POLO: Radiologic assessment of the impact of maintenance olaparib in patients (pts) with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPaC).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 412-412
Author(s):  
Lawrence Howard Schwartz ◽  
Hedy L. Kindler ◽  
Pascal Hammel ◽  
Michele Reni ◽  
Eric Van Cutsem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Pancreatic Disease ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Radiologic Assessment ◽  
The Impact

412 Background: The phase III POLO study (NCT02184195) demonstrated a benefit of maintenance olaparib over placebo in the radiologically assessed primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) in pts with mPaC (median 7.4 vs 3.8 months [mo]; 12-mo rate 34% vs 15%). The impact of radiologic assessment of pancreatic lesions, which is considered challenging, was explored. Methods: Tumors were assessed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR) in pts with mPaC treated with maintenance olaparib or placebo. PFS was analyzed in subsets of pts based on various event criteria. Results: All 154 randomized pts had mPaC prior to chemotherapy, of whom 122 had disease in the pancreas at POLO baseline (BL); 34% (53/154) had pancreas-only target lesions (TL), 26% (40/154) also had ≥1 TL outside of the pancreas, and in 19% (29/154) pancreatic disease was recorded as non-TL. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary PFS analysis (Table), including when all pancreas lesion assessments were discounted (median PFS 7.4 vs 4.7 mo; 12-mo rate 38% vs 22%). Of 53 pts with pancreas-only TLs at BL, 34 had disease progression (PD); in 20 pts this was not solely based on TL measurements (16 had new lesions; 4 had multiple-cause PD). Confirmed objective responses occurred during study maintenance treatment in 20% of olaparib pts (18/92) and 10% of placebo pts (6/62). In pts with pancreas-only TLs at BL there were 7 responses in the olaparib arm (1 complete response [CR], 6 partial responses [PR]) and 2 (2 PR) in the placebo arm. In pts who had ≥1 TL outside of the pancreas at BL there were 11 (1 CR, 10 PR) and 4 (4 PR) responses, respectively. Responses were generally durable irrespective of TL location. Conclusions: The significant PFS benefit with maintenance olaparib over placebo shown in the primary analysis was consistent across all sensitivity analyses and was not impacted by radiologic assessment of pancreatic TLs. Taken together, these findings suggest that contrary to historically held belief, primary pancreas TLs may be appropriate for inclusion as sites of RECIST-evaluable disease and for assessment of treatment outcome. Clinical trial information: NCT02184195. [Table: see text]

POLO: Radiologic assessment of the impact of maintenance olaparib in patients (pts) with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPaC).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16800-e16800
Author(s):  
Lawrence Howard Schwartz ◽  
Hedy L. Kindler ◽  
Pascal Hammel ◽  
Michele Reni ◽  
Eric Van Cutsem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Pancreatic Disease ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Radiologic Assessment ◽  
The Impact

e16800 Background: The Phase III POLO study (NCT02184195) demonstrated a benefit of maintenance olaparib over placebo in the radiologically assessed primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) in pts with mPaC (median 7.4 vs 3.8 months [mo]; 12-mo rate 34% vs 15%). The impact of radiologic assessment of pancreatic lesions, which is considered challenging, was explored. Methods: Tumors were assessed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR) in pts with mPaC treated with maintenance olaparib or placebo. PFS was analyzed in subsets of pts based on various event criteria. Results: All 154 randomized pts had mPaC prior to chemotherapy, of whom 122 had disease in the pancreas at POLO baseline (BL); 34% (53/154) had pancreas-only target lesions (TL), 26% (40/154) also had ≥1 TL outside of the pancreas, and in 19% (29/154) pancreatic disease was recorded as non-TL. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary PFS analysis (Table), including when all pancreas lesion assessments were discounted (median PFS 7.4 vs 4.7 mo; 12-mo rate 38% vs 22%). Of 53 pts with pancreas-only TLs at BL, 34 had disease progression (PD); in 20 pts this was not solely based on TL measurements (16 had new lesions; 4 had multiple-cause PD). Confirmed objective responses occurred during study maintenance treatment in 20% of olaparib pts (18/92) and 10% of placebo pts (6/62). In pts with pancreas-only TLs at BL there were 7 responses in the olaparib arm (1 complete response [CR], 6 partial responses [PR]) and 2 (2 PR) in the placebo arm. In pts who had ≥1 TL outside of the pancreas at BL there were 11 (1 CR, 10 PR) and 4 (4 PR) responses, respectively. Responses were generally durable irrespective of TL location. Conclusions: The significant PFS benefit with maintenance olaparib over placebo shown in the primary analysis was consistent across all sensitivity analyses and was not impacted by radiologic assessment of pancreatic TLs. Taken together, these findings suggest that contrary to historically held belief, primary pancreas TLs may be appropriate for inclusion as sites of RECIST-evaluable disease and for assessment of treatment outcome. Clinical trial information: NCT02184195 . [Table: see text]

