Randomized phase III study of irinotecan/cisplatin (IP) versus etoposide/cisplatin (EP) for completely resected high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma (HGNEC) of the lung: JCOG1205/1206.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9006-9006
Author(s):  
Hirotsugu Kenmotsu ◽  
Seiji Niho ◽  
Masahiro Tsuboi ◽  
Masashi Wakabayashi ◽  
Genichiro Ishii ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Neuroendocrine Carcinoma ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Minimization Method ◽  
Standard Regimen ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Grade 3

9006 Background: In the WHO classification, small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) are considered as high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma (HGNEC) of the lung. Although there were no randomized trials evaluating adjuvant chemotherapy for patients (pts) with resected HGNEC, EP was considered to be a standard regimen for this population. A phase III study showed the superiority of IP to EP in pts with extensive stage SCLC (JCOG9511). Methods: Pts with completely resected HGNEC were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either etoposide (100 mg/m2, days 1-3)/cisplatin (80 mg/m2, day 1) or irinotecan (60 mg/m2, days 1, 8, 15)/cisplatin (60 mg/m2, day 1), using the minimization method according to sex, pathologic stage, histology and institution. The primary endpoint was changed from overall survival (OS) to relapse-free survival (RFS) during the study period. We assumed a 3-year RFS of 59% of EP arm and 72% of IP arm (hazard ratio (HR) of 0.623). Planned sample size was 220 in total to give a power of 80% with a one-sided alpha of 5%, an accrual period of 6 years and a follow-up period of 3 years. Results: Between April 2013 and October 2018, 221 pts with a median age of 66 years, pathological stage I (54%), SCLC (53%), were randomly assigned to the EP arm (n = 111) or the IP arm (n = 110). In the second interim analysis, the predictive probability that IP would be superior to EP at the time of the primary analysis was 15.9%, which led to early termination of the trial. With a median follow-up of 24.1 months, 3-year RFS was 65.4% versus 69.0% with HR of 1.076 (95% CI, 0.666-1.738; log-rank test, one-sided P= 0.619). In the subgroup analyses of histology, 3-year RFS in SCLC was 65.2% versus 66.5% with HR of 1.029 (95% CI, 0.544-1.944), and 3-year RFS in LCNEC was 66.5% versus 72.0% with HR of 1.072 (95% CI, 0.517-2.222). Overall survival at 3 years was 84.1% versus 79.0% with HR of 1.539 (95% CI, 0.760-3.117). Proportions of treatment completion were 87.4% (EP) and 72.7% (IP). Incidences (EP/IP) of grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia (20.2/3.7%) or neutropenia (97.2/35.8%) were more common in EP. Grade 3 or 4 diarrhea (0.9/8.3%) or anorexia (6.4/11.1%) were more common in IP. One treatment-related death due to tracheal bleeding was observed in IP. Conclusions: This study failed to show the superiority of IP to EP in RFS for pts with completely resected HGNEC. EP is still a standard treatment for this population. Clinical trial information: UMIN000010298.

Randomized Phase III Study of Irinotecan Plus Cisplatin Versus Etoposide Plus Cisplatin for Completely Resected High-Grade Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of the Lung: JCOG1205/1206

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (36) ◽  
pp. 4292-4301
Author(s):  
Hirotsugu Kenmotsu ◽  
Seiji Niho ◽  
Masahiro Tsuboi ◽  
Masashi Wakabayashi ◽  
Genichiro Ishii ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Neuroendocrine Carcinoma ◽  
Stage I ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Open Label Phase ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Resected Stage

