Activity and safety of third-line BRAF-targeted therapy (TT) following first-line TT and second-line immunotherapy (IT) in advanced melanoma.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 10049-10049
Author(s):  
Victoria Atkinson ◽  
Kathleen Batty ◽  
Georgina V. Long ◽  
Matteo S. Carlino ◽  
Geoffrey David Peters ◽  
...  

10049 Background: Patients with advanced melanoma who progress on 1st line TT and 2nd line IT have limited treatment options. We explored the safety and efficacy of re-treatment with 3rd line TT. Methods: was pooled from 6 centers in Australia from 2009-2018. Eligible patients with BRAF V600 mutant melanoma had 1st line therapy with a BRAF/MEK inhibitor, 2nd line IO and were re-challenged with a BRAF/MEK inhibitor. Results: 90 patients were included; median age 61 years, 78% BRAF V600E, 89% ECOG 0-1 at baseline. 1st line TT was combination BRAF/MEK inhibitors in 80%, predominately dabrafenib/trametinib. Response to 1st line therapy was CR 20%, PR 41%, SD 17% and PD 13% and median duration of therapy was 7.2 months (0-33 months). 70% stopped for progressive disease, 9% toxicity and 16% had a planned switch to immunotherapy. For 2nd line IT, 49% had PD-1 alone, 33% had PD-1+CTLA-4, 14% had CTLA-4 alone. Only median duration on IT was 67 days (0-23 months), 81% ceased for PD, 14% for toxicity. Of patients who had a planned switch to IO before 1st line TT progression, one patient responded to second line IO with SD as BORR, there were no other responses to 2nd line IO in the planned switch group. At 3rd line TT re-challenge, 54% were AJCC stage IVd, 34% IVc, 51% had elevated LDH, 59% ECOG 0-1. 47% were re-challenged with dabrafenib/trametinib, 33% vemurafenib/cobimetinib, 11% encorafenib/binimetinib. BORR was 28%, with median duration on 3rd line TT 81 days. The OS was 1.7 years, with 34% alive at time of analysis. Conclusions: Despite progression on 1st line TT and 2nd line IT, patients may experience meaningful response and on re-challenge TT.

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 5881-5881
Author(s):  
Keri Keri Yang ◽  
Beth Lesher ◽  
Eleanor Lucas ◽  
Tony Caver ◽  
Boxiong Tang

