Receipt and survival outcomes by age following second-line therapy for metastatic CRC (mCRC): Analysis of 5,289 patients from the ARCAD Clinical Trials Program.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadine Jackson McCleary ◽  
William S. Harmsen ◽  
Eric VanCutsem ◽  
Alberto F. Sobrero ◽  
Richard M. Goldberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cox Regression ◽  
Subsequent Treatment ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Treatment Data ◽  
Metastatic Sites ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
To Receive

6 Background: Rates and survival outcomes for second-line therapy for mCRC for OA vs. YA are poorly understood. Methods: Pts with available subsequent treatment data after progression from 10 1st line trials were included. Associations between key clinical/disease characteristics, time to initial progression (TTiP) and rate of receipt of second-line therapy were evaluated. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were compared between OA and YA who were enrolled on second-line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, ECOG PS, number of metastatic sites, presence of metastasis in lung/liver/peritoneum. Results: OA comprised 16.4% of first-line trials. OA and ECOG PS >0 were less likely to receive second-line therapy than YA. Odds of receiving second-line therapy decreased by 11% for each additional decade of life in multivariate analysis (p=0.0117). OA enrolled in second-line trials experience similar mTTP and mOS as YA (5.1 vs. 5.2mos; 11.6 vs 12.4mos, respectively). Conclusions: OA are less likely to receive 2nd line therapy for mCRC. We did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes for OA vs. YA following second-line therapy. Further study is needed to examine unmeasured factors, including comorbidity and functional status given observed inferior outcomes among adults with ECOG PS >0, and consideration given to inclusion of geriatric assessment to select OA likely to benefit from 2nd line therapy for mCRC. [Table: see text]

Survival outcomes among older adults (OA) receiving second-line therapy for metastatic CRC (mCRC): 5,289 patients (pts) from the ARCAD Clinical Trials Program.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7009-7009
Author(s):  
Nadine Jackson McCleary ◽  
William S. Harmsen ◽  
Eric VanCutsem ◽  
Alberto F. Sobrero ◽  
Richard M. Goldberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Younger Adults ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Treatment Data ◽  
Metastatic Sites ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
Trial Participants

7009 Background: Survival outcomes of 2nd line mCRC therapy for OA are poorly understood. We evaluated the rates and survival outcomes of 2nd line therapy among OA age 70+ compared to younger adults (YA) age < 70 following progression on 1st line clinical trials. Methods: Associations between clinical characteristics of pts with available treatment data after progression on 10 of 23 1st line ARCAD trials, time to initial progression (TTiP) and 2nd line therapy were evaluated. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were compared between OA and YA enrolled on 2nd line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, ECOG PS, number of metastatic sites, presence of metastasis in lung/liver/peritoneum. Results: Sixteen percent of 1st line ARCAD trial participants were age 70+ (n = 870). Data for 2nd line therapy was available for 60.6% pts (3206/5289). Each additional decade of life was associated with 11% lower odds of receiving 2nd line therapy in multivariate analysis (p = 0.0117). OA participating in 2nd line trials (7.9% age 75+ of 7921) experience similar TTP and OS to YA (mTTP: 5.1 vs. 5.2mos; mOS 11.6 vs 12.4mos, respectively). Conclusions: We did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes by age following 2nd line mCRC therapy. Further study is needed to examine unmeasured comorbidity and use of geriatric assessment to select OA likely to benefit from 2nd line therapy. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Depatuxizumab Mafodotin (Depatux-M) Plus Temozolomide in Recurrent Glioblastoma Patients: Real-World Experience from a Multicenter Study of Italian Association of Neuro-Oncology (AINO)

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 2773
Author(s):  
Marta Padovan ◽  
Marica Eoli ◽  
Alessia Pellerino ◽  
Simona Rizzato ◽  
Claudia Caserta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
Recurrent Glioblastoma ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Ocular Toxicity ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Italian Association ◽  
Phase 2 Trial ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Ecog Ps

