A phase III study of nivolumab (NIVO), NIVO + ipilimumab (IPI), or chemotherapy (CT) for microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Checkmate 8HW.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS266-TPS266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandzhar Abdullaev ◽  
Thierry André ◽  
Ming Lei ◽  
Heinz-Josef Lenz ◽  
James Novotny ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase 3

TPS266 Background: Patients (pts) with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC treated with CT have poorer outcomes than pts with microsatellite stable/MMR proficient mCRC. NIVO (anti–programmed death [PD]-1) and IPI (anti–cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 [CTLA-4]) are immune checkpoint inhibitors that act synergistically and promote antitumor immune response by complementary mechanisms. NIVO±IPI received accelerated US FDA approval for MSI-H/dMMR mCRC that progressed after fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan treatment based on the phase 2, non-randomized, multicohort CheckMate 142 study. Indirect comparisons suggest that NIVO (3 mg/kg) + low-dose IPI (1 mg/kg) provides improved clinical benefit vs NIVO (investigator-assessed [INV] objective response rate [ORR] 55% vs 31%; 12-month [mo] INV progression-free survival [PFS] rate 71% vs 50%; 12-mo overall survival [OS] rate 85% vs 73%) with a favorable benefit-risk profile for previously treated MSI-H/dMMR mCRC (Overman et al. JCO 2018). NIVO+low-dose IPI also demonstrated robust and durable clinical benefit in first-line MSI-H/dMMR mCRC (INV ORR 64%; 12-mo INV PFS rate 77%; 12-mo OS rate 84%; Lenz et al. ASCO 2019, #3521). To date, no prospective phase 3 studies have reported results for anti–PD-1, anti–PD-1 + anti–CTLA-4, or CT in MSI-H/dMMR mCRC; these treatments will be evaluated in the international, multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 3 CheckMate 8HW (NCT04008030) study. Methods: Approximately 494 pts aged ≥18 years with histologically confirmed recurrent or mCRC, irrespective of prior treatment with CT and/or targeted agents, not amenable to surgery, and with known tumor MSI-H or dMMR status, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1 will be randomized to receive NIVO, NIVO+IPI, or investigator’s choice CT (pts in the CT arm can receive NIVO+IPI upon progression). The primary endpoint is PFS, assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints include PFS by INV, ORR and disease control rate by BICR and INV, OS, time to and duration of response. Exploratory endpoints include safety. Clinical trial information: NCT04008030.

EAGLE: A phase 3, randomized, open-label study of durvalumab (D) with or without tremelimumab (T) in patients (pts) with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6012-6012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa F. Licitra ◽  
Robert I. Haddad ◽  
Caroline Even ◽  
Makoto Tahara ◽  
Mikhail Dvorkin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Group Performance ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Risk Of Death ◽  
Grade 3

6012 Background: EAGLE is a phase 3 study evaluating efficacy of D (anti-PD-L1 mAb) monotherapy and D+T (anti-CTLA-4 mAb) vs standard of care (SOC) in pts with R/M HNSCC who progressed following platinum-based therapy (NCT02369874). Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1:1 to D 10 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks (Q2W), D+T (D 20 mg/kg IV Q4W + T 1 mg/kg IV Q4W for 4 doses, then D 10 mg/kg IV Q2W), or SOC (investigator’s choice: cetuximab, taxane, methotrexate, or fluoropyrimidine-based regimen). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) with dual primary objectives of D+T vs SOC and D vs SOC. Additional endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DoR), and adverse events (AEs). Results: 240 pts were randomized to D, 247 to D+T and 249 to SOC. An imbalance for Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) was seen in favor of the SOC arm (D, PS 0 = 26%, PS 1 = 74%; D+T, PS 0 = 26%, PS 1 = 74%; SOC, PS 0 = 32%, PS 1 = 68%). The risk of death was not statistically significantly different for D compared with SOC (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.72–1.08; P = 0.20) or D+T vs SOC (HR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.85–1.26; P = 0.76). Efficacy data are provided in the table. Treatment-related AEs Grade ≥3 were reported in 10.1% of pts (regardless of causality Grade ≥3 AEs were 41.4%) in the D arm, 16.3% (51.2%) for D+T, and 24.2% (44.2%) for SOC. Following treatment, 2% of pts in D, 5% in D+T and 15% in SOC received immunotherapy. Conclusions: D and D+T did not demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in OS compared to standard chemotherapy in pts with R/M HNSCC. Median OS and ORR of D arm were similar to other studies with checkpoint inhibitors. The SOC arm outperformed what has been seen for SOC arms in previous studies; subsequent immunotherapy may have confounded the OS analyses. The safety profile for D and D + T in R/M HNSCC is consistent with previous trials. Clinical trial information: NCT02369874. [Table: see text]

