Crossover and rechallenge with pembrolizumab in recurrent patients from the EORTC 1325-MG/Keynote-054 phase 3 trial, pembrolizumab versus placebo after complete resection of high-risk stage III melanoma.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9500-9500
Author(s):  
Alexander M. Eggermont ◽  
Andrey Meshcheryakov ◽  
Victoria Atkinson ◽  
Christian U. Blank ◽  
Mario Mandalà ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disease Progression ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Complete Resection ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

9500 Background: The phase 3 double-blind EORTC 1325/KEYNOTE-054 trial evaluated pembrolizumab (pembro) vs placebo in stage III cutaneous melanoma patients (pts) with complete resection of lymph nodes. Pembro improved RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.57) and DMFS (HR 0.60) (Eggermont, NEJM 2018, TLO 2021). In the pembro group, the incidence of immune related AE (irAE) grade 1-5 was 37%, and of grade 3-5 was 7%. We present the safety profile, response rate and PFS for the subset of pts who had a recurrence and crossed over or were rechallenged with pembrolizumab, within protocol. Methods: Pts were randomized to receive iv. pembro 200 mg (N=514) or placebo (N=505) every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses (~1 year). Upon recurrence with no brain metastases, pts with an ECOG PS 0-2 were eligible to enter part 2 of the study, i.e. to receive pembro 200 mg iv. every 3 weeks for a maximum of 2 years, for crossover (those who received placebo) or rechallenge (those who recurred ≥6 months after completing one year of pembro therapy). Treatment was stopped in case of disease progression (RECIST 1.1) or unacceptable toxicity. Results: At the clinical cut-off (16-Oct-2020), 298 (59%) pts had a disease recurrence in the placebo group; 155 pts participated in the crossover part 2 of the trial. A total of 297 (58%) pts completed the 1-yr pembro adjuvant treatment, of whom 47 had a recurrence ≥6 mths from the stop of treatment and 20 entered in the rechallenge part of the trial. Among 175 pts who started pembro in Part 2, 160 discontinued due to completion of therapy (N=24), disease progression (N=88), toxicity (N=20), investigator's decision (N=21), or other reason (N=7); 15 pts were still on-treatment. Results for the 2 groups are provided in the table. The median number of doses was 12 and 5.5, respectively (resp), and the median follow-up was 41 and 19 mts, resp. Among the 175 pts, 51 (29%) had a grade 1-4 irAE (by group: 47 [30%] and 4 [20%] resp) and 11 (6%) a grade 3-4 irAE. Conclusions: Pembrolizumab treatment after crossover yielded a 39% ORR in evaluable pts and an overall 3-yr PFS of ̃32%, but after rechallenge the efficacy was lower. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA The median PFS (95% CI) from start of Part 2 was 14 (5-27) and 8 (5-15) mts for stage III-resected and III/IV various, resp. Among the 80 stage IV crossover pts with evaluable disease, 31 (39%) had an objective response: 14 (18%) CR, 17 (21%) PR. The 2-yr PFS rate from response was 69% (95% CI 48-83%). For these 80 pts, the median PFS was 6.1 mts and the 3-yr PFS rate was 31% (95% CI 21-41%). Among 9 stage IV rechallenged pts with an evaluable disease, 1 (11%) reached CR, 3 had SD and 5 PD. Clinical trial information: NCT02362594. [Table: see text]

PACIFIC-2: Phase 3 study of concurrent durvalumab and platinum-based chemoradiotherapy in patients with unresectable, stage III NSCLC.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS8573-TPS8573 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey D. Bradley ◽  
Makoto Nishio ◽  
Isamu Okamoto ◽  
Michael David Newton ◽  
Leonardo Trani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Additional Benefit ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Ecog Performance Status ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Unresectable Stage ◽  
Stage Iii Nsclc ◽  
To Receive