Background: Depatuxizumab Mafodotin (Depatux-M; ABT-414) is an antibody-drug conjugate consisting of a specific antibody against activated EGFR and a cytotoxic agent with antimicrotubule activity. The INTELLANCE 2/EORTC 1410 phase 2 trial produced interesting results for the combination regimen of Depatux-M and temozolomide in EGFR-amplified glioblastoma patients at first recurrence. For the first time worldwide, our work investigated the clinical outcome and safety of this combination in a real-life population. Materials and Methods: Patients were enrolled from seven AINO (Italian Association of Neuro-Oncology) Institutions. The major inclusion criteria were: histologically confirmed diagnosis of glioblastoma, EGFR-amplified, one or more prior systemic therapies and ECOG PS ≤ 2. According to the original schedule, patients received Depatux-M 1.25 mg/kg every 2 weeks combined with temozolomide. The primary endpoints of the study were overall survival and safety. Results: A total of 36 patients were enrolled. The median age was 57 years, ECOG PS was 0–1 in 28 patients (88%), MGMT methylated status was found in 22 (64%), 15 patients (42%) received the combined treatment as second-line therapy. The median OS was 8.04 months (95% CI, 5.3–10.7), the 12 month-OS was 37%. On univariate and multivariate analyses, the MGMT methylation status was the only factor resulting significantly associated with survival. Grade 3 ocular toxicity occurred in 11% of patients; no grade 4 ocular toxicity was reported. No death was considered to be drug-related. Conclusions: The study reported the first “real world” experience of Depatux-M plus temozolomide in recurrent glioblastoma patients. Encouraging clinical benefits were demonstrated, even though most patients were treated beyond second-line therapy. Overall, the results are close to those reported in the previous phase 2 trial. Toxicity was moderate and manageable.

scholarly journals Evaluation of second line and subsequent targeted therapies in metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) patients treated with first line cediranib

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (11-12) ◽  
pp. 398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Richter ◽  
Jo-An Seah ◽  
Gregory R Pond ◽  
Hui K Gan ◽  
Mary J. Mackenzie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Cell Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Pivotal Phase ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
To Receive

Introduction: Pivotal phase III trials have positioned angiogenesis inhibitors as first-line therapy for the management of most advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinomas (mRCC). Approaches to second-line therapy, however, remain more controversial with respect to drug selection and drug sequencing.Methods: In this study we evaluated mRCC patients who were initially treated on the first-line National Cancer Institute (NCI) trial with the highly potent vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), cediranib, to determine the efficacy and tolerability of subsequent therapies.Results: Twenty-eight (65.1%) of the 43 patients enrolled on the first-line cediranib trial were known to receive second-line therapy, most commonly sunitinib (n = 21), with 4 (14%), 2 (7%) and 1 (3%) patients receiving temsirolimus, sorafenib, and interleukin, respectively. Of these, 14 (50%) went on to have 3 or more lines of therapy. The progression-free survival (PFS) proportion (PFS) at 1 year from starting second line was 30% (14.5%–47.9%). Longer duration of first-line cediranib treatment was modestly associated with longer duration of second-line treatment (Spearman rho 0.26). Patients who discontinued cediranib for toxicity were less likely to receive second-line sunitinib.Conclusion: In this real world evaluation, sequential use of TKIs for the management of mRCC was common. PFS with sequential TKIs was similar to observed and published results for any second-line therapy. Prior toxicity affected treatment patterns and the frequent use of at least 3 lines of therapy underscores the need for prospective sequencing trials in this disease.

Analysis of Post-Progression Survival in Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Lenvatinib

Oncology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 98 (11) ◽  
pp. 787-797 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuwa Ando ◽  
Tomokazu Kawaoka ◽  
Yosuke Suehiro ◽  
Kenji Yamaoka ◽  
Yumi Kosaka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Liver Function ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Class A ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Pugh Class ◽  
Ecog Ps

