Nivolumab (NIVO) plus ipilimumab (IPI) or NIVO plus chemotherapy (chemo) versus chemo as first-line (1L) treatment for advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC): First results of the CheckMate 648 study.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA4001-LBA4001
Author(s):  
Ian Chau ◽  
Yuichiro Doki ◽  
Jaffer A. Ajani ◽  
Jianming Xu ◽  
Lucjan Wyrwicz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Tumor Cell ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
First Results ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Previously Treated Patients

LBA4001 Background: NIVO demonstrated superior overall survival (OS) vs chemo in previously treated patients (pts) with ESCC (ATTRACTION-3). We report OS and progression-free survival (PFS) from CheckMate 648, the first global phase III study to evaluate both an immuno-oncology (I-O)/chemo combination and an I-O/I-O combination in advanced ESCC. Methods: Adults with previously untreated, unresectable advanced, recurrent or metastatic ESCC were enrolled regardless of tumor cell PD-L1 expression. Pts were randomized to NIVO (240 mg Q2W) + chemo (fluorouracil + cisplatin Q4W), NIVO (3 mg/kg Q2W) + IPI (1 mg/kg Q6W), or chemo alone. Primary endpoints for both comparisons were OS and PFS per blinded independent central review (BICR) in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1%. Hierarchically tested secondary endpoints included OS and PFS in all randomized pts. Results: 970 pts were randomized to NIVO + chemo, NIVO + IPI, and chemo arms (49% with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1%). With 13 months (mo) minimum follow-up, NIVO + chemo and NIVO + IPI led to statistically significant improvement in OS vs chemo in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1% and all randomized pts (Table). Statistically significant PFS benefit was also observed for NIVO + chemo vs chemo (HR 0.65 [98.5% CI 0.46–0.92]; P = 0.0023) in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1%. PFS in NIVO + IPI vs chemo in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1% did not meet the prespecified boundary for significance. The objective response rate (per BICR) was 53% (NIVO + chemo), 35% (NIVO + IPI), and 20% (chemo) in pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1% and in all randomized pts was 47%, 28%, and 27%, respectively; longer median (95% CI) duration of response was observed vs chemo for pts with tumor cell PD-L1 ≥ 1%: 8.4 (6.9–12.4), 11.8 (7.1–27.4), and 5.7 (4.4–8.7) mo and for all randomized pts: 8.2 (6.9–9.7), 11.1 (8.3–14.0), and 7.1 (5.7–8.2) mo, respectively. No new safety signals were identified (Table). Conclusions: NIVO plus chemo and NIVO plus IPI both demonstrated superior OS vs chemo, along with durable objective responses and acceptable safety, in pts with advanced ESCC, and each represents a potential new 1L treatment option. Clinical trial information: NCT03143153. [Table: see text]

Final results from study 181: Randomized phase III study of FOLFIRI with or without panitumumab (pmab) for the treatment of second-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 387-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto F. Sobrero ◽  
Marc Peeters ◽  
Timothy Jay Price ◽  
Yevhen Hotko ◽  
Andres Cervantes-Ruiperez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Event Rates

387 Background: In the primary analysis of study 181, pmab+FOLFIRI significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs FOLFIRI as second-line therapy in patients (pts) with wild-type (WT) KRAS mCRC. Here, we report the results of a prespecified final descriptive analysis planned for 30 months (mos) after the last pt was enrolled. Methods: Pts were randomised 1:1 to pmab 6.0 mg/kg Q2W+FOLFIRI (Arm 1) vs FOLFIRI alone (Arm 2). Pts had one prior fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimen for mCRC and ECOG 0-2. The co-primary endpoints were PFS (central assessment) and OS, and were independently tested. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), and safety. KRAS status was determined by a blinded central lab. Results: 1,186 pts were randomised and received treatment (tx): 591 in Arm 1, 595 In Arm 2. 1,083/1,186 pts (91%) had KRAS results. Adverse event rates were consistent with the primary analysis. Results are shown in the table . Conclusions: In Arm 1, PFS (standard and on-treatment definition) and ORR were improved, and there was a trend toward improved OS in pts with WT KRAS mCRC. The large proportion of pts receiving post-progression anti-EGFR therapy may have affected the ability to observe a difference in OS between the tx arms. In pts with MT KRAS there was no difference in efficacy. KRAS testing is critical to select appropriate pts for tx with pmab. [Table: see text]