TPS8573 Background: Durvalumab, a selective, high-affinity, engineered human IgG1 mAb that blocks PD-L1 binding to PD-1 and CD80, is approved in the US, Japan and several other countries, for the treatment of patients (pts) with unresectable, stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose disease has not progressed following concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT). These approvals were based on results from the phase 3 PACIFIC study, in which durvalumab was given 1–42 days after completion of definitive cCRT and significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo (median 16.8 vs 5.6 months; HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.42– 0.65; p<0.001) and overall survival (OS) vs placebo (stratified HR 0.68; 99.73% CI 0.47–0.997; p=0.0025). Increasing evidence suggests additional benefit when anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapies are administered alongside cCRT. The PACIFIC 2 study therefore aims to assess whether durvalumab plus cCRT provides additional benefit, in terms of PFS and objective response rate (ORR), compared with cCRT alone. Methods: PACIFIC 2 is a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, international study. Approximately 300 pts with unresectable stage III NSCLC will be randomized (2:1) to receive either durvalumab (intravenous 1500 mg) every 4 weeks (q4w) + cCRT, or placebo q4w + cCRT. Eligible pts must have histologically or cytologically confirmed stage III disease; ECOG performance status 0 or 1; and life expectancy >12 weeks at randomization. Pts who discontinue treatment will be followed for safety and OS. Primary endpoints are PFS and ORR (RECIST v1.1) assessed via blinded independent central review. Secondary endpoints include OS; OS at month 24; complete response (CR) rate; duration of response; disease control rate; time to death/distant metastases; time from randomization to second progression; safety; and symptoms, functioning and global health status. Pts with a CR, partial response or stable disease will continue to receive durvalumab or placebo until clinical or RECIST v1.1-defined disease progression, or until another discontinuation criterion is met. Study enrollment began in March 2018 and recruitment is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT03519971.

Randomized phase II study of gemcitabine-oxaliplatin or gemcitabine-cisplatin in chemonaive patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)-CLEO 05

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7097-7097 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Le Chevalier ◽  
S. Thezenas ◽  
J. Breton ◽  
J. Pujol ◽  
B. Coudert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Stage Iiib ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Number Of Cycles ◽  
To Receive

7097 Background: Gemcitabine-cisplatin is one of the reference doublets used in NSCLC. Oxaliplatin is a platin analog which offers a promising efficacy/tolerance profile in NSCLC. The combination of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin has been proven feasible and active in solid tumors. Methods: Patients with chemonaive, measurable, PS 0 or 1, stage IIIB/ IV NSCLC were randomized to receive either gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 day 1 & 8 plus oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 day 1 (GEMOX) or gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2 day 1 & 8 plus cisplatin 80 mg/m2day 1 (GEMCIS). Cycles were given every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint of the study was the response rate according to the RECIST criteria. Secondary endpoints included tolerance, survival and quality of life. Results: Between October 2003 and December 2004, 130 patients (66 in GEMOX and 64 in GEMCIS) were accrued at 12 centres. Baseline patient characteristics were similar in the 2 groups. Mean age was 61. There were 96 males and 34 females; 27% of patients were PS 0 and 73% were PS 1; 15% had stage IIIB and 85% had stage IV. Median number of cycles was 5 in each group. Objective response rates were 36% in GEMOX (CI 95%: 25%-50%) and 39% in GEMCIS (CI 95%: 28%-54%) respectively. Time to progression was 173 days in the GEMOX group and 163 days in the GEMCIS group. Median survival was 10.8 months in the GEMOX group and 10.4 months in the GEMCIS group. Grade III/IV neutropenia was observed in 38% of patients after GEMOX and 41% after GEMCIS; thrombocytopenia was observed in 40% and 33% of cases respectively. Grade 2+ neurotoxicity was more frequent after GEMOX (18% vs 3%). Conclusions: GEMOX has an activity comparable to GEMCIS and may be an alternative for those patients with advanced NSCLC who have a contra-indication to cisplatin. [Table: see text]

Vandetanib versus erlotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after failure of at least one prior cytotoxic chemotherapy: A randomized, double-blind phase III trial (ZEST)

