Improvements in first-line systemic mRCC therapy: Challenging insights from a cross trial comparison of overall survival and subsequent therapies in recent phase III trials.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 705-705
Author(s):  
Jochen Casper ◽  
Samantha Henderson ◽  
Hannah Casper ◽  
Claus-Henning Kohne
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Lower Percentage ◽  
Primary Study ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
The Sun ◽  
Phase Iii Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Recent Phase

705 Background: Using sunitinib (SUN) as the comparator, two out of three recent phase III clinical trials have shown an overall survival (OS) benefit in the alternative treatment arm (Checkmate 214 (C), Keynote 426 (K)). The Javelin 101(J) trial has yet to show a significant improvement. Methods: A cross-study comparison of OS for the sunitinib arms of C, K and J was carried out. Special focus was given to risk group stratification and subsequent therapies. Data from the SUN pivotal trial (SP) was also taken into account. Results: Across the C, K and SP trials, OS was similar at approximately 78%. Despite a lower percentage of favourable risk patients compared to K and SP, an OS of 82% was observed in J. At 18 months, OS survival curves split ranging from 65% ©, 72.1% (K) to 76% (J). OS in the SUN arm in J at 18 months was comparable to OS of Nivolumab/Ipilimumab in C (78%). The rate of subsequent therapies ranged from 34.3% (K), 39.2% (J) to 54% (C) in the SUN arms. At the time of the SP trial almost no subsequent therapy options existed. In the experimental arms, the rate of subsequent therapies was 51.8% ©, 20.5% (K) and 20.8% (J). The existing data give no clear evidence of a correlation between subsequent therapies and OS. However, an analysis of the subsequent therapies/patients discontinuing therapy ratio (ST/DIS) and type of subsequent therapy (PD1/L1 directed or therapy with proven OS benefit (pOS) in randomized trials) in the SUN arms may be more conclusive (see table). The rate of subsequent therapies (ST/DIS) as well as PD(L)1 or pOS therapies were highest in J, followed by K and C. Conclusions: Despite the difficulties of a cross trial comparison, this data should raise awareness of the influence of a more intense subsequent therapy. It points to the necessity to standardize subsequent therapies in 1st line trials if OS is a primary study aim. Given this analysis, it may be pertinent to ask if an optimal or near optimal subsequent therapy following SUN might be equal to a 1st line IO/IO therapy with regards to OS.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals A Review of Phase III Clinical Trials of Prostate Cancer Chemoprevention

2007 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 207-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
JF Thorpe ◽  
S Jain ◽  
TH Marczylo ◽  
AJ Gescher ◽  
WP Steward ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cancer Prevention ◽  
Age Of Onset ◽  
Cancer Chemoprevention ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Iii Clinical Trials ◽  
Prostate Cancer Prevention ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

INTRODUCTION Prostate cancer is an excellent target for chemoprevention strategies; given its late age of onset, any delay in carcinogenesis would lead to a reduction in its incidence. This article reviews all the completed and on-going phase III trials in prostate cancer chemoprevention. PATIENTS AND METHODS All phase III trials of prostate cancer chemoprevention were identified within a Medline search using the keywords ‘clinical trial, prostate cancer, chemoprevention’. RESULTS In 2003, the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) became the first phase III clinical trial of prostate cancer prevention. This landmark study was terminated early due to the 24.8% reduction of prostate cancer prevalence over a 7-year period in those men taking the 5α-reductase inhibitor, finasteride. This article reviews the PCPT and the interpretation of the excess high-grade prostate cancer (HGPC) cases in the finasteride group. The lack of relationship between cumulative dose and the HGPC cases, and the possible sampling error of biopsies due to gland volume reduction in the finasteride group refutes the suggestion that this is a genuine increase in HGPC cases. The other on-going phase III clinical trials of prostate cancer chemoprevention – the REDUCE study using dutasteride, and the SELECT study using vitamin E and selenium – are also reviewed. CONCLUSIONS At present, finasteride remains the only intervention shown in long-term prospective phase III clinical trials to reduce the incidence of prostate cancer. Until we have the results of trials using alternative agents including the on-going REDUCE and SELECT trials, the advice given to men interested in prostate cancer prevention must include discussion of the results of the PCPT. The increased rate of HGPC in the finasteride group continues to generate debate; however, finasteride may still be suitable for prostate cancer prevention, particularly in men with lower urinary tract symptoms.

scholarly journals Dyslipidaemias and Cardiovascular Disease: Focus on the Role of PCSK9 Inhibitors

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (27) ◽  
pp. 4494-4521 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga Panagiotopoulou ◽  
Scott T. Chiesa ◽  
Dimitrios Tousoulis ◽  
Marietta Charakida
Keyword(s):  
Phase Iii ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Pcsk9 Inhibitors ◽  
Cardiovascular Risk Reduction ◽  
Pcsk9 Inhibitor ◽  
Phase Iii Clinical Trials ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Event Rates ◽  
Disease Focus