Introduction: MCL is an aggressive type of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and was reported associated with early relapse and poor long-term survival. Treatment options include chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and molecular targeted therapies. As of 2019, molecular targeted therapies available in the United States indicated for the treatment of MCL include the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib, the immunomodulatory drug lenalidomide (following two previous lines of therapy), and the Burton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKIs) ibrutinib and acalabrutinib (following at least one previous line of therapy). Objective/Methods: To examine the real-world treatment patterns of patients with MCL globally, a systematic literature review was performed (2010-2019) with predefined methodology and inclusion and exclusion criteria. Embase and Medline were searched via ProQuest and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Library. Results: Of the 2207 publications identified, 6 publications (US, n = 4; EU, n = 2) provided information on the first-line treatment of MCL (Table). The most commonly administered first-line treatments were bendamustine-rituximab; high dose cytarabine ± rituximab; and cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin hydrochloride, vincristine sulfate, and prednisone (CHOP) ± rituximab although differences were noted across studies. Most patients received rituximab first-line either in combination with chemotherapy (54.2%-87.5%) or as monotherapy (12.9%-28.9%); although in some studies, rituximab maintenance therapy could not be excluded. The most commonly administered second-line therapies were cytarabine, rituximab monotherapy, and ibrutinib while third-line therapies were rituximab monotherapy, ibrutinib, and temsirolimus. Nine studies provided data on the real-world treatment of MCL with the BTKI ibrutinib (EU, n = 3; US, n = 5; EU/US, n = 1; Table); no real-world studies were identified for acalabrutinib. Six studies enrolled patients only with relapsed or remitting MCL; 3 studies enrolled patients (≤7.5%) who received ibrutinib as first-line therapy. Ibrutinib second-line therapy was administered to 13%-20% of patients and third-line therapy to 21% of patients. Ibrutinib discontinuation rates in 7 studies varied from 38.7%-83.6%. Non-response, including relapse or progression (34.6%-100%), was the main cause of discontinuation, followed by toxicity/adverse events (8.1%-25.6%). Across studies, toxicity/adverse events causing ibrutinib discontinuation included atrial fibrillation, bleeding/hemorrhage, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diarrhea, herpes zoster, infection, leukocytosis/ lymphocytosis, lung cancer, myelodysplastic syndrome, and thrombocytopenia. Two studies provided information on ibrutinib dose reductions (16.4% of patients) and ibrutinib dose interruptions (7.8%-30.2% of patients). Treatment options administered post-ibrutinib included rituximab (52.7%), hyper-CVAD + rituximab (16.7%-25.8%), lenalidomide-based regimens (9.7%-41.5%), and bortezomib-based regimens (8.4%-34.4%). Conclusion: Our analyses showed that most patients with MCL received first-line chemoimmunotherapy, although regimens varied across studies. Approximately 13%-21% of patients received ibrutinib following first-line therapy. Most ibrutinib discontinuation was due to progression followed by toxicity/adverse events. Upon discontinuation of ibrutinib, considerable variation in treatments was seen and no standard therapy identified. Given the limitations of current therapies, there is a need for additional second- and third-line treatments for patients with MCL. Quantitative assessments of clinical endpoints from real-world studies evaluating BTKI therapies are also warranted. Disclosures Yang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Employment. Lesher:Pharmerit: Employment. Lucas:Pharmerit: Employment. Caver:BeiGene, Ltd.: Employment. Tang:BeiGene, Ltd.: Employment.


2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (7) ◽  
pp. 1893-1900 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Gore ◽  
Wim ten Bokkel Huinink ◽  
James Carmichael ◽  
Alan Gordon ◽  
Neville Davidson ◽  
...  

PURPOSE: A large, randomized study comparing the efficacy and safety of topotecan versus paclitaxel in patients with relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer showed that these two compounds have similar activity. In this study, a number of patients crossed over to the alternative drug as third-line therapy, ie, from paclitaxel to topotecan and vice versa. We therefore were able to assess the degree of non–cross-resistance between these two compounds. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who had progressed after one platinum-based regimen were randomized to either topotecan (1.5 mg/m2/d) × 5 every 21 days (n = 112) or paclitaxel (175 mg/m2 over 3 hours) every 21 days (n = 114). A total of 110 patients received cross-over therapy with the alternative drug (61 topotecan, 49 paclitaxel) as third-line therapy. RESULTS: Response rates to third-line cross-over therapy were 13.1% (8 of 61 topotecan) and 10.2% (5 of 49 paclitaxel; P = .638). Seven patients who responded to third-line topotecan and four patients who responded to paclitaxel had failed to respond to their second-line treatment. Median time to progression (from the start of third-line therapy) was 9 weeks in both groups, and median survival was 40 and 48 weeks for patients who were receiving topotecan or paclitaxel, respectively. The principal toxicity was myelosuppression; grade 4 neutropenia was more frequent with topotecan (81.4% of patients) than with paclitaxel (22.9% of patients). CONCLUSION: Topotecan and paclitaxel have similar activity as second-line therapies with regard to response rates and progression-free and overall survival. We demonstrated that the two drugs have a degree of non–cross-resistance. Thus, there is a good rationale for incorporating these drugs into future first-line regimens.