Role of Sensitivity Analyses in Assessing Progression-Free Survival in Late-Stage Oncology Trials

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (35) ◽  
pp. 5958-5964 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suman Bhattacharya ◽  
Gwen Fyfe ◽  
Robert J. Gray ◽  
Daniel J. Sargent
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Late Stage ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Potential Bias ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
End Point ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

Sensitivity analysis is an important statistical technique that assesses whether the results of phase III trials are robust and likely to be generalizable. Until recently, sensitivity analyses were rarely included in phase III trials, and they remain poorly understood by many oncologists. Sensitivity analyses are critical to understanding the strength of conclusions made in the primary analysis of a late-stage clinical trial. They examine the influence of protocol design errors, unintended biases, deviations from assumptions underlying statistical models, and any unanticipated treatment delivery or practice patterns on trial results. In trials with complex or subjective end points, they also allow an understanding of the extent to which a positive outcome is driven by a single, possibly subjective, and therefore biased, element of an end point. The purposes of this article are to explain how sensitivity analyses are performed, to discuss areas of a clinical trial where sensitivity analyses should focus, and to illuminate the importance of this technique in the rigorous evaluation of late-stage clinical trial data, using specific examples. This article focuses on late-stage trials that use progression-free survival or time to progression as their primary end point, because sensitivity analyses are particularly important in these cases for which the end point is potentially subject to bias. Three sources of potential bias are explored: assessment time, symptomatic (ie, nonradiologic) disease progression, and missing data. For each source of potential bias, case studies are presented to highlight the role that sensitivity analyses play in determining whether the trial's conclusions are robust.

Phase III Study of Intravenous Vinorelbine in Combination With Epirubicin Versus Epirubicin Alone in Patients With Advanced Breast Cancer: A Scandinavian Breast Group Trial (SBG9403)

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (12) ◽  
pp. 2313-2320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bent Ejlertsen ◽  
Henning T. Mouridsen ◽  
Sven T. Langkjer ◽  
Jorn Andersen ◽  
Johanna Sjöström ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Complete Response Rate ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Severe Toxicity ◽  
Free Survival

Purpose To determine whether the addition of intravenous (IV) vinorelbine to epirubicin increased the progression-free survival in first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Patients and Methods A total of 387 patients were randomly assigned to receive IV epirubicin 90 mg/m2 on day 1 and vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8, or epirubicin 90 mg/m2 IV on day 1. Both regimens were given every 3 weeks for a maximum of 1 year but discontinued prematurely in the event of progressive disease or severe toxicity. In addition, epirubicin was discontinued at a cumulative dose of 1,000 mg/m2 (950 mg/m2 from June 1999). Prior anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy and prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer was not allowed. Reported results were all based on intent-to-treat analyses. Results Overall response rates to vinorelbine and epirubicin, and epirubicin alone, were 50% and 42%, respectively (P = .15). The complete response rate was significantly superior in the combination arm (17% v 10%; P = .048) as was median duration of progression-free survival (10.1 months v 8.2 months; P = .019). Median survival was similar in the two arms (19.1 months v 18.0 months; P = .50). Leukopenia related complications, stomatitis, and peripheral neuropathy were more common in the combination arm. The incidences of cardiotoxicity and constipation were similar in both arms. Conclusion Addition of vinorelbine to epirubicin conferred a significant advantage in terms of complete response rate and progression-free survival, but not in terms of survival.