TROPiCS-04: Study of sacituzumab govitecan in metastatic or locally advanced unresectable urothelial cancer that has progressed after platinum and checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS498-TPS498
Author(s):  
Petros Grivas ◽  
Scott T. Tagawa ◽  
Joaquim Bellmunt ◽  
Maria De Santis ◽  
Ignacio Duran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Topoisomerase I ◽  
Progressive Disease ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Phase Iii

TPS498 Background: Treatment options are limited for patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) who progress following prior platinum-based and checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is an antibody-drug conjugate consisting of an anti–Trop-2 monoclonal antibody coupled to SN-38 (an active metabolite of irinotecan, a topoisomerase-I inhibitor) via a unique hydrolyzable linker. A phase II registrational study, TROPHY-U-01 study, confirmed the initial positive efficacy signal in mUC. SG demonstrated an objective response rate (ORR) of 27% and median overall survival (OS) of 10.5 months in patients with mUC (median 3 prior lines of therapy and 87% with ≥1 Bellmunt risk factors) who progressed after prior platinum-based and CPI therapies (n=113; Loriot ESMO 2020). The results compared favorably with historic single-agent chemotherapy (ORR ~10%; OS ≤7 months). A phase III trial has been initiated to confirm these findings. Methods: TROPiCS-04 (NCT04527991) is a global, multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial in patients with locally advanced unresectable or mUC who progressed after prior platinum-based and CPI therapies (with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–1 and adequate hematologic, hepatic, and renal function). Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive SG 10 mg/kg intravenously (IV) on day 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles or single-agent treatment of physician’s choice (paclitaxel 175 mg/m2, docetaxel 75 mg/m2, or vinflunine 320 mg/m2 IV on day 1 of 21-day cycles) until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Treatment beyond progressive disease may be permitted in patients deemed to be receiving clinical benefit per investigator assessment. Approximately 482 patients will be enrolled to provide 90% power on the primary endpoint of OS. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, ORR, clinical benefit rate, duration of response (all per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1), safety, and quality of life. Study initiation is ongoing and enrollment begins in Q4 2020 across ~90 sites. Clinical trial information: NCT04527991.

BREAKWATER: Randomized phase 3 study of encorafenib (enco) + cetuximab (cetux) ± chemotherapy for first-line (1L) treatment (tx) of BRAF V600E-mutant (BRAFV600E) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS3619-TPS3619
Author(s):  
Scott Kopetz ◽  
Axel Grothey ◽  
Rona Yaeger ◽  
Fortunato Ciardiello ◽  
Jayesh Desai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Braf Inhibitor ◽  
Braf V600e ◽  
Egfr Inhibitor ◽  
Braf Mutations ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Previously Treated