2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cleophas Chimbetete ◽  
David Katzenstein ◽  
Tinei Shamu ◽  
Adrian Spoerri ◽  
Janne Estill ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives To analyze the patterns and risk factors of HIV drug resistance mutations among patients failing second-line treatment and to describe early treatment responses to recommended third-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) in a national referral HIV clinic in Zimbabwe. Methods Patients on boosted protease inhibitor (PI) regimens for more than 6 months with treatment failure confirmed by 2 viral load (VL) tests >1000 copies/mL were genotyped, and susceptibility to available antiretroviral drugs was estimated by the Stanford HIVdb program. Risk factors for major PI resistance were assessed by logistic regression. Third-line treatment was provided as Darunavir/r, Raltegravir, or Dolutegravir and Zidovudine, Abacavir Lamivudine, or Tenofovir. Results Genotypes were performed on 86 patients who had good adherence to treatment. The median duration of first- and second-line ART was 3.8 years (interquartile range [IQR], 2.3–5.1) and 2.6 years (IQR, 1.6–4.9), respectively. The median HIV viral load and CD4 cell count were 65 210 copies/mL (IQR, 8728–208 920 copies/mL) and 201 cells/mm3 (IQR, 49–333 cells/mm3). Major PI resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) were demonstrated in 44 (51%) non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor RAMs in 72 patients (83%) and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors RAMs in 62 patients (72%). PI resistance was associated with age >24 years (P = .003) and CD4 cell count <200 cells/mm3 (P = .007). In multivariable analysis, only age >24 years was significantly associated (adjusted odds ratio, 4.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.69–13.38; P = .003) with major PI mutations. Third-line DRV/r- and InSTI-based therapy achieved virologic suppression in 29/36 patients (81%) after 6 months. Conclusions The prevelance of PI mutations was high. Adolescents and young adults had a lower risk of acquiring major PI resistance mutations, possibly due to poor adherence to ART. Third-line treatment with a regimen of Darunavir/r, Raltegravir/Dolutegravir, and optimized nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors was effective.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 175883591986752 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth C. Smyth ◽  
Markus Moehler

Survival for patients with unresectable advanced or recurrent gastric cancer (GC) remains poor and the historical lack of evidence-based therapeutic options after second-line therapy is reflected in current clinical guidelines for this condition. Despite uncertainty about optimal therapeutic strategies, further treatment is appropriate for some patients after failure of second line and may prolong survival. This approach has been reported in clinical trials and is becoming more common in real-world clinical settings. Several prognostic factors may increase the likelihood that a patient will be eligible for treatment in the third-line setting, including geographic location, status at diagnosis and response to treatment. There has been little progress over the last decade until the results from two large phase III randomized controlled trials completed in the last year: the ATTRACTION-2 trial with the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor, nivolumab, in an Asian population; and the TAGS trial with the oral chemotherapy trifluridine/tipiracil in a global population. Both ATTRACTION-2 and TAGS reported positive results in third-line treatment in advanced GC in specific patient groups. A further recently reported study, KEYNOTE-059, which was a single-arm phase II trial of the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab in a mainly non-Asian population, has provided evidence supporting the use of this immunotherapy in patients with advanced GC. As further third-line options become available, more GC patients are expected to benefit from an individualized evidence-based approach to later-line therapy, with a common goal of extending survival and improving outcomes for their refractory disease.


2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 175883592094093
Author(s):  
Yinying Wu ◽  
Yangwei Fan ◽  
Danfeng Dong ◽  
Xuyuan Dong ◽  
Yuan Hu ◽  
...  