Olaparib maintenance monotherapy for non-germline BRCA1/2-mutated (non-gBRCAm) platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSR OC) patients (pts): Phase IIIb OPINION primary analysis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5545-5545
Author(s):  
Andres Poveda ◽  
Stephanie Lheureux ◽  
Nicoletta Colombo ◽  
David Cibula ◽  
Kristina Lindemann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Brca Mutation ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Subsequent Treatment ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Platinum Sensitive ◽  
Platinum Based Chemotherapy ◽  
Phase Iiib ◽  
Grade 3

5545 Background: In the Phase II Study 19 trial (NCT00753545; Ledermann et al Lancet Oncol 2014), maintenance olaparib improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo in PSR OC pts, including non-BRCAm pts. A significant PFS benefit was also seen with maintenance olaparib vs placebo in gBRCAm PSR OC pts in the Phase III SOLO2 trial (NCT01874353; Pujade-Lauraine et al Lancet Oncol 2017). To investigate olaparib maintenance monotherapy in non-gBRCAm PSR OC pts who had received ≥2 prior lines of platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC), we performed the Phase IIIb, single-arm, OPINION study (NCT03402841). Methods: Pts had high-grade serous or endometrioid OC and were in complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) to PBC. Pts received maintenance olaparib (tablets; 300 mg bid) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS (modified RECIST v1.1). Secondary endpoints included PFS by homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) and somatic BRCA mutation (sBRCAm) status determined by central Myriad tumor and germline testing; and time to first subsequent treatment (TFST). The primary analysis was planned for 18 months (mo) after the last patient was enrolled. Results: 279 pts were enrolled from 17 countries (mean age: 64 years); 253 pts (90.7%) were confirmed non-gBRCAm. At data cut-off (Oct 2, 2020), median PFS was 9.2 mo (95% CI 7.6–10.9), with 210 PFS events (75.3% maturity). 65.3%, 38.5% and 24.3% of pts were progression-free (PF) at 6, 12 and 18 mo, respectively. The Table shows PFS in key subgroups. Median TFST was 13.9 mo (95% CI 11.5–16.4). Median exposure to olaparib was 9.4 mo (range 0.0–31.9). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 29.0% of pts and serious TEAEs in 19.7% of pts. TEAEs led to dose interruption, dose reduction and treatment discontinuation in 47.0%, 22.6% and 7.5% of pts, respectively. Conclusions: Our findings support the use of olaparib maintenance therapy in non-gBRCAm PSR OC pts, consistent with our interim analysis and previous trials in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT03402841. [Table: see text]

Analysis of the effect of crossover from placebo (PBO) to darolutamide (DARO) on overall survival (OS) benefit in the ARAMIS Trial.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 240-240
Author(s):  
Neal D. Shore ◽  
Karim Fizazi ◽  
Teuvo Tammela ◽  
Murilo Luz ◽  
Manuel Philco Salas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Effect ◽  
Safety Profile ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
The Impact