PURPOSE To verify the superiority of irinotecan plus cisplatin over etoposide plus cisplatin as postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with pathologic stage I-IIIA, completely resected, high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma (HGNEC) of the lung. METHODS This was a randomized, open-label, phase III study on patients with completely resected stage I-IIIA HGNEC of the lung. They were randomly assigned to receive either etoposide (100 mg/m2, days 1-3) plus cisplatin (80 mg/m2, day 1) or irinotecan (60 mg/m2, days 1, 8, 15) plus cisplatin (60 mg/m2, day 1) up to four cycles. The primary end point was relapse-free survival (RFS) in the intention-to-treat population. This trial was registered with the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCTs031180216). RESULTS Between April 2013 and October 2018, 221 patients were enrolled (etoposide plus cisplatin arm, 111 patients; irinotecan plus cisplatin arm, 110 patients). In the second interim analysis, early termination of the trial was recommended because of futility. At a median follow-up of 24.1 months, the 3-year RFS was 65.4% for etoposide plus cisplatin and 69.0% for irinotecan plus cisplatin, with a hazard ratio of 1.076 (95% CI, 0.666 to 1.738; one-sided log-rank P = .619). Grade 3-4 adverse events were more frequent in the etoposide plus cisplatin arm, with febrile neutropenia (20% of 109 patients v 4% of 107 patients) and neutropenia (97% v 36%) being the most common. Meanwhile, grade 3-4 anorexia (6% v 11%) and diarrhea (1% v 8%) were more frequently observed in the irinotecan plus cisplatin arm. CONCLUSION Irinotecan plus cisplatin is not superior to etoposide plus cisplatin for improving RFS in patients with completely resected HGNEC; thus, etoposide plus cisplatin remains the standard treatment.

Phase III results of adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) versus wait-and-see (WS) in patients with pT3 prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy (RP)(ARO 96-02/AUO AP 09/95): Ten years follow-up.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Wiegel ◽  
Dirk Bottke ◽  
Detlef Bartkowiak ◽  
Claudia Bronner ◽  
Ursula Steiner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Progressive Disease ◽  
Hormonal Treatment ◽  
Late Toxicity ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Intent To Treat

4 Background: Adjuvant RT for pT3 R1 or R0 patients (pts.) after RP remains controversial. The EORTC-phase-III- study suggested a 20% better biochemical control (bNED) after 10 years for RT but no survival advantage. In contrast, the SWOG trial stated not only a gain in bNED but also an improved metastasis free and overall survival after 12 years follow-up. Now, 10-years results from the ARO 96-02 study are available, which are based on the most precisely defined cohort among the three trials. Methods: 385 men with prostate cancer were randomized to either 60 Gy RT (arm A; n=193) or WS (arm B; n=192) before achieving an undetectable PSA. Pts. were stratified for Gleason-score, margin status, neoadjuvant hormonal treatment and stage (pT3a+b vs. c). When the undetectable PSA-level after RP was not achieved, progressive disease was stated and the pts. left arm A/B. Data analysis was by intent-to-treat (ITT). PSA-progression for pts. with undetectable post-RP PSA was defined as two consecutive increasing PSA. The primary endpoint was bNED. The study was powered to demonstrate a 15% increase in bNED for RT. Results: 78 pts. (20%) did not achieve an undetectable PSA and were stated as progressive disease (arm A: 45 pts., arm B: 33 pts.). Additionally, 34 pts. (23%) from the RT-arm did not receive RT. Therefore, 114 pts. had RT (arm A) and 159 pts. WS (arm B). Median follow up was 111.3 months for arm A and 113.3 months for arm B . bNED at 10 years increased to 56% for arm A (RT) compared with 35% for arm B (WS) (hazard ratio= 0.51; p = 0.00002. Out of 307 ITT pts., 15 died from prostate cancer, 23 for other and 5 for unknown reasons. There was no significant profit from ART regarding the endpoints metastasis-free survival (p=0.56) or overall survival (p=0.59). Worst late side effects to the rectum were two grade 2 cases after ART. Grade ≥2 bladder toxicity occurred in 4 out of 148 ITT pts. No grade 4 events were reported. Conclusions: With only one grade 3 case of late toxicity, ART was safe in pT3 prostate cancer. At 10 years median follow up, it reduced the risk of bNED by 49%. The study was not powered to detect differences in OS. Clinical trial information: ARO 96-02/AUO AP 09/95.

Efficacy of Melphalan and Prednisone Plus Thalidomide in Patients Older Than 75 Years With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: IFM 01/01 Trial

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (22) ◽  
pp. 3664-3670 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cyrille Hulin ◽  
Thierry Facon ◽  
Philippe Rodon ◽  
Brigitte Pegourie ◽  
Lotfi Benboubker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Standards Of Care ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