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Although a strong antitumor effect of lenvatinib (LEN) has been noted for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), there are still no reports on the prognosis for patients with disease progression after first-line LEN therapy. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Patients (<i>n</i> = 141) with unresectable HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver function, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) of 0 or 1 who were treated with LEN from March 2018 to December 2019 were enrolled. <b><i>Results:</i></b> One hundred and five patients were treated with LEN as first-line therapy, 53 of whom had progressive disease (PD) at the radiological evaluation. Among the 53 patients with PD, there were 27 candidates for second-line therapy, who had Child-Pugh class A liver function and an ECOG-PS of 0 or 1 at progression. After progression on first-line LEN, 28 patients were treated with a molecular targeted agent (MTA) as second-line therapy (sorafenib: <i>n</i> = 26; ramucirumab: <i>n</i> = 2). Multivariate analysis identified modified albumin-bilirubin grade 1 or 2a at LEN initiation (odds ratio 5.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.465–18.31, <i>p</i> = 0.011) as a significant and independent factor for candidates. The median post-progression survival after PD on first-line LEN was 8.3 months. Cox hazard multivariate analysis showed that a low alpha-fetoprotein level (&#x3c;400 ng/mL; hazard ratio [HR] 0.297, 95% CI 0.099–0.886, <i>p</i> = 0.003), a relative tumor volume &#x3c;50% at the time of progression (HR 0.204, 95% CI 0.07–0.592, <i>p</i> = 0.03), and switching to MTAs as second-line treatment after LEN (HR 0.299, 95% CI 0.12–0.746, <i>p</i> = 0.01) were significant prognostic factors. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Among patients with PD on first-line LEN, good liver function at introduction of LEN was an important and favorable factor related to eligibility for second-line therapy. In addition, post-progression treatment with MTAs could improve the prognosis for patients who had been treated with first-line LEN.

Modified FOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab beyond first progression in advanced colorectal cancer: CCOG-0801 study.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 641-641
Author(s):  
Kiyoshi Ishigure ◽  
Goro Nakayama ◽  
Keisuke Uehara ◽  
Hiroyuki Yokoyama ◽  
Akiharu Ishiyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Bleeding Event ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
To Receive

641 Background: Bevacizumab provides survival benefit as the first-line and second-line therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). A large observational study suggested use of bevacizumab beyond first progression (BBP) improved survival. This prompted us to conduct a multicenter phase II study of mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizimab in mCRC to further explore the strategy of BBP in Japanese patients. Methods: Previously untreated patients with assessable disease were treated with mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab until tumor progression, followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. The primary endpoint of the study was the second progression-free survival (2nd PFS), defined as duration from enrollment until progression after the second-line therapy. If the patient failed to receive the second-line treatment due to medical reasons or refusal, the PFS during the first-line therapy was used for analysis. Secondary endpoints were PFS, overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), disease control rate (DCR) and safety. Results: In the first-line therapy, 47 patients treated with mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab achieved RR of 61.7%, DCR of 89.4% and median PFS of 11.7 months. Thirty patients went on to receive the second-line therapy with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab and achieved RR of 27.6%, DCR of 62.1%, and median PFS of 6.0 months. Median 2nd PFS was 16.2 months. Median survival time did not reach the median follow-up time of 27.4 months. Severe adverse events associated with bevacizumab during the first-line therapy were a venous thromboembolic event in one case (2%), a grade 2 bleeding event in one case (2%) and GI perforation in one case (2%). However, no critical events associated with bevacizumab were reported during the second-line therapy. Conclusions: The planned continuation of bevacizumab during the second line treatment is feasible in Japanese mCRC patients. A prospective randomized control study to confirm the efficacy has to be conducted in the future.

Axitinib versus sorafenib as second‑line therapy in Asian patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): Results from a registrational study.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA4537-LBA4537
Author(s):  
Shukui Qin ◽  
Feng Bi ◽  
Ying Cheng ◽  
Jun Guo ◽  
Xiu Bao Ren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Asian Patients ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Independent Review ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Ecog Ps