240 Background: DARO is a structurally distinct androgen receptor inhibitor approved for the treatment of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) based on significantly prolonged metastasis-free survival compared with PBO (median 40.4 vs 18.4 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34–0.50; P < 0.0001) and a favorable safety profile in the phase III ARAMIS trial. Following unblinding at the primary analysis, crossover from PBO to DARO was permitted for the subsequent open-label treatment phase. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effect of PBO–DARO crossover on OS benefit. Methods: Patients (pts) with nmCRPC receiving androgen deprivation therapy were randomized 2:1 to DARO (n = 955) or PBO (n = 554). In addition to OS, secondary endpoints included times to pain progression, first cytotoxic chemotherapy, first symptomatic skeletal event, and safety. The OS analysis was planned to occur after approximately 240 deaths, and secondary endpoints were evaluated in a hierarchical order. Iterative parameter estimation (IPE) and rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) analyses were performed as pre-planned sensitivity analyses to adjust for the treatment effect of PBO–DARO crossover. The IPE method used a parametric model for the survival times and iteratively determined the model parameter describing the magnitude of the treatment effect, whereas a grid search and non-parametric log-rank test were used for the RPSFT analysis. The IPE and RPSFT analyses both generated a Kaplan–Meier curve for the PBO arm that predicts what would have been observed in the absence of PBO–DARO crossover. Results: After unblinding, 170 pts (30.7% of those randomized to PBO) crossed over from PBO to DARO; median treatment duration from unblinding to the final data cut-off was 11 months. Final analysis of the combined double-blind and open label periods was conducted after 254 deaths (15.5% of DARO and 19.1% of PBO pts) and showed a statistically significant OS benefit for DARO vs PBO (HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.53–0.88; P = 0.003). Results from the IPE (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.51–0.84; P < 0.001) and RPSFT (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.51–0.90; P = 0.007) analyses were similar to those from the intention-to-treat population, showing that the impact of PBO–DARO crossover was small. Additional analyses accounting for the effect of PBO–DARO crossover will be presented. The safety profile of DARO continued to be favorable at the final analysis, and discontinuation rates at the end of the double-blind period remained unchanged from the primary analysis (8.9% with DARO and 8.7% with PBO). Conclusions: Early treatment with DARO in men with nmCRPC is associated with significant improvement in OS regardless of pts crossing over from PBO to DARO. The safety profile of DARO remained favorable at the final analysis. Clinical trial information: NCT02200614.

An update on BREAK-3, a phase III, randomized trial: Dabrafenib (DAB) versus dacarbazine (DTIC) in patients with BRAF V600E-positive mutation metastatic melanoma (MM).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9013-9013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Axel Hauschild ◽  
Jean Jacques Grob ◽  
Lev V. Demidov ◽  
Thomas Jouary ◽  
Ralf Gutzmer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Median Overall Survival ◽  
Braf Inhibitor ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Braf V600e ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Independent Review ◽  
Clinical Trial Information

9013 Background: Dabrafenib is a selective BRAF inhibitor with demonstrated efficacy in BRAF V600E-positive mutation in MM. The primary analysis of BREAK-3 (NCT01227889) compared progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with BRAF V600E-positive mutation MM treated with dabrafenib or DTIC. Methods: Median PFS for dabrafenib of 5.1 months (mo) and study methods were previously described (Hauschild A, et al. Lancet. 2012,380:358–365). Independent review ended at the primary analysis. PFS was updated in Jun 2012 at median follow-up of 10.5 mo for dabrafenib (67% of PFS events), and 9.9 mo for DTIC. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached, so another analysis of OS and safety was performed with data as of Dec 2012, at which time the median follow-up was 15.2 (dabrafenib) and 12.7 (DTIC) mo. PFS of subjects who crossed over was also evaluated at that time. Results: PFS hazard ratio was 0.37 [95% CI; 0.23, 0.57]; median PFS was 6.9 mo dabrafenib and 2.7 mo DTIC. In Dec 2012, 36/63 DTIC pts crossed over; median PFS was 4.3 [95% CI; 4.1, 6.1] mos. OS is presented in the Table.The four most common adverse events (AE) on the dabrafenib arm were hyperkeratosis (39%), headache (35%), arthralgia (35%), and pyrexia (32%). Serious AEs ≥ 5% on the dabrafenib arm included cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma/keratoacanthoma (10%) and pyrexia (5%). Conclusions: Longer follow-up confirms the benefits of dabrafenib on PFS and response rate. Median OS in the dabrafenib arm was over 18 mo and over 15 mo in the DTIC arm. OS results are confounded by crossover of DTIC pts to dabrafenib and likely by subsequent therapy after progression. The effects of subsequent therapy results will be investigated. The safety profile had no significant changes. Clinical trial information: NCT01227889. [Table: see text]