Purpose Until recently, melphalan and prednisone were the standards of care in elderly patients with multiple myeloma. The addition of thalidomide to this combination demonstrated a survival benefit for patients age 65 to 75 years. This randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III trial investigated the efficacy of melphalan and prednisone plus thalidomide in patients older than 75 years with newly diagnosed myeloma. Patients and Methods Between April 2002 and December 2006, 232 previously untreated patients with myeloma, age 75 years or older, were enrolled and 229 were randomly assigned to treatment. All patients received melphalan (0.2 mg/kg/d) plus prednisone (2 mg/kg/d) for 12 courses (day 1 to 4) every 6 weeks. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg/d of oral thalidomide (n = 113) or placebo (n = 116), continuously for 72 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. Results After a median follow-up of 47.5 months, overall survival was significantly longer in patients who received melphalan and prednisone plus thalidomide compared with those who received melphalan and prednisone plus placebo (median, 44.0 v 29.1 months; P = .028). Progression-free survival was significantly prolonged in the melphalan and prednisone plus thalidomide group (median, 24.1 v 18.5 months; P = .001). Two adverse events were significantly increased in the melphalan and prednisone plus thalidomide group: grade 2 to 4 peripheral neuropathy (20% v 5% in the melphalan and prednisone plus placebo group; P < .001) and grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (23% v 9%; P = .003). Conclusion This trial confirms the superiority of the combination melphalan and prednisone plus thalidomide over melphalan and prednisone alone for prolonging survival in very elderly patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. Toxicity was acceptable.

scholarly journals Final Results of the IELSG-19 Randomized Trial of Mucosa-Associated Lymphoid Tissue Lymphoma: Improved Event-Free and Progression-Free Survival With Rituximab Plus Chlorambucil Versus Either Chlorambucil or Rituximab Monotherapy

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (17) ◽  
pp. 1905-1912 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuele Zucca ◽  
Annarita Conconi ◽  
Giovanni Martinelli ◽  
Reda Bouabdallah ◽  
Alessandra Tucci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Lymphoid Tissue ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Final Sample ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
To Receive

Purpose There is no consensus on the optimal systemic treatment of patients with extranodal marginal zone lymphoma of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue. The IELSG-19 phase III study, to our knowledge, was the first such study to address the question of first-line treatment in a randomized trial. Patients and Methods Eligible patients were initially randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive either chlorambucil monotherapy (6 mg/m2/d orally on weeks 1 to 6, 9 to 10, 13 to 14, 17 to 18, and 21 to 22) or a combination of chlorambucil (same schedule as above) and rituximab (375 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 of weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 13, 17, and 21). After the planned enrollment of 252 patients, the protocol was amended to continue with a three-arm design (1:1:6 ratio), with a new arm that included rituximab alone (same schedule as the combination arm) and with a final sample size of 454 patients. The main end point was event-free survival (EFS). Analysis of chlorambucil versus the combination arm was performed and reported separately before any analysis of the third arm. Results At a median follow-up of 7.4 years, addition of rituximab to chlorambucil led to significantly better EFS (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.77). EFS at 5 years was 51% (95% CI, 42 to 60) with chlorambucil alone, 50% (95% CI, 42 to 59) with rituximab alone, and 68% (95% CI, 60 to 76) with the combination ( P = .0009). Progression-free survival was also significantly better with the combination ( P = .0119). Five-year overall survival was approximately 90% in each arm. All treatments were well tolerated. No unexpected toxicities were recorded. Conclusion Rituximab in combination with chlorambucil demonstrated superior efficacy in mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma; however, improvements in EFS and progression-free survival did not translate into longer overall survival.

Bendamustine Plus Rituximab Versus Fludarabine Plus Rituximab In Patients with Relapsed Follicular, Indolent and Mantle Cell Lymphomas – Final Results of the Randomized Phase III Study NHL 2–2003 on Behalf of the StiL (Study Group Indolent Lymphomas, Germany)

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 856-856 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathias J Rummel ◽  
Ulrich Kaiser ◽  
Christina Balser ◽  
Martina Beate Stauch ◽  
Wolfram Brugger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
International Prognostic Index ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rituximab Maintenance ◽  
Mantle Cell ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Indolent Lymphomas