TPS3619 Background: Approximately 10% of patients (pts) with mCRC have BRAF mutations (mostly V600E). 1L tx options for BRAFV600E mCRC are limited to cytotoxic chemotherapy ± anti-VEGF or anti-EGFR, or immune checkpoint inhibitors in pts with MSI-H tumors. In Europe, Japan, and USA, the combination of BRAF inhibitor enco + EGFR inhibitor cetux is approved for tx of BRAFV600E mCRC after prior therapy. In BEACON CRC, enco + cetux resulted in a median overall survival (OS) of 9.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.0–11.3) and an objective response rate (ORR) of 19.5% (95% CI: 14.5%–25.4%) in previously treated pts with BRAFV600E mCRC (median follow-up: 12.8 months); 57.4% of pts had grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs); 9% discontinued due to AEs. Given the poor prognosis of pts with BRAFV600E mCRC and based on the efficacy and tolerability of enco + cetux from BEACON CRC, BREAKWATER will evaluate efficacy and safety of enco + cetux ± chemotherapy in tx-naive pts with BRAFV600E mCRC. Methods: BREAKWATER is an open-label, global, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 study with a safety lead-in (SLI). Approximately 60 and 870 pts will be enrolled in the SLI and phase 3 parts of the study, respectively. Pts must have BRAFV600E mCRC (determined using tumor tissue or blood); ECOG performance status 0/1; and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function. Pts in the SLI must have evaluable disease (RECIST v1.1) and have received ≤ 1 prior tx regimen; those previously treated with a BRAF or EGFR inhibitor, or both oxaliplatin and irinotecan, will be excluded. Pts in the phase 3 study must have measurable disease and be tx naive for metastatic disease. Study tx and endpoints are shown in the table. Enrollment began on 6 January 2021. Clinical trial information: NCT04607421. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Axitinib plus avelumab in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma: a stratified, open-label, single-center phase 2 clinical trial (GliAvAx)

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e001146
Author(s):  
Gil Awada ◽  
Laila Ben Salama ◽  
Jennifer De Cremer ◽  
Julia Katharina Schwarze ◽  
Lydia Fischbuch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Recurrent Glioblastoma ◽  
Synergistic Activity ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Corticosteroid Dose

BackgroundNo treatment demonstrated to improve survival in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (rGB) in a randomized trial. Combining axitinib with the programmed cell death ligand 1 blocking monoclonal antibody avelumab may result in synergistic activity against rGB.MethodsAdult patients with rGB following prior surgery, radiation therapy and temozolomide chemotherapy were stratified according to their baseline use of corticosteroids. Patients with a daily dose of ≤8 mg of methylprednisolone (or equivalent) initiated treatment with axitinib (5 mg oral two times per day) plus avelumab (10 mg/kg intravenous every 2 weeks) (Cohort-1). Patients with a higher baseline corticosteroid dose initiated axitinib monotherapy; avelumab was added after 6 weeks of therapy if the corticosteroid dose could be tapered to ≤8 mg of methylprednisolone (Cohort-2). Progression-free survival at 6 months (6-m-PFS%), per immunotherapy response assessment for neuro-oncology criteria, served as the primary endpoint.ResultsBetween June 2017 and August 2018, 54 patients (27 per cohort) were enrolled and initiated study treatment (median age: 55 years; 63% male; 91% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status 0–1). Seventeen (63%) patients treated in Cohort-2 received at least one dose of avelumab. The 6-m-PFS% was 22.2% (95% CI 6.5% to 37.9%) and 18.5% (95% CI 3.8% to 33.2%) in Cohort-1 and Cohort-2, respectively; median overall survival was 26.6 weeks (95% CI 20.8 to 32.4) in Cohort-1 and 18.0 weeks (95% CI 12.5 to 23.5) in Cohort-2. The best objective response rate was 33.3% and 22.2% in Cohort-1 and Cohort-2, respectively, with a median duration of response of 17.9 and 19.0 weeks. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events were dysphonia (67%), lymphopenia (50%), arterial hypertension and diarrhea (both 48%). There were no grade 5 adverse events.ConclusionThe combination of avelumab plus axitinib has an acceptable toxicity profile but did not meet the prespecified threshold for activity justifying further investigation of this treatment in an unselected population of patients with rGB.

A multicenter phase II study of thalidomide in combination with interleukin-2 (IL-2) in patients with previously untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (MRCC)

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 14636-14636 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Farray ◽  
J. I. Clark ◽  
T. Kuzel ◽  
J. P. Dutcher
Keyword(s):  
Phase Ii ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Interleukin 2 ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Anti Tumor Activity