SELECT: Randomized phase III study of docetaxel (D) or pemetrexed (P) with or without cetuximab (C) in recurrent or progressive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after platinum-based therapy.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7502-7502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward S. Kim ◽  
Marcus A. Neubauer ◽  
Allen Lee Cohn ◽  
Lee Steven Schwartzberg ◽  
Lawrence E. Garbo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Staining Intensity ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Independent Review ◽  
Secondary Endpoints

7502 Background: SELECT investigated whether the addition of C to standard chemotherapy improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with recurrent or progressive NSCLC after failure of platinum-based therapy. Methods: SELECT was a multicenter, open label, randomized phase III trial. Per investigator choice, pts received either P (500 mg/m2) or D (75 mg/m2) on day 1 and then were randomized within each group to chemotherapy plus C (400/250 mg/m2) (initial/weekly) or chemotherapy alone. Therapy was given for up to six 3-week cycles; pts randomized to C continued weekly monotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was PFS for PC vs. P as determined by an Independent Review Committee (IRC). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR) by IRC, and safety. Preplanned subgroup analyses for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) staining intensity by immunohistochemistry and histology were performed. Results for PC vs. P only are presented. Results: Between Jan 2005 and Feb 2010, 938 total pts were randomized. Baseline demographics were comparable between PC (n=301) and P (n=304): median age 64 years; male 60%; Caucasian 88%; KPS 80-100/60-70 84%/16%; squamous/non-squamous 24%/76%. Median PFS (months) PC: 2.89 and P: 2.76 (hazard ratio [HR] =1.03 [95% confidence interval (CI)=0.87-1.21]; p=0.76). Median OS (months) PC: 6.93 and P: 7.79 (HR=1.01 [95% CI=0.86-1.20]; p=0.86). ORR PC: 6.6% and P: 4.3% (odds ratio =1.59 [95% CI=0.78-3.26]; p=0.20). Median DOR (months) PC: 4.17 and P: 6.93 (HR=1.58 [95% CI=0.74-3.36]; p=0.24). There were no statistical differences in efficacy based on histology or EGFR staining intensity. More drug-related AEs/SAEs were observed in the PC arm, with differences mainly attributable to skin toxicities, GI (diarrhea/stomatitis), and hypomagnesemia. Conclusions: The addition of C to P did not improve efficacy in this pt population. Further biomarker analyses are planned. The safety profiles for C and P were consistent with existing data and no new safety signals were observed.

Randomized phase III study of panitumumab (pmab) vs. cetuximab (cmab) in chemorefractory wild-type (WT) KRAS exon 2 metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Outcomes by hypomagnesemia (hypomag) in ASPECCT.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 705-705
Author(s):  
Timothy Jay Price ◽  
Marc Peeters ◽  
Tae Won Kim ◽  
Jin Li ◽  
Stefano Cascinu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Exon 2 ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Dose Modifications ◽  
Kras Exon

705 Background: ASPECCT met its primary endpoint of non-inferiority of overall survival (OS) of pmab vs. cmab. We evaluate outcomes by hypomag, an on-treatment, anti-EGFR related adverse event that develops due to the inhibition of EGFR function. Conflicting reports have suggested hypomag is associated with survival. Methods: Patients with previously treated WT KRAS exon 2 mCRC were randomized 1:1 to receive pmab or cmab. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of OS. Progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) were secondary endpoints. Patients were categorized ± any grade hypomag during the study and data analyzed by treatment arm. Analysis of Mg supplementation during hypomag was not conducted. Results: 999 patients were randomized and treated: 499 pmab, 500 cmab. Any grade hypomag was 28.8% and grade ≥3 was 7.3% in the pmab arm vs. 18.9% and 2.6% in the cmab arm, respectively. Median time to first hypomag onset was 82 days in the pmab arm and 57 days in the cmab arm. In the pmab arm, 1.0% of patients discontinued treatment and 5% of patients had dose modifications due to hypomag vs. <0.5% and 3% in the cmab arm, respectively. Results are shown (Table). Conclusions: In ASPECCT, rates of hypomag were higher in the pmab vs. the cmab arm. Patients who developed any grade hypomag with pmab or cmab had higher ORR, PFS, and OS compared with those patients who did not. Clinical trial information: NCT00788957. [Table: see text]