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8009-8009
Author(s):  
R. B. Natale ◽  
S. Thongprasert ◽  
F. A. Greco ◽  
M. Thomas ◽  
C. M. Tsai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Equivalent Efficacy ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

8009 Background: Vandetanib is a once-daily oral inhibitor of VEGFR, EGFR and RET signaling. This phase III study compared the efficacy of vandetanib vs erlotinib in patients (pts) with advanced, previously treated NSCLC. Methods: Eligible pts (stage IIIB/IV NSCLC, PS 0–2, 1–2 prior chemotherapies; all histologies permitted) were randomized 1:1 to receive vandetanib 300 mg/day or erlotinib 150 mg/day until progression/toxicity. The primary objective was to show superiority in progression-free survival (PFS) for vandetanib vs erlotinib. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), time to deterioration of symptoms (TDS; EORTC QoL Questionnaire) and safety. Results: Between Oct 06-Nov 07, 1240 pts (mean age 61 yrs; 38% female; 22% squamous) were randomized to receive vandetanib (n=623) or erlotinib (n=617). Baseline characteristics were similar in both arms. Median duration of follow-up was 14 months, with 88% pts progressed and 67% dead. There was no difference in PFS for pts treated with vandetanib vs erlotinib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.98, 95.22% CI 0.87–1.10; P=0.721), and no difference in the secondary endpoints of OS (HR 1.01, 95.08% CI 0.89–1.16; P=0.830), ORR (both 12%) and TDS (pain: HR 0.92, P=0.289; dyspnea: HR 1.07, P=0.407; cough: HR 0.94, P=0.455). A preplanned non-inferiority analysis for PFS and OS demonstrated equivalent efficacy for vandetanib and erlotinib. The adverse events (AEs) observed for vandetanib were generally consistent with previous NSCLC studies with vandetanib 300 mg. There was a higher incidence of some AEs (any grade) with vandetanib vs erlotinib, including diarrhea (50% vs 38%) and hypertension (16% vs 2%); rash was more frequent with erlotinib (38% vs 28%). The overall incidence of CTCAE grade ≥3 AEs was also higher with vandetanib (50% vs 40%). The incidence of protocol-defined QTc prolongation in the vandetanib arm was 5%. Conclusions: The study did not meet its primary objective of demonstrating PFS prolongation with vandetanib vs erlotinib in pts with previously treated advanced NSCLC. However, vandetanib and erlotinib showed equivalent efficacy for PFS and OS in a preplanned non-inferiority analysis. [Table: see text]

An international, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase III study (MONET1) of motesanib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel (C/P) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA7512-LBA7512 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Scagliotti ◽  
I. Vynnychenko ◽  
Y. Ichinose ◽  
K. Park ◽  
K. Kubota ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cox Model ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Nonsquamous Nsclc

LBA7512 Background: This study evaluated whether motesanib (a selective oral inhibitor of VEGFR 1, 2 and 3; PDGFR and Kit) plus C/P improved overall survival (OS) compared with placebo + C/P in patients (pts) with nonsquamous NSCLC and in a subset of pts with adenocarcinoma. Methods: Pts had stage IIIB/IV or recurrent nonsquamous NSCLC and no prior systemic therapy for advanced NSCLC. The study initially enrolled all histologies but was amended to exclude pts with squamous NSCLC owing to a high rate of hemoptysis. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive up to six 3-wk cycles of C (AUC 6 mg/mL·min) and P (200 mg/m2) with either motesanib 125 mg QD (Arm A) or placebo QD (Arm B) orally continuously. The primary endpoint was OS; secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs), objective response rate (ORR) and association between placental growth factor (PLGF) change and OS. OS was evaluated using a stratified Cox model and 2-sided log-rank test (α=0.03 for nonsquamous pts and α=0.02 for adenocarcinoma pts). Results: 1090 pts with nonsquamous NSCLC were randomized (Arm A/B, n=541/549); 890 had adenocarcinoma (n=448/442). 61% were men; median age was 60 years (range 21–87); 83% had stage IV disease. At the time of analysis, 753 pts had died (608 pts with adenocarcinoma). Median follow-up was 10.6 mo. OS was not significantly improved in Arm A compared with Arm B (Table). In Arm A, PLGF analysis did not show an association with OS. The incidence of grade ≥3 AEs in Arms A/B was 73/59%. Grade ≥3 AEs occurring more frequently in Arm A than B included neutropenia (22/15%), diarrhea (9/1%), hypertension (7/1%) and cholecystitis (3/0%). The incidence of grade 5 AEs was 14/9% in Arms A/B. Conclusions: In pts with advanced nonsquamous NSCLC, treatment with motesanib + C/P did not significantly improve OS compared with C/P alone. [Table: see text]