Background: The evidence base for optimum third-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is not conclusive. Recent studies have demonstrated the efficacy of regorafenib as third-line therapy in mCRC. This indirect meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of regorafenib with other available third-line therapies for mCRC. Methods: A literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of fruquintinib, regorafenib, TAS-102, and nintedanib as third-line therapies in patients with mCRC. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were the primary outcomes, while objective response rate (ORR) and safety were the secondary outcomes. Hazard ratio (HR) and relative risk (RR) with their respective 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for analysis of survival, clinical response, and safety data. An adjusted indirect meta-analysis with placebo as the common comparator was performed. Results: We identified eight RCTs comparing regorafenib (two studies), fruquintinib (two studies), TAS-102 (three studies), and nintedanib (one study) against placebo. The OS with regorafenib was significantly better when compared with nintedanib (HR = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.45, 0.95, p = 0.02) but was similar to that of fruquintinib (HR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.67, 1.52, p = 0.94) and TAS-102 (HR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.68, 1.38, p = 0.88). The PFS and ORR for regorafenib were slightly better than those of TAS-102 (PFS: HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.54, 1.37, p = 0.5; ORR: RR = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.11, 11.05, p = 0.92) and nintedanib (PFS: HR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.42, 1.10, p = 0.12; ORR: not reported) but were lower than those for fruquintinib (PFS: HR = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.93, 2.52, p = 0.08; ORR: RR = 0.68269, 95% CI: 0.045, 10.32, p = 0.79). Safety analysis showed that the RR of adverse events (AEs) was lesser in patients treated with regorafenib in comparison with that in patients treated with fruquintinib, but was similar to that in patients treated with nintedanib and TAS-102. Conclusion: Regorafenib has efficacy similar to that of TAS-102 and better safety when compared with fruquintinib. Considering the mechanism of action of regorafenib, which targets multiple factors in the angiogenic pathway, it could be an ideal option for treatment in the beyond second-line setting.


Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 2294-2294
Author(s):  
Antonella Russo Rossi ◽  
Massimo Breccia ◽  
Fausto Castagnetti ◽  
Luigiana Luciano ◽  
Antonella Gozzini ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 2294 Background. The TKIs Nilotinib and Dasatinib offer additional therapeutic options for patients with CML who are resistant or intolerant to Imatinib. These agents, active against the majority of Imatinib resistant BCR-ABL mutated clones, have a different pattern of kinase target selectivity, pharmacokinetics parameters, cell uptake, efflux properties and adverse events profiles. Preliminary results suggest that some patients may respond to a second TKI used as third line therapy, but little is known about the long term benefit of such an approach.Aim of this collaborative Italian study was to verify the response (rate and duration) and the clinical outcome in patients with CML treated with a third TKI after sequential failure of the previous ones. Methods. We evaluated 66 patients with CML, resistant/intolerant to Imatinib and treated with Dasatinib or Nilotinib, then switched to a third- line TKI after treatment failure. Of these, 29 patients were treated with dasatinib after imatinib/nilotinib failure and 37 with nilotinib after imatinib/dasatinib failure. Patients were monitored with complete blood counts, cytogenetic analysis, bone marrow aspiration RT-PCR and mutational analysis. Results. A total of 66 patients (median age 63 years, range, 33–85 years) were treated with sequential TKIs; 40 (61%) patients had received interferon-a before starting Imatinib; 26 (39%) patients received imatinib as first line therapy. The median time on imatinib therapy was 47.5 months (range 4–101 months). At the start of nilotinib as second line, 27/29 (93%) patients were in CP, 1 (3.5%) in AP, and 1 (3.5%) in BP. 9 patients (31%) had developed mutations before starting treatment. The median time on second line TKI was 8 months (range 2–36 months). In the resistant patients 4 new mutations were identified (F359V in two patients, T315I, Y253H+F359V). At the start of dasatinib as second line, 33/37 (89.2%) patients were in CP, 4 (10.8%) in AP. 7 patients (18.9%) had developed mutations before starting treatment. The median time on second line TKI was 14 months (range 4–59 months).In the resistant patients 5 new mutations were identified (F137L in three pts, M318T, M244V+F317L). At the start of the third TKI, 60/66 (90.9%) patients were in CP, 5 (7.6%) in AP, and 1 (1.5%) in BP. Of these, 7 patients (18.9%) on dasatinib and 7 (24.1%) on nilotinib had mutations before starting treatment. The best response to the third line treatment with TKI was 10 (15.2%) MMR, 10 (15.2%) CCyR, 8 PcyR (12.1%), 5 (7.5%) mCyR, 24 (36.4%) CHR and 9 (13.6%) No Response (NR). In the dasatinib group, 9 (31%) patients discontinued treatment because of toxicity versus 17 (45.9%) patients in the nilotinib group.Two new mutations (F317L, E255V) emerged with dasatinib as third line therapy.After a median follow up of 13 months (range 2–37 months) 50 patients (48 CP, 2 AP) are continuing therapy (33 on nilotinib, 17 on dasatinib).Since the start of the third TKI, 61 patients (92.4%) are still alive for a median overall survival of 110 months (range 15–300) (52 CP, 7 AP, 2 NA); the 5 deaths (7.6%) were caused by disease progression and spread of the gene mutation T315I. Discussion. In our study, about one third of patients derived benefit from the use of three sequential TKIs; patients with better, longer response (28.7%) to third TKI were the same patients with a better response to the Imatinib and 2TKIs therapy. All these patients had taken interferon therapy before the Imatinib. In this subset of patients (good responders: CCyR and MMR) 5 patients developed mutations that were sensitive to the sequential treatment.The lack of a durable cytogenetic remission could be explained by the emergence of new kinase domain mutations as patients are exposed to sequential TKI; a change of therapy resulted in an adequate response. In our series, patients with poor prognosis showed mutations not sensitive to the TKIs treatment. Conclusions. Although allogeneic SCT is the treatment of choice in all patients failing 2 TKIs who are suitable candidates for this approach, alternative strategies are required for ineligible patients. The use of a third TKI after failure of two previous TKIs induces response in some patients. Longer follow up of a larger series of patients is needed to determine the long term impact of the response. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 3440-3440
Author(s):  
Clarisse Lobo ◽  
Carla Boquimpani ◽  
Tania Silva Madeira ◽  
Patricia Wendling ◽  
Claudia Maximo ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 3440 Nilotinib and dasatinib are second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) used in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) resistant or intolerant to imatinib. There are no randomized clinical trials comparing these drugs in this context. The aim of this study was to compare, retrospectively, the hematological, cytogenetic and molecular response in patients submitted to these second-generation TKI at Hemorio, a public brazilian institution. A total of 114 patients were analyzed, 63 received nilotinib and 51 dasatinib as second-line therapy (55.3% and 44.7%, respectively). The following variables were equally distributed between these two groups (nilotinib vs. dasatinib, respectively): male sex (54% vs. 60.8%, p=0.46), median age at diagnosis (46 vs. 45 years, p=0.76), median time in months using imatinib before the switch (45.2 vs. 44.1, p=0.96), resistance to imatinib (98.4% vs. 98%, p=0.88), presence of the mutation T315I (3.2% vs. 3.9%, p=0.09), patients in chronic phase before the switch (85.7% vs. 86.3%, p=0.93). Use of another second generation TKI, as a third-line therapy, was necessary in 30 out of the 114 patients analyzed (26.1%) because of lack of response. This modification was slightly more frequent in the group initially submitted to nilotinib (31.7% vs. 19.6%, p=0.21). Patients who used a third-line therapy were excluded from response and survival analyzes. Response rates after the second-generation TKI were similar between these two groups (nilotinib vs. dasatinib): complete hematological response until three months (77.8% vs. 87.3%, p=0.24), complete cytogenetic response until six months (21.6% vs. 22.2%, p=0.95) and 12 months (32.4% vs. 33.3%, p=0.94) and major molecular response reached before 12 months (32.7% vs. 21.6%, p=0.25). Two-year overall survival (OS) and progression free-survival (PFS) were similar between these two groups (nilotinib vs. dasatinib, respectively): 92.2% vs. 87.8% (p=0.38) for OS and 87.8% vs. 83.7% (p=0.14) for PFS. Although not statistically significant, two-year OS was inferior in the group of patients who needed a third-line therapy (70.5% vs. 95.6%, p=0.70). Our results suggest that the response and survival rates are similar between nilotinib and dasatinib as second-line therapy for patients with imatinib resistant or intolerant CML. Also, they suggest an inferior prognosis for patients who need a third-line therapy. In this way, the choice between these two TKI for second-line therapy should be guided by the clinical characteristics and the mutation status of the patient. Disclosures: Lobo: NOVARTIS: Research Funding.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document