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.

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.

A phase II trial of temsirolimus (TEM) and bevacizumab (BEV) in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4099-4099 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer J. Knox ◽  
Rui Qin ◽  
Jonathan R. Strosberg ◽  
Andreas Kaubisch ◽  
Anthony B. El-Khoueiry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Vegf Inhibitor ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Prior Systemic Therapy ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Stage 1

4099 Background: There is strong rationale to combine an m-TOR inhibitor (TEM) with a VEGF inhibitor (BEV) as a potentially active and well tolerated treatment for HCC. Both agents have shown modest single agent activity in HCC and so evaluated here in a phase II trial. Methods: A modified 2-stage Simon design planned 25 or 50 patients (pts) to test the null hypothesis that true tumor response rate is at most 10% andtrue 6-mo progression-free survival rate (PFS) (by RECIST) is at most 65%, or no better than single agent BEV (6 mo PR >2 pts or PFS 6 mo >18 out of 25.) Toxicity, TTP, PFS and survival were 2nd endpoints. Eligible pts had confirmed HCC with disease unresectable or amenable to other localised therapies, Child Pugh A liver status and no prior systemic therapy involving the VEGF or m-TOR class of agents. TEM was administered at starting dose 25 mg IV d1,8,15,22 with BEV at 10mg/kg IV d 1, 15, all q 28 days (1 cycle). Imaging was q 8 wks. Results: From 09/09 to 09/11, 27 eligible pts were enrolled with 25 evaluable for toxicity and efficacy. Med age 59 yrs, 85% male, PS 0/1: 35/65, 58% metastatic, >85% BCLC stage C. With med 6 cycles (range 1-14) delivered, most pts (88%) experienced a grade 3+ adverse event (a/e.) Common grade 3 a/es related to treatment included thrombocytopenia (40%), neutropenia (20%), leucopenia (12%), fatigue (8%), anemia, mucositis, dyspnea, diarrhea, bleeds, fistula, infections (4% each). There was one possible treatment related death. Per protocol dose reductions/discontinuation for TEM-related a/es were most common. There were 2 confirmed PRs and 16 pts progression-free by 6 mos. A third pt developed a late PR at cycle 13. Median TTP on study was 6 mos, median PFS was 7.4 mos and median survival was 8.3 mos, with 13 pts still alive. Accrual closed at end of stage 1 as neither the number of responses nor the PFS at 6 mos passed the futility stopping rule set for this combination. Conclusions: This multicenter study is the first HCC trial evaluating the BEV/TEM doublet. Despite manageable toxicity, the ORR and 6 mo PFS did not surpass assumptions based on single agent BEV in HCC. Further study of BEV/TEM combination in this advanced HCC population is not recommended.

Efficacy of vemurafenib in patients (pts) with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with BRAFV600 mutation.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9074-9074 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivek Subbiah ◽  
Radj Gervais ◽  
Gregory J. Riely ◽  
Antoine Hollebecque ◽  
Jean-Yves Blay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Response Rate ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Braf Mutations ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Braf Inhibition ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Prior Systemic Therapy ◽  
Grade 3

9074 Background: BRAFV600 mutations occur in 1–2% of pts with NSCLC. We previously reported the efficacy of vemurafenib, a selective BRAFV600 inhibitor, in BRAF mutation-positive non-melanoma tumors (VE-BASKET study). We now present final data for the expanded NSCLC cohort. Methods: This open-label, histology-independent, phase 2 study included 6 prespecified cohorts (including NSCLC) plus one ‘all-others’ cohort. Pts received vemurafenib (960 mg bid) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (RECIST v1.1). Secondary endpoints included best overall response rate, duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Because the pre-specified clinical benefit endpoint was met in the initial NSCLC cohort, the cohort was expanded. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01524978. Results: Database lock was 12 Jan 2017. Of 208 pts enrolled at 25 centers worldwide, 62 pts had NSCLC: median age 65 years; 56% male; 13% had no prior systemic therapy; 50% had ≥2 prior therapies. Responses were seen in previously treated and untreated pts (Table). The most common all-grade adverse event (AE) was nausea (40%); grade 3–5 AEs included keratoacanthoma (15%) and squamous cell carcinoma of the skin (15%). Six pts discontinued vemurafenib due to AEs; two had non-treatment-related fatal AEs. Conclusions: Vemurafenib showed evidence of encouraging efficacy in pts with NSCLC with BRAFV600 mutation, with prolonged PFS in previously untreated pts; median OS was not estimable due to ongoing responses. The safety profile of vemurafenib was similar to that seen in melanoma studies. Our results suggest a role for BRAF inhibition in NSCLC with BRAF mutations. Clinical trial information: NCT01524978. [Table: see text]

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.