Abstract Abstract 856 Introduction: Promising results have been observed in two phase II studies evaluating the combination of bendamustine plus rituximab (B-R) in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory follicular, other indolent or mantle cell lymphomas (MCL) (Rummel et al. JCO 2005; Robinson et al. JCO 2008). Fludarabine plus rituximab (F-R) is an established treatment option in this setting. Therefore, we initiated in 2003 a multicenter, randomized phase III study to compare the efficacy and safety of B-R versus F-R for pts with relapsed follicular (FL), indolent or MCL. Patients and methods: 219 pts with relapsed FL, indolent or MCL in need of treatment were randomized to rituximab 375 mg/m2 (day 1) plus either bendamustine 90 mg/m2 (days 1+2) or fludarabine 25 mg/m2 (days 1–3) q 28 days for a maximum of 6 cycles. Prophylactic use of antibiotics or granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) was not generally recommended; however in cases of severe granulocytopenia, G-CSF use was permitted. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The protocol was amended in 2006 to allow rituximab maintenance therapy (rituximab 375 mg/m2 q 3 months for up to 2 years) in both arms, following regulatory approvals in this setting. Results: 11 pts were not evaluable due to protocol violations, and were not followed further. A total of 208 pts were evaluable for the final analysis (109 B-R; 99 F-R). There were no significant differences between arms for patient characteristics, including age, stage, LDH, International Prognostic Index (IPI), follicular IPI (FLIPI), bone marrow infiltration and extranodal involvement. Most pts had stage IV (71.6% B-R; 60.6% F-R) or stage III disease (21.1% B-R and 25.3% F-R, respectively). Median patient age was 68 yrs (range 38–87). Patients had received a median of 1 prior therapy (range 1–7). Histological subtypes were distributed equally between the B-R and F-R arms: follicular 45.9 % and 47.5%, respectively; immunocytoma 11.9% and 11.1%; MCL 20.2% and 21.2%; other indolent lymphomas 23% and 20.2%. A median number of 6 cycles were given in both treatment arms, with 75.2% of B-R pts and 53.4% of F-R pts receiving 6 cycles, respectively. At the time of this analysis (June 2010), the median observation time was 33 months. Median PFS was significantly prolonged with B-R compared with F-R (30 vs 11 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.51, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.34–0.67; p<0.0001). The overall response rate was significantly higher with B-R than with F-R (83.5 vs 52.5%, respectively; p< 0.0001). The CR rate with B-R was also significantly higher than that with F-R (38.5 vs 16.2%; p=0.0004). Overall survival did not differ significantly between arms, with 42 and 46 deaths documented in the B-R and F-R arms, respectively. There were no significant differences in the rates of alopecia, stomatitis, erythema, allergic reactions, peripheral neuropathy or infectious episodes between groups. Hematologic toxicities were also similar between arms: 8.9% grade 3/4 neutropenia with B-R vs 9.1% with F-R; 11.8% grade 3/4 leukocytopenia with B-R vs 12.4% with F-R. The overall incidence of serious adverse events was similar for the B-R and F-R groups (17.4 and 22.2%, respectively). An unplanned subanalysis showed that rituximab maintenance therapy significantly prolonged overall survival (HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.22–0.67; p=0.0008) and PFS (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.27–0.59; p< 0.0001) in the small group of 40 pts who received this treatment (23 B-R, 17 F-R), compared with those who did not. Although the numbers are too small in this non-randomized comparison to draw some validated conclusions, these results appear to confirm the favorable role of rituximab maintenance. Conclusions: These data confirm the efficacy of B-R in pts with relapsed FL, indolent or MCL, and, in this setting, demonstrate a superior PFS benefit for this regimen in comparison with F-R. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Phase III study of doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel or docetaxel given every 3 weeks or weekly in operable breast cancer: Results of Intergroup Trial E1199

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 516-516 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. Sparano ◽  
M. Wang ◽  
S. Martino ◽  
V. Jones ◽  
E. Perez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Axillary Lymph ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Grade 3