An updated overall survival analysis with correction for protocol-planned crossover of the international, phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of regorafenib in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors after failure of imatinib and sunitinib (GRID).

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 110-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
George D. Demetri ◽  
Peter Reichardt ◽  
Yoon-Koo Kang ◽  
Jean-Yves Blay ◽  
Heikki Joensuu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Failure Time ◽  
Cox Model ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Impact

110 Background: The GRID study showed that regorafenib improves progression-free survival compared with placebo in patients with advanced GIST after failure of at least imatinib and sunitinib (HR 0.27; 1-sided p<0.0001; Demetri 2013). At the time of the primary analysis, no significant difference in the secondary endpoint of overall survival (OS) was observed (HR 0.77; p=0.199), but this result may have been confounded by the high rate of crossover to regorafenib (85%) of placebo patients at progression. We conducted exploratory analyses of updated OS data to assess the effect of correcting for this protocol-planned crossover. Methods: The data cut-off for this updated OS analysis was 31 January 2014 (2 years after the primary analysis). OS was corrected using two randomization-based methods: rank preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) and iterative parameter estimation (IPE); both methods are considered as best choice among all correction analytics. Hazard ratios and 95% CI were derived using the Cox model. Results: A total of 139 deaths had occurred at the time of data cut-off: 91 events (68.4% of patients) in the regorafenib group and 48 (72.7%) in the placebo group. A total of 22 patients remained on regorafenib treatment (median duration 2.1 years, range 0.9–2.4). The updated hazard ratio for OS favored regorafenib (0.85, 95% CI: 0.60 - 1.21; p=0.18). Median OS was estimated as 17.4 months in both groups, with crossover from placebo. The corrected HRs for OS are less than the uncorrected HR (Table). Conclusions: The updated analysis of OS in the GRID trial is consistent with the primary analysis. An exploratory analysis correcting for the impact of cross-over on OS suggests a survival benefit for regorafenib in GIST. Clinical trial information: NCT01271712. [Table: see text]

Impact of baseline and concomitant corticosteroid therapy on the outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 531-531
Author(s):  
David James Pinato ◽  
Ahmed Omar Kaseb ◽  
Yinghong Wang ◽  
Anwaar Saeed ◽  
David Szafron ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Corticosteroid Treatment ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy ◽  
The Impact

531 Background: The impact of corticosteroid treatment (CT) on the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is undefined. We evaluated whether CT administered at baseline (bCT) or concurrently to ICI (cCT) influences clinical outcomes of HCC patients treated with ICI. Methods: This retrospective, multi-center observational study was conducted across 9 tertiary academic referral centers collected 341 HCC patients who received ICI across 3 continents between January 1, 2016 and April 1, 2019. Outcome measures included overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) calculated from time of ICI commencement and overall response rates (ORR) defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (v1.1) on 6-8 weekly periodic restaging. Results: Of 331 eligible patients, 254 (76%) had BCLC-C stage HCC and received mostly PD(L)-1 ICI monotherapy (n=250, 85%). Median OS was 12.1 months (95%CI 9.2-15.0 months) and median PFS was 8.1 months (95%CI 6.3-10 months). In total 81 patients (24%) received >10 mg prednisone equivalent daily either as bCT (n=15, 4%) or cCT (n=66, 20%). Indications for CT included procedure/prophylaxis (n=37, 45%), management of irAE (n=31, 37%), cancer-related symptoms (n=5, 2%) or comorbidities (n=8, 3%). Neither overall CT, bCT nor cCT predicted for worse OS, PFS nor ORR in uni- and multi-variable analyses (p>0.05). CT for cancer-related indications predicted for shorter PFS (2.4 vs. 11.3 months, p=0.01), OS (4.5 vs. 12.8 months, p=0.05) and reduced ORR (p=0.03) compared to cancer-unrelated indications. Conclusions: This is the first study to demonstrate that neither bCT nor cCT appear to influence response and OS following ICI in HCC. Worse survival and ORR in CT recipients for cancer-related indications appears driven by the poor prognosis associated with symptomatic HCC.