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]

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.

Sorafenib-Regorafenib Sequential Therapy in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Single-Institute Experience

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 611-617 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kazuomi Ueshima ◽  
Naoshi Nishida ◽  
Masatoshi Kudo
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Sequential Therapy ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Effective Treatment Option ◽  
Sorafenib Treatment ◽  
Advanced Hcc ◽  
Grade 3

Objectives: Previously, no therapeutic agent has been known to improve the overall survival compared with placebo in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), who have progressed after sorafenib. In this patient population, regorafenib was first demonstrated to confer a survival benefit in the RESORCE trial, and subsequently it was approved as a second-line treatment for patients with advanced HCC. An open-label expanded access program (EAP) of regorafenib was implemented for compassionate use. We investigated the efficacy and safety of regorafenib based on our experience of the RESORCE trial and the EAP. Methods: Data from 5 patients from the RESORCE trial and 6 from the EAP were analyzed retrospectively. All patients had tolerated prior sorafenib and were progressing during sorafenib treatment. Results: The median progression-free survival was 9.2 months (95% CI 2.3-16.1). One patient achieved a partial response and 7 achieved stable disease. The objective response rate was 9.1%, and the disease control rate was 72.7%. No treatment-associated mortalities were observed. Grade 3 hypophosphatemia was observed in 2 patients, grade 2 anorexia was observed in 5 patients, and grade 3 neutropenia was observed in 2 patients. Grade 2 and grade 3 thrombocytopenia were observed in 2 and 3 patients, respectively. All treatment-related adverse events were improved by reduction or interruption of regorafenib. Five patients showed decreased serum albumin levels. Conclusion: Sorafenib and regorafenib sequential therapy presents a safe and effective treatment option for patients with advanced HCC.

scholarly journals Glembatumumab vedotin for patients with metastatic, gpNMB overexpressing, triple-negative breast cancer (“METRIC”): a randomized multicenter study

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda T. Vahdat ◽  
Peter Schmid ◽  
Andres Forero-Torres ◽  
Kimberly Blackwell ◽  
Melinda L. Telli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Triple Negative Breast Cancer ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Antibody Drug Conjugate ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Open Label Phase ◽  
Grade 3

AbstractThe METRIC study (NCT#0199733) explored a novel antibody–drug conjugate, glembatumumab vedotin (GV), targeting gpNMB that is overexpressed in ~40% of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and associated with poor prognosis. The study was a randomized, open-label, phase 2b study that evaluated progression-free survival (PFS) of GV compared with capecitabine in gpNMB-overexpressing TNBC. Patients who had previously received anthracycline and taxane-based therapy were randomized 2:1 to receive, GV (1.88 mg/kg IV q21 days) or capecitabine (2500 mg/m2 PO daily d1–14 q21 days). The primary endpoint was RECIST 1.1 PFS per independent, blinded central review. In all, 327 patients were randomized to GV (213 treated) or capecitabine (92 treated). Median PFS was 2.9 months for GV vs. 2.8 months for capecitabine. The most common grade ≥3 toxicities for GV were neutropenia, rash, and leukopenia, and for capecitabine were fatigue, diarrhea, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia. The study did not meet the primary endpoint of improved PFS over capecitabine or demonstrate a relative risk/benefit improvement over capecitabine.