Genetic, experimental and clinical studies have consistently confirmed that inhibition of Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin type 9 (PCSK9) can result in significant lowering of LDL-C and two fully human PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies have received regulatory approval for use in highrisk patients. Co-administration of PCSK9 with statins has resulted in extremely low LDL-C levels with excellent short-term safety profiles. While results from Phase III clinical trials provided significant evidence about the role of PCSK9 inhibitors in reducing cardiovascular event rates, their impact on mortality remains less clear. PCSK9 inhibitor therapy can be considered for high-risk patients who are likely to experience significant cardiovascular risk reduction.

scholarly journals Evaluating Intermittent Androgen-Deprivation Therapy Phase III Clinical Trials: The Devil Is in the Details

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 280-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maha Hussain ◽  
Catherine Tangen ◽  
Celestia Higano ◽  
Nicholas Vogelzang ◽  
Ian Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Androgen Deprivation ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
End Point ◽  
Phase Iii Clinical Trials ◽  
Noninferiority Trials ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

Purpose Intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) has been widely tested in prostate cancer. However, phase III trials testing continuous androgen deprivation (CAD) versus IAD have reached inconclusive and seemingly contradictory results. Different design and conduct issues must be critically evaluated to better interpret the results. Patients and Methods Seven published phase III trials were examined for prespecified design and outcomes. Treatment specifications; primary end point; superiority versus noninferiority design assumptions, including magnitude of assumed versus observed noninferiority margin (NIM); duration of follow-up; and quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes were considered in terms of the results and conclusions reported. Results Five trials had a superiority and three had a noninferiority primary hypothesis. Only three trials had a uniform population and overall survival (OS) end point. All trials observed better outcomes in terms of OS and progression-free survival (PFS) than assumed at time of study design, translating into prespecified NIMs or hazard ratios that reflected larger absolute differences in OS or PFS between arms. Lower-than-expected event rates also reduced statistical power for the trials. Other factors, including length of follow-up, cause of death, QOL, and primary end point, and their impact on trial interpretation are discussed. Conclusion No trial to date has demonstrated survival superiority of IAD compared with CAD. Trials concluding IAD is noninferior to CAD were based on wide NIMs that included clinically important survival differences, not likely to be considered comparable by physicians or patients. Interim analyses relying on short follow-up and including a majority of non–prostate cancer deaths will favor a noninferiority conclusion and should be interpreted cautiously. Adequate follow-up is required to ensure capture of prostate cancer deaths in both superiority and noninferiority trials.

Progression-free survival and overall survival in phase III trials of molecular-targeted agents in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Lung Cancer ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katsuyuki Hotta ◽  
Etsuji Suzuki ◽  
Massimo Di Maio ◽  
Paolo Chiodini ◽  
Yoshiro Fujiwara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Targeted Agents ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

Elucidating the mechanisms responsible for the previous failure of phase III clinical trials with eniluracil (EU) and development of a novel scheduling approach to optimize the efficacy of EU/5-fluorouracil (5-FU) combination therapy

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2557-2557
Author(s):  
V. Guarcello ◽  
J. Fourie ◽  
M. J. Lawton ◽  
W. W. Peters ◽  
M. J. Heslin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tumor Tissue ◽  
Competitive Inhibition ◽  
Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Clinical Failure ◽  
Peripheral Blood Mononuclear ◽  
Phase Iii Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Dosing Regimens

2557 Background: Irreversible inhibition of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) by EU blocks 5-FU catabolism allowing for oral 5-FU administration with complete bioavailability. Unfortunately, phase III trials with co-administered EU/5-FU showed inferiority vs. 5-FU/leucovorin, and were discontinued. We recently reported that competitive inhibition of human uridine phosphorylase (UP) and thymidine phosphorylase (TP) 5-FU-anabolic enzymes by EU is an important mechanism potentially responsible for clinical failure of the combined EU/5- FU regimen. We hypothesize that EU inhibition of UP and TP is transient, while that of DPD is prolonged, allowing for novel schedule dependent optimization of EU/5-FU dosing regimens with improved efficacy. Methods: In this phase I study, five patients received a single oral dose (2 mg, 5 mg or 10 mg) of EU 12–14 hours prior to scheduled resection of primary/metastatic colorectal cancer. Dosage was as follows: Two patients received the 2 mg dose, one patient received the 5 mg dose and two patients received the 10 mg dose. Matched normal and tumor tissue biopsies were immediately snap frozen and subsequently UP, TP and DPD activity was measured in vitro via HPLC detection of [6- 14C]-5-FU catabolites/anabolites. Peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) DPD activity was determined at baseline prior to EU administration, 30 min prior to surgery (Day 1), and on Days 2, 5 and 14 following EU administration. Results: At 12–14 hours following EU administration, there was an absence of inhibition of UP and TP, while DPD was significantly inhibited in matched tumor and normal tissue. Importantly, PBMC DPD activity was significantly inhibited by EU on Day 1 (12–14 hours after EU administration) and Day 2 (36 hours after EU administration) at 0 ± 0% and 17 ± 11% (mean ± SD) of baseline, respectively. Conclusions: These data demonstrate a differential recovery time of EU mediated inhibition of UP and TP compared to DPD, which permits future schedule dependent optimization of EU/5-FU therapy. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