14636 Background: Thalidomide, a drug with immune modulating and anti-angiogenic properties has shown activity in relapsed/refractory MRCC; furthermore, early phase I data of oral thalidomide with subcutaneous low-dose IL-2 showed the combination to be safe. The potential anti-tumor activity of this combination formed the basis of this study. Methods: The aim of this multi-center, open label, phase II study was to determine the efficacy and safety of thalidomide and IL-2 given in combination. Patients (pts) with untreated clear cell MRCC with measurable disease and previous nephrectomy were eligible. Two 6-week cycles of thalidomide and IL-2 were planned. Each cycle consisted of thalidomide started at 200 mg orally daily and titrated to 400 mg daily on the 4th day for 6 weeks; IL-2 was started one week post initiation of thalidomide at a dose of 7mIU/m2 subcutaneously days 1–5 for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks off therapy. Therapy was to be continued until progression, if there was at least stable disease (SD). Planned accrual was 53 patients. Results: 11 pts were enrolled. The trial was terminated early due to lack of responses. Median age was 57 years (51–66). All pts had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or better. The only grade 3 toxicities were fatigue (3 pts), neuropathy (1 pt), anorexia (1 pt), dyspnea (1 pt), edema (1 pt); these required dose reductions as per protocol. There were no objective responses: 3 pts had SD, 8 pts had progressive disease (PD). The 3 pts with SD completed 4, 4, and 6 cycles of therapy respectively; of the 8 pts with PD, 3 completed two cycles, and 5 completed one cycle of therapy. Conclusions: The combination of thalidomide and low-dose IL-2 was well tolerated, but in this trial did not show anti-tumor activity in patients with clear cell MRCC. We thank Celgene for support of this trial. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Axitinib versus sorafenib as first‑line therapy in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA348-LBA348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Hutson ◽  
Jorge Gallardo ◽  
Vladmir Lesovoy ◽  
Salman Al-Shukri ◽  
Viktor Stus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Survival Data ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

LBA348 Background: In the phase III AXIS trial, second-line therapy with axitinib resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) versus sorafenib for mRCC. We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III trial to compare PFS of axitinib vs sorafenib as first-line therapy. Methods: Patients with untreated, measurable (RECIST v1.0), clear‑cell mRCC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) 0 or 1 were randomized 2:1 to axitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) or sorafenib 400 mg BID. Randomization was stratified by PS. Primary endpoint was PFS per independent radiology committee. The study had 90% power to detect a 78% PFS improvement from 5.5 mo with sorafenib to 9.8 mo with axitinib, corresponding to a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.561 (overall 1-sided α=0.025). Results: Patients (N=288) were mainly from Eastern Europe (51%), Asia (25%), North America (14%), or South America (10%).Patient baseline characteristics for axitinib (n=192) vs sorafenib (n=96) included: median age, 58y vs 58y; male, 70% vs 77%; white, 71% vs 69%; favorable risk, 49% vs 55%; PS 0, 57% vs 57%; nephrectomy, 85% vs 90%. Median (m) PFS was 10.1 vs 6.5 mo with axitinib vs sorafenib (HR adjusted for PS, 0.767; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.559–1.053; 1‑sided P=0.0377). In patients with PS 0 and 1, respectively, mPFS with axitinib vs sorafenib was 13.7 vs 6.6 mo (HR, 0.644; 95% CI, 0.419–0.991; 1‑sided P=0.022) and 6.5 vs 6.4 mo (HR, 0.931; 95% CI, 0.585–1.482; 1‑sided P=0.38). Objective response rates (ORRs) with axitinib vs sorafenib were 32.3% vs 14.6% (1‑sided P=0.0006 adjusted for PS). Overall survival data were not mature. All-grade all‑causality adverse events (≥20%) with axitinib vs sorafenib were diarrhea (50% vs 40%), hypertension (49% vs 29%), weight decreased (37% vs 24%), fatigue (33% vs 26%), decreased appetite (29% vs 19%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (26% vs 39%), dysphonia (23% vs 10%), asthenia (21% vs 16%), and hypothyroidism (21% vs 7%). Conclusions: The study did not achieve its primary endpoint statistically, but axitinib demonstrated numerically longer mPFS and significantly higher ORR vs sorafenib, with an acceptable safety profile, as first-line therapy for mRCC. Clinical trial information: NCT00920816.

LAPACT: An open-label, multicenter phase II trial of nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) plus gemcitabine (Gem) in patients (pts) with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC).