LBA4537 Notice of Retraction: "Axitinib versus sorafenib as second-line therapy in Asian patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): Results from a registrational study." Abstract LBA4537, published in the 2012 Annual Meeting Proceedings Part II, a supplement to the Journal of Clinical Oncology, has been retracted by Shukui Qin, MD, on behalf of all authors of the abstract. The adjudication portion of the Independent Review Committee (IRC) tumor assessments were incomplete for some of the ongoing patients in the study reported in the abstract and the adjudication could not be completed in time for presentation at the 2012 ASCO Annual Meeting. Background: An earlier phase III trial in 723 patients with previously treated mRCC demonstrated significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) for axitinib, a potent and selective second-generation inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, compared with sorafenib. We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial to estimate PFS for axitinib and sorafenib in 204 Asian patients with previously treated mRCC. Methods: Patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) 0 or 1 and measurable, clear-cell, mRCC that had progressed after 1 prior first-line systemic regimen (sunitinib or cytokines) were randomly assigned (2:1) to 28-day cycles of axitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) or sorafenib 400 mg BID. Axitinib dose reductions and stepwise dose titrations to 7 mg BID and then 10 mg BID, as tolerated, were allowed; sorafenib dose reductions to 400 mg daily or every other day were also allowed. Primary endpoint was PFS per independent review committee. Results: Patients were stratified by ECOG PS and prior first-line systemic therapy: 135 received axitinib and 69 received sorafenib.Baseline patient characteristics included median age 56 years, 70% male, 99% Asian, and 63% ECOG PS 0. Prior therapy included sunitinib (45%) or cytokines (53%). Median PFS was 6.4 months (95% confidence interval: 4.6, 8.3) with axitinib and 4.8 months (2.8, 6.5) with sorafenib. Objective response rates were 23.7% with axitinib and 10.1% with sorafenib. All-grade adverse events in ≥15% of patients (axitinib, sorafenib) included hypertension (50%, 36%), weight decreased (37%, 33%), diarrhea (34%, 30%), hand-foot syndrome (32%, 57%), decreased appetite (30%, 20%), hypothyroidism (28%, 23%), fatigue (27%, 23%), proteinuria (21%, 20%), dysphonia (19%, 9%), cough (16%, 16%), rash (15%, 28%), pyrexia (7%, 16%), alopecia (3%, 22%). Conclusions: Asian patients receiving axitinib as second-line therapy for mRCC had a similar PFS and objective response rate as in a previous global phase III trial, with an acceptable safety profile.

Continued cetuximab in second-line treatment for patients with unresectable metastatic wild-type KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF colorectal cancer after disease progression during first-line cetuximab-based therapy.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 127-127
Author(s):  
Ying Liu ◽  
Feng Wang ◽  
Ning Ma ◽  
Shuning Xu ◽  
Lei Qiao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Second Line Chemotherapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

127 Background: Cetuximab plus chemotherapy is a first-line treatment option for metastatic RAS wild type colorectal cancer patients. Currently, no data are available on continuing cetuximab or changing bevacizumab as second-line therapy beyond first-line cetuximab-based chemotherapy. Methods: Patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic, histologically and genetically confirmed wild-type KRAS, NRAS and BRAF colorectal cancer progressing after first-line cetuximab plus chemotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to second-line chemotherapy with cetuximab (arm A) or with bevacizumab (arm B) 2·5 mg/kg per week equivalently. The choice between oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based second-line chemotherapy depended on the first-line regimen (switch of chemotherapy). The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). The second endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results: 77 Patients (from July 1, 2016 to Sept 20, 2019, 77) were randomized (41 in arm A and 36 in arm B). ORR was 29.3% and 19.4% in Arm A and Arm B ( p= 0.31). PFS was 7.2 months (95% CI 5.2–9.2) for Arm A and 5.9 months (95% CI 5.1–6.7) for Arm B ( p= 0.677). OS was 18.5 months (95% CI 15.1–21.8) for Arm A and 17.5 months (95% CI 15.4–19·7) for Arm B ( p= 0.444). Patients with ECOG PS 0 had significantly longer PFS and OS than ECOG PS 1 in second-line therapy whether cetuximab or bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy. ECOG 0 group vs ECOG 1 group, PFS was 8.7 months vs 4.6 months (p = 0.00) and OS was 21.2 months vs 12.3 months (p = 0.00). Moreover, ETS may predict efficacy of second-line continued cetuximab. The most frequently grade 3–4 adverse events in both arms were neutropenia (19.4% VS 16.7%), diarrhea (7.5% vs 11.1%), and nausea(10% vs 13.9%). Conclusions: Continuing cetuximab or changing bevacizumab plus standard second-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic wild-type KRAS, NRAS and BRAF colorectal cancer after first-line cetuximab plus chemotherapy have similar clinical benefits. ECOG score is an independent predictor of prognosis and second-line treatment efficacy for colorectal cancer.