Final results of study 20050181: A randomized phase III study of FOLFIRI with our without panitumumab (pmab) for the second‑line treatment (tx) of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3535-3535 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto F. Sobrero ◽  
Marc Peeters ◽  
Timothy Jay Price ◽  
Yevhen Hotko ◽  
Andres Cervantes-Ruiperez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Event Rates

3535 Background: The primary analysis of study 20050181 showed that in patients (pts) with wild-type (WT) KRAS mCRC, pmab plus FOLFIRI given as second-line therapy significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs FOLFIRI alone. Here, we report on a prespecified descriptive analysis planned for 30 months (mos) after the last pt was enrolled. Methods: Pts with mCRC, ECOG 0-2, who had one prior fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimen were randomized 1:1 to pmab 6.0 mg/kg Q2W+FOLFIRI (Arm 1) vs FOLFIRI (Arm 2). Co-primary endpoints were OS and PFS (central assessment). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and safety. Tumor KRAS status was determined by a blinded central lab. Results: 1186 pts were randomised and received tx: 591 in Arm 1, 595 In Arm 2. 1083 pts (91%) had KRAS results. Adverse event rates were consistent with the primary analysis. Results are shown below. Conclusions: In pts with WT KRAS mCRC receiving pmab+FOLFIRI vs FOLFIRI, PFS and ORR were significantly improved, and there was a trend toward improved OS. Post-progression anti-EGFR tx may have attenuated any significant difference in OS between tx arms. In pts with MT KRAS mCRC, no difference in efficacy was observed between tx arms. KRAS testing is critical to select appropriate pts for tx with pmab. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals OCEAN: a randomized Phase III study of melflufen + dexamethasone to treat relapsed refractory multiple myeloma

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. 631-641 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fredrik Schjesvold ◽  
Pawel Robak ◽  
Ludek Pour ◽  
Johan Aschan ◽  
Pieter Sonneveld
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Response Rate ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Phase Iii Study

Melflufen is a novel peptide–drug conjugate that rapidly delivers a cytotoxic payload into tumor cells. It has emerged as a potential new multiple myeloma treatment, particularly for late-stage forms of the disease. Here we describe the rationale and design of OCEAN (NCT03151811), a randomized, head-to-head, superiority, open-label, global, Phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of melflufen + dexamethasone versus pomalidomide + dexamethasone. Eligible patients with relapsed refractory multiple myeloma have received 2–4 previous treatments and are refractory to both lenalidomide and their last treatment. Patients are excluded if they have previously received pomalidomide. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival, and key secondary endpoints include overall response rate, duration of response and overall survival.

Endometriumkarzinom: Kombination aus Lenvatinib und Pembrolizumab zeigt Wirksamkeit unabhängig vom Mikrosatellitenstatus

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Sarah Matz
Keyword(s):  
Endometrial Carcinoma ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Efficacy Analysis ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Previously Treated Patients ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Prior Systemic Therapy ◽  
Grade 3

<b>Purpose:</b> Patients with advanced endometrial carcinoma have limited treatment options. We report final primary efficacy analysis results for a patient cohort with advanced endometrial carcinoma receiving lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in an ongoing phase Ib/II study of selected solid tumors. <b>Methods:</b> Patients took lenvatinib 20 mg once daily orally plus pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks, in 3-week cycles. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) at 24 weeks (ORRWk24); secondary efficacy end points included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Tumor assessments were evaluated by investigators per immune-related RECIST. <b>Results:</b> At data cutoff, 108 patients with previously treated endometrial carcinoma were enrolled, with a median follow-up of 18.7 months. The ORRWk24 was 38.0% (95% CI, 28.8% to 47.8%). Among subgroups, the ORRWk24 (95% CI) was 63.6% (30.8% to 89.1%) in patients with microsatellite instability (MSI)-high tumors (n = 11) and 36.2% (26.5% to 46.7%) in patients with microsatellite-stable tumors (n = 94). For previously treated patients, regardless of tumor MSI status, the median DOR was 21.2 months (95% CI, 7.6 months to not estimable), median PFS was 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.3 to 8.7 months), and median OS was 16.7 months (15.0 months to not estimable). Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 83/124 (66.9%) patients. <b>Conclusion:</b> Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab showed promising antitumor activity in patients with advanced endometrial carcinoma who have experienced disease progression after prior systemic therapy, regardless of tumor MSI status. The combination therapy had a manageable toxicity profile. <b>Trial registration:</b> ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02501096.