REVEL: A randomized, double-blind, phase III study of docetaxel (DOC) and ramucirumab (RAM; IMC-1121B) versus DOC and placebo (PL) in the second-line treatment of stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) following disease progression after one prior platinum-based therapy.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA8006-LBA8006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maurice Perol ◽  
Tudor-Eliade Ciuleanu ◽  
Oscar Arrieta ◽  
Kumar Prabhash ◽  
Konstantinos N. Syrigos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disease Progression ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Pulmonary Hemorrhage ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Double Blind

LBA8006^ Background: RAM is a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody that targets the extracellular domain of VEGFR-2. The REVEL study evaluated the efficacy and safety of RAM+DOC vs. PL+DOC (DOC) in patients (pts) with stage IV nonsquamous (NSQ) and squamous (SQ) NSCLC after platinum-based therapy. Methods: Pts with NSQ and SQ stage IV NSCLC were randomized 1:1 (stratified by sex, region, ECOG PS, and prior maintenance therapy) to receive DOC 75 mg/m2 in combination with either RAM 10 mg/kg or PL on day 1 of a 21-day cycle until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary efficacy endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR). Results: Between Dec 2010 and Feb 2013, 1,253 pts (26.2% SQ) were randomized (RAM+DOC: 628; DOC: 625). Pt characteristics were balanced between arms. ORR was 22.9% for RAM+DOC and 13.6% for DOC (P<0.001). The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was 0.762 (P<0.0001); median PFS was 4.5 months (m) for RAM+DOC vs. 3.0m for DOC. REVEL met its primary endpoint; the OS HR was 0.857 (95% CI 0.751, 0.98; P=0.0235); median OS was 10.5m for RAM+DOC vs. 9.1m for DOC. OS was longer for RAM+DOC in most pt subgroups, including SQ and NSQ histology. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) occurring in >5% of pts on RAM+DOC were neutropenia (34.9% vs. 28.0%), febrile neutropenia (15.9% vs. 10.0%), fatigue (11.3% vs. 8.1%), leukopenia (8.5% vs. 7.6%), hypertension (5.4% vs. 1.9%), and pneumonia (5.1% vs. 5.8%). Grade 5 AEs were comparable between arms (5.4% vs. 5.8%), as was pulmonary hemorrhage (any grade; all pts: 2.1% vs. 1.6%; SQ pts: 3.8% vs. 2.4%). Conclusions: REVEL demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in ORR, PFS, and OS for RAM+DOC vs DOC in NSCLC pts with stage IV NSCLC as second-line treatment after platinum-based therapy. Benefits were similar in NSQ and SQ pts, and no unexpected AEs were identified. Clinical trial information: NCT01168973.