516 Background: Evidence suggests that docetaxel is more effective than paclitaxel, and paclitaxel is more effective when given weekly than every 3 weeks in metastatic breast cancer (BC). Methods: Eligibility included axillary lymph node positive or high-risk (tumor at least 2 cm) node-negative BC. All patients received 4 cycles of AC (doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2) every 3 weeks, followed by either: (1) paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 every 3 weeks × 4 (P3), (2) paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 weekly × 12 (P1), (3) docetaxel 100 mg/m2 every 3 weeks × 4 (D3), or (4) docetaxel 35 mg/m2 weekly × 12 (D1). The primary comparisons included taxane (P vs. D) and schedule (every 3 weeks vs. weekly), and secondary comparisons included P3 vs. other arms. The trial had 86% power to detect a 17.5% decrease in disease-free survival (DFS) for either primary comparison, and 80% power to detect a 22% decrease for the secondary comparisons (2-sided nomimal 5% level tests corrected for multiple comparisons). Results: A total of 4,950 eligible patients were accrued. There was no difference in the primary comparisons afer 856 DFS events and 483 deaths after a median follow-up of 46.5 months at the 4th interim analysis ( www.sabcs.org , abstract 48). This is the final pre-specified analysis for the primary comparisons after 1,042 DFS events and 650 deaths (with 1,020 DFS events at this time, to be updated at the meeting). After a median followup of 60.2 months, there remains no significant difference in the hazard ratio (HR) for the taxane (1.02; p=0.73) or schedule (1.07; p=0.30) (as in the first analysis). In secondary comparisons of the standard arm (P3) with the other arms (HR > 1 favoring the experimental arms), the HRs were 1.30 (p = 0.003) for arm P1, 1.24 (p=0.02) for arm D3, and 1.09 (p=0.33) for arm D1. Analysis of interaction by hormone-receptor status will be presented. The incidence of worst grade toxicity (grade 3/4) was 24%/6% for arm P3, 24%/3% for arm P1, 21%/50% for arm D3, and 38%/6% for arm D1. Conclusions: There were no differences in DFS when comparing taxane or schedule overall. DFS was significantly improved in the weekly paclitaxel and every 3-week docetaxel arms compared with the every 3-week paclitaxel arm. [Table: see text]

Gemcitabine plus docetaxel versus docetaxel in patients (pts) with HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC): A randomized phase III study

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1015-1015
Author(s):  
D. L. Nielsen ◽  
S. T. Langkjer ◽  
K. Bjerre ◽  
S. Cold ◽  
L. Stenbygaard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Her 2 ◽  
Grade 3

1015 Background: Gemcitabine (G), either as a single agent or in combination with taxanes, has demonstrated efficacy in MBC in phase II and III studies. We conducted a phase III study to compare time to progression (TTP) of G plus docetaxel (T) versus (vs.) T alone. The secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and toxicity. Methods: Females with HER-2-negative locally advanced or MBC and a WHO performance status ≤ 2 were randomized to GT (G 1,000mg/m2 day 1 + 8; T 75mg/m2 day 1) or T (100mg/m2 day 1) every 21 days. Pts were previously untreated, had prior anthracycline-based (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy or had received a single prior anthracycline-bsed chemotherapy regimen for MBC. Time-to-event endpoints were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the log-rank test was applied for comparisons between regimens. The planned sample size was 254 evaluable pts with α I and β of 0.05 and 0.90, respectively. Results: A total of 336 pts were randomized (170 GT; 166 T), data from one centre are yet missing and the present evaluation is based on data from 306 pts (155 GT; 151 T). The pts had a median age of 58 years in both regimens; range 36–73 years and 30–74 years, respectively. The median TTP was 7.5 months for the GT regimen vs. 6.5 months for the T regimen. The GT arm demonstrated an ORR of 44% vs. 38% in the T arm with 4 and 3 % complete responses, respectively. The OS was 13.4 vs. 13.2 months in the GT and T arm, respectively. Hematologic toxicity was common, especially grade 3–4 neutropenia (GT = 69%; T = 61%); infection was reported in 22 and 20% of the pts, respectively (none of the pts received G-CSF). The most commonly reported non-hematologic toxicities of grade 3–4 included mucositis (GT = 2%; T = 5%), diarrhea (GT = 4%; T = 7 %), fatigue (GT = 6%; T = 11%), oedema (GT = 10%; T = 3%), and peripheral neuropathy (GT = 9%; T = 28%). Conclusions: Preliminary data of GT as first- or second-line chemotherapy demonstrates a TTP advantage among HER-2-negative pts with advanced breast cancer. Updated results and proper statistical analyses will be presented. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Phase III Study Comparing Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine With Cisplatin Plus Pemetrexed in Chemotherapy-Naive Patients With Advanced-Stage Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (21) ◽  
pp. 3543-3551 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giorgio Vittorio Scagliotti ◽  
Purvish Parikh ◽  
Joachim von Pawel ◽  
Bonne Biesma ◽  
Johan Vansteenkiste ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Grade 3