Phase III Study of Denileukin Diftitox (ONTAK®) To Evaluate Efficacy and Safety in CD25+ and CD25- Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma (CTCL) Patients.

Blood ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 108 (11) ◽  
pp. 696-696 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andres Negro-Vilar ◽  
Zofia Dziewanowska ◽  
Eric Groves ◽  
Elyane Lombardy ◽  
Victor Stevens
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Interleukin 2 ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Response Assessment ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Denileukin Diftitox ◽  
Duration Of Response ◽  
Phase Iii Study

Abstract Denileukin diftitox (ONTAK®) is a genetically engineered fusion protein composed of the enzymatically active domain of diphtheria toxin and the full length sequence of interleukin-2 (IL-2), designed to target malignancies expressing the IL-2 receptor. The drug is approved for the treatment of CTCL in patients expressing the CD-25 component of the IL-2 receptor. L4389-14 is a phase III study designed to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of denileukin diftitox (DD) in distinct subgroups of CTCL patients. The study met its accrual goal of 90 patients and included three subgroups of patients: 1) CD25 (+) patients that crossover from a placebo course of treatment in a companion study (L4389-11) and had progressed or failed to respond during an 8-course placebo treatment (N=34); 2) CD25 (−) patients (N=36) and 3) CD25 (+) patients that had previously been treated with DD, responded, and subsequently relapsed (retreatment group, N=22). Patients entered the study at stages Ia to III and received DD at a dose schedule of 18mcg/Kg/day by IV infusion once daily for 5 days every 3 weeks for up to 8 cycles. Efficacy of treatment was assessed based on tumor burden, lymph nodes, lymphocyte count, and patient status (PGA) at every cycle, beginning on cycle 2. A response assessment required confirmation in two subsequent cycles. Responses were evaluated by an independent Drug Evaluation Review Committee. Assessment of activity of DD across the 3 groups based on an analysis of the data is shown in the table below. Patient demographics were consistent across subgroups and representative of a general CTCL population. Disease status at baseline was Stage IIa or earlier 66% of patients and stage IIb or higher 34% of patients. About 46% of patients presented with mild to severe erythroderma. Adverse events were similar to those previously observed with ONTAK. Serious adverse events of ≥5% incidence were nausea (9%), vomiting (5%), capillary leak syndrome (5%), pyrexia (9%) and infections (10%). The results of this large phase III trial showed very consistent efficacy of denileukin diftitox across treatment-naïve CD25 (+) and CD25 (−) patients, as well as in patients undergoing retreatment with DD. Duration of response and progression free survival were also quite favorable across the different CTCL subgroups. Response Assessment CD25 (+) Placebo Crossover CD25 (−) CD25 (+) Retreatment N = 34 36 22 ORR (CR/CCR/PR) 47.1% 30.6% 36.4% CR/CCR 17.6% 8.3% 9.1% PR 29.4% 22.2% 27.3% SD 29.4% 44.4% 31.8% PD 20.6% 25.0% 31.8% Duration of Response (days) 820 340 274 Progression Free Survival (days) 870 Not reached 429

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]

ELOQUENT-2: A phase III, randomized, open-label trial of lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Len/Dex) with or without elotuzumab (Elo) in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RR MM) (CA204-004).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS8112-TPS8112
Author(s):  
Sagar Lonial ◽  
Paul Gerard Guy Richardson ◽  
Philippe Moreau ◽  
Robert Z. Orlowski ◽  
Jesùs F. San-Miguel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Response Duration ◽  
Surface Glycoprotein ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Cell Surface Glycoprotein ◽  
Open Label Phase ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Duration Of Response