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS477-TPS477 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Agop Philip ◽  
Jill Lacy ◽  
Scot D. Dowden ◽  
Javier Sastre ◽  
Venu Gopal Bathini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Group Performance ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
The United States ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Primary Tumors

TPS477 Background: In pts with LAPC, more effective systemic therapies may be associated with improved local control, delay of metastasis, and overall survival (OS). The phase III MPACT trial in pts with metastatic PC demonstrated longer OS (median, 8.7 vs 6.6 mos; HR, 0.72; P < 0.001) and an ≈ 3-fold greater shrinkage of primary tumors with nab-P + Gem vs Gem alone (−22.15% vs −7.02%), raising the possibility of improved local PC control with nab-P + Gem. LAPACT will assess the efficacy and safety of nab-P + Gem in LAPC. Methods: LAPACT will enroll treatment-naive pts (planned n ≈ 110) in the United States, Canada, and Europe with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 1, confirmed unresectable LAPC, no distant metastases, and adequate organ function. Pts with mixed-origin tumors, any other malignancy within 5 years, peripheral neuropathy grade > 1, or clinically significant ascites are ineligible. Pts will receive nab-P 125 mg/m2 + Gem 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Pts without progressive disease (PD) or unacceptable toxicity after 6 cycles will receive investigator’s choice of surgery, chemoradiotherapy, or continued nab-P + Gem. If a major response is observed, surgery may occur prior to completing 6 cycles of nab-P + Gem. The primary endpoint is time to treatment failure (TTF; time from first therapy dose to discontinuation due to PD, start of a new non–protocol-defined anti-cancer therapy, or death). The study design allows for 80% power at a 1-sided α of 0.05 to detect a 30% increase over the 5.1-month median TTF observed for nab-P + Gem in the MPACT study. The secondary endpoints are disease control rate (DCR) after 6 cycles, overall response rate, progression-free survival, OS, safety, and quality of life. The exploratory endpoint is correlation of changes in circulating nucleic acids with PD and treatment response. An interim DCR analysis will occur after all pts have completed 6 cycles of nab-P + Gem, discontinued therapy due to PD, died, or started a new non–protocol-defined therapy before completing 6 cycles of therapy. Enrollment is ongoing (first pt enrolled in April 2015). Clinical trial information: NCT02301143.

Nivolumab (NIVO) + low-dose ipilimumab (IPI) as first-line (1L) therapy in microsatellite instability-high/DNA mismatch repair deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Clinical update.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3521-3521 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heinz-Josef Lenz ◽  
Sara Lonardi ◽  
Vittorina Zagonel ◽  
Eric Van Cutsem ◽  
M. Luisa Limon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Dna Mismatch ◽  
Grade 3

3521 Background: In the phase 2 CheckMate 142 trial, NIVO + low-dose IPI provided robust and durable clinical benefit and was well tolerated as 1L therapy for MSI-H/dMMR mCRC (Lenz et al. Ann Oncol 2018;29:LBA18). Longer follow-up data will be presented. Methods: Patients with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC and no prior treatment for metastatic disease received NIVO 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks + low-dose IPI 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks until disease progression or discontinuation. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR). Results: For all 45 patients (median follow-up was 13.8 months), ORR was 60% (95% CI 44.3–74.3). Responses were consistent with the overall population across subgroups including age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, prior adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy, and mutation status (Table). Seven patients (16%) had grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs); 3 (7%) had any grade TRAEs leading to discontinuation. Updated response, survival, and safety data after a longer follow-up (median 19.9 months) will be presented. Conclusions: NIVO + low-dose IPI demonstrated robust and durable clinical benefit and was well tolerated. Evaluated subgroups had responses consistent with the overall population. NIVO + low-dose IPI may represent a new 1L treatment option for patients with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC. Clinical trial information: NCT02060188. [Table: see text]

CA045-001: A phase III, randomized, open label study of bempegaldesleukin (NKTR-214) plus nivolumab (NIVO) versus NIVO monotherapy in patients (pts) with previously untreated, unresectable or metastatic melanoma (MEL).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS9601-TPS9601 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikhil I. Khushalani ◽  
Adi Diab ◽  
Paolo Antonio Ascierto ◽  
James M.G. Larkin ◽  
Shahneen Kaur Sandhu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Development Program ◽  
Life Assessment ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Open Label Study ◽  
Label Study

