable lesion according to RANO criteria, 6) radiotherapy (RT), chemotherapy, immunotherapy or biotherapy naïve. All patients received 54-60 Gy radiation (1.8-2.0 Gy per fraction, five days per week) concurrently with temozolomide (TMZ, 75mg/m2, orally, QD) and anlotinib (8mg, orally, QD, d1-14/3wks). Adjuvant therapy started four weeks after RT completion, including six cycles of TMZ (150-200mg/m², orally, d1-5/4wks) and eight cycles of anlotinib (8mg, orally, QD, d1-14/3wks). Patients who completed adjuvant therapy were administrated anlotinib continuously until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Safety assessment was done in patients who received at least one dose of study agent. Results: The median age is 52 (range 32-69) years. Analyses included data collected through February 6, 2021. The median treatment duration was 6.5 months. The median PFS was not reached, and the median overall survival (OS) was 17.4 months [95%CI 11.6-23.2]. The 1-year PFS and OS rate was 84.0% and 100.0%, respectively. Tumor response occurred in 21 patients, 63.6% (21/33) objective response (CR/PR), and 24.2% (8/33) patients had stable disease (SD).The clinical benefit rate (CBR), defined as the proportion of patients who achieved durable disease control (CR/PR/SD) more than six months, was 57.6% (19/33). Hypertension (6.1%) was the most common ≥grade 3 adverse event. No treatment related death occurred in this study through the last follow-up. Overall, toxicities are mild and manageable. Conclusions: Anlotinib combined with the STUPP regimen is efficacious and well-tolerated in newly diagnosed GBM patients. Clinical trial information: NCT04119674.

Phase I Study of the Combination of Carfilzomib and Panobinostat for Patients with Relapsed and Refractory Myeloma: A Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC) Clinical Trial

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 32-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan L. Kaufman ◽  
Todd Zimmerman ◽  
Cara A Rosenbaum ◽  
Ajay K. Nooka ◽  
Leonard T Heffner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Phase I Study ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Maximum Tolerated Dose ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Significant Activity ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Introduction: Patients with myeloma ultimately become refractory to current therapies, requiring new approaches to treatment. Carfilzomib is a second generation proteasome inhibitor that has demonstrated significant activity in patients with relapsed and refractory disease. Panobinostat is a pan-deacetylase inhibitor that has been shown to be effective and overcome resistance in combination with bortezomib in refractory patients. In addition, patients treated with a combination of bortezomib/dexamethasone/panobinostat had a significant improvement in progression free survival (PFS) compared to bortezomib/dexamethasone alone. Based on preclinical data supporting combined HDAC and proteasome inhibition, we hypothesized that carfilzomib and panobinostat would be safe and effective in relapsed/refractory myeloma patients. Herein we report the initial findings of the MMRC multicenter phase I study of the combination. Methods: The primary objective is to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination of panobinostat and carfilzomib using a standard 3+3 alternate dose escalation design with 4 cohorts. An additional 12 patient expansion group will be treated at the MTD to further assess the activity and safety of the combination. Secondary objectives are to evaluate the extended safety of this combination and to assess response, response duration and progression free survival (PFS). Panobinostat is administered orally three times weekly for three of four weeks, ranging from 15 to 20 mg. Carfilzomib is administered IV days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16, ranging from 20/27 mg/m2 to 20/45mg/m2. Cycles are repeated every 4 weeks. Dose limiting toxicities (DLT) are determined in the first cycle, and all adverse events are assessed according to CTCAE V4. Responses are assessed using IMWG criteria (plus MRs as per the EBMT criteria). Results: To date, 20 patients in four cohorts have been enrolled and all have completed the first cycle. Median age is 64.5 years (48-75). All patients had refractory and progressive disease; with a median number of 4) prior treatment lines. Three DLTs occurred. One patient had grade 4 thrombocytopenia with grade 3 acute kidney injury, one patient developed persistent grade 4 thrombocytopenia without bleeding and one patient had grade 3 diarrhea uncontrolled by maximal medical therapy. The MTD is panobinostat 20 mg and carfilzomib 20/36 mg/m2. The most common grade 3 toxicities were hematologic. Regardless of causality, grade 3 or higher anemia, thrombocytopenia and neutropenia occurred in 35%, 35%, and 20% of patients, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 or higher nonhematologic toxicities were fatigue (15%), anorexia (10%), hyponatremia (10%) and nausea (10%). The overall response rate is 50% with 30% PRs and 20% VGPR or better. The median PFS is 14.3 months. Conclusion: The combination of carfilzomib and panobinostat is well tolerated with no unexpected toxicities. Response, durability of response, and PFS are encouraging and warrant further study. Disclosures Kaufman: Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Co.: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Research Funding. Off Label Use: Carfilzomib treatment in amyloidosis . Zimmerman:Onyx: Honoraria. Heffner:Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Biotest: Honoraria, Research Funding; Dana Farber CI: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Idera: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Onyx: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria, Research Funding; Talon Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Harvey:Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Gleason:Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Lewis:Array BioPharma: Consultancy. Lonial:Millennium: The Takeda Oncology Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onyx Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document