Impact of Subsequent Therapies on Outcome of the FIRE-3/AIO KRK0306 Trial: First-Line Therapy With FOLFIRI Plus Cetuximab or Bevacizumab in Patients With KRAS Wild-Type Tumors in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (32) ◽  
pp. 3718-3726 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominik P. Modest ◽  
Sebastian Stintzing ◽  
Ludwig Fischer von Weikersthal ◽  
Thomas Decker ◽  
Alexander Kiani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Subsequent Treatment ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
The Impact

Purpose We investigated choice and efficacy of subsequent treatment, with special focus on second-line therapy, in the FIRE-3 trial (FOLFIRI plus cetuximab [arm A] or bevacizumab [arm B]) for patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients and Methods Start of subsequent-line (second or third) therapy was defined as use of an antitumor drug that was not part of the previous regimen. We evaluated choice, duration, and efficacy of subsequent therapy and determined the impact of subsequent-line treatment on outcome of patients in FIRE-3. Results Of 592 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 414 (69.9%) received second-line and 256 (43.2%) received third-line therapy. In subsequent treatment lines, 47.1% of patients originally assigned to arm A received bevacizumab, and 52.2% originally assigned to arm B received either cetuximab or panitumumab. Oxaliplatin was subsequently used in 55.9% (arm A) and 53.2% (arm B) of patients. Second-line therapy was administered for a median duration of 5.0 versus 3.2 months (P < .001) in study arm A versus B. Progression-free (6.5 v 4.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.85; P < .001) and overall survival (16.3 v 13.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.88; P = .0021) from start of second-line therapy were longer in patients in arm A compared with arm B. Conclusion Our data suggest that the sequence of drug application might be more important than exposure to single agents. In patients with RAS wild-type tumors, first-line application of anti–epidermal growth factor receptor–directed therapy may represent a favorable condition for promoting effective subsequent therapy including antiangiogenic agents.

scholarly journals Efficacy of Different Second-line Therapy Regimens in Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-58
Author(s):  
Lukas Barwitz ◽  
Anne Berger ◽  
Stefanie Zschaebitz ◽  
Max Jenzer ◽  
Cathleen Nientiedt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
University Hospital ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Metastatic Urothelial Cancer ◽  
Platinum Based Chemotherapy ◽  
Visceral Metastases ◽  
Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma ◽  
Metastatic Sites

Introduction: Metastatic Urothelial Cancer (UC) has a reported survival from platinum based chemotherapy of 15 months. Second line chemotherapy is considered relatively ineffective. Recently, new immuno-oncology drugs have been introduced. Objectives: Aim of this study was to analyze the survival by regimen and metastatic sites of second line treatment for UC. Methods: We analysed 70 patient receiving second line therapy between January 2010 and December 2016 at Heidelberg University Hospital. Median age was 60.9 years, male to female distribution was 74,3% to 25,7%. Regimens used were vinflunine (n=40, 57,1%) taxane based (n=20, 28,6%) and immunotherapy (n=9, 12,9%). Results: Median overall survival (OS) from first line therapy over all lines was 28,0 months. Median OS from second line was 14,7 months (95% CI, 11,4-18,0). No significant differences between regimens could be detected. OS of patients with lymphonodal only involvement (n=16, 22,5%) was 35.5 months (95% CI 0.0-73.9), OS with visceral metastases excluding liver was 14.7 months (95% CI 9.8-19.6) .and OS with any liver involvement was 9.4 months (95% CI 0.0-20.9). Conclusion: Second line therapy for UC of selected patients leads to a prolonged survival compared to historical data. The choice of regimen appears not to influence OS. Lymphnodal only involvement is associated with the best prognosis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document