PurposeCisplatin plus gemcitabine is a standard regimen for first-line treatment of advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Phase II studies of pemetrexed plus platinum compounds have also shown activity in this setting.Patients and MethodsThis noninferiority, phase III, randomized study compared the overall survival between treatment arms using a fixed margin method (hazard ratio [HR] < 1.176) in 1,725 chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1. Patients received cisplatin 75 mg/m2on day 1 and gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2on days 1 and 8 (n = 863) or cisplatin 75 mg/m2and pemetrexed 500 mg/m2on day 1 (n = 862) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles.ResultsOverall survival for cisplatin/pemetrexed was noninferior to cisplatin/gemcitabine (median survival, 10.3 v 10.3 months, respectively; HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.05). Overall survival was statistically superior for cisplatin/pemetrexed versus cisplatin/gemcitabine in patients with adenocarcinoma (n = 847; 12.6 v 10.9 months, respectively) and large-cell carcinoma histology (n = 153; 10.4 v 6.7 months, respectively). In contrast, in patients with squamous cell histology, there was a significant improvement in survival with cisplatin/gemcitabine versus cisplatin/pemetrexed (n = 473; 10.8 v 9.4 months, respectively). For cisplatin/pemetrexed, rates of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia (P ≤ .001); febrile neutropenia (P = .002); and alopecia (P < .001) were significantly lower, whereas grade 3 or 4 nausea (P = .004) was more common.ConclusionIn advanced NSCLC, cisplatin/pemetrexed provides similar efficacy with better tolerability and more convenient administration than cisplatin/gemcitabine. This is the first prospective phase III study in NSCLC to show survival differences based on histologic type.

scholarly journals Bendamustine Plus Rituximab Versus Fludarabine Plus Rituximab in Patients with Relapsed Follicular, Indolent, or Mantle Cell Lymphomas – 8-Year Follow-up Results of the Randomized Phase III Study NHL 2-2003 on Behalf of the StiL (Study Group Indolent Lymphomas, Germany)

Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 145-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathias J. Rummel ◽  
Christina Balser ◽  
Ulrich Kaiser ◽  
Hans Peter Böck ◽  
Martina Beate Stauch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rituximab Maintenance ◽  
Mantle Cell ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Indolent Lymphomas

Abstract Introduction: Fludarabine plus rituximab (F-R) is an established treatment option for patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (FL), other indolent lymphoma, or mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). To further improve the treatment in this setting we initiated in 2003 a multicenter, randomized phase III study to compare the efficacy and safety of bendamustine plus rituximab (B-R) versus F-R for pts with relapsed FL, other indolent lymphomas or MCL. Patients and Methods: 230 pts in need of treatment were randomized to rituximab 375 mg/m² (day 1) plus either bendamustine 90 mg/m² (days 1+2) or fludarabine 25 mg/m² (days 1–3) q 28 days for a maximum of 6 cycles. Prophylactic use of antibiotics or granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) was not generally recommended; however, in case of severe granulocytopenia, G-CSF use was permitted. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and complete response rate (CR). The protocol was amended in 2006 to allow rituximab maintenance therapy (rituximab 375 mg/m2 q 3 months for up to 2 years) in both arms, following regulatory approvals in this setting. Results: A total of 219 pts were evaluable for the analysis (114 B-R; 105 F-R). There were no significant differences between arms for patient characteristics, including age, stage, LDH, IPI, FLIPI, bone marrow infiltration, and extranodal involvement. Most pts had stage IV (71.6% B-R; 60.6% F-R) or stage III disease (21.1% B-R; 25.3% F-R). Median patient age was 68 yrs (range 38–87). Patients had received a median of 1 prior therapy (range 1–7). Histological subtypes were distributed equally between the B-R and F-R arms: follicular, 45.9% and 47.5%, respectively; Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia, 11.9% and 11.1%; MCL, 20.2% and 21.2%; other indolent lymphomas, 23% and 20.2%. A median of 6 cycles were given in both treatment arms, with 75.2% and 53.4% of B-R and F-R pts receiving 6 cycles, respectively. At the time of this analysis (June 2014), the median observation time was 96 months. The ORR was significantly higher with B-R than with F-R (83.5% vs. 52.5%, respectively; p< 0.0001). The CR rate with B-R was also significantly higher than that with F-R (38.5% vs. 16.2%; p=0.0004). Median PFS was significantly prolonged with B-R compared with F-R (34 vs. 12 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38–0.72; p<0.0001). The longer PFS translated into a survival benefit with a significantly longer median overall survival in the B-R group than in the F-R group (110 vs. 49 months; HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45–0.91; p=0.0125) comprising 55 and 71 deaths in the B-R and F-R groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in the rates of alopecia, stomatitis, erythema, allergic reactions, peripheral neuropathy, or infectious episodes between groups. Hematologic toxicities were also similar between arms: 8.9% grade 3/4 neutropenia with B-R vs. 9.1% with F-R; 11.8% grade 3/4 leukocytopenia with B-R vs. 12.4% with F-R. The overall incidence of serious adverse events was similar for the B-R and F-R groups (17.4% and 22.2%, respectively). 17 pts (14.9%) developed a secondary neoplasia after B-R compared with 16 pts (15.2%) after F-R. Of these, 5 pts in the B-R group, and 3 pts in the F-R group developed a secondary hematological neoplasia (2 AML [1 AML M4], 1 CML, 1 DLBCL, and 1 HD after B-R; and 2 AML M4, and 1 MDS after F-R). An unplanned subanalysis showed that rituximab maintenance therapy significantly prolonged overall survival (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.32-0.71; p=0.0003) and PFS (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.31-0.62; p< 0.0001) in the small group of 40 pts who received this treatment (23 B-R, 17 F-R) compared with those who did not. Although the numbers are too small in this non-randomized comparison to draw validated conclusions, these results appear to confirm the favorable role of rituximab maintenance. Conclusions: B-R was more effective than F-R in this setting of relapsed FL, other indolent lymphomas and MCL due to higher overall and complete response rates, a longer PFS, and an improved OS. These data confirm the high anti-lymphoma activity of B-R. Disclosures Off Label Use: Indication and dosage of bendamustine.