Application of ASCO Value Framework to Treatment Advances in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

2021 ◽  
pp. OP.20.00558 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emerson Y. Chen ◽  
Madeline Cook ◽  
Christopher Deig ◽  
Asad Arastu ◽  
Vinay Prasad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Health Benefit ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Drug Registration ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

BACKGROUND: Determination of the comparative efficacy of one therapy over another for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be challenging. Application of a recognized value framework to published studies could objectively compare the potential benefit across available therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An umbrella review of phase III trials for HCC therapies was performed. ASCO Value Framework Net Health Benefit Score version 2 (ASCO-NHB v2) scores, the primary analysis, and European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 scores, the secondary analysis, were computed using selected drug registration trials. Both scores were compared between drugs that were Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved by 2020 and those that were not. RESULTS: Of the 22 studies identified, nine were FDA-approved and 13 were not. Across 22 trials, the median overall survival (OS) was 9.2 months (range, 1.9-16.4 months), with a median gain of 0.35 month (range, 2.3-3.3 months). HCC therapies that were FDA-approved showed longer OS (median 10.7 v 7.9 months, P < .01) and higher ASCO NHB scores (+18.4 v −5.7 scores, P < .01). The median gain in OS was 2.2 months in the approved treatments compared with −0.3 months in the unapproved group, with no difference in progression-free survival between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The nine FDA-approved therapies for HCC have higher mean NHB score than those that were not FDA-approved. The application of ASCO-NHB v2 and other proposed value frameworks could examine data of future therapies for HCC through a patient-oriented approach.

Maintenance therapy with bevacizumab with or without erlotinib in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) according to KRAS: Results of the GERCOR DREAM phase III trial.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3515-3515 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christophe Tournigand ◽  
Benoist Chibaudel ◽  
Benoit Samson ◽  
Werner Scheithauer ◽  
Gérard Lledo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Kras Status ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Egfr Tki

3515 Background: The primary analysis of DREAM demonstrated that a maintenance therapy (MT) with bevacizumab (Bev) + EGFR TKI erlotinib (E) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) after a 1st-line Bev-based induction therapy (IT) in patients (pts) with unresectable mCRC. Methods: Pts were randomized to MT after an IT with FOLFOX-bev or XELOX-bev or FOLFIRI-bev between Bev alone (Bev 7.5 mg/kg q3w; arm A) or Bev+E (Bev 7.5 mg/kg q3w, E 150 mg/d ; arm B) until PD or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was PFS on MT. Secondary endpoints included PFS from inclusion, overall survival (OS) and safety. The impact of KRAS tumor status on treatment efficacy was evaluated in an exploratory analysis. Results: 700 pts were registered and 452 pts were randomized (228 in arm A, 224 in arm B). KRAS status was available for 413/452 (91%) pts. The median duration of MT was 3.6 m. Results for MT are presented below (Table). In the registered population, median OS was 24.9m (22.5 – 27.3). Conclusions: Maintenance treatment with bev + erlotinib increases PFS over maintenance with bev alone in pts with mCRC but does not prolong OS. Further follow-up will determine the impact of 2nd or 3rd line anti-EGFR Mabs in this study. Contrasting with anti-EGFR Mabs, KRAS tumor status is not mandatory to select pts with mCRC for treatment with erlotinib. Clinical trial information: NCT00265824. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document