TPS9601 Background: Standard of care for pts with previously untreated, unresectable or metastatic MEL includes checkpoint inhibitors. Bempegaldesleukin is a CD122-preferential IL-2 pathway agonist designed to provide sustained signaling through the IL-2 βγ receptor to activate and proliferate effector CD8+ T and NK cells over T-regulatory cells in the tumor (Hurwitz ME et al. ASCO GU 2017). In the dose-expansion phase of the phase 1/2 PIVOT-02 trial, bempegaldesleukin + NIVO was well tolerated at the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D; bempegaldesleukin 0.006 mg/kg IV Q3W + NIVO 360 mg IV Q3W), and previously untreated pts with MEL receiving the RP2D achieved an objective response rate (ORR) of 20/38 (53%) and a complete response of 9/38 (24%) by independent radiology review (Diab A et al. SITC 2018). Presented is the design of the first phase 3 trial in the bempegaldesleukin + NIVO development program in pts with previously untreated, unresectable or metastatic MEL. Methods: This phase 3, randomized, open-label study aims to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of bempegaldesleukin + NIVO (NCT03635983). Eligible pts are ≥12 y with histologically confirmed stage III (unresectable) or stage IV MEL and ECOG PS ≤1 or Lansky PS ≥80% (minors 12-17 y). Pts are ineligible if they have active brain or leptomeningeal metastases, uveal MEL, or a recurrence within 6 mo of completing adjuvant treatment with any approved agent. Pts will be stratified by PD-L1 status (measured using PD-L1 IHC 28-8 pharmDx), BRAF mutation status, and lactate dehydrogenase level, and will be randomized to receive bempegaldesleukin 0.006 mg/kg IV Q3W + NIVO 360 mg IV Q3W or NIVO 360 mg IV Q3W up to 24 mo, or until progression or unacceptable toxicity (N ~ 764). Primary endpoints are ORR and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints include ORR and PFS by investigator, ORR and PFS by BICR in biomarker population, OS in biomarker population, and safety. Additional endpoints include pharmacokinetics and quality-of-life assessment. Clinical trial information: NCT03635983.

TRYbeCA-1: A randomized, phase III study of eryaspase in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone as second-line treatment in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (NCT03665441).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS4666-TPS4666
Author(s):  
Pascal Hammel ◽  
Rossana Berardi ◽  
Geert-Yan Creemers ◽  
Antonio Cubillo ◽  
Eric Van Cutsem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase 3

TPS4666 Background: Second-line treatment options for advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma are currently limited. Eryaspase, asparaginase (ASNase) encapsulated in red blood cells (RBCs) is an investigational product under development. Following infusion, asparagine and glutamine are actively transported into RBCs where they are hydrolyzed by the encapsulated ASNase. We have recently reported the outcome of a randomized Phase 2b study inpatients with advanced pancreatic cancer whose disease progressed following first-line treatment(NCT02195180). Eryaspase in combination with gemcitabine monotherapy or FOLFOX combination therapy improved overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). The safety profile of eryaspase was acceptable. The results of this Phase 2b study provided a rationale for initiating this confirmatory Phase 3 pivotal trial (TRYbeCA-1). Methods: TRYbeCA-1 is a randomized, open-label Phase 3 trial (N = ~500) of eryaspase combined with chemotherapy in patients with adenocarcinoma of the pancreas who have failed only one prior line of systemic anti-cancer therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer and have measurable disease. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive gemcitabine/Abraxane or irinotecan-based therapy (FOLFIRI [FOLinic acid-Fluorouracil-IRInotecan regimen] or irinotecan liposome injection/5-fluorouracil/leucovorin) with or without eryaspase, administered as IV infusion on Day 1 and Day 15 of each 4-week cycle. Key eligibility criteria include performance status 0 or 1; stage III-IV disease; documented evidence of disease progression; available tumor tissue; and adequate organ function. The primary endpoint is OS. Key secondary endpoints include PFS and objective response rate, safety, quality of life, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and biomarker research. A hazard ratio in OS of 0.725 is being targeted which represents a conservative estimate based on the Phase 2b data and is viewed as being highly clinically relevant. An IDMC is established to review safety at regular intervals andto review efficacy data at the planned interim and final analyses. IDMC last reviewed the trial in October 2019 and suggested the trial continue as planned. Clinical trial information: NCT03665441 .

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document