Planned interim analysis of the intergroup FFCD-GERCOR-FNCLCC-AERO phase III study comparing two sequences of chemotherapy in locally advanced or metastatic gastric cancers

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4533-4533 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Guimbaud ◽  
O. Bouché ◽  
C. Rebischung ◽  
F. Bonnetain ◽  
C. Louvet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Grade 3

4533 Background: There are several standard chemotherapies in locally advanced or metastatic gastric or cardia adenocarcinoma, including ECF. Methods: Patients (pts) with a gastric or cardiac adenocarcinoma, locally advanced or metastatic, not surgically curable, with a WHO PS ≤2 and evaluable or measurable lesions, were randomized (1:1) according to the following sequences: ECC (epirubicin 50 mg/m2 D1+ cisplatin 60 mg/m2 D1 + capecitabine 2000 mg/m2 D2 to D15, every 3 weeks) in 1st line, then FOLFIRI (IRI 180 mg/m2 D1, leucovorin 400 mg/m2 D1, bolus 5FU 400 mg/m2 D1 and continuous 5FU 2400 mg/m2 in 46h, every 2 weeks) in 2nd line (Arm A) vs the reverse sequence (Arm B) with a stratification for center, PS, adjuvant treatment, site, linitis and measurable disease. To show an improvement in median time to treatment failure for the 1st line (TTF: time between randomization and progression, or treatment discontinuation or recurrence or death) of 15 to 20 weeks for arm B (α bilateral 5%; β 20 %), 381 failures and 416 pts are required in 4-year period. An interim analysis is planned when at least 190 failures are observed (ITT). TTF is estimated according to the Kaplan Meier method and compared with a Log-rank test. Results: In arm A and B, 174 and 175 pts were included respectively, between 17/06/05 and 21/12/07. Pts characteristics are: PS 1: 51%, med. age 60 years, gastric 67%, M+ 88%, resected primary tumor 27% and linitis 23%. In arms A and B respectively, 141 and 147 pts received at least one dose in 1st line and 61 and 44 pts in 2nd line. Toxicities during the first line is more frequent in the ECC than in the FOLFIRI arm: grade 3/4 (88 vs 68% - p ≤0.0001) and grade 3/4 hemato toxicities (69 vs 36% - p ≤0.001). In 2nd line, toxicities frequency is not different in both arms. The median TTF in 1st line (n = 310 pts) is 4.7 months [3.8 - 5.7] for ECC and 5.2 months [4.4–6.0] for FOLFIRI (Log Rank p = 0. 78). Regarding the 252 failures observed (67% of the required events), the significance level to reject H0 is p = 0.012 (EAST V5). Conclusions: It is not possible yet to conclude to the superiority of FOLFIRI in 1st line; the final analysis after observation of 381 failures is required. Regarding toxicity, hemato-toxicity is more frequent with ECC in 1st line. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document