Safety and efficacy of single-agent lenalidomide in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (4) ◽  
pp. 772-778 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Richardson ◽  
Sundar Jagannath ◽  
Mohamad Hussein ◽  
James Berenson ◽  
Seema Singhal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Prior Treatment ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Grade 3

Abstract Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is effective for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM); however, toxicities from dexamethasone can be dose limiting. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide monotherapy in patients with relapsed and refractory MM. Patients (N = 222) received lenalidomide 30 mg/day once daily (days 1-21 every 28 days) until disease progression or intolerance. Response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP), and safety were assessed. Overall, 67% of patients had received 3 or more prior treatment regimens. Partial response or better was reported in 26% of patients, with minimal response 18%. There was no difference between patients who had received 2 or fewer versus 3 or more prior treatment regimens (45% vs 44%, respectively). Median values for TTP, PFS, and OS were 5.2, 4.9, and 23.2 months, respectively. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (60%), thrombocytopenia (39%), and anemia (20%), which proved manageable with dose reduction. Grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia occurred in 4% of patients. Lenalidomide monotherapy is active in relapsed and refractory MM with acceptable toxicities. These data support treatment with single-agent lenalidomide, as well as its use in steroid-sparing combination approaches. The study is registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00065351.

GEIS 39: Phase II trial of nabpaclitaxel for the treatment of patient with multiply relapsed/refractory desmoplastic small round cell tumor (DSRCT) and Ewing sarcoma (EwS).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11529-11529
Author(s):  
Jaume Mora ◽  
Mariona Suñol ◽  
Nadia Hindi ◽  
Alicia Castañeda ◽  
Andrés Redondo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Single Agent ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Predictive Biomarker ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Pediatric Solid Tumors ◽  
Meaningful Activity ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Central Pathology ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Further Development

11529 Background: Nab-paclitaxel (albumin-bound paclitaxel) has shown preclinical activity against pediatric solid tumors. Preclinical data in EwS PDX models suggested high activity of nab-paclitaxel in tumors expressing high-levels of SPARC. Tumoral SPARC facilitates the accumulation of albumin in the tumor and increases the effectiveness of albumin-bound paclitaxel. Nab-paclitaxel utilizes albumin to deliver paclitaxel via caveolin-mediated endocytosis which is expressed in the EwS cells surface. We hypothesized that SPARC can be a predictive biomarker for nab-paclitaxel in EwS and DSRCT that could potentially be relevant for a better design of clinical trials and personalized treatments using nab-paclitaxel. Methods: Main endpoint of GEIS-39 was the overall response rate (ORR) assessed by RECIST 1.1 criteria with centralized pathology and imaging review. Secondary objectives included safety according to the CTCAE 4.0 criteria. Patients aged ≥ 6 months and ≤ 40 years, with relapsed/refractory DSRCT were eligible after having received at least one previous poly-chemotherapy line; EwS must have received at least two standard chemotherapy lines. Prior taxane therapy was accepted. Central pathology review selected for tumors with > Grade 3 (intense and diffuse) expression of SPARC by immunohistochemistry to be eligible. Nab-paclitaxel was administered as follows: age ≥ 21 and ≤ 40 years: 125 mg/m2 days 1, 8 and 15 in cycles of 28 days; age ≥ 6 months and ≤ 20 years: 240 mg/m2 days 1, 8 and 15 in cycles of 28 days. A 30% ORR was anticipated with a sample size of 25 patients needed to test the hypothesis. Stopping rule was set at 1 response within the first 16 treated pts. If 5 or more successes were observed in 25 pts, the results of the trial will warrant further investigation. Results: Twenty-nine patients were enrolled from June 2017 until October 2019, 11 DSRCT and 18 EwS. Median age was 32 years (range 14-69), and 5 females and 24 males were included, having received a median of 3 previous systemic treatment lines. Patients received a median of 3 cycles of nab-paclitaxel (range 1-17). In the EwS cohort an ORR of 33.3% (all partial responses, median duration 2 months) and 16.7% of stabilizations were achieved. No objective responses were observed among DSRCT pts, but 27.3% of pts achieved a stabilization. Overall, median progression free survival was 2.8 months and median overall survival 12.1 months, with no significant differences between DSRCT and EwS cohorts. Most common grade 3 toxicities were neutropenia (20.7%) and diarrhea (10.3%). Conclusions: Single agent nab-paclitaxel in biomarker selected EwS patients, but not in DSRCT, provided clinically meaningful activity that deserves further development. Nab-paclitaxel had a manageable adverse event profile. Clinical trial information: 2016-002464-14.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document