ENGOT-en9/LEAP-001: A phase III study of first-line pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib versus chemotherapy in advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS6106-TPS6106
Author(s):  
Christian Marth ◽  
Christof Vulsteke ◽  
Maria Jesus Rubio Pérez ◽  
Vicky Makker ◽  
Elena Ioana Braicu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Endometrial Cancer ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Primary Study ◽  
Antiangiogenic Agents ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
First Line ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Previously Treated

TPS6106 Background: The prognosis for endometrial cancer (EC) can be favorable when diagnosed in early stages, but prognosis and overall survival are poor in patients with advanced or recurrent EC. First-line standard of care for patients with advanced or recurrent EC is paclitaxel and carboplatin chemotherapy; however, there is a need for more effective and tolerable therapies. In the phase Ib/II trial KEYNOTE-146, which assessed the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab (pembro) in combination with the multikinase inhibitor lenvatinib, an objective response rate (ORR) of 38% was observed (N=108) in patients with previously treated advanced EC. ENGOT-en9/LEAP-001 (NCT03884101) is a randomized, open-label, active-controlled, phase III study investigating pembro + lenvatinib vs chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent EC. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed advanced (stage III-IV) or recurrent EC not previously treated with antiangiogenic agents; systemic chemotherapy (unless within a chemoradiation regimen); PD-1, PD-L1, or PD-L2 inhibitors; or other T-cell receptor–targeted therapies will be eligible. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive pembro 200 mg every 3 wk (Q3W) + lenvatinib 20 mg daily or paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 Q3W + carboplatin AUC 6 Q3W. Randomization will be stratified on the basis of proficient vs deficient mismatch repair (pMMR vs dMMR) status. The pMMR population will be further stratified by prior chemoradiation (yes vs no), measurable disease (yes vs no), and ECOG performance status (0 vs. 1). Patients will continue on treatment for up to 35 cycles of pembro vs 7 cycles of chemotherapy or until initiation of a new anticancer treatment, unacceptable adverse events, or withdrawal of consent. Primary study endpoints are progression-free survival (per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review) and overall survival. Secondary study endpoints are ORR, health-related quality of life, safety and tolerability, and lenvatinib pharmacokinetics. Exploratory endpoints will include disease control rate, clinical benefit rate, and duration of response. Enrollment is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT03884101.

scholarly journals A predictive model of overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 2674
Author(s):  
Mehrad Mahmoudian ◽  
Fatemeh Seyednasrollah ◽  
Liisa Koivu ◽  
Outi Hirvonen ◽  
Sirkku Jyrkkiö ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Clinical Features ◽  
Clinical Information ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Prognostic Models ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii Clinical Trials ◽  
Castration Resistant ◽  
Improved Performance

Metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) is one of the most common cancers with a poor prognosis. To improve prognostic models of mCRPC, the Dialogue for Reverse Engineering Assessments and Methods (DREAM) Consortium organized a crowdsourced competition known as the Prostate Cancer DREAM Challenge. In the competition, data from four phase III clinical trials were utilized. A total of 1600 patients’ clinical information across three of the trials was used to generate prognostic models, whereas one of the datasets (313 patients) was held out for blinded validation. The previously introduced prognostic model of overall survival of chemotherapy-naive mCRPC patients treated with docetaxel or prednisone (so called Halabi model) was used as a performance baseline. This paper presents the model developed by the team TYTDreamChallenge and its improved version to predict the prognosis of mCRPC patients within the first 30 months after starting the treatment based on available clinical features of each patient. In particular, by replacing our original larger set of eleven features with a smaller more carefully selected set of only five features the prediction performance on the independent validation cohort increased up to 5.4 percent. While the original TYTDreamChallenge model (iAUC=0.748) performed similarly as the performance-baseline model developed by Halabi et al. (iAUC=0.743), the improved post-challenge model (iAUC=0.779) showed markedly improved performance by using only PSA, ALP, AST, HB, and LESIONS as features. This highlights the importance of the selection of the clinical features when developing the predictive models.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document