TPS8112 Background: MM remains incurable and patients (pts) typically relapse or become refractory to current treatments. Novel regimens are needed to improve pt outcomes. Elo is a humanized monoclonal IgG1 antibody targeting the cell surface glycoprotein CS1, which is highly expressed on >95% of MM cells. Len/Dex is approved for treatment of relapsed MM and an objective response rate (ORR) of ~60% was reported in phase III trials of this combination in RR MM. In a phase II study (N=73) of Elo (10 or 20 mg/kg) in combination with Len/Dex in pts with RR MM, the 10 mg/kg group (n=36) demonstrated an ORR of 92% and median progression-free survival (PFS) that was not reached after a median follow-up of 14.1 months. Encouraging activity was seen in patients with high-risk cytogenetics and/or stage 2-3 disease. Based on these data, a randomized, open-label phase III trial has been initiated to determine if the addition of Elo to Len/Dex will improve PFS in patients with RR MM compared with Len/Dex alone. Methods: Pts (N=640) with RR MM and 1-3 prior therapies are eligible, including pts with mild or moderate renal impairment. Pts are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 28-day cycles of Len 25 mg PO (days 1-21) and Dex 40 mg PO (days 1, 8, 15 and 22) with or without Elo. Elo dose and schedule is 10 mg/kg IV on days 1, 8, 15, 22 in the first 2 cycles and on days 1 and 15 in subsequent cycles. Dex 8 mg IV + 28 mg PO is used during the weeks with Elo. Treatment will continue until disease progression, death, or withdrawal of consent. Patients will be followed for tumor response every 4 weeks until progressive disease and then survival every 12 weeks. The primary endpoint is PFS (90% power for a hazard ratio [experimental to control arm] of 0.74) and the secondary endpoints are ORR and overall survival. Exploratory endpoints are safety, time to response, duration of response, time to subsequent therapy, health-related quality of life, and pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity of Elo. Potential biomarkers will also be assessed. As of January 10th, 2012, 107 pts were enrolled and 68 pts were treated. NCT01239797.

Molecular marker assessments for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and histoscore (H-score) in the phase III SELECT trial.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8052-8052
Author(s):  
Edward S. Kim ◽  
Sreenivas Chittoor ◽  
Craig H. Reynolds ◽  
Lorinda Simms ◽  
Scott Saxman
Keyword(s):  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Egfr Expression ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Previously Treated Patients ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Epidermal Growth ◽  
Select Trial

8052 Background: SELECT was a phase III study that investigated whether the addition of cetuximab (C) to pemetrexed (P) improved outcome in previously treated patients (pts) with recurrent or progressive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Clinical results have been reported previously and demonstrated that adding C to P did not improve progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). H-score has been reported to be a potential predictor of outcome for C therapy. Prespecified biomarker analyses, including EGFR IHC and H-score, are reported here. Methods: EGFRexpression in tumor tissue was not required for eligibility; however, tissue was collected and analyzed for EGFR expression by IHC using standard methods. In addition, H-score evaluation was performed by trained central pathologists and correlated with clinical outcome using a predefined cutoff for “low” and “high” of <200 and ≥200, respectively. Results: A total of 449 (IHC) and 406 (H-score) pt specimens were evaluable. Demographics for pts with tissue available for EGFR analysis were similar to the overall population. For IHC+ pts (n=396), median PFS for C+P was 3.02 months (95% CI, 2.76–3.45) compared with 2.99 months (95% CI, 2.63–4.14) for P (HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.83–1.24]; p=.86). For pts with low H-score (N=99 [C+P] and N=111 [P]), median PFS was 2.7 months (95% CI, 1.8–3.2) with C+P and 3.1 months (95% CI, 2.6–4.1) with P (HR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.84–1.46]; P=.48); median OS was 6.7 months (95% CI, 5.3–8.6) with C+P and 6.6 months (95% CI, 4.7–9.2) with P (HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.72–1.27]; P=.76). Among pts with high H-scores (N=101 [C+P] and N= 95 [P]), median PFS was 3.2 months (95% CI, 2.7–4.6) with C+P and 3.7 months (95% CI, 1.7–4.5) with P (HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.77–1.37]; P=.86); median OS was 7.7 months (95% CI, 6.5–10.9) with C+P and 8.0 months (95% CI, 7.0–9.1) with P (HR, 1.17 [95% CI, 0.86–1.57]; P=.32). Conclusions: EGFR H-score was not predictive of benefit for the addition of C to P in this population of pts with NSCLC. There was also no treatment effect in the IHC+ group. Clinical trial information: NCT00095199.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document