ENGOT-EN6/NSGO-RUBY: A phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of dostarlimab + carboplatin-paclitaxel versus placebo + carboplatin-paclitaxel in recurrent or primary advanced endometrial cancer (EC).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS6107-TPS6107
Author(s):  
Mansoor Raza Mirza ◽  
Robert L. Coleman ◽  
Lars Christian Hanker ◽  
Brian M. Slomovitz ◽  
Giorgio Valabrega ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Disease Status ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Stage Iii ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Primary Stage ◽  
Patient Reported

TPS6107 Background: Carboplatin-paclitaxel is considered standard systemic anticancer therapy for recurrent or advanced EC for which surgery and/or radiation are not curative. Dostarlimab (TSR-042) is an anti-programmed cell death (PD)-1 humanized monoclonal antibody that has demonstrated antitumor activity and an acceptable safety profile in patients (pts) with recurrent or advanced EC in the GARNET trial. The RUBY trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dostarlimab in combination with carboplatin-paclitaxel in recurrent or primary advanced EC compared with carboplatin-paclitaxel alone. Methods: This is a global, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled study. Eligible pts must have first recurrent or primary stage III or stage IV EC with a low potential for cure by radiation therapy or surgery alone or in combination. Pts with carcinosarcoma are eligible for enrollment. 470 pts will be enrolled from approximately 160 sites in the ENGOT countries, United States, and Canada. Stratification factors are microsatellite instability (MSI) status (MSI-high [MSI-H] or microsatellite stable [MSS]), prior external pelvic radiotherapy (yes or no), and disease status (recurrent, primary stage III, or primary stage IV). Pts will be randomized 1:1 to receive combination dostarlimab 500 mg or placebo + carboplatin AUC 5 + paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 every 3 weeks for 6 cycles followed by dostarlimab 1000 mg or placebo monotherapy every 6 weeks for up to 3 years in the absence of progressive disease, death, unacceptable toxicity, or patient/physician decision to withdraw from the study. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by the investigator in the all-comers population and the MSI-H population per RECIST version 1.1. Secondary efficacy endpoints are PFS assessed by blinded independent central review per RECIST version 1.1, overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, disease control rate, safety and tolerability, and patient-reported outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT03981796.

Randomized Multicenter Phase II Trial of Bolus Plus Infusional Fluorouracil/Leucovorin Compared With Fluorouracil/Leucovorin Plus Oxaliplatin As Third-Line Treatment of Patients With Advanced Colorectal Cancer

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (23) ◽  
pp. 4753-4761 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Kemeny ◽  
Carlos A. Garay ◽  
Jayne Gurtler ◽  
Howard Hochster ◽  
Peter Kennedy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Advanced Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Symptomatic Improvement ◽  
Multicenter Phase ◽  
Baseline Characteristics ◽  
Third Line ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
To Receive

Purpose The addition of oxaliplatin to fluorouracil (FU) and leucovorin (LV) improves the outcome of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). This multicenter study evaluated FU/LV with or without oxaliplatin in patients with metastatic CRC after disease progression on sequential fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan. Patients and Methods Two hundred fourteen patients were randomly assigned to receive LV 200 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) and FU 400 mg/m2 IV bolus, followed by FU 600 mg/m2 IV over 22 hours on days 1 and 2, every 2 weeks (LV5FU2); or LV and FU as described, plus oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 IV over 2 hours on day 1 of the schedule (FOLFOX4). The primary end point was overall response. Results Baseline characteristics were similar in the two treatment arms. Objective response (complete + partial) rates for LV5FU2 versus FOLFOX4 were 2% v 13% (P = .0027), respectively. Median time to disease progression was 2.4 v 4.8 months (P < .0001), and median survival was 11.4 v 9.9 months (P = .20) for LV5FU2 and FOLFOX4, respectively. Among the 72 patients who crossed over from LV5FU2 to FOLFOX4, 6% responded. Symptomatic improvement was significantly better for patients in the FOLFOX4 arm (32% v 18% for LV5FU2, P = .05). Grade 3/4 toxicities for LV5FU2 and FOLFOX4 were neutropenia (13% and 42%, respectively), diarrhea (6% and 16%, respectively), and overall neuropathy (0% and 6%, respectively). Conclusion In patients with metastatic CRC, the FOLFOX4 regimen was superior to LV5FU2 with a higher response rate and time to disease progression. FOLFOX4 is an effective regimen even after disease progression on two previous chemotherapy regimens with fluoropyrimidines and irinotecan.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document